Construction Site Management and Labor Productivity PDF

Construction Site
Management and
Labor Productivity
Improvement
How to Improve the Bottom Line and
Shorten the Project Schedule
H. Randolph Thomas, Ph.D., P.E.

Ralph D. Ellis Jr., Ph.D., P.E.
Construction Site
Management and Labor
Productivity
Improvement
Other Titles of Interest
Productivity Improvement for Construction and Engineering: Implementing Programs that

Save Money and Time, by J. K. Yates, Ph.D. (ASCE Press, 2014). Focuses on
investigation and analysis techniques that can be used by engineering and construc-
tion firms to support the implementation of productivity improvement programs.
Construction Contract Claims, Changes, and Dispute Resolution, Third Edition, by Paul
Levin. (ASCE Press, 2016). Paul Levin and a team of construction experts and
attorneys guide contractors, engineers, owners, and construction managers through
the complex process of construction contracting, focusing on claims and change
orders in construction projects.
Interpreting Construction Contracts: Fundamental Principles for Contractors, Project Man-

agers, and Contract Administrators, by H. Randolph Thomas, Ph.D., P.E., and Ralph D.
Ellis Jr., Ph.D., P.E. (ASCE Press, 2007). Discusses the most troublesome contract
clauses and presents rules to construe them so as to avoid disputes that must be
resolved in court.
Managing Gigaprojects: Advice from Those Who’ve Been There, Done That, edited by
Patricia D. Galloway, Ph.D., P.E.; Kris R. Nielsen, Ph.D., J.D.; and Jack L. Dignum.
(ASCE Press, 2012). A stellar group of financial, legal, and construction professionals
share lessons learned and best practices developed from working on the world’s
biggest infrastructure construction projects.
Project Administration for Design-Build Contracts: A Primer for Owners, Engineers, and
Contractors, by James E. Koch, Ph.D., P.E.; Douglas D. Gransberg, Ph.D., P.E.; and
Keith R. Molenaar, Ph.D. (ASCE Press, 2010). Explains the basics of administering a
design-build project after the contract has been awarded.
Public-Private Partnerships: Case Studies on Infrastructure Development, by Sidney M.

Levy. (ASCE Press, 2011). Demystifies public-private partnerships as an innovative
solution to the challenges of designing, financing, building, and operating major
infrastructure projects.
Construction Site
Management and Labor
Productivity
Improvement
How to Improve the Bottom Line and Shorten
Project Schedules
H. Randolph Thomas, Ph.D., P.E.

Ralph D. Ellis Jr., Ph.D., P.E.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Thomas, H. Randolph, 1945- author. | Ellis, Ralph D. (Civil engineer), author.
Title: Construction site management and labor productivity improvement : how to improve the bottom
line and shorten project schedules / H. Randolph Thomas, Ph.D., P.E. Ralph D. Ellis, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.
Description: Reston, Virginia : American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017. | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017010873| ISBN 9780784414651 (print :alk. paper) | ISBN 9780784480328 (PDF) |
ISBN 9780784480649 (ePUB)
Subjects: LCSH: Construction projects–Management. | Project management. | Building–Superintendence.
Classification: LCC TH438 .T485 2017 | DDC 624.068/5–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/
2017010873
Published by American Society of Civil Engineers

1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, Virginia 20191-4382
www.asce.org/bookstore | ascelibrary.org
Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily
represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement made herein. No reference
made in this publication to any specific method, product, process, or service constitutes or implies an
endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by ASCE. The materials are for general information
only and do not represent a standard of ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase
specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document. ASCE makes no representa-
tion or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness,
suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this publication, and
assumes no liability therefor. The information contained in these materials should not be used without
first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific application. Anyone
utilizing such information assumes all liability arising from such use, including but not limited to
infringement of any patent or patents.
ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Photocopies and permissions. Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCE publications can be
requested by sending an e-mail to [email protected] or by locating a title in the ASCE Library (http://
ascelibrary.org) and using the “Permissions” link.
Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784414651.
Copyright © 2017 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

All Rights Reserved.
ISBN 978-0-7844-1465-1 (print)
ISBN 978-0-7844-8032-8 (PDF)
ISBN 978-0-7844-8064-9 (ePUB)
Manufactured in the United States of America.
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 1 2 3 4 5
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
PART I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
1.1 Trends in Project Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
1.2 Labor Performance and Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
1.3 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
1.4 Fundamental Principles and Best Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
1.5 “Not on My Project” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
1.6 Book Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
2. Weight of Expert Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.1 Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Site Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Material Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5 Workforce Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.6 Activity and Trade Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.7 Subcontractor Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.8 Schedule Acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.9 Lean Construction Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.10 Summary of Weight of Expert Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
PART II: Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3. Fundamental Principles of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.1 Risk-Based Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2 Steps in Risk-Based Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.3 Case Study—State College Municipal Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
v
vi CONTENTS
3.4 Paramount Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.5 General Approach to Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.6 The Project Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.7 Preliminary Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.8 Recapitulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.9 Detailed Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.10 Case Study—Millennium Science Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4. Site Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.1 Site Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.2 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.3 Developing Site Layout Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.4 Case Study 1—State College Municipal Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.5 Case Study 2—Bryce Jordan Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.6 Case Study 3—Beaver Avenue Parking Garage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.7 Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
PART III: Management Factors that Lead to Improved Productivity . . . . . . . . 89
5. Fundamental Principles of Weather Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

5.1 Weather Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.2 Estimating Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.3 Fundamental Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.4 Developing Weather Mitigation Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.5 Case Study 1—Painted Post, New York, State Route 17 Interchange . . 102
5.6 Case Study 2—Interstate 99 Bridge Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6. Fundamental Principles of Site Material Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

6.1 Goal of Effective Material Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.2 The Material Journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.3 Delivery of Materials to the Work Face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.4 Division of the Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.5 Fundamental Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.6 Developing Material Distribution Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.7 Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.8 Case Study 1—Benefit–Cost Analysis: The Rider Building and
Greenwich Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.9 Case Study 2—State College Municipal Building:
Work Face Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
CONTENTS vii
6.10 Case Study 3—Beaver Avenue Parking Garage: Fabricator

Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
6.11 Case Study 4—Food Science Building: Delivery Strategy . . . . . . . . . 151
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7. Fundamental Principles of Workforce Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

7.1 Efficient Workforce Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7.3 Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
7.4 Overtime and Overmanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
7.5 Case Study 1—SP45, SP62, and SP73: Time Lags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
7.6 Case Study 2—Bridges 28 and 29: Workforce Management
Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
7.7 Case Study 3—Logan Branch Bridge: Workforce Management
Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
7.8 Case Study 4—The Palmerton: Workforce Management Practices . . . 181
7.9 Case Study 5—Smeal College of Business: Sequential Scheduling
Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
8. Fundamental Principles of Activity Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

8.2 Case Study 1—State College Municipal Building: Buffers . . . . . . . . 200
9. Fundamental Principles of Trade Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

9.1 Description of Trade Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
9.2 Planning and Execution Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
9.4 Sequence Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
9.5 Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
10. Fundamental Principles for Avoiding Congestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

10.2 Case Study 1—Bryce Jordan Tower: Disruptions and Congestion . . 216
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
11. Best Practices for Subcontractor Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

11.1 Subcontract Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
11.2 Problems with Subcontract Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
11.3 Identifying the Controlling Subcontractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
viii CONTENTS
11.5 Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
PART IV: Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
12. Fundamental Principles for Managing Schedule Acceleration . . . . . . . . . 239

12.1 Management of All the Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
12.2 Anatomy of Schedule Acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
12.3 Can You See Acceleration Coming? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
12.4 The Schedule Acceleration Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
12.6 Case Study 1—Hyperion Wastewater Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
12.7 Case Study 2—Determining the Amount of Formwork Needed . . . 263
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
13. Best Practices for Environmental Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

13.1 Why Compliance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
13.2 OSHA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
13.3 The Wetland Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
13.4 Other Requirements and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
13.5 Best Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
14. Productivity Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

14.1 Quick Evaluator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
14.2 Detailed Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
14.3 Significant Fundamental Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
14.4 Selecting Significant Fundamental Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Preface
This text is based on the collective 70-plus years of experience the authors have in
monitoring and managing construction projects. During this time, the authors have
monitored more than 200 active construction projects. On most of these projects,
the labor productivity was measured, loss of productivity was noted, and the deficient
events leading to productivity degradation were documented.
The authors have observed that these events can be organized in a relatively few
broad categories, such as material management and sequencing. Furthermore, the
authors have also observed that whenever these deficient events (conditions) are
present, the consequences are always the same: inefficient productivity and extend-
ed schedules. It follows that the management practices to improve productivity and
shorten schedules should strive to ensure that deficient events are not present on
one’s project. The principles cited in this book focus on managing site operations to
improve construction labor productivity and shorten schedules. The management
practices to avoid deficient events are simple and are based on common sense, not
theory. The principles are things managers can readily and easily implement to
manage site operations. This book is written primarily for practicing engineers and
contractors. The management actions are labeled “fundamental principles.” An
example illustrating a fundamental principle is to “minimize the number of times a
crane has to be moved.” The fundamental principles can be easily organized into
checklists.
Fundamental principles are different from best practices because with funda-
mental principles there is documented evidence that the application of the principle
will lead to positive results. Best practices are simply that. They are things contractors
do, and there may be no evidence to show that their application will lead to
improvements.
This text is divided into four parts. The first part states the commonly reoccur-
ring causes of inefficiency and examines what has been said by researchers and
practitioners about these causes. Part II pertains to planning. A comprehensive, but
straightforward, planning procedure is given, and a simple heuristic procedure is
illustrated for developing an efficient site layout plan. Part III details fundamental
principles for weather mitigation, material management, workforce management,
activity and trade sequencing, avoiding congestion, and subcontractor management.
ix
x PREFACE
In Part IV, Special Topics, schedule acceleration and environmental compliance are
discussed. The last chapter in Part IV explains how the fundamental principles can
be used to evaluate a project.
In total, there are more than 95 fundamental principles. Each is explained in
detail so that it can be correctly applied, the reason for the principle is known, and
the expected outcome is clear. The principles are fully illustrated with case studies
and photographs showing the deficient events the principle is intended to address. If
these principles are judiciously applied, the authors believe that labor productivity
can be improved by 15% and schedules can easily be improved by 20%.
PART I
Introduction
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This text emphasizes a trend that, for many construction projects, time is crucial. In
this scenario, the performance of others is an important concern of general
contractors, who cannot afford to take a hands-off approach to subcontractors.
A team approach is sought. The goal of this book is to provide practical information
for professionals working as construction project engineers or project managers
about how to improve productivity and schedule performance.
The text is full of practical and easy-to-implement principles and is written
primarily for practicing engineers. The book should not be placed on a shelf to
gather dust; it needs to be used often. Fundamental principles of planning and
management for contractors are given. The emphasis is on site construction
management. The outcomes of the application of the principles cited herein will
be better cost and schedule performance and higher profits.
There are many ways to erode profits on a construction project; poor labor
performance is one of the more common ways. Achieving good productivity and
schedule performance requires the application of good management practices.
Management is responsible for (1) providing the resources, such as materials, and
(2) creating an environment that is conducive to efficient production of output. This
book is based on these two elements, providing resources and creating the right
environment. But what are good management practices in these two areas? The
most commonly observed and recurring deficiencies in these two areas are covered
in this book. The topics include planning, site layout, mitigating the effects of
adverse weather, material management, workforce management, activity sequenc-
ing, trade sequencing, avoiding congestion, subcontractor management, and man-
aging schedule acceleration.
Fig. 1-1 models the process of converting inputs to outputs. The left side of the
figure shows the resources needed to efficiently convert inputs to outputs. Entire
chapters are devoted to material and labor resources. The top portion of Fig. 1-1
shows that the proper environmental conditions must be present for the conversion
to be efficient. There can be other environmental factors besides the four factors
shown. Complete chapters are devoted to weather mitigation, supervision, conges-
tion, and sequencing. Unfortunately, if any one of these areas is deficient, the
conversion of inputs to outputs will be impeded, and there will be inefficient use of
3
4 CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT AND LABOR PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT
Disruptions (Inhibitors)
Resources Sequencing
Congestion
Labor
Weather Supervision
Materials
Equipment Conversion
Technology
Input Output
Tools (work hours) (Work Method) (quantities)
Information
Work Content
(Design Complexity)
Support Services
Fig. 1-1. The Factor-Resource Model
the labor resource or excessive idle time and reduced output. The fundamental
principles in this book address the conditions that lead to inefficiencies and idle
time. If the principles cited are applied, the U.S. workforce, which is among the best
in the world, will produce stellar results.
Fig. 1-1 was developed from productivity monitoring activities on about 200
active construction projects. Losses of productivity have been calculated, and
the causes of subpar productivity performance were noted for each project. Thus,
Fig. 1-1 shows the most commonly recurring causes of productivity loss; it is cited
frequently in the literature as the Factor-Resource Model. The Factor-Resource
Model is the only productivity model that has been validated using actual field data.
1.1 Trends in Project Management
Construction project management has experienced two important trends in the past
half-century that are partly the motivation for this text. First, time has become an
increasingly important element of the contract exchange. Second, the role of project
engineers has evolved to one of increasing significance. Both of these trends are
discussed in the following.
Time as an Element of Performance

Some 50 years ago, cost was the primary consideration in project performance; time was
a secondary consideration for many projects. Sweet and Schneier (2009), in his book
on the legal aspects of construction, suggests that time and costs are treated differently.
He says, “The law has not looked at time as part of the basic construction contract
exchange—that is, money in exchange for the project.” However, from a practical
standpoint, that stance seems to have changed in recent years. Owners want timely
completion more than ever. Certain types of projects are particularly time sensitive.
INTRODUCTION 5
These include school projects, some apartment complexes or condominiums, sports

stadiums, selected industrial and manufacturing projects, and wastewater facilities and
other types of projects that may be under a court order. Court orders, loss of revenue,
and the monetary cost seem to be three important factors driving this trend. This book
emphasizes the efficient use of labor and timely completion. Contractors should strive
to complete projects in as short a time as practical, thereby minimizing the time of
exposure to certain risks.
Changing Role of the Project Engineer

A half-century ago, there were few project engineers, and many of the tasks described
in this text were performed by construction superintendents. But over time, projects
have become more complex, the monetary cost has become more significant, wage
rates have risen, and project completion is a more significant aspect of project
performance. Many of the functions formerly performed by superintendents are
now assigned to project engineers. Additionally, in some locales, owners are insisting
that the project manager be a licensed engineer or certified by a relevant profes-
sional organization. Universities have responded by graduating more than 1,000
project engineers annually. But many of these engineers do not know the basics of
how to achieve good labor performance. Thus, the topics discussed in this book are
pertinent to project engineers and project managers.
1.2 Labor Performance and Management Practices
The definition of labor productivity used in this text is the work hours per unit of work.
Better productivity translates to better cost performance and better schedule
performance. Good productivity and schedule performance on a construction site
requires the application of good management practices. Sadly, many contractors do
not demonstrate good practices. In a lifetime of monitoring active construction
projects, the authors have observed few projects where good management practices
were consistently applied. On many projects, good practices are applied in some
respects, but there is another area of the project that is deficient. This deficient area
is sufficient to lower job performance to average or mediocre levels. Project
engineers and project managers must manage all aspects of the work.
Focus Is on Good Site Management

To improve labor productivity and competitiveness in the construction industry,
there is a real need to assemble the body of knowledge of good site construction
management practices in one place and add new practices as the need arises. This
book is an effort to satisfy this goal. The authors believe that through the
application of the fundamental principles detailed in the following chapters,
labor productivity can easily be improved by 15% and project schedules can be
shortened by 20%.
Methodology for Developing Fundamental Principles

The principles presented in this book were developed using a simplistic process.
Over the past 30 years, the authors have monitored and measured productivity on
more than 200 active construction projects. About 15% of these projects were
international. The factors affecting labor productivity were documented, and the
labor inefficiencies were calculated. It was observed that whenever certain things
happened, the effect on labor productivity was always negative. A few factors had a
positive effect. The authors are proposing practices intended to block the negative
factors and promote the positive factors. Some of the practices were proposed by
industry professionals, but most are just common sense. Other practices have been
reviewed by industry professionals.
None of the practices are theoretical. All the practices are easy to understand
and implement. The practices are almost sure to yield positive results.
1.3 Approach
It is recognized that the general subject of project management is quite broad, and it
is impractical to address this broad topic in a single text. The authors approach this
dilemma as follows.
This book does not try to address the entire subject of project management.
Instead, the book is focused on site management only. This book is further limited
because it focuses largely on labor usage, the most risky resource consumed on the
site. Most writings on labor productivity present a rather complex view of labor
productivity. This book presents a simplified view of labor productivity. Based on 30
or more years of extensive field research, the authors have concluded that eight
topical areas that occur repeatedly adversely affect productivity, and only these areas
are discussed in this book. Chapters 5–12 are devoted to these topical areas. The text
presents inexpensive management actions that can be taken by project engineers
and managers. Topics such as labor relations, improvement programs, and human
factors are not discussed. This book is not written for beginners; it is assumed that
readers have some rudimentary knowledge of what occurs on worksites. Therefore,
elementary topics are not discussed. Instead, the text focuses on topics that are
known, but may have been given little or no thought.
Most chapters begin with some limited background information on familiar
topics. The text is thought-provoking in a way that likely has not been considered.
The next part of the chapters presents fundamental principles or best practices. The
principles are specific things a project engineer can do to improve labor perfor-
mance, such as seal exposed areas each day, use a 4-10 work schedule (in which two
INTRODUCTION 7
teams work four 10-hour days) to permit a weather makeup day on straight time, or
backfill around buildings as soon as practical. There are more than 95 principles
contained in the text. Though many principles appear trite and elementary, research
has shown that many of these principles are not practiced. The chapters conclude
with case studies that illustrate the principles being discussed and the negative
effect on labor productivity when various principles are ignored. The chapters are
concisely written, and extensive figures and photographs are used in lieu of volu-
minous text.
1.4 Fundamental Principles and Best Practices
There is a difference between fundamental principles and best practices. For the
projects monitored in detail, it was determined that there was a loss of efficiency
attributed to a given practice. For example, on one project, it was determined that
the loss of efficiency attributed to the practice of using the construction site as a
staging area for structural steel erection resulted in a loss of 109 out of 768 work
hours or a 16.5% loss of efficiency. Similar losses were calculated for other projects
whenever the same practice was applied. It is concluded that whenever this particular
practice is applied, labor is inefficiently used. Following discussions with contractors,
it was decided that structural steel erection directly from the delivery truck is an
efficient delivery method. Erection from the delivery truck is a fundamental prin-
ciple because there is quantifiable evidence that erecting from the delivery truck is
efficient and saves money by increasing labor efficiency.
Conversely, in regard to subcontractor management, engaging in the practice of
using a subcontractor to assist in developing a prebid schedule is simply a best
practice that is recommended. The authors have no documented evidence that this
practice saves money. Best practices merely report what contractors presently do,
good or otherwise.
Throughout the description of fundamental principles in this book, no distinc-
tion is made between the labeling of a practice as a fundamental principle or a best
practice, but most practices are fundamental principles. The entire chapter on
subcontractor management is composed of best practices, as is some of the chapter
on planning, yet these chapters are titled fundamental principles.
1.5 “Not on My Project”
This text illustrates and describes undesirable situations on numerous projects. As an

example, the reader is invited to review the photographs in Chapters 4–11. There is
much to be learned from projects that do not go as hoped or expected. The puzzling
question is why the same mistakes are made over and over. The authors have no
answer. Yet many senior construction professionals are likely to respond, “The
photographs are good to illustrate a point, but you will not find these conditions on
my project.” This would be contrary to the authors’ experience. During their
professional experience, which totals more than 70 years, the authors have managed
and monitored hundreds of projects. The flaws discussed in this text have occurred
repeatedly, regardless of the size or type of project. Every contractor can learn from
the principles presented in this text.
1.6 Book Outline
This text is divided into four parts. Part I contains a chapter entitled “Weight of
Expert Opinion.” This chapter summarizes what other authors have said related to
improving labor productivity. The remainder of the text discusses most of the issues
detailed by these other authors. Improving cost and schedule performance begins
before the bid is submitted with planning. Therefore, Part II contains two chapters
dealing with planning. Chapter 3 describes a 17-step planning procedure. Chapter 4
explains a simple process for developing a site layout plan. Part III addresses site
management factors that must be effectively handled if performance is to improve.
In the seven chapters that form Part III, the authors discuss principles for mitigating
the consequences of adverse weather, improving the efficiency of material
management, efficient workforce management practices, effective activity and trade
sequencing, avoiding congestion, and better subcontractor management. Part IV
includes the special topics of schedule acceleration and environmental compliance.
The last chapter of Part IV explains how to evaluate a project to assess where
improvements can be made.
References
Sweet, J., and Schneier, M. M. (2009). Legal aspects of architecture, engineering and the construction
process, 8th Ed., Cengage Learning, Stamford, CT.
CHAPTER 2
Weight of Expert Opinion
This chapter is organized according to the order of the remaining chapters in this
text. The purpose of this chapter is to (1) summarize what various authors and
practitioners have said about labor efficiency and (2) illustrate the relevancy of the
remaining chapters in this text.
2.1 Planning
Considering the importance of construction planning, the literature is surprisingly

void of published articles on effective planning. Most of the ASCE journal literature on
planning seems to relate to environmental, transportation, and water resources
planning; the owner planning process; and the planning topic of scope definition.
There is little related to construction project planning, especially works that would be
of use to contractors. Yet, developing a good plan is the first step toward maximizing
profits. The literature topics related to planning that are reviewed are under the
topical headings of (1) general, (2) processes and models, and (3) constructability.
General
As defined by the Construction Management Association of America (CMAA),
“construction management is a professional service that applies effective management
techniques to the planning, design, and construction of a project” (CMAA 2017).
There are numerous texts and articles on the critical path method (CPM) of
scheduling, which describe planning as the process of defining the activities in a CPM
schedule and determining the order of precedence of these activities (Hinze 2008).
Planning as seen by CMAA and the authors is much more than this. The planning
process as it relates to a CPM schedule is much too limited to define effective planning.
Laufer et al. (1993) describe the general planning process as the integration of
a set of interdependent decisions that results in a plan. They described the plan as
one that answers the following questions: (1) What is the involvement of
the participating parties in planning? (2) What is the effort invested in planning?
(3) How many types of plans are issued? and (4) What formats are used for plans?
9
They seem to suggest that planning is mostly a decision-making process, albeit a

structured one. Their article is general and offers little or no specific guidance to
contractors.
Processes and Models

Gibson et al. define preproject planning as the process of developing sufficient
strategic information for owners to address risks and to decide whether to proceed
with a capital project (1995). They point out that many construction industry experts
believe early planning efforts have much influence on project success. Using a Level
1 IDEF () model, Gibson et al. define the steps in the owner preproject planning
process as the following: (1) organize for preproject planning, (2) select alternatives,
(3) develop project definition packages, and (4) make decisions. The major sub-
processes of the owner preproject planning process were defined in more detail
using Level 2 IDEF () models. Gibson et al.’s models make no assessment as to
whether the models are complete or if they contribute positively to better cost and
schedule performance; they merely report what owners currently do. The models are
too general to be used as a framework for the contractor planning process. The
models are strategic models used by industrial owners.
In a subsequent article by Gibson et al. (2006), they wrote of five major studies
investigating preproject planning. The studies covered more than 200 capital
projects (from 1994 to 2001), representing about $8.7 billion. Survey instruments
and interviews were used to show that effective preplanning led to improved
performance in terms of cost, schedule, and operational characteristics. The paper
described a Project Definition Rating Index, which is a weighted matrix describing
70 scope definition elements. They conclude that (1) preplanning is a process that
can positively affect capital project performance, (2) preplanning is a critical process
that must be performed consistently on each project, (3) the project manager and
team must ensure that they are performing the “right project,” (4) the project
manager and team must ensure that they are developing the “right work product”
during preplanning, and (5) the project manager and team must choose the “right
approach” to project design and construction execution.
In a 1997 article by Faniran et al., the authors present several strategies for
improving contractor planning practices. Data and information were gathered via a
questionnaire. Because a questionnaire was used, the article reports current prac-
tices, not necessarily best practices or fundamental principles. The authors con-
clude that planning would be more effective if there were (1) more investment of
high-quality time in preconstruction planning, (2) less emphasis on developing
schedules, and (3) more emphasis on developing operational plans. The writers
made extensive use of statistical correlations and regression modeling as the basis of
their conclusions, but it is hard to envision how the writers could support their
conclusions because most correlation coefficients were below 0.50 and the best r a 2
value was 0.60.
WEIGHT OF EXPERT OPINION 11
Constructability
There is little argument that design plays an important role in project performance.
Most published articles related to design effects champion constructability reviews as
a way to minimize design errors, identify more workable design solutions, and
produce construction-friendly specifications, among other things.
An authoritative report on constructability reviews was written by Anderson and
Fisher and published by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) (Anderson and Fisher 1997). Anderson and Fisher observed that
constructability reviews are often driven by project milestones and are conducted
late in the design process as part of the final design review. Minimal reviews are done
in the owner planning phase. In an NCHRP report by Thomas and Ellis, it was
identified that the review may occur at a predetermined date, even if key documents
needed for the review are not available (Thomas and Ellis 2001). Sadly, on most
private, low-bid projects, there is little opportunity for contractor input into the
design phase. The Anderson and Fisher report (1997) contains a good bibliography,
and the subject of constructability is not discussed further in this book.
2.2 Site Layout
Most authors recognize the complexity of the site layout problem. All generally agree
that there are usually multiple selection criteria and multiple constraints and that the
plan changes over time. The site plan used at the beginning of the project is probably
not suitable for the middle or later parts of the project.
For simplicity’s sake, the most comprehensive algorithms use selection criteria to
minimize travel distance or to minimize transportation cost (Mawdesley et al. 2002;
Zouein and Tommelein 1999). The mathematical algorithms described in the
various articles concentrate on positioning temporary facilities and locating laydown
areas to satisfy constraints, while satisfying the minimum distance or cost objective.
Although applying multiple criteria and addressing other features of the layout
problem are perhaps possible, the site layout problem can quickly become quite
complex. Furthermore, for a site where the site layout is especially important, travel
distances and transportation costs may be of secondary importance. Relying upon
the principles that ensure safety, adherence to the project schedule, and good labor
productivity are of primary importance. The link between site layout and material
management should not be lost. Yet none of the articles in the literature seem to
adequately address this issue. Multiple objectives and numerous constraints are not
easily expressed mathematically.
The published literature on developing a site layout is not helpful. The articles
generally describe computerized, “black-box” solutions. Some approaches involve
the development of an extensive knowledge base (Zouein and Tommelein 1999),
whereas others do not rely on an extensive knowledge base (Mawdesley et al. 2002).
Most algorithms relate to the positioning of temporary facilities and storage areas,
whereas others are more limited, such as selecting the best location of cranes
(Warszawski and Peled 1987).
2.3 Weather
There are two main literature sources that aid in understanding the origin of labor
inefficiencies caused by adverse weather.
Framework
The first literature source is a report published by the Building Research Establish-
ment (BRE) in the United Kingdom. This 1966 report was authored by Margaret
Clapp. Based on field observations, the report describes how the loss of labor
efficiency can occur in five categories. Three causes result when workers are being
paid hourly wages. The first cause when workers are paid hourly wages is when a crew
is forced to stop work and seek cover because of the severity of a weather event. The
second cause results when a crew continues work during the event but the work is less
efficient. The third cause of efficiency loss results from rework caused by unfavorable
weather conditions.
Clapp also describes how labor efficiency losses can occur when workers are not
being paid. The first cause in this category is absenteeism. This can result from
extreme temperatures and humidity from a severe weather event. The second
nonpaid cause is what Clapp calls loss of momentum. This occurs when a full work
week cannot be worked because of a weather event. She argues that a shorter work
week is less efficient than a normal work week.
The work of Clapp is consistent with the observations of the authors of this book.
Her work, citing the five causes of inefficiency, provides a convenient framework for
discussing labor inefficiencies caused by adverse weather conditions.
However, the adverse effect from weather events can last longer than the
event itself. For example, rain can cause mud, which can affect an operation for
days; snow may need to be shoveled for days after a storm; and weather enclosures
may be damaged by high winds, affecting the work inside for days until repairs are
made. Each of these examples has been observed repeatedly by the authors.
The second literature source is a book by Helander (1981). While he presented
limited information, and his sources of information were not cited, he presented
data to show that when exposed to extreme temperatures, crafts people are more
adversely affected when they are engaged in cold weather work requiring fine motor
skills compared with work requiring gross motor skills. The types of skills required
were defined according to the trade. Boilermakers, carpenters, electricians, mill-
wrights, pipefitters, surveyors, instrument technicians, and insulators use fine motor
skills. Gross motor skills are required of laborers, bricklayers, ironworkers, teamsters,
and operating engineers. While there is no scientific evidence to support such

delineation, the framework posed by Helander seems reasonable and plausible.
Adverse weather conditions can occur from extremes in temperature and
humidity or from weather events such as rain, snow, or high wind.
Temperature and Humidity

Three research publications are noteworthy in that the effects of temperature
and humidity are described. Possibly the most widely cited source is a report
published by the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA 1974). This
publication reports laboratory observations and measurements of two journeyman
electricians who were confined in an environmental test chamber and were asked
to install duplex receptacles on several mockup panels containing prewired outlet
boxes. The temperature and humidity remained constant for two-hour periods.
The length of the measured work period was one hour. The overall study lasted six
days. After the study, efficiency loss curves were produced for hot to cold tem-
peratures and for low to high humidity ranges. In general, the curves show that
ideal temperatures were in the range of 40–80°F. Very low humidity had minimal
effect on labor performance, but relative humidity above 60–70% was detrimental.
High temperatures yielded greater efficiency losses than low temperatures,
although the efficiency loss at 110°F was about the same as it was for –10°F. A
wind chill factor was given, but this was not a central part of the study. No
collaborative data were given to support the correctness of the wind chill factors.
The NECA study was based on laboratory data where fine motor skills were used.
However, a study of masons by Grimm and Wagner (1974) was based on field data
where gross motor skills were used. Masons were asked to construct straight walls (no
corners or windows), and their output was measured. Ambient temperatures and
humidity values were recorded. The study was conducted in Texas, so cold tempera-
ture observations were minimal. The Grimm study is one of the few studies of warm
weather effects. Wind chill factors were not included in the study. The study showed
that around 75°F was the ideal temperature, but when there were minor tempera-
ture variations, there was a significant reduction in efficiency, so much so that the
cold weather aspects of the study are suspect. The cold weather conclusion of the
Grimm study was that below 75°F there was a significant and rapid degradation in
productivity. These findings are contradicted by the NECA study, which showed that
for a 40-degree temperature range, the efficiency is essentially 100%. The findings
from the NECA study are more consistent with field observations made by the
authors than is the Grimm study.
Thomas and Yiakoumis reported the effect of temperature in an article based on
field observations of concrete formwork, structural steel, and masonry (Thomas and
Yiakoumis 1986). The zero loss of efficiency range was 50–60°F. Wind was not
included in this study.
Two other published articles by Thomas et al. using field data show the
effects of cold temperatures on the use of gross motor skills. In a 1999 article by
Thomas et al., where structural steel erection was observed, efficiency losses were
not measurable until the temperature fell below 20°F. The efficiency below 20°F
was reduced to 50%.
In a second article, where congested work areas affected masonry work, the
negative effect of cold temperatures was again not detected until the temperature
fell below 20°F (Thomas et al. 2006). The efficiency below 20°F was reduced to 36%,
or a loss of 64% on this project. On three of the six workdays where cold tem-
peratures were a factor, cold temperatures delayed the start of mortar production by
three to five hours.
All the articles by Thomas et al. show labor inefficiencies worse than those
reported by Helander.
The effects in Fig. 2-1 and in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 are based on effects reported
from the literature sources. The values shown are not arithmetic averages, as
sometimes only a single number was reported. The values represent the authors’
best estimate of the probable average effect, but individual project values vary widely.
Weather Events
Weather events include rain, snow, and high winds. The effects are thought of as
lasting only one day; however, the negative effects can last for several days or more,
for example, where rain leads to muddy conditions. The authors have observed the
lingering effects of snow, rain, and high winds many times. Crews have lost a week or
more of productive time because they had to shovel snow, pump water, deal with
mud, and perform rework.
100
90
Labor Efficiency (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Temperature (oF)
NECA (40) Grimm (45) Thomas & Yiakoumis

Thomas & Sanvido Thomas & Riley Helander (Gross)
Helander (Fine)
Fig. 2-1. Effect of Temperature on Labor Productivity

Table 2-1. Inefficiency Calculations
Percentage of Normal
Efficiency (%)
Baseline Actual Work No. Workdays Inefficient
WEIGHT OF EXPERT OPINION
Project Type Activity Productivity Hoursa Affected Work Hours Rain Snow
BT Str. steel 1.50 wh/pc 189.5 4 67.3 55
RB Str. steel 1.25 wh/pc 155 5 41.5 37
BJT Masonry 0.082 wh/ft2 62 2 14.0 29
I99–9901 Formwork 0.066 wh/ft2 70 2 53.0 317
I99–9903 Formwork 0.085 wh/ft2 110 7 62.8 133
I99–9904 Formwork 0.083 wh/ft2 120 2 51.0 74
I99–9905 Formwork 0.098 wh/ft2 120 1 107.3 848
I99–9906 Formwork 0.141 wh/ft2 206 3 102.7 99
Total 626 26 391.0 132 46
Notes: BT is the Biotech building, RB is the Rider building, BJT is the Bryce Jordan tower, I99–xxxx are various bridges on Interstate 99, Str. steel means
structural steel, wh means work hours, pc means piece.
a
Work hour total is for only those workdays when a weather event occurred.
15
Table 2-2. Summary of Efficiency Losses Due to Weather
Estimated Percentage of
Cause of Labor Inefficiency Normal Daily Output
Cold temperatures (<20°F) 50
Hot temperatures (>85°F) 40
Moderate temperatures (20°F < T < 85°F) None
Wind chill Unknown
High winds Unknown
Rain 60
Snow 50
Snow
In 1986, Thomas and Yiakoumis published an article quantifying weather effects
derived from three projects (Thomas and Yiakoumis 1986). One project activity
observed (identified as Project BT in Table 2-1) was structural steel. The work was
affected by snow on four days. On those four days, the crew output was reduced
to 55% of what would have normally been produced if the normal productivity
had been achieved. Thus, the loss of efficiency was 45%. No lingering effects were
observed.
On another project (Project RB in Table 2-1), also involving structural steel
erection, the work was affected by snow and cold temperatures (Thomas et al. 1999).
It snowed on five workdays, and the efficiency on these workdays was reduced
to 37% of normal.
Rain
There have been a number of projects cited in the literature that were affected by
rain. Table 2-1 contains pertinent data on these projects.
On Project BJT, rain affected masonry work on two days (Thomas et al. 2006).
The labor inefficiency was calculated (see Table 2-1) as reduced to 29% of normal.
The days when mortar operations were delayed were not counted.
Projects 9901–9906 involved bridge formwork on nine interstate highway bridges.
The percentages of labor inefficiency caused by rain ranged from 74 to 848% of
normal.
The inefficiency values show a wide range of susceptibility to precipitation,
especially rain. The effect of high winds has not been determined.
Weather Summary
Except for the work of Clapp (1966) and the authors of this book, there has been
little written about the effects of weather events on labor efficiency. Field data for
eight projects were analyzed, and the pertinent data for all projects are given in
Table 2-1. Each of the activities on the eight projects reported in the table was fully
exposed to the weather.
The combined loss of labor inefficiency for all projects was calculated for rain as
132% and snow as 46%, as shown in Table 2-1. The inefficient work hour percentage
was calculated using the following equation:
Inefficient Work Hours

Labor Inefficiency ð%Þ = ×1 (2-1)
Total Work Hours − Inefficient Work Hours
Estimated loss of efficiency percentages are given in Table 2-2.
2.4 Material Management
There have been relatively few articles dealing with site material management prac-
tices. Work by Stukhart on bar coding was done to allow for easy identification and
retrieval, but this work seems more applicable to larger industrial sites (Stukhart 1990).
Material management as defined herein involves storage, identification,
retrieval, transport, and construction methods at the site. Each is indelibly linked
to safety, productivity, and schedule performance. Thomas et al. show the effects on
productivity of poor storage practices (1989). The difficulties in retrieval were readily
obvious. In a later article, Thomas et al. also show the effect of delivery methods
(1999). It was shown that the erection of structural steel directly from the delivery
truck was the preferred method. Doing so also saved on-site storage costs and
eliminated most double-handling. In essence, just-in-time material deliveries were
preferred in this instance, but erecting directly from the delivery truck requires
closer coordination with the fabricator to be successful.
In another article on site material management practices, Thomas and Sanvido
show that effective site management practices can have a significant effect on sche-
dule performance. The schedule slippage on the installation of permanent windows,
precast panels, and duct ranged from 50% to 129% (2000).
Riley and Sanvido, Tommelein et al. and Thabet have described work space use
and work area patterns in construction (Riley and Sanvido 1995, 1997; Tommelein
et al. 1992; Thabet 1992). Riley and Sanvido use case studies to define work area
patterns as being linear, random, horizontal, vertical, spiral, and building face (Riley
and Sanvido 1995). They argue that space need patterns changed over time and
that for effective use of resources, space needs must be predictable and rationally
planned.
2.5 Workforce Management
The weight of expert opinion relative to workforce management is cited in five broad
categories: (1) causes of loss of labor efficiency, (2) quantification of losses of labor
efficiency, (3) getting the most out of the workforce, (4) workforce management
practices, and (5) congestion and stacking of trades.
Causes of Loss of Labor Efficiency

The discussion of literature related to labor inefficiency is organized according to
how the study was done: general, field or observational studies, and interviews and
surveys. While labor productivity can be viewed as a complex issue, the literature
suggests that there are relatively few factors that repeatedly cause disappointing
performance outcomes.
General
A considerable body of knowledge exists on the causes of labor inefficiencies. Many
articles and reports have been published in this domain. Four notable reports have
been written by Sebestyen (United Nations 1965), Thomas and Smith (1990),
Horner and Talhouni (1993), and Thomas et al. (2002). Each report contains
extensive bibliographies of published literature on the causes and effects of labor
inefficiencies, and the reader is referred to these reports for a comprehensive review
of published literature. These reports make it clear that the main causes of labor
inefficiencies are (1) ineffective utilization of resources (labor, materials, tools,
equipment, and information), (2) unfavorable working conditions caused by man-
agement (congestion and out-of-sequence work), and (3) adverse weather.
The importance of management focus on the use of labor as a resource has only
recently been quantitatively determined (Thomas et al. 2002). The authors found
that on five bridge construction projects, more than half of the calculated inefficient
work hours were the result of ineffective workforce management practices. This
analysis led to further research, which showed that symbiotic crew relationships are
more difficult to manage than are sequential relationships (Thomas et al. 2004).
Field or Observational Studies

Since 1980, the authors have observed and monitored labor productivity and
performance on more than 200 active construction projects. The types of projects
monitored include apartment buildings, high-rise condominiums, commercial
offices, parking garages (aboveground and underground), government buildings,
wastewater plants, highways, bridges, research and classroom buildings, indoor
sports facilities, and residential sites. Activities studied in detail include masonry,
concrete formwork, steel reinforcement, concrete placement, structural steel erec-
tion, caisson drilling, partition wall framing and drywall, duct installation, under-
ground conduit work, excavation, asphalt paving, and concrete paving.
In the process of observing this work and documenting site conditions
affecting the work, workforce management issues have been frequently noted
(Thomas and Horman 2006). Common workforce management deficiencies

included insufficient work to perform, performing cleanup or incidental work in
a sequential manner, overstaffing, and ineffective use of work teams. Each factor
leads to more idle time.
As a result of these investigations, the authors have developed the Factor-
Resource Model as a way to graphically illustrate the main influencing factors that
adversely affect labor performance. This graphical input-output model was shown in
Fig. 1-1. Its simplicity should be readily apparent. These are the root causes of
inefficiencies and have been repeatedly observed on many projects by numerous
authors. While there can be other factors, if one can manage the root causes as
shown in Fig. 1-1, there is a high likelihood that the labor force will be productive.
Interviews and Surveys

A number of writers have sought input from industry professionals, contractors, and
crafts workers through interviews, surveys, and questionnaires about the causes of
lost labor efficiency. Numerous reports have been written. Even though the industry
professionals, contractors, and crafts workers responded somewhat differently, there
is much similarity in their responses, and many responses point to inadequate
workforce management. Frequently cited factors leading to loss of labor efficiency
are (1) lack of detailed planning, (2) lack of materials, (3) lack of tools, (4) rework,
(5) congestion, and (6) poor workforce management practices.
Quantification of Losses of Labor Efficiency

While numerous articles quantify inefficiencies, the published literature in ASCE is
surprisingly void of articles on quantification methodologies. However, one aspect is
clear: labor inefficiencies are expensive. The costs of labor inefficiencies accrue
rapidly. Where there is schedule acceleration, the cost overrun from inefficient labor
hours (compared with the budgeted hours) can easily exceed 25–50%.
Articles and reports have been published describing the effects of inefficient
labor hours caused by scheduled overtime (Thomas and Raynar 1997), poor
material management and vendor relations (Thomas and Sanvido 2000), construc-
tion changes (Hanna et al. 1999a, b; Ibbs et al. 2007), disruptions (Thomas and
Smith 1990; Thomas and Napolitan 1995; Horner and Talhouni 1993), and wasteful
workforce management practices (Thomas et al. 2002).
Two articles specifically address quantification methodologies. Thomas and
Volkman question the validity of the total cost method of quantification by arguing
that there can be wide variations in work hour estimates from one city to another
(2007). Thomas (2010) explains various difficulties in performing a measured mile
analysis. He proposes a baseline productivity analysis that eliminates most of the
deficiencies in a measured mile analysis.
Getting the Most out of the Workforce

The literature is sparse regarding efficient site management practices that focus on
how to get the most out of the workforce.
Subassemblies and Modules (Methods)

An obvious labor-related practice is to use modules or preassemblies. It is common
practice to preassemble reinforcement cages for columns and caissons. It is also
often seen that crews assemble multiple pieces of ductwork at floor level before
erecting the components as a single unit. A subassembly of three pieces of duct is
illustrated in Fig. 2-2. It is common knowledge that in many instances, subassemblies
offer significant efficiency advantages. Han and Thomas observed a 50% improve-
ment in ductwork productivity where duct sections were connected into subassem-
blies like those shown in Fig. 2-2 (2002).
Multiskilling
Multiskilling has been proposed as a way to improve efficiency. Multiskilling is when
one craftsperson performs multiple tasks ordinarily done by multiple union crafts
Burleson et al. conducted a hypothetical study and report a potential labor savings of
5–20% and a potential 35% reduction in the required size of the workforce (1998).
One obvious advantage of multiskilling is that alternate work assignments are easier,
although some labor union agreements may limit this practice.
Workforce Management Practices

Previous research has identified several principles on which to base the development of
construction sequences. Echeverry et al. (1991) define a collection of factors on which
Fig. 2-2. Three-Piece Subassembly of Duct, Redifer Commons, State College, PA

activity sequences are based, including physical dependencies, trade interactions, path
interferences, and code regulations. Construction practitioners use these common
dependencies every day to develop critical path method (CPM) schedules. More
detailed planning that determines work locations and the flow of trades through
building spaces is often needed to direct individual crews. Riley and Sanvido describe
the key results of these plans to be building sequences (the order that floors are to be
completed) and floor sequences (the order that work is completed in specific areas of
each building floor) (1997). They discovered that projects with sequence problems
resulted in more interferences for mechanical, electrical, and fire protection trades than
all other trades combined. Basic sequencing benchmarks were identified for project
sequences based on spatial interaction of structural, enclosure, rough-in, and finish
phases. Horman et al. describe sequence plans (2006). Alvanchi et al. introduce the
notion that working hours can affect performance (2012). They also discuss the effect of
the length of work and rest periods, time of day, and amount of overtime.
Successful practices and space planning techniques were organized into a set of
steps to help develop an efficient sequence plan for the mechanical, electrical, and
fire protection trades. These steps are the following:
Subdivide the floor plan into work zones. Suggested zones that may be consid-
ered independently are the core, perimeter, and areas in between. Large floor areas
may be subdivided into halves or quarters. Another scheme may be to divide the
floor into the corridor and rooms.
Determine the order in which the floors will be completed. A top-down
sequence is often effective for interior and finish trades on low-rise buildings.
Determine the order of completion for each floor. Each zone on a floor may
have its own sequence.
Specify and enforce the zonal sequence for each floor.
Determine the work rate for each zone based on the driving activity in that zone.
Often there is only one task that establishes the pace of a larger grouping of tasks.
This is referred to as the driving activity. Trades should size crews to meet target work
rates. Additional flexible crews or teams can support frontline crews as needed.
Target work rates should be established before negotiations with subcontractors.
The authors have published several articles that provide steps contractors can
take that will improve site construction management. These articles have been
written in the topical areas of planning (Thomas and Ellis 2007), weather mitigation
(Thomas and Ellis 2009), workforce management (Thomas and Horman 2006),
material management (Thomas et al. 2005), congestion (Thomas et al. 2006), and
subcontractor management (Thomas 2011). Riley and Sanvido have published
similar writings related to sequencing (1997).
Congestion and Stacking of Trades

The literature that addresses work space congestion largely focuses on quantifying
the effects of trade stacking for the purpose of a claim presentation. There is limited
information in the existing literature on how to avoid congestion, and no quantita-

tive research on the relationship between planning and work space congestion.
Techniques to avoid congestion among multiple trades are characterized as
planning activities that account for the use of space by trades for work spaces,
material storage, and equipment. Riley and Sanvido (1995) characterize 12 unique
characteristics of construction activities that require space and a planning technique
that considers the patterns of space requirements needed by different types of
construction work. This research also characterized key sequencing factors for
construction trades, including the definition of work flow in terms of work rate
and direction to minimize interferences among trades (Riley and Sanvido 1997).
A technique to analyze the progress of trades through multiple work zones and assess
potential interferences was developed by Thabet (1992).
The literature generally follows an approach in which labor performance is
related to the area of work space available per worker. This approach appears to be
more suited to manufacturing settings, where workstations are stationary, and for
broad characterizations of construction projects. Because of the fluid nature of
construction operations, a gross area per worker methodology must be calculated as
an average over an extended period of time. This approach can grossly understate
the effect and make congestion seem like a minor problem. This method also
ignores the possibility that there may be causes of congestion other than too many
workers, for example, cramped work spaces and stored materials that impede the
work. Nevertheless, it is useful to report the findings of other writers in construction
settings.
An informal presentation conducted by people working for the Mobile Oil Co.
was based on the density of workers on refinery construction. Their unpublished
study reports that subcontractors needed more area per worker than did direct-hire
workers. For maximum efficiency for subcontractors, each worker needed an
average of 250 ft2, whereas a direct-hire worker needed 200 ft2.
Smith (1987) reports losses of productivity similar to those in the Mobil Oil
study. Based on offshore work on oil drilling platforms, he reports that maximum
productivity occurred when workers had at least 320 ft2 (99 m2) per person.
Logcher and Collins (1978) studied the setting of floor tile on five projects in
New York and Boston. They found that while more open area allowed more freedom
of movement, the productivity was affected only slightly by changes in the floor area
to perimeter ratio. In their study, the productivity was unrelated to the square feet
per person, although on all projects, the area per person exceeded 300 ft2.
Horner and Talhouni surveyed the literature and published their findings in a
report to the Chartered Institute of Building in the United Kingdom (1993). They
state that the data in this topical area (congestion) are especially sparse. Thomas and
Smith (1990) report similar findings, leading one to conclude that there has been
little scientific research done on the effect on labor productivity caused by congested
work areas. The consensus from these reports is that for maximum efficiency,
workers need at least 250–300 ft2 per person.
2.6 Activity and Trade Sequencing
Research into sequencing is plentiful but not particularly helpful. The information is
organized in the following categories:
Planning
• Sequence plans and execution,
• Successful methods of dealing with unknowns,
• Reliability of the planning effort coordination,
• Successful coordination processes and methods, and
• Flow of coordination information.
Materials and Methods

• Examples of materials and methods that create flow and
• The role of material handling in sequencing.
Expectations
• Owner expectations of sequence planning and
• Realistic expectations for general contractors.
While the issue of sequencing may be considered a project management function,

this broad topic is rarely discussed in the context of production. Instead, existing
project management practices are directed toward tracking progress. The following
sequencing issues are evident on many projects:
• The relationship between trade sequencing and project management in many

organizations is not well understood or defined. There is a great need for
production management or tactical planning. The focus in many organizations
is on scheduling or strategic planning.
• Gaining a competitive advantage and generating cost savings by improved
sequencing practices is a key method to improving profitability.
• There is a widely perceived inability or unwillingness of general contractors and
construction managers to implement detailed sequence plans.
• The perpetual acceptance of interference problems and out-of-sequence work as
an inevitable aspect of building construction leads to complacency and isolation
during the planning process when proactive and team thinking is needed.
2.7 Subcontractor Management
How a contractor manages subcontractors is an important component of construc-

tion project management because many project types are constructed largely by
subcontractors (Thomas 2011). Yet the published literature is surprisingly void of

guidance on what constitutes effective management of subcontractors.
Congestion
The literature that addresses workspace congestion largely focuses on quantifying
the effects of trade stacking for the purpose of a claim presentation. There is limited
information in the existing literature on how to avoid congestion, and no quantita-
tive research on the relationship between planning and workspace congestion.
Techniques to avoid congestion among multiple trades are characterized as
planning activities that account for the use of space by trades for workspaces, material
storage, and equipment. Riley and Sanvido (1996) characterize 12 unique character-
istics of construction activities that require space, and a planning technique that
considers the patterns of space requirements needed by different types of construction
work (Riley and Sanvido 1997a). This research also characterized key sequencing
factors for construction trades, including the definition of work flow in terms of work
rate and direction to minimize interferences among trades (Riley and Sanvido 1997b).
A technique to analyze the progress of trades through multiple work zones and assess
potential interferences was developed by Thabet (1992).
The quantification literature generally follows an approach in which labor
performance is related to the area of workspace available per craftsman. This
approach appears to be more suited to manufacturing settings, where workstations
are stationary, and for very broad characterizations of construction projects. Because
of the fluid nature of construction operations, a gross area per craftsman method-
ology must be calculated as an average over an extended period of time. This
approach can grossly understate the impact and make congestion seem like a minor
problem. This method also ignores the possibility that there may be causes of
congestion other than too many craftsmen, for example, cramped workspaces and
stored materials that impede the work. Nevertheless, it is useful to report the findings
of other writers in construction settings.
An informal presentation conducted by persons working for the Mobile Oil Co.
was based on the density of workers on refinery construction. Their unpublished
study reports that subcontractors needed more area per craftsmen than did direct
hire craftsmen. For maximum efficiency for subcontractors, each craftsman needed
an average of 200 ft2 whereas a direct hire craftsman needed 250 ft2.
Smith (1987) reports losses of productivity similar to those in the Mobil Oil
study. Based on offshore work on oil drilling platforms, he reports that maximum
productivity occurred when craftsmen had at least 320 ft2 (99 m2) per person.
Logcher and Collins (1978) studied the setting of floor tile on five projects in
New York and Boston. He found that while more open area allowed more freedom of
movement, the productivity was affected only slightly by changes in the floor area to
perimeter ratio. In his study, the productivity was unrelated to the ft2/person,
although on all projects, the area per person exceeded 300 ft2.
Horner and Talhouni surveyed the literature and published his findings in a
report to the Chartered Institute of Building (1993). They state that the data in this
area (congestion) are especially sparse. Thomas (1990) reports similar findings lead-
ing one to conclude that there has been very little scientific research done on the
impact on labor productivity of congested work areas. The consensus from the
Horner and Thomas reports is that for maximum efficiency, craftsmen need at least
250–300 ft2 per person.
2.8 Schedule Acceleration
The literature is not helpful relative to schedule acceleration. Most articles on

acceleration have been written by attorneys and consultants describing legal theories
and documentation practices so that the contractor can file a successful claim at the
conclusion of the project. They offer little or no advice on how a contractor is to
avoid acceleration, how to recognize acceleration, or how to manage acceleration.
Only one helpful ASCE article was identified. That article showed significant
variations in the weekly workload. It presented an inefficient labor quantification
methodology based on variations in workload. The methodology included labor
inefficiencies from scheduled overtime and overstaffing (Thomas 1999b).
A series of reports for the Electrical Contracting Foundation document how to
assess contract risks (Thomas 1998), how to recognize that acceleration is coming
(Thomas 2002), what to do to avoid some of the negative consequences, how to
quantify labor inefficiencies (Thomas and Oloufa 1996), and strategies for negoti-
ating loss of labor efficiency claims (Thomas 1999a).
Although the acceleration literature is sparse, all authors agree that acceleration is
a bad situation; it cost lots of money, and the project participants often end up in court.
2.9 Lean Construction Principles
The Lean Construction Institute has championed some principles that are designed
to promote better labor performance. These principles tend to be general rather
than specific and may not be applicable to all situations.
Ballard and Howell (1998) proposed the following:
• Halt work to correct systematic problems—Perform work only when it is free of

design defects.
• Pulling versus pushing—Construction, not design information, should drive
resource needs.
• One-piece flow—Crews and teams should complete all the work possible on
each pass through the area.
• Synchronize and align—Get crews to work at similar paces.
• Transparency—Share progress information, feedback, and challenges with

everyone.
Supply chain management has a direct effect on project sequencing, because

available materials and services must be synchronized for efficient field production.
Lean supply recommendations for specialty trades include the following:
• Make suppliers into business partners.

• Give specialty contractors design-build responsibility.
• Reimburse costs to get control over production processes.
• Integrate planning and control systems.
Lean performance methods are used to shape sequence guidelines, with

particular emphasis on those that relate to methods and materials. Lean perfor-
mance improvement strategies for construction (Ballard and Howell 1998) include
the following:
• Minimize the effect of erratic resource delivery and quality.

• Stabilize work processes by maintaining workable backlogs and assigning only
from backlogs.
○ Eliminate delays for materials, equipment, and crew interference.
○ Make the supervisor a manager and require detailed planning to be done.
○ Get the facts about delays and rework.
○ Reduce costs.
○ Benefit from constructability.
○ Structure on-site work as close as possible to workshop conditions.
○ Develop workers with multicraft capabilities.
○ Maintain tools and equipment for zero downtime.
• Reduce rework by completing work the first time, identifying and learning from
errors, and tracking repetitive errors to their causes.
○ Reduce the number of organizational errors.
○ Reduce the duration of work.
• Advance mobilization with the constraints of available backlog and reliable work
flow.
○ Reduce backlog quantities to reflect more reliable deliveries.
• Divide construction sites into subprojects and facilitate functional team

approaches.
2.10 Summary of Weight of Expert Opinion
If one examines the published literature, it is obvious that there are many oppor-
tunities to increase profits through better site management. However, there is little
research devoted to this topic, especially as it relates to the important topics of

subcontractor management and schedule acceleration. Instead, researchers tend to
focus on quantification issues, intricate mathematical models, or manufacturing
practices that may not be applicable to construction. The larger issue of what to do to
increase profitability remains unanswered.
References
Alvanchi, A., Lee, S., and AbouRizk, S. (2012). “Dynamics of working hours in construction.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 66–77.
Anderson, S. D., and Fisher, D. J. (1997). “Constructibility review process for transportation
facilities.” NCHRP Rep. No. 390, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Ballard, G., and Howell, G. (1998). “Shielding production: An essential step in production
control.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124(1), 11–17.
Burleson, R. C., Haas, C. T., Tucker, R. L., and Stanley, A. (1998). “Multiskilled labor
utilization strategies in construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124(6), 480–489.
Clapp, M. A. (1966). “The effect of adverse weather conditions on five building sites.”
Construction Current Paper No. 21, Building Research Establishment, Watford, U.K.,
171–180.
CMAA (Construction Management Association of America). (2017). 〈http://cmaanet.org/
cm_is.php〉
Echeverry, D. C., Ibbs, C. W., and Kim, S. (1991). “Sequencing knowledge for construction
scheduling.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 117, 118–130.
Faniran, O. O., Oluwoye, J. O., and Lenard, D. J. (1998). “Interactions between construction
planning and influence factors.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124(4), 245–256.
Gibson, G. E., Jr., Kaczmarowski, J. H., and Lore, H. E., Jr. (1995). “Preproject-planning
process for capital facilities.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 121(3), 312–318.
Gibson, G. E., Jr., Wang, Y. R., Cho, C. S., and Pappas, M. P. (2006). “What is preproject
planning anyway?” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 22(1), 35–42.
Grimm, C. T., and Wagner, N. K. (1974). “Weather effects on mason productivity.” J. Constr.
Div., 100(3), 319–335.
Han, S. Y., and Thomas, H. R. (2002). “Quantification of labor inefficiency.” Proc., 10th
Triennial Symp. of Int. Council on Innovation in Building Construction, Cincinnati, OH.
Hanna, A. S., Russell, J. S., Gotzion, T. W., and Nordheim, E. V. (1999a). “Impact of
change orders on labor efficiency for mechanical construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
125(3), 176–184.
Hanna, A. S., Russell, J. S., Nordheim, E. V., and Bruggink, M. J. (1999b). “Impact of change
orders on labor efficiency for electrical construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(4),
224–232.
Helander, M., ed. (1981). Human factors/ergonomics for building and construction, Wiley,
New York.
Hinze, J. W. (2008). Construction planning and scheduling, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Horman, M. J., Crosz, M. R., and Riley, D. R. (2006). “Sequence plans for electrical construc-
tion.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 132, 363–372.
Horner, R. M. W., and Talhouni, B. T. (1993). Effects of accelerated working, delays and disruptions
on labour productivity, Chartered Institute of Building, London, 40.
Ibbs, C. W., Nguyen, L. D., and Lee, S. (2007). “Quantified impacts of project change.” J. Prof.
Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 133(1), 45–52.
Laufer, A., Shapira, A., Cohenca-Zall, D., and Howell, G. A. (1993). “Prebid and preconstruc-
tion planning process.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 119(3), 426–444.
Logcher, R. D., and Collins, W. C. (1978). “Management impacts on labor productivity.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 104(4), 447–41.
Mawdesley, M. J., Al-Jibouri, S. H., and Yang, H. (2002). “Generic algorithms for construction
site layout in project planning.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 129(5), 418–426.
NECA (National Electrical Contractors Association). (1974). The effect of temperature on
productivity, Bethesda, MD, 28.
Riley, D. R., and Sanvido, V. E. (1995). “Patterns of construction-space use in multistory
buildings.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 121(4), 464–473.
Riley, D. R., and Sanvido, V. E. (1997a). “Patterns of construction space use in multistory
buildings.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 121(4), 464–473.
Riley, D. R., and Sanvido, V. E. (1997b). “Space planning method for multistory building
construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 123(2), 171–180.
Smith, A. G. (1987). “Increasing onsite production.” AACE Trans., 4.1–4.13.
Stukhart, G. (1990). “Bar-code standardization in industrial construction.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 116(3), 416–431.
Thabet, W. A. (1992). “Space constrained resource constrained schedule system for multistory
buildings.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA.
Thomas, H. R. (1998). “Fundamentals of contract risk management for electrical contractors.”
Electrical Contracting Foundation, Bethesda, MD, 70.
Thomas, H. R. (1999a). “Negotiating loss of labor efficiency claims.” Electrical Contracting
Foundation, Bethesda, MD, 85.
Thomas, H. R. (1999b). “Schedule acceleration, workflow, and labor productivity.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 126(4), 261–267.
Thomas, H. R. (2002). “Early warning signs of project distress.” PTI Rep. No. 2002-34, The
Electrical Contracting Foundation, Bethesda, MD, 45.
Thomas, H. R. (2010). “Quantification of losses of labor efficiency: Innovations in and
improvements to the measured mile.” J. Legal Affairs Dispute Resolut. Des. Constr., 2,
106–112.
Thomas, H. R. (2011). “Fundamental principles of subcontractor management.” Pract. Period.
Struct. Des. Constr., 16(3), 106–111.
Thomas, H. R., and Ellis, R. D., Jr. (2001). “Avoiding delays during the construction phase of
highway projects.” NCHRP Rep. on Project No. 20-24, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 77.
Thomas, H. R., and Ellis, R. D., Jr. (2007). “Contractor prebid planning principles.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 133, 542–552.
Thomas, H. R., and Ellis, R. D., Jr. (2009). “Fundamental principles of weather mitigation.”
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 14, 29–35.
Thomas, H. R., and Horman, M. J. (2006). “Fundamental principles of workforce manage-

ment.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 132, 97–104.
Thomas, H. R., M. J. Horman, and U. E. L. de Souza. (2004). Symbiotic Crew Relationships
and Labor Flow. J. Constr. Engr. and Mgmt., 130(6), 908–917.
Thomas, H. R., Horman, M. J., de Souza, U. E. L., and Zavrski, I. (2002). “Benchmarking of
labor-intensive construction activities: Lean construction and fundamental principles of
workforce management.” Rep. 276, The International Council for Research and Innova-
tion in Building and Construction (CIB), Rotterdam, Netherlands, 156.
Thomas, H. R., and Napolitan, C. L. (1995). “Quantitative effects of construction changes on
labor productivity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 121(3), 290–296.
Thomas, H. R., and Oloufa, A. A. (1996). “Strategies for minimizing the economic con-
sequences of schedule acceleration and compression.” PTI Rep. No. 9615, Electrical
Contracting Foundation, Bethesda, MD, 45.
Thomas, H. R., and Raynar, K. A. (1997). “Scheduled overtime and labor productivity:
Quantitative analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 121(3), 181–188.
Thomas, H. R., Riley, D. R., and Messner, J. I. (2005). “Fundamental principles of site material
management.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131, 808–815.
Thomas, H. R., Riley, D. R., and Sanvido, V. E. (1999). “Loss of labor productivity due to
delivery methods and weather.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125, 39–46.
Thomas, H. R., Riley, D. R., and Sinha, S. K. (2006). “Fundamental principles for avoiding
congested work areas on masonry work—A case study.” Pract. Period. Des. Constr., 11,
197–205.
Thomas, H. R., and Sanvido, V. E. (2000). “The role of the fabricator in labor productivity.”
Thomas, H. R., Sanvido, V. E., and Sanders, S. R. (1989). “Impact of material management on
productivity—A case study.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 115(3), 370–384.
Thomas, H. R., and Smith, G. R. (1990). “Loss of construction labor productivity due to
inefficiencies and disruptions: The weight of expert opinion.” Report to the National
Science Foundation, PTI Rep. No. 9019, Pennsylvania State Univ., Pennsylvania Trans-
portation Institute, University Park, PA, 181.
Thomas, H. R., and Volkman, R. C. (2007). “How reliable is the modified total cost or total cost
method?” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 133(1), 74–77.
Thomas, H. R., and Yiakoumis, I. (1986). “Factor model of construction productivity.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 133(1), 623–639.
Tommelein, I. D., Castillo, J. D., and Zouelin, P. P. (1992). “Space-time characterization for
resource management on construction sites.” Proc., 8th Conf. on Computing in Civil
Engineering, ASCE, New York, 623–630.
United Nations Committee on Housing, Building, and Planning. (1965). Effect of repetition on
building operations and processes on site, New York.
Warszawski, A., and Peled, N. (1987). “An expert system for crane selection and location.”
Proc., 4th Int. Symp. on Robotics and Artificial Intelligence in Building Construction, Vol. 1, Israel
Institute of Technology and Building Research Station–Technion, Haifa, Israel, 64–68.
Zouein, P. P., and Tommelein, I. D. (1999). “Dynamic layout planning using a hybrid
incremental solution method.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(6), 400–408.
PART II
Planning
CHAPTER 3
Fundamental Principles of Planning
Planning is a cornerstone of effective construction project management and

improving performance, yet there exists little or no framework or guidance on how
to do effective planning (Thomas and Ellis 2007). Most published discussions on
planning are presented in conjunction with the development of a critical path
method (CPM) schedule. These discussions of planning are limited to the presen-
tation of text material defining activities or establishing precedence relationships
(Hinze 2008). The questions of what steps should be taken, what should be done,
and how one should plan remain unanswered. In this chapter, a 17-step procedure is
described in which a holistic view of planning is presented, from risk analysis to the
development of submittal schedules. If this procedure is followed, the result will be
lower costs, shorter schedules, and increased profits.
3.1 Risk-Based Planning
Relative to planning, project risks can be organized into the following four catego-
ries: (1) things that can go wrong, (2) surprises (or the unknown), (3) contractual
risks, and (4) relations with project team members. These risks are shown concep-
tually in Fig. 3-1. There is no relationship between the categories listed above and the
proportions shown in Fig. 3-1. The focus of planning is to develop plans to avoid the
risks or to minimize the economic effects from events in these four categories. Two
situations commonly occur on a construction site: things go wrong, and there are
surprises. One can anticipate and plan for many of the things that can go wrong. One
can also plan for some surprises. Other elements of risks include contractual risks
and relations with project team members. Some planning can be done for these two
areas of risk. Where the risks are foreseeably high, the contractor may choose not to
submit a bid. Through a risk-based planning process, a contractor can plan for and
negate many project risks, or if the project is too risky, decline to submit a bid.
Negating risks leads to a more profitable construction project.
This chapter defines the short-range (as opposed to strategic) steps that make up
an effective contractor risk-based project planning process for small- and medium-
size projects. Because many larger projects can be viewed as a collection of smaller
33
Elements of Risk
Things Go Wrong Surprises Contractual People or Team
Fig. 3-1. Broad Categories of Project Risk
projects, there is application to larger projects as well. Following these steps will lead
to better labor productivity, lower cost, and shorter schedules. Thus, the objective of
risk-based planning is to anticipate surprises and things that may go wrong and to
negate or eliminate these risks through better planning. Thus, it is important for a
contractor to answer the question: What can go wrong?
3.2 Steps in Risk-Based Planning
The general approach to planning involves two broad steps: (1) deciding on prelimi-
nary considerations and (2) developing detailed plans. The preliminary considera-
tions include a risk assessment to decide whether to submit a bid. If a decision is made
to submit a bid, bid preparation involves deciding on a preliminary plan followed
by optimizing the preliminary plan through the preparation of various detailed
plans (step 2). Other preliminary considerations refer to preparing a preliminary
schedule; developing a contracting strategy and a general strategy; selecting major
means, methods, and equipment; and revising the preliminary schedule. Once the
preliminary considerations have been finalized, various detailed plans need to be
developed. Detailed plans include material delivery schemes, site layout plans, erosion
and sediment control (E&S) plans, environmental considerations, CPM analyses,
sequences that are essential to success (ETS sequences), and operational plans.
Because these are specific to the project and the techniques used may vary.
The techniques used to develop detailed plans are described in lieu of describing
the plans themselves. The techniques described are the short interval production
schedule (SIPS), velocity (production rate) charts, and linear scheduling. A critical
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF PLANNING 35
path method (CPM) schedule is another technique that is frequently used, but it is not
discussed herein because there are numerous texts that are devoted exclusively
to CPM schedules (Hinze 2008). Other techniques include sequence plans and
coordination drawings. Many of the detailed aspects of planning and executing and
for formulating low-cost plans are covered in subsequent chapters. The goal
is to construct the project in as short a time as practical while minimizing the need
for field labor. After the notice of award is given, the planning function does not cease.
Contractors must plan for submittals and managing changes.
3.3 Case Study—State College Municipal Building
The steps in the planning process are best illustrated with a case study project where
the lack of planning was readily obvious. The steps are applied retrospectively to this
project. The case study project is the three-story State College Municipal Building
(SCMB). It was constructed in State College, Pennsylvania, in 2002 at a cost of about
$5 million.
The building superstructure is structural steel, and the floor slabs are precast
concrete. The project also contains a full-footprint basement. Construction of the
basement required excavation, rock removal, footers, and the construction of a
reinforced concrete wall. The building facade is masonry. An auditorium is included
on the top floor. Fig. 3-2 shows the status of the SCMB construction after the precast
slabs were installed.
The construction site was small and was constrained on all four sides by city
streets and existing buildings. Ingress and egress points to the site were limited.
Fig. 3-2. State College Municipal Building (SCMB) during Construction

Spoil Material Storage

Parking
Trailer
Pile
Trailer
Tools
Site Utilities
Fig. 3-3. Actual Site Layout for SCMB
The building footprint took about 60–70% of the site area, so space for on-site
storage was minimal. The constrained nature of the site is shown in Fig. 3-3, which
is the site layout used by the contractor throughout the project. The contractor
used only one ingress and egress point for material deliveries. Using this layout,
delivery trucks had difficulty accessing the site, and drive-through deliveries were
not possible. The contractor chose to allocate space for an earthen spoil pile,
trailers, and a parking area within the site boundary. Trailers and the parking
area were located first. Material storage and other needs were assigned to the
remaining unoccupied space.
The construction of this project was challenging, even though it was a relatively
small project. Careful planning was justified.
3.4 Paramount Determination
For all projects during the bid period and before beginning to prepare the estimate,
a paramount question to answer is this: Using conventional means and methods, can
the contractor complete the project within the time allotted by the contract? If not,
unconventional means and methods may need to be applied. Because time is money,
the goal of contractors should always be to complete the project in as short a time as
practical, even if adequate time is provided for in the contract. Shorter schedules
minimize the contractor’s risk exposure. It has been observed by the authors that
contractors tend to use all the time allowed by the contract, even if a shorter
schedule is practical. Some of the planning steps outlined in the following may be
deferred on some projects until after the intent to award is given, but all steps should
be done before project execution begins.
3.5 General Approach to Planning
Effective planning requires (1) assessment of risks, (2) settling on preliminary

strategies, (3) considerations that reflect the risk assessments, and (4) making
detailed plans that incorporate the assessments and strategies. All functions are
linked. The assessment of risks includes the following:
• Things that can go wrong;

• Surprises;
• Contract risk;
• Other (e.g., people or payments); and
• Can I finish on time?
A risk assessment should always be done before the decision to submit a bid is
made. Contractors may choose to avoid bidding on projects where there are high
risks. Once the decision to bid is made, preliminary considerations must be decided
upon. These include the following:
• Strategies and preliminary considerations;

• A preliminary execution plan (schedule);
• Contractual strategy (Which parts should be subcontracted?);
• General strategy (Where should I begin and how should I proceed?);
• Unconventional means and methods (e.g., multiple workstations);
• Construction equipment; and
• A revised execution schedule.
Once strategies and considerations have been decided upon, various plans need
to be developed that describe in detail how the work will be done. Following these
plans will minimize risks. These plans include the following:
• Detailed plans:
○ Material delivery schemes,
○ Site layouts, and
○ Weather mitigation plans,
• Erosion and sediment control (E&S) plans,

• Additional drainage plans,
• Footprint drainage,
• Drainage of the rest of the site,
• Runoff from off site onto the site,
• Building enclosure and sealing,
• Environmental and regulatory considerations,
• CPM analyses and time windows,
• Sequences that are essential to success (ETS sequences),
• Operational plans,
• Floor or area completion,
• Material delivery plans,
• Material distribution plans,
• Sequence plans,
• Coordination drawings,
• Final execution schedule,
• Submittal and shop drawing schedule, and
• Change management.
Of course, other risk assessments, preliminary strategies and considerations, and

plans may be justified.
To illustrate the relationship between risk assessments, preliminary considera-
tions, and detailed plans, consider an example. Suppose that a risk assessment has
been made that by using conventional means and methods, there is a high
probability that concrete placement will be delayed until the winter months. This
poses a significant risk to the contractor’s operation. Nevertheless, the contractor has
decided to submit a bid.
To expedite the placement operation, the contractor adopts the following
preliminary consideration and incorporates any added cost into the bid: Use several
pump trucks at multiple workstations and apply concurrent scheduling practices.
These strategies will minimize the risk of winter placements. Next, during the
planning process, he or she develops detailed plans to ensure that the strategies
are effectively implemented.
3.6 The Project Planning Process
The process described here should be viewed as a starting point, and more steps can be
added as the need arises. However, the process described is generalized so as to be
applicable to numerous projects. The steps in the planning process include assess-
ments, strategies, and plans. The planning process is shown in Fig. 3-4. The steps are the
following: (1) assess risks, (2) develop a preliminary execution plan, (3) decide on key
macro strategies, (4) determine equipment needs and methods, (5) revise the prelimi-
nary execution plan, (6) decide on material delivery schemes, (7) develop E&S and
site drainage plans, (8) understand environmental and regulatory issues, (9) develop
site layout plans, (10) identify the sequences that are essential to success (ETS),
(11) calculate time windows, (12) develop detailed operational plans, (13) develop
proactive strategies to ensure construction input into design, (14) finalize the execu-
tion plan (schedule), (15) communicate and enforce plans, (16) develop a submittal
and shop drawing schedule, and (17) plan for change management. Because the
process should be flexible and each step should provide input to the next step, it is
permissible to revise prior step(s) if a better plan emerges.
1. Assess Risks
Decision to Bid
Preliminary Considerations
2. Develop a Preliminary Execution Plan
3. Decide on Key Macro Strategies
4. Determine the Major Means, Methods, and Equipment Needs
5. Revise Preliminary Execution Plan
Detailed Plans
6. Decide on Material Delivery Schemes
7. Develop E&S and Site Drainage Plans
8. Understand Environmental and Regulatory Issues
Bid Development
9. Develop Site Layout Plans
10. Identify ETS Sequences
11. Calculate Time Windows
12. Develop Detailed Operational Plans
13. Proactive Strategies To Assure Construction Input Into

Design
14. Finalize the Execution Plan (Schedule)
15. Communicate and Enforce the Plans
Intent to Award
16. Develop a Submittal and Shop Drawing Schedule
17. Plan for Change Management
Fig. 3-4. The Planning Process
Assess Risks
Contractual Risks—The discussion on planning begins with an assessment of the
contract risks. Some contracts are known to contain harsh language that imposes
significant risks on contractors and subcontractors (Thomas et al. 2000). These risks
need to be known before a decision to bid is made. Additionally, contracts may
contain language related to means and methods, when certain operations can be
performed, liquidated damages, intermediate milestone dates, and much more.
A careful reading of the contract is paramount. Pay special attention to the
termination clause, payment provisions, and the acceleration clause.
Noncontractual Risks—Risks go beyond what is written in the contract. One
noncontractual risk that should be evaluated is the likelihood of a time extension,
irrespective of the contract language. This aspect is often a function of the type of
project. For instance, for schools and sports stadiums, extensions of time are unlikely.
If a wastewater plant is under a court order to upgrade its treatment processes, the
owner will be reluctant to grant an extension of time, regardless of what the contract
says. These situations increase the contractor’s risk and are especially problematic if
the start of construction is delayed.
The reputation of the key players and organizations is another important risk
consideration that needs to be evaluated. Some people are just hard to get along
with. Others are sticklers for details. Will the owner pay on time? Do the contract
documents appear complete and generally free from errors and omissions? Will the
parties make timely decisions? These are but a few considerations that can make a
project risky for the contractor.
A contractor should know the risks in a project before making a decision to

submit a bid. One good rule of thumb is to leave risky projects to your competitors.
There is little, if any, profit to be made on a risky project. After the risks are known,
an educated decision can be made on whether to submit a bid.
Example
How an owner handles requests for an extension of time on a construction project is
filled with risks. The court case of Alexander & Shankle, Inc., v. Metropolitan Government
of Nashville and Davidson County (A&S) sheds some light on contractor risks and
owner obligations (Alexander & Shankle, Inc., v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville
and Davidson County 2007). Some of the more notable risks that materialized and
adversely affected A&S were the following:
• Delays at the beginning of the project,

• Owner tardiness in decision making,
• Termination,
• Winter masonry work, and
• Scope changes.
If the contractor had done a diligent risk assessment, some or all of these risks
could have been foreseen, and the decision to submit a bid might have been
different. The factual aspects of the case are given below.
The Project
On March 25, 2003, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson
County (Metro) entered into a contract with Alexander & Shankle, Inc. (A&S),
under which A&S became general contractor for the construction of Oliver Middle
School and Shayne Elementary School, which were both to be constructed on the
same site. The A&S bid was $11,841,000. A&S experienced numerous delays;
however, Metro refused to extend the substantial completion date of the project.
The Contract
The contract provided the following:
[a]ll limitations of time set forth herein are material and are of the essence
of this contract.
The contract provided that A&S would be liable for liquidated damages as a
result of any delay until the project was substantially complete. Metro reserved the
right to refuse payment if Metro was of the opinion that A&S’s rate of progress was
such that substantial completion of the project would be delayed.
The contract provided that if A&S was delayed in performing a critical task
because of some act or omission of Metro or someone acting on Metro’s behalf,
including an authorized change order, then A&S could submit a written request for
an extension of time with Metro or its architect or engineer, setting forth in detail all
known facts and circumstances supporting the claim.
Finally, the contract provided for two methods of termination by Metro. The first
allowed Metro to terminate the contract for convenience. If the contract were
terminated in this fashion, A&S was to be compensated for labor, material, equip-
ment, and services accepted under the contract, and certain costs that had been
incurred in preparing to perform and in performing the terminated portion of the
work.
The second method of termination by Metro was “for cause.” If A&S failed to
perform any portion of its work in a timely manner; failed to supply adequate labor,
supervisory personnel, or proper equipment or materials; or violated any material
provision of the contract, then Metro had the right to terminate A&S’s performance,
assume possession of the site, and complete the work. If the costs and expenses of
completing the work exceeded the contract price, then A&S was liable for the excess
costs. If such costs and expenses were less than the unpaid amount of the contract
price, then A&S was to be paid the unused amount.
Several provisions of the contract should have been cause for concern to A&S.
The owner’s right to not pay A&S if the owner was of the opinion that A&S’s rate
of progress was such that substantial completion of the project would be delayed
should have been a cause for concern because nonpayment would probably result
in delayed completion. The termination clauses also pose high risks.
Contractor Execution
A&S was given notice to proceed under the contract on April 1, 2003. From the
beginning, there were significant delays on the project. Excavation at the site was
initially delayed because a house located on the site had not been moved. A&S was
not allowed to demolish the house because it had been given to a private individual
and Metro was waiting for that individual to make arrangements to have it moved.
The house was finally moved on April 23, 2003. A&S requested a 15-day extension of
time because of the delay. The project architect responded to this request stating,
“The additional time of 15 days is approved. It has been stated by the Owner that the
original date of substantial completion should remain intact until the end of the job,
at which time, a change order will be issued if the additional time is needed to
complete the work.”
Once the site preparation began, it was immediately discovered that poor soil
conditions not anticipated by the contract documents would require corrective
measures. It was not determined what would be done to remedy this condition until
August 26, 2003 (approximately four months later), when the parties agreed to lower
the elevation of Oliver Middle School and the surrounding area to provide fill
material for the Shayne Elementary School building. A&S requested an additional
110-day extension of time, including “71 days for soil, 15 days for house removal
delays, 3 days for providing additional drainage at Shayne Elementary, and 21 days
for additional undercut of soil on the site : : : ” A&S signed Change Order
No. 1 (CO1) on September 10, 2003. CO1 provided for an extension of 50 days, and
the date of substantial completion was set as July 15, 2004.
Because of the delay in the commencement of the project, the masonry work,
which represented a significant portion of the work to be performed, was pushed
into the winter months rather than the summer and fall months as originally
contemplated. By mid-January 2004, it was apparent that the project would not be
completed on time. About that time, Metro’s architect was said to have admitted that
the July 15, 2004, completion date was not based on what was practical, but only on
the desire of Metro to have the schools ready for the beginning of the 2004–2005
school year. After that time, however, Metro continued to revise the scope of the
work but steadfastly refused to alter the substantial completion date.
On February 23, 2004, the parties executed Change Order No. 2 (CO2). This
change order required A&S to remove and replace an additional 15,436 cubic
yards of unsuitable soil at the Shayne Elementary site. A&S requested an
additional 21 days to perform this work, but Metro refused to grant any time
extension. Before executing CO2, A&S notified Metro in writing that A&S was
unable to sign the change order because of the denial of the requested extension
of time. A&S explained that in an effort to keep the project moving forward, A&S
would sign the change order with the understanding that A&S reserved the
right to recapture the days lost during performance of the work. A&S ultimately
signed CO2.
From mid-February 2004 through the end of July 2004, Metro continued to
make changes in the scope of the work. There were 13 letters from A&S to Metro
requesting a total of 235 days additional time. No additional contract time was given
by Metro. Three of the letters are worthy of note.
A letter dated February 17, 2004, quoted the cost to “make kitchen hood and
mechanical equipment room piping and cooling tower piping changes” and
requested 14 days additional contract time to perform the changes. The project
manager (PM) for Metro wrote “Proceed” on the letter and signed it with the date
June 9, 2004.
By letter dated June 15, 2004, A&S quoted the cost of providing ceiling diffusers
at Shayne Elementary School and requested an additional 40 days of contract time
after authorization for their installation. The PM returned this letter with the
notation, “Proceed with installation. Time extension to be determined.” This
notation was dated June 28, 2004.
In the third letter, dated June 3, 2004, A&S quoted the cost of providing an
outside air supply for three heat pumps in Shayne Elementary School and noted that
the “mechanical subcontractor has requested 18 calendar days of contract time to
perform the necessary work required to supply outside air to the heat pumps.”
On the same day, the architect instructed A&S to advise the mechanical sub to
“[p]roceed with the work relative to adding a fresh air duct to HP-A1.2, and 3.”
Despite Metro’s PM and architect having seemingly approved time extensions,
Metro continued to assert that the substantial completion date was July 15, 2004.
After that date, Metro allowed A&S to continue working on the project and
continued paying for work performed. There is evidence that Metro revised the
scope of the project five times during the month of July 2004, with three of the
revisions coming after July 15, 2004. A&S and Metro agreed to alter the construction
schedule to allow certain portions of each school to be constructed to accommodate
students on the opening day of school. On July 27, 2004, A&S’s mechanical
subcontractor, by letter, quoted a price to Metro for acceleration at the Oliver
School to complete its work there by August 8. The Metro PM accepted this proposal
on July 27, 2004, and noted on the letter that the mechanical subcontractor’s work at
Shayne Elementary should be completed by August 2, 2004. On July 29, 2004, Metro
agreed to a proposal by another subcontractor to accelerate fire alarm and moni-
toring installation and to complete their work by August 3, 2004. Also on July 29,
2004, Metro accepted a proposal from the plumbing and HVAC subcontractor to
accelerate its work and complete it by August 8, 2004, at Oliver, and by August 2,
2004, at Shayne.
On July 29, 2004, Metro delivered to A&S a termination letter stating that, as of
Friday, July 30, 2004, A&S would be relieved of their services because they had failed
to meet the July 15, 2004, substantial completion date. A&S removed itself from the
site and did no further work on the project. Metro completed construction of the
schools by hiring a construction superintendent and primarily using A&S’s sub-
contractors. A&S’s PM stated that he was told by the director of plant planning and
construction for Metro that A&S was terminated to recoup the additional costs of
having A&S’s subcontractors accelerate their work.
Many of the risks described in the above example were foreseeable. The
written contract posed certain risks that could have been foreseen. The owner’s
resistance to a time extension was foreseeable. A careful examination of the
geotechnical report might have suggested the presence of unsuitable soil.
Furthermore, an inquiry of other contractors about their past experiences with
Metro might have revealed that this owner or designer was not desirable to work
with or was untimely in making decisions. Despite the foreseeable risks, A&S
nevertheless chose to submit a bid. Is it likely that A&S made a profit on this
project? The reputation of the company may have been permanently damaged.
There may be a risk of insolvency.
3.7 Preliminary Planning Considerations
Develop a Preliminary (Leisure Time) Execution Plan

A preliminary execution plan (schedule) should be developed at the outset. This
plan should be developed at a macro level. The format may be best done as a bar
chart. This schedule is used to determine if conventional means and methods and
sequences will allow the contractor to complete the project on time (if nothing goes
wrong and if there are no surprises).
This preliminary schedule usually has several sequential operations and should
reflect how a contractor would approach the job if given a generous amount of time
to perform the work. This schedule establishes whether the plan needs to be cost
oriented or time oriented. A cost-oriented schedule relies on conventional methods
and often applies sequential scheduling practices. A time-oriented schedule is driven
by unconventional methods and relies on concurrent scheduling practices. The plan
for the State College Municipal Building (SCMB) is shown in Fig. 3-5. Because
Fig. 3-5 relies on conventional methods and sequential scheduling practices, it is a
cost-oriented schedule.
Fig. 3-6 illustrates a cost-oriented schedule versus a time-oriented one. It relies
on the Outreach Building project shown in Fig. 3-7. Fig. 3-6 shows only two activities:
exterior insulation and masonry. For a cost-oriented schedule, these two activities are
done sequentially, that is, the insulation activity is completed before the masonry
begins. Presumably, this is the least expensive way for masonry to proceed. It requires
sufficient scaffolding to accommodate one masonry crew. In a time-oriented sched-
ule, the masonry proceeds in two areas simultaneously. This method requires two
masonry crews and more scaffolding, and it involves a faster consumption rate of
brick.
A schedule is cost oriented if there is ample time for conventional means and
methods to be used. However, a time-oriented schedule is usually preferred even if
the time allowed by the contract is adequate. A contractor should try to complete a
project as soon as possible because a longer schedule is exposed to more risk. Also,
time is money.
Fortunately, there are a limited number of ways to build most projects and to
develop a macro schedule. As more detail is developed in subsequent steps, the
preliminary plan or schedule and general strategy can be revised. Table 3-1
presents some fundamental principles for developing and revising a preliminary
schedule. The preliminary schedule is called a leisure time schedule. Fig. 3-5 is a
leisure time schedule for SCMB. It is a 36-week schedule, which exceeds the
allotted contract time by a factor of about two. Thus, the leisure time schedule is
likely unacceptable.
Principles Applied in Developing the Preliminary (Leisure Time) Schedule—
The preliminary execution plan should be done at a macro level (Principle 1.1) and
should be based on the application of conventional means, methods, and equipment
(Principle 1.2). Conventional means, methods, and equipment are probably eco-
nomical and ones with which the contractor is most familiar. This schedule is
developed early, when little schedule detail is available.
The preliminary schedule should make effective use of constructed areas
(Principle 1.3), such as ground and elevated slabs, parking areas, and basements.
Using constructed floors of a facility for material storage is not preferred; it can lead
to the double-handling of materials and limits schedule flexibility. Materials and
equipment will need to be removed from these areas before other construction
activities planned for these areas are indicated.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF PLANNING
Fig. 3-5. Preliminary Execution Plan (Leisure Time Schedule), SCMB

45
Exterior
Insulation
Masonry
Cost Oriented
Exterior
Insulation
Masonry
(Area 1)
Masonry
(Area 2)
Time Oriented
Fig. 3-6. Cost-Oriented versus Time-Oriented Schedule
Fig. 3-7. The Outreach Building
Rain is a fact of life for many construction projects. Contractors can ill afford for
the site to become muddy or for water to pond on the site. Installing and using
permanent site drainage can help alleviate these problems (Principle 1.4). These
facilities should be installed early and integrated into an erosion and sediment
control (E&S) plan. Principle 1.4 should be part of the contractor’s conventional
scheduling practices.
Shortening the Schedule—At least four ways of achieving shorter schedules
may be investigated. The first is the use of alternate methods. Different methods
may require different resources, space needs, or access, and alternate methods
may be more expensive. The second way involves the preassembly of components.
These first two alternatives may offer limited schedule advantages. The third way
involves applying multiple workstations and concurrent scheduling practices.
This approach can yield significant schedule shortening advantages (see Fig. 3-6).
A fourth way to potentially shorten a schedule is to select equipment that is larger
than ordinarily required. The increased power, greater leverage, and increased
Table 3-1. Fundamental Principles of Developing and Revising a Preliminary Execution Plan
No. Principle
Developing and Revising Preliminary Schedules
1.1 Plans and schedules should be done at a macro level.
1.2 Preliminary plans and schedules should be based on the use of conventional means,
methods, and equipment.
1.3 Make effective use of constructed and footprint areas.
1.4 To allow more room and to mitigate rain runoff, install utilities and permanent site
drainage first.
Shortening Preliminary Schedules
2.1 Minimize storage area needs by off-loading directly from the delivery truck.
2.2 Minimize storage area needs, enhance the schedule, and improve labor
performance by preloading materials onto each floor or area.
2.3 Make use of service elevators to transport lightweight or bulky items like duct and
drywall to each floor or area.
2.4 Develop multiple site layout plans.
2.5 Sequence activities so as to avoid making noncritical activities critical.
2.6 Execute activities concurrently, rather than sequentially.
2.7 Seek opportunities to offer input into design.
2.8 Minimize the number of times a crane has to be moved.
2.9 Involve subcontractors in developing operational plans.
2.10 Unless necessary, do not plan the same activity to occur on the same day of
subsequent weeks, for example, we plan to place concrete every Thursday.
Developing Operational Plans
3.1 Partition the site into work area or zones.
3.2 Use multiple workstations to accelerate the work.
3.3 Vary crew sizes and teams to speed up or slow down the pace of the work and reduce
crew idle time.
3.4 Integrate the work of multiple contractors.
3.5 Apply time lags or buffers.
3.6 Schedule the work to accommodate continuity of work of key resources.
3.7 Begin work in a location where the work is the hardest because this work takes the
longest time.
3.8 Begin the work with the critical path work.
reach of oversized equipment may offer important schedule advantages, depend-

ing on the activity.
On SCMB, a quick and efficient method of removing rock from the footing
trench needed to be found. Blasting could have been considered for the revised
preliminary schedule. The schedule improvement and increased labor efficiency
might have more than offset any increase in cost. Multiple workstations and
concurrent scheduling should have been adopted.
Decide on Key Macro Strategies

Decisions must be made on two categories of macro strategies: contractual and
general. At this point, it is known whether the revised schedule will need to be cost
oriented or time oriented and if the contractor can finish the work on time.
Contracting Strategy—Some activities are specialized and can best be done by
specialty contractors or subcontractors. The work may involve special equipment or
labor and management skills. The work may require close vendor coordination or
scheduling that is best suited to a specialty contractor. Examples include curtain wall
erection, steel erection, precast erection, blasting, and much of the interior service
work, such as mechanical, piping, and ductwork. Activities requiring special skills or
knowledge are often best left to subcontractors.
General Strategy—In developing a general strategy, a contractor must decide
where the work will begin and how the work will proceed.
There should be a reason for starting the work in a particular place. The
footprint area should then be partitioned into work areas or zones to facilitate this
strategy. Avoid partitioning into too many areas. The direction of the work progres-
sion, say clockwise or from one area to another, should be established.
It is probably beneficial to start work on the difficult-to-complete activities
because these activities take the longest amount of time (Principle 3.7). If there
is adequate time lag between the activity and follow-on activities, congestion and idle
time will be reduced or eliminated. Be sure that this work is on the critical path
(Principle 3.8). The work should also be on the facility being built, not peripheral
structures like retaining walls, unless there is good reason to do so. Sometimes it may
be necessary to start on peripheral structures to mitigate certain risks. Try to do work
on the facility concurrently with mobilization, peripheral structures, drainage struc-
tures, and site utilities. Concurrent scheduling practices and partitioning of the
worksite offer significant schedule benefits.
The direction the work flows is an important part of the general strategy. If work
starts concurrently at opposite corners of a structure, it may be possible to avoid
congestion, depending on daily production rates. The general strategy is unique to
each project, but it should be simple and should accelerate the work.
Examples—Consider the construction of a three-story, 97,000-ft2 office or
classroom building known as the Outreach Building in State College, Pennsylvania
(see Fig. 3-7). The project contains a 50-plus-ft curtain wall and about $15 million of
electronic and satellite equipment. Both the curtain wall and the equipment installa-
tion were subcontracted. The building had to be enclosed and sealed before equip-
ment installation could begin.
The footprint area was partitioned into two areas, right and left, with the work
progression flowing from right to left. As a general strategy, the contractor could
begin the foundation work (footings, piers, and grade beam) on the half where the
curtain wall is located (the right half). This strategy expedited the structural steel
erection for the curtain wall and masonry in that area and may have expedited the
installation of the curtain wall. If successful, this strategy might have allowed the
building enclosure to occur sooner, meaning that electronic equipment installation
could have been expedited. This simple example illustrates how general strategies
can be applicable to all sizes and types of projects, even small, simple ones. If
everything goes as planned, the schedule may be shortened because the work began
on the right half.
As another example, consider the SCMB. One excavation strategy might be as
shown in Fig. 3-8. The following strategy recognizes that most of the rock in the
footer trench is on the northwestern and western sides (point A to point B).
There may be some rock from point B to point C. The earth excavation is followed
by (1) rock removal and trench excavation, (2) footing construction, and
(3) concrete wall construction. The footprint area (for the earth excavation)
is divided into four parts. The earth excavation begins in Area I (at point A) and
proceeds in a counterclockwise manner followed soon thereafter by the work in
Area II. As the excavation approaches point C, a second rock removal and trench
excavation crew can begin work at point B. The footer and wall formwork crews
follow the rock removal and trench excavation crews, beginning at point A. An
appropriate time lag is applied because footing construction is much faster than
the rock removal and trench excavation activity. The trenching work from point B
to point C is much faster than the trenching work from point A to point B because
there is little or no rock. Footing construction should not “catch up with” the rock
removal and trench excavation activity. This strategy allows all crews to proceed at
an unimpeded pace, a practice that promotes efficiency. The practice of concur-
rent scheduling and multiple workstations (for rock removal and trench excava-
tion) expedites the construction of footers and the basement wall, which are
critical path activities. This simple strategy may shorten the overall construction
schedule by a month or so.
Temporary N (project)
Access
A D
Area IV
Area I
Area III
Area II
B C
Fig. 3-8. Partitioning of SCMB (Excavation Only)

These two examples show that where the work is started is not a trivial matter.
The key principles used are beginning where the work is hardest, partitioning,
concurrent scheduling, and using multiple workstations. The benefits are that the
time the work is exposed to inclement weather is reduced, and the potential for
schedule shortening is significant.
Determine Major Means, Methods, and Equipment Needs

At this point in the planning process, one should select major means, methods, and
equipment needs. It is important that the selection be compatible with the schedule
orientation. To illustrate this point, a crane and bucket operation is often used for
concrete placement. It is a relatively low-cost piece of equipment, although highly
inefficient. If the schedule is time oriented, a pump truck may be a preferred
alternative. On the SCMB project, removal of rock using hand tools (the practice
that was actually applied) is consistent with a cost-oriented schedule. If utilities are
done early (see Fig. 3-3) and the work begins at point A (see Fig. 3-8), all wall
concrete placement can be discharged directly from the delivery truck. Selection of
major equipment should be done at this time to ensure availability. In some
instances, renting equipment may be advantageous.
Revise Preliminary Execution Plan

At this point in the planning process, the preliminary execution plan may need to be
revised to conform to the time requirements of the contract or some desired project
duration. Fig. 3-9 shows a revised preliminary schedule where activities are executed
concurrently rather than sequentially (Principle 2.6). There has been a 25%
reduction in the scheduled weeks, even though the activity durations are the same.
The main differences between the schedules in Fig. 3-5 (preliminary) and
Fig. 3-9 (revised) are that in the revised schedule, the excavation can begin as
mobilization begins or shortly thereafter, excavation–rock removal–basement wall
construction activities are done concurrently, structural steel erection–precast floor
planks–preloading (not shown) activities are integrated, underground utilities are
completed before structural steel begins, and the order of cast-in-place (CIP) ground
slabs–masonry partition wall activities (in the basement) and the precast slab activity
is changed. No activities were added or deleted, no activity durations were changed,
and only four activity sequences were altered, hardly radical changes. Yet, there has
been about a 25% reduction (eight weeks) in the scheduled (reduced from 36 to 28
weeks) simply by applying Principles 2.5 and 2.6.
Principles 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 form a part of a comprehensive material management
plan. The service elevator can be used for lightweight and bulky items. Loading
directly from the delivery truck and preloading are practices that will improve labor
productivity and schedules and will minimize on-site storage requirements (see
Chapter 6).
Fig. 3-9. Revised Preliminary Execution Plan, SCMB

51
Principle 2.4 states that contractors should develop multiple site layout plans as
required (see Chapter 4). Plans should be simple and should require minimal
change from one phase to the next. Site plans ensure the optimum use of the site.
Principles 2.5 and 2.6 relate to the sequencing of activities. The application of
these principles can lead to the significant shortening of schedules. A fundamental
principle is that noncritical activities should be delayed as long as practical. Activities
like building retaining walls, grade slabs, and basement ground slabs are not usually
critical activities, yet they are often sandwiched between critical activities. This
normally makes them critical activities when they need not be critical.
On critical activities that require considerable time, consider working multiple
workstations (Principle 3.2). Theoretically, the schedule can be shortened consid-
erably. The schedule through the first half of many building projects is often
observed as being mostly sequential. Many opportunities to work a concurrent
schedule are overlooked. This principle is often ignored, despite obvious schedule
advantages.
To illustrate Principle 2.5, consider the scheduling of three activities shown in
Figs. 3-10 and 3-11. The three activities are the concrete basement wall construction,
steel erection, and construction of the grade slab. Critical activities are shown in the
dark color. Because there is only one concrete crew, the basement wall and grade slab
cannot be done simultaneously. If the basement wall and grade slab are done back to
back (to get all the major concrete work completed), then the grade slab is a critical
activity and its duration lengthens the overall project schedule. This schedule assumes
that steel erection cannot begin until the grade slab is complete. If, however, it is
possible to delay the work on the grade slab and erect steel immediately after the
basement wall is finished, then the grade slab is no longer on the critical path. This
strategy requires that a scheme be developed for placing concrete for the ground slab.
Principle 2.8 states that cranes should be moved a minimum number of times.
Whenever a crane is moved, the crew(s) using the crane have nothing to do. Idle
time increases, and costs soar. Crane relocations may take two to three hours or
Basement
Wall
Ground Slab
Steel Erection
Conventional Schedule
Basement
Wall
Steel Erection
Ground Slab
Revised Schedule
Non Critical Critical
Fig. 3-10. Illustration of How Sequencing Affects the Critical Path

Fig. 3-11. Basement Wall under Construction, SCMB
more. Crane locations should be planned carefully. In some instances, crane

relocations can be minimized by using a larger crane than needed.
Principle 2.9 is obvious but is often ignored. If subcontractors are expected to
fully commit to a schedule, they must be involved in making the schedule.
A practice often adopted is to reserve a key activity to be done the same day
each week. Such as, “we place concrete each Thursday.” Such a practice is not
always wise (Principle 2.10). Suppose that it takes four and a half working days to
make the necessary preparations to pour concrete. What will happen the other
half day? The crew will do busy work or cleanup. This half day will be wasted.
A short interval production schedule (SIPS) is helpful in planning the appropri-
ate cycle time.
3.8 Recapitulation
At this point in the planning process, it is worthwhile to summarize what has

occurred. An affirmative decision to submit a bid has already been made. Most
project risks are known. Planning began with the development of a leisure time
schedule. By comparing the duration of this schedule to the contract requirements
or some desired duration, it was determined whether the schedule is cost oriented or
time oriented. Key strategies, means, methods, and equipment were selected that are
compatible with the schedule orientation. A revised schedule that relies on doable
means, methods, and equipment is produced that complies with the desired time
requirements. Further shortening of this schedule may be accomplished by short-
ening activity durations, although an occasional resequencing may be justified. From
this point forward, the main focus is to produce optimum work plans to make the
work as efficient as possible.
3.9 Detailed Plans
Decide on Material Delivery Schemes

Material delivery schemes have much to do with how the site is used and the
efficiency of site operations. The contractor may choose to deliver most or all of the
materials to the site before beginning work. This scheme would require large
amounts of storage space. Alternatively, the contractor may choose to erect certain
materials directly from the delivery truck. While storage space will be lessened,
delivery routes must be carefully planned. Preloading is a practice that can be highly
efficient, but it must be carefully planned (see Chapter 6). Carrying materials up the
stairs, one component at a time, is inefficient. Off-site staging areas or surge piles can
sometimes be effectively used.
Develop E&S and Site Drainage Plans

In some locales, an erosion and sediment control (E&S) plan must be filed and
approved by a local governmental entity or regulatory body. The E&S plan deals
largely with runoff from the site, but there are more elements that constitute a
complete site drainage plan. So the contractor should integrate other elements with
the E&S plan (see Chapter 5) to produce a comprehensive site drainage plan. There
are three elements of site drainage that should be addressed: (1) drainage of the
facility footprint, (2) drainage of the remainder of the site, and (3) runoff from off-
site areas into the site.
The application of Principle 1.4 contributes to site drainage and reduces the
likelihood of water ponding on the site. The facility footprint is often ignored, but
runoff that collects in footings can lead to significant disruption and rework. Shallow
drainage trenches are probably adequate. These trenches should be installed before
the need arises because rainfall does not always occur during normal working hours.
A sump pump may be needed. A system of shallow trenches is probably sufficient to
drain runoff from storage areas and other site areas. The E&S plan may require that
the runoff be channeled into a retention basin before the water is discharged from
the site.
Drainage from places such as off-site parking areas and steep slopes is often
overlooked. These areas may funnel large amounts of water onto the site.
A simple, shallow trench or ditch will probably solve the problem (Thomas and
Ellis 2009).
Understand Environmental and Regulatory Issues

Environmental and regulatory considerations are an important part of being viewed
by the public as a responsible contractor. Disregard for these requirements can easily
damage the company’s reputation and can lead to fines and lost profits. Additionally,
there is a clause in all standard form contracts and in most nonstandard form
contracts that requires the contractor to comply with all laws, ordinances, and
regulations. Failure to comply constitutes a breach of contract. The project engineer
and project manager need to be aware of a voluminous collection of federal, state,
and local requirements. Ignorance is not an option.
A construction project requires various permits. Not all permits are acquired by
the contractor, but compliance is still required. It is therefore incumbent on the
contractor to know what permit commitments have been made by others.
Local ordinances may limit noise. You may be asked to do some things that are
not in ordinances, such as dust control or adjusting the hours of work (e.g., not
working before 7:00 a.m. in residential areas).
Statutes, Ordinances, and Regulations—It is not possible to list all the laws,
ordinances, and regulations with which the contractor must comply. Federal, state,
and local laws and regulations range from OSHA regulations, minimum wage rate
requirements, and worker’s compensation, to local ordinances, such as limits on
noise levels. The contractor must be aware of the regulatory requirements. There is
hardly a part of the contractor’s site management practices that is not touched in
some way by a regulation.
Permits—There is also a proliferation of permits that are required. Only four are
mentioned herein. These are the erosion and sediment control (E&S) permit,
wetlands permit, blasting permit, and building permit. Full compliance by the
contractor is required.
E&S Permit
E&S permits may not be required in all locales, yet it is frowned upon to discharge
sediment into a stream, especially an environmentally sensitive one. State pollution
laws and regulations may apply.
Wetlands Permit
A wetlands permit is required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before
infringing on a wetland. Wetlands are not entirely defined by the amount of water
that is present, but the definition also takes into consideration the type of vegetation
and type of soil. Other criteria may be applied. Fig. 3-12 shows the economic
consequences of noncompliance.
Blasting Permit
In most places, blasting operations need to be supervised by a licensed blaster.
There are many other restrictions on blasting operations. The authors have
observed numerous projects that were plagued by ineffective blasting operations,
so a skilled blaster is a valuable resource who can save the contractor time and
money.
Must follow
permit
Other
Environmental
concerns
Consequences
$45,000 fine
Submit a mitigation plan
Cease operations at the

site
Comply with the

approved permit
requirements
Fig. 3-12. Consequences of Failure to Comply with Permit Requirements
Building Permit
Building permits are usually supplied by the contractor, but practices may vary.
Other permits may be required. The contract needs to be consulted.
Develop Site Layout Plans

Now that drainage facilities are located and material delivery schemes are
finalized, site layout plans can be prepared. Generally speaking, many contractors
do a subpar job of site layout planning. In monitoring more than 200 projects
over the past 35 years, the authors have yet to observe a project where there were
comprehensive site plans. Additionally, research offers little insight into the
mechanics of developing suitable site plans. A simple procedure is explained in
Chapter 4. Through thoughtful site layout planning, the use of the site is
optimized, and there is often more available space than is initially apparent
(Principle 2.4).
Identify ETS Sequences

One does not have the resources or time to plan in intricate detail all the aspects
of constructing a project. Fortunately, on most projects it is possible to identify
one or more aspects of the project that are essential to success (ETS). In this step,
ETS sequences, which may be a single activity or a string of activities, are
identified, and the contractor’s limited resources are marshaled to plan these
sequences in detail.
ETS sequences differ from critical path activities in that in a CPM schedule,
critical path activities cover the entire project, whereas ETS sequences may be only
one activity or a limited number of loosely connected activities covering a limited
portion of the project. Thus, an ETS sequence need not include a critical activity in
the CPM vernacular. ETS sequences are unique to each project. The common
denominator is that the sequence of activities must be done in an orderly or timely
manner if the project is to be successfully completed.
Several ETS sequences are of utmost importance on most projects.
For example, on building projects, it is always desirable to complete the founda-
tion work quickly to minimize the risk of exposure to rain and mud. In colder
climates, it is often desirable to enclose the building before winter weather
arrives. In rainy climates, it is desirable to seal the building to prevent mold.
There can be several ETS sequences on a single project, but probably no more
than two to four.
On the SCMB project (see Fig. 3-2), two ETS sequences are identified. These are
the following:
• Foundation: Excavation–rock removal–footings–concrete wall construction

• Superstructure: Structural steel erection–precast plank installation–preloading
service and finish contractor materials.
The concrete foundation wall activities are selected because the foundation wall
must be completed before the steel erection can begin, which is a critical activity, and
because of the desire to limit weather-related risks. The rapid removal of rock is
essential, and the selection of an appropriate method of rock removal is of
paramount importance.
The steel erection–plank installation–preloading activities are also selected as an
ETS sequence because the work of multiple contractors must be integrated. If steel is
completely erected first (sequentially), then inefficient work methods will be needed
to install the floor planks and to deliver the service and finish materials to each floor.
These three activities may not be linked in a CPM schedule, yet how this work is
integrated will have much to do with how productive and efficient the service and
finish work will be done. If a few more activities are added, this ETS sequence can
culminate in the building being enclosed and sealed to allow for temporary heat and
to prevent water infiltration.
Calculate Time Windows

The detailed scheduling process includes a CPM analysis. A CPM schedule yields
early-start and late-finish times for each activity in the revised execution plan. These
times (dates) establish the boundaries or windows in which each activity can be
scheduled.
CPM texts often refer to early-start and late-start schedules. The authors have
never observed either schedule being used on a construction project. Both have
significant disadvantages relative to time and cost. An early-start or late-start CPM
schedule is likely not an optimum schedule. For an early-start schedule, there is no
continuity of key resources, resource leveling may be needed, and the work of
multiple contractors may not be satisfactorily integrated. There may be other
deficiencies. A late-start schedule has little slack time, and most delays cannot be
tolerated. For these reasons, the CPM schedule is the starting point, not the end
point in the scheduling process.
At the end of this step, one should have a reasonable schedule that will allow
timely completion and time windows in which noncritical and critical activities can
be scheduled. Equipment and methods should be mostly finalized.
Develop Detailed Operational Plans

Most of the schedule reduction in the revised schedule has been achieved through
specifying multiple workstations, applying concurrent scheduling practices, sequenc-
ing to minimize the number of critical activities, and selecting proper equipment
and methods. Further schedule reductions can be achieved largely through the
shortening of activity durations. The main goals of developing detailed operational
plans can be many and varied. Some of the more common goals are to (1) accelerate
the schedule, (2) ensure an efficient work plan and methods, (3) determine
resource needs, (4) ensure continuity of work for key resources (reducing idle
time), (5) determine time lags, (6) integrate the work of multiple contractors,
(7) ensure safety and quality, and (8) ensure access.
Some principles for developing operational plans are given in Table 3-1. As a
minimum, detailed operational plans should be developed for all ETS sequences.
Multiple tools can be used to develop operational plans. Some common tools are
listed in Table 3-2 along with some of the major functions and usages. The most
common tools are (1) bar charts, (2) CPM schedules, (3) short interval production
schedules (SIPS), (4) linear schedules, (5) velocity or production rate charts, and
(6) sequence plans. These tools (except for bar charts and CPM schedules) and
Principles are discussed in the following.
Partitioning—The work area may be partitioned into zones or work areas
(Principle 3.1). The partitioning may need revision as the details of the operational
plans are developed. Multiple work areas facilitate multiple workstations, which
facilitate concurrent work practices (Principles 2.6 and 3.2). Principles 2.6 and 3.2
Table 3-2. Tools Used in Developing Operational Plans
Tools Function
Bar chart Communicate the work plan.
CPM schedule Determine project duration and calculate time windows.
SIPS Accelerate the cycle time or schedule, integrate the work of multiple
contractors, draw attention to efficient work methods, define
needed resources and feasibility, and ensure continuity of work for
key resources.
Linear scheduling Ensure continuity of work for key resources, draw attention to
appropriate crew sizes and avoid idle time, and avoid congestion.
Velocity charts Determine time lags and ensure continuity of work for key resources.
Sequence plans Combine all planning knowledge into an efficient work plan.
cannot be easily applied without the application of Principle 3.1. Collectively,

partitioning and using multiple workstations can accelerate the work by allowing
work to progress on a single activity in multiple locations. Partitioning also supports
the development of site plans, facilitates the creation of linear and SIP schedules,
and aids in determining minimum time lags.
Fig. 3-8 shows the partitioning scheme for the earth excavation only on the
SCMB. It is partitioned into four areas. Fig. 3-13 shows the partitioning plan for rock
removal and trench excavation, footings, and concrete walls. A review of the two
portioning plans shows that the excavation, when done as prescribed, allows the
work on rock removal and trench excavation to begin early (at point A). Excavation
is always performed before other operations. The temporary access is the last area to
be excavated. Two crews are used for the rock removal and trench excavation
activity, and one crew is used for footing construction and wall construction. Finally,
structural steel erection can begin on an expedited schedule. Figs. 3-8 and 3-13 are
compatible with one another.
Short Interval Production Schedules (SIPS)— The short interval production
schedule (SIPS) is a detailed plan that shows what work will be performed and when.
It covers a short period of time (say, one to three weeks) and is often applied to
cyclical work. It is not a look-ahead schedule because there is no element of hope in
the SIPS. Once finalized, it becomes a commitment for all parties involved.
A contractor is expected to add labor resources or work overtime to meet the
production goals. A SIPS should be developed for all ETS sequences, and subcon-
tractors need to be intricately involved in its development. The SIPS is useful for
establishing appropriate crew sizes and teams to efficiently meet production com-
mitments (Principle 3.3) and for integrating the work of multiple contractors
(Principle 3.4). Principles 3.3 and 3.4 ensure that adequate resources are applied
and that a realistic target time value is established. The SIPS may need to be modified
as actual time values become known.
Temporary N (project)
Access
START HERE
(Crew 1)
A
D
B C
RR, Footings, Wall START HERE

(Crew 2)
Fig. 3-13. Partitioning of SCMB (Rock Removal, Footings, and Concrete Basement
Wall)
Example 1
An example of a SIPS for an apartment building is given in Fig. 3-14. On this
project, it was determined that one ETS sequence was the completion of the roof
by the end of November. To achieve this goal, it was necessary to complete one
floor of the superstructure per week. The superstructure consisted of reinforced
masonry walls (both interior and exterior) and precast concrete floor planks.
Thus, the ETS was the superstructure: interior and exterior reinforced masonry
walls–wall grouting–installation of precast floor planks–plank grouting–curing–
preloading of masonry units for the next floor. The SIPS showed that this plan was
barely feasible. The resources needed were (1) about 35 masons and helpers
working at seven workstations; (2) a mortar and grout mix that cures to the
required strength in about 18 hours during colder weather; and (3) regimented
deliveries of block, mortar, grout, and floor planks.
On the basis of the SIPS, it was decided that the goal was feasible, although tight.
Notice that the SIPS makes it possible to assess feasibility and the requirements for
the plan to be doable. A word of caution is warranted. If the time for this work is
made too liberal, it can cost the contractor money; flexibility to modify the schedule
is needed. For instance, suppose one task is scheduled for three days in the SIPS
schedule, but it can actually be completed in two and a half days. Unless the schedule
is adjusted, the workers may stretch the work on that task to the full three days or
spend the last half day in preparation for the next day or in cleanup (see Chapter 7).
It is probably a mistake to schedule certain work to occur at the same time each week
without the benefit of experience to ensure that the time allotted is suitable
(Principle 2.10).
Day 6
Day 5
Day 4
Day 3
Day 2
Day 1
Ext. Masonry (load bear.) Int. Masonry (load bear.) Grout and Cure Set Fl. Planks Grout Planks Proload CMUs, etc.
Corridors and overnight
Superstructure Production Schedule
Quantity (ft^2) 5400 4000

Productivity (wh/ft^2) 0.10 0.10
No.of workhours 540 400
Work Sch: 4-10s
Crew Size 15 16
Fig. 3-14. SIPS for the Superstructure ETS, Bryce Jordan Tower
61
Example 2
This example is for the SCMB, and the ETS sequence is the structural steel erection–
precast plank installation–preloading service and finish materials. Efficient methods
and timely completion of this work are essential to success of the project because if
the steel is completely erected (as would be the case if sequential scheduling
practices are applied), then the precast planks and preloading activities likely cannot
be done using a crane.
Fig. 3-15 shows a SIPS for the steel erection–plank installation–preloading to be
done using three cranes. The partitioning plan and crane locations are shown in
Fig. 3-16. The planning process begins by partitioning the work area into three zones.
The plan is to proceed in a counterclockwise direction. In each zone, one level of
steel is erected, followed by one floor of precast floor planks, and finally by
preloading of service materials for that zone. Steel can be easily delivered to each
crane location, and if the cranes are sized and located properly, only one crane setup
for each crane is needed. Service and finish subcontractors need to arrange for the
early and timely delivery of their materials. If they are late, their materials will not be
preloaded. Steel and plank deliveries must also be on a strict delivery schedule. Duct
will be stored in the basement (Principle 1.3). Notice that there is continuity of work
for each activity.
Velocity (Production Rate) Charts—A velocity chart shows the daily production
rate of one or more concurrent activities versus time. Fig. 3-17 shows a hypothetical
example for the excavation–rock removal and trench excavation–footings–concrete
wall ETS sequence on the SCMB. Fig. 3-17 shows that the duration of the foundation
ETS for the SCMB has been shortened by using two rock removal crews. The velocity
chart is particularly useful when the production rate of one activity is much slower
than the others; in the case of SCMB, the rock removal and trench excavation is
slowest. The velocity chart can also be used to estimate the time lag or buffer for the
Day I. II. III.

11 Preload
10 Distribute Materials Planks, Set
9 Preload Materials and Grout
8 Planks, Set Structural
7 and Grout Steel Erection
6 Align
5 Planks, Set Structural
4 and Grout Steel Erection
3 Align
2 Structural
1 Steel Erection
Fig. 3-15. SIPS for the Superstructure ETS, SCMB

Concrete discharge and crane pick points
Material storage
Selected
material
deliveries
II I
Office
I
on 1st Craft
III floor ingress &
egress
Site Utilities I
Fig. 3-16. Partitioning Plan, Superstructure Phase, SCMB
100%
)
(II
al
ov
m
Re
ck
Ro
Percent Complete
s
n
ting
tio
ll
va
Wa
Foo
ca
(I)
Ex
al
ov
m
Re
ck
Ro
Time
Time Lag
Fig. 3-17. Hypothetical Velocity Chart for Foundation and Basement ETS, SCMB
footing construction activity (Principle 3.5). Without time lags or buffers, all the
ensuing work (footings and wall formwork) will be highly inefficient because of
congestion. In this instance, the velocity chart can be used to evaluate various
alternatives for accelerating the schedule, such as multiple workstations, multiple
crews for rock removal and trench excavation, or faster methods. With partitioning
and multiple work teams, time lags can be optimized or reduced to a minimum.
Linear Schedules—Linear schedules show the relationship between time and
location. These graphical schedules are usually associated with linear projects,
e.g., highways or pipelines, but they also have limited application on nonlinear
projects in ensuring continuity of work by key resources, such as a concrete crew

or crane (Principle 3.6). Ideally, to avoid inefficient downtime, a crew should
proceed from one activity to the next without delay. Linear schedules allow one to
visualize how to efficiently plan for a resource to be used to maintain continuity.
The application of linear scheduling during the planning process minimizes crew
idle time by ensuring that work is always available for the key resource. Harmelink
and Rowings show how to identify controlling activities with linear schedules
(1998).
To illustrate the linear schedule, the foundation ETS on the SCMB is used.
Fig. 3-8 shows that the excavation work area was partitioned into four work areas
(Principle 3.1). Note that if the work area is not partitioned, the development of a
linear schedule for this ETS will be challenging. Two rock removal and trench
excavation crews are to be used. Fig. 3-18 shows the linear schedule and a bar chart.
Following some minor adjustments, it is possible to have continuity of work for the
excavation and for the footing and wall formwork crews. Only one crew for each of
these activities is required. The same cannot be said for the rock removal and trench
excavation crew. A single rock removal and trench excavation crew will extend the
schedule, and so two crews are planned (Principle 3.2). The crew sizes can be
adjusted to ensure that the daily production goals are met (Principle 3.3). Time lags
are also visible in Fig. 3-18. For example, the time lag in Area 1 between the
completion of rock removal and the start of the footings is about 10 days (Principle
3.5). Without time lags, the work will become congested as fast activities catch up
with slower ones.
Sequence Plans—Sequence plans as used herein show when subcontractors plan
to work at any point in time. Sequence plans are usually thought of as pertaining to
the service trades (e.g., mechanical, electrical, or drywall), but they may relate to any
situation where the work of multiple trades or subcontractors needs to be coordi-
nated. Sequence plans can be conveyed as a bar chart, SIPS, linear schedule,
coordination drawing, or any other convenient format.
A hypothetical sequence plan was developed for the second floor of the SCMB. It
is shown in Fig. 3-19. The first step in developing a sequence plan is to partition the
work area. Fig. 3-20 shows how the second floor of the SCMB was partitioned. The
corridor and other areas were partitioned into five unique areas. It may be
advantageous for the scope of work in each area to be roughly equal, but this is
not necessarily a requirement. The partitioning scheme shown in Fig. 3-20 is but one
of many possibilities. For the sake of simplicity, only the following activities are
shown:
Area I (corridor)
• Feeder duct,
• Feeder sprinkler pipe, and
• Feeder conduit.
% Activity Days
Area IV Ex 8
Area III 100 Wall 8
75 Ftg 4
50 RR 13
25 Exc 3
Area II 100 Wall 5
Legend
75 Ftg 3
50 RR 10 Excavation
Excavation
25 Exc 5 Removal
Rock
RockRemoval
Area I 100 Wall 5
75 Ftg 2
Footings
Footings
50 RR 8 Wall
Wall
25 Ex 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
% Activity Days
Area IV Ex 8
Area III 100 Wall 8
75 Ftg 4
50 RR 13
25 Exc 3
Area II 100 Wall 5
75 Ftg 3
50 RR 10
25 Exc 5
Area I 100 Wall 5
75 Ftg 2
50 RR 8
25 Ex 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Fig. 3-18. Linear Schedule and Bar Chart for Foundation ETS, SCMB
65
66
Week
Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
IV
III
II
I 0
Feeder Duct
Sprinkler Piping
Feeder Conduit
Branch Duct
Branch Piping
Framing
Rough-in Elec.
Drywall
Fig. 3-19. Sequence Plan for the Second Floor Service Work, SCMB
CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT AND LABOR PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT
Fig. 3-20. Partitioning of the Second Floor, SCMB

67
Areas II–V
• Branch duct,
• Branch sprinkler piping,
• Framing,
• Rough-in electric, and
• Drywall.
There are several advantages of the sequence plan shown in Fig. 3-19. There is a
one-week time lag between each trade subcontractor at all times, and no more than
two subcontractors are working in any one area at any time.
Operational Planning Using Multiple Tools—The previous section described
four scheduling tools. First, a CPM can be used to establish the schedule windows in
which an activity can be performed without delaying completion. Then, the tools
described can be applied to complete the planning process as follows:
• SIPS production control establishes resources and workstations and (cycle) time
needed.
• Linear schedules ensure continuity of key resources.
• Velocity schedules (production rate charts) determine time lags.
• Sequence schedules finalize the work plan.
Lastly, a bar chart can be developed to communicate the results to field personnel.
Fig. 3-21 shows the general process of developing operational plans.
Proactive Strategies to Ensure Construction Input into Design

The opportunity to provide construction input into design may be limited on pro-
jects that are competitively bid in the design-bid-build tradition. Substitutions can be
requested of the designer. However, two other alternatives offer contractors oppor-
tunities to have input into the design: value engineering and alternative bidding.
Greater opportunities for construction input into the design are also possible
with other delivery methods that engage the contractor early in the design phase.
Two such delivery methods that allow construction input into design are design-build
and using a construction manager.
Linear Velocity Sequence

CPM Schedule SIPS Bar Chart
Schedule Chart Plans
Fig. 3-21. Process of Developing Operational Plans

Substitutions
The contract sometimes allows substitutions if they are approved by the designer. These
are usually thought of as equipment and material substitutions, but opportunities to
substitute other aspects that can improve the schedule should not be overlooked.
Value Engineering
Where the contract allows the contractor to submit a value engineering (VE)
proposal, the contractor may prepare an alternative design or proposal for the
owner’s consideration after the contract is signed. If accepted, the owner and
contractor share in the cost savings.
The problem for the contractor with VE is twofold. First, there may be insuffi-
cient time for the contractor to investigate and/or design an alternative that leads to
significant cost savings. Also, the owner may take an inordinate amount of time to
review the proposal. Complex proposals that provide significant project benefits can
be time-consuming to develop and review.
The second problem for the contractor with VE is the contractor’s reluctance to
pursue a complex VE proposal. If the VE proposal is rejected, the investigative and
design expenses come off the contractor’s bottom line (profit), and the contractor
must absorb the cost.
Alternative Bidding
Another option is to include alternatives to the base bid. Bid proposals must always
contain a base bid cost for exactly what the contract documents require; otherwise,
the contractor’s bid is not responsive to the solicitation and the bid may be rejected.
However, the contractor should be able to say to the owner, “If you add, delete, or
change x, then I will increase or decrease my bid by y amount.” If an alternative is
accepted, any design changes are now the obligation of the owner. The contractor
has invested little of his or her own financial resources to propose the change, and
any time delays are the responsibility of the owner.
Design-Build
Placing design and construction responsibility with a design-build contractor pro-
vides an ideal opportunity for construction input into the design. Teaming arrange-
ments may vary from a single design-build firm, to a partnership between a designer
and a contractor, to a joint venture. However, in all cases the construction team is
engaged with the design team early in the design development process.
Using a Construction Manager

The construction manager approach to project delivery also makes construction
expertise available during the design process. The construction manager’s primary
responsibility during design development is to provide construction input. This

construction input is particularly important to the construction manager at risk, who
will assume the role of a prime contractor and construct the project.
Finalize Execution Plan

It is important that the operational plans be compatible with the final execution plan
(schedule). Because the operational plans are more detailed, the revised preliminary
execution plan should be updated to reflect more realistic activity durations and
sequences. The updated plan becomes the final execution plan. This plan should
show that the project can be completed within the time allowed by the contract.
Fig. 3-22 is a final execution plan. This plan shows additional shortening of the
schedule compared with the revised preliminary schedule.
Further reduction to the overall schedule is still possible. Thus, the opera-
tional plan phase can result in the shortening of the durations of the foundation
ETS and the interior service installations (e.g., mechanical, electrical, and
piping).
Communicate and Enforce the Plans

How plans are communicated to others is of some importance. The means should
be thorough but simple and clear. No doubt should be left as to what is to be done
and when. A simple bar chart like the one shown in Fig. 3-23 is generally
sufficient.
Develop a Submittal and Shop Drawing Schedule

After the intent of a contract award has been communicated by the owner, a
submittal and shop drawing schedule should be prepared. Many projects have
been delayed because the submittals or shop drawings were approved late. The
main emphasis herein is on shop drawings because they generally take longer to
draw up than ordinary submittals. Some items requiring shop drawings are
needed early, such as foundation reinforcement. Other items may take inordi-
nate review time, such as structural steel or precast components. Still other items
require long lead times; windows are a good example. The important thing is to
identify those items where the schedule is tight and begin the process early.
Subcontractors should be involved in this process. Dates the shop drawings are
due to the contractor should be incorporated into the schedule.
Certain submittals should not be overlooked. Mockups of masonry walls and
other submittals may go through several iterations before approval.
Week
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Mobilization
Utilities
FOUNDATION ETS
SUPERSTRUCTURE ETS
Slab Topping
Ground Slabs
Masonry
Mechanical Ductwork
Framing
Piping
Plumbing
Electrical
Fire Protection
Finishes
Fig. 3-22. Final Execution Plan, SCMB

71
Project: SCMB Date: Jul 6, 2005

ETS Sequence: FOUNDATION
OPERATIONAL PLAN Wall
ETS Activities: Excavation-Rock Removal-Footings-Concrete
Description of Work:
Excavation—all earth to elev. 908.5
Rock Removal—removal of dense, hard limestone in trench to elev. 906.5; Approx. 350 ft.
Trench is 2 ft 8 in. wide; rock is anticipated throughout entire perimeter
Footings—conventional footing concrete walls—conventional 9-in.-thick walls, to be placed in
summer months
Methods and Resources:
Excavation—will be done via zones with one excavation crew supported by a front-end loader.
Dump trucks will haul the spoil to the McHenry site (4 miles); no spoil is to be stockpiled on
site. An earthen ramp is to be built to gain access to the basement area, but it is to be removed
once excavation is complete. The excavated basement area will be used for rebar and
formwork storage. Movement of materials is to be done via crane. Approx. excavation =
3,000 CY.
Rock Removal—the rock in the footing area is hard limestone (% recovery = 90%). The work
will proceed at two workstations at opposite corners of the site. The removal of rock will be
done with conventional jackhammers. This work is to begin one day after the corner of the
footprint is exposed. Rock removal will be done with two teams of two laborers each.
Footings—this work will utilize conventional methods to construct built-in-place footing
forms. There will be one team consisting of three carpenters.
Wall Formwork—this work will rely on conventional methods. One crew of six carpenters
using 12’ x 18’ gang forms will accomplish this work.
All Work will be done in accordance with the schedule shown below.
Figure 14. Sample Operational Plan Communication Form.
Schedule: . Duration: 36 working days
% Activity Days
Area IV Ex 8
Area III 100 Wall 8
75 Ftg 4
50 RR 13
25 Exc 3
Area II 100 Wall 5
75 Ftg 3
50 RR 10
25 Exc 5
Area I 100 Wall 5
75 Ftg 2
50 RR 8
25 Ex 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Fig. 3-23. Communicating Operational Plans
A submittal log should be developed to track the status of various submittals and
shop drawings.
Plan for Change Management

Be wary of any owner who says, “There will be no changes on this job.” There are
always changes. It may signal an intent on the owner’s part not to pay for changes by
saying “fix the problem through the shop drawing process” or “that problem is one of
means and methods.” The contractor may be forced to engage in design work.
Nevertheless, if the owner hints that there will be no changes, it may be enough of a
red flag to suggest that the contractor should not submit a bid.
Most writings on change management speak to the importance of developing a

change order log. A request for information (RFI) log is an equally important part
of change management. These logs are used in contemporary writings primarily so
that the contractor can prepare a claim. However, the logs serve an important
function in the absence of a claim. They allow the contractor to inform the owner
and designer which RFIs or change orders are negatively affecting the project
schedule.
Contractors should be proactive relative to changes. The worst-case scenario is
the need for a change to be identified by the crew in the field doing the work because
this leads to much idle time and inefficiency. Therefore, contractors should strive to
identify the need for changes well before the work is to begin. There should be a
good process in place for incorporating changes into the work assignment before it is
given to the supervisor. When a change proposal is submitted, the contractor should
always reserve the right to claim impact costs because of labor inefficiencies and thus
recover associated time delays.
3.10 Case Study—Millennium Science Complex
This case study illustrates that more attention to planning can lower labor costs and
increase profits. The project is the Millennium Science Complex built on the Penn
State campus in State College, Pennsylvania. The facility is a 275,000-ft2 classroom
and laboratory facility built in the 2008–2011 time frame at a cost of $215 million.
A cm-agency delivery system was used.
Project Description
The building has a structural steel superstructure and is clad with a precast curtain
wall and metal panels. The precast facade panels have a thin brick veneer, which
gives the appearance of a brick building. The foundation is built on micropiles. The
building is a four-story, L-shaped structure. An artist’s rendering of the completed
project is shown in Fig. 3-24.
Activity Description
The activity being reported on in this case study is the installation of the exterior
precast panels. The work was done by a specialty contractor that was owned by the
precast vendor. The panels were approximately 22 ft × 10 ft, although actual sizes
varied. This meant that the panels were not interchangeable.
The panel installation crew was divided into two teams. The first team erected
and aligned the panels and then secured the panels to the structure. This team
consisted of 6–12 workers, although most of the time, there were 11–12 workers. The
second team, which was much smaller, patched the lifting lug areas, installed
Fig. 3-24. Artist’s Rendering of the Millennium Science Complex
insulation to the back of the panels, and caulked the joints. The scope of work of the
second team was much smaller than that of the first team.
The fabrication yard for the vendor was about 150 miles from the project
site. The superintendent ordered panels by 1:00 p.m. to be delivered the next
morning at 6:00 a.m. Thus, the superintendent was gambling that certain panels
would be erected the previous afternoon and that conditions would allow for
the designated panels to be erected the next day. There was only one panel delivered
per truck, and there were no panels stored on site. If the delivery of the panels was
delayed the next morning, the erection team would be idle. If the team erected all
the panels that were ordered that day in less than the time expected, and the
superintendent was slow in sending the workers home, there was more idle time. In a
few instances, the first team would help the second, even though the work needs of
the second team’s work were small. It did not seem that coordination between the
contractor and vendor was as good as it could have been, and there were multiple
opportunities for crew idle time and inefficient work. The first team may have been
engaged in “busy work” some of the time.
During the latter part of the observation period, the work was not sequenced
well. This problem was caused in part by steel bearing plates not being available
or subpar vendor coordination. The welding of the bearing plates was done
by another contractor. A subassembly should have been used, and the bearing
plates should have been welded by the fabricator at the fabrication shop instead of in
the field. To continue work, the crane had to be moved. Thus, there were more
crane movements than planned, and this led to more crew idle time. Additionally,
the crane movements did not seem to be planned for after work hours.
There was a lack of site planning to promote labor efficiency. Panel delivery
trucks had to back into position. This problem can be observed in Fig. 3-25. Drive-
through deliveries were not practiced consistently, leading to idle time. Fig. 3-26
shows further evidence of poor site planning. Because of the requirements of
numerous materials and trash, the delivery and service trucks and crane did not
have unrestricted access to the work face as the work progressed.
Fig. 3-25. Panel Delivery Practices on the Millennium Science Complex
Fig. 3-26. Panel Erection Showing Congested Work Area, Millennium Science Complex
Fundamental Principles
Principles 2.1, 2.6, and 3.8 were applied on this project. The following principles
were not applied: Principles 2.4, 2.8, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.5. The following principles from
Table 3-1 were not observed or do not apply: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 2.9,
2.10, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, and 3.7.
Much of Chapter 7 is applicable to this case study. Case Study 3 in Chapter 7
should also be reviewed.
Contractor Performance
Fig. 3-27 shows the crew productivity for the precast panel erection. As can be seen,
the performance for the first 13 workdays was rather consistent, and thereafter it was
not so consistent. Lower numbers in Fig. 3-27 are better.
From the outset, the erection of panels was not done in a systematic fashion.
There could have been two reasons. There could have been poor coordination with
the vendor or the steel bearing plates may have been installed sporadically.
Nevertheless, minimal crane movements were required the first 13 days. Beginning
on workday 4, erection began on a cantilevered portion of the building. The weight
of the panels led to deflections that required realignment of most of the previously
installed panels. Productivity degraded through no fault of the contractor. Thereaf-
ter, panel erection became erratic, and numerous crane movements were required.
The crew only worked six of the next 13 days. It appears that vendor coordination
was somewhat of a problem.
One foreseeable risk is that subpar vendor coordination can lead to excessive
crew idle time and inefficient use of labor. Site layout planning and effective
operational plans that anticipated the vendor coordination risk would have mini-
mized some economic losses resulting from this risk. It seems that the contractor
would have benefited from a better plan.
It seems that the crew would have performed better if there had been better
coordination (a planning issue) with the vendor. It also seems that there might have
0.2
0.18
0.16
Daily Productivity (Wh/ft 2 )
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Workday
Fig. 3-27. Labor Productivity of Panel Erection Crew, Millennium Science

Complex
been better performance had the panel erection crew waited longer (increasing the
time lag) to start panel erection, allowing the bearing plate installation to proceed
earlier and the vendor to produce a greater backlog of panels. The labor inefficiency is
estimated to be 32%, and at $35/h (burdened), the contractor suffered a loss of
$14,450. This equates to a loss of $722 per workday on a relatively simple activity.
References
Alexander & Shankle, Inc., v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County.
(2007). Court of appeals of Tennessee, Nashville, TN.
Harmelink, D. J., and Rowings, J. E. (1998). “Linear scheduling model: Development of
controlling activity path.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124(4), 263–268.
Hinze, J. W. (2008). Construction planning and scheduling, 3rd Ed., Pearson Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Thomas, H. R., and Ellis, R. D., Jr. (2007). “Contractor prebid planning principles.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 133(4), 542–552.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 14(1), 29–35.
Thomas, H. R., Lescher, A., and Bowman, G. (2000). Fundamentals of contract risk management
for electrical contractors, National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, MD, 67.
CHAPTER 4
Site Layout
Site layout plans are important because a good plan (1) permits easy movement of
materials, equipment, and people around the site; (2) minimizes congestion caused
by stored materials and equipment; (3) allows for easy access and retrieval of stored
materials; and (4) improves safety. Unfortunately, published literature offers little
guidance on how to develop a site layout (Mawdesley et al. 2002; Warszawski and
Peled 1987; Zouein and Tommelein 1999). This chapter details a heuristic
procedure for developing site layout plans that considers the main elements of site
layout planning. If this procedure is followed, the goal of an optimum site layout plan
is likely to be achieved.
4.1 Site Optimization
Optimizing the site implies making efficient use of the site for all its intended
purposes. Much has been written in the ASCE literature about site layout, but most of
the articles describe mathematical modeling techniques that minimize travel dis-
tance only. These models tend to be complicated and hard to use, and they fail to
address all the aspects important to an effective site layout.
Site layout planning is an important aspect of effective site construction
management. Effective site layout contributes to (1) a safer job, (2) reduced job
costs, and (3) reduced double-handling of materials. The planner needs to contem-
plate alternate construction strategies, sequences, and methods. The risks associated
with poor site planning are poor housekeeping, congestion, double-handling of
materials, inefficient work methods, and reduced safety, just to name a few problems.
These are among the more significant and common factors that reduce the
efficiency of the labor force (see Fig. 1-1).
Site planning is important for all sites, especially small, constrained ones. With
effective site plans, one usually realizes that there is much more space than is initially
evident. When combined with many of the principles from the previous chapter,
crew idle time can be reduced.
79
4.2 Procedure
Multiple site plans are needed because the site needs change over time. Normally,
three to five plans per project are needed, but for larger, more complex projects,
more plans may be justified. Generally, a new plan is needed whenever major
material delivery requirements change significantly, such as when moving from
concrete work to steel erection; when space or access requirements change; or when
new resources, such as a crane, are deleted or added. For a building project, three
plans at a minimum are suggested for the three main phases of a project: foundation,
superstructure, and service and finish work.
4.3 Developing Site Layout Plans
The steps in developing a site layout plan are given in Table 4-1. These steps should
be followed in order because the aspects with the least flexibility or the most
importance are addressed first. Fig. 4-1 shows the proposed site plan for the
superstructure phase only of the SCMB (see Fig. 3-3 for the actual site layout used).
With this proposed plan, drive-through deliveries are possible, and there is more
room for on-site storage space if needed. Parking has been moved off site, and the
earthen spoil pile is removed. Concrete can be discharged directly from the delivery
truck because the site utilities are to be completed early, allowing for this area to be
used as a crane pick point (the location of a crane when engaged in lifting) for steel
erection. The project office is located on the first floor of the facility once the
structural steel activity is completed. If the cranes are sized and located properly, only
one pick point per crane will be required. There can be multiple site layout solutions
for this phase, and Fig. 4-1 is but one solution.
Table 4-1. Steps in the Development of Site Plans
Step No. Description

1. Develop an accurate drawing of the site and surrounding area.
2. Map E&S facilities and location of drainage facilities.
3. Locate ingress and egress points for deliveries and pedestrians.
4. Map the traffic routes.
5. Locate concrete discharge and crane pick points.
6. Locate material storage areas.
7. Map drainage routes (ditches) and locate retention basin.
8. Locate space for temporary facilities.
9. Evaluate and refine layout plans.
10. Repeat steps 2 through 7 for each phase (unique site plan).
11. Communicate and enforce plans.
SITE LAYOUT 81
Other Site Layout Considerations

It is desirable that there not be drastic changes in the plans from one phase to
another. Having few changes means that fewer facilities will have to be moved.
Changes to site plans should be planned for a weekend or done after the first shift is
over, whenever possible.
For constrained sites, efficient material management is essential (see Chapter 6)
because there is minimal room for on-site material storage space. Erecting directly
from the delivery truck and preloading are recommended practices for all sites
because they will minimize on-site storage needs. Consideration must be given to
how to move materials from their on-site stored location or from the delivery truck to
the work face.
Key points regarding several of the steps in Table 4-1 are discussed as follows.
The steps are then illustrated using three case study examples, which are also
described. The one common denominator about the three case study projects is that
the sites were small and constrained.
Step 1. Develop an Accurate Drawing of the Site

An accurate drawing of the site is important because cranes and pump trucks need to
be accurately positioned to ensure sufficient reach. Accurate locations are important
to minimize the number of crane pick points and to ensure the fewest number of
relocations. Do not forget important off-site features because this information may
be necessary to establish the turning radius of material delivery trucks and other
vehicles. The location of overhead utility lines is also important.
Step 2. Map E&S Facilities and Location of Drainage Facilities

An erosion and sediment control (E&S) plan may be required by regulation, but
the plan should be expanded to include other drainage issues (see Chapter 5). The
drainage of the footprint area and runoff from off-site areas into the site need to be
addressed.
In this step, both permanent and semipermanent facilities should be located.
Permanently constructed facilities include inlet boxes, drainage pipes, and
culverts. Semipermanent facilities include sediment basins and locations of
sump pumps. These facilities should be installed early and used as part of the
site drainage plan.
Step 3. Locate Ingress and Egress Points

The contractor usually has considerable flexibility in locating site ingress and egress
points. However, one needs to also locate building access and points for material
deliveries and the removal of trash. Site and building access should be established
separately for the workers and delivery trucks. Site craft access, site vehicle access,
delivery access, trash removal, and facility access points should all be located to
facilitate the easy flow of resources. In general, try to provide for raw material to
enter one end of the site and trash to exit the other.
Step 4. Map the Traffic Routes

Using ingress and egress points, separately map pedestrian and vehicular traffic
routes. Whenever possible, traffic routes for pedestrians and vehicles should not
cross. Trucks delivering materials should not have to back up. Where possible, drive-
through deliveries should be planned. A wider than normal gate may be needed in
some instances to accommodate the turning radius of longer vehicles.
Step 5. Locate Concrete Discharge and Crane Pick Points

These points vary depending on the method and equipment that are used for
concrete placement. The space needs and logistics for discharging directly from the
delivery truck, using a crane and bucket, or using a concrete pump truck are
uniquely different. In many instances, if the layout plans and construction sequences
are done thoughtfully, discharge can be done directly from the delivery truck during
the foundation phase. Avoid interferences between discharge and pick points and
the traffic routes located in Step 4.
Step 6. Locate Material Storage Areas

If the principles discussed in Chapters 3 and 6 are applied, then the need for on-site
material storage is minimal. Do not overlook how deliveries will be moved from on-
site storage locations or from the delivery truck into the facility and to the work face
(see Chapter 6). Storage areas should be located close to the traffic routes mapped in
Step 4 and should provide direct access to facility ingress points.
Step 7. Map Drainage Routes

In this step, drainage routes (shallow ditches) shall be determined. Generally, there
is much flexibility in the routing. Try to avoid storage areas, traffic routes, and other
sensitive areas. Simple shallow ditches discharging into a small retention basin are
sufficient in most instances.
Step 8. Locate Space for Temporary Facilities

Temporary facilities should be located last. Temporary facilities include the office,
toolsheds, parking areas, and portable toilets. It may be necessary for workers to park
at a remote location and be bused to the site. There may be no room for amenities
like on-site parking, spoil piles, or trailers. The temporary facilities should be located
as far from the constructed facility as is practical, and consideration should be given
SITE LAYOUT 83
to constructing temporary facilities for office space and tools in the constructed
facility itself using lumber and polyethylene.
4.4 Case Study 1—State College Municipal Building
This case study project was described in Chapter 3. A proposed layout for the
superstructure phase is shown in Fig. 4-1. The site drainage plan is not shown. The
project office is a temporary one built on the first floor. Building ingress (for
materials), material storage areas, and trash disposal areas are close to the vehicular
traffic route. Unimpeded concrete discharge and crane access are provided through-
out. Traffic routes do not cross. Crane pick points are close to vehicular traffic routes.
The site area was small, and there was little room for the storage of materials. Site
drainage was only a minor issue. Structural steel was the major material being
delivered during this phase. Site access and the avoidance of having to back up were
major considerations in planning the traffic route for delivery trucks.
4.5 Case Study 2—Bryce Jordan Tower
This case study project is a seven-story apartment building built in State College,
Pennsylvania, at a cost of $6.8 million. The building was built in 2003. The ground
floor is used for on-grade parking. The superstructure is reinforced masonry, and
Concrete discharge and crane pick

points
Material
storage Selected material
deliveries
Building
Access
Trash Building
Ingress
Craft
I site
Office Ingress
on 1st &
floor egress
I
Site Utilities
Fig. 4-1. Proposed Site Layout, SCMB

the floors are precast concrete planks. The ground floor and the elevator tower are
cast-in-place reinforced concrete.
The main challenge in developing a site plan was that the site area was small and
confined. The building footprint occupied most of the site area, meaning that there
was little room for material storage. For the superstructure phase, many material
deliveries were required.
The proposed site plan for the superstructure phase consists of two delivery
routes, as shown in Fig. 4-2. The site drainage was inconsequential, and a plan is not
Vehicular Craft Access

Vehicular
Access Access
Office
Office
Storage Crane
Crane
Storage
Forklift
Forklift
Pump
Truck
Building
access
Access
Fig. 4-2. Proposed Site Plan for Superstructure Phase of the Bryce Jordan Tower
SITE LAYOUT 85
shown here. The major materials being delivered during the superstructure phase
were concrete block, steel reinforcement, grout, precast floor planks,
and concrete. With this plan, selected bulk materials (masonry and floor planks)
were delivered to one side of the building (project east), and concrete and grout
were delivered to the opposite side of the building (project west). The project
office was built on the second floor. Traffic routes did not cross. There was no
on-site parking.
4.6 Case Study 3—Beaver Avenue Parking Garage
The Beaver Avenue Parking Garage was built in State College, Pennsylvania, in 2007
at an approximate cost of $11 million. The garage is a seven-story precast concrete
structure. The precast erection was divided into five phases. A cast-in-place concrete
duct bank ran through the middle of the project. Phases 1–2 of the precast erection
work were on the south side of the duct bank. Phases 3–5 were on the north side. The
plan was that the duct bank was to be finished before the final three phases of the
precast erection (project north) could begin. Fig. 4-3 shows the actual site layout
Fig. 4-3. Actual Site Layout for Phase 1 of the Beaver Avenue Parking Garage
Fig. 4-4. Actual Site Conditions, Phase 2, Beaver Avenue Parking Garage
used by the contractor for phase 1 of the superstructure. The contractor used the
“ten pounds in a five-pound bag” method of site layout. Fig. 4-4 shows the actual site
conditions during phase 2. The consequences of the “ten pounds in a five-pound
bag” method should be readily obvious. In progressing from phase 1 to phase 2,
many temporary facilities had to be moved, and the crane used for precast erection
had to be relocated. The proposed layout is not shown.
There were several challenges to developing a site layout plan. Because the site
was small, there was no room for site storage. The duct bank divided the site in half,
and it was not easy to move from one half to the other. It was necessary to have
frequent daily deliveries of precast pieces from the precast facility, which
was located about 125 miles from the site. These pieces could not be stored on
site. Other conditions necessary for effective use of the site were that the formwork
for the cast-in-place duct bank needed to be removed from the site as soon as the
duct bank was finished. Also, the excavated spoil needed to be quickly reused or
removed.
4.7 Critique
The methodology detailed in Table 4-1 is easy to understand and involves making the
important decisions involving items with the best flexibility first. The decisions should
be integrated with the construction methods and with material delivery and general
strategies. The projects represented by Figs. 4-1 and 4-2 had much more open space
than initially envisioned and did not become congested with materials and facilities
once the methodology in Table 4-1 was applied.
SITE LAYOUT 87
References
Mawdesley, M. J., Al-Jibouri, S. H., and Yang, H. (2002). “Generic algorithms for construction
site layout in project planning.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 129(5), 418–426.
Warszawski, A., and Peled, N. (1987). “An expert system for crane selection and location.”
Proc., 4th Int. Symp. on Robotics and Artificial Intelligence in Building Construction, Vol. 1, Israel
Institute of Technology and Building Research Station–Technion, Haifa, Israel, 64–68.
Zouein, P. P., and Tommelein, I. D. (1999). “Dynamic planning using a hybrid incremental
solution method.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(6), 400–408.
PART III
Management Factors that Lead

to Improved Productivity
CHAPTER 5
Fundamental Principles of Weather

Mitigation
Adverse weather is an unavoidable fact of life for construction contractors. The

problem is more pronounced as owners want project completion in a shorter time
frame, meaning that contractors cannot easily avoid working during periods of
adverse weather. Often, contractors are called upon to work soon after a weather
event, such as a rain or snowstorm, has occurred. The effects of the event may still be
present.
In general, contractors seem ill-prepared to respond to adverse weather, and the
literature (see Chapter 2), continuing education courses, and the Internet offer little
or no guidance about how to mitigate the negative effects to cost and schedule.
Adverse weather can lead to serious negative effects on labor and equipment
productivity. The problem addressed in this chapter is how the negative effects of
adverse weather can be avoided or minimized so that the workers can return to work
quickly while avoiding the need for rework or working in a less than ideal environment
(Thomas and Ellis 2009). Without effective weather planning, there is a risk that labor
and equipment will need to work in unfavorable and inefficient conditions.
5.1 Weather Effects
The effects of adverse weather can arise in a few ways: (1) extreme temperatures and
humidity and (2) weather events. Temperature extremes can be day to day or
seasonal. Weather events include rain, snow, wind, and ice (Clapp 1966). The effects
of adverse weather events can last long after the event itself occurs.
On three construction activities that were observed by the authors, the labor
efficiencies from adverse weather were quantified as 22%, 8%, and 27% of the
normal output. The actual productivity values compared to normal were 78%, 92%,
and 73%. The lingering effects from mud, rainfall runoff, and snow have been
observed on many other projects. Considering the cost of labor, almost any weather
mitigation strategy is cost effective. In this chapter, relatively simple and inexpensive
strategies are described to lessen or eliminate the negative effects.
91
There are several added benefits that can accrue from effective weather
mitigation strategies. The project is likely to be safer, and, in buildings, there is a
reduced likelihood of mold or water damage, which can lead to rework.
5.2 Estimating Example
A simple estimating example shows the importance of considering weather effects. It

is based on the probability of a particular weather event occurring and the estimated
average effect (see Table 2-2) resulting from that event. Cold and hot temperatures
are considered. The probability of a weather event and cold and hot temperatures
occurring derives from local weather records and is a historical value. The probabil-
ities also depend on the planning horizon used. For a one- to two-year project,
a planning horizon of 10 years seems reasonable. The effects from humidity and
wind are not considered in this example. Productivity inefficiency percentages
unique to a particular activity can be substituted for the estimated average values
from Table 2-2 because effects can vary appreciably. However, it is important that
average values be used and that contractors state their assumptions at the time of the
bid submission. Impacts should be applied only to activities that may be affected. The
example is simplistic. It is unrealistic to assume that all construction activities will
suffer the same degree of productivity loss because of the same set of weather
conditions.
Suppose it has been estimated that an activity that will last for 12 months
will take 7,600 work hours to complete under ideal weather conditions. Assume
that by consulting the weather data for the locale where the project is to be built
(based on a 10-year planning horizon), the following probabilities and effects are
determined:
• Probability of cold temperatures (<20°F) is 0.01 (impact = 50%),

• Probability of hot temperatures (>85°F) is 0.02 (impact = 60%),
• Probability of rain is 0.01 (impact = 40%), and
• Probability of snow is 0.01 (impact = 50%).
The activity is fully exposed to the weather. How many work hours should be added
in the estimate to account for adverse weather? The work hour estimate is deter-
mined as follows:
Consider the hot temperature effects. Weather data indicate that for a 10-year
planning horizon, there is a 0.02 likelihood that work will be performed in
temperatures greater than 85°F. Whenever work is performed under these condi-
tions, the output of the crew is reduced to 60% of the normal daily output that would
be achieved during favorable weather. Thus, the loss of efficiency is 40%, and the
impact factor is calculated as 1.00/0.40 = or 1.67. But productivity losses only occur
2% of the time. The labor effects in terms of work hours is the following:
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF WEATHER MITIGATION 93
1.00
Additional Labor Hours Due to Hot Weather = ð7,600Þ 0.02 = 253
0.60
And for all weather effects combined is the following:

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Work Hour Estimate = 7,600 × 1.00 þ 0.017 0.02 þ 0.01 þ 0.01
0.50 0.6 0.7 0.5
= 7,600 × ð1.098Þ
= 8,347
The work hour estimate in this example should be increased by 0.098%. The first
perception is that this percentage is somewhat high, but one should realize that the
reduced output per day when adverse weather is present is significant (see Table 2-2)
and the output with which this value is being compared is the normal output during
ideal weather. The probabilities of occurrence have been assumed. The economic
effect (at $35/h) is almost $30,000. Thus, any easily implemented, low-cost strategy
that will reduce this dollar amount seems justified.
5.3 Fundamental Principles
The analysis of the literature highlights the need for contractors to plan to mitigate
the effects of adverse weather. Sadly, many contractors do an inadequate job of
planning to avoid the negative consequences of adverse weather. Table 5-1 lists
inexpensive fundamental principles for avoiding the negative effects of adverse
weather. If these principles are followed, contractors can avoid losing large sums of
money because of adverse weather. The principles are organized into four categories
and are applicable to a wide range of projects and conditions.
General
Table 5-1 lists five general principles that relate largely to planning. Using a 4-10
schedule (four 10-h workdays) (Principle 1.1) allows Fridays to be used as a makeup
day for lost time without having to pay overtime wages (provided that the workweek
does not exceed 40 h). Though there has been little research into the effects of a
10-h workday, all indications are that a 10-h workday is not detrimental to labor
productivity compared with an eight-hour workday. The 4-10 schedule reduces the
number of daily startups and shutdowns and reduces the contractor’s craft travel
time and expenses. Workers like a 4–10 schedule.
Using annual cycles to schedule around trades that are most susceptible to
adverse weather (Principle 1.2) may not always be feasible, except on projects
with lengthy schedules and ones with considerable schedule flexibility. Accelerating
a schedule to avoid winter weather (Principle 1.3) must be done with care, and
Table 5-1. Fundamental Principles of Weather Mitigation
No. Principle
General
1.1 Use a 4-10 work schedule to permit a makeup day on straight time.
1.2 Use annual cycles to schedule around trades most affected by weather.
1.3 Where justified, accelerate the schedule to avoid winter cost.
1.4 Where possible, reserve some work that can be done on inclement workdays.
1.5 Enclose and seal buildings for weather protection.
Excavation and Site Work
2.1 Seal exposed areas each day.
2.2 Use drainage systems and sump pumps and plan for runoff, especially from off site.
2.3 Make use of permanent site drainage by installing drainage facilities early.
2.4 Apply an adequately engineered working surface.
2.5 Plow wet ground to accelerate drying.
2.6 Build and maintain all-weather roads.
2.7 Leave snow in place as insulation until ready to excavate.
Labor
3.1 Shift work hours to avoid the heat of the day.
3.2 Provide break trailers for relief from cold or heat.
Materials
4.1 Protect materials from weather.
4.2 Store materials on timbers and pallets to keep them out of mud.
an economic analysis may be justified. Accelerating limited items of the work is

probably sufficient; it is probably not necessary to accelerate the entire job.
Fig. 5-1 shows the status of the masonry on the Oliver Middle School in February
2004 (see Chapter 3). By this time, it was obvious that the project would not be
completed on time and that schedule acceleration was necessary. This fact was
probably foreseeable months sooner. Because masonry was a substantial part of the
work, accelerating masonry alone should have been contemplated. Yet there is no
Fig. 5-1. Oliver Elementary School, February 16, 2004

evidence of acceleration in Fig. 5-1 because minimal materials are observed. One
strategy to accelerate the masonry would be to build with concrete masonry units and
brick concurrently or to use multiple workstations. But it would be necessary first to
remove the mud and to compact the area in the forefront of the figure.
Reserving work for inclement workdays (Principle 1.4) carries certain risks. It
may not be possible to apply this principle on many projects. On one project where a
dam was being constructed, it was observed that certain work was reserved for
inclement workdays, and then on inclement weather workdays, the workers were
sent home. It was little wonder that the project schedule slipped. Maybe a different
strategy should have been adopted.
On many commercial projects, completion of the roof, allowing for the enclo-
sure of the facility, is often treated as an important milestone. Roof completion is
often an “essential to success (ETS)” sequence, and a concerted effort may be
justified to reach this milestone.
Principle 1.5 deals with sealing a building. Sealing a building from rain is a
separate, but equally important, function from enclosing a building. Enclosure is
associated with winter activities, whereas sealing is often associated with springtime
or rainy weather. Preventing water infiltration is important to preventing mold,
which leads to rework. Sealing a building from rain and enclosing a building to allow
temporary heat are two different actions, but both can be accomplished simulta-
neously with permanent windows or temporary enclosures. Permanent windows are
preferred to temporary enclosures, but windows may be a long lead item that
requires early submittal approval. There may be cost implications. It has been
observed that contractors often do a poor job with temporary building enclosures.
Wind damage to the enclosure often necessitates rework, at considerable expense to
a contractor. Fig. 5-2 shows an example where rework may cost the contractor
thousands of dollars in labor cost to repair. The concern for mold alone justifies
permanent windows, and there will likely be cost/rework issues. A temporary
enclosure using polyethylene is often a marginally effective choice for enclosing
Fig. 5-2. Temporary Building Enclosure Damaged by Wind

and sealing work areas, and many situations such as the one shown in Fig. 5-2
have been observed. Using permanent windows largely eliminates subcontractor
“callback” time and improves the wintertime work environment for the crafts.
Excavation and Site Work

Earthwork is particularly susceptible to weather effects, and thus, Principle 2.1
should be considered. Even on a building project, sealing exposed areas (Principle
2.1) is recommended. But sadly, a compactor is rarely seen or used on a commercial
building project. Figs. 5-3 and 5-4 show the potential consequences of not sealing.
Fig. 5-3. Muddy Site Conditions Caused by Rain and Failure to Seal Exposed Areas
Fig. 5-4. Muddy Site Conditions Caused by Snow and Failure to Seal Exposed Areas
One can only imagine the amount of additional labor effort needed to contend with
these muddy conditions. This principle can greatly improve working conditions.
Planning and implementing site drainage management is an important factor in
maintaining a workable site. Permanent and temporary drainage facilities should be
used to plan for and control runoff. Do not ignore runoff from off-site sources
(Principles 2.2 and 2.3). Permanent drainage should be installed as early as practical
(Principle 2.3). On one project, it was observed that the contractor installed the
permanent drainage at the end of the as-built schedule. The superintendent claimed
that he did not want to drive delivery trucks over the newly installed facilities. He also
claimed that there was never a problem with runoff, despite the fact that on several
occasions, the ponding of a foot or more of water was observed exactly where the
permanent facilities were to be located. Fig. 5-5 shows an example where runoff from
off site was not channeled away from the site. This oversight cost the contractor
thousands of dollars. On a commercial site, channel rain to the lowest area of the
facility footprint and use a sump pump to expel the water from the site. Fig. 5-6 shows
an example where this method was used effectively. The lowest point on the site is
seen in the lower left portion of the photo.
A site drainage plan consists of three parts: (1) drainage of the facility footprint,
(2) drainage of the remainder of the site, and (3) measures to prevent off-site runoff
from flowing into the footprint area or onto the site. Each of these aspects can be
addressed in most cases with shallow ditches and sump pumps. A simple but effective
drainage plan, as shown in Fig. 5-7, should be integrated with an erosion
and sediment control (E&S) plan. All three components of the plan can be seen
in Fig. 5-7. The runoff drains to the lower right of the figure, which is the lowest
elevation of the site. The application of Principles 2.2 and 2.3 should channel rainfall
away from critical areas of the site, greatly reducing muddy working conditions.
Fig. 5-5. Flooded Footers Caused by Runoff from Off Site

Fig. 5-6. Drainage of Facility Footprint
Direction
of flow
Existing facilities
Installed facilities
Sump pump
Fig. 5-7. Site Drainage Plan, Outreach Building Project
An engineered working surface should be applied to prevent muddy conditions

(Principle 2.4). It should be designed using sound engineering principles and
should be properly compacted and constructed to provide stable support for crane
outriggers. Unfortunately, many professionals think all that is needed is to place
some gravel on the site. Gravel is placed only when muddy conditions are evident.
These surfaces sometimes fail, as shown in Fig. 5-8.
Another option is to consider the use of more weather-resistant materials. For
example, asphalt concrete pavement base material may be substituted for certain
rock pavement base materials. Likewise, when rainy conditions are anticipated, the
selection of a clean, free-draining fill material may mitigate weather effects.
Fig. 5-8. Failed Site Area
Other helpful principles that are largely applicable to earthwork projects are
to plow wet ground to accelerate drying (Principle 2.5) and to build and maintain
all-weather roads (Principle 2.6). Roadside berms and ledges should be flattened
to allow water to drain away from the haul road (Fig. 5-9). Unless berms are
flattened, rainfall will not drain and muddy areas will develop. In winter work,
leave snow in place as insulation until the contractor is ready to excavate
(Principle 2.7).
The cost implications in this category arise from the use of a compactor and
grader and the application of an engineered working surface. However, one must
balance these additions to the work scope against the cost of more labor (arising
from inefficiencies) or the cost of a crane accident if the working surface fails.
Labor
To avoid work in extreme hot or cold temperatures, shift the work hours earlier to
avoid the heat of the day (Principle 3.1) and provide break trailers for relief from the
heat and cold (Principle 3.2). Shifting work hours can also be done to increase the
hours of daylight or to avoid heavy city traffic.
ff
runo
Haul road
Berm
Fig. 5-9. Illustration of Berm Problem that Needs to Be Corrected
Fig. 5-10. Proper Storage Practices to Protect Materials from the Weather
Materials
Material management is important to managing a cost-effective or efficient site
(see Chapter 6). Certain materials need to be protected from the weather (Principle
4.1). Fig. 5-10 shows effective storage practices from one project. A working surface has
been applied (Principle 2.4), the materials are stored on pallets (Principle 4.2), and
materials are protected (Principle 4.1) from rain and snow. The importance of storing
materials on timbers or pallets (Principle 4.2) is twofold. Storage off the ground
provides protection from mud and standing water, and retrieval is easier if a forklift or
other lifting device is used. The cost implications in this category are minimal.
5.4 Developing Weather Mitigation Plans
Developing weather mitigation plans is an important component in the planning

process. The E&S plan (if required) should be augmented with site drainage plans
and enclosing and/or sealing strategies. While weather mitigation plans can vary, the
following components are essential parts of a comprehensive plan.
Contents of Weather Mitigation Plans

Facilities
• Existing facilities, e.g., inlet boxes and culverts;

• Permanent facilities to be installed, e.g., inlet boxes, culverts, drainage pipe, and
swales; and
• Temporary facilities, e.g., retention basins, straw bales, and silt fences.
Drainage
• Drainage routes,
• Sump pump locations, and
• Retention ponds.
Many of the elements cited here are covered in E&S plans. Other elements of the
plan should include how the building will be enclosed and sealed, the work schedule,
how crafts will be protected from temperature extremes, and other important
aspects of weather mitigation.
Procedure
The procedure for developing weather mitigation plans is given in Table 5-2. The
procedure involves three broad components. The first is to locate existing perma-
nent and temporary facilities. Facilities include inlet boxes, culverts, and drainage
pipes. Next the drainage routes are mapped. Finally, other decisions are made,
e.g., about how and when the building will be enclosed and sealed and about the
work schedule.
Key points regarding several of the steps in Table 5-2 are discussed as follows
using the site plan for the Outreach Building shown in Fig. 5-7 (see also Fig. 3-7). The
drainage plan needs to be developed in conjunction with the site layout plan
described in Chapter 4.
1. Develop an Accurate Drawing of the Site—An accurate plan needs to be
developed. The site depicted in Fig. 5-7 is relatively flat. The direction of the
drainage is shown. The lowest point on the site is the southwestern corner.
Elevations, as appropriate, need to be known.
2. Locate Existing Drainage Facilities—The existing facilities include inlet boxes,
culverts, stormwater drains, and swales. Four existing inlet boxes are shown in
Fig. 5-7. One should be sensitive to a situation that some older existing systems may
not be properly sized.
3. Locate Permanent Drainage Facilities that Are to Be Installed—One also
needs to identify those facilities that will be used during construction. Some or all
facilities may not be usable. Fig. 5-7 shows four new inlet boxes in the parking lot
area. The installed facilities cannot be used until the parking lot has been paved.
Table 5-2. Procedure for Developing a Weather Mitigation Plan
No. Description
1. Develop an accurate drawing of the site.
2. Locate existing drainage facilities.
3. Locate permanent drainage facilities that are to be installed and identify those that
will be used.
4. Locate discharge points, retention ponds, and temporary facilities.
5. Map on-site drainage routes.
6. Map off-site water intrusion controls.
7. Identify sump pump locations.
8. Establish strategies for facility enclosure and sealing.
9. Determine schedule considerations.
4. Locate Discharge Points, Retention Ponds, and Temporary Facilities—The

site discharge point and a small retention pond are located at the southeast corner of
Fig. 5-7.
5. Map On-Site Drainage Routes—Drainage routes are usually shallow ditches.
There are two areas of concern: (1) the facility footprint and (2) other site areas.
Both areas are shown in Fig. 5-7. Locating drainage routes should be one of the last
steps in developing a site layout plan (see Chapter 4). Routes should be located to
avoid such things as high-traffic areas and material storage locations.
6. Map Off-Site Water Intrusion Controls—Do not forget about rainfall entering
the site from off-site areas. A small ditch can usually alleviate the problem. In Fig. 5-7,
this issue was not a major concern. But any rainfall draining to the site from the
north will be handled by the two existing inlet boxes located in the street (north),
and water that may enter from the east is diverted by a perimeter ditch.
7. Identify Sump Pump Locations—Once the rainfall has been channeled from
the work area and site to a holding area, it may be necessary to use sump pumps to
convey the water to a higher elevation or to negotiate travel routes (pedestrian and
vehicular). In Fig. 5-7, two sump pump locations are identified to remove rainfall
from the building footprint.
8. Establish Strategies for Facility Enclosure and Sealing—The facility needs to
be both enclosed (for heating) and sealed (to prevent water intrusion). There are
two options: temporary enclosures and permanent windows. Permanent windows are
the preferred option, but long lead times may preclude this option. On the Outreach
Building, permanent windows were used.
9. Determine Schedule Considerations—Installing permanent windows may
require changes to ordinary schedule logic. Consider the Outreach Building shown
in Fig. 3-7. From the orientation shown, the building is divided into two halves; the
right half is built first, followed by the left half. Starting masonry early on the right
half means that the glass curtain wall has a good chance of being completed before
building enclosure is required. Also, on the Outreach Building project, the parking
lot needs to paved before the permanent drainage facilities can be used.
5.5 Case Study 1—Painted Post, New York, State Route 17

Interchange
A case study project is used to illustrate the effects of adverse weather on labor
productivity on a single project. This case study also illustrates the variety of ways
construction operations can be affected.
This contractor did not use a 4-10 work schedule (Principle 1.1). Also the
following principles from Table 5-1 are not applicable to this project: 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 2.4,
2.7, 3.1, and 3.2. It is not known if the following principles were applied: 1.4 and 2.5.
The following principles were applied where applicable: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 4.1, and 4.2.
Activity Descriptions
Weather is an issue that affects many types of construction operations in unique ways.
Highway work is particularly susceptible to the adverse influence of unfavorable
weather because most highway operations are fully exposed to the weather, and
some materials can be highly susceptible to being affected by adverse weather.
Bridge construction work is also vulnerable to the effects of adverse weather. The
cases in which these types of work become isolated from the weather are rare, and
weather can often have a significant effect on a project for its entire duration. This
case study examines the effects of weather on a single highway project and how
adverse weather affected labor productivity uniquely for different activities.
The case study project is the construction of a highway interchange on Route 17
in southern New York state that was built by a local nonunion contractor. The seven
activities studied were chosen because they ordinarily required varying levels of
manual labor, and the productivity on each activity was affected differently by the
weather. The activities studied include the driving of three different types of piling,
earthmoving from a borrow site to a fill site using trucks, concrete pavement repair
by dowel bar retrofit, concrete pavement production, and asphalt pavement pro-
duction. Production data were obtained from daily time sheet summaries. Notes
about weather conditions and their effects were made on these sheets as well.
Discussions were also conducted with superintendents and supervisors about how
particular weather events affected the conduct of the operation. Some information
was also obtained from daily logbooks kept by superintendents. All of these data were
then compared with weather data for the days that the work was performed.
Weather effects on work operations on this project were observed in two
categories. The first category included work stoppages mainly because of safety
concerns, lack of access to the site, or concerns over a detrimental effect on the
quality of the constructed product. The second category was decreased efficiency
and loss of productivity because of weather conditions while the work continued.
This resulted in worker discomfort, trucking delays, time spent preparing the site for
work because of weather-related issues, and a variety of other reasons having to do
with the weather.
Sheet-Pile Driving—Sheet-pile driving entails hooking a long, corrugated sheet
of steel onto a vibratory hammer hanging from a crane and allowing the vibrations of
the hammer to drive the sheet into the ground. Adjacent sheets are interlocked as
they are driven and are used to create cofferdams to build structures in areas that
were sometimes covered with water. They may also be used to create retaining walls
so that excavation adjacent to a pile wall may be carried out.
The crew for driving sheet piles generally consisted of a crane operator, a worker
who directed the crane operator and operated the pile hammer, a laborer who
aligned the sheets and hooked them to the leads and the pile hammer, and a welder
who prepared sheets for driving by splicing them or attaching lifting points to the
Fig. 5-11. Sheet Pile Cell
sheets and cutting the excess steel from sheets were already driven. A typical com-
pleted sheet pile operation is shown in Fig. 5-11.
H-Pile and Tube-Pile Driving—The methods used for driving H-pile and tube
piles are similar to that used for sheet piles. These piles are load-bearing piles used in
the bridge foundation. The piles are usually driven with a diesel-operated pile
hammer instead of a vibratory hammer. The crew size is the same as for sheet-pile
driving. A typical H-pile operation is shown in Fig. 5-12.
Earthwork—The earthmoving operations observed on the case study project
were varied, including the conditions under which the work was done, the length of
the haul, and the equipment moving the earth. The earthmoving operations were
Fig. 5-12. H-Pile Driving

optimized such that a truck was always being loaded. All the earthwork operations
reported were trucks being loaded with excavators. All-weather roads were con-
structed and maintained (Principle 2.6, Table 5-1). The crew for the earthwork
operations consisted of a supervisor and operators for each piece of equipment.
Grading at the cut and the fill was performed by track-type tractors equipped with a
global positioning system so that grade checking or staking was never a limiting
factor. Some work locations were beside a river, so the worksite was vulnerable to
flooding, as shown in Figs. 5-13 to 5-15.
Dowel Bar Retrofit Concrete Pavement Repair—Dowel bar retrofit is a method
of repairing concrete pavement slabs that involves sawcutting slots across a crack in
the concrete, chipping and cleaning the slots, placing dowel bars, and filling the slots
Fig. 5-13. Earthwork (Vulnerable to Flooding)
Fig. 5-14. Pile Driving in Flooded Conditions

Fig. 5-15. The Effect of Flooding on a Construction Project
with concrete. This is a labor-intensive operation, and most of the work is performed
manually. Sawing of the slots was not included in the study because all of the sawing
was done ahead of time by a subcontractor. The crew for this operation consisted of
two chisel operators for removing the concrete; two laborers cleaning the slots; one
worker placing the dowels; and three workers mixing, placing, and finishing the
concrete to fill the slots. Fig. 5-16 shows a typical operation.
Concrete Paving—Concrete paving was the most comprehensive and personnel-
intensive operation observed. It involved the placement of new concrete pavement
with a slipform paving machine. Concrete was supplied by an on-site concrete batch
Fig. 5-16. Dowel Bar Retrofit, Concrete Pavement Repair

plant, which was not part of the study. The crew for this operation consisted of four
operators for equipment to place the concrete, four finishers, one laborer to direct the
trucks, a supervisor, and drivers for each of the concrete trucks. Thus, the crew was a
mix of laborers and operators who were fully exposed to the weather.
Concrete paving itself is a very weather-sensitive operation because even a small
amount of rain can dramatically affect the contractor’s ability to produce high-
quality pavement. Because the influence of weather is so great on concrete paving
operations, these operations did not occur every day. They are generally planned
well in advance and in coordination with the weather forecast. If there was a day that
paving could not be done, the paving crew was reassigned to another activity. Only
days when paving occurred are included in the data. Fig. 5-17 shows a typical
concrete paving operation.
Asphaltic Concrete Paving—Asphaltic paving involves the laying of asphaltic
concrete pavement. Asphaltic concrete was supplied from an off-site plant via dump
trucks. The data chosen were the closest to having the right number of trucks
delivering asphaltic concrete to keep the paver running continuously. This method
served to eliminate losses in productivity caused by lack of materials. A paving crew
generally consisted of a supervisor, two laborers to rake the asphaltic concrete, a
paver operator, four compactor operators, and truck drivers delivering the asphaltic
concrete. Asphalt paving is an intense operation because of the heat to which the
workers are exposed. The asphaltic concrete is delivered at about 300°F, and the
workers are exposed to this heat almost continuously. Much of the manual labor has
been taken out of this operation with the development of better pavers and the use
of skid-steer loaders for placing asphaltic concrete in areas where the paver cannot
reach. Fig. 5-18 shows a typical asphaltic concrete paving fleet.
Fig. 5-17. Concrete Paving Operation

Fig. 5-18. Asphalt Paving Operation
Weather Data
All weather data were provided by the National Weather Service. Several parameters
were developed to allow easier correlations to construction data. The weather events
noted were when (1) there was rain on that workday, (2) there was substantial rainfall
in the preceding three days, (3) there was thunderstorm activity in the area that day,
(4) winds exceeded 25 miles per hour that day, and (5) the high temperature that day
exceeded 85°F. Because this study was only during periods of warm weather work
(late spring and early summer), only days that were exceptionally hot are contained in
the study. Thus, the case study does not encompass cold temperatures. Temperatures
during the case study generally were in the range of 68–89°F.
Results
All five categories of weather events were documented. These were the following:
• Winds in excess of 25 miles per hour,

• Thunderstorms in the area (not necessarily at the site),
• Significant rain the previous three days,
• Rainfall that workday, and
• High temperature exceeding 85°F.
Sheet-Pile Driving—In the case of sheet-pile driving, there was no visible effect
on productivity because of high temperatures. This fact is not surprising because this
operation is not particularly labor intensive. Despite the fact that three of the four crew
members were exposed to the elements, the work is largely equipment intensive.
Pile driving does involve long steel members and crane booms at significant heights.
For this reason, the threat of thunderstorms and high winds can have a greater effect
on productivity than does temperature. Therefore, when these conditions were

imminent, the operation was often suspended for safety reasons. In addition, these
operations were often carried out in low-lying areas, so the operation was susceptible to
flooding and rain. Flooding can either impede access to the worksite, slow the flow of
materials and equipment, or shut the work area down completely. Principle 2.2 was
applied to this activity.
Fig. 5-19 shows the productivity of the sheet pile operation. The operation was
significantly affected by thunderstorms (workdays 11–13 and 19–22), but the work was
also affected by rain (workdays 1–2 and 21–25) and high winds (workdays 21 and 23).
The last week of observation saw temperatures in excess of 85°F. There was some
effect, but the effect was minimal compared with the weather events. Overall, there
were few disruptions and the operation seemed to consistently achieve a sustain-
able productivity of about 0.23 work hours/m. Weather played a significant role in
making the cumulative productivity 0.31 work hours/m (about a 34% increase).
Thunderstorms seemed to have the greatest effect.
H-Pile and Tube-Pile Driving—Tube-pile and H-pile driving showed effects and
vulnerabilities to the weather similar to sheet-pile driving. Again, temperature did
not seem to have a major effect on productivity, but potential thunderstorm activity
and rain did. Flooding of the work area was not quite as significant an issue in these
operations compared with sheet-pile driving because the areas where these piles
were being driven were often already protected from flooding by the sheet-pile walls
and cofferdams. Also, one work area of H-pile driving that was studied was in a well-
drained area that never saw significant rain collection or ponding. However, the crew
productivity was somewhat affected by the rain. Overall thunderstorms in the area
seemed to have the greatest effect, and high temperatures the least. The cumulative
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
Manhours/m
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Workday
Fig. 5-19. Sheet Pile Productivity

productivity of the H-piling and tube-piling operations was 0.41 work hours/m
(H-piling) and 0.37 work hours/m (tube piling). The actual productivities of
H-piling and tube piling are shown in Figs. 5-20 and 5-21, respectively. Generally
speaking, in the absence of weather disruptions, the sustained productivity rate of all
three piling operations was in the same range, 0.25–0.30 work hours/m.
Earthwork—As seen in Fig. 5-22, earthwork was also not significantly affected by
high temperatures. It was, however, greatly affected by rainfall and flooding problems.
The sites studied in this situation were somewhat unique in that there were areas that
0.8
i
0.7
0.6
0.5
Manhours/m
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Workday
Fig. 5-20. H-Pile Productivity
0.8
i
0.7
0.6
i
0.5
Manhours/m
0.4
i
0.3
i
i
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Workday
Fig. 5-21. Tube-Pile Productivity

0.06
0.05
0.04
Manhours/m
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Workday
Fig. 5-22. Earthwork Productivity
were vulnerable to flooding, yet some areas dried quickly, and there were other less
vulnerable sites that could be used when flooding occurred. The proximity to a flood-
prone river often necessitated these adjustments, and the ability to change locations
seemed to provide a mitigating effect on the productivity of this operation. Thus,
providing alternate worksites, where possible, is important (Principle 1.4). Many of the
fundamental principles in category 2 of Table 5-1 were applied to this activity.
The effect of sustained rainfall (see Fig. 5-22) occurred around workdays 15
and 32. In both instances, it took 5–10 workdays for the material to dry sufficiently for
the operation to return to normal. It is not known if Principle 2.5 was applied.
Thunderstorms seemed to have little effect unless it actually rained at the site.
Overall, the sustained productivity of this operation was about 0.009 work hours/m3.
The cumulative productivity was calculated as 0.0108 work hours/m3 (21% increase).
Dowel Bar Retrofit Concrete Pavement Repair—The dowel bar retrofit seemed to
show little vulnerability to high temperatures. Because this activity occurred on
existing pavement that was well drained, rainfall did not directly affect dowel bar
retrofit unless the rainfall became heavy. There was a secondary effect of rainfall,
though, in that some of the work occurred adjacent to an active expressway. If the
weather conditions resulted in decreased visibility of the motoring public, the ongoing
work was shut down for safety reasons. For these reasons, this activity exhibited
decreased productivity when there was thunderstorm activity (Fig. 5-23) at the site.
These conditions occurred on workday 12 and at the end of the observation period.
The sustained productivity was approximately 0.13 work hours/dowel. The cumulative
productivity was calculated as 0.145 work hours/dowel (an 11% increase).
Concrete Paving—While the productivity of concrete paving was seemingly
unaffected by temperatures, there were certainly cases where it could have been
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
Manhours/dowel
0.12
0.1 i
i i i i
0.08 ii i
i
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Workday
Fig. 5-23. Dowel Bar Retrofit Productivity
affected because high heat, low humidity, and wind can cause the concrete to dry
rapidly. In these conditions, productivity is often affected because of the need for a
large portion of the crew to take care of the section of pavement recently placed to
ensure that it does not dry before it is finished and sealed. Additionally, cold
temperatures can prevent the concrete from curing properly. In the case of a
concrete slab that loses heat rapidly, there is no practical way to adequately provide
heat. These two situations never occurred. But rainfall is another big issue when it
comes to weather effects on concrete paving. Even a small amount of rain can ruin
concrete pavement if it has not begun to cure. For this reason, concrete paving was
seldom scheduled on days when there was a chance of rain. In the event that rain
appeared imminent, the operation was concluded quickly and measures such as
covering the slab were taken to protect the concrete from rain damage. The crew for
this operation was largely pulled from other activities around the job. For this reason,
if concrete paving was canceled because of the threat of bad weather, the crew
worked on another task (Principle 1.4). This method had a mitigating effect on any
reduction in productivity caused by rain and thunderstorms.
The concrete paving operation studied was affected on five days (Fig. 5-24) when
there were thunderstorms or threats thereof, most notably, workdays 11 and 15. In
the absence of weather events, the crew was able to pave at a productivity of about
0.080 work hours/m3 or less. The cumulative productivity was 0.088 work hours/m3
(a 10% increase).
Asphaltic Paving—Asphaltic paving is not as sensitive to rain as is concrete paving.
Because of the heat of the material, some rain can be tolerated before the end product
is affected. For this reason, asphaltic paving does not show the decreased productivity
on rainy days that is seen in concrete paving. Because of the higher labor intensity
0.3
0.25
0.2
Manhours/m3
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Workday
Fig. 5-24. Concrete Paving Productivity
and the heat of the material, asphaltic paving would seem to be somewhat more
susceptible to decreased productivity caused by high temperatures. This effect is
reduced somewhat by the mechanization of the process, but reduced productivity can
still be seen, especially in cases of exceptionally hot weather.
The asphaltic paving operation studied was affected most by high temperatures
on workday 9 when the maximum temperature was 89°F (see Fig. 5-25). Otherwise,
asphaltic paving was adversely affected by rain and thunderstorms. The sustained,
steady-state productivity was about 0.060 work hours/m3. The cumulative productiv-
ity was 0.064 work hours/m3 (a 6% increase).
0.16
0.14
0.12
manhours/m 3
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Workday
Fig. 5-25. Asphaltic Paving Productivity

Synopsis of Weather Effects

The project selected for analysis was chosen because it was mainly affected by weather
and little else. Therefore, the difference between the sustained, steady-state produc-
tivity and the cumulative productivity is treated as the approximate effect of weather.
The effect of weather is sensitive to the activity being evaluated. Each operation
was affected uniquely. Earthwork showed lasting effects, as long as one to two weeks.
For some operations, the threat of a thunderstorm was sufficient to shut the
operation down. It was not necessary for it to rain at the site.
Weather events on the case study project showed greater effects than did high
temperatures, especially from thunderstorm activity and rain. The effect of high
temperatures was minimal.
The effect of weather on labor productivity on the case study project is generally
less than was reported in the literature (see Table 2-2), but the effect is close to the
value calculated in the estimating example given earlier in this chapter. Table 5-3
summarizes the estimated effects for the activities studied.
Table 5-3 yields some surprising results. The equipment-intensive activities on
this case study project showed the greatest effect, and the labor-intensive work
showed the least. The equipment-intensive work primarily experienced work stop-
pages, whereas the labor-intensive work tended to continue through the affected
period. Pile driving was affected the most.
5.6 Case Study 2—Interstate 99 Bridge Construction
This case example demonstrates the effect of rain on bridge construction. In this
instance, the work continued through the rain events.
The project was the construction of Bridges 28 and 29 as part of Interstate 99 in
central Pennsylvania. The activity observed was concrete formwork for abutment
Table 5-3. Estimates of Effects Caused by Weather on Highway Case Study 1
Equipment Intensive Labor Intensive
Estimated Weather Impact Estimated Weather Impact

Activity % %
Sheet piles 35
H-piles 37
Tube piles 22
Earthwork 12
Dowel bar retrofit 11
Concrete paving 10
Asphalt paving 6
Bridge formwork 7
9903 - Bridge 28 & 29

Formwork Productivity
0.800
0.700
Daily Productivity (wh/ft 2 )
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57
Workday
Fig. 5-26. Productivity of Bridge Formwork, Bridges 28 and 29
walls and footers. The crew size varied, but averaged 10–13 nonunion carpenters.
The same crew also placed concrete. On days when concrete was placed, additional
laborers were usually added.
Fig. 5-26 shows the daily productivity of the formwork operation (Thomas et al.
2002). Rain affected the work on seven workdays (workdays 1, 2, 29, 50, 51, 54, and 57).
The total inefficient work hours resulting from rain were more than 290. The
inefficiency from rain was estimated as 7.2%, which is less than was reported in the
literature. The time of day when the rain occurs is an important factor in determining
inefficiency. The work was affected by multiple other factors not related to the
weather. The causes of these other effects were not considered.
References
Clapp, M. A. (1966). “The effect of adverse weather conditions on five building sites.”
Construction Current Paper No. 21, The Building Research Establishment, Watford,
U.K, 171–180.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 14(1), 29–35.
Thomas, H. R., Horman, M. J., de Souza, U. E. L., and Zavrski, I. (2002). “Benchmarking of
workforce management.” Rep. 276, International Council for Research and Innovation in
Building and Construction (CIB), Rotterdam, Netherlands, 156.
CHAPTER 6
Fundamental Principles of Site

Material Management
The discipline of construction project management is often ill defined, particularly

when it comes to site operations. There is a considerable body of knowledge about
the things that go wrong on the site and the consequences of ineffective decision
making, but there is limited information about what procedures and steps a
contractor should follow to avoid undesirable cost overruns and time delays. This
is particularly true of site material management practices (Thomas et al. 1989, 1999;
Thomas and Sanvido 2000). Considering that the amount of materials delivered to
the site can be significant, it is important that project engineers develop good
material management habits.
The full scope of material management includes quantity takeoffs, submittals,
ordering, expediting, tracking, delivery schedules, site storage, handling, waste
removal, and other activities. This chapter concentrates on practices from material
deliveries to the site forward. Perhaps one reason that current site practices are so
ad hoc is that there is nothing written to guide contractors through this process. It is
more glamorous to write about large computerized ordering and tracking systems
than site housekeeping. The literature focuses mainly on large computerized systems
and bar codes (Stukhart and Cook 1990). Thus, earlier writings are of little benefit to
many contractors because large, computerized tracking systems are simply not
relevant to a sizable sector of the construction industry. This chapter guides project
engineers and project managers through the site material management process.
The most obvious risk of ineffective material management is double-handling of
materials. But congestion and poor housekeeping can also be problematic. Damaged
materials, poor-quality workmanship, and theft can also be troublesome. Another risk
often observed by the authors is running out of materials. Each of these deficiencies
can seriously degrade labor productivity and increase job costs.
6.1 Goal of Effective Material Management
The goal of effective site material management is to move materials from the point of
delivery at the site to the point of installation in the most efficient manner possible.
117
To achieve this goal, a fundamental practice is to avoid double- and triple-handling

of materials. Double- and triple-handling of materials can be readily avoided by
eliminating steps in the delivery process. Some double- and triple-handling cannot
be avoided, though.
6.2 The Material Journey
Fig. 6-1 conceptually shows the various stages of site material delivery. The material is
first delivered from the vendor and then off-loaded at the site. These are shown as
points 1 and 2. The material in this scenario may next be stored at the site (point 3).
At some time, the material is moved to a lifting device (e.g., a hoist, elevator, or
crane), which is shown as point 4. The material is then lifted vertically to what is
referred to as a temporary staging area (point 5). Finally, it is moved to a distribution
point (point 6), which is located several feet (it is hoped) from where the workers
install the material, called the work face (point 7).
In total, Fig. 6-1 shows seven key points or stations and six legs of the journey.
Each leg goes from one point to another. The objective of management is to move
the materials from point 2 to point 7 in as efficient a manner as possible so that there
is no delay or idle time at point 7. To do so, each point must be controlled, and
important decisions (strategies) must be made about each leg of the journey.
Procurement
Movement of materials from point 1 to point 2 is largely a procurement function and
is sometimes done at the home office. It requires a good site plan, possibly timed
Temporary
Distribution Staging Area
Point
6 7 5
Workface
2 3
4
Delivery Site Storage
Fig. 6-1. Conceptual View of the Material Journey

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF SITE MATERIAL MANAGEMENT 119
deliveries, and good vendor relations and coordination. These latter functions are
predominantly site functions.
Delivery Practices
Three practices for delivering materials to the work face (point 7) deserve further
discussion. The three practices are (1) delivering materials in large lot sizes or all at
once and stockpiling them at the site, (2) the practice of erecting materials directly
from the delivery truck, and (3) preloading. Several of the important issues that are
germane to these practices are surge piles, stockpiles, off-site staging areas, and
vendor coordination. Managers may need to use one practice for one kind of
material and a different practice for another. The practice of preloading materials
may dictate the strategy used. The overall strategy needs to encompass delivery from
point 2 to the work face (point 7). How the materials are loaded on the delivery truck
at point 1 may also be important. It is possible through effective planning to
eliminate some points, which is a desirable plan.
Deliver Large Lot Sizes—A common practice is to deliver large volumes of the
materials and stockpile them on site before beginning the installation. This
approach is a least preferred approach. Several disadvantages include the need for
storage space (point 3) and the requirement for forward purchases. A third
disadvantage relates to the actual delivery process itself. If deliveries are made early,
before the installation crew is fully mobilized, there is limited crew idle time during
the unloading process. If deliveries are made after the installation crew is fully
mobilized, some of the crew will be idle, watching the other part of the crew unload
the delivery truck because unloading generally requires only part of the crew. Some
of the disadvantages with this strategy may be negated by the effective use of surge
piles and off-site staging areas. On the positive side, all the materials are on hand, so
the crew should not run out of materials during installation. Material shakeout can
also be done at the site. The delivery of structural steel using this strategy is shown in
Fig. 6-2. Here, the available storage space is limited by the reach of the crane, so the
presence of a large, spacious site may be deceiving. The storage area must be well
organized. On the project shown in Fig. 6-2, structural steel is shown stockpiled at the
site. An off-site staging area was used, so the steel was delivered to the site about every
third or fourth day. When large lot sizes are planned, it is important that the existing
stockpile not get too depleted as crews tend to slow their pace of work as the existing
stockpile gets smaller and smaller. If deliveries are made throughout the duration of
the project, when the installation crew is fully mobilized, care must be exercised to
not have a part of the crew watching the unloading process, as the full crew is often
not needed to unload a delivery truck. Thus one significant disadvantage of relying
on site stockpiling of multiple deliveries is that it may not be possible to fully engage
the crew. On most days when materials are delivered, little or no production work is
done. It is unbelievable how many times crews actually run out of materials. Also,
convenient access must be maintained. It follows that material delivery practices are
one of the leading causes of idle time and labor inefficiencies.
Fig. 6-2. Illustration of Storage Requirements When All or Most Materials Are Delivered
at Once
Fig. 6-3. Preloading of Drywall
Preload—A favored practice is to preload materials. Fig. 6-3 shows drywall that
has been preloaded (point 6). Preloading is the practice of storing just the right
amount of material at the distribution point (point 6) before the beginning of
installation. Preloading materials directly from the delivery truck can eliminate
points 3–5 in Fig. 6-1. The advantage of preloading is that when the crew shows up, all
their materials are readily available, no more, no less. All the crew has to do is begin
work. Do not forget incidental items, like screws and nails. The disadvantage of
preloading is that it takes careful planning. However, the benefits to labor efficiency
can be significant.
Preloading merits special discussion. Preloading usually applies, but is not

limited to, materials used by the service and finish trades. Preloading should not
be confused with the practice of using constructed spaces as storage areas. To
preload, material fabrication and delivery schedules may need to be accelerated.
Several figures help to illustrate the concept of preloading. Fig. 6-4 shows an
effective preloading practice. Only the right amount of material needed is stored on
the floor, the area is clear of trash and debris, and scaffolding is readily available.
When the crew moves into the area, all they have to do is work. Fig. 6-5 is an example
of good practice of preloading duct.
Fig. 6-4. Effective Preloading Practice
Fig. 6-5. Preloading of Duct

Fig. 6-6 shows an ineffective application of preloading. While the pallets of floor
tiles have been distributed throughout the floor where needed, it has been done
prematurely so as to impede the work of the duct crew, framing crew, and perhaps
others. The pallets have been moved in Fig. 6-7, leading to costly double-handling.
Figs. 6-8, 6-9, and 6-10 should not be confused with preloading because these
constructed areas are being used for semipermanent storage.
Preloading of all needed materials at once may not be practical. Fig. 6-4
shows the preloading of materials for multiple crafts. Fig. 6-5 shows the piecemeal
Fig. 6-6. Ineffective Application of Preloading
Fig. 6-7. Ineffective Application of Preloading

Fig. 6-8. Use of Constructed Areas for Storage
Fig. 6-9. Storage of Materials in the Building Interior, SCMB
preloading of duct only. Presumably, preloading for other crafts will be done at a
later time. Regardless of the approach taken, preloading is a highly beneficial
practice. Preloading on a second shift may be considered. If piecemeal preloading
is done, one must still solve the problem of how to deliver the materials from the
temporary staging area (point 5) to the distribution location (point 6) close to the
work face (point 7). It is undesirable for crafts to travel more than a short distance to
procure materials. Movement beyond point 5 is efficiently done with dollies. Manual
transport should be the option of last resort.
Fig. 6-10. Use of the Third Floor as a Semipermanent Storage Area
Erect Directly from the Delivery Truck—Another efficient practice is to erect

materials into place directly from the delivery truck (Thomas et al. 1999). This prac-
tice can eliminate points 3, 4, 5, and 6 in Fig. 6-1. The disadvantage is that deliveries
are made daily or at least more frequently. However, a significant advantage is that
no on-site storage space is required. Obviously, this practice must be well planned to
ensure that the right items are on the truck and that they are loaded in the order
needed. If fabricated items are being installed, close coordination with the vendor is
essential. Another advantage of this method is that there is little or no crew down-
time spent watching others unload the delivery truck. Shakeout must be done off
site. Fig. 6-11 shows erection directly from the delivery truck of a precast column.
Fig. 6-11. Erection of a Precast Column Directly from the Delivery Truck
An efficient delivery strategy combines this approach and preloading, thereby

eliminating points 3–5, and possibly point 6.
If erection from the delivery truck is adopted, then it may be necessary to
develop a timed delivery schedule. Case Study 3 at the end of this chapter illustrates
the effective use of a timed delivery schedule.
6.3 Delivery of Materials to the Work Face
Once materials are delivered to the site, the delivery strategy is not complete. The
materials must be delivered to the work face (point 7). The engineer must decide how
each leg in Fig. 6-1 will be accomplished in an efficient manner. Once decking or
precast slabs are installed, a crane will be of limited use. For some smaller facilities, a
forklift or high lift may be usable. For taller buildings, an elevator may be the preferred
option to deliver materials to point 5. The service elevator may be usable for some
smaller items. Don’t forget the movement to the distribution points (point 6).
6.4 Division of the Site
Relative to the management of materials, a construction site should be divided

into three major areas: a semipermanent storage area, a staging area, and a work
face area.
Semipermanent Storage Area—These are areas, sometimes called laydown
areas, where materials are stored (stockpiled) before being used in the project (see
Fig. 6-2). This is represented by point 3 in Fig. 6-1.
Staging Area—This area is adjacent to the exterior of the facility. It is in this area
that materials are lifted into the facility. Materials that are off-loaded directly into the
facility from a delivery truck also use this area.
Work Face Area—This is the area inside the facility where the work of the
craftspeople takes place (point 7).
Each of these areas has a different use and must be managed differently; also,
different principles apply in each area.
Fundamental principles for material management are summarized in Table 6-1.

They are organized according to the three areas of the site related to material
management. It should be obvious that compatibility of principles with site plans
(see Chapter 4) is essential.
Table 6-1. Principles of Site Material Management
Number Principle
Semipermanent (Outside) Storage Area
1.1 Do not store materials close to the building.
1.2 Locate parking areas, toolsheds, trailers, and spoil piles as far from the building as
practical.
1.3 Mark stored materials so that they can be readily distinguished from similar
materials.
1.4 Materials should be stored to permit easy access and retrieval.
1.5 Materials should be stored on timbers or pallets to prevent damage from mud and
water.
1.6 Make effective use of surge piles (stockpiles) to ensure that work (components)
are always available for the crew.
1.7 Avoid multiple staging areas at the site because this can lead to double-handling
of materials and inefficiencies when unloading materials at the site.
1.8 Whenever possible, especially if storage space is limited, consider final staging of
large materials at an off-site location.
Staging Area
2.1 Reserve areas next to the building for material deliveries or materials being
moved to the work face areas.
2.2 Backfill around the building as soon as practical to permit the area to be used as a
staging area.
Work Face (Interior) Storage Area
3.1 The amount of material stored inside should be kept to a minimum.
3.2 Preassemble components into larger components or subassemblies.
3.3 Preload materials and distribute throughout the work face area so as not to
interfere with other work.
3.4 Integrate the sequence of work with the storage plan so that interior space can be
used without interfering with other work.
3.5 Ancillary tasks like unpacking, cutting, reshaping, and preassembly should be
done away from the work face when practical.
3.6 Maintain good housekeeping.
3.7 Arrange for removal of waste from the building on a continual basis.
Vendor Relations and Deliveries
4.1 Whenever possible, erect deliveries directly from the delivery trucks.
4.2 Ensure that deliveries are properly sequenced to be consistent with the work plan.
4.3 Make sure that the delivery rate from vendors is compatible with the installation
rate of the field crew.
General
5.1 Avoid the use of earthen ramps into below-grade areas.
5.2 Use elevators.
5.3 Have a good site plan for the key phases of the work.
Semipermanent Storage
Semipermanent storage areas are where materials are stored for an extended period
of time, say several weeks or more. These areas are usually thought of as being
outdoors, but this is not necessarily always the case, as shown in Fig. 6-10. On this
building project, the third floor was used as a semipermanent storage space.
Importantly, materials should not be stored next to the building (Principle 1.1),
because these materials can impede normal access requirements, including access
for cladding (see Fig. 3-25), scaffolding, material deliveries, and access into the
building (Figs. 6-12 and 6-13). One can see that in Fig. 3-3, parking areas, spoil piles,
trailers, and toolsheds all occupy valuable space on the State College Municipal
Building (SCMB) project. Clearly some judgment must be applied in the location of
trailers, parking areas, and toolsheds, but generally these should be located as far
Fig. 6-12. Congested Staging Area, State College, PA
Fig. 6-13. Poor Material Storage Practices, Rider Building, State College, PA
away from the facility as is practical (Principle 1.2). Conversely, other options may be
possible for spoil piles and parking areas. The real estate in a restricted site is much
too valuable for these uses.
Materials in the storage areas should be clearly marked (Principle 1.3) so that
they can be readily distinguished from other similar materials. For example, a 21-ft
piece of steel reinforcement should be easily distinguishable from a 22-ft piece of
the same configuration. Fig. 6-13 shows an example of poor storage practices.
The labor productivity of the steel erection crew on this project was much worse
than on comparable projects, and much of the cause can be attributed to deficient
material storage practices (Thomas et al. 1989).
Materials should be stored in a manner that will allow easy access and retrieval
by lifting and transporting equipment (Principle 1.4). This strategy is clearly difficult
on the project shown in Fig. 6-13. The materials were not segregated, and access and
retrieval were difficult at best. Fig. 3-11 shows a mixture of good and marginal storage
practices. Some reinforcement is marked and stored on timbers; some is not.
Principle 1.5, store materials on timbers and pallets, has been inconsistently applied
in Fig. 3-11, and easy retrieval is not always possible. Fig. 6-14 is another example
of poor storage practices. Materials should also be stored on timbers or pallets to
prevent damage from mud and water (Principle 1.5). Figs. 5-4 and 6-15 show two
projects where it was almost impossible to protect materials from mud and water.
The performance on both projects relative to time and cost was poor.
In certain instances, contractors can make effective use of surge piles (Principle 1.6)
to ensure that the crew does not run out of materials. This method does not
automatically mean delivery of all the materials to the site at once. Surge piles may
be at an off-site location. Case Study 3 at the end of this chapter describes the
Fig. 6-14. Inaccessibility of Stored Materials, Walker Building

Fig. 6-15. Muddy Site and Storage Conditions, Walker Building
effective use of surge piles, whereas Case Study 4 describes the ineffective use of a
surge pile.
In most cases, multiple staging areas should be avoided (Principle 1.7), and
whenever practical consider final staging at an off-site location for selected materials
(Principle 1.8) and erection directly from the truck. Using multiple staging areas
leads to more material handling. More material handling can result in increased
theft, damage, and misplacement or loss of materials.
Staging Areas
Areas immediately adjacent to a building perimeter are needed for multiple func-
tions. Considerable work on the exterior cladding and windows is performed there,
as are crane locations and concrete discharge points. Also, open areas are needed to
ensure easy access for deliveries of equipment and materials and for waste removal.
Materials stored in the staging area are more likely to require double-handling
leading to Principle 2.1, which is to store materials elsewhere.
Stockpiles of excavated material should be located away from the building, and
backfilling around the building should be done as soon as practical (Principle 2.2).
On a small site, consideration should be given to stockpiling excavated material off
site, as a stockpile of material will occupy valuable space. Late backfilling around
the perimeter of a building can be observed in Fig. 6-16. This method violates
Principle 2.2 and can inhibit access to the building.
Work Face (Interior) Storage Practices

Obviously, some materials must be stored inside a building or facility. However, the
amount stored here should be kept to a minimum (Principle 3.1). Only one or two
Fig. 6-16. Late Backfilling, O'Leary, Lewisburg, PA
day’s supply should be stored inside unless the areas are no longer needed or unless
preloading is practiced. The consequences of using an active work area for storage
are clearly seen in Fig. 6-9. Fig. 6-17 shows another example of inside storage that can
impede progress. This project underwent considerable distress.
Whenever possible, preassemble smaller components into larger components or
subassemblies (Principle 3.2). This concept is illustrated in Figs. 2-2 and 6-18.
Preload materials into the facility so that materials are readily accessible to the
crafts (Principle 3.3). Avoid carrying materials one piece at a time (Fig. 6-19) up a
stairwell. This is a strategy of last resort and is highly inefficient and undesirable.
Distribute the materials along the work face area, but not so as to interfere with other
work (Fig. 6-4). If improperly distributed, double-handling will be the result.
The sequence of the work should be integrated with the storage plan
(Principle 3.4). Riley has written at length about the need to do so (Riley and
Sanvido 1995, 1997). On some projects, the basement area can be used for inside
storage. Do not store materials in areas that will be needed later.
Fig. 6-17. Library Storage, West Point School Renovation, Pittsburgh, PA
Fig. 6-18. Duct Subassembly
If care is not taken, the work face area can become cluttered with excess material
and waste. Tasks such as unpacking and cutting and reshaping materials should be
limited in work face areas (Principle 3.5). Assign these tasks to other locations, such
as the staging or storage areas. Fig. 6-20 shows an example of an untidy work
face area. This unpacking work could easily be done elsewhere. If done in the
work face area, cleanup becomes important.
Housekeeping is an important function that should be given close attention
(Principles 3.6 and 3.7). Poor housekeeping inhibits good productivity and safety.
Figs. 6-20 to 6-22 show examples of poor housekeeping. On each of these projects,
Fig. 6-19. Carrying Duct One Piece at a Time
Fig. 6-20. Poor Housekeeping in a Work Face Area
the performance of the particular activity being studied was impaired by poor
housekeeping. Poor housekeeping is a commonly observed problem. Fig. 4-4 shows
a messy site where it will be difficult to find and retrieve materials and where
movement of crafts and equipment around the site will not be easy.
Vendor Relations and Deliveries

Several technical articles have been written about material deliveries and vendor
relations (Thomas and Sanvido 2000). In one article related to structural steel
deliveries, it was concluded that the most productive method of delivery was to erect
Fig. 6-21. Poor Housekeeping at a Distribution Point, Hampton Inn, State College, PA
Fig. 6-22. Poor Housekeeping at a Staging Area, Sassafras Project, Selinsgrove, PA

Fig. 6-23. Erecting Precast Element Directly from the Truck (Right Piece, Right Time)
the steel directly from the truck as it was delivered to the site (Thomas et al. 1999).
Fig. 6-23 shows the erection of a precast element directly from the delivery truck
(Principle 4.1). This method eliminates the need for storage areas on site, but to use
this method, control of the staging area must be maintained and there must be close
coordination with the vender (see Case Study 1).
The sequence of materials delivered from a fabricator or vendor must be
compatible with the erection or installation sequence (Principle 4.2). Otherwise,
there will be an accumulation of unused pieces at the site. Consider storing unused
and defective pieces at an off-site location.
The delivery rate from vendors must be compatible with the installation rate in
the field (Principle 4.3). All too often, these two functions are not well coordinated.
Fig. 6-24 shows the daily productivity of a duct installation crew on the SCMB project.
Because the deliveries from the vendor were not sequenced properly, the crew had
to move to alternate locations, often where other crews were working (Han and
Thomas 2002). This situation occurred on workday 15 and workdays 20–22.
The negative effect is clearly evident. Thomas and Sanvido show the results of three
case studies where deliveries from vendors were not well coordinated (2000). The
labor overruns ranged from 17% to 57%.
General Principles
Several principles are important as they relate to transporting materials from the
storage or staging areas to the work face areas. The first principle relates to projects
with below-grade excavations such as basements. The use of earthen ramps should be
avoided because they often impede the completion of basement walls, which may in
turn affect the entire project schedule (Principle 5.1). The interference between wall
Daily Productivity: Duct Installation
3.00
congestion housekeeping complex work
2.50
out of sequence vendor delay
2.00
1.50
1.00
Daily Productivity (wh/ft)

0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Workday
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF SITE MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
Fig. 6-24. Daily Productivity of Duct Installation, SCMB

135
construction and the ramp has been observed on several projects. The completion of
basement walls was slowed on the projects in Figs. 3-11 and 6-15. An economic
analysis may be justified. But given the cost of schedule delays and labor costs, it is
hard to envision an alternate strategy that is not cost-effective.
Another principle is that contractors should make use of service elevators and
hoists (Principle 5.2). On some projects, cranes and forklifts can be used. Service
elevators should be installed as early as practical. On some projects, it has been
observed that materials were manually moved from one floor to another because
forklifts would not reach the upper floors. Notice that in Fig. 6-25, the staging area
must be clear and there is a limit to the height that can be reached. This approach is
not always adequate if work activity occupies the staging area and the right
equipment is not available when needed. Tight control of the staging area is
required. Moving materials into the facility after regular working hours may be
discouraged because of overtime pay. However, lifting capacity availability may be
restricted during regular working hours, making overtime work the only alternative.
Fig. 6-25. Use of a High Lift to Move Materials into the Building, Paterno Library,
Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA
A contractor can ill afford a crew being idle for several hours the next morning
waiting for materials to be delivered, yet this sometimes happens.
It is important to have good site plans (Principle 5.3) and enforce the plans. It is
easy for infringements to occur. Even seemingly small infringements have the
potential to halt key activities and delay progress.
6.6 Developing Material Distribution Plans
The project engineer should develop material distribution plans for each major
material that will be delivered to the site. Plans should be developed by the general
contractor in conjunction with applicable subcontractors and specialty contractors.
An efficient material distribution plan that is rigorously followed will go a long way
toward establishing a team environment.
The goal of developing a material distribution plan is to determine how to move
materials from their delivery point to the work face efficiently (in this instance, from
point 2 to point 7 in Fig. 6-1) so that workers do not have to search for and retrieve
the materials they need, thus minimizing crew idle time. Material distribution plans
help create a team environment and lead to greater craft efficiency, lower costs,
reduced idle time, and much more. Table 6-2 gives a simple eight-step procedure for
developing a material distribution plan. The steps are briefly described and are
illustrated using the services work on the SCMB.
1. Select Mode of Material Movement (Points 2–5)

This step involves defining how materials will be moved from point 2 to point 5 in
Fig. 6-1. It may involve several steps as there may be one mode from point 3 to point 4
and another to point 5. For instance, one may use a forklift to move materials from a
storage pile (point 3) to within reach of a crane (point 4). It may be lifted then via
crane to a temporary staging area (point 5). If materials are to be erected directly
Table 6-2. Procedure for Developing a Material Distribution Plan
No. Procedure
1. Select mode of material movement.
2. Determine location of temporary staging areas.
3. Determine location of distribution points.
4. Determine distribution point quantities.
5. Develop a work (sequence) plan.
6. Develop a space allocation layout.
7. Distribute materials and incidentals.
8. Communicate and enforce the plan.
from the delivery truck, then there may be only one step. If a high lift is being used, it
may be a one- or two-step process. Elevators may also be used. One option that
should be avoided is to transport components one at a time. This method is highly
inefficient and can be unsafe. Manual transport is a huge red flag that the project is
probably not being managed as well as it should. A key point is to avoid double- and
triple-handling of materials.
The next question is a matter of scheduling. It may be necessary to preload all
materials for multiple crafts early in the construction schedule (Fig. 6-4), or it may be
done for a single craft (Fig. 6-5) just before the crafts arrive. In the latter approach,
deliveries to point 6 are made frequently, perhaps daily. The mode of movement
selected in step 1 is one factor, but the key goal is that the materials must be at their
assigned location before the workers arrive for work.
For the SCMB, it was decided in Chapter 3 that the service materials (e.g., sprinkler
piping, conduit, framing, and drywall) would be preloaded in conjunction with the
steel erection and immediately after the erection of the precast floor planks. A crane
was used and erection of structural steel was directly from the delivery truck, so there
was no room allocated for on-site storage. Each subcontractor needed to have their
materials delivered to the site as steel was being erected.
2. Determine the Location of Temporary Staging Areas (Point 5)

Temporary staging areas are seen in Fig. 6-1 as point 5, and this step involves
pinpointing the location of point 5. Temporary staging areas are usually thought of
as holding areas where materials are temporarily stockpiled for a short period of
time. There can be one or more locations in a given area or on a particular floor,
depending on the mode of delivery to point 5.
The plan for the SCMB was to erect directly from the delivery truck using a
crane; all preloaded materials for multiple crafts were delivered at once (Fig. 6-4).
Fig. 6-26 shows that the floor area was divided into five zones, one in the corridor and
four others in the remaining areas. There are six planned temporary staging areas: two
in the corridor and one for each the other four zones. Framing, duct, piping, and
electrical materials were preloaded initially, as soon as the slabs were complete.
Erection directly from the delivery truck was also practiced. The remaining service
materials, such as insulation, drywall, and acoustic tiles, were preloaded later.
3. Determine the Location of Distribution Points (Point 6)

This step involves the location of point 6 in Fig. 6-1 and the determination of how
materials will be moved from point 5 to point 6. It is not desirable for crews to travel to
temporary staging areas (point 5) to retrieve materials as these areas may be far
removed from the work face (point 7). Therefore, each zone is subdivided, and
distribution locations are identified (point 6). For a commercial building or condo-
minium, subdivision can be done according to room. The distribution points may be
III
II
Point 5
III
I( ) Point 5 I (c)
IV
I V
Point 6
Temporary Staging
Distribution
Fig. 6-26. Temporary Staging Areas and Distribution Points, Second floor of the SCMB
along the exterior wall (Fig. 6-4) or in the center of the room (Fig. 6-3). Thus, for an
area or floor, there may be only a few temporary staging areas (point 5), but there can
be multiple distribution points (point 6). The materials at the temporary staging area
are subdivided among the various distribution points. In Fig. 6-26, six distribution points
are shown for zone IV. Careful planning can possibly eliminate point 5.
4. Determine Distribution Point Quantities

Because the materials need to be distributed from the temporary staging areas to the
distribution points, it is necessary to determine the quantities needed at each
distribution point. For example, a room that is 20 × 20 ft has 80 ft of perimeter
wall and may require 20 drywall boards. The important point to make is that the
amount placed at the distribution points is just the right amount, not too much, not
too little. Too much will become clutter and lead to housekeeping issues. Too little
will result in idle time when workers run out of materials. Don’t forget incidental
items, such as screws and nails.
5. Develop a Work (Sequence) Plan

The development of a sequence plan is discussed in Chapters 3 and 10, which show
the movement of the crews from area to area. In Fig. 6-26, the order of work proceeds
as follows: Ic–II–III–IV–V.
6. Develop a Space Allocation Layout

Materials at distribution points are not randomly stored in any haphazard manner.
Materials should be stored so that each craft can retrieve their materials without
moving another’s. Fig. 6-27 shows a sample space allocation layout where materials
Framing
Elec.
Piping
Fig. 6-27. Space Allocation Plan, SCMB
for multiple crafts are distributed at once. A convenient way to communicate the
plan is to spray-paint the layout on the concrete slab.
7. Distribute Materials and Incidentals

The materials are typically moved from the temporary staging area to the distribu-
tion points manually, e.g., with the aid of dollies.
8. Communicate and Enforce the Plan

The tendency on a construction site is that any open space can be used by anyone
for any legitimate purpose. If this attitude is allowed to prevail, the work area will
become cluttered by materials, tools, and trash. Clutter is detrimental to craft
productivity and safety. The prime contractor or construction manager must enforce
the plan to avoid congestion.
6.7 Waste Management
Many items are delivered to the site in packaged containers. These items produce
varying amounts of trash and rubbish (Fig. 6-20). There must be a plan to remove
trash to avoid clutter and perhaps unsafe working conditions. Sometimes there are
contractual requirements that subcontractors must keep their work areas clean.
These provisions must be rigorously enforced. Enforcement on a continual basis is
preferred, not simply at the end of the day or week. The general contractor will have
areas to keep clean as well. Removal from the site is an important part of material
management. There should be a regular schedule for removal of trash.
6.8 Case Study 1—Benefit–Cost Analysis: The Rider Building and

Greenwich Court
Almost all the principles in Table 6-1 have some potential cost implications, even
though most are minuscule. A logical question is why more contractors do not apply
better material management practices if these practices will save money. The authors
have no answer. When the cost of labor is considered, almost any strategy will be cost-
effective.
Suppose a contractor can spend $100 to buy new drill bits and new bits will save
an estimated 10 work hours. At $35/h (burdened), the benefit–cost ratio can be
calculated as 3.5, denoting a wise expenditure.
The contractor receives a visible invoice for $100, but the payroll amount of
$350 is largely invisible because it can be argued that the workers would have to be
paid anyway. The tendency of many contractors is to spend monies on visible
expenditures and to ignore invisible benefits. So, the drill bit purchase may not
be made, despite a favorable benefit–cost ratio.
This case study compares the structural steel erection practices on two almost
identical commercial projects. The comparison illustrates the value of several
principles in Table 6-1 and demonstrates the need to include inefficient labor
(invisible) costs in any economic analysis (Thomas et al. 1989).
Rider Building
Project Description—The Rider Building is a five-story commercial office building
constructed in downtown State College, Pennsylvania, in 1984. The building consists
of a structural steel frame and brick facade. A new, two-story steel frame parking deck
is adjacent. The site was small and constrained. The total site area was 38,950 ft2, and
the combined footprint area of the two structures was 23,920 ft2, or more than 60% of
the total site area. Thus, the area available for material storage and construction
equipment was limited. The material delivery strategy of the contractor for structural
steel was to make three deliveries of steel. The last two deliveries were made during
the erection process, and the material was stored on site. Thus, the erection crew was
fully mobilized for the second and third deliveries. There was some idle time during
these deliveries, and there was limited or no production during days when steel was
delivered.
Fundamental Principles—The following principles in Table 6-1 do not apply to
this project or were not observed: 1.2, 1.6, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 4.3, 5.1, and
5.2. The contractor applied Principles 1.3 and 1.7. Principles 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 2.1, 3.6,
4.1, 4.2, and 5.3 were not applied.
Contractor Operations and Practices—The facility was constructed by a local
contractor for approximately $5 million in 1985 using a nonunion workforce. The
site staff consisted of a single project superintendent. Most material requisitions were
made through the home office located approximately 50 miles from the project site.
Limited coordination with the fabricator relative to deliveries was evident.
Structural Steel Characteristics—The steel members were mostly in the range of
14 in. × 22 lb/ft to 21 in. × 68 lb/ft. In all, the structure consists of 414 pieces
weighing 171.7 tons. Incidental pieces, such as sag rods and gusset plates, are not
counted. The connections are AISC type 3 pinned joints with an average of two rows
of bolts (a total of four bolts) per connection. Alignment of the structure was done
with turnbuckles and guy wires. Final tightening of bolts was done manually with a
torque wrench.
The work was done by a four-person crew, consisting of a supervisor and three
ironworkers. A crane operator was also present, but his hours are not included in the
case study. The steel was initially erected with a 15-ton P&H hydraulic crane. This
crane would have had limited reach and would have been moved multiple times.
This step probably violates Principle 1.9 in Chapter 3 on planning, but this aspect was
not a part of this study. There was some crew idle time associated with each
movement of the crane.
The steel was delivered in three separate shipments at different times during the
erection process, once before erection began and again after workdays 13 and 33.
The crew ran out of steel twice. Coordination with the fabricator was lacking. There
was no evidence of a site layout plan. Each time there was a delivery (workdays 14
and 34), the steel was off-loaded in a haphazard manner wherever there was space
available. The contractor relied on the “dump truck” method of stockpiling steel.
The general condition of the site is seen in Fig. 6-13. As can be seen, the site was in a
state of considerable disarray. Movement of the crane would have been difficult.
Contractor Performance—The steel erection was performed by the general
contractor. The work lasted 37 workdays and required 1,256 work hours (not
counting the work hours of the crane operator or crew supervisor). The daily steel
productivity is shown in Fig. 6-28. The productivity is reported as work hours/piece of
steel. Therefore, low numbers show better performance. Given the variability in the
data, it is readily obvious that this was not a particularly good project.
Fig. 6-28 is revealing about this project. The crew ran out of steel at the end of
workdays 13 and 33. After workday 13, there was a five-day delay before steel for the
remaining floors and the roof was delivered (the five days after workday 13 are not
10.000 Rider Building - Structural Steel
9.000
8.000
7.000
Daily Prod. (wh/pc)
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000 Expected productivity

Expected productivity
0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Workday
Fig. 6-28. Daily Productivity of Steel Erection, Rider Building

included in this study). Structural steel was delivered on three consecutive days.
Because the crew was fully mobilized, there was some crew idle time associated with
the delivery. Steel erection commenced after this delivery was made, while the crew
was largely struggling to organize the materials (an estimated 64 inefficient work
hours). Ten workdays were lost from the schedule. Before exhausting the supply of
steel, there were periods of time when the crew slowed its work pace to keep from
running out of work. Both times the crew productivity suffered. Whenever steel was
delivered, there were periods of about four workdays before the operation returned
to its normal productivity level (expected productivity, see Fig. 6-28). During this
time, the crew was organizing the steel as it was searching for the next piece of
steel to erect. Considerable time was spent moving the steel and other materials in
search of the required piece. The figure shows the effect of this practice on labor
productivity.
On workday 33, the crew again ran out of steel, and its normal work pattern was
again interrupted. Steel for the parking deck was not delivered until 85 workdays
after the steel erection on the office structure was complete. While the delivery was
only 27 pieces, representing 6.5% of the total, the crew had to remobilize. By this
time, the site was congested, making it even more difficult for the crew to locate and
organize its materials.
The crew also had difficulty aligning the first two floors, which occurred during
workdays 5–9. The situation was corrected, and difficulties with alignment did not
occur thereafter.
Overall, the work seemed poorly planned. For instance, on several workdays, few
or no pieces of steel were erected and most of the work on these workdays involved
tightening, a minor but essential subtask. This may have been “busy” work. Tighten-
ing was necessary, but it required at most two ironworkers. So there was likely more
idle time or “busy” work. This topic is discussed in Chapter 7.
Greenwich Court
Project Description—The Greenwich Court Building is also a five-story commercial
office building constructed in downtown State College, Pennsylvania (Thomas
et al. 1989) in 1985. The building consists of a structural steel frame and a
brick facade. The site was small and constrained, leaving little area available for
material storage and construction equipment. The material delivery strategy of the
specialty contractor was to make daily deliveries of steel in the morning and erect
the steel directly from the delivery truck. A surge pile of steel was maintained for
afternoon work because no deliveries were made after lunch. This stockpile was
small and well organized. The contractor coordinated with the fabricator about
which pieces of steel were to be placed on which delivery truck. The contractor also
told the fabricator which piece to load first so that the piece that was needed first
was always on top. The order of deliveries was compatible with the erection
sequence.
Fundamental Principles— The following principles in Table 6-1 do not apply

to this project or were not observed: 1.2, 1.6, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 4.3, 5.1,
and 5.2. The contractor applied principles 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 2.1, 3.6, 4.1, and 4.2.
Principles 1.8 and 5.3 was not applied.
Contractor Operations and Practices—The facility was constructed by a local
specialty contractor using a nonunion workforce. The site staff consisted of a single
project superintendent. The home office was located approximately 30 miles from
the project site.
The work was done by a three- to four-person crew, consisting of a supervisor and
two to three ironworkers. The crane operator and crew supervisor work hours are
not included in the study.
Contractor Performance—The steel erection on Greenwich Court lasted
22 workdays and required 526 work hours. The daily steel productivity is shown in
Fig. 6-29. The productivity is reported as work hours/piece of steel. Therefore,
low numbers show better performance. Given the variability in the data, it is
readily obvious that this was a much better project than the Rider Building.
This fact is confirmed in Fig. 6-30, which shows the cumulative productivity of
the two projects. Greenwich Court outperformed the Rider Building by a
wide margin and also took much less time, 22 workdays compared with 37 workdays
for the Rider Building, even though both buildings consisted of approximately the
same amount of work.
Fig. 6-29 is revealing about the Greenwich Court project. The crew ran out of
bolts, and the poor performance on workday 18 resulted because the crew had to
return to many joints to add and tighten more bolts. Six inches of snow fell on
workday 12, and little progress was made that day.
G ree n w ic h C o u rt - S tru c tu ra l S te e l
1 0.00 0
9.00 0
8.00 0
7.00 0
Daily Prod. (wh/pc)
6.00 0
5.00 0
4.00 0
3.00 0
E xpEexp
cte
edctePdroPdro
u ctivity
d u ctivity
2.00 0
1.00 0
0.00 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Workday
Fig. 6-29. Daily Productivity of Steel Erection, Greenwich Court

Cumulative Productivity
6.000
5.000
Productivity (wh/piece)
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Workday
Rider Building Greenwich Court
Fig. 6-30. Comparison of Cumulative Productivity, Rider Building and Greenwich Court
Overall, the work at Greenwich Court was well planned. Storage requirements
were minimal. The crew knew their work assignments, and there were no difficulties in
alignment. Alignment of the first two floors took only one workday (workday 7).
Material-Related Impacts—Calculating the loss of labor efficiency begins by
defining the expected daily productivity as the estimated sustained productivity that
could be attained on undisrupted days. This is shown in Fig. 6-29. Material-related
inefficiencies were computed by comparing the actual daily productivity to the
expected productivity values. The inefficiencies for running out of bolts on Greenwich
Court were computed as 8.4 work hours. At a burdened payroll rate of $35/work hour,
this equates to less than $300.
Benefit–Cost Analysis
Summary statistics for the two case study projects are given in Table 6-3. The two
projects are generally comparable. The cost of ineffective material management is
measured in terms of direct labor, equipment costs, and the indirect costs associated
with the extended schedule on the Rider Building. Because the structural steel
erection for both office buildings was on the critical path and the parking deck (for
the Rider Building) was not, it is assumed that the inefficiencies in material manage-
ment resulted in a 10-day delay in completing the Rider Building project. There was no
schedule extension on the Greenwich Court project. The wage rates and equipment
rental rates used to calculate the benefit–cost ratio were verified by a knowledgeable
contractor. The jobsite and home office overhead rates and some other rates
are assumed. The inefficient work hours caused by the material management on the
Rider Building were calculated as 200.6. (This figure does not count any inefficient
Table 6-3. Project Summary Statistics
Project Attributes Rider Building Greenwich Court

Location Downtown State College, PA Downtown State College, PA
Type of structural frame Structural Steel Structural Steel
Number of stories 5 5
Building height (ft) 62 61
Footprint area (ft2) 23,920 17,640
Site area (ft2) 38,950 35,000
Building-to-site ratio 0.61 0.50
Number of pieces 414 399
Number of tons 171.7 179.7
Responsible entity General Contractor Specialty Contractor
Number of workdays 37 33
required
Crew size 4 3–4
Labor force Nonunion Nonunion
Work hours required 1,256 526
Cumulative productivity 3.03 1.32
(work hours/piece)
Construction time frame Sept.–Feb. Jan.–Feb.
work hours on the days immediately after the first and second steel deliveries when no
pieces of steel were erected.) On Greenwich Court, the inefficient work hours were
calculated to be 8.4. The following differential cost impact is calculated.
Contractor Cost
Craft labor (ironworkers): (200 × (6 – 8.4) × $35/h) $6,727
Operating engineer (10 days × 8 h/day × $35/h) $2,800
Equipment rental ($1,000/day × 10 days) $10,000
Total Direct Cost $19,527
Jobsite and home office overhead (10 days @ $550/day) $5,500
Total direct and indirect cost for doing the work the Rider Building way $25,027
There are added expenses related to fabricator coordination. These include the
additional staff hours needed to sequence steel deliveries and the extended wait time
for delivery trucks as steel is off-loaded and erected directly in place. Using 25 truck
trips to deliver all the steel on the Greenwich project, the following expenses are
estimated.
Staff hours to sequence and expedite deliveries $200

Truck delivery charges (8 h of superintendent time @ $75/h) $600
Demurrage: (25 trailers @ $100/day for 25 days) $2,500
Total added expenses for the Greenwich Court way $3,300
Using these cost figures, the benefit–cost ratio is computed as 25,027/3,300 =

7.58. Thus, for every dollar spent in planning to erect directly from the delivery truck,
the contractor can potentially save in excess of $7.58.
Clearly, when the invisible cost of labor and schedule delay times are considered,
the Greenwich Court material management strategy is far more cost-effective
compared with the Rider Building strategy.
6.9 Case Study 2—State College Municipal Building: Work Face

Practices
This case study project is a three-story municipal office building in downtown State
College, Pennsylvania (SCMB). The structural frame of the building is structural
steel (aboveground stories) and the facade is masonry. The project also contains a
basement with reinforced concrete basement walls. The site area is 70,000 ft2
(200 × 350 ft), and the footprint area of the facility is approximately 18,750 ft2
(75 × 250 ft). The project was estimated to cost about $5 million in 2001. The
planned construction schedule was about 16 months.
Site Characteristics
The actual site plan for the project is shown in Fig. 3-3. It shows that the site had
limited space for material storage and laydown areas and other facilities. Fig. 3-3 also
shows how the contractor used the limited space. The use of storage and laydown
areas was based on a “first come, first served” philosophy, so use of storage areas was
largely unplanned. When the study began, steel reinforcement, structural steel,
concrete block, and other materials were already stored on site. There was conges-
tion and interference with trucks and deliveries entering and exiting the site. Drive-
through deliveries were not applied. There was no evidence of a site plan.
Description of the Activity

The activity reported herein is the ductwork installation, and the operation covered
four floors, from the basement to the third floor. The ductwork activity consisted of
three subtasks, that is, hangers, duct erection, and connections. There were four
major types of components involved in the work: small and large feeder duct, branch
duct, and fire dampers.
The following principles in Table 6-1 do not apply to this project or were not
observed: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 3.5, 4.3, 5.1, and 5.2. The contractor applied
Principle 1.7, and Principles 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, and 5.3
were not applied. The main focus of this case study is on work face storage practices
and housekeeping.
Construction Methods
The duct crew included one supervisor and two sheet metal workers. During the first
two weeks, there was enough clear work space for the crew to preassemble three or
four pieces of duct together on the floor and use a lift to install the preassembly
(Fig. 2-2). However, as the job progressed, the project became congested with
framing, drywall, masonry partitions, and materials stored on each floor (Fig. 6-9).
This meant that preassemblies could not be used and the duct was installed one
piece at a time instead of as a preassembly. The duct was off-loaded and manually
carried to where it was to be stored and then manually carried to the work face.
Fig. 6-24 shows the productivity for the first 33 working days of the ductwork
activity (Han and Thomas 2002). After the first few weeks, the work was frequently
disrupted. During the first two weeks, the productivity was frequently in the range of
0.30–0.35 work hours/ft when the crew made good use of subassemblies. Thereafter,
the productivity on undisrupted days was more in the range of 0.50–0.60 work
hours/ft. During this time, conditions at the work face prevented the use of
subassemblies. The case study and data from this and other projects form the basis
for Principle 3.2 (Table 6-1), that is, preassemble components into subassemblies to
maximize productivity (Fig. 2-2). Not being able to use subassemblies on the case
study project resulted in an estimated loss of productivity of almost 50%.
Material Management Practices

There was no material management plan for this project. Materials were stored on
site in accordance with the layout shown in Fig. 3-3. The site was small, and material
site access was at the one location shown. There were trailers, a tool storage shed,
excavated spoil, and a parking lot located within the site boundary. Material was
transported into the building in two places. Fig. 6-31 shows the material storage area
on the north side of the building. This area was used to stockpile excavated soil,
accumulate trash, and store miscellaneous materials. The temporary utility pole also
impeded the free flow of materials. Because of the limited site storage, duct and
other materials were stored inside the building. This aspect was shown in Fig. 6-9.
The south side of the building was not available for storage because work on
installing underground utilities was late.
Waste materials were removed periodically, but often the building interior was
untidy. The plan for waste removal (Principle 3.5) was ad hoc.
The disorderly storage practices on the interior affected the duct installation in
several ways (Principle 3.1). Duct could not be erected as a preassembly. Also, the
framing, masonry partitions, and piping were done out of sequence. Several of these
Fig. 6-31. Storage Area on North Side, State College Municipal Building
aspects are shown in Fig. 6-9. As can be seen in Fig. 6-24, there were numerous
disruptions from congestion, interferences, and out-of-sequence work, which negatively
affected the work. Overall, the labor performance of the duct installation was poor.
6.10 Case Study 3—Beaver Avenue Parking Garage: Fabricator

Relations
This case study project is the construction of a six-story parking structure in downtown
State College, Pennsylvania. There is limited commercial space on the first two floors.
The project was built in the spring of 2005 at an estimated cost of $11 million.
The entire structure was precast concrete. A specialty contractor using a
Manitowoc 2250 and a 10-person crew of union ironworkers did the precast erection.
The structure consisted of beams, columns, spandrels, slabs, panels, and stairs. The
columns took approximately 45–60 min each to erect, and the other pieces took
about 15–30 min each. A separate team of ironworkers did all the grouting. The
erection was divided into five phases, but because of time constraints, only phases 1
and 2 were monitored.
observed: 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 5.1, and 5.2. The
contractor applied Principles 1.3, 1.6, 1.8, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. Principles 3.6, 3.7, and 5.3
were not applied. The main focus of this case study is on effective vendor relations,
use of a surge pile, development of site plans, and the principle of erection from the
delivery truck.
Contractor Operations
Because the construction site was small and constrained, there was little or no room
for storing precast pieces at the site. To counteract the small site, the contractor
applied principles 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 from Table 6-1.
There were two types of precast pieces: permit and nonpermit pieces. The
distinction was the width. Nonpermit or narrow pieces could be delivered without a
transport permit, and wide pieces required a permit. The specialty contractor used a
vacant staging area about four miles away to maintain a surge pile (stockpile) of
nonpermit pieces. As these nonpermit precast pieces were delivered from the
fabricator, the loaded trailer was dropped at this remote staging area.
Permit pieces were delivered daily to the site on a prearranged time schedule
(Principle 4.3). Because of permit limitations, permit pieces could not arrive at the
site until about 10:30 a.m. The use of the remote surge pile of nonpermit pieces
provided workers with work to do at the beginning and end of the shift because the
superintendent could call for the nonpermit pieces to be delivered at any time
(Principle 1.6). When pieces arrived at the site (of either type), they were erected
directly from the delivery truck (Principle 4.1). A nonpermit element is shown being
erected in Fig. 6-11 and also in Fig. 3-26. A hypothetical delivery schedule is shown in
Fig. 6-32.
There was excellent coordination between the specialty contractor and the
fabricator (Principle 4.2). The deliveries were timely, except for one day. The
correct pieces were delivered per the erection sequence, and the pieces were
oriented on the truck to facilitate erection directly from the truck. Thus, the
specialty contractor applied good material management practices. The superin-
tendent had a goal of 14 precast pieces per day (based on an estimated budget of
5.75 work hours/piece), but that goal was often exceeded. The remote surge pile
was essential to exceeding this goal.
Fig. 6-32. Hypothetical Delivery Schedule, Precast Elements

Productivity
50.000
45.000
40.000
35.000
WH/piece
30.000
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Workday
Fig. 6-33. Daily Productivity for Precast Elements, Beaver Avenue Parking Garage
The superintendent had an excellent opportunity to control the daily produc-

tion because there was good communication and coordination with the fabricator.
Most of the deliveries were made on time, and the off-site staging area meant that
nonpermit pieces could be delivered as needed, so work for the crew was
always available and there was little idle time. The productivity of the crew is shown
in Fig. 6-33. Production variability was caused by the time differential needed for
different components to be erected: columns took two to four times longer than other
components to erect, the stairwells were complex and time consuming, there was an
accident (workday 2), design errors affected the work (workdays 7–8), the crane
needed to be moved as the work progressed from phase 1 to phase 2 (workdays 11–13),
and precast permit pieces were delayed one day (workday 9). Output was low on
another five or six workdays. But despite the unfavorable conditions, the goal of
14 pieces per day was exceeded most of the time.
6.11 Case Study 4—Food Science Building: Delivery Strategy
This case study was of the structural steel erection for the four-story Food Science
Building classroom and research facility on the Penn State campus. The estimated cost
of the facility was $45.1 million. The crew size ranged from seven to 10 ironworkers.
The work was planned in five phases. Two phases were monitored. The overall
site was spacious, but to keep steel within the reach of the crane, the on-site storage
area was limited. The specialty contractor chose to deliver steel to the site frequently
from an off-site staging area, but steel was off-loaded from the trucks and stored on
site instead of being erected directly from the truck (Fig. 6-2). Thus, the contractor
used multiple staging areas and the final staging area was on site. Because of the
U-shape nature of the building, only one crane setup for all five phases was required.
Coordination with the fabricator was good, and deliveries to the off-site staging area
from the fabricator were timely. The crew never ran out of steel.
observed: 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.3, 5.1, and 5.2. The
contractor applied Principles 1.3, 1.4, and 1.8. Principles 1.6, 1.7, 4.1, 4.2, and 5.3
were not applied. The main focus of this case study is on the use of the surge pile and
the material delivery strategy.
Contractor Performance
The labor performance of the steel erection crew on the Food Science Building was
not good. The site was spacious, but the storage area for structural steel was limited.
The contractor staged the material at two locations: at a remote location about five
miles away and at the site. Effective material management practices were not applied.
Deliveries were made almost every day, and most crew members had nothing
productive to do while steel was being off-loaded. There was much variability in
production output. The productivity variability is visually observed in Fig. 6-34. In
response to schedule delays, the contractor enlarged the crew, and performance
suffered more. The crew performance was variable, especially after the crew size was
increased (after workday 10).
It appears that by applying a strategy of staging the steel at the site and increasing
the crew size, the contractor seriously affected the labor performance in a negative way.
Presumably, at the off-site staging area, material shakeout was done, as no
fabrication errors were observed at the site. But, trailers were loaded randomly and
driven to the site where the trailers were off-loaded. Some unused pieces of steel can
be seen in Fig. 6-2.
The superintendent had the opportunity to control the production, but did
little to do so. The reduction in daily output is largely associated with steel
deliveries. Steel was delivered to the site regularly, stockpiled at the site, and then
Productivity
14.0
12.0
WH/Piece Erected
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Workday
Fig. 6-34. Daily Productivity for Steel Erection, Food Science Building
erected from the stockpile. The problem with this approach is that off-loading and
stockpiling took two to three members of the crew, leaving the other members of
the crew with little or nothing productive to do. So daily output was greatly reduced
on days when steel was delivered, which was done frequently. The superintendent
failed to take advantage of the opportunity to erect steel directly from the delivery
truck (Principle 4.1).
Based on 70 work hours/day and 1.20 work hours/piece, a daily goal of
58 pieces/day is calculated. The crew came close to this goal on only four workdays.
The cumulative crew productivity was 2.06 work hours/piece compared with 1.32
work hours/piece on the Greenwich Court project described in Case Study 1. The
cumulative steel erection productivity on the Food Science Building was about 60%
worse than the Greenwich Court project.
References
Han, S. Y., and Thomas, H. R. (2002). “Quantification of labor inefficiencies—A case study.”
Proc., Triennial Symp, Organization and Management of Construction, CIB, Cincinnati.
Riley, D. R., and Sanvido, V. E. (1995). “Patterns of construction-space use in multistory
buildings.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 121(4), 464–473.
Riley, D. R., and Sanvido, V. E. (1997). “Space planning method for multistory building
Stukhart, G., and Cook, E. L. (1990). “Bar-code standardization in industrial construction.”
Thomas, H. R., Riley, D. R., and Sanvido, V. E. (1999). “Loss of labor productivity due to
delivery methods and weather.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(1), 39–46.
Thomas, H. R., and Sanvido, V. E. (2000). “The role of the fabricator in labor productivity.”
Thomas, H. R., Sanvido, V. E., and Sanders, S. R. (1989). “Impact of material management on
productivity—A case study.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 115(3), 370–384.
CHAPTER 7
Fundamental Principles of Workforce

Management
Construction site operations are subject to many disruptions related to workforce

management practices, and these disruptions can result in significant economic
losses to the contractor. Most of the research conducted on construction labor
productivity has focused on the causes of subpar productivity (Thomas and Smith
1990; Horner and Talhouni 1993; Thomas et al. 2002) and the quantification of
labor inefficiencies (Hanna et al. 1999a, b; Thomas and Napolitan 1995; Thomas and
Raynar 1997; Thomas 1999; Thomas and Sanvido 2000). There is considerable
knowledge about why things go wrong, but there is limited published information
about effective management practices to apply to avoid cost overruns and time delays
associated with labor inefficiencies, especially as it relates to workforce management.
Several important principles are related to how one should effectively manage a
construction workforce at the crew level (Thomas and Horman 2006).
7.1 Efficient Workforce Management Practices
The insights in this chapter apply to workforce management deficiencies in all

phases of a project where labor is being used. Some of the common workforce
management deficiencies observed on numerous projects are the following:
• Not organizing the crew into multiple work teams,

• Insufficient time lag (buffers) between activities,
• Having no expectation of the daily crew production, and
• Not doing housekeeping or incidental work concurrently with high-value work.
Table 7-1 summarizes some fundamental principles of workforce management. The

principles are organized according to the categories of general, daily work schedule,
155
Table 7-1. Fundamental Principles of Workforce Management
Number Principle
General
1.1 Where possible, use a 4-10 work schedule.
1.2 Staff the activity with labor resources that are consistent with the amount of work
available to be performed. This includes taking adequate account of the
variability in the project.
1.3 Have a good termination or layoff policy at the crew and project levels.
1.4 In instances of uncontrollable variability in workload, more labor than planned
may need to be applied rapidly to complete work in the required time frame.
1.5 Superintendents and supervisors should not pick up tools and perform work
normally done by workers.
1.6 The concept of a working supervisor is not a good idea.
1.7 Share with the crew expectations in terms of production, work hours, time, and
completion dates.
1.8 Each crew must be allowed to work at an unimpeded pace to maximize labor
efficiency.
Daily Work Schedule
2.1 Daily schedules should be planned to prolong the periods of the most productive
work activity.
Work Assignments
3.1 Make the primary focus of the crew’s work directed to high-value work. Never stop
working on high-value work.
3.2 Efficient material handling and timely deliveries are important for good
productivity, especially on labor-intensive operations.
3.3 Work on low-value subtasks concurrently with high-value work.
3.4 Perform incidental and cleanup work concurrently with high-value work.
Crew Structure
4.1 A crew should be viewed as a collection of flexible size work teams.
Disruptions
5.1 Minimizing or eliminating disruptions improves performance.
5.2 Keep the work face area free of trash and clutter.
Multiskilling
6.1 Create multiskilled crews with individuals who have different skills, and who,
when combined, form the multiskilled crew.
6.2 Where concurrent multiskilling tasks are applied, crew assignments need to
carefully consider the size of the teams, the production output to be expected
for each team, and how many hours the teams should be given to accomplish
their work.
Preassemblies and Modules
7.1 Preassemblies and modules are an effective way to reduce the field labor
component of the installation activity.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT 157
Table 7-1. Fundamental Principles of Workforce Management (Continued)
Number Principle
Symbiotic Crew Relationships
8.1 Where possible, avoid symbiotic activities.
8.2 There should be adequate time buffers between each activity.
work assignments, crew structure, disruptions, multiskilling, preassemblies and

modules, and symbiotic crew relationships.
General Principles
Though there is limited information about the labor efficiency of workdays of different
lengths, unpublished research suggests that labor efficiency is not impaired so long as
the workday does not exceed 10 hours. Contractors and craft workers like to work a
four-day, 10-hour per workday (4-10) work schedule. This schedule gives the workers a
three-day weekend while providing the contractor with a makeup day (Friday) without
having to pay overtime wages in the event of adverse weather or some other calamity.
Saturdays can be used for overtime work, if necessary. Therefore, contractors should
seriously consider using a 4-10 work schedule (Principle 1.1). Some union agreements
may preclude the use of a 4-10 schedule.
Another important advantage of the 4-10 schedule comes from recognizing the
existence of daily startup and shutdown times. There are four startup and shutdown
times that occur each day, at the beginning and end of the shift and just before and
after lunch. These times are notoriously unproductive because the crew is getting
organized, becoming acclimated to their daily work assignment, putting away tools,
and cleaning up. With a 4-10 schedule, there are 16 unproductive periods each week.
With a 5-8 schedule, there are 20 such periods. The advantage of the 4-10 schedule is
obvious.
Contractors should staff an activity with labor resources consistent with the
amount of work available to be performed (Principle 1.2). This principle seems trite,
but it is often violated. How many times has the reader seen a six-person crew with
two persons working and four persons watching? Such a situation is shown in Fig. 7-1.
In the figure, six craftsmen have been assigned to do the work that can probably be
done by four. Project engineers need to be sensitive to this situation as it occurs often
on a construction site, and it costs the contractor money. Most contractors follow
Principle 1.2 on a sitewide or craft basis, but less so on a crew basis. Many instances
have been observed where full-sized crews have insufficient work to perform. If
the other crew members do any work, they commonly perform “busy” or “filler”
(incidental) work. However, if sufficient work is not available, the superintendent
should reduce the crew size or divide the crew into teams. This should be done
within the context of the labor agreement and a flexible labor management strategy,
Fig. 7-1. Overstaffed Work Assignment
as explained in the following. Also, care is needed not to adversely affect worker
morale in these instances.
On one $45 million research facility and classroom project, the steel erection
activity was monitored (see Chapter 6, Case Study 4). As the productivity suffered
and the schedule slipped, the merit shop contractor increased the crew size from
seven to nine to 10. This strategy simply meant more workers standing around and
watching. The contractor’s violation of Principle 1.2 cost the contractor a minimum
of 800 work hours or $25,000–30,000 (at $35/h burdened) on what was a relatively
straightforward project. The site was spacious and weather was not a problem, except
for two days. The main problems were (1) not erecting steel directly from the
delivery truck and (2) the addition of more ironworkers.
Too many workers can be a common occurrence at the end of an activity or
project because superintendents are often reluctant to lay off workers (United
Nations 1965). This work is made more difficult by excessive piecemeal, punch list,
remedial, and incidental work. Fig. 7-2 shows the daily productivity of a structural
steel erection activity. The eight-person ironworker crew was organized into four
teams; one team was responsible for the initial erection of the steel members.
Beginning on workday 18, the erection of steel pieces was finished, and the crew was
overstaffed by about a third. Overstaffing is known to be the cause because on work-
day 22, the crew size was reduced from eight to two, and the productivity returned to
about 1.1 wh (work hours)/piece. This can be clearly observed in Fig. 7-2. There
were no other disruptions observed during this time frame. The contractor had no
other project in the area where these workers could be sent. On this project, the
inefficient work hours caused by overstaffing cost the subcontractor more than
$6,000 (at $35 burdened).
10.0
9.0
8.0
Daily Prod. (wh/pc) 7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Workday
Fig. 7-2. Daily Productivity of Steel Erection Activity, Wartic Hall, Pennsylvania State
University, State College, PA
A contractor needs to have a good termination or layoff policy at the crew and
project levels (Principle 1.3). Being overstaffed at the end of a project is particularly
problematic if a contractor is waiting for another project in the area to start or to
progress to the point where the excess workers are needed. It has also been observed
that some superintendents are reluctant to release workers because of the difficulty
in forecasting future labor demands. Engineers need to develop robust methods of
forecasting labor demands. These issues are particularly problematic during sched-
ule acceleration (see Chapter 12) and can have serious cost implications.
In some instances, crews may need to be sized at a level above normal because
work is fed to them erratically. This occurs when disruptions and events like late
changes, delays by other contractors, and unforeseen site difficulties affect the
project but completion dates are held rigid (Horman 2000). In instances of
uncontrollable variability in workload, more labor than planned may need to be
applied rapidly to complete the work within the required time frame (Principle 1.4).
However, this strategy can be costly. The situation may be exacerbated by a tight
labor market.
It is not uncommon for superintendents and supervisors to have worked their
way up through the trades. It is hard for them to completely abandon their tools.
But, superintendents and supervisors should not pick up tools and perform work
normally done by craft workers (Principle 1.5). The superintendent’s and super-
visor’s job is to plan and to anticipate problems, foresee shortages, schedule
equipment, locate and assemble materials, and coordinate with other trades.
These tasks cannot be done effectively if superintendents and supervisors are
working with their tools. Thus, the concept of a working supervisor is not a good
idea (Principle 1.6).
Sharing with the crew management’s expectation of production goals is a good
idea. If communicated, the goal is almost always met, as long the goal is realistic and
management works with the crew to achieve the goal (Principle 1.7) and to remove
obstacles. Occasionally, a good tactic is to ask the crew to provide the goal. It is almost
always higher than management’s expectation, and if the crew sets the goal, it is
likely to be met. It follows that it is important to know what a crew can produce and to
take appropriate action if production goals are not met.
Importantly, to maximize labor efficiency, each crew must be allowed to work
at an unimpeded pace (Principle 1.8). Fig. 3-17 conveys a situation where this
principle should be considered. Time lags are important to achieving production
goals.
Daily Work Schedule

The intensity of the work (and output) varies throughout the workday. The most
productive times occur around 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. It follows that supervisors
and superintendents should try to schedule breaks to avoid interruptions to these
productive times. Daily schedules should be planned to prolong the periods of the
most productive work activity (Principle 2.1). In a study of a structural reinforcement
activity on a major industrial site, it was determined that the work intensity was
generally as shown in Fig. 7-3a. Fig. 7-3b shows a hypothetical work schedule and
planned breaks for an eight-hour workday that prolongs the period of highest
intensity. The break time in the morning is shown for 9:00 a.m., lunch is at 11:30,
and there is an unscheduled break in the afternoon. This optimized daily work
schedule provides longer periods of time when the work is most intense in both the
mornings and afternoons.
Work Assignments
High Value Work—A construction activity usually consist of multiple subtasks. The
relative labor effort applied to each subtask needed to produce a single unit of
output is described by rules of credit. Table 7-2 shows example subtasks and rules of
credit for concrete formwork and structural steel erection activities. Incidental
subtasks are ignored. If, for example, on a steel erection activity, it is estimated
that it will take 2,000 work hours, it should take approximately 200 work hours to
tighten the structure (using the rule of credit of 0.10). As can be seen in Table 7-2,
the erection activity in both instances requires the most labor effort. Subtasks with
high labor content (not necessarily cost) are termed herein as “high-value” work. It is
important to make the primary focus of the crew’s work directed to high-value work
at all times. Never stop working on high-value work (Principle 3.1). For example, if
formwork erection is high-value work, then the work should be planned such that
significant quantities of formwork are erected every day. While low-value work still
needs to be done, it should be done concurrently with high-value work. Unfortu-
nately, much of the time, low- and high-value work are done sequentially. Sequential
practices drastically degrade crew productivity in most instances because low-value
work often requires only a few workers, not the entire crew.
For instance, suppose a formwork crew of 12 carpenters working an eight-hour
shift (96 work hours per day) has a goal of achieving a daily productivity of 0.08 wh/ft2
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
Relative Intensity
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
Break Lunch Break
0.10
0.00
0 60 120 180 181 195 240 270 285 286 300 330 331 360 420 420 435 436 450 465 480 510
Minutes
(a)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
Relative Intensity
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
Break Lunch
0.10
0.00
0 60 120 121 135 180 240 270 271 300 330 360 390 420 450 465 480 510
Minutes
(b)
Fig. 7-3. Intensity for an Eight-Hour Workday. (a) Actual Intensity for an Eight-Hour
Day, and (b) Intensity for an Optimized Work Routine
of wall formwork. To do so, the crew must be credited with 1,200 ft2 of formwork
each workday (96/0.08). Using the rules of credit in Table 7-2, the crew must erect
1,200/0.75 or 1,600 ft2 to receive credit for 1,200 ft2. Conversely, if stripping is the only
daily activity performed (a low-value subtask), the crew must still be credited with
1,200 ft2 to meet its budgeted performance. To get credit for 1,200 ft2, the crew will
have to strip an actual amount of 1,200/0.10 or 12,000 ft2. There may not be 12,000 ft2
of formwork on the site. This simple example shows the importance of Principle 3.1.
Many construction activities, such as concrete formwork, steel erection, some rein-
forcement installations, and duct installation, have been observed where most of the
daily work was spent on low-value work only. However, the good projects are the ones
Table 7-2. Typical Subtasks and Rules of Credit
Concrete Formwork Structural Steel
Subtasks Rules of Credit Subtasks Rules of Credit

High-Value
Erect 0.75 Erect 0.60
Low-Value
Plumb and align 0.15 Plumb and align 0.30
Stripping 0.10 Tightening 0.10
Total
Total 1.00 Total 1.00
where high-value work is the main effort every workday. Fig. 7-4 shows work where a
duct crew has spent the entire workday erecting hangers (low-value work). No duct
(high-value work) was erected.
Low-Value and Incidental Work—In developing countries, much of the work is
labor intensive. The labor component is frequently assigned to material handling.
Sweis, in a study of mason productivity in Jordan, found that the productivity for
skilled labor (masons) was almost the same as in the United States and the United
Kingdom (Sweis 2000). The difference in overall productivity was in the productivity
of unskilled labor. It took much more unskilled labor in Jordan to manually unload,
stockpile, and transport materials to the work face. Thus, efficient material handling
and timely deliveries (see Chapter 6) are important for good productivity, especially
on labor-intensive operations (Principle 3.2).
Fig. 7-4. Workers Have Done Hanger Erection Only this Day, Smeal College of Business,
State College, Pennsylvania
In the erection of a precast parking garage, delivery of precast components was

scheduled down to 15-min intervals (Fig. 6-32). Deliveries were timely, and labor
productivity was good, except when the crane was moved. Fig. 6-33 shows consistent
productivity of this operation (see Chapter 6, Case Study 3). The crane was relocated
on workdays 11–13.
It is recognized that subtasks such as stripping of formwork and tightening of
bolts on steel erection activities are necessary. Additionally, there are other inciden-
tal tasks that need to be performed, like cleaning of forms, site cleanup, and others.
However, there is always time during the workday for these subtasks to be performed
by a small team of workers. For instance, two or three carpenters could be taken from
the work in Fig. 7-1 to perform these tasks.
Consider another example involving a crew of eight carpenters. For the erection
of wall formwork, the following work requirements for each subtask is assumed:
erection of gang forms: four carpenters; erection of modular forms: four carpenters;
bracing, plumbing, and alignment: two to three carpenters; stripping: two to three
carpenters; and bulkheads: two carpenters. If during the day, the work required
includes erection of modular panels and installation of bulkheads (both subtasks
combined may require six carpenters), then there are theoretically two carpenters
available to perform low-value or incidental work. This situation may last for several
hours. The underused members of the crew can perform stripping, cleaning of
forms, or site cleanup while formwork erection (bulkheads and modular forms),
which are high-value subtasks, are still being performed by the other crew members.
Thus, an important principle is to work on low-value subtasks concurrently with high-
value work (Principle 3.3). There is always some time during the day to do low-value
work. If low-value work is not available, then alternate work assignments should be
made, but the crew should be fully used.
Fig. 7-5 is a hypothetical daily work schedule for an eight-person crew of
carpenters installing wall formwork. The schedule is divided into eight hourly work
segments. The formwork subtasks are listed at the left of the figure along with the
number of carpenters required to perform each subtask. As can be seen, during parts
of the workday, a team of two carpenters is available for cleanup or other low-value or
incidental work. What is important to avoid is the situation shown in Fig. 7-1 where six
carpenters have been assigned the work that could have probably been done by four.
HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
erection (6)
alignment,etc. (3)
stripping (2)
bulkheads (2)
cleaning forms (2)
number of available crew members 0 2 0 0 5 5 0 0
cleanup (2)
other low revenue producing work
number of underutilized crew members 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0
Fig. 7-5. Hypothetical Daily Work Schedule

0.8
0.7
Daily Productivity (wh/ft^2)
Pipesleeve Installation
0.6
Six Week Delay

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Workday
Fig. 7-6. Labor Productivity on a Wastewater Facility Showing the Effect of Low-Value
Work
In yet another example, Fig. 7-6 shows the productivity of a wall formwork crew
on a wastewater facility. The work included both wall formwork (gang formwork)
and the installation of pipe sleeves through the walls. The crew size was six
carpenters. Erection of gang forms required all six crew members, but the pipe
sleeve subtask took two to three carpenters. The contractor chose to work four to five
days on nothing but erecting wall formwork, then two to three days on nothing but
installing pipe sleeves (low-value work), so the subtasks were done sequentially.
Almost 30% of the workdays involved the installation of pipe sleeves of various sizes.
On almost all of these days, the productivity is worse (by about 50%) than days when
pipe sleeves were not installed. The supervisor assigned the entire crew to do this low-
value work when maybe only a portion of the crew would have been justified. The
supervisor violated Principles 3.1 and 3.3.
A related principle is to perform incidental and cleanup work concurrently
with high-value work (Principle 3.4). Another example is worthwhile to illustrate
this important principle. An efficient framing crew was observed during the
partition wall construction of a unit of condominiums and townhouses. Unfortu-
nately, the crew deferred the incidental task of cleanup until the production work
was almost complete. At the end of the activity, it took three workdays to clean the
site, thereby eroding much of the profit generated by the productive crew. The
productivity of this crew is shown in Fig. 7-7. On workdays 16–18, the productivity
degraded because most of the work was on incidental (cleanup) work. On workdays
1 and 2, most of the crew did low-value work only. “Clean as you go” is an important
principle.
Crew Structure
Because it is always desirable for a crew to perform low-value work, incidental work,
cleanup work, or be given alternate assignments concurrently with high-value work,
0.80
0.60
Productivity (wh/lf)
0.40
0.20 Day 1- sill layout (no framing)

Day 2 - sill layout (no framing)
Day 12 - bad weather
Day 14 - Set up roof trusses for next day
Days 16 - 18 - Cleanup activities
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Workday
Fig. 7-7. Productivity of the Framing Crew
it is important that the crew be viewed as a collection of flexible size work teams.
A few subtasks are likely to require all crew members, i.e., gang form erection, but
many subtasks, like bulkheads, require a small subset of the crew. The teams need to
be flexible in size because the work hour requirements vary with each subtask
(Horman and Kenley 1998; Horman 2000). Therefore, a crew should be viewed as a
collection of flexible size work teams (Principle 4.1).
A phenomenon occurs on many projects when the project is around 85–95%
complete. The character of the work shifts away from bulk installation to that of
completing systems, making systems operable, and punch list or finishing activities.
The work before this changeover is bulk installation, and it requires a comparatively
larger crew than the finish work. Project engineers need to be sensitive to this
changeover work because from this point forward, the crew should be divided into
small work teams, often consisting of only one or two workers. Not dividing the crew
into teams will lead to a violation of Principle 1.2.
Disruptions
In a study of formwork on six bridge sites in central Pennsylvania (Thomas et al.
2002), the disruptions affecting the work were observed and recorded, and the
inefficient work hours were calculated. The summary results in Fig. 7-8 show the total
inefficient work hours by category of disruption. As can be seen, labor, rework,
weather, and equipment were the leading causes of labor inefficiency. Thus,
minimizing or eliminating disruptions reduces the variability in labor productivity
and improves overall labor performance (Principle 5.1).
It is also important to keep the work face area free of trash and clutter (compare
Fig. 6-4 to Figs. 6-9 and 6-20 to 6-22). Therefore, keep the work face area free of trash
and clutter (Principle 5.2) at all times.
4000
3500
3000
Workhours
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Conversion Technology
Labor
Equipment
Materials
Out-of-Sequence
Weather
Rework
Proj. 9901 Proj. 9902 Proj. 9903
Proj.9904 Proj. 9905 Proj. 9906
Fig. 7-8. Summary of Inefficient Work Hours by Resource
Multiskilling
Multiskilling refers to a crew’s ability to perform multiple tasks that would ordinarily
be assigned to several specialty crews (Burleson et al. 1998). Multiskilled crews can be
created with differently skilled individuals that when combined form the multiskilled
crew (Principle 6.1). An example of multiskilling is when one crew erects both
concrete formwork and installs steel reinforcement. On workdays when both
activities are in progress, the challenge is to allocate an appropriate portion of the
crew to each task. To do so, one must assess the amount of work available for each
task and base the assignments on what is considered to be an acceptable output for
the workday. Alternate assignments can be made for parts of the day. Union labor
agreements may preclude the use of multiskilled crews.
As an example of effective multiskilling, consider Fig. 7-9, which is the produc-
tivity curve of a crew erecting a concrete basement wall. The multiskilled crew
performed formwork erection, steel reinforcement installation, and concrete place-
ment. The superintendent moved crew members from one task to another based on
the work available. He made sure that the teams were sized so as not to impede the
progress of succeeding activities, and he also applied time lags. On workdays 4
and 11, alternate assignments were made (these work hours were included in the
productivity calculation for that day). The results from this project indicate that the
productivity for this crew was good. Use of multiskilled crews like this one requires
constant monitoring to ensure that the teams are properly balanced. This require-
ment may prove to be burdensome.
In a less successful application of multiskilling, carpenter crews on four bridge
projects erected abutments, foundations, piers, and pier caps. The crews performed
1.000
0.900
0.800
Daily Productivity (wh/ft2)
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Workday
Fig. 7-9. Daily Concrete Formwork Productivity Showing Successful Use of

Multiskilling, Alumni Center, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA
formwork erection and placed concrete. Fig. 7-10 shows the crew productivity on the
four projects (vertical bars) for the days in which concrete was placed. The figure
also shows the size of the concrete placement (solid line). In general, the daily
productivity improved as the size of the placement increased. For concrete place-
ments where crew work assignments were split between concrete placement and
formwork erection, the contractor seems to have had difficulty in properly allocating
the appropriate number of individuals, especially for smaller placements (<100
cubic yards [cy]). Ensuring that sufficient work was available for both work teams
and/or establishing expectations for the output and time frame for each team is not
always an easy task, but it must be done to achieve consistent crew performance.
From these data, it is concluded that where multiskilling is applied, the crew
0.50 900
0.45 800
0.40
Daily Productivity (wh/ft2)
700
Size of Placement (cy)
0.35
600
0.30
500
0.25
400
0.20
300
0.15
0.10 200
0.05 100
0.00 0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41
Daily Productivity Size of Placement
Fig. 7-10. Productivity versus Size of Concrete Placement

supervisor needs to carefully consider the size of the teams, the production output to
be expected for each team, and how much time the teams should be given to
accomplish their work (Principle 6.2).
Suppose that a crew consisting of six craft workers is to place 25 cy of concrete.
(This is a multiskilled crew doing formwork and concrete placement.) The abutment
formwork (modular) productivity budget is 0.090 wh/ft2. If the concrete placement
budget is 0.63 wh/cy of concrete, then the work hours needed to place the concrete
and still be within budget is 15.75 or 16 work hours. If the placement is scheduled to
take four hours, then four of the six crew members should be assigned to this work. The
remaining two workers can be assigned to erecting modular formwork. In four hours,
the smaller team of two should erect 119 ft2 of abutment formwork [ð2 × 4Þ∕0.09∕0.75].
The rule of credit of 0.75 for erecting formwork (see Table 7-2) has been applied in this
example. After four hours, the teams can then be merged to perform additional high-
value work, say gang formwork. A hypothetical work schedule for the crew for the first
five hours of the day is given in Fig. 7-11. If this goal is achieved, then the formwork and
concrete budgets will be met.
A downside of a multiskilled crew is that teams may not be assigned to take
advantage of the unique skills of individuals. If assignments are improperly done,
productivity may suffer. In the previous example, the individuals most skilled in
modular formwork erection should not be assigned to concrete placement.
Preassemblies and Modules

One way to minimize the amount of work crews do in awkward or unfavorable work
face conditions is to preassemble components into subassemblies and erect the
subassembly into position as a single unit. The assembly of column reinforcement
cages is often observed. However, contractors can make wider use of this practice,
and there are usually labor efficiency advantages in doing so. Han and Thomas
observed that a crew installing duct required about 50% fewer work hours per foot
when several sections were assembled on the floor and the subassembly was erected
as a unit (Fig. 2-2), compared with the erection of sections one at a time (Han and
Thomas 2002). Using preassemblies and modules may be an effective way to reduce
the field labor component of the installation activity (Principle 7.1).
Fig. 7-12 shows the partial assembly of a support frame for a curtain wall. The
preassembly yielded positive productivity gains on this project because much of the
welding was done in a fabrication shop and not in the field.
HOUR Output 1 2 3 4 5
Modular Formwork (2) 119 ft 2
Gang Formwork (6)
Concrete Placement (4) 25 cy
Fig. 7-11. Hypothetical Work Schedule

Fig. 7-12. Support Frame Subassembly for Curtain Wall, Dickinson Law School, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania
Symbiotic Crew Relationships

Symbiotic work is cooperative work that is done by several crews on the same
component or item of work. The work is passed from one crew or subcontractor to
another and back again.
An example illustrates this concept. For the erection of a partition wall in an
office building, a framing crew erects the wall frame, followed by an electrical crew
that does rough-in electrical. Separate insulation and drywall crews complete the wall
before the electrical crew returns to do the finish electrical work. The work of the
electrical crew is symbiotic or cooperative, whereas the work of the framing crew is
not. The framing crew can work at its own pace, whereas the pace of the electrical
crew is likely to be dictated by others.
The problem with symbiotic work is that the individual, team, or crew doing
symbiotic work is frequently in a standby mode, waiting for the work to be passed
back to them. Their pace of work is dictated by others. Additionally, the individuals,
teams, or crews doing the symbiotic work may be constantly changing work locations,
which in itself is inefficient. Symbiotic work should be avoided where possible.
Project monitoring activities have shown that managing symbiotic activities can
be difficult. Symbiotic crew relationships can sometimes be avoided by using
prefabricated components. Also, schedule constraints can shift some activities from
sequential to symbiotic (Thomas et al. 2004). Because of the management difficul-
ties, it is important to avoid symbiotic relationships if possible (Principle 8.1).
Time Lags (Buffers)

A key productivity issue is whether a team or crew can establish its own pace of work.
Where there are numerous activities and the production rates of activities are highly
variable, a crew must always be allowed to work at its unimpeded pace. The only hope
of establishing an efficient pace is to ensure that there are adequate buffers between
activities (Principle 8.2).
Because of variable production rates and the exposure of construction activities

to disruptions, it is important to maintain adequate stockpiles of materials and
components. In a study of the productivity of steel reinforcement crews in Brazil, it
was documented that the crew productivity was better with moderately sized
stockpiles (Horman and Thomas 2005). Small stockpiles correlated with low perfor-
mance, and large stockpiles had no performance advantages compared with mod-
erately sized stockpiles.
Buffers are a way to lessen or eliminate the negative effect on labor productivity
where there is high production variability in construction operations. Because it is
unlikely that construction variability can be fully eliminated, construction managers
must learn to manage the work under conditions of variability and learn to use
buffers.
Types of Buffers—There are many types of buffers that allow teams and crews to
work efficiently. Some common types are the following:
• Material stockpiles,
• Time lags,
• Variations in equipment and crew sizes,
• Subassemblies and modules,
• Alternate work assignments, and
• Others.
Probably the most common type of buffer is the time lag.

Schedule Acceleration—A significant problem with schedule acceleration is the
management of buffers. Because there is such a rush to get the work done, many
operations begin with little or no time lag between operations.
Fast and Slow Operations—Buffers allow for operations with varying rates of daily
production to proceed efficiently. The need for time lags is illustrated in Fig. 3-17,
which shows hypothetical velocity charts of an excavation and wall formwork operation
on SCMB. Fig. 7-13 shows similar velocity charts for the completion of pipe racks on a
refinery project. The pipe rack work shown in Fig. 7-13 involves the erection of steel
pipe racks (frames) followed by the erection of large-bore pipe on the lower level of
the steel frame, small-bore pipe on an intermediate level, and the installation of cable
tray on the top level of the steel frame. For safety reasons, the work must proceed
from the bottom level of the rack to the top level. Each of the four activities shown in
Fig. 7-13 has a unique production rate. The slowest operation is large-bore pipe, and
the fastest is the cable tray. Small-bore pipe is also a relatively fast operation. If small-
bore pipe is started too soon after the start of large-bore pipe, then the crew doing the
small-bore pipe will have to slow down or wait for the large-bore work to be done (lack
of work in progress). Their work will be impeded unless there is sufficient time lag or
time delay in starting their work. The same can be said about starting the cable tray too
soon after the small-bore pipe. Each crew must be allowed to work at an unimpeded
pace to maximize labor efficiency (Principle 8.1).
100%
pe
k
Pi
rac
re
e
Bo
Pip
e
Complete
rg
Percent
La
Production
e
Rate
Pip
ray
re
Bo
T
Cable
al l
Sm
Time
Lag Time Lag Time
Fig. 7-13. Hypothetical Example Showing Differing (Unimpeded) Production Rates
High Production Variability in Preceding Operations—Time buffers are also

necessary where the output of a preceding crew is highly variable (not just slow).
Fig. 7-14 shows the daily quantities of structural steel erected on a commercial building
project arranged in descending order. Note that more than 30% of the work was done
in less than 15% of the elapsed time. This figure is typical of the output variability of
many activities on all projects, regardless of the labor performance. Fig. 6-29 shows the
productivity on the same project, and it was suggested that this was a good project.
Changing from one component to another (columns to beams) also contributes
to output variability as the production rates vary. For instance, the daily output of
50
45
40
35
30
Quantity
25
20
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Workday
Fig. 7-14. Variable Output of Structural Steel, Greenwich Court, State College,
Pennsylvania
concrete formwork measured in square feet varies significantly as the work proceeds
from columns to beams to slabs. Disruptions also increase variability.
7.3 Expectations
Performance expectations are important to managers. The project engineer simply

has to know what a crew can produce in a given period. When will the activity be
complete? Will I be over or under budget at completion? In a recent study of union
interior system contractors where production goals were not communicated, it was
determined that the average number of sheets of drywall hung each day by an
individual union carpenter varied from 10 to 30. Clearly, some contractors had low
expectations of what an individual drywall worker can do. Sometimes an effective
strategy is to let the crew set their production goals and completion dates. The
following simple example shows how goals can be established.
Expectation Example
Suppose a crew of eight carpenters is responsible for framing and drywalling. There
is one group of four identical rooms containing a total of 2,280 ft2 (or 570 ft2/room)
of wall area. The drywall sheets are 4 ft × 10 ft × 1∕2 in. Using an eight-hour day, the
supervisor plans to assign a four-person team (one person to each room) to do this
work. How many boards per hour should this team hang, and how long should it take
to complete these four rooms? The budgeted unit rate for drywall is 0.0085 wh/ft2.
The total work hours budgeted are 2,280 × 0.0085 = 19.4 work hours. If the
four-person team works eight-hour days, this work should take 19.4/4 or about
5 hours (0.625 workdays).
Each room contains an average of 570/40 = 14.25 boards (40 ft2 each). If each of
the four carpenters erects 14.25 boards in 0.625 workdays, then their daily production
would average 14.250/0.625 = 22.8 or 23 boards (40 ft2)/day/individual.
Thus, the goal for the four-person team is to finish in 5 hours. The expectation is
that on average, 23 boards (4 ft × 10 ft × 1∕2 in.) will be erected per full workday by
each carpenter. If these expectations are met, the crew will remain on budget, and
the project should be profitable.
Of course, the supervisor needs to be a partner in this effort. The right amount
of drywall should be stacked in each room, as shown in Fig. 7-15, and good
housekeeping needs to be a high priority. The environment shown in this figure
is conducive to good labor productivity.
7.4 Overtime and Overmanning
A commonly held belief is that to increase production, one simply needs to work
scheduled overtime or add more workers. There are many dynamics that keep this
Fig. 7-15. Good Drywall Erection Practices Showing Uncluttered Work Face
strategy from being effective. While it is true that one may be able to work scheduled
overtime productively for short periods, the circumstances have to be just right for
overtime to accelerate the schedule efficiently. The same is true for adding more
workers. Eight workers cannot normally double the output of four. Some of the
dynamics that inhibit efficiency are congestion, fatigue, stacking of trades, accelerated
use of materials, shared equipment, and increased production of trash and waste.
7.5 Case Study 1—SP45, SP62, and SP73: Time Lags
Three high-rise apartment building projects from Brazil are used to illustrate the
need for buffers. Statistics for these projects are summarized in Table 7-3. The table
shows the type of building, number of floors, and footprint area of each building.
The structural components analyzed were columns, beams, slabs, and stairs. The
activity studied was the on-site fabrication and installation of steel reinforcement.
Cutting and bending of longitudinal and transverse pieces comprise the fabrication
Table 7-3. Project Descriptions
Rebar
Needed for
No. of Footprint One Floor Observation
Project Type of Building Floors Area (m2) (kg) Crew Size Days
SP45 Residential building 21 12,500 10,089 4 95
activity. Preassembly, material delivery, and final installation comprise the reinforce-
ment installation activities. Time lags relate to time lapses between the fabrication of
a certain percentage of reinforcement and the installation of that same percentage.
For example, when was 35% of the reinforcement fabricated, and how much later
was 35% of the reinforcement actually installed? This time lapse is the time lag,
measured in workdays. The time lag is also related to the size of the fabricated
stockpile.
The labor productivity for reinforcement installation only on project SP45 is
shown in Fig. 7-16. The curve shows a high degree of variability. There were many
days when no work was done.
The amount of reinforcement fabricated as a percentage and the time lag in
days were calculated using the cumulative progress curve in Fig. 7-17 for project SP45
and similar curves for the three projects. Table 7-4 shows the average time lag in days
for the three projects. The daily time lag varied more on SP45 compared with the
other two projects.
0.15
Daily productivity (wh/kg)
0.1
0.05
0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
Workday
Daily Productivity Baseline (0.008722)
Fig. 7-16. Daily Productivity, SP45
100
80
Percent complete
60
40
20
0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
Workdays
Fabrication Installation
Fig. 7-17. Cumulative Progress Curves, SP45

Table 7-4. Average Time Lag
Project Average Time Lag (Days)

SP45 8.6
SP73 6.4
SP62 5.2
Further analyses of all three projects were undertaken to see if the size of
material stockpile was related to labor performance. On four days on SP45 when the
stockpile was depleted and the time lag was zero, the productivity for the installation
of steel reinforcement worsened or no work was performed. It seems that a zero
stockpile buffer and smaller time lags are related to poor labor performance, while
excess buffers did not improve performance.
Fig. 7-18 shows the conceptual relationship between labor performance and
buffers for all three projects. With no buffer or too little buffer, labor performance
degraded. An excess buffer has no redeeming virtue. Just-in-time material delivery
(no stockpile) offers no productivity advantage. There is an optimal buffer that is unique
for each operation. The goal of the manager is to identify the optimal size buffer.
The analysis of time lags and daily productivity on the three projects showed that
where time lags were small, the productivity suffered adverse effects. For this opera-
tion, indications are that performance was best when the time lag was around four to
five days. Each operation is unique, and four to five days is not a standard for all.
However, the message is that managers, superintendents, and supervisors need to be
sensitive to and make effective use of buffers and time lags so that crews can work at an
unimpeded pace. If the buffer stockpile or surge pile is too small, workers may slow
down their pace in anticipation of depleting their supply. This situation was observed
Good
Labor Performance
Poor
Just-in- Optimal
Buffer
time
Fig. 7-18. Conceptual Relationship between Labor Performance and Buffers

on the Rider Building case study described in Chapter 6 (Fig. 6-28). Finding the
appropriate buffer size is an iterative process. Managers should do the following:
1. Begin with a modest size buffer of one week (based on the budgeted
productivity).
2. Observe the crew for any delays or negative effects (measure productivity using
rules of credit).
3. Increase or decrease the buffer and repeat step 2 until there are no delays or
negative effects.
4. Be sensitive to output variability and the ability of the crew to work at an
unimpeded rate.
Some buffer is needed to permit superior labor performance. It is also clear

from this study and other studies that variability must be managed in construction,
although there is no clarity about the best way. It is clear that the concept of
just-in-time material management needs to be weighed carefully. Other sources of
variability in the fabrication and installation activity in this case study were not
apparent from the data analyzed, and unfortunately, were unavailable.
7.6 Case Study 2—Bridges 28 and 29: Workforce Management

Practices
These were a pair of identical cast-in-place reinforced concrete bridges on I99 (one
northbound, the other southbound) in State College, PA. They were constructed by
an experienced, nonunion, well-respected local contractor who has more than
35 years of experience in highway construction. The work monitored involved footers
and abutment walls. The footers were rather massive, as shown in Fig. 7-19. The same
Fig. 7-19. Footers, Logan Branch Bridge, Bellefonte, PA

crew did the formwork, steel reinforcement, and concrete placement. When concrete
was placed, the crew was sometimes augmented with additional laborers. The concrete
placement crew size varied but averaged 10–13 craft workers.
The work was monitored for 57 workdays, during which 6,677 work hours were
charged. The daily productivity is shown in Fig. 5-26. (Lower numbers denote better
performance.) On about 20% of the workdays, the productivity was quite poor. Poor
productivity was often observed to be followed by six to eight days of relatively stable
productivity. The poor productivity days do not correspond to any particular work
activity.
The daily diary was consulted in an effort to ascertain the causes of the
productivity degradation, but no cause was found. The days of concrete placement
were analyzed, and the results are summarized in Table 7-5. There were few
disruptions to the concrete placement operations.
The data in Table 7-5 are revealing about the contractor’s operation. In general,
the footers were placed more efficiently than the abutments. There were no set days
when concrete was poured. Larger pours were more efficiently done than smaller
Table 7-5. Pertinent Data on Workdays When Concrete Was Placed, Bridges 28 and 29
Concrete Work Productivity

Workday Component (cy) Hours (wh/ft2) Comments
8 Footer 570 165a 0.058 Rain
9 Footer 80 70a 0.175 Subgrade elevation was
incorrect
10 Footer 10 70a 0.166 Subgrade elevation was
incorrect
11 Footer 250 77a 0.062
12 Footer 83 32a 0.077
19 Footer 780 246a 0.062
22 Abutment 95 120a 0.181
23 Abutment 30 114a 0.102
28 Footer 136 240a 0.243
33 Footer 90 190a 0.129
34 Footer 630 290a 0.072
36 Footer 150 104a 0.139
39 Abutment 90 180a 0.192
40 Abutment 150 130a 0.108
43 Abutment 70 140a 0.109
45 Abutment 137 80 0.083
46 Abutment 80 70a 0.125
49 Abutment 205 150a 0.105
53 Abutment 115 130a 0.130
54 Abutment 69 70a 0.145 Rain
a
Other formwork was erected in addition to placing concrete.
ones, suggesting that the smaller pours may have been overstaffed, in violation of
Principle 1.2. The contractor applied Principle 4.1 by concurrently placing concrete
on smaller pours while erecting formwork with part of the crew.
However, a number of workforce management deficiencies were observed, and
these are summarized in Table 7-6. The common theme related to workforce manage-
ment issues was insufficient work to perform. On these days, the work consisted mainly
of low-value and “incidental” work. Table 7-6 shows that this occurred on 15 workdays,
or more than 25% of the time. On workdays 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 18, 21, 41, and 48, the crew
did mostly or exclusively low-value work. On workdays 17, 27, 28, 35, 39, and 52,
incidental or “busy” work was done. Using an expected datum of 0.094 wh/ft2, a total
of 1,124 inefficient work hours were calculated because of workforce management
issues or poor site planning, At $35/h (burdened), this equates to almost $40,000
wasted.
7.7 Case Study 3—Logan Branch Bridge: Workforce Management

Practices
This bridge site also included north- and southbound spans, this time over Logan
Branch on Interstate 99 in central Pennsylvania. A total of 75 workdays were
monitored. A cursory review of the variability of the daily productivity in Fig. 7-20
suggests that this was not a particularly good project. The bridge was constructed by a
contractor different from the one that constructed bridges 28 and 29. Nevertheless,
Table 7-6. Pertinent Data on Workdays When there Were Workforce Management Deficiencies,
Bridges 28 and 29
Quantity Work Productivity

Workday (ft2) Hours (wh/ft2) Comments
4 131.7 80 0.608 Insufficient work (Erect and brace)
5 68.8 80 1.163 Insufficient work (Brace only)
17 0.0 80 — Insufficient work (Site cleanup)
18 327.2 70 0.214 Insufficient work (Piecemeal work)
27 0.0 22.5 — Insufficient work (Setup for concrete pour)
28 987.8 240 0.243 Insufficient work (Wait to pour concrete)
35 1,228.6 250 0.203 Insufficient work (Site cleanup)
38 594.0 80 0.135 Insufficient work (Setup for concrete pour)
41 389.1 130 0.334 Insufficient work (Strip only)
48 120.0 130 1.083 Insufficient work (Brace and setup)
52 550.5 100 0.179 Insufficient work (Setup for concrete pour)
9904 - Logan Branch

Formwork Productivity
1.000
0.900
0.800
Daily Productivity (wh/ft 2)
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75
Workday
Fig. 7-20. Daily Productivity, Logan Branch Bridge
the contractor was experienced in highway construction and was a nonunion, well-
respected local contractor with more than 45 years of experience in highway con-
struction. The work monitored involved footers, piers, pier caps, and abutment walls.
The piers were rather massive, as shown in Fig. 7-21. The same crew that did the
formwork also did steel reinforcement and concrete placement. When concrete was
placed, the crew was sometimes augmented with additional laborers. The crew size
varied but averaged eight to 10 workers.
The work was monitored for 75 workdays, during which 9,798 work hours were
charged. The cumulative productivity (in terms of equivalent wall formwork) was
0.174 wh/ft2, compared with an expected productivity of 0.083 wh/ft2. The daily
productivity is shown in Fig. 7-20. (Lower numbers denote better performance.)
Relatively consistent and average productivity is observed the first two weeks, then
performance deteriorated and never stabilized thereafter.
Various disruptions occurred on this project, including rain, lack of equipment,
rework, design errors, and material shortages. But of particular interest herein are
workforce management deficiencies.
Workdays when concrete was placed were analyzed and are summarized in
Table 7-7. In general, the placements were smaller than on Bridges 28 and 29, but
the average crew size was also smaller. The smaller placements appear to have been
overstaffed in many instances.
The daily diary was consulted, and it was learned that the crew productivity
suffered because construction equipment was not available; it was shared with others.
But the most significant event was a major design error. As the crew was preparing to
place concrete, they observed that the footer for Pier 3 was mislocated by about 10 ft.
This observation occurred on workday 20. Over the next seven to eight days, the crew
had to disassemble the pier and footer steel, which were mostly #11–#18 bars,
Fig. 7-21. Piers, Logan Branch Bridge, Central Pennsylvania
Table 7-7. Pertinent Data on Days When Concrete Was Placed, Logan Branch Bridge
Concrete Productivity
Workday Component (cy) Work Hours (wh/ft2) Comments
10 Pier 75 42 0.056
15 Pier 70 70 0.099
19 Pier 291 150 0.052
37 Footer 100 60a 0.116
39 Footer 56 100 0.357 Rework on pier 3
40 Footer 461 200 0.087
50 Footer 39 40 0.205 Rain
54 Footer 667 360 0.108
62 Pier cap 110 100 0.130
65 Abutment 37 90 0.118
71 Pier 68 80 0.118
74 Pier cap 110 56 0.073
a
Other formwork was erected in addition to placing concrete.
disassemble the footing formwork, and reassemble all the components in another
location. The crew received no credit for disassembly or reassembly. Therefore, its
productivity suffered greatly until about workday 28. Unfortunately, the crew never
recovered, and its productivity continued to degrade thereafter.
A number of workforce management deficiencies were observed. These are
summarized in Table 7-8. The common theme related to workforce management
was insufficient high-value work to perform. On these days, the work consisted mainly
of incidental work in preparation for a concrete pour. Table 7-8 shows that this
occurred on six workdays. On workdays 48, 56, and 67, the crew did some low-value
work. On several workdays, they had nothing to do. Using an expected datum of
0.083 wh/ft2, a total of 915 inefficient work hours were calculated because of workforce
management issues or poor site planning, at $35/h (burdened), this equates to about
$32,000.
7.8 Case Study 4—The Palmerton: Workforce Management Practices
The Palmerton project is a seven-story apartment complex with commercial space on

the ground floor and two levels of underground parking. It was constructed in State
College, Pennsylvania, in 2007–2008 at a cost of about $15 million. The gross floor
area is 133,000 ft2, and the building height is approximately 82 ft. The unit cost was
$113/ft2.
The foundation through the second floor is cast-in-place concrete. The remain-
ing floors are masonry. All levels rely on precast floor planks. The building exterior is
brick and synthetic stucco (exterior insulation and finish system, or EIFS). The
completed project is shown in Fig. 7-22.
Table 7-8. Pertinent Data on Workdays When Workforce Management Deficiencies Were
Observed, Logan Branch Bridge
Quantity Work Productivity

Workday (ft2) Hours (wh/ft2) Comments
7 107.1 50 0.467 Insufficient work (setup for concrete pour)
8 21.4 42 1.961 Insufficient work (setup for concrete pour
and cleanup)
9 0.0 60 — Insufficient work (no work performed)
18 110.2 220 1.997 Insufficient work
48 128.7 91 0.707 Insufficient work (brace and strip only)
56 127.7 60 0.470 Insufficient work (brace and strip only)
67 64.6 44 0.681 Insufficient work (strip only)
Fig. 7-22. Artist’s Rendition of the Palmerton Apartment Complex
The activity observed in this case study was the construction of underground
reinforced concrete wall formwork. The walls were constructed using gang forms by
a crew of 10 carpenters working five days per week. The gang forms were custom
built from lumber and plywood in lieu of commercial formwork. The gang panels
were constructed initially on the ground and thereafter erected and stripped as gang
forms. This operation is shown in Fig. 7-23. Initially, the tower crane planned for this
activity was not erected. The crew used a small (about 30-ton) crane. The crane can
be seen in Fig. 7-24. Notice that the earthen ramp is preventing the completion of
the reinforced concrete wall. Also shown in Fig. 7-25 is the partially erected tower
crane. When the tower crane was finally erected, a power line passing through the
middle of the site impeded its use.
From the outset, the formwork activity progressed slowly. No expectations of
daily production were conveyed to the crew. Often crew members could be observed
Fig. 7-23. Assembly of Gang Forms

Fig. 7-24. Erection of Gang Forms Using 30-Ton Crane
Fig. 7-25. Tower Crane Being Erected Beneath a Power Line
as idle. At first, it could be argued that the crew was waiting for the tower crane to be
erected. But even after it was erected, the slow pace of work continued. The wall
formwork productivity on this project was awful. The cumulative productivity was
calculated as 0.40 wh/ft2, and the best daily productivity the contractor could consis-
tently achieve was about 0.20 wh/ft2. Previous research has shown that for a project of
this simplicity versus complexity, a contractor should be able to consistently achieve a
productivity of about 0.06–0.12 wh/ft2.
The daily productivity graph for the first month is shown in Fig. 7-26. It shows no
semblance of consistent performance until after the tower crane became serviceable.
But even then, performance never approached 0.06 wh/ft2. The activity was plagued
by workforce management and congestion issues. The various subtasks were done
Tower Crane Weather

Serviceable Low Revenue or Incidental Work
Congestion
4 Tower Crane Erection
Productivity
2
Baseline = 0.21 wh/ft
0 2
Expected = 0.06 wh/ft
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Workday
Fig. 7-26. Daily Productivity of Gang Formwork Erection
largely sequentially. On many workdays, the crew erected no formwork at all; most
notably, little or no formwork was erected on workdays 5–8, 11–12, 17, 19, and 25–27.
(On 11 of the 29 workdays, despite the fact that this was a critical path activity, little or
no formwork was erected.) Instead, the crew did incidental or other work or did only
low-value work. Disruptions related to workforce management became more com-
mon the longer the tower crane remained unserviceable.
An inefficiency analysis was conducted, and 474 work hours were chargeable to
workforce management practices. At a burdened rate of $35/h, this amounts to
almost $16,700 in just 29 days of work, or an average of $572/day. There were an
additional 956 inefficient work hours that could not be explained. It is likely that
many of these inefficient work hours are the result of poor workforce management
practices too. It should be obvious from this case study that poor workforce
management practices can quickly erode profits. The overall labor overrun on this
activity was calculated as 541%. Almost 1,800 work hours were charged during the
observational time frame, whereas slightly fewer than 400 should have been needed.
7.9 Case Study 5—Smeal College of Business: Sequential

Scheduling Practices
This case study is of the Smeal College of Business Administration Building on the
Penn State University campus. This four-story, 210,000 ft2 building was built in the
2004–2005 time frame at a cost of about $68 million. The building footprint was
46,000 ft2, and the site area was approximately 324,000 ft2. The construction schedule
was unexpectedly shortened by three months to 21 months because the workers
performing demolition of an existing structure surprisingly found asbestos. So the
site was spacious, but the schedule was aggressive. The case study illustrates the effect
of sequential scheduling practices and the consequences of not doing high-value
work concurrently with low-value work. The completed project is shown in Fig. 7-27.
A construction manager agency mode of procurement was used. The general
contractor was a local nonunion contractor. The activity monitored was partition wall
framing. No sequence plan is known to have been developed.
During the observation period, the following fundamental principles were applied:
1.2 and 4.1. These principles were not applied: 1.1, 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4. And these
principles are not applicable to this project or their usage is unknown: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,
1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 2.1, 3.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, and 8.1.
The work reported in this case study is the framing of the interior walls and a small
amount of exterior wall. The work involves layout followed by the installation of the
upper track of the walls. Next was the installation of the bottom track and metal
studs. The planned sequence of the work was to lay out and install the top track first.
This was to be followed by fireproofing and then duct installation. The bottom track
and studs were planned to be installed much later. Because of time limitations, only
30 workdays were observed, during which time only top track was installed. Relative
to the top track, layout was low-value work, and track installation was high-value work.
The top track that was installed during the observation period represented about
12% of the overall amount required.
Fig. 7-27. Smeal College of Business Administration

Contractor Operations
The work was largely done sequentially. The crew spent time laying out the top track.
This step would be followed by installation of the top track. The sequential nature of
the operation is shown in Fig. 7-28. The problem with this strategy is that when only
layout was performed (a two-person operation), the remainder of the crew had little
or nothing to do. When only track installation was performed, the crew may have
been overstaffed, but this aspect is not analyzed. The crew size range was three to
seven carpenters. There was likely much idle time. Only about 33% of the time was
laying out and installing track, both done during the same workday.
The overall wall framing operation was symbiotic. The top track was installed
first by a crew of carpenters. The partially completed wall was then passed to the
fireproofing and duct crews before being passed back to the same crew of carpenters
for installation of the bottom track and studs. Fig. 7-29 shows hypothetical velocity
charts of these operations. The secret to planning these operations is twofold. First,
there must be sufficient time lags (buffers) to keep fireproofing isolated from the
other operations. Overtime or nighttime work may be a suitable alternative. Second,
the framing crew must be sized so that the top track is completed when the bottom
track is ready to begin.
Effects on Performance
The work was plagued by multiple factors. At times, the weather was unfavorable, and
the building had been neither enclosed nor sealed adequately. Heating could not be
effectively provided, and the trailer to provide warmth for the crafts was remotely
Workday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Layout
Track
Fig. 7-28. Sequential Scheduling Practice
100%
k
ac
Tr
p
Percent Complete
To
ng
s
ofi
ud
ro
St
ep
ct
&
Fir
Du
ck
ra
t. T
Bo
Time
Fig. 7-29. Velocity Charts of the Framing Operation Showing Its Symbiotic Nature
located. The wind was also a negative factor. In all, there were five days that were cold
and windy. There were three other days when it rained. The building had not been
sealed, so water made its way into the building. In areas where there was standing
water, cold overnight temperatures sometimes caused the water to freeze, preclud-
ing work in those areas the next day. The affected days are shown in Fig. 7-30. On
days when layout was all that was done (a sequential scheduling practice), labor
performance was especially poor.
The project was also plagued by sequencing problems. Initially, the work area
was partitioned into six subareas. Unfortunately, there was never any semblance of a
plan on how to progress from one area to another. The crew would work in whatever
area was available. During the 30-day observation period, no work was done in areas
five and six because the slabs in those areas had not been completed. Also, there was
no obvious plan for progressing from one floor to another. The crew would work on
whatever floor provided work. Sometimes the crew worked on multiple floors.
The superintendent struggled to staff the project with labor resources consistent
with the amount of work that was available (Principle 1.2). The highly variable daily
crew size shown in Fig. 7-31 is indicative of the varying work available for the crew.
The workdays when there were sequencing problems are not shown in Fig. 7-30
because the sequencing problems occurred every day.
On two days, the crew performance was adversely affected by a design error and
late approval of shop drawings. On six other days, performance was affected by
2
X
Layout only
1.8
Weather
1.6
Design Issues
1.4 Materials
X Setup
1.2
Wh/ft
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Workday
Fig. 7-30. Framing Crew Productivity, Smeal College of Business

5
crew size
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Workday
Fig. 7-31. Framing Crew Size, Smeal College of Business
material-related problems. The crew had preloaded materials, but the superinten-
dent had apparently not ordered enough track because material deliveries were
made three times.
Analysis
The variability of the productivity values in Fig. 7-30 indicates that the perfor-
mance on this project was not particularly good. The best performance that the
contractor could achieve was computed as 0.211 wh/ft. This value is based on five
days of work in which the crew produced more than 40% of the 30-day output.
The remaining 60% of output took 25 days. As can be seen in Fig. 7-30, the
contractor rarely achieved better than 0.250 wh/ft. The work hour overrun
was computed as 146% (based on a sustained rate of 0.211 wh/ft). At the rate
of 0.211 wh/ft, the work should have taken 488 work hours. Instead it took
1,201 work hours, which yields 713 inefficient work hours. Most of this inefficien-
cy can be attributed to the ineffective use of the workforce, which was exacerbat-
ed by the sequencing issue.
On two consecutive days, the crew did no work. On those days, 56 work hours
were charged.
If one assumes that layout could be done by two carpenters, then on days when
layout only was done, this would amount to 16 work hours. The remaining work
hours that day are considered inefficiently used. There were six workdays when
layout was the only work that was done. The total inefficient work hours for these
six days was determined to be 128 work hours. At $35/h (burdened), this amounts to
a loss of almost $4,500 because of not doing high-value work concurrently with the
low-value work. If the 713 inefficient work hours are extrapolated to the entire job,
the inefficiency loss is almost $208,000.
References
Burleson, R. C., Haas, C. T., Tucker, R. L., and Stanley, A. (1998). “Multiskilled labor
utilization strategies in construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124(6), 480–489.
Han, S. Y., and Thomas, H. R. (2002). “Quantification of labor inefficiency.” Proc., 10th
Triennial Symp. of Int. Council on Innovation in Building Construction, Cincinnati, OH.
Hanna, A. S., Russell, J. S., Gotzion, T. W., and Nordheim, E. V. (1999a). “Impact of change orders
on labor efficiency for mechanical construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(3), 176–184.
Hanna, A. S., Russell, J. S., Nordheim, E. V., and Bruggink, M. J. (1999b). “Impact of change
orders on labor efficiency for electrical construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(4),
224–232.
Horman, M. J. (2000). “Process dynamics: Buffer management in construction.” Ph.D.
dissertation, Univ. of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Horman, M. J., and Kenley, R. (1998). “Process dynamics: Identifying a strategy for the
deployment of buffers in building projects.” Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl., 1(3), 1(3), 221–237.
Horman, M. J., and Thomas, H. R. (2005). “Role of inventory buffers in construction labor
performance.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131, 834–843.
Horner, R. M. W., and Talhouni, B. T. (1993). Effects of accelerated working, delays and disruptions
on labour productivity, Chartered Institute of Building, London, 40.
Sweis, G. J. (2000). “Impact of conversion technology on productivity in masonry construc-
tion.” Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL, 187.
Thomas, H. R. (1999). “Schedule acceleration, workflow, and labor productivity.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 126(4), 261–267.
Thomas, H. R., and Horman, M. J. (2006). “Fundamental principles of workforce manage-
ment.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 123(2), 97–104.
Thomas, H. R., Horman, M. J., and de Souza, U. E. L. (2004). “Symbiotic crew relationships
and labor flow.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 130(6), 908–917.
Thomas, H. R., Horman, M. J., de Souza, U. E. L., and Završki, I. (2002). “Benchmarking of
workforce management.” Rep. 276, International Council for Research and Innovation in
Building and Construction, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 156.
Thomas, H. R., and Napolitan, C. L. (1995). “Quantitative effects of construction changes on
labor productivity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 121(3), 290–296.
Thomas, H. R., and Raynar, K. A. (1997). “Scheduled overtime and labor productivity:
Quantitative analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 123(2), 181–188.
Thomas, H. R., and Sanvido, V. E. (2000). “Quantification of losses caused by labor
inefficiencies: Where is the elusive measured mile?” J. Constr. Law Bus., 1(3), 1–14.
Thomas, H. R., and Smith, G. R. (1990). “Loss of construction labor productivity due to
inefficiencies and disruptions: The weight of expert opinion.” Report to the National
Science Foundation, PTI Rep. No. 9019, Pennsylvania State Univ., Pennsylvania Trans-
portation Institute, University Park, PA, 181.
United Nations Committee on Housing, Building, and Planning. (1965). Effect of repetition on
building operations and processes on site, United Nations, New York.
CHAPTER 8
Fundamental Principles of Activity

Sequencing
An orderly sequence of construction operations is essential to a profitable construc-

tion project. Efficient labor performance demands a sequence of operations that
promotes efficient methods and good workforce management practices. A thought-
ful sequence can also lead to significant shortening of the project schedule
(see Chapter 3).
There are two dimensions to sequencing: (1) The most commonly thought-of
dimension is trade sequencing (see Chapter 9), that is, in a building project, how to
plan for the efficient execution of multiple trades and subcontractors. Trade seq-
uencing is frequently associated with stacking of trades and congestion. (2) A second
dimension that is less widely discussed is the more general dimension of activity
sequencing. While not totally isolated from trade sequencing, good activity sequencing
can remove activities from the critical path (in a critical path method [CPM] sche-
dule), shorten project schedules, and promote more labor-efficient operations on all
projects, not just buildings.
This chapter presents some fundamental principles for sequencing of construc-
tion activities. By following these principles, contractors can be more cost-effective in
executing their work.
The analysis of the literature (Chapter 2) highlights the need for contractors to
sequence their jobs to promote labor efficiency and for owners to have better
guidelines to use in evaluating contractor schedules. Table 8-1 lists some fundamen-
tal principles for activity sequencing of construction operations. The principles have
been intentionally left general so that they are applicable to a wide range of projects
and conditions.
Submittals
Certain specialty items require long lead times for fabrication and delivery. In
addition, there is the time required for submittal approval. It may take several weeks
191
Table 8-1. Fundamental Principles of Activity Sequencing
No. Activity Sequencing Principle

Submittals
1.1 Make schedule allowances for approval of submittals, fabrication, and delivery,
especially for long-lead items.
1.2 Develop a submittal schedule showing due dates and enforce the schedule.
Economies of Scale
1.3 Consider economies of scale for pertinent components and propose pertinent
changes to the designer.
1.4 When applying Principle 1.3, avoid sizing components that require the use of a
crane; size components to be handled manually.
Eliminating Tasks
1.5 Sequence activities to eliminate work tasks.
Avoiding Congestion
1.6 Sequence activities to avoid congested work areas.
Managing Critical Path Activities
1.7 Sequence activities to minimize the number of critical path activities.
1.8 Complete critical path activities before starting noncritical activities.
Shortening the Project Schedule
1.9 Where possible, do activities concurrently.
1.10 On slow activities, use multiple workstations.
Utilities and Site Works
1.11 Do work early on site (underground and aboveground) utilities.
1.12 Backfill around the facility as quickly as possible.
1.13 Install permanent drainage facilities first.
Enclosing and Sealing
1.14 Use permanent windows in lieu of a temporary (polyethylene) enclosure.
Buffers (Time Lags)
1.15 Make use of buffers (time lags) between activities to allow crews to work at an
uninhibited pace.
or more to get some submittals approved. After approval, items must be fabricated
and delivered. If the item is needed early in the construction process, then timely
submission of the submittal is imperative.
If the notice to proceed (NTP) is given shortly after the intent to award a
contract is issued, the project completion date may not be advanced. Contractors
should be using this time period to initiate the shop drawing process for items that
are needed early, such as foundation steel or items related to site drainage.
Shortening this time period does not necessarily shorten the fabrication process
or accelerate project completion.
Occasionally, the components as detailed in the plans do not fit. Designers may
instruct the contractor to “make it work on the shop drawings,” or designers may
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF ACTIVITY SEQUENCING 193
say “this is means and methods.” These situations may require the contractor to
engage in design work, thus requiring more time in the fabrication process.
A registered engineer may also be required. Such practices are viewed unfavorably
by the authors.
If the start of the project is delayed by, say, a month, the contractor may lose his
or her scheduled slot in the fabrication shop. The contractor may not be able to
schedule another slot until two or three months later. Thus, a one-month delay in
starting the project may result in a delay of several months in receiving fabricated
items.
When rehabilitating or remodeling a facility, test walls are often required to
match mortar, brick, and other features of the existing structure. Matching can be
especially problematic, and multiple rejections are not unusual.
The submittal process is an important one and schedule allowances need to be
made for selected items (Principle 1.1). This factor necessitates a submittal schedule
with due dates (Principle 1.2). Unfortunately, Principle 1.2 is not followed on many
projects. Two examples for buildings where long lead times may be needed are
elevators and windows. Late arrival of either can have an adverse affect on labor
efficiency and the project schedule.
It follows that certain procurement or approval activities may need to be added
to the project schedule.
Economies of Scale
The contractor may propose changes to component sizes to take advantage of
economies of scale (Principle 1.3). It is important to recognize that such change
proposals may result in changes to methods, which can change activity durations,
labor effort (and performance), and activity cost. Changes in methods may negate
perceived advantages in economies of scale.
The theory behind economies of scale is that larger components have lower unit
costs. The overall labor costs are lower with larger components, and the actual
number of components installed is fewer. So, the variable cost of installation of larger
components is less, even though the fixed installation cost for smaller and larger
components may be close to the same.
The economies of scale view may not always be true when construction
methods change. To illustrate, precast floor planks were erected on two almost
identical projects. On project BP, the planks were about 115 ft2, and on project G,
they were about 32 ft2. On project G, the crew size was slightly larger. Applying the
concept of economies of scale, project BP should have had the better labor
productivity on a square footage basis because the variable costs should be less.
Yet, the productivity on project G was better by about 25%, even though the same
contractor did both projects. On project BP, the crane lifted one plank at a time,
whereas on project G the practice was to lift multiple planks at once. However, the
real advantage seemed to be that the smaller planks on project G could be moved
into final position manually, whereas with the larger planks on project BP, final
movements could only be done with the use of the crane.
So why was project BP an inferior performing project? It appears that on project
BP, the larger planks were so heavy that they could not be moved into final position
without crane assistance. When the crane returned to the ground level for another
plank, there was little or nothing for the crew to do, resulting in much idle time.
Conversely, on project G, where the planks were smaller, the crew could manually
move the planks into final position simultaneously with the crane returning for
another lift (Principle 1.4). There was less crew downtime. By lifting three planks at
once on project G, the square feet per lift for the two projects was almost equal. But
on project G, there was less crew downtime, so Project G showed superior perfor-
mance. The larger plank size resulted in a change in the installation method that
negated economies of scale.
Fig. 8-1 hypothetically shows the economies of scale pattern for the two projects
for manual and equipment-assisted installation. When manual movements are used,
the unit costs gradually decrease because the planks are increasingly heavier. At
some point, crane assistance is needed. A step decrease in relative performance
occurs because of the introduction of much more crew idle time. This example
reinforces the notion mentioned earlier that a crane is often an inefficient means of
lifting. Cranes are a poor choice for many production-oriented operations because
they can result in excessive crew idle time.
Eliminating Tasks
Sometimes it is possible to sequence the work in such a way as to eliminate work tasks.
Fig. 8-2 shows the excavation plan proposed by the owner of a wastewater plant. The
depth of excavation was about 30 ft. The plan contemplated excavation of areas in
the order 1–2–3. If this plan were followed, a retaining wall between areas 1 and 3
would have to be constructed with tiebacks extending to the left. When the area 3
excavation was initiated, the tiebacks would have to be removed and new tiebacks
installed in the opposite direction. The contractor proposed doing the excavation in
Project BP
Project G
Relative Unit Performance
Good Perf.
Manual Equipment
Poor Perf.
Size of Unit
Fig. 8-1. Hypothetical Economies of Scale Pattern for Setting Precast Floor Planks
Fig. 8-2. Excavation Sequence for a Wastewater Facility
areas 1 and 3 simultaneously, thereby eliminating the need for the retaining wall and
tiebacks (Principle 1.5).
Contractors need to proceed with caution when applying Principle 1.5. If surprises
occur, there can be a greater effect on the overall schedule. For instance, if in this
illustration, a differing site condition or unexpected groundwater is encountered,
both areas 1 and 3 may be adversely affected.
Avoiding Congestion
Avoiding congestion is important to maximizing efficiency (Principle 1.6). Conges-
tion can arise from multiple sources, including multiple trades (stacking of trades),
poor scheduling, poor housekeeping, poor material management practices, poor
sequencing, and other reasons. Noncritical activities should be scheduled after

critical ones.
Managing Critical Path Activities

Sometimes activities can be sequenced so as to reduce the number of critical path
activities (Principle 1.7) and shorten the project schedule. This concept is illustrated
in Fig. 8-3, which shows a portion of a CPM schedule (four activities) for the State
College Municipal Building (SCMB). In this relatively simple example, it is assumed
that there is only one concrete placement crew. The work on the basement level
(walls and slabs) is all cast-in-place (CIP) concrete. The first floor structural steel
must be erected before the first floor precast floor planks can be set. Note that all
the activities in Fig. 8-3a are critical path activities. The focus of this example is on the
ground slab activity (Fig. 8-4), which does not have to be a critical path activity. All
activities that are sandwiched between two critical activities are also critical. However,
if the CIP ground slab can be deferred until after the first floor planks are set, then
the ground slab is no longer on the critical path (Fig. 8-3b). The scheduler should
always seek out situations where activities are unnecessarily sandwiched between
critical activities. A review of only critical path activities may be helpful in isolating
these situations.
Where possible, one should complete critical path work before progressing
to noncritical path work (Principle 1.8). This is one way to avoid congestion.
Foundation CIP Ground

st
1 Floor Steel 1st Floor
CIP Concrete slabs Erection Precast
Walls Planks
(a) Critical path activities when ground slabs are scheduled early
1st Floor
Foundation 1st Floor Steel Precast
CIP Concrete Erection Planks
Walls
CIP Ground
slabs
(b) Ground slabs removed from critical path by resequencing
Fig. 8-3. Illustration of Resequencing to Remove an Activity from the Critical Path
Fig. 8-4. Ground Slab that Need Not Be a Critical Path Activity
One should be sensitive to changes in the critical path. Certainly one does not want
to be working on noncritical activities only.
Shortening the Project Schedule

Because time is money, contractors should take every opportunity possible to shorten
the construction schedule. For example, if a contract allows 300 days, but the
contractor can complete the project comfortably in 250 days, it has been observed
by the authors that most contractors are likely to take almost 300 days to complete
the project. A project shows higher profit if it is completed in 250 days because there
is less labor cost and home office overhead. There is also less exposure to risk.
Where congestion or interference can be avoided, work should be done
concurrently (Principle 1.9). Doing work concurrently rather than sequentially
and taking activities off the critical path can dramatically shorten construction
schedules. Changes in construction methods may be necessary, and access can
become an issue.
On slow activities, especially critical activities, use multiple workstations
(Principle 1.10). Theoretically, using two workstations shortens an activity by a factor
of two compared with one workstation. Using multiple workstations requires more
tools and materials. Using multiple workstations and scheduling concurrent work
instead of sequential work can significantly shorten the project schedule and may
offer important labor efficiency advantages. Chapter 3 provided several illustrations.
Material Management
Activities related to material handling may need to be added to the schedule.
Preloading is a practice that promotes labor efficiency, but proper sequencing as
shown in Chapter 3 is a must. Restocking work areas after regular working hours may
be an option to consider.
Utilities and Site Works

Arrange for the early relocation of aboveground utilities (Principle 1.11). Utility
relocations may take time. Fig. 8-5 shows an aboveground power line that has not
been relocated. This power line was not moved until several months into the project.
Belowground utilities should be moved early too. Backfilling should be completed
early so that the area can be used for other purposes (Fig. 8-6). Backfilling around
basement walls allows easy access into the facility (Principle 1.12). Site drainage
facilities should also be done as early as possible (Principle 1.13).
Enclosing and Sealing

Enclosing and sealing a facility is an important milestone. Enclosing and sealing can
be done in one step by using permanent windows in lieu of temporary enclosures
(Principle 1.14). Enclosing and sealing offers four important advantages: (1) tempo-
rary heat can be provided, which can lead to labor efficiencies during winter work;
(2) water intrusion can be prevented, which prevents mold; (3) “callback” time
can be greatly reduced or eliminated; and (4) labor hours will not be diverted to
building temporary facilities. Fig. 8-7 shows a project where permanent windows were
installed early. Temporary enclosures may satisfactorily enclose a building, allowing
temporary heat, but a temporary enclosure is often unsuitable for sealing a building.
Fig. 5-2 shows a typical scenario. Because mold is a serious concern, permanent
windows can be a cost-effective alternative.
Fig. 8-5. Aboveground Power Line that Has Not Been Relocated
Fig. 8-6. Late Backfilling that Impedes Access to the Building
Fig. 8-7. Sealing and Enclosing a Building with Permanent Windows

Cost vs. Time Orientation

A building schedule can be somewhat unique in its orientation. It has been observed
that some general contractors apply a sequential schedule to the civil phase of the
project. This is a cost-oriented schedule. If a project is behind schedule after the civil
phase is completed, these general contractors may institute aggressive concurrent
schedules of subcontractor work to make up for lost time. This is a time-oriented
schedule. In essence, some general contractors rely on others to finish the job on
time. A sequential schedule (during the civil phase) is not compatible with a desire to
reach the “enclose and seal the building” milestone as quickly as possible.
Civil Phase Interior Phase
Primary contractor(s) General contractor Specialty contractors

Type of schedule Largely sequential Largely concurrent
Orientation Cost Time
Buffers (Time Lags)

Buffers are an important aspect of activity sequencing because good productivity is
achieved only when a crew can establish and work at its uninhibited pace. Each crew
has a different pace, depending upon the work involved. For example, wall formwork
is likely slower than footing formwork. Ideally, the fastest activity should be the lead
activity in a sequence of activities; the slowest activity should be last. But this is not
always possible. When a faster activity immediately follows a slower activity, the pro-
ductivity of the faster activity will suffer unless there is a buffer or time lag. An analogy
is a car on a freeway traveling at 60 mph overtaking another car traveling at 50 mph,
except that in the construction analogy, passing is not allowed.
8.2 Case Study 1—State College Municipal Building: Buffers
A number of instances supporting the principles cited in this chapter have been
given throughout this text.
A topic important to activity sequencing is the inclusion of buffers (time lags)
between activities to allow each crew to work at an uninhibited pace. An uninhibited
pace is generally a productive pace. One problem often observed on accelerated
projects is that there is such a rush to achieve project completion that adequate
buffers are not provided, which leads to idle time and subpar productivity. Loss of
productivity is more pronounced where there are considerable differences in the
uninhibited daily production rates of the crews involved and a slower crew precedes
a faster crew.
This case study involves wall formwork on the State College Municipal Building
and illustrates the negative effects of an inadequate buffer. The crews involved are a
two-person crew doing trench excavation, a two-person crew installing trench

formwork and the key, a concrete placement crew, and a three-person wall formwork
erection crew. The complete sequence of activities is illustrated in Fig. 8-8. The
completed wall formwork operation can be observed in Fig. 8-4.
Note that wall formwork is last in the sequence of activities. Because it would
likely have the slowest uninhibited production rate, there would ordinarily be no
problem. However, in this instance, rock had to be removed from about 40–50%
percent of the trench. (The western wall and part of the northern wall in Fig. 3-13).
The contractor chose to use hand tools to remove the rock. This decision slowed the
trench excavation immensely. The wall formwork crew constantly had to wait for
the trenching crew to provide adequate work space. This situation continued until
the trench crew no longer had to remove rock. Fig. 8-9 shows that the productivity of
the wall formwork crew was negatively affected for about 40% of the total time
required to complete the work.
Because the wall formwork activity was critical path work, the project schedule
was probably extended by a week or more. Also, Fig. 8-9 shows a misleading learning
curve effect. Improvement in productivity did not occur because of repetition but
because a buffer was eventually created between the trenching and wall formwork
activities.
Fig. 8-8. Sequence of Activities for the Construction of Wall Formwork

daily productivity
workday
Fig. 8-9. Productivity of Wall Formwork Crew, SCMB

The contractor reacted by working two shifts on wall formwork. The contractor
never realized that the root problem was the trenching operation (and the method
of rock removal and the lack of a buffer between trenching and wall formwork), not
the wall formwork crew.
One effective strategy for this operation is to use two workstations for the
trenching crew. The two crews should start at points A and C in Fig. 3-13, thereby
saving the area where rock removal was required until last. The wall formwork could
be delayed in starting at point C until the trenching crew reached point B. Note that
this strategy would also avoid congestion. Other variations to this strategy are
possible.
CHAPTER 9
Fundamental Principles of Trade

Sequencing
Not all finish and service work is the same. Using a metal stud and drywall system as
an example, there are three areas of work that are unique. These are (1) corridors,
(2) room and area ceilings, and (3) room and area walls.
9.1 Description of Trade Work
Corridor Work
In a corridor ceiling, there are feeder duct, sprinkler pipe, hot and cold water pipes,
feeder conduit and wire, lighting, and the ceiling grid. The work involves four trades
or more (carpenters, pipefitters, plumbers, and electricians). The work generally
consists of larger components and long straight runs. This work is sometimes called
“bulk installation.”
Bulk installation has certain characteristics: (1) larger, heavier components and
(2) long, straight runs. Bulk installation is usually thought of as occurring in the
corridors. There are significant performance implications associated with bulk
installation. Work in rooms consists of smaller, shorter pieces. It is harder than
corridor work, requiring more work hours per unit of work. Therefore, corridor
work must be done efficiently. The actual unit rate of corridor work must be better
than the budgeted unit rate for all the work because the harder work still lies ahead.
Bulk installation work should probably be at least 20–25% better than the average
unit rate used in the bid.
To do bulk installation efficiently, the crew must be properly sized; the corridor
should be clear of other crews, stored materials, and trash, thereby allowing for the
use of motorized lifts; and the plans should be free of errors and omissions. Adequate
hand tools must be readily available. For these reasons, the corridor is usually done
first when the corridor is less congested.
The larger, bulky items are installed in the corridor ceiling first, and smaller,
field-run items last. The ceiling grid should be done last so as not to interfere with the
other installations.
203
Room and Area Ceilings

The ceiling in the rooms or work areas contains branch duct and diffusers, branch
conduit and wire, sprinkler pipe, hot and cold water pipe, lighting, and the ceiling
grid. These components are smaller and shorter than similar components in the
corridor, and usually they take more work hours per unit to install compared with
similar work in the corridor. As in the corridor, lifts, ladders, or scaffolding are
required. The ceiling grid and light fixtures are done last because the ceiling grid
often establishes the final location of the light fixtures. Figs. 9-1 and 9-2 show
situations where the ceiling grid had been installed out of sequence in advance of
other work.
Room and Area Walls

The walls in the rooms contain framing, conduit and wiring, receptacles and boxes,
insulation, and drywall. In certain locations, hot and cold water pipe and plumbing
facilities are present. Painting is also needed. Lifts, ladders, or scaffolding are
generally not required. All this work must be carefully orchestrated because there
may be as many as six trades involved, and one trade cannot get ahead of another.
They must follow a prescribed order.
9.2 Planning and Execution Challenges
As can be seen, the three work zones described here are unique. There are different
trades involved, and the methods and the components are different. The prescribed
order of construction is unique. Planning for each zone must be uniquely done.
Fig. 9-1. Ceiling Grid Installed before Piping and Conduit Work
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF TRADE SEQUENCING 205
Fig. 9-2. Insulation Being Fed through Ceiling Grid
As can be seen in Table 9-1, there are many activities, trades, and subcontractors
involved in the services and finishes phase of a building project. There are many
opportunities for congested conditions and out-of-sequence work.
Table 9-1. Major Activities and Systems by Zone of Work in a Building Project
Zone of Work Major Activities and Systems

Corridor Feeder duct
Feeder conduit
Sprinkler pipe
Plumbing
Hot and cold water pipe
Ceiling grid
Lighting
Room, ceiling Branch duct
Branch conduit
Sprinkler pipe
Plumbing
Hot and cold water pipe
Ceiling grid
Lighting
Room, wall Framing
Electric rough-in
Plumbing
Insulation
Drywall
Painting
In 1997, research on sequencing and work flow on multistory building con-

struction determined that mechanical and electrical contractors were among the
most affected by poor trade sequencing (Riley and Sanvido 1997). Subsequent
research showed that interior system contractors (framing, drywall, and ceilings) can
also be adversely affected. Table 9-1 includes a list of the major activities in the three
primary zones of work in a building.
Table 9-2 contains fundamental principles of trade sequencing. In planning and

executing the service work for efficient operations, the corridor work should be done
first (Principle 1.1), followed by the ceiling work in the rooms and work areas. The
work on the partition walls should not begin until the ceiling work is complete
(Principle 1.2), and the ceiling grid (Principle 1.3) should not begin until after the
ceiling work in a particular area is finished.
For there to be efficient construction and timely completion, there needs to be a
sequence plan. Every project involving the simultaneous use of different trades and
Table 9-2. Fundamental Principles of Trade Sequencing
No. Trade Sequencing Principles

1.1 The work in the corridor ceiling (bulk installation) should be done first.
1.2 For maximum labor efficiency, the partition walls in a particular area should
not begin until the ceiling work in the area is complete.
1.3 For maximum labor efficiency, the ceiling grid in a particular area should not
be started until the ceiling work in that area is complete.
1.4 Develop a sequence plan detailing the order in which the floors or broad areas
will be worked and how the work on a single floor or area will be completed.
1.5 Engage all affected subcontractors in developing the sequence plan.
1.6 Begin work in the corridor and then progress to individual rooms.
1.7 Install bulky, heavy items first and smaller field-run items last.
1.8 Allow ample time lags between activities.
1.9 Ensure that there is ample backlog of work so that crews and teams can
establish their own pace of work.
1.10 Do not start work in an area unless all the work can be done in one pass
through the area.
1.11 Size crews and teams so that different trades work at roughly the same pace.
1.12 Aggressively manage subcontractors.
1.13 Make effective use of subassemblies and modules.
1.14 Plan efficient methods for moving materials to their installation locations.
1.15 Consider making use of the service elevator (which means that it should be
installed early).
1.16 Consider preloading materials as the superstructure is being built.
subcontractors or specialty contractors needs to comply with Principle 1.4. The

sequence plan needs to include the order in which the floors or broad areas will be
done and how the work in each floor or area will be done. The plan need not be
complicated or detailed because it is subject to revision. Flexibility is important.
All affected subcontractors should be participants in developing the plan
(Principle 1.5). The sequence plan is the subcontractor’s plan, and a good
plan calls for each party to give up something. If subcontractors are asked to
commit to the plan, it is important for it to be their plan. Where one subcontractor
takes the lead in developing the plan, there is a high likelihood that the plan
will favor that subcontractor. A good plan is one where each subcontractor gives
up something for the collective good of the whole. For this reason, the general
contractor should facilitate and moderate the meeting(s) where the plan is
developed.
The work should begin in the corridor and then progress to individual areas and
rooms (Principle 1.6). Corridor work is bulk installation work that is conducive to
good productivity because the work consists of long straight runs consisting of larger
components. Bulk installation work is important to the profitability of subcontractors
because the remaining runs are shorter and are done in more difficult conditions.
Therefore, the general contractor should ensure that the corridors remain free from
trash and interferences.
Bulky and heavy items should be installed first (at the top of the corridor space),
followed by smaller field-run items (Principle 1.7). The work should logically
progress downward.
To avoid congestion, there should be ample time lag between subcontractors
and trades (Principle 1.8). This method necessitates the partitioning of the floor or
broad area into work zones. Time lags can prevent congestion, although some work
is symbiotic (see Chapter 7), such as drywall–insulation–rough-in–electric. This work
requires close coordination among trades.
The best way for a trade or subcontractor to be efficient is to be able to establish
their own work pace. This can only be done with ample time lags (Principle 1.8) and
backlogs of work (Principle 1.9). Do not start work in an area unless all the work can
be done in one pass through the area (Principle 1.10). Coming back to finish up
things is devastating to productivity. The crews and work teams should be sized so
that different trades work at roughly the same pace (Principle 1.11).
It is important that the sequence plan be enforced. Out-of-sequence work has a
serious negative effect on all subcontractors. Therefore, the general contractor
needs to aggressively manage the subcontractors (Principle 1.12). Subcontractors
cannot be allowed to schedule their work if it is contrary to the sequence plan.
Interior partition walls should not be installed early because they impede the flow of
crafts and materials across the floor or area. Fig. 9-3 shows framing that has been
installed much too early before the service work has been done. The ceiling grid
should not be installed early. Fig. 9-1 shows the ceiling grid installed before some
Fig. 9-3. Partition Walls Installed before Ceiling Work Is Complete
of the service work has been done. If subcontractors are allowed to schedule their
work as they please, much out-of-sequence work will be observed.
There can be extensive use made of subassemblies (Principle 1.13) to speed
production. Figs. 2-2 and 6-18 show examples of duct subassemblies.
There needs to be an efficient plan to move materials to the work face location
(Principle 1.14). A bad situation is for the crafts to carry the materials up the stairs
one piece at a time (Fig. 6-19). This practice is a waste of human resources and can
lead to accidents. An alternative is to make use of the service elevator for lightweight
or bulky materials (Principle 1.15). Of course, this method requires that the elevator
be installed early. Consider using a material stocking and resupply crew that works
overtime so that materials are available at the start of the morning shift. Preloading
practices are beneficial (Principle 1.16) for reducing crew idle time.
9.4 Sequence Plans
For there to be efficient construction, there must be a plan. The sequence plan
needs to define (1) the order in which the floors are to be constructed and (2) the
order in which the areas on each floor will be completed. Without a sequence plan,
chaos may prevail.
The steps in developing a sequence plan are the following:
1. Select the activities and crafts that need coordination.

2. Partition the area or floor into work zones.
3. Determine the starting point and the general direction of progression.
4. Determine the production rate for each crew.
5. Identify the driving crew or activity in the area or on the floor.

6. Develop a schedule based on the work zones.
7. Assign material storage areas.
8. Revise work plans as appropriate.
9. Enforce the plan.
A hypothetical example is given on the State College Municipal Building

(SCMB) using selected service activities to illustrate the development of a sequence
plan.
1. Select Activities and Crafts

The activities and trades to be coordinated are duct, sprinkler piping, rough-in
electric, and drywall.
2. Partition the Area or Floor

The floor partitioning is shown in Fig. 9-4 (the corridor is not shown). In general,
each work zone should have roughly the same volume of work. This may not always
be possible for every crew. Consider equalizing the workload for the driving crew
(step 5). The corridor should be treated as a separate work zone. Seven work zones
are identified in Fig. 9-4 (not counting the corridor). The order of the floors is also
not shown. The bottom floors are normally reserved for last because they are usually
unique and may be the last items fabricated. But if the structure is reinforced
concrete, it may be advantageous to the schedule to begin service work on the
bottom floor first because constructing the superstructure may be slow and starting
at the bottom floor may accelerate the overall schedule.
III
Fig. 9-4. Partitioning into Work Zones of Second Floor of SCMB

3. Determine the Starting Point and Direction

In many instances, the starting point on a given floor or area is immaterial, but give
consideration to where services come up from a lower floor. It may be desirable to do
the tie-ins first. In this example, the work begins at the upper left of the diagram and
generally proceeds to the lower right. The corridor work includes tie-ins with the
work on the first floor. The area sequence of construction on the second floor is 1–2–
3–4–6–5–7. This sequence allows the north side to proceed in advance of the south
side. This scheme may reduce congestion and make allowances for two crews. The
sequence of the floors (Fig. 9-4) is 3–2–1–Basement. If the schedule is tight, the
sequence may be reversed, thereby accelerating the schedule by maybe two weeks.
4. Determine Production Rates

Hypothetical rates are shown in Fig. 9-5. Ideally, one would like the production rates
of all activities to be the same, but this rarely happens. One solution, if the schedule
permits, is to allow for a time lag or buffer between activities. This method allows
crews to work at their own pace. This is an important key to productive work. Time
lags avoid congestion and minimize the likelihood of out-of-sequence work. A time
lag is shown in Fig. 9-5 between the start of piping and the start of electrical work.
5. Identify the Driving Crew

In the absence of time lags, typically one crew dictates the pace of the other crews.
A series of velocity charts, like Fig. 9-5, are helpful in identifying the driving crew. The
driving crew is likely to be the crew with the slowest production rate, rdr . In Fig. 9-5,
the piping crew is the driving crew. If the production rate of this crew is increased,
7
6
5
l
wal
4 r Du
Dry
3
rP
2
1 ing r Dr
Pip
rE
Corridor l
ct ica
Du ctr
Ele
Time
Time Lag
Fig. 9-5. Production Rates, ri, of Various Activities, Second Floor, SCMB
the floor can be completed in less time. Therefore, one can concentrate improve-
ment efforts on only one crew.
Production rates, ri, can be changed by
• Increasing or decreasing the crew size,

• Working fewer or more hours,
• Using subassemblies,
• Using multiple crews and workstations, or
• Revising work scope.
6. Develop a Schedule
A work schedule needs to be developed based on work zones. A hypothetical
schedule for a single crew on a floor is shown in Fig. 9-6. It shows the area in which
the crew is to be working on a given week. As can be seen, the work progresses in an
orderly manner. A master schedule for multiple crews like the one shown in
Table 9-3 can also be developed. Using this schedule, one can ensure that not too
many crews are working on a single floor at once.
Week/ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Zone
7
Corridor
Piping
Fig. 9-6. Sample Work Schedule for Piping Crew

212
Table 9-3. Master Schedule for Multiple Crews
Week
Activity 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Duct Corridor Corridor Area 2 Areas 1 and 3 Areas 4 and 6 Areas 5 and 7
Piping Corridor Corridor Area 2 Areas 1 and 3 Areas 4 and 6 Areas 5 and 7
Electrical Corridor Areas 1 and 2 Areas 3 and 4 Areas 5 and 6 Area 7
Drywall Area 2 Areas 1 and 3 Areas 4 and 3 Areas 5 and 6
CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT AND LABOR PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT
7. Assign Material Storage Areas

Crews cannot store materials anywhere they choose; otherwise, a situation like the
one seen in Fig. 6-9 can materialize. Storage areas should allow each crew access
without the movement of materials. A sample storage plan is shown in Fig. 6-27.
8. Revise Plans as Appropriate

No plan is perfect. One should revise plans as appropriate.
9. Enforce the Plan

A plan that is not enforced is useless. Subcontractors cannot be allowed to apply their
own plans. It is imperative that subcontractors be involved in developing the plan
that is adopted.
9.5 Case Studies
Case Study 5 in Chapter 7 should be reviewed at this point. One can only imagine the
chaos that existed on this project as crews searched for a place to work. The out-of-
sequence work appears to have been partly or wholly caused by the general
contractor’s failure to complete the floor slabs in an orderly manner. The out-of-
sequence work cost the subcontractor more than $200,000. Effective use of lag times
would have minimized this loss.
References
Riley, D. R., and Sanvido, V. E. (1997). “Space planning method for multistory building
CHAPTER 10
Fundamental Principles for Avoiding

Congestion
Congestion is a negative by-product of poor planning. It is often associated with

stacking of trades, but it can also be caused by many other circumstances, such as
poor material management practices, including material storage and housekeep-
ing; ineffective workforce management practices; out-of-sequence work; and vari-
ous equipment practices. Scaffolding that is left in place awaiting a crew to return
to complete unfinished work can cause congestion. The design can also be a
contributing factor when it includes confined spaces. Thus, the principles in
Chapters 7–9 should be applied simultaneously with the principles presented in
this chapter.
The literature is relatively consistent that workers should have, on average,
250–300 ft2 per person to work efficiently. Therefore, any situation that reduces the
work area available can cause congestion. Most often, congestion occurs on interior
work, but congestion can also occur on exterior work.
With the estimated cost of inefficiencies being significant, many alternative

measures are economically justified to avoid congested work areas. Below are
measures that can be taken by the general contractor and subcontractors. Table 10-1
lists some fundamental principles to avoid congested work areas. The principles in
Table 10-1 should be integrated with the principles given in Chapters 7–9.
Especially for small sites and whenever storage space is limited, the practices of
erecting materials directly from the truck and preloading materials (both practices
mean that site storage needs are minimal) are highly desirable (Principles 1.1 and 1.2).
But when using these practices, delivery schedules must be tightly controlled to
ensure that the crew does not run out of materials. It seems easier to control the
material delivery schedule if a local supplier (with a shorter travel distance) is used
(Principle 1.3). Any practice that reduces the need for material storage helps to
alleviate congestion.
215
Table 10-1. Fundamental Principles for Avoiding Congested Work Areas
No. Principle
1.1 Erect materials directly from the truck to avoid on-site storage.
1.2 Preload materials on each floor, and store materials to avoid double-handling.
1.3 When applying Principles 1.1 and 1.2, select vendors near the site (minimum travel
distance) to better control delivery schedules.
1.4 Where possible, outsource work to others and use preassemblies to move as much
work off site as practical.
1.5 Consider putting the project office in a part of the facility being constructed, and
avoid moving the office once it has been located.
1.6 When applying Principle 1.5, move the project office into place only after the critical
path work in that location is finished.
1.7 Where possible, schedule all noncritical path work at times so as not to interfere with
critical path work.
1.8 Maintain good housekeeping.
Outsourcing can be worthwhile to consider. For instance, in masonry opera-

tions, mortar mixing on site takes valuable space. Purchasing mortar from a local
ready-mix plant (Principle 1.4) can alleviate congested conditions.
On sites of all sizes and configurations, consider building the project office
out of lumber and polyethylene on one of the floors of the facility being
constructed (Principle 1.5). This facility replaces a trailer, which would take up
valuable space. It may also be more readily accessible by the crafts. Construct the
office only after critical path work in the area has been completed (Principle 1.6).
A contractor should schedule noncritical path work so as not to interfere with
critical path operations (Principle 1.7).
It is important that work areas be free of trash and clutter (Principle 1.8).
10.2 Case Study 1—Bryce Jordan Tower: Disruptions and

Congestion
The following case study represents an analysis of reinforced masonry wall construc-
tion on a multistory apartment building. The Bryce Jordan Tower is a seven-story
apartment building located in State College, Pennsylvania. It consists of an open
parking level and six residential floors. The building footprint is rectangular,
58ft 8 in. × 195ft 8in. The footprint area is about 11,500 ft2, and the site area is
approximately 17,500 ft2. The site layout and building footprint are shown in
Fig. 4-2. The slabs on the residential floors are precast concrete. The superstructure,
elevated (precast) slabs, and some cast-in-place (CIP) concrete activities were on the
critical path.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES FOR AVOIDING CONGESTION 217
Project Description
The superstructure is made of reinforced masonry interior and exterior walls. Each
cell of the concrete masonry units (CMUs) was reinforced with one #8 bar, and each
cell was then grouted. The masonry construction was critical path work.
Precast floor planks were used on all floors to speed construction. The planks
were 4 ft wide. The planks were grouted, and a 2-in. leveling course of concrete was
placed on top. The setting of planks was a critical path activity. The original design
called for welded wire mesh in the 2-in. topping course, but the contractor requested
and received permission to substitute fibers in the concrete mix in lieu of the welded
wire mesh. This change made the topping operation a simple concrete placement
operation.
There were two shear walls on the Bryce Jordan Tower apartment project, one at
each end of the building (Fig. 4-2). At one end was a cast-in-place reinforced
concrete stairwell, and at the other end was a reinforced masonry elevator shaft.
The original contract schedule was 14 months, with little opportunity for a time
extension beyond the end date of July 2003. There was an existing one-story wood-
frame dwelling on the site, and the lease lasted through May 2002. The owner chose
to take responsibility for the demolition of the structure and removed this work from
the construction contract, so the project was one month late in starting. Thus, there
was a de facto 13-month schedule. This was an aggressive schedule.
The planned start date was May 1, 2002, but the actual start date was June 3,
2002. The original completion date was June 30, 2003, but the contractor received a
one-month time extension until July 30, 2003. The actual completion date was
August 8, 2003. The preconstruction period was about two weeks.
The project was expensive, about $99 per square foot. The bid price was $6.8
million. Several factors contributed to the high cost, including the following:
• The site was small and access was restricted.

• The schedule was aggressive.
• The retaining walls, second floor struts, and some other components were
heavily reinforced and massive.
• The reinforced masonry walls were labor intensive.
• The Dryvit exterior cladding system was labor intensive and required exterior
scaffolding, which was also labor intensive.
• There was a limited number of serious bidders.
The activity observed was the masonry construction of the exterior and interior load-
bearing walls on the fifth and sixth floors and a small amount of work on the fourth
floor. (Masonry for the elevator shaft was not included in the study.) Each cell of the
CMUs was reinforced with one #8 reinforcement rod and then grouted. The block
size was 8 in. × 8 in. × 16 in. The CMU vendor was located some 50 miles away. The
work was performed by a local masonry subcontractor.
The activity subtasks included placement of CMU block, setting vertical reinforce-
ment, and grouting. Mortar was mixed on each floor, but a local vendor supplied the
grout. An accelerator was added to the grout when the truck arrived at the site.
The masonry crew consisted of six to 10 workers, which included the supervisor.
The ratio of skilled to unskilled workers ranged from 2:1 to 3:1. The work shift was
eight and a half hours per day. The crew was organized into teams. Because one
person mixed mortar, the work usually took place at two workstations. One team did
the exterior walls, and another did the interior walls. A third, smaller team did the
grouting. Generally, the placement of block and grouting occurred concurrently
each day, although grouting took place only about half the time, which may have
contributed to the inefficiencies in this operation.
The work area was congested with materials, scaffolding, and other items related
to the work, as shown in Fig. 10-1. A polyethylene-covered structure was constructed
to serve as the project office. This structure can be seen in the center of Fig. 10-1.
This project office contributed to the congestion problem. The mortar mixing
operation (located behind the project office in Fig. 10-1) also contributed to the
congestion. The project office and mortar mixing operation were moved to a higher
floor as the floor planks on the next floor were set, thus limiting the work space on
every floor. In Fig. 10-1, it also appears that other miscellaneous operations may have
occurred simultaneously with the masonry operation. The CIP concrete stairwell can
be seen in the lower right-hand corner of Fig. 10-1. Also in Fig. 10-1, it appears that
the height of the polyethylene office structure is greater than the floor height. If
true, the office structure would have to have been moved before floor planks for the
next floor could be set. This situation would have been a major planning mistake.
Fig. 10-1. Second Floor of Bryce Jordan Tower Showing Congested Conditions
Interestingly, if the threshold values of 250 and 300 ft2 per worker are used as
suggested by the literature, the Bryce Jordan Tower could accommodate 35–45
masonry workers per floor before congestion would begin to reduce labor efficiency.
At no time were there that many workers assigned to a single floor. Instead,
congestion was caused by poor housekeeping, material stockpiles, temporary facili-
ties, and other operations.
Productivity Analysis
Fig. 10-2 shows the daily productivity of the masonry operation. The cumulative
productivity was calculated as 0.114 work hours (wh)/ft2. Several days were notice-
ably disrupted, in particular, workdays 3, 9, 17, 19, 27, and 29; otherwise, the level of
performance is rather consistent. Table 10-2 contains entries from the daily diary.
There was no work performed on workday 9. The high numbers in Fig. 10-2 indicate
that the work on these days was disrupted.
Calculating Labor Inefficiencies—The work was disrupted by several main
factors: congestion, weather (cold temperatures and rain), and workforce man-
agement issues. Table 10-3 shows a summary of work hour inefficiencies by cause.
There are two productivity values that need to be mentioned here. The first is the
calculated actual productivity the contractor could achieve (see Fig. 10-2). This
value relies on the actual best productivity on days where there is high production
(Thomas and Završki 1999). The calculated best masonry productivity for the
Bryce Jordan Tower was calculated as 0.082 wh/ft2. The second productivity value
is the expected or estimated best productivity a contractor should achieve. This
0.9
0.8
Daily Productivity (wh/ft 2 )
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Workday
Fig. 10-2. Daily Masonry Productivity, Bryce Jordan Tower

Table 10-2. Daily Diary Field Log
Day Field Log

1 Construction of the fifth floor began. The masonry crew is constructing the fifth floor
walls. Congestion is the main problem affecting performance. A truck-mounted crane
lifts the CMUs as they are needed. Light rain is falling, but the work does not seem
affected. The crew size is 9 workers.
2 Construction of the fifth floor continues. Light rain continues to fall. Congestion is a
growing problem. The crew size is increased to 11 workers.
3 Congestion is affecting the distribution of CMU block to the workstations.
4 Congestion is still a problem.
5 The masonry crew is still on the fifth floor.
6 This day was very cold (<20°F). The crew size is reduced to 10 workers.
7 This was a good day. Masons worked some on fourth floor interior walls, where it was less
congested.
8 The crew size was decreased to 8 workers. There was also some rain.
9 No work was done this day. Instead the crew did cleanup in an effort to avoid congestion
problems. There was also some rain.
10 The crew size is increased to 10 workers.
11 Crew size reduced to 7 workers because there are few open work areas. This day was very cold.
12 Work was done on interior walls on the fifth floor. The temperature was very cold.
13 Work was done on interior walls on the fifth floor.
14 Work continued on interior walls.
15 Exterior walls on fifth floor finished; team moved to sixth floor.
16 Crew size reduced to 5 workers.
17 Crew size increased to 6 workers. Work was highly disrupted because of cold
temperatures that affected grouting. Mortar mixing was delayed five hours.
18 No report.
19 Crew size increased to 8 workers. Cold temperatures disrupted work this day. Mortar
mixing was delayed for three hours.
20 No report.
21 Crew size is 7 workers. Crew sizes vary considerably according to the amount of work
available and the conditions at the site.
22 Crew sizes vary considerably according to the amount of work available and the
conditions at the site.
23 Crew sizes vary considerably according to the amount of work available and the
conditions at the site. There was some rain today.
24 Crew size increased to 8 workers.
25 No report.
26 Crew size reduced to 6 workers. The temperature was very cold during the morning hours.
27 Work was highly disrupted because of congestion.
28 Work was highly disrupted because of congestion.
29 The weather was cold. Work was highly disrupted because of congestion. There was also
some light snow.
30 Work was highly disrupted because of congestion. The work was greatly affected by
congested work areas on each floor and by the small site area, which made crane
placement and CMU deliveries challenging.
Table 10-3. Inefficient Work Hour Calculations
Weather-Related
Rain
Actual Actual Cold and/or Workforce
Workday Quantities Productivity Congestion Temperatures Snow Management
1 643 0.107 16
2 510 0.149 34
3 276 0.295 59
4 756 0.133 38
6 492 0.157 37
8 583 0.106 14
9 0 28
11 381 0.148 25
12 952 0.076 0
17 270 0.269 50
19 218 0.193 24
23 677 0.076 0
26 468 0.105 11
27 193 0.182 19
28 360 0.129 17
29 161 0.276 13 18
30 294 0.146 19
Total 240 140 14 28
value is based on the experience of monitoring and measuring the productivity

on numerous projects. The expected productivity for the Bryce Jordan Tower
is estimated to be 0.075 wh/ft2, and it is compared with the calculated best of
0.082 wh/ft2. As can be seen, this contractor was never able to achieve the
productivity that he should have.
The daily inefficient work hours are calculated as the (actual daily productivity
minus the estimated or expected best productivity of 0.075 wh/ft2) × the quantity
installed that day. Table 10-4 summarizes the inefficient work hours by cause from
Table 10-3. Fig. 10-3 graphically shows the data in Table 10-4.
Effect of Congestion—One indicator of congested work areas on the Bryce
Jordan Tower project was the ever-changing crew size. Fig. 10-4 shows the crew size
each day. Contractors staff a project with labor consistent with the amount of work
to be done. In this instance, congestion and other operations limited the availabili-
ty of work for the masonry subcontractor, so the subcontractor adjusted the crew
size. As seen in Fig. 10-4, the crew size constantly changed, indicating that the
conditions and the available work areas were changing daily. The crew size ranged
from five to 11.
Table 10-4. Summary of Inefficient Work Hours
Inefficient
Cause Work Hours
Congestion 240
Cold temperatures 140
Rain and snow 14
Workforce management 28
Total 422
400
Inefficient Workhours
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Rain/Snow
Workforce
Congestion
Cold Temp.
Mgmt.
Fig. 10-3. Summary of Inefficient Work Hours, Bryce Jordan Tower
12
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Workday
Fig. 10-4. Masonry Crew Size, Bryce Jordan Tower Project
On certain workdays, congestion was noted by the observer as being particularly

acute. Notations were made in the diary (see Table 10-2) on workdays 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 27,
28, 29, and 30. On some days, congestion and cold temperatures were both recorded
in the diary, particularly on workday 29. The ambient temperature for these days was
noted at 1:00 p.m. to be near 30°F or lower. The principal effect from most of the
cold temperatures was that it delayed the start of the mortar mixing operation.
The mortar for the masonry operation was mixed on each floor. This operation
required valuable space. It also required work hours to move the equipment from
one floor to the next, not to mention the need to move cement, sand, and water to
each floor. It seems that the subcontractor would have been justified to use space
adjacent to the building footprint to mix mortar and distribute the mortar to
the various floors as needed, or purchase mortar from a local ready-mix plant
(Principle 1.4). If mortar had been purchased from a vendor, there might have
been no cold-temperature delays on workdays 17, 19, and 29. Thus, outsourcing, in
this instance, could have been an effective measure to avoid congestion.
The project office structure should not have been moved to a new floor each
time more planks were set (Principles 1.5 and 1.6). The move needlessly reduced the
space available for the masons. The office could have remained on the second floor.
The height of the office structure also should have been made compatible with the
distance between floor slabs.
Effect of Weather—Weather effects were of two origins, cold temperatures and
rain or snow. Cold temperatures were noted on workdays 6, 12, 17, 19, 26, and, 29.
Rain and snow inefficiencies were calculated for workdays 8 and 23. Mortar mixing
was delayed for 3–5 hours on workdays 17, 19, and 29 because of cold temperatures.
Effect of Workforce Management—On workday 9, the crew spent the day in
cleanup activities (possibly because congestion prevented them from working
elsewhere). Because no quantities were installed that day, the inefficient work hours
are estimated as the total work hours charged that day.
Inefficiency Summary
The labor inefficiency overall for the fifth and sixth floor masonry on the Bryce
Jordan Tower was calculated as 30%, or 422 work hours. The biggest culprit was
congestion. Assuming that the work observed covered 25% of the total contract
work, the total inefficient work hours for all contract work are estimated as 1,688. At a
burdened payroll rate of $35/h, the inefficiencies amount to more than $59,000.
The data used for these calculations are shown in Table 10-5.
Table 10-5. Data Used for Inefficiency Cost
Data Category Fifth and Sixth Floors Total Project (Estimated)

Total work hours 1,843 7,373
Inefficient work hours 422 1,688
“Should have been” work hours 1,421 5,684
Percentage inefficiency (%) 30 30
Burdened payroll rate $35 $35
Cost of inefficiencies $14,770 $59,080
References
Thomas, H. R., and Završki, I. (1999). “Construction baseline productivity: Theory and
practice.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(5), 295–303.
CHAPTER 11
Best Practices for Subcontractor

Management
Many types of projects make extensive use of subcontractors. Commercial and high-rise
projects may have 40% or more of the contract work done by subcontractors. Residential
subdivisions are done almost entirely by subcontractors. Specialty contractors are
required by law on public projects in some states. Here, the prime or general contractor
may be contractually responsible for coordinating the work of all the specialty con-
tractors employed on the site. It is little wonder that how well the subcontractors are
managed dictates, in large degree, the success of these types of projects.
Much has been said about the need to manage subcontractors, but little has
been written in the published literature about what specifically a general contractor
should do to effectively manage subcontractors and specialty contractors. This
chapter summarizes the best practices of industry professionals on how to manage
subcontractors and specialty contractors.
11.1 Subcontract Language
Managing a subcontract begins with understanding the language of the contract. Sweet
and Schneier provide a good reference text on the legal aspects of contracts (2009).
A text by Kelleher offers in-depth exposure to selected aspects of contracts (Kelleher
2005). This text is written by attorneys for engineers and administrators. A text by
Thomas and Ellis explains how to interpret contract language. It illustrates how to
resolve contract disputes using easy-to-follow flowcharts (2007). This book is written by
engineers for engineers and administrators. Nothing comprehensive about subcon-
tracts has been published in ASCE journals.
11.2 Problems with Subcontract Management
Many subcontractors are small, family-owned businesses. Subcontractors may suffer

from underfinancing or understaffing, or they may have limited managerial and
225
technical skills (Sweet and Schneier 2009). It is also potentially problematic that a
supervisor is often the highest ranking employee on a jobsite. Many supervisors have
not had the opportunity to learn expert managerial practices, and this lack of
knowledge can negatively affect projects (Sweet and Schneier 2009).
Managing the Work

A major problem in subcontract management is scheduling. Delays occur on many
projects. When one subcontractor falls behind schedule, follow-on subcontractors
are often delayed in starting their portion of the project. This can create a domino
effect, possibly delaying the start of certain subcontractors until after the original
date of completion has passed. The reason that delays are such a problem is that
“time is money.” The longer it takes to finish a project beyond the intended
completion date, the more money that must be spent to keep the job running.
This results in a negative effect to the general contractor and subcontractors alike.
Schedule delays are not necessarily the result of a subcontractor working at a
slower rate than expected. There can be a lack of staff; a lack of equipment, tools, or
materials; out-of-sequence work; congestion; changes; unforeseen conditions; or an
unrealistic schedule. A lack of staff may indicate that the subcontractor under-
estimated the amount of work that he or she was required to complete, or the
subcontractor may have thought that he or she could work at a faster rate than was
possible. Also, the subcontractor may be sharing the labor resources with another
project locally that is not yet complete. When dealing with insufficient equipment,
tools, and materials, little or no work can be completed. Laborers may stand idle,
waiting for the opportunity to work. Repairing or relocating equipment to the jobsite
can be time consuming. Materials may require long lead times for their delivery,
which can seriously hinder a project. Or maybe the superintendent just didn’t order
enough materials. Unforeseen conditions can exist that can have significant effects
on the schedule, thus necessitating extensive revisions to the plans. Typically, there
are a multitude of problems that lead to schedule delays, not just one cause. There
can be surprises, too. Fig. 11-1 shows a “surprise” sinkhole in the center of a building
on the Penn State University campus. The contractor was paid for this surprise, but
the schedule was greatly disrupted.
The lack of a realistic schedule can lead to serious delays and disruptions on a
jobsite. When workers are not clearly informed of expectations, the results often do
not resemble the original expectation of the general contractor. Schedule changes
cause deviations from what was originally planned. A subcontractor termination can
also seriously delay the project.
Another problem on the jobsite that arises with subcontractors is that “often,
everyone is late.” When a subcontractor sees that another subcontractor is not going to
finish on time, they may decide that they can take their workers to another job.
However, when the time comes for them to return to work on the original project, they
are “nowhere to be found.” The more work that subcontractors are able to complete,
BEST PRACTICES FOR SUBCONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT 227
Fig. 11-1. Sinkhole in the Center of the Katz Building
the more money they make. Therefore, smaller, underfinanced subcontractors cannot
afford to have workers on a project if they are not generating revenue.
Schedule delays can result in serious cash flow problems to subcontractors.
Because the owner is paying the construction manager or general contractor accord-
ing to how much work is completed, delays can have a detrimental effect on the
financial well-being of subcontractors. Monies that were expected to have been
received may not come until weeks or months later. If the general contractor or
construction manager does not receive money from the owner, they may not pay
their subcontractors. Without income, subcontractors may not have enough funds to
purchase materials or pay their workers. Subcontractors may be forced to abandon
the job.
Another issue that can arise on a construction project relates to discrepancies in
the drawings. If there is a lack of information on the drawings or one drawing shows
one thing and another drawing shows something else, delays can occur.
Owners may not freely grant time extensions. The owners may say, “Let’s wait
until the end of the job and see if you need an extension,” or they may wait long
periods before granting a time extension, or they may simply say to the general
contractor that no time extension will be granted. These situations often create the
need for schedule acceleration (this topic is discussed in Chapter 12). Schedule
acceleration can be expensive, and some subcontractors may not be able to avoid
bankruptcy. Also, some subcontractors may not be able to accommodate the
increased staffing demands of schedule acceleration.
Managing People
One problem with managing subcontractors is that of personalities. Some people
don’t get along with other people. If subcontractors cannot trust one another or
management, then the work environment becomes unhealthy. People begin to

constantly doubt information coming from other parties, continuing to foster
animosity and resentment of others. Regardless of the magnitude of conflict, the
inability of subcontractors to work together harmoniously can prevent the project
from being completed in a timely manner.
Depending on the subcontractor involved, business understandings may not
exist. Subcontractors may not be sophisticated. Some have just gotten their first fax
machine only five years ago—forget the Internet. And some still have the owner’s
spouse doing the accounting books at the kitchen table. The inability to have all
parties involved with a project working on the same level can present problems.
Communication becomes difficult when e-mail is not being used by all. Also,
necessary paperwork may not be received regularly. This lack of understanding of
how a business can be run efficiently in today’s fast paced and high-demand society
may come as a result of many subcontractors being family-owned businesses. After
the second or third generation of ownership, the company may not run efficiently.
Companies are passed down to family members who may not have the best interests
of the company in mind or are incapable of running a business. Regardless of why a
company is not succeeding to the best of its ability, a project can suffer as a result of
poor business understanding.
Safety is another aspect of a subcontractor’s practices that can be subpar. Many
construction companies have different views and practices when dealing with the
issue of safety. Some subcontractors may have low standards for safety that do not
meet the requirements of the owner, construction manager, or general contractor.
Without proper safety precautions, workers can be placed in dangerous situations.
Fig. 6-10 shows a project where handrails have not been provided around stairs and
openings, an OSHA violation.
11.3 Identifying the Controlling Subcontractor
Where there are several subcontractors working, one after the other, it is
important to identify the controlling contractor. One subcontractor “drives the
train” in that it controls the pace of work of the others. The controlling
subcontractor is usually determined by its slow daily production rate compared
with the other subcontractors. This subcontractor may need to be given prefer-
ential treatment.
Often the controlling subcontractor is the first or lead subcontractor in the
string of subcontractors. Velocity charts, like Figs. 3-17 and 3-19, may be useful in
making this determination. The controlling subcontractor may not always be the
lead subcontractor. Fig. 7-29 is an example where the fireproofing or duct
installation subcontractor may be the controlling subcontractor. The important
point to remember is that if the controlling subcontractor is delayed or cannot
meet the planned schedule, then everyone is affected and the project suffers. If
the controlling subcontractor performs as planned, the other subcontractors

are likely to fall “in line” and also perform as planned. Thus, the challenge
of managing subcontractors may be made easier. Manage the controlling
subcontractor, and the need to manage the others may be minimal or at least
easier.
Table 11-1 lists best practices. Practices are listed in two broad areas: managing
people and managing the work. These practices support the goal of developing trust
and long-term or team relationships with subcontractors. Developing long-term
relationships eliminates the need for bid shopping.
Table 11-1. Best Practices of Subcontractor Management
No. Principle
Managing People
1.1 Involve all subcontractors in developing the project plans and schedule.
1.2 Build a trust relationship by treating subcontractors fairly.
1.3 Do not engage in the practice of bid shopping.
1.4 Seek commitments from all parties at a prebid meeting.
1.5 Help the subcontractor do timely work by providing assistance and resources as
appropriate.
1.6 Walk the job frequently. Get to know the subcontractors’ workers and offer
assistance as appropriate.
1.7 Explain expectations to subcontractors before bid submission.
1.8 Meet regularly with subcontractor supervisors individually.
Managing the Work
2.1 Identify the controlling subcontractor.
2.2 Write a fair and balanced subcontract.
2.3 Develop a submittal schedule and change order log.
2.4 Pay subcontractors on time.
2.5 Prequalify subcontractors based on their previous work, safety, and financial
situation.
2.6 Require the subcontractors to hold weekly toolbox meetings.
2.7 At regular intervals, evaluate the subcontractor’s performance.
2.8 Require subcontractors to maintain good housekeeping.
2.9 Require subcontractors to maintain safe working practices.
2.10 Consider the development of coordination drawings.
2.11 Enforce the contract.
2.12 Every proposed change order should be reviewed by all subcontractors.
2.13 Meet regularly with subcontractors collectively.
Managing People
Principle 1.1. Involve All Subcontractors in Developing the Project Plans and
Schedules—A subcontractor cannot be expected to be fully committed to a schedule
unless he or she participated in its development; ownership of the schedule is
important in developing trust. The schedule also communicates the plan (see
Chapter 3). The general contractor should monitor the schedule of the controlling
subcontractor, and maybe others, frequently and actively teach subcontractors the
best practices of management. Monitoring progress is much easier when the area is
partitioned into subareas or work zones.
Principle 1.2. Build a Trust Relationship by Treating Subcontractors Fairly—
Trust is built by being open, honest, and fair. A subcontractor wants the general
contractor to live up to any prebid commitments that were made. Subcontractors
want to be treated as important parts of the project team.
Principle 1.3. Do Not Engage in the Practice of Bid Shopping—Bid shopping is
viewed by some as unethical. Relationships of trust are never built by bid shopping.
Arditi and Chotibhongs suggest that bid shopping often leads to the selection of
unqualified subcontractors who entered the bid process late and may not have
adequately planned for the job (2005). Other consequences of bid shopping can be
lower standards of work performance, reduced overall project quality, adversarial
relationships, legal disputes, unfair competition, insolvencies, and reduced safety
performance (Arditi and Chotibhongs 2005). Owners should require general con-
tractors to list their subcontractors and their quotes at the time of the bid.
General contractors should be concerned about the profitability of subcontrac-
tors. A profitable subcontractor is a happy subcontractor, or at least content. Being
concerned is an integral part of building a team. A “hands-off the subcontractor”
policy is probably not a desirable one.
Principle 1.4. Seek Commitments from All Parties at a Prebid Meeting—
Conduct a prebid meeting and require all subcontractors to attend. Explain the
overall strategy in completing the project and commitments to the schedule. Explain
also how the general contractor will handle submittals, payment requests, and
enforcement of the subcontract; how the service materials will be brought into the
facility; material deliveries; and how and when you plan to enclose the building. This
team meeting will go a long way toward building trust. Obtain commitments from all
parties relative to the schedule and safety. The general contractor should also make
commitments. The prebid meeting should be mandatory and held before subcon-
tractor quotes are developed.
Principle 1.5. Help the Subcontractors Do Timely Work by Providing Assistance
and Resources as Appropriate—Subcontractors often do not have in-depth mana-
gerial or technical expertise, adequate equipment, and other resources needed for
timely completion. The general contractor should consider extending a helping
hand, especially to the controlling subcontractor, and maybe others, beyond the
commitments made in the subcontract.
Principle 1.6. Walk the Job Frequently. Get to Know the Subcontractor’s
Workers and Offer Assistance as Appropriate—The opportunity to build trust
while confined to a job trailer is limited. Walk the job often and get to know the
subcontractor’s management team and workers. Offer managerial, paperwork,
and technical advice or assistance to the controlling subcontractor’s senior
representative as appropriate.
Principle 1.7. Explain Expectations to Subcontractors before Bid Submission—
Expectations that need to be explained include subcontractor planning and sched-
uling, production rates or staffing levels, quality, safety, and perhaps other aspects of
the job. Some of this can be done at the prebid meeting. Detail expectations and
obtain commitments in time for subcontractors to include the effect of these
expectations in their bids.
Principle 1.8. Meet Regularly with Subcontractor Supervisors Individually—It is
important to meet with the subcontractor’s supervisor or senior representative
individually and privately on a regular basis to ascertain his or her views on the
project, relations with other subcontractors, and factors inhibiting progress. The
meeting can be as simple as an informal one at the work face. Regular meetings can
go a long way to establishing trust and a line of communication. This is a good time to
listen instead of talk.
Managing the Work

Principle 2.1. Identify Controlling Subcontractor(s)—A controlling subcontractor is
one that controls the pace of the work of others. There may be more than one
subcontractor. If the controlling subcontractor falls behind schedule, other sub-
contractors will be delayed, too. Therefore, it is imperative that the general
contractor do all that is possible from letting this happen.
The general contractor may need to give the controlling subcontractor defer-
ential treatment in the form of managerial, technical, document, and planning
assistance beyond the requirements of the contract. Imagine what will happen if the
controlling subcontractor falls behind schedule; other subcontractors will fall
behind too, and some subcontractors may leave the job. A mess will be created
that litigation will not fix. It is useless to engage in finger pointing long after the
project is finished. Everyone may be exposed to liquidated damages.
Principle 2.2. Write a Fair and Balanced Subcontract—The authors have seen
many subcontracts that are harsh and not balanced. The main purpose of many of
these contracts is to avoid payment, take advantage of the subcontractor, or shift all
risks to the subcontractors.
Relationships built on trust are not created by contracts that attempt to shift
all the risk to the subcontractors. Clauses that are particularly relevant in
subcontracts only are the pass-through clause and the “pay if paid” clause. The
termination clause and a no-damages-for-delay clause are also important, as may
be others.
Principle 2.3. Develop a Submittal Schedule and Change Order Log—A submit-
tal schedule should be developed that has required due dates and actual dates of
submission. It is not uncommon for work to be delayed because submittals were
submitted late. There should be strict compliance with due dates. Change order and
logs of requests for information should also be maintained.
Principle 2.4. Pay Subcontractors on Time—The cash reserves of most subcon-
tractors are much less than those of general contractors. Therefore, it is imperative
that subcontractors be paid on time to buy materials and pay workers. The worst
thing to happen is for a lien to be attached to a project. Arditi and Chotibhongs
(2005) show that subcontractors often were paid more than 60 days after the work
was completed. Based on a survey distributed to owners, general contractors, and
subcontractors, all categories of respondents felt that the payment process needed to
be improved. Arditi and Chotibhongs (2005) recommend that (1) general con-
tractors should be paid promptly by owners, (2) subcontractors should not work for
general contractors that have a reputation for paying late, and (3) subcontractors
should negotiate the payment terms before entering into an agreement. Arditi and
Chotibhongs also discuss issues related to retainage.
Principle 2.5. Prequalify Subcontractors—Subcontractors should be prequali-
fied on the basis of performance on previous projects, safety, and financial health. As
lasting relationships are built, the prequalification process becomes easier. Financial
status is important as the general contractor doesn’t want a subcontractor to go
bankrupt. Bankruptcy can happen in six months or less; all it takes is one bad project.
An alternative is for the general contractor to select a reliable subcontractor with
whom he or she wishes to team and to solicit only one quote. With this alternative,
there is little need for bid shopping.
Principle 2.6. Require the Subcontractors to Hold Weekly Toolbox Meetings—
A safe job is important to all. A safe job is also a productive one. Subcontractors
should conduct weekly toolbox meetings to discuss safety issues. Topics should
include potential safety hazards, unsafe practices, and applicable OSHA regulations.
Principle 2.7. At Regular Intervals, Evaluate the Subcontractor’s Performance—
The general contractor’s senior representative or project manager should meet
informally and regularly with each subcontractor’s senior representative to evaluate
the subcontractor’s performance and cooperation and their reaction to the general
contractor’s directions and suggestions.
Principle 2.8. Require Subcontractors to Maintain Good Housekeeping—
Subcontractors should be required to maintain good housekeeping practices in
their work areas. Fig. 6-22 shows a situation that is intolerable. Figs. 11-2, 11-3,
6-20, and 6-21 show messy work face areas cluttered with duct, piping, and trash.
Good housekeeping is essential to ensuring a safe and productive job, and sub-
contractors should develop a habit of cleaning the site as they work.
Principle 2.9. Require Subcontractors to Maintain Safe Working Practices—
Fig. 11-4 shows unsafe rigging practices by a steel erection subcontractor. This site
was clean and orderly, yet this unsafe practice persisted throughout the job. The
Fig. 11-2. Untidy Work Face Area
Fig. 11-3. Sloppy Housekeeping at the Work Face
general contractor’s project manager needs to be vigilant. This unsafe practice

cannot be observed from the office; the project manager needs to walk the job
frequently.
Principle 2.10. Consider the Development of Coordination Drawings—In a
commercial facility, condominium or apartment building, or high-rise building,
there needs to be a plan for how to proceed from floor to floor and how to complete
a single floor. Coordination drawings communicate this plan. A preliminary plan
should be available before the bids are submitted. All subcontractors should
participate in the development of coordination drawings.
Fig. 11-4. Subcontractor Engaging in an Unsafe Rigging Practice
Principle 2.11. Enforce the Contract—At first, this may seem like an unfriendly
or burdensome practice. But eventually, everyone warms to the notion that to under-
stand what they must do, all the subcontractor has to do is to read the contract.
Sloppy contract administration can only lead to trouble.
Principle 2.12. Every Proposed Change Order Should Be Reviewed by All
Subcontractors—A change order request often affects multiple subcontractors. All
subcontractor change order requests should be submitted to the owner as a package
and should include a general contractor’s request for a time extension (if appropriate).
No tardy requests should be accepted.
Principle 2.13. Meet Regularly with Subcontractors Collectively—These
meetings should be held frequently, say weekly, and are for the purpose of
discussing the progress on the job. Problem solving may be postponed until later.
Subcontractor attendees should arrive at the jobsite no later than an hour before
the meeting to review their activities so that when someone asks a question, they
have an answer.
11.5 Case Studies
The authors have no specific knowledge of good or poor subcontractor management

practices, except those practices that are readily observable during site visits. For
example, the prime contractor is often responsible for housekeeping. If the prime
contractor does a poor job at housekeeping, the subcontractor may have to work in
deplorable conditions, even though the subcontractor is not responsible. Many of
the case studies in this book illustrate situations where the prime contractor–
subcontractor interface was poorly done.
References
Arditi, D., and Chotibhongs, R. (2005). “Issues in subcontracting practice.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 131(8), 866–876.
Kelleher, T. J. ed. (2005). Smith, Currie & Hancock’s common sense construction law a practical
guide for the construction professional, 3rd Ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Sweet, J., and Schneier, M. M. (2009). Legal aspects of architecture, engineering and the construction
process, 8th Ed., Cengage Learning, Stamford, CT.
Thomas, H. R., and Ellis, R. D., Jr. (2007). Interpreting construction contracts: Fundamental
principles for contractors, project managers, and contract administrators, ASCE, Reston, VA.
PART IV
Special Topics
CHAPTER 12
Fundamental Principles for Managing

Schedule Acceleration
Schedule acceleration or compression occurs when more work is added to a

construction contract and no time extension is granted, or when the completion
time is shortened without reducing the scope of work. In reality, schedule accelera-
tion can be a combination of both.
Schedule acceleration means that the work must be done in a shorter time
frame, and this shortening usually means an increase in work hours. The contractor
has three options to increase the number of work hours: (1) work scheduled
overtime, (2) hire more workers (overstaffing), or (3) work multiple shifts. Each
option can easily bring negative consequences in the form of labor inefficiencies and
greatly increased cost.
Schedule acceleration is expensive because the additional costs of labor add up
fast. It is not uncommon to see a work hour overrun during acceleration of 25–50% or
more compared with the estimate. At current burdened payroll rates, acceleration on
a small job can amount to a cost overrun of $250,000–$500,000. Generally, many
contractors do not have the cash reserves to sustain these economic losses. Design
firms have smaller cash reserves and may struggle to maintain pace with the contrac-
tor. It is little wonder that many accelerated projects end in litigation. The only truism
about acceleration is that it costs money, usually a lot. The authors have seen
acceleration force contractors into bankruptcy, regardless of the size of contractor.
12.1 Management of All the Resources
One of the secrets to managing acceleration is to recognize that acceleration is often a

resource allocation problem. One can easily add, say, 50% more work hours by going
from a 5-8 (five days of eight hours) schedule to a 6-10 schedule. But is that sufficient?
Hardly. Recognize that all the needed resources will be consumed at a faster rate.
Materials will be consumed faster, and there will be more forward purchases; there will
be more requests for information (RFIs) and changes per unit of time; tools and
equipment will experience greater usage; and the demands for support services, like
scaffolding, will increase. One must manage all the resources, not just labor.
239
Acceleration also affects suppliers and vendors. For instance, if the concrete
supplier cannot deliver concrete at a faster pace, you may need to engage a second
supplier. The fabrication shop may experience more fabrication errors as the pace
quickens. As more RFIs and changes are generated per unit of time, more contractor
nonmanual workers may be needed for processing these requests. The design firm
may not be able to keep pace, meaning that the contract documents may contain
more errors and omissions, and drawings may be issued late. Approvals may also be
late, and the processing of shop drawings may be untimely.
Schedule acceleration is a uniquely distressful situation, and some management
practices that may be applied on a nonaccelerated project do not necessarily work on
an accelerated one. Ordinarily, erection directly from the delivery truck is a good
just-in-time material management practice, but this practice may not work satisfac-
torily on an accelerated project. The purpose of this chapter is to explain the
conditions on an accelerated project and offer suggestions to help a contractor
mitigate some of the acceleration damages.
12.2 Anatomy of Schedule Acceleration
The following describes an actual project to help one understand how schedule
acceleration happened on this project. In this discussion, the subcontractor’s work,
Two Turners’ Electric, was accelerated. The facts are based on the court case of
Gilbane Building Company v. Two Turners’ Electric Company (2007).
In December 1997 Clear Creek Independent School District (CCISD)
solicited bids to build two schools: Space Center Intermediate and League
City Intermediate. Each facility covered almost 170,000 square feet. Both
schools were large, nearly identical, projects. CCISD hired Gilbane as the
general contractor in charge of the construction of both schools. While
Gilbane was a national building contractor, it was new to Texas school
construction, having previously completed only two or three school projects
in Texas. For the construction of these schools, Gilbane hired subcontrac-
tors to handle certain aspects of the construction. CCISD imposed an
absolute deadline of July 1, 1999 for the completion of both schools.
Based on that deadline, Gilbane, as the general contractor, established the
schedule, which was based on no scheduled overtime. Gilbane then solicited
bids from subcontractors based on a normal work week and 18 months to
complete performance.
Daryl Turner served as the president of Two Turners’ Electric Co. (Turner).
Mr. Turner was a master electrician who has been in business since 1968.
Mr. Turner had extensive experience building Texas schools, as he has
previously built approximately 25 new schools of approximately this size, as
well as numerous other smaller school projects. As a result of this experience,
CCISD prequalified Turner as one of 11 electrical subcontractors certified
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES FOR MANAGING SCHEDULE ACCELERATION 241
to bid on CCISD construction projects. Turner submitted a bid for both

schools. Mr. Turner prepared these bids based on the knowledge and
experience he gained as a master electrician working on similar projects,
the schedule prepared by Gilbane for the construction, Gilbane’s representa-
tions that normal construction practices would be used, and the representa-
tion that the subcontractors would have 18 months to complete the construc-
tion of the schools.
According to Mr. Turner, “normal construction practices” for electrical work of
this character means the following:
1. The presence of structural steel before the electricians install electrical conduit
and wiring, creating a place for the electricians to attach the conduit and wiring;
2. The absence of interior walls when the electricians were installing electrical
conduit and wiring, allowing the electricians to use motorized scaffolding in
straight runs across the building, thus minimizing the time and number of
electricians required to perform this task;
3. Logical scheduling, calling for construction from one end of the building to the
other, thereby minimizing repetitive setup and maximizing completion of an area
before moving to another;
4. Proper scheduling of the work within the available 18 months, allowing Turner
Electric to (a) use its own employees as opposed to more expensive and
inefficient contract labor and (b) not use scheduled overtime.
Gilbane awarded the electrical subcontract for both schools to Turner. The
two lump sum subcontracts contained nearly identical contract language.
Turner contracted to perform all electrical work on both schools. Despite
the fact that both subcontracts called for Turner to perform all electrical
work for a lump sum price, both subcontracts, as well as the prime contract
between CCISD and Gilbane, envisioned that there could be changes in the
work and included provisions on how changes would be compensated.
Serious issues arose before and during the early stages of the projects that
dramatically affected the construction schedule of both schools. The most
serious issue arose out of dimensional errors in the design drawings for the
schools. As a result of these dimensional errors, the structural steel was
incorrectly fabricated. Correcting these errors turned out to be a compli-
cated and time-consuming process. The problem was so significant that, as
of May 6, 1998, barely a week after Turner had executed the two subcon-
tracts for the schools, Baker Concrete, the foundation subcontractor, wrote
Gilbane saying “ : : : the dimensional mistakes : : : have been known for well
over three weeks. To date, we still have no complete answers. This was not
intended to be a ‘Fast Track’ project, but at this point it should be treated as
such by the design team to maintain progress.”
Two days later, Gilbane wrote a letter to the architect stating that the
dimensional issue “ : : : turned out to be complicated and unavoidably
disruptive bringing about a significant delay to the fabrication and delivery

of structural steel as a direct result of these dimensional problems.” Gilbane
notified the architect that it was completely suspending work in the affected
areas of the projects and told the architect “we are unable to continue and
we are being constructively delayed in our efforts with resulting impacts to
project time and costs.”
While Gilbane was not responsible for the dimension errors and the initial
delays caused by the errors, Gilbane made decisions in its handling of the
dimension problem that directly and adversely affected Turner’s perfor-
mance. Each of these decisions resulted in Turner’s work being compressed
into a time frame significantly shorter than the 18 months originally
envisioned for the work.
Initially, Gilbane made the decision to give priority for the fabrication of
structural steel to a Houston Independent School District (“HISD”) school
Gilbane was building, even though the two CCISD schools had already been
delayed while the dimensional issue was worked out by the architect and
engineers. This resulted in even more delay in the fabrication, delivery, and
erection of the structural steel for the CCISC projects. Under the original
construction schedule established by Gilbane, the erection of the structural
steel for the schools was to have started in June 1998 and was to have been
completely installed by the middle of October 1998. Instead, as a result of
the delays in the fabrication of the structural steel, as of September 1998,
there was no structural steel on site at either school. By March 1999, only
four months before the schools were to be completed, there was still
structural steel being erected at both schools. This delay directly affected
Turner as much of its work, primarily the installation of conduit and wire,
was to be attached to the structural steel and therefore could not be
performed before the steel itself was installed. The end result of Gilbane’s
decision to give the HISD school fabrication priority over the CCISD schools
was the further compression of Turner’s work into a period of time
significantly shorter than the originally planned time.
The next decision to directly affect Turner was Gilbane’s unilateral decision
to put up the interior masonry walls before the structural steel was in place
in an effort to make up some of the lost time on the project. According to
Gilbane’s senior project manager, Gilbane started looking for something it
[Gilbane] could do that was productive and at the same time was overall
positive to the schedule. Gilbane made this decision without consulting the
subcontractors, despite the fact that this action impeded some subcontrac-
tors in the performance of their work. Gilbane persisted in following
through with the decision, even though everybody questioned the wisdom
of doing so. As a result of Gilbane’s decision, the interior masonry walls were
built to a height of approximately 7 ft. This directly interfered with Turner’s
performance of its work as there was no longer an open runway the length of
the building for the electricians to use motorized lifts to install the long
runs of conduit and wire. Instead, the electricians had to resort to the
time-consuming and labor-intensive process of using ladders, with the
necessity of setting up and breaking down their equipment many times as
they moved from room to room. This not only slowed the pace of the
electricians’ work, but also increased the number of electricians required to
perform the work.
Normal construction practice is to begin erecting the structural steel at one end of
the building and progress through the building to the other end. Crafts, such as the
electricians and plumbers, which use the structural steel for portions of their work,
then follow along behind the structural steel installation and, only when their work is
complete are the interior walls built. This procedure allows multiple crafts to work at
the same time without impeding each other’s work because electricians and plumbers
are working in different areas of the building.
The third Gilbane decision to directly affect Turner’s performance was
Gilbane’s decision to abandon the original sequence of constructing the
schools. Originally, Gilbane intended to follow the “normal” method for
constructing a large school building. Under the “normal” method, work
starts at one end of the building and progresses through to the other end.
This method creates an efficient flow through the project as it allows each
subcontractor to work in a single area until it is complete. This increases
efficiency as it minimizes repetitive setting up and breaking down of
equipment as workers do not have to move back and forth from one area
of the building to another, as well as minimizing the amount of interference
and congestion caused by too many subcontractors working in a single area
at the same time. In an effort to do something other than “sit on our hands,”
Gilbane decided to require the subcontractors to work in any area of the
schools ready for work. Gilbane decided to work on both ends of the school
buildings and progress toward the middle.
Turner was adversely affected in several ways by this Gilbane decision. First,
the pace of the work slowed as the electricians had to move from one area to
another and then back again. Second, because there were more subcon-
tractors working in a single area, efficiency decreased as they got in each
other’s way. Finally, by leaving the middle of each school until the end (the
middle section contained the bulk of the main electrical equipment),
Turner’s time to complete its work was dramatically compressed as the
electricians had to wait until the later stages of the project to install the main
electrical equipment.
Gilbane made a fourth decision affecting Turner Electric. Grinnell Fire
Systems (Grinnell) was Gilbane’s subcontractor for the installation of the
fire alarm systems at both schools. In addition, Grinnell sub-subcontracted
with Turner for the installation of the data, sound, and telephone systems,
but not the fire alarm system. As a result of Gilbane’s earlier decisions,
Grinnell’s work on all of the systems had been compressed until the
final months of the projects. As the July 1 deadline approached, Gilbane

decided that the fire alarm systems were more important than the data,
sound, and telephone systems. In Gilbane’s view, if each school had a
functional fire alarm system, it increased the chance that CCISD would
accept the schools as complete even though significant work remained.
Therefore, Gilbane ordered Grinnell to devote all its attention and
resources to the fire alarm systems and let the systems Turner Electric was
responsible for—data, sound, and telephone—wait. This decision further
compressed the time available for Turner to complete its work.
As a result of these decisions, Turner’s time to perform the work was
significantly compressed. This, in turn, required Turner to institute sched-
uled overtime and hire more workers, increasing the subcontractor’s labor
costs. In addition, as the number of workers goes up, efficiency goes down
because it is more difficult to supervise a larger workforce. Finally, the
compressed time required more subcontractors to work in the same areas at
the same time in an effort to get the work done, with a resulting effect on
efficiency. Congestion further impeded progress.
Faced with a significantly compressed schedule, Turner worked hard to
complete the schools. According to CCISD, the two buildings were a beehive
of activity, even late at night and on weekends, as electricians worked to get
the buildings completed on time. In spite of all the problems, construction
on the two schools was sufficiently complete to allow the schools to open to
students on time or only three days late. However, there was still consider-
able work to be done, even after the schools were opened, as there were
entire areas of the schools that had not yet been closed in. This work had to
be completed in the evenings and on weekends, times that required the
payment of overtime wages to the workers.
As the time approached to close out the two projects, Turner submitted a claim
to Gilbane to be paid for the additional labor costs it incurred as a result of the
compressed schedule. At this point, Gilbane made the final decision affecting
Turner, deciding not to present Turner’s claim to CCISD for consideration.
This narrative highlights several points that are common among many acceler-
ated projects. These are the following:
• Many of the events leading to acceleration are beyond the contractor’s control,
and therefore, a prebid risk assessment is important (see Chapter 3).
• Contractors and subcontractors are left to react to events that occur rather than
shape or control the events.
• Many projects are disrupted by structural steel erection, whether it be from
fabrication errors, late submittals, poor contractor performance, or other causes.
• Decisions relative to the schedule are made that often exacerbate the original
acceleration.
• On accelerated projects, the sequence is often disrupted or abandoned.
In addition, there can be other unintended consequences. Some of these are the
following:
• There may be an increase in theft.

• There can be much incomplete work as supervisors and workers may feel that
finishing 95% of the work is satisfactory.
• Return visits to work areas to finish the work are not uncommon.
• Work locations can change frequently, leaving supervisors little time to plan
their work.
• There may be a large number of changes to the plans resulting from errors and
omissions.
• Multiple and lengthy punch lists often accompany acceleration.
12.3 Can You See Acceleration Coming?
It would be advantageous to know that acceleration is looming in the future so that

there can be some advance planning to lessen the effect. It turns out that this is a
relatively straightforward process in most instances. Fig. 12-1 is used to illustrate this
point.
Suppose that a job is estimated to require 100,000 work hours. If the labor is
underused early in the project and, say, at the 25% complete milestone, only 6,000
work hours have been charged, the labor resource will have to be overused later.
Planned vs. Actual Labor Utilization St. Mary's College Classroom Building
6
4
Percentage (%)
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75
Week
Fig. 12-1. Labor Usage (Planned and Actual) on an Accelerated Project

Fig. 12-1 shows the planned and actual labor usage on an accelerated project.
Beginning about week 18, the actual labor usage (expressed as a percentage) is less
than planned. This deficit needs to be made up later. About week 40, a large change
order was issued that affected the work of multiple subcontractors and specialty
contractors. The accelerated work did not begin in earnest until about week 61. The
acceleration was predictable, perhaps as early as weeks 20–25. Advanced planning
may have mitigated some of the damages.
12.4 The Schedule Acceleration Environment
Planning and Scheduling

To effectively manage schedule acceleration, one must understand how the accel-
eration environment differs from the environment on an ordinary, unaccelerated
project. The accelerated environment is quite different from the norm. Table 12-1
Table 12-1. Partial Listing of Schedule Acceleration Environmental Conditions
Environmental Conditions
• Suppliers and vendors may have difficulty in meeting an accelerated delivery schedule.
• Fabrication shops may experience more fabrication errors.
• Design firms may have trouble keeping up with an accelerated pace.
• Submitted approvals may be late, and the processing of shop drawings may be untimely.
• Many of the events leading to acceleration are beyond the contractor’s control.
• Contractors and subcontractors are left to react to events that occur rather than shape or
control the events. There is a general loss of control.
• All the needed resources will be consumed at a faster rate.
• There are more forward purchases.
• There can be more RFIs and late changes.
• Tools and equipment will experience greater usage.
• The demands for support services, like scaffolding and lifts, increases.
• Decisions relative to the schedule are often made that exacerbate the original schedule.
• Schedule float time is lost until it is essentially all gone.
• There may be many more intermediate deadlines and milestone dates.
• There is usually much congestion and out-of-sequence work.
• There can be much incomplete work as the pressure mounts to make more progress.
• Work locations can change frequently, leaving supervisors little time to plan.
• The planning horizon for the supervisors may be short. It may be difficult to plan beyond
the next day.
• There may be an increase in theft of materials.
• The weekly workload is highly variable.
• A labor sink is formed.
• Many sites become messy and untidy, making housekeeping an ever-present concern.
• Time lags dwindle to near zero.
• Multiple and lengthy punch lists often accompany acceleration.
summarizes some of the more common features of the acceleration environment.

In accelerated situations, the best laid plans may be rendered useless, and a
complete rethinking of the plan is probably justified. Schedule flexibility is
important. Many things happen that are beyond the contractor’s control. Con-
tractors are often relegated to just reacting to events affecting the schedule, rather
than shaping things that happen. Contractors may have little control. Fig. 4-3
shows a situation where the precast erection subcontractor does not have access to
the much of the site because of the conditions at the site. Also, the completion of a
duct bank passing through the site was delayed and prevented the orderly
repositioning of the crane. The only option available to the subcontractor was
to go outside the perimeter fence with the crane and progress along the public
street.
Because there is so little control, the planning horizon for the supervisors may be
short. It may be difficult to plan beyond the next day. Look-ahead schedules may be
of little value. Because changes in the work plan may occur daily, the supervisor has
great difficulty in planning ahead. Many would agree that planning ahead is perhaps
the most important function that the supervisor is asked to perform. Yet, the
supervisors who normally do their planning on a weekly basis are stretched to the
limit, such that short-range planning is greatly hampered. The turnaround time for
taking positive action is relatively short.
As the acceleration deepens, more and more schedule float time is lost, until it is
essentially all gone. There may be many more intermediate deadlines and milestone
dates. Out-of-sequence work and congestion are common.
Late changes often cause or accompany acceleration. Many times, the need for a
change is identified early in the project execution, but the actual change order is not
issued until late in the execution time frame. Sometimes, the owner has difficulty
deciding what to do. There may be many areas of the project where the work has
been put on hold. The demands on the information and material supply networks
increase.
A concentrated effort is often made on major work items, leaving other work
until later. The last 5% of the work may take months. Multiple and lengthy punch
lists may be generated.
Often events occur that form the basis for the owner paying in an untimely
manner or not at all. The owner may deduct certain work from the contractor’s
scope of work, thus further exacerbating the contractor’s cash flow and scheduling
situation.
The weekly workload is highly variable. One week there may be much work to
do, and a worker may work 55–60 hours that week. The next week may find that the
available work has dried up, and the same worker may work only 35 hours that week.
Thus, one can generally track the amount of work available to do by examining the
number of hours worked in a given week by individuals or crews. A graph like the one
in Fig. 12-1 is invaluable to understanding issues like workload, and the graph should
be produced regularly.
Labor Demands
Two situations commonly occur on an accelerated project. There is a need for
additional labor, and there is a highly variable workload. The need for varying
amounts of craft labor creates a difficult situation for a superintendent, especially
in a tight labor market, because a contractor cannot realistically terminate a sizable
part of the workforce during slow periods only to hire them back a short time
later when the workload increases. They simply will not be available. What is one
to do?
Labor Sink—Often, the excess workers who are not needed because the
workload is low are not terminated, but rather are sent to some geographical
location on the project where they can congregate. There is limited or no work
to do in this area. This “holding” area is called a labor sink. It is usually at a remote
area of the site, out of view of the superintendent. If visible, the labor sink would be a
constant reminder to the superintendent that the project is progressing poorly. The
need for a labor sink is one reason (but not the only one) that schedule acceleration
is so expensive. If the contractor files a claim, the labor hours in the labor sink should
be included. This can be a sizable number.
Variable Workload—A variable workload is a common feature of schedule
acceleration. Whether it comes from design changes, unforeseen conditions,
material delivery delays, or other causes, there are times when there is little work
to do and there are times when there is a lot of work. A variable workload creates a
variable demand for labor. This situation can be observed in two ways. First, the crew
size may vary appreciably from day to day. Second, the work hours per week may vary.
When there is much work to do, a crew may work 50 hours or more during a given
week. The next week may see only 35 hours as the available work dwindles. The idea of
a crew working a 50-hour work week every week during scheduled overtime for, say,
15 consecutive weeks is incorrect because the workload does not remain constant.
Overtime and Overstaffing—When overtime is necessary, it can be instituted
quickly. But fatigue can be problematic. Therefore, overtime is more of a short-term
solution to the acceleration problem. If overstaffing is necessary, the newer members
of the workforce may be less skilled and will be unfamiliar with the site. They may not
work as diligently as those with a longer tenure on the job. Overstaffing is a long-term
solution to acceleration.
Other Conditions
Construction errors may be more common. When acceleration occurs, there is much
incomplete work. Many sites become messy and untidy. Trade sequencing principles
are not followed, and there is much out-of-sequence work. Time lags dwindle to near
zero. It seems that every subcontractor is on his or her own. Punch lists are more
extensive, and labor needs can be difficult to forecast.
A list of acceleration principles are described in Table 12-2. Several principles relate
to acceleration in general.
Prebid Principles
It is difficult or improbable to make a profit on an accelerated project. More often
than not, a contractor loses money. Therefore, a risk assessment of acceleration
should be made before deciding to submit a bid. The risk assessment can be tailored
to any contractor or any project. Some of the relevant questions to ask are the
following: What is the likelihood of a time extension? What is the likelihood of
acceleration? Do the plans appear complete and generally free from errors and
omissions? Will you receive timely payments? Will you be paid at all? Does the
contract contain harsh language? Does the contract include a no-damages-for-delay
clause? Many other questions may be relevant. These and other questions should be
asked before deciding to submit a bid. A good principle to follow is to leave risky
projects to your competitors (Principle 1.1).
You should know or inquire about the reputation of all key parties involved in
the project (Principle 1.2). This inquiry should include the owner, designer,
construction manager, general contractor, subcontractor, vendors, fabricators,
and other parties important to the success of the project. Are they easy or difficult
to deal with? Do they engage in the practice of bid shopping? What is the likelihood
of numerous changes? Will they pay? Are their management practices sound? Will
you be treated fairly? Are the vendors’ delivery schedules reliable? Are their
products free from defects? Do they stand behind their products? If acceleration
occurs, can others keep up with the accelerated pace? Does the owner seem to be
well financed?
Preconstruction Principles
One truism about schedule acceleration is that it costs the contractor money,
potentially lots of money. However, if the contractor spends money wisely, it is
possible to minimize the economic losses. Many of the principles listed in Table 12-2
have cost implications, but they also have the potential for saving significant sums of
money. Two of the more costly elements of acceleration are labor inefficiencies and
unabsorbed home office overhead. When one considers the burdened payroll rate
and the potential for improving labor efficiency, almost any strategy for improving
labor efficiency will be cost-effective. Thus Principle 2.1 is predicated on improve-
ments to labor efficiency and states that acceleration is not necessarily the time to
tighten the purse strings and not spend monies that may potentially save substantial
sums of money.
Table 12-2. Fundamental Principles for Managing Schedule Acceleration
No. Principle
Prebid
1.1 Perform a risk assessment of acceleration before deciding to submit a bid and leave
risky projects to your competitors.
1.2 Know the reputation of all the parties involved in the project.
Preconstruction
2.1 While the manager must monitor expenditures carefully, acceleration is not
necessarily the time to tighten the purse strings and not spend monies that may
save substantial sums of money.
Construction Execution
3.1 Plan for the accelerated use and demand for all resources, not just labor.
3.2 Improve communications among crews.
3.3 Search for ways to make critical activities noncritical.
3.4 Reduce tasks of large scope into multiple tasks of smaller scope.
3.5 Monitor progress more frequently.
3.6 Set daily or weekly production goals.
3.7 Do more detailed operational planning using short interval production schedules
(SIPS).
3.8 Maintain logs of submittals, RFIs, changes, and correspondence and daily diaries.
Labor
4.1 Consider using a 4-10 or a rolling 4-10 schedule.
4.2 Monitor absenteeism for detrimental trends.
4.3 Add more supervisors as the workforce increases.
4.4 Shift to smaller crews or teams.
4.5 Insist on greater backlog of work before beginning work.
4.6 Stress the crew performing 100% of their work before moving to another task.
4.7 Be selective about the work assigned to a second or third shift.
Materials
5.1 Assign a material coordinator to the project.
5.2 Use modular or preassembled components.
5.3 Deliver as much material to the project as is practical as quickly as possible.
5.4 Reschedule long lead items.
5.5 Organize a special cleanup crew.
5.6 Be sensitive to theft.
5.7 Increase the inventory of expendables.
Information
6.1 Add supervision to identify design errors and omissions.
6.2 Organize a special crew to handle changes.
6.3 On every change order, include a disclaimer reserving the right to claim change costs
at the conclusion of the job.
6.4 Don’t forget to comply with the notice clause in the contract.
Table 12-2. Fundamental Principles for Managing Schedule Acceleration (Continued)
No. Principle
Tools and Equipment
7.1 Increase the inventory of spare parts and hand tools.
7.2 Sharing of most tools is not a good idea.
Support Services
8.1 Evaluate the need for more scaffolding.
8.2 Evaluate the need for more lifts.
8.3 Evaluate the need for more lifting capacity.
8.4 Evaluate the need for more formwork.
Construction Execution Principles

When a schedule is accelerated, one usually increases the labor resource via
scheduled overtime or by hiring more workers (overstaffing) with the expectation
that more craft hours assigned to the work will yield higher outputs. When
acceleration happens, the use of and demand for all resources increases. Key
resources include labor, materials, tools and equipment, information, and support
services, like scaffolding and lifts.
If labor hours are increased by, say, 50%, then the materials consumption rate
increases theoretically by 50%. Delivery schedules will become strained, and it may
be necessary to acquire some materials from another vendor.
Tools and equipment will be used faster, so expect that you will need more drill
bits, grinder wheels, and other materials. Power tools may wear out faster. More
hoisting and lifting capacity may be needed. If there are more crews, some tools and
equipment are assigned on a per crew basis. The idea of multiple crews sharing
certain tools is probably not wise because hoarding can be a constant problem.
Because the work is being installed faster, expect more RFIs and changes per
unit of time. It may be necessary to bring on more contractor nonmanual personnel
to handle the increased demand.
Support services include scaffolding and quality control. You may need more
scaffolding and lifts. You don’t want the amount of work you can do to be
constrained by the amount of scaffolding you have available. Site conditions must
be controlled to ensure that lifts can be used effectively. You may need a lift for each
team, and you may need more as the job nears completion. Do not overlook
concrete formwork because there may not be sufficient formwork quantity on site
for an accelerated schedule.
During acceleration, communication links between crews often become inef-
fective. Promote good, informal communication at the supervisor level. Allow the
supervisors to develop suitable work schedules. Management should intercede only
when necessary.
Labor Principles
Consider using a 4-10 schedule (Principle 4.1). Workers like a 4-10 schedule because
they get a three-day weekend every week. The long weekends act as a buffer against the
fatigue caused by a grueling project schedule. The available research (which is sparse)
suggests that a 10-hour workday is not detrimental compared with an eight-hour
workday. (A 12-hour workday is probably not a good idea because soon after one
returns home, it’s time to go back to work.) One advantage of the 4-10 schedule is that
there are four starts of the shift and four ends (a total of eight each week). These times
are notorious for poor productivity. With a 5-8 schedule, there are 10 such periods of
poor performance, an increase of two.
If there is intense pressure to work the project seven days per week, one
may consider a rolling 4-10 schedule. Here one workforce works for four days and
then has four days off while a second workforce works the job for four days. Thus,
the two workforces alternate. A rolling 4-10 schedule is hard on supervision, but it
may be a better alternative than a 7-10 schedule. A 7-10 schedule is hard on workers
and can probably be worked only for several weeks before fatigue becomes
problematic.
A good practice at any time is to closely monitor absenteeism (Principle 4.2).
One who is habitually absent is also likely a poor performer, does work of marginal
quality, and probably has a poor record of safety. This is the concept of “a bum is a
bum is a bum.” A good layoff policy is to terminate those with high absenteeism rates
first.
As the size of the workforce increases, add more supervisors (Principle 4.3). In
general, a smaller crew size is better suited to an accelerated schedule because the
negative effects of acceleration are spread over fewer workers and the work near the
end of the job is not suited to a large crew. Early in the project, a typical crew size may
be six to 10 or more. Later in the project, the crew size may be four to six or fewer.
The change in crew size reflects the change in the nature of the work. During
acceleration, one should consider smaller crews or divide the crew into flexible-sized
work teams (see Chapter 7).
During acceleration, there is intense pressure to complete work; the orientation
is toward high production. There is pressure to produce something, no matter how
small. Consider the following example. Suppose that there are 14 condominium
units on each floor of a 15-story condo project. On one particular floor, the rough-in
electric has been completed on a few of the 14 units. The owner pressures the
contractor to install whatever insulation can be done so that drywall installation can
start. Is this a good idea?
At the outset, recognize that installing insulation is likely to be much faster than
the electrical rough-in. The insulation work will “catch up” to the electrical rough-in,
and thereafter, the pace of the insulation work will be set by the pace of the electric
rough-in crew. For the insulation work to be productive, the insulation crew must
establish its own work pace. This will only happen if there is sufficient backlog of
work for the insulation crew so that they do not catch up with the electrical rough-in
crew (Principle 4.5). There needs to be a time lag between these two crews. This
scenario is a common problem in acceleration, that is, time lags tend to disappear.
Starting the insulation work too soon is probably not a good idea.
With such intense pressure to produce output, crews sometimes do not complete
their work 100% before moving to the next task. The consequence of this situation is
that there may be much work left throughout the project that is incomplete. This
affects labor in two ways. It is very time consuming and costly to return to a work
location multiple times, regardless of how much work is left undone. Second, follow-
on crews may need the work to be 100% complete before they can start. For example,
pipe must be 100% complete before it can be insulated, and anything less may
prevent the insulators from doing their work efficiently.
The likelihood of a lengthy punch list or multiple punch lists is greater.
Incomplete work can have a ripple effect throughout the entire project. Thus,
project engineers and project managers should stress having the work 100%
complete before a crew moves to the next task (Principle 4.6).
There are two strategies that can be applied relative to the work assigned to a
second or third shift. First, the later shifts can work on the same task as the first shift
and simply advance the progress further. Coordination between shifts with this
strategy can be problematic. An alternative is to give the later shifts entirely different
work. The first approach is more common, but one problem with the first approach
is accountability because problems that arise with the work can always be the fault of
the other shift. The preferred approach is to give later shifts different work. The task
can be the same, say, formwork, if multiple workstations are used. Fig. 8-4 shows a
concrete wall that was partly constructed using a second shift. The second shift was
more productive than the first shift by a wide margin. A likely reason is that the first
shift advanced the work until it was 90–95% complete. The second shift did a small
amount of work to finish the work and received credit for doing 100% of the work.
This situation can create animosity among crews.
The type of work assigned to a second or third shift should be carefully
considered (Principle 4.7). On later shifts, there is limited design or engineering
support available. The site is quieter, and supervision may be sparse. Therefore,
select work that will benefit from or will not be hindered by these conditions. Pulling
wire probably does not require much input from designers. It also may benefit from a
quieter environment because the crew is likely to be spread out. Noisy activities are
also good candidates for later shifts. Messy operations, like fireproofing or sanding
drywall joints, are good candidates for later shifts. Try to select work that does not
require close supervision. For example, if it is expected that a painter can paint two
rooms during a single shift, a supervisor can leave the painter unsupervised. The
supervisor can return near the end of the shift and readily evaluate if the worker was
productive. Knowing how much output to expect is important when using multiple
shifts.
Materials Principles
Management must be prepared for accelerated material deliveries, installation rates,
and production of waste. Every aspect about materials needs to increase.
Because all aspects of the initial materials plan have to change, it is perhaps
helpful to assign a material coordinator to the project (Principle 5.1). This coordi-
nator should probably be a senior person because he or she will have to update
delivery schedules, negotiate new procurement agreements, change waste removal
plans, revise and enforce the site layout plan, suggest revised construction methods
and equipment needs, coordinate with subcontractors, and much more. This is a
daunting job, but the success of this coordinator will have much to do with the
successful completion of the project.
There can be great efficiency and time advantage to using modules or preas-
sembled components (Principle 5.2). Gang forms and preassembled duct compo-
nents (see Fig. 2-2) are but two preassemblies seen on nonaccelerated projects.
There are many more opportunities.
Because work schedules and plans are constantly changing, it is necessary to
have as much material as possible delivered to the site (or nearby) as soon as possible
(Principle 5.3). The contractor can ill afford to be unable to proceed to work in
newly assigned, unplanned work areas because the materials for the area are not
available.
The acceleration may necessitate a new site layout plan that affords more on-site
storage. As an alternative to on-site storage, it may be better to rent nearby warehouse
space. Of course, plans must be made for daily material deliveries to the site, possibly
after normal working hours. Revised methods may be appropriate.
There may be many items with long lead times. For some, the need to
renegotiate delivery times is obvious; for others, the need to renegotiate delivery
times is not so obvious. Thus, a careful review needs to be undertaken. One example
of an item that is important to procure soon is windows. The need to enclose and seal
a building is clear. But the facility also needs to be watertight to prevent mold. The
lack of “callback” times to replace wet drywall more than offsets any added expense
of expedited deliveries.
Not surprisingly, trash is generated faster. It may be justified to have more
frequent trash pickups. One effective strategy is to organize a cleanup crew
(Principle 5.5). A skeleton crew can keep the site clean during the day, but a full
cleanup crew can do a more thorough job as a second shift. While cleanup may seem
a trivial task, poor housekeeping has been documented on numerous occasions as
detrimental to labor productivity. Many accelerated projects have poor housekeep-
ing practices and tend to become messy and untidy.
It goes without saying that there are many small items that are installed in a
facility. Some of these items are not “off the shelf” items and can ill afford to be lost.
As the acceleration deepens, there is more opportunity for these items to be stolen or
misplaced. One needs to be sensitive to this issue.
The expendables, such as nails and screws, will be consumed at a faster pace.
Also spillage and theft may become more problematic. It is probably wise to increase
these inventories.
Information, Tools, and Equipment Principles

Late changes can be one cause of acceleration. Even if not a cause, numerous late
changes often accompany acceleration. In some circumstances, changes are not an
issue at all. But in many acceleration situations, information-related issues are present.
Therefore, it is important to have strategies to deal with information overload.
Informational issues involve changes, requests for information (RFIs), shop drawings,
and submittal approvals. If the work schedule goes from 5-8 to 6-10, then in theory,
each of the components of the informational issues will increase by, say, 50%.
Addressing informational concerns involves the owner and the designer. The
designer is often ill equipped to handle major increases in RFIs or changes without
additional compensation. Whereas the contractor may be expected to work sched-
uled overtime, the same cannot be said for most design firms. The contractor needs
to pressure the owner to apply pressure on the designer to keep pace with the
contractor. Late submittal approvals and late answers to RFIs are detrimental.
Lateness is a common theme in acceleration.
How the need for a change is identified is important. The worst-case scenario is
the need for a change to be identified by the crew in the field. When a conflict is
identified, the crew must stop work when it sees something that will not work. Idle
time ensues as the crew waits for further instructions. It may be that the problem
cannot be resolved on the spot, and the crew may be instructed to go work elsewhere.
The supervisor has no opportunity to plan for work in another area. Planning is
done “on the fly,” resulting in more wasted time. At some time later, the change is
issued. Now the crew returns to the work area at a later time, only to find that
the environment has totally changed. One way the environment can change is that
there now may be several other crews working in the same area; there is stacking of
trades and congestion from other causes, leading to even more inefficient work
hours.
How can this situation be avoided? Perhaps it is worthwhile to add someone to
the project payroll to scour the plans and identify errors and omissions (Principle 6.1)
in advance of the work being performed. This strategy will keep the crew in the field
from finding the errors and omissions. These errors and omissions should be resolved
before the crew goes to do the work.
Where numerous changes occur, it may be beneficial to organize a special crew
to do changes to work that has already been installed (Principle 6.2). This method
allows the production crew to continue production work. A word of caution is
warranted. These two crews should not be too close to one another, as it can be
demoralizing to the production crew to see their work being ripped out. A separate
change crew also makes it easier to monitor change costs and claim these at the end
of the job. On every change order, the contractor should include a disclaimer
reserving the right to claim change costs at the conclusion of the job (Principle 6.3).
Don’t forget to comply with the notice clause in the contract (Principle 6.4). Failure
to comply with these two principles may easily preclude the recovery of change costs.
A situation that has been observed on more than one occasion is that the
designer abandons his or her responsibility for design. How does this happen? It
usually occurs in relation to shop drawings that do not work, such as dimensional
errors. The triggering response from the designer and owner may be to “make it
work through the shop drawing process” or “the problem is one of means and
methods.” Either way, it then may fall to the contractor to do any redesign. So don’t
be surprised if the contractor has to perform some design work. The redesign may
require a registered professional engineer.
All tools and equipment will experience greater use. This means that they will
require more repair, so you need to increase the inventory of spare parts (Principle 7.1).
If overstaffing is applied, you will probably need more tools. Sharing most tools is not a
good idea (Principle 7.2). Sharing at a workstation, like a conduit bending station, is
probably okay, but items like “come-along winches” are often hoarded, not shared.
Support Services Principles

Support services may be given little thought when acceleration occurs, but they are
important and can inhibit good labor productivity. For the purposes of this chapter,
support services are considered scaffolding, lifting capacity, and lifts, although
support services can include many other items. Because of similarities with scaffold-
ing, concrete formwork is also briefly discussed.
To erect more scaffolding, scaffolding must first be dismantled. Because of
incomplete work, pending changes, and other factors, scaffolding may tend to
remain in place longer. If this situation occurs, more scaffolding will be needed
(Principle 8.1).
If the size of the workforce increases, more lifts may be needed (Principle 8.2). It
may be more efficient if lifts are strategically assigned to an area rather than to a crew.
Because the goal is to produce more output in a shorter period of time,
increased lifting capacity of all types may be justified (Principle 8.3).
Concrete formwork is similar to scaffolding in that before it can be used
elsewhere, it must be stripped from some other location. Because curing is not
accelerated, it may be necessary to put more formwork on the job (Principle 8.4).
Certainly an evaluation is justified.
12.6 Case Study 1—Hyperion Wastewater Facility
The case study project is a wastewater project upgrade costing more than
$1 billion. The project was a design-bid-build project. There were six major contracts.
This case study only covers one of the six contracts—the construction of three
digester batteries.
Project Description
The contract was for the construction of three digester batteries consisting of 20 steel
digester tanks. Fig. 12-2 shows a plan view of the site. Batteries D1 and D2 are in the
center left of Fig. 12-2, and Battery E is in the upper right of the figure. Fig. 12-3 shows
a cross section of one of the digester tanks. Fig. 12-4 shows batteries D1 and D2 under
construction.
Fig. 12-2. Plan View of Hyperion Wastewater Digesters

Ringwall
Fig. 122. Cross-Sectional View of One Hyperion Digester.

Fig. 12-3. Cross Section of a Typical Digester Tank
Fig. 12-4. Hyperion Site under Construction, Batteries D1 and D2

The original plan required by the contract called for the order of construction to
be batteries D1–E–D2. The contractor requested and received permission to revise
the order to batteries D1–D2–E. This change meant that the contractor avoided
building the retaining wall between batteries D1 and D2, because both areas were
actually excavated simultaneously (Fig. 12-5). The scope of work involved excavation;
construction of foundations, cones, and mat slabs (Fig. 12-5); concrete ringwalls
(Fig. 12-3); a below-grade piping gallery (Fig. 12-6); tank erection (Fig. 12-7);
construction of pipe racks (Fig. 12-8) and related piping; and a gas dome on top
of each tank (Fig. 12-9).
Fig. 12-5. Construction of Cones and Mat Slab for Batteries D1 and D2
Fig. 12-6. Below-Grade Piping Gallery

Fig. 12-7. Tank Erection
Fig. 12-8. Pipe Racks

Fig. 12-9. Gas Domes and Platform
Owner-Caused Delays
The wastewater authority was under a court order to cease its pollution, which meant
that the project completion date could not be extended beyond December 1999
without penalty. But the project start date was delayed almost a year because of some
unknown reason, thereby compressing the construction schedule. The authority
further exacerbated the situation by not granting the contractor a time extension
for many months. This placed the contractor in limbo and forced him to accelerate
the schedule even though he was subsequently granted an extension of time.
Contractor-Caused Delays
The contractor was not without fault. He underestimated the difficulties he would
have with the uniformly graded sand at the bottom of the excavation. He additionally
underestimated the complexity of the towers at each end of the batteries (Fig. 12-2).
The ringwall construction began inefficiently (Fig. 12-3).
Other Delays
Other delays affected the schedule. There were seals that leaked, requiring extensive
rework. The defective seals were a design issue.
The contractor had difficulty with constructing the foundation cones that can be
seen in Fig. 12-5. Groundwater infiltrated the first two cones of Battery D1. Because
there was only one cone construction operation, the delay in D1 also delayed D2 and E.
The pipe hangers did not fit, and most had to be redesigned by the contractor.
Contractor redesign was required because the authority told the contractor to
correct dimensional errors through the shop drawing process. The hangers were
somewhat complex, and valuable time was lost during the ensuing arguments, the
redesign, and the lengthy approval process.
The Contract
The contract was written in such a way that many parts referenced numerous
other parts. Thus, unrelated parts of the specifications were applied to other parts
of the specifications. Some aspects were impossible to do. This situation led to
many more arguments, which resulted in more wasted time. The authority made
matters worse by deducting credits from the contractor’s pay request when he
could not comply. The contractor argued that the specifications were impossible, but
to no avail.
Analysis
The Hyperion project demonstrates a number of common characteristics of sched-
ule acceleration. These are the following:
• Delayed start,
• Not granting a time extension in a timely manner,
• Contractor- and owner-caused delays,
• Design errors,
• Contractor forced to assume design responsibilities,
• Late submittal approvals,
• Lack of schedule flexibility,
• Reduced payments or none at all, and
• Events beyond the owner’s and contractor’s control.
A labor inefficiency analysis was performed on the concrete formwork and piping.
The estimated inefficient work hours by cause are shown in Tables 12-3 and 12-4.
As can be seen, there were numerous causes of the acceleration, and often in
acceleration both owner and contractor share in the responsibilities for damages.
From Tables 12-3 and 12-4, there were more than 135,000 inefficient work hours.
Some were caused by the contractor and some by the owner. At a burdened rate of
Table 12-3. Inefficient Work Hours for Concrete Formwork by Cause
Issue D1 D2 E Total
Cone–cement 583 963 — 1,546
Undisturbed soil 1,051 582 707 2,340
Assemble forms 2,759 139 — 2,898
Schedule acceleration 12,689 4,813 7,007 24,509
Form disassembly — 1,108 — 1,108
Well point system — — 7,084 7,084
Unexplained 10,578 4,146 4,607 19,331
Total 27,660 11,751 19,405 58,816
Table 12-4. Inefficient Work Hours for Piping and Supports by Cause
Issue D1 D2 E Total
Schedule acceleration 14,971 12,943 18,887 46,801
Gallery support redesign 1,122 780 — 1,902
Support finish issue 3,389 — — 3,389
Late submittal approval 2,087 634 7,234 9,955
Temporary rack supports — 3,988 — 3,988
Unexplained 1,941 3,378 4,982 10,301
Total 23,510 21,723 31,103 76,336
$38/h, the inefficient work hours amount to more than $5 million on just these
two items of work alone.
12.7 Case Study 2—Determining the Amount of Formwork Needed
The following is a simplistic example for determining the amount of formwork

needed and the effect of schedule acceleration. Suppose that a project plan is
to employ a formwork crew consisting of eight carpenters. The plan is to work a
4-10 schedule. Assume that most of the formwork is wall formwork and that the
budgeted performance of the crew is 0.065 wh/ft2. Stripping will be done by a
single four-person team of carpenters working all day on Tuesday.
Step 1—Figure Out How Many Teams Are Needed and the Sizes
There will be one formwork erection crew (eight carpenters) working 40 hours per
week on a straight time schedule and 50 hours per week on an overtime schedule.
There will be one stripping team, consisting of four carpenters. The plan is that one
day each week (Tuesday), a four-carpenter team will erect formwork and another
four-carpenter team will strip formwork. Therefore, 280 work hours are to be spent
in erecting formwork and 40 work hours in stripping formwork.
Step 2—Figure the Weekly Quantity

Calculate the quantity of formwork erected per week for the crew when schedule
acceleration is not a factor. To do so, calculate the total formwork erection and
stripping work hours. Some 280 work hours will be spent in formwork erection and
40 work hours in stripping. Divide the erection and stripping work hours by the
budgeted productivity, and divide this number by the appropriate rule of credit (see
Table 7-2), 0.75 for erection and 0.10 for stripping.
280
Weekly Formwork Erected ðft2 Þ =
0.065 × 0.75
= 5,744 ft2
Using similar calculations, the four-carpenter team can strip 6,154 ft2 in a day. Thus,
the size of the surge pile needs to be 5,744 ft2.
Step 3—Check Balance

Once a steady-state operation is achieved, the crew can erect formwork entirely from
the surge pile of formwork that has been stripped. During any given week, a total of
5,744 ft2 of formwork can be erected (based on 280 work hours) and a total of
6,154 ft2 can be stripped (based on 40 work hours). Thus, the size of the surge pile
needs to be 5,744 ft2. The quantities should be closely balanced between erection
and stripping; if not, adjustments should be made.
Step 4—Figure the Effect of Schedule Acceleration

Assume that the project has fallen behind schedule and the recovery plan is to work a
5-10 schedule using the same crew and crew assignments. How much more formwork
should be procured? Summary data are given in Table 12-5.
Table 12-5. Summary Schedule
4-10 Schedule 5-10 Schedule 5-10 Schedule 5-10 Schedule

@ 0.065 @ 0.065 @ 0.070 @ 0.085
wh/ft2 (ft2) wh/ft2 (ft2) wh/ft2 (ft2) wh/ft2 (ft2)
Weekly formwork 5,744 7,385 6,857 5,647
erected
Weekly formwork 6,154 6,154 5,714 4,706
stripped
Size of surge pile 5,744 7,385 6,857 5,647
Many refinements can be made to the aforementioned methodology; however,

the mathematics clearly show that there is more than a 25% increase in the quantity
of formwork needed to accommodate the acceleration demands when going from
40 to 50 h/week. The productivity of the crew will degrade unless more formwork is
procured. The size of the surge pile should be based on the high-value (erection)
subtask. The size of the surge pile needed has increased from 5,744 ft2 to 7,785 ft2.
But realize that the crew as originally organized cannot strip 7,385 ft2, so more hours
will have to be devoted to stripping. A new plan is required. The data also show the
effect of productivity degradation. If the actual productivity worsens to 0.070 wh/ft2,
then the plan will have to be revised further. Note that if the productivity degrades to
0.085 wh/ft2, the crew will erect less formwork than it was able to erect on a straight
time (4-10) schedule.
This example shows that for overtime schedules of 50 work hours/week, the
hours devoted to stripping are insufficient. The size of the surge pile will be too
small, and productivity will degrade. A change in the crew assignment plan is
necessary because the overall productivity of the formwork operation is sensitive
to the efficiency of the operation.
References
Gilbane Building Company v. Two Turners’ Electric Company. (2007). “Tex. App.–Houston
[14 Dist.].” Providence, RI.
CHAPTER 13
Best Practices for Environmental

Compliance
Compliance with environmental regulations is an important issue, and noncompli-

ance can be costly for obvious and not so obvious reasons. This chapter gives general
guidance because specific requirements vary from state to state. Best practices are
cited in Table 13-1.
13.1 Why Compliance?
It is important to comply with environmental regulations for a number of reasons.

The most obvious is that noncompliance can be costly. From a legal viewpoint,
regulations have the same weight as statutes. Failure to comply with regulations is like
failure to comply with a statute, and the fines for noncompliance can be significant
(Fig. 3-12). More costs are incurred if a stop work order is issued by a regulatory
agency. Most contracts require the contractor to comply with all laws, regulations,
and local ordinances. Ignorance of laws and regulations is not a valid excuse. So
noncompliance may also be a breach of contract.
A less obvious cost arises because some of the actions taken to ensure compli-
ance also improve labor performance. Many of the actions discussed in Chapter 5 fall
into this category. For example, a site drainage plan may lead to compliance with
certain regulations and also improves labor performance (Figs. 5-4 and 5-5).
A third element of cost involves damage to the contractor’s reputation. Non-
compliance, fines, stop work orders, and court actions are often played out over
many months in local newspapers. No contractor needs to be characterized as an
unsatisfactory corporate citizen. A poor reputation for citizenship can lead to loss of
business opportunities.
13.2 OSHA
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the main federal
agency charged with enforcement of safety and health legislation. The agency has
267
Table 13-1. Best Practices for Environmental Compliance
No. Practice
General
1.1 Be sure a wetland permit has been obtained (if required) before bidding.
1.2 Become knowledgeable about all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and
regulations.
Environmental Compliance Plan
2.1 Integrate the environmental compliance plan with the site drainage and erosion and
sediment control plans.
2.2 Realize that as the project evolves, the requirements may change.
2.3 Include maintenance of facilities and schedule in the plan.
Structural Work
3.1 As the work progresses, the nature of the work evolves from drainage and excavation
issues to trash removal issues.
published numerous regulations for the construction industry. Despite often being
maligned, the agency has overseen substantial improvements in the safety record of
the construction industry since its creation around 1970. The OSHA regulations go
beyond detailing what a contractor must do to create a safe work environment; there
are also reporting requirements. Contractors must report to OSHA all fatalities and
lost-time accidents.
13.3 The Wetland Permit
A wetland permit is required any time one is operating in a wetland. Wetland permits
are issued to owners by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In general, the permit
provides that for every acre of wetland disturbed, an acre of new wetland must be
created. A wetland is not necessarily a marshy area. A wetland is defined by the
wildlife habitat, soil type, and other criteria. The regulatory requirements may vary
according to the type of facility being constructed.
13.4 Other Requirements and Regulations
It is impractical to discuss various regulatory requirements because the requirements

are unique to each state. In general, all states publish requirements for erosion and
sediment control, discharges, and waste control (hazardous and otherwise). Most
requirements are mandatory, and the damage to a contractor’s reputation can be
significant (Fig. 3-12). A good place to begin is the Construction Industry Compli-
ance Assistance Center at http:///www.cicacenter.org/cs.cfm. Upon entering this
website, one is asked (1) the state, (2) type of construction, and (3) potential impact.
BEST PRACTICES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 269
For the input, VA requires land development and wildlife habitat and stream or
other water body. The following output illustrates the nature of useful information
provided.
Stormwater and Erosion Control
As of March 10, 2003, in order to discharge stormwater from a construction

site, all construction projects that disturb 1 acre or more of land must have
either:
• an individual stormwater permit, or
• coverage under one of Virginia’s general permits.
Disturbance includes, but is not limited to soil disturbance, clearing,
grading, and excavation. Operators of sites disturbing less than one acre
are also required to obtain a permit if their activity is part of a “larger
common plan of development or sale” with a planned disturbance of one
acre or greater.
To apply for an individual permit or for coverage under a statewide general
permit you must file an application with the Department of Environmental
Quality prior to commencement of your construction activities.
In addition to these statewide rules, you may be required to meet additional
local stormwater and erosion control regulations. Check with your city or
county government to determine if additional local rules apply to your
construction project.
Permit Application Forms and Instructions for Virginia:
• Notice of Termination
• List of 2014 Construction GP Complete Registration Statements
General Permits:
• VAR10 General Permit for Discharges from Construction Activities
• Stormwater Program Contact Information
Additional Stormwater Compliance Resources:
• Engineers’ Toolkit: Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP)
Permit Regulations
Species Incidental Take Permits
Private landowners, corporations, state or local governments, or other

nonfederal landowners who wish to conduct activities on their land that
might incidentally harm (or “take”) a species listed as endangered or
threatened must first obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
To obtain a permit, the applicant must develop a Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) designed to offset any harmful effects the proposed activity might
have on the species. The HCP process allows development to proceed while
promoting listed species conservation. The “No Surprises Policy” provides
assurances to landowners participating in HCP efforts.
For assistance or to inquire about permits, contact your U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Office(s):
• Northeast Region Fish and Wildlife
• Virginia Ecological Services Field Office
Additional state regulations may apply. For information on state rules
relating to endangered species contact the Virginia’s Department of Game
and Inland Fisheries. Also, look below under “Additional Information” for
links to applicable regulations.
Additional Information for Virginia:
• Virginia Wildlife Action Plan
Hazardous Waste
Wastes are classified as “hazardous” if they have certain dangerous

properties (for instance, if they are flammable, corrosive, or toxic). Examples
of hazardous wastes commonly generated at construction sites include:
asbestos, lead (e.g., in paint), solvent/thinner, fuel, stains, unused paint,
oil/lubricants, compressed gas cylinders, and unpunctured aerosol cans.
EPA defines three categories of hazardous waste generators based upon the
quantity of hazardous waste they generate per month. Knowing your waste
category is important because it can affect which regulations apply to your
operation. The categories are:
• Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs), which
generate less than 220 lb (100 kg) per month.
• Small quantity generators (SQGs), which generate between 220 lb
(100 kg) and 2,200 lb (1,000 kg) per month.
• Large quantity generators (LQGs), which generate more than 2,200 lb
(1,000 kg) per month.
Here are the main rules:
• Any solid waste (which may be a solid, sludge, liquid, or contained gas
and is any spent, used, discarded, abandoned, or no longer usable
material) generated by your business must be evaluated to determine if
it is a hazardous waste.
• You must accumulate hazardous waste in containers (e.g., DOT
approved drums) or tanks. If you are a SQG or LQG, the containers
must be labeled with the words “Hazardous Waste” and the start date of
accumulation must be shown.
• SQGs and LQGs may store the waste on site for up to 180 days (270 days
if the waste is shipped to a facility more than 200 miles away). There is
no time limit on how long CESQGs may accumulate hazardous waste.
However, they may never exceed the 1,000-kg maximum quantity limit.
• You have to use a licensed waste hauler to transport the waste off your
site, and it must be sent to a facility permitted to accept that type of
waste. (CESQGs may transport the waste in their own vehicles if certain
rules are followed.)
• You have to keep a record (called a “shipping manifest”) of the
shipment for a specified period of time. (CESQGs are not required
to use the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest when shipping waste off
site. However, they must maintain records demonstrating that they have
properly disposed of their wastes.)
A special note on “empty containers.” Once they meet the definition of
empty, containers with small amounts of hazardous residues are generally
not considered to be regulated hazardous waste. They are regulated as a
solid waste when disposed. A container is considered “empty” when all
wastes have been removed by using common industrial transfer practices
and no more than one inch of residue remains in the container (or <3% of
the volume). If the container is >110 gallons, then it may contain no more
than 0.3% of residue. Containers holding compressed gases are considered
empty when the gas product contents have been used and the container is at
atmospheric pressure. However, aerosol cans using a compressed gas
propellant are considered empty when the container meets the empty
condition for the product contents. For example, a spray can that is full
of solvent-based paint or ether starting fluid, but that has no remaining
propellant gas pressure, may still be considered a hazardous waste. Releas-
ing a compressed hazardous gas to the atmosphere or allowing container
contents to evaporate to make the container empty is NOT allowed.
• Virginia hazardous waste permits and supporting resources
• Virginia contact information for hazardous waste.
Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Plans
The rule includes spill prevention and countermeasure plans for spills from
aboveground and certain underground storage tanks. A construction site
project must meet SPCC regulatory requirements if it meets the following
three criteria:
• It stores, uses, transfers, or otherwise handles oil;
• It has a maximum aboveground storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons
of oil (which includes both bulk and operational storage volumes)
OR total underground storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons
of oil; AND
• There is a reasonable expectation (based on the location of your site)

that an oil spill would reach navigable waters or adjoining shorelines of
the U.S.
For more information, go to CICA SPCC Guidance.
Air Pollution Control
Certain activities at construction sites can affect air quality, including

operation of diesel engines, open burning, land clearing, and demolition.
Air pollution rules applicable to construction sites are contained in federal,
state, and local regulations and ordinances:
• Regulations restricting or prohibiting open burning are typically written and
enforced by state, regional, and/or local governments. These rules are
aimed at reducing the generation of smoke, preventing smoke and ash from
affecting people and the environment, and preventing wildfires.
• Airborne dust generated from construction activities may be regulated by
regional and local rules. Typical rules require builders to implement best
management practices (e.g., establish vegetation, watering, sequential clear-
ing, wheel washing, reducing vehicle speed, prompt removal of dirt/mud
tracked onto highways) as abatement measures.
• On a national basis, the strategy for controlling air pollution from diesel
engines involves low-pollution requirements for new diesel engines and
rules covering the fuel used by these engines. EPA has issued emission
standards for new, nonroad diesel engines, such as construction and farm
equipment, and is working to strengthen these standards in the future.
Some air districts regulate emissions from portable equipment that have
spark ignition or diesel-fired piston type internal combustion engines that
may be used at construction sites, including generators, pile drivers, com-
pressors, welders, cranes, well drilling, etc.
To determine which air pollution regulations apply to your construction
project, contact your local air district or state air pollution control agency:
State Air Agency

• Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division Air
Regulations
Local Agencies
• Alexandria Health Department, Office of Environmental Quality
• Air Permits
• Arlington County Department of Environmental Services
• Fairfax County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health
• Roanoke Environmental Health Division
Asbestos
Asbestos is used in certain products where heat and corrosion resistance is

important, such as building materials and vehicle brakes. For building
materials, asbestos is most often found in products such as shingles, floor
tiles, cement pipe and sheet, roofing felts, insulation, ceiling tiles, fire-
resistant drywall, and acoustical products. You are particularly likely to find
asbestos in older materials in existing buildings.
Asbestos is known to be a health hazard. If inhaled, it accumulates in the
lungs, creating scar tissue that makes it more difficult to breathe, and
leading to a type of lung cancer called mesothelioma, which is almost
always fatal by the time it is diagnosed. Therefore, asbestos is extensively
regulated. For the construction industry, there are two primary concerns,
each having its own set of rules:
• EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) established rules under
the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to protect the general public
from the release of airborne asbestos fibers during the demolition or
renovation of buildings. These rules are referred to as the Asbestos
NESHAP (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants).
They cover work practices to be followed during demolition and
renovation and other activities involving the processing, handling, and
disposal of asbestos-containing material.
• OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Agency) and EPA established
rules to protect the health of workers who are most likely to contact
asbestos. These rules established strict worker exposure limits and set
out requirements for employers regarding exposure assessment, medi-
cal surveillance, recordkeeping, and hazard communication. The EPA
rules cover state and local government employees, and the OSHA rules
cover private sector workers.
Virginia Asbestos Web Page: None located.
Virginia Asbestos Contact:
Joe Kossan
Va Dept of Professional and Occupational Regulation
Voice: 804-367-8595
Fax: 804-367-2475
[email protected]
EPA Contact:
Tia Chambers
U.S. EPA, Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Mailcode: 3AWC32
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-2164
Telefax: (215) 814-3113
OSHA Program Information

OSH Consultation Program
Virginia Department of Labor & Industry
Occupational Safety & Health
Training & Consultation
13 South 13th Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 786-6613
(804) 786-8418 FAX
E-mail: [email protected]
Construction and Demolition Debris
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris refers to materials produced in

the process of construction, renovation, and/or demolition of structures. In
most cases, C&D debris is nonhazardous and is regulated by states and local
governments rather than by EPA. An exception would be where C&D debris
contains hazardous waste, such as removed asbestos insulation.
C&D debris is a significant issue in the U.S. because of the enormous volume
of C&D debris generated. A large fraction of C&D debris ends up in
municipal solid waste landfills or in special C&D landfills, which may have
the potential to contaminate groundwater. Also, each year, there is less land
available for waste disposal. As a result, many state and local governments
are seeking ways to divert C&D debris from land disposal, including the
promotion of recycling. Also, Green Building programs exist where the
focus is on minimizing the generation of wastes.
State and local regulations may limit where you can dispose of C&D debris.
For example, some local governments do not permit C&D debris to be
disposed of in their municipal landfills. Also, some local governments,
particularly in California, require construction companies to recycle a
minimum percentage of the C&D debris generated.
Use the links below to locate regulatory information and other compliance
assistance and P2 resources for Virginia. It is also recommended that you
contact your city or county government to determine if local rules also apply
to your project.
Primary State Agency: Department of Environmental Quality, State Solid
Waste Page
• Construction and Demolition Debris Main Page
• Construction and Demolition Debris Regulations
• Landfill List
Universal Wastes
Universal wastes are hazardous wastes that are more common and pose a
lower risk to people and the environment than other hazardous wastes.
Federal and state regulations identify universal wastes and provide simple
rules for handling, recycling, and disposing of them.
In Virginia the Department of Environmental Quality enforces the hazard-
ous waste regulations, including the universal waste rule. If you have any
questions, contact someone at Solid and Hazardous Waste Regulatory
Programs.
Virginia’s Universal Waste Rule covers the following wastes: batteries
(e.g., certain lead-acid batteries not recycled under other regulations;
button silver-oxide and zinc-air; and 9-volt, C, AA, coin, and button
rechargeable lithium); pesticides; mercury-containing devices (e.g., thermo-
stats, switches); and electric lamps (e.g., fluorescent, high-intensity dis-
charge, sodium vapor, and mercury vapor). Certain other battery types
(e.g., alkaline and carbon zinc cells that have been manufactured without
mercury) may not be classified as hazardous wastes and would therefore not
fall under the Universal Waste Rule. However, as a matter of responsible
practice, such batteries should be collected and sent to recycling facilities,
rather than being landfilled.
To learn more about how universal wastes are managed, visit CICA’s
Universal Waste webpage for Virginia.
Lead
On March 31, 2008, to better protect children from lead-based paint

hazards, EPA issued a new rule for home improvement contractors and
maintenance professionals who renovate or repair pre-1978 housing, child
care facilities, or schools. The rule requires that by April 2010 contractors
and maintenance professionals be certified, that their employees be trained,
and that they follow protective lead-safe work practice standards. More
information.
Lead-based paint has been banned since 1978, but many older structures
still have this paint on walls, woodwork, siding, windows, and doors.
Construction and demolition workers can be exposed to lead contamination
by cutting, scraping, sanding, heating, burning, or blasting lead-based paint
from building components, metal bridges, and metal storage tanks. In
addition to exposure to workers, lead-based paint debris or dust can also
make its way into soil, potentially contaminating surface waters. Lead
poisoning is a serious health threat for adults and is especially damaging
to young children.
To learn more about lead regulations related to demolition and construc-
tion, visit CICA’s lead paint abatement webpage for Virginia.
Mercury
Construction, remodeling, and demolition contractors often come into

contact with used equipment or products that contain mercury. Some
common examples include thermostats, switches and relays, fluorescent
lamps, and batteries. When mercury-containing equipment or products are

removed from service, they may meet the definition of a hazardous waste,
and in such cases, state and/or federal hazardous waste rules apply to the
management and disposal of those items. In some cases, these wastes may be
managed as “universal wastes,” which have less complicated rules for
handling and recycling or disposal.
To learn more about mercury regulations related to demolition and
construction, visit CICA’s mercury webpage for Virginia.
OSHA
The federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) oper-

ates the primary job safety and health program in twenty-nine (29) of the
fifty states. This includes conducting inspections and enforcing its standards.
States with approved programs must set job safety and health standards that
are “at least as effective as” comparable federal standards. In most cases,
states adopt standards identical to federal ones.
Consultation services are available in every state. In most cases, these are free
and are conducted at your work place or building site. These services help
employers identify and correct workplace hazards and can help you avoid
violations and penalties.
To learn more about OSHA rules, visit CICA’s OSHA webpage for Virginia.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
NEPA marked the beginning of the environmental review process for all
federal actions, including the construction of highway and bridge projects
falling under the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). NEPA estab-
lished a mandate for federal agencies to consider the potential environ-
mental consequences of their proposed actions, document the analysis, and
make this information available to the public for comment prior to
implementation.
In September 2002, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order
13274. Titled “Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastruc-
ture Project Reviews,” the order directed federal agencies like the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and EPA to collaborate more effectively to streamline
the environmental review and development of transportation infrastructure
projects and advance major transportation projects. Read more about NEPA
requirements.
General Virginia Information
In this section, you will find links to state agencies and regulations.
• Virginia’s Home Page
• Primary Environmental Enforcement Agency: Department of Environmen-
tal Quality
• Regulations Online: General |Air |Water |Solid/Hazardous Waste

• Air Agency: Air Quality
• Water Agency: Water Quality
• Hazardous Waste Agency: Solid and Hazardous Waste Regulatory Programs
• Contacts: Ombudsman and other SBAP contacts
Note that the CICA Center website contains much general information about a
variety of other permits and regulatory requirements besides the wetland permit.
13.5 Best Practices
General
As we see in Table 13-1, be sure that a wetland permit has been obtained by the
owner (if required) before bidding (Practice 1.1). This permit is issued by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and should be obtained by the owner. Procuring this
permit can be a lengthy process. If the permit has not been obtained, the contractor
should seriously consider not bidding on the project. Instances have been observed
where the contractor has been directed to proceed without the owner procuring the
required right-of-way (highway and railroad) permits. The unscrupulous owner then
sued the contractor for lack of performance. Regardless of the judicial outcome, the
contractor will lose money.
Become knowledgeable about all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and
regulations (Practice 1.2). Ignorance of the regulation is no excuse. Be sure that the
responsible person in charge at the site is also knowledgeable.
Environmental Compliance Plan

Integrate an environmental compliance plan with the site drainage and erosion and
sediment control plans (Practice 2.1). Consider integrating the three plans into one.
Realize that as the project evolves, the requirements may change (Practice 2.2).
Plans made for the site preparation and excavation phases may be of limited use for
the later phases of the project.
Include maintenance of facilities and the schedule in the plan (Practice 2.3).
A maintenance plan needs to indicate how often facilities need to be repaired or
rehabilitated, and a schedule needs to indicate when new facilities or actions are to
be applied.
Structural Work
As the work progresses, the nature of the work evolves from drainage and excavation
issues to trash removal issues (Practice 3.1). Trash removal is an important part of
ensuring good labor performance. But environmental considerations may dictate
that trash may need to be segregated. Landfills may not accept all forms of waste.
Separate disposal practices may be needed for paints, oil, grease, and other products.
CHAPTER 14
Productivity Evaluation
Throughout this text, principles have been presented that when applied improve labor
productivity and lower cost. It follows that productivity can be evaluated based on how
well fundamental principles are applied. This chapter presents a procedure for doing so.
Many times, problems at the site that negatively affect labor productivity are
readily obvious but persist nevertheless. What the project manager and project
engineer need is a quick way to evaluate the site to determine if improvements to
productivity can be readily made. The following is a quick productivity evaluator.
Consider an example. Suppose a crew of 10 pipefitters is installing process pipe on
an industrial site. The crew is in need of 6-in. stainless steel pipe spools, so the supervisor
sends four of the crew members to retrieve spools so that the crew can continue
installation. Unfortunately, the spools cannot be located. Soon thereafter, the remaining
six pipefitters run out of work and are idle, waiting for more materials. The material was
not preloaded (Table 6-1, Principle 3.3) or marked for easy identification (Table 6-1,
Principle 1.3). In this scenario, not following some of the fundamental principles in
Table 6-1 is the root cause of productivity loss; the idle time is merely the symptom.
14.1 Quick Evaluator
A quick project evaluator can be developed using various aspects of the work that are
readily observable. First, conduct a tour of the site and answer the following questions.
The common aspect of these five questions is that each condition is readily observable.
Yes No
□ □ 1. Is the housekeeping unsatisfactory (focus on trash, clutter, etc.)?
□ □ 2. Do you observe much idle time?
□ □ 3. Do you observe instances of overstaffing (for example, five workers installing
bulkheads)?
□ □ 4. Do you observe workers carrying materials up the stairs, one component at a
time?
□ □ 5. Is there significant congestion observed? (Try to ascertain the cause; it may be
stacking of trades caused by out-of-sequence work or material storage
practices.)
279
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then significant improvements in

labor productivity are possible and a detailed analysis is likely justified.
14.2 Detailed Analysis
The preceding chapters have outlined multiple principles to apply during the
planning and execution of a construction project. It follows that these principles
can be used to evaluate the management practices on a project and to highlight
opportunities for improvement. The principles are summarized in Table 14-1.
Duplicate principles have been deleted, and schedule acceleration and subcontrac-
tor management principles have not been included.
It is probably easiest if only one activity is evaluated; however, the entire site may
need to be evaluated. If one activity is observed, concentrate on critical activities or
an intense activity.
Each principle is scored on a scale of 1 to 10. But the scoring is often imprecise.
Therefore, using the principles cited in the preceding chapters, the following
scheme is applied:
Score Description
0 The principle is never observed.
5 The principle is infrequently applied or inconsistently observed.
10 The principle is always applied or consistently observed.
Each applicable principle is scored. Not all principles are applicable to every
project. For example, the principle “Leave snow in place as insulation until ready to
excavate” would not be applicable to Florida projects or to a building project.
Therefore, not all principles will be evaluated, nor will all principles be observed. For
example, you may not observe when or how often cranes are relocated.
Sum the total of the scores from the principles evaluated and divide this total by
the number of principles evaluated. This yields an average score per principle.
Experience with this technique has shown that typical scores are in the range of
2 to 8. The better managed jobs have higher scores. Principles with individual scores
of 0 or 5 are candidates for that principle to be applied.
14.3 Significant Fundamental Principles
Practicing engineers may find that 90-some fundamental principles are too cumber-
some. In a recent study of drywall construction practices (Thomas 2013), the
following significant fundamental principles were identified:
• Maintain good housekeeping.

• Distribute materials throughout the floors and rooms of the facility (preload).
PRODUCTIVITY EVALUATION 281
Table 14-1. Project Evaluations
Score
No. Principle 0 5 10
Planning
1. Make effective use of constructed and footprint areas. □ □ □
2. To allow more room and to mitigate rain runoff, install utilities □ □ □
and permanent site drainage first.
3. Minimize storage area needs by off-loading directly from the □ □ □
delivery truck.
4. Minimize storage area needs, enhance the schedule, and □ □ □
improve labor performance by preloading materials onto
each floor or area.
5. Make use of service elevators to transport lightweight or bulky □ □ □
items like duct and drywall to each floor or area.
6. Develop multiple site layout plans. □ □ □
7. Sequence activities so as to avoid making noncritical activities □ □ □
critical.
8. Execute activities concurrently, rather than sequentially. □ □ □
9. Minimize the number of times a crane has to be moved. □ □ □
10. Unless necessary, do not plan the same activity to occur on the □ □ □
same day of subsequent weeks, for example, we plan to place
concrete every Thursday.
Weather
11. Use a 4-10 work schedule to permit a makeup day on straight □ □ □
time.
12. Use annual cycles to schedule around trades most affected by □ □ □
weather.
13. Where justified, accelerate the schedule to avoid winter cost. □ □ □
14. Where possible, reserve some work that can be done on □ □ □
inclement workdays.
15. Enclose and seal buildings for weather protection. □ □ □
16. Seal exposed areas each day. □ □ □
17. Use drainage systems and sump pumps and plan for runoff, □ □ □
especially from off site.
18. Make use of permanent site drainage by installing drainage □ □ □
facilities early.
19. Apply an adequately engineered working surface. □ □ □
20. Plow wet ground to accelerate drying. □ □ □
21. Build and maintain all-weather roads. □ □ □
22. Leave snow in place as insulation until ready to excavate. □ □ □
23. Shift work hours to avoid the heat of the day. □ □ □
24. Provide break trailers for relief from cold or heat. □ □ □
25. Protect materials from weather. □ □ □
(continues)
Table 14-1. Project Evaluations (Continued)
Score
26. Store materials on timbers and pallets to keep them out of □ □ □
mud.
Materials
27. Do not store materials close to the building. □ □ □
28. Locate parking areas, toolsheds, trailers, and spoil piles as far □ □ □
from the building as practical.
29. Mark stored materials so that they can be readily distinguished □ □ □
from similar materials.
30. Materials should be stored to permit easy access and retrieval. □ □ □
31. Make effective use of surge piles (stockpiles) to ensure that □ □ □
work (components) are always available for the crew.
32. Avoid multiple staging areas at the site because this can lead to □ □ □
double-handling of materials and inefficiencies when
unloading materials at the site.
33. Whenever possible, especially if storage space is limited, □ □ □
consider final staging of large materials at an off-site
location.
34. Reserve areas next to the building for material deliveries or □ □ □
materials being moved to the work face areas.
35. Backfill around the building as soon as practical to permit the □ □ □
area to be used as a staging area.
36. The amount of material stored inside should be kept to a □ □ □
minimum.
37. Preassemble components into larger components or □ □ □
subassemblies.
38. Integrate the sequence of work with the storage plan so that □ □ □
interior space can be used without interfering with the work.
39. Ancillary tasks like unpacking, cutting, reshaping, and □ □ □
preassembly should be done away from the work face when
practical.
40. Maintain good housekeeping. □ □ □
41. Ensure that deliveries are properly sequenced to be consistent □ □ □
with the work plan.
42. Make sure that the delivery rate from vendors is compatible □ □ □
with the installation rate of the field crew.
43. Avoid the use of earthen ramps into below-grade areas. □ □ □
Workforce Management
44. Staff the activity with labor resources that are consistent with □ □ □
the amount of work available to be performed. This includes
taking adequate account of the variability in the project.
Score
45. Have a good termination or layoff policy at the crew and □ □ □
project levels.
46. In instances of uncontrollable variability in workload, more □ □ □
labor than planned may need to be applied rapidly to
complete work in the required time frame.
47. The concept of a working supervisor is not a good idea. □ □ □
48. Share with the crew expectations in terms of production, work □ □ □
hours, time, and completion dates.
49. Each crew must be allowed to work at an unimpeded pace to □ □ □
maximize labor efficiency.
50. Daily schedules should be planned to prolong the periods of □ □ □
the most productive work activity.
51. Make the primary focus of the crew’s work directed to high- □ □ □
value work. Never stop working on high-value work.
52. Efficient material handling and timely deliveries are important □ □ □
for good productivity, especially on labor-intensive
operations.
53. Work on low-value subtasks concurrently with high-value work. □ □ □
54. Perform incidental and cleanup work concurrently with high- □ □ □
value work.
55. A crew should be viewed as a collection of flexible size work □ □ □
teams.
56. Minimizing or eliminating disruptions improves performance. □ □ □
57. Keep the work face area free of trash and clutter. □ □ □
58. Create multiskilled crews with individuals who have different □ □ □
skills, who, when combined, form the multiskilled crew.
59. Where concurrent multiskilling tasks are applied, crew □ □ □
assignments need to consider carefully the size of the teams,
the production output to be expected for each team, and
how many hours the teams should be given to accomplish
their work.
60. Preassemblies and modules are an effective way to reduce the □ □ □
field labor component of the installation activity.
61. Where possible, avoid symbiotic activities. □ □ □
62. There should be adequate time buffers between each activity. □ □ □
Activity Sequencing
63. Make schedule allowances for approval of submittals, □ □ □
fabrication, and delivery, especially for long-lead items.
64. Develop a submittal schedule showing due dates and enforce □ □ □
the schedule.
(continues)
Score
65. Consider economies of scale for pertinent components and □ □ □
propose pertinent changes to the designer.
66. Sequence activities to eliminate work tasks. □ □ □
67. Sequence activities to avoid congested work areas. □ □ □
68. Sequence activities to minimize the number of critical path □ □ □
activities.
69. Complete critical path activities before starting noncritical □ □ □
activities.
70. Where possible, do activities concurrently. □ □ □
71. On slow activities, use multiple workstations. □ □ □
72. Backfill around the facility as quickly as possible. □ □ □
73. Use permanent windows in lieu of a temporary (polyethylene) □ □ □
enclosure.
Trade Sequencing
74. The work in the corridor ceiling (bulk installation) should be □ □ □
done first.
75. For maximum labor efficiency, the partition walls in a □ □ □
particular area should not begin until the ceiling work in the
area is complete.
76. For maximum labor efficiency, the ceiling grid in a particular □ □ □
area should not be started until the ceiling work in that area
is complete.
77. Develop a sequence plan detailing the order in which the □ □ □
floors or broad areas will be worked and how the work on a
single floor or area will be completed.
78. Engage all affected subcontractors in developing the sequence □ □ □
plan.
79. Begin work in the corridor and then progress to individual □ □ □
rooms.
80. Install bulky, heavy items first and smaller field-run items last. □ □ □
81. Allow ample time lags between activities. □ □ □
82. Ensure that there is ample backlog of work so that crews and □ □ □
teams can establish their own pace of work.
83. Do not start work in an area unless all the work can be done in □ □ □
one pass through the area.
84. Size crews and teams so that different trades work at roughly □ □ □
the same pace.
85. Aggressively manage subcontractors. □ □ □
86. Plan efficient methods for moving materials to their □ □ □
installation locations.
Score
Congestion
87. Select vendors near the site (minimum travel distance) to □ □ □
better control delivery schedules.
88. Where possible, outsource work to others and use □ □ □
preassemblies to move as much work off site as practical.
89. Consider putting the project office in a part of the facility □ □ □
being constructed, and avoid moving the office once it has
been located.
90. Move the project office into place only after the critical path □ □ □
work in that location is finished.
91. Where possible, schedule all noncritical path work at times so □ □ □
as not to interfere with critical path work.
• Have a good work plan.

• Don’t hang board until the permanent windows have been installed.
• Sequence the work to minimize “callback” time.
• Do not insist on working supervisors.
14.4 Selecting Significant Fundamental Principles
Significant fundamental principles were identified as follows. Two projects were

selected as representing superior management, and two projects were selected to
represent subpar management. The superior project subset was studied in detail,
and the practices that were consistently applied (score of 10) were identified as the
good practices subset. Next, the subpar projects were studied to identify which
practices from the good practices subset were not applied on either subpar projects
(score of 0). A practice that was consistently followed on both best managed projects
(score of 10) and not followed on either subpar managed projects (score of 0) was
identified as a “significant fundamental principle.” Because each circumstance is
unique, the procedure may be revised to suit the particular situation.
References
Thomas, H. R. (2013). “Benchmarking interior system contractors (ISCs).” Pract. Period. Struct.
Des. Constr., 18(3), 04014048.
Glossary
Bid shopping—The practice of a prime contractor after being identified as the

lowest bidder going back to subcontractors and asking them to reduce their quote.
Buffers—An item or action that allows separation of several activities. A buffer
allows a crew to proceed at an unimpeded pace.
Bulk installation—The middle period of time during an activity when contrac-
tors are installing the easiest work, for example, long straight runs of pipe.
Controlling subcontractor—A subcontractor who controls the pace of the work
of other subcontractors because their installation rate is slower or they are first in a
given area. If the controlling subcontractor falls behind schedule, other subcon-
tractors are delayed too.
Critical path—A string of activities in a critical path method (CPM) schedule
where there is no schedule flexibility or latitude. Any delay to one of these activities
results in a delay to the completion of the project. All activities on the critical path are
called critical activities.
Driving activity—Sometimes called a controlling activity, this activity establishes
the pace of following activities or controls the attainment of a milestone date.
E&S plan—An erosion and sediment (E&S) plan defines how runoff is to be
controlled so as not to harm local streams. In many locales, an E&S plan is a
regulatory requirement.
High-value work—Work that requires significant labor content per unit. High-value
work may be a pay item in the schedule of values. For example, formwork erection, steel
erection, and duct erection are high-revenue-producing subtasks. Hanger installation,
tightening of bolts, and formwork stripping are not high-revenue subtasks.
Incidental work—Work that is necessary but for which there is usually no
payment. There are usually few work hours involved. Housekeeping is an example
of incidental work.
Laydown area—An area where materials may be stored for an extended period
of time. These areas are usually associated with material deliveries when deliveries
are made in large lot sizes. For example, if all the structural steel is delivered at a
certain time in the project schedule, it is stored in a laydown area.
287
Leisure time schedule—A schedule, often a bar chart, that is based on conven-
tional means, methods, and equipment.
Low-value work—Work that requires small amounts of labor content per unit.
For example, plumbing and stripping of formwork, tightening of steel bolts, and
installing nonseismic duct hangers are low-value-producing subtasks. Low-revenue
work does not imply that the work is not necessary.
Measured mile—A method of quantifying labor inefficiencies where the labor
productivity during a period of time in which the contractor’s performance is
affected by owner-caused events is compared with the labor productivity during a
period of time when performance was affected by events caused only by the
contractor him- or herself. This latter period is called the measured mile.
Multiskilling—The work of a construction crew that possesses a broad range of
skills, giving the crew the capability of performing a wide range of tasks, such as
formwork erection, steel reinforcement installation, and concrete placement.
Preloading—The practice of locating materials at the place where they are to be
installed or used. Preloading involves locating only the right amount of materials, no
more and no less, at the location where they are to be used. Preloading means that
the crew does not have to travel any distance to retrieve materials.
Productivity—The work hours required to produce a finite amount of work
divided by the crew work hours needed to produce this work. With this definition,
higher numbers show poorer performance.
Rules of credit—Earning rules for subtasks used to give credit for work partially
complete. They are unitless numbers based on the relative amount of labor effort
required to complete a single unit of work.
Schedule acceleration—When contractors are required to complete more work
in a unit of time than was planned when the bid was submitted.
Shakeout—The practice of sorting through delivered materials to make sure
that the correct number of correct components were delivered and that the
components are the correct size, have been fabricated correctly, and have not been
damaged.
Short interval production schedule (SIPS)—A type of schedule covering a
relatively short period. This schedule is not a look-ahead schedule because there
is no element of hope in the schedule, that is, “I plan (hope) to do this in the next
two weeks.” The SIPS represents a commitment that the work prescribed will be
done. Contractors are expected to commit the resources necessary for it to happen.
Stacking of trades—When multiple crews from various trades are assigned to the
same area, thereby creating congestion. There are too many workers working in the
same area.
Surge pile—An excess pile of materials that a crew can rely upon and use when
materials have been or are not being delivered.
Symbiotic crew relationships—When the completion of the work requires
multiple crews or subcontractors. In symbiotic work, one crew or worker is often
in a standby mode waiting for another crew or worker to advance the progress to the
GLOSSARY 289
point where the succeeding crew or worker can advance the progress further. Thus,
the pace of the crew is established by someone else. An example is when an
electrician installs PVC conduit and receptacles in a masonry wall. The electrician’s
work can proceed no faster than the masonry.
Total cost—A method of quantifying cost overruns by comparing the total cost
incurred with the contractor’s estimate.
Trade sequencing—The practice of sequencing the work of multiple trade
contractors. It is normally discussed in conjunction with interior service and finish
work.
Unit rate—Labor productivity measured as the work hours per unit of work.
Velocity (production rate) charts—Graphs that plot the production rate or
percentage of output versus time. They are useful in determining time lags.
Work face—The area on the site where the workers install or erect the facility
components.
Work hours—Working hours.
Workforce management—The collection of management practices that define
how to manage a construction workforce at the crew level to maximize production.
Index
Page numbers followed by f or t refer to figures or tables.
A asphaltic concrete paving, in weather

absenteeism, monitoring of, 12, 252 mitigation case study, 107, 108f,
accelerated schedules. See schedule 113–114, 114f
acceleration
activity sequencing, 191–202;
case study, buffers, State College B
Municipal Building, 60f, 197f, backfilling, 129, 130f, 198, 199f
200–201, 201f ; Ballard, G., 25–26
congestion avoidance, 195–196; Beaver Avenue Parking Garage: case study,
cost vs. time orientation, 200; material management fabricator
economies of scale, 193–194, 194f ; relations, 124f, 126t, 149–151, 150f, 151f ;
enclosing and sealing, 198, 199f ; case study, site layout, 85–86, 85f, 86f
fundamental principles, generally, 191, 192t; benefit-cost analysis, Rider Building and
managing critical path activities, 196–197, Greenwich Court case study, 127f,
196f, 197f ; 140–147, 142f, 144f, 145f, 146t
material management, 197–198; best practices, fundamental principles and,
project evaluation and, 283–284t; 6–7, ix
shortening project schedule, 197; bid shopping, 229, 230, 232
submittals, 191–193; bidding, alternative, 68, 69
task elimination, 194–195, 195f ; blasting permit, 55
time lags (buffers), 200; Bryce Jordan Tower: case study, congestion
utilities and site work, 198, 198f, 199f avoidance, 216–224, 218f, 219f, 220t,
air pollution control, 272 221t, 222f, 222t, 223t;
Alexander & Shankle, Inc., v. Metropolitan case study, site layout, 83–85, 84f
Government of Nashville and Davidson buffers. See time lags (buffers)
County (A&S), 40–43 building permit, 55, 56
alternative bidding, 68, 69 Building Research Establishment (BRE),
Alvanchi, A., 21 in UK, 12
Anderson, S. D., 11 bulk installation. See corridor work (bulk
Arditi, D., 230, 232 installation)
asbestos, 273 Burleson, R. C., 20
291
292 INDEX
C workforce management, time lags,

case studies: activity sequence, buffers, State apartment buildings, 173–176, 173t,
College Municipal Building, 60f, 197f, 174f, 175f
200–201, 201f ; ceilings, trade sequencing and, 204, 204f, 205f,
benefit-cost analysis, Rider Building and 206, 207–208
Greenwich Court, 127f, 140–147, 142f, change management plan, 72–73
144f, 145f, 146t; change order log, 72
congestion avoidance, Bryce Jordan Tower, Chartered Institute of Building, 25
216–224, 218f, 219f, 220t, 221t, 222f, Chotibhongs, R., 230, 232
222t, 223t; Clapp, Margaret, 12, 16
fabricator relations case study, Beaver Clean Air Act (CAA), 273
Avenue Parking Garage, 124f, 126t, clutter. See housekeeping, at sites
149–151, 150f, 151f ; Collins, W. C., 22
material management, delivery strategy, communication, of plans, 70, 72f
Food Science Building, 120f, 151–153, compressed gases, disposal of
152f ; containers, 271
material management, State College concrete discharge, site layout and, 82
Municipal Building, 20f, 36f, 123f, concrete paving, in weather mitigation case
147–149, 149f ; study, 106–107, 107f, 111–112, 113f
planning, State College Millennium Science concurrent scheduling, 38, 44, 46–50, 52,
Complex, 73–76, 73f, 75f, 76f ; 58–59, 160, 163–165, 178, 185, 188–189,
planning, State College Municipal 197, 200
Building, 35–36, 35f, 36f, 44, 45f, congestion, avoiding, 215–224;
47, 80, 83; activity sequencing and, 195–196;
schedule acceleration, Hyperion Wastewater case study, Bryce Jordan Tower, 216–224,
Facility, 256–257, 257f, 258f, 259f, 218f, 219f, 220t, 221t, 222f, 222t, 223t;
260f, 261–262, 263f ; causes of, 215;
site layout, Beaver Avenue Parking Garage, fundamental principles, generally, 215–216,
85–86, 85f, 86f ; 216t;
site layout, Bryce Jordan Tower, 83–85, 84f ; literature topics, 21–22;
weather mitigation, Interstate 99 bridge project evaluation and, 285t;
construction, 114–115, 115f ; subcontractor management and, 24–25;
weather mitigation, Painted Post, NY trade sequencing and, 207
interchange, 102–114, 104f, 105f, constructability, planning and, 9, 11
106f, 107f, 108f, 109f, 110f, 111f, 112f, Construction Industry Compliance Assistance
113f, 114t; Center website, 268–269
work face materials management, State Construction Management Association of
College Municipal Building, 147–149; America (CMAA), 9
workforce management, Interstate 199 construction manager, planning and, 69–70
bridges, 176–178, 176f, 177t, 178t; contracting strategy, 48
workforce management, Logan Branch contractor-caused delays, 261
Bridge, 178–181, 179f, 180f, 180t, 181t; contracts, subcontractors and language of, 225
workforce management, Palmerton contractual risk assessment, 39;
apartment complex, 181–184, 182f, examples of, 40–44
183f, 184f ; controlling subcontractor, 228–231
workforce management, Smeal College corridor work (bulk installation), trade
of Business, 184–189, 185f, 186f, sequencing and, 203, 206, 207
187f, 188f ; cost vs. time orientation, sequencing and, 200
INDEX 293
cost-oriented schedules, 44, 46f, 50, 200 driving activity, 21

crews. See workforce management driving crew, identifying of, 210–211, 210f
critical path method (CPM) of scheduling,
9, 21; E
activity sequencing and, 196–197, early-start and late-start schedules, 58
196f, 197f ; earthwork, in weather mitigation case study,
ETS differs from, 57; 104–105, 105f, 106f, 110–111, 111f
time windows and, 58 Echeverry, D. C., 20–21
economies of scale, activity sequencing and,
193–194, 194f
D Electrical Contracting Foundation, 25
debris. See housekeeping, at sites Ellis, R. D. Jr., 11, 225
delivery practices, material management and, “empty containers,” disposal of, 271
119–125, 120f, 121f, 122f, 123f, 124f ; enclosing and sealing, of buildings, 95, 96, 96f,
case study, material management, Food 198, 199f
Science Building, 120f, 151–153, 152f environmental compliance, 267–277;
delivery truck, erecting directly from, 7, 17, air pollution control, 272;
124–125, 124f, 132, 134, 134f, 137–138, asbestos and, 273;
215, 240 construction and demolition debris, 274;
design, ensuring construction input to, 68–70 costs of noncompliance, 56t, 267;
design-build contractor, 69 fundamental principles of, 267t, 277;
detailed plans, 34, 37–38, 54–73; hazardous waste storage and disposal,
change management plan, 72–73; 270–271, 274–275;
communicating and enforcing of, lead, 275;
70, 72, 72f ; mercury, 275–276;
construction input to design, 68–70; planning and, 54–56, 56f ;
environmental and regulatory issues, 54–56, species “take” permits, 269–270;
56f ; spill prevention and countermeasures,
erosion and sediment control (E&S) plan, 54; 271–272;
essential to success (ETS) schedule, 57; stormwater and erosion control, 269;
execution plan finalizing, 70, 71f ; universal wastes, 274–275;
material delivery schemes, 54; Virginia regulations and contacts, 269–276;
operational plans, 47t, 58–68, 59t, 60f, 61f, wetland permits, 268, 277
62f, 63f, 65f, 66f, 67f ; EPA (Environmental Protection Agency):
permits, 55–56, 56f ; asbestos removal and, 273;
site layout plans, 56; construction and demolition debris, 274;
submittal and shop drawing schedule, 70, 72; diesel emission standards, 272;
time windows, 58 hazardous waste generator categories,
diesel engines, air pollution control and, 272 270–271;
distribution points, for materials, 120f, 121f, lead and, 275;
138–139 NEPA and, 276
dowel bar retrofit concrete pavement repair, in erosion and sediment control (E&S) plan,
weather mitigation case study, 105–106, 54, 277;
106f, 111, 112f permits and, 55;
drainage: facilities for, in site layout, 82, 83; site layout and, 82;
sediment control plans and, 277; weather mitigation and, 97
weather mitigation and, 97–99, 97f, 98f, 99f, essential to success (ETS) sequences, 34, 38,
100–102, 101t 57–60, 62f, 63f, 64, 65f, 70, 95
294 INDEX
excavation: strategy for, 49, 49f, 59, 60f ; hazardous waste storage and disposal, 270–271
weather mitigation and, 96–99, 96f, 97f, 98f Helander, M., 12–13, 14
expectations and production goals, workforce high value work assignments, 160–162,
management and, 159–160, 172, 173f 162f, 162t
expert opinion/literature review, 9–29; Horman, M. J., 21
activity and trade sequencing, 23; Horner, R. M. W., 18, 22, 25
lean construction principles, 25–26; housekeeping, at sites, 86f, 131–132, 132f, 133f,
material management, 17; 140, 164, 165, 232, 233f, 254, 270–271,
planning, 9–11; 274, 277
schedule acceleration, 25; Howell, G., 25–26
site layout, 11–12; H-pile and tube-pile driving, in weather
subcontractor management, 23–25; mitigation case study, 104, 104f,
weather, 12–17, 14f, 15t, 16t, 17e; 109–110, 110f
workforce management, 17–23 Hyperion Wastewater Facility, schedule
acceleration case study, 256–257, 257f,
258f, 259f, 260f, 261–262, 263t
F
Factor-Resource Model, 4, 4f, 19
I
Faniran, O. O., 10
ingress and egress points, site layout and, 82
Fisher, D. J., 11
Interstate 99 bridge, weather mitigation case
flooding, in weather mitigation case study, 105,
study, 114–115, 115f
105f, 106f, 109, 110–111
Interstate 199 bridges, workforce management
floor partitioning, in sequence planning,
case study, 176–178, 176f, 177t, 178t
209, 209f
Food Science Building, material management
case study, 120f, 151–153, 152f J
four-day, 10-hour per workday (4-10) work just-in-time deliveries. See delivery truck,
schedule, 93, 157 erecting directly from
fundamental principles, generally: best
practices and, 6–7, ix;
K
methodology for developing, 6
Kelleher, T. J., 225
G L
Gibson, G. E. Jr., 10 labor efficiency, loss of, 18;
Gilbane Building Company v. Two Turner’s Electric field/observational studies, 18–19;
Company, accelerated schedule interviews and surveys, 19;
narrative, 240–245 quantification of, 19;
Green Building programs, 274 weather mitigation and, 99
Greenwich Court. See Rider Building and labor productivity, defined, 5
Greenwich Court case study labor sink, 248
Grimm, C. T., 13 Laufer, A., 9
laydown area, 11, 125, 147
layoff policies, 252, 259
H lead removal, 275
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), 269–270 lean construction principles, 25–26
Han, S. Y., 20, 168 leisure time schedule, 44, 53
Harmelink, D. J., 64 linear schedules, 63–64, 65f
INDEX 295
Logan Branch Bridge, case study, workforce Mobil Oil, 22, 24

management, 178–181, 179f, 180f, modules. See subassemblies and modules
180t, 181t multiple workstations, 47–50, 52, 58–59, 60, 63,
Logcher, R. D., 22, 24 68, 95, 197, 202, 218, 253
low-value and incidental work assignments, 53, multiskilling, of crews, 20, 166–168,
162–164, 163f, 164f, 165f, 178, 184–185, 167f, 168f
188–189
N
M National Cooperative Highway Research
macro strategies, in planning process, Program (NCHRP) report, 11
48–50, 49f National Electrical Contractors Association
management, resource and environmental (NECA) study, 13
responsibilities of, 3–4 National Environmental Policy Act
material management, 5–6, 117–153; (NEPA), 276
accelerated schedules and, 254–255; NESHAP (National Emissions Standards for
activity and trade sequencing and, 23, Hazardous Air Pollutants), 273
197–198; noncontractual risk assessment, 39–40
case study, benefit-cost analysis, Rider notice to proceed (NTP), 41, 192
Building and Greenwich Court, 127f,
140–147, 142f, 144f, 145f, 146t;
case study, fabricator relations, Beaver O
Avenue Barking Garage, 124f, 126t, Oliver Elementary School, weather mitigation
149–151, 150f, 151f ; and, 94–95, 94f
case study, work force practices, State open burning, 272
College Municipal Building, 20f, 36f, operational plans, detailed, 58, 68f ;
123f, 147–149, 149f ; finalizing execution plan, 70, 71f ;
distribution plan development, 137–140, 137t; linear schedules, 63–64;
division of site, 118f, 125; multiple tools for, 68, 68f ;
fundamental principles of, 125–137, 126f ; partitioning, 49f, 58–59;
goal of, 117–118; sequence plans, 64, 66f, 67f, 68;
interior storage area and, 123f ; short interval production schedule (SIPS),
literature topics, 17; 59–63, 61f, 62f, 63f, 68;
procurement and “journey” of material, velocity (production rate) charts, 62–63, 63f
118–125, 118f, 120f, 121f, 122f, 123f, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health
124f ; Administration), 267–268, 273, 274, 276
project evaluation and, 282t; out-of-sequence work, avoiding of, 18, 23, 149,
site layout and, 11, 81, 83; 205, 207–208, 210, 215, 226, 247, 248
trade sequencing and storage areas, 123f, Outreach Building project: planning and, 44,
140f, 213; 46f, 48–49;
waste management, 132f, 140; weather mitigation and, 102
weather mitigation and, 100, 100f. See also outsourcing, congestion avoidance and, 216
delivery practices overtime and overmanning: accelerated
measured mile analysis, 19 schedules and labor demands, 248;
mercury removal, 275–276 workforce management and, 157–159, 158f,
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and 159f, 172–173
Davidson County, contractual risk and, owner-caused delays, 261
40–43 owner’s preproject planning, 10
296 INDEX
P detailed analysis, 280;

Painted Post, NY interchange, weather fundamental principles of, 280, 281–285t, 285;
mitigation case study, 102–114, 104f, quick evaluator, 279–280;
105f, 106f, 107f, 108f, 109f, 110f, 111f, selection process, 285
112f, 113f, 114t Project Definition Rating Index, 10
Palmerton apartment complex, case study, project engineers, changing role of, 5
workforce management, 181–184, 182f, project management, trends in, 4–5
183f, 184f
partitioning, in detailed plans, 49f, 58–59;
scheme for excavation, 63f R
paving. See asphaltic concrete paving; rain: site drainage and, 46, 54;
concrete paving weather literature topics, 15t, 16. See also
permits, 55–56, 56f ; weather mitigation
to begin construction, 269; regulatory issues. See environmental
for blasting, 55; compliance
for building, 55, 56; rehabilitation/remodeling, activity sequencing
species incidental “take” permits, 269–270; and, 193
for wetlands work, 55, 268, 277 request for information (RFI) log, 72
planning, fundamental principles of, 33–77, 45f ; Rider Building and Greenwich Court case
accelerated schedules and, 246–247, 246t; study, benefit-cost analysis case study,
activity and trade sequencing and, 23; 127f, 140–147, 142f, 144f, 145f, 146t
case study, State College Millennium Science Riley, D. R., 17, 21, 22, 24, 130
Complex, 73–76, 73f, 75f, 76f ; risk assessment, in planning process:
case study, State College Municipal Building, accelerated schedules and, 249;
35–36, 35f, 36f, 44, 45f, 47, 80, 83; contractual risks, 39, 40–43;
literature topics, 9–11; noncontractual risks, 39–40;
paramount determination, 36; risk-based planning, 33–35, 34f
preliminary considerations, 34, 37–38, 43–47; roof completion, weather mitigation and, 95
process of project planning, 10, 37–43, 39f ; Rowings, J. E., 64
project evaluation and, 281t; rules of credit, 160–161, 162f, 176
recapitulation, 53;
risk-based planning, 33–35. See also
detailed plans S
preassemblies and modules, 168, 169f safety, subcontractor management, 124f, 228,
preliminary planning steps: decide on macro 232–233, 234f
strategies, 48–50, 49f ; Sanvido, V. E., 17, 21, 22, 24, 134
determine means, methods, and equipment schedule acceleration, 25, 239–265;
needs, 50; buffers and, 170;
develop leisure time execution plan, 34, case study, determining amount of
37–38, 44, 46–47, 47t; formwork needed, 263–265, 264f ;
plan revision, 50–53, 51f, 52f, 53f case study, Hyperion Wastewater Facility,
preloading: congestion avoidance and, 215; 256–257, 257f, 258f, 259f, 260f,
material management and, 119, 120–123, 261–262, 263t;
120f, 121f, 122f, 123f, 124f, 126t, 130; construction execution principles, 251;
productivity analysis, 279 foreseeing need for, 245–246, 245f ;
procurement, material management and, fundamental principles, generally, 250t;
118–119, 118f information, tools, and equipment, 255–256;
productivity evaluation, 126t, 279–285; labor demands, 248;
INDEX 297
material management, 254–255; Smeal College of Business, case study,

planning and scheduling and, 246–247, 246t; workforce management, 184–189, 185f,
prebid principles, 249; 186f, 187f, 188f
preconstruction principles, 249; Smith, A. G., 22, 24
project narrative, 240–245; Smith, G. R., 18, 22
resources management, generally, 239–240; snow, weather literature topics, 15t, 16
subcontractor management, 227; space allocation layout, material management
support services, 256; and, 139–140, 140f
workforce management, 197f, 252–253 species incidental “take” permits, 269–270
scheduling: cost-oriented schedules, 44, 46f, spills, prevention and countermeasures for,
50, 200; 271–272
methods of schedule shortening, 46–47, 46f ; stacking of trades, 18, 21–22, 173, 191,
subcontractor management, 223–227; 195, 215, 255
time-oriented schedules, 44, 46f, 200. See also staging area: material management and, 125,
activity sequencing; concurrent 126t, 129, 130f, 136;
scheduling; critical path method; temporary, 138, 139f
essential to success (ETS) schedule; State College Millennium Science Complex,
planning, fundamental principles of planning case study, 73–76, 73f, 75f, 76f
Schneier, M. M., 225 State College Municipal Building (SCMB):
sealing from weather. See enclosing and sealing, case study, activity sequence, 60f, 197f,
of buildings 200–201, 201f ;
semipermanent storage areas, material case study, material management, 20f, 36f,
management and, 36f, 53f, 75f, 118f, 123f, 147–149, 149f ;
120f, 124f, 125, 126t, 127–129, 127f, 128f case study, planning, 35–36, 35f, 36f, 44, 45f,
sequencing: critical path and, 52, 52f, 53f ; 47, 49, 49f ;
material distribution and, 139, 139f ; case study, work face materials management,
in operational plans, 64, 66f, 67f ; 147–149;
workforce management, 22 case study, workforce practices, 20f, 36f, 123f,
sequential scheduling, workforce management 147–149, 149f ;
case study, Palmerton apartment ETS sequences, 57;
complex, 184–189, 185f, 186f, 187f, 188f material management and, 36f, 127, 127f,
shakeout, 119, 124, 152 138, 138f ;
sheet-pile driving, in weather mitigation case partitioning scheme for excavation, 49f, 59,
study, 103–104, 104f, 108–109, 109f 60f, 63f ;
short interval production schedule (SIPS), 34, productivity of crew, 134, 135f ;
53, 58, 59–60, 61f, 62, 62f SIPS, 62, 62f ;
sinkhole, in center of building, 226, 227f site layout and, 80, 83;
site layout, 79–87; velocity (production rate) charts, 62–63, 63f
accelerated schedules and, 254; stockpiling: material management and, 29, 119,
case study, Beaver Avenue Parking Garage, 120f, 125, 138, 142, 143, 150, 152–153;
85–86, 85f, 86f ; workforce management and, 162, 170,
case study, Bryce Jordan Tower, 83–85, 84f ; 174–176
case study, State College Municipal Building, stormwater and erosion control, 269
36, 36f, 80, 83; Stukhart, G., 17
developing plan for, 56, 80–83, 80t, 81f ; subassemblies and modules, workforce
literature topics, 11–12; management and, 20, 20f
procedure for, 80; subcontractor management, 23–25, 225–236;
site optimization’s benefits, 79 congestion and, 24–25;
298 INDEX
contract language and, 225; Tommelein, I. D., 17

controlling subcontractor identification, 63f, total cost quantification, 19
66f, 186f, 228–229; trade sequencing, 23, 191, 203–213;
fundamental principles of, 229–234, 229t; challenges of planning and execution, 20f,
people management, 227–228, 229t, 230–231; 131f, 132f, 204–206, 205t;
problems and, 225–226; corridor work, 203, 206, 207;
submittal and shop drawing schedule and, fundamental principles, generally,
70, 72; 206–208, 206t;
work management, 226–227, 229t, 231–234; plans for, 208–213, 209f, 210f, 211f, 212t;
work rates and, 21 project evaluation and, 284t;
submittals: activity sequencing and, 191–193; room and area ceilings, 204, 205f, 206,
developing of, 70, 72 207–208;
substitutions, construction input to design room and area walls, 204, 206
plans, 69 trade stacking. See stacking of trades
sump pumps, weather mitigation and, 54, 85, traffic routes, site layout and, 82
97, 102 transportation costs, site layout and, 11
superintendents and supervisors, tasks of, 159 Two Turner’s Electric. See Gilbane Building
support services, accelerated schedules and, 256 Company v. two Turner’s Electric
surge piles, material management and, 54, 119, Company
128–129
Sweet, J., 4, 225
symbiotic crew relationships, 18, 157, 169, U
186, 186f Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, 271
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Offices, 270
utilities and site work, activity sequencing and,
T 198, 198f, 199f
Talhouni, B. T., 18, 22
task elimination, activity sequencing and,
194–195, 195f V
temperature and humidity, weather literature value engineering (VE), problems with, 68, 69
topics, 13–14, 14f, 15t, 16t variable workloads, 248
10-hour workday, 93, 157 velocity (production rate) charts, 35, 62–63,
Thabet, W. A., 17, 22 63f, 68
Thomas, H. R., 11, 13–14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, vender relations and delivery: accelerated
25, 134, 168, 225 schedules and, 240;
time: calculating of time windows, 58; material management and, 126t, 132, 134,
as element of performance, 4–5; 134f, 135f ;
time-oriented schedules, 44, 46f, 200 material management case study, 124f, 126t,
time extension: example of, 40–43; 149–151, 150f, 151f
noncontractual risks and likelihood of, 39; Virginia environmental regulations and
subcontractor management, 227 contacts, 269–276
time lags (buffers): activity sequencing and, 200; Volkman, R. C., 19
case study, apartment buildings, 173–176,
173t, 174f, 175f, 175t;
case study, State College Municipal Building, W
60f, 197f, 200–201, 201f ; walls, trade sequencing and, 204, 206
trade sequencing and, 207; waste. See environmental compliance;
workforce management and, 169–172, 171f housekeeping, at sites
INDEX 299
weather, literature topics, 12–17; case study, material management, State

rain, 15t, 16; College Municipal Building, 20f, 36f,
snow, 15t, 16; 123f, 147–149, 149f ;
temperature and humidity, 13–14, 14f, case study, Palmerton apartment complex,
15t, 16t; 181–184, 182f, 183f, 184f ;
weather events, 14, 16 case study, Smeal College of Business,
weather mitigation, 91–115; 184–189, 185f, 186f, 187f, 188f ;
case study, Interstate 99 bridge construction, case study, time lags, apartment buildings,
114–115, 115f ; 173–176, 173t, 174f, 175f ;
case study, Painted Post, NY interchange, congestion and stacking of trades, 21–22;
102–114, 104f, 105f, 106f, 107f, 108f, crew structure, 164–165;
109f, 110f, 111f, 112f, 113f, 114t; daily work schedule, 160, 161f ;
excavation and site work and, 96–99, 96f, disruptions and, 165, 166f ;
97f, 98f ; efficient practices, 155;
fundamental principles of, 93–96, 94f, 94t; expectations and production goals, 159–160,
labor and, 99; 172, 173f ;
materials and, 100, 100f ; general principles, 155, 156–157t, 157;
plan development procedures, identifying driving crew, 210–211, 210f ;
100–102, 101t; interior storage area and, 126t,
project evaluation and, 281–282t; 129–132, 131f ;
weather effects, 16t, 91–93 length of work day, 157;
wetland permits, 55, 268, 277 literature topics, 17–23;
wind damage, weather mitigation and, loss of labor efficiency, 18–19;
95–96, 95f multiskilling and, 20, 166–168, 167f, 168f ;
windows, weather mitigation and, 95–96 overtime and overmanning, 157–159, 158f,
work face, materials management and, 74, 81, 159f, 172–173;
86, 118–119, 123, 125, 129–132, 137, 165, preassemblies and modules, 168, 169f ;
168, 208, 233, 233f ; productivity and, 20, 20f ;
case study, State College Municipal Building, project evaluation and, 282–283t;
147–149 subcontractors and, 227–228, 229t,
work schedules, 160, 161f; 230–231, 285;
4-day, 10-hour per day week, 93, 157 symbiotic crew relationships, 18, 157, 169,
work stations: multiple, 47–50, 52, 58–59, 60, 186, 186f ;
63, 68, 95, 197, 202, 218, 253; time lags (buffers), 169–172, 171f ;
stationary, 22, 24 work assignments, 150f, 151f, 160–164, 162f,
workforce management, 20–21, 155–189; 162t, 163f, 164f
accelerated schedules and, 197f, 248,
252–253, 255–256;
case study, I 199 bridges, 176–178, 176f, Y
177t, 178t; Yiakoumis, I., 13–14, 16
case study, Logan Branch bridge, 178–181,
179f, 180f, 180t, 181t;
About the Authors
H. Randolph Thomas, Ph.D., P.E. is a retired professor emeritus of civil engineering

at the Pennsylvania State University. He received his Ph.D. degree in civil engineer-
ing from Vanderbilt University in 1976. For 35 years, Dr. Thomas taught and
conducted research in the areas of construction labor productivity and construction
contracts. He has written extensively on both topics in various ASCE journals. In
1997, he was awarded a Fulbright scholarship to study construction practices in
Eastern Europe. In 2000, he received ASCE’s Peurifoy Construction Research Award.
He retired as a Fellow member of ASCE and was a registered professional engineer in
the state of Tennessee.
Ralph D. Ellis Jr., Ph.D., P.E. is an associate professor of civil engineering at the
University of Florida, where he heads the Construction Engineering Management
program. He has 15 years of industry experience as a construction project manager
and business manager. He received his MBA degree from Nova University in 1987
and his Ph.D. degree in civil engineering from the University of Florida in 1989.
Dr. Ellis teaches and performs research in the legal aspects of construction engi-
neering and engineering project management. He is a registered professional
engineer in the state of Florida.
301

Construction Site Management and Labor Productivity PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Construction Site Management and Labor Productivity PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Construction Site Management and Labor Productivity PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Construction Site

H. Randolph Thomas, Ph.D., P.E.

Productivity Improvement for Construction and Engineering: Implementing Programs that

Interpreting Construction Contracts: Fundamental Principles for Contractors, Project Man-

Public-Private Partnerships: Case Studies on Infrastructure Development, by Sidney M.

H. Randolph Thomas, Ph.D., P.E.

Published by American Society of Civil Engineers

Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784414651.

Copyright © 2017 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

2. Weight of Expert Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

PART II: Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3. Fundamental Principles of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.4 Paramount Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

PART III: Management Factors that Lead to Improved Productivity . . . . . . . . 89

5. Fundamental Principles of Weather Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

6. Fundamental Principles of Site Material Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

6.10 Case Study 3—Beaver Avenue Parking Garage: Fabricator

7. Fundamental Principles of Workforce Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

8. Fundamental Principles of Activity Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

9. Fundamental Principles of Trade Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

10. Fundamental Principles for Avoiding Congestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

11. Best Practices for Subcontractor Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

11.5 Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

PART IV: Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

12. Fundamental Principles for Managing Schedule Acceleration . . . . . . . . . 239

13. Best Practices for Environmental Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

14. Productivity Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Fig. 1-1. The Factor-Resource Model

1.1 Trends in Project Management

Time as an Element of Performance

These include school projects, some apartment complexes or condominiums, sports

Changing Role of the Project Engineer

1.2 Labor Performance and Management Practices

Focus Is on Good Site Management

Methodology for Developing Fundamental Principles

1.4 Fundamental Principles and Best Practices

1.5 “Not on My Project”

This text illustrates and describes undesirable situations on numerous projects. As an

1.6 Book Outline

Weight of Expert Opinion

Considering the importance of construction planning, the literature is surprisingly

They seem to suggest that planning is mostly a decision-making process, albeit a

Processes and Models

2.2 Site Layout

and operating engineers. While there is no scientiﬁc evidence to support such

Temperature and Humidity

NECA (40) Grimm (45) Thomas & Yiakoumis

Fig. 2-1. Effect of Temperature on Labor Productivity

Table 2-2. Summary of Efﬁciency Losses Due to Weather

Inefficient Work Hours

Estimated loss of efﬁciency percentages are given in Table 2-2.

2.4 Material Management

2.5 Workforce Management

Causes of Loss of Labor Efﬁciency

Field or Observational Studies

(Thomas and Horman 2006). Common workforce management deﬁciencies

Interviews and Surveys

Quantiﬁcation of Losses of Labor Efﬁciency