A Modified-AHP Method of Productivity Analysis for Deployment of Innovative Construction Tools on Construction Site

Abstract

Productivity analysis is the most important and significant method for evaluating management and engineering performance during whole project stage. However, it is very difficult in developing qualitative index to construction industry comparing to other industries. Therefore, analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is one of the methods for overcoming these limitations by checking consistency index using duality comparison. In this study, it is scraped up an application plan and selection for innovative tools by analyzing survey results on tool users and site managers with respect to using Modified-AHP performance measurement method.

Full text

KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
Online ISSN 2233-9582
45
www.jcepm.org
http://dx.doi.org/10.6106/JCEPM.2014.4.1.045
1 School of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, SungKyunKwan University, Suwon, 440-746, Korea, swkwon@skku.edu
2 R&D Center on Construction Robot & Automation, Samsung C&T Corporation, Seoul, 135-769, Korea, kyle@samsung.com
3 Samsung M-PJT, Samsung C&T Corporation, Suwon, 443-803, Korea, ahn0305@samsung.com
4 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanbat National University, Daejeon, 305-719, Korea, jackdaniel@hanbat.ac.kr
(*Corresponding Author)
A Modified-AHP Method of Productivity Analysis for
Deployment of Innovative Construction Tools on
Construction Site
Soonwook Kwon1, Gaeyoung Lee2, Dooyong Ahn3 and Hee-Sung Park4
Received October 24, 2013 / Revised November 21, 2013 / Accepted December 5, 2013
Productivity analysis is the most important and significant method for evaluating management and engineering performance
during whole project stage. However, it is very difficult in developing qualitative index to construction industry comparing to other
industries. Therefore, analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is one of the methods for overcoming these limitations by checking
consistency index using duality comparison. In this study, it is scraped up an application plan and selection for innovative tools by
analyzing survey results on tool users and site managers with respect to using Modified-AHP performance measurement method.
Keywords: Innovative tool, Productivity, AHP, Construction site operation
I. INTRODUCTION
Productivity is used as a tool to measure real
production activities in all industrial areas (Won, 2008).
Productivity is defined as the ratio of input to output
when products are manufactured for a certain period of
time using a production system (Kim, 1994).
The construction industry is labor-intensive, its work
performed largely outside, as a large number of
businesses in an area engages in a project together. As a
result, the industry has many factors that make it hard to
evaluate its productivity. Application of the concept of
productivity to the industry is not so simple; therefore,
labor productivity is commonly used.
Factors that influence construction productivity are
broadly divided into the internal influence factors that
may be controlled within a production system and the
external influence factors with the opposite concept.
Enhancement in productivity is mainly achieved by
improving the internal influence factors (Park, 1992).
Internal influence factors are divided into hard factors
(product, technology, materials, energy, plant, and
equipment) and soft factors (construction controls, work
methods, people, organization, systems, and management
style) (Jung, 2005). Productivity is enhanced through the
removal or improvement of inappropriate internal
influence factors (Figure 1) (Yoon, 2010).
High productivity in advanced countries’ construction
sites was judged to result from the efficient application of
advanced construction tools to unit work. Here,
innovative construction tools mean high-performance
work tools, small equipment, or safety goods that have
not been applied to sites in Korea but that are in common
use in advanced countries.
FIGURE I
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE PRODUCTIVITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
Accordingly, this study introduced innovative
construction tools for productivity enhancement through
improvement in internal influence factors (Gilbreth,
1917). This study also collected and analyzed the
opinions of managers and workers at construction sites,
using a questionnaire aimed at developing a measure to
select and utilize innovative construction tools.
II. METHODOLOGY
A comprehensive evaluation of advanced construction
tools was made, with a structure that combined managers’
macroscopic insights and managers’ microscopic opinions.
The questionnaire had two parts, calculating the managers’
weight and evaluating workers’ degree of satisfaction.
The analysis hierarchy process (AHP), one of the
multi-criteria decision making methods, was used for this
purpose (Niebel, 1980).

A Modified-AHP Method of Productivity Analysis for Deployment of Innovative Construction tools on Construction Site
46 KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
AHP, a technique presented by Thomas. L. Satty, is
used as a decision support system. The system is widely
used in multi-criteria decision making that includes both
quantitative and qualitative elements; this method has
enabled comprehensive evaluation and integration of
quantitative and qualitative elements (Table I) (Lee, 2011).
AHP classifies decision making elements into goal,
criteria, and alternatives, and it structuralizes and
systemizes such elements. In particular, one of the most
significant characteristics of AHP is to apply hierarchy to
a complicated problem and divide its factors into major
factors and sub-factors, making a pairwise comparison of
these factors, deriving their weights, and prioritizing them.
TABLE I
PAIRWISE COMPARISON
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A1
1
A1/A2
A1/A3
A1/A4
A1/A5
A2
A2/A1
1
A2/A3
A2/A4
A2/A5
A3
A3/A1
A3/A2
1
A3/A4
A3/A5
A4
A4/A1
A4/A2
A4/A3
1
A4/A5
A5
A5/A1
A5/A2
A5/A3
A5/A4
1
Under this pairwise comparison, the value from a
comparison between the same two items is 1.0, and a
reverse comparison results in a reciprocal number. Further,
decision making is made by verifying the consistency of
the calculated weights. Thanks to such advantages, AHP
is one of the most widely used techniques among existing
decision making methods.
This study modified and applied the use of AHP. On
the questionnaire, the calculation of the managers’
weights aimed at analyzing managers’ judgments
regarding the introduction of advanced construction tools
was classified as Level 1, and a pairwise comparison of
these judgments was made (Jo, 2001). The questionnaire
that aimed at analyzing the evaluation values of workers
who use advanced construction tools was classified as
Level 2 (Figure II).
FIGURE II
EVALUATION STRUCTURE CHART
The goals of the two different questionnaires were to
introduce and apply innovative construction tools based
on the positions of both managers and workers. To this
end, a pairwise comparison of the managers’ weights was
made; the sum of all elements should become 1.0. A
survey of workers’ evaluation values was made using a
seven-point scale questionnaire, and the values were
derived using the arithmetic-geometric mean. An
equation through which the generalization of the
managers’ weights and the workers’ evaluation values
may be made was applied, and scores were derived for
comprehensive evaluation, thereby heightening the
accuracy and reliability of the Modified-AHP.
III. PRODUCTIVITY EVALUATION OF INNOVATIVE TOOLS
The areas in which innovative construction tools are
practically used encompass diverse areas such as
construction, electricity, facility, and safety areas (Ahn,
2008). In order to collect opinions of managers and
workers on the introduction and application of innovative
construction tools, an evaluation was made by conducting
a survey on innovative construction tools and the jobs
they do. The innovative construction tools evaluated in
this study’s questionnaires were as follows (Table II).
TABLE II
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION TOOLS
Tools
Feature
Rated Electrical
Insulated Tools
Tools for wiring work
Wheel Dolly
Heavy weight cargo lifting
and fixation
PVC Bender
PVC pipe bending
Bx/Flex Conduit
cutter
Cable cutting
Cable Striper
High pressure cable cover
removal
Torque Tester &
Calibrator
Torque wrench test
Dump Cart
Carrying construction
scraps and wastes out of a
site
Wet / Dry Vacuum
Site cleaning
Fume Extractor
Removal of fumes during
welding
Torque Wrench
Bolt tightening
Brady Boy Safety
Barricade
For installation on protect
areas
boundary
Self-Retracting Fall
Limiters
For prevention of falls
during work
Beam Anchor &
Beam Trolley
Movable equipment for
prevention of falls
Anchorage
Connectors
Lifesaving loop installed on
a concrete structure

Soonwook Kwon, Gaeyoung Lee, Dooyong Ahn and Hee-Sung Park
47
Vol.4, No.1 / Mar 2014
Feature
Reinforced
Barricade Tape
For control of access to and
warning against a
dangerous area
Portable Eye
Shower
For an emergency measure
against foreign materials in
the eyes
IV. MODIFIED-AHP SURVEY METHOD
The Modified-AHP questionnaire had two parts, one
for calculation of the weights that the managers
considered important when they decided to introduce
innovative construction tools and the other for evaluation
of the workers’ degree of satisfaction relative to the
existing tools (Jo, 1997).
In other words, during the stage of calculating the
managers’ weights, the geometric mean based on pairwise
comparison was calculated, and during the stage of
examining workers’ degree of satisfaction with innovative
construction tools, a seven-point scale was applied and
the arithmetic-geometric mean was calculated in order to
heighten the accuracy and reliability of the analysis
(Figure IV).
FIGURE III
THE FORM OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MANAGERS
FIGURE IV
THE FORM OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR WORKERS
TABLE III
SCALES OF RELATIVE IMPORTANCE
Scale
Definition
Description
1
Equally
important
Two compared elements have equal
importance
3
Slightly
important
An element is slightly more important
than the other element
5
Important
An element is more important than the
other
7
Very
important
An element is considerably more
important than the other element
2.4.6
Middle values
of the above
scales
Degree of importance is middle
between the above scales
recipro
cal
1, 1/2, …1/7
When the value of an element α
against β is n, one of the above scales,
an element β’s importance against the
element α is 1/n.
FIGURE V
ANALYSIS RESULT OF THE COLLECTED QUESTIONNAIRES’
RESPONDENTS

A Modified-AHP Method of Productivity Analysis for Deployment of Innovative Construction tools on Construction Site
48 KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
The survey on the introduction and application of
innovative construction tools was conducted between
September and November, 2011, by visiting construction
sites where the tools had been introduced.
In total, 33 questionnaires were collected from 13
managers (39%) and 20 workers (61%). The safety area
accounted for the largest number of respondents at 16
(48%), followed by the facility area at 5 (15%), the
electricity area at 5 (15%), and other areas at 7 (21%).
Other areas included construction, paint, and interior
design areas. The analysis result of the respondents to the
33 collected questionnaires is as follows (Figure V). In
this study, it is figured out the effect elements for
analyzing results for adoption of innovative construction
tools by interviewing of experts. The elements which are
convergence, safety, workability, productivity, quality are
considered weights which are derived by using analytical
hierarchical process (AHP) (Table IV).
TABLE IV
MANAGERS’ WEIGHTS FOR EACH INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION TOOL
Tools
Conve
nience
Safety
Worka
bility
Produc
tivity
Quality
Rated
Electrical
Insulated
Tools
0.074
0.537
0.110
0.066
0.213
PVC Bender
0.053
0.348
0.166
0.137
0.296
Bx/Flex
Conduit
Cutter
0.092
0.415
0.094
0.160
0.239
Cable Striper
0.099
0.287
0.094
0.074
0.446
Torque Tester
& Calibrator
0.138
0.284
0.094
0.085
0.399
Wet/Dry
Vacuum
0.335
0.157
0.224
0.101
0.183
Fume
Extractor
0.262
0.282
0.146
0.159
0.150
Torque
Wrench
0.084
0.422
0.139
0.088
0.267
Brady Boy
Safety
Barricade
0.147
0.420
0.109
0.108
0.216
Flammable
Liquid
Container
0.129
0.433
0.152
0.136
0.150
Reinforced
Barricade
Tape
0.214
0.214
0.220
0.163
0.189
Wheel Dolly
0.262
0.292
0.234
0.104
0.109
Dump Cart
0.215
0.221
0.254
0.258
0.053
Anchorage
Connectors
0.138
0.515
0.218
0.045
0.084
Self-
Retracting
Fall
Limiters
0.218
0.273
0.202
0.180
0.127
Beam Anchor
& Beam
Trolley
0.194
0.270
0.189
0.204
0.144
Portable Eye
Shower
0.426
0.230
0.145
0.075
0.125
Workers’ evaluation values for each innovative
construction tool, derived using a seven-scale
questionnaire and arithmetic-geometric mean, are as
follows (Table V).
TABLE V
WORKERS’ EVALUATION VALUES OF EACH INNOVATIVE
CONSTRUCTION TOOL
Tools
Conve
nience
Safety
Worka
bility
Produc
tivity
Quality
Rated
Electrical
Insulated
Tools
4.6
6.2
4.8
4.4
5.2
PVC Bender
2.0
6.0
3.7
4.4
5.0
Bx/Flex
Conduit
Cutter
6.0
6.0
5.5
4.1
5.3
Cable Striper
6.0
6.0
3.3
4.6
4.1
Torque
Tester &
Calibrator
4.3
5.5
3.6
4.3
4.3
Wet/Dry
Vacuum
4.1
4.3
5.5
4.4
4.2
Fume
Extractor
4.6
4.1
5.1
4.4
4.2
Torque
Wrench
5.0
5.0
4.2
4.4
4.2
Brady Boy
Safety
Barricade
4.3
2.8
3.8
2.1
3.7
Flammable
Liquid
Container
4.3
5.8
3.5
2.9
3.2
Reinforced
Barricade
Tape
5.9
4.7
5.4
5.0
5.2
Wheel Dolly
5.3
3.7
4.8
3.3
3.8
Dump Cart
5.2
6.0
5.6
5.3
4.9
Anchorage
Connectors
5.7
6.5
4.7
4.0
3.5
Self-
Retracting
Fall
Limiters
4.5
6.0
4.5
4.7
4.0
Beam
Anchor &
Beam Trolley
4.0
5.5
4.5
5.1
6.0
Portable Eye
Shower
6.0
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.3
V. ASSESSMENT OF INNOVATIVE TOOLS
A comprehensive evaluation of innovative construction
tools was made, with a structure of combining managers’
macroscopic insights and managers’ microscopic opinions.
Prior to the generalization of these two levels, the
managers’ weights and workers’ evaluation values for
innovative construction tools derived earlier were
substituted into the equation below to derive the
Modified-AHP scores.

Soonwook Kwon, Gaeyoung Lee, Dooyong Ahn and Hee-Sung Park
49
Vol.4, No.1 / Mar 2014
Where,
Y ≤ 7.0
α = Manager’s weight for convenience
β = Manager’s weight for safety
γ = Manager’s weight for workability
δ = Manager’s weight for productivity
ε = Manager’s weight for quality
 = Workers’ evaluation value for convenience
 = Workers’ evaluation value for safety
 = Workers’ evaluation value for workability
 = Workers’ evaluation value for productivity
 = Workers’ evaluation value for quality
The sum of the managers’ weights is 1.0 and that of
workers’ evaluation values is 7.0, which translates into Y
being 7.0. In order to derive sub-elements of workers’
evaluation values for each tool, an arithmetic-geometric
mean was used.
The Modified-AHP score of each innovative
construction tool derived by applying the above equation
is as follows (Table VI).
TABLE VI
MODIFIED-AHP SCORE OF EACH INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION TOOL
Tools
M-AHP
Rated Electrical Insulated Tools
5.60
PVC Bender
4.89
Bx/Flex Conduit Cutter
5.48
Cable Striper
4.80
Torque Tester & Calibrator
4.58
Wet/Dry Vacuum
4.49
Fume Extractor
4.44
Torque Wrench
4.62
Brady Boy Safety Barricade
3.25
Flammable Liquid Container
4.47
Reinforced Barricade Tape
5.25
Wheel Dolly
4.35
Dump Cart
5.49
Anchorage Connectors
5.63
Self-Retracting Fall Limiters
4.88
Beam Anchor & Beam Trolley
5.02
Portable Eye Shower
4.97
Their ranks were derived based on the Modified-AHP
score of each of the innovative construction tools. Based
on the overall ranks of innovative construction tools, the
upper 30%, the middle 40%, and the lower 30% were
classified into the upper, middle, and lower classes (Table
VII).
TABLE VII
EACH INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION TOOL’S RANK
Tools
Rank
Class
Anchorage Connectors
1
Upper
Rated Electrical Insulated Tools
2
Dump Cart
3
Bx/Flex Conduit Cutter
4
Reinforced Barricade Tape
5
Beam Anchor & Beam Trolley
6
Middle
Portable Eye Shower
7
PVC Bender
8
Self-Retracting Fall Limiters
9
Cable Striper
10
Torque Wrench
11
Torque Tester & Calibrator
12
Wet/Dry Vacuum
13
Lower
Flammable Liquid Container
14
Fume Extractor
15
Wheel Dolly
16
Brady Boy Safety Barricade
17
The study looked at what elements the managers
focused on in introducing innovative construction tools
and what workers did in using them by analyzing the
questionnaires filled in by the managers and the workers.
Further, this study presented a relatively successful
example by dividing innovative construction tools into
upper, middle, and lower classes based on the Modified-
AHP scores of innovative construction tools.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
This study applied the Modified-AHP by focusing on
how to enhance labor productivity for productivity
improvement as a whole and collected opinions on each
innovative construction tool from managers and workers.
In this study, it is found to overcome limitations of
analyzing traditional method for selection of qualitative
construction tools by suggesting the construction tools
selection method using AHP, since there are no
quantitative analysis methods for innovative construction
tools. This study was able to calculate what major
elements managers and workers considered for each
innovative construction tool.
However, the number of survey samples was small,
which resulted in relatively low reliability. Therefore,
future study should derive weight by categories such as
electricity, facilities, and safety in order to create
measures for the introduction of each innovative
construction tool. Moreover, reliability should be
heightened by increasing the number of survey samples
on innovative construction tools.

A Modified-AHP Method of Productivity Analysis for Deployment of Innovative Construction tools on Construction Site
50 KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
REFERENCES
[1] J.S. Won, “An Analysis of the International Competitiveness of
Productivity in the Korea”, Journal of Korea Institute of
Construction Engineering Management, KICEM, Vol. 9, no. 4, pp.
75-83, 2008.
[2] Y.S. Kim, “Analysis of the Factors Influencing Construction
Productivity”, Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea, AIK,
vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 267-272, 1994.
[3] S.H. Park, “A Study on Accuracy Analysis of Based on Work
Factor System and Setting-up a Work-time of MODAPTS”,
Proceedings of Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers (KIIE)
Spring Conference, pp. 545-554, 1992.
[4] H.K. Jung, “A Study on Productivity Analysis on Formworks
using Work Measuring Method”, Journal of Korea Institute of
Building Construction, KIC, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 131-137, 2005.
[5] B.S. Yoon, “Quantitative Analysis on Relation between Work
Management Method, Condition and Efficiency”, Master’s Thesis
of KwangWoon University, 2010.
[6] F.B. Gilbreth, “Motion Study: A Method for Increasing the
Efficiency of the Workman (1911)”, Kessinger Publishing, 2010.
[7] B.W. Niebel, K. Cho, S. Lee, Y. Cho, “A Case Study for
Assembly Line Analysis with MTM”, Journal of the Korean
Institute of Industrial Engineers, KIIE, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 39-
44, 1980.
[8] M.N. Lee, “Introduction, Application, and Productivity Evaluation
of Advanced Tools”, Proceedings of Korea Institute of
Construction Engineering Management (KICEM), vol. 11, p. 33,
2011
[9] H.H. Jo, “A Study on Development of Work-analysis and
Evaluation Model on Building Construction”, Journal of the
Architectural Institute of Korea, AIK, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 145-152,
2001.
[10] S.H. Ahn, “A Study on Work Condition Management Method for
Improving Work Efficiency,” Journal of the Architectural Institute
of Korea, AIK, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 183-190, 2008.
[11] H.H. Jo, “A Study on the Motion Analysis and AHP Evaluation
Method in Construction Works”, Journal of the Architectural
Institute of Korea, AIK, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 1423-1429, 1997.