Back Home Next
ASC Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference
University of Cincinnati - Cincinnati, Ohio
April 6 - 9, 2005         
 
Can You Effectively Bring Productivity Analysis into the Construction Management Classroom?
 
Dennis M. Gier, MS, PE and Mike Borzage, AIA
California State University, Chico
Chico, California
 
In this article the authors present an active method by which common in-the-field, construction productivity improvement methods can be brought directly into the classroom environment. It points out ways that faculty can increase their effectiveness in providing instruction on productivity analysis using a simple, Lego-based model. The authors write that this activity is particularly effective with CM students who are often action and results oriented. The authors believe this exercise engages students because they remain physically and mentally active by participating in “productivity group” activities, e.g. pre-planning, doing activity sampling, performing field ratings, observing, analyzing, reflecting, and discussing results. Students learn first hand about how to improve their productivity. The article includes a twelve-year historical perspective and key lessons learned for improving classroom effectiveness. This exercise can be incorporated into any CM Methods course. The authors utilize a qualitative evaluation survey of students from a recent Construction Methods Analysis class and historical documentation to support their position.
 
 Key Words:  Productivity Analysis, Productivity Improvement, Construction Methods Analysis, Innovation in Construction Education, Active Learning, Experiential Education
 
 
Introduction
 
In general it is difficult to bring construction field practices directly into the classroom. Restrictions on time, space, and equipment make some things next to impossible. But, such is not the case with productivity improvement practices. The authors believe in bringing classroom activities that mimic the activities one finds in the construction office and in field practice to the classroom. They also believe in the power of active learning methods to engage Construction Management (CM) students in a learning process that is more effective than the standard lecture and homework problems learning model.
 
The literature also supports this approach to the learning process. Mel Silberman, in his book, “Active Learning: 101 Strategies to Teach Any Subject,” has this to say about the type of learning environments we need to be enabling in our classrooms. “To learn something well, it helps to hear it, see it, ask questions about it, and discuss it with others. Above all students need to “do it” – figure things out by themselves, come up with examples, try out skills, and do assignments that depend on the knowledge they already have or must acquire.” (Silberman, 1996).
 
The authors of this article explored these ideas in a Construction Methods Analysis class of third and fourth year students during the fall 2004, building and expanding on a legacy of twelve years of productivity analysis class exercises. This most recent class had thirty-eight students, divided into three or four person teams. Three teams made up a productivity group. The authors’ intent was to learn how to effectively bring construction field practices in productivity improvement directly into the classroom. Productivity groups in a CM Methods Analysis class are the quintessential format for such activity. Given a challenge, the students pursue a solution with their team and on the journey with their teammates they naturally take steps to improve their productivity. A sense of cooperation with their teammates and a natural competition with the other teams and productivity groups drives the activity. They learn first hand how to improve their team’s productivity.
 
 
A Historical Perspective
 
Twelve years ago the co-author and several other CM faculties developed a simple, Lego-based exercise that introduced students to the concepts of productivity improvement. This exercise was originally used as an icebreaker in the early weeks of the term to introduce team members to each other before they started working together on a term productivity project. Essentially, this brief exercise introduced basic productivity improvement practices and teamwork to students, who most likely had never worked together before. So, the learning objectives were to get team members acquainted and get them thinking about making improvements in their productivity.
 
Until recently, this was the extent of the learning objectives of this exercise. When the lead author, who recently joined the faculty, noticed the potential to expand the learning objectives of this exercise, he changed it into a month long, team activity assignment with an All-Star student competition at the end. He wanted his students to “know first hand” how it felt to be productive or unproductive. He wanted them to identify their own strengths and weaknesses. He also wanted his students to learn to make “incremental improvements” by understanding and applying the fundamentals of productivity improvement analysis being taught in the lecture part of this class.
 
The author expanded the exercise into a productivity group, hands-on activity, wherein students must work together to overcome physical or mental challenges related to productivity improvement. After each weekly activity, the author and the students discussed how they did, what they could have done better, and how this lesson may be applied to the next round of exercise competition and a typical construction project. The primary learning objective of this new, expanded exercise was to get these CM students to think, do, and learn about productivity improvement on a regular, reoccurring basis over a longer period of time than the original exercise. The expanded exercise was based on the idea that “Students retain information longer when their whole being is engaged.” (Gier, 2004).
 
The Need for Productive Improvement
 
Productive Improvement is an on-going need in the construction industry. “Productivity improvement has come to the attention of the construction industry because of the growing awareness of the industry’s poor record in increasing its productivity. Government statistics indicate that the construction industry has been one of the worst industries in regard to their annual increase in productivity…while the overall U.S. economy has been increasing its annual productivity at an annual rate of close to 3%, the construction industry has averaged an annual increase of less than 1%. (Adrian, 1995).
 
The productive improvement exercise described in this paper addresses the heart of the problem, i.e. the need for more awareness and training in the techniques of productivity analysis. This activity emphasizes the terminology, the techniques, and the analysis of productivity in such a way that the student is engrossed in the process. This activity also encourages students to explore new ideas and innovative approaches. The need for new approaches to productivity improvement is well referenced in the literature, “…no contractor can gain a competitive advantage while cheating on quality and slipping completion dates with various excuses. In these situations, organizations should pursue a breakthrough or innovative approach to overcome these barriers and breakout to retain competitive advantage.” (Olomolaiye, 1998).
 
 
Method: Learning Objectives and Exercise Description
 
The students gathered in class only a couple of times prior to this Productivity Improvement Exercise and did not know each other very well at the start of the activity. The lead author introduced them to the exercise in the second week of classes by explaining the activity and passing out a description that included the ground rules. The ground rules were fairly simple and not many in number by design. The authors wanted the students to have some structure, but not too much structure. The idea being that methods or solutions would not be too obvious and it would encourage teams to explore different alternatives and approaches to the project.
 
Learning Objectives
 
The learning objectives for this activity were the following:
 
  1. To learn basic productivity analysis techniques experientially.
  2. To increase productivity incrementally through methods improvement.
  3. To build a productive team based on teamwork and effective communication.
  4. To learn the importance of pre-planning.
  5. To see the power of incremental improvement.
  6. To improve individual observation skills.
 
Exercise Description
 
The purpose of this exercise is construct a Lego Hotel Model as accurately and as quickly as possible using all the pieces in the model to replicate an exact copy of the example model. The Hotel Model is made up of twenty-nine Lego pieces.   The pieces are assembled into a four-story hotel configuration that is built on a four-inch by four-inch base pad.  The model is approximately three-inches high, three-inches wide, and three-inches deep. It has multiple facets and simulated architectural features. The Lego pieces are color-coded. Each colored piece must be placed in its appropriate position to be considered constructed 100% accurate. The example model is shielded from public view, but available in the front of the classroom to individual team members during the planning session.
 
For this activity the class is divided up into productivity groups of three teams with three members per team. Each team is given a set of twenty-nine color-coded pieces at the start of the fifteen-minute planning session. The team constructing the Lego Hotel Model is rotated each of the three trial weeks, so that everyone gets an opportunity to assemble the model at least once. An “All-Star” team is selected from the members of a particular productivity group to compete in the fourth week’s All-Star session for the “Top Gun” Trophy.
 
The Ground Rules were as follows:
 
bulletEach team will be given fifteen (15) minutes to study the example Lego Hotel Model and to formulate their plan to replicate it.
bulletOnly one team member at a time can review the example model.
bulletThe example model cannot be touched or moved.
bulletPieces from the team’s model cannot be taken to the example model.
bulletThe team must estimate the time that it believes will be required to complete it’s assembly of the pieces of their Lego Hotel Model.
bulletNo two Lego pieces can touch prior to the start of the timed construction period.
bulletThe Competition: After the instructor gives proper notice, your team will attempt to construct the pieces you were given into your own exact copy of the Lego Hotel Model. This will be a timed event.
 
Other Aspects of the Activity
 
Duration: For the next four weeks, the lead author and the students met for a three-hour activity session once a week during regular class time. Students experienced the activity team by team over the first three weeks, discussed what happened as a team within their productivity group, and then started planning for making improvements for next week. They were instructed to plan for incremental improvement for each of three trials with a final “All-Star” session being held on the fourth week. The All-Star teams would be made up from one individual representative from each team within a productivity group.
 
Observation: The facilitator assigned students to formally observe the constructing team and record their observations during the exercise. The observation team members were prompted to collect productivity data by using prepared observation sheets for activity sampling, five-minute field ratings, and time/motion studies.
 
Team Building: The instructor also laid the groundwork for learning about teamwork and leadership in this activity. Students had to figure out that they needed a team leader for each trial. Students needed to ask for and offer help to each other. This activity is almost impossible to do productively without individual team members helping each other. Successful participants planned beforehand how they would help each other, established roles, assigned tasks, and improvised new ways to approach the project.
 
De-briefing: After each trial, the lead author led a discussion or de-briefing. He asked the students to evaluate their team’s productivity. Observers were asked to critique and comment. He asked, “What did they do that made them more productive? What things did they do that made them less productive? How did it feel to be productive or not productive?” As the discussion evolved, he asked the students to apply this experience to managing a construction project. “What opportunities do you see to improve your construction time? What are you doing well that you should keep doing? What could you get better at?”
 
In the discussion, students drew the analogy of how team members are a partnership working toward the same end in construction. The only real effective way to be more productive was to help each other. The final lesson was noticing that communication and planning are integral to success.
 
Evaluation: At the conclusion of four weeks of productivity improvement exercises the students filled out a qualitative survey. They were asked to rate the effectiveness of the activity, plus make constructive criticisms and comments. They also completed an individual, graded homework assignment that summarized their learning experiences.
 
Recognition: After the activity was complete, the Chair of the CM Department awarded an engraved perpetual “Top Gun” Trophy to the three students of the All-Star team that most characterized an awareness of the “need for speed.” These students turned in the best time, i.e. nineteen seconds, with a 100% accuracy. This trophy hangs in the halls of the CM Department.
 
 
Method: The Accompanying Lectures
 
This activity cannot be done in isolation, since students usually come to a Construction Methods Analysis class with little or no background in productivity improvement. Topics of the accompanying lectures must include information on productivity data collection, i.e. activity sampling, field ratings, etc. and productivity data analysis, i.e. critical examination, questioning methods, film analysis, flow diagrams, process charts, and crew balance studies. Lectures need to introduce methods study, i.e. Are we doing the right method?  They also need to include a discussion on work measurement, time, and motion studies, i.e. Are we doing the method right?
 
 
Results: Data Analysis and Evaluation
 
Data for this paper was collected from a qualitative survey and evaluation assignment given the students in a Construction Methods Analysis class in the fall 2004. The data is not presented here as comprehensive or all inclusive of the situations that faculty may encounter in their classrooms, but only as an indicator of the kind of results that one can expect from doing such an activity in the classroom.
 
Thirty-eight students participated in the activity during the second to sixth weeks of a fifteen-week term. Twenty-seven student feedback surveys were collected at the completion of the activity. An individual, graded evaluation was assigned as homework and was due a week after the completion of the activity. Thirty-five students completed the evaluation assignment. The student’s name was optional on the qualitative survey. This encourages more candid feedback because students do not fear repercussion from the survey on their course grade. A consolidated summary of the survey results follows:
 
When asked to rate the overall effectiveness of this exercise, on a scale from 1 (Low) to 10 (High) students rated it as follows:
 
(Low)
1 = No ratings
2 = No ratings
3 = No ratings
4 = No ratings
5 = No ratings
6 = One (1)
7 = Three (3)
8 = Seven (7)
9 = Seven (7)
10 = Six (6)
(High)
 
Total students completing the effectiveness rating scale for this activity = Twenty-four (24)
 
Mean Effectiveness Rating = 8.58
 
Median Effectiveness Rating = 9
 
When asked, “What do you think was the objective of this exercise?” students responded in several ways:
 
bullet “Focus on productivity improvement through productivity groups.”
bullet“Increase productivity through observation and tests.”   
bullet“To teach us about productivity in a team-oriented environment.”
 
The survey asked them to rate, “Did the exercise accomplish this objective?”
 
Twenty-one (21) students said, “Yes.”  
 
Four (4) students said, “Somewhat.” 
 
 Zero (0) students said, “No.”
 
When asked, “What helped you the most?” students responded:
 
bullet“Being able to be hands-on in this exercise. We did not just read about it. We did it.”
bullet“The introduction of new observation techniques…in a hands-on process.”
bullet“Collecting data and then analyzing it and trying to improve.”
 
When asked, “Please include more:” students wrote:
 
bullet“Redundant work and analysis.”
bullet“Assess[ment] time.”         
bullet“Video of all the groups to review after the exercise.”
 
When asked, “What was not helpful for you?” They told us the following:
 
bullet“Some of the rules were at first unclear.”
bullet “[Not enough] time and ability to discuss the project between exercises.”
bullet“Limited time to view and formulate a plan.”
 
When asked, “What are you going to say to others about your experience?” They said:
 
bullet“I thoroughly enjoyed the experience and will recommend it as useful.”
bullet“Good experience in helping to understand how methods of improvement are incorporated into construction.”
bullet “It was fun, yet a lot harder than I thought it would be.”
 
When asked, “What do you wish that you had done more for your self?” Students responded:
 
bullet“Spend more time outside of class to become better.” 
bullet “I wish I had taken better notes, drawings.”                 
bullet“Practiced activity sampling, five-minute rating, and other topics.”
bullet“Studied the findings of the first group more extensively.”
 
 
Results: Key Components for Success
 
From the qualitative survey and the student evaluation assignments, the authors concluded that the following key components are required for success with this type of exercise. These items along with your own personal modifications to the activity will assist instructors, who want to bring field practices in productivity improvement into their classrooms.
 
1. Set the Ground Rules Early. Keep them simple. Stick by them. Rules give the activity structure. Students want a certain amount of structure in every activity. Repeat the ground rules at the beginning of each weekly activity session. Students said:
 
bullet“There needs to be a set of rules that can’t be bent.”
bullet“Some of [the] rules were at first unclear.”
 
 2. Imbed Competition: Set up the teams and the All-Star competition from the on-set. Make sure students know that they are preparing to compete against other teams and productivity groups in a student competition at the end of the fourth week. It sets a competitive tone for getting the most from the learning exercises that follow. Students wrote:
 
bullet“Being in different groups also gave us competition in this exercise.”
bullet“We have [to learn] to be competitive in this field.”
 
3. State Learning Objectives: Introduce the exercise by clearly stating its purpose. This provides students with a frame of reference for the activity. Repeat the learning objectives at the beginning of each activity session. Remind the student of the topics from the accompanying lectures that they need to be applying. Expect to answer clarifying questions in the beginning. Students commented that:
 
bullet“The objective of this exercise was to monitor efficiency and [learn] observation techniques.”
bullet“[The objective was] working together as a team [for] incremental improvement.”
bullet“To illustrate just how vital planning is in all aspects of construction.”
 
4. Provide Accompanying Lectures on Related Productivity Topics: Introduce the topics, information, and skills the student will need to apply during the exercise. Let them know you do not expect them to be experts in this activity. They wrote:
 
bullet“[What helped the most was] the introduction of new observation techniques and their application in a hands on assembly process.”
bullet“To practice sampling of productivity.”
 
5. Encourage the use of Technology: Let the students know that it is a good idea to use video cameras, laptops and digital cameras as recording and documenting devices. Students stated:
bullet“Have video of all the groups to review after the exercise. It would also help groups identify their own weaknesses by seeing their performance.”
bullet“[A] team member brought a laptop to show hotel structure in a bigger view. Pre-assembly of the structure was a big help.”
 6. Document the activity: Encourage students to document their activity both in writing and electronically for future analysis. Tell them to collect productivity data using activity sampling, five minute rating, and time/motion studies. They said:
 
bullet
“[What helped the most was] collecting data and then analyzing it and trying to improve.”
bullet
“After we assessed time differences we examined why one way worked better than another.”
 
7. Discuss Results: Faculty need to ask leading questions to get students thinking about the experience and their results each week. Allow students to share their “the ah-ha” moments with others.  Encourage them to test various approaches and report the results. Remember they will retain the lesson better when the learning comes from within them. Instructors do need to structure the debriefing so that students feel like they are “getting it.” Instructors can summarize and conclude with wrap-up questions. Students wrote:
 
bullet“[What helped the most was] being able to learn from other groups and talk about the breakdown of the previous groups.”
bullet“First it forced my team-mates and I to communicate.”
 
8. Evaluate opportunities for productivity improvement: Encourage experimenting, testing, and stretching the limits to find places and ways to improve their method, process and technique. They commented:
 
bullet“[What helped the most was] getting together with groups that already did the construction and discuss with them what they did right and wrong.”
bullet“It also changed my mind set to think out-of-the-box for ways to be more efficient.”
 
9. Expect Incremental Improvement: Let students know that you expect the first team’s efforts to give baseline productivity results from which the other teams within the productivity group will improve upon. They need not be disappointed in the early results. Incremental changes will improve their group’s productivity in subsequent weeks. This helps set reasonable expectations. Let them know how they are doing, but do not expect big leaps in productivity. Students need to know that a twenty percent improvement in the construction time each week is a more than a reasonable amount of improvement. Students commented:
 
bullet“[The objective was] working together as a team [to get] incremental improvement.”
bullet“[What helped the most was] hands-on practice.”
 
10. Allow them time to observe others: Tell them that you expect them to watch what others are doing. They are to use what works and throw out what does not work for their team. Encourage them to keep trying new things or modifications to what they see others doing. Students said:
 
bullet“[The objective was] to evaluate each team by making observations and see if you can improve.”
bullet“[What helped the most was] viewing a less productive group and compare it with a very productive group. After viewing both groups we assessed the differences.”
 
 
Discussion
 
 Can you effectively bring field-based construction practices in productivity analysis into the construction management classroom?
 
The Faculty Perspective
 
From faculty observations and a review of the student evaluation data it appears that the answer is an unequivocal “Yes.” After getting the teams and productivity groups organized, the lead author began the first week’s trial exercise wherein the students in the first team had to construct the Lego Hotel Model as productively and accurately as they could.  The two other teams within their productivity group had to observe, measure, and analyze what the first team was doing during their fifteen minute planning session and the following construction session. Initially, the students were hesitant; all of them were slow on the first trial, i.e. times ranged from twelve to fifteen minutes. By the second trial all the teams were “into” the exercise and had improved their construction times and accuracy. At the end, the best All-Star team had a winning time of nineteen seconds with a 100% accuracy. The authors observed that the students were definitely learning productivity concepts and applying them effectively.
 
The authors’ observations indicate that this activity stimulates the practice of the exact skills outlined in the literature by Oglesby. “To be effective, managers of on-site construction at all levels ranging from foreman to project manager must have knowledge and skills in areas such as (1) knowing the construction process itself and how it is accomplished; (2) employing techniques for finding better approaches to this process; (3) being able to plan, schedule, and monitor all aspects of the work; and (4) getting the work accomplished by being adept at instructing, directing, and motivating people. (Oglesby, 1989). This activity mainly focuses on getting students to increase their productivity through methods analysis and incremental improvements, although, the students also get experience in communicating, team building, and utilizing resources. These are key skills for them to learn as indicated in the literature. “The greatest opportunity for the construction industry to increase productivity is found in the areas [of]…channels of communication and authority, resources…at worker’s disposal, [and] methods improvement…carried out with employees’ participation.” (Drewin, 1982).
 
This type of exercise also encourages students to set goals by making them give an estimate of their completion time each week and monitor the resulting incremental improvement in their productivity. This requirement is in alignment with current literature on the use of goal setting to increase productivity, which states, “Recent studies have shown that programmatic use of goal setting and feedback can increase productivity by up to 20%.” (Locke, 1990). In teaching productivity improvement topics such as activity sampling, field ratings, and time/motion studies it is much easier to implement an active learning exercise than with the fact-based topics found in accounting, law, engineering, or math courses. Although, it is apparent from the literature that no matter what classroom activities faculty are doing they need to strive to incorporate “experiential types of learning.” (Kraft, 1985). 
 
The Student Perspective
 
In general, from the students’ perspective, they implied “Yes” this activity was very effective, as indicated by their average effectiveness rating of 8.58 on a scale of 1 to 10. In the homework assignment the students also responded positively to a request for key observations, lessons learned, and how the activity related to Construction Management. Their perspective is represented by the following participant observation, “…watching the other groups and taking measurements of their productivity and amounts of productive and non-productive work enabled the later groups to see where improvements could be made and apply those improvements to their team’s effort.” Another student summarized the “lessons learned” this way, “The biggest lesson I learned was don’t judge a book by its cover. It [the activity] seemed simple at first, but it really made you think. Another thing was it made me open my mind about finding ways to do the same thing in a different way to utilize all the team. Even in this little project, the pre-construction seemed to be the biggest determinant of what the team was going to finish first with the most accurate assembly.” This observation is in line with current literature on active learning, which states that our focus as faculty needs to be “to teach students to learn and think.” (McKeachie, 2002).
 
Another student described what he took from this activity and how it related to Construction Management in the following statement, “All these factors (Team Leader, Past Reference, Accurate Drawings, Motivation, Specific Jobs, Plan of Attack, Sequence of Events, Organization, Pre-placed Materials, and Concentration) are related to productivity on both our project and real life construction jobs. The one thing that is clear to me throughout this list is that all the aspects of productivity are related. You can’t have some of them unless you have others. The first group to try the project failed miserably in all ten categories compared to the last group. This is because as certain aspects were improved so were others. For instance, if your organization and plan of attack are lacking it is not going to really matter how motivated you are or how much you concentrate because you are already fighting an uphill battle against productivity. These aspects were clearly shown in our hotel construction project. Productivity has basic ideas [that must be applied] no matter how big or small the job may be.” According to Sims, “Experiential Learning Theory depicts learning as a holistic and integrated process…” (Sims, 1995). The above student comment reflects this essential aspect of experiential learning.
 
 
Conclusion
 
Construction Management classroom instruction can greatly benefit from simulations and activities that mimic the practices of real world field practices and scenarios. “It is thus more important than ever to switch from an emphasis on rote knowledge of content, which is quickly outdated, to an emphasis on the processes of thinking, learning, and questioning.” (Halpern, 1994). Just as all professionals must train and develop skills before actually managing a project, CM students must practice improving their productivity on simulated activities by observing, analyzing, reflecting, and discussing their plans, their actions, and their results with each other. They need to “experience first hand” how it feels to be productive or unproductive, to be ready to improve the situations they will be confronted with on an actual construction project. This active method encourages student to absorb the nuances of productivity improvement and to confront the challenge of improving their own team productivity.
 
 
References
 
Adrian, James J. and Douglas J. Adrian. Total Productivity and Quality Management for Construction. 1995.
 
Drewin, F. J. Construction Productivity: Measurement and Improvement through Work Study. 1982.
 
Gier, Dennis M. and Margie W. Hurd. Increasing the Effectiveness of Active Learning Exercises in the Construction Management Classroom. Associated Schools of Construction 40th International Conference Annual Proceedings. 2004.
 
Halpern, Diane F. & Associates. Changing College Classrooms: New Teaching and Learning Strategies for an Increasing Complex World. 1994.
 
Kraft, Richard J. and Mitchell Sakofs. The Theory of Experiential Education. 1985.
 
Locke, E. A. and G. P. Latham. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. 1990.
 
McKeachie, Wilbert J. McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers. 2002.
 
Oglesby, Clarkson H., Henry W. Parker and Gregory A. Howell. Productivity Improvement in Construction. 1989.
 
Olomolaiye, Paul O., Ananda K. W. Jayawardane and Frank C. Harris. Construction Productivity Management. 1998.
 
Silverman, Mel. Active Learning: 101 Strategies to Teach Any Subject. 1996.
 
Sims, Ronald R. and Serbrenia J. Sims. The Importance of Learning Styles: Understanding the Implications of Learning, Course Design, and Education. 1995.