A comparative evaluation of reinforcement fixing productivity rates amongst French, German and UK construction contractors

Abstract

A contrast of site productivity levels for an in situ concrete operation (reinforcement fixing) on a high‐rise project amongst construction contractors from Germany, France and the UK is given. The productivity rates provided by contractors' planning engineers for a model construction project form the basis of this evaluation. Conclusions drawn, based on relatively small samples, are considered approximations of the actual productivity levels in each international location. An analysis of variance based on international origin indicates significant differences between these productivity rates. Generally, amongst the sample surveyed, UK and German contractors exhibit the most efficient levels of labour productivity for the operations observed, whilst French contractors are by far the least productive. For the model building, UK contractors are the most productive, requiring less labour input than those from Germany and France. The UK contractors also demonstrate a high degree of performance variation. Leading on from these analyses, a construction (labour) cost comparison indicates the UK to be the most economic location. A comparison with previous research indicates contrasting findings. It is concluded that the performance ranking of French, German and UK contractors will vary depending upon the construction operations concerned, and therefore, assumptions regarding national contracting industries should not be based on individual operations. Contractors could benefit from developing closer links with their international counterparts since this would facilitate dissemination of European ‘best practice’.

Citation

PROVERBS, D.G., HOLT, G.D. and OLOMOLAIYE, P.O. (1998), "A comparative evaluation of reinforcement fixing productivity rates amongst French, German and UK construction contractors", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 350-358. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb021088