Productivity is a measure of the efficiency of production. Productivity is a ratio of production output to what is required to produce it (inputs). The measure of productivity is defined as a total output per one unit of a total input. These definitions are short but too general and insufficient to make the phenomenon productivity understandable.
Definition of 'Production Rate' In manufacturing, the number of goods that can be produced during a given period of time. Alternatively, the amount of time it takes to produce one unit of a good.
Productivity and Production Rate are not the same and very frequently interchanged. Given the above definitions I am aware that for Spider Project productivity means Production Rate, it is an issue of software syntax you got to be aware.
In any case the units for productivity and production rates shall never be plain hours, the insistence of using plain hours as the units of productivity by some software is what I never got. On the other hand I have no problem adapting with the other definitions based on some volume of work.
My view is the burned hours burned from the clocking system is not a representation of productivity, which is a measure of volume of work over a dimension of time.
To the other issue of separate SIs hours against base hours, without knowing any information about the SIs is not possible.
The scope of SI must be known to separate it from the base.
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Fri, 2012-07-27 17:59
To me Productivity without relating it to Volume of Work means nothing. It is a tendency followed by poor software developers I cannot understand, as if hours alone means productivity.
What can hours alone tell you about productivity?
1000 hours productivity I do not understand.
0.50 man-hours/sf of elevated slab forms is a measure of productivity I can understand, a measure of productivity you can report on a meaningful way for weekly productivity as well as for to-date. We report unit job costing as well as volume of work and total cost (weekly and to-date) but unit productivity trends is our key index.
When we compare actual productivity to a reference productivity we call it efficiency but never productivity. We use efficiency ratios to adjust productivity to special conditions.
I think its just re-measurable. So we do the job, complete any SI's associated with it, then charge the client for what we installed. The price is rarely agreed before works are carried out. We are using a SOR so all this is easily done once the job is completed. I think option C is probably best suited for this as the SI's are much smaller than the main job 99% of the time. Thanks for the advice Gary!
Kind Regards,
David Craig
Member for
16 years 7 months
Member for16 years7 months
Submitted by Gary Whitehead on Fri, 2012-07-27 12:24
If you're currently at Option B, how do you get paid for the SIs? If you don't produce a budget before the works, and aren't tracking actual costs seperately for the SI...?
Are you just doing total hours burned across both orignal and SI minus original budget hours equals cost of SI? Or is there a schedule of rates?
If you can get to Option C, then you can at least track productivty of the budgeted work.
Depending on the ratio of SI work to budgeted, and assuming the nature of the work is similar, it could be reasonable to assume productivity of SIs would be equivalent to that of budgeted work.
Thanks for taking the time to read the post. Im pretty sure this is a common problem within the construction industry, however im not sure how I can overcome the issue. Do you have any suggestions I could have a think about? Im really stumped on this one. As always your help is really appreciated!
Kind Regards,
David Craig
Member for
16 years 7 months
Member for16 years7 months
Submitted by Gary Whitehead on Fri, 2012-07-27 10:17
I'm getting confused here -The example you give doesn't seem to match with the explanation of your problem.
Do you:
a) have an estimate from which you can calculate hours earned for SIs, but don't record any hours burned for SIs (as in your example calculation for 1.66 productivity)
b) have no estimate from which to calculate hours earned for SIs, and are unable to seperate hours burned on the SI vs hours burned on the original budgeted work
c) have no estimate from which to calculate hours earned for SIs, but can seperate out hours burned on the SI vs hours burned on the original budgeted work.
Member for
21 years 8 monthsThere are many different
There are many different approaches to productivity measurement and their calculation and interpretation requires careful consideration.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity
Productivity is a measure of the efficiency of production. Productivity is a ratio of production output to what is required to produce it (inputs). The measure of productivity is defined as a total output per one unit of a total input. These definitions are short but too general and insufficient to make the phenomenon productivity understandable.
From http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/production-rate.asp#axzz2219wSFAo
Definition of 'Production Rate' In manufacturing, the number of goods that can be produced during a given period of time. Alternatively, the amount of time it takes to produce one unit of a good.
Productivity and Production Rate are not the same and very frequently interchanged. Given the above definitions I am aware that for Spider Project productivity means Production Rate, it is an issue of software syntax you got to be aware.
In any case the units for productivity and production rates shall never be plain hours, the insistence of using plain hours as the units of productivity by some software is what I never got. On the other hand I have no problem adapting with the other definitions based on some volume of work.
Member for
13 years 9 monthsMy view is the burned hours
My view is the burned hours burned from the clocking system is not a representation of productivity, which is a measure of volume of work over a dimension of time.
To the other issue of separate SIs hours against base hours, without knowing any information about the SIs is not possible.
The scope of SI must be known to separate it from the base.
Member for
21 years 8 monthsTo me Productivity without
To me Productivity without relating it to Volume of Work means nothing. It is a tendency followed by poor software developers I cannot understand, as if hours alone means productivity.
What can hours alone tell you about productivity?
1000 hours productivity I do not understand.
0.50 man-hours/sf of elevated slab forms is a measure of productivity I can understand, a measure of productivity you can report on a meaningful way for weekly productivity as well as for to-date. We report unit job costing as well as volume of work and total cost (weekly and to-date) but unit productivity trends is our key index.
When we compare actual productivity to a reference productivity we call it efficiency but never productivity. We use efficiency ratios to adjust productivity to special conditions.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
16 years 1 monthI think its just
I think its just re-measurable. So we do the job, complete any SI's associated with it, then charge the client for what we installed. The price is rarely agreed before works are carried out. We are using a SOR so all this is easily done once the job is completed. I think option C is probably best suited for this as the SI's are much smaller than the main job 99% of the time. Thanks for the advice Gary!
Kind Regards,
David Craig
Member for
16 years 7 monthsIf you're currently at Option
If you're currently at Option B, how do you get paid for the SIs? If you don't produce a budget before the works, and aren't tracking actual costs seperately for the SI...?
Are you just doing total hours burned across both orignal and SI minus original budget hours equals cost of SI? Or is there a schedule of rates?
If you can get to Option C, then you can at least track productivty of the budgeted work.
Depending on the ratio of SI work to budgeted, and assuming the nature of the work is similar, it could be reasonable to assume productivity of SIs would be equivalent to that of budgeted work.
Member for
16 years 1 monthHi Gary,Sorry I have not made
Hi Gary,
Sorry I have not made myself too clear. It was quite difficult to get my head around first thing on a morning!
My current situation is the option B. We have no estimates for SI's and we arent currently breaking down burned hours into original scope and SI's.
I believe at a push I could manage to produce option C if I get supervision to distinguish original scope from SI work.
My main issue is that we dont have an estimate for SI works. This is really throwing me!
Kind Regards,
David Craig
Member for
16 years 1 monthHi Mike,Thanks for taking the
Hi Mike,
Thanks for taking the time to read the post. Im pretty sure this is a common problem within the construction industry, however im not sure how I can overcome the issue. Do you have any suggestions I could have a think about? Im really stumped on this one. As always your help is really appreciated!
Kind Regards,
David Craig
Member for
16 years 7 monthsDavid, I'm getting confused
David,
I'm getting confused here -The example you give doesn't seem to match with the explanation of your problem.
Do you:
a) have an estimate from which you can calculate hours earned for SIs, but don't record any hours burned for SIs (as in your example calculation for 1.66 productivity)
b) have no estimate from which to calculate hours earned for SIs, and are unable to seperate hours burned on the SI vs hours burned on the original budgeted work
c) have no estimate from which to calculate hours earned for SIs, but can seperate out hours burned on the SI vs hours burned on the original budgeted work.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi David You will only get
Hi David
You will only get the true result on productivity when the task is 100% complete.
Currently you are comparing burnt hours with estimated hours without any input of how much of the physical task is complete at the 50% time stage.
Best regards
Mike Testro