A statistical study of construction productivity from 1917 to 1957. - Page 122 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 122 of 145 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
112
’’many responsible author it ies” that ’’while labor productivity
(output per hour) in all American industry has about
doubled in the last I4.O years . . , in residential con-struction
it has actually declined.”13
The least progressive of the industry groups, then,
is construction. While productivity for the general
economy has been rising for over forty years at the average
rate of 2 per cent a year, construction has maintained but
a 1 per cent rise. While there is no tendency for the
construction rate to accelerate, close analysis shows that
the over-all rate for other industries is an accelerating
one, with the acceleration especially pronounced after
World War II. These trends were observed by Gilbert Burck j
who summarized the causes as:
The industryrs backwardness lies both in the fact that much of the construction dollar goes into repair work (including painting and plumbing), whose efficiency is notoriously low, and in the fact that the industry is made up of thousands of small-scale operators who are ridden by restrictive practices, and handicapped by weather, building codes, and their own inertia. ”1^4-
It is evident, however, to anyone who has looked
closely at the building industry that it has been making
progress. Efforts to mass produce are beginning to show
results, prefabrication is becoming more accepted and many
1 3 Ibld., p. 6 7 .
Burck: and Parker, ojo. cit. , p. 2J4J4.•
Object Description
Description
| Title | A statistical study of construction productivity from 1917 to 1957. - Page 122 |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 112 ’’many responsible author it ies” that ’’while labor productivity (output per hour) in all American industry has about doubled in the last I4.O years . . , in residential con-struction it has actually declined.”13 The least progressive of the industry groups, then, is construction. While productivity for the general economy has been rising for over forty years at the average rate of 2 per cent a year, construction has maintained but a 1 per cent rise. While there is no tendency for the construction rate to accelerate, close analysis shows that the over-all rate for other industries is an accelerating one, with the acceleration especially pronounced after World War II. These trends were observed by Gilbert Burck j who summarized the causes as: The industryrs backwardness lies both in the fact that much of the construction dollar goes into repair work (including painting and plumbing), whose efficiency is notoriously low, and in the fact that the industry is made up of thousands of small-scale operators who are ridden by restrictive practices, and handicapped by weather, building codes, and their own inertia. ”1^4- It is evident, however, to anyone who has looked closely at the building industry that it has been making progress. Efforts to mass produce are beginning to show results, prefabrication is becoming more accepted and many 1 3 Ibld., p. 6 7 . Burck: and Parker, ojo. cit. , p. 2J4J4.• |
