Factors Affecting Construction Labor Productivity: Iran Case Study

A Correction to this article was published on 02 March 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Construction projects, as a labor-intensive industry, are directly involved with workforce management. Hence, the labor productivity issue is of remarkable interest in both the construction industry and academia because of its impact on time, cost, and quality of project. Due to the importance of labor productivity, an intensive literature review has been done to identify critical factors. However, a lack of previous studies on the causal relationships between labor productivity factors in the Iranian construction industry was discovered through the literature review. Hence, the study objective is to prioritize and highlight the factors most affecting construction labor productivity in Iran. The potential factors were identified and a questionnaire was prepared, including 33 factors, and it was then distributed among construction project managers who have more than 5 years of experience in the Iranian construction industry. Out of 200 questionnaires, 157 questionnaires were returned by participants. Of these, 152 valid collected data sets were analyzed through the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a decision-making tool and the Structural Equation Model (SEM) as a multivariate analysis technique, in parallel for accuracy and reliability of findings. Findings from both tools, AHP and SEM, were compared. Eventually, “Labor Characteristics,” by 0.384 priority weights, was selected as the most prioritized criteria; “Tools and Equipment” was selected among six factors as the most common significant factor between both AHP and SEM, ranked by 0.191 priority weights in AHP and a 0.82 factor loading in SEM. Furthermore, “Lack of required tools and/or equipment” has been ranked as the most significant sub-criteria with 0.444 weights; “Delay” has been chosen as the most significant latent variable in SEM with a 0.83 factor lading. The results of the study would be valuable for any participants in the construction industry and academia, particularly civil engineers who are involved in Iranian or Middle Eastern construction projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Change history

  • 02 March 2018

    The original version of this article unfortunately contained mistakes. The acknowledgement was missing. It is given below.

References

  1. Abdul Kadir M, Lee W, Jaafar M, Sapuan S, Ali A (2005) Factors affecting construction labour productivity for Malaysian residential projects. Struct Surv 23(1):42–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/02630800510586907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Al Khalil MI (2002) Selecting the appropriate project delivery method using AHP. Int J Project Manage 20(6):469–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00032-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Al-Harbi KMA-S (2001) Application of the AHP in project management. Int J Project Manage 19(1):19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00038-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alinaitwe HM, Mwakali JA, Hansson B (2007) Factors affecting the productivity of building craftsmen-studies of Uganda. J Civ Eng Manag 13(3):169–176

    Google Scholar 

  5. Allmon E, Haas CT, Borcherding JD, Goodrum PM (2000) US construction labor productivity trends, 1970–1998. J Constr Eng Manag 126(2):97–104. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)9364(2000)126:2(97)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alwi S (2003) Factors influencing construction productivity in the Indonsesian context

  7. Arbuckle J (2011) IBM SPSS Amos 20 User’s Guide: IBM Corporation

  8. Assaf SA, Al-Hejji S (2006) Causes of delay in large construction projects. Int J Project Manage 24(4):349–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107(2):238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bentler PM, Bonett DG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 88(3):588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bentler PM, Raykov T (2000) On measures of explained variance in nonrecursive structural equation models. J Appl Psychol 85(1):125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bollen KA (1989) A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res 17(3):303–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124189017003004

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brown MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Test Struct Equ Models 154:136–162

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chen WT, Chen T-T, Sheng Lu C, Liu S-S (2012) Analyzing relationships among success variables of construction partnering using structural equation modeling: a case study of Taiwan’s construction industry. J Civ Eng Manag 18(6):783–794. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.735062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheng EW, Li H (2002) Construction partnering process and associated critical success factors: quantitative investigation. J Manag Eng 18(4):194–202. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)18:4(194)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cheung SO, Wong PS, Lam AL (2012) An investigation of the relationship between organizational culture and the performance of construction organizations. J Bus Econ Manag 13(4):688–704. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2011.620157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chiang F-Y, Vincent FY, Luarn P (2017) Construction contractor selection in Taiwan using AHP. Int J Eng Technol. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJET.2017.V9.972

    Google Scholar 

  18. Conway JM, Huffcutt AI (2003) A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organ Res Methods 6(2):147–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103251541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cook R, Hersch R, McPherson T (1999) Drug assessment methods in the workplace. In: Drug testing technology: assessment of field applications. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 255–281

  20. Dai J, Goodrum PM, Maloney WF (2007) Analysis of craft workers’ and foremen’s perceptions of the factors affecting construction labour productivity. Constr Manag Econ 25(11):1139–1152. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190701598681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dai J, Goodrum PM, Maloney WF, Srinivasan C (2009) Latent structures of the factors affecting construction labor productivity. J Constr Eng Manag 135(5):397–406. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:5(397)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Deng P, Lu S, Xiao H (2013) Evaluating the capabilities of port logistics based on structural equation modeling. In: ICTIS 2013: Improving Multimodal Transportation Systems-Information, Safety, and Integration (pp. 2148–2155)

  23. Dias A Jr, Ioannou PG (1996) Company and project evaluation model for privately promoted infrastructure projects. J Constr Eng Manag 122(1):71–82. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1996)122:1(71)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dictionary O (2014) Oxford dictionaries. Language Matters

  25. Doloi H (2008) Application of AHP in improving construction productivity from a management perspective. Constr Manag Econ 26(8):841–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190802244789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Durdyev S, Mbachu J (2011) On-site labour productivity of New Zealand construction industry: Key constraints and improvement measures. Constr Econ Build 11(3):18–33. https://doi.org/10.5130/ajceb.v11i3.2120

    Google Scholar 

  27. El-Gohary KM, Aziz RF (2013) Factors influencing construction labor productivity in Egypt. J Manag Eng 30(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Enshassi A, Abuhamra L (2015) Delayed payment problems in public construction projects: subcontractors’ perspectives ICCREM 2015, pp 567–575

  29. Enshassi A, Mohamed S, Mustafa ZA, Mayer PE (2007) Factors affecting labour productivity in building projects in the Gaza Strip. J Civ Eng Manag 13(4):245–254

    Google Scholar 

  30. Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods 4(3):272. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Field A(2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS: Sage publications

  32. Frankel E (1921) Labor absenteeism. J Polit Econ 29(6):487–499. https://doi.org/10.1086/253365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gaskin, J. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. Gaskination’s StatWiki. http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com

  34. Gavioli A, Mathias TADF, Rossi RM, Oliveira MLFD (2014) Risks related to drug use among male construction workers. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem 27(5):471–478. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0194201400077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau M-C (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the association for information systems 4(1):7

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ghoddousi P, Hosseini MR (2012) A survey of the factors affecting the productivity of construction projects in Iran. Technol Econ Dev Econ 18(1):99–116. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.661203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hair JF (2010) Multivariate data analysis. Pearson College Division

  38. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Babin BJ, Black WC (2010) Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective (vol 7). Pearson Upper Saddle River. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2009.12.014

  39. Hanna AS, Menches CL, Sullivan KT, Sargent JR (2005) Factors affecting absenteeism in electrical construction. J Constr Eng Manag 131(11):1212–1218. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:11(1212)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M (2008) Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Articles, 2

  41. Horner R, Talhouni B (1993) Effects of accelerated working, delays and disruption on labour productivity: Chartered Institute of Building

  42. Horner R, Talhouni B, Whitehead R (1987) Measurement of factors affecting labour productivity on construction sites. Managing Construction Worldwide, 2

  43. Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hwang B-G, Thomas SR, Haas CT, Caldas CH (2009) Measuring the impact of rework on construction cost performance. J Constr Eng Manag 135(3):187–198. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:3(187)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Iyer K, Jha K (2005) Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from Indian construction projects. Int J Project Manage 23(4):283–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. James L (2011) IBM SPSS Amos 20 users’ guide. www.amosdevelopment.com/download/amos.pdf

  47. Jarkas AM, Bitar CG (2012) Factors affecting construction labor productivity in Kuwait. J Constr Eng Manag 138(7):811–820. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Jay H, Render B (1993) Production and operations management: strategic and tactical decisions. Business & Economics 1996

  49. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (1984) LISREL-VI user’s guide

  50. Kaming PF, Olomolaiye PO, Holt GD, Harris FC (1997a) Factors influencing construction time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indonesia. Constr Manag Econ 15(1):83–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461997373132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kaming PF, Olomolaiye PO, Holt GD, Harris FC (1997b) Factors influencing craftsmen’s productivity in Indonesia. Int J Project Manage 15(1):21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0263-7863(96)00019-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Khanzadi M, Dabirian S, Mohammadpour A, Makhmalbaf MO (2011) Selecting the best strategy of labour productivity improvement in Tehran grade 1-3 construction contractor companies by applying analytic hierarchy process and statistical analysis of effective factors on labour productivity. Paper presented at The International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (ISAHP), Sorrento (Naples)

  53. Knutson K, Schexnayder CJ, Fiori C, Mayo RE (2009) Construction management fundamentals. McGraw-Hill, New York

  54. Lema N (1995) Construction of labour productivity modeling. University of Dar elsalaam, 1

  55. Li S, Xiang X (2011) The establishment of cause-system of poor construction site safety and priority analysis from different perspectives. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 57:570–574

    Google Scholar 

  56. Lim EC, Alum J (1995) Construction productivity: issues encountered by contractors in Singapore. Int J Project Manage 13(1):51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)95704-H

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Loewenthal KM (2001) An introduction to psychological tests and scales. Psychology Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  58. Love P, Holt GD, Shen L-Y, Li H, Irani Z (2002) Using systems dynamics to better understand change and rework in construction project management systems. Int J Project Manage 20(6):425–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00039-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Majid MA, McCaffer R (1997) Assessment of work performance of maintenance contractors in Saudi Arabia. J Manag Eng 13(5):91. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1997)13:5(91)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Makulsawatudom A, Emsley M, Sinthawanarong K (2004) Critical factors influencing construction productivity in Thailand. J KMITNB 14(3):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  61. McDonald, D. F., & Zack, J. G. (2004). Estimating lost labor productivity in construction claims. AACE International Recommended Practice No. 25R, 3

  62. Molenaar K, Washington S, Diekmann J (2000) Structural equation model of construction contract dispute potential. J Constr Eng Manag 126(4):268–277. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:4(268)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Neptin WA (2005) Substance abuse in the construction industry. Central Connecticut State University

  64. Ng ST, Wong YM, Wong JM (2010) A structural equation model of feasibility evaluation and project success for public–private partnerships in Hong Kong. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 57(2):310–322. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2009.2037142

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Oei F-J, Ogunlana SO (2006) Assessment of the development role of a statutory body from a customer perspective: a relationship marketing approach. J Constr Dev Ctries 11(2):31–52

    Google Scholar 

  66. Oglesby CH, Parker HW, Howell GA (1989) Productivity improvement in construction. Mcgraw-Hill College, New York

    Google Scholar 

  67. Pan N-F (2008) Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction method. Autom Constr 17(8):958–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Park H-S, Thomas SR, Tucker RL (2005) Benchmarking of construction productivity. J Constr Eng Manag 131(7):772–778. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:7(772)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Paulson BC Jr (1975) Estimation and control of construction labor costs. Journal of the Construction Division, 101(ASCE# 11579 Proceeding)

  70. Pich MT, Loch CH, Meyer AD (2002) On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Manage Sci 48(8):1008–1023. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.8.1008.163

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  71. Pilcher R (1992) Principles of construction management. McGraw-Hill College

  72. Punniyamoorthy M, Mathiyalagan P, Parthiban P (2011) A strategic model using structural equation modeling and fuzzy logic in supplier selection. Expert Syst Appl 38(1):458–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.06.086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Ram J, Wu M-L, Tagg R (2014) Competitive advantage from ERP projects: examining the role of key implementation drivers. Int J Project Manage 32(4):663–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Raviv G, Shapira A, Fishbain B (2017) AHP-based analysis of the risk potential of safety incidents: case study of cranes in the construction industry. Saf Sci 91:298–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.08.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Saaty T (1980a) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York MATH Google Scholar

    Google Scholar 

  76. Saaty T (1980b) The analytic process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation. McGraw-Hill, London

    Google Scholar 

  77. Saaty TL (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces 24(6):19–43. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.24.6.19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590

    Google Scholar 

  79. Samee K, Pongpeng J (2016a) Structural equation model for construction equipment management affecting project and corporate performance. KSCE J Civ Eng 20(5):1642–1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0717-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Samee K, Pongpeng J (2016b) Structural equation model for construction equipment selection and contractor competitive advantages. KSCE J Civ Eng 20(1):77–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0632-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Samhsa O (1999) Summary of findings from the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  82. Sanders SR, Thomas HR (1991) Factors affecting masonry-labor productivity. J Constr Eng Manag 117(4):626–644. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1991)117:4(626)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Sawacha E, Naoum S, Fong D (1999) Factors affecting safety performance on construction sites. Int J Project Manage 17(5):309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00042-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Schane S (2002) Ambiguity and misunderstanding in the law. T. Jefferson L. Rev. 25:167

    Google Scholar 

  85. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H (2003) Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res 8(2):23–74

    Google Scholar 

  86. Schot J, Fischer K (1993) Introduction: the greening of the industrial firm. Environmental Strategies for Industry, pp 3–36

  87. Schrader S, Riggs WM, Smith RP (1993) Choice over uncertainty and ambiguity in technical problem solving. J Eng Tech Manage 10(1–2):73–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0923-4748(93)90059-R

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2004) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  89. Semple C, Hartman FT, Jergeas G (1994) Construction claims and disputes: causes and cost/time overruns. J Constr Eng Manag 120(4):785–795. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:4(785)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Skibniewski MJ, Chao L-C (1992) Evaluation of advanced construction technology with AHP method. J Constr Eng Manag 118(3):577–593. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1992)118:3(577)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Sykes J (1996) Claims and disputes in construction. Constr Law J 12(1):3–13

    Google Scholar 

  92. Tabchnick BG, Fidell LS (2006) Using multivariate statistics. Allyin & Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  93. Tamošaitienė J, Zavadskas EK, Šileikaitė I, Turskis Z (2017) A novel hybrid MCDM approach for complicated supply chain management problems in construction. Procedia Engineering 172:1137–1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Tanaka JS, Huba GJ (1985) A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. Br J Math Stat Psychol 38(2):197–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00834.x

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Tenah KA (1985) The construction management process. Reston Publishing Company

  96. Thomas HR (1992) Effects of scheduled overtime on labor productivity. J Constr Eng Manag 118(1):60–76. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1992)118:1(60)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Thomas HR, Mathews CT (1986) An analysis of the methods for measuring construction productivity: [Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin [distributor]]

  98. Thomas HR, Sanvido VE, Sanders SR (1989) Impact of material management on productivity—a case study. J Constr Eng Manag 115(3):370–384. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1989)115:3(370)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Thomas HR, Riley DR, Sanvido VE (1999) Loss of labor productivity due to delivery methods and weather. J Constr Eng Manag 125(1):39–46. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:1(39)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Ullman JB (2006) Structural equation modeling: reviewing the basics and moving forward. J Pers Assess 87(1):35–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_03

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Waroonkun T, Stewart RA (2008) Modeling the international technology transfer process in construction projects: evidence from Thailand. J Technol Transf 33(6):667–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9043-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Wilcox S, Stringfellow B, Harris R, Martin B (2000) Management and productivity. Transportation research board, committee on management and productivity. Washington, USA

  103. Wong WK, Cheung SO, Yiu TW, Pang HY (2008) A framework for trust in construction contracting. Int J Project Manage 26(8):821–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Xiong B, Skitmore M, Xia B (2015) A critical review of structural equation modeling applications in construction research. Autom Constr 49:59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Xue X, Zhang R, Zhang X, Yang RJ, Li H (2015) Environmental and social challenges for urban subway construction: an empirical study in China. Int J Project Manage 33(3):576–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Yates J, Guhathakurta S (1993) International labor productivity. Cost Eng Ann Arbor Then Morgantown 35:15

    Google Scholar 

  107. Yi W, Chan AP (2013) Critical review of labor productivity research in construction journals. J Manag Eng 30(2):214–225. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Yong AG, Pearce S (2013) A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 9(2):79–94. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Zahedi F (1986) The analytic hierarchy process—a survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces 16(4):96–108. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.16.4.96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Zakeri M, Olomolaiye PO, Holt GD, Harris FC (1996) A survey of constraints on Iranian construction operatives’ productivity. Constr Manag Econ 14(5):417–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461996373287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Zakeri M, Olomolaiye P, Holt G, Harris F (1997) Factors affecting the motivation of Iranian construction operatives. Build Environ 32(2):161–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(96)00044-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soo-Yong Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Golchin Rad, K., Kim, SY. Factors Affecting Construction Labor Productivity: Iran Case Study. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 42, 165–180 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-018-0095-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Labor productivity
  • Construction management
  • Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
  • Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
  • Structural Equation Model (SEM)