Abstract
Aims: The branch itself see, that creative destruction led to a significant jump in productivity of Finnish construction sector but the Finnish official statistic illustrates inverse development. The aim of this study was to find out what's what. The first task was to find out if the vision of the branch was right. The second task was to acquaint with the productivity statistic.
Methods: Workshops and interviews, literary research related with building performance.
Results: Non-monetary indicators of real productivity changes show that the productivity of various types of work done in the construction sector has developed favourably. Productivity has been improved on a wide scale, and as a rule higher productivity has improved work ergonomics and safety. As a result of the predominance of small enterprises, the components of productivity calculations are not available from a single source dealing with business activity, but several sources must be used including production statistics. In deviation from other industries, construction productivity calculations have applied double deflation. If the productivity of building construction had been calculated the same way as in other industries, productivity development in 1995-2004 would be + 23 % instead of the - 0.8 % showed by statistics. A comparable figure cannot be calculated for civil engineering since only a cost index is available, not a price index that would be a more correct deflater.
Conclusions: All branches should be calculated by similar way if they are going to be compared with each other. The entirety of productivity calculation should be paid more attention.
Methods: Workshops and interviews, literary research related with building performance.
Results: Non-monetary indicators of real productivity changes show that the productivity of various types of work done in the construction sector has developed favourably. Productivity has been improved on a wide scale, and as a rule higher productivity has improved work ergonomics and safety. As a result of the predominance of small enterprises, the components of productivity calculations are not available from a single source dealing with business activity, but several sources must be used including production statistics. In deviation from other industries, construction productivity calculations have applied double deflation. If the productivity of building construction had been calculated the same way as in other industries, productivity development in 1995-2004 would be + 23 % instead of the - 0.8 % showed by statistics. A comparable figure cannot be calculated for civil engineering since only a cost index is available, not a price index that would be a more correct deflater.
Conclusions: All branches should be calculated by similar way if they are going to be compared with each other. The entirety of productivity calculation should be paid more attention.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | EPC2006 European Productivity Conference |
| Subtitle of host publication | Scientific Proceedings |
| Editors | Mika Hannula, Antti Lönnqvist, Pekka Malmberg |
| Pages | 109-112 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 978-952-9737-33-8 |
| Publication status | Published - 2006 |
| MoE publication type | A4 Article in a conference publication |
| Event | European Productivity Conference, EPC 2006 - Dipoli Congress Centre, Espoo, Finland Duration: 30 Aug 2006 → 1 Sept 2006 |
Conference
| Conference | European Productivity Conference, EPC 2006 |
|---|---|
| Country/Territory | Finland |
| City | Espoo |
| Period | 30/08/06 → 1/09/06 |