Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

Productivity Improvement Study

MIDTOWN PLAZA/ 1ST & SPRINGFIELD, CHAMPAIGN, IL

CEE 420 | Construction Productivity | Term Project Report

PAGE | 1
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

Team Arabtec:

Gopal Pareek Bhanu PS Sandu

Chief Executive Officer Financial Manager

Bose Boppana
Jay Patel
Head of Business
Board Member
Department

Harhs Tiwari Shreya Mahesh Kothari

Director of Corporate Chief Operations
Strategy Officer

Sai Sravya Polavarapu Parshv Tamot

Public Relations Officer Design Director

Satya Prakash Nethi

Chief Innovative Officer

PAGE | 2
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 4
Area of Study .......................................................................................................................... 5
Site Logistics and Method of Study ..................................................................................... 7
Analysis of Existing Operation ............................................................................................ 9
Flow Chart ............................................................................................................................. 9
Process Chart ........................................................................................................................10
Analysis .................................................................................................................................10
Proposed Improvements ..................................................................................................... 11
Improved Proposal A............................................................................................................ 11
Process Chart .............................................................................................................. 12
Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 12
Implementation .......................................................................................................... 12
Improved Proposal B ............................................................................................................ 12
Process Chart .............................................................................................................. 13
Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 13
Implementation .......................................................................................................... 13
Improved Proposal C............................................................................................................14
Process Chart ..............................................................................................................14
Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 15
Implementation .......................................................................................................... 15
Summary of Cost................................................................................................................... 16
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 18
Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 19

PAGE | 3
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report outlines certain recommendations which
team Arabtec believes may help to improve the
efficiency of a single construction activity i.e. concrete
pouring and employs analytical methods to develop
Crew Balance Chart, Flow Diagrams,
and Process Chart.
The purpose of this report is to analyze process
efficiency on Midtown Plaza (The University Group
Housing), located at the intersection of 1st street and
Springfield in Champaign, Illinois. The project, valued at
$23 million, represents a significant investment and must
be completed on budget by spring 2018. Once Crew
balance chart, Flow diagram, and Process chart are
produced, these analytical tools will help the stakeholders
make more cost-effective investments in productivity
through the suggested improvements.

The original process was filmed over several

iterations to establish a regular process cycle, which was
then analyzed using productivity analysis methods. Our
team deemed the original process to be vastly inefficient.
The concrete pouring crew, which consisted of one chute
operator, two vibrator operators, a screeder, a helper and a
finisher, had extremely low work rates. Crew balances were
created and shifted to determine the effects of the changes on productivity, unit
cost, and cycle time. Three improvement proposals were made that add, remove,
and reorganize construction resources such as labor and equipment to decrease idle
time and increase productivity. The proposals significantly reduce the unit cost of
the pouring activity and our team concludes that if the equipment and laborers are
available, implementing any of these scenarios would be in the best interest of the
construction company.

PAGE | 4
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

AREA OF STUDY
The project site selected to be observed was the construction of Midtown Plaza, The
University Group project in Champaign, IL. The development, which will span the
east side of First Street between Springfield Avenue and White Street, includes two
buildings with commercial space on the bottom floor and one- and two-bedroom
apartments on the upper floors, with a plaza lane adorned with terrace overhangs,
plants and outdoor seating between them. The buildings are slated to include brick,
metal siding and minimal artificial siding for exterior utilitarian spaces.

Specifics of the Site:

32,000 square feet of

commercial space
104 upper-story
apartments
103 off-street
parking spaces
19,000 square feet of
publicly accessible
open space
2 spaces for bike
parking in the plaza
lane

Fig.1 Midtown Plaza

Dan Hamelberg is the owner and developer of this project and has a vision of
extending the campus town residences close to downtown Champaign. Wells &
Wells Construction Company is constructing this $23 million project. The company
started in 1989 by Daniel Wells with home renovations and remodels and has
evolved to provide general contracting services for custom homes, multi-family and
commercial projects. It was awarded this signature project in late 2016 and the
construction began on December 2, 2016.

PAGE | 5
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

Fig.2 Midtown Plaza (3D View)

The process we selected to observe and analyze is concreting for the

walls. The concreting is the process of pouring the fresh cementitious well-designed
mix in the desired shape with support from formwork while it is in a workable state.
Firstly, the crew works to erect the formwork in place as per design. The ready-mix
concrete is obtained and poured with chute into the preplaced formwork. The
concrete in its workable state is then vibrated for consolidation. Formwork provides
the support for the concrete to retain shape until the concrete hardens and gain
strength. This process has been videotaped on March 28th, 2017 and the operation is
studied in detail to obtain the work cycle and crew
balance charts implemented on the site.

In seeking to increase overall

productivity, it is important to look
at the whole as well as the parts of
a system and to understand how
each part interacts with the others.

PAGE | 6
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

Figure 3. Picture of Site Filmed

SITE LOGISTICS AND METHOD OF STUDY

Due to the job site observed being relatively small in layout and multiple
large pieces of equipment operating at the same time, a lot of congestion was
observed. Since the operation was concreting, the equipment movement was
minimized and in turn decreased the available area of the workspace dramatically
so that it leads to a decrease in productivity and frequent idle time.

For this productivity study, an excavation crew composed of a chute

operator, vibrator operators, concrete screeder and concrete finisher was observed.
The operations were filmed from several angles to analyze locations and times taken
to perform a certain job in detail so they could be modeled in a crew balance chart
that can be found in the appendix. The chart depicts the sequence of a typical cycle
including the equipment operated and workers who participated in the process. The
chart is divided into seconds to express the time taken to perform each process in
detail. The worksite and equipment are also represented in a flow diagram for ease
of visualization. A process chart was developed to describe the order of operations.

PAGE | 7
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

Both the crew balance chart and the flow diagram/process chart aided in
determining the productivity and whether the time taken was used effectively or
not.

Figure 4. Site Logistics

For the ease of visualization and simplicity, the following symbols were used to
represent the process observed:

Symbol Name Description

Transportation Representing truck and excavator movement
Storage Representing the heaping of the excavated soil
over a slope
Operation Representing dumping, measurement, crane
assistance and clearing the trench boundaries
Inspection Representing the examination of the current
excavation process and provision of feedback to
improve it
Given the observed facts, an analysis was performed to come up with the
existing conditions and determine the causes of problems that the crew was facing.
With the results of the analysis, three different solutions to improve productivity
and reduce idle time were proposed. For each improvement, an analysis was

PAGE | 8
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

performed to determine the impact on the construction process including cycle

time, productivity, and costs.

Additionally, an implementation plan was made to explain the changes to the

existing operations and how they were effective in improving the current situation.

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING OPERATION

FLOW CHART

Concrete Conveyer Truck

Concrete Mixer
Truck

Chute

Formwork
for Wall

PAGE | 9
 Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

PROCESS CHART

Flow Sequence Operation Transportation Inspection Storage Description

Concrete mixer Concrete mixer ready to pour
arrival
Concrete dumping Concrete transported using
on conveyor Chute
Placing of concrete Worker=1 No. (Chute Operator)
Vibrating of Worker=2 No. (Vibrator
Concrete Operator)
Screeding Worker=1 No.
Compacting Worker =1 No. (Helper)
Concrete Finishing Worker=1 (Concrete finisher)
Inspection of Worker=1 No. (Foreman)
finished concrete

ANALYSIS
To complete this study, our team watched all members of the crew
throughout the duration of the cycle. We recorded the specific task that each worker
was performing and its duration in chronological order. The observations were then
analyzed to determine inefficiencies or improvements. The concreting operation
crew includes one chute operator, two vibrator workers, one screed worker,
concrete finisher and a concrete conveyor truck. Under a cycle time of 520 seconds,
the productivity of the helper, vibrator operator, and the screed worker are very low
due to copious amounts of idle time. The working time of the helper is only 34%.
On the other hand, the chute operator with 84.6% of working time is most
productive in this cycle. The cycle starts from the moment concrete mixer truck
dumps concrete onto the concrete conveyor truck. Then, the chute operator guides
the chute and pours the concrete into the formwork. In other cycles, the truck may
be delayed by traffic issues, which can increase the idle time of other crew members.
After the concrete is poured, the finisher does not start until the screed worker is
done screeding previously poured concrete, which creates lots of idle time for the
finisher. Figure 1 in the appendix shows the crew balance chart for the observed
operation.

PAGE | 10
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Based on the observed construction activity, three different proposals were
developed to improve productivity and reduce costs. These Proposals and analysis
are explained in the subsequent sections.

When calculating unit costs and crew information, RS Means and actual rates
provided by the contractor were used to get values for hourly wage rates of crew
members. These rates are summarized in the table below and the values are used in
the analysis of each of the following proposals.

S. No. Crew Cost ($/hr.)

1. Concrete Finisher 22
2. Hose Operator 25
3. Helper 18
4. Vibrator 1 18
5. Vibrator 2 18
6. Screeder 22

S. No. Equipment Cost ($/hr.)

1 Concrete Pump 11.85

Table 1. Hourly Wage Rates

IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL A
For our first proposed improvement to the observed process, we looked
exclusively at a need of the helper. We concluded that having the helper on during
the activity is wasteful and assigning his work between chute operator and vibrator
operator will improve the productivity while making changes to the crew balance.
The improvement not only reduces the cost of operation by the daily wage of the
helper but also improves the productivity of the job by cutting down on excess idle
time. Figure 2. in the appendix shows the crew balance for this improvement
proposal A.

PAGE | 11
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

PROCESS CHART

Flow Sequence Operation Transportation Inspection Storage

Concrete mixer
arrival
Concrete dumping
on conveyor
Placing of concrete
Vibrating of
Concrete
Screeding
Concrete Finishing
Inspection of
finished concrete

ANALYSIS

Cycle Time (sec) 520

Productivity (CY/man-hr.) 12.46
Unit Cost ($/CY) 1.88
Output (CY/hr.) 62.31
Total Cost ($) 116.85
Table 2. Details of Cost for Improvement A

IMPLEMENTATION
To put this proposal into action, one of the observed worker (helper) will be
removed and his task will be reassigned to other two workers. By implementing this
improvement, the unit cost will be reduced by 13%. No extra labor or equipment is
employed for this improvement and no training is involved.

IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL B
The second improvement that we have proposed involves removal of one
vibrator operator during this activity. The vibration in the base cycle is being done
as a 2-man job, with one person holding the vibrator and the other holding the whip.
The same equipment, however, can be used as a strap-on device and be operated by
one man. The device, therefore, can be operated by one man, thus eliminating the

PAGE | 12
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

need for a second vibrator operator. The work of helper which was being done by
the second vibrator operator is now being done by the screeder, thus increasing the
screeders productivity. This improvement reduces the whole cost of the operation
by the daily wage amount of the second vibrator operator. The crew balance chart
for this improvement proposal B can be found in Figure. 3 in the appendix.

PROCESS CHART

Flow Sequence Operation Transportation Inspection Storage

Concrete mixer
arrival
Concrete dumping
on conveyor
Placing of concrete
Vibrating of
Concrete
Screeding
Concrete Finishing
Inspection of
finished concrete

ANALYSIS

Cycle Time (sec) 520

Productivity (CY/man-hr.) 15.58
Unit Cost ($/CY) 1.59
Output (CY/hr.) 62.31
Total Cost ($) 98.85
Table 3. Details of Cost for Improvement B

IMPLEMENTATION
This proposal involves translating workload of two workers to one. Since
there is no cut down in the idle time of the crew, the output remains the same. While
trying to decide whether to remove one vibrator operator even when there is no

PAGE | 13
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

improvement in cycle time; we observed that the unit cost is being reduced. Thus,
we could increase the productivity of the cycle by 25%.

IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL C
For our third improvement proposal to the observed process, we realized that
productivity in the base cycle is good but there is room for improvement. After
thoroughly observing the crew, we found that there is a lot of inactivity during the
cycle. With none of the workers delivering the best. Hence, we suggested a
productivity improvement for the whole crew and therefore the complete cycle. By
eliminating the idle time for all the workers down to the minimum, we get a crew
cycle which is highly productive and efficient. This rearrangement reduces the cycle
time by 40 seconds, which is very good for production at the end of the day. This
final production cycle is not too rigid and not all soft. The workers will be at their
most efficient selves here and thus the entire process is optimized and at its most
productive. The crew balance chart for this improvement proposal B can be found
in Figure. 4 in the appendix.

PROCESS CHART

Flow Sequence Operation Transportation Inspection Storage

Concrete mixer
arrival
Concrete dumping
on conveyer
Placing of concrete
Vibrating of
Concrete
Screeding
Concrete Finishing
Inspection of
finished concrete

PAGE | 14
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

ANALYSIS

Cycle Time (sec) 480

Productivity (CY/man-hr.) 16.88
Unit Cost ($/CY) 1.46
Output (CY/hr.) 67.50
Total Cost ($) 98.85
Table 4. Details of Cost for Improvement C

IMPLEMENTATION
This improvement retains the workforce size as it was after improvement 1.
The only change made in this improvement is a maximum reduction in idle time.
Applying these adjustments to the cycle, we observed 25% reduction of idle time for
vibrator operator, 28.57% for screeder and 50% for finisher respectively. Therefore,
improving the overall productivity by 8.3%.

The improvements provided are

not exhaustive, but they illustrate
clearly how minute improvements
can result in delivering a high-
productivity, high-quality and
economic product.

PAGE | 15
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

SUMMARY OF COST
Original Improvement 1 Improvement 2 Improvement 3
Cycle
Men/Crew 6 5 4 4
Cycle Time (sec) 520 520 520 480
Total cost ($) 134.85 116.85 98.85 98.85
Output (CY/hr.) 62.31 62.31 62.31 67.50
Unit Cost ($/CY) 2.16 1.88 1.59 1.46
Productivity 10.38 12.46 15.58 16.88
(CY/man-hr.)
Table 5. Cost Summary of the observed construction activity

PAGE | 16
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

PAGE | 17
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

CONCLUSION
After performing the analysis of the existing operation and investigating
proposals for three different improvements, improvement proposal C exhibits the
highest productivity at 16.88 CY/man-hr. This is done by reducing the idle time of
the crew to its least. In addition, this improvement inherits the best of earlier
improvements and ends up having a cycle time of 480 seconds, a total cost of $98.85
and a unit cost of $1.46/CY.

Though the output stays the same even after two improvements, the first two
improvement proposal showed some significant improvements in productivity. In
addition, improvements made in both proposal A and B could reduce the unit cost
from $2.16 to $1.88 and $1.59 respectively.

KEY POINTS:
Construction creates the built environment within
which each citizen works, rests and plays. It has a
profound impact on how people undertake their work,
as well as their health and wellbeing. Creating
buildings that are effective is, therefore, essential to
raising productivity.
Raising productivity within construction paves the
way for increasing earnings and attracting more
skilled and talented people, improving the industrys
reputation and enhancing its potential to export
services and know-how to overseas markets.

PAGE | 18
 Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

APPENDIX
Legend:
Chute operation
Vibrating
Screeding

Finishing

Hammering
Occupied
Idle
Waiting

Time (in Chute Concrete

Vibrator 1 Vibrator 2 Screeder Finisher Helper
sec) Operator Pump

0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
140-160
160-180
180-200
200-220
220-240
240-260
260-280
280-300
300-320
320-340
340-360
360-380
380-400
400-420
420-440
440-460
460-480
480-500
500-520
Figure 1. Base Cycle Crew Balance Chart

PAGE | 19
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

Time
Chute Operator Vibrator 1 Vibrator 2 Screeder Finisher Concrete Pump
(in sec)

0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
140-160
160-180
180-200
200-220
220-240
240-260
260-280
280-300
300-320
320-340
340-360
360-380
380-400
400-420
420-440
440-460
460-480
480-500
500-520
Figure 2. Improvement Proposal A Crew Balance Chart

PAGE | 20
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

Chute Concrete
Time (in sec) Vibrator 1 Screeder Finisher
Operator Pump

0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
140-160
160-180
180-200
200-220
220-240
240-260
260-280
280-300
300-320
320-340
340-360
360-380
380-400
400-420
420-440
440-460
460-480
480-500
500-520
Figure 3. Improvement Proposal B Crew Balance Chart

PAGE | 21
Team Arabtec Construction Productivity Spring 2017

Chute Concrete
Time (in sec) Vibrator 1 Screeder Finisher
Operator Pump

0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
140-160
160-180
180-200
200-220
220-240
240-260
260-280
280-300
300-320
320-340
340-360
360-380
380-400
400-420
420-440
440-460
460-480
Figure 4. Improvement Proposal C Crew Balance Chart

PAGE | 22