Feedback Loop—The Missing Link in Activity Analysis

  • Hasse H. NeveEmail author
  • Søren Wandahl
  • Jon Lerche
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


Construction productivity has been stagnating and declining for decades. Thus, developing continuous improvement processes is crucial. The aim of this research has been to explore if the 3rd step “analyse” in the 5-step activity analysis continuous improvement process could be further developed to, in one workflow, set targets, identify improvement areas, unveil root courses and create motivation for change in an integral way fitting the existing five-step process. An exploratory single case study was used to collect data through the methods of activity sampling, semi structured interviews and observations. The research showed that a workflow called the Feedback Loop, involving craftsmen, foremen and an activity analysis analyst, could set targets, identify improvement areas, unveil root causes and create motivation for change. This was done by empowering craftsmen and foremen, in collaboration with the activity analysis analyst, to analyse the activity sample in a 7-step Feedback Loop fitting the existing 3rd step “analyse”. The implications of this research are that we could adjust the already well proven activity analysis continuous improvement process to improve future results. The conclusion is that the Feedback Loop worked in this project and trade, but further research is needed in other contexts.


Activity analysis Work sampling Continuous improvement Productivity Refurbishment 



This research is part of the REVALUE research project, a USD 3.4 million research project on refurbishment of social housing buildings sponsored by The Innovation Fund Denmark.

Furthermore, the support and openness from the case contractors and sub-contractors, and the help from engineering students to collect data have been highly valuable.


  1. Alarcón LF (1993) Modeling waste and performance in construction. In: Proceedings of first annual conference of the international group for lean construction, pp 51–66Google Scholar
  2. Ballard G (2000) The last planner system of production control. Ph.D. thesis, School of Civil Engineering, University of BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  3. Byggeri D (2018) Konjukturanalyse [Economic Analysis]Google Scholar
  4. Choy E, Ruwanpura JY (2006) Predicting construction productivity using situation-based simulation models. Can J Civ Eng 33(12):1585–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christian J, Hachey D (1995) Effects of delay times on production rates in construction. J Constr Eng Manag 121(1):20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CII (2010) Guide to activity analysis. University of Texas, TXGoogle Scholar
  7. Da Silva SFP (2006) Developing planning best practices to improve construction productivity. M.Sc. thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, AltaGoogle Scholar
  8. Danish-Government (2014) Strategy for energy renovation of buildings: the route to energy-efficient buildings in tomorrow’s, Denmark. Build UpGoogle Scholar
  9. Farmer M (2016) The farmer review of the UK construction labour model. Construction Leadership Council. Available from:
  10. Gong J, Borcherding JD, Caldas CH (2011) Effectiveness of craft time utilization in construction projects. Constr Manag Econ 29(7):737–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gouett MC, Haas CT, Goodrum PM, Caldas CH (2011) Activity analysis for direct-work rate improvement in construction. J Constr Eng Manag 137(12):1117–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hajikazemi S, Andersen B, Langlo JA (2017) Analyzing electrical installation labor productivity through work sampling. Int J Product Perform Manag 66(4):539–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Handa VK, Abdalla O (1989) Forecasting productivity by work sampling. Constr Manag Econ 7(1):19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hwang BG, Krishnankutty P, Zhu L, Caldas CH, Shounak A, Mulva S (2018) Improving labour productivity in process construction maintenance and shutdown/turnaround projects. Int J Constr Manag 1–15Google Scholar
  15. IPPC (2018) Global warming of 1.5 degree celsius. IPPC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes. Available from:
  16. Josephson PE, Björkman L (2013) Why do work sampling studies in construction? The case of plumbing work in Scandinavia. J Eng Constr Archit Manag 20(6):589–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaming PF, Olomolaiye PO, Holt GD, Harris FC (1997) Factors influencing craftsmen’s productivity in Indonesia. Int J Project Manag 15(1):21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaplan RS, Cooper R (1998) Cost & effect: using integrated cost systems to drive profitability and performance. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  19. Kenley R, Seppänen O (2010) Location-based management for construction—planning, scheduling and control. Spoon Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Koskela L (2004) Making-do—the eighth category of waste. In: Proceedings of 12th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Helsingør, Denmark, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  21. LCICG (2012) Technology innovation needs assessment (TINA)—non-domestic buildings summary report. LCICG: Low Carbon Innovation Coordination GroupGoogle Scholar
  22. Liker JK, Meier D (2006) The Toyota way fieldbook: a practical guide for implementing Toyota’s 4Ps. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Neve H, Wandahl S (2018) Towards identifying making-do as lead waste in refurbishment projects. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the international group for lean construction,, pp 1354–1364Google Scholar
  24. Olomolaiye PO, Wahab KA, Price ADF (1987) Problems influencing craftsmen’s productivity in Nigeria. Build Environ 22(4):317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parker N, Lema N, Mlingwa G (1987) An analysis of labour productivity in Tanzania. In: Proceedings of 5th CIB W65 International symposium on the organisation and management of construction: managing construction worldwide. E. & F. N. Spon, pp 835–845Google Scholar
  26. Peer S (1986) An improved systematic activity sampling technique for work study. Constr Manag Econ 4(2):151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Picard HE (2002) Construction process measurement and improvement. In: Proceedings of 10th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Gramado, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  28. Ravetz J (2008) State of the stock—what do we know about existing buildings and their future prospects? Energy Policy 36(12):4462–4470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ritchie BW, Burns PM, Palmer CA (2005) Tourism research methods: integrating theory with practice. Cabi PublishingGoogle Scholar
  30. Shahtaheri M (2012) Setting target rates for construction activity analysis categories. Master of Applied Science thesis, University of WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  31. Terp BE, Christiansen NM, Lindegaard IM (1987) Metode Styring—Produktionsteknik (Method management—production technology). Erhversskolernes Forlag, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomas HR, Daily J (1983) Crew performance measurement via activity sampling. J Constr Eng Manag 109(3):309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thune-Holm E, Johansen K (2006) Produktivitetsmålinger i Skanska [Productivity measurement in Skanska]. Internal Skanska Report, OsloGoogle Scholar
  34. Tippet LHC (1935) A snap reading method of making time studies of machines and operatives in factory surveys. J Br Text Inst Trans 26Google Scholar
  35. Winch G, Carr B (2001) Benchmarking on-site productivity in France and the UK: a CALIBRE approach. Constr Manag Econ 19(6):577–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Womack JP, Jones DT (1996) Lean thinking: banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. Simon and Shuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Yin RK (2009) Case study research—design and methods. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EngineeringAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Business Development and TechnologyAarhus UniversityHerningDenmark

Personalised recommendations