An exploratory study of the relationship between construction workforce physical strain and task level productivity

Abstract

The monitoring of construction workforce physical strain can be a valuable management strategy in improving workforce productivity, safety, health, and quality of work. Nevertheless, clear relationships between workforce performance and physical strain have yet to be established. An exploratory investigation of the relationship between task level productivity and physical strain was conducted. Nine participants individually performed a four-hour simulated construction task while a wearable physiological status monitor continuously assessed their physiological condition. Heart rate, relative heart rate, and breathing rate were utilized as predictors of physical strain, and task level-single factor productivity was used as an index of productivity. Numerous regression models were generated using the collected data. This investigation initially unsuccessfully attempted to establish a relationship between physiological condition and productivity at the individual worker level. However, an analysis of the regression models showed that there is a relationship between productivity and either heart rate or relative heart rate at the group level, and that this relationship is parabolic. Breathing rate was proved to not be a significant predictor of productivity. Research results significantly improve understanding of the relationship between work physiology and task productivity. Researchers and practitioners may use the tested monitoring devices, analysis methods, and results to design further applied studies and to improve workforce productivity.

Safety first? Production pressures and the implications on safety and health

“…Such discourse is valuable and persuasive yet empirical evidence of a causal link between productivity and safety is not extensive. In 2014 this journal's special issue on Productivity Improvement in the Construction Industry (see Kenley, 2014) only one article considered a link with Gatti et al (2014) providing details of a US study on the relationship between physical strain and individual productivity. This concept of how an outcome of increased productivity provides for an effect on safety is explored by a number of scholars.…”

Coping Strategies Adopted by Construction Employees to Deal with the Causes and Effects of Occupational Psychological Disorders: A Study in Ghana

“…Both construction professionals and construction trade workers contribute significantly in their unique way to the outcomes of every construction project, in terms of cost, time and quality [1] [7]. Psychological health conditions of construction employees could lead to poor task performance [8], low productivity [9], high turnover [10], high absenteeism [11], high work-place accidents [12], increased physical health problems [7], and poor working relationships [13] at the construction industry.…”

Trajectory-Based Worker Task Productivity Monitoring

“…In addition, earthmoving equipment is used for only one type of tasks whereas workers perform a much larger variety. Physiological data such as heart rate (beats/minute), breathe rate (breaths/minute), body's force and angular rate [31][32][33] are acquired through physiological status monitoring (PSMs) and inertial measurement unit (IMU) wearable sensors. The physiological data are used for training machine learning-based classification methods similarly to the studies that exploit posture data.…”

“…The physiological data are used for training machine learning-based classification methods similarly to the studies that exploit posture data. However, it has been proven that heart and breathe rates cannot establish any relationship with individual's labour productivity [31]. On the other hand, body's force and angular rate, extracted with accelerometers and gyroscopes of IMUs sensors, achieved a promising performance (≈80% accuracy) in terms of detecting and labelling activities such as hammering, sawing, turning a wrench, loading/unloading/pushing a wheelbarrow [32].…”