See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316675208

INCENTIVE SCHEMES AS CORRELATES OF CONSTRUCTION WORKERS’

PRODUCTIVITY ON BUILDING SITES IN SOUTH-SOUTH, NIGERIA

Article · April 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 1,009

1 author:

Timothy Olubanwo Adewuyi

University of Uyo
20 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evaluation of the Level of Adoption of Sustainability Practices among Construction Firms in Niger- Delta, Nigeria View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Timothy Olubanwo Adewuyi on 04 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

Editorial Committee:

Editor-in-Chief Business Editor

Prof. Joseph Uyanga Dr. Jacob Atser
[email protected] [email protected]
+ 2348073298115
+ 2348036758258
Associate Editors JED Vol. 12, No. 1, April, 2017
Asso. Prof. Dr. Faith Ekong Department of Urban and Regional Planning University of Uyo,
Uyo.
Dr. Enoidem N.A Udoh. Department of Fine & Industrial Arts University of Uyo, Uyo.
Dr. Francis Udoudoh Department of Estate Management University of Uyo, Uyo.
Asso. Prof. Dr. A. A. Mbina Department of Architecture University of Uyo,Uyo.
Dr. Adu Emmanuel Department of Quantity Surveying University of U yo, Uyo.
Dr. AkwaowoEkpa Geoinformatics, University of Uyo, Uyo.
Dr. Akaninyene A Umoh Department of Building University of Uyo, Uyo.

Consulting Editors
Prof. Felix Ilesanmi School of Environmental Sciences, Modibbo Adama University of
Technology, Yola.
Prof. Ekpo M. Osom Faculty of Agriculture University of Swaziland, Swaziland.
Dr. P. C. Nwilo Department of Surveying & Geoinformatics University of Lagos.
Prof. I. Ukpong Department of Geography University of Uyo, Uyo.
Prof. I. C. Ugwu Department of Urban & Regional Planning Enugu State University of
Science and Technology, Enugu
Prof. B. Agbola Department of Urban & Regional Planning University of Ibadan,
Ibadan.
Prof. Des Wilson Department of Communication Arts University of Uyo, Uyo.
Prof. O. B. Ekop Department of Urban & Regional Planning University of Uyo, Uyo.
Prof. Hilary Inyang Global Institute for Energy & Environmental System, University of
North Carolina at Chariore, USA.
Prof. O. K. Oyeoku Department of Fine & Applied Arts University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Prof. D. Eka Department of English University of Uyo

Website: www. jedesigns

e-mail: [email protected]

[ iv ]
JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design

INCENTIVE SCHEMES AS CORRELATES OF CONSTRUCTION WORKERS’

PRODUCTIVITY ON BUILDING SITES IN SOUTH-SOUTH, NIGERIA

Timothy O. Adewuyi1* and Felix E. Effiong2

1
Department of Building, University of Uyo, Uyo, Nigeria
2
Department of Building, Akwa Ibom State Polytechnic, Ikot Osurua, Ikot Ekpene, Nigeria
*Corresponding author email: [email protected]

Abstract
Productivity is of paramount importance to individuals, organisations and the nation as an entity due to its
economic implications. This study evaluated the construction workers’ productivity in the study area and
assessed the correlations between the level of use of incentive schemes and workers’ productivity in the study
area. A cross sectional survey research design was espoused to accomplish the delineated objectives. The
data were analysed with the use of mean score, relative ratio and Spearman’s Rank correlations. Eighteen
among the thirty incentive schemes assessed were found to be significant, with their mean scores in the range
of 3.53 ≤ . ≤ 4.51.The first three highest productivity levels were obtained during plain concrete operation,
trench excavation and the laying of 225mm thick blocks with relative ratios of 1.902, 1.701, and 1.531 with
reference to their benchmarks respectively.The comparison of construction workers’ productivity based on
selected operations among the States in the in study area showed insignificant variation and conclusions were
made in that direction except for only three operations (Laying of interlocking, Roof covering, and Fixing of
water closet).The determination of existence of correlations between the level of use of incentive schemes
and the level of productivity of construction workers shows that between 3.31% and 25.0% of the
productivity improvement for some of the operations studied could be explained by the type of incentive
schemes adopted on site. It was, therefore, concluded that there is significant correlation between incentive
schemes used on building site and the level of productivity of construction workers. This study recommends
that construction firms in the country should carefully select appropriate incentive schemes to improve the
productivity of construction workers.
Keywords: Building Site; Construction workers; Correlation; Incentive scheme; Level of use;
Productivity

Introduction
The Nigerian construction industry is not only an intrinsic part of the economy, but also a
significant part because of its contribution to the economy (Aina and Omoniyi, 2014). Globally,
the construction sector is recognised as a strategic part of every society, it is one of the largest
employers and attracts a large amount of investment (both public and private), while being
responsible for providing necessary infrastructure to the nations (Hickson and Ellis,
2014).Construction labour productivity demands the attention of both experts and academics
because it affects project cost and time overrun (AbdulKadir, Lee and Sapuan,2005,
Siriwardena and Ruwanpura, 2012; Muzamil and Khurshid, 2014). Most studies have shown
that productivity or output, especially in developing countries, are low (Fagbenle, Adeyemi and
Adesanya, 2004; Tran and Tookey, 2011). The construction sector is also characterized by poor
time and cost performance, sometimes leading to outright abandonment of the projects and one
of the factors responsible for overruns is poor productivity in the sector among others. Some
observers of the trend in the construction industry concluded that much of the leakage associated
with rising building costs had occurred in labour, where weak output had eroded investments
[ 55 ] Timothy Adewuyi and Felix Effiong
JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design
made by contractors (Hickson and Ellis, 2014). Thus, improving the productivity of labour
constitutes a prime target in construction (Tran and Tookey, 2011).

Productivity is expressed in many ways but generally as the ratio of output to resources
which are consumed to produce that output. It is described as the average direct labour
hours required to install a unit of material. In construction, labour productivity is often
expressed as a number of labour hours per unit of work; and or the quantity of work
performed by a crew during a standard eight-hour day (Fagbenle, Ogunde and Owolabi,
2011). In a broader sense, it may also measure how much value a worker adds to the
economy per unit time.

On the other hand, monitoring and measuring performance of incentive schemes to raise
productivity level is crucial for successful implementation of incentive schemes. Incentive
schemes that are not monitored and evaluated firmly and systematically against intended
business outcomes would have little or no business impact. If a process is not measured it
cannot be managed. Incentive schemes require continual review and redirection (Aina,
2011).Incentives schemes are usually utilised in the construction industry to generate
higher level of performance from works, promote greater output, reduce cost of production
and increase workers’ earning through a system which recognises difference in
performance and ties pay of performance. Fagbenle, Adeyemi and Adesanya (2004)
revealed that the application of non-financial incentive schemes increases the productive
time of bricklayers and consequently enhances productivity, as incentive schemes were
responsible for 26% increase in outputs of bricklaying and concreting activities measured
on building sites in some selected town in Nigeria.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 2006) asserted that incentives and
incentive systems are essential to evolving capacities and to translating developed
capacities into better performance. However, a matter of concern to construction manager
is whether the use of incentives necessarily increases worker’s productivity at all time and
in all construction situations. Harris and McCaffer (2001) stated that in the absence of a
simple, straight-forward formula to control human behaviour, construction managers have
the duty to continuously devised best solution to induce better performance. To corroborate
the above assertion, Fagbenle, Adeyemi and Adesanya (2004) reported an empirical study
in the United Kingdom (UK) which did not reveal any discernible impact of incentive on
worker’s productivity but rather hinged output on skill level and tools.

Lai (2009) opined that motivated employees are the foundation stones of any fruitful
enterprise. Understanding motivation theory and being able to apply the theory to the
labour force plays an important role in increasing productivity (Gonzalez, 1991).
Substantiating this assertion, Fagbenle, Ogunde and Owolabi (2011) affirmed that
researchers suggested that in order to have any meaningful improvement in construction
workers’ performance, contractors must study the peculiarities of their workers and also
identify their main motivators. Labour productivity has always been an issue for project
[ 56 ]
JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design
managers in order to produce results. Concerns have also been raised about the choices of
particular scheme either financial or non-financial, whether incentive schemes actually
raise construction workers output in all circumstances, and the measurement of the actual
impact generated (Abdusalam, Faki and Dardau, 2012). According to Adewuyi and Effiong
(2016), the South-South geopolitical zone has witnessed an unprecedented increase in
volume of construction activities in recent times owing to increased Government
interventions through establishment of development agencies such as the Niger-Delta
Development Commission (NDDC) as well as increased revenue available to State
Governments to spend on construction projects. According to Odesola (2012) the South-
South geo-political zone of Nigeria is noted for its peculiarity in terms of climatic
condition, socio-political and economic problems and previous productivity studies have
shown that the aforementioned features of the zone affects construction labour
productivity. Therefore, one wonders, despite the development-drive gesture of Federal
Government towards the zone, if there is corresponding increase of the workers’ output
with respect to construction sector.

This study is therefore set out to evaluate the level of workers’ productivity for selected
construction operations in the study area; and determine the correlation between the use of
incentive scheme and workers’ productivity. Two hypotheses guided the study to detect if
there is the consequence of location factor which affect the level of productivity and the
discernable pattern of association between incentive and workers’ productivity in the
construction industry in the South-South geopolitical zone in Nigeria.
i. Ho1 There is no significant variation among the workers’ productivity based
on selected operations in the study area; and
ii. Ho2 There is no significant correlation between the use of incentive scheme
and workers’ productivity level.

Review of Relevant Literature

The construction industry is one of the most labour intensive industries and human
resources cover a large proportion of the project cost, particularly, the construction industry
in Nigeria which has remained largely non-mechanised with heavy reliance on large
number of manual workers (Aina and Omoniyi, 2014). Labour is defined as a task that
requires the exertion of body and mind (Fagbenle, Ogunde and Owolabi, 2011), and
remains the most essential and complex resources that the construction manager will have
to deal with. The unparalleled rise in construction demand, dearth of trained construction
workers, enervating weather conditions, complexity of the construction procedure, poor
supervision and delays in receiving instruction have been cited as factors contributing to
the decline of labour output in Nigeria construction sector (Fagbenle, Adeyemi and
Adesanya, 2004), and that of the developing countries like New Zealand (Page and
Norman, 2014). Failure by project managers to effectively motivate operatives has been
identified to cause productivity to decline. Those managers that seek to understand human
behaviour and apply the principles of motivation theory to motivating the construction
workers can and nearly always benefit through improved productivity. The construction
[ 57 ]
JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design
manager is required, among other things, to advance strategies to motivate and grow the
spirit of teamwork among his workforce because motivation is an imperative aspect in
attaining an environment of good industries relations. In fact, it is in the interest of a project
that the labour force is contented.

Labour productivity in construction has been found to lag behind; it has been the lowest
among other sectors (Page and Norman, 2014). Construction performance and productivity
improvement are ceaseless emphasis in construction industry of every nation because
productivity in the industry is of utmost importance to the economic health of a nation. It
has always been a key issue for project managers to improve their project results and
productivity studies are getting special emphasis in developing countries (Musamil and
Khurshid, 2014). A prime task in construction is to bring about a climate conducive for
management, workforce and resources to combine effectively and efficiently towards
raising productivity, which is achieving a given level of output with fewer inputs, while
also providing high reward to those involved (Harris and McCaffer, 2001). Furthermore,
productivity is of great importance to the individual worker, the organisation and the
national economy at large (Aina and Omoniyi, 2014). Higher productivity is observed to
have the capacity to reduce the unit cost of construction while providing increased earnings
for workers. Huge proportion of government’s budget running into billions of Naira is
invested annually into buildings and infrastructural construction projects. Therefore, an
improvement in productivity within the industry will result in huge financial savings that
will produce cheaper and more affordable building with shorter construction periods. This
will improve overall time-cost performance of building projects. Moreover, construction
firms/contractors will benefit from any effort to improve site workers’ productivity as this
study is attempting to do.

Soham and Rajiv (2013) opined that due to the fact that profit margins are small on
construction projects, cost saving associated with productivity improvements are crucial to
becoming a successful contractor. Construction workers’ productivity in Nigeria has been
shown to be very low and this has been the trend for over decade (Page and Norman, 2014).
There has also been some concern from the perspective of behavioural science as to
whether the use of incentive scheme actually increases workers’ productivity at all times
and in all construction situations, considering the unpredictability of human behaviour.

One of the most important factors that affect the productivity of workmen, according to
Saka and Ajayi (2010) is the welfare or incentive scheme provided by the contractor. To
buttress the point, Bryson, Lucifora, Pellizari and Perotin (2012) submitted that the growth
in incentive pay has been fostered by widespread concern over the existence of
inefficiencies in the workplace and the belief that incentive pay can raise productivity
growth and improve profitability. Aina (2011) considers incentives as rewards given to an
individual or group that cause them to respond with specific behaviours, and the purpose
of incentive schemes is to motivate workers to achieve higher workplace performance.
Corroborating this assertion, Bryson, Freeman, Lucifora, Pellizari and Perotin, (2012)
[ 58 ]
JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design
remarked that in recent decades, the compensation packages of a growing proportion of
firms include pay schemes that are linked to employee or company performance. To bolster
the reasoning, it was explained that incentive schemes are meant to motivate individual
workers to be more efficient at work and increase their attachment and identification with
the interests of the enterprise. In the same vein, improvement in interpersonal relationships,
job satisfaction, low absenteeism and waste of intermediate material or capital, and lower
turnover rates, are all expected outcomes of incentives and should produce lasting effect
on company performance.

Abdulsalam, Faki and Dardau (2012) are of the view that the concept of construction
productivity and the needs for incentive schemes towards improving the performance of
artisan has long been established. Incentive schemes tie pay increase to performance and
have been used by organisation worldwide with remarkable success (Ude and Coker,
2012). The idea conveyed the notion that the use of incentive schemes is a major method
construction organisations employ to improve workers’ productivity. In fact, it has become
an integral part of the development of most construction firms in the world (Aina and
Omomiyi, 2014; Aina and Akinyemi, 2014).

Incentive scheme is any system of remuneration in which the amount earned is dependent
on the results obtained; therefore, offering an employee an incentive is aimed at achieving
better results. Incentive may be positive or negative, tangible or intangible (Aina, 2011). A
positive incentive rewards the employee for superior performance, whereas a negative
incentive consists of some form of penalty for poor performance. Though, the fear involved
in negative incentives maybe occasionally necessary for maintaining discipline, they are
not long lasting, and are hence unsuitable for increasing production. Some experts even
argued that incentive is a cost (expense) to an organisation and have linked incentives to
certain behaviour modification problems such as strained relationship among colleagues
and stifling of creativity (Ude and Coker, 2012). Therefore, this study is set to pinpoint the
direction of association between the use of positive incentive schemes on building sites and
the level of productivity achieved and also in comparison with the theoretical benchmark.

Methodology
This study espoused a cross sectional survey research design to accomplish the delineated
objectives. Professionals such as Architects, Builders, Engineers (Civil, Structural and
Services) and Quantity Surveyors who are financial members of their professional bodies
and engaged in the employ of private construction contracting firms in major cities and
towns of the study area formed the population of this study. Professionals in the
employment of Ministries, Departments and Government Agencies (MDAs) were not
included in the study. The latter categories were excluded because the challenges of
initiating incentive schemes, other than the ones approved by their employers, might not
rest squarely on their soldiers unlike their counterparts in private firms. Major cities like
Uyo, Ikot Ekpene and Eket in Akwa Ibom State, Calabar in Cross River State and Port
[ 59 ]
JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design
Harcourt in Rivers State were embraced by the study as the concentrations of the
professionals are found there.

The breakdown of the population size for each of the States revealed that there are 75, 52
and 112 in the employment of private construction contracting firms in Akwa Ibom, Cross
Rivers and Rivers respectively, totalling 239, who are professionally registered and
financially committed to their various professional bodies. The sample size was determined
based on 95 percent confidence level for 5 percent margins of error using the Taro Yamane
formula for finite population as stated in Equation 1 (Yamane, 1967). A calculated sample
size of 150 was obtained and subsequently the same number of questionnaires was
distributed across the sampled States following the respective ratio of 0.31, 0.22 and 0.47
of the population from each State. This was done to ensure a good representative sample
in each of the States covered by this study.
0
= * Equation 1
120 3
where:
n = sample size
N = finite population
e = error margin

The selection of sampled professionals for this study was based on probability sampling,
using the stratified random sampling technique. The stratification of the population was
necessitated by the intended comparison of the workers’ productivity among the States in
the study area. Field studies were undertaken using questionnaires survey to identify the
types of incentives scheme currently in use on construction sites in the study area, the
benchmark for workers’ productivity for the selected construction operations and to
determine the correlation between the level of use of these incentive schemes and
productivity. The determination of level of use of the identified incentive schemes
employed their mean scores using Equation 2, with the greatest mean representing the
mostly used and their ranks guided the knowledge of their hierarchical use in the study
area.
∑:;<( 78 98
45 = ∑:;<( 98
, 1 ≤ 45 ≤ 5 Equation 2
where:
Wi, is the rating given to each factor by the respondents ranging from 1 to 5, with 1
representing ‘rarely used’ and 5 representing ‘always used;
Xi is the level of scoring; and
iis the order number of respondents.

The level of productivity of construction site workers were measured for selected
operations. The likely minimum (benchmark) and maximum levels of productivity for each
of the selected operations were established through several studies reviewed and pilot study
while the range were divided into five equal intervals of Likert scale for uniformity purpose
and to ease the analysis of the data collected.To enable the conversion of Likert scale used
[ 60 ]
JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design
for coding of the level of productivity, the scale (Figure 1 for an example) adapted from
Adewuyi and Odesola (2016) was used to obtain the MS which was then classified into
productivity interval of construction workers as proposed in the methodology on reports of
findings from previous studies. The five-point rating scale for the levels of productivity
from 1 to 5 represents both extremes of each of the operation in question accordingly. The
numbering values calculated by the above were then differently classified as can be seen
in Figure 1, because a single point or number changing from 1-5 in questions does not
symbolize each verbal scaling expression in the evaluation phase, since the results (MS)
are obtained as decimal numbers instead of integers, a specific scale became necessary.
Therefore, the 5 scale expression was defined by the interval of 0.8 representing the
productivity interval as may be applicable to each operation. This was then used to multiply
the MS derived from the respondents’ perceptions to determine the perceived level of
productivity as expressed in Equation 3. The five-point scale was constructed with lowest
and highest productivity level as assessed by the instrument for data collection at the
extreme left and right respectively as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 as examples for trench
excavation and 225mm thick block laying respectively.

1.00 1.80 2.60 3.40 4.20 5.00

Min + 1 Min + 2 Min + 3 Min + 4 Min + 5

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Figure 1: Evaluation Scale for Level of Productivity in Trench Excavation

PR = Min + MS * X Equation 3
where:
PR = Productivity;
MS = Mean Score as calculated in Equation 2; and
X = Interval (units)

[ 61 ]
 JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design

1.00 1.80 2.60 3.40 4.20 5.00

Min + 10 Min + 20 Min +30 Min + 40 Min + 50

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Figure 2: Evaluation Scale for Level of Productivity in 225mm thick Block laying.

To determine the existence of correlation between the level of use of incentive schemes
and the level of productivity of construction workers, the two variables were correlated
using Spearman’s Rank correlation method. The Pareto (“80/20”) principle was applied,
which states that only 20% of contributing factors are responsible for 80% of effects
(Kulemeka, Kululanga, and Morton, 2015). Therefore, twenty percent (20%) of the
incentive schemes examined was calculated which is six (6) incentive schemes (i.e., 20%
of the incentive schemes examined that are likely to contribute to the majority of effects of
the improvement in productivity as a result of incentivising the workers).

Results and Discussion

The returned valid questionnaires were one hundred and twenty-three (123) amounting to
82% response rate of the 150 distributed. The analyses were conducted with thirty-seven
(37) copies of questionnaires received from Akwa Ibom, twenty-eight (28) copies from
Cross River and fifty-eight (58) copies from Rivers States. The results of the analyses are
discussed as follows:
Level of Construction Workers’ Productivity for some Selected Operations
For the purpose of evaluating the level of workers’ productivity for some selected
operations on building sites in the study area, twenty operations were selected and
presented to respondents for subjective assessment. The productivity level of each selected
operation was evaluated with respect to the benchmark or expected output as obtained in
the construction industry which shows the ratio of the former to the latter. The outcomes
of the analyses are presented in Tables 1 representing the selected States of Akwa Ibom,
Cross Rivers and Rivers.

The result in Table 1 indicates that the highest productivity level is derived during plain
concrete operation in Akwa Ibom State followed by trench excavation and fixing of panel
doors operations respectively. While the laying of 100mm PVC diameter pipe, fixing of
600mm long louvre blade, and cutting, bending and fixing of reinforcement bars with ratio
scores of 1.081, 1.126, and 1.199 respectively, are the three operations with least
productivity. This result may be as a result of the skill level of the artisans concerned.
Sometimes, a welder may present himself as an iron bender, without having been tutored
on bar bending expertise in construction, which may lower his productivity level. The same
phenomenon may hold during laying of pipes. It is not uncommon with artisans to claim
[ 62 ]
 JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design
knowledge or expertise of these two operations as an individual. Such practices, if allowed
by the supervisors on site, usually result in bad workmanship and low productivity.

Table 1: Results of Workers’ Productivity by State

AKS CRS RVS
Operations Unit B
OM OM/B R OM OM/B R OM OM/B R
Trench excavation m3 2.5 4.797 1.919 2 3.841 1.536 2 4.119 1.648 2
Backfilling of trench m3 3.5 4.986 1.425 9 4.568 1.305 11 4.857 1.388 7
225mm blocklaying No 40 66.216 1.655 4 57.955 1.449 3 59.524 1.488 3
13mm thick plastering m2 12 15.243 1.270 14 14.636 1.220 14 15.095 1.258 14
40mm thick screed bed m3 10 14.270 1.427 8 13.455 1.345 6 13.381 1.338 11
Plain concrete m3 2 4.486 2.243 1 3.568 1.784 1 3.357 1.679 1
Laying of interlocking m2 20 26.486 1.324 13 26.136 1.307 10 27.619 1.381 8
Fixing of formwork Length 5 7.081 1.416 10 6.682 1.336 8 6.857 1.371 9
Timber carcass m3 50 62.973 1.259 15 61.591 1.232 13 64.048 1.281 13
Roof covering m2 50 69.459 1.389 11 67.273 1.345 6 70.238 1.405 5
Fixing of panel door No 3 5.081 1.694 3 4.136 1.379 5 4.214 1.405 5
Fixing of water closet No 3 4.703 1.568 6 3.409 1.136 19 3.714 1.238 15
Fixing of wash hand
basin length 3 4.946 1.649 5 3.886 1.295 12 3.976 1.325 12
Laying of 100mm PVC
diameter pipe No 20 21.622 1.081 20 23.523 1.176 15 24.286 1.214 16
Cutting, bending and
fixing of reinforcement
bars kg 80 95.946 1.199 18 92.955 1.162 16 95.476 1.193 17
Fixing of 600mm long
louvre blade No 60 67.568 1.126 19 67.727 1.129 20 70.000 1.167 20
Wall tilling m2 14 16.865 1.205 17 16.045 1.146 18 16.381 1.170 19
Floor tilling m2 14 16.973 1.212 16 16.091 1.149 17 16.476 1.177 18
PVC ceiling finishes m2 20 27.162 1.358 12 26.250 1.313 9 27.262 1.363 10
Emulsion paint m2 12 17.459 1.455 7 17.273 1.439 4 17.238 1.437 4
OM = Observed Mean; B = Benchmark; R = Rank; AKS = Akwa Ibom State; CRS = Cross River
State; RVS = Rivers State

The results derived for Cross Rivers State are very much similar to what was obtained in
Akwa Ibom State. The first two highest productivity levels are derived during plain
concrete operation and trench excavation but the laying of 225mm thick blocks ranked in
the third position as presented in Table 1. Fixing of 600mm long louvre blade, fixing of
water closet, and wall tilling, with ratio scores of 1.129, 1.136, and 1.146 respectively in
Cross Rivers State, are the three operations with least productivity as revealed in Table 1.
The artisan concerned with these operations may be wanting in terms of expertise required
to speed up their job or they may not have been incentivised at all, hence the low level of
their productivity. In the same vein, Table 1 presents the results of evaluating the
construction artisans’ productivity in Rivers State. The first three highest productivity
levels are obtained during plain concrete operation, trench excavation and the laying of
225mm thick blocks with ratios of 1.679, 1.648, and1.488 respectively. This is much
similar to the results obtained in Cross Rivers State. This may be attributable to similar
practices of incentive.
[ 63 ]
JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design

To ascertain the level of productivity common to the South-South region, the combined
evaluation was carried out and the result presented in Table 2. The result revealed that the
first three highest productivity levels are obtained during plain concrete operation, trench
excavation and the laying of 225mm thick blocks with relative ratios of 1.902, 1.701,
and1.531 respectively as presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Results of Workers’ Productivity in South-South Zone
S/N Operations Unit OM B OM/B Rank
1 Trench excavation m3 4.252 2.5 1.701 2
2 Backfilling of trench m3 4.804 3.5 1.373 9
3 225mm block laying no 61.232 40 1.531 3
4 13mm thick plastering m2 14.992 12 1.249 15
5 40mm thick screed bed m3 13.702 10 1.370 10
6 Plain concrete m3 3.804 2 1.902 1
7 Laying of interlocking m2 26.747 20 1.337 12
8 Fixing of formwork Length 6.873 5 1.375 8
9 Timber carcass m3 62.871 50 1.257 14
10 Roof covering m2 68.990 50 1.380 7
11 Fixing of panel door no 4.477 3 1.492 4
12 Fixing of water closet no 3.942 3 1.314 13
13 Fixing of wash hand basin length 4.270 3 1.423 6
14 Laying of 100mm PVC diameter pipe no 23.143 20 1.157 19
Cutting, bending and fixing of
15 reinforcement bars kg 94.792 80 1.185 16
16 Fixing of 600mm long louvre blade no 68.432 60 1.141 20
17 Wall tilling m2 16.430 14 1.174 18
18 Floor tilling m2 16.513 14 1.180 17
19 PVC ceiling finishes m2 26.891 20 1.345 11
20 Emulsion paint m2 17.323 12 1.444 5

A closer examination of the result in Table 2 suggests that the result might have been
influenced by the results from Cross River and Rivers States as the same phenomena held
in the two States. Nonetheless, there are slight differences as the three operations with the
least productivity are not completely the same. The fixing of 600mm long louvre blade, the
laying of 100mm PVC diameter pipe, and cutting, wall tilling, with ratio scores of 1.141,
1.157, and 1.174 respectively, are the three operations with least productivity.

Test of Null Hypothesis One

To enable the comparison of construction workers’ productivity among the States in the
South-South region based on selected operations, hypothesis one was tested based on each
of the examined operations using Kruskal-Wallis H test. The results are presented on Table
3. The results show that the p-values are less than 0.05 for eight of the twenty operations
examined by this study. This implies the rejection of the first hypothesis and conclusion
that there is significant variation in the level of construction workers’ productivity across
the different States with respect to those operations, vis-a-vis: trench excavation, 225mm
block laying, 40mm thick screed bed, plain concrete, fixing of panel door, fixing of water
closet, fixing of wash hand basin and laying of 100mm PVC diameter pipe.
[ 64 ]
 JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design

The results show that p-values are greater than 0.05 for twelve operations of construction
workers’ productivity leading to the conclusions that there is insignificant variation in the
zone in the level of construction workers’ productivity across the different State regarding
those operations concerned as portrayed in Table 3. Therefore, comparing the overall
results with a ratio of twelve (12) operations to eight (8), it can be concluded that there is
no significant variation in the level of construction workers’ productivity based on selected
operations in the study area.

Table 3: Comparison of Construction Workers’ Productivity based on Operations in South-South Zone

Operations State MR χ2 Sig. Decision Operations State MR χ2 Sig. Decision

Trench Akwa Ibom 82.30 Fixing of Akwa Ibom 85.41

excavation Cross River 47.70 21.216 0.001 Reject panel door Cross River 50.26 26.050 0.001 Reject
Rivers 59.10 Rivers 53.68
Backfilling of Akwa Ibom 69.74 Fixing of Akwa Ibom 88.19
trench Cross River 53.83 4.489 0.106 Accept water closet Cross River 44.55 35.899 0.001 Reject
Rivers 63.74 Rivers 57.21
Akwa Ibom 79.88 Fixing of Akwa Ibom 84.07
225mm Cross River 50.49 wash hand Cross River 49.08
15.598 0.001 Reject 24.624 0.001 Reject
block laying basin
Rivers 58.31 Rivers 56.10
Akwa Ibom 67.46 Laying of Akwa Ibom 50.91
13mm thick
Cross River 55.49 100mm PVC Cross River 63.07
plastering 2.697 0.26 Accept 7.592 0.022 Reject
diameter pipe
Rivers 64.01 Rivers 70.65
Akwa Ibom 73.61 Cutting, Akwa Ibom 66.22
40mm thick bending and
Cross River 56.48 Cross River 54.53
screed bed 6.303 0.043 Reject fixing of 3.465 0.177 Accept
Rivers 57.56 reinforcement Rivers 66.11
bars
Akwa Ibom 84.88 Fixing of Akwa Ibom 59.49
Plain Cross River 54.16 600mm long Cross River 58.58
25.556 0.001 Reject 1.899 0.387 Accept
concrete louvre blade
Rivers 50.06 Rivers 67.80
Laying of Akwa Ibom 63.01 Akwa Ibom 70.96
Wall tilling 4.3895
interlocking Cross River 55.09 3.631 0.163 Accept Cross River 55.03 0.111 Accept
16
Rivers 68.35 Rivers 61.40
Fixing of Akwa Ibom 71.62 Akwa Ibom 70.92
formwork Cross River 53.97 5.595 0.061 Accept Floor tilling Cross River 54.86 4.457 0.108 Accept
Rivers 61.94 Rivers 61.62
Akwa Ibom 65.14 PVC ceiling Akwa Ibom 65.41
Timber
Cross River 55.03 3.206 0.201 Accept finishes Cross River 54.99 3.120 0.210 Accept
carcass
Rivers 66.54 Rivers 66.35
Roof Akwa Ibom 64.34 Akwa Ibom 69.39
Emulsion
covering Cross River 54.27 3.810 0.149 Accept Cross River 57.77 2.784 0.248 Accept
paint
Rivers 68.04 Rivers 59.92
MR = Mean Rank, χ2 = Chi-Square; Sig. = Asymptotic Signif

As a step towards determining the source of variation obtained in those eight operations,
the post hoc test, using Mann Whitney U test, was conducted. Table 4 shows the results of
pairing Akwa Ibom with Cross Rivers, Akwa Ibom with Rivers and Cross Rivers with
Rivers States. The results of the post hoc test show that the variation accrued from Akwa
[ 65 ]
JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design
Ibom State. There is no significant difference in the construction workers’ productivity in
all the examined operations in the post hoc test between Cross Rivers and Rivers State
except for only three operations (Laying of interlocking, Roof covering, and Fixing of
water closet) as revealed in Table 4 which may be due to chance.

Table 4: Post hoc test of Construction Workers’ Productivity

AKS-CRS AKS-RVS CRS-RVS

Operations
MWU Sig. Decision MWU Sig. Decision MWU Sig. Decision
Trench excavation 386 0.001 Reject 454 0.001 Reject 723 0.061 Accept
Backfilling of trench 613.5 0.049 Reject 691 0.375 Accept 765 0.151 Accept
225mm block laying 454 0.001 Reject 475.5 0.002 Reject 777.5 0.177 Accept
13mm thick plastering 671 0.160 Accept 718 0.540 Accept 780.5 0.193 Accept
40mm thick screed bed 602.5 0.036 Reject 559 0.023 Reject 892.5 0.769 Accept
Plain concrete 428.5 0.001 Reject 316 0.001 Reject 883.5 0.691 Accept
Laying of interlocking 719 0.329 Accept 719.5 0.530 Accept 715 0.044 Reject
Fixing of formwork 592.5 0.027 Reject 642.5 0.142 Accept 792 0.226 Accept
Timber carcass 690.5 0.202 Accept 769.5 0.936 Accept 741 0.076 Accept
Roof covering 688 0.206 Accept 737.5 0.684 Accept 710 0.049 Reject
Fixing of panel door 367 0.001 Reject 358 0.001 Reject 854.5 0.509 Accept
Fixing of water closet 250 0.001 Reject 372 0.001 Reject 720 0.048 Reject
Fixing of wash hand basin 383 0.001 Reject 391.5 0.001 Reject 786.5 0.179 Accept
Laying of 100mm PVC
650 0.094 Accept 530.5 0.006 Reject 807 0.239 Accept
diameter pipe
Cutting, bending and fixing
of reinforcement bars 667.5 0.137 Accept 767.5 0.921 Accept 742 0.085 Accept
Fixing of 600mm long
808.5 0.956 Accept 678.5 0.309 Accept 779 0.182 Accept
louvre blade
Wall tilling 619.5 0.056 Accept 640 0.151 Accept 812 0.312 Accept
Floor tilling 620 0.057 Accept 641 0.154 Accept 804 0.279 Accept
PVC ceiling finishes 690 0.211 Accept 775 0.983 Accept 739.5 0.079 Accept
Emulsion paint 682 0.184 Accept 635.5 0.112 Accept 870 0.606 Accept

Number of Respondents, N, for Akwa Ibom= 37; Rivers = 42; MR = Mean Rank; MWU = Mann-
Whitney U- value; AKS = Akwa Ibom State; CRS = Cross River State; RVS = Rivers State

Result of the analysis of the level of use of selected incentive schemes on construction sites
in the study area was derived by Adewuyi and Effiong (2016) as shown in Table 5 which
shows that eighteen (18) among the thirty (30) incentive schemes examined are rated ≥
3.53 which is the overall mean score and regarded as the significant score for the study.
The result in Table 5 was used with the result of level of workers’ productivity derived in
this study to determine the existence of correlations between the two variables.

[ 66 ]
 JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design
Table 5: Level of Use of Incentive Schemes on Building Sites
AKS CRS RVS Combined
Incentive scheme Su
MS R Sum MS R Sum MS R Sum MS R
m
Pension scheme 147 3.97 7 204 4.64 1 204 4.86 1 555 4.51 1
Holiday with pay 154 4.16 1 198 4.50 4 199 4.74 3 551 4.48 2
Job security 146 3.95 8 201 4.57 3 198 4.71 4 545 4.43 3
Employee morale 129 3.49 14 204 4.64 1 204 4.86 1 537 4.37 4
Plus rate or spot bonus 129 3.49 14 194 4.41 5 191 4.55 5 514 4.18 5
Job and finish scheme 129 3.49 14 189 4.30 6 191 4.55 5 509 4.14 6
Long service award 151 4.08 3 170 3.86 12 174 4.14 9 495 4.02 7
Hospital services 154 4.16 1 172 3.91 9 167 3.98 12 493 4.01 8
Provision of transport 150 4.05 4 173 3.93 8 169 4.02 11 492 4.00 9
Conducive work
145 3.92 10 174 3.95 7 164 3.90 13 483 3.93 10
environment
Adequate safety aids 146 3.95 8 166 3.77 13 158 3.76 15 470 3.82 11
Piece-work system 121 3.27 19 172 3.91 9 175 4.17 8 468 3.80 12
Health & safety
143 3.86 12 146 3.32 19 176 4.19 7 465 3.78 13
conditions
Day work scheme 118 3.19 22 172 3.91 9 173 4.12 10 463 3.76 14
Employee training &
145 3.92 10 160 3.64 15 158 3.76 15 463 3.76 14
devept
Better canteen service 135 3.65 13 166 3.77 13 161 3.83 14 462 3.76 16
Accident insurance sche 148 4.00 5 152 3.45 17 154 3.67 17 454 3.69 17
Prompt payment of wages 148 4.00 5 158 3.59 16 133 3.17 20 439 3.57 18
Labour recognition progr 115 3.11 25 152 3.45 17 140 3.33 19 407 3.31 19
Information flow to
128 3.46 17 145 3.30 20 130 3.10 21 403 3.28 20
employee
Provision of sport facility 123 3.32 18 136 3.09 22 141 3.36 18 400 3.25 21
Standard time or hour syst 116 3.14 23 134 3.05 23 125 2.98 22 375 3.05 22
Hour-saved system 108 2.92 27 138 3.14 21 121 2.88 23 367 2.98 23
Worker participation in
119 3.22 21 120 2.73 25 121 2.88 23 360 2.93 24
decision making
Geared schemes 105 2.84 28 134 3.05 23 118 2.81 25 357 2.90 25
Group scheme 109 2.95 26 110 2.50 26 111 2.64 26 330 2.68 26
Freedom of association 121 3.27 19 106 2.41 27 94 2.24 28 321 2.61 27
Allocation shares 116 3.14 23 88 2.00 30 80 1.90 30 284 2.31 28
Profit sharing 78 2.11 30 95 2.16 29 109 2.60 27 282 2.29 29
Indirect scheme 93 2.51 29 99 2.25 28 85 2.02 29 277 2.25 30
Actual/Cut-off value 3.49 3.51 3.59 3.53
AKS = Akwa Ibom State with N = 37; CRS = Cross River State with N = 28; RVS = Rivers State
with N = 58; Total N = 123, MS =Mean Score; R =Rank. Source: Adewuyi and Effiong (2016)

Determination of Correlations between Incentive Schemes and Workers’

Productivity
To determine the existence of correlations between the level of use of incentive schemes
and the level of productivity of construction workers, the two variables were correlated
using Spearman’s Rank correlation method. Up to eighteen (18) out of thirty (30) incentive
schemes assessed were found to be significant, in the range of 3.53 ≤ . ≤ 4.51. Kulemeka,

[ 67 ]
JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design
Kululanga, and Morton (2015) observed that attempting to manage all identified
important/significant variables simultaneously and giving them all equal attention is
virtually impossible. However, by adopting the Pareto rule of separating out the “important
few from the trivial many” to focus attention on the key variables, success is more likely.
Therefore, the study considered only the first six (6) highest ranked incentive schemes,
rather than the 30, in respect to Pareto’s principle. The Pareto principle (also known as the
80–20 rule) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the
causes. In the same vein, this study considered the first 6 incentive schemes ranked by
professionals in the employ of private construction contracting firms in South-South,
Nigeria. The result of the test is presented in Table 6 with the data collected being analysed
on the basis of each of the selected construction operations assessed by this study. The
correlation is adjudged significant at the p-value of ≤ 0.05. The prevailing rule is that p ≤
0.05 rejects the null hypothesis 2 while p > 0.05 does not reject the hypothesis.

Test of Null Hypothesis Two

The results in Table 6, based on the analysis carried out on each category of operation,
shows that the correlation between each pair of the two variables is statistically
insignificant for some operations such as Trench excavation; Backfilling of trench; 13mm
thick plastering; Timber carcass; Roof covering; Cutting, bending and fixing of
reinforcement bars; PVC ceiling finishes; and Emulsion painting since the p-values are
greater than 0.05. As these values do not satisfy the conditions for rejection, the null
hypothesis 2 was therefore accepted for these eight (8) operations among the ones
investigated. The implication of not rejecting the null hypothesis 2 is that the correlation
between the level of use of incentive schemes and the level of productivity on operation’s
category basis in the study area is statistically insignificant with respect to these
aforementioned operations. Notwithstanding, it was observed that there exists a somewhat
positive correlation in about 60% of the operations assessed. Hence, based on the overall
result of 60% of the assessed operations manifesting significant correlations, the null
hypothesis 2 which states that there is no significant correlation between the level of use
of incentive schemes and the level of productivity was rejected. From the R2 values, it is
indicated that between 3.31% (R = 0.182) to 25.0% (R = 0.500) of the productivity
improvement for some of the operations studied could be explained by the type of incentive
schemes adopted on site. It was, therefore, concluded that there is significant correlation
between incentives schemes used on site and the level of productivity of construction
workers. Concomitantly, an overall conclusion was made that the level of use of incentive
scheme on building site can significantly impact the level of productivity of construction-
workers.

[ 68 ]
JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design
Table 6: Correlation Analysis between the Level of use of Incentive Schemes and Level of
Productivity
Incentive Scheme
Operations A B C D E F
R P DE R P DE R P DE R P DE R P DE R P DE
Trench excavation 0.008 0.932 0.020 0.827 0.074 0.418 0.081 0.371 0.062 0.499 0.116 0.202
Backfilling of trench 0.152 0.094 0.118 0.193 0.020 0.830 0.106 0.243 0.059 0.514 0.072 0.432
225mm block laying 0.144 0.113 0.087 0.338 0.046 0.616 0.071 0.437 0.060 0.513 .272** 0.002
13mm thick plastering 0.143 0.115 0.127 0.161 0.105 0.249 0.030 0.743 0.050 0.581 0.134 0.139
40mm thick screed bed .182* 0.043 0.157 0.083 0.170 0.060 0.095 0.295 0.049 0.590 .326** 0.000
Plain concrete .342** 0.000 .329** 0.000 0.159 0.079 .270** 0.003 .238** 0.008 .500** 0.000
Laying of interlocking 0.083 0.362 .183* 0.043 0.069 0.450 .251** 0.005 0.079 0.388 0.097 0.288
Fixing of formwork 0.177 0.050 0.142 0.118 0.053 0.560 0.074 0.414 0.047 0.605 .237** 0.008
Timber carcass 0.024 0.792 0.083 0.359 0.020 0.823 0.117 0.199 0.098 0.280 0.023 0.800
Roof covering 0.044 0.629 0.024 0.796 0.038 0.674 0.039 0.666 0.063 0.491 0.155 0.086
Fixing of panel door .267** 0.003 .336** 0.000 0.135 0.137 .213* 0.018 .298** 0.001 .483** 0.000
Fixing of water closet .200* 0.027 0.157 0.082 0.096 0.292 .178* 0.049 .185* 0.041 .393** 0.000
Fixing of wash hand
.325** 0.000 .393** 0.000 0.061 0.503 .222* 0.014 .243** 0.007 .430** 0.000
basin
Laying of 100mm PVC
0.170 0.061 0.128 0.160 0.093 0.307 .271** 0.002 .195* 0.031 .297** 0.001
diameter pipe
Cutting, bending and
fixing of reinforcement 0.028 0.758 0.107 0.238 0.107 0.240 0.082 0.367 0.053 0.558 0.039 0.666
bars
Fixing of 600mm long
.224* 0.013 0.127 0.160 0.026 0.772 .247** 0.006 0.122 0.178 0.149 0.100
louvre blade
Wall tilling 0.097 0.288 .214* 0.018 0.044 0.632 0.037 0.687 0.053 0.563 .217* 0.016
Floor tilling 0.158 0.081 .216* 0.017 0.132 0.145 0.059 0.517 .183* 0.043 .241** 0.007
PVC ceiling finishes 0.043 0.636 0.047 0.602 0.094 0.299 0.142 0.117 0.087 0.337 0.079 0.385
Emulsion paint 0.073 0.423 0.053 0.559 0.058 0.527 0.015 0.867 0.010 0.915 0.160 0.077
A = Plus rate or spot bonus; B = Job and finish scheme; C = Holiday with pay; D = Pension scheme; E = Job security;
F = Employee morale; R = Correlation Coefficient; P = p-value; DE = Decision based on p-value; = Accept the null
hypothesis two; = Reject the null hypothesis two;** (*) Correlation is significant at the 0.01 (0.05) level (2tailed).

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study examined the level of use of incentive schemes used on building sites by
practitioners in the industry with the associated productivity. The level of workers’
productivity for some selected operations on building sites in the study area was evaluated
and the first three highest productivity levels were obtained during plain concrete
operation, trench excavation and the laying of 225mm thick blocks with relative ratios of
1.902, 1.701, and 1.531 respectively.The comparison of construction workers’ productivity
among the States in the South-South region, based on selected operations using Kruskal
Wallis H test, revealed significant variation among the States in some operation, hence the
post hoc test. Thereafter, conclusions were made that there is no significant variation in the
level of construction workers’ productivity based on selected operations in the study area,
State except for only three operations (Laying of interlocking, Roof covering, and Fixing
of water closet). The determination of existence of correlations between the level of use of
incentive schemes and the level of productivity of construction workers shows that between
3.31% (R = 0.182) and 25.0% (R = 0.500) of the productivity improvement for some of the
operations studied could be explained by the type of incentive schemes adopted on site. It
was, therefore, concluded that there is significant correlation between incentives schemes
used on building site and the level of productivity of construction workers. Concomitantly,
[ 69 ]
JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design
an overall conclusion was reached that the level of use of incentive scheme on building site
can significantly impact the level of productivity of construction workers. This study
therefore recommends that construction firms in the country should carefully consider the
various incentive schemes and the appropriate ones as deemed fit should be used to
improve the reported low productivity of construction workers in Nigeria.

References

AbdulKadir, M. R., Lee, W.P., and Sapuan S.M. (2005).Factors Affecting Construction
Labour Productivity for Malaysian Residential Projects. Structural Survey, 23(1), 42-54.

Abdulsalam, D., Faki, A.L and Dardau A.A. (2012). Impact Assessment of Incentive
Schemes for the Sustainable Development of Nigeria Construction Industry; Journal of
Civil Engineering and Architecture, 6 (9), 1194-1201.

Adewuyi, T. O. andEffiong, F. E. (2016). Relationship between the Necessity and Use of

Incentive Scheme in Construction Industry: Case of South-South, Nigeria.Journal of
Environmental Design,11(2): 155-171.

Adewuyi T. O. and Odesola, I. A. (2016). Material Waste Minimisation Strategies among

Construction Firms in South-South, Nigeria. International Journal of Sustainable
Construction Engineering and Technology,7(1): 11-29.

Aina, O. O. (2011). Performance of Incentive Schemes in Construction Projects in Nigeria.

Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 11(10): 38-44.

Aina, O. O. and Akinyemi, T. A. (2014). Analysis of Factors Influencing the Selection of

Incentive Scheme in Selected Construction Firms in Lagos State, Nigeria. Civil and
Environmental Research, 6(7): 1-11.

Aina, O.O. and Omoniyi, A. T. (2014). The Effect of Job Enrichment Schemes on Selected
Construction Workers in Nigeria. Organisation, Technology and Management in
Construction: An Internal Journal, 6(1): 933-941.

Bryson, A., Freeman, R., Lucifora C., Pellizari, M. and Perotin, V. (2012).Paying for
Performance: Incentive Pay Schemes and Employee’s Financial Participation.Centre for
Economic Performance, CEP Discussion Paper No. 1112, London School of Economics
and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE

Fagbenle, O. I. Adeyemi, A.Y. and Adesanya, D.A. (2004). The Impact of Non-Financial
Incentives on Bricklayers’ Productivity in Nigeria. Construction Management and
Economics, 22(9): 901-908.

[ 70 ]
JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design
Fagbenle, O. I., Ogunde, A. O and Owolabi, J.D. (2011). Factors Affecting the
Performance of Labour in Nigerian Construction Sites. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences, 2(2), 251-257.

Gonzalez, E. (1991). Construction Worker’s Motivation: The Means to Improve Workers’

Productivity. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Florida.

Harris, F. and McCaffer, R. (2001). Modern Construction Management (5thed.).Accra; EPP

Book Services.

Hickson, B.G. and Ellis, L. A (2014). Factors Affecting Construction Labour Productivity
in Trinidad and Tobago. The Journal of Professional Engineers of Trinidad and Tobago,
42(1): 4-11.

Kulemeka, P. J., Kululanga, G. and Morton, D. (2015).Critical Factors Inhibiting

Performance of Small- and Medium-Scale Contractors in Sub-Saharan Region: A Case for
Malawi. Journal of Construction Engineering, (2015): 1-17.

Lai, C. (2009). Motivating Employees Through Incentive Programs. Unpublished

Bachelor’s Thesis, School of Business Administration, Javyskyla University of Applied
Science, Singapore.

Muzamil, A. B. and Khurshid, B. (2014). Analysis of Labour Productivity of Road

Construction in Pakistan. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology,
3(3), 153-159.

Odesola, I. A. (2012). Construction Labour Productivity of Masonry Operations in South

– South, Nigeria. PhD Thesis, Department of Building, Faculty of Environmental Studies,
University of Uyo, Uyo, Nigeria.

Page, I. and Norman, D. (2014). Measuring Construction Industry Productivity and

Performance. BRANZ Study Report SR 310.

Saka, N. and Ajayi, O. M. (2010). A Comparative Assessment of Incentive Scheme

between Indigenous and Multinational Construction Contractors in Nigeria. In: Egbu,
C.(Ed) Proceeding of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds UK,
Association of Researchers in Construction Management.

Siriwardana, C.S.A. and Ruwanpura, J. Y. (2012). A Conceptual Model to Develop a

Workers Performance Measurement Tool to Improve Construction Productivity. ASCE
Construction Research Congress.

[ 71 ]
JED. Vol. 12, No.1, April, 2017 Journal of Environmental Design
Soham, M. and Rajiv, B. (2013). Critical Factors Affecting Labour Productivity in
Construction Project; Case Study of South Gujarat Region of India. International Journal
of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 2(4): 583-591.

Tran, V. and Tookey, J. (2011). Labour Productivity in the New Zealand Construction
Industry: A Thorough Investigation. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and
Building, 11(1): 41-60.

Ude, U. and Coker, M.A. (2012). Incentive Scheme, Employee Motivation and
Productivity in Organisation in Nigeria; Analytic Linkages. IOSR Journal of Business and
Management,1(4): 32-39.

United Nations Development Programme, UNDP (2006). Incentive System; Incentive

Motivation, and Development Performance. Conference Paper No. 8 of UNDP Capacity
Development Group.

Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed., New York: Harper and
Row.

[ 72 ]
View publication stats