Productivity measurement and evaluation: What is available?

1984 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Scott Sink ◽  
Thomas C. Tuttle ◽  
Sandra J. Devries
2012 ◽  
Vol 209-211 ◽  
pp. 1496-1499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Ping Sun ◽  
Neng Zhu ◽  
Zhe Tian

The productivity in extreme hot environment is not only influenced by the complexity of the task and the technical proficiency of the workers, but also closely related to the heat stress caused by the hot environment. In this study, three methods of productivity measurement were introduced, mainly referred to their applications and limitations. The method of using thermal sensation vote was based on the subjective feelings, and its application was convenient. The method of using wet-bulb globe temperature was based on the environment parameters and working time. It can be applied to a wide range of high temperature. While the method of using predicted mean vote had more comprehensive considerations of environment parameters and thermal sensation, but the complexity measurement of the environment parameters limited the usefulness of this method. Different from the three methods, this study proposed the physiological stress index to be the argument in the calculation of productivity. The physiological stress index combines both the environmental intensity and labor intensity. It reflects physiological conditions of the workers directly and has the potential to predict the productivity online.


2009 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Roth ◽  
Klaus Moser

Zusammenfassung. Die Studie berichtet über den Einsatz von ProMES (Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System) in einer Abteilung eines internationalen Marktforschungsunternehmens, die wissensintensive Dienstleistungen zu erbringen hat. In der ersten Feedbackphase der zweieinhalbjährigen Studie, die extern moderiert wurde, konnte ein starker positiver Leistungseffekt von d = 1.7 gemessen werden. Zusätzlich wurden die Produktivitätsdaten nach Rückzug des Moderators untersucht. Während der intern gesteuerten Feedbackphase von acht Monaten steigerte sich die Produktivität erneut um d = 2.8. Zudem wurde die Veränderung des Teamklimas untersucht. Während sich aufgabenbezogene Aspekte des Teamklimas positiv entwickelten, bewegten sich personenbezogene Aspekte nicht über ein mittleres Niveau hinaus.


1989 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-411
Author(s):  
No authorship indicated

1989 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 611-611
Author(s):  
No authorship indicated

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. P. Tavolacci ◽  
S. Grigioni ◽  
H. Villet ◽  
P. Dechelotte ◽  
J. Ladner

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document