4.

3 General waste recognition

For the discussions on waste recognition, mitigation and frequency of occurrence that are coming now a key of waste type and variables has been done below that will identify waste as a colour code and variables as a number.

Table 4.1 Key of waste type Direct Conversation Waste Contributory Waste Non Contributory Waste

Table 4.2 Key of Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Description Waiting for others to complete their work before proceeding with other work Waiting for equipment to be delivered to site Waiting for materials to be delivered to site Waiting for specialist subcontractors to come to site Waiting for clarification and confirmation from the client and consultants Time for rework/repair of defective work Materials for rework/repair of defective work Time for workers resting on site during working periods Over-allocation/unnecessary equipment on site Over-allocation/unnecessary material on site Over-allocation/unnecessary workers on site Unnecessary protocols on site Unclear lines of communication Materials stolen from site during construction Material deterioration on site Errors in construction applications Accidents on site Time for supervising and inspection of work Time for instructions and communication among different trades on the same job Time for transporting workers, equipment and materials

Table 4.3 Matrix of results for general waste recognition Non Waste % 20 10 0 20 0 0 10 20 0 10 10 10 0 10 0 0 0 70 70 80

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 80 90

Waste % 100 80 100 100 90 80 100 90 90 90 100 90 100 100 100 30 30 20

Genaral Waste Recognition

120 100

% Recognition

80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Variable W aste No Waste

Figure 4.3 General waste recognition There was a high rate of identification of direct conversion and non contributory wastes. However there seemed to be an unawareness of contributory waste. This may be attributed to the traditional thinking of waste in construction. The Conversion-Flow Model recognizes contributory time as a waste that must also be minimized. There was a tolerance towards waiting and break times for workers. A lot of respondents identified this as non-waste. The mean recognition of waste was 83% which indicates that personnel on site are highly aware of waste. 4.4 Waste Mitigation Scenario Table 4.4 Matrix of results for mitigation of waste Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Yes % 50 50 70 60 70 70 80 70 50 40 40 No % 50 50 30 40 30 30 20 30 50 60 60

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

60 30 70 50 50 40 60 60 50

40 70 30 50 50 60 40 40 50

Mitigation Scenario
90 80

% Mitigation

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Variable Mitigation No Mitiga

Figure 4.4 scenario

Waste

mitigation

The mean mitigation rate is 56% and non-mitigation is 44%. Contributory and non contributory have a higher margin with mean mitigation rate of 56% and 65% respectively. Direct conversion wastes have problems with a mean does mitigation rate of 48%. The overall picture however is inconclusive because the results show that although personnel can recognize waste, i t not necessarily mean that they mitigate these wastes.

4.5 Frequency of Occurrence

Table 5.5 Matrix of frequencies of waste occurrences Variable 1 % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 10 20 10 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 20 10 20 10 10 20 20 10 30 10 30 10 30 2 % 3 % 20 40 40 40 30 10 40 40 40 30 40 30 20 20 20 40 30 30 40 50 4 % 60 30 30 30 40 30 20 10 30 30 20 20 40 50 30 20 30 30 20 10 5 % 20 20 20 10 20 30 30 20 10 10 20 10 30 20 10 20 10 40 40 40

70 60 50 40

never very rare s eldom

30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 very frequent

frequently

Figure 4.5 Frequency of occurrence of wastes The mean frequencies are; never (6%), very rare (12%), seldom (32%), frequently (29%) and very frequently (21%). The frequency of occurrence that is between wastes occurring frequently and very frequently is 50%. This shows that half the time when any operation is taking place on site there is wastage. 4.6 Sources and Causes of Waste In the table below, the figures in red are the mean values of each selected rating options. Table 4.6 Sources and causes of waste Most unlikely % 0 0 0 30 10 40 Most likely %

Description Management and Administration Poor coordination among project participants Poor planning and scheduling

unlikely %

likely % 55 15 80 10 20 40

Lack of control Bureaucracy People Lack of trade skills Inexperienced inspectors Too few supervisors Uncontrolled subcontracting practices Poor labour distribution Execution Inappropriate construction methods Outdated equipment Lack of equipment Poor site layout Poor site documentation Material Poor schedule of delivery of material to site Late delivery of materials to site Misuse of materials Poor storage of materials Poor handling of materials Information and Communication Wrong information Late information Unclear information

0 0 4 0 20 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0

30 40 20 10 10 40 30 10 40 20 30 40 60 50 14 20 20 10 10 10 13 30 0 10

60 60 50 40 30 50 50 80 42 70 50 40 20 30 44 40 50 60 50 20 23 30 20 20

10 0 26 50 40 10 20 10 14 10 20 20 10 10 34 30 30 30 30 50 63 40 80 70

The results in Table 4.6 above show that all the 5 variables are likely or most likely sources of waste. In all cases, the mean of the variable being a cause of waste is above 50%. Poor planning (40%), lack of trade skills (50%), poor handling of materials (50%), late information (80%) and unclear information (70%) stand out as the problem areas that most likely cause waste on site