CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
HAS NO MAJOR IMPACT ON SINGAPORE’S CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTIVITY by Dr Low Sui Pheng, Professor, Department of Building, and Director, Centre for Project Management and ConstrucƟon Law, NaƟonal University of Singapore This arƟcle examines whether fragmentaƟon in Singapore’s construcƟon industry is one of the root causes for its relaƟvely lower producƟvity, measured in terms of value added per worker, as compared to the producƟvity in the construcƟon industry, in advanced countries. In relaƟon to construcƟon market structures, this study also examines the leadership provided by large Įrms in enhancing the performance of the industry, and recommends suitable measures to address construcƟon producƟvity issues associated with industry structures.
Dr Low Sui Pheng
Based on a recent comparaƟve study of the construcƟon industry in Singapore and in four advanced countries (namely Australia, Japan, UK and USA), conducted by the author for the Building and ConstrucƟon Authority (BCA), the observaƟon is that Singapore’s industry structure is not signiĮcantly diīerent from those of advanced countries. Compared to these countries, the extent of fragmentaƟon in Singapore is actually less pronounced. Hence, fragmentaƟon does not appear to be a key factor for the relaƟvely lower value-added producƟvity in Singapore. INTRODUCTION ProducƟvity issues have always been one of the key concerns of Singapore, in the quest to move the country away from low-cost, labour-intensive industries to high value-adding, knowledge-creaƟon acƟviƟes. ProducƟvity in the construcƟon industry is especially challenging, given the uniqueness and complexiƟes of building projects, around which the industry structure has evolved over Ɵme to become what it is today. Issues relaƟng to the fragmentaƟon of the construcƟon industry have also been observed, wherein: • Diīerent projects take place in diīerent sub-categories (eg residenƟal versus commercial buildings), with different stakeholders that are supported by a transient workforce. • Design and construcƟon have tradiƟonally been separated in the industry. • The industry structure reŇects extensive subcontracting and mulƟ-layer subcontracƟng pracƟces, supported by a large number of small Įrms. The study observes that the construcƟon industry structure in Singapore is not unique. In terms of Įrm proĮle and subcontracƟng pracƟces, it is similar to those of
38
THE SINGAPORE ENGINEER September 2017
advanced countries with high construcƟon producƟvity. Hence, fragmentaƟon does not seem to be the cause of relaƟvely lower value-added producƟvity in Singapore.
COMPARISONS OF CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY STRUCTURES Firm size and employment The construcƟon industry structure of Singapore is no diīerent from those exisƟng in Australia, Japan, US and UK. Historically, the number of Įrms in all these Įve countries grew in tandem with growth in the construcƟon industry and there appears to be liƩle or no barriers to entry by new businesses into the industry. Based on oĸcial staƟsƟcs and the largely similar data reporƟng formats for Singapore, US and UK, Table 1 shows that there are more small Įrms than large Įrms in these countries. In the UK, the proporƟon of Įrms with 1-13 employees is parƟcularly large, at 95.56%. A separate analysis showed that the proporƟon of small Įrms in Australia, employing 0-19 persons, was also large, at 97.7%. The high proporƟon of very small Įrms in both UK and Australia could be partly due to the generally higher proporƟon of small housing/residenƟal developments in these countries.