現今營建業中,工程的進度、規劃及成本等都與工人的生產力有很大的關聯性,因此如何能有效提高工人整體的生產力,關鍵在於如何正確的掌握工人的工作狀況,並依其狀況進行適當的安排。而有關營建勞工生產力的評估方法,常使用的方法如:工作抽樣評估法、短時效率評核術及工地效率評核術等,但這些評核術也部分缺失。例如;只依照觀察者的主觀進行判斷,不同的觀察者也會出現不同看法,導致觀察的結果會不盡相同。也因此需要以較為客觀的方式進行評估工人的生產力。 本研究採室內實驗室環境方式,徵集10名受測者進行模擬組搭鋼筋實驗,同時量測受測者臉部鼻頭溫度變化以瞭解其作業時之心理負荷,將工作分類為三種類型(有效性工作、輔助性工作及無效性工作),於實驗結束後給予受測者填寫NASA-TLX自我心理評衡表進行比較,並將實驗所收集的平均鼻頭溫差變化進行變異數分析。研究結果顯示,利用量測受測者臉部鼻頭溫度分析有效區分出各作業類型的差異性,其檢定結果為具顯著差異,證明實驗結果能夠有效的區別出直接性工作、輔助性工作及無效性工作。
In current construction industry, the schedule, plan and cost are significantly correlated to the productivity of the labors. Therefore, the key point to increase the overall productivity of labors efficiently is how to grasp the working situation of the labors and make proper arrangements accordingly. Regard to the evaluation method of the productivity of labors in construction industry, the usual methods are Work Sampling Methods, Five Minutes Rating Technique and Field Rating Methods etc. But these methods have some disadvantages, for example, the judgment is based on the subjective viewpoint of the observers, hence, different observers make different conclusions and bring about different results of observation. Therefore, more objective observing method needs to be developed to evaluate the productivity of the labors. This study was performed in an indoor lab environment. 10 subjects simulated assembling the reinforcing bars. The temperature changes on nose tips of the subjects were measured to understand their Psychological loads during work. The work was classified into three types (direct work, assistive work and non-effective work). NASA-TLX self-rating psychological scales filled by the subjects after the experiment were compared; analysis of variance was performed on the data of the average temperature changes on nose tips collected in the experiment. The results of the study indicated that utilizing the measurement analysis of the temperatures on the nose of the subjects, the differences among different types of works can be distinguished. The results of the experiment were significantly different, which showed that the experiment could distinguish direct work, assistive work and non-effective work.