No published New Zealand figure for hours or labour cost above what the work needed

What it is. None - New Zealand national sources give industry productivity indices and cost shares, not hours or labour cost against budget on civil jobs.

Sample. Searches: "Stats NZ productivity statistics industry heavy and civil engineering construction labour productivity hours worked"; "Jaffe Le Chappell Motu construction productivity heavy and civil"; "Te Waihanga cost of infrastructure construction cost drivers productivity"; "Labour Productivity in the New Zealand Construction Industry: A Thorough Investigation" (publisher page refused access, so not opened); "New Zealand infrastructure projects cost overruns study". Frequencies and indices that exist but are not costs: civil labour productivity growth of 5% (2022 edition) or 7% (2026 edition) over 2000 to 2020; annual paid hours per worker in construction down about 6% over 2000 to 2020; a Te Waihanga model estimating civil construction prices would be about 10% lower had productivity matched building (a modelled counterfactual on prices, not a share of contract).

What it is not. Recorded as `none` on purpose. Productivity statistics and a labour cost share are not a measure of hours beyond what the work needed, and presenting 22% of cost or a 5% to 7% index as a contractor's overstaffing exposure would be a misreading. No New Zealand source read reports hours or labour cost against budget on civil work.

Where it came from

• New Zealand Infrastructure Commission / Te Waihanga (2022), Economic performance of New Zealand's construction industry · free copy
  Labour productivity sections, Figures 10 to 12 (pp.16-19); firm profit margins (Figures 16 and 17); Appendix 2 on measuring labour input · source record

Considered and set aside

• New Zealand Infrastructure Commission / Te Waihanga: Gives civil labour productivity growth of 7% from 2000 to 2020 (building construction 21%), an index of output per hour for the industry, not hours over need on a job. Its earlier edition's 5% differs.
• New Zealand Infrastructure Commission / Te Waihanga: Puts direct labour at around 22% of heavy and civil industry costs (the printed table's labour cell is blank). That is the cost base exposed to hours, not an overstaffing or overrun figure.
• Motu Economic and Public Policy Research (for BRANZ): Firm-level productivity growth and dispersion for 2001 to 2012; compares firms with each other, not hours with a budget.
• NZ Institute of Economic Research (NZIER): Sector-wide productivity and competition evidence from 2013; no job-level hours or budgets.
• Atapattu, Domingo & Sutrisna: Estimators' ranking of overrun causes; the abstract names design changes, planning and tender documentation and gives no labour-hours share. Abstract only was read.
• New Zealand Infrastructure Commission / Te Waihanga: One road. It records construction progress rates falling short of the joint venture's plan, with no hours or labour cost figure.
• New Zealand Infrastructure Commission / Te Waihanga: Productivity levels are estimated for vertical (building) construction only, and its labour-share breakdown is Australian data.
• Office of the Auditor-General New Zealand: Audit of one programme's decision-making; it does not break increases into labour, plant or materials.
• New Zealand Government Procurement (MBIE): Contract-form guidance; it contains no labour or productivity figure.

overrun/labour_productivity_none_nz · NZ · F42 ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)