ArticlePDF Available

Lean project management

Taylor & Francis
Building Research & Information
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Projects are temporary production systems. When those systems are structured to deliver the product while maximizing value and minimizing waste, they are said to be 'lean' projects. Lean project management differs from traditional project management not only in the goals it pursues, but also in the structure of its phases, the relationship between phases and the participants in each phase. This paper presents a model of lean project management and contrasts lean and traditional approaches. Four tools or interventions are presented as illustrations of lean concepts in action.Les projets sont des systèmes de production temporaires. Lorsque ces systèmes sont organisés pour fournir le produit tout en optimisant la valeur et en minimisant les gaspillages, on dit qu'il s'agit de projets «au plus juste». La gestion de ce type de projet diffère de celle des projets classiques non seulement au niveau des objectifs visés mais aussi à celui de la structure des phases, des relations entre les phases et des participants à chaque phase. Cet article propose un modèle de gestion de projet au plus juste et oppose les deux approches. Quatre outils ou interventions sont présentés pour illustrer l'application des concepts «au plus juste».
Content may be subject to copyright.
Lean project management
Glenn Ballard
1, 2
and Gregory A. Howell
1
1
Lean Construction Institute and
2
University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
E-mail: gballard@leanconstruction.org
Projects are temporary production systems. When those systems are structured to deliver the product while maximizing
value and minimizing waste, they are said to be ‘lean’ projects. Lean project management differs from traditional project
management not only in the goals it pursues, but also in the structure of its phases, the relationship between phases and
the participants in each phase. This paper presents a model of lean project management and contrasts lean and
traditional approaches. Four tools or interventions are presented as illustrations of lean concepts in action.
Keywords: construction management, lean project delivery system, lean project management, project management,
value, waste
Les projets sont des syste` mes de production temporaires. Lorsque ces syste` mes sont organise´s pour fournir le produit tout
en optimisant la valeur et en minimisant les gaspillages, on dit qu’il s’agit de projets au plus juste. La gestion de ce
type de projet diffe` re de celle des projets classiques non seulement au niveau des objectifs vise´s mais aussi a` celui de la
structure des phases, des relations entre les phases et des participants a` chaque phase. Cet article propose un mode`le de
gestion de projet au plus juste et oppose les deux approches. Quatre outils ou interventions sont pre´sente´s pour illustrer
l’application des concepts au plus juste.
Mots cle´s : gestion de la construction, syste` me de fourniture de projet au plus juste, gestion de projet au plus juste,
gestion de projet, valeur, gaspillages
Introduction
Thinking about production has been shaped by the challenges
of repetitive manufacturing. This has had two unfortunate
consequences:
‘making’ has eclipsed ‘designing’ and
project has been conceived as a peripheral, oddball form
of production
Adherents of lean project management advance an alternative
perspective. Production is defined as designing and making
things. Designing and making something for the first time is
done through a project, which is, for that reason, arguably
the fundamental form of production system.
Projects are temporary production systems. When those sys-
tems are structured to deliver the product while maximizing
value and minimizing waste, they are said to be ‘lean’
projects. Lean project management differs from traditional
project management not only in the goals it pursues, but also
in the structure of its phases, the relationship between phases
and the participants in each phase.
Construction is one among many types of project-based pro-
duction systems. Others include shipbuilding, movie-making,
software engineering, product development and all forms of
work-order systems such as plant and facilities maintenance.
Theory, rules and tools must be developed for project-based
production systems and their management. The Lean
Project Delivery System
1
(LPDS) is a contribution to that
objective.
The LPDS has emerged from a fusion of theoretical insights,
methods from other industries and participative action
research (see Ballard and Howell 1998 for a detailed explana-
tion of the development of the production control component
of the LPDS).
i:/t&f/rbri/RBRI100199.3d Printed: 12/12/02 page(s) 1^15
BUILDING RESEARCH &INFORMATION (2003) 31(1), 1–15
Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ISSN 1466-4321 online #2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http: www.tandf.co.uk journals
DOI: 10.1080 ⁄00000000000000000
In the following, brief historical and theoretical backgrounds
are provided, then the LPDS model is presented and
explained, followed by four illustrations of its application
and an invitation to join the effort to develop lean project
management.
Historical background
The phrase lean productionwas coined by a member of the
research team studying the international automobile industry;
the report of which was published in The Machine That
Changed the World (Womack et al., 1990). Leanwas used
to name a third form of production system, one capable of
producing more and better vehicles in less time, in less space
and when using fewer labour hours than the mass or craft
production systems that preceded it. New concepts and tech-
niques were identied, including Just-in-Time (JIT) deliveries,
Pull (versus Push) mechanisms for advancing work through a
production system, making batch size reduction economical
by reducing set-up times, and increasing transparency of the
production system so everyone could help manage it.
Lauri Koskela rst alerted the construction industry to the
revolution in manufacturing, challenging it to explore and
adopt these new concepts and techniques (Koskela, 1992).
He hosted the rst conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction (www.vtt./rte.lean) at VTT in Espoo,
Finland, in August 1993. That small group of researchers
decided to adopt the name lean construction.
2
The IGLC,
now grown considerably since its founding, is dedicated to
the development of a theory of production and production
management, with the project as the most fundamental sys-
tem for designing and making things.
But to conclude this brief history the IGLC has grown each
year, operating through annual conferences rotating through
Europe, Asia, South America, North America, etc. The pro-
ceedings of the rst three conferences have been published
together in Alarcon (1997). The proceedings of the remaining
conferences were published separately and are also available
at the IGLC website.
National organizations, mostly oriented also to advancing
practice as well as theory, have begun to emerge. The Lean
Construction Institute (www.leanconstruction.org) was
formed in the USA in 1997. Similar organizations exist in
Chile and Denmark and others are in process of formation.
The UKs most recent report on the construction industry.
Rethinking Construction (Construction Task Force, 1997),
promoted lean manufacturing as a model to be emulated.
The researchers active in IGLC have brought lean concepts
and techniques into the construction industries of the USA,
UK, Finland, Denmark. Singapore, Korea, Australia, Brazil,
Chile, Peru, Ecuador and Venezuela. University courses in
construction and project management are beginning to incor-
porate lean construction material. To mention but a few, the
University of California at Berkeley has been a leader in the
USA, as has the Catholic University of Chile in Chile and the
University of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil.
Theoretical background
We understand projects to be temporary production systems
linked to multiple, enduring production systems from which
the project is supplied materials, information and resources.
Every production system integrates designing and making a
product. Production (and hence project) management is
understood in terms of designing, operating and improving
production systems (Koskela, 2001).
Production systems are designed to achieve three fundamen-
tal goals (Koskela, 2000):
Deliver the product
Maximize value
Minimize waste
By way of example, principles for production system design
include (Ballard et al., 2001):
Structure work for value generation
Understand, critique and expand customer purposes
Increase system control (ability to realize purposes)
Operating is conceived in terms of planning, controlling and
correcting. In this context, to plan is to set specic goals for
the system. To control is to advance towards those goals.
To correct is to change the means being used or the goals
being pursued.
Figure 1 Production system management
Ballard et al.
2
Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS) Model
Projects have long been understood in terms of phases, e.g.
predesign, design, procurement and installation. Some of the
key differences between traditional and lean project delivery
concerns the denition of phases, the relationship between
phases and the participants in each phase.
Project de¢nition
The model in Figure 2 represents a series of phases in overlap-
ping triangles, the rst of which is Project Denition, which
includes customer and stakeholder purposes and values,
design concepts, and design criteria.
Each of these elements may inuence the other, so a conver-
sation is necessary among the various stakeholders. Typically
like a good conversation everyone leaves with a different
and better understanding than they brought with them.
Representatives of every stage in the life cycle of the facility
are involved in this initial phase, including members of the
production team which is to design and build the product.
Lean design
The gate between Project Denition and Lean Design is align-
ment of values, concepts and criteria. Lean Design also pro-
ceeds through conversation, this time dedicated to
developing and aligning product and process design at the
level of functional systems. The project may revert to
Project Denition if the ongoing search for value reveals
opportunities that are consistent with customer and stake-
holder constraints, e.g. if there is time and money enough.
Lean Design differs from traditional practice in systematically
deferring decisions until the last responsible moment in order
to allow more time for developing and exploring alternatives.
The traditional practice of selecting options and execution of
design tasks as soon as possible causes rework and disruption
when a design decision made by one specialist conicts with the
decisions of another. The set-basedstrategy employed in Lean
Design allows interdependent specialists to move forward
within the limits of the set of alternatives currently under consid-
eration. Decisions must be made within the lead time for realiz-
ing alternatives, hence the importance in Lean Construction of
redesigning supply networks to reduce their lead time.
Lean supply
Lean Supply consists of detailed engineering, fabrication, and
delivery, which require as prerequisite product and process
design so that the system knows what to detail and fabricate,
and when to deliver those components. Lean Supply also
includes such initiatives as reducing the lead time for informa-
tion and materials, especially those involved in the supply of
engineered-to-order products, which typically determine the
pace and timing of project delivery.
Lean assembly
Lean assembly begins with the delivery of materials and the
relevant information for their installation. Assembly com-
pletes when the client has benecial use of the facility, which
typically occurs after commissioning and start-up.
The management of production throughout the project is
indicated by the horizontal bars labelled Production
Control and Work Structuring. The systematic use of
feedback loops between supplier and customer processes is
symbolized by the inclusion of Post Occupancy Evaluations
between projects.
Figure 2 Triads of the Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS)
Lean project management
3
Comparison of lean and non-lean project delivery
systems
Table 1 lists some of the differences between lean and non-
lean project delivery.
To develop only one of these differences, consider buffers.
Traditionally, each participating organization tends to build
up large inventories
3
in order to protect its own interests.
These inventories may take the form of information, draw-
ings, materials, work-in-progress, space or time. Lacking the
ability to act at the level of the entire production system, an
individual architectural rm, engineering rm, general con-
tractor or specialty contractor may see no alternative than
to build these inventories unilaterally as buffers against varia-
bility and risk. Within the lean approach, inventories are
structured and sized to perform their functions within the
system, primarily the function of buffering against variability.
Illustrations
Instances of concepts, techniques and applications are
included here in order to illustrate the true nature of the
LPDS and how it differs from non-lean project delivery.
The four illustrations presented are:
Last Planner System of Production Control
Work Structuring through Pull Scheduling
Negative versus Positive Iteration in Design
Application of Lean Rules and Tools to Precast Concrete
Fabrication
Illustration 1: the last planner system of production
control
The last products of work structuring are specic project
goals, typically presented in the form of schedules.
Production control has the job of achieving those goals.
The Last Planner system of production control (Figure 3) has
three components: (1) lookahead planning, (2) commitment
planning and (3) learning. (For more detail, see Ballard and
Howell, 1998; and Ballard, 2000b). The last planner is that
individual or group that commits to near-term (often weekly)
tasks, usually the front line supervisor, such as a construction
foreman, a shop foreman or a design squad boss (extension of
commitment planning and learning to direct workers is a
likely future step in the evolution of lean construction).
They issue directives that result in direct production rather
than in more detailed plans.
The primary rules or principles for production control are:
Drop activities from the project schedule into a 6-week
(typical) lookahead window, screen for constraints and
advance only if constraints can be removed in time
Try to make only quality assignments (see quality criteria
below under Commitment Planning). Require that defec-
tive assignments be rejected. Note the analogy with
Toyotas requirement that workers stop the production
line rather than allow defective products past their work-
station. In directives-driven production systems like con-
struction projects, it is possible to intervene in the
planning process before direct production
Track the percentage of assignments completed each plan
period (PPC or per cent plan complete) and act on rea-
sons for plan failure
Lookahead planning
The functions of lookahead planning are the planning:
Shape work ow sequence and rate
Match work ow and capacity
Maintain a backlog of ready work (workable backlog)
Develop detailed plans for how work is to be done
(operationsdesigns)
Table 1 Lean versus non-lean project delivery
Lean Non-lean
Focus is on the production system Focus is on transactions and contracts
Transformation, £ow and value goals Transformation goal
Downstream players are involved in upstream decisions Decisions are made sequentially by specialists and ‘thrown over
the wall’
Product and process are designed together Product design is completed, then process design begins
All product life cycle stages are considered in design Not all product life cycle stages are considered in design
Activities are performed at the last responsible moment Activities are performed as soon as possible
Systematic e¡orts are made to reduce supply-chain lead times Separate organizations link together through the market and
take what the market o¡ers
Learning is incorporated into project, ¢rm and supply-chain
management
Learning occurs sporadically
Stakeholder interests are aligned Stakeholder interests are not aligned
Bu¡ers are sized and located to perform their function of
absorbing system variability
Bu¡ers are sized and located for local optimization
Ballard et al.
4
Tools and techniques include constraints analysis, the activity
denition model and prototyping of products or processes,
also known as rst-run studies. Constraints analysis is done
by examining each activity that is scheduled to start within the
period chosen as the project lookahead window.
4
The con-
straints that prevent the activity from being a sound assign-
ment are identied and actions are taken to remove those
constraints. As shown in Table 2, the activity of designing a
slab is constrained by lack of a soils report. Acquiring the soils
report removes that constraint. Note that the addition of such
make readytasks is one way in which the level of detail
increases as scheduled activities enter the lookahead window.
The rule governing constraints analysis is that no activity is
allowed to retain its scheduled date unless the planners are
condent that constraints can be removed in time. Following
this rule assures that problems will be surfaced earlier and that
problems that cannot be resolved in the lookahead process will
not be imposed on the production level of the project, whether
that be design, fabrication or construction.
The Activity Denition Model (ADM: Figure 4) provides the
primary categories of constraints: directives, prerequisite
work and resources. Directives provide guidance according
to which output is to be produced or assessed. Examples are
assignments, design criteria and specications. Prerequisite
work is the substrate on which work is done or to which
work is added. Examples include materials, whether raw
or work-in-progress, information input to a calculation or
decision, etc. Resources are either labour, instruments of
labour or conditions in which labour is exercised.
Resources can bear load and have nite capacities.
Consequently, labour, tools, equipment and space are
resources, but materials and information are not.
ADM is a tool for exploding phase schedule activities into
greater detail. Explosion occurs through specication of con-
straints and through further detailing of processes.
Commitment planning
The Last Planner presents a methodology to dene criteria for
making quality assignments (Ballard and Howell, 1994). The
quality criteria proposed are:
Denition
Soundness
Figure 3 Last planner system of production control
Lean project management
5
Ta b l e 2 Illustration of constraints analysis
Project: Mega Building Report date: 3 November
Constraints
Activity Responsible
party
Scheduled
duration
Direcives Prerequisites Resources Comments Ready?
Design slab Structural
engineer
15^27 November Code 98 Finish?
Levelness?
soils repor t 10h labour,1 h
plotter
no
Get information
from client
about floor
finish and level
Structural
engineer’s gofer
3^9 November OK OK OK yes
Get soils report
from Civil
Structural engineer by 9 November OK OK OK yes
Layout for tool
install
Mechanical
engineer
15^27 November OK tool con¢gurations
from manufactures
OK may need to
coordinate with
HVAC
no
Ballard et al.
6
Sequence
Size
Learning (not strictly speaking a criterion for assign-
ments, but rather for the design and functioning of the
entire system)
The Last Planner considers those quality criteria in advance
of committing workers to doing work in order to shield them
from uncertainty. The plans success at reliably forecasting
what work will get accomplished by the end of the week is
measured in terms of PPC (Figure 5).
Increasing PPC leads to increased performance, not only of
the production unit that executes the Weekly Work Plan
(Table 3), but also of production units downstream as they
can plan better when work is reliably released to them.
Moreover, when a production unit gets better at determining
its upcoming resource needs, it can pull those resources from
its upstream supply so they will be available when needed.
Consequently, it is not surprising that implementation of the
Last Planner system has produced more reliable ow and
higher throughput of the production system (Ballard and
Howell, 1998; Ballard, 2000b; Koskela, 2000; Ballard et al.,
2002a,b).
Learning (also known as reasons analysis
and action)
Each week, last weeks weekly work plan is reviewed to
determine what assignments (commitments) were completed.
If a commitment has not been kept, then a reason is provided
(Figure 6). Reasons are periodically analysed to root causes
and action taken to prevent repetition. Obviously, failure to
remove constraints can result in lack of materials or prerequi-
site work or clear directives. Such causes of failure direct us
Figure 4 Activity De¢nition Model (ADM)
Figure 5 PPC chart electrical contractor (Ballard et al.,1996)
Lean project management
7
Ta b l e 3 Construction weekly work plan
Project: Pilot FOREMAN: Phillip
ACTIVITY 1 Week plan DATE: 20/9/96
Estimated Actual Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday PPC Reason for
variances
Gas/P.O hangers
0/14 ‘K’ (48 hangers)
XXX XXX
Sylvano, Mario, Terr y
No owner stopped work
(changing
elevations)
Gas/P.O. hangers XXX XXX XXX XXX No same as above ^
0/14 ‘K’ (3 risers) Sylvano, Mario, Terry worked on
backlog and boiler
breakdown
3600 cond water ‘K’ 420XXX XXX XXX Yes
2^45 deg 1^90 deg Charlie,Rick, Ben
Chiller risers XXX XXX XXX No
(2 chillers per week) Charlie,Rick , Ben
Hang H/W O/H J’ XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Yes
(2400^1400) Mark M, Mike
Cooling tower 1000 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Yes
tieins (steel) (2
towers per day)
Steve, Chris, Mark W,
Weld out CHW pump XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Yes
headers J’ mezz.
(18 )
Lake
Weld out cooling XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX No eye injury, lost 2
towers Je¡ days welding time
F.R.P. tie-in to E.T. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Yes
(9 towers) 50 % Pal, Jacky,Tom
WORKA BLE
BACKLOG Boiler
blowdown^
basements^rupture
disks
Ballard et al.
8
back to the lookahead process to seek improvements in our
control system.
Some failures may result from the last planner not under-
standing the language and procedures of making commit-
ments or from poor judgment in assessment of capacity or
risk. In these cases, the individual planner is the focus of
improvement. Plan failures may also result from more funda-
mental problems in management philosophy, policy, con-
icting signals, etc.
Whatever the cause, continued monitoring of reasons for
plan failure will measure the effectiveness of remedial actions.
If action has been taken to eradicate the root causes of mate-
rials-related failures, yet materials continue to be identied as
the reason for failing to complete assignments on Weekly
Work Plans, then different action is required.
Illustration 2: work structuring through
pull scheduling
Work Structuring is a term developed by the Lean
Construction Institute (Ballard, 1999a) to indicate process
design. The last products of work structuring are schedules.
Pull techniques and team planning are used to develop sche-
dules for each phase of work, from design through handover
(Ballard, 2000a). The phase schedules thus produced are
based on targets and milestones from the master project sche-
dule and are the source of scheduled activities that enter the
projects lookahead window.
A Pull technique is based on working from a target comple-
tion date backwards, which causes tasks to be dened and
sequenced so that their completion releases work. A rule of
pullingis only to do work that releases work to someone
else. Following that rule eliminates the waste of overproduc-
tion, one of Ohnos seven types of waste (Ohno, 1988; also
Shingo, 1992). Working backwards from a target completion
date eliminates work that has customarily been done but does
not add value.
Team planning involves representatives of all organizations
that do work within the phase. Typically, team members
write on sheets of paper brief descriptions of tasks they must
perform in order to release work to others or tasks that must
be completed by others to release work to them. They tape or
stick those sheets on a wall in their expected sequence of per-
formance. Planning usually breaks out in the room as people
begin developing new methods and negotiating sequence and
batch size when they see the results of their activities on
others.
The rst step of formalizing the planning and the phase sche-
dule is to develop a logic network by moving and adjusting
the sheets. The next step is to determine durations and see
if there is any time left between the calculated start date and
the possible start date. It is critical that durations not be
padded to allow for variability in performing the work. We
rst want to produce an idealschedule.
It is standard practice to try to build as much oat as possible
into the duration of tasks for which you are responsible. This
results from lacking a mechanism for coordination. The Last
Planner system will eventually create condence both that
interests will be protected and that work ow will be mana-
ged. Consequently, designer and builder specialists can pro-
vide unpadded durations for their assigned tasks, condent
that uncertainties will be buffered and that unfair burdens
will be rectied.
Figure 6 Reasons for plan failure
Lean project management
9
The team is next invited to re-examine the schedule for logic
and intensity (application of resources and methods) in order
to generate a bigger gap and more oat. Then they decide
how to spend that time:
Assign to the most uncertain and potentially variable task
durations
Delay start in order to invest more time in prior work or
to allow the latest information to emerge or
Accelerate the phase completion date
If the gap cannot be made sufciently positive to absorb
variability, the phase completion date must slip out, and
attention turns to making up that time in later phases. The
key point is deliberately and publicly to generate, quantify
and allocate schedule contingency.
Once the team has agreed on the phase schedule, the schedule
and the activities represented on it can only be changed under
three conditions:
Prime contract changes
Activities on the schedule cannot be performed without
violation of Last Planner rules (allow scheduled tasks to
advance in the lookahead window only if you are con-
dent they can be made ready when scheduled. Allow
assignments into weekly work plans only if you are con-
dent they will be completed as scheduled) or
Someone comes up with a better idea and all team mem-
bers can be persuaded to agree
This may involve a transfer of money or at least promises of
future money transfers across organizational boundaries as
changes in the phase schedule will not likely benet all parties
equally.
Purpose participants process
The purpose of Pull scheduling is to produce a plan for com-
pleting a phase of work that maximizes value generation and
one that everyone involved understands and supports; to pro-
duce a plan from which scheduled activities are drawn into
the lookahead process to be exploded into operational detail
and made ready for assignment in weekly work plans.
Representatives of those with work to do in the phase parti-
cipate in the production of phase schedules. For example, a
team working to schedule a construction phase typically
involves the general contractor and subcontractors, and per-
haps stakeholders such as designers, client and regulatory
agencies. Participants should bring relevant schedules and
drawings including the master schedule and perhaps even the
contract. The process involves the following steps:
Dene the work to be included in the phase, e.g. founda-
tions, building skin, etc., and the phase deliverables
Determine the completion date for the phase plus any
major interim releases from prior phases or to subsequent
phases
Using team scheduling and stickies on a wall, develop the
network of activities required to complete the phase,
working backwards from the completion date, and incor-
porating any interim milestones
Apply durations to each activity, with no contingency or
oat in the duration estimates
Re-examine logic, resource intensities and work methods
to try to shorten the duration
Determine the earliest practical start date for the phase
If there is time left over after comparing the time between
start and completion with the duration of the activities on
the wall, decide what activities to buffer or pad with
additional time:
Which activity durations are most fragile?
Rank order the fragile activities by degree of uncertainty
Allocate available time to the fragile activities in rank
order
Illustration 3: negative versus positive iteration
in design
Assuming that design is by its nature an iterative and genera-
tive process (Ballard, 1998), how should we understand
waste in design? Waste reduction has been characterized by
Koskela (2000) in terms of minimizing what is unnecessary
for task completion and value generation. Consequently, that
iteration is wasteful, which can be eliminated without loss of
value or causing failure to complete the project. Precisely
what iteration can be thus eliminated is a matter for empirical
research. Informal surveys of design teams have revealed esti-
mates as high as 50% of design time spent on needless (nega-
tive) iteration. An additional research goal is to learn how to
identify negative iteration before suffering its consequences.
There are certainly other types of waste in design than nega-
tive iteration. One example is design errors. Reinertsen
(1997, p. 78) characterizes design outputs as defective when
they fail because something previously known was forgotten
or neglected. By contrast, design outputs can be failures but
not errors if they fail because of lack of knowledge not pre-
viously possessed.
Beam penetration case
Lottaz et al. (1999) tell a story illustrating negative (needless)
iteration. Holes for a refrigeration conduit were required in a
Ballard et al.
10
beam (Figure 7). Primary dimensions were: d(the diameter of
a hole), e(the distance between holes), x(the distance from
the rst hole to the column) and h(the depth of the beam).
The architect rst specied values for the four dimensions
then sent an annotated drawing to the steel fabricator, who
changed the values for eand xand sent it on to the engineer.
The engineer reduced the diameter of the hole (d) and sent the
document back to the architect. Perhaps in a t of pique, the
architect reduced the value of xfrom 1100 to 1000 mm and
nally involved the HVAC subcontractor, who made further
changes and the cycle of changes and transmissions contin-
ued. The erection contractor was running out of time, so the
contractor xed values for the dimensions and had the beam
fabricated. Unfortunately, he was then unable to persuade the
team to accept his solution. The result was considerable time
and money lost on the project.
There are many contributors to the negative iteration in the
beam penetration case. We might rst question the sequence
of design tasks. Was the architect the best person to establish
initial values, then the fabricator, then the engineer, etc? The
Design Structure Matrix (DSM) is a device for eliminating or
reducing iterative loops by resequencing design tasks (Austin
et al., 1998). DSM is appropriate when a specic design
direction has been established or for the exploration of
alternative design sequences. Once iterative loops have been
minimized, we propose that selection be made from among
the strategies presented below in order to manage each of
those loops.
Another major contributor to negative iteration in the Lottaz
et al. case is sequential processing, which not only adds to the
time expended on the problem, but also actively hinders reso-
lution. The architect (or anyone else) could have called a
meeting to decide as a group on the values for the relevant
dimensions. If the various contributors to the decision had
been together in one place, at minimum there could have been
an acceleration of the iterative looping. At best, there could
have been genuine team problem-solving. Using cross-
functional teams and team problem-solving to produce design
is a staple of contemporary product development processes.
Many other concepts and techniques of advanced design
management are relevant to the reduction of negative itera-
tion. Suppose the participants had been willing to share the
Figure 7 Beam penetration c ase. Source: Lottaz et al. (1999)
Table 4 Techniques for reducing negative
iteration
Design structure matrix
Team problem-solving
Cross-functional teams
Shared range of acceptable solutions (values)
Share incomplete information
Reduced batch sizes
Team pull scheduling
Concurrent design
Deferred commitment
Least commitment
Set-based versus point-based design
Overdesign
Lean project management
11
range of values acceptable to each. In that case, it would
have been a simple matter to determine rst if the problem
as stated was solvable, i.e. if there were values for each
dimension acceptable to all. They might have been unwilling
to share that knowledge even if they were brought together
face-to-face in hopes that the nal solution better favoured
themselves as opposed to others. Indeed, it appears to
this author to be a routine of current design practice that
supposedly collaborating specialists effectively compete for
the priority of the values or criteria associated with their
specialties (Ballard, 1999b). Willingness to share incomplete
information has long been identied as a necessity for
concurrency in design (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991). This can
perhaps be best understood in terms of the lean production
practice of reducing batch sizes, which belongs with DSM
as a technique for restructuring the design process.
Sequential processing results in part from the implicit rule
that only completed design work is advanced to others. In
terms of the beam penetration case, suppose the design team
members agreed up front on work sequence, which would
start by Team Member A providing just that information
needed for Team Member B to perform his calculation. B
would in turn release that information to C, allowing C to
do work, etc.
Deferred commitment is a strategy for avoiding premature
decisions and for generating greater value in design. It can
reduce negative iteration by simply not initiating the iterative
loop. A related but more extreme strategy is that of least com-
mitment, i.e. to defer decisions systematically until the point
at which failing to make the decision eliminates an alterna-
tive. Knowledge of the lead times required for realizing design
alternatives is necessary in order to determine last responsible
moments. Such knowledge now tends to be partial or lacking.
When task sequence cannot be structured to avoid iterative
looping, and when it is necessary to make a decision quickly,
and when team problem-solving is not feasible as a means of
accelerating iteration, design redundancy may be the best
strategy. An example: structural loads are not known pre-
cisely, but an interval estimate can be reliably produced. In
that case, it might be decided to design for maximum load
rather than to wait for more precise quantication.
Posing alternative design solutions as sets rather than as point
solutions is the strategy at the heart of the method of Set-
Based Design (SBD). The beam penetration case is described
by Lottaz et al. (1999) in order to present a technique and
software for specifying ranges of values for continuous vari-
ables and modelling the solution space resulting from the
intersection of alternative ranges. This approach has two
roots, one theoretical and one from practice. The Lottaz
et al. paper emerged from the domain of articial intelligence
and the attempt to develop concepts and techniques for sol-
ving problems involving multiple constraints, exploration of
which is beyond the scope of this paper. The other root is
Toyotas method of managing product development
processes (Sobek and Ward, 1996; Sobek et al., 1999;
Ward et al., 1995).
Illustration 4: application of lean rules and tools to
precast concrete fabrication
Application of the Last Planner system of production control
on projects has been demonstrated to increase plan reliability
(Ballard, 2000), which is measured by PPC: the percentage of
weekly or daily releases of work from supplierto customer
compared with what was planned. How far in advance
releases (work ow) can be accurately predicted from plans
establishes a window of reliability within which the suppliers
production can function effectively. With regard to engi-
neered-to-order products such as precast concrete, it is impor-
tant that lead times, the advance notice of need for delivery
provided by a construction site, fall within that window of
reliability. For example, suppose a construction site achieves
80% PPC looking 1 week ahead, but the precast suppliers
lead time is 2 weeks. PPC 2 weeks in advance might only
be 60%, assuring that perhaps 40% of requested precast ele-
ments will not be able to be installed, thus building up
unneeded inventory at site. If lead times do not fall within the
window of reliability of the customerprocess, then pulling
materials from suppliers will inevitably build up unneeded
inventory. On the other hand, if Pull mechanisms can be used
effectively, site inventories can be reduced and the production
systems robustness vastly increased. A shorter lead time
increases system robustness because it allows less wasteful
and more rapid recovery from upsets. In other words, if
something goes wrong, it can be xed quickly with minimal
disruption to factory operations and to other orders.
In February 2001 experiments were performed in two pro-
duction cells at Malling Precast Products Ltd,
5
Shear Walls
and Nap Ts, to demonstrate the feasibility and benets of
lean production concepts, including one piece ow and pull,
with the objective of improving throughput or production
rate (which amounts to an improvement in productivity if
resources are not increased) and of reducing manufacturing
lead time (Ballard et al., 2002a,b) Production had previously
been organized around functional departments: supply, weld-
ing, reinforcement steel cutting and bending, concrete, etc.
Schedules were used to pushwork through the various pro-
cess steps required to manufacture and deliver a precast ele-
ment. In deterministic systems with no variation in
duration, quality or sequence, scheduling can be effective.
However, no production system is without variation.
Consequently, Push mechanisms tend to build up inventories
between process steps as synchronization fails. Work-in-pro-
gress inventories were very evident at Malling before its lean
transformation.
A process ow chart
6
for the Shear Walls production cell
(Figure 8) reveals the new ow-oriented design of that pro-
duction system, which then served as a model for other cells.
Redesign began by structuring for that output rate demanded
by the client project, which needed to have nine shear walls
delivered each day for an extended period. Three two-person
teams placed rebar mats in moulds. Steelxers (reinforcing
ironworkers) kept three mats tied and ready for placement.
When a mat was taken, they tied another. This pull mechan-
ism (for more on pull; Hopp and Spearman, 2000) prevented
Ballard et al.
12
build up of work-in-progress inventory, keeping cycle times
low and increasing cell robustness and exibility. Once ready
for concrete, moulds were lled immediately, as opposed to
the previous practice of batching pours late in the day. The
new system produced three shear walls in every 3 hours
because three individual walls proceeded through each of the
process steps in each of those 3-hour periods. Further, work
ow was controlled locally by the workers in the cell, each of
whom learned to seehow the entire system was performing.
Lead times were reduced for structural precast elements
to 1 week (call offs 1 calendar week ahead of needed
delivery), corresponding to a reduction in manufacturing
cycle time
7
to 11/3 days
The Shear Wall production cell had previously averaged
3.2 walls per day, with 12 workers. After application of
lean rules and toolsto restructure work ow, 12 work-
ers produced nine walls per day, an increase in the pro-
ductivity rate of 181%
The Ts production cell was restructured in a very similar
way, resulting in an improvement from a baseline of nine
T/s per day to 18 Ts per day, an increase in the produc-
tivity rate of 100%
One-piece ow and Pull concepts were rapidly extended to
other production cells. In consequence, factory through-
put as measured by revenue (Figure 9) changed from an
average weekly rate of £130 000 before February 2001
to approximately £260 000 afterwards, with an increase
in the workforce from 115 to 122. Reports from the sec-
ond quarter of 2002 indicate that revenue has stabilized
at approximately £300 000 per week
A number of actions and changes signalled a shift in
management philosophy toward employee involvement
and empowerment; specically: (1) formation of a
Quality of Work Life Council and immediate action on
its rst recommendations, (2) involvement of factory per-
sonnel in design and implementation of process improve-
ments and (3) making direct workers responsible for
controlling work ow within their production cells
Production system robustness was increased in direct
consequence of reducing cycle time.
8
Conclusion
It is now hopefully apparent how the lean project management
system differs from non-lean project management The illustra-
Figure 8 Shear walls production cell
Lean project management
13
tions and reports of implementation suggest that the LPDS is
also a superior management system. Even partial implementa-
tions have yielded substantial improvements in the value gen-
erated for clients, users and producers, and also a reduction in
waste, including waiting time for resources, process cycle
times, inventories, defects and errors, and accidents.
9
The LPDS is far from a completed work. Much remains to be
done in the development of lean principles and techniques for
the design, operation and improvement of project-based pro-
duction systems. Further, implementation issues have only
begun to be examined systematically. Structuring organiza-
tions for value generation and waste reduction offer many
challenges for future research and practice.
The Toyota Production System was fundamentally a concep-
tual innovation, a new way of thinking about production and
production management. Applying that new way of thinking
to project management appears to offer opportunity for per-
formance improvement comparable with those achieved with
the change from mass to lean forms of manufacturing.
Researchers and practitioners are invited to join the Lean
community and its efforts to improve construction industry
performance.
References
Alarcon, L. (ed.) (1997) Lean Construction, A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Austin, S., Baldwin, A., Li, B. and Waskett, P. (1998) Analytical
design planning technique (ADePT): a dependency stucture
matrix tool to schedule the building design process.
Construction Management and Economics,December.
Ballard, G. (1998) Positive vs negative iteration in design, in
Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Interna-
tional Group for Lean Construction, Brighton, UK, July,
1998.
Ballard, G. (1999a) Work Structuring. White Paper #5, Lean
Construction Institute, Las Vegas, NV [www.leanconstruc-
tion.org].
Ballard, G. (1999b) Can pull techniques be used in design?, in
Proceedings of the Conference on Concurrent Engineering in
Construction, Espoo, Finland, August, 1999.
Ballard, G. (2000a) Phase Scheduling White Paper #7, Lean
Construction Institute, Las Vegas, NV [www.leanconstruc-
tion.org].
Ballard, G. (2000b) The last planner system of production
control. PhD dissertation, Civil Engineering, University of
Birmingham, Birmingham.
Ballard, G., Harper, N. and Zabelle, T. (2002a) Learning to see
work flow. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, (in press).
Ballard, G., Harper, N. and Zabelle, T. (2002b) An application of
lean concepts and techniques to precast concrete fabrication,
in Formoso, C. and Ballard, G. (eds): Proceedings of the 10th
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Gramado, Brazil, August 2002, pp. 225236.
Ballard, G. an Howell, G. (1994) Implementing lean construc-
tion: stabilizing work flow, in Proceedings of the 2nd Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construc-
tion, Santiago, Chile, 1994; Dept. Alarcon (1997).
Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (1998) Shielding production: Essential
step in production control. Journal of Construction Manage-
ment and Engineering,124(1), 1117.
Ballard, G., Howell, G. and Castern, M. (1996) PARC: a case
study, in Proceedings of the 4th Annual conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, University of
Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Figure 9 Change in malling revenue for17 April 1999 to 26 August 2001
Ballard et al.
14
Ballard, G., Koskela, L., Howell, G. and Zabelle, T. (2001)
Production system design in construction, in Proceedings of
the 9th Annual Conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction, National University of Singapore,
Singapore, August 2001.
Best, R. and de Valence, G. (eds) (2002) Design and Construc-
tion: Building in Value, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Clark, K.B. and Fujimoto, T. (1991) Product Development
Performance, Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA.
Construction Task Force (1997) Rethinking Construction [Re-
port of the Construction Task Force to the Deputy Prime
Minister, John Prescott, on the scope for improving the
quality and efficiency of UK construction].
Formoso, C. and Ballard, G. (eds) (2002) Proceedings of the 10th
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Gramado, Brazil, August 2002.
Hopp, W. and Spearman, M. (2000) Factory Physics: Founda-
tions of Manufacturing Management, 2nd Edn, Irwin
McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Koskela, L. (1992) Application of the New Production Philoso-
phy to Construction. Technical Report 72, CIFE, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA.
Koskea, L. (2000) An Exploration Towards a Production Theory
and its Application to Construction, VTT Publications, 408,
VTT Building Technology, Espoo [http://www.inf.vtt.fi/pdf/
publications/2000 P408.pdf]
Koskela, L. (2001) New footnotes to Shingo, in Proceedings of
the 9th Annual Conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction, National University of Singapore,
Singapore.
Lottaz, C., Cle` ment, D.E., Faltings, B.V. and Smith, L.F.C. (1999)
Constraint-based support for collabortion in design and
construction. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering,
2335.
Ohno, T. (1988) The Toyota Production System: Beyond Large
Scale Production, author with Setsuo Mito, trans. Joseph P.
Schmelzis, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Reinertsen, D.G. (1997) Managing the Design Factory, Free
Press, New York.
Rother, M. and Shook, J. (1998) Learning to See: Value Stream
Mapping to Add Value and Eliminate Muda, V.1.1, The
Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline, MA.
Shingo, S. (1992) The Shingo Production Management System:
Improving Process Functions, Productivity Press, Cam-
bridge, MA.
Sobek, D. K., II and Ward, A.C. (1996) Principles from Toyotas
set-based concurrent engineering process, in Proceedings of
ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and
Computers in Engineering Conference,1822 August,
Mechanical Engineering, Irvine, CA, July 1996, 118(7),
7881.
Sobek, D.K., II, Ward, A.C. and Liker, J.K. (1999) Toyotas
principles of set-based concurrent engineering, Sloan Man-
agement Review,Winter.
Taguchi, G., Chowdhury, S. and Taguchi, S. (2000) Robust
Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ward, A.C., Liker, J.K., Cristiano, J.J. and Sobek, D.K., II (1995)
The second Toyota paradox: how delaying decisions can
make better cars faster. Sloan Management Review,Spring,
4361.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Ross, D. (1990) The Machine
That Changed the World, Rawson Associates, New York.
Endnotes
1
The expression Lean Project Delivery Systemhas been
previously used (Best and De Valence, Ch. 15) to name the lean
project management approach, with the intention of denoting
how a product is produced and delivered, from customer order to
handover. No connection is suggested to a particular contractual
structure or method of procurement such as designconstruct or
designbidbuild. While some contractual structures facilitate
specific aspects of lean project management, none guarantee
them, and many lean techniques can be applied in all delivery
systems.
2
Some have interpreted lean construction as an imitation of
manufacturing, an error that might have been avoided if a
different name had been chosen.
3
Note the difference between inventoryas an accounting
concept and as a production concept. In accounting, inventory
is an asset to be increased. In production, inventory is waste to be
reduced to a minimum.
4
Six weeks is typical, but lookahead windows may be shorter or
longer, depending on the rapidity of the project and the lead times
for information, one materials and services. On the one hand,
since long lead items are items that cannot be pulled to a project
within the lookahead window, extending that window offers the
possibility of greater control over work flow. On the other hand,
attempting to pull too far in advance can run foul of ones ability
to control work flow on site. Consequently, sizing of the
lookahead window is a matter of local conditions and judgment.
5
Malling is a subsidiary of the ORourke Group, located in
Grays, Essex, UK.
6
The flow chart is modelled after Toyotas materials and
information flow diagrams. For details, see Rother and Shook
(1998), who use the term value stream maps.
7
Manufacturing cycle time is the time it takes for a product to be
transformed from raw material to finished product. In this case,
the starting point is release of an element to the factory for
production. Lead time is that amount of time in advance of
delivery that ordersmust be sent to the supplier.
8
A production system is said to be more robust if it can function
effectively under a wider range of conditions and is less
vulnerable to upset or disruption (Taguchi et al., 2000).
9
See LCIs Congress papers [at www.leanconstruction.org] for
reports by industry practioners of lean implementations.
Lean project management
15
... Many authors have been discussing an approach that they called Lean project management (LPM) (Ballard & Howell, 2003;Moujib, 2007;Riis, 1993). Ballard and Howell (2003) contrasted Lean project management from traditional approaches. ...
... Many authors have been discussing an approach that they called Lean project management (LPM) (Ballard & Howell, 2003;Moujib, 2007;Riis, 1993). Ballard and Howell (2003) contrasted Lean project management from traditional approaches. Considering projects as temporary production systems, this author defined "lean" projects as systems that are structured to deliver the product while maximizing value and minimizing waste. ...
Article
This paper presents a systematic literature review about traditional, Agile and Lean Project Management methodologies. A general overview on the methodologies was also made, either on the perspective of the traditional based methodologies or the Lean and Agile methodologies. The systematic literature review (SLR) results revealed more than 3500 papers. After filtering and applying exclusion criteria, just 80 were analyzed. Main findings were that, in spite of some reserves, project management methodologies based on Lean are used. Nevertheless, Agile methodologies are the most used.
... Building on Lean Production, LC emerged during the first International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC) conference in 1993 and was further developed by Ballard and Howell (2003). LC adapts lean principles to the construction industry, focusing on minimizing waste, maximizing value, and improving communication and workflow control (Zhang et al. 2018). ...
... Unlike traditional construction approaches, LC emphasizes reducing project complexity through collaborative planning, enhanced stakeholder communication, and consistent value delivery (Sacks et al. 2010;Tauriainen et al. 2016;Rashidian et al. 2023). LC tools, such as Value Stream Mapping (VSM), Last Planner System (LPS), and Just-in-Time (JIT), are pivotal in identifying non-value-adding activities, optimizing processes, and ensuring smooth project workflows (Ballard and Howell 2003;Zhang et al. 2018;Aslam et al. 2022). ...
Article
The synergy between Building Information Modelling (BIM) capabilities and Lean Construction (LC) methods, through waste reduction, can have a positive impact on the productivity performance (PP) of construction projects. In view of this, the current paper aims to review empirical evidence and develop a conceptual communication model to assess the synergistic effects of BIM capabilities and LC methods on the PP of Iranian construction companies. To achieve this goal, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Partial Least-Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) approach, incorporating factor analysis and path analysis, were employed to elucidate the conceptual relationship among these three constructs. Following the development of the conceptual relationship model, confirmatory factor analysis was utilized to validate the factor structure of a set of observational variables. Subsequently, PLS-SEM was applied to examine the proposed hypotheses. The findings support the hypothesized model, indicating a positive and direct correlation between BIM capabilities and LC methods. Moreover, BIM capabilities exhibit a positive influence on PP, with LC methods serving as an intermediary between BIM capabilities and PP indicators.
... Apesar dos sistemas poderem ser restringidos por políticas [26], muitas das restrições estão nos recursos envolvidos, os quais possuem capacidades limitadas para suportar estresses [10] [27]. Isso demonstra a necessidade de considerar o impacto dos recursos sobrecarregados em cadeias de causa e efeito. ...
... Contudo, apesar da influência dos fatores contextuais internos e externos, uma organização pode reduzir, até certo ponto, sua complexidade interna [21]. Isso passa pelo desenvolvimento de características organizacionais que consigam proteger a produção contra mudanças excessivas e apoiar sua adaptabilidade diante das perturbações decorrentes [40] [27]. Para isso, a estruturação das organizações nos projetos da construção civil deve dedicar mais atenção as estratégias e práticas que solucionam problemas de diferenciação e interdependência [41]. ...
Conference Paper
Partindo de uma revisão da literatura e da experiência com a implementação de práticas da construção enxuta em múltiplos empreendimentos, este artigo explora a noção de que a resolução dos problemas de diferenciação e interdependência é fundamental para qualquer sistema produtivo que busque desenvolver competências contra variações causadas por fontes internas ou externas. Uma discussão mesclando diferentes abordagens do pensamento sistêmico é realizada para prover uma melhor compreensão do conceito de complexidade e do comportamento volátil das organizações nos projetos. O papel das práticas lean na solução dos problemas de diferenciação e interdependência é também analisado para fundamentar novos desenvolvimentos.
... The Last Planner System (LPS) is a "Lean" tool developed to improve planning and workflow in construction projects [34]. It is based on the Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS) philosophy, which seeks to optimize the entire project life cycle from design to delivery (see Fig. 3). ...
Article
Full-text available
The construction sector is a fundamental pillar of the economy and should consequently lead in implementing effective management systems. Lean Construction (LC) philosophy sees production as a transformation, flow, and value process. Its objective is to establish efficient production systems that minimize delivery times. Previous studies indicate that integrating LC into construction project management processes can address issues such as cost overruns, labor expenses, and material waste. However, this emerging philosophy still lacks a complete understanding of its advantages, limitations, and synergies with sustainability. This paper presents a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis of relevant topics to evaluate its potential. Through the analysis of 36 documents, publication trends and the state of the art on Lean Construction are identified. The research method proposed for the development of this study consisted of two stages. The first stage focused on studying the interactions between Lean Construction and construction project management through a systematic literature review. The second stage focused on the study of the main connections and latest trends in the field of Lean, based on a qualitative analysis. The results show that Lean construction focuses on optimizing and sustaining construction projects by taking advantage of the potential benefits of BIM through methodical and intelligent management. The emergence of new tools offers a promising perspective for the future of Lean construction in project management.
... Koskela [42] has been focusing on reducing waste and improving efficiency in construction projects. Lean construction streamlines workflows, reduces redundancies, and enhances collaboration [43]. The integration of lean construction with BIM has been studied as well. ...
Article
Full-text available
In 1994, the first European Conference on Product and Process Modelling took place in Dresden, Germany. The entire field of construction information technology research has enthusiastically embraced building information modeling (BIM) as a method for creating an ever more detailed and ever more complex model of the product, which is produced through an increasingly complex process. During this successful evolution, some of the fundamental principles of design, design collaboration, and design representation have been sidelined and may not have been sufficiently addressed by the standards and even less so by the software. The symptoms of this are coordination and productivity problems that persist in the construction industry as well as an increasing amount of planning, organizational, and legal paperwork that is needed to support BIM-based processes. This paper analyzes the gap between foundational theory and practice, and it argues that BIM-related research and development should find a better balance between product and process modeling, semantics and pragmatics, modeling and informing, form and function and behavior, as well as computer-integrated construction and productivity. The latter element in the listed pairs is the one that, if better addressed, would lead to even more useful tools and better building.
... While extant LC literature has demonstrated the merits of LC, the LPS and performance measurements for improving construction performance, the degree of implementation varies in practice (Ballard & Howell, 2003). For example, according to Ballard and Tommelein (2016), one of the least implemented components of LPS is measurement of lookahead planning performance. ...
Article
Question: How and why is performance measured in relation to Lean Construction (LC) and the Last Planner System® (LPS®)? What are key challenges thereof, and how might these be overcome? Purpose: The purpose of this research is to add better understanding of performance measurement in relation to LC and the LPS by addressing key challenges and provide suggestions of how to overcome these. Research Method: The paper draws upon a qualitative case study of a construction company in Norway and its use of performance measurement in relation to the LPS. Findings: The findings demonstrate that performance is measured in various ways and to various extents in the case company. They also demonstrate that a more strategic and systematic approach to performance measurement is needed to cope with the challenges of measuring performance and to reap the benefits of LC and the LPS. This includes sensitivity to social conditions related to performance measurement. Limitations: The paper is based on a single case study in the Norwegian setting, and future studies should seek to build on and refine the findings presented here. Implications: If performance measurement, both in relation to the LPS and more generally to LC is not sensitive to social issues, it might lead to avoidance and neglect at best, and opportunism and abuse at worst. Value for practitioners: The paper addresses key issues and challenges involved in performance measurement in relation to LC and the LPS, and how practitioners might reap the benefits and avoid pitfalls associated with performance measurement. Keywords: Performance measurement, Lean Construction, Last Planner System®, challenges, conditions Paper type: Full paper
... Using lean techniques in construction projects is made more difficult by the absence of defined processes and procedures. In lean construction projects, standardizing processes and best practices is crucial for efficiency and consistency (Howell et al., 1993). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This research paper presents a comprehensive review of existing literature on the impact of sustainable lean practice on project timelines and performance within the UK construction sector. This review, drawing from a variety of academic sources, attempts to decipher broader dimensions surrounding the implementation of sustainable lean practices in construction projects. The implementation of lean practices in the construction industry has gained significant attention in recent years due to its potential to improve project timelines and performance. This paper examines and evaluates the impact of lean practices on construction project management, focusing on how these practices influence timelines and overall project performance. Additionally, case studies and empirical evidence are reviewed on previous research articles to assess the efficiency of lean methodologies in different construction settings. The findings suggest that lean principles and strategies such as waste reduction, continuous improvement, and value stream mapping can lead to streamlined processes, reduced lead times, and enhanced project performance.
Article
Managing infrastructure projects often presents challenges in maintaining flexibility throughout their lifecycle, which limits their ability to adapt to evolving and uncertain conditions. This systematic literature review examines the factors that accelerate design flexibility in the management of infrastructure projects. Analyzing 50 articles from a dataset of 11,443, we identified several key factors, organized into seven clusters across three levels: individuals, organizations, and inter-organizational relationships and three operational dimensions of design flexibility. These factors help to expand the concept of flexibility beyond its traditional association with engineering product design to encompass managerial project design. Building on Simon's design theory, this study frames design flexibility as a proactive and strategic asset. We offer future research directions to further broaden the scope of flexibility in project management. This study contributes to ongoing debates in project management on how to enhance project performance in uncertain conditions, by addressing the challenge of balancing flexibility and control.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Im deutschen Bauwesen nimmt die Anwendung des Lean-Ansatzes, inspiriert durch seine Erfolge in anderen Industrien, seit einigen Jahren eine wichtige Rolle ein. Der vorliegende Beitrag beschäf-tigt sich diesbezüglich mit den übergeordneten Lean-Konzepten Lean Project Management und Lean Project Delivery im Kontext des Bauwesens. Basierend auf einer umfassenden Literaturanaly-se werden die unterschiedlichen Bedeutungen dieser Konzepte beleuchtet und differenziert. Der Unterschied liegt primär in ihrer Perspektive: Lean Project Delivery bezieht sich auf das Projekt als Ganzes bzw. auf das System und beschreibt hierbei die generelle Art und Weise, wie das Projekt durchgeführt bzw. abgewickelt wird. Lean Project Management hingegen bezieht sich auf die über-geordnete Managementtätigkeit des Bauherrn und beschreibt, wie dieser innerhalb seiner Funktion im (gesamten) Projekt die entsprechenden Tätigkeiten durchführt, welche Haltung er dabei ein-nimmt und welche Prinzipien er seinen Entscheidungen zugrunde legt. Trotz ihrer unterschiedlichen Schwerpunkte sind beide Konzepte darauf ausgerichtet, die Projektdurchführung in ihrer Gesamt-heit zu verbessern und Verschwendung über den kompletten Lebenszyklus des Bauvorhabens zu reduzieren.
Article
This research reviews the northbound transportation network of a major Canadian courier, aiming to streamline U.S. transshipment operations. An integer programming model was developed to optimize gateway locations in the U.S. for cost-effective customer assignment and optimal truck routing to Canada. Four actionable recommendations from the model were implemented, resulting in annual cost savings surpassing USD 1.2 million, significantly exceeding initial estimates.
Article
Full-text available
How Toyota's product design and development process helps find the best solutions and develop successful products.
Article
Full-text available
Effective production control systems are structured around the assignment as the unit of analysis. The quality of work assignments to production units such as construction crews and engineering squads is the key to production control and a key factor determining production unit productivity. Research has revealed that the quality of assignments can be substantially improved by forming and selecting them to meet soundness, sequence, and size criteria. Making quality assignments shields production units from work flow uncertainty, enabling those units to improve their own productivity, and also to improve the productivity of the production units downstream. The associated reduction in task duration can shorten projects. Further reduction of project duration comes from reducing the buffers previously needed to accommodate flow uncertainty.
Article
Most businesses carry a huge invisible burden. Unmanaged design-in-process (DIP) inventory is an enormous drain on earnings. Design-in-process inventory consists of product designs that are in process but not yet in production. It is the product-development equivalent of work-in-process (WIP) inventory. The higher a company's R&D spending and the longer its development cycle, the greater its DIP inventory is likely to be. The author explains what causes DIPs, discusses controlling queues in managing design tasks, and emphasizes an importance of viewing the entire design process as a system.
Article
This book is based on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 5-million-dollar 5-year study on the future of the automobile. Designated the International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP), the MIT study explored the differences between mass production and lean production in the automobile industry. Lean production, pioneered by Eiji Toyoda and Taiichi Ohno at the Toyota Motor Company in Japan, combines the advantages of craft and mass production, while avoiding the high cost of the former and the rigidity of the latter. Toward this end, lean producers employ teams of multiskilled workers at all levels of the organization and use highly flexible, increasingly automated machines to produce volumes of products in enormous variety. Lean production (a term coined by IMVP researcher John Krafcik) is "lean" because it uses less of everything compared with mass production. Also, it requires keeping far less than half the needed inventory on site, results in many fewer defects, and produces a greater and ever growing variety of products. Lean production changes how people work. Most will find their jobs more challenging and will become more productive, but, at the same time, they may find their work more stressful. Lean production calls for learning far more professional skills (than in mass production) and applying these creatively in a team setting (rather than a rigid hierarchy). This book is organized in three sections. The first, "The Origins of Lean Production," traces the evolution of lean production. The second, "The Elements of Lean Production," looks at how lean production works in factory operations, product development, supply-system coordination, customer relations and as a total lean enterprise. Finally, in the third section, "Diffusing Lean Production," the authors examine how lean production is spreading across the world and to other industries and, in the process, is revolutionizing how people live and work. Also examined are the barriers that are preventing companies and countries from becoming lean. Creative ways leanness can be achieved are suggested.
Article
A five-year study reveals that the highly successful Toyota Motor Corporation seems to follow a different paradigm of design than other US and Japanese auto companies. This paper outlines 11 principles that appear to form the foundation of Toyota's use of "Set-Based Concurrent Engineering." Discussion of the principles includes illustrations from Toyota.