If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

There's been quite the discussion of Koskela's and Howell's papers in the NewGrange listserv group. Unfortunately, there's no archive of the discussion that you can read. I'll just say that people have very strong opinions about the value (or lack) of the K&H papers. The participants of the discussion group are experienced, well-versed, project professionals. One member is the leading author of the PMBoK®. After four days of debate, argument, sniping, and not listening to one another (IMO), I couldn't stay on the sidelines any longer. The following is my letter to the group. (Sorry for the length.)

Email to NewGrange. Subj: Re: Lean Construction and Traditional PM

I don't know where to start…so how 'bout I jus' offer a "stream of unconsciousness" (as one participant characterized my blogging) without the [snips] (references to specific postings).

I can echo many arguments on both (all) sides. I learned in Engineering Economics that one can justify many investments against a poor current case. Business is in a project age as Claude Emond puts it, yet our company systems, our formal education, and our vernacular all harken to days of the industrial revolution.

The usual case in companies I see is projects that are poorly initiated…unclear objectives, no one acting as a customer, late to staff, competing demands for team members, and piss-poor project leadership. The project uses some form of project software (MS Project or P3) operated by a computer jockey often detached from the team. We inappropriately characterize this situation as "traditional PM". It is bad management. Period.

Having said that, there are plenty of examples of well-managed companies, who take care initiating projects, providing appropriate staffing, and competent leadership who are dissatisfied with the results they get with other than agile approaches. (I don't want to get shot for calling it "traditional".) You may all be surprised to learn that the leading companies using the Last Planner were already leading companies in their markets. When asked why did they try something so different from the status quo they'll tell you their customers were dissatisfied with the waste; their investors were dissatisfied with the risks and returns; employees were burning out; and along the way people died building buildings.

[pause while I confront that reality again]

Even the well-managed firms deliver projects late, over budget, missing some key aspect of customer satisfaction, and the employees get hurt. We've been facing this for decades, centuries, millenniums. The broad population in the industry is resigned about those conditions. Did you know that construction represents 10% of the industrial workforce and 40% of the industrial accidents? Can you guess what percentage of those accidents are preventable? OSHA will tell you over 80%.

[let's pause again]

I won't go into the history of lean construction nor the more generalized lean project delivery. Suffice it to say it has its roots in the Toyota Production System which traces its roots to Henry Ford. Let me just say that the leading companies practicing a lean approach to project delivery were already getting their projects done on time. Not always on budget, but on time. They were already the safe companies enjoying experience modifier rates 30% or more better than the average. These firms are now delivering one project after the other on time or early AND at or below budget AND safer than ever before. The largest Danish contractor has been keeping records. They've found comparing 500,000 hours reported on lean projects with 500,000 hours reported on projects doing it the conventional way they are getting their projects done earlier (one to two months), cheaper (anywhere from 10% to 20%) and much safer (over 60% fewer lost time accidents). All of this is related.

I won't try to present the explanation in this five-minute email. Koskela and Howell spent considerable time writing their papers and still they have trouble explaining. Suffice it to say something very different is going on when projects are delivered in a lean fashion. Might complex adaptive systems offer an explanation? Yes, but still incomplete. Might lean thinking principles show the phenomena? Only partially. Linguistic action? That, too. CCPM? I wish. Here's my hunch…yes, it's a hunch, or maybe just an inkling…our deterministic reductionist approach to projects is the limiting condition. New theory must embrace both the uncertainty that is the project milieu and the unpredictable, serendipitous, richness of the human condition when interacting one with the other.

Call me an optimist. New theory will lead us to easier, more rewarding projects in the project age.