Archive for the 'IGLC' Category

Lean concepts of establishing flow by pacing activity has made its way to construction.

Actions to Influence Continuous Flow

Jammara Rossi Bulhoes, et al (presented by Flavio Picchi)

Value stream mapping was adopted to identify components of inventory, levels of work in process, and delivery delays. Used the TPS house to shape an implementation approach for a large shopping plaza in Brazil. They started with standardized work.

Changing minds of engineers was the first challenge.

Engineers had a large batch mindset. "Talking to them about lean concepts — small batches and flow — was a great fight." Eventually they adopted a small batch approach that was paced (matched) to other work. They then brought a focus to reliability at every stage of activity. Buffers were established for rain delays. They also used a five why approach for the problems they incurred. Results:

• Cycle time reduced
• Waste reduced. Productivity was 2x the budget and 4x the reference case.
• Far more reliable workflow

Still, people thought that large batches might improve performance!

Unreliable or unexpected behavior of trade contractors in allocating resources is a major source of variation in construction. Last Planner® acts to reduce variability.

How Last Planner Motivates Subcontractors to Improve Plan Reliability

Rafael Sacks

Contractors are involved in multiple projects. They tend to optimize for their own benefit by sending workers to projects. Contractors are motivated by profits, cash flow, risk, and reputation.

Sharing information about reliability — PPC — changes the behavior and consequently the equilibrium state.

The starting case is a naive subcontractor who provides enough people for the work that is available. Clever subcontractors assess the reliability of the project manager to provide the work that was promised. Rafael modeled the behavior using game theory. He concludes from the model that subcontractors will provide fewer resources than requested and the project manager will ask for more than is needed. Neither has the knowledge of what the other is doing. This is the equilibrium case. The situation changes when they are using the Last Planner.

Sharing information about reliability — PPC — changes the behavior and consequently the equilibrium state. Both parties are more likely to ask for and provide for exactly what is needed.

• When plan reliability is made transparent by means of PPC
• Plan reliability continues to improve
• Honesty improves
• The entire project moves to a higher performing situation

Rafael concludes: use a pull approach and share reliability data. Only then will people become more trusting and trust-worthy.

Phase Planning is a key collaborative practice for establishing how a team wants to meet an upcoming milestone. Among other things, a phase planning session establishes relationships that later on will allow people to deal effectively with the project uncertainties.

Phase Planning Today

Steve Knapp, et al (presented by Greg Howell)

Greg took us through a photo case study of a phase planning session conducted by DPR Construction on the renovation of a floor of a hospital. As Greg claims is usual

There comes a moment when the team agrees they can do it.

• Not one right way to run the meetings, yet
• Agenda is common: context, strategy, plan, ratify — the moment the team agrees they can do it that way, and record
• Bar stools are a nice prop. Use them to have key stakeholders describe what is important to them about the project.
• Say, "Tell me more," a lot. Take the time to explore each others' assessments, concerns, and claims.
• Let leadership evolve in the meeting. It is a conversation among the team.

"Planning happens in conversation. Phase planning is the place to have it."

Complexity in construction stems in part from a willingness to accept unique materials throughout the design.

Process Benefits from Use of Standard Products

Iris Tommelein

The study is based on a refinery project in Houston, TX involving pipe spools. Iris used the Stroboscope discrete event simulator to model the process.

"Architects like to architect. The result can be complexity."

Iris is an outstanding teacher and lecturer. She made this subject captivating. After taking us through the logic of her simulation, Iris showed the effects from simulation of adding standard pipe spools. The surprising result was that project duration increased at an increasing rate as standard product is introduced. When product variety was nearly eliminated the project duration was cut by a 1/3.

Builders take note: there are tremendous benefits to increasing the use of standard products. Share Iris' paper with your clients and their designers. And if you get the opportunity, spend some time with Iris. It will be a memorable learning experience.

Buffers in production/construction operations protect down-stream operations from up-stream variation. That idea is well understood. The practice of setting and placing buffers is generally understood. This paper describes a simulation approach for capturing the nature of the project environment to establish buffers.

Design of Work in Process Buffers in Repetitive Building and Electrical Project

Vicente Gonzales, et al

The simulation was based on the lean construction simulation "The Parade of Trades". The simulation was applied to a case study for building homes.

Actual cycle times exceeded plan results for the unbuffered base case. This was compared to a buffered case. The buffer sizes varied for each of the operations in the sequence. Total cycle time was cut from 64 days to 55 days.

This looks promising. It looks to me that some simple tools are needed for project participants to design buffers on their project.

Agile and Lean theories were used to design the mechanical and electrical construction processes. The success of a lean/agile design is to improve safety and productivity. The design incorporates automotive approaches for modular assembly with pulse-driven (paced) production. Has a goal to drive labor off the construction site to improve productivity and quality.

Design of a Lean and Agile Construction System

Peter Court, et al

"(Local) improvisations occur naturally unless you bring design intentions."

The system has three planning and coordination components:

• Modules (sub-assemblies)
• Components
• Consumables

Each has different work release and replenishment. Peter has learned to keep the implementation simple. He says, "Avoid explaining the theory."

Peter's lean/agile design will get tested next year when mechanical and electrical work begins. He promises to report on the results.

Application of Pull and CONWIP in Construction Production Systems

Roberto Arbula (Presented by Glenn Ballard)

"The intent to manage construction projects with detailed schedules long into the future is destined to fail."

Push, pull, and CONWIP¹ were described. The concepts were explained using the REBAR Production System for Heathrow Terminal 5 Expansion.

• Operating from a central mind to distributed specialists will be very wasteful.
• High variation and uncertainty makes long term detailed schedules useless for managing work.
• Installers worked with detailers to design the production system.

PPC improved dramatically over the life of the REBAR detailing and production.

The story of lean construction at Heathrow is incredible. The project is way ahead of schedule and saving $ millions.

1. CONWIP stands for Constant Work in Process to produce continuous flow. [ ⇑ back ]

I am sitting in the back of the room at a hotel in Santiago, Chile while authors of peer-reviewed IGLC papers get their 15-20 minutes speaking about their papers. I'll do my best to catch the essence of each paper. I'll come back with the link to the paper as I get time. I hope you enjoy this as much as me.

Each summer (in the northern hemisphere) the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC) gets together to share what they have been learning and researching. This 14th annual event will be held in Santiago, Chile, July 25 - 27. I'll be attending and blogging throughout the event.

I'm quite impressed reading the abstracts of the papers. The group is taking a big step forward in their efforts to change how projects are delivered. Have a look for yourself at the IGLC-14 Abstracts.

This year the group is having its first keynote speaker. Chilean Senator Fernando Flores will be addressing the group on Wednesday morning. While I don't know what he is speaking about, I can tell you his work on the language action perspective has shaped a good deal of the work on the underlying theory of project management. Greg Howell and I are presenting a paper titled, What Should Project Management Be Based On? We prepared the paper in response to two prominent IGLC members' conclusions that project management should either be based on theories of economics or theories of production. As you might guess, we don't think project management should be based on either! (Check back here to get the paper.) Dr. Fernando Flores' work significantly influenced our perspective.

In addition, I will be chairing (is that really a verb?) the session "Prefabrication, Assembly and Open Building". I look forward to it. I haven't done this before. It is sort of a moderator's role. What I like most is I get to ask the first and last questions! I'll let you know how it goes.

The International Group for Lean Construction will be meeting in Santiago Chile this year. This is the 14th consecutive year the IGLC has held a conference. Why is this important? A large group of serious researchers and practitioners have been collaborating and sharing what they have been learning and developing in unselfish ways.

For an idea of what you can expect from the conference have a look at the IGLC-13 Papers presented in Sydney. Some of the papers are a tough read, but do take the time to read and study. Your effort will be rewarded. You can also get a sense of what to expect from my previous reviews of IGLC Papers. You can be sure that there is real value for you in your lean construction and lean project endeavors.

And if you can get to Chile, I'll buy you a Pisco Sour!

The Last Planner System® is routinely delivering projects on time and on budget. Want to know how? That will have to wait for another posting. But for today, I'll introduce you to Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell, the creators of the Last Planner System. They authored a 13-page paper for IGLC-11 sharing the current state of the approach and the open issues, An Update on the Last Planner.

• Work structuring: linking scheduling and production control
• Phase scheduling: providing goals for Last Planner
• A list of improvements and recommendations that have emerged from theory and practice.

Emphasize learning (changes in PPC) rather than absolute values of PPC.

Throughout the years the authors and innovators have made numerous distinctions about projects that orient us to a new paradigm of project management. One important set of distinctions is how they view work structuring and project schedules.

"(S)chedules are products of work structuring that specify goals and the handoffs between specialists required to achieve those goals. Production control has the job of achieving those handoffs or initiating replanning should that prove infeasible."

Glenn and Greg are not speaking about structuring projects through the contracting process. They are pointing to answering the question, "How will we do this work with each other?"

The authors made five recommendations:

1. Identify tasks and assignments that are either handoffs to someone else or that
   have implications for coordinating the use of shared resources.
2. Make customer acceptance explicitly the measure of release.
3. Emphasize learning (changes in PPC) rather than absolute values of PPC.
4. Incorporate linguistic action and reliable promising.
5. Measure PPC against planned day (versus week) for release.

LPS addresses the question "How will we do this work with each other?"

And they posed five questions:

1. Should work groups (squads, gangs, crews) meet daily to align assignments,
   identify make ready actions needed within the day, and identify problems
   requiring replanning?
2. How far in advance should commitments be made?
3. Should multiple levels of commitment be recognized?
4. How to better assure that (the) Last Planner (System) is used within a distributed control system?
5. Does application of the Last Planner system reduce the variability in duration of
   construction activities?

I am someone who helps teams adopt the LPS on their projects. So often people want to just use the six-week look-ahead plan and the weekly work plan. They think they are just using a different set of planning forms. The authors use this paper to show how the whole of the project planning and control approach changes. They also do something more important. They invite each of us to join them in research from the field as you use the Last Planner System on your projects. Want to learn from those who are already using the LPS? Join Glenn, Greg, and a group of practitioners in Park City, UT, September 14- 17, for the Sixth Annual Lean Construction Congress.

The Last Planner System™ (LPS) is a trademark of the Lean Construction Institute. The LPS is free for use. Join other users of the LPS at Planner2Planner.

In the summer of 2003 three authors presented their thoughts on the nature of the breakdown delivering projects in the construction industry. Lauri Koskela took the lead writing with Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell. The authors analyze the current situation for making change, present the conventional solutions, propose a systemic approach, and outline a four-part approach to change. You can find their paper Achieving Change in Construction along with the other IGLC conference papers introduced on this site.

People throughout the construction industry acknowledge that projects are routinely late, over budget, fail to satisfy the customer in some significant way, create strains on project team members, and injure and kill workers along the way. News of any of these circumstances no longer surprises, nor are we moved to action. The authors characterize the situation with the question, "Do we need a problem-solving approach or systemic change?" After examining the changes underway they conclude:

"The limited impact of structural, behavioral and IT related initiatives to date points to the same limit to change — the current mental model of production."

So the mental model(s?) are to blame. That on one hand seems to be on the mark, but what are the prevailing models and what might we change to?

The prevailing model of construction projects has been well-described as transformation of information and material, a.k.a the input-process-output (IPO) model. Activities are identified in a reductionist fashion breaking down milestones into activities and activities into tasks. Tasks are assigned to tiers of experts individually contracted and left to manage their work by themselves.

And the new mental model(s)? The authors fail to offer proposals saying instead,

"(T)he switch from the transformation model (of production) to the flow model is just one, even if important, part of the paradigm shift needed…new distinct elements of the theoretical foundation have been progressively found…and we anticipate a quest for unification of theory of production and production management."

My friends conclude the dilemma of construction is an issue of the unification of production theory. I do believe they see the limitations of current mental models. However, in this paper they limited their view on what mental models are in question. They may be making a starting-out error by characterizing construction first as production rather than as project. This leaves out of the quest a look at the examination of project management, communication theory, approaches to design and engineering, and education, just to name a few intersecting mental models.

Lauri, Glenn, and Greg suggest there are two complementary approaches for achieving change. The first has to do with producing economic value. They argue that people will adopt an approach that produces higher value. They couple this with a high involvement high learning organizational approach. High involvement will bring about the change. Yet they finish this wonderful paper with,

"(T)he sluggishness of change in construction is due to limited understanding of change needed and resulting confusion regarding means of change."

Can we make the change to new mental models? Certainly our current mental models have tremendous inertia reinforced by computer systems, contracting practices, the organization of the industry, and our education systems. But change we must. I think the authors are right. Change is limited to understanding of the current situation. Read Achieving Change in Construction to learn from three of the best minds on the subject.

Making Do: The Eighth Category of Waste, by Lauri Koskela.

I've written about the eighth waste in my posting introducing Two Great Wastes™. A number of people want to update Taiichi Ohno's taxonomy of materiel waste. Lauri Koskela is the most recent. Lauri's eighth waste is the most novel. He claims we incur waste when we fail to use the tools, materials, and processes that are called for. He calls this making do.

Lauri calls making do the opposite of buffering. He distinguishes that as the urge to keep the process going in spite of not having everything ready. When buffering materials are waiting on processing. With making do processing continues without all appropriate wherewithal. Lauri claims,

"Making do is usually applied when there is unexpected unavailability of a (standard) input. Making do is another penalty due to variability."

I really like his formulation. Lauri is getting at something that we all know well. Have you used a screwdriver when another tool was called for? I have. Have you improvised steps for accomplishing a task rather than use the standard called for? I have. Have you substituted one material for another rather than stop to get the right material? I have. I imagine at one time or another we have all taken an expedient action. We were making do with some intention to just get the job done.

Blindness is not making do.

While I wasn't present for his presentation and discussion I heard that some people thought he was stretching it. Here's their argument: how can we be making do when we are working with all we have? And if we are, how would that be a waste? We can think of scenarios where we are in the wilderness, or far from a source of material, or in a country without access to the best resources. Lauri is not speaking about any of this. He's speaking about the situation where we have the time to do planning. We have clear direction about what is preferred. And we have access to sources of materials, tools, skilled labor, and process. It is in these usual project situations that making do is so wasteful.

One problem is people think waste is observable. It is not observable only assessable. What do I mean? We can observe someone is using a screwdriver. We have the opinion that a different tool would get better results. That is our assessment. There is not given waste. Further, if people are blind to other possibilities, then how can we call it waste? Do you open a paint can with a screwdriver? I do. Did you know there is a special tool for opening paint cans? Well, I didn't. One cannot claim I am making do when all I know about is the use of screwdrivers for opening paint cans. Blindness is not making do.

I'm still curious about the underlying contributors to making do. It seems to me that resignation, laziness, expediency, habit or custom, blindness, and deliberate action all contribute to the waste. Local economics and market conditions have a great impact on whether we call an action making do or doing good. When I can hire laborers for a few dollars a day am I making do when I choose not to rent equipment at two or three times the cost? Of course not! Economics matter. There is no universal standard for assessing that one is making do.

I have one last comment about the formulation. Lauri presumes cognitive action. Lauri says that it is our response to the unexpected unavailability of wherewithal that is the waste. Sure, but I think he can go further. In the project setting variability is a function of the performance of the planning system and practices. We can engage in a way that minimizes the unexpected unavailability. Doing so would reduce the urge for expediency. That could lead to a significant reduction in this waste.

Lauri offers a new distinction for engaging with the world that allows people to observe and assess waste. Read Making Do: The Eighth Category of Waste. Share the paper with your team. And begin observing and assessing where you are making do.

Check out other IGLC papers and commentaries.

The Taiichi Ohno 7 wastes of production are a simple and elegant way to focus improvement actions in production process settings. The 7 wastes are taught to teams who use them as a way to observe, assess, and improve process to provide more value. The 7-item taxonomy has been so successful that it is one of the first aspects of lean thinking that is adopted.

Is the taxonomy complete? Many people think not. People have been tinkering with the taxonomy starting with the book Lean Thinking, by Jim Womack and Dan Jones, who proposed the eighth waste to be providing something that the customer doesn't value. Others followed suit making 7 other proposals that I could find. Read the rest of this entry ¶

I've been living in the dissonance of the worlds of project management and enlightened company management. You only need to read a story here and there in Fast Company or Business 2.0 to see that we are setting out to manage our companies in a different way than we attempt to manage our AEC projects. That dissonance led Greg Howell and me in collaboration with Lauri Koskela and John Draper to write the paper Leadership and Project Management: Time for a Change from Fayol to Flores. Greg presented the paper last week to the 12th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, in Copenhagen, Denmark. I got to stay home to tend to client work. I'll let Greg comment to this posting to share how the paper was received.

We succeed on projects by enabling project performers to adjust to the uncertainties of the world with benefit of full context of the planning on the project.

Our paper began with a discussion list thread gone bad in March 2003. In exasperation, I wrote an email and I posted it to the weblog, Lean Project Delivery Rejects Cartesian Thinking. Greg and I had just finished our paper on linguistic action for IGLC-11. I opened by saying bad management and leadership are to blame for the poor performance of our projects. I finished with a hunch on where we need to look for a new model.

"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."

Now fast-forward 16 months. Our basic premise in the Fayol to Flores paper is what we know as good principle and practice of management has been made obsolete by the very nature of project work. Project performers' tasks are dependent on the completion of other tasks. The unreliability of completion leads to all sorts of waste and consequent coping behaviors. The usual practices of establishing firm plans and controlling project performers' actions to those plans exacerbates the situation. Holding firm in a world that is always changing just takes you further off course. Instead, we succeed on projects by enabling project performers to adjust to the uncertainties of the world with benefit of the full context of the planning on the project. The only thing missing is theory to support a move from one set of behaviors to another.

We credit Henri Fayol, a French mining engineer, with codifying a theory of management that was consistent with the emerging mass production and scientific management of the turn of last century.

Fayol's Five Management Functions

1. To forecast and plan the future and to prepare plans of action
2. To organize the structure, people, and material
3. To command activity
4. To coordinate, unify, and harmonize effort
5. To control to assure policies and plans were followed

Fayol's 14 Management Principles

1. Specialization - division of labor
2. Authority with responsibility
3. Discipline
4. Unity of command
5. Unity of direction
6. Subordination of individual interests
7. Remuneration
8. Centralization
9. Chain / Line of authority
10. Order
11. Equity
12. Lifetime jobs (for good workers)
13. Initiative
14. Esprit de corps

I've been having some fun speaking about project management and leadership theory. I ask an audience what they think is good theory and practice. After they rattle off a few points I show them Fayol's five management functions and 14 principles. People usually agree that Fayol got it right. Then I share Fernando Flores' view of the world. People agree with that too!

Flores sees the world differently. And the world has changed in the more than 70 years that elapsed. In Fayol's time labor was the largest part of the product. The usual laborer was uneducated. The reverse is true today, especially in large AEC projects. Flores put it succinctly,

"Management is that process of openness, listening, and eliciting commitments, which includes concern for the articulation and activation of the network of commitments, primarily produced through promises and requests, allowing for
the autonomy of the productive unit." [Flores, 1982]

Can we have it both ways? We think not. We think that one significant contributor to the malaise of project performance is the management and more especially the leadership that is manifest. Our evidence is anecdotal. Nevertheless, we now have an explanation for why some companies and teams succeed taking a lean approach and why others don't.

Greg and I are optimists. We think we will come to understand our situation with continued inquiry, dialogue, and collaboration. Please contribute to our education and the reform of project management by reading and commenting on the paper.

Have a look at other papers reviewed at IGLC Papers.

This past week two papers I co-authored were presented at the 12th Annual International Group for Lean Construction in Copenhagen, Denmark. Greg Howell and I authored the papers with some help from colleagues Lauri Koskela, John Draper, and Joe Ely. I'll introduce the papers in postings on Aug 9 and 10. In the meantime, you can have a look at them. On Monday, I'll write about Leadership and Project Management: Time for a Change from Fayol to Flores. On Tuesday I'll post on Two Great Wastes in Organizations and Teams.

I hope you enjoy the papers. I'll look for your comments next week.