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

IGLC-16 will be in Manchester, England July 14 – 18, 2008. have a look at the agenda and accommodations. Hope to see you there.

IGLC-13, Sydney, Australia, July 2005

On the Metaphysics of Production  NEW 

Lauri Koskela and Mike Kagioglou

Abstract:
Since the pre-Socratic period of philosophy, there have been two basic metaphysical views. One holds that there are substances or things, that is, atemporal entities in the world. The other insists that there are processes, that is, intrinsically temporal phenomena. These metaphysical assumptions tend to strongly influence how the subject of the inquiry or action
is conceptualized. The thing-oriented view seems to lead to analytical decomposition, the requirement or assumption of certainty and an ahistorical approach. The process-oriented view is related to a holistic orientation, acknowledgement of uncertainty and to a historical and contextual approach. It can be argued that production is intrinsically a process oriented endeavour. However, an analysis of current conceptualizations and methods shows that it is the thing-oriented view on the world that has dominated the research and practice of production management. The resulting mismatch between the assumed nature and true nature of production has arguably led to major generic failures of production management. As a conclusion, it is contended that the discipline of production management has to seriously address the metaphysical issues confronting both practitioners and scholars.

Commentary:
What Can We Learn about Projects from Philosophy? posted 7-Nov-05.
Projects have been missing their mark for quite some time in spite of the research, education, software applications, and certifications. Koskela and Kagioglou argue that we must go all the way back to our basic understanding of who we are in the world if we are to make significant progress. Their paper is well-argued and referenced. It will serve as a jumping off point for anyone who has a serious intent to produce a new understanding of what must be done to routinely produce successful projects.

IGLC-12, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 2004

Leadership and Project Management: Time for a Change from Fayol to Flores

Gregory Howell, Hal Macomber, Lauri Koskela, and John Draper

Abstract:
Henri Fayol's definition of management establishes the "common sense" of current project management practice. That common sense is challenged by a new definition of work and management put forward by Fernando Flores. This paper explores both definitions of management and their implications for leadership. When management of work in a lean project
delivery is understood as "making and keeping commitments", the nature and focus of leadership and common sense changes. Producing trust is the essential role of leaders.

Commentary:
Leave Behind Century-Old Management Theory posted 10-Aug-04
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.

Making-Do — The Eighth Category of Waste

Lauri Koskela

Abstract:
The seminal authors on the Toyota Production System present a list of seven wastes. Even if
many subsequent authors have suggested additions to this list, it is usually presented in its
original form. This paper contends that there is a very common, generic type of waste that
should be added to the list, because it can be justified using the same conceptualizations as
used by the seminal authors. Making-do as a waste refers to a situation where a task is started without all its standard inputs, or the execution of a task is continued although the availability of at least one standard input has ceased. The term input refers not only to materials, but to all other inputs such as machinery, tools, personnel, external conditions, instructions etc. Especially in production situations where there are several uncertain inflows to the task, making-do is a common phenomenon, and requires explicit attention.

In conceptual analysis, making-do is the opposite of buffering. In buffering, materials are
waiting for being processed. In making-do, the waiting time of one type of material – or other
inputs – is negative: processing is started before the material has arrived. However, both
forms of waste are used for accommodating the impacts of variability in production. Makingdo
is applied especially for maintaining a high utilization rate or for avoiding schedule
slippage. Thus, making-do is another penalty due to variability, and it should be added to the
conceptual arsenal of queueing-theory based analysis of production (Factory Physics).

Commentary:
Making Do, A Novel Distinction of Waste posted 22-Aug-04
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.

Two Great Wastes in Organizations

Hal Macomber and Gregory Howell

Abstract:
The Toyota Production System is so successful that people look for ways to apply the lean production ideas and methods in organization settings. One of those ways is the force-fitting of Engineer Taiichi Ohno's seven wastes to organizations and projects. While organizations and projects manipulate materiel, they are better characterized by their actions of accomplishing something together – coordinating action, learning, and innovating. The seven wastes don't address those actions. Attempts to add to the seven wastes have to date broken the Ohno taxonomy. The authors propose a novel set of distinctions on the principal sources of waste in organizational settings.

Commentary:
Two Great Wastes™ posted 15-Aug-04
Greg and I claim listening is the master skill of the leader. A corollary to that skill is creating the circumstances for others to speak. The only thing keeping us from bringing forth that leadership is the current story about the exercise of power and control on projects and in organizations. We must change our story of how we are most effective. We need a story that is embraced and retold that champions the success of teams who operate in a setting of respect and dignity speaking freely while engaging in deep listening.

IGLC-11, Blacksburg, Virginia, July 2003

Achieving Change in Construction

Lauri Koskela, Glenn Ballard, and Greg Howell

Abstract:
It is generally admitted that there is a need for change in construction, and various initiatives and programmes have been launched in many countries for achieving that change. However, only few have a track record of consequent and significant successes, even if success in small scale has been reported. This paper considers the scope of change needed, the big
foundational ideas of change, as well as the initiation of the change and keeping its momentum. The discussion draws on theoretical, empirical and action research carried out by the authors. The reasons for the sluggish results from change initiatives are also briefly analyzed.

Commentary:
Achieving Change in Construction Is a Matter of Mental Models posted 29-Aug-04
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."

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.

Linguistic Action: Contributing to the Theory of Lean Construction

Hal Macomber and Gregory Howell

Abstract:
Lean Construction springs from the failure of current project management and opens the door to significant reform. Lauri Koskela has identified the inadequate conceptual foundations of current practices in terms of both management and the project, and the resulting calls for reform offer new hope for a stagnant discipline. Lean Construction, inspired by the Toyota
Production System, has applied principles drawn from production management to the design of project-based production systems. This paper argues that linguistic action contributes an essential addition to the theory of the project and management. The theory of linguistic action describes the very human processes, the purposeful ways people communicate, by which projects are conceived and delivered. This theory provides a coherent conceptual foundation for the design of the lean project delivery system and its management.

Commentary:
Care for Critical Conversations posted 08-Jul-03
Our success on projects calls on a facility and competence for engaging in particular kinds of critical conversations. Those conversations include:

• Making assessments of risk and opportunity.
• Distinguishing facts for making choices.
• Making declarations for constituting a team, roles on the team, and recurring practices for engaging as team members.
• And finally, the always-critical conversations of coordinating action with one another making requests and eliciting promises.

It is our inattention to these critical conversations that leads to the everyday waste, miscommunication, mis coordination, and general disappointment with project results.

An Update of the Last Planner

Glenn Ballard and Gregory Howell

Abstract:
The Last Planner system of production control has now been in use for a number of years. Its
inventors provide an update consisting of a description of innovations and changes, thoughts
on theoretical foundations, proposals regarding work structuring, phase scheduling and
reliable promising, and recommendations for further development. Special emphasis is placed on the relationship between scheduling and production control, and also on the technique of phase scheduling to specify the handoffs that are the control foci for Last Planner.

Commentary:
Learn from the LPS Innovators posted 06-Sep-04
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?"

IGLC-10, Gramado, Brazil, August 2002