Lean Construction: From Theory to Implementation

O. Salem, M.ASCE1; J. Solomon2; A. Genaidy3; and I. Minkarah, M.ASCE4

Abstract: This article compares the techniques developed for lean construction with those developed for lean manufacturing. Lean
manufacturing and lean construction techniques share many common elements despite the obvious differences in their assembly envi-
ronments and processes. Manufacturing plants and construction sites are different in many ways that might explain why lean production
theories and practices do not fully fit the construction industry. Though many lean construction tools and elements are still in an
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Shantou University on 05/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

embryonic state, lean construction techniques are gaining popularity because they can affect the bottom line of projects. Additionally, this
paper presents a study of a construction project in which specific lean construction elements were tested. Each technique was evaluated
in terms of its impact on the performance of the project. Based on the findings of the study, a new “lean assessment tool” is proposed to
quantify the results of lean implementations. The assessment tool evaluates six lean construction elements: last planner, increased
visualization, huddle meetings, first-run studies, five S’s, and fail safe for quality. This paper provides a simple and comprehensive
approach that is transferable to any construction project.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0742-597X共2006兲22:4共168兲
CE Database subject headings: Construction management; Lean construction; Theories.

Introduction assembled on site meet high-quality standards that are greatly

influenced by specific site conditions.
Construction and manufacturing differ significantly in the physi- One-of-a-kind production: Normally manufacturing takes ad-
cal features of the end product. In manufacturing, finished goods vantage of specialized equipment to make standardized units,
generally can be moved as a whole to retailers or end customers. allowing only a limited level of customization by retailers. In
Construction, on the other hand, deals with larger units that can- construction, customers play a key role throughout the project
not be transported. Additionally, the construction industry has cycle. Under guidance from the designer, customers define their
three other features that distinguish it from manufacturing: On- product explicitly through the bid package or contract. The owner
site production, one-of-a-kind projects, and complexity 共i.e., tem- or the owner’s representative can modify the requirements and
porary multi-organization and regulatory intervention兲 共Koskela
details of the contract by addenda 共before bids are opened兲 or
2002兲.
change orders 共once the bid is closed兲.
On-site production: Construction is site-position manufactur-
Complexity: In manufacturing, many components from differ-
ing, as opposed to fixed-position manufacturing, which applies to
ship and airplane manufacturing and in which the product can be ent subassemblies can be easily managed because suppliers are
moved after assembly 共Schemenner 1993兲. In construction, instal- selected early in the design phase. Specialized facilities with suit-
lation and erection are the activities that most increase the value able technology and layout ensure the reliable flow of the product.
of the product. The contractor must ensure that all components With repetition, this supply network eventually becomes manage-
able and optimized. In contrast, in construction, the completion of
1 activities is highly interrelated and complicated. Construction
Associate Professor, Construction Engineering and Management
Program, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of projects are characteristically complex, unique, dynamic systems
Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210071, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0071. E-mail: that must rely on an initial design that involves a number of
osalem@uc.edu subassemblies with variable specifications 共Bertelsen 2003兲.
2
Graduate Student, Construction Engineering and Management Being an on-site production, the installation of those subassem-
Program, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of blies is constrained by the interacting and overlapping activities
Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0071. of different contractors, making it more difficult to meet a fixed
3
Associate Professor, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
schedule.
Program, Dept. of Mechanical, Industrial and Nuclear Engineering, 633
Rhodes, Univ. of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0072. The combined effect of on-site, one-of-a-kind, and complex
4
Professor Emeritus, Construction Engineering and Management production is uncertainty. The manufacturing process makes it
Program, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of possible to reduce uncertainty by increasing control over the pro-
Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210071, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0071. cess itself. A steady state is desirable in order to increase effi-
Note. Discussion open until March 1, 2007. Separate discussions must ciency through repetition. In construction projects, significant
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one uncertainty exists throughout the project. Weather conditions, soil
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
conditions, owner changes, and the interaction between multiple
publication on June 23, 2005; approved on December 16, 2005. This operations can produce unique circumstances, which could be as
paper is part of the Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 22, No. critical as the planned activities and have a significant impact on
4, October 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X/2006/4-168–175/$25.00. project cost.

168 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006

J. Manage. Eng. 2006.22:168-175.

 The Manufacturing Process versus the Construction Schonberger 1982兲. After the study conducted by the International
Process Motor Vehicle Program 共IMPV兲, the Japanese techniques were
seen as part of a new production system, known as lean produc-
In the long term, both construction and manufacturing strive to tion 共Krafick 1988; Bartezzaghi 1999兲. The scope of the tech-
add value to their products via high returns on investment; how- niques was not limited to manufacturing. In fact, Bowen and
ever, each employs different means to achieve this objective. In Youngdahl 共1998兲 present cases of process-based services that
manufacturing, the lifecycle of a product on the market is long apply lean production practices.
enough to develop related research and training capabilities. In Having the characteristics of both “production” and “service”
construction, a product’s lifecycle is the relatively short project systems, the construction industry has also taken some steps to-
duration, and thus it is more difficult to justify research and train- ward applying the lean production concept 共Howell 1999兲. How-
ing. According to Banik 共1999兲, this lack of investment is dam- ever, lean construction, presents challenges because it involves
aging to the construction industry’s capacity for innovation in project-based production. The lean enterprise concept 共Murman et
process and technology and threatens its competitiveness in local al. 2002兲 comprises a variety of production systems that share
and global markets. Further, decision making in manufacturing certain principles, including waste minimization, responsiveness
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Shantou University on 05/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

planning is concerned with capacity optimization to combat the to change, just-in-time, effective relationships within the value
trade-off between future growth and machine depreciation. Equip- stream, continuous improvement, and quality from the beginning.
ment in construction is commonly seen as a resource that can be Lean construction has sought a new foundation for project
purchased or rented/leased for the project based on the appropri- management 共Koskela 2002兲: the International Group for Lean
ate time-value analysis. Contractors seek to minimize ownership Construction 共IGLC兲. The IGLC has led research on the applica-
and operation costs while ensuring equipment availability. tion of lean techniques in the construction industry and has
The extent of operations in manufacturing is well defined from provided tools for operational planning and control, supply, visu-
the beginning. The components to be produced or purchased will alization, and continuous improvement. Emerging techniques
change only if there is a drastic change in costs. In construction, have started to change the way constructors manage their own
the supply chain is more flexible. Subcontractors or the main operations.
contractor can perform operations based on the resources and The extension of specific manufacturing techniques to lean
costs of each specific project. Similarly, the workforce in manu- construction is still an open question. It is clear that both contexts
facturing generally enjoys more stable wage policies and higher conform to a sociotechnological construct 共Niepce and Molleman
employment security. Positions are well defined and people gain 1998兲, in which the combination of human and technical elements
ample experience in performing specific tasks. In the construction ensures higher performance outcomes 共Moore 2002兲. In practice,
industry, wages vary depending on skill, experience, and employ- however, it is important to determine the set of tools that can be
ers. Job security is low, and workers perform a range of tasks applied to achieve higher performance outcomes for construction
throughout the development of a project. The manufacturing in- projects.
dustry has shown how experience and specialized skills are valu-
able, highly regarded, and well compensated.
Quality in manufacturing is related more closely to process Techniques in Lean Manufacturing
control than to product conformance. Common tasks are defect
prevention, monitoring, and intervention. Rework is generally Lean manufacturing combines the capabilities of the workforce
avoided, and in some cases, parts are discarded rather than repro- with organizational techniques to achieve high outcomes with few
cessed. In contrast, quality in construction primarily related to resources 共Katayama 1996兲. Lean principles determine the goals
product conformance 共Arditi and Gunaydin 1997兲. Specifications of lean manufacturing. Womack and Jones 共1996兲 present value
and drawings determine quality standards, and quality assurance specification, value stream 共waste elimination兲, flow, pull, and
is the joint effort of the construction company and the owner to continuous pursuit of perfection as the lean principles. The lean
meet safety requirements, environmental considerations, and con- organization defines the activities on which the system focuses;
formance with applicable regulations. Rework is a common prac- Womack et al. 共1990兲 refer to design, supply, and manufacturing
tice because only one final product will be delivered. as the core activities of the lean organization. Japanese manufac-
Supply in manufacturing is an order-driven activity that is syn- turers, especially Toyota Co., have developed the techniques that
chronized through material handling systems. The operations se- support the principles of lean production. Monden 共1983兲 and
quence in manufacturing is determined during the product design Ohno 共1988兲 introduced the Toyota Production System 共TPS兲 as a
phase, and changes are limited by the determined layout. Supply combination of methods with consistent goals—cost reduction,
in construction is schedule driven because the process span is quality assurance, and respect for humanity—to ensure sustain-
longer and the sequence of tasks can be modified, if required, by able growth. Monden identified four main elements of the TPS:
unforeseen exceptions. The construction supply chain is main just-in-time 共JIT兲, autonomation, workforce flexibility, and cre-
contractor-client based 共Matthews et al. 2000兲. Subcontracting ative thinking.
can account for most of the value of the project, and because Just-in-time is based on the concept that inventories are not
project activities are totally interrelated, the relationship between valuable and should be regarded as waste; accordingly, units
subcontractors and the general contractor demands much coopera- should be available only when required. Three methods are asso-
tion and transparency. ciated with just-in-time: First, the kanban 共Japanese for “card” or
“sign”兲 system is used to minimize inventories according to back-
ward requests that flow through cards, baskets, or digital signals
The Lean Enterprise Philosophy 共Chaoiya et al. 2000兲. Second, production leveling ensures that
fluctuation in demand can be met by the right sequence of prod-
Japanese manufacturing techniques have been benchmarked by ucts in minimum batches 共Miltenburg 2002兲. Third, decreasing
Western manufacturers for more than three decades 共Druker 1971; the number of setup activities reduces the number of activities

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006 / 169

J. Manage. Eng. 2006.22:168-175.

 performed during downtime so that changeovers do not interfere are reduced, demand fluctuations can be managed by making
with minimum batches. Planned critical activities supported by small adjustments to the production volume and the resources
single-minute exchange devices 共SMED兲 should reduce the effect allocated. Techniques associated with production leveling are
of alternating different products. product sequence scheduling, flexible standard operations, multi-
Autonomation is the prevention of defects, an alternative to functional layout design, and total preventive maintenance.
traditional quality control. Autonomation is supported first by a Flow variability greatly influences lean construction practices
functional management system, which promotes quality and cost because the late completion of one trade can affect the overall
management companywide 共Ho and Fung 1994兲. Quality is trans- completion time of a project. “Last planner” is a technique that
lated into all the activities of the organization: design, supply, and supports the realization of plans in a timely manners 共Ballard
production. A second method, autonomous control, prevents the 2000b兲. Last planners are the people accountable for the comple-
flow of defective parts through the process. Visual inspection tion of individual assignments at the operational level. The last-
共Poka-yoke兲 devices support this level of control, differing from planner process starts with the reverse phase schedule 共RPS兲, i.e.,
traditional autonomation that does not allow direct intervention in a detailed work plan specifying handoffs between trades for each
the process 共Shingo 1985兲. phase 共Ballard and Howell 2003兲. Based on the RPS, a “look-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Shantou University on 05/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Maintaining a flexible workforce allows a company to match ahead” schedule provides the activities to be completed during the
its labor requirements with the fluctuating level of demand for its coming weeks and the backlog of ready work. Each planner pre-
product. Two methods support flexible labor: multifunctional lay- pares weekly work plans to control the workflow. If assignments
out design and standard operations. With a flexible machine are not completed on time, planners must determine the root
arrangement 共Yang and Peters 1998兲, it is possible to rotate posi- cause of the variance and develop an action plan to prevent future
tions in the production line and adjust the size of the crew to the recurrences of the problem.
pace required. Only with well-defined operations can the crew
attend multiple machines reliably. Machine operation should also
be planned through preventive maintenance activities. Process Variability
All of these techniques rely on workforce capabilities that Autonomation 共Jikoda兲 is the notion that immediate action should
have been overlooked by Western manufacturers. First, creative be taken to prevent defects at the source so that they do not flow
thinking offers continuous improvement through feedback and through the process. In lean manufacturing, visual inspection al-
supports the continual improvement of a production line’s daily lows workers the autonomy to control their own machines so that
tasks. Second, problem-solving skills prevent defects from recur- when they identify defective parts, they can stop the process to
ring. Third, teamwork empowers workers with control over the identify the root cause. Fail-safe 共Poka-yoke兲 devices are used to
operation and allows for task rotation. The human component, automatically prevent defects from going to the next process
made up of these three capabilities makes lean manufacturing a 共Shingo 1985兲.
dynamic system that always seeks to achieve higher performance. Because defects are difficult to find before installation, quality
To ensure a balance between value addition and employee satis- in construction has traditionally been focused on conformance.
faction, Toyota is now working with TVAL 共Toyota Verification Lean construction concentrates efforts on defect prevention. Fail-
of Assembly Line兲, i.e., an ergonomic assessment of the workload safe actions can be implemented on a job site to ensure first-time
of each position 共Fujimoto 2000兲. quality compliance on all assignments 共Milberg and Tommelein
2003兲.

Moving from Lean Manufacturing to Lean Transparency

Construction
In lean manufacturing, any resource that does not contribute to
Ballard 共2000a兲 divides the Lean Project Delivery System into better performance is regarded as waste that should be eliminated
four interconnected phases: project definition, lean design, lean from the system. The five S’s can be used to identify housekeep-
supply, and lean assembly. His study focuses on lean assembly, ing in plants. They are sort 共Seiri兲, straighten 共seition兲, standard-
the phase beginning with the first delivery of resources to the site ize 共sieso兲, shine 共seiketsu兲, and sustain 共shisuke兲. In construction,
and ending with project turnover. Lean assembly is particularly the five S’s allow for a transparent job site, at which materials
important to general contractors 共GC兲, who develop the human flow efficiently between warehouses and specific jobs in the field
and technical structure for this activity. 共Dos Santos et al. 1998兲. Since construction has mobile worksta-
By definition, techniques follow a heuristic approach; prac- tions, increased visualization can help identify the work flow and
tices are designed and tested through trial and error until they can create awareness of action plans on a job site 共Moser and dos
be implemented at companies. In lean production, techniques are Santos 2003兲.
linked through a common framework 共Monden 1993; Feld 2001兲.
Accordingly, Dos Santos 共1999兲 has linked heuristic approaches
with the theoretical framework of lean construction. Following is Continuous Improvement
a discussion of the transfer of lean manufacturing techniques to Continuous improvement 共Kaizen兲 cannot be associated with a
construction: specific technique. In fact, all techniques are set to drive continu-
ous improvement via problem solving and creative thinking.
However, in lean manufacturing, quality circles provide an oppor-
Flow Variability
tunity for workers to actively participate in process improvement.
In lean manufacturing, production leveling addresses the impact These teams meet periodically to propose ideas for the most
of flow variability 共Heijunka兲. Production leveling controls, the visible problems in the workplace. Quality, maintenance, cost re-
impact of fluctuating demand levels controlled by optimizing the duction, and safety issues can be worked out by the teams to
sequence of products with minimum batch sizes. When batches provide potential solutions for future activities. The benefits of the

170 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006

J. Manage. Eng. 2006.22:168-175.

 quality circles are not only the implemented ideas but also the
learning process that workers experience.
Based on a set of targets, workers give their input on their
progress during daily huddle meetings to develop and improve
assignments 共Mastroianni and Abdelhamid 2003兲. At the end of
the month, new targets are established 共Schwaber 2002兲. First-run
studies are used to redesign critical assignments 共Ballard and
Howell 1997兲. Operations are examined in detail, bringing ideas
and suggestions to explore alternative ways of doing the work.
The PDCA 共plan, do, check, and act兲 cycle is used to develop the
first-run study. First, one “plans” a work process to study, ana-
lyzes the process steps, and brainstorms how to eliminate un-
needed steps. To “do,” one tests new ideas on the first run. To
“check,” what actually happens is described and measured. To
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Shantou University on 05/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

“act,” the team is to reconvened, and teammates communicate the Fig. 1. Constraints and variances by category
improved method as the standard to meet. To ensure continuous
improvement, the team’s capabilities must be best used to develop
both individual and joint contributions 共West 1998兲.
completed, he started to prepare it regularly. The project manager
focused the constraint analysis on material issues. A more inquisi-
tive look at potential constraints would have anticipated some
Case Study
variances during the execution, as shown in Fig. 1.
The main objective of the case study is to implement and assess
Variance Analysis
the values of different lean construction techniques for a general
Cost variance was the only performance indicator at the start of
contractor in Ohio. The GC pursues human and technical learning
the project, so it was difficult to introduce the variance of assign-
through the implementation of lean construction. The GC man-
ments as a meaningful performance measure. When assignments
agement agreed to implement and test six lean construction tech-
were not completed on time, the project manager provided the
niques: last planner, increased visualization, first-run studies,
immediate cause, e.g., weather conditions or scheduling. By the
huddle meetings, the five S’s, and fail-safe for quality. A research
end of the study, the project manager was able to identify the root
team monitored the implementation of these techniques in a
causes of variances and set action plans to deal with delays.
parking-garage project during a 6-month period. Based on the
results and the feedback provided by all participants, an overall
Percentage Plan Completed Charts
assessment was prepared and improvement suggestions for future
The research team prepared percentage plan completed 共PPC兲
implementations were proposed.
charts at two levels: project and subcontractor. Subcontractors
The research team worked with two different teams on the
were concerned about their weekly PPC value, so they tried to
project. The planning team, led by the project manager, focused
improve the quality of their own assignments. During the study,
on operational planning and included subcontractors as well as
the project staff prepared the PPC charts and posted them in the
the staff. The workers team, led by the foreman, focused on the
site trailer.
improvement activities and included laborers and carpenters. One
champion for each tool was selected from the GC staff to lead the
implementation of each technique. The research team provided Increased Visualization
reference materials and collected data to monitor the progress on
the implementation of each lean construction tool. Commitment Charts
The GC’s vice president addressed the project personnel to em-
phasize the importance of their safety to the company. The attend-
ees were asked to give examples of how to maintain safety
Findings of the Case Study
practices on a job site. At the end of the presentation, a commit-
ment pledge was signed by all employees and posted in the trailer
Last Planner throughout the project.

Reverse Phase Scheduling Mobile Signs

All subcontractors were encouraged to chart their schedule on a The project personnel provided their input on the design of the
wall display using Post-it notes. Subcontractors could see how safety signs. After a brainstorming session, mobile signs were
their planned schedules affected the completion time of a particu- designed and later posted on various areas of the site. Most of
lar phase of the project. Within a few weeks, planners started to them used colorful and funny expressions to attract the attention
rely on reverse phase scheduling to estimate activity durations of all people on the job site.
instead of going back to the original master schedule.
Project Milestones
6-Week Look-Ahead The project personnel were not regularly informed of completion
The project manager was not familiar with the look-ahead sched- dates at the beginning of the study. Once the signs were designed,
ule, so the research team prepared the first look-ahead schedules. completion dates were plotted and posted floor by floor through-
Once the project manager realized that the look-ahead schedule out the project. At the end of the study, most workers stated that
could provide an updated picture of the project assignments to be they felt more involved in the execution of the project.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006 / 171

J. Manage. Eng. 2006.22:168-175.

 Table 1. Lean Implementation Tool
Scope Technique Requirements Criteria/change
Flow variability Last planner Reverse phase Pull approach ↑
Scheduling Quality ↑
Six-week look-ahead Knowledge ↑
Weekly work plan Communication ↑
Reasons for variance Relation with other tools ↑
PPC Charts ↑
Process variability Fail safe for quality Check for quality Actions on the job site ↑
Check for safety Team effort ↑
Knowledge ↑
Communication ↑
Relation with other tools ↑
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Shantou University on 05/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Transparency Five S’s Sort Action on the job site ↑

Straighten Team effort ↑
Standardize Knowledge ↑
Shine Communication ↑
Sustain Relation with other tools ↑
Increased visualization Commitment charts Visualization ↑
Safety signs Team effort
Mobile signs Knowledge ↑
Project milestones Communication ↑
PPC charts Relation with other tools ↑
Continuous improvement Huddle meetings All foreman meeting Time spent ↓
Start of the day meeting Review work to be done ↓
Issues covered ↑
Communication ↑
Relation with other tools ↑
First-run studies Plan Actions on the job site ↑
Do Team effort ↑
Check Knowledge ↑
Act Communication ↑
Relation with other tools ↑

Huddle Meetings construction joints. Bumper wall installation was chosen because
it is a high-cost activity, and construction joint installation was
All-Foreman Meetings selected because of its high variability.
An informal meeting of all project foremen was replaced with the
weekly work plan meeting, which focused on the completion of Do
assignments during the following week. The discussions during Assignments were documented with video shooting and produc-
the meetings addressed overlapping activities and identified po- tivity studies. One flaw in the documentation was that most of the
tential problems on the job site. Actions agreed to at the meetings input came from the foreman instead of from the crew. The crew
were recorded in minutes and were reviewed the following week. was focused exclusively on the completion of the task. The de-
scription of the activities could have been more detailed with
Start-of-the-Day Meetings input from the crew.
Project personnel met at the beginning of each workday for
5 to 10 minutes to review the work to be done that day. Schedul- Check
ing, safety, and housekeeping were the most common issues to The work performed was checked in a formal meeting attended
arise during these meetings Based on job surveys, at least 67% of by the project manager, the foreman, and the crew. The research
the workers found value in the meetings. More than 42% of the team led the meetings, looking for potential improvements and
workers provided some feedback during the meetings. Most of learning opportunities. Most of the participants tried to give their
them stated that they are more likely to talk directly to their best suggestions as to what could be improved for the next rep-
foremen during that time of the day. etition of the assignment.

First-Run Studies „Plan, Do, Check, Act… Act

Ideas suggested during the meetings were tested by the same
Plan crew, with support from the project manager and the foreman.
Two assignments were selected with input from the foreman, su- The results showed more than 38% reduction in the cost of crash
perintendent, and project manager: installing bumper walls and walls and 73% reduction in the cost of construction joints after

172 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006

J. Manage. Eng. 2006.22:168-175.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Shantou University on 05/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Lean assessment format

the studies were completed. The actions implemented included Shine

new methods, changes in the composition of the crew, and a The next step consisted of keeping a clean job site. Workers were
better sequence of activities. encouraged to clean workplaces once an activity had been com-
pleted. A housekeeping crew was set to check and clean hidden
areas on the job site.
Five S’s
Sustain
Sort
The final level of housekeeping sought to maintain all previous
The first level of housekeeping consisted of separating material
practices throughout the project. At the end of the project, this
by reference and placing materials and tools close to the work
level was not fully achieved, in part because project personnel did
areas with consideration of safety and crane movements.
not view housekeeping as a continuous effort. They had to be
reminded frequently of housekeeping practices.
Straighten
Next, materials were piled in a regular pattern and tools were
placed in gangboxes. Each subcontractor took responsibility for Fail-Safe for Quality
specific work areas on the job site.
Check for Quality
Standardize An overall quality assessment was completed at the beginning of
The next level included the preparation of a material layout de- the project. Most quality issues could be addressed by standard
sign. The layout contained key information of each work activity practices, and it seemed there was little room for improvement.
on the job site. The visual workplace helped locate incoming During the execution of the project, however, some critical items
material, reduce crane movements, and reduce walking distance appeared. A new vibration method for shear walls was suggested
for the crews. and implemented by the superintendent of the project.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006 / 173

J. Manage. Eng. 2006.22:168-175.

 monthly basis. The five S’s require a different approach: an
awareness program and some disciplinary actions. Fail-safe for
quality requires the use of some indicators such as quality-at-the-
source 共Massoresky et al. 2002兲 and percentage-of-safe-work
共Saurin et al. 2002兲 that quantify the performance of subcontrac-
tors and crews. The GC also realized the need to combine training
and additional support for the project’s team to expect more ben-
efits from the implementation of the lean construction techniques.

Conclusion

The benefits of the implementation were tangible: the project was

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Shantou University on 05/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

under budget and three weeks ahead of schedule, and subcontrac-

tors were more satisfied with their relationships with the GC. The
average PPC value was 76%, 20 points above the initial perfor-
Fig. 3. Lean assessment tool: spider-web diagram
mance. No major injuries occurred during the project, and the
incident rate was below that for similar projects in the same com-
pany. Most of the planners associated the performance of the
Check for Safety
Safety was tracked with safety action plans, i.e., lists of main risk project with the implementation of the lean construction tech-
items prepared by each crew. Potential hazards were studied and niques, and they would like to continue with most of the tools. In
explored during the job. Most hazards, such as eye injuries, falls particular, they enjoyed the learning process involved in the new
and trips, and hearing loss, have standard countermeasures; how- approach of lean construction.
ever, in practice, workers have to be reminded of safety practices. The presented assessment tool could be used as a self-
assessment instrument for tracking improvements in any project.
The set of techniques included could be modified or extended to
fit the interests of a particular company. The tool should be led by
Lean Assessment Tool for Construction Projects
the project manager with the support of the staff members, who
The lean assessment tool was developed to evaluate the imple- are the champions of different techniques. The company is now
mentation of each technique. Similar assessment tools have been extending the implementation of some of these tools to other
developed in lean manufacturing 共Soriano-Meier and Forrester projects and is considering the proposed assessment tool as part
2002; Sánchez and Pérez 2001兲. The assessment tool is based on of the implementation.
a checklist of lean construction practices. This checklist is intro- Further research is required to validate this approach. A cross-
duced in Table 1. Each tool is split by specific elements essential sectional study should demonstrate the association between a
for successful implementation. Instead of assigning a single score higher level of leanness and better performance outcomes. A lon-
for each element, management defined some criteria 共knowledge, gitudinal study would show the long-term effects of intangible
communication, interaction with other tools兲 to quantify the benefits such as know-how and personnel growth on business
implementation. The champion of each tool completed the check- performance.
list with the support of the research team.
Each item is rated in a linguistic scale with six values: none
共N兲, very low 共VL兲, low 共L兲, moderate 共M兲, high 共H兲, and very References
high 共VH兲. A sample of the assessment format is shown in Fig. 2.
Three measures were taken during the project. The first mea- Arditi, D., and Gunaydin, H. 共1997兲. “Total quality management in the
sure was the initial state during the first week of the study. The construction process.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 15共4兲, 235–243.
second measure was a target value set by each champion. The Ballard, G. 共2000a兲. “The last planner system of production control.”
third measure was the final level of implementation at the end of Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Birmingham, U.K., 具http://
the study. An average score was calculated converting the linguis- www.leanconstruction.org/典 共5/15/04兲.
tic scale to numbers from 0 to 10. Fig. 3 shows a summary of the Ballard, G. 共2000b兲. “Lean project delivery system.” LCI White Paper-8.
scores for each tool on what the authors called a spiderweb dia- Lean, Construction Institute, 具http://www.leanconstruction.org典
gram. The purpose of the diagram is to provide management with 共5/15/04兲.
Ballard, G., and Howell, G. 共1997兲. “Implementing lean construction:
a simplified way to assess the progress of implementation.
Improving downstream performance.” Lean construction, Balkema,
The lean construction assessment shows an improvement at
the end of the study in most of the lean elements. Last planner is Rotterdam, Netherlands, 111–125.
Ballard, G., and Howell, G. 共2003兲. “An update on last planner.” Proc.,
ready to be implemented in future projects with more emphasis
Int. Group for Lean Construction 11th Annual Conf. (IGLC-11),
on variance analysis. Increased visualization is ready to be imple-
IGLC, Blacksburg, Va., 11–23, 具http://strobos.cee.vt.edu/IGLC11典
mented, focusing not only on safety but also on quality and 共May 15, 2004兲.
housekeeping. Daily huddle meetings are ready to be imple- Banik, G. 共1999兲. “Construction productivity improvement.” Proc., 35th
mented with some modifications: reduced frequency of meetings Annual Conf., Associated Schools of Construction, San Luis Obispo,
共two or three times a week兲 and smaller groups 共fewer than ten Calif., 165–178.
people兲. The first-run studies need some modifications before fu- Bartezzaghi, E. 共1999兲. “The evolution of production models: Is a new
ture implementations. The project manager has to lead the pro- paradigm emerging?” Int. J. Operat. Product. Manage., 19共2兲, 229–
cess, setting activities to be documented and reviewing them on a 250.

174 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006

J. Manage. Eng. 2006.22:168-175.

 Bertelsen, S. 共2003兲. “Construction as a complex system.” Proc., Int. capability data in product and process design integration.” Proc., Con-
Group for Lean Construction 11th Annual Conf. (IGLC-11), IGLC, struction Research Congress, ASCE, Honolulu, Hawaii, 具http://
Blacksburg, Va., 11—23. 具http://strobos.cee.vt.edu/IGLC11典 www.ce.berkeley.edu/~tommelein/tommelein_pub.html典 共May 15,
共May 15, 2004兲. 2004兲.
Bowen, D., and Youngdahl, W. 共1998兲. “The lean service: In defense of a Miltenburg, J. 共2002兲. “Balancing and scheduling mixed-model U-shaped
production line approach.” Int. J. Service Industry Management, 9共3兲, production lines.” Int. J. Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 14, 119–
207–225. 151.
Chaoiya, C., Liberopoulos, G., and Dallery, Y. 共2000兲. “The extended Monden, Y. 共1983兲. Toyota production system: Practical approach to
kanban control system for production coordination of assembly manu- production management, Industrial Engineering and Management
facturing systems.” IIE Trans., 32, 999–1012. Press, Norcross, Ga., 1–12.
Dos Santos, A. 共1999兲. “Application of flow principles in the production Monden, Y. 共1993兲. Toyota production system: An integrated approach to
management of construction sites.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Salford, just-in-time, Industrial Engineering and Management, Norcross, Ga.
Salford, U.K., 具http://www.cesec.ufpr.br/~asantos/PapersAdobe/ Moore, D. 共2002兲. Project management: Designing effective organiza-
papers.htm?典 共5/15/04兲. tional structures in construction, Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K.
Dos Santos, A., Powell, J., Sharp, J., and Formoso, C. 共1998兲. “Principle Moser, L., and dos Santos, A. 共2003兲. “Exploring the role of visual con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Shantou University on 05/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of transparency applied in construction.” Proc., 6th Annual Conf. of trols on mobile cell manufacturing: A case study on drywall technol-
the Int. Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-6), IGLC, Guarujá, Bra- ogy.” Proc., Int. Group for Lean Construction 11th Annual Conf.
zil, 16–23. (IGLC-11), IGLC, Blacksburg, Va., 11–23, 具http://strobos.cee.vt.edu/
Drucker, P. 共1971兲. “What we can learn from Japanese management.” IGLC11典 共Feb. 1, 2004兲.
Harvard Bus. Rev., March–April, 110–122. Murman, E., et al. 共2002兲. Lean enterprise value: Insights from MIT’s
Feld, W. 共2001兲. Lean manufacturing: Tools, techniques and how to use lean aerospace initiative, Palgrave, New York.
them, St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, Fla. Niepce, W., and Molleman, E. 共1998兲. “Work design issues in lean pro-
Fujimoto, T. 共2000兲. “Evolution of manufacturing systems and ex-post duction from a sociotechnical systems perspective: Neo-Taylorism or
dynamic capabilities: A case of Toyota’s final assembly operations.” the next step in sociotechnical design?” Hum. Relat., 51共3兲, 259–287.
Nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities, Oxford Univ. Ohno, T. 共1988兲. Toyota production system, Productivity, Cambridge,
Press, New York, 244–250. Ma., 1–44.
Ho, S., and Fung, C. 共1994兲. “Developing a TQM excellence model.” Sánchez, A., and Pérez, M. 共2001兲. “Lean indicators and manufacturing
TQM Magazine, 6共6兲, 24–30. strategies.” Int. J. Operat. Product. Manage., 21共11兲, 1433–1451.
Howell, G. 共1999兲. “What is lean construction?” Proc., Int. Group for Saurin, T., Formoso, C., Guimarães, L., and Soares, A. 共2002兲. “Safety
Lean Construction 7th Annual Conf. (IGLC-7), IGLC, Berkeley, and production: An integrated planning and control model.” Proc., Int.
Calif., 1–10. Group for Lean Construction 10th Annual Conf. (IGLC-10), IGLC,
Katayama, H. 共1996兲. “Lean production in a changing competitive world: Gramado, Brazil, 具http://www.cpgec.ufrgs.br/norie/iglc10/papers/
A Japanese perspective.” Int. J. Operat. Product. Manage., 16共2兲, index.htm典 共May 15, 2004兲.
8–23. Schmenner, R. 共1993兲. Production/operations management: From the in-
Krafcik, J. 共1988兲. “Triumph of the lean production system.” Sloan Man- side out, Maxwell Macmillan, New York, 1–29.
age. Rev., 30共1兲, 41–52. Schonberger, R. 共1982兲. Japanese manufacturing techniques: Nine hid-
Koskela, L. 共2002兲. “The theory of project management: Explanation to den lessons in simplicity, Macmillan, New York.
novel methods.” Proc., Int. Group for Lean Construction 10th Annual Schwaber, K. 共2002兲. Agile software development with scrum, Prentice-
Conf. (IGLC-10), IGLC, Gramado, Brazil, 具http:// Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
www.cpgec.ufrgs.br/norie/iglc10/papers/index.htm典 共May 15, 2004兲. Shingo, S. 共1985兲. Zero quality control: Source inspection and the poka-
Marosszeky, M., Thomas, R., Karim, K., Davis, S., and McGeorge, D. yoke system, Productivity, Cambridge, Ma., 57–69.
共2002兲. “Quality management tools for lean production: From en- Soriano-Meier, H., and Forrester, P. 共2002兲. “A model for evaluating the
forcement to empowerment.” Proc., Int. Group for Lean Construction degree of leanness of manufacturing firms.” Integr. Manuf. Syst.,
10th Annual Conf. (IGLC-10), IGLC, Gramado, Brazil, 具http:// 13共2兲, 104–109.
www.cpgec.ufrgs.br/norie/iglc10/papers/index.htm典 共May 15, 2004兲. West, J. 共1998兲. “Building a high-performing project team.” Field guide
Mastroianni, R., and Abdelhamid, T. 共2003兲. “The challenge: The impe- to project management, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 239–254.
tus for change to lean project delivery.” Proc., Int. Group for Lean Womack, J., and Jones, D. 共1996兲. Lean thinking, Simon & Schuster,
Construction 11th Annual Conf. (IGLC-11), IGLC, Blacksburg, Va., New York, 29–92.
具http://strobos.cee.vt.edu/IGLC11典 共May 15, 2004兲. Womack, J., Jones, D., and Roos, D. 共1990兲. The machine that changed
Matthews, J., Pellew, L., Phua, F., and Rowlinson, S. 共2000兲. “Quality the world, Macmillan, New York, 3–15.
relationships: Partnering in the construction supply chain.” Int. J. Yang, T., and Peters, B. 共1998兲. “Flexible machine layout design for
Qual. Reliab. Manage., 7共4/5兲, 493–510. dynamic and uncertain production environments,” Eur. J. Oper. Res.,
Milberg, C., and Tommelein, I. 共2003兲. “Role of tolerances and process 108, 49–64.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006 / 175

J. Manage. Eng. 2006.22:168-175.