Hamzeh, F R (2009) Improving construction workflow: The role of production planning and control. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
Abstract
The Last Planner™ System (LPS) has been implemented on construction projects to increase work flow reliability, a precondition for project performance against productivity and progress targets. The LPS encompasses four tiers of planning processes: master scheduling, phase scheduling, lookahead planning, and commitment/weekly work planning. This research highlights deficiencies in the current implementation of LPS including poor lookahead planning which results in poor linkage between weekly work plans and the master schedule. This poor linkage undermines the ability of the weekly work planning process to select for execution tasks that are critical to project success. As a result, percent plan complete (PPC) becomes a weak indicator of project progress. The purpose of this research is to improve lookahead planning (the bridge between weekly work planning and master scheduling), improve PPC, and improve the selection of tasks that are critical to project success by increasing the link between Should, Can, Will, and Did (components of the LPS), thereby rendering PPC a better indicator of project progress. The research employs the case study research method to describe deficiencies in the current implementation of the LPS and suggest guidelines for a better application of LPS in general and lookahead planning in particular. It then introduces an analytical simulation model to analyze the lookahead planning process. This is done by examining the impact on PPC of increasing two lookahead planning performance metrics: tasks anticipated (TA) and tasks made ready (TMR). Finally, the research investigates the importance of the lookahead planning functions: identification and removal of constraints, task breakdown, and operations design. The research findings confirm the positive impact of improving lookahead planning (i.e. , TA and TMR) on PPC. It also recognizes the need to perform lookahead planning differently for three types of work involving different levels of uncertainty: stable work, medium uncertainty work, and highly emergent work. The research confirms the LPS rules for practice and specifically the need to plan in greater detail as time gets closer to performing the work. It highlights the role of LPS as a production system that incorporates deliberate planning (predetermined and optimized) and situated planning (flexible and adaptive). Finally, the research presents recommendations for production planning improvements in three areas: process related- (suggesting guidelines for practice), technical- (highlighting issues with current software programs and advocating the inclusion of collaborative planning capability), and organizational improvements (suggesting transitional steps when applying the LPS).
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Tommelein, I D |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | liability; reliability; uncertainty; construction project; production planning; productivity; project success; scheduling; project performance; case study; simulation |
| Index terms: | construction project, productivity, percent plan complete, commitment, scheduling, planner, production planning, program, case study, implementation, production system, collaborative planning, project performance, performance metric, liability, workflow, PPC, linkage, project success, planning process |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, management, contractual arrangements, production management, operations research, psychology, liability law, project controls, profession, software systems, urban planning, standard forms of contract, manufacturing engineering, project delivery, performance measurement, business, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Procurement, Organizational Design, Quality Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Time Control, Governance, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here