Gao, S; Chan, T K and Hendy, P (2025) Adoption of the digitalised last planner system in infrastructure projects: An Australian case study. Construction Innovation, 25(3), pp. 994-1013. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose: Infrastructure projects are complex, task-based endeavours; the reliability of project schedules is often low, as delays occur. As a result, the infrastructure sector is constantly searching for innovative practices that might improve project performance. This study aims to pursue one research question: what are the benefits and challenges to last planner system (LPS) implementation in Australia's infrastructure industry? It addresses this question through an examination of two rail infrastructure projects in Victoria, Australia. Design/methodology/approach: The state of Victoria in Australia provides an excellent context for this study. The study was set in one of the programme alliances which was contracted to carry out five level-crossing removal projects. This study uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative research techniques, including surveys, interviews and site visits. The authors collected 43 valid survey responses. Additionally, 19 participants from the alliance programme's two projects (Projects A and B) took part in the interviews. Extensive empirical evidence has been triangulated to achieve the research goals. Findings: The findings show through the questionnaire survey that the greatest benefits that digital LPS brings are primarily associated with process improvement and social benefits. The interview results acknowledged that the roll-out of digital LPS had a positive impact on schedules, cost, occupational health and safety (OHS) and quality performance. The research also noted a few challenges in the introduction of digital LPS. Overall, the finding presents strong evidence that the introduction of digital LPS has been a clear success in the case company. Originality/value: This is the first piece of research to fill this major gap in the LPS literature by exploring the issue of digital LPS adoption in Australia's infrastructure sector. This study has thus laid the foundation for future work on LPS research in the Australian context. The authors are optimistic that this exploratory work will generate interest across other alliances, and perhaps extend into Australia's construction sector.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; benefits; challenges; digital; infrastructure projects; last planner system; questionnaire survey |
| Index terms: | methodology, last planner system, evidence, questionnaire, infrastructure sector, construction sector, process improvement, interview, social benefit, occupational health and safety, survey, programme, quality performance, project performance, implementation, infrastructure project, quantitative research, case study, Victoria, Australia |
| Subjects: | theoretical framing, research methods, Geography, evaluation and assessment methods, contractual arrangements, management, project management theory and practice, project controls, occupational health and safety management, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, data collection methods, data analysis and analytics, project delivery, regions and continents |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Time Control, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Project Management, Health and Safety, Procurement, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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