Liu, C; González, V A; Lee, G; Cabrera-Guerrero, G and Zou, Y (2024) Understanding social interaction and physiological patterns in nonlean and Last Planner system-based project teams: A comparative study using immersive virtual reality. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 150(10): 04024131, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
There are different interactions and physiological patterns in coordination meetings between non-lean and last planner system (LPS)-based project teams. This phenomenon is the result of the top-down workflow control in the LPS that seems to influence group interaction and physiological processes differently compared to non-lean production planning and control approaches that use a bottom-up workflow control. The current LPS management practices focus on developing performance indicators instead of establishing process-oriented initiatives that optimize the temporal patterns of social interaction and physiological processes. Understanding the differences in behavioral and physiological patterns among non-lean and LPS-based project teams can support non-lean project teams in transitioning to LPS-based social and physiological patterns. Incorporating video recordings and physiological sensors such as electrodermal activity (EDA) can capture group interactions and concurrent physiological responses. The multiuser immersive virtual reality-based LPS simulation game (MILPS) is an innovative simulation tool to investigate these patterns in a controlled environment. This study uses MILPS, EDA sensors, and video recordings to investigate the impact of LPS on social interactions and physiological patterns during coordination meetings. A total of 90 participants, forming 30 groups, participated in a two-round experiment consisting of both non-lean and LPS-based project planning and working tasks. The video and EDA data were analyzed to assess the temporal pattern of interactions and associated shared physiological arousals (SPA) in both rounds. The results indicate that more iterative patterns were observed between interaction phases in LPS-based rounds, whereas more sequential patterns were observed in non-lean rounds. A higher level of SPA was found during the negotiation, identification in LPS-based round compared with the non-lean round. The contribution of this study is twofold: (1) the behavioral and physiological patterns during coordination meetings for both non-lean and LPS-based project teams are characterized; and (2) insights are generated into management and training strategies to facilitate LPS implementation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | workflow, simulation tool, project planning, last planner system, management practice, strategy, lean production, experiment, performance indicator, implementation, interaction, coordination, social interaction, project team, negotiation, comparative study, virtual reality |
| Subjects: | performance management, management, sociology, project controls, conflict resolution, virtual reality, research design and methodology, data collection methods, control systems, project delivery, manufacturing engineering, behavioral psychology, analytical methods, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Digital Applications, Organizational Design, Time Control, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Stakeholder 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