Comassetto Hamerski, D; Saurin, T A; Formoso, C T and Isatto, E L (2024) The Last Planner system as an emergent production planning and control method: The role of multiple representations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 150(11): 04024155, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The positive outcomes associated with the Last Planner System (LPS) of production control are usually interpreted as stemming from the application of LPS-as-theorized in the seminal publications about this method. However, the use of LPS in real settings is subjected to contextual influences and involvement of actors with varying perspectives of what counts as an effective implementation. This suggests that LPS-as-theorized may not be the only valid and sufficient representation to explain its success. This paper investigates how the different representations of LPS contribute to its effectiveness and adaptation to local conditions. It is based on a case study on the implementation of LPS in a refurbishment project. Four representations are compared: LPS-as-theorized (literature based), LPS-as-prescribed (handbook based), LPS-as-disclosed (interviews based), and LPS-as-done, i.e., what happened in reality, according to different sources of evidence. Findings set the basis for proposing a model that frames LPS-as-done as an emergent phenomenon unique to each construction project. This new perspective contributes to the recognition of the role of informal practices, the development of more accurate assessments of LPS implementation, the analysis of trade-offs when using LPS, and the alignment of expectations on the adoption of LPS.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | complexity; emergence; Last Planner system; production planning and control |
| Index terms: | production planning, emergence, interview, adaptation, last planner system, complexity, case study, implementation, refurbishment project, publication, production control, effectiveness, construction project, control method, evidence |
| Subjects: | monitoring and control, production management, evaluation and assessment methods, project delivery, performance management, user focus, contractual arrangements, systems engineering, infrastructure engineering, research dissemination and communication, project controls, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Procurement, Quality Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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