Al-Sudairi, A A (2000) Evaluation of construction processes: Traditional practices versus lean principles. PhD thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA.
Abstract
Lean manufacturing theory has been the focus of research in several fields in the last decade, including the construction industry. The main philosophy behind lean theory is to differentiate value from waste. To implement lean theory there are five key lean principles that need to be taken into account. They are: (1) specify value, (2) map the value stream, (3) make value flow, (4) pull value and (5) pursue perfection (Womack and Jones 1996). Transferring these principles from the manufacturing to the construction domain is not easy and requires careful examination. Modifying real construction processes is expensive, time consuming and difficult. This study evaluates the applicability of lean principles when applied to construction processes using computer simulation. Evaluating the applicability of lean principles implies considering the peculiarity of the construction industries. This raises several questions, including: Which principles are most effective? What are the consequences of such an implementation to construction processes? Are construction buffers effective? And to what extent do project characteristics influence lean application to construction? To answer these questions, field observations on several steel projects were conducted to study, analyze and evaluate their erection processes. Data for structural steel erection processes were modeled in Extend® to form the experimental tool for evaluating lean principles. In all case studies, ranging from simple to complex, the simulated principles improved project performance and performance improved dramatically when all principles were simultaneously applied. Moreover, results of simulation analysis indicate that the more complex projects exhibit increased “lean” process improvement when compared to the simpler projects. However, the erection process became volatile and fragile when it was subjected to changes and uncertainties from outside of the process. In implementing lean theory to construction, certain lessons were learned. First, site layout and site planning are very crucial in reducing the magnitude of contributory activities. Second, redesigning construction processes requires not only reducing non-value adding activities but also reconsidering the efficiency and the sequence of value adding activities. Last but not least, managing the supply chain, where sequences and times of deliveries are specified, significantly improved construction processes.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Diekmann, J E |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case studies; manufacturing; philosophy; project performance; simulation; site layout |
| Index terms: | value stream, project performance, buffer, complex project, implementation, construction industry, efficiency, case study, construction process, lean manufacturing, process improvement, site layout, simulation analysis, computer simulation, philosophy |
| Subjects: | building construction, manufacturing engineering, financial risk, design analysis, strategic project management, site logistics, contractual arrangements, industry analysis, philosophical studies, performance management, management, project management theory and practice, modelling and simulation, business, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Design Practice, Site Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Value Management, Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Procurement |
| 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