Assessment instrument for lean journeys in integrated project delivery: Lean learning health assessment (llha)

Ouma, L A; Castronovo, F; Rupinder, K and Leicht, R (2026) Assessment instrument for lean journeys in integrated project delivery: Lean learning health assessment (llha). Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 33(15), pp. 47-71. ISSN 0969-9988

Abstract

Purpose – The Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry is witnessing a growth in the implementation of Lean principles, in particular, by teams adopting Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). This growth requires participants in these teams to possess knowledge of Lean and IPD. However, the practitioners might not have the time to participate in continuous training, nor the metacognitive awareness of their knowledge gap in these areas. This study develops an instrument to support participants in IPD teams in assessing their knowledge in implementing Lean in their projects. The instrument also aims to support these participants in gaining a metacognitive awareness of their knowledge gap and self-regulate their Lean learning journey. Design/methodology/approach – The instrument was designed by leveraging literature on IPD, Lean Construction and self-regulated learning in educational psychology. Five semi-structured interviews were conducted to evaluate the instrument's face and content validity. The instrument was then deployed on three IPD projects, and survey data collected from these projects were used to validate its effectiveness. A principal component analysis was conducted to identify the most influential factors in self-regulated lean Learning assessment. Findings – Based on the data from the three projects, owners and trade contractors in IPD projects implementing Lean tend to place more emphasis on Lean topics focused on understanding and fostering a collaborative environment. On the other hand, Architects, design engineers and other participants emphasize on learning and working towards a project environment based on trust. Research limitations/implications – These findings inform participants on their current strengths in Lean implementation, which can be capitalized on for better project outcomes. Further, it helps identify areas that participants need to place more emphasis on their Lean journey to achieve improvements. Practical implications – Through this instrument, the authors aim to support a better understanding of gaps in learning and implementing Lean principles by IPD project participants. Originality/value – This paper develops a unique instrument that demonstrates how self-directed learning can be leveraged to assess the lean learning journeys of construction industry practitioners.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: integrated project delivery; lean construction; self-regulated learning
Index terms: educational psychology, trade contractor, methodology, influential factor, practitioner, face, integrated project delivery, survey, lean construction, interview, construction industry, implementation, principal component analysis, architect, effectiveness, owner, engineer, project outcome, validity
Subjects: research methods, building construction, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, learning theory, project completion, contractual arrangements, psychology, performance management, industry analysis, statistical analysis, sociology, data collection methods, risk assessment, profession
Topics: Quality Management, Education, Project Management, Risk Management, Procurement, Site Management, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, 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