Power, W; Sinnott, D and Lynch, P (2021) Evaluating the efficacy of a dedicated last planner® system facilitator to enhance construction productivity. Construction Economics and Building, 21(3), pp. 142-158. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
Construction unknowingly plans for poor levels of productivity with substantial waste, inefficiency, and rework stemming from a proliferation of non-value-adding activities embedded within traditional delivery processes. This approach negatively influences construction’s economic and environmental sustainability. Last Planner® System (LPS) is a key tool of Lean Construction (LC) and is lauded as a value-add process that prioritises flow efficiency by addressing workflow variability and waste elimination on construction projects. This research evaluates how the presence of a dedicated knowledgeable and competent LPS Facilitator, enabling a complete LPS implementation, contributes to improved construction flow, efficiency, and productivity. The study adopted a mixed-methods approach utilising case study design and data collected from a literature review, site observation diary, site documentation analysis, and semi-structured interviews. Limitations exist around small survey size, lack of generalisability, and potential bias of researchers. Findings posit considerable productivity increase; more reliable, predictable, and stable workflow; enhanced team collaboration; as well as accrual of safety, quality, cost, and schedule benefits. Embedding a knowledgeable and competent LPS Facilitator appears to assist successful implementation of LPS with sectoral and societal value-add opportunities.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | lean construction; collaboration; facilitator; last planner system; mindset |
| Index terms: | case study, team collaboration, lean construction, efficiency, interview, survey, facilitator, documentation, productivity, literature review, mindset, rework, non-value-adding activity, presence, planner, last planner system, diary, bias, collaboration, construction project, variability, environmental sustainability, construction productivity, implementation, workflow |
| Subjects: | operations management, environmental science, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, profession, data collection methods, health behaviours and lifestyles, practitioner, project controls, building construction, statistical analysis, collaborative management, management, performance management, health safety and environment, production management, probability and distributions, professional development |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Information Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Procurement, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Quality Management, Time Control, Organizational Design, Site Management |
| 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