Emmitt, S; Pasquire, C and Mertia, B (2012) Is good enough "making do"? An investigation of inappropriate processing in a small design and build company. Construction Innovation, 12(3), pp. 369-383. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this study is to address behaviour that often leads to inappropriate processing in a small design and build contracting organisation that employs direct labour. The objective was to reduce process waste and improve the value delivered to clients. This formed part of a larger knowledge transfer project (KTP) to improve performance on construction sites through the application of lean thinking. Design/methodology/approach - Action research was used to identify and bring about change within the contracting organisation. The method was applied to live construction projects in the social housing sector in the greater London area. The intervention was to raise the awareness of site personnel to the importance of finishing tasks through informal discussions and visual management techniques. Findings - Raised awareness of the importance of finishing work to allow other trades to follow on unimpeded, leading to significant improvements in the quality and flow of work. This helped to contribute to significant savings in time and cost. Research limitations/implications - Findings relate to a small to medium-sized enterprise (SME) with directly employed labour, therefore the findings have limited applicability. Further applied research is required to determine the generalisation of the approach/findings to organisations that subcontract their labour. Practical implications - This applied research is practical and cost effective to apply to live projects managed by small and medium sized contracting organisations. Originality/value - Provides a unique insight into the practical application of lean thinking tools and process improvement.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; lean culture; lean production; lean thinking; making do; process improvement; task completion; United Kingdom; work sequence |
| Index terms: | savings, visual management, social housing, construction industry, investigation, London, lean production, construction site, United Kingdom, subcontract, action research, personnel, process improvement, design and build, process waste, contracting organization, knowledge transfer, construction project, methodology |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, research dissemination and communication, contract type, waste management, practitioner, work location, contractual arrangements, economic analysis, manufacturing engineering, management, research methods, Geography, production management, housing and residential development, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Sustainability, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Human Resources, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Site Management, Contract Administration |
| 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