Wesz, J G B; Formoso, C T and Tzortzopoulos, P (2018) Planning and controlling design in engineered-to-order prefabricated building systems. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(2), pp. 134-152. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to propose a model for planning and controlling the design process in companies that design, manufacture and assemble prefabricated engineer-to-order (ETO) building systems. This model was devised as an adaptation of the Last Planner® System for ETO multiple-project environments. Design/methodology/approach: Design science research, also known as prescriptive research, was the methodological approach adopted in this research. An empirical study was carried out at the design department of a leading steel fabricator from Brazil, in which the proposed model was implemented in six different design teams. Findings: The main benefits of the proposed model were shielding design work from variability, encouraging collaborative planning, creating opportunities for learning, increasing process transparency, and flexibility according to project status. Two main factors affected the effectiveness of the implementation process commitment and leadership of design managers, and training on design management and project planning and control core concepts and practices. Research limitations/implications: Some limitations were identified in the implementation process: similarly to some previous studies (Ballard, 2002; Codinhoto and Formoso, 2005), the success of constraint analysis was still limited; some of the metrics produced (e.g. ABI, causes of planning failures) have not been fully used for process improvement; and systematic feedback about project status was not properly implemented and tested. Originality/value: The main contributions of this study in relation to traditional design planning and control practices are related to the use of two levels of look-ahead planning, the introduction of a decoupling point between conceptual and detail design, the proposition of new metrics for the Last Planner® System, and understanding the potential role of visual management to support planning and control.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design process; design teams; engineer-to-order; last planner system; planning and control; prefabricated building systems |
| Index terms: | planner, effectiveness, building system, empirical study, variability, prefabricated building, implementation, shielding, visual management, adaptation, engineer-to-order, last planner system, methodology, design management, project planning, design science research, design process, design manager, process transparency, process improvement, collaborative planning, decoupling, Brazil, design team, commitment |
| Subjects: | user focus, profession, control systems, design methods, engineering systems, psychology, urban planning, professional practice, contractual arrangements, safety engineering, research methods, performance management, management, manufacturing engineering, design practice, design process, Geography, building construction, project controls, systems engineering, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Time Control, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Procurement, Construction Technology, Governance, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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