JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
A Systematic Approach Of Construction Management Based On Last Planner System And Its Implementation In The Construction Industry
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
A Systematic Approach Of Construction Management Based On Last Planner System And Its Implementation In The Construction Industry
Hussain, SM Abdul Mannan; Sekhar, Dr.T.Seshadri; Fatima, Asra;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The Last PlannerSystem (LPS) has been implemented on construction projects to increase work flow reliability, a precondition for project performance againstproductivity and progress targets. The LPS encompasses four tiers of planning processes:master scheduling, phase scheduling, lookahead planning, and commitment / weeklywork planning. This research highlights deficiencies in the current implementation of LPS including poor lookahead planning which results in poor linkage between weeklywork plans and the master schedule. This poor linkage undetermines the ability of theweekly work planning process to select for execution tasks that are critical to projectsuccess. As a result, percent plan complete (PPC) becomes a weak indicator of project progress. The purpose of this research is to improve lookahead planning (the bridgebetween weekly work planning and master scheduling), improve PPC, and improve theselection of tasks that are critical to project success by increasing the link betweenShould, Can, Will, and Did (components of the LPS), thereby rendering PPC a betterindicator of project progress. The research employs the case study research method to describe deficiencies inthe current implementation of the LPS and suggest guidelines for a better application ofLPS in general and lookahead planning in particular. It then introduces an analyticalsimulation model to analyze the lookahead planning process. This is done by examining the impact on PPC of increasing two lookahead planning performance metrics: tasksanticipated (TA) and tasks made ready (TMR). Finally, the research investigates theimportance of the lookahead planning functions: identification and removal ofconstraints, task breakdown, and operations design.The research findings confirm the positive impact of improving lookaheadplanning (i.e., TA and TMR) on PPC. It also recognizes the need to perform lookaheadplanning differently for three types of work involving different levels of uncertainty:stable work, medium uncertainty work, and highly emergent work.The research confirms the LPS rules for practice and specifically the need to planin greater detail as time gets closer to performing the work. It highlights the role of LPSas a production system that incorporates deliberate planning (predetermined andoptimized) and situated planning (flexible and adaptive). Finally, the research presents recommendations for production planningimprovements in three areas: process related, (suggesting guidelines for practice),technical, (highlighting issues with current software programs and advocating theinclusion of collaborative planning capability), and organizational improvements(suggesting transitional steps when applying the LPS).
 Keywords
Continous Improvement System;Tasks Made Ready;Construction Management;Last Planner System;Master schedule;Look-ahead schedule;Percent planned complete;Make work ready planning;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Mossman, Alan (2013) Last Planner(R) : 5 + 1 crucial & collaborative conversations for predictable design & construction delivery. http://bit.ly/LPS-5cc (22-Apr-13)

2.
Hamzeh, F.R. (2011). "The Lean Journey: Implementing the Last Planner System in Construction", Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, IGLC 19, 13-15 July, Lima, Peru, pp. 379- 390

3.
Wambeke, B. W., Hsiang, S. M., and Liu, M. (2011). "Causes of variation in construction project task starting times and duration", J. Constr.Eng. Manage, pp.137(9), 663-677. crossref(new window)

4.
Seppanen, G. Ballard, and S. Pesonen, The Combination of Last Planner System and Location-Based Management System, Lean Construction Journal, (2010) 6 (1), pp.43-54.

5.
Liu, M., and Ballard, G. (2009). "Factors affecting work flow reliability-A case study." Proc. of the 17th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, National Pingtung Univ. of Science & Technology, Taiwan, , pp.657-666.

6.
Hopp, W.J., and Spearman, M.L. (2008). Factory Physics, 3rd Ed., Irwin/ McGraw-Hill, Boston,720 pp.

7.
Hamzeh, F.R. (2009). Improving Construction Workflow - The Role of Production Planning and Control, PhD Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 273.

8.
Ballard, G., Kim, Y.W., Jang, J.W., and Liu, M. (2007). Road Map for Lean Implementation at the Project Level, Research Report 234-11, Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA, 426.

9.
Sacks, R., and Goldin, M. (2007). "Lean management model for construction of high-rise apartment buildings", J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 133(5), pp.374-384. crossref(new window)

10.
Ballard, G., & Howell, G. (2004). An Update on Last Planner, Proc. 11th Annual Conf. Intl. Group for Lean Construction, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, 13.

11.
Liker, J. (2004). The Toyota Way, McGraw-Hill, New York.