Lean Construction IIT Guwahati

BTP REPORT
Implementation of Lean Construction in IIT Guwahati
By
Ankit Bhatla
Under the supervision of
Dr. Bulu Pradhan
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI
May 2010
CERTIFICATE
It is certified that the work contained in the project report entitled “Implementation of Lean
Construction in IIT Guwahati”, by Ankit Bhatla (06010407) has been carried out under my
supervision and that this work has not been submitted elsewhere for the award of a degree.
Date: 6/5/2010
Dr. Bulu Pradhan
Assistant Professer
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my supervisor Dr. Bulu Pradhan who has been
supporting me throughout this research. Also, I would like to thank the following individuals
who have helped me in carrying my research:
1. MSc. Moataz Farag & Prof. Gehbauer, University of Karlsruhe: for introducing me to
the topic of Lean Construction.
2. Prof. Anjan Dutta – for taking keen interest in the research.
3. Dr. Hemant Kaushik, Dr. L.B.Singh & Mr. Kumar Pallav – for giving valuable
suggestions for the Questionnaire.
4. Mr. Arun BorSaikia – for coordinating with Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Lloyd
Ltd.
5. Mr. T.J. Singh, Mr. Pallav Barua and Mr. Amal Sarma – for coordinating with the
Engineering Cell.
6. Mr. Himon Barua and Mr. J.P. Sarma of Buildrite Constructions
7. Prof. Glenn Ballard – for his Last Planner System.
8. Anurag Upadhyay, Anuran Gayali and Ashish Kumar Singh – for giving some
valuable suggestions for my presentation on Lean Construction.
9. Deep Gandhi – for attending my presentation on Lean Construction.
10. My family – for supporting me in my endeavors.
Date: 6/5/2010
Ankit Bhatla
ii
ABSTRACT
Lean construction is a relatively new construction management philosophy which has evolved
from Lean Manufacturing principles. Lean construction along with its various tools like the
Pull Approach, Just in Time (JIT), Total Quality Management (TQM), Continuous
Improvement, Last Planner System, etc. has gathered a lot of momentum in the developed
nations. The challenge now lies in implementing it in the developing countries. The essence
of Lean Construction is increase in efficiency by elimination of non value adding activities
(waste). The aim of the project was to implement the concept of Lean thinking in an ongoing
construction project in the IIT Guwahati campus. The project was divided into two phases:
1. The Ist phase involved a questionnaire based survey to identify the wastes affecting the
construction process in IIT Guwahati. Delays, Interruptions and Rework were the most
critical wastes affecting the construction process as observed from the questionnaire
survey. Poor management control, Poor Planning and Shortage of Resources were the
major sources of the above mentioned wastes as identified from the survey.
2. In the IInd phase the Last Planner System was applied to a construction site in IIT
Guwahati to reduce the wastes affecting the construction process. A 3 ½ months case
study was done to achieve the above mentioned aim. The PPC (Percent of Planned
Complete) was measured weekly and ranged between 16.67 % and 100%; with an
average of 55.84 % for the entire duration of the study. Thus, a feedback mechanism
was put in place at the site for the easy identification and removal of the wastes
observed at the site. Also, a simplified questionnaire was formulated taking into
account the feedback received from the survey already done.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page no.
Certificate i
Acknowledgement ii
Abstract iii
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
List of Symbols and Abbreviations ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Construction Overview: India 1
1.2 Objective of the Present Work 2
1.3 Structure of the Dissertation 3
CHAPTER 2: ORIGIN OF LEAN PRINCIPLES 4

2.1 Lean 4
2.2 Origin of Lean Principles 4
2.3 Rise of Lean Production 5
2.4 The 4 Sections and the 14 Principles of the Toyota Way 11
2.4.1 Having a long-term philosophy that drives a long-term 11
approach to build a learning organization
2.4.2 The right process will produce the right results 11
2.4.3 Add value to the organization by developing its people and 13
partners
2.4.4 Continuously solving root problems to drive organizational 13
learning
2.5 Tools for Lean Production 14
2.5.1 Cellular Manufacturing 14
2.5.2 Continuous Improvement 14
2.5.3 Just in Time 15
2.5.4 Production Smoothing 16
iv
2.5.5 Standardization of Work 16
2.5.6 Total Productive Maintenance 17
CHAPTER 3: LEAN CONSTRUCTION 18
3.1 Lean Construction 18
3.2 Tools for Lean Construction 21
3.2.1 Pull Approach 21
3.2.2 Multifunctional Task Groups 222
3.2.3 Kaizen 22
3.2.4 Benchmarking 22
3.2.5 A3 Reports 22
3.2.6 Last Planner System 22
3.3 Last Planner System 23
3.4 Application of Lean Construction Principles to the Construction 25
Process
3.4.1 Application of lean construction principles to design 25
management
3.4.2 Application of lean construction principles to construction 26
planning
3.4.3 Application of lean construction principles to construction 26
execution
3.4.3.1 Phase scheduling 26
3.4.3.2 Look ahead process and Last Planner System 27
CHAPTER 4: IDENTIFICATION OF WASTES IN CONSTRUCTION 29
PROCESS
4.1 Identification of Key Wastes and their Sources in Indian Construction
Practices 29
4.1.1 Wastes in construction process 30
4.1.2 Sources of wastes in construction process 32
4.1.3 Filling up of the questionnaires 32
4.2 Administering of the questionnaires 33
33
v
CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY AND 33
DISCUSSION 33
5.1 General 36
5.2 Results for IIT Guwahati 39
5.3 Results for Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Llyod Ltd.
5.4 Results of IIT Guwahati combined with Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and
Punjj Llyod Ltd.
CHAPTER 6: A SIMPLIFIED QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE 41
IDENTIFICATION OF WASTES IN CONSTRUCTION
PROCESS
6.1 Need for a Simplified Questionnaire 41
6.2 Administering of the questionnaires 43
CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAST PLANNER SYSTEM IN
IIT GUWAHATI 45
7.1 Why the Last Planner System? 45
7.2 Selection of a Suitable Construction Site 45
7.3 Information about the Construction Site 45
7.4 Implementation of the Last Planner System 46
7.5 Last Planner System Implementation Results – PPC Analysis 48
7.6 Problems Experienced during the Implementation of the Last Planner 53
System
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE
WORK 55
6.1 Conclusions 55
6.2 Recommendations 55
6.3 Future Work 56
REFERENCES 57
APPENDIX 60
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page No.

No.
2.1 Waste in a Truck Chassis Assembly Line 7
2.2 The Toyota Production System 10
3.1 Classification of Causes of Waste 21
3.2 Critical Chain Path Method 22

3.3 Lean Construction 22
3.4 Last Planner System 24
4.1 Cause Effect Matrix to Determine the Main Sources of Wastes 33
Incidence of Waste Categories in form of a Pie Chart (IIT Guwahati)
5.1 Incidence of Waste Categories in form of a Pie Chart (Gammon 34
5.2 India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Llyod Ltd.) 37
Incidence of Waste Categories in form of a Pie Chart (IIT Guwahati
5.3 combined with Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Llyod Ltd.) 39
Reasons Analysis Hierarchy – Directives
7.1 Reasons Analysis Hierarchy – Prerequisites 47
7.2 Reasons Analysis Hierarchy – Resources 47
7.3 PPC Variation 48
7.4 Reason Categorization 50
53
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page No.

No.
1.1 Barriers to Entry in Indian Construction Sector 2
2.1 Tradition Production vs. Lean Production 11

3.1 PPC Measurement 28
4.1 Wastes in Construction Processes 31
4.2 Sources of Wastes in Construction Processes 31
5.1 Waste Processes and their Frequencies of Occurrence in the 34
Responses (IIT Guwahati)
5.2 Cause Effect Matrix for IIT Guwahati 36
Responses (Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Llyod Ltd.)
5.4 Cause Effect Matrix for Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Lloyd 38
Ltd.
Responses (IIT Guwahati combined with Gammon India Pvt. Ltd.
and Punjj Llyod Ltd.)
5.6 Cause Effect Matrix for IIT Guwahati combined with Gammon 40
India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Llyod Ltd.
6.1 Wastes in Construction Processes 42
6.2 Sources of Wastes in Construction Processes 42
6.3 Questionnaire to Identify Wastes and their Sources 44
7.1 Reasons for Plan failure 50
7.2 PPC Analysis 51
viii
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Symbol Description
CCPM Critical Chain Path Method
LPS Last Planner System
WIP Work in Progress
PPC Percent of Planned Complete
TPS Toyota Production System
JIT Just in Time
TQM Total Quality Management

TPM Total Productive Maintenance
ix
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Construction Overview: India

The construction industry in India is the second largest industry in India after agriculture
(Laskar and Murty 2004). It is highly diversified and involved in all spheres of construction
like:
1. Infrastructure: Highways, airports, seaports
2. Commercial: Offices, Malls
3. Residential: Apartments, houses
4. Industrial: Refineries, mills
The construction industry in India is highly fragmented in which only 0.4% of the total
250,000 can be classified as medium to large firms (based upon the number of people
employed per firm). Most of the Indian contractors are not well equipped to handle the
growing demand and hence the projects quite frequently run in to time and cost overruns,
disputes and lower quality. Another major factor causing delays is the lack of proper “Trust”
between the contractor and the owner due to which the disputes often end up as litigations and
the work stalled (World Bank Report, 2008). The Indian construction industry is also facing a
severe resource crunch in terms of skilled and semi skilled man power. To cater to the
growing demand, it has been estimated that the number of civil engineers and diploma holders
needs to increase by at least 2 -3 times (World Bank Report 2008).
The Indian firms are mostly involved in the “Design-Bid-Build” and “Design-Build” projects,
though there is a shift to the “Fast Track” construction processes. To monitor the projects the
firms still employ the traditional method of project monitoring which includes the earned
value estimate of finding the schedule and cost variances. There is reluctance in the Indian
firms to change their mindset and their construction practices, in-spite of the increasing focus
on the quality of projects; this is partly due to the lack of global participation in Indian
construction industry. The foreign players consider India a non-profitable venture primarily
due to corruption, lack of adherence to contracts, absence of proper dispute resolution
mechanism (World Bank Report 2008) and hence the big Indian players being few in number
tend to enjoy a monopoly over the works.
1
Table 1.1 lists the barriers for the new entrants in the Indian Construction Sector (World Bank
Report 2008).
Table: 1.1 Barriers to Entry in Indian Construction Sector
Parameters Ranking
Availability of skilled staff 1
Operation issues: lands, licenses and governance, clearance 1
Taxation issues 1
Materials cost and availability 2
Contract enforcement and dispute resolution 2
Barriers to entry 3
Subsidies and fiscal concessions 3
Finance cost and availability 4
Sector policy and institutional structure 5
Import procedures 6
Infrastructure issues 6
Industry issues 7
Though the above mentioned problems need significant thought and time, it is imperative that
increased emphasis is given to new project management strategies so that the Indian growth
story doesn’t meet an abrupt end. The medium and big firms need to look to the developed
nations and also China for new strategies and implement them here after some research.
This research aimed to introduce the topic of “Lean Construction” to Indian construction
professionals.
1.2 Objective of the Present Work

The aim of this research was to implement lean construction in IIT Guwahati. For achieving
this goal the wastes in the construction process at IIT Guwahati were found from a
questionnaire based survey to make them explicit to the various parties involved in the
ongoing construction works here. The Last Planner System was then applied to a construction
site at IIT Guwahati to reduce / remove these wastes.
2
1.3 Structure of the Project Report
The project report flows from explaining the origin of lean principles in Chapter 2 to the
evolution of lean construction in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 is dedicated to elucidating the research
methodology of the research. Chapter 5 explains the main wastes identified from the
questionnaire survey. A simplified questionnaire suitable for the Indian Construction
companies is presented in Chapter 6 followed by the results from the implementation of the
Last Planner System in IIT Guwahati in Chapter 7. Conclusions and recommendations are
presented in Chapter 8 followed by the references used in the research. The questionnaire
used for the survey along with the performas for the look ahead plan and the weekly work
plan of the Last Planner System is presented in the appendix after the references.
3
CHAPTER 2
Origin of Lean Principles
2.1 Lean
The origin of the term “Lean principles” can be traced to the Japanese manufacturing
industry. The term “lean” was first coined by an IMVP (International Motor Vehicle
Program) researcher John Krafcik in a Fall 1988 article. He said that to be “lean means to
derive more value by using less of everything”. Though different researchers have their own
interpretation of lean; the most common among them is a “production practice that considers
the expenditure of resources for any goal other than the creation of value for the end customer
to be wasteful, and thus a target for elimination”.
However, the definition most suitable in the context of this project was given by Bhasin and
Burcher (2006), “a philosophy that when implemented reduces the time from customer order
to delivery by eliminating sources of waste in production flow”. To understand the meaning
of the above few lines, we need to understand the developments which led to the development
of the lean principles.
2.2 Origin of Lean Principles

The credit for the development of lean principles goes to the Toyota Car Company of Japan
which has revolutionized the way of manufacturing of automobiles. From the mass production
theory which was being followed by Henry Ford in US, the manufacturing industry today has
certainly come a long way. But before elaborating on the contributions of Toyota in the
development of lean principles, it is important to understand the reasons behind the need of a
new manufacturing technique when Ford was going great guns in delivering the consumer a
cheap and yet an efficient product.
The automobile manufacturing industry all over the world has always been highly specialized.
It is one of the biggest manufacturing industries in the world today employing millions of
people worldwide.
Automobile industry emerged into the forefront in the late 19th century. Automobiles during
those times were considered as a novelty meant only for the riches. This was justified from
4
the fact that at that time there were no large machines and each part had to be worked on by
human hands. This required highly specialized labor in order to achieve the same finishing as
that obtained by the machines. Also, the demands of the consumers were ever changing and to
keep pace with these demands required great research which was obviously lacking from this
industry at that time. Henry Ford (1863 – 1947) was quick to realize this problem and
eventually established the so called mass production system in his Ford Motor Company. He
developed the assembly lines which reduced the cost of production and at the same time
increased the product quality. His assembly chain enabled a worker to work from a stationary
place as all the tools and materials were delivered to him. This enabled to reduce the working
time on the car to a matter of few minutes as compared to hours or even days in other
companies. This also resulted in lowering the labor costs per car because of the increase in
mechanization. Ford took the division of labor in the company to the extreme. New positions
were created to look after almost all aspects of manufacturing. His car had two qualities – it
was designed for manufacture and also it could be repaired easily. Also, something totally
unheard of during those days, a huge pay increase was awarded to the workers. Ford’s main
intention was to abolish the trade unions and instill confidence among his workers. Though
Ford succeeded in bringing down costs and delivery time, there was a big flaw in his thinking.
He thought that there was an unlimited demand for his product. He didn’t give any
importance to variety and hence he thought that the consumer would buy anything that he
produces. This belief led to the ultimate demise of the mass production system. The share of
market of imported cars was on the rise. The Europeans had also perfected the art of mass
production and were flooding the market with their variety. There products were strikingly
distinct from their American counterparts and with more features (Womack et. al. 1990).
2.3 Rise of Lean Production

When Ford was at its pinnacle of success, a Japanese by the name of Eiji Toyoda set out on a
three month long pilgrimage of the Ford factory at Detroit. During the course of his visit he
declared that the American method of mass production was not suitable for the Japanese
market and also there were a number of flaws in their production system. Thus he along with
his production genius Taiichi Ohno developed the Toyota Production system also commonly
known as the Lean Production System. But this was not easy, especially because of the
aftermath of the World War II and the growing financial slump in Japan. A solution was
found to keep Toyota running in which the workers were made a part of the Toyota family
5
and guaranteed lifetime employment. Thus Ohno began with his goal of implementing lean
production. (Womack et. al. 1990b).
Taiichi Ohno in 1988 said:

“All we are doing is looking at the time line from the moment the customer gives us an order
to the point when we collect the cash. And we are reducing that time line by removing the
non-value-added waste.”
Ohno observed that the entire process at Ford was rife with Muda (Japanese for waste) and
observed the following seven types of wastes at Ford (Womack & Jones 2003):
• Overproduction (production ahead of demand).
• Waiting (waiting for the next production step).
• Transportation (moving products that is not actually required to perform the
processing).
• Over Processing (due to poor tool or product design creating activity).
• Inventory (all components, work-in-progress and finished product not being
processed).
• Motion (people or equipment moving or walking more than is required to perform the
processing).
• Defects (the effort involved in inspecting for and fixing defects).
With an aim to find solutions to remove these wastes, Ohno set out to develop the Toyota
Production System. The wastes listed above are described as under (Liker 2004c):
• Overproduction. Producing items for which there are no orders, which generates such
wastes as overstaffing and storage and transportation costs because of excess
inventory.
• Waiting (time on hand). Workers merely serving to watch an automated machine or

having to stand around waiting for the next processing step, tool, supply, part, etc., or
having no work because of stock outs, lot processing delays, equipment downtime,
and capacity bottlenecks.
6
• Unnecessary transport or conveyance. Carrying work in process (WIP) long
distances, creating inefficient transport, or moving materials, parts, or finished goods
into or out of storage or between processes.
• Over-processing or incorrect processing. Taking unneeded steps to process the

parts. Inefficient processing due to poor tool and product design, causing unnecessary
motion and producing defects. Waste is also generated when providing higher-quality
products than is necessary.
• Excess inventory. Excess raw material, WIP, or finished goods causing longer lead
times, obsolescence, damaged goods, transportation and storage costs, and delay.
Also, extra inventory hides problems such as production imbalances, late deliveries
from suppliers, defects, equipment downtime, and long setup times.
• Unnecessary movement. Any wasted motion that the employees need to perform
during the course of their work, such as looking for, reaching for, or stacking parts,
tools, etc. Also, walking is waste.
• Defects. Production of defective parts or correction. Repair or rework, scrap,

replacement production, and inspection mean wasteful handling, time, and effort.
The wastes in a truck assembly line are shown in Fig. 2.1.
Fig. 2.1: Waste in a truck chassis assembly line (Liker 2004d)
7
Ohno considered overproduction to be the most dangerous of all wastes as it was the source of
most of the other wastes. Over producing a commodity leads to a buildup of inventory
somewhere downstream. The main problem with this waste is that it promotes suboptimal
behavior in the organization; since plenty of parts are available for use it hampers with the
motivation to continually improve operations (Liker 2004c).
With the main motive of removing the wastes in production, Ohno and his team developed the
Toyota Production System (TPS) or the Lean Production System (Liker 2004e). The main and
the most fundamental objective of Lean production is to continually evolve and improve the
current system. It means to design a production system that will deliver a custom product
instantly on order but maintain no intermediate inventories. The main aims of lean production
are as follows (Liker 2004b):
• Eliminating wasted time and resources.
• Building quality into workplace systems.
• Finding low-cost but reliable alternatives to expensive new technology.
• Perfecting business processes.
• Building a learning culture for continuous improvement.
Ohno realized that in order to move towards the ultimate goals of no waste and perfection he
needed to shift the improvement focus from one activity to the entire the delivery system. He
along with his colleagues at Toyota started devising plans to reach their goals. He understood
that the pressure to keep each machine running at maximum production led to extensive
intermediate inventories which he called as “the waste of over production.” And he saw
defects built into cars because of the pressure to keep the assembly line moving. Production at
all costs meant defects were left in cars as they passed down the line. These defects disrupted
downstream work and left completed cars riddled with embedded defects. Rework due to
errors could not be tolerated as it reduced throughput, the time to make a car from beginning
to end, and caused unreliable workflow. In order to prevent these defects he gave each
employee the power to stop the production. In the initial few days there were very frequent
stoppages but these resulted into brainstorming sessions where the entire team worked to get
the defect sorted out. Soon, there were no halts and the production line was always running.
This system design criteria promoted continuous improvement. Zero time delivery of a car
meeting customer requirements, with nothing in inventory required tight coordination
between the progress of each car down the line and the arrival of parts from supply chains. An
8
inventory control strategy was developed which replaced central push with distributed pull.
Pull was essential to reduce WIP. Lower WIP tied up less working capital and decreased the
cost of design changes during manufacture as only a few pieces needed to be scrapped or
altered. Large inventories are required to keep production in push systems because they are
unable to cope with uncertainties in the production system. And large inventories raise the
cost of change (Womack et. al. 1990).
In an effort to reduce the time to design and deliver a new model, the design of the production
process was also carefully considered along with the design of the car. Suppliers were given
the responsibility of engineering components to meet design and production criteria. New
commercial contracts were developed which gave the suppliers the incentive to continually
reduce both the cost of their components and to participate in the overall improvement of the
product and delivery process. Toyota thus became a demanding customer but at the same time
it also offered suppliers continuing support for improvement.
Fig. 2.2: The Toyota Production System (Liker 2004a)
The Toyota Production System can also be understood by the “House analogy” (Liker 2004a),
developed by Fujio Cho, the current President of Toyota as shown in Fig. 2.2.
In this analogy, the roof of the house represents the goals of best quality, lowest cost, and
shortest lead time. There are then the two outer pillars of “just-in-time” and “jidoka”, which
in essence means never letting a defect pass into the next station and freeing people from
9
machines automation with a human touch. The center of the system is made up of people.
Finally come the foundational elements, which include the need for standardized, stable,
reliable processes, and also heijunka, which means leveling out the production schedule in
both volume and variety (Liker 2004a).
Though, each element of the house by itself is critical, but more important is the way the
elements reinforce each other. JIT means removing, as much as possible, the inventory used
to buffer operations against problems that may arise in production. The idea of one-piece flow
is to make one unit at a time at the rate of customer demand. Using smaller buffers (removing
the safety net) means that problems like quality defects become immediately visible. This
reinforces jidoka, which halts the production process. This means workers must resolve the
problems immediately and urgently to resume production. At the foundation of the house is
stability. In mass production, when a machine goes down, there is no sense of urgency: the
maintenance department is scheduled to fix it while inventory keeps the operations running.
By contrast, in lean production, when an operator shuts down equipment to fix a problem,
other operations will soon stop producing, creating a crisis. So there is always a sense of
urgency for everyone in production to fix problems together to get the equipment up and
running. If the same problem happens repeatedly, management will quickly conclude that this
is a critical situation and it may be time to invest in Total Productive Maintenance (TPM),
where everyone learns how to clean, inspect, and maintain equipment. A high degree of
stability is needed so that the system is not constantly stopped. People are at the center of the
house because only through continuous improvement can the operation ever attain this needed
stability. People are trained to see waste and solve problems at the root cause by repeatedly
asking why the problem really occurs (Liker 2004a).
The differences between the traditional production methodology and lean production are
summarized in Table 2.1.
10
Table 2.1 Tradition Production vs. Lean Production (MAMTC – Traditional vs Lean 2009)
Traditional Production Lean Production

Scheduling Forecast – Product is pushed Customer Order – Product is pulled
through facility. through facility.
Production Replenish finished goods Fill customer orders only.
inventory.
Product Cycle Long – Weeks / Months Short – Hours / Days
Times
Batch Size Large batches moving between Small, and based on one-piece flow
operations; product is sent ahead between operations.
of each operation.
Quality Sampling – by inspectors. 100% - at source by workers.
Inspection
Layout By department function. By product flow, using cells or lines for
product families.
Empowerment Low — little input into how High — has responsibility for identifying
operation is performed. and implementing improvements.
Inventory High — large warehouse of Low — small amounts between
Levels finished goods, and central operations, ship often.
storeroom for in-process staging.
Flexibility Low — difficult to handle and High — easy to adjust to and implement.
adjust to.
Manufacturing Rising and difficult to control. Stable/decreasing and under control.
costs
The 4 sections and 14 main principles along with the tools behind the Toyota Production
system required for its successful implementation are described in the next section.
2.4 The 4 Sections and the 14 Principles of the Toyota Way (Liker 2004g)
2.4.1. Having a long-term philosophy that drives a long-term approach to build a

learning organization
1. Management decisions should be based on a long-term philosophy, even at the
expense of short-term financial goals.
• The objective should be to work, grow and align the whole organization
towards a common purpose that is bigger than making money.
• Efforts must be made to generate value for the customer, society and the
economy.
2.4.2. The right process will produce the right results
2. Continuous process flow should be created to bring problems to the surface.
• Redesign work processes to cut out on the idle time.
11
• Material and Information must move fast and people and processes must be
linked together so that the problems can be detected as they occur.
3. "Pull" systems should be employed to avoid overproduction.
• The downline customers should be given the power to decide what they want,
when they want and in what quantity they want.
• Minimum possible inventory of finished goods should be maintained and
restocking should be done only after the customer has taken them away.
• Customer demands should be the driving force rather than the computer
schedules and systems to keep a track wasteful inventory.
4. Level out the workload (heijunka). (Work like the tortoise, not the hare)
• People and workforce should not be overburdened and unevenness in the
production schedule should be eliminated.
5. A culture of stopping to fix problems should be inculcated in the organization, to get
quality right the first time.
• Quality for the customer should be the ultimate consideration.
• All modern day quality methods should be made available.
• The systems for detecting and solving problems should be embedded in the
organization.
6. Tasks and processes should be standardized as they are the foundation for continuous
improvement and employee empowerment.
• Stable and repeatable methods to maintain predictability, regular timings and
regular outputs of processes should be employed.
• Individuals should be given the freedom to improve upon the standardized
practices.
7. Visual control should be used to see the hidden problems.
• Simple visual indicators should be used to help people determine whether they
are on the right track or deviating from it.
8. Only reliable, thoroughly tested technology that serves the people and processes
should be put in use.
• Technology should aid people, not replace them.
• A technology should be thoroughly tested before being standardized.
• The technologies that conflict with the working culture should be rejected at all
costs.
12
2.4.3. Add value to the organization by developing its people and partners
9. People who thoroughly understand the work, live the philosophy should be developed
into leaders.
• Instead of employing people from outside, give internal people a chance to
grow into a leader.
• A good leader should understand the daily work in great detail so that he can
be the best teacher of the company’s philosophy.
10. Develop exceptional people and teams who follow the company'
s philosophy.
• A strong and stable culture should be promoted in the organization where the
company’s values and beliefs are shared between individuals.
• Cross-functional teams should be employed to improve quality and
productivity and to enhance flow by solving difficult technical problems.
• Efforts should be made to promote teamwork in the organization.
11. All partners and suppliers should be respected and allowed to grow by offering
challenging jobs and incentives.
• Partners and suppliers should be treated as part of the company and with
respect.
2.4.4. Continuously solving root problems to drive organizational learning

12. Problem areas require personal attention (Genchi Genbutsu).
• Problems should be identified physically, personally and solutions should be
found by observing rather than by relying on some third party or computer
information.
• Comment should be made only on personally verified data.
13. Evaluate all options before making a decision; implement decisions rapidly
(Nemawashi).
• Always evaluate all possible alternative before choosing one.
• Nemawashi is the process of discussing problems and possible solutions with
all those who may be affected.
14. A learning organization practice should be promoted through relentless reflection
(hansei) and continuous improvement ( aizen).
• After establishing a stable workflow, all efforts must be made towards
continuous improvement of the process.
13
• Processes should be designed so that they require no inventories.
• Finished projects should be cross checked to determine the shortcomings. All
efforts must be made to prevent mistakes from reoccurring.
In the above mentioned principles of the Toyota Production System, several tools of lean
production have been implicitly mentioned. They are elaborated in the next section.
2.5 Tools for Lean Production

Fawaz Abdullah (2003) has listed out 6 tools for lean production. They are described in the
following:
2.5.1 Cellular Manufacturing

Cellular manufacturing is a concept employed to increase the variety of products. The shop
floor is further subdivided into cells which consist of equipment and workstations that are
arranged in such an order that maintains a smooth flow of materials and components through
the process. Trained operators are assigned to each of the cells. One obvious advantage of
arranging people and equipment into cells is the one-piece flow concept, which states that
each product moves through the process one unit at a time without sudden interruption, at a
pace determined by the customer’s need. Some more benefits associated with cellular
manufacturing include:
• Inventory reduction
• Reduced transport and material handling
• Better space utilization
• Lead time reduction
• Identification of causes of defects and machine problems
• Improved productivity
• Enhanced teamwork and communication
• Enhanced flexibility and visibility
2.5.2 Continuous Improvement

Continuous improvement or Kaizen is another fundamental tool of lean manufacturing. It
includes a thorough and a systematic approach to gradual, orderly and continuous
improvement. It promotes reduction of inventory as well as reduction of defective parts. One
14
of the most effective tools of Kaizen is 5S, which is often the backbone of an effective lean
company. 5S consists of the Japanese words Seiri (Sort), Seiton (Straighten), Seiso (Sweep
and Clean), Seiketsu (Systemize), and Shitsuke (Standardize). The underlying concept behind
5S is to look for waste and then to try to eliminate it.
Seiri, deals with eliminating those items that are not currently being used on a continuous
basis. Seiton means having the right items in the right area at the right time. Items that do not
belong to a given area must not be in that area. Seiso deals with cleanliness of the working
area. The workplace should look neat and clean and ready to use for the next shift. All tools
and items should be in the right place and nothing should be missing. Seiketsu means to
maintain a high standard of housekeeping and workplace arrangement. Shitsuke specifies the
management’s accountability to train the people to follow housekeeping rules. Management
should implement the housekeeping rules in a practiced fashion so that their people can
follow them easily.
Taken together, 5S essentially means good housekeeping and better workplace organization.
Kaizen tools such as 5S not only serve as a mean to increase profitability of a firm but also
allow companies to reveal potential strengths and capabilities that were hidden before.
2.5.3 Just-In-Time(JIT)
Just in time is the act which attempts to eliminate sources of manufacturing waste by
producing the right part in the right place at the right time. It enables the company to become
highly flexible by adapting to sudden changes in demand market. However, JIT effectiveness
depends heavily on having a strategic alliance between buyers and suppliers. Just-in-time is a
critical tool to manage the external activities of a company such as purchasing and
distribution. It can be thought of as consisting of three elements: JIT production, JIT
distribution (JITD), and JIT purchasing (JITP).
i) Just-In-Time Production
Just in time production means to produce only when the customer demands, thereby
preventing any waste related to overproduction. Thereby, the product gets pulled out of the
assembly process only when required. The process goes on as each process pulls the needed
parts from the preceding process further up stream.
15
ii) Just-In-Time Distribution
JITD requires the exchange of frequent, small lots of items between suppliers and customers;
this calls for an effective transportation management system to manage the inbound and
outbound material since there are no reserves. However, under JITD having a full truckload
sometimes is difficult due to the frequent delivery of smaller lots, which will result in
increased transportation costs. To prevent this problem a mixed loading strategy is suggested
which enables to have full truckloads and also an increase in the number of deliveries.
iii) Just-In-Time Purchasing
The idea of JITP is to procure materials as and when they are required. Under JITP, activities
such as supplier selection, product development and production lot sizing become very
critical. Customer-supplier form an integral part of JITP in which the suppliers are
encouraged to take part in the product development. This serves to be mutually beneficial as
the supplier’s confidence grows and the customer obtains the technology at a cheaper price. It
thus becomes necessary to have a small number of qualified suppliers. Having quality-
certified suppliers shifts the inspection function of quality and piece-by-piece count of parts to
the supplier’s site where the supplier must make sure that parts are defect free before they are
transported to the manufacturer’s plant.
2.5.4 Production Smoothing

Heijunka, the Japanese word for production smoothing, is where the manufacturers try to keep
the production level as constant as possible from day to day. It is a concept adapted from the
Toyota production system, where in order to decrease production cost it became necessary to
balance the demand with supply and thereby not overproducing. To achieve constant
production levels, the production schedule should be as smooth as possible to effectively
produce the right quantity of parts and efficiently utilize manpower. Inability to do so leads to
waste (such as work-in-process inventory) at the workplace.
2.5.5 Standardization of Work

A very important principle of waste elimination is the standardization of worker actions.
Standardized work basically ensures that each job is organized and is carried out in the most
effective manner. This enables to achieve the same level of quality irrespective of the person
16
doing the job. A tool that is used to standardize work is “takt” time. Takt is a German word
for beat time and refers to how often a part should be produced in a product family based on
the actual customer demand. The target is to produce at a pace nearly equal to the takt time.
Takt time is defined by the following equation.
Customerdemand per day

Takt Time TT =
Available work time per day
2.5.6 Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)

Machine breakdown is one of the most important issues concerning the people on the shop
floor as this has the ability to stop the entire production system. Hence it becomes very
important to look for effective maintenance strategies. There are three main components of a
total productive maintenance program: preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance, and
maintenance prevention. Preventive maintenance means to have regular and planned
maintenance on all equipment instead of some random check ups. Workers have to carry out
regular equipment maintenance to detect any anomalies as they occur. Corrective
maintenance deals with decisions such as whether to fix or buy new equipment. E.g. if a
machine is always down and its components are always breaking down then it would be better
to replace those parts with newer ones. The last component, maintenance prevention means
the procurement of the right machine as the maintenance of machines which are difficult to
repair and maintain will require a lot of effort and money, and hence result in waste.
17
CHAPTER 3
Lean Construction
3.1 Lean Construction
The traditional method of project management has a long history. It is being used to manage
all kinds of construction projects ranging from small residential to huge infrastructural
projects like bridges and dams. However, in the recent years due to the growing domestic and
international competition, development of highly complex and uncertain projects this
technique of project management has often come under severe criticisms. The construction
industry has been suffering from the problems of low productivity, poor safety, inferior
working conditions and most importantly inferior quality. Many have attributed automation
and increased computer integration as a solution to the above mentioned problem (Koskella
1997). Hence, there has been little progress in the field of Lean construction over the years.
However, recently many parts of construction industry have started to shift towards the lean
production theory like prefabricated housing.
The main characteristics of the traditional approach are as follows (Saied Kartam et. al 1997):
1. All activities are value adding activities.
2. No distinction is made between processing and flow activities.
3. The total cost is estimated on the basis of the WBS (work breakdown structure).
4. No emphasis is given to the importance of resource flows.
5. All activities are assumed to be independent of each other and it is assumed that
reducing the cost of each activity will reduce the cost of the project.
6. It doesn’t take into consideration the effects of poor quality output and effects of
variability and uncertainty.
7. Another characteristic is that work passes linearly from one process to the other.
Another significant feature or rather a flaw of CCPM of project management is the fact that
all the cost and time over runs are attributed to the fact that the contractor’s workers fail to
follow the schedules and budget while construction. No question is ever raised against the
planning which precedes the construction. It has been observed that the majority of the
18
failures are a result of bad or incomplete planning on the part of planners (Ballard & Howell
1997a). Many uncertainties are not incorporated into the schedules by the top management as
the only motive is to win the contract. The schedules are derived from experiences based on
the history of other so called similar projects. Contractors still do not give importance to the
fact that all construction processes are different and hence it is not correct to establish detailed
schedules at the onset and trying to follow the same. The consequence of such an action is
disastrous for the contractor as the quality of the construction is compromised and a lot of
time and money has to be spent on rework.
“Lean construction is the application of lean production principles in the construction

industry” (Koskella 1998). However, the lean production principles cannot be applied directly
to the construction industry. There is a marked difference in the construction industry from its
manufacturing counterpart. The main problem that lies in the road towards lean construction
is that most companies do not see construction as a flow and conversion based process. They
believe that all activities are conversion based and hence they do not try to reduce the Wastes
in construction. Past researchers (Serpell et al. 1997) have identified the following wastes in
construction:
• Waiting for resources

• Travelling time movement (of operator or machine)
• Idle time (of operator or machine)
• Resting
• Rework
A classification of the main causes behind the wastes has also been provided by Serpell et al.
(1997) and is shown in Fig. 3.1.
19
Fig. 3.1: Classification of causes of waste
Lean Production in construction in essence tries to reduce the wasteful activities in

construction to deliver the product to the owner. Many tools are available to achieve this goal,
but in this research we shall focus on Last Planner System developed by Glenn Ballard
(Ballard 2000) to remove the wastes and to shield the downstream work from the
uncertainties in the upstream construction processes.
Most of the wastes listed above are a clear demonstration of lack of adequate planning and
management control. Information of the above mentioned wastes beforehand can help the
project managers to take extra precaution during the execution of the project. One major
solution to the above mentioned wastes can be increased emphasis on short term planning as
most of the wastes mentioned above are a result of ineffective short term planning (Serpell et
al. 1997).
Before starting with the topic of lean construction the main features of the traditional project
management system are repeated: the traditional project management practices treats all the
activities in construction as value adding activities (those which cannot be removed) and
accordingly the construction process is a conversion based process in which one value adding
20
activity leads to another as shown in Fig. 3.2. This states that as soon as one activity is
finished the other should start irrespective of the fact whether the other pre requisites of the
activity like materials, labor and equipment are available. This model pressurizes the available
resources to act fast thereby resulting in a compromise in the quality of the construction. On
the other hand lean construction is a flow and conversion based model where a construction
process is a collection of conversion processes involving flows of information and materials
from one process to the other as depicted in Fig. 3.3.
ACTIVITY 1 ACTIVITY 2 ACTIVITY 3
Fig. 3.2: Critical Chain Path Method
Information
Labor Process Output
Materials
Fig. 3.3: Lean Construction
3.2 Tools for Lean Construction
3.2.1 Pull Approach

This concept is the same as that of lean production. Traditionally inventories are managed
using the detailed scheduling techniques wherein the materials are ordered on the basis of the
master schedule prepared. With the pull approach the concept of Just in Time is utilized in
construction wherein the inventories are kept to the bare minimum and new inventories are
ordered based on the current demand. Stocking of materials is wasteful. Its implementation
however requires good relation with the suppliers (Ballard and Howell 1997b).
21
3.2.2 Multifunctional Task Groups
This concept contradicts the current belief that only specialized workers can produce good
quality products. Instead of having a specialty group of workers a multifunctional task group
should produce a number of different products. This makes it possible to produce a more
complex or more completed product with one production unit. In multifunctional task groups
the workers do not have to waste time in waiting for each other to complete the work.
However, to achieve the principle of multifunctional task groups, personnel need to be trained
intensively in recombining thinking and doing (Melles 1997).
3.2.3 Kaizen (Total Quality Improvement)

Kaizen means to continually look for new ways to improve the process by reducing costs and
increasing efficiency. It might involve the management asking the production teams to
suggest new ideas regularly. A good implementation of Kaizen implicates cost reduction and
zero defects in final products. It includes the 5S principle for site management which has been
described earlier (Melles 1997).
3.2.4 Benchmarking
It is an important tool for standardization of activities, ultimately leading to good construction
quality. New methods evolved by means of continuous improvement need to be benchmarked
so that they can be implemented at similar situations and can be improved upon at all sites.
This tool promotes achievement of high quality work (Tanskanen et. al 1997).
3.2.5 A3 Reports
This tool developed by Toyota helps in documentation of key results of problem solving
manner in a concise manner. It involves mentioning the theme of the problem, current
situation, any improvements / suggestions and the implementation and follow up plan, all on a
single A3 sheet. The A3 method is an easy to use, comprehend method and can be
implemented only with a paper and pencil. The size of A3 is assumed to be just enough to be
able to highlight the important points for discussion.
3.2.6 Last Planner System

This tool in simple words can be taken to be an assimilation of the above mentioned tools. It
also has a number of other features which are explained below. The main objectives of a
production control system like the Last Planner System are as follows (Ballard 2000):
22
1. Manage and mitigate the variability.
2. Assignments and schedules should be sound regarding their prerequisites.
3. The completed assignments should be monitored.
4. Causes for failure to complete the planned work should be investigated and removed.
5. There should be a workable backlog for each crew and production unit.
6. The prerequisites of upcoming assignments should be made ready.
7. The traditional push based construction process model should be incorporated with pull
techniques.
8. Traditional project control focuses on hierarchical decision making and thus the decision
making process lies in the hands of few and often decision makers are unaware of the
ground realities. Decision making powers should be well distributed among the project
team.
3.3 Last Planner System

Developed by Prof. Glenn Ballard of the University of California at Berkeley (2000), it aims
to reduce / remove the uncertainties plaguing the construction project processes. In CCPM
there is strict adherence to the master schedule even when great obstacles lie in its path.
Supervisors keep on pressurizing the subordinates to produce despite obstacles. Many a time
these obstacles result in poor quality output which remain in the project supply chain
throughout.
Last Planner System (LPS) aims to shift the focus of control from the workers to the flow of
work that links them together. The two main objectives of LPS are to make better assignments
to direct workers through continuous learning and corrective action and to cause the work to
flow across production units in the best achievable sequence and rate as shown in Fig. 3.4.
23
Fig. 3.4: Last Planner System (Abdelhamid 2006).
Planning for the project cannot be performed in detail much before the events being planned.
Consequently, deciding what and how much work is to be done by a design squad or a
construction crew is rarely a matter of simply following a master schedule established at the
beginning of the project. Hence it is imperative that LPS focuses on making a 6 -8 weeks look
ahead schedule with detailed weekly plans in discussion with the last planners (persons who
actually execute the work) based on the current situations. The activities from the master
schedule are broken down to great details. Assignments are prepared for the workers to work
upon. Ballard (Ballard 2000a) suggested that assignments should satisfy the following criteria
before being allocated to the workers:
1. Work should be clearly defined.

2. Work should be sequenced properly.
3. All pre requisites for the work should be obtained and the constraints should be
removed.
4. Work should be sized based on the availability of the crew.
The assignments satisfying the above criteria enter the workable backlog. All the other
assignments are postponed till the time they satisfy the above mentioned criteria. In this way
24
the workers are never overloaded, they only do what they promised and this helps to keep a
track of the productivity. Failure to keep commitments is investigated so that they do not
occur again. This is done by a factor known as PPC (percent planned complete). Ideally this
should be 100% as everyone is expected to keep his commitments but generally a value of
80% is considered to be good. All the above lean construction tools are used in the last
planner system. As the Last Planner System involves the pull approach to form a workable
backlog, it utilizes the just in time tool, since all the persons involved in the project sit
together to form the look ahead schedule, wherein continuous improvement is built into the
process. Thus the Last Planner System serves to successfully remove the uncertainties in the
construction process.
3.4 Application of Lean Construction Principles to the Construction Process

The application of lean construction tools to the construction process will be explained in this
section. The construction process is considered as a three phase process:
1. Design
2. Planning
3. Execution
3.4.1 Application of lean construction principles to design management

Tzortzopoloulos and Formoso (Tzortzopoloulos and Formoso 1999) suggested building of
design models by integration of the three concepts of lean construction (design as conversion,
design as flow and design as value generation). The terms like conversion, flow and value
generation have the usual meanings like that in lean construction. They have mentioned a few
guidelines which have also been stated by Ballard and Koskella (Ballrd and Koskella 1998):
1. Having some degree of flexibility in the sequence of design activities. Not defining
activities in a very fine level of detail and encouraging team work.
2. Involvement of designers in joint solutions.
3. Direct interactions between designers and customers.
4. Explicit and healthy client supplier relations.
5. Always working with a set of design alternatives.
25
By making use of the integrated models, the share of wasteful activities can be reduced,
output value can be increased by more emphasis on customer’s requirement, variability can be
reduced by reducing the number of steps involved in the design process; cycle times and most
importantly continuous improvement can be built into the process.
3.4.2 Application of lean construction principles in construction planning

Faniran et. al (1997) on the basis of extensive literature review and questionnaires have put
forward a construction planning process plan which involves treating the planning process as
a process which takes in inputs and gives construction plans as outputs. They have highlighted
the fact that the construction planning process most prevalent today is that of developing a
single plan and adhering to it for the entire duration. Those plans are seldom reviewed during
the execution stage and the corrective actions only include adjusting the original schedules to
actual performance. To improve the planning process they have suggested a shift towards
contingency planning which includes preparation of several detailed plans prior to execution
for different project environments. Hence the need to review the original plan for problems
very seldom arises. To implement the contingency planning substantial amount of time and
resources need to be expended during the construction planning prior to the execution and
also in project control during construction work on site.
3.4.3 Application of lean construction principles in construction execution

This stage involves utilization of the last planner tool (described earlier) of lean construction
for execution of the project. In this section the meaning of the “pull process” for building up
of the schedules and the workable backlog is described.
3.4.3.1 Phase scheduling

Lean construction uses the pull technique for development of project schedules. Thereby only
those tasks are scheduled and executed whose completion releases work to other tasks. This
way, only the work that is required is done and thereby prevents any overproduction (Ballard
2000b). The phase schedules serve as a basis for the development of look-ahead schedules.
In the phase scheduling process, representatives of all organizations involved in the phase sit
down to decide on the work that must be performed to release work to other phases. The
26
people responsible for the work write their requirements on a sheet of paper and stick them on
a wall in their expected sequence of performance. After all sheets are on the walls, the
network diagram is prepared by moving and shifting of sheets. Thus new techniques and
methodologies for doing the work are found out. After the finalization of the sequence of the
activities, durations (without any float) are applied to them. The network diagram is then
reexamined to look for processes which can be shortened. The earliest practical start date
(calculated) for the phase is then determined by working backwards from the schedule. If
there is any positive difference between the possible and the calculated start date that time can
be allocates to critical processes in the phase to protect them from uncertainties. In case the
difference is negative then the phase will have to be delayed and the time lost will have to be
made up in other phases.
3.4.3.2 Look ahead process and Last Planner System

Choo (Choo 2003) mentions that the Last Planner System developed by Ballard is a tool for
workflow control while the weekly work planning is responsible for production unit control.
The look ahead process involves the following processes: explosion; screening and make
ready.
Explosion: This involves exploding the activities mentioned in the master schedule to great
details to identify all the pre requisites for the activity before it enters the look ahead window.
Screening: This process is used for determining the status of tasks that are present in the look
ahead window based on their pre requisites (constraints). Here we can choose whether to
advance or postpone the tasks based on their status.
Make ready: In this process the lead time (time for order to delivery) is estimated, the pre
requisites are pulled and the work is executed. This process requires great caution as the
ordering times have to be estimated reliably to prevent any inventory from building up at site.
The status of the consuming activity should be matched with the ordering times of resources
with great detail and caution.
The make ready work then enters the workable backlog so that the scheduled work can begin.
The work is monitored by using PPC (Percent of Planned Complete) and the inability to
27
achieve a high PPC is investigated for process improvement and to prevent the problems from
re occurring.
PPC: PPC or Percent of planned complete is the method used for monitoring of the project.
Unlike the techniques of earned value estimate which is traditionally used for monitoring of
projects, the PPC measurement has the following advantages:
1. Work is selected by the workers themselves and hence there is less chance of time
over run.
2. The causes for the non completion of work are mentioned explicitly while
analyzing PPC.
3. PPC helps in continuous improvement of the construction project as efforts are
made to prevent the re occurrence of problems.
PPC measurement is shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 PPC Measurement (Abdelhamid 2006)
Week 1/1/2009 8/1/2009 15/1/2009 22/1/2009

PPC 50% 67% 80% 75%
Tasks Completed 2 2 4 3
Tasks Planned 4 3 5 4
Reasons for low PPC
Engineering
Weather 1
Pre requisite
Labor 1
Materials 1 1
Contract
Equipment 1
28
CHAPTER 4
Identification of Wastes in Construction Process
4.1 Identification of Key Wastes and their Sources in Indian Construction Practices
Phase 1 of the project involved the identification of key wastes in the Indian construction
practices. As explained in the previous chapter, waste is any process which consumes
resources without adding any value to the project. Lean construction aims to increase the
efficiency of construction processes by either removing these wastes or reducing them to
manageable levels.
To identify the wastes in the construction practices at IIT Guwahati, a questionnaire-based

survey, presented in the annexure, was conducted. The questionnaire was similar to that was
employed in Chile for its construction sector by Alarcon (1997). The survey was carried out
with the faculty and the engineers working at IIT Guwahati. The main aim of the
questionnaire was the development of a cause effect matrix, which helped in identifying the
major wastes and their corresponding sources of wastes and is shown in illustrated in Fig. 4.1.
A total of 3 institutions/ companies took part in the survey namely:
1. IIT Guwahati
2. Gammon India Pvt. Ltd.
3. Punjj Lloyd Ltd.
4.1.1 Wastes in Construction Processes

The activities presented in Table 4.1 were classified as wastes in the questionnaire (Alarcon
1997).
4.1.2 Sources of Wastes in Construction Processes

The sources of wastes were grouped into three categories namely as shown in Table 4.2:
Management related, Resources related and Information related (Alarcon 1997).
29
Table 4.1 Wastes in Construction Processes
1. Work not done 2. Unnecessary movement of materials
3. Re-Work 4. Excessive vigilance
5. Unnecessary Work 6. Extra supervision
7. Defects 8. Additional space
9. Stoppages 10. Delays in activities
11. Wastage of Materials 12. Extra processing
13. Deterioration of Materials 14. Clarifications
15. Unnecessary movement of labor 16. Abnormal wear and tear of equipment
Table 4.2 Sources of Wastes in Construction Processes
Management Related:
1. Unnecessary Requirement
2. Excessive Control
3. Lack of Control
4. Poor Planning
5. Excessive Red Tape
Resources Related:
1. Excessive Quantity
2. Shortage
3. Misuse
4. Poor Distribution
5. Poor Quality
6. Availability
Information Related:
1. Unnecessary
2. Defective
3. Unclear
4. Late
30
Excessive Bureaucracy, paperwork
Excessive Management Control
MANAGEMENT RELATED
INFORMATION RELATED
RESOURCES RELATED
Poor Management Control
Unnecessary requirement
Sources of Waste
Excessive amount
Poor Distribution
Poor Planning
Poor Quality
Unnecessary
Availability
Shortages
Defective
Unclear
Misuse
Theft
Late
Wastes
1 Uncompleted Work
2 Rework
3 Ineffective Work
4 Defects
5 Interruptions
6 Materials Wasted
7 Damaged Material
Unnecessary Labor
8 Movement
Unnecessary Material
9 Handling
10 Excessive Surveillance
11 Excessive Supervision
12 Excessive Space
13 Delays
14 Extra Processing
15 Clarifications needed
16 Abnormal equipment wearing
Fig. 4.1: Cause Effect Matrix to determine the Main Sources of Wastes
4.1.3 Filling up of the Questionnaires

The respondents were asked to identify at least six construction waste processes prevalent in
their organization from the Table 4.1. After identification of the wastes they were asked to
rank the wastes from 1 to the desired number (1 being the most serious).
For the identification of the sources of wastes, the respondents were asked to mark the sources
given in Table 4.2 with the rank of the waste. For e.g. if Rework was identified as a waste
with a rank of 1 then all the sources corresponding to the waste Rework were to be marked as
31
1 in the 1st column. Similarly if Delays was identified as a waste with rank 2, then all sources
corresponding to Delays had to be marked as 2 in the 2nd column. The same had to be
repeated as per the number of wastes identified by the respondent.
4.2 Administering the Questionnaire

Prior to the administration of the survey, a presentation was held (22nd September 2009, IIT
Guwahati) which was attended by faculty members and engineers working at IIT Guwahati.
The aim of the presentation was to introduce the topic of lean construction to the fraternity so
that the waste processes in construction processes become conspicuous. A total of 23
participants attended the presentation. The questionnaires were given to all those present for
the presentation and were sent to Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Lloyd Ltd. when they
visited the IIT Guwahati campus.
Out of the 30 questionnaires administered as hard copies 28 have been obtained. The break up
is as follows:
1. IIT Guwahati – 20
2. Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. – 3
3. Punjj Llyod Ltd. - 5
The results and findings of the questionnaire survey are presented in the next chapter.
32
CHAPTER 5
Findings of the Questionnaire Survey and Discussion
5.1 General
Out of the 30 questionnaires given to the participants of the survey, 28 responses were
obtained. The results have been grouped under three categories:
1. IIT Guwahati
2. Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Llyod Ltd.
3. IIT Guwahati, Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Llyod Ltd.
The above has been done to identify the wastes along with the sources of wastes for each
company/institution. As the responses obtained from Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Lloyd
Ltd. were less (3 and 5 in no. respectively), they could not be analysed separately.
5.2 Results for IIT Guwahati

As observed from the pie chart shown in Fig. 5.1 and Table 5.1, delay in activities is the most
significant waste that threatens the construction process accounting for 14 % of the total
wastes in the responses, thereby indicating the criticality of this waste. Frequent rework is the
second most critical waste affecting the construction process accounting for 12 % of the total
wastes indicated in the survey responses. Another important waste highlighted in the
responses is frequent interruptions in the ongoing activities which accounted for 10% of the
total wastes mentioned by the participants of the survey. Defects also accounted for a
significant proportion of the wastes with 9 % of the total wastes. The pie chart also highlights
the waste - frequent clarifications needed which also accounted for 9 % of the total wastes,
thereby indicating the need for better communication between all the parties involved in the
project. Other wastes like ineffective work, unnecessary labor movement, uncompleted work
and unnecessary material handling also accounted for a significant proportion of the total
wastes mentioned by the respondents.
33
Table 5.1 Wastes and their Frequencies of Occurrence in the Responses (IIT Guwahati)
Waste Categories Frequency Waste Categories Frequency
Uncompleted Work 8 Unnecessary Material Handling 8
Rework 14 Excessive Surveillance 1
Ineffective Work 9 Excessive Supervision -
Defects 11 Excessive Space -
Interruptions 12 Delays 17
Materials Wasted 6 Extra Processing 5
Damaged Material 7 Clarifications needed 11
Unnecessary Labor Movement 10 Abnormal equipment wearing 1
Fig. 5.1: Incidence of Waste Categories in form of a Pie Chart (IIT Guwahati)
The cause-effect matrix for IIT Guwahati as shown in Table 5.2, points out the most
important sources of the critical wastes, which were easily identified, based on their frequency
of occurrence in the matrix, as follows:
1. Wastes - delay and interruption were caused majorly due to the absence of proper
management control at the site along with poor planning. Shortage of resources was
also equally responsible for the occurrence of this waste. This highlighted the fact that
there was no scheduling / planning being done at the various sites and the work was
carried out by the word of mouth. Another important fact to note was that the
34
subcontractors sometimes worked without any supervision of the site engineers and
this highlighted the need for more management control. Also, in the absence of proper
planning, the supply chain management at sites was erratic resulting in frequent
material / resource shortage.
2. Rework was another waste which bothered the authorities here in IIT Guwahati. As
obtained from the survey majorly the management related wastes along with poor
quality of resources and unclear information contributed towards this waste. It was
observed that there were frequent design changes at the sites which highlighted the
need for proper planning before progressing on with the work; another important
factor leading to this waste was excessive management control and unclear
information. Also, in the absence of clear directives, the subcontractors were
sometimes forced to do work which was not as per the design specified. It was also
observed that at times work was carried out using substandard materials leading to
frequent confrontations between the various parties involved in the project and
ultimately resulted in rework and delays in the project.
3. The major sources of the waste - defect were usage of poor quality materials and
incorrect / defective information. On further investigation it was found that incorrect
information was sometimes passed onto the subcontractors from the management and
this resulted in defects in the construction which later had to be reworked upon.
4. Another important waste highlighted in the survey – frequent clarifications needed –

was attributed mainly to the absence of proper planning. It was observed that at times
the management failed to obtain clear directives before starting the work and this
resulted in the subcontractors seeking frequent clarifications during the course of the
work. There was lack of proper planning before starting any activity.
The other wastes like ineffective work, unnecessary labor movement were found to be
considerably less significant when compared with the above mentioned wastes. Their sources
were observed to be the absence of management control and proper planning at the site.
35
Table 5.2 Cause Effect Matrix for IIT Guwahati

MANAGEMENT RELATED
INFORMATION RELATED
RESOURCES RELATED
Excessive amount
Sources of waste
Poor Distribution
Poor Planning
Poor Quality
Unnecessary
Availability
Shortages
Defective
Unclear
Misuse
Theft
Late
Wastes
Uncompleted Work 4 6 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 3
Rework 5 4 4 5 3 2 3 1 5 1 2 3 5
Ineffective Work 6 6 2 1 4 3 5 5 1 4 3
2
Defects 3 5 4 1 1 5 3 9 1 1 6 4
2
Interruptions 1 2 8 9 3 1 8 3 4 3 1 1 2 2 4
5
Materials Wasted 2 1 4 4 1 1 5 3 4 1 1 3 2
Damaged Material 1 5 4 1 2 2 3 5 1 1 3
Unnecessary Labor Movement 2 9 7 1 4 1 7 3 2 1 2 3
Unnecessary Material Handling 1 4 5 2 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3
Excessive Surveillance
Excessive Supervision 1 1 1
Excessive Space
Delays 2 2 10 8 5 9 4 4 5 3 2 2 2 2 7
Extra Processing 3 3 1 6 4 1 2 2 1 3 3
Clarifications needed 2 2 3 7 3 1 2 2 1 3 1
Abnormal equipment wearing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
5.3 Results for Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Lloyd Ltd.
Table 5.3 shows the frequencies of the wastes as obtained from the questionnaire. The most
critical wastes are listed as under on the basis of their frequency of occurrence:
1. Interruptions
2. Delays, Rework and Uncompleted Work
3. Materials wasted, Unnecessary Labor Movement and Extra Processing
4. Defects
The same can also be identified from Fig. 5.2 which shows the frequencies of wastes in the
form of a pie chart.
36
Table 5.3 Wastes and their Frequencies of Occurrence in the Responses
(Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Llyod Ltd.)
Ineffective Work 2 Excessive Supervision 2
Defects 4 Excessive Space
Fig. 5.2: Incidence of Waste Categories in form of a Pie Chart

(Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Llyod Ltd.)
The cause effect matrix for Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Lloyd Ltd. is shown in Table
5.4.
37
Table 5.4 Cause Effect Matrix for Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Lloyd Ltd.

MANAGEMENT RELATED
INFORMATION RELATED
RESOURCES RELATED
Sources of waste
Excessive amount
Poor Distribution
Poor Planning
Poor Quality
Unnecessary
Availability
Shortages
Defective
Unclear
Misuse
Theft
Late
Wastes
Uncompleted Work 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Rework 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
Ineffective Work 1 1 1 1 1 1
Defects 2 1 1
Interruptions 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 1
Materials Wasted 1 1 1 1 0 2 1
Damaged Material 1 1 1
Unnecessary Labor Movement 1 2 2 2 2 0 1 1 2
Unnecessary Material Handling 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Excessive Surveillance 0
Excessive Supervision 1 1
Excessive Space
Delays 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Extra Processing 1 1 1 1
Clarifications needed 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 1
Abnormal equipment wearing 1 2 1 2 2
From the cause effect matrix, the most important sources of wastes can be easily identified.
For example, as obtained from the pie chart, the waste Interruptions is the most critical, hence
we look into the row of the waste Interruptions, we can identify Unnecessary information as
the most important source followed by poor planning and shortage of resources.
5.4 Results of IIT Guwahati Combined with Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Llyod
Ltd.
Table 5.5 shows the frequencies of the wastes as obtained from the questionnaire. The most
critical wastes are listed as under on the basis of their frequency of occurrence:
38
1. Delays
2. Rework
3. Interruptions
4. Defects and Unnecessary Labor Movement
The same can also be identified from Fig. 5.3 which shows the frequencies of wastes in the
form of a pie chart.
Table 5.5 Wastes and their Frequencies of Occurrence in the Responses

(IIT Guwahati combined with Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Llyod Ltd.)
Ineffective Work 11 Excessive Supervision 2
Defects 15 Excessive Space
Fig. 5.3: Incidence of Waste Categories in form of a Pie Chart

(IIT Guwahati combined with Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj Llyod Ltd.)
The cause effect matrix for IIT Guwahati combined with Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and Punjj
Llyod Ltd. is shown in Table 5.6.
39
Table 5.6 Cause Effect Matrix for IIT Guwahati combined with Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. and
Punjj Llyod Ltd.

MANAGEMENT RELATED
INFORMATION RELATED
RESOURCES RELATED
Excessive amount
Sources of waste
Poor Distribution
Poor Planning
Poor Quality
Unnecessary
Availability
Shortages
Defective
Unclear
Misuse
Theft
Late
Wastes
Uncompleted Work 2 2 4 6 2 8 2 1 1 2 2 1 6 4
Rework 6 5 6 6 3 1 2 4 3 5 1 2 2 4 6 1
Ineffective Work 1 6 6 3 1 5 3 5 5 1 1 4 4 3
Defects 3 5 4 1 2 1 5 3 9 2 1 1 6 4 2
Interruptions 2 3 9 11 4 1 10 3 4 5 3 2 5 4 4 6
Materials Wasted 3 1 4 4 1 1 1 5 4 5 3 1 4 2
Damaged Material 1 5 4 1 1 2 2 3 5 2 1 3 1
Unnecessary Labor Movement 2 10 9 2 1 4 3 7 5 2 1 2 4 3
Unnecessary Material Handling 2 1 4 5 1 2 1 3 6 2 1 2 2 3 3
Excessive Surveillance
Excessive Supervision 1 1 1 1 1
Excessive Space
Delays 2 4 11 9 6 9 5 5 6 3 3 2 3 3 8
Extra Processing 3 3 1 7 5 1 1 3 2 1 3 3
Clarifications needed 2 3 5 7 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 4 2
Abnormal equipment wearing 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 2
From the cause effect matrix, the most important sources of wastes can be easily identified.
For example as obtained from the pie chart, the waste Delays is the most critical, hence we
look into the row of the waste Delays, we can identify Poor Management Control as the most
important source followed by poor planning and shortage of resources.
40
CHAPTER 6
A Simplified Questionnaire for the Identification of Wastes

in Construction Process
6.1 Need for a Simplified Questionnaire

Although the earlier mentioned questionnaire survey was successful in its implementation in
Chile and also here in IIT Guwahati, India, some problems were observed in the interpretation
of wastes and their sources. The wastes delays and interruptions were found to have similar
meanings and the respondents remarked that they had difficulties in differentiating between
the two. They mentioned that interruptions led to delays and hence they should be grouped
together. The respondents had similar difficulties while dealing with the waste defects,
ineffective work, uncompleted work and rework; hence they should also be grouped together.
Furthermore important waste categories from the point of view of Indian construction sector
like space constrain and frequent changes in design were found to be missing from the
questionnaire and should be incorporated in it.
It was also observed that some sources of wastes relevant to the Indian construction practices
like abnormal weather, equipment breakdown and accidents were missing and should be
incorporated in it. Furthermore, the management related sources – unnecessary requirement
and excessive management control were found to have similar meaning and hence should be
grouped together.
There were also suggestions on making the questionnaire more meaningful and less time
consuming for the participants like keeping the questionnaire as a single performa instead of
two seaparate performas. Based on the above mentioned feedback which was received from
the participants a new simplified questionnaire has been formulated and presented in Table
6.3. The activities presented in Table 6.1 are classified as wastes in the questionnaire:
41
Table 6.1 Wastes in Construction Processes
1. Delays / Interruptions 2. Poor Quality Work / Rework

3. Material Wastage 4. Poor Quality / Damaged Material
5. Unnecessary Labor Movement 6. Unnecessary Material Handling
7. Excessive Supervision 8. Space constrain
9. Frequent Changes in Design 10. Extra processing
11. Clarifications Needed 12. Abnormal Equipment Wearing
The sources of wastes are grouped into three categories as shown in Table 6.2:
Table 6.2 Sources of Wastes in Construction Processes
Management Related:
1. Unnecessary / Excessive Management Control
2. Poor Management Control
3. Poor Planning
4. Excessive Bureaucracy / Paper Work
Resources Related (including labor):
5. Excessive Amount
6. Shortage
7. Misuse
8. Excessive Transportation of Resources at site
9. Poor Quality
10. Theft
Information Related:
11. Unnecessary
12. Incorrect / Unclear
13. Late
Unforeseen Situations Related:
14. Abnormal weather
15. Accidents
16. Equipment breakdown
42
6.2 Administering the Questionnaire
The new questionnaire which has been formulated as shown in Table 6.3 consists of only one
Performa, instead of the two separate Performas (presented in Appendix A1 and A2) used to
conduct the survey, wherein the respondent only needs to identify the waste and its associated
source with a tick. The questionnaire is itself in the form of a cause effect matrix so that the
respondent can have a better understanding of the wastes and its corresponding sources. The
relative criticality of any construction waste across a site can be gauged by taking responses
from all the parties concerned with the project. After obtaining the required responses the
occurrence of wastes and its corresponding sources can be summed up to obtain a cumulative
bar / pie chart to efficiently identify the following:
1. Relative criticality of waste affecting the construction and its corresponding

sources.
Relative criticality of the sources of wastes in the construction practices.
Although this questionnaire based survey approach can be used to identify the wastes
prevalent across the entire Indian construction industry, but due to the heterogeneous nature
of the industry which comprises of mainly small and medium scale firms (based on persons
employed) a huge data set will be required from all parts of the country as there is a difference
in construction practices across different regions and projects in India. Hence it is suggested
that the questionnaire for identification of wastes in construction practices be administered on
a case by case basis for the most successful implementation of lean construction.
43
Select waste category and its sources
(Place a tick)
Rework
Poor Quality /
Space Constrain
Extra Processing
Materials Wastage
Damaged Material
Wastes
Poor Quality Work /
Clarifications needed
Delays / Interruptions
Excessive Supervision
Frequent Design Changes
Abnormal equipment wearing

Unnecessary Labor Movement
Unnecessary Material Handling
Sources of Waste
MANAGEMENT RELATED
Unnecessary /
Poor Planning
44
RESOURCES RELATED (incl. labor)
Excessive amount
Shortages
Misuse
Excessive transportation of
resources at site
Poor Quality
Availability
Theft
Table 6.3: Questionnaire to Identify Wastes and their Sources
INFORMATION RELATED
Unnecessary
Incorrect / Unclear
Late
UNFORSEEN SITUATIONS RELATED
Abnormal weather
Accidents
Equipment Breakdown
CHAPTER 7
Implementation of the Last Planner System in

IIT Guwahati
7.1 Why the Last Planner System?

As observed from the survey, the construction in IIT Guwahati is affected by delays,
interruptions and rework, which have been attributed to mostly the management related
sources like poor management control and poor planning along with shortage and poor quality
of resources. After discussion with the faculty and engineers here in IIT Guwahati, it was
decided to go for the implementation of the Last Planner System, (developed by Prof. Glenn
Ballard) in IIT Guwahati, which is an integrated tool for the implementation of lean
construction, to reduce the wastes thus identified. It was felt that since the Last Planner
System is in essence a tool which promotes proper planning of the construction process and
involves all the parties concerned with a construction project, it will help in mitigating the
planning and management related wastes.
7.2 Selection of a Suitable Construction Site

Construction is ongoing at a lot of sites in IIT Guwahati, however, for the implementation of
the Last Planner System it was decided that such a construction site be identified which also
involved works like that of electrical and plumbing apart from the regular civil works. This
was done inorder to examine the potential of the Last Planner System to increase the
cooperation among the different parties concerned with the project to expedite the
construction process. The site thus identified was the construction of the extension of the
Physics Department, IIT Guwahati.
7.3 Information about the Construction Site

The site chosen was a 3 storey academic building covering an area of 865 sq.m per floor. The
contract of the building was awarded to Buildrite Constructions of Guwahati at a cost of
approximately Rs. 4.5 crores. At the time of starting the implementation of the Last Planner
System it was estimated that the work will be handed over by 30/4/2010. The construction
process at the site was labor intensive; no schedules were being followed or maintained at the
45
site. The construction was being done by word of mouth and by the use of previous
experiences of the contractor.
7.4 Implementation of the Last Planner System

The last planner system was formally started at the site on 20th December 2009. It was
implemented as follows:
1. Creation of a milestone based Master Schedule for the remaining works.
Since there was no schedule being followed at the site all the remaining activities till
completion of the project were incorporated in the Master Schedule; the hand over date was
taken to be 30/4/2010.
2. Selection of works to be completed in the coming 4 weeks were noted in the 4 Week
Look Ahead Plan (Appendix B).
On the basis of the master schedule thus developed, activities were selected which were to be
completed in the coming 4 weeks. They were noted down in the prescribed format (Appendix
B) along with their completion dates based on the prevalent conditions.
3. Identification of all prerequisites of the activities in the look ahead plan and their
procurement.
All the prerequisites (pending activities, labor requirements, material requirements,
equipment, specifications etc.) of the activities listed in the look ahead were identified so that
they can be procured / completed before starting the work.
4. Creation of a Weekly Work Plan (WWP) by selecting activities from the look ahead
plan whose prerequisites had been procured (Appendix C).
The activities for which all the resources had been procured were enlisted in the WWP and
were required to complete in the coming week.
5. Weekly performance monitoring by calculating the PPC (Percent of Planned
Complete) and taking necessary action to prevent reoccurrence of problems. This
leads to continuous improvement.
The activities in the WWP which had not been completed were noted along with the reasons
for non completion so that they were not repeated again.
As suggested by Ballard (2000b) the elements of the Activity Definition Model were used at
the primary categories to provide a guide for reasons analysis that facilitated in identification
of actionable causes.
46
The primary categories were directives, prerequisites and resources. Once placed within one
of these categories, a plan failure was analyzed in accordance with the guidelines expressed in
Figures 7.1-7.3.
6. The Steps 2 – 5 had to be repeated every week (Monday).
Fig. 7.1: Reasons Analysis Hierarchy – Directives (Ballard 2000b)
Fig. 7.2: Reasons Analysis Hierarchy – Prerequisites (Ballard 2000b)
47
Fig. 7.3: Reasons Analysis Hierarchy – Resource (Ballard 2000b)
7.5 Last Planner System Implementation Results – PPC Analysis

The LPS system implementation results as shown in Table 7.2 and Fig. 7.4 show an uneven
trend, beginning with an initial slump during the 1st week, PPC rises to 100 % in the 5th week
only to fall back to 28 % in the following week. For the period 31/1/2010 – 7/3/2010 a PPC
level of approximately 75 % was sustained, but beginning 7/3/2010 till the end of the project
there was another slump.
In the initial few weeks, a low PPC was understandable as that was a transition phase wherein
the management was exposed to the idea of the LPS and the need for proper planning to
eliminate / reduce the wastes observed from the questionnaire survey. Numerous efforts were
made to make the management and the authorities aware of the LPS and the imminent
benefits from its application, a number of site visits were there along with informal discussion
with the site engineers and the subcontractors in order to make them comfortable with the idea
of planning and scheduling of the project. It was observed that the site engineers got
acclimatized to the LPS beginning the 5th week when a PPC level of 100% was reached.
However, due to the sudden shortage of labor at the site, due to non-payment of dues, the PPC
level for the following week dropped to 28 %. During the next month there was a
considerable improvement in PPC due to the review meeting which was held on 22/1/2010 in
48
which all the major parties concerned with the project participated and took note of the
prevalent situation. During the meeting all the wastes at the site were discussed, major among
those were the problems of labor shortage due to non-payment of dues and cement shortage. It
was decided that a stock of 50 bags would be maintained at the site and the accounting system
for the wages of the labor would be improved to prevent a reoccurrence of such a situation. In
the month of February the number of activities weekly allotted increased due to the
commencement of the electrical works. The sub contractor handling the electrical work was
extremely efficient and got adapted to the LPS very quickly. Among the different
subcontractors working at the site, his performance was the best as he completed 16 tasks out
of the 18 tasks which he committed to do during the period of the study. During the last
month of the case study, labor problems became prominent at the site, it was observed that
there was a continuous inflow and outflow of labor at the site. Major problems were noticed
in the supply chain management of the contractor during this time. As the contractor was
directly dealing with suppliers (no weekly meetings were held on site with the suppliers) there
were repeated failures to procure the pre requisites on time and hence many activities
remained in the look ahead schedule for nearly a month (MS box fixing and Window grills
installation). Furthermore, many succeeding activities like internal plaster were also held up
due to the non completion of the electrical works. In the last 2 weeks of the study, a sudden
and severe cement shortage developed on site which lasted for 5 days leading to an extremely
low PPC of 20% in the penultimate week. This problem was resolved in the following week
after another major review meeting with the contractor; the contractor gave commitments to
procure the pre requisites of the activities pending in the look ahead schedule during the last
week, but again due to his “lack of seriousness” (as described to by the authorities here at IIT
Guwahati), he was not able to keep majority of his commitments.
49
Fig. 7.4 PPC Variation
The reasons for plan failures were classified as shown in Table 7.1 below.
Table 7.1 Reasons for Plan failure

Reasons
Rain
Prerequisite
Design / Directives changed
Equipment
Labor
Work started late
Others
50
Table 7.2 PPC Analysis
Week 20/12-27/12 27/12-10/1 10/1-17/1 17/1-24/1 24/1-31/1 31/1-7/2 7/2-14/2 14/2-21/2

PPC 16.67 50 16.67 100 28.57 92.30 64.28 72.72
Tasks completed 1 4 1 7 2 12 9 8
Tasks alloted 6 8 6 7 7 13 14 11
Reasons
Rain
Prerequisite 4 2 3 3
Design / Directives changed 1
Equipment 1 1
Labor 1 2
Work started late 1 1
Other 2
Week 21/2 - 28/2 1/3-7/3 7/3-14/3 14/3-21/3 21/3-28/3 28/3-4/4

PPC 75 80 55.55 60 20 50
Tasks completed 6 4 5 6 1 3
Tasks alloted 8 5 9 10 5 6
Reasons
Rain
Prerequisite 1 4 4 1
Design / Directives changed 1
Equipment
Labor 1 1 2 1
Work started late 1
Other 1
51
As shown in Fig. 7.5, failure to obtain pre requisites (materials) or complete the pre requisite
activities by the allotted date and labor shortage were the main reasons for plan failure.
Together they accounted for 76 % of the total reasons leading to plan failures.
Ballard’s Activity Definition Model (Fig. 7.2 – 7.3) was applied to figure out the cause of the
failures related to the above mentioned plan failures. In the first 2 weeks of the case study it
was observed that some prerequisite related failures were due to the inability of the Last
Planners to identify the all needed prerequisites, this was understandable as they were new to
the concept of the LPS and needed some time to get used to it, some prerequisites were not
identified in the weekly plans. The majority of the Prerequisite related failures were caused
because the provider of the prerequisite failed to keep his promise. Hence, the prerequisites
were not delivered on time and this led to failures in the plan. On further analysis it was found
that the Last Planners were also partly responsible for some failures as they sometimes over
committed beyond their abilities and hence were not able finish the allotted work.
Majority of the Resources related plan failures occurred during the 2nd half of the study
period. Labor shortage was experienced at the site and there was continuous inflow and
outflow of labor from the site. It was observed that the sub contractors selected tasks for the
work plan hoping that they would be able to get the labor before the start of the activity. This
worked sometimes but in majority of the cases the labor was not available and this led to huge
plan failures. Superficial labor shortage at the site was also reported due to non payment of
the labor dues.
Other factors like change in design or directives in the middle of the week and late starting of
work together accounted for 13 % of the total plan failures. These failures occurred due to the
lack of coordination between the authorities here at IIT Guwahati and the contractor and also
because of the relative inexperience and lack of interest of the site engineers. As analyzed
from Fig. 7.1 the design changes originated to incorporate the needs of the Physics
department which were known very late into the work, there were also some directive changes
in the middle of the week which highlighted the need for better coordination between the
authorities and the contractor. Most potent design / directive changes originated because of
the inability of the contractor to understand the needs of the project and failure to correctly
interpret the directives from the authorities. The above mentioned factors had huge
52
consequences which led to a lot of and frequent rework at the site which could have been
avoided through better coordination among all the parties of the project.
Fig 7.5 Reason Categorization
7.6 Problems Experienced during the Implementation of the Last Planner System
1. No planning / scheduling techniques were being followed at the site.
2. The construction wastes were mostly viewed as wastage of materials.
3. Lack of interest on the part of the contractor to implement the Last Planner System
(Lack of adherence to the weekly schedules and the look ahead schedules.).
4. Lack of interest among all parties towards a joint weekly review meeting to monitor
the progress of the work and to sort out the problems. This led to lack of coordination
between the authorities and contractor.
5. There was excessive rework at the site due to the failure on the part of the contractor /
site engineers to understand the requirement of the authorities.
6. There were acute problems in the supply chain management of the contractor, no
effort was made to stick to the look ahead plan and order materials according to the
date mentioned in it. This led to a huge buildup of activities in the look ahead plan.
53
7. There were problems of labor shortage at the site during the 2nd half of the study
period. It was felt that the contractor failed to pay the labor properly and this led to
frequent inflow and outflow of labor from the site. Superficial labor shortage was also
reported when the contractor failed to pay the labor on time which led to stoppage of
work.
54
CHAPTER 8
Conclusions, Recommendations and Future Work
8.1 Conclusions
At the end of the project work the major objectives have been achieved. Phase I of the project
work involved the identification of the key wastes along with their sources using a
questionnaire based survey. As obtained from the analysis of questionnaires collected, Delays
and Rework were the most critical wastes plaguing the construction practices. Their sources
as found by the cause effect matrix shown in Table 5.2 lie in Poor Management Control, Poor
Planning and Shortage of the Resources Used.
Phase 2 of the project involved the implantation of the Last Planner System at the extension
of the Physics Department to reduce / remove the wastes identified from the survey. Although
the wastes could not be removed completely, they were made conspicuous and were
documented. The PPC level ranged from 16.67 % to 100 % with an average PPC of 55.84%
for the duration of the study. It was observed that much more improvement could have been
achieved if the contractor would have taken keen interest in the implementation of the LPS.
There was also lack of interest among all the authorities to sit for a weekly review meeting to
solve the problems causing the plan failures. But nevertheless, a feedback mechanism has
been setup in IIT Guwahati which can be used to track the work progress and identify the
problems affecting the construction process. It is hoped that this mechanism be implemented
at all sites of IIT Guwahati and all parties take interest in the implementation of the LPS to
realize its benefits.
8.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made on the basis of this research to improve the
construction scenario here in IIT Guwahati if the work is going to be done by local
contractors:
1. Weekly review meetings at all sites (1 site per day) in which all parties sit down and
review the work done in the previous week, solve the problems to prevent
reoccurrence, make look ahead plans and weekly plans using the LPS.
55
2. As the Engineering cell is understaffed at the moment, it is recommended that a
dedicated project management team be formed which will maintain the weekly plans
to keep track of the project and organize the review meetings.
8.3 Future Work

As the implementation of the LPS was not completely successful owing to a host of reasons
discussed in Chapter 7, it is hoped that the LPS be applied again to another construction site
taking into consideration the problems faced while implementing it for this project. The only
major problem which lies in the way is to make the people concerned change their mindset
and be open to new ideas about managing the construction projects.
56
References
1. Abdelhamid, T. (2006), “Lean Construction Principles and Methods”,

<www.slideshare.net> (Aug. 31, 2009).
2. Abdullah, F. (2003), “Lean manufacturing tools and techniques in the process industry
with a focus on steel”, Dissertation, University Of Pittsburgh. School Of Engineering,
U.S.A.
3. Alarcon, L.F. (1997), “Tools for the identification and reduction of wastes in
construction projects”, Lean Construction, A.A.Balkema, pp. 365 – 377.
4. Ballard G. & Howell G. (1997a), “Implementing Lean Construction: Stabilizing work
flow”, Lean Construction, A.A.Balkema, pp. 105.
5. Ballard G. & Howell G. (1997b), “Towards construction JIT”, Lean Construction,
A.A.Balkema, pp. 297.
6. Ballard, G. and Koskella, L. (1998), “On the Agenda of Design Management”,
Proceedings of 6th Annual Lean construction Conference, Brazil.
7. Ballard, G. (2000a), “The Last Planner System of production control”, Dissertation,
University of Birmingham, England.
8. Ballard, G. (2000b), “Phase Scheduling”, LCI White Paper.
9. Bhasin, S & Burcher, P (2006), “Lean Viewed as a Philosophy.” Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(1), pp. 56-72.
10. Choo, H.J. (2003), “Distributed Planning and Coordination to Support Lean
Construction”, Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, America.
11. Faniran, Oluwoye and Lenard (1997), “Application of the lean production concept to
improving the construction planning process”, Proceedings of the 5th Annual Lean
construction conference, Gold Coast, Australia.
12. “India: Indian Road Construction Industry Capacity Issues, Constraints &
Recommendations.” World Bank Report no. 46326-IN, November 2008.
13. Kartam, S., Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (1997), “Construction Models: A new
integrated approach”, Lean Construction, A.A.Balkema, pp. 389.
14. Koskella, L. (1997), “Lean Production in Construction”, Lean Construction,
A.A.Balkema, pp. 1.
15. Koskella L. (1998), “Lean Construction”, VII Encontro Nacional de Technologia do
Ambiente Construido, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Chile.
57
16. Krafcik, John F. (1988). "Triumph of the lean production system". Sloan Management
Review, 30 (1): pp. 41-52.
17. Laskar A. and Murty C. V. R. (2004). “Challenges before Construction Industry in
India.” Proc., 7th National Conference on Construction, New Delhi, India.
18. Liker, Jeffrey K. (2004a), “The TPS House Diagram: A system based on a structure,
Not just a set of techniques”, The Toyota Way, McGraw Hill, pp. 33.
19. Liker, Jeffrey K. (2004b), “Using the Toyota Way for Long - Term Success.” The
Toyota Way, McGraw Hill, pp. 27.
20. Liker, Jeffrey K. (2004c), “The Heart of the Toyota Production System: Eliminating
Waste”, The Toyota Way, McGraw Hill, pp. 28-29.
21. Liker Jeffrey K. (2004d), “The Heart of the Toyota Production System: Eliminating
Waste”, The Toyota Way, McGraw Hill, pp. 21.
22. Liker Jeffrey K. (2004e), “How Toyota Became the World’s Best Manufacturer: The
Story of the Toyoda Family and the Toyota Production System”, The Toyota Way,
McGraw Hill, pp. 15.
23. Liker Jeffrey K. (2004h), “The 14 Principles of Toyota Way”, The Toyota Way,
McGraw Hill, pp. 37-41.
24. “MAMTC – Traditional vs Lean 2009”. <http://www.mamtc.com/lean/intro_trad.asp>
(August 31, 2009)
25. Melles, B. (1997), “What do we mean by Lean Production in Construction?”, Lean
Construction, A.A.Balkema, pp. 11.
26. Ohno, T (1988), “The Toyota Production System: Beyond Large Scale Production.”
Productivity Press.
27. Serpell, A., Venturi, A., and Contreras, J. (1997), “Characterization of waste in
building construction projects”, Lean Construction, A.A.Balkema, pp. 68.
28. Tzortzopoloulos, P and Formoso, C.T (1999), “Considerations of Application of lean
construction principles to design management”, Proceedings of the 7th IGLC,
Berkeley, USA.
29. Womack, James P and Daniel T. Jones (2003). Lean Thinking, Free Press, pp 352.
30. Womack J., Jones D. and Roos T. (1990a), “The Origins of Lean Production”,
Machine That Changed the World, MacMillan-Canada, pp. 26-33.
31. Womack J., Jones D. and Roos T. (1990b), “The Rise of Lean Production”, Machine
That Changed the World, MacMillan-Canada, pp. 48-49.
58
32. Womack J., Jones D. and Roos T. (1990c), “The Rise of Lean Production”, Machine
That Changed the World, MacMillan-Canada, pp. 51-52.
33. Tanskanen, K., Wegelius, T., Nyman, H. (1997), “New tools for lean construction”,
Lean Construction, A.A.Balkema, pp. 336-337.
59
Appendix
A. Questionnaire Used for Identification of Wastes and their Sources in

Construction Practices
1 NAME
2 POSITION
i Resident Engineer
ii General Foreman
iii Administration
iv Others (pls. specify)
3 COMPANY
4 TYPE OF PROJECT
i High Rise Building
ii Other Buildings
iii Highways & roads
iv Industrial
v Mining
vi Civil
vii Others (pls. specify)
60
Instructions for filling up of the questionnaire
1. Please start filling the questionnaire from A.1
Order the waste categories as per their importance. E.g. if rework is the most
affecting waste in your organization then mark it as 1 and move to other
2. wastes ranking them as 2, 3 and so on.
Corresponding to each waste category please identify the sources of waste in
your organization. E.g. if rework has been marked as an affecting waste with
rank 1 then please identify all sources corresponding to that waste and mark
them as 1. Similarly if Defects have been given rank 2 then identify all
sources of wastes corresponding to the waste category Defects and mark them
as 2. If you find any waste category missing or any source of waste missing
then please indicate them in the space provided in the questionnaire and mark
3. your choices appropriately.
A .1 Please m ake an assessm ent of the frequent w aste categories

in your w ork environm ent
1 Uncompleted Work
2 Rework
3 Ineffective Work
4 Defects
5 Interruptions
6 Materials Wasted
7 Damaged Material
8 Unnecessary Labor Movement
9 Unnecessary Material Handling
10 Excessive Surveillance
11 Excessive Supervision
12 Excessive Space
13 Delays
14 Extra Processing
15 Clarifications needed
16 Abnormal equipment wearing
Others: Please specify in the space below
61
A .2 Please m ake an assessm ent of the sources of w aste in your
organization
MANAGEMENT RELATED
1 Unnecessary Requirement
2 Excessive Management Control
3 Poor Management Control
4 Poor Planning
Excessive Bureaucracy,
5 paperwork
RESOURCES RELATED
1 Excessive amount
2 Shortages
3 Misuse
4 Poor Distribution
5 Poor Quality
6 Availability
7 Theft
INFORMATION RELATED
1 Unnecessary
2 Defective
3 Unclear
4 Late
If there are more sources of waste in your organization then please mention in the
space below
62
B. Performa used for creating the 4 weeks Look ahead Schedule
63
C. Performa used for creating the Weekly Work Plan
64

Lean Construction IIT Guwahati

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lean Construction IIT Guwahati

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BTP REPORT

Implementation of Lean Construction in IIT Guwahati

Under the supervision of

Dr. Bulu Pradhan

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

List of Figures vii

List of Tables viii

List of Symbols and Abbreviations ix

1.1 Construction Overview: India 1

1.2 Objective of the Present Work 2

1.3 Structure of the Dissertation 3

CHAPTER 2: ORIGIN OF LEAN PRINCIPLES 4

Figure Title Page No.

2.2 The Toyota Production System 10

3.1 Classification of Causes of Waste 21

3.2 Critical Chain Path Method 22

Table Title Page No.

2.1 Tradition Production vs. Lean Production 11

CCPM Critical Chain Path Method

LPS Last Planner System

WIP Work in Progress

PPC Percent of Planned Complete

TPS Toyota Production System

JIT Just in Time

TQM Total Quality Management

1.1 Construction Overview: India

1.2 Objective of the Present Work

Origin of Lean Principles

2.2 Origin of Lean Principles

2.3 Rise of Lean Production

Taiichi Ohno in 1988 said:

• Waiting (time on hand). Workers merely serving to watch an automated machine or

• Over-processing or incorrect processing. Taking unneeded steps to process the

• Defects. Production of defective parts or correction. Repair or rework, scrap,

The wastes in a truck assembly line are shown in Fig. 2.1.

Fig. 2.1: Waste in a truck chassis assembly line (Liker 2004d)

Fig. 2.2: The Toyota Production System (Liker 2004a)

Traditional Production Lean Production

2.4.1. Having a long-term philosophy that drives a long-term approach to build a

2.4.4. Continuously solving root problems to drive organizational learning

2.5 Tools for Lean Production

2.5.1 Cellular Manufacturing

2.5.2 Continuous Improvement

iii) Just-In-Time Purchasing

2.5.4 Production Smoothing

2.5.5 Standardization of Work

Customerdemand per day

2.5.6 Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)

“Lean construction is the application of lean production principles in the construction

• Waiting for resources

Lean Production in construction in essence tries to reduce the wasteful activities in

ACTIVITY 1 ACTIVITY 2 ACTIVITY 3

Fig. 3.2: Critical Chain Path Method

Labor Process Output

Fig. 3.3: Lean Construction

3.2 Tools for Lean Construction

3.2.1 Pull Approach

3.2.3 Kaizen (Total Quality Improvement)

3.2.6 Last Planner System

3.3 Last Planner System

1. Work should be clearly defined.

3.4 Application of Lean Construction Principles to the Construction Process

3.4.1 Application of lean construction principles to design management