No abstract

No abstract

The objective of this article is to contribute to creating a better understanding of the Last Planner System (LPS)-which is associated with Lean Construction-in the light of the learning processes at the basis of knowledge development, and of change and innovation. Founded on a theoretical discussion, three research questions are asked, namely: In what ways can the LPS be expected to alter the learning arenas compared to conventional project management in construction; according to learning theory, what are the main challenges associated with implementing the LPS; and, finally, what kind of learning can be linked to an implemented LPS that functions as intended? The implementation of the LPS is shown to require substantial changes to the technical-organisational learning arena. In order for the implementation to be successful, the work identity has to alter on the individual level so that an overlap occurs with the new work practices prescribed by the LPS. The LPS has an inbuilt experiential learning cycle, and provides a good starting point for single-loop learning, as well as for simple forms of double-loop learning ("routinized learning capability"). However, it is argued that the LPS understood as experiential learning has clear limitations with regard to "evolutionary learning capability". This is amplified by the context project organisation provides. In terms of theoretical implications, this article promotes an understanding of the planning process informed by the theory describing it as an experiential learning cycle. The conceptualisation which separates the LPS from conventional production control theory is critiqued. Finally, it is argued that an understanding of the LPS grounded in learning theory will improve the possibilities for successful implementation and maximise the learning effects.

No abstract

Principles can carry the intent from the theory they represent. Military strategy has a long history of being presented through principles of war. In Lean Construction, principles like "flow," "pull," "remove waste" are used with ease. However, have they been correctly treated and understood? Supported by a literature review, we follow the use of principles through the history and the standing and character they have gained. The work is grounded in the important position of principles between theory and practice, and methodologically proceeds through philosophical conceptualisation. We recognise the guiding, dynamic, adjustable, durable, action-oriented, prescriptive and descriptive capabilities of principles, and emphasise their important capacity to facilitate abductive reasoning. We call for reflection upon the power of principles to strengthen the theoretical conceptualisation of Lean as well as upon their power to support improvement in practice.

This paper examines the issue of bringing improved structure with integrated milestones into the project and production management process to handle progress and strategic coordination in complex AEC-projects. We address the phases between front-end planning and project execution. In terms of theory, we base our project on a concept of strategic milestone planning and we find inspiration in ideas from the practical world.The design research approach is applied, and our artefact is a proposed method by which to develop a network of pull-based integrated milestones. The proposal is verified by documentation of the application in a construction project.In this paper, we argue that the described method can be applied as an improvement of milestone planning both in Last Planner and in more traditional project management.The present study fills a gap in project management literature, which appears to address milestones in a superficial manner; this is partly the case for Last Planner System for production control. Our study contributes to theory and practice regarding development of milestones.

This article was triggered by a public client opting to change contracting strategy on a pre-designed 4-lane motorway project from design-bid-build to design-build contract. The goal for the client is to build roads cheaper and faster with the greatest possible economic benefits for society.In the article, we ask: Which changes associated with the transition from a design-bidbuild to a design-build contract can be identified in the contractual relationship between the public developer, contractor and subcontractors? The article focuses on changes in relation to constructability, construction time and costs, and discusses the issues of quality and customer value.The study is theoretically related to the principal-agent theory and transaction cost theory, where the threat of opportunistic behaviour is central. This is also seen through the lens of the Lean Construction triangle, which focuses on the need for harmonisation between commercial element in the contract, organisation and production. We analyse the case in relation to three propositions:  Design-build offers incentives that result in better constructability than designbid-build contracts. Design-build results in lower production costs and faster construction than designbid-build contracts. Quality and customer value come under pressure in design-build contracts. The first proposition seems to be confirmed by the empirical analysis. Production cost is, however, not the same as the price for the client. It is more uncertainty related to the third proposition. An important finding is that the developer's change in strategy seems to Transformation from Design-Bid-Build to Design-Build Contracts in Road Construction Contract and Cost Management 35result in a radical change in working conditions for the consulting design and engineering companies, as well as to a great degree for the head contractor. A strong relationship between the contractor and consulting engineers is especially important to ensure success in terms of execution, and we find indications that alliances have been formed between the parties.

No abstract