Empirical Study on the Influence of Procurement Methods on Last Planner® System Implementation

Abstract

Previous studies have examined various factors that influence the implementation of the Last Planner System (LPS) in construction projects. However, there is limited documented evidence on the influence of procurement methods on the implementation of the LPS. The aim of this study, therefore; is to understand the influence of some selected procurement methods on the implementation of the LPS using case study approach. Three in-depth case studies were conducted on building and highways projects in the UK. The projects were managed with the LPS principles with dissimilar procurement methods. In addition to document analysis and physical observation, 28 in-depth-interviews were conducted.The investigation shows that the prevailing traditional mindset exhibited by the designers in the traditional design bid build (DBB) influences the quality of promises and commitments that could be made during the lookahead planning. From the study, it seems no single procurement method is a sure way to the full application of the LPS process on a project. The study observes that irrespective of the procurement route used, a mindset change towards collaboration among the different stakeholders on the project is fundamental to successful LPS implementation. For instance, on projects where DBB was used and the subcontractors were in framework agreement, the LPS implementation worked well among the subcontractors. The study recommends that the procurement approach to be used on LPS projects should not be too firm, but lithe enough to integrate collaborative working among the different stakeholders on the project for a smooth workflow.

Towards closing the housing gap in the UK: exploration of the influencing factors and the way forward

“…However, lean construction supports the use of collaborative forms of contracts such as lean integrated project delivery, target value design and framework agreement, which help bridge the current divide and build trust among the project team (Daniel et al , 2016). Some of the respondents further stated that: “So, you can try and streamline the delivery processes by using, say, lean techniques or Last Planner, or whatever, just to try and make things work more efficiently [P014].…”

Exploring the Use of Lean, Offsite and Simulation in Housing Delivery: Evidence from the UK

“…A detailed weekly work plan, based on project goals and benchmarks, is crucial in managing workflow [46]. Daniel, Pasquire, and Dickens (2016) [47] described the LPS as a lean construction technique specifically designed for architectural and engineering projects. The Value Stream Mapping (VSM) approach is used to identify non-value-adding operations and maximise value delivery to the end user [48].…”

Comparative Analysis of Planning with the Critical Path Method, Last Planner System, and Location-Based Techniques in Brazil, Finland, and the United States

“…Those directly involved with major phases of the project indicate what needs to be done and what resources they need from previous tasks to complete their work, thus establishing a "pull" mechanism between those who need resources and those providing them. The pull planning or phase scheduling component of the LPS (Ballard, 2000a,b), as well other enhancements in the system, have become increasingly popular in the United States and other countries over the past 10 years (Daniel, et al, 2015), and the LPS is commonly used to support the delivery of cost effective, safe, and timely projects (Demirkesen & Bayhan, 2019. In fact, the basic tenets and tools associated with the LPS can be used to support the delivery of engineering projects beyond construction (e.g., Jünge, et al, 2015, Sivaganesh & Ratnayake, 2018.…”

“…However, the LPS has documented shortcomings. These can be traced to, for instance, inconsistent implementation of its components (Daniel, et al, 2015(Daniel, et al, , 2017, large amounts of generated data that require handling by an appropriate information management system (Lagos, et al, 2019), and the lack of meaningful indicators at the project level (Hamzeh, et al, 2019).…”