Biotto Et Al. 2022 - Project Pull Planning Based On Location - From Construction To Design
Biotto Et Al. 2022 - Project Pull Planning Based On Location - From Construction To Design
Biotto Et Al. 2022 - Project Pull Planning Based On Location - From Construction To Design
ABSTRACT
Construction project management is known for being fragmented and disconnected
between the stages of design, supply and construction. Lean construction has a variety of
well known production planning and control methods that may be used to integrate and
improve the information flow between these stages. These methods and techniques
include location-based tools and the Last Planner System (LPS). However, the combined
use of location-based tools with the LPS to allow an entire project, including the design,
supply and construction, to be pull planned, has not been described in the literature.
This paper presents results of one study in which location-based planning tools were
deployed to pull the project planning from construction to design. The study is part of a
doctoral thesis which used the design science research as a mode to produce new
knowledge. The main contribution of the paper is the model to develop a location-based
project management including the use of the LPS in construction, supply and design. The
model enables project managers to have a holistic view of the project plan, and structure
it as a pull flow from construction to design, reducing work-in-progress and batch sizes
between stages, and improving the information flow among project stakeholders.
KEYWORDS
Project management, pull planning, location-based schedule, design, construction.
INTRODUCTION
It is known that construction projects face delays and cost overruns all around the world.
The traditional management of projects no longer meet construction demands (Formoso
et al., 2002; Moura, 2005). This may be explained by the architectural, engineering and
construction (AEC) industry fragmentation and how construction projects are managed.
As design and construction phases are conceived separately (Alarcón & Mardones, 1998),
it is more difficult to integrate information in the construction industry (Alshawi &
Ingirige, 2003 as cited in Dave et al. (2008)). As consequence, there are disconnections
1
Professor, Architecture and Urbanism and Design Department, Federal University of Ceará (UFC), Brazil,
[email protected], 0000-0002-2433-6735
2
Dean of Engineering, Design and Built Environment, Western Sydney University, Australia,
[email protected], 0000-0003-3521-1484
3
Professor, University of Huddersfield, UK, [email protected], 0000-0003-4449-2281
4
Professor, University of Huddersfield, UK, [email protected], 0000-0002-8740-6753
5
Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Federal University of Sao Carlos (UFSCar), Brazil,
[email protected], 0000-0002-9508-976X
LITERATURE REVIEW
JUST IN TIME (JIT)
One of the two pillars of the Toyota Production System (TPS) is the Just-In-Time (JIT).
A production system in which JIT is applied “makes and delivers just what is needed, just
when it is needed, and just in the amount needed” (Marchwinski & Shook, 2003). A JIT
production system eliminates overproduction, inventories and wastes.
The JIT pillar is based on three operating elements: continuous flow, takt time and
pull system, namely (Marchwinski & Shook, 2003):
1. Continuous flow: also known as one-piece flow, it is the production and moving
of “one item at a time through a series of processes”, at which each process makes
just what is requested by the next one as continuously as possible.
2. Takt time: is the rate at which products are made in a process to meet customer
demand or “the available production time divided by the customer demand”.
3. Pull system: is a production system where the downstream process signals its
needs to upstream process, eliminating overproduction.
Tommelein (1998) applied the pull production, i.e. the downstream process (construction
site) sends real-time progress status to upstream process, for the pipes installation. It
forced a resequencing of manufacturer’s production, which reduced buffers, enabled time
for project completion, and increased the productivity.
Viana et al. (2013) implemented pull production in an integrated planning and control
system in an ETO company which was responsible for designing, prefabricating
components and assembling on-site. The authors used the assembly process on-site to
pull the prefabrication of components.
However, in order to develop a pull system in construction it is necessary to master
plan the whole production system in a wider point of view: plan beyond construction
stage activities. It means that project managers should consider the upstream activities
such as the construction supply chain and design, and structure the work in a manner that
the pull production method may be applied.
PULL PLANNING
The Pull Planning was incorporated to the Last Planner System to structure the work of a
project phase collaboratively among stakeholders (Ballard, 2008). It bridges the master
and lookahead planning. The construction phase's milestones that were set up at the
project's master plan are pushed to the phase planning. Next, the phase's activities are
broken down into tasks and handoffs. A network and duration of tasks are defined by the
contractors of the phase using sticky notes (among other means) on a wall (or other
physical and digital media). Then, a reverse plan of the phase's tasks is devised, pulling
the tasks from the phase deadline towards the phase start date (Alarcon et al., 2004). The
contractors define the handoffs collaboratively between the crews and project phases,
insert buffers, and guarantee the completion of the work on time (Alarcon et al., 2004;
Ballard, 2008; Ballard & Howell, 2003).
The pull plan can be scheduled using traditional tools, such as a Gantt chart (Knapp
et al., 2006), or Location-Based Schedule (LBS) techniques, such as Line of Balance
(LOB) (O'Brien et al., 1985), flowline (Kenley & Seppänen, 2010) and Takt Time
Planning (Fiallo C & Howell, 2012).
The authors of this paper suggest the use of a LBS to prepare the whole project’s
planning (from construction to design) in a reverse manner.
LOCATION-BASED PLANNING
The term location-based schedule was proposed by Kenley (2004) to designate the
techniques that use the location or unit as a basis for the production planning and control.
The aim of using LBS is to design a production system with continuous workflow and
uninterrupted flow for crews throughout the location units (Moura et al., 2014). To make
the workflow smoother and reduce the work in progress, the activities should be planned
at only one rate, i.e. in parallel lines (Mendez & Heineck, 1998).
Takt Time Planning
The takt-time planning (TTP) in construction is derived from the takt time used in lean
manufacturing. In construction, it started to be used in the Phase Scheduling or Pull
Planning (Frandson et al., 2013; Linnik et al., 2013).
To develop a production plan using TTP, it is necessary to define zones and takt time,
the trades sequence and duration, and balance their workflow (Frandson et al., 2013). All
these steps are devised with the participation of trades and general contractor in an
iterative fashion, and the decision is made collaboratively by communicating and
exploring production systems alternatives.
So far, in the literature, the LBS techniques are used specifically for the construction
stage, ignoring the procurement and design stages.
RESEARCH METHOD
For this investigation, the authors used Design Science Research (DSR) to iteratively
develop an artefact (designed solution) based on its usefulness to the organizations and
contribution to existing knowledge; and to apply and develop the theoretical knowledge
throughout the studies (Lukka, 2003). In this paper, the artefact is a model for project pull
planning based on location.
DSR aims to fill the gap between the theory and practice through the development of
an artefact (Rocha et al., 2012). This middle ground between practice and theory is
necessary in order to develop valid and reliable knowledge to support practitioners in
organisational/business to devise solutions to problems (van Aken, 2005).
DSRs might be evaluated in different manners: 1) Internally – made by the researcher
through reflections on practice and connections with theory; 2) Externally – carried out
by the studies’ participants and scholar experts; and 3) Field-testing – through the
instantiation of the artefact in an organization.
The study is a case that presents a whole project reverse master plan, which embedded
the construction, procurement and design stages. The researcher was an observer of the
construction company management practice that deployed the takt time planning to pull
production from construction to design stage. It is characterized in Table 1.
The study was evaluated internal and externally according to the utility of the model. It
was composed by five criteria selected from the literature as reference as best project
management characteristics of collaboration, integration and flow; the criteria were
broken-down into eight measurable sub-criteria, as depicted in Figure 1. To see the
interview questions, access the thesis (Biotto, 2019). It is noteworthy that this paper is
focused, mostly, on presenting the last phase of the DSR, namely, the model evaluation.
Utility
Collaborative Collaborative
and integrated and integrated Transparent
WIP and batch size control Pulled and integrated production
production production plan plan
system design and control
Concurrent Communication
participation of Planning and Visual and Focus on of downstream
WIP and batch WIP and batch WIP and batch
stakeholders in control tools available plans construction information to
in design in supply in construction
production connecting D-C for stakeholders processes upstream
design processes
CASE STUDY
In case study, the project development comprised of three stages: 1) Pre-design; 2)
Delivery Stage; and 3) Facility Management. The first stage encompassed a) Idea Phase
and b) Concept Phase, whereas the second stage comprised a) Design; b)
Detail/Engineering Design; c) Construction; and d) Commissioning. The third stage is
Operation and Maintenance. The study observed the project management of the detailed
design phase and construction.
The Project Planning and Control System deployed had six levels of planning and
control, as depicted in Figure 2:
1. Level 0 - Project Master Planning: developed by the Project Manager,
Construction Manager, Design Manager and Owner presents the strategical
decisions made for the whole product development process, its major phases and
deliverables. It is the basis for further planning.
2. Level 1 - Construction Plan and Purchasing Plan: represented strategical
decisions about construction, procurement and supply, respectively:
o Construction plan is generated using developed design documentation in
MS Project by the Project Manager and Construction Manager. It is the
most important plan to pull detailed design plan and supply acquisition;
o Purchasing Plan is derived from the Construction Plan and contains the
majors milestones for supply acquisition.
3. Level 2 – Detailed Design Plan and Construction Takt Time Plan:
o Detailed Design Plan: developed collaboratively by the Owner,
Consultants, Design Manager, Project Manager, Construction Manager,
Foreman and Designers at the kick-off meeting (see Figure 3). Project
Master Plan and Construction Plan milestones are used as reference to pull
planning design deliverables. The result is transferred to a MS Excel
spreadsheet and used in the lookahead planning;
o Takt-Time Plan: the construction team studied the workflow, the crew size,
buffers and the takt-time for production.
4. Level 3 - Decision Plan and Design and Construction Lookahead Plans:
o Design Lookahead Plan: design project team removed six types of
constraints related to 1) client’s expectations and requirements; 2)
dialogue and share understanding among stakeholders; 3) decisions
needed; 4) team capacity and autonomy for decision making; 5) methods
and tools; and 6) previous design task according to the required quality;
o Construction Lookahead Plans: the project had different lookahead
planning involving different professionals and different planning horizons;
namely, a 8 to 12 weeks plan developed by the Site Manager, Design
Manager and Project Manager; a 4 to 8 weeks plan developed by the
Operations Manager, and; a 2 to 4 weeks plan developed by the Operations
Manager and Foreman. The different planning horizons and meetings are
related to the responsibility and power of decision of each sort of
professional in removing constraints.
Project
Level 0 - Strategical Master plan
Construction Purchasing
Level 1 – Strategical Plan Plan
Detailed
Level 2 – Takt-Time
Design Phase
Strategical/Tactical Plan
Plan
Lookahead Lookahead
Level 3 - Tactical Decision Plan
Plan Plans
Level 4 –
Weekly Plan Weekly Plan
Tactical/Operational
In order to keep the communication flowing smoothly and rapidly, weekly meetings
occurred among designers, construction teams, managers and owner. In figure 5, the light
grey arrows demonstrate the flow of information from the operational meetings on
Mondays until the progression status meetings on Fridays. The blue arrows represented
the communication flow from construction, designers to the owner and client of the
project. The flow of information had a short update cycle time of only one week. For this
reason, the communication of changes, decisions and other information was rapidly
transmitted between stakeholders and in a transparent manner.
WIP D-C
It is worth noting that the “WIP and batch size controls”, and pull flow were easier to
implement in detailed design rather than in earlier design phases. In case study, the
construction and detailed design shared the same production batch size, enabling the
pulled flow between them. However, when analysing an earlier design stage, its
production batch was composed by a set/kit of drawings/models/documents, i.e. a large
batch, which was delivered to the next design phase for detailing. Earlier design stages
experience constant changes due to clients and designers negotiations and
conflicts/clashes solutions, i.e., higher interdependency among stakeholders. As soon as
design matures and clashes are solved, the design development focuses on detailing the
models; an action that might occur with higher independency among stakeholders. The
latter enables the adoption of same size batch between design and construction, thus the
pull flow.
Design System
Design System Design Design System Operation
Improvement
Design Design Design
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 …
Decoupling
Phase scheduling production
Location
Lookahead planning confirmation
Weekly planning
Pull
Lookahead planning
confirmation
Weekly planning
Pull
Lookahead planning
Weekly planning
Figure 7: Vertical and horizontal connections in construction, supply and design plans.
CONCLUSIONS
The paper presented a case study in which construction location-based plan were used to
pull plan the whole project production, including supply and design. Results were
internally evaluated and a model proposed for Project Managers apply pull production at
the design-construction interface using a location-based planning and the Last Planner
System. The model integrate a variety of lean concepts and tools in different levels of
construction project management, i.e., from strategical to operational. It also shed light to
the push and pull flows in design production, that must be understood by Design Manager
in order to preserve the transdisciplinary development of design solution. The model
implicates in reducing WIP and batch sizes in the D-C interfaces when applying a unique
LBS.
REFERENCES
Alarcon, L. F., Betanzo, C., & Diethelm, S. (2004). Reducing Schedule in Repetitive
Construction Projects. 12th Annual Conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction, Helsingør, Denmark.
Alarcón, L. F., & Mardones, D. A. (1998). Improving the design-construction interface.
Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting of the International Group for Lean
Construction,
Ballard, G. (2000). The last planner system of production control The University of
Birmingham].
Ballard, G. (2008). Phase Scheduling. In: P2SL Research Workshop.
Ballard, G., & Howell, G. A. (2003). An update on last planner. Proc., 11th Annual Conf.,
International Group for Lean Construction, Blacksburg, VA,
Biotto, C. (2019). Integration of overlapped design and construction stages through
location-based planning tools University of Huddersfield]. Huddersfield.
Bolviken, T., Gullbrekken, B., & Nyseth, K. (2010). Collaborative Design Management.
18th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Haifa,
Israel.
Dave, B., Hämäläinen, J.-P., Kemmer, S., Koskela, L., & Koskenvesa, A. (2015).
Suggestions to Improve Lean Construction Planning. 23rd Annual Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction, Perth, Australia.
Dave, B., Koskela, L., Kagioglou, M., & Bertelsen, S. (2008). A critical look at
integrating people, process and information systems within the construction sector.
16th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
Manchester, UK.
Fiallo C, M., & Howell, G. (2012). Using Production System Design and Takt Time To
Improve Project Performance. 20th Annual Conference of the International Group
for Lean Construction, San Diego, USA.
Formoso, C. T., Tzortzopoulos, P., & Liedtke, R. (2002). A model for managing the
product development process in house building. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 9(5/6), 419-432. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb021236
Frandson, A., Berghede, K., & Tommelein, I. D. (2013). Takt Time Planning for
Construction of Exterior Cladding. 21th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil.
Holm, H. T. (2014). Academy of Art and Design in Bergen (KHIB): (Lean) Process
Planning in the Design Phase. In. Oslo, Norway: Industry case presentation at the
22nd Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.
Hopp, W. J., & Spearman, M. L. (2011). Factory physics. Waveland Press.
Kenley, R. (2004). Project Micro-Management: Practical Site Planning and Management
of Work Flow. 12th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Helsingør, Denmark.
Kenley, R., & Seppänen, O. (2010). Location-based management for construction:
planning, scheduling and control. Spon.
Kiiras, J., & Kruus, M. (2005). Systemic Innovation in the Management of Construction
Projects and Processes. In A. S. Kazi (Ed.), Proceedings from the Combining
Forces Advancing Facilities Management & Construction through Innovation
Series (Vol. 3, pp. 272-283). Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT) /
Association of Finnish Civil Engineers (RIL).
http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB6316.pdf
Knapp, S., Charron, R., & Howell, G. (2006). Phase Planning Today. 14th Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Santiago, Chile.
Linnik, M., Berghede, K., & Ballard, G. (2013). An experiment in takt-time planning
applied to non-repetitive work. 21st Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction,
Lukka, K. (2003). The constructive research approach. Case study research in logistics.
Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration,
Series B, 1(2003), 83-101.
Marchwinski, C., & Shook, J. (2003). Lean lexicon: a graphical glossary for lean thinkers.
Lean Enterprise Institute.
Mendez, J. R., & Heineck, L. F. M. (1998). Preplanning Method for Multi-Story Building
Construction Using Line of Balance. 6th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction, Guarujá, Brazil.
Moura, P. M. (2005). Um estudo sobre a coordenação do processo de projeto em
empreendimentos complexos. Dissertação (Mestrado), Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre].
Moura, R., Monteiro, J. M. F., & Heineck, L. F. M. (2014). Line of Balance – Is It a
Synthesis of Lean Production Principles as Applied to Site Programming of
Works? 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Oslo, Norway.
O'Brien, J. J., Kreitzberg, F. C., & Mikes, W. F. (1985). Network Scheduling Variations
for Repetitive Work. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 111,
105.
Rocha, C. G. d., Formoso, C. T., Tzortzopoulos-Fazenda, P., Koskela, L., & Tezel, A.
(2012). Design Science Research in Lean Construction: Process and Outcomes.
20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, San
Diego, USA.
Sivaraman, A., & Varghese, K. (2016). Pull Planning System to Coordinate the
Engineering Procurement and Construction on Process Plant Projects
Construction Research Congress 2016: Old and New Construction Technologies
Converge in Historic San Juan - Proceedings of the 2016 Construction Research
Congress, CRC 2016,
Tommelein, I. D. (1998). Pull-driven scheduling for pipe-spool installation: Simulation
of lean construction technique. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 124(4), 279-288.
van Aken, J. E. (2005). Management Research as a Design Science: Articulating the
Research Products of Mode 2 Knowledge Production in Management. British
Journal of Management, 16(1), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8551.2005.00437.x
Viana, D. D. (2015). Integrated production planning and control model for engineer-to-
order prefabricated building systems Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul].
http://hdl.handle.net/10183/127770
Viana, D. D., Bulhões, I. R., & Formoso, C. T. (2013). Guidelines for integrated planning
and control of engineer-to-order prefabrication systems. 21th Annual Conference
of the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil.