Construction Research Congress 2020
Forecasting the Performance of Last Planner System Implementation Using System Dynamics
Publication: Construction Research Congress 2020: Project Management and Controls, Materials, and Contracts
ABSTRACT
The last planner system (LPS) has gained significant importance in recent years due to increased interest in implementing lean concepts in the construction industry. Several metrics for tracking the performance of LPS implementation have been proposed including plan/promise percent complete (PPC), task anticipated (TA), and tasks made ready (TMR). Despite the widespread use of these metrics, there is a disconnect between these LPS metrics and overall project performance metrics (SPI, CPI, etc.). In addition, there is little understanding of the role that certain personality traits like the level of commitment and willingness to make promises have on the performance of LPS. As such this research developed a system dynamics model to 1) better understand the dynamics among LPS metrics and 2) better understand the impact of personality traits (making promises and keeping commitments) on LPS metrics. The model was validated by simulating various scenarios and comparing against expected performance. The findings of the research indicate that there is a strong correlation between the LPS metrics and personality traits. The research will assist construction companies interested in applying LPS on their projects to better forecast project performance taking into consideration the dynamics taking place among project performance metrics and the personality traits of their employees.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this chapter.
references
Ballard, G. (2000). The Last Planner System of Production Control. Ph. D. Dissertation, Faculty of Eng., School of Civil Eng., The University of Birmingham, UK, 192 pp.
Ballard, G., Liu, M., Kim, Y. W., and Jang, J. W. (2007). Roadmap to lean implementation at the project level, Construction Industry Institute (CII), Austin, TX.
Ballard, G., and Tommelein, I. (2012). “Lean management methods for complex projects.” Engineering Project Organization Journal. 2:1-2, 85-96.
Fernandez-Solis, J. L., Porwal, V., Lavy, S., Shafaat, A., Rybkowski, Z. K., Son, K., and Lagoo, N. (2013). “Survey of motivations, benefits, and implementation challenges of last planner system users.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.
Hamzeh, F., Ballard, G., and Tommelein, I. D. (2012). “Rethinking lookahead planning to optimize construction workflow.” Lean Construction Journal. pp 15-34
Mossman, A. (2013). Last Planner: 5 + 1 crucial & collaborative conversations for predictable design & construction delivery. The Change Business Ltd.
Pruyt, E. (2013). Small System Dynamics Models for Big Issues: Triple Jump towards Real-World Complexity. Delft: TU Delft Library. 324p.
Sweetser, A. (1999). “A comparison of system dynamics (SD) and discrete event simulation (DES).” Proceedings of 17th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society and 5th Australian & New Zealand Systems Conference. Wellington, New Zealand
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Construction Research Congress 2020: Project Management and Controls, Materials, and Contracts
Pages: 85 - 94
Editors: David Grau, Ph.D., Arizona State University, Pingbo Tang, Ph.D., Arizona State University, and Mounir El Asmar, Ph.D., Arizona State University
ISBN (Online): 978-0-7844-8288-9
Copyright
© 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Nov 9, 2020
Published in print: Nov 9, 2020
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.