Parade Game: Impact of Work Flow Variability on Trade Performance
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 125, Issue 5
Abstract
The Parade Game illustrates the impact work flow variability has on the performance of construction trades and their successors. The game consists of simulating a construction process in which resources produced by one trade are prerequisite to work performed by the next trade. Production-level detail, describing resources being passed from one trade to the next, illustrates that throughput will be reduced, project completion delayed, and waste increased by variations in flow. The game shows that it is possible to reduce waste and shorten project duration by reducing the variability in work flow between trades. Basic production management concepts are thus applied to construction management. They highlight two shortcomings of using the critical-path method for field-level planning: The critical-path method makes modeling the dependence of ongoing activities between trades or with operations unwieldy and it does not explicitly represent variability. The Parade Game can be played in a classroom setting either by hand or using a computer. Computer simulation enables students to experiment with numerous alternatives to sharpen their intuition regarding variability, process throughput, buffers, productivity, and crew sizing. Managers interested in schedule compression will benefit from understanding work flow variability's impact on succeeding trade performance.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Alarcon, L., ed. (1997). Lean construction. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
2.
Au, T., Bostleman, R., and Parti, E. (1969). “Construction management game—Deterministic model.”J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 95(1), 25–38.
3.
Au, T., and Parti, E. (1969). “Building construction games—General descriptions.”J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 95(1), 1–9.
4.
Ballard, G., Conte, A. S. I., Howell, G., and Tommelein, I. D. (Eds.). (1998). Proc., 6th Annu. Conf. Int. Group for Lean Constr. (IGLC-6), available at 〈http://www.ce.berkeley,edu/∼tommelein/IGLC-6/〉.
5.
Ballard, G., and Howell, G. (1998). “Shielding production: Essential step in production control.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 124(1), 11–17.
6.
Birrell, G. S. ( 1978). “The criteria by which construction prime and subcontractors evaluate the management performance of each other.” PhD dissertation, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., Vols. 1 and 2.
7.
Birrell, G. S. (1981). “The informal organization which manages the construction process.” Proc., CIB W-65 3rd Symp. on Org. and Mgmt. of Constr., 201–211.
8.
Birrell, G. S. (1985). “General contractor's management: How subs evaluate it.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 111(3), 244–259.
9.
Choo, H. J., and Tommelein, I. D. (1999). “Parade game.” Tech. Rep. 99-1, Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt. Program, Civ. and Envir. Engrg. Dept., University of Calif., Berkeley, Calif.
10.
Crichton, C. (1966). Interdepedence and uncertainty. A study of the building industry. Tavistock Institute, Tavistock Pubs., London.
11.
Goldratt, E. M., and Cox, J. (1986). The goal. North River Press, Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
12.
Gray, C. ( 1986). “`Intelligent' construction and cost analysis.” Constr. Mgmt. and Econ., E & FN Spon, London, Vol. 4, 135–150.
13.
Halpin, D. W., and Woodhead, R. W. (1976). Design of construction and process operations. Wiley, New York.
14.
Harris, F. C., and Evans, J. B. (1977). “Road construction—Simulation game for site managers.”J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 103(3), 405–414.
15.
Howell, G., and Ballard, G. (1996). “Managing uncertainty in the piping process.” RR47-13, Constr. Industry Inst., University of Texas, Austin, Tex.
16.
Howell, G., Laufer, A., and Ballard, G. (1993). “Interaction between subcycles: One key to improved methods.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 119(4), 714–728.
17.
Koskela, L. (1992). “Application of the new production philosophy to construction.” Tech. Rep. 72, CIFE, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif.
18.
Martinez, J. C. ( 1996). “STROBOSCOPE state and resource based simulation of construction processes.” PhD dissertation, Civ. and Envir. Engrg., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., available at 〈http://www.strobos.ce.vt.edu/〉.
19.
Riley, D. R., and Sanvido, V. E. (1995). “Patterns of construction-space use in multistory buildings.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 121(4), 464–473.
20.
Riley, D., and Sanvido, V. (1997). “Space planning for mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection trades in multi-story building construction.” Proc., Constr. Congr. V, S. Anderson, ed., ASCE, New York, 102–109.
21.
Tommelein, I. D. (1998). “Pull-driven scheduling for pipe-spool installation: Simulation of lean construction technique.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 124(4), 279–288.
22.
Tommelein, I. D., and Ballard, G. (1997). “Coordinating specialists.” Tech. Rep. 97-8, Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt. Program, Civ. and Envir. Engrg. Dept., University of Calif., Berkeley, Calif.
23.
Womack, J. P., and Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 125 • Issue 5 • September 1999
Pages: 304 - 310
History
Received: Dec 10, 1998
Published online: Sep 1, 1999
Published in print: Sep 1999
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.