Moving from Lean Manufacturing to Lean

Construction: Toward a Common

Sociotechnological Framework
Omar Paez
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Program, Department of
Mechanical, Industrial and Nuclear Engineering, University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221
Sam Salem and Julie Solomon
Construction Engineering and Management Program, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221
Ash Genaidy
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Program, Department of
Mechanical, Industrial and Nuclear Engineering, University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221
ABSTRACT
Since the early 1990s, the construction industry has taken some interest in the application of lean
production to its own case. A new body of research led by the International Group for Lean Con-
struction (IGLC) has been exploring new techniques for the industry. In this article the techniques
developed for lean construction are compared with those of lean manufacturing. Differences between
the manufacturing and the construction cases showed why lean production does not fully suit the
construction industry. Although some elements are in an embryonic state, lean construction has
built a set of techniques that are transferable to any constructor. Lean manufacturing and lean con-
struction share many common elements despite their different techniques. The need for a joint
combination of technical and human elements shows that both approaches conform to a common
sociotechnological design. 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
1. INTRODUCTION
The popularity of lean production after the publication of The Machine That Changed the
World (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990) opened the inquiry into whether practices such as
those of the Toyota Corporation could be extended beyond the manufacturing context. In
fact, lean production has been implemented in process-based services since it involves a
steady sequence of activities. Bowen and Youngdahl (1998) present cases of the lean
production-line approach in airlines, fast-food chains, and hospitals.
Correspondence to: Ash Genaidy, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Program, Department of
Mechanical, Industrial and Nuclear Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221. E-mail:
ash.genaidy@uc.edu
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 15 (2) 233245 (2005)
2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20023
233
Lean construction, however, presents additional challenges as a case of project-based
production. The construction industry has focused mainly on one-of-a-kind production,
which does not have fixed sequences of tasks that can be fully standardized. Lean con-
struction has successfully worked with the philosophy introduced by lean manufacturing.
Emerging techniques have started to change the way constructors manage their own oper-
ations. Traditionally, construction management has bifurcated into two different approaches:
one approach, project management, which deals with the interaction of activities; and the
other approach, operations management, works with each activity individually. Lean con-
struction breaks the paradigm: Acombined effort on individual tasks and their interaction
will lead to better performance outcomes.
Whether the techniques of lean construction are an extension of lean manufacturing or
a diversion from lean manufacturing is yet an open question. This issue is more relevant
now when cases such as software and high-tech component production are getting closer
to project-driven operations with shortened life span of products, higher design costs, and
high uncertainty in the market. It is essential to assess the relevance of lean manufactur-
ing and lean construction in these emerging scenarios that combine elements of both
contexts.
In this article both contexts are presented as part of a higher sociotechnological con-
struct. To support this claim, the differences between the manufacturing and construction
cases are identified. Then, the most relevant techniques of lean manufacturing and lean
construction are reviewed. This comparison shows that both cases are rooted in common
human and technical elements and any difference is a result of the constraints of each
context.
2. THE CONSTRUCTION CASE COMPARED
TO THE MANUFACTURING CASE
2.1. Nature of the Operation
The construction industry comprises a wide range of activities that includes industrial
and manufacturing cases, which produce standardized units such as prefabricated mate-
rials, precast and prestressed concrete girders, and standardized length/size components.
The construction case involving the production of a one-of-a-kind unit is the most com-
mon and has been traditionally identified as project or construction management (Howell
& Ballard, 1998).
Construction differs from manufacturing because of the physical features of the end
product. For the manufacturing case, finished goods generally can be moved as a whole
to be stored by retail or to reach end customers. Construction projects deal with larger
units that cannot be transported. Koskela (1992) identifies three features that differentiate
the construction industry from manufacturing: site production, one-of-a kind nature of
projects, and complexity (temporary multi-organization, and regulatory intervention).
First, construction is an on-site production. While installation for manufactured goods
is relatively simpler (appliances, for example, have specific instructions for installation
and operation just before use), in construction, installation and erection are actually the
main activity that increases the value to the product. The contractor is to ensure that all
components assembled on site meet high standards to ensure reliable construction
qualities based on the specific site conditions. Construction corresponds to site position
234 PAEZ, SALEM, SOLOMON, AND GENAIDY
manufacturing as opposed to factory position manufacturing in which the product can be
moved after assembly.
Second, construction is one-of-a-kind production, a result of being a product made
on-site. The high-volume manufacturing case takes advantage of specialized equipment
to make standardized units. It allows a limited level of customization that can be handled
by retailers. Customers play a key role in the construction case throughout the project
cycle. Customers, named owners in construction, define their product explicitly, with the
guide of designers, through the bid package or contract. The owner or the owners rep-
resentative can modify the scope and details of the contract by addenda (before bids are
opened) or change orders (once the bid is closed).
Third, complexity has a strong effect in construction, as the completion of activities is
highly interrelated. The manufacturing case can manage a large number of components
from different subassemblies since suppliers deliver specific components from their own
facilities. Specialized facilities with suitable technology and layout are set to ensure a
reliable flow of the product. With a high volume, this supply network can be optimized
eventually. In contrast, Bertelsen (2003) presents construction as a complex dynamic sys-
tem that has to rely on an initial design that involves a number of subassemblies with
variable specifications. As an on-site production, the installation of those subassemblies
is constrained by interacting and overlapping activities performed by different contrac-
tors that make it more difficult to meet a fixed schedule. Because the project faces the
pressure of deadlines, constraints cannot be overcome without additional cost or increas-
ing technical difficulty.
The fourth difference is uncertainty, a result of the combined effect of on-site and com-
plex production. The nature of the manufacturing process makes it feasible to reduce
uncertainty by increasing control over the process itself. A steady state is desirable to
increase efficiency through repetition. For the construction industry, significant uncer-
tainty exists throughout a project and it might be unavoidable. Weather conditions, soil
conditions, owner changes, and the interaction between multiple operations will always
produce exceptions. Those exceptions could be as critical as the planned activities, and
both will determine the outcome of the project cost.
2.2. Planning and Execution
In the long term, both construction and manufacturing are concerned with value addition
through high returns on investment; however, there are differences on the means to increase
value. In manufacturing, the life cycle of a product on the market is long enough to develop
capabilities in terms of research and training. In construction, the life cycle is the project
duration, and research and training efforts do not provide an immediate return in short
projects. According to Banik (1999), the lack of these investments is damaging the industrys
capabilities of innovating in process and technology, threatening its competitiveness in
local and global markets. In addition, decision-making in manufacturing planning is con-
cerned with capacity optimization to reduce asset intensity. Equipment in construction, as
it is commonly seen, is a resource that can be purchased or rented/leased for the project
based on the appropriate time value analysis. Contractors seek to minimize ownership
and operation costs while ensuring availability of equipment.
The extent of operations in manufacturing is well defined from the beginning. The
decision to produce or purchase will only change due to a drastic change in the cost of
parts. In construction, the supply chain is more flexible. Operations can be performed by
MOVING FROM LEAN MANUFACTURING TO LEAN CONSTRUCTION 235
subcontractors or by the main contractor directly based on the resources and costs of each
particular project. Similarly, the workforce in manufacturing generally enjoys more sta-
ble wage policies and higher employment security. Positions are well defined and people
become very experienced at specific tasks. In the construction industry, wages depend on
skill, experience, and employers. Job security is low, and workers perform a range of
tasks throughout the development of the project. Experience and specialized skills are
highly regarded and better compensated.
Quality in manufacturing is more related to process control. Common tasks are defect
prevention, monitoring, and intervention. Rework is generally avoided and in some cases
parts are dismissed rather than reprocessed. Quality in construction is more related to
product conformance (Arditi & Gunaydin, 1997). Specifications and drawings will deter-
mine quality standards, and quality assurance is a joint effort of the construction com-
pany and the owner to meet requirements of safety, environmental considerations, and
conformance with applicable regulations. Rework is a common practice since there is
only one final product and cannot be disposed.
Supply in manufacturing is an order-driven activity that is synchronized through mate-
rial handling systems. The sequence of operations in manufacturing is determined during
the design of the product and any change is limited by the current layout. Supply in con-
struction is schedule-driven, as the process span is longer with the advantage that the
sequence of tasks can be modified if required by unforeseen exceptions. The construction
supply chain is main contractorclient based (Matthews, Pellew, Phua, & Rowlinson,
2000). Subcontracting can account for most of the value of the project, and since project
activities are totally interrelated, the relationship between subcontractor and main con-
tractor demands increased levels of cooperation and transparency.
3. TECHNIQUES IN LEAN MANUFACTURING
Lean manufacturing combines the capabilities of the workforce with organizational tech-
niques to achieve higher outcomes with fewer resources (Katayama, 1996). The lean prin-
ciples determine the goals of lean manufacturing. Womack and Jones (1996) present value
specification, value stream (waste elimination), flow, pull, and the continuous pursuit of
perfection as the lean principles. The lean organization defines the activities on which
the system focuses. Womack, Jones, and Roos (1990) refer to design, supply, and man-
ufacturing as the core activities of the lean organization. The lean techniques refer to the
techniques applied in lean manufacturing. Japanese manufacturers and especially Toyota,
have developed techniques that supported the principles of lean production. Monden (1983)
and Ohno (1988) introduced the Toyota Production System (TPS) as a combination of
four main elements: Just-In-Time (JIT), autonomation, flexible workforce, and creative
thinking.
Just-in-Time is based on the concept that inventories add no value and should be regarded
as waste. Accordingly, units in process should be available only when required. Three
methods are associated with just-in-time. First, the kanban system (in Japanese, the word
kanban means card or sign) is used to minimize inventories based on backward requests
that flow through cards, baskets, or digital signals (Chaouiya, Liberopoulos, & Dallery,
2000). Second, production leveling ensures that the fluctuation of demand can be sufficed
by creating the right sequence of products with minimumbatches for each product (Milten-
burg, 2002). Third, reduction of set-up activities, single minute exchange of dies, reduces
the activities to be performed during downtime so that changeovers do not interfere with
236 PAEZ, SALEM, SOLOMON, AND GENAIDY
minimum batches. Planned critical activities supported by single minute exchange devices
(SMED) should reduce the effect of alternating different products (Patel, Shaw, &
Dale, 2001).
Autonomation is the prevention of defects as opposed to the traditional corrective
approach. Autonomation is supported first by a functional management system to promote
quality and cost management company wide (Ho & Fung 1994). Quality is translated into
all the activities of the organization: design, supply, and production. A second method,
autonomous control, seeks to prevent the flow of defective parts through the process.
Visual inspection (Poka-Yoke) devices support this level of control, differing from tra-
ditional automation that does not allow direct intervention into the process (Shingo, 1986).
The flexible workforce seeks to match the labor requirements with a fluctuating level
of demand. Two methods support flexible labor: multi-functional layout design and stan-
dard operations. With a flexible machine arrangement (Yang & Peters, 1998), it is pos-
sible to rotate positions in the production line and adjust the size of the crew to the pace
required. Only with well-defined operations, can the crew attend multiple machines reli-
ably. Machine downtime should also been planned through preventive maintenance
activities.
All of these techniques rely on additional capabilities of the workforce that have been
overlooked by Western manufacturers. First, creative thinking seeks continuous improve-
ment through feedback from workers on how to improve their tasks. Second, problem-
solving focus must be instilled in all employees in all activities to prevent failures to
recur. Third, teamwork is required to empower workers with control over their activities
and allowtask rotation. The human component is what makes lean manufacturing a dynamic
system that is always looking for means to achieve higher performance. To ensure a bal-
ance between value addition and employee satisfaction, Toyota is now working with TVAL
(Toyota verification of assembly line), that is, an ergonomic assessment of the workload
of each position (Fujimoto, 2000). The compatibility between the work environment and
the crew is essential for long-term improvement (Genaidy & Karwowski, 2003).
3. TECHNIQUES IN LEAN CONSTRUCTION
Koskela and Howell (2002) show the need for a broader foundation for project manage-
ment. Lean construction moves beyond the traditional view of project as transformation
and includes flow and value generation. For the transformation view, the project is the
transformation of inputs into outputs exclusively. To control such transformation, tasks
are split into manageable components that will ensure the completion of the job. The new
viewincludes time, variability, and customer satisfaction as relevant variables for decision-
making. As a result, planning, execution, and control of projects will change. Planning
has to include organizing, that is, moving from pure task allocation to structuring a suit-
able environment for human action. Execution has to be a two-way channel that achieves
goals through commitment. Control management is to move from auditing to searching
for causes and ultimately preventing future problems.
Koskela (1999) states that lean construction shares the same goals of lean production:
elimination of waste, cycle time reduction, and variability reduction. In fact, workflow
reliability and labor flow are regarded as key determinants of construction performance
(Thomas et al., 2003). Continuous flow, pull production control, and continuous improve-
ment have been the focus of the implementation of lean construction. These methods
have evolved into separate and transferable techniques.
MOVING FROM LEAN MANUFACTURING TO LEAN CONSTRUCTION 237
1. Concurrent Engineering: Concurrent engineering is defined as the parallel execu-
tion of different development tasks in multidisciplinary teams with the aimof obtain-
ing an optimal product with respect to functionality, quality, and productivity. The
engineering process can be modeled by a generalization of Walrasian model
(Rolstads, 1995). The traditional Walrasian model describes the transformation
process by using product and resource data. The generalization of the Walrasian
model includes a time frame and a control system. The time frame ensures that
resources are available at specific times and the control system seeks to review
synchronization and coordination.
Improvements can be found in different ways. Scheduling could be improved by
network analysis (CPM and PERT). Other opportunities can be accomplished by
overlapping activities, splitting activities, and shrinking transfer time between activ-
ities. Algorithms could be implemented to model resource allocation, conditional
branching, and stochastic networks within a limited timeframe. The confidence level
for all decision points will determine the normal duration of all states. Lead-time,
quantity, and risk are important planning parameters for scheduling concurrent activ-
ities under uncertainty. To prevent unexpected project performance, risk buffers
such as time buffers and cost contingency are included as part of the project cost.
According to Kamara (2003), concurrent engineering goes beyond diagrams,
charts, and algorithms. It demands a multidisciplinary team effort where informa-
tion sharing and communication are keys to identify new ideas. Partnering with
subcontractors and suppliers can also influence the outcome of concurrent engi-
neering efforts. The relationship with the client should not be overlooked as the
client might facilitate concurrent engineering efforts that reduce the projects cost.
As stated by Gil, Tommelein, Kirkendall, and Ballard (2000), the success in lean-
product-process development relies on the involvement of all participants in the
early design.
2. Last Planner: Ballard (2000) introduced Last Planner as a technique that addresses
project variability in construction. High-level planning relies upon the completion
of tasks. Depending on the complexity of the project, those tasks lead ultimately to
assignments that consist of specific physical work. The Last Planner is the person
or group accountable for production unit control, that is, the completion of indi-
vidual assignments at the operational level. Traditional practices do not consider a
difference between what should, can, and will be done. The assumption is that push-
ing more tasks will result in better results.
Ballard identified definition, soundness, sequence, size, and learning process as
criteria to determine the quality of assignments. Performance is measured by the
execution of the assignments (Ballard, 1999). The percentage plan completed (PPC),
that is, the proportion of completed activities with respect to planned activities,
measures the workflow reliability (Ballard & Howell, 1998). Nonconformance (fail-
ures) is the source of information leading to root causes of underlying problems.
Actions need to be taken to prevent those problems and eventually decrease
variability.
Last Planner requires workflow control that ensures the flow of design, supply,
and installation through production units. This is done by the look-ahead schedule,
which shapes the sequence and rate of work. It splits the master schedule into pack-
ages that detail the method of execution, check capacity, and determine a backlog
of ready work. The scope of the look-ahead ranges from 3 to 12 weeks and should
238 PAEZ, SALEM, SOLOMON, AND GENAIDY
be prepared by teamwork. Phases are required in case activities extend beyond the
look-ahead period. Assignments will always be subject to specific constraints (con-
tract, design, materials, prerequisite work, space, equipment, or labor).
3. Daily Huddle Meetings: While Last Planner is a tool for managing operations, there
is a need in construction for effective follow-up of highly variable events that affect
assignments (Koskela & Howell, 2002). Scrum, originally developed for software
products, is a development methodology driven by periodic reviews (Schwaber,
1995). The project is considered as a black box that cannot be managed directly but
through an iteration of steps that allow adjustments. Daily huddle meetings allow
team members to share what has been accomplished and what impediments they
might have.
The Scrum meetings provide a two-way channel, where every team member
decides his task based on negotiations with the rest of the team, as the whole team
is the direct customer of each task. The team leader deals with those elements that
cannot be solved directly by the team members. The success of those teams depends
on the values identified by Scrum: commitment, focus, openness, respect, and cour-
age (Schwaber, 2002).
4. The Kanban System: Arbulu, Ballard, and Harper (2003) show how kanbans can be
applied to certain types of materials (consumables, personal protective equipment,
hand tools, power tools, and consumables for power tools). The kanban strategy is
based on key components: marketplaces, collection vehicles or milk runs, sup-
plier kanbans, satellite stores, and inventory management system. Marketplaces are
site warehouses that distribute materials and small tools. Satellite stores are on-site
locations that get products from marketplaces. Milk run vehicles collect materi-
als from preferred suppliers to the job site. Two kinds of vehicles are included:
external collection vehicles and internal delivery vehicles. External milk run vehi-
cles collect materials from suppliers and transport them to marketplaces, and inter-
nal milk run vehicles deliver products from marketplaces to satellite stores.
Plastic bins are used as kanban signals to pull materials from suppliers to site on
a just-in-time basis; and request forms are used as kanban signals between satellite
stores and marketplaces. The kanban process starts with open orders so that the site
can pull materials from the supplier up to a certain limit. Next, requests arrive at the
market place and products are picked from the store, which is controlled by reorder
points. Products are dispatched through internal vehicles, and external vehicles
replenish marketplace stocks.
5. Plan Conditions and Work Environment in the Construction Industry (PCMAT):
Saurin, Formoso, Guimares, and Soares (2002) propose the introduction of a health
and safety plan into the project execution, named Plan of Conditions and Work
Environment. APreliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) should be implemented in the
planning state. Safety actions are determined based on the PHA, and they are included
into the look-ahead planning. Safety activities will create constraints for scheduled
tasks and should be included as part of the assignments. Safety practices are inte-
grated into the short-term planning through daily feedback with crew and subcon-
tractors. Performance is tracked through safe work packages, an indicator of the
proportion of safe work executed.
6. Quality Management Tools: Marosszeky and colleagues (2002) propose the inte-
gration of quality tools into lean construction based on a shift from conformance-
based quality to quality at the source. Quality at the source works with mapping of
MOVING FROM LEAN MANUFACTURING TO LEAN CONSTRUCTION 239
the activities and defines the quality shield (set of controls required to ensure product
conformance). The required control will be translated into checklists to be enforced
by the workforce. A point system is used to review the execution of planned con-
trols so that workers will follow planned controls rather than quality corrections. A
summarized report by task is presented as a quality league reporting. The quality
league provides positive feedback about the safety of jobsite, and it seeks to boost
ongoing improvement in the quality system.
7. Visual Inspection: Moser and Dos Santos (2003) show that the mobile nature of
work cells in construction does not preclude the application of visual tools for mate-
rial, work, or information flow. Material identification could speed repetitive oper-
ations and reduce the risk of choosing the wrong product. Schedules, milestones, or
progress charts could enforce the commitment to the completion of assignments.
Communication between decision-makers and executers could also be accelerated
based on the advantage of information technology (handhelds, mobile devices, and
dynamic databases).
4. FROM LEAN PRODUCTION TO LEAN CONSTRUCTION
Even though lean construction is still in development, a set of practices have been pro-
posed, tested, and implemented. To move from lean production to lean construction,
researchers and practitioners have tried to identify similarities and differences between
each context and develop a more suitable set of practices. Table 1 presents a parallel
comparison between lean construction techniques and lean production techniques based
on the purpose of each tool within the lean production framework.
On a first level, lean construction has adapted techniques from manufacturing into con-
struction. Kanban cards are used for construction materials driven by backward requests.
In these cases, the extent and scope of the techniques are very similar to the manufactur-
ing techniques. Lean construction has succeeded in overcoming the contextual differ-
ences and implemented them.
On a second level, lean construction has expanded the scope of lean manufacturing
techniques. Lean Construction has extended the scope of visual inspection of parts defects
to visualization of material and workflow. In manufacturing, work cells are clearly defined
through multi-functional layout design; material and workflow are specifically coordi-
nated. In construction, there are no physical but virtual work cells throughout the jobsite,
increased visualization controls overlapping material and work flows. Aquality manage-
ment system in manufacturing is supported by a permanent organization in the plant (qual-
ity staff, quality department, or a fully developed quality system). Construction demands
a more dynamic approach, and a shield based on checklist and point-value assessment has
a larger impact. Concurrent engineering that has been traditionally used for manufactur-
ing design is now implemented in construction to reduce cycle duration by splitting and
overlapping assignments. This approach resembles the role of standard operations in man-
ufacturing. Both techniques look for increased productivity based on a detailed control of
task durations. Concurrent engineering works best with highly variable assignments that
are not sequential as in manufacturing operations.
On a third level, lean construction has brought new techniques for its unique context.
Last Planner can be seen as a combination of production smoothening and the kanban
system. Production smoothening prepares the product sequence that is driven by kanban
cards. Last Planner prepares a reverse-phase schedule that pulls assignment. The look-
240 PAEZ, SALEM, SOLOMON, AND GENAIDY
T
A
B
L
E
1
.
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
o
f
L
e
a
n
T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
L
e
v
e
l
L
e
a
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
G
o
a
l
s
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
l
e
a
n
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
I
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
K
a
n
b
a
n
C
a
r
d
s
R
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
i
e
s
o
n
s
i
t
e
P
u
l
l
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
b
a
c
k
w
a
r
d
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
K
a
n
b
a
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
I
I
V
i
s
u
a
l
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
w
o
r
k
f
l
o
w
b
y
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
d
e
f
e
c
t
s
V
i
s
u
a
l
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
P
o
k
a
-
Y
o
k
e
d
e
v
i
c
e
s
)
M
u
l
t
i
-
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
a
y
o
u
t
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
o
l
s
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
w
o
r
k
f
l
o
w
b
y
e
n
s
u
r
i
n
g
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
(
T
Q
M
)
C
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
M
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
c
y
c
l
e
t
i
m
e
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
i
n
g
l
e
m
i
n
u
t
e
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
o
f
d
i
e
s
(
S
M
E
D
)
I
I
I
L
a
s
t
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
P
u
l
l
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
b
y
r
e
v
e
r
s
e
-
p
h
a
s
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
i
n
g
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
l
o
n
g
t
e
r
m
K
a
n
b
a
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
W
o
r
k
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
(
P
C
M
A
T
)
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
w
o
r
k
f
l
o
w
b
y
e
n
s
u
r
i
n
g
s
a
f
e
t
y
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
T
o
y
o
t
a
V
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
s
s
e
m
b
l
y
L
i
n
e
(
T
V
A
L
)
D
a
i
l
y
H
u
d
d
l
e
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
b
y
a
d
a
p
t
i
n
g
t
o
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
MOVING FROM LEAN MANUFACTURING TO LEAN CONSTRUCTION 241
ahead and weekly work plans inform subcontractors of activities to be completed and so
functions as the kanban cards in manufacturing. The planned conditions for the work
environment goes beyond the most common lean practices, and only Toyota through the
Toyota Verification of Assembly Line (TVAL) has attempted to add an ergonomic and
safety assessment to ensure a capable workforce. Daily huddle meetings look for imme-
diate actions that ensure the completion of highly variable assignments; this role is played
in manufacturing by improvement activities. However, daily huddle meetings have a pre-
dominant short-term focus since many assignments are not continuously repeated.
Techniques in lean manufacturing and lean construction address the same goals: waste-
minimization, flow, and pull. A low-cost, speedy, and smooth process is as desirable for
lean manufacturing as a project below budget and ahead-of schedule is for lean construc-
tion. From design to supply and manufacturing (or construction) both cases work with the
same core activities. The methods employed make the difference: lean manufacturing
techniques work for an ideal steady process with no exceptions while lean construction
looks for a quick-response project that handles any feasible exception. Those technical
elements, however, are not sufficient to achieve the lean goals. A workforce willing to
sustain improvement demands newcapabilities (teamwork, creative thinking, and problem-
solving skills) on each of their own techniques. Cherns (1987) defined sociotechnical
design as the combination of a technical and human subsystem into the same work design.
Lean construction and lean manufacturing are part of the same sociotechnological design
with different tools as a result of the differences in volume, location, complexity, and
uncertainty between project and process products.
Figure 1 introduces a higher view of lean construction and lean manufacturing as a
sociotechnical system. The extent of the system is determined by its goals and scope of
activates. The human subsystemis conformed by the capabilities of the workforce: problem-
solving focus, teamwork, and creative thinking (Paez et al., 2004). The technical system
Figure 1 Lean construction as sociotechnological design.
242 PAEZ, SALEM, SOLOMON, AND GENAIDY
is conformed by the sets of techniques that apply to each context. Daily Huddle Meetings
and Last Planner are required by lean construction because they deal with exceptions and
uncertainty. Visualization of material and process flow replaces the efforts in layout design
because construction work does not have a fixed place. Finally, because of its flexible
organization, lean construction deals with quality of safety issues as part of the opera-
tional process. More than quality or safety specifications for future jobs, the focus of lean
construction is on ensuring quality and safety conformance on the planned assignments.
5. CONCLUSION
Lean construction applies the lean philosophy to on-site, one-of-a-kind, complex opera-
tions for long-term improvement. The added values of lean construction are the new set
techniques that are transferable to any constructor. Some of these techniques have even
extended the scope of lean production to safety and waste disposal. Concurrent engineer-
ing, Last Planner, and Daily Huddle Meetings have become recognized lean construction
techniques that play the same role that Ohnos practices played in manufacturing.
Lean construction and lean manufacturing conform to a sociotechnical design with the
same goals, activities, and workforce capabilities. They differ on the technical system
that is suitable for each context. The development of workforce capabilities on construc-
tion should not be overlooked. Creative thinking, teamwork, and problem-solving focus
are yet to be seen as key elements for lean construction. The technical elements of the
lean construction rely upon the proactive approach of all participants. Without a capable
workforce, performance outcomes will always be limited.
Research should focus on how the proposed sociotechnical design fits mixed scenarios
where elements of project- and process-based operations are present. The best fit would
be determined by factors such as volume, location, complexity, and uncertainty. The goals
(waste elimination, flow, and pull) and the activities (design, supply, and manufacturing)
reach all scenarios. Any operation improvement will always rely on the joint effort of
technical and human elements that characterize the lean enterprise.
REFERENCES
Arbulu, R., Ballard, G., & Harper, N. (2003). Kanban in construction. In Proceedings of the Annual
Conference (IGLC-11; pp. 350361). Selford, UK: University of Selford, International Group
for Lean Construction. Retrieved July 1, 2004, from http://strobos.cee.vt.edu/IGLC11
Arditi, D., & Gunaydin, H. (1997). Total quality management in the construction process. Inter-
national Journal of Project Management, 15(4), 235243.
Ballard, G. (1999). Improving work flow reliability. In I. Tommelein (Ed.), Proceedings of the
Annual Conference (IGLC-7; pp. 275286). Selford, UK: University of Selford, International
Group for Lean Construction.
Ballard, G. (2000). The last planner system of production control. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion (pp. 3.13.20), University of Birmingham, UK.
Ballard, G., & Howell, G. (1998). Shielding production: Essential step in production control. Jour-
nal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(1), 1116.
Banik, G. (1999). Construction productivity improvement. In C. Berryman (Ed.), ASC Proceedings
of the 35th Annual Conference (pp. 165178). San Luis Obispo, CA: Associated Schools of
Construction.
Bertelsen, S. (2003). Construction as a complex system. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference
(IGLC-11; pp. 1123). Selford, UK: University of Selford, International Group for Lean Con-
struction. Retrieved July 1, 2004, from http://strobos.cee.vt.edu/IGLC11
MOVING FROM LEAN MANUFACTURING TO LEAN CONSTRUCTION 243
Bowen, D., & Youngdahl, W. (1998). The lean service: In defense of a production line approach.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(3), 207225.
Chaoiya, C., Liberopoulos, G., & Dallery, Y. (2000). The extended kanban control system for pro-
duction coordination of assembly manufacturing systems. IIE Transactions, 32, 9991012.
Cherns, A. (1987). Principles of sociotechnical design revisited. Human Relations, 40(3), 153162.
Fujimoto, T. (2000). Evolution of manufacturing systems and ex-post dynamic capabilities: A case
of Toyotas final assembly operations. In G. Dosi, R. Nelson, & S. Winter (Eds.), Nature and
dynamics of organizational capabilities (pp. 244250). New York: Oxford University Press.
Genaidy, A., & Karwowski, W. (2003). Human performance in lean production environment: Crit-
ical assessment and research framework. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing,
13(4), 317330.
Gil, N., Tommelein, D., Kirkendall, B., & Ballard, G. (2000). Lean product-process development
process to support contractor involvement during design. In R. Fruchter (Ed.), Proceedings of
the 8th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (pp. 1417).
Stanford, CA: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
Ho, S., & Fung. C. (1994). Developing a TQM excellence model. The TQM Magazine, 6(6), 2430.
Howell, G., & Ballard, G. (1998). Implementing lean construction: Understanding and action. In C.
Formoso (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference (IGLC-6; pp. 165173). Selford, UK:
University of Selford, International Group for Lean Construction.
Kamara, J. (2003). Enablers for concurrent engineering in construction. In Proceedings of the Annual
Conference (IGLC-11; pp. 170182). Selford, UK: University of Selford, International Group
for Lean Construction. Retrieved July 1, 2004, from http://strobos.cee.vt.edu/IGLC11
Katayama, H. (1996). Lean production in a changing competitive world: A Japanese perspective.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(2), 823.
Koskela, L. (1992). Application of the new production philosophy to construction: CIFE Technical
Report #72 (pp. 450). Stanford, CA: Center for Integrated Facility Engineering. Retrieved
January 1, 2005, from http://www.leanconstruction.org
Koskela, L. (1999). Management of production in construction: Atheoretical view. In I. Tommelein
(Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference (IGLC-7; pp. 241252). Selford, UK: University
of Selford, International Group for Lean Construction.
Koskela, L., & Howell, G. (2002). The theory of project management. In C. Formoso & G. Ballard
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference (IGLC-10; pp. 111). Selford, UK: University of
Selford, International Group for Lean Construction.
Marosszeky, M., Thomas, R., Karim, K., Davis, S.,& McGeorge, D. (2002). Quality Management
Tools for Lean Production: From Enforcement to Empowerment. In C. Formoso & G. Ballard
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference (IGLC-10; pp. 8799). Selford, UK: University
of Selford, International Group for Lean Construction.
Matthews, J., Pellew, L., Phua, F., & Rowlinson, S. (2000). Quality relationships: Partnering in the
construction supply chain. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 7(4/5),
493510.
Miltenburg, J. (2002). Balancing and scheduling mixed-model U-shaped production lines. The Inter-
national Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 14, 119151.
Monden, Y. (1983). Toyota production system: Practical approach to production management (pp. 1
12). Norcorss, GA: Industrial Engineering and Management Press.
Moser, L., & Dos Santos, A. (2003). Exploring the role of visual controls on mobile cell manufac-
turing: A case study on drywall technology. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference (IGLC-
11; pp. 418426) Selford, UK: University of Selford, International Group for Lean Construction.
Retrieved July 1, 2004, from http://strobos.cee.vt.edu/IGLC11
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system (pp. 144). Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.
Paez, O., Dewees, J., Genaidy, A., Tuncel, S., Karwowski, W., & Zurada, J. (2004). The lean man-
ufacturing enterprise: An emerging socio-technical system integration. Human Factors and Ergo-
nomics in Manufacturing, 14(3), 285306.
Patel, S., Shaw, P., & Dale, B. (2001). Set-up time reduction and mistake proofing methods: Astudy
application in a small company. Business Process Management, 7(1), 6675.
Rolstads, A. (1995). Planning and control of concurrent engineering projects. International Jour-
nal of Production Economics, 38, 313.
Saurin, T., Formoso, C., Guimares, & Soares, A. (2002). Safety and production: An integrated
244 PAEZ, SALEM, SOLOMON, AND GENAIDY
planning and control model. In C. Formoso & G. Ballard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual
Conference (IGLC-10; pp. 6174). Selford, UK: University of Selford, International Group for
Lean Construction. .
Schwaber, K. (1995). Scrum development processworkshop on security for object-oriented sys-
tems (pp. 117134). New York: Springer.
Schwaber, K. (2002). Agile software development with Scrum (pp. 3156). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Shingo, S. (1986). Zero quality control: Source inspection and the poka-yoke system (pp. 5769).
Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.
Thomas, H., Horman, M., Minchin, R. Jr., & Chen, D. (2003). Improving labor flow reliability for
better productivity as lean construction principle. Journal of Construction Engineering and Man-
agement, 129(3), 251261.
Womack, J., & Jones, D. (1996). Lean thinking (pp. 2992). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Womack, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world (pp. 315). New
York: Macmillan.
Yang, T., & Peters, B. (1998). Flexible machine layout design for dynamic and uncertain produc-
tion environments, European Journal of Operations Research, 108, 4964.
MOVING FROM LEAN MANUFACTURING TO LEAN CONSTRUCTION 245