Accepted Manuscript

Title: Effect of lean tools to control external environement

risks of construction projects

Author: Richard Hannis Ansah Shahryar Sorooshian

PII: S2210-6707(16)30716-8
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.scs.2017.03.027
Reference: SCS 624

To appear in:

Received date: 11-12-2016

Revised date: 3-3-2017
Accepted date: 3-3-2017

Please cite this article as: Ansah, R. H., and Sorooshian, S.,Effect of lean tools to
control external environement risks of construction projects, Sustainable Cities and
Society (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.03.027

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
Highlights

Evaluates PESTLE delay sources in construction projects.

Extends the suitable lean tools to control delays in construction projects.

ip
Develops a systematically ranked framework for lean tools to control delays in
construction projects.

cr
Informs project teams to reduce delays in the construction industry.

us
Application of a risk-based lean tool framework for multinational companies in
developing countries.

an
Shows how Analytic Hierarchy Process algorithm can be used for complex research
model with larger dimension.
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac

Page 1 of 22
 EFFECT OF LEAN TOOLS TO CONTROL EXTERNAL
ENVIRONEMENT RISKS OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

t
Richard Hannis Ansah1, Shahryar Sorooshian1

ip
cr
1
Faculty of Industrial Management, Universiti Malaysia Pahang,

Lebuhraya Tun Razak, 26300, Kuantan - Pahang, Malaysia.

us
sorooshian@gmail.com

an
M
Abstract
Among the existing management concepts and methods implemented for solving construction project
delays is the integration of lean tools in the construction project cycle. While these lean tools are said to
d

minimize delays and improve project delivery processes, most have been conceptualized to assess
e

aspects of the lean tools. However, to ensure suitability and applicability, and thus, the success of lean
tools implementation, there is the need for identification and appropriate prioritization of the clean
pt

tools. This paper proposes a novel delay control framework based on AHP method for the evaluation of
lean tools application in the external environment (political, economic, social, technological, legal, and
environmental aspects) of construction projects. To extend the qualitative data, six main delay sources
ce

and forty lean tools were extracted from the existing literature for further empirical inquiry. The results
of the framework indicated that the most effective lean tools were Concurrent Engineering, Last Planner
System and Daily Huddle Meetings with priorities 0.425235, 0.379652 and 0.371172 respectively.
Ac

Meanwhile, the least influenced lean tools were found to be SMART Goals with priorities 0.026566
respectively. This framework, would provide a decision tool for practitioners to determine appropriate
lean tools to control specific delay sources.

Keywords: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); Construction Projects; Environmental-based Delays;

Framework; Lean Tools; Prioritization

Page 2 of 22
 1. Introduction

The lack of robustness in the existing managements concepts and conventional project management
approaches in solving construction project delays over the past decade (Koskela, 2000; Sorooshian et al., 2010;
Norzima et al., 2011; Rahman et al., 2012; Koskela et al., 2013; Aziz and Hafez, 2013), are driving companies to
seek for time efficient and cost effective improvement methods in their project development process. Among such

t
improvement approaches, which is trending in recent years within the construction industry, is the use of Off-site

ip
fabrication (OSF), or Off-site manufacturing (OSM), Industralised Building Systems (IBS), Prefabrication,
Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM), Building Information Modeling (BIM), Business Process Re-

cr
engineering (BPR), Business Process Modeling (BPM), Total Quality Management (TQM), Lean and Six Sigma,
among others (Waldner, 1992; Gibb, 2001; Bashford et al., 2005; Sacks et al., 2005; Laplante, 2005; Mohamad et

us
al., 2009; Schweikhart and Dembe, 2009; Rahman et al., 2012; Ang and Kasim, 2013; Koay and Sorooshian, 2013;
Anvari and Sorooshian, 2014; Richard et al., 2016; Andjar-Montoya et al., 2015).
Explicitly, the application of lean tools and lean thinking practices in construction projects is increasingly
an
becoming a must for any construction company to succeed in the current industry (Bashford et al., 2005;
Abdelhamid et al., 2008; Sacks et al., 2010; Salimi et al., 2012; Marhani et al., 2013; Sarhan and Fox 2013; Aziz and
Hafez, 2013; Muhammad et al., 2013). The intensity of the pursuit for the operational application of lean tools in the
M
construction projects is on the increase; this is due to the realization by construction companies of the potentials of
an effective lean project development process in reducing project completion time, engineering hours, design and
supply chain management integration, ease in constructability, environmental sustainability, flexibility, process
d

control, and increased in the quality of new projects (Bashford et al., 2005; Abdelhamid et al., 2008; Sacks et al.,
e

2010; Rahman et al., 2012; Aziz and Hafez, 2013; Marhani et al., 2013; Sarhan and Fox 2013; Muhammad et al.,
2013; Nikakhtar et al., 2015).
pt

Nonetheless, for most companies, there are still some uncertain and unresolved issues concerning the lean
application and its suitability. According Schweikhart and Dembe (2009) and Li (2011), proper prioritization and
ce

the choice of appropriate lean tool(s) is crucial for the failure or success in any organization. The improvement and
performance of the lean project development program cannot be achieved and this may lead to poor decision making
in the lean implementation roadmap.
Ac

Also, through the assessment of some methods, models and approaches in literature, there seems to be
surprisingly little academic and empirical research on the domain under discussion and most of the existing body of
knowledge on lean construction tools application are country or project specific, concentrated on lean application
and barriers to lean implementation, lean principles or lean thinking (Sacks et al., 2010; Lajevardi et al., 2011;
Marhani et al., 2013; Sarhan and Fox 2013; Muhammad et al., 2013; Nikakhtar, et al., 2015; Richard et al., 2016) or
description of a single, two or few lean tools; thereby overlooking other suitable lean tools, whilst others are
consultancy approaches which are partially and in some cases not published. Thus, the need for more empirical
research that focus on prioritization and suitability of lean tools in construction projects. Although, it is an
undeniable fact that the lean tools adoption in construction projects is very significant for delay control (Bashford et

Page 3 of 22
al., 2005; Abdelhamid et al., 2008; Sacks et al., 2010; Salimi et al., 2012; Rahman et al., 2012; Marhani et al., 2013;
Sarhan and Fox 2013; Aziz and Hafez, 2013; Nikakhtar, et al., 2015; Richard et al., 2015), but without a clear
identification and prioritization, reducing delays in the construction industry will be complicated. The stimulating
point here is concerned with applicability and suitability or categorization of the lean tools. Categorizing lean tools
based on their effectiveness in controlling delays is crucial for empowering project teams to deploy practical tools to
eliminate the delay sources and the effects resulting from delays.

t
Meanwhile, the paper also presents a generalized approach for identifying and grouping delay sources in the

ip
external project environment through a conceptual-based framework known as PESTLE (Richard et al., 2015).
Delays are common in probably every project but the alarming rate of delays in construction projects (Assaf and Al-

cr
Hejji, 2006; Iyer and Jha, 2006; Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006; Lowsley and Linnett, 2006; Sambasivan and Soon,
2007; Alaghbari et al., 2007; Memon et al., 2011; Ibrahim et al., 2012; Rahman et al., 2012; Memon, 2014; Memon

us
et al., 2014; Zayyana et al., 2014) calls for debate and a critical assessment into the real sources of delays (Norzima
et al., 2011; Kikwasi, 2012). One of the significant issues in construction projects is frequent delays, where these
delays cause multiple deceleration effects to the project parties, human lives, and the overall economy (Sambasivan

an
and Soon, 2007; Hasseb et al.; 2011; Abdullah et al., 2011; Kikwasi; 2012; Ankit et al., 2013; Zayyana et al., 2014).
It is therefore recommended that identification of delay sources should be a prime focus of the project management
team (Kikasi, 2012; Sorooshian, 2014; Richard et al., 2015) as previous studies have not been able to effectively
M
address the challenges associated with delays in the industry (Norzima et al., 2011; Aziz and Hafez, 2013;
Sorooshian, 2014; Richard et al., 2015).
In this paper, we proposed a novel framework for the holistic evaluation of the lean tools on delay sources in
d

the external environment of construction projects. The framework is intended to deal with the suitability,
applicability and categorization of the lean tools. This framework would provide a decision tool for managers to
e

determine appropriate lean tools to control specific delay sources. Hence, the findings of the proposed framework
pt

will facilitate a new lean construction paradigm.

The succeeding sections are organized as follows: Section 2 discusses the extant literature on areas including
external sources of delays and lean management. Background and theoretical foundation of AHP is presented in
ce

Section 3. Section 4 describes the proposed model and presents the results from the case study. Finally, Section 5
focuses on discussion, and conclusions is presented in Section 6.
Ac

2. Literature Review
This section discusses the extant literature on areas including external sources of delays and lean management.

2.1. External Delay Sources

The modern business environment is operating in a highly turbulent time and this has increased the need for
organizational accountability in both private and public sectors. The project environment in many developing
countries present unique challenges for projects and even human lives that almost presuppose cost and time overruns
even before the project commences (Akanni et al., 2015). Many construction projects have reported delays or poor

Page 4 of 22
performance because of many evidential environmental specific issues ranging from political, economic through to
geological conditions. There is therefore the need to understand the environment in which a system is running in
order to formulate developmental and implementation strategies (Bennett, 1991; Youker, 1992; Kuye, 2004; Muir,
2005). This is because success or failure often depends on the environment (Youker, 1992).
The numerous records of problems in projects confirmed through literature (Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006; Iyer
and Jha, 2006; Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006; Lowsley and Linnett, 2006; Sambasivan and Soon, 2007; Alaghbari et

t
al., 2007; Memon et al., 2011; Ibrahim et al., 2012; Rahman et al., 2012; Memon, 2014; Memon et al., 2014;

ip
Zayyana et al., 2014) suggest in one way or the other that there are serious delay problems in construction projects
and thus the need for the main delay sources identification (Sorooshian et al., 2010; Norzima et al., 2011;

cr
Sorooshian, 2014). The factors may, however, come from various sources; internal and external to the environment
of the project (Arman et al., 2009). Also, one noteworthy gap in the project management is observed to be

us
considering projects as systems existing in isolation from its surrounding environment (Kuye 2004). From an
examination of the deficiencies in such an approach and how to avoid them, an understanding of the concept of the
environment is very imperative. More also, previous studies have reported quite a number of delays in several

an
projects (Aibinu and Jagboro, 2002; Sambasivan and Soon, 2007) without a systematic analysis and groupings
(Sorooshian, 2014; Richard; et al., 2015).
The term Environment in management does not necessarily mean physical surroundings, but, it is used as
M
total forces, factors and influences that surround and affect business organizations as a separate entity as well as
other business organizations (Bennett, 1991). This means that business organizations must interact with those forces
that influence its decisions, directions, actions, size, health, profitability and performance as a whole. Youker
d

(1992), described construction environment as the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions or influences.
According to Akinsola et al. (1997), the environment virtually include everything outside the project; products
e

nature, customer and competitors, political, economic, geographical setting and even climate.
pt

Kuye (2004), emphasized that, the need to study business environments is very important considering the
fact that business organizations do not operate in vacuum and an effective management in complex and dynamic
society requires the assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the organization and the opportunities and threats
ce

provided by the challenges of the external environment, hence, for the survival and growth, organizations must cope
and adapt to these challenges posed by the ever changing environment in which managers operate. Also, managers
Ac

must not only be aware of what constitutes the elements of their business environment, but also should be able to
respond to the forces of the environment that inevitably impinges on the operations of the business organization.
In order to avoid any problem within the construction project process, Bennett (1991), advices construction
management to be circumspect of the environmental factors. This is because the environment interferes with the
planned progress of the construction project development. The less predictable the environment and the more severe
its potential impacts, the more it must be considered in managing construction project development.
The external delays emanate from sources outside the control of project management (Akanni et al., 2015).
These sources include Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental (Physical Environment)
(Youker, 1992; Akinsola et al., 1997; Loosemore and Muslmani, 1999; Kwak, 2002; Howes and Tah, 2003; Voelker

Page 5 of 22
et al., 2008; Al Khattab et al., 2007; Bing et al., 2005; Ling et al., 2010; Ajayi et al., 2010; Jiang, 2011; Akanni et
al., 2015) PESTLE. In recognition of the dangers from the external environment, past studies have highlighted on
the need for the development of appropriate techniques and methods, particularly tailored to project environment of
developing countries (Faniran et al., 2000). For this reason, this study concentrates on PESTLE delay sources for
further empirical enquiry. In other words, PESTLE variables which form aspect of the external environmental
analysis are considered under this paper as the criteria for further evaluation. PESTLE is mostly used for carrying

t
out investigations to understand the diverse variables and sub-variables in the macro environment which influence

ip
the performance of projects and cause delays (Collins, 2014; CIPD, 2015).
Political (Akinsola et al., 1997; Howes and Tah, 2003; Voelker et al., 2008; Al Khattab et al., 2007; Bing et al.,

cr
2005; Ling et al., 2010; Jiang, 2011; Akanni et al., 2015), Economic (Akinsola et al., 1997; Odeh and Battaineh,
2002; Howes and Tah, 2003; Akanni et al., 2015), Social-cultural (Loosemore and Muslmani, 1999; Kwak, 2002;

us
Howes and Tah, 2003; Muriithi and Crawford, 2003; Chen and Partington, 2004; Muir, 2005; Jiang, 2011;
Taherkhani et al., 2012; Enida and Vasilika, 2013), Technological (Akinsola et al., 1997; Goodrum and Haas, 2002),
Legal (Martin, 2003; Jiang, 2011; Moubaydeen et al., 2013) and Environmental (Physical Environment) (William et

an
al., 1992; Akinsola et al., 1997; Martin, 2003; Akanni et al., 2015).

2.2. Lean Management

M
About 57% of productive time delays can be found in the construction industry (Lean Construction Institute, 2014)
and these delays are attributed to the inadequacies of the current projects management tools and the inabilities of the
project teams to use robust and radical techniques to solve the challenges the industry faces (Lajevardi et al., 2011;
d

Zahidy et al., 2015). The conventional approaches to construction are considered not suitable for managing projects
with complex flow management (Johnston and Brennan, 1996; Koskela, 2000; Koskela and Howell, 2001; Ballard
e

and Howell, 1994; Richard et al., 2016). Likewise, designing the system of production with complex flow
pt

management is just achievable through the joint effort of all the participants (Aziz and Hafez, 2013) such as
architect, engineers, managers, end users, among others, at the early phases of the project. This goes beyond the
ce

traditional practices of design or build or constructability evaluations where contractors and sometimes key
participants merely respond to design instead of engaging and influencing the designs (Richard et al., 2015).
Lean production techniques make this conceivable by incorporating and engaging the effort of all the
Ac

project participants, thus, lean construction. The term Lean simply means to make work as easy as possible to
understand, perform and manage and the fundamental idea behind this concept is about minimizing wastes in
processes whiles concentrating on value added solutions to the client (Rahman et al., 2012; Aziz and Hafez, 2013).
Generally, lean application in construction projects will lead to a value-added and better delivery systems and
processes by minimizing wastes, increasing productivity and health and safety, increase productivity, ensures
environmental sustainability and improves overall project and financial performance, thus, achieve clients
requirements (Rahman et al., 2012; Koay and Sorooshian, 2013; Aziz and Hafez, 2013; Muhammad et al., 2013).
Considering the significance of lean implementation in the construction project development, a number of
studies have been conducted over the years to develop, advance or improve techniques, methods, models and

Page 6 of 22
approaches for lean construction development practices and for organizational leanness (Waldner, 1992; Bashford et
al., 2005; Sacks et al., 2005; Laplante, 2005; Mohamad et al., 2009; Schweikhart and Dembe, 2009; Rahman et al.,
2012; Koay and Sorooshian, 2013). This paper focuses on Lean due to its practice and operational effects in
construction projects (Ballard and Howell, 1994; Johnston and Brennan, 1996; Koskela, 2000; Sacks et al., 2010;
Rahman et al., 2012; Koskela and Howell, 2001; Koskela, 2013; Marhani et al., 2013; Sarhan and Fox, 2013; Aziz
and Hafez, 2013; Nikakhtar et al., 2015; Richard et al., 2016).

t
Rahman et al. (2012) proposed a waste management framework as an introductory lean implementation

ip
guide to address the existing delays and other wastes in the industry. Yet, Rahman et al. (2012) waste management
framework only made a brief description and recommendation of about 27 lean tools to be considered by Malaysian

cr
construction industrial practitioners but did not indicate the applicability of such tools. Similarly, Muhammad et al.
(2013) also highlighted only 9 tools for the Malaysian construction industry. Burton and Boeder (2003), Aziz and

us
Hafez (2013), Evbuomwan and Anumba (1998), Hines and Rich (1997) and Tsao et al. (2004) have presented
papers on the lean extended enterprise: Moving beyond the four walls to value stream excellence, Applying lean
thinking in construction and performance improvement, integrated framework for concurrent life-cycle design and

an
construction, the seven value stream mapping tools and work structuring respectively. Other studies include work of
Ballard and Howell (1994), Johnston and Brennan (1996), Bashford et al. (2005), Sacks et al. (2010), Sarhan and
Fox (2013), Marhani et al. (2013), etc.
M
While these works are worthwhile in relation to application of lean in the construction projects, they mostly
do not establish the specific delay or waste control lean tools with regards to suitability and the specific tools to
control specific delays, and thus, could not be concluded to be providing evidence of the suitability or applicability
d

of lean tools in relation to the challenges posed by delays in construction projects. There are situation where lean
tools application could fail and success and failure of lean tool implementation is dependent on the choice of the tool
e

(Li, 2011; Anvari and Sorooshian, 2014). The choice for a specific process improvement technique will depend on a
pt

particular circumstance (Anvari and Sorooshian, 2014) and the existing needs of the workplace, including
improvement objectives, knowledge, skills, type of processes and the available resources (Schweikhart and Dembe,
2009).
ce

In addressing the gap in the body of existing literature, this paper is therefore proposing a novel project
delay control framework using AHP model development, evaluation and validation for the holistic prioritization of
Ac

the lean tools in controlling delay sources in the external environment of construction projects.

3. Research Methodology
A literature review of the delay sources and lean tools in the construction project environment was conducted, and
the existing delay sources and lean tools were identified. Following the synthesis of the literature review, a
preliminary interview (checking of data collection tools) was conducted to check the suitability of the proposed
model and the comprehensibility of the construct items through experts opinions. After a critical screening by
experts, six delay sources (PESTLE) and forty potential lean tools were endorsed. Subsequently, a semi-structured

Page 7 of 22
interview was employed for data collection. The lean tools as capture in the framework were evaluated to determine
their effectiveness in minimizing the delay sources using the AHP methodology.

3.1. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The Analytic Hierarchy Process is a Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) method developed by Saaty (1980)
in the 1970s. The method has broad application in group decision making widely used around the world in different

t
fields including; engineering, business management, government, education, telecommunication, construction,

ip
health, and others. The method focuses on prioritizing selection criteria, and distinguishing the more important
criteria from the less important ones (Richard et al., 2015). According to Cabola (2010), AHP is made up of suitable

cr
techniques for prioritizing critical management problems. AHP likewise utilizes actual measures like price,
numbers, or subjective opinions as inputs into a matrix. The output incorporates ratio scales and consistency indices

us
obtain through computation of principal eigenvectors and eigenvalues (Richard et al., 2015). Because human
judgment sometimes tends to be subjective in nature, AHP allows some measures of inconsistencies (Saaty, 1980;
Alam et al., 2012; Zamani and Yousefi, 2013; Richard et al., 2015).

3.2. Theoretical Background of AHP

an
The steps of calculation that are considered in AHP according Alam et al. (2012) include; Hierarchy Construction;
M
Comparative Judgment Matrices; Normalization Procedure; and Weight Synthesis and Consistency Test. It utilizes
the judgments of decision makers to structure decision problems into hierarchies. An Opinion Scaling from point
one-nine scaling (1-9) is employed for measuring logical preferences of decision makers (Saaty, 1980; Alam et al.,
d

2012). That is, AHP constructs ranking of decision items utilizing comparisons or correlations between every pair of
items constituted as a matrix. The matched comparisons generate weighting scores that measure the amount of
e

significance items and criteria have with one another (Richard et al., 2015). Matrix algebra is then used to sort out
pt

variables to arrive at the best choice (Saaty, 1980; Cabola, 2010; Alam et al., 2012; Zamani and Yousefi, 2013;
Tayfun and Uyan, 2013; Richard et al., 2015).
The steps of the AHP methodology involve the followinf;
ce

Step 1: Hierarchy construction

Where objective is highlighted and criteria and alternatives identified.
Ac

Step 2: Pairwise comparison matrix

(1)

Where A = , and If, If,

Step 3: Weight Normalization Procedure

Page 8 of 22
 (2)

Where each value in a column j is divided by the total of the values in a column j. The total value of the columns
in the matrix must be 1 (Alam et al., 2012; Tayfun and Uyan, 2013; Richard et al., 2015).

t
ip
Step 4: Weight Synthesis and Consistency Test

cr
(3)

us
The eigenvector of matrix A will be determined by calculating as the average and then the as the average
values in the row i of Aw matrix will be calculated for the column vector C where value indicates the relative
degree of importance as illustrated above. an
Secondly, control the consistency of the weights values ( ). To do this consistency vector will be
calculated (A x C Matrix). After this, will be calculated by multiplying A and C (A x C) to achieve the second,
M
best approximation to the eigenvector (Tayfun and Uyan, 2013; Richard et al., 2015). This is shown equation below;

(4)
e d

Thirdly, estimate the . An estimation of will be calculated using the below formula;
pt

(5)

Where is the eigenvalue of the pair-wise comparison matrix, then approximation to the consistency index (CI)
will be calculated. Finally, the consistency judgment for appropriate value of n by CR has to be checked in order to
ce

ensure the consistency of pair-wise comparison matrix, as indicated in the representation below;

(6) and (7)

Ac

Range of RI is a length of the sequence of (0.00, 0.00, 0.58, 0.09, 1.12, 1.24, 1.32, 1.41, 1.45, 1.49); however, this
study contains forty alternatives and in that regards an estimated RI value of 1.7 (Alonso and Lamata, 2006) will be
used for calculation. RI represent the random consistency index and RI values for different numbers of n. If CR
0.10 (10%), then the degree of consistency is satisfactory; but if CR is > 0.10, then there is indication of serious
inconsistencies (Alam et al., 2012; Tayfun and Uyan, 2013; Richard et al., 2015).

4. Case application of the proposed framework

A set of interview guideline composed based on AHP methodology was developed for data collection and
evaluation. Upon authors consultation with Construction Industrial Development Board (the government

Page 9 of 22
department which is responsible for regulating the contractors in Malaysia), a list of top 11 contractors was obtained,
and were therefore invited for further empirical enquiry. Consequently, 10 key respondents out of 11 with high
expertise in construction projects and lean tools application responded. To ensure the experts provide reliable and
comparable quantitative data for the assessment, a semi-structured interview approach was used. First, delay-based
hierarchy consisting of potential delay sources and lean tools was constructed. The hierarchy comprise of six criteria
(delay sources-PESTLE) and forty alternatives (lean tools).

t
Meanwhile, this paper introduces an extended evaluation tools (see Table 1), and demonstrates its

ip
application. Out of 55 lean tools from available literature including; articles, books, etc., and other sources including
consultants databases, only 40 tools were endorsed by experts through the preliminary analysis. The tools were

cr
further evaluated based on their ability to minimize the delay sources; Political Sources (C1), Economic Sources
(C2), Socio-cultural Sources (C3), Technological Sources (C4), Legal Sources (C5) and Environmental Sources (C6)

us
as discussed above.
Table 1: Extended lean construction tools
Lean Tools Literature support
(A1)
(A2)
(A3)
Fail Safe for Quality
Construction Process Analysis
5S
an
(Salem et al., 2005; Rahman et al., 2012)
(Lee et al., 1999; Rahman et al., 2012)
(Rahman et al., 2012; Muhammad et al., 2013)
(A4) Work Structuring (Tsao et al., 2004; Rahman et al., 2012)
M
(A5) Statistical Process Control (SPC) (Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
(A6) Concurrent Engineering (Rahman et al., 2012; Aziz and Hafez, 2013)
(A7) Muda Walk (Rahman et al., 2012; ASQ, 2015)
d

(A8) 5 Whys (Tsao, et al., 2004; Muhammad et al., 2013)

(A9) Synchronize/Line Balancing (Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
e

(A10) Heijunka (Level Scheduling) (Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)

(A11) Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Rahman et al., 2012; Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
pt

(FMEA)
(A12) Team Preparation (Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
(A13) SMART Goals (Leanproduction.Com, 2015)
ce

(A14) Total Productive Maintenance (Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)

(TPM)
(A15) Time and Motion Study (Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
Ac

(A16) Value Stream Mapping (Rahman et al., 2012; Leanproduction.Com, 2015)

(A17) Just-In-Time (Rahman et al., 2012; Muhammad et al., 2013; Aziz and Hafez,
2013)
(A18) First Run Studies (Salem et al., 2005; Rahman et al., 2012; Muhammad et al.,
2013)
(A19) Pareto Analysis (Rahman et al., 2012)
(A20) Continuous Flow (Aziz and Hafez, 2013; Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
(A21) Last Planner System (LPS) (Rahman et al., 2012; Muhammad et al., 2013; Aziz and Hafez,
2013)
(A22) Check Sheet (Rahman et al., 2012)
(A23) Kaizen (Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)

Page 10 of 22
(A24) FIFO line (First In, First Out) (Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
(A25) Set up reduction (Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
(A26) Bottleneck Analysis (LeanProduction.Com, 2015)
(A27) Suggestion schemes (Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
(A28) Multi Process Handling (Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
(A29) Check Points & Control Points (Rahman et al., 2012; Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
(A30) Preventive Maintenance (Rahman et al., 2012; Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)

t
(A31) Kanban (Pull System) (Rahman et al., 2012; Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)

ip
(A32) Work Standardization (Rahman et al., 2012; Muhammad et al., 2013)
(A33) Visual Management (Rahman et al., 2012; Muhammad et al., 2013)

cr
(A34) Poka-Yoke (Error Proofing) (Muhammad et al., 2013; Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
(A35) Six Sigma (Rahman et al., 2012; Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
(A36) Daily Huddle Meetings (Salem et al., 2005; Rahman et al., 2012; Muhammad et al.,

us
2013)
(A37) Root Cause Analysis (Leanproduction.Com, 2015)
(A38) PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) (Leanproduction.Com, 2015)
(A39)
(A40)
Jidoka/Automation
Quality Function Development
(QFD)
an
(Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
(Alireza and Sorooshian, 2014)
M
The implementation of the proposed AHP model is summarized as follows;
A delay based hierarchy comprising six criteria and forty alternatives was constructed. The relative value of each
alternative with respect to each criteria was obtain from experts through pairwise comparison. Synthesis of the
d

weights from the pair-wise comparisons were done and their normalized values were computed to obtain their
respective eigenvalues and priority estimates. To ensure the goodness of the model, the consistency indices (CI) and
e

consistency ratios (CR) in all the reciprocal matrices were computed using the largest eigenvalues of eigenvectors
pt

(see table 2 and figure 1). Details of the results presented below can be found in Table 2, Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Firstly, the alternatives with the highest priorities for Criterion 1 in order magnitude were A6, A16 and A21
ce

with values 0.073027, 0.066672 and 0.057484, however, the lowest priorities were recorded at 0.004609, 0.004248
and 0.003953 for A29, A13 and A30 respectively. The average lambda(max) was recorded at 41.99, with
Consistency Index (CI) and Consistency Ratio (CR) computed at 0.051025641 and 3.00% respectively.
Ac

Similarly, the highest priorities for Criterion 2 in descending order were computed at 0.072381, 0.071454
and 0.060975 for alternatives A21, A6 and A36, whilst the lowest priorities were recorded at 0.004173, 0.004173
and 0.004779 for A28, A13 and A14 respectively. Besides, the average lambda(max) was recorded at 44.00, with
Consistency Index (CI) and Consistency Ratio (CR) computed at 0.102564103 and 5.26% respectively.
Again, the highest priority values for Criterion 3 were recorded at 0.073671, 0.063905 and 0.063905 for the
alternatives A6, A21, A36, meanwhile, the lowest priorities were recorded at 0.004335, 0.004301 and 0.004241 for
A28, A13 and A30 respectively. The average lambda(max) was computed at 41.51, with Consistency Index (CI)
and Consistency Ratio (CR) recorded at 0.038717949 and 2.28% respectively.

Page 11 of 22
 Also, highest priority vector values Criterion 4 were recorded at 0.066306, 0.063318 and 0.063318 for the
alternatives A6, A21 and A36, whilst, the lowest priorities were recorded at 0.005203, 0.004988 and 0.004855 for
A13, A30 and A26 respectively. Also, the average lambda(max) was recorded at 41.75, with Consistency Index
(CI) and Consistency Ratio (CR) recorded at 0.044871795 and 2.64% respectively.
More also, the priorities with the highest values in descending order for Criterion 5 were 0.066486,
0.065814 and 0.064820 for the alternatives A36, A6 and A21, meanwhile, the lowest priorities were 0.004528,

t
0.004245 and 0.004234 for A14, A15, and A13 respectively. The average lambda(max) was recorded at 43.06, with

ip
Consistency Index (CI) and Consistency Ratio (CR) recorded at 0.078461538 and 4.62% respectively
Furthermore, the alternatives in order magnitude for Criterion 6 were A6, A36, and A21 with values

cr
0.074963, 0.059003 and 0.057743, however, the lowest priorities are recorded at 0.004908, 0.004406 and 0.003966
for A14, A13, and A30 respectively. Also, the average lambda(max) was recorded at 40.34, with Consistency Index

us
(CI) and Consistency Ratio (CR) recorded at 0.008717949 and 0.51% respectively.
To estimate the overall priorities to determine the suitable alternative for the model, all the priorities for
each alternative with respect to all the criteria were computed (see table 2, figure 1 and figure 2).

Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4

an
Table 2: Overall Priorities and Ranking for the Model

Criteria 5 Criteria 6 Overall Priority Vector

A1 0.034696 0.033083 0.035012 0.035429 0.059717 0.034609 0.232547
M
A2 0.038268 0.035636 0.036794 0.035768 0.032096 0.038591 0.217153
A3 0.048979 0.047279 0.047642 0.047896 0.039959 0.050161 0.281916
A4 0.033535 0.032073 0.032999 0.035941 0.037481 0.033830 0.205859
A5 0.038185 0.035911 0.036641 0.036596 0.034526 0.039377 0.221235
d

A6 0.073027 0.071454 0.073671 0.066306 0.065814 0.074963 0.425235

e

A7 0.012104 0.012566 0.012696 0.012919 0.012784 0.013712 0.076780

A8 0.014403 0.014350 0.014494 0.014838 0.010296 0.015661 0.084042
pt

A9 0.015848 0.015642 0.016034 0.014958 0.011945 0.016736 0.091163

A10 0.009116 0.008894 0.008841 0.011119 0.008740 0.009565 0.056275
A11 0.017713 0.016980 0.017404 0.015291 0.015342 0.018674 0.101403
ce

A12 0.005750 0.005853 0.005976 0.005410 0.011755 0.006134 0.040878

A13 0.004248 0.004173 0.004301 0.005203 0.004234 0.004406 0.026566
A14 0.004786 0.004779 0.004915 0.005307 0.004528 0.004908 0.029223
Ac

A15 0.004965 0.005030 0.005250 0.006458 0.004245 0.005233 0.031181

A16 0.066672 0.033083 0.052563 0.041462 0.033789 0.033221 0.260790
A17 0.037613 0.035636 0.029860 0.037295 0.054155 0.040347 0.234905
A18 0.022911 0.047279 0.045724 0.042463 0.030258 0.022730 0.211365
A19 0.032339 0.032073 0.033859 0.043672 0.036593 0.037760 0.216296
A20 0.027834 0.035911 0.032393 0.018289 0.038280 0.032878 0.185584
A21 0.057484 0.072381 0.063905 0.063318 0.064820 0.057743 0.379652
A22 0.017095 0.012566 0.010811 0.013864 0.013494 0.022563 0.090393
A23 0.015700 0.014350 0.013238 0.021968 0.012765 0.006497 0.084518
A24 0.014291 0.015642 0.011878 0.009396 0.004982 0.034042 0.090231

Page 12 of 22
A25 0.006806 0.008894 0.008601 0.016897 0.009303 0.008445 0.058945
A26 0.024277 0.016980 0.015231 0.004855 0.013532 0.007908 0.082783
A27 0.008620 0.005853 0.010709 0.008518 0.014704 0.005998 0.054402
A28 0.005527 0.004173 0.004335 0.007207 0.004803 0.012923 0.038968
A29 0.003953 0.004779 0.007151 0.007745 0.009581 0.008934 0.042144
A30 0.004609 0.005030 0.004241 0.004988 0.004569 0.003966 0.027402
A31 0.066672 0.066540 0.052563 0.041462 0.034596 0.033221 0.295055

t
A32 0.037511 0.030267 0.029860 0.037295 0.054155 0.040347 0.229434

ip
A33 0.022911 0.041970 0.045724 0.042463 0.030258 0.022730 0.206056
A34 0.032339 0.026148 0.033859 0.043672 0.036593 0.037760 0.210371

cr
A35 0.027834 0.026666 0.032393 0.018289 0.038280 0.032878 0.176339
A36 0.057484 0.060975 0.063905 0.063318 0.066486 0.059003 0.371172
A37 0.017095 0.015368 0.010811 0.013864 0.013494 0.022563 0.093195

us
A38 0.015700 0.010322 0.013238 0.021968 0.012765 0.006497 0.080490
A39 0.014291 0.012872 0.011878 0.009396 0.004982 0.034042 0.087461
A40 0.006806 0.020541 0.008601 0.016897 0.009303 0.008445 0.070592
1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000
an 1.000000 1.000000
M
To check inconsistencies in the experts opinions, a consistency analysis is calculated to ensure satisfaction and
consistency in the models results. This is illustrated in Table 3 below. From the table, the results was found to be
d

satisfactory or acceptable because the inconsistency is less than 0.1 or the CR is less than 10%.
e

Table 3: Consistency Analysis

pt

Criterion Consistency Index (CI) Consistency Ratio (CR) Percentages (%)

C1 0.051025641 0.030015083 3.00%
C2 0.102564103 0.060331825 6.03%
ce

C3 0.038717949 0.022775264 2.28%

C4 0.044871795 0.026395173 2.64%
C5 0.078461538 0.046153846 4.62%
Ac

C6 0.008717949 0.005128205 0.51%

The prioritization of the lean tools in the construction projects with respect to their ability to minimize external delay
sources is realized. The criteria were found be strongly influenced by three; Concurrent Engineering, Last Planner
System (LPS) and Daily Huddle Meetings. However, the least suitable lean tools were found to be Total Productive
Maintenance (TPM), Preventive Maintenance and SMART Goals.
Clearly, the first criterion, which is Political delay sources found Concurrent Engineering, Last Planner
System (LPS) and Value Stream Mapping as the topmost influential lean tools. Meanwhile, the weak influential lean
tools were Check Points and Control Points, SMART Goals and Preventive Maintenance. Also, the most effective

Page 13 of 22
tools in order of importance with respect to the second criterion, which is Economic delay sources were Last Planner
System (LPS), Concurrent Engineering and Daily Huddle Meetings. However, the least effectual tools were Total
Productive Maintenance (TPM), SMART Goals and Multi Process Handling. The third criterion, which is Social
delay sources found Concurrent Engineering, Last Planner System (LPS) and Daily Huddle Meetings to be most
effective lean tools. Conversely, Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), SMART Goals and Preventive Maintenance
were found to be the least effective tools. The fourth criterion, which is Technological delay sources found

t
Concurrent Engineering, Last Planner System (LPS) and Daily Huddle Meetings to be most effective lean tools. On

ip
the other hand, SMART Goals, Preventive Maintenance and Bottleneck Analysis were found to be the least effective
tools. Similarly, the five criterion (Legal delay sources) found Daily Huddle Meetings, Concurrent Engineering and

cr
Last Planner System (LPS) to be the most effective, whereas, Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), Time and
Motion Study and SMART Goals were found to be the least effective tools. Finally, for the six criterion which is

us
Environmental delay sources, Concurrent Engineering, Daily Huddle Meetings and Last Planner System (LPS) were
found to be most effective lean tools. On the other hand, Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), SMART Goals and
Preventive Maintenance were found to be the least effective.

an
Finally, even though most available literature in the domain concentrate on only aspects of lean tools (i.e.
one or two lean tools), the proposed framework results was compared with literature, and the comparison found
among others support from the work of Faizul (2006), Hamid et al. (2009), Rahman et al. (2012), Muhammad et al.
M
(2013) as suitable for delay reduction or delay response for Malaysian construction industry.
Based on the findings, the lean tools have been grouped into three main categories namely; Top 11, Middle
Level and Down Level. This categorization is based on the result of the priorities (refer to figure 1). The categories
d

of lean tools are shown in Figure 2 below.

e
pt

5. Discussion

The study was conducted in particular research domain where the findings are constrained by the experiences from
ce

the case companies and therefore, the generalizability of the outcomes might be limited. Despite the fact that, delay
sources and lean tools application is unique to context, the outcomes might contrast in different domain or with
different respondents. There may be different opinions of the lean tools in light of individual expertise. Thus,
Ac

replications of this study in different settings would strengthen the model. Besides, the study relied on various pre-
identified variables and hence may not be as comprehensive as it could have been. Thus, these variables could just
explain a portion of the perceived delay sources and lean tools, and in the result. There might be other variables
which are not part of this study, but, might have significant effect on the study's domain.
Future studies could compare experiences using two distinctive groups of experts. Such a comparative
analysis would reveal some interesting findings. The results can be compared. Thereby, any intervention which
arranges to improve project delay would be in great acceptance. This will help to understand the significant
difference (if any) between the results obtained from different groups or even other settings. Secondly, the
theoretical building developed in this study can be applied to other contexts such as other industries. However, one

Page 14 of 22
 must confirm about the following; the case companys expertise in lean management, consistency in instrument
development and validation.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, the authors proposed a novel framework for evaluating lean tools in the external environment of
construction projects using AHP. The study has extended the lean tools to form a new holistic and unifying model

t
for the study. Also, the scope of delay identification research has been extended through a generalized conceptual

ip
framework for identifying and grouping delay sources. The selected lean tools were evaluated based on their ability
to minimize the delay sources. In handling the validity, reliability, subjectivity and inconsistencies in the data

cr
provided by the experts from the case companies, firstly, a preliminary analysis was undertaken to measure the
construct items. This was followed by a semi-structured interview and finally, a consistency analysis was computed.

us
The findings of the framework confirmed Concurrent Engineering, Last Planner System (LPS) and Daily Huddle
Meetings as the most effective lean tools for the delay sources mitigation. Meanwhile, the least influenced lean tools
were found to be Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), Preventive Maintenance and SMART Goals. The findings
an
from this study would serve as an advisory system and method for project development and thus, offer industrial
practitioners with an understanding of how an individual delay source could be minimized with some specific lean
tools. In summary, the study has theoretical, methodological and practical contributions. Theoretically, the study
M
extends construction delay control research by incorporating lean tools as an integrated delay control tool and
modeling its impact on delay sources in Malaysian construction projects. Methodologically, the study proves that
AHP, could be used to estimate the parameters of a complex research model involving a number of criteria and
d

alternatives. Practically, the study provides construction managements with a delay control model for conducting
e

integrated retrospective analysis, and help practitioners to build up robust project delivery systems and advance
evidence-based practice to allow operative decisions in the industry.
pt

Reference
ce

Abdelhamid, T., S., El-Gafy, M., and Salem, O. 2008. Lean Construction: Fundamentals and Principles. American
Professional Constructor Journal. 4. pp. 8-19.
Aibinu, A.A. and Jagboro, G.O. 2002. The effects of construction delays on project delivery in Nigerian construction
industry. International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 20, Iss. 8. pp. 593-599.
Ac

Ajayi, O.M., Ogunsanmi, O.E., Ajayi, K.A. and Ofili, C.M. 2010. The Construction, Building and Real Estate Research
Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (COBRA 2010): Proceedings of Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors (RICS).
Akinsola, A.O., Potts, K.F. and Harris, F.C. 1997. Identification and evaluation of factors influencing variations on building
project. International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 15, Iss. 4. pp. 263-267.
Al Khattab, A.A., Anchor, J. and Davies, E. 2007. Managerial perceptions of political risk in international projects.
International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 25, Iss. 7. pp. 734-743.
Alaghbari, W.A.M., Razali, A. K., Azizah, S. and Ernawati. 2007. The significant factors causing delay of building
construction projects in Malaysia. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. Vol. 14, Iss. 2. pp.
192-206. DOI: 10.1108/09699980710731308
Alam, M. N., Jebran, J. K., and Hossain, M. A. 2012. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach on consumers
preferences for selecting telecom operators in Bangladesh. Info and Knowled Managmt.7-19.

Page 15 of 22
Alireza, A., and Sorooshian, S. 2014. Lean Manufacturing Tools. UMP Publisher, Kuantan, Malaysia.
Alonso, J. A. and Lamata, M. T. 2006. Consistency in the Analytic Hierarchy Process: A New Approach. International
Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems. Vol. 14, Iss. 4. pp. 445-459.
Andjar-Montoya, M., Gilart-Iglesias, V., Montoyo, A. and Marcos-Jorquera, D. 2015. A Construction Management
Framework for Mass Customisation in Traditional Construction. Sustainability. Vol. 7. pp. 51825210.
Ang, P. S. E. and Kasim, N. 2013. ICT-readiness in Industrialised Building System (IBS) management processes: case
studies. 1st FPTP Postgraduate Seminar 2013, 23 December 2013, Fakulti Pengurusan Teknologi dan Perniagaan,
UTHM , Malaysia.

t
Arman, A. R., Jaafar, M., Shardy, A. and Samsiah, M. 2009. Work Environment Factors and Job Performance: The

ip
Construction Managers Perspective. In: International Conference of Construction Industri, 30 Julai-1 Ogos, Padang
Indonesia.
Assaf, S.A and Al-Hejji, S. 2006. Causes of delay in large construction projects. International Journal Project Management.

cr
Vol. 24, Iss. 4. pp. 349357.
Aziz, F.R., and Hafez, M.S. 2013. Applying lean thinking in construction and performance improvement. Alexandria
Engineering Journal. Vol. 52, Iss. 4. pp. 679695.

us
Ballard, G., and Howell, G.A. 1994. Implementing Lean Construction: Stabilizing Work Flow. Proceedings of the 2nd
Annual Meeting of the International Group for Lean Construction, Santiago, Chile.
Ballard, G., Howell, G.A. 2003. Competing Construction Management Paradigms. Proceedings of the 2003 ASCE
Construction Research Congress, Honolulu, Hawaii.
an
Ballard, G., Howell, G.A. 2004. Competing Construction Management Paradigms. Lean Construction Journal. Vol. 1, Iss. 1.
pp. 38-45.
Bashford, H., Walsh, K. and Sawhney, A. 2005. Production system loading - cycle time relationship in residential
M
construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Vol. 131, Iss. 1. pp. 15 22.
Bennett, J. 1991. International Construction Project Management: General Theory and Practice. Butterworths-Heinemann,
Oxford. 432 pages. ISBN-13: 978-0750613309
Bing, L., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P. J. and Hard-castle, C. 2005. The allocation of risk in PPP/PFI construction projects in the
d

UK. International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 23, Iss. 1. pp. 25-35.
Burton, T. T. and Boeder, S.M. 2003. The lean extended enterprise: Moving beyond the four walls to value stream
e

excellence. Boca Raton, Fla: J. Ross Publications, 2003.

Cabola, P. 2010. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Evaluating decision alternatives. Operatn Res and Deci. 5-23.
pt

Cay T. and Uyan, M. 2013. Evaluation of reallocation criteria in land consolidation studies using the Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP). Land Use Policy. 541548.
Chen, P. and Partington, D. 2004. An interpretive comparison of Chinese and Western conceptions of relationships in
ce

construction project management work. International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 22. pp. 397-406.
CIPD. 2015. PESTLE analysis history and application. http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/pestle-analysis.as
Collins, Rob. 2014. A Graphical Method for Exploring the Business Environment. PESTLEWEB. 1-18.
Enida, P., B., and Vasilika, K. 2013. How the Albanian External Environment affect the Construction Industry. Annales
Ac

Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica. Vol. 15, Iss. 1. pp. 295-309.

Evbuomwan, N. F. and Anumba, C. 1998. An integrated framework for concurrent life-cycle design and construction. Adv.
Eng. Softw. 29, 587597.
Faizul, N. A. 2006. Supply chain management in IBS industry. Malaysia International IBS Exhibition 2006 (MIIE06), Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia (CIDB-ibsdigest).
Faniran, O. O., Love, P. E. D. and Love, J. 2000. Effective front-end project management - a key element in achieving
project success in developing countries. <http://citeseerx.ist.psu. edu/viewdoc/download?>
Faridi, A. S. and El-Sayegh, S. M. 2006. Significant factors causing delay in the UAE construction industry. Construction
Management and Economics. Vol. 24, 11. pp. 11671176. DOI: 10.1080/01446190600827033
Gibb, A. G. F. 2001. Standardization and pre-assembly- distinguishing myth from reality using case study research.
Construction Management and Economics, 19(3), 307-315.

Page 16 of 22
Goodrum, P. M. and Haas, C. T. 2002. Partial Factor Productivity and Equipment Technology Change at Activity Level in
U.S. Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Vol. 128. pp. 463-472.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and Tirtiroglu, E. 2001. Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Vol. 21. http://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110358468
Hamid, Z. A., Kamar, K. A. M. and Mustafa, A. 2009. The Critical Success Factors (CSFs) to IBS. Proceedings in IBS
International Seminar, Malaysian IBS International Exhibition 2009 (MIIE 2009), Kuala Lumpur, 21st 23rd
January.
Hines, P. and Rich, N. 1997. The seven value stream mapping tools. International Journal of Operations and Production

t
Management, Vol. 17, Iss. 1. pp. 46-64.

ip
Howes, R. and Tah, H.M. 2003. Strategic management applied to international construction, London: Thomas Telford
Publishing. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/custom, 2010-05-28.
http://www.xining.gov.cn/html/120/208963.html, 2011-06-13.

cr
Ibrahim, A.R., Roy, M. H., Ahmed, Z. and Imtiaz, G. 2010. An Investigation of the Status of the Malaysian Construction
Industry. Bench-marking: An International Journal. Vol. 17, Iss. 2. pp. 294-308.
Iyer, K. C. and Jha, K. N. 2006. Factors Affecting Schedule Performance: Evidence from Indian Construction Projects.

us
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE. Vol. 132, Iss. 8. pp. 871-881.
Jiang, D. 2011. Engineering Project Management in the International Context: A Chinese Culture-Based Exploratory and
Comparative Evaluation. Department of Engineering and Technology Management. University of Pretoria. PhD
Thesis.
an
Johnston, R., B., and Brennan, M. 1996. Planning or organizing: the implications of theories of activity for management of
operations. Omega, International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 24, Iss. 4. 36784.
Koay, B. H. and Sorooshian, S. 2013. Study on Impact of Lean Six Sigma. J. Manag. Sci. 3. pp. 9196.
M
Koskela, L. 2000. An exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction. Espoo: VTT Publications.
www.inf.vtt.fi/pdf/publications/2000/P408.pdf
Koskela, L., and Howell, G. 2001. Reforming project management: the role of planning execution and control. In:
Proceedings 9th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-9), 68 August,
d

Singapore.
Koskela, L., Blviken, T., and Rooke, J. 2013. Which are the Wastes of Construction? Proceedings IGLC-21, Theory,
e

Fortaleza, Brazil, pp. 3-11, http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/18410348.pdf

Koskela, L., Howell, G., Ballard, G., and Tommelein, I. 2002. Foundations of Lean Construction. In Best, Rick; de Valence,
pt

Gerard. Design and Construction: Building in Value. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier. ISBN:
0750651490.
Kuye, J.O. 2004. Continental Policy Targeting and the Nepadisation Process: Issues, Trends and Options. Journal of Public
ce

Administration. Vol. 39, Iss. 4. pp. 458 469.

Kwak, Y.H. 2002. Critical success factors in international development project management. CIB 10th International
Symposium Construction Innovation and Global Competitiveness, Sept. 9-13, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Lajevardi, A., Endut, I. R. and Paydar, S. 2011. Application of lean model to reduce waste of time in construction: Case study
Ac

of concreting taskin Malaysia. IEEE Colloquim on Humanities, Science and Engineering. pp. 345-350.
Laplante, P. A. 2005. Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering, Second Edition. (CRC Press, 2005).
Lean Construction Institute. 2014. What Is Lean Construction? http://www.leanuk.leanconstruction.org/whatis.htm,
LeanProduction.com. 2015. Online Resource for Lean-Based Information and Tools. http://leanproduction.com/
Lee, S. H., Diekmann, J. E., Songer, A. D. and Brown, H. 1999. Identifying Waste: Application of Construction Process
Analysis. Proceedings IGLC7.University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. 63-72.
Li, C. 2011. A customised lean model for a Chinese areospace OEM (original equipment manufacturer). MSc Thesis.
Cranfield University, UK. : 130.
Ling, F., Yean Y. and Hoang, V. P. 2010. Political, economic and legal risks faced in international projects: Case study of
Vietnam. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. Vol. 136, Iss. 3. pp. 156-164.

Page 17 of 22
Lingling, C. and Hongchang, Q. 2011. Evaluation for economics and legislative factors influence the design team and
contractor throughout a building project from inception to completion. Journal of System and Management
Sciences. Vol. 1, Iss. 6. pp. 94-108.
Loosemore, M. and Muslmani, H.S.A 1999. Construction project management in the Persian Gulf: inter-cultural
communication. International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 17, Iss. 2. pp. 95-100.
Lowsley, S. and Linnett, C. 2006. About Time: Delay Analysis in Construction. RICS Business Services Limited.
Marhani, M. A., Jaapar, A., Nor-Azmi, A. B. and Zawawi, M. 2013. Sustainability through Lean Construction Approach: A
Literature Review. AMER (ABRA Malaysia) International Conference on Quality of Life. 101. 9099.

t
Martin, L. 2003. Essentials of construction project management (Construction Management Series). University of New South

ip
Wales Press Ltd., Australia. 416 pages. ISBN-13: 9780868407333
Memon, A. H. 2014. Contractor Perspective on Time Overrun Factors in Malaysian Construction Projects. International
Journal of Science, Environment and Technology. Vol. 3, Iss. 3. pp. 1184-1192.

cr
Memon, A. H., Rahman, A., Abdullah, M. R. and Azis, A. A. A. 2011. Time Overrun in Construction Projects from the
Perspective of Project Management Consultant (PMC). Journal of Surveying, Construction and Property. Vol. 2, Iss.
1. pp. 54-66.

us
Memon, A. H., Rahman, A., Abdullah, M. R. and Azis, A. A. A. 2014. Factors affecting construction cost performance in
project management projects: Case of MARA large projects. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Built
Environment. Vol. 1, Iss. 1. pp. 30-35.
an
Mohamad, I. M., Mardhiah, Z. and Nekooie, M. A. 2009. Implementing Industrialised Building System (IBS) in Malaysia:
Acceptance and Awareness Level, Problems and Strategies. Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering. pp. 219234.
Moubaydeen, S., Julian, P., Tuck J., Walker M. and Mackay, N. 2013. Construction and projects in Qatar: overview.
Association of Corporate Counsel, Multi-Jurisdictional Guide 2013/14. Construction and Projects,
M
practicallaw.com/5-519-5882
Muhammad, W.M.N.W., Ismail, Z. and Hashim, A.E. 2013. Exploring lean construction components for Malaysian
construction industry. Business Engineering and Industrial Applications Collooquium (BEIAC), 7-9 April 2013,
Langkawi, Malaysia.
d

Muir, B., PE. 2005. Challenges Facing Todays Construction Manager. For: CIEG 486-010 Construction Methods and
Management. http://www.ce.udel.edu/courses/CIEG%20486/Challenges%20Facing%20Today%27s%20CM.pdf
e

Muriithi, N. and Crawford, L. 2003. Approaches to project management in Africa: implications for international development
projects. International Journal of Project Management. 21.
pt

Nikakhtar, A., Hosseini, A. A., Wong, K. Y. and Zavichi, A. 2015. Application of lean construction principles to reduce
construction process waste using computer simulation: A case study. International Journal of Service and Operations
Management. Vol. 20, Iss. 4. pp. 461-480.
ce

Norzima, Z., Sorooshian, S., Chow, K., W. 2011. Effective project management. Lambert Academic Publishing. Germany,
ISBN: 978-3-8465-9119-2.
Odeh, A. M. and Battaineh, H. T. 2002. Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts. International Journal of Project
Management. Vol. 20, Iss. 1. pp. 67-73.
Ac

Ofori, G. 2000. Challenges of Construction industries in developing countries: lessons from various countries. Proceedings of
2nd International Conference of CIB on Construction in Countries: Gabarone, Botswana, 40-50.
Rahman, A.H., Wang, C.; and Lim, I.Y.W. 2012. Waste processing framework for non-value-adding activities using lean
construction. J. Front. Constr. 1. pp. 813.
Richard, H. A., Sorooshain, S. and Mustafa, S. Bin. 2015. Lean Construction: An Effective Approach for Project
Management. Malaysian Technical Universities Conference on Engineering and Technology 2015, 11-13 October,
Johor, Malaysia.
Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw, Hill International, New York, NY, USA.
Sacks, R., Eastman, C. M., Lee, G. and Orndorff, D. 2005. A Target Benchmark of the Impact of Three-Dimensional
Parametric Modeling in Precast Construction. PCI J. 50. 126139.
Sacks, R., Radosavljevic, M., and Barak, R. 2010. Requirements for building information modeling based lean production
management systems for construction. Automation in Construction. Vol. 19, Iss. 5. pp. 641655.

Page 18 of 22
Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A. and Luegring, M. 2005. Site Implementation and Assessment of Lean Construction
Techniques. Lean Construction Journal. Vol. 2, Iss. 2. pp. 1-21.
Salimi, M., Hadjali, H., R., Sorooshian, S. 2012. A Lean Production Framework for Malaysian Automotive and Heavy
Machinery Industry. Journal of Applied Sciences. Vol. 12, Iss. 13. pp.1402-1407.
Sambasivan, M. and Soon, Y. W. 2007. Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction industry. International
Journal of Project Management. 25. 517526
Sarhan, S. and Fox, A. 2013. Barriers to Implementing Lean Construction in the UK Construction Industry. The Built and
Human Environment Review. 6. 2013.

t
Schweikhart, S. A. and Dembe, A. E. 2009. The applicability of Lean and Six Sigma techniques to clinical and translational

ip
research. J. Investig. Med. 57. pp. 74855.
Sorooshian, S. 2014. Delay-based Reliability Analysis on Construction Projects, Life Science Journal. Vol. 11, Iss. 3. pp.
104113.

cr
Sorooshian, S. 2015. Modification of risk assessment value to test industry reliability. AIP Conf. Proc. 1660, 090009 (2015);
28-30 May 2014, Penang, Malaysia. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4915853
Taherkhani, R., Saleh, A. L., Nekooie, M., A. and Mansur, S. A. 2012. External factors influencing on Industry Building

us
System (IBS) in Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Policy. Vol. 1, Iss. 2. pp.
66-79.
Tsao, C. C. Y., Tommelein, I. D., Swanlund, E. S. and Howell, G. A. 2004. Work Structuring to Achieve Integrated Product-
an
Process Design. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Vol. 130, Iss. 6. pp. 180-189.
Voelker, C., Permana, A., Sachs, T. and Tiong, R. L. K. 2008. Political risk perception in Indonesian power projects. Journal
of Financial Management of Property and Construction. Vol. 13, Iss. 1. pp. 18-34.
Waldner, J.-B. 1992. CIM: Principles of Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. Wiley and Sons
M
William E., E., Hassanein, A. and John M. 1992. Evaluating Factors That Affect Construction Project Duration. USACERL
Technical Report, FF-92/09.
Youker, R. 1992. Managing the International Project Environment. International Journal of Project Management,
Butterworth-Heinemann. Vol. 10, Iss. 4. pp. 219-226.
d

Zahidy, A., H., Azlinna, A. and Sorooshian, S 2015. Predictors for the Success and Survival of Entrepreneurs in the
Construction Industry. International Journal of Engineering Business Management. Vol. 7, Iss. 12.
e

Zamani, R., and Yousefi, P. 2013. Optimal decision making approach for selecting effort estimation model. Int J. of Machine
Learning and Computing, 1-4.
pt

Zayyana, S., Rohani, E. I., Akintola, A. and Holt, G. D. 2014. Cost overrun in the Malaysian construction projects: A deeper
insight. International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 32, Iss. 8. pp. 1471-1480.
ce
Ac

Page 19 of 22
 External Delay Sources

Criteria

t
Socio- Environme
Political Economic Technology Legal
cultural

ip
nt

cr
us
Lean Tool 1 Lean Tool 7
Lean Tool
15
Lean Tool
24
an
Lean Tool
32
Lean Tool
40
M
40 Lean
Tools

Alternatives
d

Fig. 1.
e

Conceptual Model.
pt
ce
Ac

Page 20 of 22
 t
ip
cr
us
Fig. 2.

Overall Priority.
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac

Page 21 of 22
 t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt

Fig. 3.
ce

Lean Construction Framework.

Ac

Page 22 of 22