International Journal of Construction Project Management ISSN: 1944-1436

Volume 8, Number 1 © Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

USING LEAN PRINCIPLES TO REDUCE WASTES IN

THE CONCRETING SUPPLY CHAIN

Low Sui Pheng1,, Gao Shang2, and Luen Ka Wing Peter3

1
Professor, Department of Building, National University of Singapore
2
Lecturer, School of Architecture and the Built Environment,
The University of Newcastle, Australia, Singapore Campus
3
Research Student Assistant, Department of Building, National University of Singapore

ABSTRACT
Lean principles have been studied in the concreting supply chain and the
quantification of waste has been made. This study focuses on waste performance in the
concreting supply chain in Singapore and examines the relationship between the Lean
practices adopted and waste reduction. Exploratory and pilot studies were used to
formulate the questionnaire. Survey questionnaires were sent to 180 construction firms in
Singapore. 42 sets of data were collected. A one-way t-test was conducted to study
respondents’ perceptions of the effectiveness of adopting Lean principles to reduce waste.
Correlation analysis was further carried out to explore relationships between Lean
practices and the reduction of time and material wastes. Based on the findings, key
wastes in the concreting supply chain were identified, and the relationship between Lean
principles and waste performance, and general perceptions on Lean practices and waste
reduction were determined. Finally, a case study was undertaken to gain further insights
into the identified wastes and Lean principles. Appropriate recommendations for waste
reduction were made based on the findings.

Keywords: waste, concreting, supply chain, lean principles, Singapore

1. INTRODUCTION
Construction activities are often detrimental to the environment as they produce
greenhouse gases and generate waste. Significant waste is inevitable in the form of by-
products from construction works, and especially in wet concrete works. Most buildings in
modern Singapore are constructed with reinforced concrete, and almost all of the concrete
used in these projects is supplied from off-site batching plants (Wang et al. 2001). The use of
ready mixed concrete (RMC) still remains highly favourable compared to prefabrication, due


bdglowsp@nus.edu.sg
4 Low Sui Pheng, Gao Shang, and Luen Ka Wing Peter

to the advantages that it provides. There is a huge ecological footprint in the production of
concrete and reinforcement bars, and these further undermine sustainable development.
Productivity in the construction industry is rated as one of the lowest productivity rates
across a range of industries, due to construction’s heavy reliance on labour and unfavourable
environments (Dubois and Gadde 2002). “Lean Production” provides a further definition of
waste that includes times delay, quality costs, lack of safety, unnecessary transportation trips,
long distances, improper choice, and improper management methods (Koskela 1992; Serpell
1995). Lean also aims to increase productivity and reduce waste in work processes.
Concreting work, especially using ready mix concrete, is a complex issue encompassing both
supply chain and construction management challenges. It is thus important to evaluate
whether supply chain and Lean practices contribute to reducing waste in concreting works,
and to a step towards achieving sustainability. Additionally, with the low productivity of the
construction industry, it is relevant to determine whether enhancing both forms of
management can contribute to increased productivity.
This study aims to determine the key waste sources in concreting works on the
construction site, to investigate the effectiveness of Lean practices in reducing waste, and to
recommend strategies and measures to minimize concreting waste.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Waste in Construction

Construction Waste
The construction industry is often labelled a huge generator of waste. Traditionally, waste
in construction is defined by the Chartered Institute of Building (1980) as: “the difference
between the value of those materials delivered and accepted on site and those properly used
as specified and accurately measured in the work, after deducting the cost-saving of
substituted materials and those transferred elsewhere (p1)”. Based on this definition
construction waste has arguably attributed to 40% of total waste generated (Bossink and
Brouwers 1996), which has caused significant impact on the environment. Many studies have
shown that construction waste and debris are the main contributions to waste and have proven
to be costly. In the United Kingdom, Skoyles and Skoyles (1987) found that material waste is
about 10% in volume. In Brazil, Soibelman (1993) established that waste of materials varies
from 5% to 12% in terms of cost.
Additionally, waste could also be defined in several other ways in the construction
industry. Waste should be interpreted as any incompetence that results in the use of resources
in larger quantities than are necessary in the construction of building (Formoso et al. 1999).
Koskela (1992) defined waste to include both the occurrence of material losses as well as the
execution of unnecessary work. These generate additional costs but do not add value to the
deliverables.

Impact of Material and Time Waste

Material and time waste on construction project sites represents a significant loss of
resources and project profitability (Low and Tan 1997). Azhar (1992) identified that the
 Using Lean Principles to Reduce Wastes in the Concreting Supply Chain 5

unavailability of materials from wasteful practices would affect work productivity, while time
is unnecessarily wasted due to reworking, reordering, and extra handling of materials.
Enshassi (1996) identified that the characteristics of the construction site, the design of the
building, and the construction methods contribute to the differences in waste levels. The
relationship of waste to productivity is further established in Alarcon’s (1997) study, which
concluded that the waste level of materials is inversely related to the productivity of the
project site.
As for time waste, studies have shown that levels of unproductive time still remain high
in the construction industry; 24% on average in Australia, Sweden and Netherlands
(Vershuren 1980) and 43% in Nigeria (Olomolaiye et al. 1987). This issue has been amplified
by the introduction of the JIT (Just-In-Time) concept (Low and Tan 1998). The most
significant reasons for time waste are a shortage of labour, unskilled workers, poor workflow
layout, and poor planning. In Singapore, foreign unskilled workers have contributed
significantly to time waste, as they are not concerned with productivity (Low and Mok 1999).
However, little attempt is made in Singapore to study such construction waste or
unproductive time. Nevertheless, such parameters need to be studied in the Singaporean
context to relieve sustainability and productivity pressures.

2.2. Lean Principles

It is commonly acknowledged that lean principles originated from the Toyota Production
System (TPS), first developed by Toyota to encompass its management principles and
practices. TPS has been broadly adopted by many organizations and industries to improve
their operations. Liker (2004) has identified 14 principles under the TPS. There are many
writings about lean principles and lean framework. It is worth examining the core principles
of lean.

Muda
Apart from natural waste, which is inevitable and unavoidable, and which is allowed in a
project (Skoyles 1978), within the context of lean, there is a list of activity wastes (Liker
2004; Ohno 1988) or Muda—a Japanese word meaning waste or wastefulness. Although
there can be more wastes than those indicated in this current study, the following seven
wastes are commonly categorized by many researchers, including Ohno (1988), as muda:

1. Transportation: Waste occurs when transportation activity does not make any
transformations to the product or add value.
2. Inventory: Waste occurs when items of raw materials, work-in-progress, or finished
goods are not processed and no value is added.
3. Motion: Motion waste refers to the damage that the production process causes (wear
and tear or stress injuries to workers) to the product associated with moving them
around.
4. Waiting: Waste due to waiting occurs when goods are not being processed or
transported.
5. Over-processing: Waste occurs when more products are produced than are needed.
This form of waste is considered the worst muda, as it generates all the other wastes.
6 Low Sui Pheng, Gao Shang, and Luen Ka Wing Peter

6. Overproduction: production of a greater quantity than is required or earlier. This

would cause waste of resources needed in order to produce the extra quantity.
7. Defects: Extra costs that are incurred in reworking and rectifying defective works are
considered waste.

Mura and Muri

The Japanese word Mura means unevenness or lack of uniformity. It also represents
excess variations in either processes or by demand. Ohno (1988) explained that inconsistency
in a process occurs when there is a lack of standardization of the process; each unique method
will create waste additional to the process and this, too, creates quality problems. There is a
law of diminishing returns for productivity when machines or the labour force are being
exerted above a reasonable level (Schmenner 1991). In machines, Muri causes wear and tear,
quality problems, and breakdowns, while in the labour force, Muri leads to stress, fatigue, and
reduced job satisfaction.

JIT/Kanban
Manufacturing processes tend to have supporting inventory “just in case”; these can serve
as safety stocks, to replace defective materials, and work in progress (Low 1992). Eliminating
high inventory levels in the manufacturing process would be a step towards waste reduction
under the TPS (or Toyota Production System). The Kanban system is designed to be a
scheduling system that controls what to produce, when to produce it, and how much of it to
produce; it functions instead of an inventory control system (Ohno 1988). Under the Kanban
system, the amount of production or supply is determined by the actual demand from
customers or clients. However, in situations where supply times are long and the demand
from customers or clients is difficult to estimate, the producer can only do the best to be
proactive and observe demand trends. The Kanban system can also be used as a demand
system that activates the different functions within the supply chain.

Kaizen
The Japanese word Kaizen means “improvement” or “change for the better” and also
refers to a management philosophy that emphasizes continuous improvement within the
organization (Imai 1986). Kaizen includes activities that continually improve all work tasks
and functions, involving all levels of staff. Howell (1999) stated that Kaizen is a daily activity
with an objective to go beyond simple productivity improvement. Its results are far-reaching
and capable of humanizing production lines, eliminating waste, and teaching workers self-
improvement. In all, the main objective is to utilize the human resources of an organization
and to encourage workers’ participation in Kaizen activities. Successful implementation
would require all levels within the organization to commit to such activities.

Supply–Customer Relationship
TPS utilizes the “just-in-time” concept for its production. This means that the delivery of
material will only be done just before it is required. However, as the distance of the supplier
from the customer increases, just-in-time delivery becomes more complicated. The amount of
materials on hand and the routes taken inevitably increase. Low (1992) argued that there are
justifications for minimizing the distance between the supplier and customers for good
supplier–customer relationships. Toyota requires their suppliers to be located within close
 Using Lean Principles to Reduce Wastes in the Concreting Supply Chain 7

proximity to the location of the Toyota plant. As such, communication and economics can be
well maintained.

2.3. Concreting in Singapore: Supply Chain Process and Waste

Supply Chain Process

Ready-mixed concrete (RMC) placing is a major on-going operation in construction
projects in many countries. Singapore’s economy has been developing rapidly, with a high
rate of industrialization and economic development, resulting in a significant increase in solid
waste generation (Yeo 1994). The productivity of RMC placing is of great importance to the
productivity improvement of the construction industry as a whole, and it is essential to
identify the current RMC supply chain process (see Figure 1). A study completed by Low and
Wu (2005) found that all the RMC suppliers surveyed were using the demand pull system to
manage their production. Contractors would only inform the concrete suppliers when both the
installation of rebar and formwork have been inspected and is ready for concreting. Once the
supplier has been informed, the delivery of RMC has to be made punctually to ensure high
productivity.

Figure 1. RMC supply chain process.

8 Low Sui Pheng, Gao Shang, and Luen Ka Wing Peter

Furthermore, the coordination of delivery times is necessary to ensure that no traffic

delay or congestion occurs on site. In order to ensure rapid delivery, more than 50 per cent of
the listed RMC suppliers have at least two batching plants (BPs) set up in two of the four
RMC supermarkets situated at Kakit Bukit, Sungei Kadut, Changi, and Tuas, which are
strategically placed at the four corners of Singapore (Low and Wu 2005). Setting up BPs in
these four areas would permit the RMC suppliers to strategically supply RMC for
construction sites throughout the whole country, while still satisfying the degree of concrete
workability specified by contractors. The placing productivity for RMC depends on many
factors, such as the reliability of the concrete supply, placing equipment, placing gang, and
size and shape of the pour (Kieffer and Selby 1983).

Concreting Waste

Ready-mixed concreting work is a complex process that involves production

management, supply chain management, and construction management. Generally, the
amount of material waste generated can vary from 5% to 9% during peak periods. To ensure
good quality and productivity in such works, much coordination is needed between the ready-
mixed concrete supplier and the contractor. Shen et al. (2004) investigated several major
reasons for material waste in concreting works. These are tabulated in Table 1.
Tam et al. (2006) further complemented the previous study in Hong Kong and identified
the causes of waste in each trade of wet activities, as shown in Table 2. The study also shows
that waste due to poor workmanship and over-ordering are the top two reasons for waste in
wet-trade activities.

Table 1. Causes of material waste

Construction Material Causes Details

1. Ready-mixed concrete
2. Reinforcement
3. Formwork
Source: Shen et al. (2004).
Ordering too much Quantity supplied greater than required due to
imperfect planning
Loss during Leakages during transportation, unloading, and
transportation loading
Cutting Use of steel bars of sizes that do not fit
Cutting Use of timber boards of sizes that do not fit

Table 2. Causes of waste in each trade of wet activities

Damage Loss
Over- Poor Change
Trade during during Cutting
ordering workmanship of design
transportation installation
Concreting * * * * *
Plastering/Screeding * * *
Rebar fixing * * * *
Bricklaying * * * * * *
Tiling * * *
Source: Tam et al. (2006).
 Using Lean Principles to Reduce Wastes in the Concreting Supply Chain 9

Lastly, Alwi et al. (2002), in a study based in Indonesia, have identified the most
significant waste variables of 21 out of 53 variables, which were identified through a
literature review and pilot studies. The study classified the waste variables into five categories
of repair, waiting periods, materials, human resources and operations. The significance of
these waste variables is ranked as shown in Table 3.
In conclusion, wastes in the construction process encompass both material and
productivity wastes. A step towards improving sustainability and productivity in the
construction industry could be made by reducing waste in the concreting process.

Table 3. Waste variables ranking and grouping

No. Waste Variables Category

1 Repairing on finishing works Repair
2 Waiting for materials Waiting periods
3 Delays to schedule Operations
4 Tradesmen slow or ineffective Human resource
5 Waste of raw materials on site Material
6 Lack of supervision; poor quality Human resource
7 Waiting for instructions Waiting periods
8 Loss of materials on site Material
9 Repair on structural works Repair
10 Repair on formwork/falsework Repair
11 Equipment frequently break down Operations
12 Waiting for labour Waiting periods
13 Waiting for equipment to arrive Waiting periods
14 Damaged materials on site Materials
15 Too much material inventory on site Materials
16 Material does not meet specification Materials
17 Idle tradesmen Human resource
18 Unreliable equipment Operations
19 Unnecessary material handling Material
20 Repair on foundation works Repair
21 Excessive accidents on site Operations
Source: Alwi et al. (2002).

3. METHODS

3.1. Overview of Research Methods

The literature review has provided a general view of the waste that plagues the
construction industry and highlights the potential of Lean principles in reducing waste.
Finally, the review has described the concreting process supply chain management and its
relationship with lean principles and waste. The primary research methods include survey
questionnaires and interviews conducted with construction industry stakeholders —
construction managers, project managers, project engineers, and project directors. This group
is targeted as they are in direct contact with the concreting process and its supply chain. They
have an influence over deliverables and are the key decision makers in such works. A
10 Low Sui Pheng, Gao Shang, and Luen Ka Wing Peter

questionnaire survey was developed to identify key wastes and the interrelationship of wastes
and lean principles in the supply chain. Interviews and a case study were undertaken to
further understand the survey results. The case study is based on a retrospective study of one
BCA (Building & Construction Authority) A1 graded contractor that originated from Japan
and has a Singaporean stakeholder in its executive management team.

3.2. Questionnaire Survey

The population of this study consists of project managers, construction managers, project
engineers and project directors of all the general building contractors (CW01) registered with
the BCA. This group of project players has a large influence over wastes in the concreting
supply chain. Their details were retrieved from the BCA’s registered contractors for building
projects. The sampling frame consisted of the Grade A1, A2, B1, B2, and C1 to C3 BCA-
registered contractors. Furthermore, to select a sample size (n) that is representative of the
population, proportional allocation was used, whereby the sample size of each stratum was
proportional to the size of a stratum (Tan 2008). Thus, the selected firms in the survey were
more representative when compared with simple random sampling. The field study was
undertaken wherein a total of 180 survey questionnaires were sent to contracting companies,
and 35 usable responses were received (a response rate of 19.4%) within a month. This could
be considered a fair response rate due to the nature of the industry, in which respondents have
a tight schedule to meet if they are to ensure construction works are progressing as required.
There were a total of 42 responses, of which 7 were not usable due to non-usage of ready-
mixed concrete.

3.3. Case Study

A case study was performed to further study the concreting supply chain. This is used to
further explore the causation, in order to find the underlying reasons for the scope of study. A
historical case study, focussing on the past and current situations, will give further
understanding of the interrelationship of wastes and Lean principles. The subject of the study
is a Japan-based contractor that has a Singaporean key stakeholder which utilizes Lean
principles in its construction work. A retrospective study was performed to compare past
dealings and current practices with the concreting supply chain. The objective of the case
study is to determine if the usage of Lean principles in the concreting supply chain results in
greater waste reduction. Data on the key waste, as identified in the survey questionnaire, will
be further collected to describe the interrelation of Lean principles and waste.

4. RESULTS

4.1. Respondent Profiles

As shown in Table 4, the responses rates from companies with BCA registration grades
of A1 and B2 were 57.1% and 20.0% respectively, while companies with BCA registration
 Using Lean Principles to Reduce Wastes in the Concreting Supply Chain 11

grade B1 make up 17.1%. However, there were low response rates from the remaining
categories. Of the 35 respondents, 14 (40%) are project managers, 5 are project engineers
(14.3%), 12 (34.3%) are construction managers, and 4 (11.4%) are project directors.
Furthermore, 18 of the respondents are from foreign-based companies (51.4%), 16 are from
locally based companies (45.7%), and 1 (2.9%) is from a joint-venture company. From these
results, domestic and foreign waste reduction practices could be studied in detail on the basis
of the common practices adopted in local and foreign companies. The majority of the projects
managed by the companies are residential (40%) and commercial (34.3%) buildings.
Furthermore, most of the projects undertaken have values of more than S$50 million (74.3%).
As identified earlier, waste would be more tangible in such projects as cost and productivity
would be more affected. Hence, waste reduction is crucial to ensuring productivity and is
environmentally friendly, ultimately leading to cost savings.

4.2. Supervision of Concreting Works

Table 5 presents the level of supervision with respect to the concreting work:
reinforcement bar installation, formwork installation, and concrete casting. It appears that
concrete casting (mean = 1.31) involved the highest level of supervision, while the formwork
installation (mean = 3.13) had the lowest. There is a significant level of supervision across the
main contractors who outsourced their concreting work on reinforcement bar installation and
concrete casting, while formwork installation has a low level of supervision by the main
contractors across the industry. The difference in the level of supervision could be largely due
to the involvement of labour in such works. The installation of reinforcement bars and
concrete casting work activities are labour-intensive and the usage of the system formwork
could reduce the level of on-site supervision. This finding matches the report of the
Construction 21 Steering Committee (1998) on labour involvement in construction works.

Table 4. Profile of companies and respondents

Characteristics N %
Contractors (N = 35) A1 20 57.1%
A2 7 20.0%
B1 6 17.1%
C1 1 2.9%
C2 1 2.9%
Respondents (N = 35) Project engineers 5 14.3%
Construction managers 12 34.3%
Project directors 4 11.4%
Company nature (N = 35) Foreign based 18 51.4%
Locally based 16 45.7%
Joint venture 1 2.9%
Average project sum (S$) More than 50 million 26 74.3%
Less than 50 million 9 25.7%
12 Low Sui Pheng, Gao Shang, and Luen Ka Wing Peter

Table 5. Level of supervision

Activities for concreting works N1 Mean2 t Sig

Rebar 32 1.72 -8.45 0.000*
Formwork 32 3.13 3.22 0.003
Concrete Casting 32 1.313 -14.26 0.000*
1
Note: There were 3 respondents who stated they do not outsource their concreting works to
subcontractors. Hence, the total number of respondents here is 32.
2
Note: respondents were asked to rank their level of supervision with the concreting works, ‘1’ being
active role of supervision, ‘2’ being some role of supervision, ‘3’ being limited role of supervision,
and ‘4’ being leaving supervisory work to subcontractors.
* Significant level at p < 0.001.

4.3. Practice of Lean Principles

As presented in Table 6, the Lean principles of the daily toolbox meeting (Y7), a detailed
schedule of equipment usage (Y1), and a high level of coordination between supplier and
contractors (Y3) were most commonly practiced in the concreting supply chain.
The use of the toolbox meeting is important, as it allows workers to have a clear scope
and daily goal in the progress of work. This is a good control for both workmanship and
productivity, as claimed by Bennett (1993), who also identified that toolbox meetings aid in
driving labour productivity and minimizing defects. A detailed schedule of equipment usage
is significant in the concreting supply chain, as it allows for the utilization of equipment and
machinery. Moreover, subcontractors and other trades in the construction site need to adhere
to the schedule. This minimizes the waiting and idling time for a single trade for equipment
usage. In the case of the concreting supply chain, the use of equipment and facilities such as
tower cranes and loading bays is important in ensuring the smooth operations of the delivery
of RMC to the desired location. In the study by Wang et al. (2001), there was a significant
level of interruption to the concrete supply chain due to a mismatch in the usage of resources.
Any mismatch in the usage of such resources and equipment will interrupt the continuous
flow of the RMC supply chain. Hence, it seems important that a detailed schedule for the
usage of equipment is practiced. Lastly, high levels of coordination between suppliers and
contractors are widely practiced. The construction industry is a fragmented industry that
involves many trades and specialized works. Each trade is dependent on the other trades for
successive activity. For example, the proper installation of reinforcement bars by a single
trade will allow the succeeding activity of formwork installation to proceed without delay.
Hence, this Lean practice promotes mutual trust between all trades and can minimize the
waste arising from idling time and other forms of operations. This result also coincides with
Akintoye’s et al. (2000) study of the adoption of Lean principles on construction sites. The
results from that study illustrated that good coordination between supplier and subcontractors
result in higher efficiency and less buffer time between activities.
Moreover, other Lean principles, such as subcontractors adhering to the equipment usage
schedule (Y2), detailed schedules for deliveries of materials (Y3), tradesmen understanding
the scope of their work (Y6), ensuring works are of good quality (Y9), workers being briefed
and trained adequately (Y10), usage of technology (Y11), and frequent site meetings with
 Using Lean Principles to Reduce Wastes in the Concreting Supply Chain 13

subcontractors (Y12) were identified as being significantly practiced in construction projects.

However, it was also identified that the Lean principle of regular maintenance to ensure that
equipment and plant do not break down was significantly not practiced on construction sites,
with a negative t-value and a p-value less than 0.05. This could be due to contractual
agreements with equipment suppliers that the procurement of equipment involves both
maintenance services and rental services. Ritchie and Brindley (2004) pointed out that
contractual agreements mean that the rental of equipment, maintenance and operation risks
are transferred to the supplier. Hence, this Lean principle appears not to be practiced, on
account of a need to transfer risk.

Table 6. Practice of lean principles

Lean principles Mean Std. D t Sig.

Y1. Detailed schedule of usage of equipment 4.26 0.74 10.03 0.00*
Y2. Subcontractors adhere to schedule 3.89 0.58 8.99 0.00*
Y3. High level of coordination between supplier and subcontractor 4.20 0.55 9.22 0.00*
Y4. Schedule of deliveries of materials 3.74 0.56 7.83 0.00*
Y5. Cancellation of delivery if supplier delays his delivery 3.09 0.65 0.77 0.45
Y6. Tradesmen are competent 3.97 0.70 8.13 0.00*
Y7. Daily toolbox meeting before commencement of work 4.37 0.54 14.83 0.00*
Y8. Competent supervisors 3.17 0.66 1.52 0.14
Y9. Engineers ensuring works conform to specifications 3.86 0.63 11.22 0.00*
Y10. Workers are briefed and trained adequately 3.31 0.47 3.94 0.00*
Y11. Usage of technology 3.40 0.55 4.28 0.00*
Y12. Frequent site meetings on progress of work 3.86 0.60 8.43 0.00*
Y13. Frequent site meetings to surface problems 3.11 0.67 1.00 0.32
Y14. Regular maintenance of equipment 2.49 0.61 -4.97 0.00*
Note: significant level at p < 0.05*.

4.4. Waste in the Concreting Supply Chain

Key Wastes and Its Efforts in Reduction

The highly ranked wastes are presented in Table 7. It was identified that waste of excess
RMC (A6), waiting for materials to be delivered (A12), and poor workmanship (A19) were
the three most common significant wastes. However, waste due to loss of materials on site
(A8), the repair of insufficient cube strength (A5), and damaged materials on site (A9) were
the least common significant wastes in construction sites.
Waste due to waiting for materials to be delivered was the highest waste, due to road
conditions which meant that delivery at peak hours could be a hurdle. A study regarding the
productivity of concrete casting by Wang et al. (2001) identified that the waiting time for
concrete trucks to arrive was on average 42.9 min (20% of pour time) and could be eliminated
by means of proper planning. Hence, it appears that the findings from the current survey
questionnaire agreed with the previous study.
Poor workmanship was also significant on construction sites. This could be due to the
usage of subcontractors who relied heavily on unskilled foreign workers. The subcontracting
system in Singapore has a multi-layered system that involves many other smaller firms,
14 Low Sui Pheng, Gao Shang, and Luen Ka Wing Peter

which leads to poor workmanship (Construction 21 Steering Committee 1999). Hence, the
reliance on unskilled foreign workers in the construction industry could explain the levels of
waste of poor workmanship in construction projects.

Table 7. Most and least significance of wastes

Waste N Mean t Sig.

A3 Repair on formwork 35 3.407 4.76 0.00*
A19 Poor workmanship 35 4.029 8.61 0.00*
A12 Waiting for materials to be delivered 35 4.114 13.99 0.00*
A6 Excess ready-mixed concrete 35 4.417 13.72 0.00*
A8 Loss of materials on site 35 1.639 -13.72 0.00*
A5 Repair on insufficient concrete strength 35 1.733 -12.18 0.00*
A9 Damaged materials on site 35 1.743 -10.62 0.00*

Lastly, the waste of excess RMC procured was found to be the highest among all the
wastes, with a mean of 4.417. However, little study has been done on such waste and further
research is required on the subject.
It was also identified that there was significant conscious effort made by respondents to
reduce overproduction (p < 0.05) and defects (p < 0.05) (see Table 8). The effort to reduce
waste due to overproduction was found to be the highest, with a mean value of 4.63. This was
due to the impact of such waste, which demands more resources in terms of inventory,
transportation, and reworks (due to defects). Good control of this waste will see a decrease in
the rest of the waste. The finding, too, corresponded with the argument of Hong-Minh et al.
(1999), which stated that waste reduction should focus on overproduction, as more produced
goods not only incur direct cost but also result in other forms of wastes, including waiting
time for delivery and motion. Hence, overproduction waste resulted in the greatest conscious
effort made to reduce it.

Table 8. Efforts in reducing waste

Effort in reducing waste N Mean t Sig.

E1 Transport 35 2.52 -5.11 0.00*
E2 Inventory 35 2.66 -4.21 0.00*
E3 Motion 35 2.60 -4.28 0.00*
E4 Over-production 35 4.63 19.65 0.00*
E5 Over-processing 35 2.49 -4.62 0.00*
E6 Defects 35 4.26 10.62 0.00*
Note: significant level at p < 0.05*.

The effort to reduce defect waste (E6) was found to be the second highest, with a mean
value of 4.26. Rectifying defects is demanding in terms of both time and resources, and may
even require the total removal of existing work and the reconstruction of the particular work
activity. Hence, with such great implication it has on project deliverables and CONQUAS1
1
CONQUAS: known as the Construction Quality Assessment System introduced in Singapore since 1989, serves as
a standard assessment system on the quality of building projects. Full score is 100.
 Using Lean Principles to Reduce Wastes in the Concreting Supply Chain 15

scoring, there was much conscious effort made to reduce defects in the concreting supply
chain. Low (2001) identified that a good control of defects will raise productivity as chances
of rework are reduced. Hence, it appears that there is a need for such control over defect
waste.

Lean Principles and Waste Performance

As identified earlier, the top three Lean practices that are significantly adopted to affect
waste performance are:

 Detailed schedule for the usage of equipment (Y1)

 High level of coordination between supplier and contractor (Y3)
 Daily toolbox meeting before commencement of work (Y7)

The correlations between Lean practices and waste performance are analysed using
Pearson correlations to determine which Lean practices lead to better waste performance. A
negative correlation coefficient (r) indicates a good waste performance with p-value less than
0.05. The correlations and p-values of the dependent and independent variables are presented
in Table 9. Correlation is signification at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

Table 9. Correlation of Lean practices and waste performance

X1 RMC X2 Rebar X3 Floor cycle

Y1 Schedule for usage of equipment 0.190 0.201 -0.308*
Y3 Coordination between subcontractors and supplier -0.373* -.0224 -0.217*
Y7 Daily toolbox meeting -0.115* -0.071* -0.522**
Note: *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Detailed Schedule for Usage Of Equipment (Y1)

There was a significant relationship between the use of a detailed schedule for usage of
equipment (Y1) and the time waste performance of the floor cycle (r = -0.308, p = 0.042).
This implies that the more detailed the schedule for the usage of equipment, the smaller the
floor cycle - which means that time waste is also reduced. This finding is consistent with the
study by Munns and Bjeirmi (1996) where detailed planning of equipment usage is related to
the floor cycle. However, practicing Y1 did not result in a reduction of material waste
performance of RMC (X1) or reinforcement bar (X2). This was because both dependent
variables had p-values greater than 0.05 and this was not statistically correlated with Y1.

High Level of Coordination between Supplier and Contractor (Y3)

There was a significant relationship between the practice of a high level of coordination
between supplier and contractor (Y3) and the time waste performance of the floor cycle (r = -
0.217, p = 0.011). This implies that the higher the level of coordination between supplier and
contractor is, the smaller the floor cycle—which means that time waste is also reduced. Xue
et al. (2005) concluded that coordination between suppliers and contractors had become a
critical success factor for supply chain management in the construction industry. Similarly,
this finding agreed with the study. However, practicing Y3 did not result in a reduction of the
material waste performance of RMC (X1) or reinforcement bar (X2). This was because both
16 Low Sui Pheng, Gao Shang, and Luen Ka Wing Peter

dependent variables had p-values greater than 0.05 and this was not statistically correlated
with Y3.

Daily Toolbox Meeting Before Commencement of Work (Y7)

There was a significant relationship between the practice of a daily toolbox meeting prior
to commencement of work (Y7) and the time waste performance of the floor cycle
(r = -0.5.22, p = 0.001). This implies that a higher level of practice of the daily toolbox
meeting before commencement of work, the smaller the floor cycle is - which means that time
waste is also reduced. It could also be seen that the correlation of time waste and Lean
principles was highest when Y7 was practiced. This finding, too, agreed with Bennett’s
(1993) study on toolbox meetings being able to drive labour productivity, which could be
translated into minimizing time waste. The practice of Y7 was also found to result in better
performance of material waste, RMC (r = -0.115, p = 0.041), and reinforcement bars (r = -
0.071, p = 0.018). From the correlation coefficients, the practice of Y7 caused the greatest
effect on floor cycle (X3), RMC (X1), and reinforcement bars (X2).

5. CASE STUDY

5.1. Case Company

The case study was conducted with a BCA-graded A1 contractor for general works. The
contractor’s headquarters are in Tokyo, Japan and the company possesses a vast amount of
experience in building construction. Upper management in the company is dominated by the
Japanese, and most of the project managers are also Japanese. The company has total project
excellence as a form of corporate mission and has adopted a Total Project Management
concept in which every staff member is committed to managing and executing projects in the
most innovative and cost-efficient method. The company is accredited with ISO 9001:2008,
ISO 14001, and OHSAS 18001. It has won many construction awards, such as the BCA’s
Construction Excellence Award, Best Managed Project in the inaugural Land Transport
Excellence Awards, and many others. With these accolades, it appears that the company is
successful in the construction industry.

5.2. Data

Data on delivery time, amount of RMC delivered, and the occurrence of poor
workmanship was quantified by means of recording, reviewing invoices, and calculations
from structural drawings. The data collected was recorded for two floor cycles, due to the
time constraint of this study.

 Data on delivery times of RMC trucks was recorded by reviewing the invoices sent
by the RMC supplier to the company. The delivery time was then compared with the
interval time of concrete casting, which represented waiting time. This data was
 Using Lean Principles to Reduce Wastes in the Concreting Supply Chain 17

needed to measure the promptness of delivery and the waiting time for the RMC to
be delivered.
 The quantities of RMC and reinforcement bar required were calculated from
structural drawings, while the quantity procured was collected from invoices sent by
the supplier.
 Lastly, the occurrence of rework due to poor workmanship was collected from the
specialist contractor and site engineer.

Delivery Time
RMC delivery occurred in a continuous flow to ensure that there was a constant supply of
RMC for concrete casting. There was a standard volume of RMC delivered to site. The
average delivery time per casting is tabulated in Table 10, showing a gross average time of
33.1 minutes. All delivery time was below 50 minutes, and this ensured that the RMC
delivered was of a consistent quality and that there was no rejection of the RMC delivered by
the Resident Technical Officer (RTO). The RMC supplier plant is located about 14 km away
from the construction site, requiring 30 minutes for a concrete truck to travel to the site, given
favourable traffic conditions. A prompt delivery would ensure that the waiting time of
workers for RMC delivery would be kept low. Delivery of RMC considered site congestion
and the movement of concrete trucks.

Table 10. Average delivery time of RMC

Floor Casting No. Average Time Time Waiting time for truck mixer
1st Floor 1 30.6 min 1240–1905 h 17.9 min
1st Floor 2 37.2 min 1255–1910 h 17.5 min
1st Floor 3 37.6 min 1105–1535 h 19.2 min
1st Floor 4 28.6 min 1115–1610 h 14.7 min
1st Floor 5 39.4 min 1415–1730 h 19.3 min
1st Floor 6 33.7 min 1225–1845 h 18.9 min
2nd Floor 1 30.9 min 1255–1710 h 15.3 min
2nd Floor 2 32.9 min 1610–1950 h 16.5 min
2nd Floor 3 29.4 min 1250–1750 h 17.3 min
2nd Floor 4 31.3 min 1125–1720 h 16.4 min
2nd Floor 5 30.8 min 1310–1815 h 18.2 min
2nd Floor 6 34.6 min 1330–1830 h 18.8 min

The average waiting time for the truck mixer to deliver to the site was found to be 17.5
minutes - similar to the results of Wang et al. (2001), where the waiting time was 20.9
minutes, a difference of 18%. The difference could arguably be due to the improved road
conditions and greater quantities of concrete truck mixers in Singapore. However, while
waiting for the truck mixer to arrive, workers were observed to be performing other value-
adding tasks to prepare for the next concrete casting, such as ensuring formwork and
reinforcement bars were free from dirt and tightening fasteners. Hence, the idling and waiting
time for the materials to be delivered were channelled to other value-adding activities. The
prompt delivery, by proper scheduling of deliveries, of RMC to the site by a reliable RMC
supplier and the transformation of waiting and idling time into value-adding activities had led
18 Low Sui Pheng, Gao Shang, and Luen Ka Wing Peter

to the contractor achieving a good productivity rate of 10 days per floor cycle and with good
CONQUAS structural scores of 91 points. Both productivity and quality were of good
performance compared to the industry level of 11 - 12 days per floor cycle for RMC and 88
for concreting respectively.

Material Waste
The waste level of RMC was calculated to be 8.5%, while that of reinforcement bars was
11.25% (see Table 11). This was measured by finding the difference between the quantities
procured and required. It was mentioned by the project manager (PM) that excess RMC
would be used for the car park concrete kerb, drain cover, and soil stabilization. In addition,
the PM claimed that a significant amount of RMC was actually lost during transportation to
the desired location, because concrete sticks to transportation equipment, such as pipes and
containers. As regards to the compliance with the company’s waste level, it was found that at
the end of the project, the gross difference between the total quantity of RMC required and
procured would then be a proper reflection of waste, because the excess was used for other
purposes.

Table 11. Quantities procured and required

Locations Quantities Procured Quantities Required Waste

RMC 1st Floor 268.5 m3 247 m3 21.5 m3 (8.50%)
RMC 2nd Floor 268.0 m3 247 m3 21.0 m3 (8.50%)
Rebar 1st Floor 99, 620 kg 89, 550 kg 10, 070 kg (11.25%)
Rebar 2nd Floor 99, 620 kg 89, 550 kg 10,070 kg (11.25%)

As for the waste level of reinforcement bars, waste occurred primarily due to bending of
reinforcement bars for safety reasons. Reinforcement bars were exposed and cause immediate
danger to workers if they slip and fall onto them. As such, they were required to be bent,
undermining their strength. The PM stated that it was a common practice to over-procure
reinforcement bars for inventory purposes, to replace faulty or overcut bars. However, the
waste level (11.25%) was higher than that of RMC (8.5%), as the bars could not be used for
other purposes but need to be returned to the supplier for recycling.

Poor Workmanship
For safety reasons, the scope of the study was confined to the vertical structural elements
of columns, shear walls, and load-bearing walls. There were a total of 53 vertical structural
elements to be studied per floor. Table 12 shows the occurrence of each individual rework
due to poor workmanship. However, due to the limitations of recording, the time spent on
rework was not recorded.
These results show that rework due to dirty rebars and insufficient concrete cover were
the most frequent type of rework due to poor workmanship. Dirty reinforcement bars were the
most frequent problem, where it was observed that the bars were covered with dust and
grease. Construction sites are generally dirty (Thiel 2007), and many works have dust settling
on them. The grease found on the bars was from material handling by machinery, according
to the site supervisor. However, it was observed that cleaning was a rapid process regardless
of whether a blower was used to remove the dust or whether the cleaning was done manually.
 Using Lean Principles to Reduce Wastes in the Concreting Supply Chain 19

It was also observed that rework due to insufficient concrete cover was significant and was
the second most frequent rework due to poor workmanship. Site engineers and the Resident
Technical Officer placed high emphasis on concrete cover, as insufficient concrete cover
would cause concrete spalling to occur and inevitably undermine the structural strength. As
such, it appeared that there was low tolerance for inconsistency. Rectification works were
labour intensive, involving a team of two to three labourers. Alignment of reinforcement bars
was done manually and involved placing small Styrofoam blocks at regular intervals for
precise alignment. The site engineer stated that it would be impractical to use Styrofoam
blocks at all structural members for alignment purposes, as this would affect the concrete
strength. As such, it was only used for rectification works, where it would not affect concrete
strength significantly.

Table 12. Occurrence of reworks

Occurrences: Occurrences:
Types of Rework Total
1st Floor 2nd Floor
Tightening of formwork 9 8 17
Alignment of formwork 2 2 4
Dirty formwork 15 13 28
Gaps in between formwork joints 2 1 3
Insufficient concrete cover 17 21 38
Dirty rebar 16 13 39
Inconsistency of rebar work 3 5 8

Reworks due to the alignment of formwork and gaps in between the formwork joints
were the least common type. The low occurrence of gaps between the formwork was largely
due to the use of a system formwork, which allowed for better quality control and minimized
the possibility of human errors. This result also agreed with the study of usage of
technologies and defects, where the usage of more high-tech solutions helped to minimize
defects.

5.3. Review of Past and Current Waste Performance

There was a significant change in waste performance following a change in the attitude to
waste from the management. This change was driven by the need to remain competitive in the
construction industry. The differences in waste performance were caused by the competence
of workers, which affected productivity levels, the use of improved technology, and detailed
planning and coordination on construction sites.
The current material waste level was identified as 10% for reinforcement bars, which is
5% lower than previously; and 5% for RMC, which is about 5% lower than previously. This
significant reduction in material waste levels was largely attributed to good planning, the
coordination of suppliers and subcontractors in such works, and good estimation of the
quantities required. Through the case study, the Mura and Kanban systems were used in the
pull side of the RMC supply, and it appeared that the supplier was competent and capable of
20 Low Sui Pheng, Gao Shang, and Luen Ka Wing Peter

delivering the RMC to site, which contrasts with the study done by Wang et al. (2001) in
Singapore.
Lastly, the improvement in workmanship and the use of technology was attributed to the
local recognition of construction excellence by the BCA and to the good CONQUAS scores.
With this, productivity and quality were achieved and translated into efforts taken to reduce
reworks due to poor workmanship. Reviewing the change in perception towards waste, a
market-driven change had raised the awareness of waste in the company. Practicing Lean
principles in the construction site also improved waste performance over time.

5.4. Discussion

A limitation of the data collection methodology affected the accuracy of the results. The
time required for reworks due to poor workmanship should have been collected to draw
further conclusions about the significance of reworks with regards to each type of rework.
The limited and subjective data from the archival records also limited the accuracy of
comparison of waste performance on two perspectives of waste management. Nevertheless,
with these limitations, it could still be inferred that Lean principles were practiced in the
construction site and driven by the project manager. The Kanban system was significantly
practiced in the delivery of RMC and in managing over-procured waste. The concept of
eliminating Muda was evidently present in the elimination of poor workmanship and waiting
time for the delivery of materials. This was done by having a competent workforce and by
using technology to gain better control over defects. Furthermore, proper planning of the
delivery of RMC was important to ensure smooth delivery and a continuous supply of RMC
for concrete casting. However, it is clear that certain reworks due to poor workmanship were
still significant on the construction site - these include rectification of insufficient concrete
cover and cleanliness of reinforcement bars and formwork. The usage of Poka-Yoka2 devices
could significantly eliminate such defect wastes. The site engineer had identified that
potential Poka-Yoka devices to eliminate reworks due to insufficient concrete cover could be
in the form of Styrofoam blocks but this nevertheless was not viable for large scale usage.

CONCLUSION
Reducing the level of waste in the construction industry is a great challenge, because the
industry has one of the lowest productivity levels and is not environmentally friendly. This
study examines the relationship between Lean practices and the waste performance of
construction projects. Waste performance was determined by the material waste of RMC, the
waste percentage of reinforcement bars, and the time waste per floor cycle. From the findings,
the key Lean principles that were found to have positive association with waste performances
are toolbox meetings, detailed schedules for the usage of equipment, and high level of
coordination. Key wastes of poor workmanship, waiting time for materials to be delivered,
and over-procured RMC can be eliminated by means of the adequate training of workers,
proper planning, and good estimation. The case study provided greater insights and verified
the findings from the questionnaire survey. Lean practices were observed to be significantly
2
Japanese term that means “mistake-proofing”.
 Using Lean Principles to Reduce Wastes in the Concreting Supply Chain 21

used in the construction site, and this raised the waste reduction performance. However,
limited waste reduction was identified in the case study. Based on this study, the following
recommendations can be made to construction firms: as poor workmanship was identified in
the study, the contractor can tap into the BCA fund for workers’ training and take a larger part
in the decision to select and hire workers. This is to ensure workers’ competency and
workmanship in the concreting supply chain. Moreover, the use of system formwork and
similar means of technology in the concreting supply chain can reduce human errors and
defects. Construction firms can tap into the BCA’s funds to gain capital for investing in such
technologies. Project managers are also encouraged to plan in details for the concreting
supply chain, which includes the delivery of RMC, the use of space, and the equipment
needed for smooth operations. There is a need for accurate estimation of the amount of RMC
to be pulled from the RMC supplier in each delivery. This will enhance waste reduction
performance.
The limitation of this study is that only 35 completed survey questionnaires were
collected, even though a great deal of effort was invested in collecting more data. In addition,
the subjectivity of the data collected from different perceptions on a five-point Likert scale is
also a limitation. In the case study, the retrospective study was historical and the data was
limited to the subjective estimates of the project manager. Nevertheless, the findings
presented in this paper serve to provide first-hand useful pointers on how Lean practices can
help to enhance performance in the concreting supply chain.

REFERENCES
Akintoye, A., McIntosh, G., and Fitzgerald, E. (2000). “A survey of supply chain
collaboration and management in the UK construction industry.” European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, 6(3), 159-168.
Alarcon, L. F. (1997). “Modeling waste and performance in construction.” Lean construction,
L. F. Alarcon, ed., A.A.Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 51-66.
Alwi, S., Hampson, K. D., and Mohamed, S. A. “Waste in the Indonesian construction
projects.” Proc., CIB W107 1st International Conference on Creating a Sustainable
Construction Industry in Developing Countries.
Azhar, M. B. M. (1992). “Material Control against Construction Waste.” National University
of Singapore, Singapore.
Bennett, J. (1993). “Japan's building industry: The new model.” Construction Management
and Economics, 11(1), 3-17.
Bossink, B. A. G., and Brouwers, H. J. H. (1996). “Construction waste: quantification and
source evaluation.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(1), 55-
60.
Chartered Institute of Building (1980). Try reducing building waste : a guide to the control of
materials waste on building sites, Chartered Institute of Building, Ascot, Berkshire.
Construction 21 Steering Committee (1999). “Construction 21 - Re-inventing Construction.”
M. o. M. a. M. o. N. Development, ed., Ministry of National Development, Singapore.
Dubois, A., and Gadde, L.-E. (2002). “The construction industry as a loosely coupled system:
implications for productivity and innovation.” Construction Management & Economics,
20(7), 621-631.
22 Low Sui Pheng, Gao Shang, and Luen Ka Wing Peter

Enshassi, A. (1996). “Materials control and waste on building sites: Data in the study was
obtained from 86 housing projects on several locations in the Gaza Strip.” Building
Research and Information, 24(1), 31-34.
Formoso, C. T., Isatto, E. L., and Hirota, E. H. “Method for waste control in the building
industry.” Proc., Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction, 325-334.
Hong-Minh, S., Barker, R., and Naim, M. “Construction supply chain trend analysis.” Proc.,
Proceedings IGLC, 85.
Howell, G. A. “What is lean construction-1999.” Proc., Proceedings IGLC, 1.
Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen (Ky’zen) – The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Kieffer, T. K., and Selby, K. A. (1983). “Concrete placing productivity.” Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, 10(1), 48-51.
Koskela, L. (1992). “Application of the new production philosophy to construction.”
Technical Report No. 72, Stanford university (Center for Integrated Facility Engineering,
Department of Civil Engineering). Stanford, CA.
Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest
Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill New York.
Low, S., and Tan, K. (1997). “Quantifying Just-in-Time wastage: Case study of a design-and-
build school project.” Journal of Real Estate and Construction, 7(1), 70-91.
Low, S. P. (1992). The Just-in-time Concept to Improving Manufacturing Productivity: Is it
Applicable to the Construction Industry?, Chartered Institute of Building, Ascot,
Berkshire.
Low, S. P. (2001). “Quantifying the relationships between buildability, structural quality and
productivity in construction.” Structural Survey, 19(2), 106-112.
Low, S. P., and Mok, S. H. (1999). “The application of JIT philosophy to construction: a case
study in site layout.” Construction Management & Economics, 17(5), 657-668.
Low, S. P., and Tan, S. K. L. (1998). “How ‘just-in-time’wastages can be quantified: case
study of a private condominium project.” Construction Management & Economics,
16(6), 621-635.
Low, S. P., and Wu, M. (2005). “Just‐in‐time management in the ready mixed concrete
industries of Chongqing, China and Singapore.” Construction Management and
Economics, 23(8), 815-829.
Munns, A., and Bjeirmi, B. F. (1996). “The role of project management in achieving project
success.” International Journal of Project Management, 14(2), 81-87.
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-scale Production, Productivity
press, Cambridge, Mass.
Olomolaiye, P. O., Wahab, K., and Price, A. D. (1987). “Problems influencing craftsmen's
productivity in Nigeria.” Building and Environment, 22(4), 317-323.
Ritchie, B., and Brindley, C. (2004). “Risk characteristics of the supply chain–a contingency
framework.” Supply Chain Risk, C. Brindley, ed., Ashgate, UK, 28-42.
Schmenner, R. W. (1991). “International factory productivity gains.” Journal of Operations
Management, 10(2), 229-254.
Serpell, a. (1995). “Characterization of waste in building construction projects” In Lean
Construction, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
 Using Lean Principles to Reduce Wastes in the Concreting Supply Chain 23

Shen, L. Y., Tam, V. W. Y., Tam, C. M., and Drew, D. (2004). “Mapping approach for
examining waste management on construction sites.” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 130(4), 472-481.
Skoyles, E. (1978). Site accounting for waste of materials, Building Research Establishment.
Skoyles, E. R., and Skoyles, J. R. (1987). Waste prevention on site, Mitchell London.
Soibelman, L. (1993). “As perdas de materiais na construção de edificações: sua incidência e
seu controle.” Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Tam, V. W., Tam, C., Chan, J. K., and Ng, W. C. (2006). “Cutting construction wastes by
prefabrication.” International Journal of Construction Management, 6(1), 15-25.
Tan, W. (2008). Pratical Research Methods, Prentice Hall Singapore.
Thiel, D. (2007). “Class in construction: London building workers, dirty work and physical
cultures1.” The British journal of sociology, 58(2), 227-251.
Vershuren, C. (1980). Productivity in the building industry, SA Builder.
Wang, S. Q., Ofori, G., and Teo, C. L. (2001). “Productivity of ready mixed concrete placing
in Singapore.” Journal of Construction Research, 2(1), 57-66.
Xue, X., Li, X., Shen, Q., and Wang, Y. (2005). “An agent-based framework for supply chain
coordination in construction.” Automation in construction, 14(3), 413-430.
Yeo, B. L. (1994). “The Singapore green plan.” AMIC-ECOS Seminar on Urbanization,
Sustainable Development and the Media, Asian Media Information and Communication
Centre, Singapore.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.