Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract: This paper serves as a resource to prefabricated construction managers who are attempting to implement lean thinking to improve
their production operations by eliminating waste. Lean is both a general way of thinking and a specific production management approach that
emphasizes using less of everything to satisfy the customer by delivering the highest quality at the lowest cost in the shortest time. While
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University on 01/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
providing an overview of lean principles, this paper focuses on two fundamental lean concepts, standardization and continuous flow.
To develop these concepts, this paper uses a case-study approach to describe the experiences of a large homebuilder confronted by rising
production costs as they migrate wall-building operations from the construction site into a factory. Lean production principles are successfully
applied, yielding a 47% increase in productivity and a 25% reduction in lead time. This study also found employee involvement and the
supplier relationship as key factors for successful lean implementation. Challenges that limited implementation success and the related les-
sons learned are also presented. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000037. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Lean construction; Precast concrete; Case studies; Construction management.
Author keywords: Lean production; Lean construction; Homebuilding; Precast concrete.
30 ft
Forming Bed
Office
Wire
Mesh
Break Forming Bed
Area Wire
Mesh
#1
WH rial Panels under
e
Mat
#2 construction
WH ment
ip
Equ
Saw
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University on 01/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
There are four labor classifications: daily worker, superintend- detailed map of the value stream. The documented process was then
ent, yard foreman, and project manager. Daily workers and the analyzed, and activities that contributed value to the customer and
superintendent are provided by a subcontractor. Daily workers activities that added no value were identified with input from man-
are transient day laborers and may come and go daily. They speak agement and daily workers. Activities were classified as follows:
Spanish, with little or no English speaking skills. Most daily work- V: Value-added activity (grouped into four categories: layout, prep,
ers are skilled construction workers, primarily roofers and carpen- pour, and lift)
ters. The contractor provides no formal training. New workers learn NVA: Non-value-added activity (included waiting for tools, getting
specific process techniques and sequences by following their more tools, waiting for materials, getting materials, waiting for instruc-
experienced colleagues. Observations indicated that activities did tion, receiving instructions, waiting for another worker to finish an
not follow a predetermined sequence, and they were sometimes activity, waiting for inspection, inspection, talking, rework, breaks,
only partially completed. For example, a crew member starts laying idle, and cleaning).
rebar in Panel 1, then goes to get A1s (steel components) and places
them in Panel 2, without completing Panel 1. Daily workers are Step 2: Identify All Forms of Waste
informally supervised by their superintendent. The yard foreman Time study (to document cycle time) and work sampling (to mea-
is in charge of providing material and equipment to the daily work- sure value-added and non-value-added times) procedures were
ers. This requires the use of a Bobcat, a small yard vehicle. The performed to estimate cycle times for each value-added and non-
yard foreman also performs errands for the project manager. value-added activity. A time study was conducted to determine the
The project manager plans weekly production and schedules deliv- labor hours required for specific wall panels by value-added activ-
ery of concrete and other materials. ity. Two researchers observed and videotaped the value-added and
Early performance of the new panelizing operation demon- non-value-added activities for a single panel from the forming stage
strated mixed results. Panels could be set on the construction site through the lifting stage. The videotape was used as backup to cor-
and the roof erected in less than one day, meeting expectations. roborate the data collected. To document all activities, the crew
However, labor costs and cycle times at the precast factory were working on the panel observed was equally divided among re-
much higher than anticipated. Researchers from the University searchers. Concurrently, the other two researchers performed a
of Central Florida Housing Constructability Lab were invited to modified work-sampling procedure to determine the percentage
assist management in incorporating lean production principles. of time spent on various activities (Aft 2000). Each crew member
Researchers used the five-step structured approach discussed was observed for a continuous 2-h period. At least one researcher
previously. Each step is subsequently discussed. was fluent in Spanish to understand the communication between
workers. Every 30 s, the researcher tallied the activity performed
Methods by the crew member. Comments were also added to document
reasons for non-value-added activities.
The purpose of this study was to implement lean construction in the
A summary of these baseline results is shown in Fig. 5. Value-
precast factory. The study focused on two fundamental lean con-
added activities represented 53% of labor hours consumed.
cepts: standardization and continuous flow of the construction
Excessive material handling (requiring workers to leave the work
activities. Kaizen methods were used to streamline the construction
area) and rework were primary contributors to the 47% of labor
activities that included the following steps: (1) document the
current process, (2) identify all forms of waste, (3) develop lean Value added Activities
options to reduce waste, (4) pilot-test the options, and (5) institu- 28% Layout
tionalize the changes and continue to improve. 12% Preparation
Value Added 8% Lifting
Step 1: Document the Current Process 53% 5% Pouring
Non-Value added Activities
The researchers first met with management (superintendent, yard Non -Value
25% Getting Tools & Material
foreman, and project manager) to explain the purpose of the study Added
15% Rework
7% Others (Instructions,
and the process steps in which the daily workers would be involved. 47%
waiting, etc)
The research team consisted of the two authors (researchers) and
four graduate students. Researchers used extensive observation, in-
Fig. 5. Summary of baseline process performance
cluding digital monitoring/recording, and interviews to develop a
cedural infrastructure and stability required for balanced workloads bly would include all forming edges and the two triangular steel
and continuous flow. This, in turn, reduced the non-value-added squaring and locating fixtures used to attach the opening forms
activities associated with ad hoc planning and flow experienced to the bed. A locating jig was also developed for locating opening
in the previous (existing) process. To accomplish this objec- forms on the wall form.
tive, researchers developed a new standard procedure that included
Enhance Communication and Supervision
the following:
1. Reassigned roles and activities for all personnel: (1) pro- Reliable communication and supervision were considered essential
ject manager—perform office and business tasks, (2) yard parts of the infrastructure required for high-quality, efficient pro-
foreman—supervise yard operations, kit material, stage equip- duction. To this end, it was recommended that the yard foreman
ment, clean up, direct the pour, (3) utility worker—rip forms, be given formal responsibility for first-line supervision of daily
window subassembly, concrete test, and (4) daily workers— workers. This had several implications for the qualifications for
build panels. the position: (1) bilingual—fluent in both English and Spanish,
2. Daily workers were organized into two teams of two workers (2) strong supervisory skills—capable of supervising daily workers
per team. To focus measurement responsibilities (an important in use of new process flow, and (3) technical knowledge—able to
strategy for preventing rework), one team was assigned all read production drawings and understand new process flow.
critical measurement activities. Other activities were assigned
to the teams to balance workload. Step 4: Pilot-Test
3. The two teams were synchronized, with the second team A pilot test was conducted to gauge the effectiveness of the recom-
following the first through a series of activities on a panel. mendations and uncover unexpected issues. The test took place
To minimize congestion, the two teams did not typically work over three days. The first day was used to explain new organization
on the same panel at the same time. However, if the first team and procedures to the production team and conduct hands-on train-
was running slowly, the second team was allowed to begin ing. The second and third days were used for production. Four
work on the same panel to minimize delays. graduate-student researchers observed production during the
4. Detailed production schedules were developed for the new test and collected productivity data. The test house consisted of
organization to allow continuous flow (Fig. 6). 25 panels. The average panel characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Four typical workers were selected to participate in the pilot test.
Kit and Stage Materials in Advance
The yard foreman also participated in the test, supervising yard
The objective of material kitting was to minimize production-flow operations, staging material/equipment, and directing the pour.
interruptions resulting from poor material-handling practices. The Productivity was calculated by dividing the square feet of wall
concept was for dedicated personnel to provide all materials and produced by the labor hours consumed by each major activity. This
nurturing relationships throughout the supply chain. Suppliers must improvement in Europe and Australia, Ashgate, Surrey, UK.
be willing to stretch beyond traditional paradigms to provide Cusumano, M., and Nobeoka, K. (1998). Thinking beyond lean, The Free
greater value, supplying the right parts at the right time, in the right Press, New York.
quantity, and in the right configuration (kit). Increased attention and Dennis, P. (2002). Lean production simplified: A plain language guide to
empowerment must be given to the transient, subcontracted work- the world’s most powerful production system, Productivity, New York.
Goldratt, E., and Cox, J. (1992). The goal, North River, Great Barrington,
force, not just to the labor supplier but to the workers who actually
MA.
add value. Supervisors must be willing to accept their new role as
Greif, M. (1991). The visual factory: Building participation through shared
facilitators of work and maintainers of flow. Reporting relation- information, Productivity, Portland, OR.
ships should certainly not create disruptions. Similar to previous Howell, G. (1999). “What is lean construction—1999?” Proc., 7th Annual
studies (Pheng and Hut 1999; Pheng and Min 2005; Maturana et al. Meeting of the Int. Group for Lean Construction, Lean Construction
2007), this study found that employee involvement, supplier rela- Institute, La Jolla, CA.
tionship, and continuous improvement are key success factors for Howell, G. (2000). Engineering news record, McGraw Hill, New York.
lean implementation. These key factors are tenets to lean construc- Kerber, J. A. (2000). “Dimensions of customer satisfaction in the home-
tion. If they are missing in practice, lean construction cannot reach building industry.” MS thesis, Michigan State Univ.
its full potential indicated in the proposed process scenario. Finally, Koskela, L. (1993). “Lean production in construction.” Proc., 10th Int.
as in most worthy endeavors, some investment may be needed to Symp. of Automation and Robotics in Construction, International
provide the safest, easiest, and most productive ways of doing the Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction, 47–54.
job. Fearing downturns, the construction industry has traditionally Koskela, L. (2002). “The theory of project management: Explanation to
been reluctant to purchase capital facilities and equipment. Minor novel methods.” Proc., Int. Group for Lean Construction 10th Annual
investments in tools/equipment and facilities can have significant Conf. (IGLC-10), International Group for Lean Construction.
impact on flow and overall waste. Maturana, S., Alarcon, L. F., Gazmuri, P., and Vrsalovic, M. (2007).
“On-site subcontractor evaluatio method based on lean principles
and partnering practices.” J. Manage. Eng., 23(2), 67–74.
Acknowledgments National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Center. (1999).
“Lean construction.” NAHB, Upper Marlboro, MD.
The authors wish to thank the U.S. DOE, Office of Energy Effi- Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system, Productivity, New York.
ciency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program Pheng, L. S., and Hut, M. S. (1999). “The application of JIT philosophy to
for their support in funding the Industrialized Housing Partnership construction: A case study in site layout.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
17(5), 657–668.
through the Building America program. This support does not con-
Pheng, L. S., and Min, W. (2005). “Just-in-time management in the ready
stitute an endorsement by DOE of the views expressed in this re-
mixed concrete industries of Chongqing, China and Singapore.” Constr.
port. The authors appreciate the encouragement and support from Manage. Econ, 23(8), 815–829.
George James, program manager in Washington, D.C. Salem, M., Solomon, A., Genaidy, A., and Minkarah, I. (2006). “Lean
construction: From theory to implementation.” J. Manage. Eng.,
References 22(4), 168–175.
Tommelein, I. D., Riley, D., and Howell, G. A. (1999). “Parade game:
Abdelhamid, T. (2004). “Lean production paradigms in the housing Impact of work flow variability on trade performance.” J. Constr.
industry.” Proc., NSF Housing Research Agenda Workshop, M. Syal, Eng. Manage., 125(5), 304–310.
M. Hastak, and M. Mullens, eds., Vol. 2, Focus Group 1, Orlando, FL, Womack, J., and Jones, D. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create
72–81. wealth in your corporation, Simon & Schuster, New York.