Creating Options
Reconfigurable Task Schedules
Deferred Assignment Commitments
Proactive Expediting
When environments are dynamic and the production system is
uncertain and variable, reliable planning cannot be performed in
detail much before the events being planned.
Consequently, deciding what and how much work is to be done
next by a design squad or a construction crew is rarely a matter of
simply following a master schedule established at the beginning
of the project. [pages 3-15 and 3-16 of Ballard Thesis]
Herman Glenn Ballard
Director of Research, Lean Construction Institute, and Lecturer, Construction
Engineering and Management Program, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California at Berkeley, 4536 Fieldbrook Road, Oakland, CA 94619,
510/530-8656, FAX 510/530-2048, ballard@ce.berkeley.edu
rick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted
Deliberately building inventories, inventories of ready work in this case, may seem contradictory to the
goals of just-in-time. To clarify, inventories of all sort are to be minimized, but as long as there is
variability in the flow of materials and information, buffers will be needed to absorb that variability.
Reducing variability allows reduction of buffer inventories.
[Ballard Thesis: pages 3-7, 3-8 and 3-10]
Pulling
Pulling is a method of introducing materials or information into a production
process. The alternative method is to push inputs into a process based on target
delivery or completion dates. Construction schedules have traditionally been
push mechanisms. By contrast, pulling allows materials or information into a
production process only if the process is capable of doing that work. In our Last
Planner system, conformance of assignments to quality criteria constitute such a
check on capability. Further, making assignments ready in the lookahead process
is explicitly an application of pull techniques.
Consequently, Last Planner is a type of pull system.
Task Selection
A key early finding was that only about half of the assignments
made to construction crews at the beginning of a week were
completed when planned.
Experiments were performed to test the hypothesis that
failures were in large part a result of lack of adequate work
selection rules (these might also be called work release rules).
Quality criteria were proposed for assignments regarding
definition, sequence, soundness, and size.
In addition, the percentage of assignments completed was
tracked (PPC: percent plan complete) and reasons for
noncompletion were identified, which amounted to a
requirement that learning be incorporated in the control
process.
10
On the whole, improvements tended to be from PPC (percent plan complete) levels around 50% to the
65-70% level, with a corresponding increase of 30% in productivity. Productivity improvement has ranged
from 10% to 40%+.
[Ballard Thesis: pages 3-16 and 3-17]
rick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted
11
12
13
14
Research Questions
This new production planning and management method has been in development
since 1992 (Ballard & Howell 1997). It has been successfully used in a series of
projects ranging from oil refineries to commercial building construction. Hitherto
it has been used primarily in site construction, rather than in design and
engineering and its implementation has generally resulted in an improvement of
work flow reliability, as measured by percent plan complete, to 65-70% PPC. The
questions driving this research are:
1) What can be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation of
the Last Planner system of production control to increase plan reliability above
the 70% PPC level?
2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan reliability
during design processes ?
It is intuitively obvious that making work flow more reliable (predictable) can
reduce the cost or duration of the total project. When the numerous specialists
can rely on delivery of calculations, drawings, materials, and prerequisite work
from other specialists, both within and outside the project team, they are better
able to plan their own work, and better planning yields better performance.
All else being equal, with greater flow reliability should come more efficient
production, less wasted effort and rework, and better matching of resources to
tasks. Even partial and limited improvements in work flow reliability have
demonstrated schedule and cost improvements (Koskela et al., 1997 and Miles,
1998).
[Ballard Thesis: pages 3-22 and 3-23]
rick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted
15
16
Dissertation Conclusions
Review of the case studies suggests that plan reliability improves with adherence
to the Last Planner system rules, with extensive education and involvement of
participants, and with use of techniques such as task explosion, constraints
analysis, make ready actions, shielding production from uncertainty through
selection of quality assignments, and identification and action on reasons for
failing to complete assigned tasks.
The PPC levels recorded were significantly better than previous measurements.
Previously, measured PPC above 70% was very rare (Ballard and Howell, 1997). In
the latter three case studies, all achieved PPC levels of 76% or higher, with
Zeneca consistently above 90%.
The Last Planner system of production control, improved through the case
studies included in this thesis, has been shown to be effective in achieving and
maintaining plan reliability above the 90% level in site installation.
Applicability and effectiveness of the Last Planner system to design remains to be
definitively determined, however the generative nature of the design process
suggests that a control system such as Last Planner is needed, as opposed to
approaches that rely on push scheduling and early selection from alternatives.
Further development of the Last Planner system is suggested regarding activity
definition, joint supplier/customer assignments, and reasons analysis.
In addition, research is needed to quantify and understand the benefits of greater
plan reliability for safety, quality, time, and cost.
[Ballard Thesis: pages 10-3 , 10-10 and 10-11]
rick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted
17
Some References
Ballard, Glenn (1994). "The Last Planner". Spring Conference of the Northern California Construction Institute,
Monterey, CA, April 22-24, 1994.
Ballard, Glenn and Gregory Howell (1994). Stabilizing Work Flow. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction, Santiago, Chile, October, 1994. Available in Alarcn, 1997, 101110.
Ballard, Glenn, Howell, Gregory, and Casten, Mike (1996). PARC: A Case Study. Proceedings of the 4th annual
conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, University of Birmingham, U.K.
Ballard, Glenn (1997). Lookahead Planning: The Missing Link in Production Control. Proceedings of the 5th
annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Ballard, Glenn and Howell, Gregory (1997). Shielding Production: An Essential Step in Production Control.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 124 No. 1, American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, NY, 11-17.
Ballard, Glenn (1999). Improving Work Flow Reliability. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, University of California, Berkeley, CA. p. 275-286.
Ballard, Herman Glenn. 2000. The Last Planner System of Production Control. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of
Engineering of the university of Birmingham.
http://www.cmaanet.acec.dbia.leanconstruction.org/pdf/ballard2000-dissertation.pdf
Koskela, L. (1992). Application of the new production philosophy to construction. Tech. Rept. 72, Center for
Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, Sept., 75 pp.
Koskela, L., P. Lahdenperaa and V-P. Tanhuanperaa. 1996. Sounding the potential of lean construction: A case
study. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Lean Construction, School of Civil Engineering,
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, August 25 - 28, 1996. 11 p.
Koskela, L., Ballard, G., and Tanhuanpaa, Veli-Pekka (1997). Towards Lean Design Management. Proceedings
of the 5th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Gold Coast, Australia.
Koskela, L. & Huovila, P. (1997). On Foundations of Concurrent Engineering in Anumba, C. and Evbuomwan, N.
(eds.). Concurrent Engineering in Construction CEC97. London 3-4 July. The Institution of Structural Engineers,
London, 22-32.
Koskela, L. (1999). Management of Production in Construction: A Theoretical View. Proceedings of the 7th
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, University of California, Berkeley, CA. p.
241-252.
Papke, Barry and Rick Dove. 2013 (anticipated). Combating Uncertainty in the Workflow of Systems Engineering
Projects. Paper submitted for INCOSE IS13 review. www.parshift.com/s/130624Last Planner.pdf
rick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted
18
Active management of the anticipated schedule and work flow to ensure there is
always a buffer of quality jobs ready to work on and matched with resources.
production
master
Components
units
sched
CPM
tasks
activity
definitions
materials
tools
equipment
Work Task
Weekly work tasks are
drawn from readiness
backlog, keeping
crews fully employed.
www.parshift.com/s/130624Last Planner.pdf
rick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted
19
Active management of the anticipated schedule and work flow to ensure there is
always a buffer of quality jobs ready to work on and matched with resources.
production
master
Components
units
sched
Integrity
Management
CPM
tasks
activity
definitions
Task elements:
Project Manager
Task readiness:
Supes/Foremen/Expediters
Task assembly:
tools
materials
Key Practices:
Rules 1-2-3 and
Lookahead
Make ready
Learn & Correct
Supes/Foreman
Infrastructure evolution:
equipment
Active
Infrastructure
Passive
Standards
Work Task
Task Soundness/Sequence/Size
Task Definitions
Physical Site Security
Construction Safety Standards/Regs
Master Sched, Learning, R1-2-3
MS Learning
Agile architecture Pattern based on:
(Ballard 1997) Lookahead Planning: the Missing Link in Production Control
(Ballard 1998) Shielding Production: an Essential Step in Production Control
(Ballard 1999) Improving Work Flow Reliability
(Ballard 2000) The Last Planner System of Production Control-PhD Thesis
rick.dove@stevens.edu, attributed copies permitted
Change
20