development of a framework for successful last planner

Proceedings of the 44th AUBEA Conference, 27-29 Oct. 2021, Deakin University, Australia 1

Development of A Framework for Successful Last Planner System Implementation: A Systematic Review

Yiqin Yu1*, Shang Gao2 and Mehran Oraee3 1 Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia [email protected] 2 Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia [email protected] 3 Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia [email protected]

*Corresponding author

Abstract Last Planner System (LPS), as one of the most effective lean construction tools to improve planning reliability, has been adopted by increasing numbers of construction companies worldwide. However, previous studies found that the full benefits of LPS are still hindering due to considerable problems, which prevents a wider spread of the technique. To address this gap, this study aims at developing a framework of LPS adoption for construction companies to realize the full effectiveness of LPS. A systematic literature review is undertaken to synthesize existing critical success factors (CSFs) and barriers reported in the literature, followed by a mixed-method analysis to develop an integrated framework to support successful LPS implementation. The proposed framework can be used as a checklist for construction companies to investigate the missing parts in their current operating procedure and develop a corresponding implementation strategy. With a detailed evaluation of identified CSFs and barriers, this study also reveals that project participants, the organization as well as external enablers are required to make relevant efforts in order to secure the full benefits of LPS.

Keywords Barriers, Critical Success Factors (CSF), Implementation, Last Planner System (LPS), Systematic Literature Review

1 Introduction

Last Planner System (hereafter LPS) is one of the most effective lean construction tools to improve planning reliability through the collaboration of the entire project team and greater involvement of the ‘last planner’ (Kalsaas, 2012, Perez & Ghosh, 2018). LPS implementation has been investigated over the last two decades, and numbers of best practices are proposed to support and facilitate LPS adoption (e.g., Daniel et al., 2019; Perez & Ghosh, 2018). However, the full benefits of LPS still cannot be realized (Abusalem, 2020). One of the reasons is the impact of existing barriers, which are not fatal to the success of LPS adoption but lower the productivity value of LPS, hence decrease the level of LPS adoption (Fernandez-Solis et al., 2013, Vignesh, 2017). The need to guide companies with a better demonstration of ‘what is actually required for a successful LPS implementation’ is revealed. This research aims to develop an integrated framework for successful LPS implementation, including critical success factors (CSFs) and barriers through a review of existing literature, which can assist construction companies in understanding the underpinning of best practices and making the required change effort. The research objectives are to (1) identify CSFs supporting LPS adoption, (2) define subfactors in relation to each CSF, (3) identify barriers to LPS adoption, and (4) integrate subfactors and barriers to construct framework.

Yu et al. 2021


2 Literature Review

A complete LPS implementation contains four levels (master schedule, phase schedule, lookahead plan, weekly work plan) and relevant methods (e.g., pull planning, reliable promising, etc.) to enable full performance of LPS. Further, Ballard et al. (2009) introduced five fundamental principles of LPS to guide the LPS implementation, which include (1) plan in greater detail when the activity is closer to execution; (2) plan collaboratively; (3) identify and remove activity constraints together in a team; (4) enable reliable promising; (5) enable continuous learning. In terms of performance measures, Percentage Plan Complete (PPC) is the key performance indicator to measure workflow reliability (Ballard, 2009). These efforts benefited LPS adaptors, which is evident in the number of reports that emerged in the research community. Daniel et al. (2015) found 57 IGLC reports related to LPS implementation between 1993 and 2014 across 16 countries. Elkherbawy (2019) found that 72 out of 189 lean case studies focus on LPS implementation. The conclusion can be made that the implementation of LPS is on the rise but still at an early developing stage globally (Tezel et al., 2018). The adoption of LPS is proven to bring benefits to not only a single project but also the organization itself. Construction companies that adopt LPS as a long-term business strategy can develop a new culture of collaborative planning and experience continuous improvement in organization performance (Mejía-Plata et al., 2016). The managerial decision-making process can be improved mainly by avoiding centralized leadership and reducing the number of urgent procurement requests (Alarcón et al., 2008, Castillo et al., 2018). At the project level, the benefits of LPS include reduced project cost and duration and improved project productivity (Fernandez-Solis et al., 2013). Existing literature also showcased that LPS has the potential to improve quality, site safety, and job satisfaction (Andersen et al., 2012, Enshassi et al., 2019, Khanh & Kim, 2015). According to Abusalem (2020), the full benefit of LPS is still hindered due to considerable problems. Porwal et al. (2010) and Fernandez-Solis et al. (2013) have summarized a number of common challenges encountered by the construction team, covering both implementation and usage perspectives. Several newly emerged barriers have also been reported in recent case studies, including the inappropriate selection of procurement methods and the complexity of work (Daniel et al., 2018, El-Sabek & McCabe, 2017, Fuemana et al., 2013). To solve the problems, LPS best practices have been proposed by researchers. Perez and Ghosh (2018) and Mejía-Plata et al. (2016) presented best practices of LPS focusing on the implementation process. Daniel et al. (2018) again suggested an LPS Path Clearing Approach focusing on achieving successful implementation at both organization and project level. El-Sabek and McCabe (2018) have developed a process framework for international megaprojects (IMPs) with the integration of desired organizational behaviours. Existing literature also identified numbers of CSFs supporting LPS implementation in relation to the context of the case studied. Common CSFs include top management support, the collaboration between teams, sufficient LPS knowledge, and the engagement of facilitators (Perez & Ghosh, 2018; Tayeh et al., 2018). Even though LPS has been proved beneficial at the organizational level and operational level, considerable problems still exist in current implementations, which prevent achieving the full benefits of LPS. Most barriers and CSFs are reported on a project-by-project basis without proper consolidation. LPS best practices have been proposed merely focus on the process of implementation. A framework modelling CSFs and barriers is lacking for construction companies to aid their implementation process and provide guidance and alerts for the construction company when attempting change effort. In light of the research problems, the main research question is What will be the framework for successful adoption of LPS in construction projects? The sub-questions are (1) What are the main CSFs supporting the LPS adoption in construction projects?; (2) What are the sub-factors influencing the adoption of LPS?; (3) What are the barriers to LPS adoption identified under each factor?

Yu et al. 2021


3 Research Methodology

In this study, a systematic literature review approach is used, which arguably is the most effective method to build on the existing knowledge and combine the existing CSFs and barriers to LPS adoption, which have been thoroughly studied (Gopalakrishnan & Ganeshkumar, 2013). The sole use of Scopus has been proven reliable in the previous construction-related systematic review by Tetteh and Chan (2019). Next, inclusion and exclusion criteria are developed to provide a rationale for selecting eligible studies, which follow a similar approach as demonstrated by Hussein and Zayed (2021) to avoid publication and selection bias. The inclusion criteria include (1) Studies that mentioned barriers to LPS adoption; (2) Studies that mentioned CSFs supporting LPS implementation; (3) Studies in any countries, projects type, and publication year. The exclusion criteria are: (1) Studies published not in English; (2) Studies do not include empirical evidence; (3) Studies not related to AEC industry; (4) Type of document other than article and conference paper; (5) Studies integrated with other advanced construction technology; (6) Studies focusing on more than one lean techniques. To identify eligible studies for analysis, the systematic flow determined by PRISMA is adopted (Shown in Figure 1). Relevant keywords to the topic, such as “last planner system” and “implementation’ were considered, and the search was conducted in the Scopus platform. The type of document was set to journal articles and conference papers in English only. The initial search resulted in identifying 223 studies. Further analysis of the findings resulted in removing five duplicated studies and 121 irrelevant studies to the topic. In the next stage, analysis of the remaining studies resulted in removing another 54 studies. Indeed, the full text of five studies cannot be accessed online, and 49 studies were integrated with other technology and lean techniques. As a result, a total of 43 studies were identified as the study’s dataset.

Figure 1 Searching Strategy Adopted from PRISMA (Moher et al., 2009)

4 Findings and Discussion

4.1 Most Common CSFs As discussed, the final dataset includes 43 studies published between 2005 and 2020 (19 journal articles and 24 conference papers) is reviewed to identify CSFs and barriers. 10 out of 43 literature acknowledged the importance of ‘Provision of LPS Training’, hence the most common CSF. Ahiakwo et al. (2013) stated that training is the key to successful LPS implementation for any construction project. A proper training program involving all project participants can provide guidance and support to ensure the entire team has the same level of understanding of LPS benefits and procedures utilized in the specific project (Cerveró-Romero et al., 2013; Daniel et al., 2019; Perez & Ghosh, 2018). Through the training of LPS, the participants are sure to be aware of their role and responsibility in the new system and provide correct responses and attitudes to carry out the work (Daniel et al., 2016). The second most common CSF being nominated is ‘Organization and Top Management Support and Commitment.’ The commitments from the management team are important to manage the change of procedure and resistance from project participants (Vignesh, 2017). The adoption of LPS is time-consuming and therefore requires a strong commitment from the management team, including the head of the organization, division managers, and middle-level managers, to support the entire process (Ahiakwo, 2015; Hamzeh, 2011). Hicham et al. (2016) recognised the relationship between the commitment of the

Identificat ion Screening Eligibi l i t y Included

Records identified

through database searching (n= 223)

Records after duplicates removed (n=5)

Records Screened (n= 218)

Records Excluded (n= 121)

Full- text articles assessed for eligibility (n= 97)

Full- text articles excluded with

reasons (n= 54)

Studies included as qualitative

studies (n= 31)

Studies included as quantitative

studies (n= 12)

Total Studies included (n= 43)

Yu et al. 2021


organization and successful LPS implementation as positive involvement of management level through high-level commitment could facilitate constraint removal during the planning process. Another common CSF identified is ‘Involvement of All Required Stakeholders in LPS Planning Process.’ To provide a more in-depth understanding of required stakeholders, Cerveró-Romero et al. (2013) revealed the necessity to involve the project management team, while Tayeh et al. (2018) found involvement of other management level staff is also expected in the LPS implementation process. The involvement of subcontractors, architects, engineers, and clients or client representatives in the production planning session is also highlighted by a few researchers (Anand et al., 2019; Hamzeh et al., 2016; Kalsaas et al., 2009). In addition, Daniel et al. (2019) found the necessity to involve the commercial arm of the business into the LPS process to reduce time on decision-making and thus support the implementation. From the analysis of the most frequently mentioned CSFs, the critical role of the construction company is emphasized as the top 3 most common CSFs are all related to the organization. This finding aligns with the findings from a survey with LPS participants where ‘Trained staff’ and ‘Top management support’ are the most important factors identified by Murguia (2019) and Abusalem (2020). The strong effort required from the organization is possibly because that LPS is not a one-off planning technique but an organization management tool that focuses on the internal planning, analysis, monitoring, and improvement of construction activities (González et al., 2019). Through the adoption of LPS, the organization itself will need to experience the change of the organizational culture from the traditional fragmented and adverse culture to a culture of collaborative planning and continuous improvement (Mejía-Plata et al., 2016). Therefore, the top management level and the entire organization should have a strong commitment and make a great effort to support the organization-level of change (El-Sabek & McCabe, 2018).

4.2 Most Common Barriers The top 3 most common barriers being reported in the literature are ‘Lack of Effective LPS Training Programs’, ‘Organization Inertia/ Resistance to Change’, and ‘Lack of Personnel Knowledge/ Understanding to LPS’. All three barriers were nominated by 11 literature (19% of total). LPS training is time-consuming and requires significant effort from the organization (Hicham et al., 2016). Although most of the organizations have a current training program, the training process remains problematic. Existing studies have found LPS training sometimes insufficient (Mahmoud et al., 2019) or not intensive enough (El-Sabek & McCabe, 2018) for the participants to understand the actual procedure and the underpinning of methods (Mahmoud et al., 2019), thus failed to facilitate process change. Others pointed out training is not adequately provided to all staff participated in the LPS process (Cerveró-Romero et al., 2013; Hamzeh, 2011). Salvatierra et al. (2016) and El-Sabek and McCabe (2017) have found that training lacks continuity. The available training program is not designed correctly for all participants as Khanh and Kim (2013) have pointed out that there is a lack of training program primarily for managers in terms of leadership training. Salvatierra et al. (2016) further highlighted that the existing training plan does not consider the level of pre-established skills and the critical skill required for a particular position. ‘Organization Inertia/ Resistance to Change’ is being emphasized in the literature in relation to the challenge of managing resistance to change from project participants. General resistance to change among contractors and subcontractors is highlighted in the literature (Hamzeh, 2011; Mahmoud et al., 2019; Mejía-Plata et al., 2016; Hatmoko et al., 2018). Cerveró-Romero et al. (2013) pointed out that experienced staff is the one who prevents the change forward as Koskenvesa and Koskela (2012) explained that people tend to stay in their comfort zone and are reluctant to learn new things. For current LPS participants, there are also consequential challenges in relation to resistance to change, such as lack of commitment to change and innovation as identified by Ahiakwo (2015) and Vignesh (2017) and in turn result in difficulty to modify the original widely accepted operational procedures by the construction team (Nieto-Morote & Ruz-Vila, 2012). A wide range of studies has also found that LPS participants are lack of personnel knowledge and understanding of the new system (Hunt & Gonzalez, 2018; Tayeh et al., 2018). Insufficient understanding of LPS leads to misunderstanding of plan development and misuse of workflow

Yu et al. 2021


measurement and root causes (Kim & Jang, 2005; Koskenvesa & Koskela, 2012; Tillmann et al., 2014). Hamzeh et al. (2016) also highlighted among all participants, there is a varying level of understanding of Lean Construction and LPS tools. Viana et al. (2010) explained that the difference in the level of understanding is caused by the variation in personnel qualification, which is one of the main problems the contractor faces to manage the implementation of LPS.

4.3 Increasing Number of Barriers Reported Compared to the review of barriers conducted by Porwal et al. (2010) and Fernandez-Solis et al. (2013), where a similar result of 12 barriers is obtained, an increasing number of barriers is identified through increasing studies in LPS implementation over the last decades. Previous studies indicated that the barriers are mainly found in relation to the implementation process and user challenges, focusing on the problems at the organization and project level (Porwal et al., 2010). However, in this study, it is evident that new problems of LPS implementation have emerged from external parties, covering a broader perspective. Challenges arise when academia and client do not offer sufficient support to the organization (Gao & Low, 2014; Hunt & Gonzalez, 2018). In addition, problems related to the standardization of process and financial costs are uncovered by a few researchers, which have not been covered in the previous review (Cerveró-Romero et al., 2013; Hicham et al., 2016; Nieto-Morote & Ruz-Vila, 2012). Therefore, despite some barriers are mentioned less frequently, the importance of those cannot be overlooked, which should be further investigated in other similar projects to build generalization. It is also worth to be noticed that the top 3 most common barriers are mentioned as ongoing issues as numbers of literature have all revealed the same issues, which implies a lack of effective strategy to address the barriers (Perez & Ghosh, 2018). All three most common barriers are related to the effort devoted by the organization and support from the management level to build on the new culture. As previously mentioned, the organization plays a key role in LPS implementation. Thus, the top management should be responsible for addressing those barriers and provide a corresponding strategy together with the engagement of academia (Hunt & Gonzalez, 2018).

5 Development of Framework

5.1 Overview To develop the conceptual framework, the first step is to identify the main factors contributing to successful LPS implementation (Whetten, 1989). The main factors are developed through the synthesis of all the identified CSFs. A number of 8 main themes are emerged, including (1) participant awareness, (2) technique integration, (3) system standardisation, (4) participant engagement, (5) external drivers, (6) organisation commitment, (7) system control, and (8) strategy development. Subsequently, sub-factors are also identified through the analysis and grouping of CSFs. Similarly, all identified barriers are grouped against these 8 main factors. Among all 8 factors, it is found that the most important factors are ‘Organization Commitment’ and ‘System Control’, which have been most frequently mentioned by literature. The organization plays a key role in LPS adoption and implementation to facilitate the change in organization culture (Mejía-Plata et al., 2016). ‘System control’ is also commonly mentioned among existing literature as most cases studied indicate the necessity to offer sufficient monitoring, leadership, and communication. LPS itself does not provide a standardized communication system and requires the guidance of the relevant management team to control and monitor the whole process. Communication plays an essential part among all subfactors to ensure the information is well-distributed and updated through a proper communication channel. Similarly, LPS requires effective communication between the parties to establish collaboration and trust among the team, which contribute to improvement in workflow reliability and overall performance (Gao & Low, 2014; Tillmann et al., 2014). The identified barriers mainly fall into three factors: ‘Strategy Development’, ‘System Standardization’ and ‘Participant Awareness’. The results demonstrate a greater focus is on the implementation process and individual level when analysing barriers to LPS implementation in contrast to the identification of CSFs, where the

Yu et al. 2021


role of organization and external drivers is much more emphasized. This is possibly because LPS is still a relatively new planning technique, and its users are still unfamiliar with the implementation process and theoretical underpinning. Despite increasing LPS implementation has been found across different locations, Koskenvesa and Koskela (2012) found that only one of the four companies in Finland successfully passed the trial LPS implementation and started to implement LPS systematically. Ryan et al. (2019) also found that the implementation process of LPS is not standardized across projects, which brings difficulties for the LPS participants to understand the actual procedure of LPS.

5.2 Integration of Framework The developed conceptual framework is shown in Figure 2, which constitutes of main factors, subfactors, and barriers under each subfactor. It is worth mentioning that the identification of main factors has been influenced by Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model. During the consolidation of existing empirical evidence, more themes have been uncovered and therefore, modified to fit in the specific context of LPS implementation. All 8 main factors are rearranged hierarchically in terms of the nature of support to successful LPS implementation. 4 main factors refer to the technical support at a lower project level, and the remainder 4 factors indicate the contribution from project stakeholders at project, organization, and external level. To be more specific, the top-level constitutes two factors, which are ‘System Control’ and ‘Strategy Development’ that are closely linked to the solid support during LPS implementation in a construction project. The second level includes two factors, ‘Technique Integration’ and ‘System Standardization’, that are more related to the pre-implementation stage where the use of technology and system should be pre-determined. The third level shows the support from individuals by showing ‘Participant Engagement’ and ‘Participant Awareness’. In contrast, the bottom level indicates greater support outside the project level where the organization tends to show ‘Organization Commitment’ and work closely with ‘External Driver’ to facilitate the implementation of LPS.

Figure 2 Integrated Framework of Successful LPS Implementation

Successful LPS Im plem entat ion

External D r iver

Governm ent Academ ia- Unaware of Academic

Information- Lack of Literature

Client- Lengthy Approval Procedure - Demanding clients- Commercial Disputes - Unsolved Problems

Organizat ion Com m itm ent

Suppor t- Organizational Inertia/ Resistance to

Change- Lack of Top M anagement Commitment

and Support- Organization?s Financial Problems- H igh Facilitator/ Tender Cost- Unclear Strategic Goals- Lack of R&D Investment

M otivat ion- Lack of M otivation Initiative

Procurem ent- Contracting and Procurement Issues

System Control

M onitor ing- Lack of Defined Roles and

Responsibilities for M onitoring - Lack of Daily M onitoring Onsite

Leadership- Insufficient Leadership

Com m unication- Weak Communication &

Transparency

Technique Integrat ion

V isualizat ion- Lack of Visualizing M ethods - Lack of Physical Space

Technology- Technological Barrier

Indicator

Strategy D evelopm ent

Staging- Lack of Definition of Involvement Form and Scope- Poor LPS Adoption Process- Late Implementation- Lack of Implementation/ Governance Plan- Lack of Time to Implement LPS Elements

Scheduling- Incomplete Design- Work Complexity- Unavailability of Resources- Unforeseen R isks

System Standardizat ion

Process- Partial/ Incorrect Implementation- Lack of Standardization of Information

Updating and Recording- Lack of Discipline and R igor in Constraint

Removal Process- Lack of Standardisation in Planning- Lack of customisation to suit client type

Elem ents- Incorrect Use of M easurement- Insufficient M aster Schedule- The Underutilization of Look-ahead Plans- Difficulty in Eliminating Root Causes of

Delays or Failures

Part icipant Engagem ent

Attendance- Involvement of Too M any Parties- Lack of Involvement of Key

Actors- Lack of Full Engagement

Team work- Lack of Team Integration/

Coordination/ Collaboration

- Poor M eeting Performance

Att itudes- Commitment Issues- Lack of Positive Attitudes- N egative Perspective towards

LPS

Part icipant Awareness

Culture- Cultural and Language Issues- Involvement of Both Traditional and

LPS Structures and Routines

K nowledge- Lack of Effective Training Program- Lack of Personnel Knowledge/ Understanding- Lack of Experience with Lean/ Pull Planning- Poor Capabilities of Trade Foremen and Craftsman- Human Capital Constraints- Lack of Short-term Vision- Slow Learnings from Failures

Yu et al. 2021


The developed conceptual framework indicates that to ensure the full benefits of LPS can be achieved during implementation, the organization, project participants as well as external parties should all make a great effort to fulfil the required CSFs and clear all potential barriers. The two factors, ‘Organization Commitment’ and ‘System control’ imply a close linkage between full LPS benefits and the effort required from the organization, especially from the management level. The organization definitely plays the most critical role in guiding all the project participants through the entire implementation process by offering effective training programs, providing motivation incentives, and managing resistance to change from end-user level and management level (Ahiakwo et al., 2013; Gao & Low, 2014; Murguia, 2019). As LPS is expected to be implemented in a company to maximize the benefits of continuous improvement, the organization should also incorporate LPS into strategic goals and allocate sufficient R&D investment to support the entire transition and develop a culture of collaborative planning within the organization (Hunt & Gonzalez, 2018; Koskenvesa & Koskela, 2012). In addition to those expected commitment and support from the organizational level, the management team, especially the middle management level, are expected to make great commitment to provide sufficient leadership and monitoring strategy to sustain the performance and involvement of LPS participants at project level (Skinnarland, 2012). Greater support is required from the middle manager to the general manager, which is also known as the ‘last planner’, to ensure the planning process and constraints removal process can be carried out properly when a large number of stakeholders are involved (Kalsaas et al., 2009). Project participants involved in the LPS planning process should pay more attention to the two factors, which are ‘Participant Awareness’ and ‘Participant Engagement’. These two factors indicate greater involvement and engagement of project participants in the LPS planning process and acceptance of this new culture of collaborative planning. Literature has found resistance to change from the end-user level as a severe barrier facing by current LPS implementation (El-Sabek & McCabe, 2017). Project participants should be encouraged with more open, honest, and transparent attitudes to build trust among the entire team (Daniel et al., 2019). Moreover, project participants are expected to actively engage in the training and LPS meeting to make reliable promising and develop a collaborative plan through negotiation with the entire team (Daniel et al., 2019; Tillmann et al., 2014). To ensure all these expected efforts can be properly devoted by the project participants, it is critical for all participants to have sufficient personnel knowledge and competency in relation to the LPS implementation and collaborative planning (Anand et al., 2019; Fernandez-Solis et al., 2013). To ensure LPS is successfully implemented with maximum benefits, it is also expected that ‘External Driver’, which are the government, academia, and clients, can offer extra support to facilitate the adoption process. The client is expected to make great commitment and support to the LPS implementation through greater involvement in the planning process (Anand et al., 2019; Hamzeh et al., 2016). The government should play the role of the Lean facilitator by forming new policies to suit Lean Construction as well as LPS (Ahiakwo, 2015; Hunt & Gonzalez, 2018). A partnership is expected to be developed between construction companies and academia to build the platform to communicate new findings and development of LPS and, in turn, facilitate the adoption of LPS (Daniel et al., 2019; Hunt & Gonzalez, 2018). Another external driver, which has not yet been identified by existing literature, has been found through the implication of the factor ‘Technical Integration’. The existing literature shows that the lack of a compatible technical solution is an ongoing barrier hindering the exchange of LPS-related information and visualization of LPS results (Perez & Ghosh, 2018; Tayeh et al., 2018). Therefore, the development of proper software and technology that incorporate PPC and root cause analysis into the existing tracking system is expected from technology providers to facilitate the implementation of LPS (Gao & Low, 2014; Power & Taylor, 2019). While the above discussion summarized the required effort from project participants, the organization, and external drivers, it is also critical to remind all the LPS users to pay more attention to the correct use of the LPS system as literature has found incomplete and incorrect use of LPS elements and planning process, which hinders the achievement of full benefits (Perez & Ghosh, 2018). Two factors, ‘System Standardization’ and ‘Strategy Development’ have indicated that full adoption of LPS with a standardized implementation process can ensure the full potential of LPS being realized (Hamzeh et al., 2016; Vignesh, 2017). As outlined in Section 2.2, a complete LPS system contains 4 planning levels

Yu et al. 2021


and different methods and tools in each level (Ballard et al., 2007). Adopting the PBP index, which includes a checklist of 15 LPS tools, is expected to be integrated into the implementation process to assess the level of LPS adoption and ensure LPS elements are properly adopted (Viana et al., 2010). To further ensure the correct use of LPS elements, the organization should hire lean experts until the project team has a robust internal capacity to correctly utilize all the LPS elements and planning process (El-Sabek & McCabe, 2018).

6 Conclusion

Through a systematic review, this developed framework in this research expands on existing best practices of LPS, which provides a better demonstration of the required effort to a successful LPS adoption from project participants, the organization as well as external parties. In addition, this framework has the potential to facilitate full implementation of LPS and allow a smooth integration of LPS into a company’s existing operation procedure with defined roles and responsibilities of different project stakeholders and the outlined requirements of a full LPS implementation. This research contributes to the knowledge area and future application of LPS in the field of construction engineering and management. The proposed framework outlines the underpinning of existing best practices and frameworks and reveals newly emerged problems and challenges during more recent implementation. With a proper consolidation of existing empirical evidence, this research generates a solid foundation for further research of LPS adoption in construction projects. In terms of application, the proposed framework can be used by construction companies as a checklist to LPS adoption to investigate the missing operation procedure and responsible personnel in the implementation process. This allows new adapters and existing users to make the correct decision and manage behaviour change of participants in the LPS implementation process at the organizational level. At the same time, extra support from external parties may be requested. Despite the contributions, several limitations need to be highlighted. First, the dataset is limited to journal articles and conference papers in English only. Future research may consider other types of publication. Moreover, future research is expected to validate the conceptual model proposed in this study. It is also worth to identify the relationships between different levels of factors to allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the efforts required.

7 References

Abusalem, O., 2020. Towards last planner system implementation in Gaza Strip, Palestine. International Journal of Construction Management 20, 367–384.

Ahiakwo, O., Oloke, D., Suresh, S., Khatib, J., 2013. A case study of Last Planner System implementation in Nigeria. Presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2013, IGLC 2013, pp. 636–644.

Ahiakwo, O.A., 2015. Improving construction processes in Nigeria using the Last Planner® System (Ph.D.). University of Wolverhampton.

Alarcón, L.F., Diethelm, S., Rojo, O., Calderón, R., 2008. Assessing the impacts of implementing lean construction Evaluando los impactos de la implementación de lean construction. Revista de Ingeniería de Construcción 23, 26–33.

Anand, T., Sachin Prabhu, P., Nishaant, H.A., 2019. Improvement of project performance by constraint analysis and root cause analysis of last planner system. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering 7, 228–230.

Andersen, B., Belay, A.M., Amdahl Seim, E., 2012. Lean Construction Practices and its Effects: A Case Study at St Olav’s Integrated Hospital, Norway. Lean Construction Journal 2012, 122–149.

González, A., García Arango, D.A., Aguirre Mesa, E.D., Henao Villa, C.F., Echeverry Gutiérrez, C.A., Sidek, S., 2019. The planning in lean construction methodology at colombian civil sector. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering 8, 173–178.

Ballard, G., Hammond, J., Nickerson, R., 2009. Production Control Principles. Proceedings of IGLC17: 17th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.

Ballard, G., Hamzeh, F., Tommelein, I., 2007. The Last Planner Production Workbook-Improving Reliability in Planning and Workflow. Lean Construction Institute, San Francisco, California, USA, 81pp.

Yu et al. 2021


Castillo, T., Alarcón, L.F., Salvatierra, J.L., 2018. Effects of Last Planner System Practices on Social Networks and the Performance of Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 144. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001443

Cerveró-Romero, F., Napolitano, P., Reyes, E., Teran, L., 2013. Last Planner System® and Lean Approach Process®: Experiences from implementation in mexico. Presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2013, IGLC 2013, pp. 645–654.

Daniel, E., Pasquire, C., Dickens, G., 2019. Development of Approach to Support Construction Stakeholders in Implementation of the Last Planner System. J. Manage. Eng. 35, 04019018. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000699

Daniel, E., Pasquire, C., Dickens, G., 2015. EXPLORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM THROUGH IGLC COMMUNITY: TWENTY ONE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4777.2000

Daniel, E., Pasquire, C., Dickens, G., Marasini, R., 2018. Empirical Study on the Influence of Procurement Methods on Last Planner® System Implementation. pp. 681–690. https://doi.org/10.24928/2018/0398

Daniel, E.I., 2017. Exploratory study into the use of Last Planner ® System and collaborative planning for construction process improvement. undefined.

Daniel, E.I., Pasquire, C., Dickens, G., 2016. Exploring the factors that influence the implementation of the last planner® system on joint venture infrastructure projects: A case study approach. Presented at the IGLC 2016 - 24th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, pp. 23–32.

Elkherbawy, A.A., 2019. Lean construction versus Project Management in road projects : scheduling comparison. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 2019.

El-Sabek, L.M., McCabe, B.Y., 2018. Framework for Managing Integration Challenges of Last Planner System in IMPs. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144, 04018022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001468

El-Sabek, L.M., McCabe, B.Y., 2017. Coordination challenges of production planning & control in international megaprojects: A case study. Lean Construction Journal 2017, 25–29.

Enshassi, A., Saleh, N., Mohamed, S., 2019. Application level of lean construction techniques in reducing accidents in construction projects. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction 24, 274–293. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMPC-08-2018-0047

Fernandez-Solis, J.L., Porwal, V., Lavy, S., Shafaat, A., Rybkowski, Z.K., Kiyoung Son, Lagoo, N., 2013. Survey of motivations, benefits, and implementation challenges of last planner system users. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 354.

Fuemana, J., Puolitaival, T., Davies, K., 2013. Last planner system - A step towards improving the productivity of new zealand construction. Presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2013, IGLC 2013, pp. 616–625.

Gao, S., Low, S.P., 2014. The Last Planner System in China’s construction industry - A SWOT analysis on implementation. International Journal of Project Management 32, 1260–1272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.002

Gopalakrishnan, S., Ganeshkumar, P., 2013. Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care 2, 9–14. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.109934

Hamzeh, F., Kallassy, J., Lahoud, M., Azar, R., 2016. The first extensive implementation of lean and LPS in Lebanon: Results and reflections. Presented at the IGLC 2016 - 24th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, pp. 33–42.

Hamzeh, F.R., 2011. The lean journey: Implementing the Last Planner® system in construction. Presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2011, IGLC 2011, pp. 561–572.

Hicham, H., Taoufiq, C., Soulhi, A., 2016. Last planner® system: implementation in a moroccan construction project. Presented at the IGLC 2016 - 24th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, pp. 193–202.

Hunt, R., Gonzalez, V., 2018. Innovation in the New Zealand Construction Industry – Diffusion of the Last Planner System. pp. 422–431. https://doi.org/10.24928/2018/0486

Hussein, M., Zayed, T., 2021. Critical factors for successful implementation of just-in-time concept in modular integrated construction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 284, 124716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124716

Kalsaas, B., Thorstensen, R., Skaar, J., 2009. Implementation of Last Planner in a medium-sized construction site.

Kalsaas, B.T., 2012. The Last Planner System Style of Planning: Its Basis in Learning Theory. Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management 2, 88–100.

Khanh, H.D., Kim, S.Y., 2015. A survey on production planning system in construction projects based on Last Planner System. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 20, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-1412-y

Yu et al. 2021


Khanh, H.D., Kim, S.Y., 2013. Barriers of Last Planner System: A Survey in Vietnam Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management 3, 5–11. https://doi.org/10.6106/JCEPM.2013.3.4.005

Kim, Y.-W., Jang, J.-W., 2005. Case study: An application of last planner to heavy civil construction in Korea. Presented at the 13th International Group for Lean Construction Conference: Proceedings, pp. 405–411.

Koskenvesa, A., Koskela, L., 2012. Ten years of last planner in Finland - Where are we? Presented at the IGLC 2012 - 20th Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.

Mahmoud, A.H., Mona, M.A., Ibrahim, M.E., 2019. Improving traditional planning with partial implementation of last planner system in Egypt. Presented at the Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.

Mejía-Plata, C., Guevara-Ramirez, J., Moncaleano-Novoa, D., Londoño, M., Rojas-Quintero, J., Ponz-Tienda, J., 2016. A ROUTE MAP FOR IMPLEMENTING LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM IN BOGOTÁ, COLOMBIA.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D., 2009. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Murguia, D., 2019. Factors Influencing the Use of Last Planner System Methods: An Empirical Study in Peru. Presented at the 27th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Dublin, Ireland, pp. 1457–1468. https://doi.org/10.24928/2019/0224

Nieto-Morote, A., Ruz-Vila, F., 2012. Last Planner Control System Applied to a Chemical Plant Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 138, 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000415

Perez, A.M., Ghosh, S., 2018. Barriers faced by new-adopter of Last Planner System®: a case study. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 25, 1110–1126. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-08-2017-0162

Porwal, V., Fernandez-Solis, J., Lavy, S., Rybkowski, Z., 2010. Last planner system implementation challenges 548–556.

Power, W., Taylor, D., 2019. Last Planner® System and Percent Plan Complete: An Examination of Trade Contractor Performance. Lean Construction Journal 131–146.

Salvatierra, J.L., Funk, R., Alarcón, L.F., 2016. Chilean construction industry: Workers’ competencies to sustain lean implementations. Presented at the IGLC 2016 - 24th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, pp. 73–82.

Skinnarland, S., 2012. Norwegian project managers and foremen’s experiences of collaborative planning. Presented at the IGLC 2012 - 20th Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.

Tayeh, B., Al-Hallaq, K., Faqawi, A., Alaloul, W., Kim, S.Y., 2018. Success Factors and Barriers of Last Planner System Implementation in the Gaza Strip Construction Industry. The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal 12, 389–403. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836801812010389

Tetteh, M.O., Chan, A.P.C., 2019. Review of Concepts and Trends in International Construction Joint Ventures Research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 145, 04019057. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001693

Tezel, A., Koskela, L., Aziz, Z., 2018. Lean thinking in the highways construction sector: motivation, implementation and barriers. Production Planning and Control 29, 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1412522

Tillmann, P., Ballard, G., Tommelein, I., 2014. A mentoring approach to implement lean construction. Presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction: Understanding and Improving Project Based Production, IGLC 2014, pp. 1283–1293.

Hatmoko, J., Adi Darmawan, H., Sabrian, Z., Agung Wibowo, M., 2018. Are Indonesia contractors ready to implement last planner system? - An early investigation. Presented at the MATEC Web of Conferences. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819506012

Viana, D.D., Mota, B., Formoso, C.T., Echeveste, M., Peixoto, M., Rodrigues, C.L., 2010. A SURVEY ON THE LAST PLANNER SYSTEM: IMPACTS AND DIFFICULTIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN BRAZILIAN COMPANIES. Production Planning and Control 11.

Vignesh, C., 2017. A case study of implementing last planner system in Tiruchirappalli District of Tamil Nadu - India. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 8, 1918–1927.

Whetten, D., 1989. What Constitutes A Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review 14, 490–495. https://doi.org/10.2307/258554

Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne

Author/s:

Yu, Y; Gao, S; Oraee, M

Title:

Development of A Framework for Successful Last Planner System Implementation: A

Systematic

Review

Date:

2021

Citation:

Yu, Y., Gao, S. & Oraee, M. (2021). Development of A Framework for Successful Last

Planner System Implementation: A Systematic

Review. Proceedings of the 44th AUBEA Conference, Deakin University.

Persistent Link:

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/290589

File Description:

Accepted version

development of a framework for successful last planner

Documents