paul ebbs (2011) - can lean construction improve the irish construction industry

of 83

Can “Lean Construction” improve the Irish Construction

Industry?

Table of Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 3

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. 4

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. 5

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 6

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2: Objective of “Lean” ...................................................................................................... 10

1.3: Construction Materials .................................................................................................. 11

1.4: Materials Management ................................................................................................. 11

1.5: Just in Time and “Lean Construction” ......................................................................... 12

1.6: “Lean Construction” Principles .................................................................................... 12

1.7: Aim of the Report ......................................................................................................... 14

1.8: Current Economic Situation and Future Outlook ......................................................... 15

1.9: Report Contents ............................................................................................................ 17

2.1: Research Methodologies ................................................................................................... 20

2.2: Background Reading & Objectives .............................................................................. 20

2.3: Likert Scale ................................................................................................................... 21

2.4: Compiling the Questionnaire ........................................................................................ 21

3.1: Questionnaire .................................................................................................................... 23

3.2: Charts listing Profession, Employer & Experience of Respondents ............................ 24

of 83

3.3: Q1-Q5. Productivity...................................................................................................... 26

3.4: Q6-Q9. Waste ............................................................................................................... 36

3.4: Q6-Q9. Waste ............................................................................................................... 36

3.5: Q10. Success Factors ................................................................................................... 42

3.6: Q11 & Q12. Procurement ............................................................................................. 43

3.7: Q13-Q19. Design & 3D: ............................................................................................... 45

3.8: Q20. Fault Elimination ................................................................................................. 51

3.9: Q21. Best Value: ........................................................................................................... 52

3.10: Q22-Q25. Education ................................................................................................... 54

3.11: Q25-Q29. CCTV ......................................................................................................... 57

3.12: Q30. Prospects ............................................................................................................ 61

4.1: Case Studies ...................................................................................................................... 65

4.2: UK Infrastructure Project .............................................................................................. 65

4.3: Sutter Health Care Facility ........................................................................................... 69

4.4: El Camino Medical Group ............................................................................................ 70

5.1: Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 71

6.1: Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 82

7.1: References ......................................................................................................................... 83

8.1: Appendix 1. Original questionnaire ......................................................................................

8.2: Appendix 2. Initial and reminder emails ..............................................................................

8.3: Appendix 3. Original unfiltered data ....................................................................................

8.4: Appendix 4. Questionnaire category averages for Q1-Q30. .................................................

of 83

List of Figures

Figure 1: Chart showing the different types of disciplines surveyed....................................... 24

Figure 2: Employment details of respondents’. ....................................................................... 24

Figure 3: Levels of experience of the respondents. ................................................................. 25

Figure 4: Q3.1. Chart illustrating category highest and lowest scores from the stakeholders

surveyed. .................................................................................................................................. 29

Figure 5: Q3. Answers re buildability from the stakeholders surveyed. ................................. 32

Figure 6: Q7 & Q8. Average answers in relation to the risk /profit fund. ............................... 38

Figure 7: Q9. Top two answers illustrated in bar chart............................................................ 39

Figure 8: Q9. Third, fourth and fifth rating answers................................................................ 41

Figure 9: Q15-Q17. Results. .................................................................................................... 48

Figure 10: Q18 &Q19. Results. ............................................................................................... 49

Figure 11: Q22-Q24. Bar chart showing average answers. ..................................................... 54

Figure 12: Q25 & Q26. Stakeholders’ opinions regarding the use of CCTV on site. ............. 57

Figure 13: Q27-Q29. Results ................................................................................................... 58

Figure 14: Heinrich Chart. ....................................................................................................... 60

Figure 15: Q30A-Q30C. Chart showing opinions regarding implementation of "Lean

Construction" ........................................................................................................................... 62

Figure 16: Q30D-Q30F. Chart showing opinions regarding implementation of "Lean

Construction" ........................................................................................................................... 63

Figure 17: IMM Kanban "pull system" diagram. .................................................................... 65

Figure 18: Rim delivery system showing limited deliveries to site. ....................................... 67

Figure 19: Spoke delivery system diagram .............................................................................. 68

of 83

List of Tables

Table 1: Q1. Average answers of the respondents. .................................................................. 26

Table 2: Q2. Average answers of projects delivered on time & on budget. ............................ 27

Table 3: Highest and lowest scores regarding delay & cost factors of a project ..................... 28

Table 4: Q3.1. Highest and lowest scores regarding delay & cost factors of a project ........... 30

Table 5: Average scores for Q3.1 & Q3.2 ............................................................................... 30

Table 6: Q3.2. Cost factors of a project. .................................................................................. 31

Table 7:Q4. Average answers relating to the importance of maintaining the same Site

Management. ............................................................................................................................ 34

Table 8: Q5. Average answers relating to the importance of maintaining the same Sub-

contractors. ............................................................................................................................... 35

Table 9: Q6. Percentage delay to handovers due to items not being completed i.e. reliable

work flow is stopped. ............................................................................................................... 36

Table 10: Q10. Average scores regarding key success factors. ............................................... 42

Table 11: Q11. Average ratings showing how much the procurement process can affect waste

levels in the construction process. ........................................................................................... 43

Table 12: Q12. Type of contract that professionals thought would suit “Lean Construction”

best. .......................................................................................................................................... 44

Table 13: Q13. One of the major problems in construction is the design; this table illustrates

category averages & overall average scores. ........................................................................... 45

Table 14: Q14. Totals of respondents experience of Building Information Modelling (BIM).

.................................................................................................................................................. 47

Table 15: Q20. Opinions of the stakeholders regarding how much quicker the construction

could be completed if all the faults were eliminated. .............................................................. 51

Table 16: Q21. Average answers of professionals view whether Clients are made aware of

true "best value" over the life cycle of the building. ................................................................ 52

of 83

List of Abbreviations

BIM: Building Information Modelling

BRE: British Research Establishment

CCTV: Closed Circuit Television

CIOB: Chartered Institute of Builders

Contract Mngr: Contract Manager

CW: Clerk Of Works

CIRIA: Construction Industry Research and

Information Association

ECB: European Central Bank

Eng: Engineer

H & S: Health & Safety

IFA: Integrated Form of Agreement

IMF: International Monetary Fund

IMM: Integrated Materials Management

IRL: Ireland

JIT: Just in Time

KSF: Key Success Factors

LLCC: Lowest life Cycle Cost

LPS: Last Planner System

M & E: Mechanical & Electrical

Mngr: Manager

NVA: Non Value Adding

PPE: Personal Protective Equipment

Project Mngr: Project Manager

QS: Quantity Surveyor

R & D: Research & Development

RFI: Request for Information

Site Mngr: Site Manager

SHCS: Sutter Health Care System

TPS: Total Production System

TVD: Target Value Design

TMM: Traditional Materials Management

UK: United Kingdom

of 83

Acknowledgements

The preceding questionnaire to this report and without doubt this subsequent document,

would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. Firstly I would like to

thank my Tutor Raymond Turner who has been very gracious with his time and help from

start to finish. I would especially like to thank him for introducing me to Tony Corrigan, a

“Lean” Consultant with nearly thirty years’ experience implementing “Lean Manufacturing”

principles to many companies in Ireland and furthermore the globe.

Secondly, Tony my deepest gratitude goes to you for the time and knowledge you have

shared with me over the last few months. Without your personal help and guidance from

yourself and your publication “Kaizen Tools and Techniques to support a Lean Enterprise” I

do not believe my findings could have been so clear. Thank you.

My gratefulness also goes to all the respondents to the questionnaire especially Linda

Whelan; who distributed the questionnaire to her colleagues in the UK. Without all of their

help I simply could not have completed the report and come up with my findings.

Many thanks also to my previous employer Glenman Corporation Ltd who gave me the time

off once a week to complete my initial Higher Certificate in Construction Technology. The

experience I gained on site has also been invaluable to me compiling the questionnaire and

subsequent report.

Finally, without forgetting the most important people in my life, I have to thank my dearest

wife Geri for having a lot of patience with me over the last few months and undeniably over

the last four years whilst I’ve been completing my degree. My thanks also go to my Mother,

Sister, and Brother and to my extended family and friends, for their constant support over this

period.

of 83

Abstract

The following report and previous questionnaire has been completed while contemplating;

can “Lean Construction” improve the construction industry? This consequent document aims

to prove to the reader, that, yes it can. Although construction is vastly different from

manufacturing, there are many similarities too. The construction process is in effect a

stationary assembly line that is a combination of information, materials and most importantly

people.

The objective of “Lean Construction” is to successfully manage these elements to produce

an end product with no waste, no defects, on time, on budget and crucially no accidents.

These items are in essence, the Key Success Factors (KSFs) for any project.

Traditional design, procurement and construction methods do not lend themselves to the

fundamentals’ of “Lean” philosophies, which are basically about solving the problems

caused by people and processes. “Lean thinking” goes way back nearly a century ago when

Henry Ford came across a piggery. He observed the pigs coming in whole and going through

a production line until there was no pig left. This was in effect reversed in his motor factory,

and became the world’s first manufacturing production line. Productivity of his workforce

doubled immediately but so too did the wages of the employees. Ford could see how

important the people were to the process and essential to future growth1.

“Lean thinking” kept evolving and the production line was enhanced further when Taiichi

Ohno a Toyota Industrial Engineer visited America to inspect Henry Ford’s car

manufacturing plant. He could see many wastes on the production line. Ford established that

the longer a car stayed in the production line, the more it cost, which is correct. However, if a

defect went unnoticed at the start, this was carried through multiple times meaning the

1 Ford, H. (2003), Today and Tomorrow, Reprint, CRC Press, Productivity Press, Boca Raton.

of 83

product was not right first time around. A huge source of waste ensued as the car would

require a costly repair and spends more time on the production line.

Taiichi also observed how the local “7-Eleven” garage/convenience store operated;

efficiently and effectively with a quick turnover of inventory. He set about applying these

principles to car manufacturing, eventually coming up with Toyota’s Total Production

System (TPS). This subsequently became known as “Lean Manufacturing” in the western

world. TPS has been credited with some crucial business developments over the last twenty

years (Corrigan 2010)2.

Bearing the previous facts in mind, the following report has been based on a questionnaire

compiled by the author to gauge the opinions, attitudes and likely behaviours of construction

industry professionals. Many similarities’ will be drawn between construction and

manufacturing and the author aims to prove to the reader that “Lean Construction” can, not

only improve the construction industry, but contribute significantly to the eventual recovery

of the industry.

The following report will also outline the basic principles surrounding “Lean Construction”

and will give the reader an insight into some interesting case studies where it has been a great

success. A reasonable profit margin and construction do not fit into sentences together in the

present climate and it is clear from the research carried out that the Irish Construction

Industry is far from “Lean”. This document will outline the areas where “Lean” can be

implemented into construction in Ireland.

Other chapters in the document include research methodologies, analysis of questionnaire

results, case studies from the literature review and finally, the concluding thoughts of the

author on the subject matter that is “Lean Construction”.

The second Chapter on research methodologies will explain the manner in how the author

went about getting his secondary and primary research, and how it has been analysed using

Microsoft Excel.

2 Corrigan, T. (2010) Kaizen Tools and Techniques to support Lean Enterprise.

of 83

The results of the questionnaire are analysed in the subsequent chapter along with more

discussion of “Lean Construction” principles. It is the aim of the author to show to the reader

that the answers given will prove why “Lean Construction” can improve the Irish

Construction Industry.

Benefits and rewards achieved by three case studies implementing “Lean Construction”

principles are outlined in Chapter 4.

Concluding the report the author’s final thoughts towards “Lean Construction” principles are

put on the table with intent of convincing the reader of the benefits of “Lean Construction”

that can improve the construction industry and the Irish economy as a whole. The concluding

remarks regarding the questionnaire are the final findings summarised in this report.

of 83

1.1: Introduction

So, can “Lean Construction” improve the construction industry in Ireland? This was the

question that the author asked himself when the topic was in the conception stage. The

following report is based around a questionnaire that was compiled by the author, to gauge

the likely opinions, behaviours and attitudes of the various stakeholders in the construction

process, towards introducing the concepts of “Lean Construction” to the Irish & UK

Construction Industries. A copy of the original questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1.

The topic itself is very broad and can be defined as; (Cooke & Williams 2009)3

“The elimination of waste from the production cycle.”

1.2: Objective of “Lean

The objective of “Lean Construction” is to successfully manage all aspects of the

construction process from conception to completion, with the least amount of waste possible.

The principles of “Lean Construction” have been adopted from the successful

implementation of similar principles used by Toyota. They use a system called “Just-in-

Time” (JIT), which is a model based on a supermarket.

In a supermarket everything that a customer wants is visible and readily accessible with little

or no waste in time trying to find items they require. As the stocks get low on the shelf,

they’re replenished from the stores when they’re needed. The empty space on the shelf

triggers the need for replenishment.

This means that a large inventory of materials is not stored unnecessarily on the shelves or

storage area, instead storing in a company warehouse located elsewhere. By using this “pull

system” materials are less likely to perish, be damaged or use up valuable floor space that

could be used to store other products.

3 Cooke, B., Williams, P., (2009), Construction Planning, Programming and Control, 3

rd Edition, Wiley-

Blackwell, Oxford.

of 83

This is known as a “Kanban” system. The phrase was coined from the Japanese word and

translates as a “card” or “visual record” in Japanese (CIOB, 1992)4. Non-task specific

materials can be managed by using a “Kanban” technique (see p65). Task specific materials

are managed using the “Last Planner System (LPS”) (Q9 p40).

1.3: Construction Materials

Construction materials make up on average 50% of project costs5 can be broken up into two

categories;

(a) Non-task specific; Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), tools, consumables (nails,

timber, etc.) and commodities (pipes, cables etc.). These items are generally off the shelf, low

in individual value and could be returned at the end of the job if kept in good order and are all

examples of materials which if not on site where required, a negative impact on productivity

levels will ensue.

(b) Task specific; concrete, steel, precast concrete elements, pre-cut rebar and ironworks are

materials which are unique to sites, and will not be reused if there is any excess. These items

are by and large made to order/engineered to order products, specific to the site and may

incur long lead in times due to the uniqueness of the product. (O’Brien et al. 2009)6

1.4: Materials Management

Traditional Materials Management (TMM) techniques sometimes go no further than

expediting phone calls from Site Management to suppliers to ensure delivery times of

inventory are met. Waste of resources (material, plant and labour), can occur due to the

variables required at project and individual task level. These include; a lack of

materials/correct materials being on site when required and an excess of material stored, that

will not be required to complete the tasks.

4 Chartered Institute of Builders (1992), The Just-in-Time concept to improving manufacturing productivity: Is it

applicable to the construction industry? Construction Papers No. 8

5Forbes L. & Ahmed S. (2011) Modern Construction, “Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices, CRC

Press, New York 6O’Brien, W.J., Formoso, C.T., Vrijhoef, R., London, K.A., (2009), Construction Supply Chain Handbook, CRC

Press, Boca Raton.

of 83

The Integrated Materials Management (IMM) method on the other hand, aims to minimise

the waste of inventory by synchronising the supply and demand of materials at project level

between the contractor and the supplier. The word “integrated” refers to the amalgamation of

suppliers and contractors in the material management process at an early stage. A case study

in relation to IMM is illustrated on page 65.

1.5: Just in Time and “Lean Construction”

“Lean Construction” aims to use almost identical principles of Toyota’s JIT system. The aim

is the reduction of waste through elimination of Non Value Adding (NVA) activities. An

example of a NVA activity is spending eight minutes searching for a light fitting and two

minutes fitting it. Of the ten minutes it has taken to have the light fitted only 20% of this was

adding value. 80% of the activity can be described as waste.

Researchers have shown that whilst productivity has greatly increased in manufacturing over

the last forty to fifty years, the same cannot be said for construction. (Forbes et al. 2011 p1)7

The Irish economy and the construction industry are invariably linked and both need to be

booming again to help the country out of recession. However, in order for this to happen,

profitability needs to return to the construction industry and some value needs to be added to

future projects. This can be done by implementing “Lean Construction” Principles and

changing the wasteful culture that has set into the industry.

1.6: “Lean Construction” Principles

Howell & Ballard8 defined waste as a standard of perfection, i.e. having every task completed

first time right and with quality. If the unique requirements of the client are not met then this

is described as waste. Completion of projects on time and on budget requires resources

arriving “Just-in-Time” in conjunction with the flow of work.

Work flow relates to planning ensuring that the correct resources (labour, materials & plant)

are in position when required. The structuring of the work requires close co-ordination of the

7 Forbes, L. & Ahmed, S. (2011) Modern Construction, “Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices, CRC

Press, New York, p1 8 Ballard, G. & Howell, G. What is “Lean Construction”

http://www.acci.unsw.edu.au/Documents/”LeanConstruction.pdf

http://www.acci.unsw.edu.au/Documents/LeanConstruction.pdf

of 83

various disciplines to ensure there is a reliable flow of activities. Proper control is making

events conform to plan. The defining criterion for success of “Lean Construction” is

appropriate planning. Speed and cost are the defining factors of traditional construction

where as value and the reliable flow of work are the foundations of “Lean thinking.”

A reliable work flow will provide predictability and with this stability will enfold the process.

Likewise, the process will only be stable once you can reliably predict the outcome. Being

able to rely on the promises of others and keeping deadlines without compromising quality is

the essence of “Lean”.

With traditional construction the aim is to reduce the cost of each activity and speed up the

time required for same. The process involved in both “Lean” and traditional does not differ

dramatically. Firstly an outlying design is prepared, then the design is developed and

engineered, and lastly, the materials are procured, assembled and installed as per the project

drawings.

“Lean Construction” differs from the traditional method by emphasising the value of the

project and providing a reliable work flow for all disciplines involved. Value meaning all

NVA activates are eliminated (right first time & quality).

When the term “value” is used, it usually refers to a cost reduction and having the job

completed at the lowest price. Value engineering is a technique directed toward analysing the

functions of an item or process to determine "best value," or the best relationship between

worth and cost. In other words, "best value" is represented by an item or process that

consistently performs the required basic function and has the Lowest Life-Cycle Cost

(LLCC).

Current construction management differs from “Lean Construction” because;

A clear set of objectives are visible for the delivery process; (conception to

completion)

Performance is maximised at project level, not local;

The product and the process are designed in sync with one another;

Production control is applied throughout the life cycle of the project.

of 83

“Lean Construction” also differs from traditional construction because it is more of a

development process which has been modelled on a production control model. The key

differences are;

Decisions decentralized;

Process control essential;

Throughput is crucial; focus is removed from localised activities;

Reliability is the most important factor (no reworks/first time right)

1.7: Aim of the Report

The aim of the questionnaire and indeed this report has been to examine the possibilities of

implementing “Lean Construction” principles to the Irish Construction Industry. Throughout

the author’s research to date, anywhere “Lean” principles have been implemented; they have

been a success. However this was not achieved overnight and systematic changing of

attitudes and culture within the industry had to be addressed. Forward thinking starting at

Senior Management levels is essential in order for it to succeed.

This report will explore the possibilities of introducing “Lean Construction” principles to the

industry in Ireland; bearing the UK in mind also. It’s axiomatic from the results received in

the questionnaire that significant barriers exist in the industry towards introducing such

principles. This can be seen as a challenge but more importantly “Lean Construction”

principles should be seen as the saviour and future lifeblood of the now disillusioned

construction industry.

It will be illustrated in this report where “Lean Construction” has been a success (Chapter 4,

UK & USA Case Studies) with proven results that immense savings can be achieved. If some

or all of these savings can be transferred to the Irish Construction Industry this will help share

some of the burden of the steep decline in tender prices, DKM9 estimates these to be in the

region of 30%.

9 DKM Economic Consultants (2010), Review of the Construction Industry 2009 and Outlook 2010–2012, p14

of 83

Indeed savings similar to those illustrated in the case studies further on in the document will

have to be achieved to move our industry forward again. Knowledge gained from our past

mistakes must be learnt from, and a change to the fundamental nature of the traditional

construction process must ensue. Now is the ideal opportunity to instil new beliefs in

Ireland’s construction professionals, site personnel and suppliers. Continuous improvements

must be sought from every sector along the “Lean” journey. These must include;

Development of standard components and processes;

Performance measurements of individual sectors;

Appraisal of past processes and projects;

Training of individuals and companies.

The constant requirement for innovation in all aspects of construction from conception to

completion is crucial if “Lean Construction” is to succeed.

1.8: Current Economic Situation and Future Outlook

The DKM report on the construction industry 2009 outlook to 2010-2012 gave very bleak

reading, the total decline in private non-residential construction output since the peak in 2007

is predicted to be a staggering 85%. Commercial building output is also expected to fall

significantly this year, (-71.4%) and the volume of industrial building output and tourism

buildings are both expected to fall sharply (-71.2% & -75.9% respectively).10

Almost every sector in construction is expected to shrink in volume terms with the exception

of social infrastructure projects. Volume is expected to fall by just 0.1% overall, This

segment is supported by a strong growth in investment in education (+25.2%) while the

volume of construction output with regard to investment in hospital buildings and public

buildings is expected to be lower than 2009 levels (-5.5% & - 9.8% respectively). In

comparison to the other sectors mentioned on the previous page the author believes this is the

only sector with any prospects in the short to medium term, however the level of investment

10

DKM Economic Consultants (2010), Review of the Construction Industry 2009 and Outlook 2010–2012,page

v of executive summary

of 83

may be curtailed subject to the spending levels acceptable by the International Monetary

Fund (IMF) and the European Central Bank. (ECB) following Irelands recent bailout.

A huge opportunity is here to implement “Lean Construction” principles and prove the

savings that can be made. This can be done by repeating the design of schools and indeed

most social infrastructure. Why does every single building have to look so different?

Buildings can be built with standard products but can look aesthetically different to one

another with some creativity and some innovation.

There are many makes of cars in the world; each model is improved upon with some facelifts

before the design is decommissioned. Why can the same theory not be applied to

construction? Housing and social infrastructure projects can reap huge benefits from the

savings of repeated design. Savings in the region of 15% improvements on time are only the

tip of the iceberg as illustrated in Q20 (p51). Standardisation does not necessarily mean

boring.

The Egan report (2002)11

has illustrated the scope that is available to standardisation.

Motorway bridges in the UK have been a collection of prototypes as such. In comparison,

France, Germany and Belgium construct motorway bridges that are built with standard

components and are repetitive by nature. Learning and efficiencies’ are gained, not lost.

In addition to this the USA has six different designs of toilet pans available in contrast to one

hundred and fifty available in the UK. Innovative designs can help bring the construction

industry forward and ultimately add some value to future projects.

The benefits off-site construction brings to the table will have to be reaped to inevitably

remove the wasteful culture that has set into the industry. The Construction Industry

Taskforce observed European housing sites and concluded having interviewed the

stakeholders, that the biggest efficiencies to be had, were attributed to the pre-planning with

the suppliers and manufacturers of components so that time spent on site could be

significantly reduced.

11

Egan Report, (2002), Rethinking Construction, Construction Industry Taskforce UK, paragraph 60-62.

of 83

“Redesign should take place on a computer on not on a construction site”12

Another study of the USA, Scandinavia and UK noted by Egan in his report maintained13

that

30% of construction is rework, labour is only 40-60% efficient, accidents equate to

approximately 3-6% of project costs and material wastage accounts for 10% of material costs.

These figures equate to huge possibilities to correct the inefficiencies.

Past figures from 2006 show that Ireland was building four times the average amount of new

dwellings compared with our European counterparts at the time (DKM 2010)14

. Bearing this

in mind along with future growth of the Irish Construction Industry’s housing market

(predicted by DKM Economic Consultants), some radical thinking is required to rise the

industry from the ashes. The predicted house completions in 2010 are in the region of 8,500,

reducing to merely 7,500 for 2011, are in stark contrast with the estimated completions of

97,000+ in 2006. 2012 demand is expected to increase back to 8,500 per annum and the four

year period following this is expected to grow back to more sustainable levels of 31,500 units

per year, this however is just a forecast and latent demand may be dampened by fiscal

policies of the Government.

The reliance of the Irish construction industry, and indeed the wider Irish economy on house

building is without doubt related to the severe downturn at present. Value was not achieved in

abundance during the Celtic Tiger. What has to be addressed and ensure that it is never let

happen again. However, with this dark cloud that has been cast over the Irish Economy, a

silver lining can enfold. The author strongly believes in “Lean Construction” principles and

now is the time and the opportunity to implement them.

1.9: Report Contents

The following chapter on research methodologies will show the reader how the information

was compiled for this document. The average answers are from the forty one construction

professionals surveyed. A broad range of professionals were surveyed in order to gauge their

opinions and also compare the different stakeholders’ answers with one another to illustrate

the fragmentation that exists in the industry.

12

Egan Report, (2002), Rethinking Construction, Construction Industry Taskforce UK, paragraph 64 13


DKM Economic Consultants (2010), Review of the Construction Industry 2009 and Outlook 2010–2012, p 52

of 83

Analysis of the results from the questionnaire with specific reference to “Lean” principles

follows in the next chapter. The questions have been broken into ten categories which are

shown below;

1. Productivity

2. Waste

3. Key Success Factors

4. Procurement

5. Design & 3D

6. Fault Elimination

7. Best Value

8. Education

9. CCTV

10. Prospects

The penultimate chapter briefly describes three case studies to illustrate to the reader some

real life successful “Lean Construction” projects. The first of the case studies that have been

examined are a subcontract of a £4.2 billion infrastructure project in the UK where an

Integrated Materials Management (IMM) strategy was employed with great success.

The second case study is about the Sutter Health Care Facility in California, USA. Having

brought all the stakeholders together early in the design process 90% of the floor area was

reduced to 70% and the savings achieved bought valuable medical equipment that were

outside the restraints of the original budget. Finally the El Camino Medical centre, also in

California had an increase in labour productivity. It was better than the industry standard by

15-30%.

The concluding thoughts of the author on implementing “Lean Construction” in Ireland along

with a summary of the results from the questionnaire conclude the report.

of 83

The author intends to expand on the information gathered for this document as it was not

possible to analyse in enough detail the amount of primary data that was gathered. Whilst

compiling the data, the author found many more questions that need to be answered. Further

research will have to be carried out on a broader scale to find all of the deep routed problems

in today’s construction industry. How “Lean Construction” can both improve and be

implemented into the Irish construction industry is the next question that needs to be

researched and answered.

Professional bodies such as Construction Industry Federation (CIF), Society of Chartered

Surveyors (SCS), Royal Institute of Architects Ireland (RIAI), Chartered Institute of Builders

(CIOB), etc. must be consulted to gauge all disciplines opinions on implementing “Lean

Construction”.

Clients, Suppliers and Trade Unions must not be ignored nor should any other stakeholder as

“Lean Construction” can only succeed if every single person is working towards the one goal.

of 83

2.1: Research Methodologies

The following chapter illustrates how the primary and secondary data was obtained and

researched for the purpose of this report and has been broken up into the following sections.

2.2: Background Reading & Objectives

The research for this document was based on two fronts; to begin with, secondary research

was gathered from books, electronic journals and the internet and then, primary data was

obtained from the questionnaire compiled by the author. The questions contained within the

latter originated from the author’s mind but were encouraged and expanded largely by three

key books.

Saunders et al, (2003)15

explained the different methods of research at the disposal of the

author and were extremely helpful compiling the layout of the questionnaire. Indeed as was

Naoum S. G. (2009)16

who outlined in chapter 6 of his book that;

“Postal questionnaires will be more appropriate than interviews if your study seeks

the opinion of top contractors operating in London.”

Bearing this in mind the questionnaire was deemed to be the most efficient way of obtaining

the information required to cement the findings of the author’s secondary research. Naoum

stated that;

“The base of all questionnaires should be the questions; the logical flow will

eventually follow.”

The objective of the questionnaire was to gauge the opinions, attitudes and likely behaviours

of construction professionals on past experience of the industry and also considering the

future introduction of “Lean Construction” to the Irish Construction Industry.

The third book written by Forbes & Ahmed (2011)17

explained in detail how “Lean

Construction” principles are adopted and the areas that it can be implemented.

15

Saunders M, Lewis P, & Thornhill A, (2003), Research Methods for Business Students, 3rd

edition, Pearson

Education Limited, Essex 16

Naoum S. G, (2009), Dissertation Research & Writing for Construction Students, 2nd

edition, Butterworth-

Heinemann, Oxford

of 83

2.3: Likert Scale

To get a measure of the majority of the answers, the Likert scale was used. This is a scale to

gauge attitudinal statements about the subject matter and this worked out favourably in the

corresponding questionnaire. As a general rule the questions were rated 1-5 with 1 totally

disagreeing; 3 not sure and 5 totally agreeing with the statement. The majority of the

questions were answered in the manner the author intended however there were three

exceptions; Q3, Q9 and Q10. They had to be interpreted to an extent as not all of the boxes

were filled in as required. Upon reflection the questions could have been worded slightly

clearer, hindsight being the deciding factor.

2.4: Compiling the Questionnaire

The questionnaire and covering letter attached to same were compiled and edited several

times before a pilot survey was carried out. Both Saunders et al and Naoum identified this as

being a Key Success Factor (KSF) of a questionnaire. Three people, all with many years’

experience in the industry were chosen to complete the pilot questionnaire and they

volunteered some of their valuable time to not only complete the questionnaire but also

provide some quality feedback on how they interpreted the questions and covering letter.

The covering letter gave some background information on the topic and the reasons for the

research. The email which had the covering letter and questionnaire attached included the

instructions how to complete the questionnaire and the closing date for completions. The

initial emails and subsequent reminders are located in Appendix 2.

A small few unclear questions were dropped from the pilot survey and one was added after

the feedback on same. This gave the author the confidence that was needed in the final draft

and proceeded to email it out to the stakeholders involved. In order to maximise responses it

was imperative the questionnaire was sent out at the beginning of the week as this would give

a higher response rate than the end. To increase the response rate the author phoned a large

degree of the respondents to seek their approval of mailing them the questionnaire and also to

17

Forbes, L. & Ahmed, S. (2011) Modern Construction, “Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices, CRC

Press, New York.

of 83

make a personal request for them to pass it on to other professionals. This proved to be a

great success.

The initial survey was quite slow to get replies but nonetheless twenty were received by the

middle of week two. This coincided with St. Patricks Day so the author felt it would be of no

benefit to send out the reminder that week. The following Monday, (two weeks after initially

sending out the questionnaire) the author emailed a reminder to all, that the responses were

required by the following Friday 25th

March 2011 so that the data could be analysed for this

report. The final hand up date for this subsequent report was 14th

April 2011.

This reminder proved very successful, and by the weekend, over forty completed

questionnaires had been received. A total of forty three people were sent the initial

questionnaire and twenty of this cohort completed same. The remaining twenty one other

respondents were unknown to the author and were colleagues of the initial people contacted.

The information gathered from this questionnaire could then form the basis of this following

document. As the Likert scale was used for the questionnaire, transferring the answers into

Excel was relatively straightforward task. From the initial spread sheet it was then possible to

divide the respondents into their respective categories and proceed to analyse the data. This

data is illustrated in the following chapter and analysed. A copy of the complete original

spread sheet before filtering and analysis took place can be found in Appendix 3. The tables

relating to the corresponding charts and graphs in the following chapter are located in

Appendix 4.

The questions are grouped together in categories shown overleaf.

of 83

3.1: Questionnaire

The following thirty questions have been constructed to judge the opinions, attitudes

experience and likely behaviours of construction professionals towards “Lean Construction”

principles. The questions have been grouped into the following categories;

Q1-Q5 Productivity: The factors that hinder it considering the elements that affect it;

Q6-Q9 Waste: Elements that delay the smooth flow of work and opinions to possible

solutions;

Q10 Key Success Factors: Key Success Factors (KSF) for a project;

Q11, Q12 Procurement: The procurement process and its effect on waste;

Q13-Q19 Design & 3D: The design of products and Building Information Modelling

(BIM) technology;

Q20 Fault Elimination: Savings that can be achieved through fault elimination;

Q21 Best Value: Awareness of clients to the true best value of a project over its life

cycle;

Q22-Q25 Education: “Lean Construction” education in relation to organisations;

Q25-Q29 CCTV: The application of CCTV to construction projects;

Q30 Prospects: The willingness of the various stakeholders to the construction

process towards adopting “Lean Construction”.

of 83

3.2: Charts listing Profession, Employer & Experience of Respondents

Figure 1: Chart showing the different types of disciplines surveyed.

Figure 2: Employment details of respondents’.

Total people

surveyed = 41

of 83

Figure 3: Levels of experience of the respondents.

The total number of people surveyed was forty one. As can be seen from Figure 1 a broad

range of disciplines have taken part in the survey. The scores of these particular individuals

(by Title only) can be seen in Appendix 3 where the full individual data is located. However,

for the purpose of this report the resulting scores from the groups are to be examined with the

results portrayed in the following graphs, charts and tables.

Assessing Figure 2 it shows that;

5% do not work for either the Client or Main Contractor, (Academic);

5% work for both;

34% work for the Main Contractor and;

56% work for the Client.

Figure 3 above is the combined experience of all the people. Individual experience of each

individual can be seen in Appendix 3.

of 83

3.3: Q1-Q5. Productivity

Q1: Scaling from 1 – 5, with 1 being the lowest, do you think there’s much scope to

improve productivity in the Irish Construction Industry?

Totally disagree .......................................Not sure..............................................Totally agree

Q1. Scope to improve productivity?

No. Profession Average Result

3 Site/Civil Eng 5.00

3 QS 4.67

11 UK 4.36

6 Site Mngr 4.33

3 Client 4.33

7 Contract Mngr 4.14

3 Clerk of Works 4.00

18 No to BIM 4.00

23 Yes to BIM 3.91

30 Ireland 3.80

3 Academic 3.67

2 Project Mngr 3.50

4 Structural Eng 3.25

2 Site Clerk 3.00

4 Architect 2.75

41 Overall average 3.95

Table 1: Q1. Average answers of the respondents.

It is clear from the averages in Table 1, that there is a large degree of scope to improve

productivity within the construction industry. The survey that was sent to the UK gives a

higher average of 4.36 compared with an average of 3.80 for Ireland. This could be down to

the bigger market the UK has to tender to and construction issues being highlighted to a

greater extent by the likes of the British Research Establishment (BRE) and the Construction

Industry Taskforce (Latham (1994) and Egan (1998 & 2002) reports). All three Site

Engineers scored a 5 and the author believes this can be put down to the hands on approach

they play on site, seeing waste and unproductive behaviour first-hand.

5 4 3 2 1

of 83

Q2: In your career to date what percentage of projects have run;

(a) On time? (b) On budget?

0 – 25% 0 – 25%

25 – 50% 25 – 50%

50 – 75% 50 – 75%

75 – 100% 75 – 100%

TIME

BUDGET



11 UK 3.82

2 Project Mngr 3.50


3 Client 3.33

2 Project Mngr 3.50


6 Site Mngr 3.50

11 UK 3.27

3 QS 3.33


23 Yes to BIM 3.13

23 Yes to BIM 2.87


6 Site Mngr 2.80

3 Academic 3.00

3 Academic 2.67

3 Client 3.00


18 No to BIM 2.76

18 No to BIM 2.63


30 Ireland 2.57

30 Ireland 2.66

2 Site Clerk 2.50

2 Site Clerk 2.50

3 QS 2.33



4 Architect 1.75

4 Architect 1.75



Table 2: Q2. Average answers of projects delivered on time & on budget.

The results from both parts of Q.2 are not definitive. Nonetheless a good indication is given

from Q.2a that projects in Ireland are delayed significantly more than our counterparts in the

UK (2.66v3.82, 25%). Q.2b also shows a difference between Ireland and the UK when

comparing projects completed on budget (2.57 v 3.27 20%).

Interestingly, professionals with experience in Building Information Modelling (BIM) gave

move favourable averages than those who did not. This can only be a positive result for the

technology.

4

3

2

1

of 83

Q3.1: Considering your answer to Q2, could you please indicate which of the factors

below had the most contributory effect to the delay to original programme? Please scale

your answer 1 – 9, with 1 having the least consequence?

From the answers above; breakdown in relationships (Q3G) is the top rating average.

Although every category is essential to the success of “Lean Construction” the team work

required is the most important. If this element alone could be remedied a level of reliability

could ensue with the construction and design process. Variations and poor site management

were the second and third top answers respectively.

The lowest scoring answer was the delay in receiving responses to Requests for Information

(RFI) from the design team. It must be noted nonetheless from Figure 4 overleaf that the

Site/Civil Engineers scored this category the highest of all the stakeholders and this has to

again be due to the hands on approach they play on site. It generally happens that when the

construction phase is under way, that this is the category to find the problems with the design

and the buildability associated with same.

Q3 Delay

Average

score

A Variations 5.40

B Poor Site Management 5.42

C

Scheduling promises not

kept by Main Contractor 5.26

D

Materials not on site when

required 5.32

E

Poor quality of

workmanship/materials 5.05

F Weather 4.63

G

Breakdown in relations/

communications between

disciplines 5.50

H

Buildability –Did the design

process consider the

construction process? 5.15

I

A delay in receiving

responses to RFI’s from

design team. 3.00

Table 3: Highest and lowest scores regarding delay & cost factors of a project

of 83

Figure 4: Q3.1. Chart illustrating category highest and lowest scores from the stakeholders surveyed.

Table 4 overleaf outlines the highest and lowest scores of each category regarding delay and

cost factors of a project. These are the items that contribute to either a delay to the original

programme (Q3A-Q3I) or cost over-run to the initial budget (Q3J-Q3R). The answers of each

category vary somewhat but variations (Q3A & Q3J) and delay to receive RFIs (Q3I & Q3R)

were ranked highest and lowest on average in both parts to the question.

of 83

Q3.1:Delay Q3.2: Cost

Profession Highest Score Lowest Score Highest Score Lowest Score

Academic 3A (9.00) 3B (3.00) 3K (9.00) 3R (1.00)

Architect 3A (8.00) 3G (1.50) 3J (8.50) 3P, 3Q &3R (3.00)

Clerk of Works 3C (9.00) 3A (1.00) 3J (9.00) 3M (1.00)

Client 3H (7.50) 3I (2.50) 3J (8.00) 3M (3.50)

Contract Manager 3A & 3F (7.00) 3R (2.33) 3O (7.33) 3R (2.33)

Ireland 3C (6.67) 3H (3.18) 3J (6.82) 3R (3.90)

Ireland & UK 3G (5.50) 3I (3.00) 3J (6.67) 3R (3.41)

No to BIM 3B (6.57) 3I (3.50) 3J (6.67) 3L (2.50)

Project Manager 3C (7.50) 3E, 3G & 3I (3.18) 3P & 3Q (8.50) 3N (2.50)

Quantity Surveyor 3E & 3G (6.00) 3I (2.67) 3J & 3P (6.33) 3R (4.00)

Site Manager 3B & 3G (7.00) 3C (1.00) 3J (7.50) 3L (1.00)

Site/Civil Engineer 3B (9.00) 3A (1.00) 3K (9.00) 3J (1.00)

Structural Engineer 3A (7.67) 3F (1.33) 3J (9.00) 3Q & 3O (2.00)

UK 3G (7.50) 3C (2.75) 3P (8.50) 3L (2.17)

Yes to BIM 3A (6.17) 3I (2.75) 3J (6.67) 3R (2.83)

Table 4: Q3.1. Highest and lowest scores regarding delay & cost factors of a project

Q3 Delay/Cost Average score

A,J Variations 5.40/6.67

B,K Poor Site Management 5.42/5.22

C,L


kept by Main Contractor 5.26/4.39

D,M


required 5.32/4.56

E,N

Poor quality of

workmanship/materials 5.05/5.56

F,O Weather 4.63/4.56

G,P



disciplines 5.50/5.44

H,Q



construction process? 5.15/4.95

I,R



design team. 3.00/3.41

Table 5: Average scores for Q3.1 & Q3.2

of 83

Q3.2: Considering your answer to Q2, could you please indicate which of the factors

below had the most contributory effect to the cost over-run to original price? Please

scale your answer 1 – 9, with 1 having the least consequence?

Q 3 Cost

Average

score

J Variations 6.67

K Poor Site Management 5.22

L


kept by Main Contractor 4.39

M


required 4.56

N

Poor quality of

workmanship/materials 5.56

O Weather 4.56

P



disciplines 5.44

Q



construction process? 4.95

R



design team. 3.41

Table 6: Q3.2. Cost factors of a project.

Variations were the number one factor to contribute to the overall cost of a project and this is

in line with the authors expectations. Variations are effectively changes made to the original

design after it has been commissioned and will more often than bear a financial cost. Car

manufacturing works so efficiently, mainly because the design has been tested before it is

built en mass. Motor vehicles are designed for manufacture meaning that any flaws in the

model have been eliminated by testing prototypes and researching the market to give the

consumer exactly what they want. Resources are front loaded in car manufacture to ensure

the design is correct before manufacture. The product and process are designed bearing one

another in mind. The same needs to happen to construction; projects need to be designed for

construction and not just for aesthetics.

of 83

The design must be 100% correct and buildable before a spade goes into the ground. Ballard

& Howell18

described the unique requirements of the client not being met, as waste. This

must be addressed to move the construction industry forward.

Designs must be made for ease of construction and it can be clearly seen from Figure 5 below

that both the Structural Engineers and Architects do not see this as being so much a problem

as other issues.

Figure 5: Q3. Answers re buildability from the stakeholders surveyed.

18

Ballard, G. & Howell, G. What is “Lean Construction”



of 83

In relation to buildability, regarding Q3.1 (Delay) & Q3.2 (Cost), the Client, Project

Manager, Contract Manager, Site Manager and Site Engineer scored considerably more

favourable averages than the Architect and Structural Engineers. According to Construction

Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) (1983), Buildability is;

“The extent to which the design of a building facilitates ease of construction, subject

to the overall requirements for the completed building”19

Buildability is the provision of construction details and materials, which simplify the over-all

construction process. It helps reduce construction costs and should be considered at every

stage of the construction process, including the construction itself, maintenance, alteration

and finally demolition but specifically at the design stage. An example of the concept of

buildability at work is improved coordination between the contractors and suppliers during

the construction stage of a project.

Whilst the Architect, and, to a lesser extent, the Structural Engineer are the authors of the

design, the rest of the stakeholders bar the Client, are heavily involved in the day to day

building on the site so are therefore more aware of the buildability of designs. From the

results above it would indicate that a higher level of collaboration at the early design stage

could help eliminate this problem.

“Lean Construction” advocates critical appraisal of designs by the builders of the product

whilst the product is in the design stage. This can help eliminate costly errors that are not

realised until the construction stage. The results of the question highlight this problem by a

large degree. For a full list of the tables relating to Q3, see Appendix 4.

RFIs were last in the average charts, whilst weather was eight and seventh with respect to

delay and cost factors. Weather is the more surprising of the two because this should be the

number one factor that delays a project. If all the other variables were eliminated (which the

author believes is possible), then weather should be the only factor that affects the process.

Off-site construction can enhance reliability, precision and quality levels required for “Lean

Construction” and this can also help eliminate the threat of inclement weather. Weather will

always be a factor but this by right should be the only factor that cannot be predicted.

19

http://www.ciria.org/service/Home/AM/ContentManagerNet/HomePages/CIRIA_1502

http://www.ciria.org/service/Home/AM/ContentManagerNet/HomePages/CIRIA_1502

of 83

Q4: On a scale of 1 – 5, with 1 being the lowest, how important is maintaining the same

Site Management from the beginning to the end of the project?

Totally disagree (1).................................Not sure (3).......................................Totally agree (5)

Table 4. Importance of same site management?


2 Project Mngr 5.00



6 Site Mngr 4.67

18 No to BIM 4.61

11 UK 4.55


2 Site Clerk 4.50

30 Ireland 4.47

23 Yes to BIM 4.39

3 Academic 4.33

3 Client 4.33

4 Architect 4.25

3 QS 4.00



Table 7:Q4. Average answers relating to the importance of maintaining the same Site Management.

Maintaining the same Site Management/Sub-Contractors from the beginning to the end of a

project is crucial to the success of a project. Tables 7 & 8 illustrate this with both tables

giving identical results. The averages were the second highest out of all thirty questions

meaning that this was without doubt one of the most important aspects of the construction

process thought by all surveyed.

“Lean Construction” advocates partnering strongly and highly recommends building up

relationships between the different stakeholders in the construction process so that better

understandings can be gained between the various parties. Partnering and collaboration

between disciplines over the course of multiple projects can further enhance the benefits of

such deals as professionals can benefit from knowledge built up over a series of

developments and are not starting from scratch when beginning new projects. Each member

of these teams will have a better understanding of each other and this can only have a positive

effect.

of 83

Q5: On a scale of 1 – 5, with 1 being the lowest, how important is maintaining the same

Sub- contractors from the beginning to the end of the project?


Q5. Importance of same sub-contractors?


2 Project Mngr 5.00

6 Site Mngr 5.00


2 Site Clerk 5.00

4 Architect 4.75

18 No to BIM 4.72



11 UK 4.55

30 Ireland 4.47

23 Yes to BIM 4.30


3 Academic 3.67

3 Client 3.67

3 QS 3.33


Table 8: Q5. Average answers relating to the importance of maintaining the same Sub-contractors.

Although the average is identical to Table 7 it must be noted that the Architect’s average was

0.5 higher in Table 8. Quality of the finished article is of the utmost importance to them so a

change of subcontractor can have a negative effect on the project. From the authors

experience on site, both as a Finishing Foreman and Site Manager; anytime there was a

change of sub-contractor throughout a job this had a negative impact on both relations with

the Architect and on the quality of the finished product/amount of reworks.

of 83

3.4: Q6-Q9. Waste

Q6: What percentage of times have you noticed a delay in the handovers between trades

due to minor items not being completed by the outgoing trade?

0 – 25% 25 – 50% 50 – 75% 75 – 100%

Q6. % delay of handovers between

trades due to minor items uncompleted?

No. Profession

Average

Result

6 Site Mngr 3.17


11 UK 3.09

18 No to BIM 3.06

3 QS 3.00


2 Site Clerk 3.00

3 Client 3.00

30 Ireland 2.77


4 Architect 2.75

23 Yes to BIM 2.70


3 Academic 2.33

2 Project Mngr 2.00


Table 9: Q6. Percentage delay to handovers due to items not being completed i.e. reliable work flow is

stopped.

Smooth and reliable work-flow is essential for “Lean Construction” to work. If the workflow

can be predicted and be relied upon, then upstream actions can have certainty of

commencement dates and hence a reliable workflow, meaning trades can make more reliable

promises.

Waste occurs in the handovers between trades, going from one activity to another and this

needs to be addressed to eliminate this waste. The Last Planner System (LPS) can help

eradicate this by decentralising decision making to those closest to the activity. This will be

discussed in greater detail when Q9 is addressed.

4 3 2 1

In traditional construction researchers have

shown that approximately only 50% of all

tasks set out for construction teams in a

given week are completed (Forbes et al

2011, p86). This figure is generally in line

with the research the author has carried out.

Regarding Q6, averages were roughly

between 45-75%. One of the ethos’ behind

“Lean Construction” is that the “next

customer” receives the product with no

defects and “Just-in-Time”. The next

customer is the following trade and not the

end user. The end user is effectively the last

customer in the chain.

of 83

Koskela (2004)20

, regards “making do” as the 8th

form of waste. This is when a task is started

without all the required resources in place, leaving the workers no alternative but to make do

with what was there. This is suboptimal practice. The author’s experience has seen this all too

often on construction sites and is not what “Lean Construction” refers to as a reliable work

flow.

The seven other forms of waste are; (Forbes et al 2011)

21

¤ Overproducing: Increasing the speed and volume of one task but at the expense of

another trade.

¤ Idle time waste: Time spent waiting unproductively. ( A concrete pour called off at

the last minute leaves many workers time wasted)

¤ Transportation of goods: Goods not in an optimal place. (See IMM strategy p 65)

¤ Processing waste: Material costs are 50-60% of overall costs therefore the waste

occurring between design, procurement, handling, operation or poor waste

management combined is a considerable amount.

¤ Inventory waste: High levels of stock can have hidden costs, spoilage, shrinkage,

theft, NVA can activities increase looking for materials instead of fitting.

¤ Producing defective goods: Rejection by Architect or Engineer can result in costly

reworks.

20

Koskela, L. (2004) Making do- the eight form of waste, Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the

International Group for “Lean Construction” (IGLC-12), Copenhagen, Denmark. 21

Forbes L. & Ahmed S. (2011) Modern Construction, “Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices, CRC

Press, New York, p64,65

of 83

Q7: If a collective risk/profit fund existed, that ALL disciplines shared, based on the

completion of a successful project, rather than rewarding individual success, would this

eliminate or greatly reduce the waste of resources on site?


Q8: Would a risk/profit fund improve the handing over of tasks between trades?

Figure 6: Q7 & Q8. Average answers in relation to the risk /profit fund.

With regard to Q7 & Q8 above, it is not as definitive an answer as the author would have

thought. Reasoning behind this could be culture. Similar to that of Q9b & Q9d overleaf,

people expect certain aspects of the construction process to happen, just because this has

become the norm and part of culture. Nonetheless the author believes that in order for a

project to be successful every discipline must benefit from the finished product and not just a

single accomplished task. By focusing on individual tasks within construction just as

traditional construction does, a detrimental impact on following on trades can ensue. “Lean

Construction” optimizes at project level, not local level, ensuring that the “next customers”

needs are always met.

of 83

Q9: Could you please list from 1-5 with 1 being the least critical, which items you would

deem to be the most wasteful element in the construction process?

The top rating average answer to this question was insufficient planning (Q9c), closely

followed in second by resources not being on site (Q9e). Again, these are both large elements

that contribute to waste in construction and also lost man hours of productivity.

Figure 7: Q9. Top two answers illustrated in bar chart

3.26 2.24 3.79 2.68 3.16

Time spent looking

for materials

Insufficient

planning

Resources not on site

when required

Damaged/ Excess

materials

Incomplete

design

of 83

Both of these items are dealt with in detail when using the LPS which helps manages projects

and schedules in order that;

Workflow is well thought out for the entire development;

The flow of work is prearranged within the system;

Tasks are controlled to provide for the needs of the next customer and;

Plans are constantly reviewed to acknowledge accomplishments and fine tune for

improvements. (Forbes et al. 2011, p89)22

Once again the results shown in Figure 7 have illustrated how the principles of “Lean

Construction” can without doubt improve the construction industry.

Figure 8 interestingly shows Architects averaging a 4 for incomplete design. One comment

received in the questionnaire from an Architect with over thirty years’ experience in relation

to the most wasteful elements within the construction process (Q3) was that;

“The largest impact on both time and cost is the client changing the brief, materials,

components, post tender / contract signoff etc. NUMBER 9 FOR BOTH!”

Meaning, the design is not complete when contract documents are signed and this is not in

line with “Lean” principles. Variations also rated in the top three of both time and cost over-

run and these are in tandem with incomplete design. Incidentally, incomplete design was the

top rating overall average answer to Q9 from all Architects, Project Managers and Site

Clerks.

Another point of note is that time spent searching for more materials were deemed the least

wasteful element of the five options given. One can only assume that this part of waste is

taken for granted as being part of the process. Searching for materials in a Non Value Added

(NVA) activity and has to be addressed if “Lean” fundamental principles are to be addressed

22

Forbes L. & Ahmed S. (2011) Modern Construction, “Lean” Project Delivery and Integrated Practices, CRC

Press, New York, p89

of 83

Figure 8: Q9. Third, fourth and fifth rating answers.

of 83

3.5: Q10. Success Factors

Q10: Could you please list from 1-5 with 1 being the least critical, the key success

factors for a project?

Client Satisfaction On Time On Budget No accidents Quality

Q10. Key Success Factors (KSF)

Success Factors

Average

Result

Q10d. No accidents? 3.34

Q10e. Quality? 3.13

Q10a. Client satisfaction? 3.06

Q10c. On budget? 3.06

Q10b. On time? 2.41

Table 10: Q10. Average scores regarding key success factors.

With no accidents being the top rating answer to Q10, this is in line with the author’s beliefs.

No project can be deemed a success if a serious or fatal injury occurs on site and no amount

of time or money saved can make up for this. By having a safe site all of the other elements

above which are key success factors, can fall into place.

Pre-tender qualifications process will inevitably be weighted towards Health & Safety (H &

S) records of construction companies and are crucial in winning future contracts. Furthermore

good H & S records can lead to lower insurance costs which in turn can lead to lower overall

construction costs. Another point of note from this question was that the entire question was

not completed 100% as was intended by the author (see Appendix 3). Five people surveyed

commented that they would class all five options as 5 with some others scoring multiple

boxes as 4 and 5. This illustrates the importance of the options and further cements the

writer’s faith that “Lean Construction” could be a great success on all fronts.

3.13 3.34 3.06 2.41 3.06

of 83

3.6: Q11 & Q12. Procurement

Q11: Do you think the kind of procurement process chosen; has an impact on waste

levels in all aspects of the construction process (from conception to completion)?


Q11. Does the kind of procurement process impact on waste?



6 Site Mngr 4.33

18 No to BIM 4.06


4 Architect 4.00

3 Academic 4.00

2 Site Clerk 4.00

30 Ireland 3.93


11 UK 3.82

23 Yes to BIM 3.78

3 QS 3.67

3 Client 3.67

2 Project Mngr 3.50



Table 11: Q11. Average ratings showing how much the procurement process can affect waste levels in the

construction process.

It is clear from the average answer in Table 11 that professional people think the kind of

procurement process chosen has an impact on waste levels on projects. Traditionally

buildings are initially designed, and then estimated. “Lean Construction” advocates Target-

Value Design (TVD), this entails designing to a specific estimate rather than estimating to a

detailed design. Lack of coordination at the start can result in early design decisions being

suboptimal. (Forbes et al 2011, p83)

Q3H and Q3Q referred to buildability and it’s evident from the responses here that the

disciplines involved in the actual building process see this being more wasteful than the

of 83

designers of the product. Designers need to be more aware of this when commissioning their

designs and need to be more receptive to critical appraisals of their designs. By having the

Main Contractor and all the other stakeholders to the project on board at the conception stage

buildability can no doubt increase. (See Sutter Health Care Facility on p69)

Bearing this in mind along with the answers to Q12 it is the writer’s belief that a Design &

Build (D & B) contract with inputs from the employer is the best form of contract available at

present that is most suitable to “Lean Construction”. Although this was the second top rating

answer (12), with traditional lump sum with fixed price first (13), a D & B contract would

give the price certainty that the traditional lump sum contract gives.

The author has experience on six multi million euro projects with one of these a D & B

supplier input only, school contract. It was the only project out of the six that finished on time

and on budget. Although some redesign was needed on site the fact that it was a school due to

open the following week with €25,000 liquidated damages per week for delays duly helped.

The Architect was also directly employed by the Main Contractor which would also have

contributed to the project’s success.

The column headed twice in Table 12 below refers to people who had selected two options

instead of one. The original survey in excel format is located in Appendix 3.

Q12: To minimise or eliminate waste, what kind of contract do you think would be best

suited to “Lean Construction”?

Q12. To minimise waste what contract would suit “Lean Construction”

best?

Contract No. Twice

Traditional Lump sum with fixed price 13 3

D & B Employer input to design 12 2

Construction Management Contract 9

Traditional Lump sum with fluctuations 4

Cost reimbursement contracts 4

D & B Supplier input to design 2 1

Table 12: Q12. Type of contract that professionals thought would suit “Lean Construction” best.

of 83

3.7: Q13-Q19. Design & 3D:

Q13: What percentage of projects throughout your career has the final product been

identical to the original design?

0 – 25% 25 – 50% 50 – 75% 75 – 100%

Q13. % of projects identical to original design?


2 Project Mngr 4.00


2 Site Clerk 3.00

11 UK 2.73

3 QS 2.67

23 Yes to BIM 2.52

6 Site Mngr 2.50

30 IRL 2.17

18 No to BIM 2.06




3 Academic 1.67

3 Client 1.67

4 Architect 1.50


Table 13: Q13. One of the major problems in construction is the design; this table illustrates category

averages & overall average scores.

Worthy of note is the fact that the people most suited to critically appraise this question were

the Architects; scoring this question, the lowest by far. They were the authors’ of the original

design and this makes them best placed to make this judgment call.

Many comparisons have been made throughout this report between “Lean Construction” and

“Lean Manufacturing”. The biggest difference however is the unique nature of every

construction project compared with the mass production involved in manufacturing.

1 4 3 2

of 83

Standardisation is common place in manufacturing; this has led to great savings by means of

increased productivity, long term partnering relationships built up with Suppliers and Sub-

contractors, and by continuous improvements that are gained by constantly learning from the

same repetitive process.

Whilst manufacturing has seen large gains in the region of 40-50% in increased productivity

over the last fifty years (Forbes et al, 2011), construction has not benefited from anywhere

near the same.

Another substantial difference with mass car manufacturing is that the Client is the designer

in essence. The end user is not given a choice to change the design of the vehicle but is

allowed to customise it from a standard range of products. “Pull systems” are used to limit

overproducing. When a car is ordered another is built, minimising inventory and lowering

handling costs. If the same pull system was applied to house building before the boom, the

excess stock that is there at present would not have been built.

of 83

Q14: Building Information Modelling (BIM) (3D modelling) is becoming more and

more popular within the industry. Have you had any experience with BIM?

Yes No

Q14. Experience with BIM?

Yes to BIM

No to BIM

3 Academic

2 Architect

2 Architect

1 Civil Engineer

1 Carpentry Cont

2 Clerk of Works

1 Civil Engineer/Site Engineer

2 Client

1 Clerk of Works

1 Contract Mngr

6 Contract Mngr

1 Mechanical Inspector

2 Project Mngr

1 Site Clerk

3 QS

1 Site Eng

1 Site Clerk

6 Site Mngr

3 Structural Engineer

1 Structural Engineer

23 Total

18 Total

Table 14: Q14. Totals of respondents experience of Building Information Modelling (BIM).

Q14 was filtered simply to be able to compare the results of the following five questions.

BIM is relatively new to the construction industry and it will be shown from the results

gained overleaf that it can do nothing but improve the industry. Both Project Managers and

all but one of the Contract Managers have had experience with BIM, whilst none of the six

Site Managers have had any experience with the technology. This has led the writer to

believe that the Site Managers are not brought into the process as much as the Senior

Managers.

In addition to this, Site Managers are heavily involved in the day-to-day running of sites and

BIM can only enhance the communication between disciplines. It’s evident that companies

will have to invest in training however, to up skill the Site Managers. Also, they traditionally

come from a trade background whilst Senior Management is generally educated to a higher

level especially for prequalification purposes. This may be the reason why the results differ

so dramatically.

56% 44%

of 83

15: If BIM software was available to all trades before arriving on site do you think

problems could be highlighted before they occur?

Q16: Would BIM improve communication between Design Team members and Site

Management?

Q17: Would BIM improve communication between Site Management and Sub-

Contractors?


Figure 9: Q15-Q17. Results.

of 83

Q18: Do you think that Clients/End Users would benefit from seeing a 3D model before

the design has been commissioned?

Q19: Do you think that BIM could help to eradicate variations and costly reworks

before they occur on site?


Figure 10: Q18 &Q19. Results.

of 83

It is obvious from the results illustrated on the previous pages that professionals with

experience of BIM have scored far higher than those who did not. Enthrallingly, the

Architects have scored the lowest in all of the three questions above which may suggest that

they may be in fear of this new technology rather than in awe. However it must be noted that

out of the four Architects surveyed, two had experience with BIM. One had over thirty years’

experience and scored 3 (not sure) for Q15-Q17 inclusive. This is in line with the average.

Conversely, the younger Architect with experience of BIM, and has ten to twenty years’

experience in the industry scored 5 (totally agree). This leads the writer to believe that a lack

of a positive experience with the technology may be the cause of the difference in the scores.

The Architect in question was involved in a major project for one of Ireland’s largest

Mechanical & Electrical (M & E) Contractors. A 3D model was commissioned and the use of

BIM on this particular project helped to highlight a number of clashes that were not readily

visible on the 2D drawings. An out of place column and differences in levels were the main

issues highlighted in the basement.

Again, with reference to Q3h andQ3q, on the topic of buildability, the author believes that

BIM can only enhance the communication between the various stakeholders involved.

The extremely positive response to Q18 by all, gives the writer certainty that if this was

introduced as a prerequisite to contracts, that great savings to time and costs of projects could

be achieved. Out of forty one people surveyed, 95% of the respondents either agreed or

totally agreed with the benefits that could be achieved from a 3D model being shown to the

Client. The remaining 5% (QS & Site Manager) were not sure. The average of 4.61 was the

highest out of the thirty questions.

Site Engineers, Clerk of Works, Structural Engineers and Contract Managers scored highest

in Q19 and this has to be down to their experience on site building the detailed designs.

Bearing in mind the Architect who had experience with BIM that scored the relating

questions favourably, it would strongly suggest that both variations and costly reworks could

be greatly reduced by the technology.

of 83

3.8: Q20. Fault Elimination

Q20: If you had to complete a similar project for a repeat Client on a similar site by

what percentage would the project be completed quicker now that all the faults in the

process have been indentified?

0 – 5% 5 – 10% 10 – 15% 15 - 20% 25%+

Q20. % a repeat job could be completed quicker

No. Profession Result


6 Site Mngr 4.00


3 Academic 4.00

18 No to BIM 3.81

30 Ireland 3.55


11 UK 3.27

23 Yes to BIM 3.22

3 Client 3.17


3 QS 3.00

2 Project Mngr 3.00

2 Site Clerk 3.00

4 Architect 2.50


Table 15: Q20. Opinions of the stakeholders regarding how much quicker the construction could be

completed if all the faults were eliminated.

Q20 was asked with “Lean philosophies” in mind. The fundamental nature of “Lean” is about

cutting out all sources of waste and delivering end products right first time and with no

defects or reworks. Partnering of construction teams and suppliers over multiple projects can

bring all the benefits of “Lean thinking” to the table. The average result of 3.48 would equate

to approximately 15% and this would be a direct improvement in productivity. Labour

equates to a substantial amount of the cost of a project, some researchers estimating it at near

50% (Forbes et al. 2011). For example; a €10 million job with 50% labour could achieve a

saving of €750,000 a substantial figure and also huge saving.

5 4 3 2 1

of 83

3.9: Q21. Best Value:

Q21: Do you think at the conception stage that Clients/End Users are made fully aware

of what represents the true “best value” over the life cycle of the building?


Q 21. Are Clients made aware of true best value?

No. Profession Result

2 Project Mngr 3.50


3 Client 3.33

3 QS 3.00

4 Architect 3.00

18 No to BIM 2.94

30 Ireland 2.93

23 Yes to BIM 2.78



6 Site Mngr 2.67


11 UK 2.64

2 Site Clerk 2.50

3 Academic 2.00


Table 16: Q21. Average answers of professionals view whether Clients are made aware of true "best

value" over the life cycle of the building.

Before motor car designs are commissioned for manufacture, large amounts of capital are

invested into Research & Development (R&D) so that the end product is exactly what the

consumer requires. In order for the construction industry to move forward, the same logic

needs to be applied. So often, the Client is the least informed stakeholder in the construction

process and it is evident from the results in Table 16 that they are not always made aware,

exactly, what the true best value is over the life cycle of the product i.e. the Lowest Life

Cycle Cost (LLCC). This means that the Client may not realise what the best value is until

the building has been operational for a period of time. Far too late to make any future savings

The Sutter Care Health facility in California (p69), being a prime example of a situation that

of 83

existed where the Client and end users were kept in the loop and achieved the best value,

expectations were also exceeded.

of 83

3.10: Q22-Q25. Education

Q22: On a scale of 1-5 do you think it’s possible in today’s economic climate that

construction firms would sacrifice some short term goals so that long term goals can be

achieved?

Q23: If “Lean Construction” was to be introduced do you think Employers would be

willing to spend money in the present climate to train staff in the implementation of

same?

Q24: Do you think organisations and individuals would be willing to share their

experiences implementing “Lean Construction”, so that the industry could be improved

as a whole?


Figure 11: Q22-Q24. Bar chart showing average answers.

of 83

It is evident from the results in Figure 11, that not a lot of enthusiasm is forthcoming about

employers or construction firms implementing “Lean” principles. When a recession kicks in

it is common knowledge that one of two things happen; (a),companies reduce overheads by

eliminating any training for their staff, or (b), companies increase training for their staff so

that they are better equipped to come out fighting of the recession. The latter does not seem

to be happening to the extent that the author feels it is needed in the construction industry.

Nonetheless the results illustrated in Figure 11 are not negative and if the Pareto Rule was

applied it would be possible to bring a lot of companies on a “Lean” journey. The 80/20 rule

was developed by Pareto23

; he studied the wealth in Italy and found that 80% of the wealth

was owned by 20% of the people. He also found that 80% of problems are caused by 20% of

the instances and it is this area that needs the most work.

By the numbers it means that 80% of your outcomes come from 20% of your inputs. As

Pareto research showed that this “rule” holds true, in a very rough sense, to an 80/20 ratio and

can be applied to many situations.

As mentioned previously in the introduction, “Lean Construction” can only succeed if this

ethos is coming from Senior Management level. It has to be project based and being company

policy is the preferred option.

The “Lean seed must be planted first though, somebody will then have to nurture it and

furthermore it will need watering and fertilizer to continue growing. A seed does not become

a plant overnight nor will it do so without any help.

However for this to happen, it would have to be proven to work on Irish based projects. The

case study of an IMM strategy in the UK, on a £4.2billion infrastructure project, illustrated

the savings that could be achieved by implementing this aspect of “Lean” alone (O’Brien et

23

Forbes, L. & Ahmed, S. (2011) Modern Construction, “Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices,

CRC Press, New York.

of 83

al, 2009).24

97 out of every 100 deliveries to the workers on site were delivered on time, in

the right quantity and with no defects. A reliable flow of materials was achieved (p65).

24

O’Brien, W.J., Formoso, C.T., Vrijhoef, R., London, K.A., (2009), Construction Supply Chain Handbook,

CRC Press, Boca Raton.

of 83

3.11: Q25-Q29. CCTV

Q25: “Lean Construction” advocates the use of CCTV cameras to monitor work

progress, inventory levels, housekeeping and for recording any discrepancies in the

contract (variations) etc. Would you think the benefits of having more CCTV on site

would outweigh the costs?

Q26: Would Trade Unions agree to the more extensive use of CCTV on site?


Figure 12: Q25 & Q26. Stakeholders’ opinions regarding the use of CCTV on site.

of 83

Q27: Do you think if the Client could see exactly what was happening on-site, if and

when they wanted, that levels of trust would increase between the Client, Main

Contractor and the Design Team?

Q28: If the Main Contractor/Sub-Contractors head office could see exactly what was

happening on-site through CCTV, would productivity levels increase?

Q29: If CCTV was used more on site would Health & Safety be improved?


Figure 13: Q27-Q29. Results

of 83

First and foremost CCTV can achieve better security on site and can be a deterrent to illegal

activity. Variations can be recorded so that equitable and fair costs can be reimbursed at an

agreed rate. In addition to this H & S and compensation fraud can be greatly reduced because

there could be video evidence from the CCTV to prove rights and wrongs. Evidence of H & S

breaches could incur a Sub-contractor with financial penalties if caught on tape and may

encourage safer practices as a direct result. Accidents on sites equate to between 3-6% of

construction costs (Egan Report 2002) and this is another sector where “Lean” principles can

contribute to safer practices and lower costs associated with same.

Overall people were not sure regarding Q25, they were however slightly on the positive side

(3.29 average) so this would suggest that they could be convinced of the benefits. CCTV is

used in many industries around the world none more so than manufacturing. Corrigan25

maintains “what gets measured gets done”. This involves video recording tasks to see where

the faults are. Corrigan has reduced many changeover times on machines by 50% or more in

some cases. The faults in the process have to be found before they can be solved and video

analysis is the best way to do this he maintains.

Not a single category of those surveyed in Q26 scored above 2.67, which indicate this could

be a problem area. The author’s thoughts on overcoming this problem would be to make

CCTV part of everybody’s contract so people are given an option to accept or refuse the

contract on these terms. Adoption and acceptance of CCTV will be a barrier in the

implementation of this technology as there will of course be an element of “Big Brother”

watching you. However if this could be reversed, where a financial incentive was in place to

reward good behaviour as well as punishing the bad, this could be a great benefit to all.

It is evident from the results in Figure 13 that professionals scored highest on average in Q28

& Q29. If head office were sent snapshots of work progress hourly or daily this could help

monitor planning schedules and progress on site. Productivity could therefore increase.

Snapshots can be compared to the 4D models (3D + time). Construction schedules are

25

Tony Corrigan, “Lean” Consultant & Mentor, The WCM Centre, Woodlands, South Douglas Road, Cork,

Ireland. www.wcm.ie

http://www.wcm.ie/

of 83

amalgamated with 3D displays to simulate the progress of a construction project (Forbes et

al. 2011)26

H & S would no doubt increase also. A supervisor cannot be everywhere but it is common

practice on a building site, when people know the H & S Officer is on site, tasks are

undertaken in a safer manner for fear of repercussions or fines. Personal Protective

Equipment (PPE) is more likely to be used as is recommended also. The Heinrich chart

shown below illustrates for every 300 minor accidents there are 29 major accidents and 1

fatal. Reduce the frequency of the minor occurrences; and following categories will also

reduce. (Corrigan 2011)27

Figure 14: Heinrich Chart.

If the H & S Officer can use video and CCTV to do a better job, this could be the biggest

benefit of all from “Lean” aside from the cost element. Accidents equate to3-6% of project

costs28

as noted by Egan in his report in a study of the USA, Scandinavia and UK (3-6% of a

€10 million job equates to €300,000 - €600,000 saving).

26

Forbes L. & Ahmed S. (2011) Modern Construction, “Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices”, CRC

Press, New York, p213 27

Corrigan, T. (2011) Recent interview 28

Egan Report, (2002), Rethinking Construction, Construction Industry Taskforce UK, paragraph 25

300 Minor

1 Fatal

29 Serious

of 83

3.12: Q30. Prospects

Q30: In your opinion could you please indicate how willing the following categories

would be to adopt Lean Construction principles?

(a) Personally:

1 2 3 4 5

Never adopt ...Least likely to adopt...........Not sure. .....Most likely to adopt...Definitely adopt

(b) Organisations: (Government Bodies & Construction Firms)

1 2 3 4 5

Never adopt ...............................................Not sure. .........................................Definitely adopt

(c) Site Management:

1 2 3 4 5


(d) Site Personnel: (Trades, General Operatives, Sub-Contractors etc.)

1 2 3 4 5


(e) Suppliers:

1 2 3 4 5


(f) Clients/End Users:

1 2 3 4 5


of 83

Figure 15: Q30A-Q30C. Chart showing opinions regarding implementation of "Lean Construction"

It is clear from Figure 15 that the Clients/end users have been deemed the most likely

candidates to adopt “Lean” principles; they are the category who would probably be expected

to gain most out of adopting them (average 4.02 (agree)). “Lean Construction” maintains the

benefits should be across the board with every stakeholder getting the consideration they

of 83

deserve. The exact requirements of the Client, without the waste, is precisely what is required

but in order for the Client to receive this, it is only fair that every other discipline is

financially rewarded for the effort in providing same. The needs of the next customer in the

construction chain must always be met.

Figure 16: Q30D-Q30F. Chart showing opinions regarding implementation of "Lean Construction"

Encouragingly the professionals surveyed averaged 3.95 personally (Q30A) and this can be

seen as a sign of hope that is needed to rejuvenate the industry. Site Management and

Organisations ranked third and fourth respectively (3.76 & 3.61), whilst Suppliers (3.34) and

Site Personnel (2.85) completed the order. The latter result was expected. So often the author

of 83

could see the unmotivated Site Personnel going about their duties with no enthusiasm

towards their work never mind towards a completed project. They do not have any interest in

the overall outcome of a successful project and may not be even guaranteed a job at the end

which is even less of an incentive to go any quicker.

These are the people who do a high percentage of the work adding the value to the process

and these seem to be the ones who will need most encouragement if the results of the survey

are accurate. A General Operative (GO) leaving site on a Friday will not care too much about

the place being in a mess or leaving an uncompleted job behind, unless, it is in their best

interests to do so. A carrot needs to be dangled and everybody must be encouraged to strive

to continuously improve.

CIOB construction paper No. 44 (1995)29

noted that during recessionary times waste levels

increase due to falling levels of motivation and productivity in the workforce. Bricklayers,

when being questioned about wastage responded by saying;

“We do not get paid for saving materials, only for what is laid.”

The older Site Personnel may be stuck in ways which they can never move away from, and

will be the toughest of all disciplines to convince to turn “Lean”. Without any proven results

and definitive case studies carried out on the subject matter in Ireland, negative attitudes will

always exist. The culture inherent in Ireland does not mix well with “Lean Construction”

principles. Experience has shown the writer that pride of one’s work is not top of the list

when it comes to Site Personnel. It has to be noted that this is far from all and would be a

minority who are the constant offenders. Whether the project finishes on time or on budget is

irrelevant to them.

It is a common fact that the construction industry is not performing well at present and now

could not be a better time to instil new beliefs in people and start adding value rather than

cutting costs and wages. For “Lean Construction” to succeed every single stakeholder from

Architect to General Operative must be equally motivated to cut out the waste and work

within a set framework which ensures reliable promises are made and commitments are kept.

29

Chartered Institute of Builders (1995), Organisational Productivity – a case study of materials management

in UK construction firms, Construction Papers No. 44

of 83

4.1: Case Studies

4.2: UK Infrastructure Project

An IMM strategy was undertaken to control the supply of non-task specific materials, as part

of a contract within a £4.2 billion infrastructure project. Product lists were defined and

rationalized after consulting the stakeholders and a total of 2,555 items were identified as

non-specific task materials. The approximate frequency that the items would be required was

taken from experience on a similar project. Demand figures which were traditionally in units

per month were converted into daily figures so that a “Kanban” system could be

implemented.

The suppliers had a dedicated storage area within their own stores purely for the project, and

this was loaded out with all the materials that were immediately needed on site. The suppliers

kept a buffer of approximately 2 months inventory in their own stores and this worked in

tandem with the buffers in the market place (site compound) and satellite stores (near

workstations).

Figure 17: IMM Kanban "pull system" diagram (source: O'Brien et al. 2009).

As the stocks in the satellite stores get below the minimum kanban levels set, a signal triggers

the replenishment of the material from its nearest provider i.e. the market place located in the

site compound. This process is then continued between the market place and the suppliers’

of 83

warehouses ensuring a reliable flow of materials is achieved. A clear line of communication

can be established between suppliers, market place and the satellite stores.

The “Kanban” system operated by setting minimum and maximum levels of inventory that

was to be on site at any one time. The market place facilitated the main storage area for

materials on site whilst the satellite stores conveniently located around the site stored smaller

amounts of goods. Where the traditional method relies on deliveries from multiple suppliers

the IMM method differed by replacing the onus of the deliveries onto the Main Contractor.

Six “milk vans” controlled by the Main Contractor were on hand every day to collect

materials, greatly reducing the uncertainty of delivery times. Reliance on promises by

Suppliers on delivery times which are so often not kept, were eliminated. The “milk vans”

were in effect couriers on demand. Also by having smaller trucks delivering smaller

quantities, the market place did not get jammed up with traffic with multiple suppliers

arriving at the same time as each other.

All locations stored inventory in plastic bins (small, medium and large) which had cards

attached and barcodes. If the materials did not fit in the bin, a card was attached to each

item.30

By using barcode scanners, information was shared easily between the different locations

daily. The barcode scanners allowed the volumes of materials to be broken up into trades on

site and this information was relayed to them at weekly meetings. This allowed them to

forecast whether more or less would be required for the following week and also helped

monitor waste levels against what was originally budgeted for.

The diagram illustrated in Figure 18 overleaf shows the material delivery process associated

with an IMM strategy.

30

O’Brien, W.J. Formoso, C.T. Vrijhoef, R., & London, K.A. (2009), Construction Supply Chain Handbook,

CRC Press, Boca Raton.

of 83

Figure 18: Rim delivery system showing limited deliveries to site. Milk vans would do all the collections.

(Source: CIOB, 1992)31

Another advantage of using the bins was the huge reduction in packaging materials, the time

spent packing and unpacking was eliminated (adding value).

31

Chartered Institute of Builders (1992), The Just-in-Time concept to improving manufacturing productivity: Is

it applicable to the construction industry? Construction Papers No. 8

Suppliers

Suppliers

of 83

Figure 19: Spoke delivery system diagram, (TMM) (Source: CIOB, 1992)

The spoke delivery system illustrated in Figure 19 is typical material supply chain to

construction sites. Procurement departments within organisations will try to source all of the

materials at the cheapest cost, trying to maximise profits. However this can lead to problems

regarding delivery, quality and quantity of materials.

of 83

4.3: Sutter Health Care Facility

Another case study this time in California USA proved highly successful. Having involved all

of the disciplines in the design stage (End users, Main Contractor, Suppliers and Sub-

contractors etc.) 90% of the initial floor space was reduced to 70%. With the savings derived

from this, other medical devices which were not feasible in the original budget were

purchased making the Client even happier. The project finished 13% below market costs and

on time32

.

The use of Target Value Design (TVD) helped to achieve this. The design stage included

close collaboration between the core stakeholders i.e. Main Contactor, Sub-contractors,

Designers, Engineers, Suppliers etc. The considerations of buildability, cost and the

construction process were taken into account by all disciplines.

Forbes33

noted that a new form of contract was adopted by the Sutter Health Care System

(SHCS) in California. It was initially developed as a form of relational contract which

became known as the Integrated Form of Agreement (IFA). The “Lean Construction”

Institute (LCI) annual conference in 2004 focused on the types of relational contracts and

concluded that there was a synergy between relational contracts and “Lean Construction”.

The subsequent adoption of an IFA contract by SHSC proved to be a success.

32


Press, New York, p81 33



of 83

4.4: El Camino Medical Group

The $94.5 million El Camino Medical Group campus in Mountain View, California (Forbes

et al, 2011)34

is yet another example of successful “Lean Construction”. All of the principles

that have been analysed throughout this report and were put into practice giving some very

encouraging results;

Completed six months earlier than if traditional construction approach of design, bid

and then build was used;

Under budget;

Labour productivity was better than the industry standard by 15-30%. (In line with

Q20 of the survey, p51);

No variations relating to any field issues and;

There were no field conflicts between the systems coordinated with BIM.

There is clear evidence from the three case studies just illustrated, that “Lean Construction”

has been successful when it has been implemented. However, it must be noted that all of

them have achieved success on farther lands. Could this work in Ireland? Can the wasteful

culture that has become embedded in the industry just disappear? The author feels that it

would take some time but could easily succeed if equally motivated and driven individuals

wish it to succeed. It can only do so if everybody is united and focused on the one goal and

willing to try a new approach, one that has been proven to work in other industries.

34



of 83

5.1: Conclusion & Recommendations

In order to cement the author’s findings in this report and indeed find the solution to the

problems outlined, the author intends to research this topic in more depth. It is imperative that

professional bodies in Ireland such as CIF, SCS, RIAI and CIOB etc are engaged with. Every

stakeholder to the process must be consulted to understand the requirements needed to

progress forward and implement “Lean Construction”. Only then, can the face of the

construction industry be changed from what it is at present and some value can be added to

the whole process.

Papers dealing with “Just-in-Time” and its application to the construction industry dating

back almost twenty years have questioned whether it is possible to adapt the same principles

to construction. One of these papers (CIOB 1992)35

initially compared the management

systems of the ““Toyota Way”” and classed them under an umbrella philosophy of various

subsystems, mainly total quality and statistical control techniques that could in essence be

transferred to any industry. The simple management principles connected with JIT are to;

Reduce unnecessary process such as reworks and inspections;

Have resources available at the correct time and in the right quantity;

Develop systems within an organisation which allows for continuous improvements and;

Ensure the needs of the next customer are met and satisfied.(not just the consumer/end

user)

By implementing these principles, JIT is not only a methodology but also a philosophy with

four key functions which seek to;

Identify and resolve the fundamental root problems of the industry; (R & D)

Eradicate waste; (IMM)

Simplify management process and; (LPS)

35

CIOB (1992), The Just-in-Time concept to improving manufacturing productivity: Is it applicable to the

construction industry? Construction Papers No. 8

of 83

Conceive systems to identify and highlight problems (BIM) (IDEAS cards TM

)36

Corrigan has developed an effective way of solving problems through the use of a system

where “IDEAS cards TM

” are used to approach problem solving. IDEAS are an acronym for;

Identify & Investigate

Design & Develop

Execute & Evaluate

Assess & Adjust

Standardise & Sustain

It is not possible to alienate the “Toyota Way” from the findings within this report because

they have been invariably linked to both the author’s research and subsequent questionnaire.

Research on this topic began on site where the writer could see the waste that was evident on

every construction site. Corrigan’s publications then helped to identify the subject matter and

Forbes et al (2011)37

explained the “Lean” principles in relation to construction, backed up by

successful case studies. It is only through education that the author could see the possibilities

of “Lean Construction” and this is where all stakeholders must unite and go forward from.

“Lean Construction” cannot implement itself and it will require the continuous development

of products, processes and most importantly people. Companies are concentrating on survival

at the moment will not be willing to take the risk of further expenditure on training, one

would think, however those who invest, can reap the benefits when the industry begins to

grow again. “Lean Construction” is not a short term dream but more medium to long term. It

has to be continuous and not a sporadic activity to be a success. Companies must up-skill

their workforce and encourage a regime of continuous improvement.

36

Corrigan, T. (2010) Kaizen Tools and Techniques to support a Lean Enterprise 37

Forbes, L. & Ahmed, S. (2011) , Modern Construction, “Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices”,

CRC Press, London

of 83

Organisations who collaborate together to implement “Lean” principles can only benefit each

other. The cut-throat nature of the industry at the moment leads the author to believe that the

partnering of Suppliers, Designers, Main Contractor and Sub-contractors may not be as easy

as seems. Levels of trust need to be in place where all information is shared and not

restricted. Trust will increase or decrease depending on the contractual relationship. The

traditional procurement process does not lend itself to “Lean Construction”. The IFA contract

the SHCS used has been proven to work and a contract similar to this is where the industry

needs to look to.

Egan (2002)38

mentioned the fact that Nissan have non-contractual relationships with 130 of

their main suppliers. There is no formal contract but instead, an annual review where future

quality and cost issues are ironed out and future improvements to implement are agreed.

Their relationship is built on trust and years of working together, partnering in effect. There is

a compensation framework set up where predetermined amounts of compensation are agreed

should any party disrupt the production process. Needless to say this part of the contract is

rarely evoked. “Lean Construction” has proven to work best with more open relationships

similar to those Nissan have built up.

The writer, having experience in the industry, was always made aware of the high costs of

tendering for unsuccessful projects. Hundreds of thousands of euro can go into tendering for

high profile contracts. Many companies tender for jobs with extremely low or negative

margins just to keep turnover. This is unsustainable and unhealthy for the industry. The less

construction companies have to tender the more they can benefit, they could invest the money

saved into education and training or be more competitive on future tenders adding some value

to the process.

The proposed Metro contract for Dublin, a multi-billion euro contract, has no doubt had high

tendering costs and with the uncertainty of the contract going ahead in the present climate,

means that many of the expensive tenders already submitted will have been compiled

ineffectively. Millions of euro will have been wasted on both sides of the contract (Rail

Procurement Agency & Contractors) tendering for a project that may very well be shelved

and the costs cannot be recouped.

38

Egan Report, (2002), Rethinking Construction, Construction Industry Taskforce UK, paragraph 69

of 83

Clients will by nature look for the lowest price, but much needs to be done to inform them

exactly what represents Lowest Life Cycle Cost (LLCC).

Construction is a manufacturing process in essence. Raw materials are consumed to provide

the end product that the customer requires. One major difference however is that the average

car is made up of 3,000 individual components. On the other hand the average dwelling

houses approximately 40,00039

components. Off-site construction can provide the level of

standardisation required to combat the high list of components. The quality, reliability and

greater efficiencies that off-site construction can bring would go hand in hand with “Lean

thinking.

The findings of the author’s questionnaire and research give clear indications that “Lean

Construction” principles can not only succeed but can without doubt, improve the Irish

Construction Industry. In order for this to happen fundamental changing of the culture and

contractual relationships are required. Reasonable levels of profit must be expected of all the

stakeholders involved and efficiencies gained must be shared across the board. The

reasonable profits must in return provide a superior quality of construction for the Clients and

End users.

Projects must be delivered on time, on budget with no defects or reworks. The expectations

of the Client must be exceeded by all the parties involved and “Lean Construction” principles

must continue to evolve with the ethos of continuous improvement etched into everyone’s

mind. If this can be achieved, then “Lean Construction” can succeed. People must no longer

be viewed as a commodity but rather as the most important part of the process. Changing the

culture of “making do” (described by Koskela as the 8th

waste)40

must be a priority.

Human beings are naturally creative and this must be nurtured. Sir Ken Robinson41

an ex

school Professor and author/educator, challenges the way we're educating our children. He

has championed a radical rethink of our school systems, to cultivate creativity and

acknowledge multiple types of intelligence in our society. He stated in a lecture to the TED

39


Koskela, L. (2004) Making do- the eight form of waste, Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the

International Group for “Lean Construction” (IGLC-12), Copenhagen, Denmark. 41

http://www.ted.com/speakers/sir_ken_robinson.html


of 83

conference in 2006 how the educational system was stifling creativity because people were

simply following pre-determined systems of learning, he said;

“Creativity should be as important to education as illiteracy, and it should be treated

with the same status.”42

Agreeing with this statement it is important to realise that, creativity must be drawn from the

potential that is inherent in the industry and every single individual involved in the

construction process must be encouraged to do so. It is imperative that a similar radical

rethink is undertaken of the current construction process and allow creativity to alter standard

designs. People are naturally creative and solve problems unknown to them every day.

Corrigan (2010)43

stated;

“We get up in the morning, not knowing what problems we’ll face during the day, but

still, we face these problems head-on and eventually solve them”.

People naturally solve these problems such as financial, health, household and car problems

every day without even realising. During a recent interview with Corrigan 2011 he stated;

“If you want to find the root cause of the problem, ask the person within a ten meter

radius of it. They will be best placed to find the solution.”

The “Toyota Way” succeeds because the emphasis is not on supervision but rather on making

everyone part of the team and ultimately the company. Decisions are decentralized and the

employees are encouraged to come up with four improvements monthly with at least two of

these being implemented. This needs to be replicated in the construction industry with strong

emphasis on building the person as much as the building. Everyone needs to be reassured that

learning, growth and innovation are not only accepted but will be expected of everybody.

Senior Management must encourage employees to become part of the “Lean” journey and

they must acknowledge the efforts of their staff in same. Traditional construction

management techniques are not only out-dated but will not lend themselves to “Lean

Construction”. Training staff from bottom to top in organisations is required and every

42

Sir Ken Robinson, (2006), Do Schools Kill Creativity? TED Conference,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY 43

Corrigan, T. (2010) Kaizen Tools and Techniques to support a Lean Enterprise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY

of 83

individual involved in the project must be of the same frame of mind. With this “Lean can

definitely win but without only partial success may happen.

The current construction process is so fragmented that many stakeholders are more concerned

with “looking after their own backs” rather than focusing on the needs of the project.

Professionals’ reluctance to share information for fear of contractual agreements or financial

penalties has to change. People have to be encouraged to share information and for the

process to be transparent with open book accounting allowing agreed profits.

Experiences of previous projects must be learned and improved upon and this can only

happen by amalgamating the processes and making them transparent.

The IMM strategy deployed in the previous chapter’s first case study for example, is based on

all of the requirements being shared on a daily basis by means of barcode scanners and

automation. Vital to its success was the unrestricted flow of information between Suppliers,

Main Contractor and Sub-contractors. It was monitored with ease and fluctuations were

recorded. Hence demand and supply was in sync with one another and this increased the

satisfaction of all the stakeholders.

Egan (2002) stated that there must be incentives to build efficiently and resources must be

loaded up front to the design process so that its, “right first time” in effect. The car

manufacturing industry “design for manufacture” and the same must apply to construction

industry “designing for construction” in effect. With regard to Q3 about buildability, it’s self-

evident that the builders and designers were in disagreement over the designs being

constructible.

Considering the questionnaire it is evident that there is much scope to improve many aspects

of the construction process. A broad category of professionals totalling forty one people with

experience in the industry ranging from thirty plus years to less than ten were surveyed. The

results from these stakeholders indicated some interesting findings.

Plenty of scope is available to improve productivity and increase the reliability of projects

being delivered on time and on budget. RFIs were bottom of both tables in Q3 indicating that

of 83

the response time is acceptable to the disciplines. This is a form of culture that needs to

change. Information has to be free flowing for “Lean” to be given a chance.

Breakdown of relations was the top answer regarding delay factors of a project, whilst

variations were top of the cost factors. A point of note worth mentioning again is how low

weather scored in both parts of the question. Weather is the only variable that cannot be

predicted, and should be the only factor to delay a project if all of the other elements are

synchronised together.

Professionals noted in Q4 & Q5 that they felt it almost essential that the same Site

Management/Sub-contractors is involved in the project from beginning to end. Handover of

tasks between trades are delayed more often than not due to minor items not being completed

and this is a good example of where follow-on trades have to “make do”.

The risk/profit fund questions were not as definitive as others. However, as a whole people

were slightly more in favour than against. Insufficient planning was deemed to be the most

wasteful element of the construction process and time spent looking for materials the least of

the five options given. Time spent searching for materials are a NVA activity. One can only

assume that people see this as part of the process because they know no better.

No accidents ranked as the top key success factor (KSF) of a project. Illustrated by the

Heinrich chart, fatal injuries and serious injuries can reduce significantly if the minor

occurrences decrease.

The procurement process is evidently to blame for waste within the process and this was in

line with the cohort’s average to Q11. Traditional lump sum with fixed price contract was

what the most felt best suited to “Lean Construction” closely followed by a D & B employer

input. The latter being more suitable in the author’s mind however, mainly because more

people are on the same side and the “us against them” factor not as imposing.

Projects averaged approximately 50% identical to their original design in Q13 and this must

be given serious consideration if “Lean Construction” is to be introduced. This has to be the

base from where to start. Original designs being implemented will eliminate both costly

variations and the other wasteful elements of the construction process.

of 83

Regarding Q14, 56% of the respondents had experience with Building Information Modelling

(BIM) and a clear indication was given from the following questions that this can not only

benefit the industry, but also ensure the exact requirements of the Client are met by showing

the Client/end users 3D models of the project before designs are commissioned.

By eliminating the faults and repeating designs Q20 showed that this could increase the speed

a project is delivered by approximately 15%. Huge savings could be gained if this was

possible.

Clients/end users are not always made aware the true best value of projects according to the

results of Q21. This is imperative to “Lean” thinking as lowest cost does not equate to best

value.

Overall the answers to Q22-Q24 were on the positive side of not sure but this is expected as

education is the first thing scaled back in a typical recession. Without the education

nonetheless “Lean Construction” cannot grow. A baby will fall a few times before they can

take a few steps which in turn will eventually allow them to run. Encouragement from the

toddler’s parents will nurture the child’s confidence to get up and try again should they fall.

The same applies to “Lean”. Senior Management must take on a parenting role so to speak

with good work acknowledged and future learning encouraged.

The questions relating to CCTV on site (Q25-Q29) gave mixed responses. The Clerk of

Works, Clients, Project Managers and Site Engineers all scored 4 or above in Q25 (would

CCTV benefit outweigh the cost), whilst only the QSs’, Site Managers and Architects were a

little below 3. Overall the average was on the positive side of not sure. All stakeholders

thought Trade Unions would not be in agreement to having CCTV on site. There were no

conclusive answers from Q27; the average was just below not sure (2.95). Nevertheless the

Client, Clerk of Works, Contract Manager, QS, Structural Engineer and Site Engineer all

scored above the average.

Regarding on increase in productivity it is clear from the response to Q28 that CCTV could

definitely help with this. In relation to improved H & S on site, Q29 gave the highest average

of all CCTV questions (3.95) and if CCTV was only used for H & S a whole host of other

of 83

benefits can follow. A “Lean”, safe site not only gives a good image for a construction

company but lower insurance costs and better material management can follow also.

On a positive note the average stakeholder showed a willingness to personally adopt “Lean”

principles which gives the author some optimism towards the future. Clients averaged as the

highest category that would mostly do likewise whilst Suppliers and Site Personnel scored

second last and last respectively. An IMM strategy and the cooperation of personnel are

crucial to a success of a “Lean Construction” project so it is imperative that both groups are

educated on benefits of same.

With the answers’ to all of the questions in mind it is axiomatic that “Lean Construction” can

improve the Irish Construction Industry. The next question however must be how. The author

strongly believes that “Lean” can work in Ireland but attitudes will need to change. People

cannot be seen as a commodity and must be viewed as the greatest asset of a company. It is

through them alone that the procedures can be implemented. Without their cooperation a

“Lean Construction” project is doomed for failure. One person cannot change the world but

many can and this is the only way “Lean” can win over the traditional methods.

Barrack Obama was famous for his slogan from his successful election to the White House;44

“Yes we can.”

This can apply to “Lean Construction” but the emphasis must be put on “we”. There is no “I”

in team and the logic behind this statement is a prerequisite of “Lean”. Decisions have to be

decentralized and however hard this may sound, time spent ensuring work conforms to

standards and regulations needs to be eliminated. Workers should have enough pride in their

work to ensure that quality overrides speed and that tasks are not completed to the detriment

of the “next customer”.

Everybody from General Operative to Managing Director must have the same vision and

must look at every task as if it was being carried out at home. Pride is of the essence and it is

the duty of Management to refuse work that is suboptimal with quality being the prevailing

44

Obama, B. (2008) US Presidential Election Campaign

of 83

factor. The mission and vision statements of organisations must be aligned with project

objectives in order for achievements to be maximised.

Resources need to be front loaded on projects to ensure that the time spent on site is kept to a

minimum. Inevitably, off site construction will invariably go hand in hand with “Lean

thinking and the benefits derived from this will continue to grow, if, a level of standardisation

can be achieved with regard to components and processes. People who repeat the same or

similar job reap the benefits from standardisation and elimination of faults.

Continuous improvements must be sought on a regular basis no matter how small they are.

By concentrating on this, people will be focused on improving and not falling back into old

wasteful or “making do” habits. This will also help with creativity and innovation to improve

the process however minute they are. Toyota’s “Kaizen” approach which advocates many

small improvements instead of a few large ones is an approach needed by the construction

industry.

On the other hand unless the benefits of such improvements reflect on the person who

conceived the idea it is highly unlikely that “Lean Construction” can achieve victory over

traditional methods. The fundamentals of change required can be summarised below by the

four Ps;

Planning- Load the resources up front on the project to ensure the least amount of

time is actually spent on site. Implement the LPS system to solve potential problems

on paper rather than at the workface. Insufficient planning was the top answer

regarding the most wasteful element of the construction process.

Product- Ensure the product is exactly what the consumer wants. Anything else will

be described as waste. Standardised components and repeat design are a major

requirement for progression. Off-site construction must be strongly considered. This

could ensure that the final product is identical to the original design. The original

design must be the final for “Lean” to succeed.

Process- Evaluate the current situation and integrate the product design so that it is in

sync with the process. Open, trusting relationships must ensue so that information is

of 83

free flowing and available when and where it is needed. Any barriers restricting this

have to be removed. BIM can also help eliminate errors and improve the process.

People- Educate and encourage all stakeholders in “Lean Construction” to

continuously improve and implement the good ideas that have been thought of.

Reward excellence and make everyone feel part of the project and company. Remove

any barriers that prevent smooth workflow. The workforce must be treated as the

biggest asset of a company and not viewed as a commodity. Teamwork and continued

partnering over multiple projects is a must.

of 83

6.1: Bibliography

Cooke, B. & Williams, P., (2009), Construction Planning, Programming and Control, 3rd

Edition, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

Corrigan, T. (2010), Kaizen Tools and Techniques to support a Lean Enterprise.

Ford, H. (2003), Today and Tomorrow, Reprint, CRC Press, Productivity Press, Boca Raton.

Forbes, L. & Ahmed, S. (2011) Modern Construction, “Lean Project Delivery and Integrated

Practices, CRC Press, New York.

Naoum, S. G. (2009), Dissertation Research & Writing for Construction Students, 2nd

Edition, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

O’Brien, W.J. Formoso, C.T. Vrijhoef, R., & London, K.A. (2009), Construction Supply

Chain Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Saunders M, Lewis P, & Thornhill A, (2003), Research Methods for Business Students, 3rd

Edition, Pearson Education Limited, Essex.

of 83

7.1: References

Ballard, G. & Howell, G. What is “Lean Construction”?


Chartered Institute of Builders (1995), Organisational Productivity – a case study of

materials management in UK construction firms, Construction Papers No. 44

Construction Industry Research and Information Association website, assessed 2nd

April 2011

http://www.ciria.org/service/Home/AM/ContentManagerNet/HomePages/CIRIA_1502_2008

0929T115140HomePage.aspx?Section=Home

Chartered Institute of Builders (1992), The Just-in-Time concept to improving manufacturing

productivity: Is it applicable to the construction industry? Construction Papers No. 8

Corrigan, T. “Lean” Consultant & Mentor, The WCM Centre, Woodlands, South Douglas

Road, Cork, Ireland. www.wcm.ie

DKM Economic Consultants (2010), Review of the Construction Industry 2009 and Outlook

2010–2012

Egan Report, (2002), Rethinking Construction, Construction Industry Taskforce UK,

Koskela, L. (2004), Making do- the eight form of waste, Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual

Conference of the International Group for “Lean Construction” (IGLC-12), Copenhagen,

Denmark.

Obama, B. (2008) US Presidential Election Campaign

Robinson, K. (2006), Do Schools Kill Creativity? TED Conference,


Ted.com website, assessed 4th

April 2011



http://www.ciria.org/service/Home/AM/ContentManagerNet/HomePages/CIRIA_1502_20080929T115140HomePage.aspx?Section=Home

http://www.ciria.org/service/Home/AM/ContentManagerNet/HomePages/CIRIA_1502_20080929T115140HomePage.aspx?Section=Home

http://www.wcm.ie/



paul ebbs (2011) - can lean construction improve the irish construction industry

Leadership & Management

construction materials

lean construction principles

objective of lean

irish construction industry

list of tables

list of abbreviations

report contents

materials management