serious games and simulations: transforming …...subsequent rounds, lean interventions are...

National Institute of Building Sciences

Provider Number: G168

Serious Games and Simulations:

Transforming Culture

to Enhance Building Project DeliverySession TU3B: Preparing the High-Performance Workforce

Zofia K. Rybkowski, PhDTexas A&M University

January 10, 2017

Credit(s) earned on completion of this course will be reported to AIA CES for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for both AIA members and non-AIA members are available upon request.

This course is registered with AIA CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product.___________________________________________

Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

Lean-Integrated Project Delivery (Lean-IPD) processes have been shown to

measurably improve time, cost, quality, safety and morale on building projects.

However, effectively implementing Lean-IPD with stakeholders who built their

careers on projects delivered in traditional ways can be challenging. Adopting lean

principles within an organization requires more than a change in policy; it requires a

change in stakeholders' beliefs about the value of collaboration. Serious games and

simulations are increasingly being used to illustrate lean principles to project team

stakeholders encountering them for the first time. Simulations are usually played

under timed conditions, and metrics collected during successive rounds where the

first round benchmarks performance during "business as usual" conditions. During

subsequent rounds, lean interventions are introduced incrementally and the

simulation repeated with metrics collected again.

Stakeholders who have participated in simulations often describe an "aha" or

"lightbulb" moment while playing. This presentation offers an introductory overview

of commonly played lean simulations. It also provides examples of how lean

principles are applied to delivery of actual building projects.

CourseDescription

LearningObjectives

1. Define Lean & Integrated Project Delivery

2. Understand why Lean-IPD came about

3. Understand the role of serious games and simulations in culture change

4. Have the ability to potentially facilitate one exercise and three serious

games and simulations that illustrate Lean-IPD practices.

At the end of the this course, participants will be able to:

Acknowledgements:

The Construction Industry Advisory Council (CIAC)Department of Construction Science

Texas A&M University, College Station

Project Production Systems Laboratory (P2SL)Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of California, Berkeley

The Students

of the Construction Science Department

of Texas A&M University

Challenge:

Experimentation on a large, project-wide scale is

risky.

Lean simulations help reduce this risk;

Simulations allow for experimentation as a first-

run study, and offer the opportunity for a control

group.

They also help teach Lean-Integrated Project

Delivery concepts to participants.

Playing Visionary Products’ The Airplane Game as a company

Setting the Stage(Why do we need to change the system? Why Lean-IPD?)

RepairmanExercise

The manager requires 8

repair trips per day.

Yet what is the actual

average?

Why do you think the

average is lower than the

manager expects?

What % of performance

is due to the system?

What % due to the

worker?

Where do we put most of

the focus? Why are we

focusing there?

Source: Alan Mossman: © 2013 The Change Business Ltd with permission

System Workertraffic x

mis-information to call center x

parts not on truck x

weather x

resident not home x

installations takes longer than expected x

additional request while there x

worker not trained x x

worker lazy x

address difficult to locate x

Sample responses from participants:

The big %

People work in a system.

The role of the manager

is to work on the system

to improve it –

with their help.

Source: Alan Mossman: © 2013 The Change Business Ltd with permission

How can we change the system?

enter

Lean-Integrated Project Deliver

Historical Evolution of Lean-IPD

Image Credits : http://artist-3d.com/free_3d_models/dnm/

model_disp.php?uid=3175

35

36

14

23

1

16

1. AUSTRALIA

http://www.leanconstruction.org.au http://linkd.in/LCI-Sydney Marton Marosszeky

4

20

38

252

5

6

29

22

31

28

21

34

15

13

17

27

11

30

12

19 21

26

9 10

18

33

24

32

7

2. BOLIVIA

http://bit.ly/LC-Bolivia J. Waldo Marquez

5. CHILE

http://www.gepuc.cl Prof Luis Alarcon

3. BRAZIL

http://bit.ly/LC-Brasil Universities: UFRGS, UNICAMP, UFC

4. CANADA

CoPs: http://linkd.in/LCI-US + CoPs

6. COLOMBIA

Jose A Guevara Maldonado Universities : Universidad de los

Andes; EAFIT University

24. NORWAY

http://www.leanconstruction.no Universities : FAFO; University of Agder

8. ECUADOR

Mario Fiallo

9. ESTONIA

http://www.etet.ee/ Universities : Tallinn University of

Applied Sciences

10. FINLAND

Universities : VTT, Espoo

11. FRANCE

http://linkd.in/LCFrance Patrick Dupin

12. GERMANY

www.lean-im-bauwesen.de http://www.lean-management-im-

bauwesen.de http://www.lean-construction-institut.de http://bit.ly/LC-de www.tmb.kit.edu/lean

13. HONG KONG

Dr Jose Jorge Ochoa Paniagua Universities: Hong Kong Polytechnic University

14. INDIA

http://www.ilce.in http://bit.ly/ILCE-in Universities : Indian Institute of Technology Madras

16. IRAN

www.leanconstruction.blogfa.com

17. ISRAEL

Prof Rafael Sacks, Technion

15. INDONESIA

http://on.fb.me/htzWVI http://www.petra.ac.id/ http://magister-sipil.petra.ac.id/ Martin Prilla Chandrawinata Universities: Petra Christian University, Surabaya

18. LEBANON

Dr Farook Hamzeh Universities: American University of Beirut

19. LUXEMBOURG

http://linkd.in/Lux-CE Lahcene Harbouche, CRP Henri-Tudor

20. MEXICO

www.leanconstructionmexico.com http://bit.ly/LC-Mexico Edgar Reyes Carrasco and Luis Teran,

MARHNOS

26. PORTUGAL

http://bit.ly/LCPG-pt Universities: University of Minho,

Universidade Nova de Lisboa

22. NEW ZEALAND

http://bit.ly/LCI-NZ Dr Vicente Gonzalez Universities: The University of

Auckland

23. NIGERIA

http://bit.ly/LC-Nigeria Arc. David A. Adio-Moses, Dr Olatunji

Oladiran Universities: University of Lagos

(UNILAG)

7. DENMARK

http://www.leanconstruction.dk http://linkd.in/LC-DK Universities: DTU

21. NETHERLANDS

http://www.lcn-nl.org http://bit.ly/LC-nl Rudy Gort, Heembouw, Ype

Cuperus, TU Delft Universities: TU Eindhoven, TU

Delft

25. PERU

https://www.facebook.com/lciperu Jorge Luis Izquerdo

27. RUSSIA

http://bit.ly/LC-Russia Andrey Glaubermann

28. SINGAPORE

Prof David Chua Kim Huat, Gao Shang Universities: National University of

Singapore

29. SOUTH AFRICA

http://bit.ly/LC-za Fidelis Emuze,Head of Built Environment

Department at Central University of Technology, Free State

30. SPAIN

www.leanconstruction.es http://linkd.in/ftYuAv Prof Eugenio Pellicer and Jose L. Ponz at

Universidad Politecnica de Valencia

31. SRI LANKA

Dr. Sepani Senaratne, University of Moratuwa

33. SWITZERLAND

Ivo Lenherr, Bergitta Schock

34. TAIWAN

http://www.ppml.url.tw/LCI_Taiwan/ Universities: National Pingtung University of Science

and Technology

35. UK

http://www.leanconstruction.org.uk + chapters: NW http://linkd.in/LCI-UK Universities: Salford, Nottingham Trent, Northumbria,

Dundee

36. USA

http://www.leanconstruction.org chapters: most states http://linkd.in/LCI-US+ regional CoPs Universities: U Berkeley http://p2sl.berkeley.edu,

Washington, SDSU, MSU http://www.c2p2ai.msu.edu, TAMU, CSU

32. SWEDEN

www.leanforumbygg.se Universities: Chalmers University of

Technology, Luleå University of Technology

37. VIETNAM

Long Duy Nguyen

Present growth of Lean-IPD

Source credit (as of 2015): Alan MossmanFormal Lean Construction

presence/office

Published research on Lean

Construction

Reduce waste and add value

using continuous improvement

in a culture of respect.

Here’s a succinct definition of Lean Construction:

Source: Rybkowski, Abdelhamid, and Forbes, L. 2013

Lean-IPD Model

One useful graphic definition of Lean Construction:

Lean-Integrated Project Delivery(Lean-IPD) is rich and expansive,

but for now let’s focus on 4 key concepts:

1) Reduce Waste: Last Planner System of Production Control (LPS)

2) Add Value: Target Value Design

3) Continuous Improvement: Kaizen stairway

4) Culture of Respect

Present practice of Lean-IPD

Tools to make this happen(& the serious games that illustrate them)

1) Last Planner System of Production Control

2) Target Value Design

3) Collective Kaizen & Standardization

( 1 )

Last Planner System

of Production Control

Image Source: the ReAlignment Group of California, LLChttp://danzpage.com/

Last Planner System of Production Control

Images Credit: the ReAlignment Group of California, LLChttp://danzpage.com/

Last Planner System of Production Control

Concepts associated with

the Last Planner System:

• Pull Planning

• Milestone, Phase, Lookahead (constraints analysis), Weekly Work Plan

• Big Room meetings

• Stickies on the wall

• Reduced variability

• Cell design

• Takt time

• Small batch sizes / load levelling

• Multi-skilling

• Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) continuous improvement experimentation

• Percent planned complete (PPC) & Learning

• Root Cause Analysis (5 Whys)

• Line-of-Balance Scheduling

Simulation(pull planning)

Buy colored wooden building blocks.

For example these cost approx. $20 per set.

© Turner Construction Co. 1 / 2014 . Adapted from DPR for DPR/Turner Joint Venture

26

You will need:

Images sources:

Left: Turner construction

Above top: http://www.123rf.com/photo_9666552_multicolored-blank-

post-it-notes-isoalated-over-white.html

Above bottom (left):

http://www.whitelightdisplay.co.uk/user/products/large/C245168-63.jpg

Above bottom (right):

http://www.ourtimebd.com/beta/2016/03/13/your-pen-cap-has-a-

holefor-reason/

https://www.amazon.co.uk/MASKING-TAPE-WHITE-ROLL-

20MM/dp/B002RAYSPY

4 colors of post-it notes

corresponding to block colors

Flip chart paper

& pens for

participants


http://www.123rf.com/photo_9666552_multicolored-blank-post-it-notes-isoalated-over-white.html

http://www.whitelightdisplay.co.uk/user/products/large/C245168-63.jpg

http://www.ourtimebd.com/beta/2016/03/13/your-pen-cap-has-a-holefor-reason/

https://www.amazon.co.uk/MASKING-TAPE-WHITE-ROLL-20MM/dp/B002RAYSPY

Teams will be building this tower


ROUND ONE:

Traditional, push scheduling:

• The GC representative makes the schedule by himself

• Colors represent different trade partners (R, Y, B, G)

• One bock per day

• On what day is the COO issued?

ROUND TWO:

Collaborative, pull scheduling:

• The tower must be completed by Day 11

• The schedule is collaboratively constructed by trade partners using stickies on

a wall

• Colors represent different trade partners (R, Y, B, G)

• One bock per day

• How did they do it?

Single scheduler . Push Schedule

Example

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Yellow

Green

Red

Blue

Yellow

Green

Red

Blue

Green

Yellow

Green

Red

Blue

Yellow

Green

Red

Blue

Red

Blue

Notice-to-Proceed

Certificate-of-Occupancy

Collaborative Scheduling . Pull Schedule

Example

Notice-to-Proceed

Certificate-of-Occupancy

Prefabricate Top (8 pieces)

Prefabricate Bottom Third 6 pieces)

Prefabricate Middle Third (5 pieces)

Combine prefabricated parts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Debrief:

After play, discuss with participants:

• What did you need to do to meet the shorter deadline for Round Two?

• Which round was more stressful? less stressful? Why?

• Which round created more “buy-in” from the trade partners?

• If this were a real project, what could you do to be sure each trade partner is able to

start his or her work on time?

( 2 )

Target Value Design

Target Value Design (Sutter Health)

Image Source: Rybkowski 2009

Target Value Design (Sutter Health): Big Room Meeting

Image Source: Rybkowski 2009

Concepts associated with

Target Value Design:

• Big Room meetings

• Market cost

• Allowable cost

• Target Cost

• Co-location

• A3s

• Set-based Design

• Uniformat estimating

• Choosing by Advantages (CBA) system of decision-making

• Optimization of the whole over the parts

• Relational and Risk-sharing contracts

(IFOA, Consensus Docs, etc.)

• Systems Optimization over suboptimization

Lean-IPD contractual motivators

Pain sharing:

Incentive plan to meet

Allowable Cost

Gain sharing:

Incentive plan to reach below

Allowable Cost

Allowable Cost

Time

Pro

ject

Cos

t

Target

Cost

Allowable Cost

Adapted from: Rybkowski, Z. K. (2009).

Market Cost

Simulation(Target Value Design)

Materials required for simulation (Munakami 2012)

+ image source: http://sunsourcesolarbrokers.com/free-consulting/paid-consulting/tape-

measure/

Tape measure

Simulation built on Marshmallow Challenge by Peter Skillman…

Instructions to participants:

• Make a tower that is 2 ft. tall

• No more than 2 inches out of plumb

• Freestanding (not attached to the table)

Play in two rounds:

Round 1:

Participants make towers while unaware of unit costs

Round 2:

Participants know units costs and attempt to reduce their

initial total costs by 20%

Costing sheet for tabulation of tower costs after Rounds I and II.

Source: Rybkowski, Z. K., Munankami, M., Shepley, M. M., and Fernández-Solis, J. L. (2016)

Spreadsheet for tabulation of tower costs after Rounds I and II.

Source: Rybkowski, Z. K., Munankami, M., Shepley, M. M., and Fernández-Solis, J. L. (2016)

Round Two: Once target cost was established, teams co-located and worked

collaboratively to re-design the tower to meet target cost (Munankami 2012).

An Owner wants to design and build a tower that is 2’-0” tall which is

capable of holding a marshmallow at the top and that is no more

than 2” out-of-plumb. The tower must be constructed with supplied

materials and must be free-standing (i.e. cannot be taped to a table).

Participants have 20 minutes to construct a tower without concern

for cost (Round 1), and 20 minutes to construct another tower that is

20% less than the average of first tower costs (Round 2).

2 FT

2 FT

$ 118 $ 27

Example of results from Round One versus Round Two

Debrief:


• What requirements were most important for the Owner?

• What requirements might an Owner demand on a real project?

• If you were asked to reduce the cost of the Round One tower after it had already

developed, what might be a likely outcome? What would have been sacrificed?

• What did you personally have to do to ensure the Round Two tower met the Allowable

Cost? The Target Cost?

(3)

Collective Kaizen & Standardization

Simulation(collective kaizen & standardization)

OAEC*

Current state 2P

D

C

A

Current state 1

Future state 2

Current state 3P

D

C

A

Future state 3

Current state 4P

D

C

A

Future state 4

P

D

C

A

Future state n+1

Future state nCurrent state n

OAEC

OAEC

OAEC

Time

C U L T U R E o f R E S P E C T

waste value

*OAEC: Owner Architect Engineer Constructor (collaborative)% o

f C

AP

ITA

L

CO

ST

Tim

eC

os

tQ

ua

lity

Saf

ety

Mo

rale

Min

imum

Max

imum

Min

imum

Max

imum

Min

imum

Max

imum

Min

imum

Max

imum

Min

imum

Max

imum

Continuous improvement process of lean construction (the “kaizen stairway”)Rybkowski, Z. K., Abdelhamid, T., and Forbes, L. (2013). “On the back of a cocktail napkin: An exploration of graphic definitions of lean construction,"

Proceedings of the 21th annual conference for the International Group for Lean Construction, July 31-August 2, 2013: Fortaleza, Brazil.

Make a 7” long paper airplane

in 3 minutes or less

The objective is to make it fly as far

and as straight as you can.Be sure to write your initials on your plane.

Tune credit: “Eye of the Tiger” by Survivor thanks to Jessica Kelley from Southland Industries

Ack

now

ledg

emen

ts:

Kar

teek

Kun

cham

, Tra

vis

Arn

old,

Sha

shan

k T

iwar

i, F

lore

ncio

May

a, a

nd S

ean

O’S

hea.

Examples of paper airplanes generated by simulation participants: pre-round & post-round

Rybkowski, Z. K. and Kahler, D. (2014)

Pre- and post-round flight distances

Pre-round and post-round flight performance of paper airplanes arranged by increasing

levels of performance improvement. Pre-round and Post-found flight distance by

participant Q—the “first rate performer”—is indicated by a star.


237% improvement based on median

Improvement of median

performance

In addition to the improved median performance (237%), there is a tightened

consistency of performance as shown by the reduced spread.


Debrief:


• Why is periodic standardization important for climbing the kaizen stairway?

• Which activities do think should be improved in your own organization? Are there

individuals who are clearly more effective at these activities?

• What would lit take for first-rate performers to share their “secrets of success”?

• Could you envision holding a kaizen activity once per month in your own organization?

• How might holding regular kaizen events impact organizational morale? Organizational

productivity?

Serious Games & Simulations:

• are engaging and often enjoyable to play, while illustrating difficult to

understand concepts to participants.

• create light-bulb moments and help participants “own” what they learn.

• allow us to investigate a risky process improvement idea with limited risk.

You can improve with the employees you

have now because…

“With every pair of hands comes

a free brain.”

-Lean motto; origin unknown

Thank you

Zofia K. Rybkowski, PhDAssociate Professor

Department of Construction Science

Texas A&M University

[email protected]

References

Ballard, G., and Reiser, P. (2004). "The St. Olaf College Fieldhouse Project: a Case Study in Designing to Target Cost." 12th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Elsinor, Denmark, 234-249.

Ballard, G. and Rybkowski, Z. K. (2009). “Overcoming the hurdle of first cost: a case study in Target Value Design.” The 2009 Construction Research Congress (Construction Institute of ASCE), Seattle, WA, April 5-7, 1038-1047.

Bhaidani, N., Rybkowski, Z. K., Smith, J., Choudhury, I., Hill, R. (2016). “Percent Planned Complete: Development and Testing of a Simulation to Increase Reliability in Scheduling.” In: Proc. 24th Ann. Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean Construction, Boston, MA, USA, sect.7 pp. 33–42.

Bhatt, Y.. , Rybkowski, Z. K., Kalantar, N., and Fernandez-Solis, J. L. (2016). “Trainathon Lean Simulation Game: Determining Perceptions of the Value of Training Among Construction Stakeholders.” In: Proc. 24th Ann. Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean Construction, Boston, MA, USA, sect.7 pp. 53-62.

Clifton, M. B., Bird, H. M. B., Albano, R. E., and Townsend, W. P. (2004). Target Costing: Market-driven Product Design, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York

College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University. (2012) “The Red-Black Game” <http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~lziegler/redblack.html> accessed March 15, 2013.

Do, D., Chen, C., Ballard, G., and Tommelein, I. (2014). “Target Value Design as a method for controlling project cost overruns,” Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 171-181.

Forbes, L. H., and Ahmed, S. M. (2011). Modern Construction: Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices, CRC Press, Boca Raton

Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota Way, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY

Kulkarni, A.,* Rybkowski, Z. K., and Smith, J.* (2012). “Cost comparison of collaborative and IPD-like project delivery methods versus non-collaborative project delivery methods," Proceedings of the 20th

Annual Conference for the International Group for Lean Construction; July 17-22, 2012: San Diego, CA, U.S.A., 781-790.

Nanda, U., Rybkowski, Z. K., Pati, S., Nejati, A.* (2016). “A Value Analysis of Lean Processes in Target Value Design and Integrated Project Delivery: Stakeholder

Neeraj, A., Rybkowski, Z. K., Fernandez-Solis, J.L., Hill, R., Tsao, C., Seed, B. and Heinemeier, D.(2016). “Framework Linking Lean Simulation Principles to their Application on Construction Projects.” In: Proc. 24th Ann. Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean Construction, Boston, MA, USA, sect.9 pp. 3–12.

Ramanath, V. (2014). Exploratory Investigation into influence of educational background on tendency to collaborate amount owners, architects, engineers, and contractors, thesis for Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Rybkowski, Z. K. (2009). “The application of root cause analysis and Target Value Design to Evidence-Based Design in the capital planning of healthcare facilities,” University of California, Berkeley.

Rybkowski, Z. K., Abdelhamid, T., and Forbes, L. (2013). “On the back of a cocktail napkin: An exploration of graphic definitions of lean construction," Proceedings of the 21st annual conference for the International Group for Lean Construction; July 31-August 2, 2013: Fortaleza, Brazil, 83-92.

Rybkowski, Z. K. and Kahler, D. (2014). “Collective kaizen and standardization: the development and testing of a new lean simulation,” Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conf. for the International Group for Lean Construction, Oslo, Norway, June 25-27.

Rybkowski, Z. K. and Forbes, L. (2016). “Lean Construction (Chapter 8),” in Handbook of Construction Management: Scope, Schedule, and Cost Control, edited by A. Razzak Rumane, CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, FL

Rybkowski, Z. K., Munankami, M., Shepley, M. M., and Fernández-Solis, J. L. (2016). “Development and testing of a lean simulation to illustrate key principles of Target Value Design: A first run study.” In: Proc. 24th Ann. Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean Construction, Boston, MA, USA,sect.4 pp. 133–142.

Rybkowski, Z. K., Munankami, M.,* Gottipati, U.,* Lavy, S., and Fernández-Solis, J. (2011). “Impact of cost constraints on aesthetic ranking following Target Value Design exercises,” Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Lima, Peru, July 13-15, 448-457.

Rybkowski, Z. K., Wong, J.-M., Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I. D. (2008). “Using controlled experiments to calibrate computer models: the Airplane Game as a lean simulation exercise.” Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Manchester, UK, July 16-18, 309-319.

Rybkowski, Z. K., Zhou, X., Lavy, S. and Fernández-Solís, J. (2012). “Investigation into the nature of productivity gains observed during the Airplane Game lean simulation,” Lean Construction Journal,78-90.

Smith, J. P. and Rybkowski, Z. K. (2013). “The Maroon and White Game: A simulation of trust and long-term gains and losses," Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conf. for the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil, July 31-August 2, 987-996.

Tsao, C., Azambuja, M., Hamzeh, F., Menches, C. and Rybkowski, Z. K. (2013). “Teaching lean construction: perspectives on theory and practice," Proceedings of the 21 st annual conference for the International Group for Lean Construction; July 31-August 2, 2013: Fortaleza, Brazil, 977-986.

Vatne, M. E, and Drevland, F.( 2016).“Practical Benefits of Using Takt Time Planning: A Case Study.” Proc. 24th Ann. Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean Construction, Boston, MA, USA, sect.6 pp. 173–182.

Visionary Products Inc. (2007). "Lean Zone Production Methodologies ["Airplane Game" Instruction Manual]." Forth Worth, Texas.

Visionary Products Inc. (2008). "Lean Zone Production Methodologies: A Cellular Manufacturing Simulation for 6 to 8 Participants." <http://www.visionaryproducts. biz/index.cfm?action=view&pdfid=232.> (February 28 2008).

This concludes The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems Course

Zofia K. Rybkowski, PhD

Associate ProfessorDepartment of Construction ScienceCollege of ArchitectureTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX

serious games and simulations: transforming …...subsequent rounds, lean interventions are...

Documents