Resilient performance in design management: a case study on the role of the Last Planner System
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46421/entac.v20i1.6361Keywords:
Resilient performance, Design management, Last Planner SystemAbstract
Although the Last Planner System (LPS) contributes to construction projects' resilient performance (RP), previous studies have not investigated how the method can support RP in the design process. To address this gap, a case study was carried out in a department store company that develops several projects annually. The implementation of LPS was analysed in light of seven principles for the design of resilient systems. The sources of evidence for this analysis involved documents, semi-structured interviews, participant observation and secondary data. The results pointed out the existence of some practices of a different nature from those found in studies about the theme in production. However, some patterns were repeated: LPS was combined with other formal and informal practices. This means that the method contributes to the RP of the design process but must be complemented in some way, considering the specific context in which it is applied. This study also suggests which LPS practices should be supported and emphasised when managing the design process of complex projects.
References
EL. REIFI, M. H.; EMMITT, S. Perceptions of lean design management. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, v. 9, n. 3,
p. 195–208, 2013.
CHOO, H. J. et al. DePlan: A tool for integrated design management. Automation in Construction, v. 13, n. 3, p. 313–326, 2004.
KOSKELA, L.; HUOVILA, P.; LEINONEN, J. Design management in building construction: from theory to practice. Journal of
Construction Research, v. 3, n. 1, p. 1–16, 2002.
AUSTIN, S.; BALDWIN, A.; NEWTON, A. Manipulating the flow of design information to improve the programming of building
design. Construction Management and Economics, v. 12, n. 5, p. 445–455, 1994.
HAMZEH, F. R.; BALLARD, G.; TOMMELEIN, I. D. Is the Last Planner System applicable to design? A case study. Proceedings of the
th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Anais. Taipei, Taiwan: 2009.
CROSS, N. Engineering design methods: strategies for product design. 5th. ed. Hoboken: John Willey & Sons Ltd, 2021.
CHIU, S.; COUSINS, B. Last Planner System® in design. Lean Construction Journal, p. 78–99, 2020.
MÄKI, T.; KEROSUO, H. Design-related questions in the construction phase: The effect of using the last planner system in design
management. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, v. 47, n. 2, p. 132–139, 2020.
WESZ, J. G. B.; FORMOSO, C. T.; TZORTZOPOULOS, P. Planning and controlling design in engineered-to-order prefabricated building
systems. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, v. 25, n. 2, p. 134–152, 2018.
BALLARD, G.; TOMMELEIN, I. 2020 Current Process Benchmark for the Last Planner® System of Project Planning and Control
Project Production Systems Laboratory (P2SL). Berkeley, California, USA.
BALLARD, G.; TOMMELEIN, I. Lean management methods for complex projects. Engineering Project Organization Journal, v. 2, n.
–2, p. 85–96, 2012.
SAURIN, T. A.; ROOKE, J. The Last Planner® System as an approach for coping with the complexity of construction projects. Em:
Lean Construction: core concepts and new frontiers. Abingdon: Routledge, 2020. p. 325–340.
HOLLNAGEL, E. Why is Work-as-Imagined Different from Work- as-Done? Em: WEARS, R. L.; HOLLNAGEL, E.; BRAITHWAITE, J. (Eds.).
Resilient Health Care: The Resilience of Everyday Clinical Work. 2. ed. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2017.
HULME, A. et al. What do applications of systems thinking accident analysis methods tell us about accident causation? A
systematic review of applications between 1990 and 2018. Safety Science, v. 117, p. 164–183, 2019.
MAZHAR, S.; WU, P. P. Y.; ROSEMANN, M. Designing complex socio-technical process systems – the airport example. Business
Process Management Journal, v. 25, n. 5, p. 1101–1125, 2019.
ALSHAREF, A. et al. Early Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the United States Construction Industry. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, v. 18, 2021.
HAMERSKI, D. C. et al. The contributions of the Last Planner System to resilient performance in construction projects. Construction
Management and Economics, 2023.
HAMERSKI, D. C. et al. Production Planning and Control As-Imagined and As-Done: the Gap At the Look-Ahead Level. Proceedings
of the 29th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Anais. Lima, Peru: 2021
DISCONZI, C. M. D. G.; SAURIN, T. A. Design for resilient performance: Concept and principles. Applied Ergonomics, v. 101, p.
, 2022.
YIN, R. K. Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, v. 19, n. 3, p. 321–332, 2013.
BALLARD, G.; HOWELL, G. Shielding production: essential step in production control. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, v. 124, n. 1, 1998.
HAMZEH, F.; BALLARD, G.; TOMMELEIN, I. D. Rethinking lookahead planning to optimize construction workflow. Lean Construction
Journal, p. 15–34, 2012.
LIKER, J. The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles From the World’s Greatest Manufacturer. 2. ed. McGraw Hill, 2020.
CHOO, H. J. et al. WorkPlan: Constraint-Based Database for Work Package Scheduling. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, v. 125, n. 3, p. 151–161, 1999.
LUO, L. et al. Construction Project Complexity: Research Trends and Implications. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, v. 143, n. 7, 2017.
HAMZEH, F. R.; ZANKOUL, E.; ROUHANA, C. How can ‘tasks made ready’ during lookahead planning impact reliable workflow and
project duration? Construction Management and Economics, v. 33, n. 4, p. 243–258, 2015.
SOMAN, R. K.; MOLINA-SOLANA, M. Automating look-ahead schedule generation for construction using linked-data based
constraint checking and reinforcement learning. Automation in Construction, v. 134, p. 104069, 2022.
FIREMAN, M. C. T. et al. Slack in production planning and control: a study in the construction industry. Construction Management
and Economics, v. 41, n. 3, p. 256–276, 2023.
