Wednesday 26 June 2013

Improving Workflow in High Rise Building through Lookahead Planning: A Case Study in Nepal

In construction projects, variability affects production rates, labor productivity, schedule control, cost control, etc. Although the detrimental effects of variability in construction are well known (Ballard, 1993; Tommelein et al, 1999), the traditional construction planning process does not explicitly consider variability, since projects are incorrectly assumed to be static, leading to poor management decisions (Tommelein et al., 1999). Construction industry has been criticized for being concerned with managing only tasks and neglecting workflow (Koskela, 1992).

Ballard and Howell (1998) through their research on public and private construction projects reported that most of the projects suffered from low levels of workflow reliability, resulting from ineffective planning and high percentage of nonproductive time. They also reveal a poor level of planning resource assignments, not involving operational level staffs in planning, lack of tools and equipment, and failure to complete previous work were other reasons of low workflow reliability. Thus, workflow reliability in the construction field has been constantly measured at the level ranging from 30% to 60% (Ballard 1999).

On the other hand, outsourcing work packages to subcontractors and other specialist has been an integral part of construction system. Commitment, planning must be agreed between these parties and in reality the relationship between them is often opposing and non-collaborative, contractors always struggle to obtain reliable commitments from the subcontractors (Maturana et al, 2007). Also, many contractors contract work to subcontractors based on their personal relation and on the bid amount which in the future has resulted in unreliable commitments (Bustamante, 2007; Sacks and Harel, 2006). This is a prevalent pattern in planning and decision making in construction (Laufer et al, 1994), which may reduce planning reliability at the operational level.

Thus there is a real need of a planning tool which will ensure the smooth workflow at the construction site. Taking the activities from the master plan and collaborating these activities with the weekly work plan of the subcontractors and of the foremen for better reliable workflow and commitment. 

Lookahead planning is tool of a Last Planner System (LPS). LPS is a production planning and control system which is mostly used to overcome the above-mentioned problems by providing a predictable working environment, increasing workflow variability, and creating reliable work plans to maximize project benefits. LPS also helps to change fragile relationship between contractors and subcontractors to a more collaborative environment, which has beneficial impacts on all parties (Alarcon et al., 2005; Ballard 2000). The primary condition in the LPS is that activities should only be committed if they can be performed i.e., all construction preconditions must be available, converting what should be done into what can be done, helping to promote a production environment based on commitment and trust among contractors and subcontractors and among other stakeholders in the process planning.

Sajen Pradhan made a study aimed to:

1.  identify the critical individual factors and the group, interrupting the workflow
2. implement and examine how the Lookahead planning of LPS helps to improve workflow
3. provide recommendation and suggestion

Conclusions    

1. Critical factors affecting the workflow

The first objective of the study was to find the critical factors affecting the workflow. Extensive and comprehensive literature review from various sources was carried out to know the factors affecting workflow. Fifty (50) factors were short listed and these factors were screen out into 8 different main categories of prerequisite works, design and information, labor, materials, tools and equipment, working space, management, and external condition. Before conducting survey expert verification was carried out and the factors were reduced to 47.

The assessment of the factors affecting workflow in high rise building of Nepal was done through survey from 30 respondents of project managers and engineer. The analysis of the survey revealed critical top 10 factors which were 1) coordination between different traders, 2) materials to be arrived at the site, 3) difficulty in coordinating the work space, 4) quality of documents, 5) previous work not completed, 6) lack of skill and experience to perform the assigned task, 7) rework required to the previous work due to poor quality 8) change in scope of work, 9) Unviability of budget for the work and 10) Turnaround time by the engineers when there is a question with a drawing.

As the literature suggests making reliable/ predictable workflow is much more important than doing more work so this study will surely help project managers and project engineers to know in advance what are the factors that they have to focus more so to have better smooth workflow. The spearman’s correlation test among these factors also revealed moderate correlation where significant level from 0.05 to 0.01. 

Then the most critical group/category hindering workflow was also analyzed. This analysis is believed to assist in development of the whole project management system as the finding of the result highlighted the weak part of the organization and directed the project heads in the specific direction where the improvement is needed. The outcome of the study revealed that management and supervision was the most critical group hindering the workflow as per survey, followed by prerequisite works and drawings, and materials group were also very critical. 

2. Improvement of workflow though Lookahead planning

The second objective of the study was to implement and examine how the lookahead planning of LPS helps to improve workflow. This objective is the major objective of the research and for this two case studies were carried out in high rise buildings that were under construction in Nepal. The criteria, tool, and the check list that were used for the assessment of workflow was based on the finding from the literature reviews on lookahead planning and on its components. The procedure was verified by the 3 experts. The experiment was scheduled for 4 week, and both the case study nature of data collected was qualitative. Then after the data collection, data analysis was carried out to check the improvement in PPC and in LU in the project after the introduction of the lookahead planning tool. It was seen that both PPC and LU increased in the 2 case studies satisfying the objective of the research.

Apart from the improving the reliability of the plan, lookahead planning also had many benefits like enhancing teamwork, developing the knowledge of lower level staff to make decision, better communication, utilization of resources, and minimizing time wastage. But there was still room for improvement in terms of PPC level which was till moderate, thus the reasons for failing the work as planned were investigated and it was found that issues related with management, drawing and materials were the main reasons. This analysis was important to prevent the same type of failures from recurring. All these reasons can be eliminated through lookahead planning with its tools of collaborative meeting, collaborative planning, and early constraint analysis, making work ready against definition, soundness, sequencing, and size.

The findings of this research can help project managers and consulting companies. The results can help project managers better understand the relationship between work flow variation and productivity and improve productivity by reducing work flow variation. Workflow variation is significantly correlated with labor productivity performance. This helps the company to pin point the weakness in the project management system. But it has to be noted here that making reliable depends upon type of project and management practice of the Project heads as well. Thus workflow should be taken as a continuous improvement process where there should be analysis of plan failures, finding root causes and suggesting improvement strategies that prevent the same type of failure from recurring.

The thesis abstract is copied below.


Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) activities are naturally full of variables and uncertainty and consist of many tasks which are to be performed in a sequence. Variation in timely completion of these tasks can be high and can have significantly negatively affect impact on project performance index and results in waste, inefficiency, and productivity loss. To execute an elementary construction task most efficiently, at least seven preconditions must be fulfilled. But due to construction peculiarities, these preconditions may not be satisfied, and thus the probability of missing one or many of these preconditions is greatly high and which results in failure of the project in terms of schedule overrun, cost overrun and disputes and claims. Thus improving the reliability of planning is the first step to have stable construction workflow, and as affect their will be high productivity and improved quality.

Studies have shown that to keep the workflow activity stable the use of collaborative and flexible planning method is the key. Thus, lookahead planning of Last Planner System (LPS) has been used for the research case study. Lookahead planning is a mid-level planning which take the activities from the overall project master schedules and aligns it with the short term crew-level commitments. Lookahead planning filters out scheduled activities that “should” be done but cannot be done and improves the success rate of completing the tasks assigned in weekly and daily plans. It achieves the above mentioned goals through:

1. Breaking down tasks into workable packages under the collaboration of Project head with those who execute the work
2. Identifying and removing constraints to make task ready for execution and
3. Designing operations through first run studies


Keywords: Architecture, Engineering, Construction, Variables, Lookahead Planning, Last Planner System, Workflow

No comments: