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, 3rd
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
5
Forbes L. & Ahmed S. (2011) Modern Construction, “Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices, CRC
Press, New York
6
O’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

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
14
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.
54321

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
No. Profession Average Result No. Profession Average Result
11 UK 3.82 2 Project Mngr 3.50
7 Contract Mngr 3.57 3 Client 3.33
2 Project Mngr 3.50 7 Contract Mngr 3.29
6 Site Mngr 3.50 11 UK 3.27
3 QS 3.33 4 Structural Eng 3.00
23 Yes to BIM 3.13 23 Yes to BIM 2.87
4 Structural Eng 3.00 6 Site Mngr 2.80
3 Academic 3.00 3 Academic 2.67
3 Client 3.00 3 Site/Civil Eng 2.67
18 No to BIM 2.76 18 No to BIM 2.63
3 Site/Civil Eng 2.67 30 Ireland 2.57
30 Ireland 2.66 2 Site Clerk 2.50
2 Site Clerk 2.50 3 QS 2.33
3 Clerk of Works 2.00 3 Clerk of Works 2.00
4 Architect 1.75 4 Architect 1.75
41 Overall average 2.98 41 Overall average 2.77
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 Scheduling promises not
kept by Main Contractor 5.26/4.39
D,M Materials not on site when
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 Breakdown in relations/
disciplines 5.50/5.44
H,Q Buildability –Did the design
construction process? 5.15/4.95
I,R A delay in receiving
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 Scheduling promises not
kept by Main Contractor 4.39
M Materials not on site when
required 4.56
N Poor quality of
workmanship/materials 5.56
O Weather 4.56
P Breakdown in relations/
disciplines 5.44
Q Buildability –Did the design
construction process? 4.95
R A delay in receiving
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”
http://www.acci.unsw.edu.au/Documents/”LeanConstruction.pdf

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

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.
4321
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
3.262.243.792.683.16
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.
3.133.343.062.413.06

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.
1 432

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.
54321

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

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
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’

Paul Ebbs (2011) - Can lean construction improve the irish construction industry

Paul Ebbs (2011) - Can lean construction improve the irish construction industry

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Paul Ebbs (2011) - Can lean construction improve the irish construction industry

Similar a Paul Ebbs (2011) - Can lean construction improve the irish construction industry (20)

Último

Último (15)

Paul Ebbs (2011) - Can lean construction improve the irish construction industry