Narrow Results

In the new global economy, Lean Construction has become an effective way to design construction systems, which aims at reducing all forms of waste and creating the maximum of value for the customer. However, previous studies have reported that there are various implementation approaches, and most construction practitioners have applied this management philosophy according to their own understanding of Lean Construction principles. The main aim of this study is to develop a conceptual model for a successful deployment of lean construction. In this paper, an original generic model has been proposed based on a rigorous analysis of six relevant Lean Construction models that have been designed, validated, and tested in several countries (USA, UK, Malaysia, Germany, and Brazil). The findings of this work show that there are nine main Lean Construction principles and which are: customer focus, supply, continuous improvement, waste elimination, people involvement, planning and scheduling, quality, standardization, and transparency. Moreover, these principles have been divided into 33 sub-principles based on an extensive literature review of reliable documents (research papers, review papers, books, conference papers, and thesis) that have been published between 1992 and 2017.

The design process can be conceptualized in at least three different ways: 1) as a process of transforming inputs into outputs, 2) as a flow of information through time and space, and 3) as a process for generating value for customers. Case studies and research findings to date indicate that design management in construction is deficient from all three of these points of view. In this paper, a series of experiments aiming at creating clarity and introducing systematic management principles from all three perspectives is described. The results of these experiments suggest that the use of relatively simple, albeit theory-driven, tools can achieve major improvements in the process of construction design. It is argued that only when based on suitable conceptualizations, and informed by empirical data, can effective methods be devised to ameliorate construction design and engineering.

It is maintained that processes such as lean construction can reduce costs within the construction process. These costs often arise due to a lack of harmonization between contracting parties. Historically, the relationship between contractors and subcontractors has been transactional in nature, with both parties seeking to secure value added at minimal cost. Despite this fact, evidence suggests that mutual cooperation that can supersede a traditional cost led approach offers a new hope for prosperity in the construction industry. This paper provides preliminary case study research, highlighting that the competent implementation of lean construction should include the full integration of the small subcontracting firm. Thus, it is argued that harmonization between contractors and subcontractors is a prerequisite for lean construction. The paper finally posits that new practices will continue to have only a limited appeal to small subcontracting firms if they continue to facilitate contractor opportunism instead of reducing the transaction costs of all parties.

Using Construction Process Re-engineering (CPR), seventeen initiatives that may bring about improved performance are identified. To ascertain these initiatives' degree of usage and suitability to raise productivity, the views of construction industry practitioners, namely contractors, architects and clients, were sought through a postal survey. The results showed that 14 of these methods are suitable to raise productivity. However, only four are frequently used. These are: "the use of specialist sub-contractors"; "use of alternative dispute resolution techniques"; "selection of contractors on the basis of past performance"; and "practising knowledge management for systematic continuous improvement". There is therefore much potential in raising productivity by using more of the available re-engineering initiatives. With a few exceptions, the ratings were consistent across different types of respondents. Numerous barriers to implementing the initiatives are also identified. It is recommended that for the construction industry to achieve higher productivity, more CPR initiatives should be adopted. In particular, the industry should focus on obtaining inputs from all participants at the design stage, training professionals to be multi-skilled, and undertaking joint risk analysis for early risk allocation.

As construction projects emerge from the traditional delivery processes to modern fast-track forms, stress has developed in the interface between the design professional's delivery process and effective construction production. This is no greater evidenced than at the specialty contractor level. The current attempts at fast-track team type projects remain largely a time-compressed form of the traditional processes with respect to the design-construct production flow. While many of these projects are comprised of a pre-selected "team" of design and construction firms, in most cases the role of the specialty contractor is limited to pricing exercises and perhaps some traditional "value engineering" suggestions during the design phases. Substantial improvements in production workflow, if any, have been generally limited to the area of cooperative construction activity sequencing and scheduling. Problems arising from this situation are illustrated and research is proposed for testing possible solutions.

Several industrial sectors have recently experienced important changes on the organization of their production activities, indicating that a new production management paradigm is emerging. Although there is no consensus in the literature about the meaning of this new paradigm, an opportunity has been created for establishing a coherent body of shared principles for the management of production systems.

This paper discusses the increase of process transparency, which has been pointed out as one of the core principles of the new production management paradigm. It is concerned with making the production process observable in order to facilitate control and improvement. The main objective of this article is to investigate how this principle can be applied in construction sites, and to identify existing barriers for its implementation in this industry. It is based on a literature review, and on six exploratory case studies carried out in Brazil and England.

The practical and theoretical implications of the principle are discussed and a number of examples from construction are used to illustrate its main points. The study has indicated that it is feasible and worthwhile to apply this principle in construction sites. It can bring direct benefits for the performance of production systems, and it can also be used as a support principle that enables other principles to be effectively implemented. The case studies also indicated that there is much potential for increasing process transparency in construction sites.

The Human Resource Management (HRM) implications of lean construction are considered from a critical perspective. Construction academics have strangely ignored an extensive literature that equates lean production to a HRM regime of control, exploitation and surveillance. The emphasis of lean thinking on eliminating waste and improving efficiency makes it easy to absorb into the best practice agenda because it conforms to the existing dominant way of thinking. In common with countless other improvement initiatives, the rhetoric of lean construction is heavy in the machine metaphor whilst exhorting others to be more efficient. In the absence of an explicit consideration of the HRM implications, lean construction is doomed to repeat the mistakes of previous instrumentalist improvement recipes. In the face of rapidly declining recruitment rates for built environment courses, this will do little to attract the intelligent and creative young people that the industry so badly needs.

The tradition of Critical Management Studies (CMS) remains controversial within the construction management research community. Counter-criticisms offered by the proponents of lean construction are considered and the contribution to knowledge is defended. There is a tendency to suppress critical work on the basis that it lacks empirical evidence and is one-sided in its argument. If these criteria were applied to the existing lean construction literature, many of the seminal contributions would not have been published. Whilst it is valid and important to criticise the methodology of critical research, it must also be recognized that there are methodological limitations associated with all research paradigms. Different methodologies accentuate different aspects of reality.