Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
by
2004
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my greatest gratitude to my research supervisor Dr. Mohd Wira
Mohd Shafiei for his mentor and encouragement during the whole process of preparing
this thesis. I would like to thank my family and friends who were always there for me
whenever in needed the most. Special thank to my employer, Mr. Chew Hock Jin who
Lee Kheng who helped my in my SPSS analysis, and last but not least, to all the
respondents who took part in completing and returned the questionnaires for this
research.
Without all of you, this thesis would not be existed in the first place. Thanks a lot.
Regards,
April 2004
ii
ABSTRCT
There are a lot of non-value adding activities or wastes in construction practices and
many among those were left unnoticed or unattended. Previous studies have shown that
there were significant amounts of values loss due to construction process flow wastes
and tremendous productivity improvements can be achieved by simply targeting at
reducing or eliminating those wastes and/ or improve the process flow.
This thesis was conducted on the basis to study the waste concepts and the level of
“leanness” in local construction practices based on philosophies and principles drawn
by Lean Construction. A quantitative survey was carried out through structured
questionnaires over a randomly selected group of managerial personnel in construction
activities.
The results from the study show that the respondents have a relatively low recognition
over contributory time wastes group compared to direct conversion wastes group and
non-contributory time wastes group as categorised in the study. The correlation analyses
also show almost no significant inter-relationships between wastes recognition and
wastes controlled, wastes recognition and wastes occurrence frequencies, and wastes
controlled and wastes occurrence frequencies for those 3 waste categories (except 1
negative significant case are recorded on waste recognition vs. waste controlled for
contributory time wastes). This has suggested that a very high level of subjectivity
possessed by the respondents on recognising, controlling and witnessing the actual
occurrence of construction wastes where majority cases are recorded with non-
consistent pairs relationships. In this study, a cluster of waste cause variables have also
been examined against their likelihood to impact on the construction processes as well
as relating those variables directly to specific construction wastes. This will serve as a
good exercise to expose the root sources to particular construction wastes.
In conclusion, the outcomes of the research suggested that there still have rooms for
construction process improvements with the application of lean construction and proper
waste concepts instilled to all level of construction personnel and processes.
iii
CONTENT PAGE
pp.
Acknowledgement i
Abstract ii
Abstrak ii (a)
List of Tables vi
List of Appendixes x
1) Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1) Research background 1
1.2) Problem statement 3
1.3) Research aim 4
1.4) Research objectives 5
1.5) Research scopes 6
1.6) Research limitations 7
1.7) Research methodology 8
1.8) Research significance 11
1.9) Thesis structure 12
1.10) Summary 14
pp.
pp.
6) Chapter 6: Data Analysis and Interpretation
6.1) Introduction 103
6.2) Descriptive analysis results 103
6.2.1) Respondents and their organisation’s background 105
6.2.1.1) Position of respondents 106
6.2.1.2) Nature of work of respondents 107
6.2.1.3) Main core construction projects involved by the
respondent’s organisation 107
6.2.1.4) CIDB registration grade of the respondent’s companies 108
6.2.1.5) Main project clients 109
6.2.2) Respondent’s waste perceptions and control actions 110
6.2.2.1) Analysis on direct conversion wastes 110
6.2.2.2) Analysis on non-contributory time wastes 117
6.2.2.3) Analysis on contributory time wastes 124
6.3) Inferential analysis results 131
6.3.1) Correlation among direct conversion wastes concepts and
perceptions, waste event control and frequencies of waste event
occurrences 131
6.3.2) Correlation among non-contributory time wastes concepts and
perceptions, waste event control and frequencies of waste event
occurrences 133
6.3.3) Correlation among contributory time wastes concepts and
perceptions, waste event control and frequencies of waste event
occurrences 135
6.3.4) Ranking on frequencies of occurrences for wastes exist in
construction processes 137
6.3.5) Ranking on likeliness for sources/ causes for the construction
wastes 139
6.4) Causes and Effects Matrix 141
Reference xi
Appendices xiv
vi
vi
LIST OF TABLES
pp.
Table 1.2: Contents summary for the chapters covered in this thesis 12
pp.
LIST OF FIGURES
pp.
pp.
Figure 6.13: Causes and Effects relationship for the cases of major causes 142
(Categorised)
Figure 6.14: Causes and Effects relationship for the cases of others causes 143
(Categorised)
x
LIST OF APPENDICES
pp.
xiv
Appendix 1: Correlation Pearson r results from SPSS 10.0
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Construction is a key sector of the national economy for countries all around the world,
as traditionally it took up a big portion in nation’s total employment and its significant
industries are still facing numbers of contingent problems that were bounded to be
resolved since the past time. The chronic problems of construction are well known such
as Low productivity, poor safety, inferior working conditions, and insufficient quality.
(Koskela, 1993) and the phenomenon of the poor performance and conditions in
construction had long been witnessed and recorded by academics and practitioners
throughout the world regardless in developed countries e.g. England (Eaton, 1994) or
Nowadays, increasing foreign competition, the scarcity of skilled labour and the need to
improve construction quality are the key challenges faced by the construction industry.
and to incorporate new technologies to the industry. A lack of responsiveness can hold
back growth, and to development of the needed infrastructure for the construction
and studies had been carried out for the past decades to identify the causes to the
construction problems and some of them had went on to suggest and recommend
solutions to rectify those identified problems. The early phase of these studies mainly
focused on the “end” side of the construction process with the introduction of new
technologies and equipment to speed up the construction process and improve overall
productivity. It was only until late 1980s where a new construction improvement
movement was being initiated by looking into the “mean” side of the construction
process-related problems in a more holistic and structured way based on the philosophy
and ideology of lean production. With the lean construction paradigm, construction
stage. However, in construction, there has been rather little interest in this new
production philosophy. (Alarcón, 1994) This matter laid on whether or not the new
production philosophy has implications for construction and will give any significant
According to the scholars and researchers in Lean Construction, the new construction
parallel with value adding strategies with the introduction of new management tools and
with proper trainings and education programs. Unfortunately, these new lean
construction concepts especially those on wastes and values most of the times are not
with waste of materials in the construction processes while non-value adding activities
such as inspection, delays, transportation of materials and others are not recognised as
waste. (Alarcón, 1995) As the result of that, the productivity of construction industry
cannot be fully optimised due to the narrow interpretation on the concept of waste
current adopted. In this case, substantial education programs need to be arranged for all
related parties involved in order to implement the new process improvement strategies
It is presumably that construction industries in Malaysia are facing the same generic
However, the main problem in Malaysia (might be the same for most of other countries)
is the lack of clear indicators on quantitative parameters to assess the extent of those
problems/ wastes to have been impacted on the overall performance and productivity of
local construction industries. To date, there have not been many well-documented
construction site in Malaysia. As a result of that, the introduction of the concepts and
4
framework of new lean construction ideology are seen as an opportunity to address the
existing problems in local construction industry and utilising concepts and framework
of new lean construction ideology can then go further to formulate the extent of impacts
Prior to assess the severity of the process-related problems/ wastes which existed in the
traditional and new production/ construction concepts will have to be drawn prior to
parameters such as waste, value, cycle time or variability that was not covered under
traditional concepts are to be introduced into this study as accordance to the lean
construction ideologies and the subjects in this case; the local construction personnel
will be subsequently examined with those new parameters to review the level of
This research is intended to verify and reevaluated the status of existing productivity
industries. This is meant to have a clearer picture on how “lean” is local construction
particularly on waste and cycle time pertaining to the concepts and principles of Lean
Construction.
In line with this, this research will intend to reveal the perception of the local
factors of the success for the practice of lean construction improvement strategies
mostly based on the mind set and readiness of the practitioners mainly personnel with
the leading role in the cycle of the construction projects to drive the whole program.
1. Examine the general perceptions of the local construction industry with the lean
3. Identify the source of wastes (classified under lean construction) and related
1. The area of this study is confined to the Peninsular of Malaysia excluding East
Malaysia.
2. The primary data will be collected through questionnaires mainly through postal
who has a leading role in the construction management e.g. project managers,
supervisors, etc) for the construction and consultant firms in the confined area of
study.
depth but to capture the main characteristics of the population using a fixed
sample. Thus, there will be no limitation imposed to the qualification level and
during the designated period will be analysed and the responses beyond this time
There are certain limitations to this research as the writer wish to highlight as follow:
1. Research Validity
The study approach for this research is based on structured surveys to be carried
out based on postal and electronic mailing questionnaires. Therefore, the feedback
supporting the research finding. Field data collections for all the local construction
projects will very much help in verifying the feedback from the structured surveys
but due to time constraints and the insignificant of field data collections to support
the research finding, field data collections is discarded from the research design
and it is recommended that in the future, further studies on the field to be carried
2. Research Reliability
Malaysia, thus there might be little attention given by the local construction
This might affects the consistency of the results in the data measurement where
FORMULATE PROBLEM
STATEMENT
First Stage
RESEARCH RESEARCH
OBJECTIVES SCOPES
Third Stage
PRIMARY SECONDARY
DATA DATA
CONCLUSION &
Fifth Stage EVALUATION
Sixth Stage
RESEARCH REPORT
Figure 1.1
Research methodology flow chart
9
First Phase
Malaysia.
the research.
Second Phase
Peninsular Malaysia.
objectives.
Third Phase
Processing includes:
a. Postal questionnaires
b. Email questionnaires
Fourth Phase
statistic.
problem statement
Fifth Phase q This phase will evaluate and conclude the results
further researches
Sixth Phase
Table 1.1
Breakdown of scopes covered in each phase of the research
To the benefits of local construction practices, this research is set to be one of the
pioneer efforts of instill the lean construction philosophy and principles into the
problems of the industry will be redefined and reassessed in order to reformat a new
strategy and plan for productivity improvement in the local construction practices.
12
Whereas academically, the compilation of this research was also intended to set up
wastes measurement for local construction industry and perhaps set ground for future
researches to refine or reengineer the construction processes and practices of the local
construction industry.
CHAPTER 1 This chapter covers the overall perspective for the research,
INTRODUCTION such as research background, problem statement, research
aims, objective, scope, methodology and limitation
The extensive literature review will be divided into three main chapter (chapter 2-4) as
follows:
CHAPTER 2 This chapter will focus on the following subjects:
THE PROBLEMS IN q Examine the background of the problems existed in
CONSTRUCTION AND current construction processes
THE TRENDS IN q Study the trends of improvement strategies in
IMPROVEMENT construction
STRATEGIES q Study the emergency of new production philosophy
CHAPTER 5 This chapter will focus on the questionnaire design e.g. the
RESEARCH formulation of the hypotheses and the ways those hypotheses
METHODOLOGY are to be tested with the factors and variables identified in
the questionnaire. A general overview on the statistical
concepts will be studied to ensure the data are analysed
accordingly and to generate the data outputs relevant to the
hypotheses formulated.
CHAPTER 6 This chapter processes, analyses and then interprets the result
DATA ANALYSIS AND collected from the field survey and to stand out the aims and
INTERPRETATION objectives for this research
Table 1.2
Contents summary for the chapters covered in this thesis
14
1.10 Summary
This research is conducted based on the criterions discussed above to reevaluated the
status of existing productivity & performances and the perception of waste concepts for
Malaysia construction industries based on lean construction concept and principles. The
CHAPTER 2
IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
2.1 Introduction
many aspects such as quality, safety, productivity and product delivery to planned
construction industry in US has been rated among the worst industries in term of
productivity improvement for the period between 1970 to 1986. The rate of productivity
for US construction industry always performed lower than the annual total US
Commerce. Koskela (1993) also conducted a study to indicate the order of magnitude
of non value-adding activities (waste) on various partial studies carried out in Sweden
and US. From Koskela’s data compilation, it has shown that construction processes are
Table 2.1:
Waste in construction: Compilation of existing data (Koskela, 1992)
Previous studies in the UK, Scandinavian countries, and US also reflecting the same
scenario where the studies indicated up to 30% of construction is rework, only 40-60%
of potential labour efficiency, accidents can account for 3-6% of total costs, and at least
10% of materials are wasted (DETR, 1998). The cost of rework in Australian
construction projects has been reported as being up to 35% of total project costs and
contributes as much as 50% of a project's total overrun costs. In fact, rework is one of
In general, a very high level of wastes/ non added value activities are assumed to exist
studies from various countries have confirmed that wastes in construction industry
depleted overall performance and productivity of the industry and certain serious
The chronic problems of construction are well known: low productivity, poor safety,
inferior working conditions, and insufficient quality. (Koskela, 1993) However, most of
the time, those critical problems of construction were left unattended because people of
the industry refrained to believe or accept that there is a solution to those problems.
peculiarities and special features: one-of-a-kind nature of projects, site production, and
temporary multi-organisation. Most people concluded that its fragmented nature, lack of
governed and controlled under a rather routine process, construction activities are
subjected to relatively wide range of variables and wastes factors throughout its
activities. These variables and wastes generated in construction activities are mainly due
to its large fieldwork component, the provisional nature of some of its organisations,
and its intensive use of labour and non-stationary equipment and indeed, those
construction peculiarities and variables will restraint the efficiency of the construction
all of those peculiarities and variables can be overcome with the application of new
18
flow design and improvements as well as new technologies adoption. (Alarcon, 1994)
processes and technologies are what finally determine the productivity that can be
achieved.
Throughout the years, manufacturing has always been a reference point and a source of
innovations to construction. Several efforts had been made to transfer the successful
relieve the problems in construction industry. Most of the early efforts involved new
have been no signs of major improvements to construction has resulting from both
trends of process dissemination and solutions as quoted by Koskela (2000). The main
reasons behind the failure of achieving any major improvements from both trends are
Table 2.2
Context of manufacturing and construction production
However, there was a new development trend based on a new production philosophy
derived from manufacturing was slowly caught the attentions of the academics and
practitioners in construction industry in late 1980’s. In the last three decades have seen
everything: Less on the manufacturing space, less on the human effort in factories, less
on the investment in tools and less on the product development time. In general,
simultaneously in manufacturing industry. All these improvements have not been the
product of a radical or sharp change of technology but the result of the application of a
These new development trend stresses on the importance of basic theories and
principles related to production management and now, the same practices have been
industry especially in waste reduction and elimination strategies. Among the earliest
20
Lauri Koskela and Luis F Alarcón. Koskela (1992) identified the overwhelming
model with a flow/ conversion model in order to reduce waste. Alarcon (1995) also
In other words, identifying and measuring waste will served as an effective way to
assess the performance of any production systems because it will usually point out areas
of potential improvement and the main causes of inefficiency. Waste measures are more
effective to support process management, since they enable some operational costs to be
properly modeled and generate information that is usually meaningful for the
Traditional manufacturing production philosophy and practices from the earlier days of
industrialisation era never went beyond the concept of the overall production process to
be treated as a mean of transformation process only, and by ignoring the flow process
has limited the full potential of process improvement. In 1950’s, those traditional
manufacturing production system were set for a paradigm shift when Taiichi Ohno
(1912-1990), a former Toyota (a Japanese major car manufacturer) executive had set
out to develop a new production system called Toyota Production System. Ohno's
original ideas were based on the adoption of production strategies identified according
21
to the demand of the downstream production chain, part of a production plan that
ensured the planned pace was maintained throughout the production process.
The basic idea in the Toyota production system is the elimination of inventories and
other waste through small lot production, reduced set-up times, semiautonomous
machines, co-operation with suppliers, and other techniques and in other words, the idea
was to achieve a continuous production flow by adopting monitoring measures for each
process phase, aiming to reduce inventories. (Conte & Gransberg, 2001) The
production (JIT) and throughout the years, it has remained among the core practices of
the new production philosophy. Big productivity gains from Just-In-Time production
(JIT) and later as lean production, had been reported from manufacturing since the end
including quality circles and other tools for company-wide development. These ideas
were developed and refined by industrial engineers in a long process of trial and error;
establishment of theoretical background and wider presentation of the approach was not
seen as necessary.
22
However, the ideas on new production philosophy was not widely spread around the
industry at the beginning stage, it only diffused to Europe and America starting in about
mid 1970, especially in the automobile industry. Since the end of 1970’s, a lot of new
industry i.e. JIT (Just-In-Time), TQM (Total Quality Management), Time Based
Competition, Value Based Management, and Concurrent Engineering. It turns out that
for all the production management mentioned above were having the same common
idea but only they were viewing it from more or less different angles.
In years, the general conception of the new production philosophy evolved through
three levels: it was viewed as a tool (e.g. kanban and quality circles), as a manufacturing
methodology (e.g. JIT and TQM) and as a general management philosophy (e.g. lean
design and control principles emphasized by any particular approach. (Koskela, 1993)
For instance JIT stresses the elimination of wait times whereas TQM aims at the
elimination of errors and related rework but both apply under the same
information.
In the beginning of the 1990’s, the new production philosophy, which is known by
several different names (world class manufacturing, lean production, new production
manufacturing companies in America and Europe. The new approach has also diffused
development. In recent years, this new production philosophy has been disseminated
and diffused in other industries, and this includes the construction industry (Koskela
2000), in the meantime, the new production philosophy has been undergoing further
The latest development on new production philosophy now is closely integrated with
the ideology of lean thinking aiming for a leaner production chain throughout every
stage of the processes. The term “lean” was first used by John Krafcik, who was a
master’s student at MIT in the mid-1980s and it refers to a general way of thinking and
specific practices that emphasize less of everything – fewer people, less time, lower cost
(Cusumano & Nobeoka, 1998). Womack and Jones, (1996) suggested that Lean
actions in the best sequence, conduct these activities without interruption whenever
someone requests them, and perform them more and more effectively. Freeman (1999)
concurred that Lean Thinking is not just about cutting down wastes (wasted time,
wasted effort and wasted materials) but it is also about putting on value and it involves
focusing on the whole process; from the earliest design to final handover.
24
The core of the new production philosophy is based on the conclusive understanding
that all production systems are constituted of 2 main activities: Conversions and Flows
(waiting, moving, and inspecting). In the new production paradigm, only conversion
activities add value to the final product whereas flow activities do not; value is
determined under the value stream of the customers with the satisfaction of their
requirements and cost paid on the final product. Therefore, the primary objectives for
philosophy should be targeted separately. That can be done through the improvement of
flow activities (through which the conversion activities are bound together) by primarily
focusing on reducing or eliminating them and on the other hand, conversion activities
This has important implications for the design, control, and improvement of production
paradigm sees the whole process simply as a conversion of an input into an output that
can be divided into sub-processes, which are also conversion processes. All activities
have been treated as though they were value-adding conversions without separating
from the flow processes. This has led to complex, uncertain and confused flow
conversion and flow activities, a generic process improvement plan based on new
production philosophy can be derived from the study of Enton (1994) on lean
improvement plan is by analysis and separation of conversions and flows activities. For
conversions activities identified, those activities should be channeled into the quality
cycles (Quality control, Quality assurance and Total Quality Management) to increase
efficiency of value added conversions. Whereas, for flow activities, the approach should
more and more popular especially in the developing countries i.e. US and Europe.
construction and argues for replacing the conversion model with flow/conversion model
in order to reduce waste. This has inspired Gregory Howell, a civil engineer, and
Research Director Glen Ballard from Lean Construction Institute of Idaho began to
investigate the performance of project planning systems. They later espoused the
concept of "Lean Construction" by seeing a potential for applying the general principles
management-based approach to project delivery; a new way to design and build capital
facilities and it extends from the objectives of a lean production system; maximise value
and minimise waste and to specific techniques and applies them in a new project
1993 (Koskela, 2000). Since then, the enthusiasms over lean construction paradigm are
intensified and widely accepted practitioners and academics around the world under the
Nowadays in UK and US, Lean Construction philosophy and principles are gradually
being introduced into universities’ mostly at post-graduate level. A lot of researches and
case studies have already been carried out using lean construction theories and
improvement concepts and waste reduction/ elimination still remained major focus
among those researches in which they are viewed as value enhancement to the whole
The development in UK’s construction industry eventually went onto an even higher
published in 1998 led by Sir John Egan. As a report, it set clear targets for
Value and built upon the work of the 1994 Latham report. It has now matured and is
becoming a positive force that will bring major change within the construction industry
in UK.
The essences of Egan Report are nominally based on Lean Construction principles with
and accidents) and an increase in “value” (quality, improvements, finish products, etc)
as shown below:
One of the example that Egan report impacts on construction industry in UK was a
major shift to long-term partnering deals between architects and housing associations in
UK following Department of the Environment, Transport & the Regions edict that
social housing must be 100% Egan-compliant within four years periods. In the Housing
rising to 30% in 2001/2002, 60% in 2002/2003, and reaching 100% in 2003/2004. That
policy had forced the UK’s developing associations to a fast-track conversion of their
procurement policies.
This radical shift in social housing procurement would have fundamentally altered the
associations now have the Egan targets: 10% annual reduction in the cost and time of
standards for improvement. In this way, many UK’s housing associations will have to
There have not been any significant signs of positive impacts of the new production
The problems in Malaysia construction industry are still at a very serious level. For
29
example in construction safety, Abdul Rashid Abdul Aziz and Abdul Aziz Hussin
(2003) has quoted on a recent construction safety study carried out in 2001. In their
paper quoted that “the awareness of safety procedures and laws to be low among site
operatives; both site operatives and main contractors exhibit apathy for safety; and
also backed by the statistics on construction accidents rate published by from DOSH,
which is also referred in their paper. This is only one dimension of problems in
Malaysia construction industry and besides that, there was always news about delay on
construction projects and low quality of project execution and delivery regardless
Academically, lean construction are not being considered as a main source of research
direction in Malaysia, which is very much unlike countries like United Kingdom and
United States where they have post-graduate studies specially focus on the research of
lean construction. Literally, there were too few literature studies available under this
research topic locally although some partial studies on material wastes only but not
Institutionally, we have yet to witness any radical movements being planned towards
achieving leaner and more efficient construction industries as a whole as such as what
had been drafted in United Kingdom. This idea requires a throughout commitment and
understanding over the entire construction industries in order to achieve those goals and
Overall, the impacts of new production philosophy to local construction industries are
still considered minimal and so in reverse the potential of improvement in this field is
vast. Therefore, local construction industries need to be more aware of the new
concepts, principles, tools and instruments behind this new lean construction
philosophy. This is important efficient in order to make the local construction practices
leaner, more effective and able to sustain their competitiveness edges over other
CHAPTER 3
PRODUCTION PHILOSOPHY
3.1 Introduction
When we start to discuss about new production philosophy, lean production or even
lean construction and their impacts on the production system, apparently, this would
derivation of main and related ideas and techniques in new production philosophy,
compressing the principles behind the new production philosophy and finally the
A historical analysis carried out by Koskela (2000) has revealed that there are three
TFV model.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, transformation concept has been the
these tasks with minimal cost and carrying out the tasks as efficiently as
possible.
The first core principle which has been used in conjunction with transformation
concept stated that: The transformation process can be decomposed into sub-
breaking up the total transformation (production process) into much smaller and
Material,
Labours Production
Process Products
Subprocess Subprocess
A B
Source: Koskela, Lauri (2000). An Exploration towards a production theory and its
application to construction
Figure 3.1
Hierarchical decomposition of production process with transformation concept
independency principle that the cost of the total process can be minimised
through minimising the cost of each sub-process. The key issue pertaining to
this principle leads to the assumption that every sub-processes of a total process
are independent from each other and therefore cost minimisation can be applied
department.
independence assumption from the second core principle as discussed above and
34
it reflects that the transformation process that is most important, and it is thus a
theory and practical was mainly due to its sufficient power to model reality, and
excellent power of various tools derived from it to analysis and control production
considering all processes are transformation activities tends to undermine the full
optimum of efficiency and productivity for the production process. Below are some
a way, this is a correct idealisation; from the customer point of view these
activities are not needed since they do not add value to the end product.
b) All activities are conversion activities, and are therefore treated as value-
adding.
35
2. The output of each conversion is usually variable, to such an extent that a share
of the output does not fulfill the implicit or explicit specification for that
3. The specification for each conversion is imperfect; it only partially reflects the
scientific terms, has provided the basis for JIT and lean production. This view
was firstly translated into practice by Ford (1926); however, the template
provided by Ford was in this regard misunderstood, and only from 1940’s
onwards the flow view of production was properly developed in Japan, first as
part of war production and then at Toyota. As a result, the flow view is
embodied in JIT and lean production and the triumph of the JIT and lean
The new production concept of flow was emerged apparently from the
efficiency.
The first core principle of this flow concept is the introduction of time as an
input (or resource) in production and therefore the main focus is in the amount
of time consumed by the total transformation and its parts by aiming for the
The second core principle of the flow concept is that time is consumed by two
3.2 and it is obvious that these non-transformation activities are unnecessary and
the less of them is better and best if there are none of them.
37
Scrap Scrap
Source: Koskela, Lauri (2000). An Exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction
Figure 3.2
Production as a flow process
improvement utilising flow concepts as shown below and they are seen to be
centering over a common basic goal, which is eliminate waste from flow
process.
(waste),
The value generation view was initiated by Shewhart (1931) and further refined
in the framework of the quality movement but also in other circles. The value
38
production and argued that the goal of production is to satisfy customer needs.
In this case, value generation concept covers external needs and to ensure the
internal physical process can generate appropriate values to the customer/ end-
pair and introduces the customer and product with its features. It is clear from
the framework that it is not the transformation itself that is valuable, but the fact
that the output corresponds to the requirements, wishes, etc of the customer
Requirements,
expectations
Supplier Customer
Value through
products and
services
Source: Koskela, Lauri (2000). An Exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction
Figure 3.3
The conceptual scheme of a supplier-customer pair
This third concept of value generation concept views production as a means for
these needs accurately into a design solution, and then producing products that
flow, namely control for the sake of the customer and it is important to highlight
39
that the value generation concept does not focus on any particular aspect of
physical production like transformation and flow model do but rather on its
would engulf both flow concepts and value generation concepts in the development of
production system. The most significant differences between conventional and the new
perceived as consists of conversions only with all the activities in the processes are
regarded as value adding, and the focus of process improvement only will happen by
conversions and flows where activities in the processes can be divided into value adding
and non-value adding activities, therefore the focus of process improvement can be
broken down into 2 separated areas which are the elimination or reduction for non-value
adding activities and the increase of process efficiency for value adding activities
Several factors make it difficult to present a coherent overview of the ideas and
techniques of the new production philosophy. This is because this field is still relative
young and in constant evolution where new concepts emerge and the content of old
concepts change. The same concept is used to refer to a phenomenon on several levels
of abstraction. It is not clear where to place the boundaries between related concepts.
However, the overview over two historically important “root” terms, Just In Time (JIT)
and Total Quality Control (TQC) can help to enhance the understanding of the basic
concepts for new production philosophy, while other related newer concepts, which are
primarily outgrowths of JIT and TQC. These outgrowths show that the field of
application of the original ideas has extended far beyond the production sphere.
The starting point of the new production philosophy was in industrial engineering
oriented developments initiated by Ohno and Shingo at Toyota car factories in the
1950’s. The driving idea in the approach was reduction or elimination of inventories
(work in progress). This, in turn, led to other techniques that were forced responses to
coping with fewer inventories: lot size reduction, layout reconfiguration, supplier co-
operation, and set-up time reduction. The pull type production control method, where
production is initiated by actual demand rather than by plans based on forecasts, was
introduced.
41
The concept of waste is one cornerstone of JIT. The following 7 wastes were recognised
by Shingo as (1) Overproduction, (2) Waiting, (3) Transporting, (4) Too much
machining (overprocessing), (5) Inventories, (6) Moving, (7) Making defective parts
The starting point of the quality movement was the inspection of raw materials and
products using statistical methods. The quality movement in Japan has evolved from
mere inspection of products to total quality control. The term total refers to three
extensions:
The quality methodologies have developed in correspondence with the evolution of the
concept of quality. The focus has changed from an inspection orientation (sampling
theory), through process control (statistical process control and the old seven tools -
Fishbone Diagram, Control Chart, Pareto Chart, Run Graphs, Histogram, Flow charts or Check sheets &
Correlation Diagram), to continuous process improvement (the new seven tools - Affinity
Diagram, Interrelationship Diagraph, Tree Diagram, Matrix Diagram, Prioritisation Grid, Process
42
Decision Programme Chart & Activity Network Diagram), and presently to designing quality into
Many new concepts have surfaced from JIT and TQC efforts. These have been rapidly
elaborated and extended, starting a life of their own. Several of these concepts are
described below.
TPM tackles the "six big losses" and is closely tied to the practices of 5S, the six
1. Breakdown losses
5. Start up losses
6. Quality defects
2. Concurrent engineering
product and the production process are designed and configured within the same
time frame, rather than sequentially. Ease and cost of constructability, as well as
customer needs, quality issues, and product life cycle costs are taken into
the constraints of subsequent phases into the conceptual phase, and tightening of
3. Continuous improvement
very bottom to the very top, the basic premise being that small regular
The main goal of the continuous improvements is to affect the mindset as well
and receives training in the appropriate skills; responsible for their own efforts,
areas and progress of their teams and the employees will continuously suggest
improvements to meet quality, cost and delivery target improvements. The key
4. Visual management
the ability to understand that, with a quick look at the shop floor what orders are
being done, if production is ahead, on par or behind and what needs to be done
next. No orders are missed or lost and every one knows if they are behind or
ahead on the day’s production. Shop floor staff will take on more self-managing
responsibility with this method as day-to-day decisions are handled on the shop
floor.
45
the shop floor, and as much information is shared as is feasible, ranging from
5. Re-engineering
for flow process design, control and improvement have evolved. According to Koskela
46
(1993), there was ample evidence that through these principles, the efficiency of flow
Many of those principles are closely related, but not on the same abstraction level.
Some are more fundamental, while others more application oriented. It is also important
to note that the understanding of these principles is of very recent origin. It is presumed
that knowledge of these principles will rapidly grow and be systematised. The
Reducing the share of non value-adding activities is regarded as the most fundamental
principle of new production philosophy or lean production where it is the center of idea
thinking.
time a task is divided into two subtasks executed by different specialists, non
adding activities.
47
an orderly fashion, but instead just evolved in an ad hoc fashion to their present
3. Non value-adding activities exist also due to the nature of the production: work-
in-process has to be moved from one conversion to the next, defects emerge,
accidents happen.
With respect to all three causes for non value-adding activities, it is possible to
eliminate or reduce the amount of these activities. However, this principle cannot be
used simplistically. This is because some of the non value-adding activities produce
value for internal customers, like planning, accounting and accident prevention. Such
activities should not be suppressed without considering whether more non value-adding
activities would result in other parts of the process. However, accidents and defects, for
example, have no value to anybody and should be eliminated without any hesitation.
activities. However, it is possible to directly attack the most visible waste just by
flowcharting the process, then pinpointing and measuring non value-adding activities.
requirements
48
principles of the conventional production philosophy have tended to diminish the role of
customer requirements. In many processes, customers have never been identified nor
their requirements clarified. The dominant control principle has been to minimise costs
in each stage; this has not allowed for optimisation of cross-functional flows in the
organisation.
The practical approach to this principle is to carry out a systematic flow design, where
customers are defined for each stage, and their requirements analysed. Other principles,
principle.
3. Reduce variability
Production processes are variable. There are differences in any two items, even though
they are the same product, and the resources needed to produce them (time, raw
material, labor) vary from time to time. From the customer point of view a uniform
intrinsic goal.
49
variability, then finding and eliminating its root causes. Standardisation of activities by
System.
Time is a natural metric for flow processes and it can be used to drive improvements in
both cost and quality. A production flow can be characterised by the cycle time, which
refers to the time required for a particular piece of material to traverse the flow.
The basic improvement rationale in the new production philosophy is to compress the
cycle time, which forces the reduction of inspection, move and wait time. In addition to
the forced elimination of wastes, compression of the total cycle time also provides faster
delivery to the customer, reduced need to make forecasts about future demand, decrease
of disruption of the production process due to change orders and establish easier
management because there are fewer customer orders to keep track of.
1. Eliminating work-in-progress (this original JIT goal reduces the waiting time
5. Reducing variability
In general, solving the control problems and constraints preventing a speedy flow.
One fundamental problem of complexity is extra cost incurred. If other things are being
equal, the very complexity of a product or process increases the costs beyond the sum of
reliability: complex systems are inherently less reliable than simple systems.
Furthermore, the human ability to deal with complexity is bounded and easily exceeded.
activities from the production process, and on the other hand by reconfiguring value-
adding parts or steps. Organisational changes can also bring about simplification.
Vertical and horizontal division of labor always brings about non value-adding
autonomous teams).
parts
4. Decoupling linkages
However, according to some studies, many companies have succeeded in realising both
goals simultaneously. Some of the key elements are modularised product design in
connection with an aggressive use of the other principles, especially cycle time
Lack of process transparency increases the propensity to err, reduces the visibility of
errors, and diminishes motivation for improvement. Thus, it is an objective to make the
formal control and related information gathering and this can be achieved by making
1. Establishing basic housekeeping to eliminate clutter: the method of 5-S (Sort, Set,
2. Making the process directly observable through appropriate layout and signage
information systems
There are two causes of segmented flow control: the flow traverses different units in a
There are at least two prerequisites for focusing control on complete processes. First,
the complete process has to be measured and secondly, there must a controlling
authority for the complete process. Several alternatives are currently used. In
with responsibility for the efficiency and effectiveness of that process. A more radical
flows, long-term co-operation with suppliers and team building have been introduced
with the goal of deriving mutual benefits from an optimised total flow.
54
The effort to reduce waste and to increase value is an internal, incremental, and iterative
activity that can and must be carried out continuously. There are several necessary
2. Setting stretch targets (e.g. for inventory elimination or cycle time reduction), by
means of which problems are unearthed and their solutions are stimulated
control constraints and problems of the process. The goal is to eliminate the root
In a situation where flows have been neglected for decades, the potential for flow
improvement is usually higher than conversion improvement. On the other hand, flow
improvement can be started with smaller investments, but usually requires a longer time
The crucial issue is that flow improvement and conversion improvement are intimately
interconnected as better flows require less conversion capacity and thus less equipment
investment and vice verse more controlled flows make implementation of new
11. Benchmark
Unlike technology for conversions, the best flow processes are not marketed to us; we
have to find the world class processes ourselves. Often benchmarking is a useful
processes and by means of it, fundamental logical flaws in the processes may be
unearthed.
practices.
56
In summary, we can see that these principles of new production philosophy or more
precisely lean philosophy are mainly revolving around improvement over flows of the
processes. There is not much concern about the transformation or conversion concepts
while the concepts of value are rather integrated into enhancing value to flows activities
and not so much on the value of the products itself. The dimensions of the principles
can be further grouped into three ideas for flows improvement that are flow
compression, flow dynamic and flexibility and flow stability and control. Figure 3.4
Flow Compression Flow Dynamic & Flexibility Flow Stability & Control
q Reduce share of non q Increase output q Focus control on the
value-adding value complete process
activities q Increase output q Build continuous
q Reduce variability flexibility improvement into
q Reduce the cycle q Increase process the process
time transparency q Balance flow
q Simplify by q Benchmarking improvement with
minimising the conversion
number of steps and improvement
parts
Figure 3.4
Simplified diagrams categorizing the principles of lean production for production improvement
57
connected to the end product. In construction, there are 3 types of flows as suggested by
Koskela (2000): material flow (the transportation of components to the site for
particular installation), location flow (e.g. one particular trade goes through the different
part of the building or construction site to get their work done) and assembly flow (e.g.
There are at least seven resource flows (or preconditions) that unite to generate the
construction task as illustrated In Figure 3.5 below. Many of these resource flows are of
relatively high variability, and thus the probability of a missing input is considerable.
For example, it is not uncommon that detailed drawings are still lacking at the intended
start of the work. Latent errors in drawings will emerge as problems during construction
on site. External conditions also form one specific source of variability. The
productivity of manual labour is inherently variable, and the availability of space and
connecting works is dependent on the progress of tasks of previous trades, thus bound
productions are subjected to more sources of variability and the insight gained is that
Planning and controlling production becomes very important and tasks and flows have
Construction design
Workers
Equipment Task
Space
Connecting works
External conditions
Figure 3.5
The preconditions for a construction task (Koskela, 2000)
In construction actually it is the installation team that moves from location to location.
This leads to another important feature of construction. In factory production, one part
can physically be only at one workstation at any one time. However, in construction,
several work units or trades can work on one part (e.g. a room) simultaneously at the
same time with lessened productivity due to interference and congestion of space of
CHAPTER 4
4.1 Introduction
In general, in lean production and lean construction paradigm sees that all those
activities that produce cost, direct or indirect, but do not add value or progress to the
product can be called waste. Waste is measured in terms of costs, including opportunity
costs. Other types of waste are related to the efficiency of the processes, equipment or
personnel and are more difficult to measure because the optimal efficiency is not always
known.
In this chapter, we will look into the definition, concept and classification of waste
based on new production philosophy and lean construction and outline the different
Waste in the construction industry has been the subject of several research projects
around the world in recent years. However, Most studies tend to focus on the waste of
materials, which is only one of the resources involved in the construction process. This
60
seems to be related to the fact that most studies are based on the conversion model, in
stated that many people in the industry have considered waste are directly associated
with the debris removed from the site and disposed of in landfills and they suggested
that the main reason for this relatively narrow view of waste is perhaps the fact that it is
relatively easy to see and measure. The main focus for those conventional material
waste in construction and/ or the specific impacts due to the physical waste itself.
Formoso, et al. (1999) in their earlier research paper entitled “Method for Waste
Control in Building Industry” had significantly grouped some researches and studies
done by other researchers around the world on the wastes in construction into 2 main
damage that result from the generation of material waste. For example:
Polytechnic and the Hong Kong Construction Association Ltd. In year 1993
policies.
2. Researches and studies mostly concerned with the economic impacts of waste in
a) The most extensive studies on this theme was carried out by Skoyles in UK
sites, and concluded that there was a considerable amount of waste that can
findings from Skoyles’s researches also pointed out that storage and
handling was a major cause of waste while most of the problems concerning
waste on building sites are related to flaws in the management system, and
Besides that, Formosa and his co-authors have also documented some extensive studies
and surveys done in Brazil, which the concentration of those studies were more towards
1. Pinto developed a study in 1989 based on one site only; pointing out for the fact
higher than direct waste (rubbish that should be disposed in other areas).
University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) started in April 1992. The main
62
objective of that study was to analyse the main causes of material waste in the
firms. Seven building materials were monitored in five different sites during a
3. The Brazilian Institute for Technology and Quality in Construction (ITQC) more
building sites. For over 2 years, eighteen materials had their waste monitored by
using a data collection method similar to the projects carried out at the Federal
Some conclusions that were drawn from those conventional construction waste studies
1. The waste of building materials is occasionally far higher than the nominal
2. There is a very high variability of waste indices from site to site. Furthermore,
similar sites might present different levels of wastes for the same material. This
3. Some companies do not seem to be concerned about material waste, since they
do not apply relatively simple procedures to avoid waste on site. None of them
63
material usage.
4. The lack of knowledge was an important cause of waste. Most building firms
5. Most causes of waste are related to flaws in the management system, and have
very little to do with the lack of qualification and motivation of workers. Also,
an isolated incident.
From here, if we take a look at a different perspective, all the above construction waste
researches carried out would suggest that the flow aspects in construction have been
conversion aspects in construction. If this assumption were true, it logically follows that
and non value-adding activities apart from the waste and value loss to the value-adding
activities.
64
In search for the waste, loss of value and non value-adding activities in current
construction practices, Koskela (1992) has managed to present a few evidences from
various partial studies done by other researchers around the world apart from the
material waste from conversion activities. Although in his research paper entitled “The
Application of The New Production Philosophy to Construction” stated that there has
never been any systematic attempt to observe all wastes in a construction process but
nevertheless, partial studies can be used from various countries to indicate the order of
research paper, he has been looking for the evidences of waste and value loss due to
constructability.
The first element of waste and value loss was compiled in term of quality costs the
1. In numerous studies from different countries done in 1991, the cost of poor
total project costs. In a Belgian study, it has also recorded the causes of these
65
quality problems are 46% design-related, 22% construction-related and 15% are
1991, the costs of quality failures for a construction company were found to be
6%. In Sweden and Germany, it was found out that external quality costs or the
case of Sweden. 51% of these costs are associated with design problems, 36%
12.4% of the total installed project cost. The researchers of the study also
recorded the causes of these quality problems are 78% design-related, 17%
The second factor that contributed to waste and value loss as compiled by Koskela is
constructability report in 1986 stated that projects where constructability has been
researchers such as Bell & Stukhart have estimated that 10 - 12% savings in labour
the bulk material surplus from 5 - 10% to 1 - 3% would result from a better material
management practice. Besides that, some researchers also reported that savings of 10%
in materials costs can be achieved from vendor cooperation in streamlining the material
flow.
As for work flow processes, It has been found that construction work flow consists of a
lot of non value-adding activities where they consume a high percentage of overall
working time. All the estimation given from the researches compiled by Koskela, the
30% to 40%. Oglesby and his co-author estimated around 36% in 1989 while Levy in
1991 claimed that the average share of working time is 31.9 % in the United States.
There are similar figures from other countries but some other researches did show a
greater variance in percentage. For example, the average distribution of working time of
the 17 observed building projects survey in Chile conducted by Serpell, et al. (1995)
67
during 1990 and 1994 shows that the minimum value of productive work was 35% and
Another waste factor is lack of safety. In the United States, safety-related costs are
1988.
Thus, there is strong empirical evidence showing that a considerable amount of waste
and loss of value exists in construction apart from the conventional understanding of
physical waste or material waste. A large part of these wastes has been hidden, and it
In new production philosophy, “waste” has been given a broader concept and definition
as compared to its usual narrow meaning. According to the new production philosophy,
waste should be understood as any inefficiency that results in the use of equipment,
materials, labour, or capital in larger quantities than those considered as necessary in the
production of a building. Waste includes both the incidence of material losses and the
execution of unnecessary work, which generate additional costs but do not add value to
the product (Koskela 1992). Therefore, waste should be defined as any losses produced
68
by activities that generate direct or indirect costs but do not add any value to the product
Two other definitions below as quoted by Alarcon (1995) expressed the broaden
production.”
product.”
In this lean production paradigm, the concept of waste is directly associated with the
use of resources that do not add value to the final product. This is very much different
from the conventional conversion view of production processes where not significant
attempts to separate the activities into value-adding or non value-adding activities. The
conventional view sees all activities combined as a whole and therefore waste is being
69
and mainly it only captured costs for the material wastes. The new production
philosophy intend to look into and detail out the dimension of waste by identifying non
value-adding activities and introduce new measures to wastes such as additional costs or
opportunity costs especially due to time waste and value loss which very much invisible
in conversion model.
Figure 4.1 will show a clearer picture on the different in concept of waste for
Total Cost of A
Process
Cost of value-adding
activities
Figure 4.1
Performance improvement in conventional, quality and new production philosophy approaches.
(Simplified from the figure of Koskela (1992))
70
This means that there are 2 approaches to improving processes for new production
of both value-adding and non value-adding work, and the other is to eliminate waste by
removing non value-adding activities. Therefore, waste should be defined as any losses
produced by activities that generate direct or indirect costs but do not add any value to
The ideal outcomes that can be pictured by adopting new production philosophy or lean
production will be production will be managed in the way that actions are aligned to
produce unique value for the client. Project duration and cost are considered in “project-
as-production system” terms making concern for project total cost and duration more
general by the central schedule while the details of work flow are managed throughout
the organisation by people who are aware of and support project goals performance.
The primary objectives for this new movement will be looking at value to the client and
results from reducing waste that is the difference between the current situation and
perfection, i.e., meeting customer unique requirements in zero time with nothing in
store.
71
In construction, the application of the lean production model mainly stems from a
process flow, as well as aspects related to converting inputs into finished products as an
important element to reduce wasted value. Production should be seen as a flow that
generates value through conversion processes, characterised by cost, time frame, and
the degree of added value. In other word, the new production theory seeks cycle time
reduction, total waste elimination, zero defects and flexible output and in doing that, it
requires the evaluation of new measurements, such as waste, value, cycle time or
waste concepts in construction. Koskela (1992) has proposed a flow process model, in
activities and non value-adding activities and also concentrates on the process flow
rather than the exchange among the processes. As a rule in this model, only processing
activities are value-adding activities. Reducing the share of the non value-adding
REJECT
MOVING WAITING PROCESSING INSPECTION
A
REWORK
REWORK
MOVING WAITING PROCESSING INSPECTION
B
REJECT
Figure 4.2
Koskela’s flow process model (Koskela 1992)
Serpell et al. (1995) have proposed a much more open and dynamic construction
process model as described in Figure 4.3. The model presents the construction
production process on which work has been based on a system that correlated with the
environment around it. Part of the environment is controllable but other factors are
Figure 4.3
Serpell’s Modeling of the construction process (Serpell et al. 1995)
73
The main and most critical components of the construction process as portrayed in
2. Flows: Are the inputs to the system and they contemplate all activities up until
the completion of the end product. Those inputs can be separated in two types,
There are two types of flows as portrayed in the model: external flows and
3. Conversion activities: The processes that transform the flows into finished and
semi-finished products. The method used in this activities decided by the flows
There are three areas or elements of interest where waste can occur and improvements
1. Flows, both internal and external, which are the inputs to the conversion
2. Conversion processes and resultant products, which are the processes that
and decisions that determine the way things are done and the application of
remained prominent focus in the current lean construction practices for process
improvement. This is because from experience shows those non value-adding activities,
which involved human in the flow of work, predominate in the majority of processes.
Taylor (1913) pointed out that the economic loss caused by material waste is smaller
than the ones related to the inefficiency of human work. Ford (1927) also suggested
that human work should be the focus of waste prevention, since the value of materials
depends, to a great extent, on the work that has been spent on them. Studies had shown
that usually around 3% to 20% of the steps add value, and their share in total cycle time
Industry researchers and practitioners have acknowledged that there are many non-value
adding activities during the design and construction process and majority of those
wasteful activities consuming time and effort without adding value for the client. Since
the beginning of a construction project, Construction Managers have to deal with many
factors that may negatively affect the construction process, producing different types of
waste (Serpell et al, 1995). Waste includes both the incidence of material losses and the
execution of unnecessary work that generates additional costs but does not add value to
the product (Koskela, 1992). Moreover, some researchers, Alarcon (1993), Koskela
(1992) and Serpell et al. (1995) stated that waste in construction and manufacturing
include delay times, quality costs, lack of safety, rework, unnecessary transportation
poor constructability.
Regarding the possibility to control the incidence of waste, Formoso, et al. (1999)
commented that there is an acceptable level of waste, which can only be reduced
ratio of prevention investment cost over the cost of waste itself, they have classified
1. Unavoidable waste (or natural waste), in which the investment necessary to its
waste in each process depends on the company and on the particular site, since it
2. Avoidable waste, when the cost of waste is significantly higher than the cost to
prevent it.
Waste can also be classified according to its origin, i.e. the stage that the main root
cause is related to. Although waste is usually identified during the production stage, it
However, the most classical waste classification according to lean production paradigm
is perhaps the classification done by Shigeo Shingo in his book “Study of Toyota
Manufacturing System” in 1981 as it has been quoted by various other lean construction
Womack and Jones, (1996), Formoso, et al. (1999), Koskela (2000) and many
others.
Shingo proposed the following waste classification whereby waste was classified by it
Based on Shingo’s seven wastes, Formoso, et al. (1999) went on to propose their main
classification of waste based on the analysis of some Brazilian building sites they had
carried out as shown below. It was thought that the further classification will help
managers to understand the different forms of waste, why they occur and how to act in
their total loss, in the case of materials that can deteriorate. An example of this
3. Waiting time: related to the idle time caused by lack of synchronisation and
One example is the idle time caused by the lack of material or by lack of work
pathways can cause this kind of waste. It is usually related to poor layout, and
the lack of planning of material flows. Its main consequneces are: waste of man
hours, waste of energy, waste of space on site, and the possibility of material
site, robbery, vandalism), and monetary losses due to the capital that is tied up.
of quantities.
79
product does not fit the quality specifications. This may lead to rework or to the
reasons: poor design and specification, lack of planning and control, poor
production, etc.
9. Others: waste of any nature different from the previous ones, such as burglary,
Some researchers have proposed some qualitative model by postulating the loss of
Borcherding’s five waste categories of non-productive time are found very much
similar to the categories of wastes of productive time proposed by Serpell et. al (1995)
Waiting time
Work Idle time
inactivity
Travelling
Resting
Waste of time
(man-hours & Physiological needs
equipment time)
Reworking
Ineffective
work Working slowly
Inventing work
Figure 4.4
Categories of wastes of productive time (Serpell et al. 1995)
productive time for example the waste of time related to slow work is related to the
measure it because it is first necessary to know the optimal efficiency that can be
Instead of classifying the waste of productive time, Serpell et. al (1995) went a step
further to breakdown those wastes factors in relation of work categories. There are 3
work which are classified as waste include waiting, idle time, travelling, resting,
There are also other categories of waste that have been mentioned in the literature, such
products that do not meet users’ needs. (Womack and Jones 1996) The main role of
existing classification of waste is to call the attention of people to most likely problems,
since not all waste is obvious: it “often appears in the guise of useful work.” (Shingo
1988)
possible causes that lead to the occurrence of waste in construction process. This is
82
deem important because just by knowing the waste itself just would help to monitor
them but not reduce or eliminate them from the process loops. To work out a
information systems. Several potential sources of waste can be grouped under the
particular area of functions and it can be created to suit the need of particular projects
such as the diagnostic survey developed by students Francisco Lowener, Francisco Lira
and Marcelo Beratto as documented by Alarcon (1994) listed down the following
A. Administration
1. Unnecessary requirements
2. Excessive control
3. Lack of control
4. Poor planning
5. Bureaucracy
B. Use of resources
1. Surplus
2. Shortage
3. Misuse
83
4. Poor distribution
5. Poor quality
6. Availability
C. Information systems
1. Unnecessary
2. Defective
3. Late
4. Unclear
Serpell et. al (1995) on the other hand identified several controllable causes of waste.
Although his study was mainly concentrated on wasted time but the classification of the
causes to waste is found rather structured and detailed compared to the previous listed
in waste identification survey. They divided the controllable wastes as identified from
their research projects into three different activities, which associate to flows,
a) Resources
q Materials: Lack of materials at the work place; materials are not well
b) Information
q Lack of information;
a) Method
q Inadequate procedures
b) Planning
c) Quality
a) Decision making
Modelling and evaluation of wastes and performance in construction projects has been a
challenge for the construction industry for decades. Several models and procedures have
been proposed for the evaluation of project performance at site and project level. Some
measuring. Traditional models offer only a limited set of measures as most of them
of performance (Koskela, 1992), such as waste, value, cycle time or variability. The
shortcomings of the traditional control systems, and models are unable or not
appropriate to measure those new performance elements but Alarcon (1993) suggested
that some of the concepts developed in previous research can be utilised in modelling
Among all, one of the most classical opinions was from Sink (1985, as documented by
86
or elements on which management should focus its efforts on: Those 7 criteria or
a) On time (timeliness),
b) Right (quality),
c) All the ‘right’ things (quantity), where ‘things’ are goals, objectives,
consumed
a) The first and overall one is that of the completed project functioning as the
owner intended
b) The second concerns the many details involved in producing the results
industry, the output is the structure or facility that is built or some components
of it. The major input into the construction process includes work force,
insuring that employees are ‘satisfied’, safe and secure and so forth
financial resources and uses for those financial resources. For example,
Embarking with the new production philosophies, Koskela (1992) has proposed some
as:
probably will use different performance elements and some will have different weight
88
for each individual measures. Therefore, a model for evaluation or prediction must have
process. It also must have the ability to examine the effect of changes in those
There are a few categories of performance and evaluation models, which can be
grouped by the functions of each model as discussed in Luis F. Alarcon (1993) in his
Function: Establish a framework for measurement and evaluation that may allow
Examples:
a) Delay models use stopwatch techniques to record productive time and delay
labour productivity
2. Prediction Models
Function: Provide systematic procedures to account for the different factors that
affect productivity
89
5. Casual Models
Function: Provide a qualitative model structure to explore actions that can affect
traditional models and concepts in measuring and evaluating performance elements can
production philosophies.
90
CHAPTER 5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.1 Introduction
This chapter will explain the methodology in carrying out this academic research.
Aspects involved included method of research, research subjects, tools for analysis,
points or marks assignment, sequences of research, and analysis of the research data.
The purposes of this research are to see whether the lean construction principles of
waste concepts have been well comprehended, accepted and adopted by the local
construction personnel especially in waste recognition, reduction and elimination for the
was adopted for this research requiring the development and dissemination of a
questionnaire survey. Due to the population of this research are virtually too difficult to
be quantified as the main targeted respondents would include all personnel who has
sampling for specific groups or types of respondents will be conducted by using expert
processes. The expert sampling has been seen as the best way to elicit the views of
those who have specific expertise and experiences dealing with the local construction
practices. It is also very useful for situations where a targeted sample needs to be reach
quickly and where sampling for proportionality is not the primary concern in this
research.
were sent to the particular “qualified” respondents. The respondents were approached
through their companies and firms, which registered in the CIDB annual directory
yearbook. A pilot survey was conducted during November year 2003 where 20 sets of
questionnaires were sent out to a random group of pilot respondents in postal mail (with
returned envelop and stamp attached) around peninsular Malaysia for a period of 1
month but the respond rate to the questionnaires were are low with only 2 sets of
Due to the circumstances of low respond rate in the pilot survey, a new approach of
distributing the questionnaires has been taken. The targeted research locations have
been focus more into northern region of peninsular Malaysia where direct contacts with
the potential qualified respondents were more easily accessible. Besides 20 new sets of
questionnaires were posted out together with 20 sets post out through e-mail throughout
(mainly in northern Peninsular Malaysia) to the respondents from December 2003 until
February 2004. Until the due date, 27 of questionnaires were returned (including 2 from
pilot survey) which represented an average response rate of 30%. Compared to the 40%
92
average response rate for the 5 years quantitative research carried out by Alwi et al
(2002) on construction wastes in Indonesia with 300 questionnaires sent, this research
carried out are considerably low in average response rate but if compared to the
timeframe and resources available for data collection in this research, the 30% response
This research was postulated around determining the general perceptions and actions of
the construction personnel against wastes in construction and the concept of non-
productive time or wasted time as suggested by Serpell et al. (1995) were then
integrated into the research process as the key element of lean construction philosophy
regarding flow concept. In this case, Waste in construction process is classified into
three main categories, which are direct conversion waste, non-contributory time waste
and contributory time waste. 19 waste elements are outlined consists of 9 direct
shown in Table 5.1 and all those waste elements were derived from different previous
studies carried out by Serpell et al (1995), Alarcon (1994 & 1995), Formosa, et al
Table 5.1
Waste elements in 3 separate waste groups
In response to the examine the frequencies causes of wastes and their inter-relation with
waste elements, several waste causes factors were also substrated from previous
literature studies by Serpell et al (1995), Alarcon (1994 & 1995) and Alwi et al (2002)
and categorised into 5 main groups of cause factors which are Management &
factors). The entire breakdown of the waste cause factors is shown in Table 5.2.
94
Table 5.2
Waste Causes Factor Group
95
have a commanding role in the construction process and resource management and
extensive site experiences were targeted as respondents for the sample survey. There
has been a wide spectrum of personnel with different position and job title, which had
been responded to the survey and for the purpose of analysis and comparison, the whole
sample of respondents have been regrouped into 2 main categories which are
Project management orientated group will feature those who have relatively more
responsibilities in overall project execution and resource management and not so much
on site operative management by its nature of job scope. Therefore, this group will
construction process and as for the sample respondents for this research will include
While Site operative management orientated group will feature those who have
relatively more responsibilities on the site operative management by its nature of job
scope. The group will mainly involve personnel in solving construction problems on
site, more on intra-coordinating with internal groups and trades, and as for the sample
96
respondents for this research will include site managers, site engineers, resident
local construction industries based on the respondents’ waste concepts. In this case, the
are 2-options available for the respondents and there were required to answer whether
the wastes elements as listed is a waste or non-waste and whether they are controlled or
The third and fourth sections are intended to review the extent of waste problems in
existing local industry by ranking them in term of frequencies of occurrences and rate
the likelihood of particular waste sources/ causes in their construction practices where
they work. For section 3, Respondents were able to identify how frequently the waste
occurred using 5 categories: (1) Never; (2) Very Rare; (3) Seldom; (4) Frequent; and (5)
Very Frequent and the respondents were provided with five different scales from 1 (no
Respondents were asked to determine the likelihood of particular waste sources/ causes
97
using 4 categories: (1) Most unlikely; (2) Unlikely; (3) Likely; (4) Most Likely and the
respondents were provided with five different scales from 1 (no significant likelihood)
The fifth section is to examine the relevant sources of wastes as outlined in the fourth
section to have caused the particular construction wastes. The respondents were asked
to identify the most possible causes and other possible causes to the wastes elements in
order to create a matrix table between construction wastes and their sources of wastes.
Score assignment is a process of assigning values for each of the item and this is an
important process of conducting inferential analysis especially for correlation test using
Pearson-r where aggregation of points are required for this research. Score assignment
for section 1 and 2, each positive answer is assigned with 2 points and each negative
answer is assigned with 1 point. Based on the waste categories in Table 5.1, the
maximum points for direct conversion wastes that can be aggregated for each case is (2
points whereas for maximum points for contributory time wastes is (2 X 3) or 6 points
Score assignment for section 3 and 4 is based on the multiple-scale format. For section
3, points are ranged from 1 to 5 and maximum points that can be aggregated for direct
98
or 15 points and minimum of (1 X 3) or 3 points. For section 4, points are ranged from
1 to 4 but since correlation are not going to be tested in this section but rather each item
is going to be tested separately with One-way t-test for ranking purposes, therefore not
After all the primary data have been collected and processed, those data will then be
research are mainly divided into 2 parts: (1) Descriptive analysis and (2) Inferential
profiles about the respondents and provide further information for the inferential
statistical analysis, besides that, the analysis on the descriptive data about the waste
recognition and waste control events in section 1 & 2 will also be conducted under the
same category. Inferential statistical analysis will be used to test certain research
In most analyses carried out in 3 separate categories namely direct conversion wastes,
contributory process time wastes and non-contributory process time wastes in order to
99
see the different between each categories especially dealing with contributory process
wastes and non contributory process waste which is rarely considered in conventional
Although it is logically understood that when we recognised certain wastes, we will try
our best to avoid it or control it, however, in this research, the inter-relationship
processes will be examined in order to found out any contradictions to the logic of
relationship between recognising the waste and the actions in controlling them. 4
different scenarios are anticipated which are extreme scenarios where type of waste
elements are recognised as waste and have been given a proper attention in controlling
them or vice versa not recognising them and therefore not given any control actions into
it. Of course, another 2 scenarios the cases would be the potential cases of recognising
the waste elements but do not act on them or vice verse acting on certain waste elements
On the other hand, Inferential statistic analysis will use correlation Pearson-r to conduct
wastes are been perceived with the tendency to control those wastes
100
wastes are been perceived with the tendency to control those wastes
wastes are been perceived with the tendency to control those wastes
In every case above, the correlation Pearson-r will tell us the magnitude and direction of
the association between two variables. SPSS creates a correlation matrix of the two
variables. All the information we need is in the cell that represents the intersection of
In SPSS, the outcomes of the Pearson-r analysis will provide us three pieces of
information: (1) the correlation coefficient, (2) the significance and (3) the number of
cases (N)
The correlation coefficient is a number between +1 and -1. This number tells us about
the magnitude and direction of the association between two variables. The magnitude is
the strength of the correlation. The closer the correlation is to either +1 or -1, the
association between the two variables. The direction of the correlation tells us how the
two variables are related. If the correlation is positive, the two variables have a positive
relationship (as one increases, the other also increases). If the correlation is negative, the
two variables have a negative relationship (as one increases, the other decreases).
One-Way t-test will be carried out basically to get the ranking on the frequencies of
occurrence of the wastes elements in section 3 and the likelihood of recognition certain
wastes causes factors as in section 4. In SPSS, the outcomes of the One-Way t-test
analysis will provide us four pieces of information: (1) the number of cases (N), (2) the
mean value, (3) the standard deviation and (4) the standard error means. The ranking
will be done separately in a descending order from the greatest magnitude of the mean
102
value to the lowest mean value to differentiate the degree of frequencies and likelihood
from the less significant to the most significant as rated by the respondent of the
research.
The last part of the analysis will be involving the development of the Causes and
Effects Matrix table by combining all the inputs by the respondents in section 5 into the
whole list of construction wastes and waste causes table. From there, descriptive
statistic analysis will take place in sorting out the wastes causes factors and put them
into 6 wastes factors as discussed previously and represent the Matrix Table in Bar
CHAPTER 6
6.1 Introduction
This chapter will present all the results obtained from the data analysis waste concepts
and waste causes factors in construction processes. Descriptive statistic analysis and
inferential statistic analysis will be utilised to present the results. The presentation of
analysis of descriptive statistic analysis will be conducted in the form of bar charts, pie
charts and matrix tables to show the distribution and frequencies of the particular
This section will discuss about the analysis results from descriptive analysis. The
segments, which are in the discussion, include information about the respondents and
their organisation’s background and the respondent’s waste perceptions and control
There are 5 segments analysed under this category include the position of the
main core construction projects handled by their organisation, CIDB registration grade
of their firm, and their main project clients. This descriptive analysis will eventually
show the actual profile of the respondents who have eventually taken this waste
construction study.
105
The respondents for this research consists of 27 project and site management personnel
with a wide spectrum of positions ranging from project manager, project planner,
general manager, quantity surveyor, resident engineer/ architect, site engineer, site
manager and senior quality manager. Results from the data analysis has seen that 2
position of respondents figured almost 63% of all the other position held by the
respondents in the organisation, those two positions are project manager (9 Nos) and
site engineer (8 Nos). The composition of the respondent’s position are shown in the
6 Project Manager
Project Planner
5 General Manager
Nos. Quantity Surveyor
4 Site Manager
Site Engineer
3 Resident Architect/ Engineer
Sr. Quality Manager
2
0
1
Position
Figure 6.1
Composition of respondent’s position
106
Based on the data of the respondent’s position in their organisation, the further
categorisation of their positions has to be conducted for the purposes of statistic analysis
later in the chapter. The categorisation is based on the nature of work as outlined in
chapter 5. 27 respondents are to be categorised into 2 main groups, which are project
management orientated group and site operative management group. The results from
the categorisation found that there is rather balance in term of percentage between both
designated groups where each holds approximate 50% from the poll. Figure 6.2 will
48%
52%
Project Management
Site Management
Figure 6.2
Percentage of categorisation of respondent’s nature of work
107
Respondents were asked to select the most appropriate type of construction project,
which represent the main core construction projects involved by their company. The
results from the data analysis show almost 78% of the records for core construction
projects are made up of public & community buildings (8 Nos), residential &
commercial scheme (7 Nos) and Industrial projects (6 Nos). High-rise building and civil
& road construction each only recorded 3 Nos. each by the respondents as main core
construction projects by their firm. Figure 6.3 shows the composition of the projects
distribution:
5 Highrise Building
Residential & Commercial
Nos. 4 Building
Industrial Building
3
Public & Community Building
2 Civil & Road Construction
0
1
Main core construction projects
Figure 6.3
Composition of the main core construction projects by the respondent’s company
108
The respondents were also asked to indicate the CIDB registration grade into 2
categories that are Below Grade 3 and Grade 3 and above. The analysis results from this
sample of respondents show that big portions of respondent’s companies obtain CIDB
registration Grade 3 and above which are almost 83% of the total sample or (22 Nos).
Only 3 companies are with CIDB registration below grade 3 only or about 11% of the
overall sample while there are 2 Nos. missing input in this field. (Refer Figure 6.4)
7% 11%
Figure 6.4
CIDB registration of the respondent’s company
109
There are 2 types of main project clients classified related to the projects that their
company was engaged with and the respondents are to select between private clients
and public clients as their main project clients. The analysis results recorded a fair share
of main project client based among this sample of respondents where 15 of the
respondents reported that their main clients are from the private sectors (or about 55%)
and 12 of the respondents reported their main clients are from public sectors (or about
44%
56%
Private
Public
Figure 6.5
Percentages of main project clients of the respondent’s company
110
The descriptive analysis on the respondent’s waste perceptions and control actions will
mainly focusing on identifying the numbers of counts on wastes recognised and waste
Chapter 5 namely, direct conversion wastes, non contributory wastes and contributory
wastes.
Since the lean construction philosophy considered all those waste elements as tabulated
somehow controlled, the degree of perceptions on wastes for the local construction
each of those wastes elements. Besides that, an analysis over a matrix tables by cross-
tabbing both the waste concepts and waste control actions will be carried out to study
Under this category, there are 9 wastes elements, which were asked to be identified by
the respondents based on their own experience and opinion. Those items are indexed as
inputs.
111
For construction waste recognition, all the inputs are tabulated in Table 6.1 below and a
total of 204 positive counts are recorded or approximately 84% and it is shown a high
recognition on the waste concepts for the elements tested in this category.
# F G H I J K L N S
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 NON WASTE
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 WASTE
3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Legend:
5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 F: Over-allocation/ Unnecessary equipment on site
G: Over-allocation/ unnecessary materials on site
7 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
H: Over-allocation/ unnecessary workers on site
8 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 I: Unnecessary procedures and working protocols
9 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 J: Material loss/ stolen from site during construction
10 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 periods
K: Material deterioration/ damaged during
11 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
construction periods
12 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 L: Mishandling or error in construction applications/
13 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 installation
14 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N: Materials for rework/ repair works/ defective works
15 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 S: Accidents on site
16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
17 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Note: The values given in the table do not have
18 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 any significant meaning in this descriptive
19 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 statistic analysis, as they are values inputs for
20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 inferential statistic analysis later in the chapter
21 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
22 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
23 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
24 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
25 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
26 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
27 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Table 6. 1
Construction waste recognition under direct conversion waste category
112
This analysis concluded that a high recognition rate on direct conversion wastes by the
under this direct conversion category are shown in Figure 6.6 below. The result shows
that Item N: (Materials for rework/ repair works/ defective work) is the most recognised
30
2 1
4 3 4
25 5 5
8 7
20
15
26 Non Waste
24 25
22 22 23 23 Waste
10 19 20
0
F G H I J K L N S
Figure 6.6
Breakdown of direct conversion waste recognition cases
For construction waste events control, due to a respondent miss out on the whole range
of input for this section, the total counts will calculated as (9 X 26) equal to 234Nos. of
inputs as tabulated in Table 6.2 below. A total of 168 positive counts are recorded or
113
approximately 72% and it shows a slight drop in percentage on the waste control
practices for the elements tested compared to the construction waste recognised
previously by the same set of respondents. In other words, the respondents recognise the
# F G H I J K L N S
1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 NOT CONTROL
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 CONTROL
3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 - MISSING
4 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
5 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Legend:
6 - - - - - - - - -
F: Over-allocation/ Unnecessary equipment on site
7 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 G: Over-allocation/ unnecessary materials on site
8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 H: Over-allocation/ unnecessary workers on site
I: Unnecessary procedures and working protocols
9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 J: Material loss/ stolen from site during construction
10 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 periods
11 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 K: Material deterioration/ damaged during
construction periods
12 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 L: Mishandling or error in construction applications/
13 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 installation
N: Materials for rework/ repair works/ defective works
14 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
S: Accidents on site
15 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
16 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
17 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Note: The values given in the table do not have
18 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 any significant meaning in this descriptive
19 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 statistic analysis, as they are values inputs for
inferential statistic analysis later in the chapter
20 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
21 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
23 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
24 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1
25 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
26 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
27 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Table 6.2
Construction waste control practices under direct conversion waste category
However, the analysis result still shows that there are high control exercises on direct
waste elements recognised as wastes under this direct conversion waste category are
shown in Figure 6.7. From chart in Figure 7 however shows that Item F: (Over-
allocation/ Unnecessary equipment on site) have the highest positive counts (22 Nos)
on event controlled while Item S: (Accidents on site) is recorded as the least event
30
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
25
4
6 6 7 6 6
8
10
20
14
Missing
15 Non Control
Control
22
10 20 20 19 20 20
18
16
12
5
0
F G H I J K L N S
Figure 6.7
Breakdown of direct conversion waste event control cases
By cross tabbing of both Table 6.1 & 6.2 will result in a matrix table as show in Table
6.3 below. This matrix table can be used to explain the inter-relationship between the
direct conversion waste concepts of the respondents with their actual control practices
which are Case 1: Waste recognised and controlled; Case 2: Waste not recognised and
115
not controlled; Case 3: Waste recognised but not controlled and Case 4: Waste not
# F G H I J K L N S
1 137 Case 1: Waste & Control
2 8 Case 2: Non Waste & Not Control
3 58 Case 3: Waste & Not Control
4 31 Case 4: Non Waste & Control
5 - Matrix not available due to missing input
6 - - - - - - - - -
7 Legend:
8
F: Over-allocation/ Unnecessary equipment on site
9 G: Over-allocation/ unnecessary materials on site
10 H: Over-allocation/ unnecessary workers on site
11 I: Unnecessary procedures and working protocols
J: Material loss/ stolen from site during construction
12
periods
13 K: Material deterioration/ damaged during
14 construction periods
15 L: Mishandling or error in construction applications/
installation
16 N: Materials for rework/ repair works/ defective works
17 S: Accidents on site
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Table 6.3
Matrix table between waste concepts and control practices for direct conversion wastes
From the analysis, it is found that Case 1 is the most occurrence scenario with 137 cases
(58.5%) followed by Case 3: 58 cases (24.8%), Case 4: 38 cases (13.2%) and finally
Case 2: 8 cases (3.5%). However, These results show that over half of the direct
simultaneously but this analysis result is not very convincing as there are still very high
116
percentage of cases where wastes were partially recognised and controlled and not
Under this category, there are only 7 wastes elements, which were asked to be identified
by the respondents based on their own experience and opinion. Those items are indexed
inputs.
For construction waste recognition, all the inputs are tabulated in Table 6.4 below and a
total of 129 positive counts are recorded or approximately 68% and it is still a high
recognition on the waste concepts for the elements tested in this category but it is
conversion waste.
118
# A B C D E M O
1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 NON WASTE
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 WASTE
3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
4 2 1 1 2 2 2 1
5 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 Legend:
6 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
A: Waiting for others to complete their works before
7 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
the proceeding works can be carried out
8 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 B: Waiting for equipment to be delivered on site
9 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 C: Waiting for materials to be delivered on site
10 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 D: Waiting for the skilled workers to be on site
E: Waiting for the clarification and confirmation by
11 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 client and consultants
12 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 M: Time for rework/ repair works/ defective works
13 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 O: Time for workers’ resting during construction
14 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
15 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 Note: The values given in the table do not have
16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 any significant meaning in this descriptive
17 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 statistic analysis, as they are values inputs for
18 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 inferential statistic analysis later in the chapter
19 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
20 2 1 1 2 2 2 1
21 1 1 1 2 2 2 1
22 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
23 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
24 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
25 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
26 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
27 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
Table 6.4
Construction waste recognition under non-contributory time waste category
The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this non-
contributory time waste category are shown in Figure 6.8. It is worthwhile to point out
that most of the respondents do not recognised Item O: (Time for workers’ resting
construction waste. On the opposite side, the most recognised construction waste under
this non-contributory time waste category is Item M: (Time for rework/ repair work/
defective works) which recorded a 25 positive counts out of the maximum 27.
119
30
2
25
4
6
9 8 9
20
22
Non Waste
15
25 Waste
23
21
10
18 19 18
0
A B C D E M O
Figure 6.8
Breakdown of non-contributory time waste recognition cases
The same reason as in direct conversion waste category analysis, the total counts for the
analysis of construction waste event control will calculated with less 1 missing inputs
range so it would be (7 X 26) equal to 182 total counts. All the inputs are tabulated in
Table 6.5 below and a total of 148 positive counts are recorded or approximately 81%
and it shows an increase in percentage on the waste event control for the elements tested
compared to the construction waste recognised under this category. In other words, the
them.
120
# A B C D E M O
1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 NOT CONTROL
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 CONTROL
3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - MISSING
4 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Legend:
6 - - - - - - -
A: Waiting for others to complete their works before
7 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 the proceeding works can be carried out
8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 B: Waiting for equipment to be delivered on site
C: Waiting for materials to be delivered on site
9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
D: Waiting for the skilled workers to be on site
10 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 E: Waiting for the clarification and confirmation by
11 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 client and consultants
M: Time for rework/ repair works/ defective works
12 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 O: Time for workers’ resting during construction
13 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
14 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
15 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 Note: The values given in the table do not have
any significant meaning in this descriptive
16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
statistic analysis, as they are values inputs for
17 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 inferential statistic analysis later in the chapter
18 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
19 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
21 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
22 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
23 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
24 2 2 2 1 1 2 2
25 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
26 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
27 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
Table 6.5
Construction waste control practices under non-contributory time waste category
The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this non-
contributory time waste category are shown in Figure 6.9. It shows that Item E:
(Waiting for the clarification and confirmation by client and consultants) is the least
controlled waste event where more than half of the respondents reported as waste event
not being controlled. Item B: (Waiting for equipment to be delivered on site) on the
30
1 1
0 1 1 1 1 1
1
25 3 4
5
7
20
14
Missing
15 Non Control
25 26
23 Control
21 22
10 19
12
5
0
A B C D E M O
Figure 6.9
Breakdown of non-contributory time waste control practice cases
Same as direct conversion waste analysis, the cross tabbing of both Table 6.4 & 6.5 for
non-contributory waste will result in a matrix table as show in Table 6.6 below. This
matrix table can be used to explain the inter-relationship between the non-contributory
waste concepts of the respondents with their actual control practices on construction
# A B C D E M O
1 107 Case 1: Waste & Control
2 10 Case 2: Non Waste & Not Control
3 24 Case 3: Waste & Not Control
4 48 Case 4: Non Waste & Control
5 - Matrix not available due to missing input
6 - - - - - - -
7 Legend:
8
A: Waiting for others to complete their works before
9 the proceeding works can be carried out
10 B: Waiting for equipment to be delivered on site
11 C: Waiting for materials to be delivered on site
D: Waiting for the skilled workers to be on site
12 E: Waiting for the clarification and confirmation by
13 client and consultants
14 M: Time for rework/ repair works/ defective works
15 O: Time for workers’ resting during construction
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Table 6.6
Matrix table between waste concepts and control practices for non-contributory time wastes
From the analysis, it is found that Case 1 is the most occurrence scenario with 107 cases
(56.7%) followed by Case 4: 48 cases (24.8%), Case 3: 24 cases (13.2%) and finally
Case 2: 10 cases (5.3%). The result shows that about half of the non-contributory
construction time wastes are recognised and controlled simultaneously and again, this
results are not considered very convincing which resembles the result obtained from the
matrix table for direct conversion waste as a very high percentage of cases where wastes
were partially recognised and controlled and not recognised and controlled at all still
existed. The obvious different between direct conversion waste analysis with non-
123
contributory waste analysis is the percentage of occurrences for Case 3 & 4. Non-
contributory time waste analysis has a higher percentage of occurrences for Case 4 and
a relatively low percentage of occurrences for Case 3 whereby direct conversion waste
analysis has a higher percentage for Case 3 and lower for Case 4. Both Case 1 and Case
2 of the 2 analysis relative constant where Case 1 stays around 57% – 58% and Case 2
at a low 3.5% - 5%
124
Under this category, there are only 3 wastes elements, which were asked to be identified
by the respondents based on their own experience and opinion. Those items are indexed
For construction waste recognition, all the inputs are tabulated in Table 6.7 below and a
total of 10 positive counts are recorded or approximately 12% and this a very low
recognition on the waste concepts for the elements tested under this category compared
to analysis carried out previously on direct conversion waste and non-contributory time
P Q R
1 1 2 2 1 NON WASTE
2 1 1 1 2 WASTE
3 1 1 1
4 1 1 1
5 1 1 1
6 1 1 1
7 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 Legend:
9 1 1 1
P: Time in supervising and inspecting the
10 2 1 1 construction works
11 1 1 2 Q: Time for instructions and communication among
12 1 1 1 different tiers and trades of workers
R: Time for transporting workers, equipment and
13 1 1 1
materials
14 1 1 1
15 1 1 1
16 1 1 2
Note: The values given in the table do not have
17 1 2 1
any significant meaning in this descriptive
18 1 1 1 statistic analysis, as they are values inputs for
19 1 1 1 inferential statistic analysis later in the chapter
20 1 1 1
21 1 1 1
22 1 2 1
23 1 2 2
24 1 1 1
25 1 2 1
26 1 1 1
27 1 1 1
Table 6. 7
Construction waste recognition under contributory time waste category
The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this
contributory time waste category are shown in Figure 6.10. It is not surprising to see
that all the 3 items registered under contributory time wastes are recording significant
negative counts, which represent non waste recognition for the contributory time
wastes. Very much different with the first 2 waste recognition analysis, all 3 items are
recording high negative counts that above 20 counts where Item P: (Time in supervising
and inspecting the construction works) with the greatest numbers of negative counts (26
Nos.) followed by Item R: (Time for transporting workers, equipment and materials) –
126
23 Nos. and Item Q: (Time for instructions and communication among different tiers
30
25
20
22 23 Non Waste
15 26
Waste
10
5
5 4
1
0
P Q R
Figure 6.10
Breakdown of contributory time waste recognition cases
The total counts for the analysis of construction waste event control will calculated with
less 1 missing inputs range so it would be (3 X 26) equal to 78 total counts. All the
inputs are tabulated in Table 6.8 below and a total of 69 positive counts are recorded or
event control for the elements tested compared to the construction waste recognised
under this category. This vast contrast of percentages between wastes recognition and
waste event control under this category suggested that the respondents do not see
127
contributory time wastes as a waste but in actual practices, they obvious notices the
2P 2Q 2R
1 1 1 2 1 NOT CONTROL
2 2 2 2 2 CONTROL
3 2 2 2
4 2 2 2
5 2 2 2
6 - - - Legend:
7 2 2 2
8 2 2 2 P: Time in supervising and inspecting the
9 2 2 2 construction works
10 1 1 1 Q: Time for instructions and communication among
11 2 2 2 different tiers and trades of workers
R: Time for transporting workers, equipment and
12 2 2 2
materials
13 2 2 2
14 2 2 2
15 2 2 2
16 2 2 2 Note: The values given in the table do not have
17 2 2 2 any significant meaning in this descriptive
18 2 1 2 statistic analysis, as they are values inputs for
19 2 2 2 inferential statistic analysis later in the chapter
20 2 2 2
21 2 2 2
22 1 2 2
23 2 1 2
24 2 2 2
25 2 2 2
26 1 2 2
27 2 2 2
Table 6.8
Construction waste control practices under contributory time waste category
The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this non-
contributory time waste category are shown in Figure 6.11. It shows that all the 3 items
are having high positive counts for waste event control where all 3 items of contributory
time waste are recording above 20 Nos. of positive counts lead by Item P: (Time in
30
1 1 1
1
25 5 4
20
Missing
15
Non Control
25 Control
21 22
10
0
P Q R
Figure 6.11
Breakdown of contributory time waste control practice cases
Again, by cross tabbing of both Table 6.7 & 6.8 for contributory waste will result in a
matrix table as show in Table 6.9 below. Therefore, the inter-relationship between the
contributory waste concepts of the respondents with their actual control practices on
construction processes can be explained using this matrix table. 4 potential scenarios
P Q R
1 7 Case 1: Waste & Control
2 6 Case 2: Non Waste & Not Control
3 3 Case 3: Waste & Not Control
4 62 Case 4: Non Waste & Control
5 - Matrix not available due to missing input
6 - - -
7
Legend:
8
9 P: Time in supervising and inspecting the
10 construction works
Q: Time for instructions and communication among
11 different tiers and trades of workers
12 R: Time for transporting workers, equipment and
13 materials
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Table 6.9
Matrix table between waste concepts and control practices for contributory time wastes
From the analysis, it is found that Case 4 is the most occurrence scenario with 62 cases
(79.5%) followed by Case 1: 7 cases (9.0%), Case 2: 6 cases (7.7%) and finally Case 3:
3 cases (3.8%). The result shows that contributory time wastes has not been regarded as
seek to control those particular waste elements under contributory time wastes category,
If we study the overall waste recognition, it is found that the percentage of project
100%
90%
73
97
80%
(27.4%)
(39.3%)
70%
40% 193
150
(72.6%)
30% (61.7%)
20%
10%
0%
Project Management Orientated Position Site Management Orientated Position
Figure 6.12
Percentage breakdown of the wastes recognition by nature of work of the respondents
example Item 1S: (Accidents on site), site operative management personnel were
recorded (13 out of 13) 100% recognition compared to project management personnel
only recorded (10 out of 14) 71.4% of recognition for that particular items.
131
This section will discuss about the analysis results from inferential analysis. Statistic
tools such as correlation Pearson-r and One-Way t-test will be utilised to test some
hypotheses of the study and determine the frequency ranking of each particular event or
6.3.1 Correlation among direct conversion wastes concepts and perceptions, waste
There are 3 hypotheses to be tested under this direct conversion wastes category:
(D_WASTE3)
132
existed among waste conception, waste event control and the frequencies of wastes
Pearson r, and the results show that there are not significant correlations among each
other (refer Table 6.10) as the two-tail sig. value (K) is more than 0.05 for 3 cases
Hypothesis 1 Test
Variables D_WASTE1
D_WASTE2 -.193
K = .364 >.05
Hypothesis 2 Test
Variables D_WASTE1
D_WASTE3 -.040
K = .842 >.05
Hypothesis 3 Test
Variables D_WASTE2
D_WASTE3 -.080
K = .698 >.05
Table 6.10
Correlation Pearson-r results summaries for hypothesis 1, 2 and 3 (Refer Appendix 1 for
Correlation Pearson-r result outputs from SPSS 10.0)
133
Same as direct conversion wastes, there are 3 hypotheses to be tested under this non-
(NON_CON3)
processes (NON_CON3)
existed among waste conception, waste event control and the frequencies of wastes
Pearson r, and the results show that there are not significant correlations among each
134
other (refer Table 6.11) as the two-tail sig. value (K) is more than 0.05 for 3 cases
Hypothesis 4 Test
Variables NON_CON1
NON_CON2 -.003
K = .989 >.05
Hypothesis 5 Test
Variables NON_CON1
NON_CON3 -.291
K = .141 >.05
Hypothesis 6 Test
Variables NON_CON2
NON_CON3 .297
K = .141 >.05
Table 6.11
Correlation Pearson-r results summaries for hypothesis 4, 5 and 6 (Refer Appendix 1 for
Correlation Pearson-r result outputs from SPSS 10.0)
135
6.3.3 Correlation among contributory time wastes concepts and perceptions, waste
Same as previous 2 wastes categories, there are 3 hypotheses to be tested under this
(CON3)
existed among waste conception, waste event control and the frequencies of wastes
Pearson r, and the results show that there are significant correlations between the way
contributory time wastes have been perceived (CON1) with the tendency to control
those wastes (CON2) as the 2-tail sig. value (K) signify the correlation is significant at
0.01 level or value K < 0.01 with a negative correlation (r = -.551) whereas the other 2
136
cases are tested non-significant with the 2-tail sig. value (K) is more than 0.05. (Refer
Table 6.12) Hence Hypothesis 7 is accepted and hypothesis 8 and 9 is rejected. The
case of Hypothesis 7 is true if we look back at the matrix table for contributory time
waste (Table 6.9) which also indicated that the most cases recorded among the cross
tabbing exercises proved that Case 4: Wastes not recognised but controlled is among the
most registered cases whereby in term of count inputs, it should be results in a negative
counts for wastes recognition and positive counts for wastes event control for a overall
negative correlation.
Hypothesis 7 Test
Variables CON1
CON2 -.551**
K = .004 >.01**
Hypothesis 8 Test
Variables CON1
CON3 -.223
K = .263 >.05
Hypothesis 9 Test
Variables CON2
CON3 .268
K = .185 >.05
Table 6.12
Correlation Pearson-r results summaries for hypothesis 7, 8 and 9 (Refer Appendix 1 for
Correlation Pearson-r result outputs from SPSS 10.0)
137
processes
for construction wastes are analysed by using one-way t-test to determine the mean
values, standard of deviation and standard error mean and the mean of scores were
Table 6.13
Construction waste variables ranking (Refer Appendix 2 for t-test results output from SPSS
10.0)
138
From the mean ranking results, it shows that time wastes categories regardless of
contributory time or non-contributory time wastes occurred at the top of the list
contributory times waste variables that have to be given more attentions and in real fact,
most of them are related to process flows and sequences and this can lead to lean
construction’s tools and methods which are developed mostly to tackle those wastes
6.3.5 Ranking on likeliness for sources/ causes for the construction wastes
sources/ causes factors that cause construction wastes. Same as ranking for the
causes factors as rated by the respondents are analysed by using one-way t-test and the
# Sources/ Causes for Construction Wastes N Mean Std. Std. Error Sources/ Causes Factors
Deviation Mean Categories
E2 Late information and decision making 27 3.63 .56 .11 Information and
Communication Factors
D2 Poorly scheduled delivery of material to site 27 3.37 .63 .12 Material Factors
A1 Poor coordination among project participants 27 3.37 .63 .12 Management &
Administration Factors
E3 Unclear information 27 3.26 .53 .10 Information and
Communication Factors
A2 Poor planning and scheduling 27 3.26 .59 .11 Management &
Administration Factors
D3 Poor quality of material 27 3.26 .71 .14 Material Factors
A3 Lack of control 26 3.23 .59 .12 Management &
Administration Factors
D1 Delay of material delivery 27 3.22 .70 .13 Material Factors
E1 Defective or Wrong information 27 3.15 .53 .10 Information and
Communication Factors
B2 Inexperience inspectors 27 3.11 .51 9.75E-02 People Factors
D4 Poor equipment choice or ineffective equipment 27 3.11 .80 .15 Material Factors
D6 Poor site documentation 27 3.07 .68 .13 Material Factors
B3 Too few supervisors/ foreman 27 3.04 .59 .11 People Factors
B5 Supervision too late 27 2.96 .71 .14 People Factors
B4 Uncontrolled sub-contracting practices 27 2.93 .62 .12 People Factors
B1 Lack of trades skills 27 2.93 .62 .12 People Factors
C3 Equipment shortage 27 2.93 .62 .12 Execution Factors
D5 Poor storage of material 27 2.93 .73 .14 Material Factors
C6 Poor site documentation 27 2.89 .58 .11 Execution Factors
C5 Poor site layout and setting out 27 2.85 .66 .13 Execution Factors
C4 Poor equipment choice or ineffective equipment 27 2.81 .56 .11 Execution Factors
A4 Bureaucracy 27 2.78 .58 .11 Management &
Administration Factors
B6 Poor labour distribution 27 2.70 .67 .13 People Factors
C1 Inappropriate construction methods 27 2.67 .73 .14 Execution Factors
C2 Outdated equipment 27 2.52 .80 .15 Execution Factors
Table 6.14
Sources/ causes of construction waste ranking (Refer Appendix 2 for t-tests results
output from SPSS 10.0)
140
As from the mean ranking result shows that Item E2: (Late information and decision
construction wastes with the highest mean value (3.63) and with a 0.26 from the second
Among the clusters of cause factors observed from Table 6.14, there are 3 categories of
waste sources/ causes factors are widely acknowledged as the key contributory factors
Factors, Management and Administration Factors and Material Factors as most of the
Cause factors captured under these 3 categories are rated with the mean value over 3.
Overall, the likelihood of recognising the items above as the sources/ causes of wastes
that will impact on the productivity of the projects, are still reasonably high as most of
the mean value for the items tested were clustering around the scale “3” value
representing “likely as a sources/ causes of wastes”. However, there are also some
exceptions such as Item C1: (Inappropriate construction methods) and Item C2:
(Outdated equipment) both recorded a slightly low mean values of 2.67 and 2.52
respectively.
141
The purpose of this analysis to relate the particular sources or causes to the construction
wastes and this is to give us a better picture of what leads to the waste in construction
processes as suggested by the respondents feedback on this research. Figure 6.13 is the
overall analysis on Causes and Effects Matrix of the “Major cause” to the construction
wastes based on 5 main causes factors while Figure 6.14 is the Causes and Effects
Matrix of the “Other causes” to the construction wastes. (Refer overall Causes and
Effects Matrix tables in Appendix 4 for a detailed understanding on actual one to one
relationship between wastes causes to wastes itself as per the data gather from the
Q Execution Factors
P Materials Factors
K
Legend:
J
A: Waiting for others to complete their works before
I the proceeding works can be carried out
B: Waiting for equipment to be delivered on site
H C: Waiting for materials to be delivered on site
D: Waiting for the skilled workers to be on site
G E: Waiting for the clarification and confirmation by
client/ consultants
F F: Over-allocation/ unnecessary equipment on site
G: Over-allocation/ unnecessary materials on site
E H: Over-allocation/ unnecessary workers on site
I: Unnecessary procedures and working protocols
D J: Material loss/ stolen from site during construction
periods
K: Material deterioration/ damaged during
C
construction periods
L: Mishandling or error in construction applications/
B installation
M: Rework/ repair works/ defective works
A N: Workers’ resting during construction
O: Supervising and inspecting the construction works
0 5 10 15 20 25P: Instructions and communication among different
tiers and trades of workers
Nos. of major cause related Q: Transporting workers, equipment and materials
R: Accidents on site
Figure 6.13
Causes and Effects relationship for the cases of major causes (Categorised)
143
Q
Execution Factors
P
Materials Factors
O
K Legend:
Figure 6.14
Causes and Effects relationship for the cases of others causes (Categorised)
The matrix table provides a clearer insight into the types of causes factors that directly
related construction wastes, as we shall see that in Figure 6.13, Management and
Administration Factors has a relatively high counts numbers in causing the construction
wastes items ranging from Item A to Item I and Item Q, Materials Factors dominants
over Item J & K and People Factors score higher in Item M, N and O. By conducting
144
this causes and effects matrix exercise, we can know that each types of construction
wastes has a different roots causes to the problems and it is important to identify those
activities.
145
CHAPTER 7
7.1 Introduction
This chapter concludes the whole study based on the findings. The tested
hypotheses will be related to the research objectives and further interpreted and
recommendations will also be drawn from the findings and the limitations during
The discussion on the findings of the research will be carried in 2 separate ways:
From the research results, it is found that the general perceptions and lean
level. The local construction site personnel can identified most wastes as
outlined and the tendency of controlling those wastes is even higher than
shows that the recognition over flow related construction wastes is rather
those related to contributory time wastes. This signify that the local
construction personnel are still not fully comprehend the concepts of flows
adding any values to the client even though they are sometimes necessary
for the progress of the overall construction processes. On the bright side,
the research results also show a very high percentage on those contributory
those contributory time wastes are actually well aware off those activities
Besides that, it is also found that there are different levels of waste
construction wastes issues and those related to process flows, whereas site
Based on the ranking of the event occurrences frequencies for waste events
the top of the ranking list. On the other hand, many direct conversion
wastes are recorded rather low scores mostly in the range of “Seldom” and
Eventually by breaking down the waste categories, it is made clear that the
flow time wastes are the prominent events that occurred in construction
construction processes.
In this research, major sources of wastes are also been identified directly
related to the respective construction wastes from the wastes causes and
sources of wastes for most of the cases while material factors and people
factors are more dominant for a few wastes types. If compared to the
factors. On the low side, the executive factors and people factors scored
This is a very good exercise to point out the causes and effects relationship
between the sources of waste and waste itself for processes control,
monitor and improve their flow performance from time to time during their
construction activities.
conducted with Pearson-r correlation. The results from the analyses had concluded
wastes.
wastes.
The non-significant over almost all the hypotheses tested (except contributory
time wastes recognition and control recorded a negative significant score or -.551)
in correlation testing shows that there were not uniformity in the way the
construction waste are recognised and controlled even with the high recognition
prompt them to control them and vice versa, recognizing construction wastes are
site. The construction wastes are treated very subjectively from cases to cases and
correct concepts and understanding and having the right attitudes to mitigate and
control the flow and flow related wastes are very essence. In this case, the worst
scenario would be someone actually not knowing what is the waste and therefore
not put in any efforts to control it and letting the wastes to repeat from time to
time. There might be some other reasons for not recognising wastes and not
controlling them. Some would not treat it as a waste as those wastes are
152
recoverable due to defaults by others and some misunderstanding that wastes are
necessary to avoid others bigger wastes from happening. For example, as cited
from the only 1 qualitative inputs from all 27 questionnaires received stated that
waiting for clarification and confirmation by client and consultants is not a waste
because he/ she believed that it is important to wait for clarification and
confirmation “because lack of this will be more wastage (redo the task)”. From
the results of cross-tab matrix tables shows a relatively low percentage of that
particular scenario (less than 7%) and that should be a good sign for the local
construction industries.
However, for the scenarios of knowing the wastes but not controlling them hit a
wastes. This is particularly not a good sign where those wastes are left behind the
construction processes and hinder the full potential of process improvement. The
results to this might be abundant. One of the reason would be the costs to control
or improve the wastes might be higher that the cost of the wastes itself. Besides
that, the reasons of not control the wastes even the wastes are identified and
recognised perhaps is due to not sufficient tools and knowledge to control them
and some might due to misunderstanding during execution and not well trained
personnel.
153
One of the limitations to this research is the design of the research by trying to
processes, which restricted to site construction processes only. In the real essences
of lean construction, lean construction principles are universal and can be applied
in all aspects of construction processes flow improvement from the very start of
the projects until the very end of project execution and delivery. In that context,
the overall process flow improvement can include design management, supply
commitment and leadership while this research is only focusing one main concept
of flow as suggested by lean construction and studies the related perceptions and
The other limitations to this study is the lack of qualitative data on this research,
only one qualitative data are provided among all respondents although in the
154
questionnaire has prepared column for the respondents to express their views and
opinions.
There have been many general principles of lean construction highlighted in the
previous chapters. The principles cited relate to three broad areas: improving the
principles apply at each level, and the concepts upon which these principles are
based may also differ. For example, at the total process level, construction can be
levels, the work is largely composed of concurrent operations. Also, at the total
process level, analyses of the work tend to be process oriented. At the activity
into the existing processes will somehow turn out to be more difficult especially
this implementation is something which has to deal with mindset and culture
seriously looked into in order to successfully adopt and implement the new
1. Management commitment
initiative from the management, change will stop at all natural barriers.
Management must understand and internalise the new philosophy. The change
like in the case of investment into new technology. Management must create
solved as a forced response. Cycle time, space and variability have also been
3. Involvement
responsible for control and improvement of their process. But also even if the
solving teams. Employee involvement is thus necessary, but not sufficient for
4. Learning
REFERENCE
Abdul Rashid Abdul Aziz and Abdul Aziz Hussin, (2003) “Construction Safety In
Malaysia: A Review Of Industry Performance And Outlook For The Future” in
Journel of Construction Research, 4(2), pp.146-148
Alarcón, Luis F. (1994). “Tools for the identification and reduction of waste in
construction projects.” In Lean Construction, Alarcón (Ed.), A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1997
Alarcón, Luis F. (1995). “Training field personnel to identify waste and improvement
opportunities in construction.” In Lean Construction, Alarcón (Ed.), A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1997
Alwi, Hampson & Mohamed (2002) Waste in the Indonesian construction projects
Website: www.odsf.co.za/w107/Authors/Accepted%20Papers/063p%20-
%20final.doc
Conte, Antonio Sergio Itri and Gransberg, Douglas (2001) “Lean construction: From
theory to practice.” AACE International Transactions, Morgantown
Cusumano, Michael A and Nobeoka, Kentaro, (1998) Thinking Beyond Lean, The Free
Press, New York
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1998). Rethinking
Construction. DETR Home page, U.K. quoted in Banik, Gouranga C., (1999)
“Construction Productivity Improvement”, ASC Proceedings of the 35th Annual
Conference, pg 165 – 178
Ford, H., (1926) “Today and Tomorrow”, Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y. quoted in
Formosa, Carlos T et al (2002) “Material waste in building industry: main
causes and prevention.” In Journel of Construction Engineering and
Management, July/ August, pp. 317
xii
Formosa, Carlos T et al (2002) “Material waste in building industry: main causes and
prevention.” In Journel of Construction Engineering and Management, July/
August, pp. 316-318
Freeman, Miller (1999). “Best Practice: Thinking lean” in What’s New in Building, Feb
1, 1999, pp. 48
Kiess, Harold O., (1989) Statistical Concepts for The Behavioral Sciences, Allyn &
Bacon, Inc. Massachusetts
Koskela, Lauri (2000). An Exploration towards a production theory and its application
to construction, VTT Publication 408, Espoo, Finland
Website: http://www.inf.vtt.fi/pdf/publications/2000/P408.pdf
Koskela, Lauri & Howell Gregory (2002). The Underlying Theory of Project
Management is Obsolete. Website:
http://www.leanconstruction.com/pdf/obsoletetheory/pdf
Love, Peter E D, Irani Zahir & Edwards David J (2003) “Learning to reduce rework in
projects: Analysis of firm’s organizational learning and quality practices.” In
Project Management Journal, September, pp. 13-25
Plossl, George W., (1991) “Managing in the new world of manufacturing”, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, quoted in Alarcón, Luis F. (1994). “Tools for the
identification and reduction of waste in construction projects.” In Lean
Construction, Alarcón (Ed.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1997
pg.369
Taylor, T.W., (1913) “The principles of scientific management”, Harper and Brothers,
New York quoted in Formosa, Carlos T et al (2002) “Material waste in building
industry: main causes and prevention.” In Journel of Construction Engineering
and Management, July/ August, pp. 317
xiii
Wright, Gordon (2000). “Lean construction boosts productivity” in Building Design &
Construction, 41(12), pp.29-32
xiv
APPENDIX 1:
Correlations
D_WASTE1 D_WASTE2 D_WASTE3
D_WASTE1 Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.193 -.040
Sig. (2-tailed) . .346 .842
N 27 26 27
D_WASTE2 Pearson Correlation -.193 1.000 -.080
Sig. (2-tailed) .346 . .698
N 26 26 26
D_WASTE3 Pearson Correlation -.040 -.080 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .842 .698 .
N 27 26 27
Correlations
NON_CON1 NON_CON2 NON_CON3
NON_CON1 Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.003 -.291
Sig. (2-tailed) . .989 .141
N 27 26 27
NON_CON2 Pearson Correlation -.003 1.000 .297
Sig. (2-tailed) .989 . .141
N 26 26 26
NON_CON3 Pearson Correlation -.291 .297 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .141 .141 .
N 27 26 27
Correlations
CON1 CON2 CON3
CON1 Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.551** -.223
Sig. (2-tailed) . .004 .263
N 27 26 27
CON2 Pearson Correlation -.551** 1.000 .268
Sig. (2-tailed) .004 . .185
N 26 26 26
CON3 Pearson Correlation -.223 .268 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .263 .185 .
N 27 26 27
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
xv
APPENDIX 2
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
A3 27 3.67 .73 .14
B3 27 3.15 .86 .17
C3 27 3.30 .95 .18
D3 27 2.67 .92 .18
E3 27 3.81 .79 .15
F3 27 2.44 .85 .16
G3 27 2.93 .83 .16
H3 27 2.41 .84 .16
I3 27 3.00 .96 .18
J3 27 3.07 .83 .16
K3 27 3.11 .89 .17
L3 27 3.04 .90 .17
M3 27 3.37 .69 .13
N3 27 3.33 .73 .14
O3 27 2.96 .85 .16
P3 27 4.00 .83 .16
Q3 27 3.78 .75 .14
R3 27 3.26 .94 .18
S3 27 2.52 .70 .13
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
A4_1 27 3.37 .63 .12
A4_2 27 3.26 .59 .11
A4_3 26 3.23 .59 .12
A4_4 27 2.78 .58 .11
B4_1 27 2.93 .62 .12
B4_2 27 3.11 .51 9.75E-02
B4_3 27 3.04 .59 .11
B4_4 27 2.93 .62 .12
B4_5 27 2.96 .71 .14
B4_6 27 2.70 .67 .13
C4_1 27 2.67 .73 .14
C4_2 27 2.52 .80 .15
C4_3 27 2.93 .62 .12
C4_4 27 2.81 .56 .11
C4_5 27 2.85 .66 .13
C4_6 27 2.89 .58 .11
D4_1 27 3.22 .70 .13
D4_2 27 3.37 .63 .12
D4_3 27 3.26 .71 .14
D4_4 27 3.11 .80 .15
D4_5 27 2.93 .73 .14
D4_6 27 3.07 .68 .13
E4_1 27 3.15 .53 .10
E4_2 27 3.63 .56 .11
E4_3 27 3.26 .53 .10
xvi
APPENDIX 3
APPENDIX 3
A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1 G1 H1 I1 J1 K1 L1 M1 N1 O1 P1 Q1 R1 S1
1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2
2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2
1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1
2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
xviii
APPENDIX 3
A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 F2 G2 H2 I2 J2 K2 L2 M2 N2 O2 P2 Q2 R2 S2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
xix
APPENDIX 3
A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 G3 H3 I3 J3 K3 L3 M3 N3 O3 P3 Q3 R3 S3
3 3 3 2 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 4
3 3 2 2 4 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 2
3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2
4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 3
4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 2
4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 3
3 1 2 1 4 1 2 2 2 4 4 5 4 3 2 5 5 2 3
2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 1
4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 2
3 4 2 3 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 3
5 4 5 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 3
5 3 3 4 4 3 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 4 2
3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
4 2 3 2 5 2 4 2 4 3 5 5 5 5 3 2 2 4 3
4 4 4 3 5 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 3
4 5 5 4 4 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 2
3 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 3 4 4 1 2
4 4 4 2 4 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3
3 4 4 4 5 2 2 3 5 3 3 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 3
4 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 1
3 4 5 3 4 3 2 2 2 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 2
4 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 3
4 2 3 2 5 3 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 2
3 3 3 2 4 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 2 2
5 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3
xx
APPENDIX 3
APPENDIX 3
A4_1 A4_2 A4_3 A4_4 B4_1 B4_2 B4_3 B4_4 B4_5 B4_6 C4_1 C4_2 C4_3 C4_4 C4_5 C4_6 D4_1 D4_2 D4_3 D4_4 D4_5 D4_6 E4_1 E4_2 E4_3
4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3
3 4 4 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 3
3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
4 3 3 2 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 3
3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 4 4
2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
3 4 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 1 1 3 2 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3
3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 - 4 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3
3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4
4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3
4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
2 2 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
4 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3
3 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 4 3
3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 4 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
xxii
APPENDIX 4
MAJOR CAUSE
A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 E1 E2 E3 F
A 8 7 5 2
B 12 3 1 3 1 2
C 8 3 1 4 5 1
D 1 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 1
E 8 3 2 1 7 1
F 5 5 3 2 2 1
G 10 4 2 3 1 1
H 9 5 7
I 4 6 4 4 2
J 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 3 1
K 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 9 3
L 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 4
M 1 1 5 3 3 2 2 1 2
N 1 1 4 2 1 7 5
O 1 9 6 1 4
P 4 2 3 1 5 1 1 1 3
Q 3 7 1 1 4 1 1 3
R 3 1 5 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2
xxiii
APPENDIX 4
OTHER CAUSES
A1 A2A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 E1 E2 E3 F
A 3 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1
B 4 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1
C 5 2 2 1 1 2 5 2 1 4 1 1
D 5 3 3 1 1 2 4 1
E 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 6
F 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G 2 1 1 2 4 1 2 1 1 1
H 3 1 1 1 1 5 1 1
I 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
J 1 2 1 1 3 3
K 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 3 3
L 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2
M 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 4 1 1
N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
O 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1
P 1 2 1 1 1 2 1
Q 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
R 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1
xxiv
APPENDIX 5
SAMPLE OF QUESTIONNAIRE
This study is focused on the study of wastes concepts based on Lean Construction Philosophy in
local construction industry. The questionnaire will consist of 4 sections, which intend to study:
1) The general perception and acceptance of Lean Construction philosophy and the
waste concepts by local construction industry
2) The extent of waste problems in existing local industry
3) The relevant sources of wastes to have significant impacts on project
4) And finally to create correlation matrix between wastes and the sources of wastes
Background Information
Position
B. Please select the most appropriate type of construction project to describe the area of projects
most frequently involved by your company:
q Below Grade 3
D. Please select the most project clients related to the projects carried out:
q Private
q Public
xv
Section A: General Perception
1. To your experience and opinion, which are the following items or activities can be
best represented or described as “Waste” or “Non Value Added” to Construction site:
(Please indicate X in the Waste column for waste activities and Non-Waste column for
non-waste activities)
Waste Non-Waste
A. Waiting for others to complete their works before
the proceeding works can be carried out
B. Waiting for equipment to be delivered on site
C. Waiting for materials to be delivered on site
D. Waiting for the skilled workers to be on site
E. Waiting for the clarification and confirmation by
client and consultants
F. Over-allocation/ unnecessary equipment on site
G. Over-allocation/ unnecessary materials on site
H. Over-allocation/ unnecessary workers on site
I. Unnecessary procedures and working protocols
J. Material loss/ stolen from site during construction
periods
K. Material deterioration/ damaged during construction
periods
L. Mishandling or error in construction applications/
installation
M. Time for rework/ repair works/ defective works
N. Materials for rework/ repair works/ defective works
O. Time for workers’ resting during construction
Yes No
A. Waiting for others to complete their works before
the proceeding works can be carried out
1 2 3 4 5
A. Waiting for others to complete their works before the proceeding works
can be carried out
S. Accidents on site
xviii
4. To your opinion, please identify the most likely sources/ causes of wastes to impact
on the productivity of the projects
Please indicate the frequency of occurrence of the mentioned activities by using the scale
of 1 to 5. (1 = Most Unlikely, 4 = Most Likely).
1 2 3 4
A3 Lack of control
A4 Bureaucracy
People Factors
B1 Lack of trades skills
B2 Inexperience inspectors
Execution Factors
C1 Inappropriate construction methods
C2 Outdated equipment
C3 Equipment shortage
E3 Unclear information
xx
Section D: Cause and Effects Relationship
5. To your experience in your work field, please relate the waste variations to the
contributory sources of wastes.
(Please fill in other secondary causes [if any] in the Other Causes Column, the causes
can be either from the list below or whichever causes differ from the list [Please specify])
F Not relevant
xxi
Major
Events Cause
Other Causes
R Accidents on site