Clean Version Thesis

THE INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL
APPROACHES IN MANAGING CONSTRUCTION SITE WATER
POLLUTION
Sheila Belayutham
Construction site water pollution could negatively affect the environment as well as the economic and social
well-being of people. Sediment production, the major trigger of site water pollution has commonly been
managed using mitigation approaches, in isolation from the production planning. The segregation between
the undiscovered yet interrelated factors of site water pollution management practices and production
planning causes waste in time, cost and resources. Hence, this study proposes an integrated solution that
addresses both the production and environmental factors involved in reducing the risk of site water pollution.
The study starts by identifying the causes of site water pollution, followed by categorizing the causes into
distal and proximal factors using a system dynamics tool called Causal Loop Diagram. Then, the
relationship between site water pollution and construction planning is established from the perspective of
preventive approaches in regards to the environmental concept of Cleaner Production. Following that, a
production improvement approach called Lean Production is adapted into the construction scenario. Lean
Production and Cleaner Production concept is integrated to provide a holistic solution to reduce the risk of
site water pollution that enhances also the production factors. The study has been conducted using multiple
research methods that consist of systematic review, interviews and case studies. The outcome of this study
would enable the planning and management of construction works that simultaneously benefits the
environment and production aspects of a construction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Research Motivation 3
1.3 Research Problems 5
1.4 Research Aim and Objectives 6
1.5 Research Scope 6
1.6 Research Methodology 6
1.6.1 Research Method 7
1.6.2 Ethical Consideration 12
1.7 Thesis Outline 12
1.8 References 16
CHAPTER 2 CAUSAL FACTORS FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE WATER POLLUTION
2.1 Introduction 19
2.2 Misconception on the Causes of Site Water Pollution 20
2.3 Causal Theories 21
2.4 Research Method to Establish the Underlying Factors in Relation to Construction 22
Site Water Pollution
2.4.1 In-Depth Interview with Industry Practitioners 22
2.4.2 Systematic Review 24
2.4.3 Content Analysis 26
2.5 Result and Analysis for Causes of Construction Site Water Pollution 26
2.5.1 In-Depth Interview Result 27
2.5.2 Systematic Review Result 28
2.5.3 Collated Interview and Systematic Review Results into Distal and 31
Proximal Factors of Construction Site Water Pollution

2.6 Conclusion 31
2.7 References 32
CHAPTER 3 THE DYNAMICS OF DISTAL AND PROXIMAL FACTORS OF CONSTRUCTION SITE
WATER POLLUTION
3.1 Introduction 40
3.2 Causal Network 41
3.2.1 Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) 42
3.3 Research Method to Develop CLD for the Distal and Proximal Factors of Construction 43
Site Water Pollution
3.3.1 CLD Development Using Collated Systematic Review and 44
Interview Data (Stage 1)
3.3.2 Verification for the Established Causes of Site Water Pollution and 45
the Use of CLD Using Case Study (Stage 2)
3.3.3 CLD Model Validation 46
3.4 CLD Model for Construction Site Water Pollution 46
3.5 CLD for Case Project 53
3.6 Discussion 54
3.7 Conclusion 56
3.8 References 58
CHAPTER 4 THE CONCEPTION OF PREVENTION-BASED APPROACH TO MANAGE
CONSTRUCTION SITE WATER POLLUTION
4.1 Introduction 61
4.2 Concepts in Environmental Management System 62
4.2.1 Concept of Prevention 62
4.2.2 Cleaner Production (CP) and Pollution Prevention (P2) 63
4.2.3 Cleaner Production: The environmental-production improvement strategy 64
4.3 The Common Environmental Approach in Managing Construction Site Water Pollution 65
4.3.1 Mitigation Approach 65
4.4 Construction Planning and Operation 65
4.4.1 Construction Planning 66
4.4.2 Construction Operation 67
4.4.2.1 Lean production / lean thinking 68
4.4.2.2 Lean and the Environment 69
4.5 Research Method for Conceptual Integration between Construction Management and 70
Environmental Prevention Approaches
4.5.1 Stage 1 71
4.5.2 Stage 2 72
4.6 Relationship between Construction Planning and Water Pollution Prevention 74
4.6.1 Preventive approaches to manage runoff and erosion 74
4.6.2 Theoretical linkage between WP3 and Construction Planning 78
4.7 Relationship Cleaner Production and Lean Production Approach 80
(Clean-Lean) Approach
4.7.1 Integrated Cleaner Production (CP) and Lean Production (LP) 82
4.8 Conclusion 85
4.9 References 85
CHAPTER 5 INDUSTRY ENHANCED INTEGRATION OF CONSTRUCTION PLANNING WITH
WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PRACTICES FRAMEWORK
5.1 Introduction 95
5.2 Research Method to Identify Industry Input on the Integrated Framework for 95
Construction Planning and Water Pollution Prevention Practices
5.2.1 Semi-Structured Interview 96
5.2.2 Description of Respondents 97
5.2.3 Deductive data analysis 99
5.3 Industrial Input on the Significance of WP3 as part of Construction Planning 99

5.3.1 Construction Schedule 100
5.3.2 Construction Method 101
5.3.3 Construction Site Layout 102
5.4 Theoretical-Practical Based Framework 103
5.5 Conclusion 105
5.6 References 106
CHAPTER 6 CLD ENHANCED CLEAN-LEAN APPROACH TO MANAGE THE DISTAL FACTOR
(ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES) OF CONSTRUCTION SITE WATER POLLUTION
6.1 Introduction 108
6.2 The Side-Lined Administrative Processes in Construction Performance Improvement 109
6.3 Lean Administration in Construction 111
6.4 Project Background 112
6.5 Research Phases to Develop Clean-Lean Administrative Processes 114
6.5.1 Causal Loop Diagram (CLD 116
6.5.2 Case Study 116
6.5.3 Lean Mapping 117
6.5.4 Performance Metrics 117
6.6 Analytical Framework of the Relationship between the administrative process waste, 120
production (time) and environmental (sediment pollution) variable
6.7 Lean-Based Approach to Improve the Administrative Process 122
6.7.1 Current Mapping for the Variation Order (V. O.) Approval Process 123
6.7.2 The use of CLD in Enhancing the Functionalities of the VS-PM 126
6.7.3 Improvements and Future Map for the V.O. Approval Process 127
6.8 Discussion and Conclusion 131
6.9 References 131
6.10 Chapter Appendix 141

CHAPTER 7 CLEAN-LEAN APPROACH TO MANAGE THE PROXIMAL FACTOR (EARTHWORK
PRODUCTION) OF CONSTRUCTION SITE WATER POLLUTION
7.2 The Proximal Factor of Earthwork Production 144
7.3 Research Method for Clean-Lean Earthwork 144
7.3.1 Case Study Clean-Lean Method for Earthwork 144
7.4 Clean-Lean Method Development 145
7.4.1 Determination of VALUE 146
7.4.2 Identification and Mapping of the VALUE STREAM 149
7.4.3 FLOW Creation through Waste Elimination 154
7.4.4 Respond to Customer PULL 158
7.4.5 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT to Pursue Perfection 159
7.5 Conclusion 162
7.6 References 163
7.7 Chapter Appendix 169
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.2 Achievement of Research Objectives 170
8.2.1 Objective 1: Identification and Categorization on the Causes 170
of Site Water Pollution into Distal and Proximal Factors
8.2.2 Objective 2: Demonstration of the Dynamic Interaction between the 171
Distal and Proximal Factors of Site Water Pollution
8.2.3 Objective 3: Development of Conceptual Frameworks to Manage Site Water 172
Pollution at the Planning and Operational Level by Integrating Construction
Planning with Water Pollution Prevention Approaches and Cleaner Production
with Lean Production Concept
8.2.4 Objective 4: Development of an Industry Enhanced Integration of 172

Water Pollution Preventive Practices (WP3) with Construction
Plan
8.2.5 Objective 5: Development of a Clean-Lean Approach to Manage 173
Distal Factors of Site Water Pollution
8.2.6 Objective 6: Development of a Clean-Lean Approach to Manage 174
Proximal Factors of Site Water Pollution
8.3 Value and Significant of the Research 175
8.3.1 Theoretical contribution of the study 176
8.3.2 Practicality of the study 178
8.3.3 Usability of the study 179
8.3.4 Reliability and Validity of the study 180
8.4 Research Limitations 181
8.5 Recommendations for Future Research 182
8.6 Summary 184
8.7 References 184
APPENDICES 186
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Construction is an important industry that contributes to the wellbeing of a nation by being the enabler for
the economic and social growth. In New Zealand itself, construction constitutes as the third largest industry
by the number of businesses and the ability to provide high level employment to the people (Statistics New
Zealand, 2009). However, the importance of construction has been undermined with the negative impact it
has on the environment. The undesirable impact of construction on the environment has become a major
concern that needs to be addressed. Numerous studies have been conducted to identify the environmental
impacts associated with construction (Shen and Tam, 2002; Cardoso, 2005; Fernandez-Sanchez and
Rodriguez-Lopez, 2010; Chen et al., 2010; Li et al., 2010; Cole, 2010; Gangolells et al., 2009). The
environmental impacts could consist of air and water pollution, waste disposal, land contamination,
depletion of natural resources, social problems (noise, vibration, odour and transportation) and safety
issues.
In the field of construction, studies have been done to reduce the impacts of energy/ carbon dioxide
emission and construction demolition waste (Da Paz et al., 2014; Prez-Martnez et al., 2014; Fernndez
2007; Ozcan-Deniz and Zhu, 2012; Melanta et al., 2013; and Ahn et al. 2013). Limited study has been done
on construction site water pollution from the perspective of construction management or construction
planning in specific. Water pollution poses a significant threat to the environment but has been side-lined
in comparison to other environmental concerns. Water pollution caused by construction may involve
different pollutants such as sediment, paint, solvents, cleaners, diesel, oil and other harmful chemicals.
Sediment is considered the most significant pollutant as the magnitude and damage from sediment
produced during construction is massive. Major sediment production occurs during the early stages of
construction, which are the land clearing and site preparation stage (Ab Rahman et al., 2010). This stage
puts a lot of stress onto the site with high risk of erosion and sediment production due to vegetation removal
and disturbed soil. Changes in the land form during construction disrupts the natural hydrologic cycle of the
1
site. Sediment is a result of the disruption which follows from the uncontrolled processes of excessive runoff
and erosion. The mechanism of those processes starts with excessive runoff production where impervious
surfaces such as exposed earth could not infiltrate rain water. The larger the area cleared, the higher the
volume of runoff produced. Increase in runoff volume may erode the surface of soil which are not stabilized.
This erosion process will then detach soil from the land surface as sediment. At last, the domino effect will
end at streams causing non-point source pollution. Subsequent effect and complications due to those
processes are flooding, clogging of current drainage system, reduction of groundwater recharge and
rampage of natural aquatic (New Hamsphire Department of Environmental Services et al., 2008). Public
health will also be at stake besides the need to allocate additional cost and resources for remedial actions
for the damage (Harbor, 1999).
In the U.S., erosion rate from construction could be anything from 20 to 200 tons per acre per year
(Burton and Pitt, 2002). It accounts for 10% of the U.S. sediment load to water bodies even though
construction only occupies 0.007% of the entire land. U.S. EPA (2005) reported that sediment runoff from
construction sites are 10 to 20 times higher than agricultural land and 1000 to 2000 times greater than
forest land. The severity is enormous, judging from the area covered. In Auckland, New Zealand, the
Auckland Regional Council (1999) reported that hundreds of hectares of land are being cleared each year
for the purpose of developing residential construction, road and landfill. Without proper protection initiatives,
the resultant will be accelerated on-site erosion and sediment production. Studies that have been conducted
in Auckland claimed that construction sites yield 10 to 100 times more sediment than pastoral land. From
1996-1997, 1000 ha of bare land has been worked around the Auckland region. If left unprotected, it could
result in discharge up to 66, 000 tons of sediment/year to aquatic receiving environment. Destructive impact
of sediment is seen when Auckland experienced the loss of shellfish in estuaries. In another case, major
sediment discharge has wiped out the trout population in a stream. Eventually, it took almost 4 years for
the reestablishment of trout in the stream (North Shore City Council, 2010). Hence, the management of
excessive runoff, erosion and sediment from construction sites are crucial as it has a major impact on the
environment.
2
1.2 Research Motivation
The runoff and erosion sediment processes at construction sites have commonly been controlled using
mitigation techniques. In addition, runoff and erosion sediment are two interrelated processes but have
been recognized as separate entities where in comparison, storm water runoff is often being neglected as
it is not recognized as a pollutant and does not have a well-defined source like sediment (Parikh et al.,
2005). The control approaches for runoff and erosion sediment are also implemented independently even
though there are huge interrelations between them. The interdependency is apparent from the chain of
reaction where it begins with runoff production that acts as the eroding agent causing erosion which brings
along soil that appears to be sediment. Therefore, the control of runoff may subsequently reduce erosion
and sediment (Auckland Regional Council, 1999). However, as the concern on environment rose, many
local guidelines were adopted to address the problems in specific. The specialisation causes broken linkage
between runoff management and erosion control, of what supposed to be jointly managed (Kaufman, 2000).
In practice, storm water and erosion control practices are designed by different people, who will then submit
the design to different agencies through different approval process. The pathways suggest fragmentation
between the two systems (Brown and Caraco, 1997). The linkage between runoff and erosion control is
also apparent from runoff and erosion guidelines that adopt similar preventive approaches but given in
separate guides. Unfortunately, minimal guidance is given on the way to combine those approaches
together, leaving contractor in dark. Due to the similarities and interrelationships, it is suggested that runoff
and erosion control be joint and implemented together as a system instead of focusing on addressing the
problems independently.
Runoff is commonly controlled by removing it as fast as possible from the site by using contour
drains (Auckland Regional Council, 1999). However, the effect of the removal on its surroundings is given
less thought. Similarly, erosion and sediment at site are commonly controlled using end-of-pipe systems,
also known as Best Management Practices (BMP) for erosion and sediment control. Erosion control can
be defined as an approach to control natural processes (weathering, dissolution and transportation) by
which soil is detached from grounds surface. Whereas sediment control is applied to reduce the amount
of eroded soil transported off site (Rogers et al., 2006). Erosion control techniques may include, but not
3
limited to check dams, contour drain, surface roughening, hydro seeding, mulching and others. Some
literature may include re-vegetation, minimisation of earthwork, timing and staging of operations as part of
erosion control techniques (Auckland Regional Council, 1999). Sediment control techniques may include,
but not limited to retention pond, silt fence, dewatering, flocculation and others (NZ Transport Agency,
2010). Typically, the techniques listed under erosion and sediment control may vary across different
agencies, councils, states or countries. Therefore, it is essential for contractors undertaking construction
projects to be familiar with the local erosion and sediment control requirements.
Even with the facilities available, the concept is still mitigating the already occurred source of
pollution, rather than preventing the source from occurring. The term prevention and mitigation in the
context of environmental impact is crucial because the former plays a huge role in reducing the occurrence
of negative impact to the environment. Mitigation approaches are commonly structural based while
preventive approaches are considered as non-structural based. Well-constructed mitigation facilities with
proper implemented maintenance can be effective in managing the runoff, erosion and sediment issue to a
certain extent. Being merely a control system and reactive in nature, those measures do require additional
cost with land areas for the system to be built. The concern does not only stem from the economic point of
view but also the social and environmental aspect as the approaches are unable to guarantee the quality
of water flowed into the natural water ways. In a conventional type of construction (design-bid-build), the
conception for both mitigation and preventive approaches usually occurs during the planning and design
stage of the project. Mitigation approaches are commonly planned and designed by consultants whilst
contractors are responsible in building the proposed facilities and maintain it throughout the construction
period. In general, this represents a deficiency in construction knowledge management as it encourages
non-participation from contractors at early stages of a project. The construction team relies entirely on the
defense mechanism (mitigation) without being proactive about the issue. The notion of attacking the source
of the problem was entirely up to consultants expertise without realizing the fact that participation by
contractors may reduce the dependencies on the defense mechanism.
Prevention is defined as to stop an adverse impact from happening while mitigation is to make an
impact less serious. Northcutt (2000) has reported that it is best to prevent erosion rather than taking action
4
with sediment control measures. The concept of prevention is one of the essential elements in
environmental management system. Even in runoff, erosion and sediment, the concept of prevention has
been established but received less attention by practitioners as well as academician. Most erosion and
sediment control techniques are structural based that tend to mitigate the problem instead of preventing,
except for some of the non-structural based erosion control approaches. The drawbacks of structural based
system such as higher requirement in cost, reduction in usable site areas, changes to natural site hydrology
and inflexible site design enhances the importance and significances of the non-structural approaches. The
non-structural approach can be applied without the hefty requirements usually acquired by structural based
system.
The proactive measure of prevention is essential as certain practices during conventional
construction are inducing runoff, erosion and sediment. For example, soil compaction by unnecessary
movement of heavy vehicles causes reduced rate of runoff infiltration as well as the cause of death among
matured tress due to low intake of Oxygen. Besides that, the common method of clearing a site at one-go
creates huge area of impervious surfaces that lead to high volume and rate of runoff. If those damaging
practices were observed and realized by contractors, different approaches or methods can be taken to
reduce or prevent the occurrence of runoff and its subsequent problems. Hence, preventive measures
aimed for during construction should be introduced at the construction planning as well as the operational
level.
1.3 Research Problems
Common site water pollution management approaches are segregated from the production aspect in
construction as the design and installation of control facilities have nothing in common with construction
planning (Ahn et al., 2010). The management of site water pollution is to address the occurrence of the end
result, which is sediment, without further thoughts given to relate it with the production aspects such as time
and cost. This has placed environmental management practices as a standalone effort, which creates
segregation between the production and environmental values. A segregated notion often causes one
factor being emphasized more than the other. Besides that, the isolated effort do come with additional cost,
time and resource to manage those aspects separately.
5
1.4 Research Aim and Objectives
This study aims to develop a holistic approach to manage construction site water pollution by integrating
production and environmental factors using the basis of prevention. The objectives of this study are given
as follows:
1. To identify and categorize the causes of site water pollution into distal and proximal factors.
2. To demonstrate the dynamic interaction between the distal and proximal factors of site water
pollution.
3. To develop conceptual frameworks to manage site water pollution at the planning and operational
level by integrating construction planning with water pollution prevention approaches and cleaner
production with lean production concept.
4. To develop an industry enhanced integration of water pollution preventive practices (WP3) with
construction planning elements framework.
5. To develop a clean-lean approach to manage distal factors of site water pollution.
6. To develop a clean-lean approach to manage proximal factors of site water pollution.
1.5 Research Scope
This study involves data collection that consist of interviews and case studies. Interviews have been
conducted among construction experts from the local authority, consultant and constructing organizations.
All interviews have been conducted in Auckland, New Zealand. The study has also been conducted using
two case studies which involve also interview, observation and archival documents, where both cases are
located in the state of Pahang, Malaysia. Details of the interviews and case studies will be discussed further
in the respective chapters.
1.6 Research Methodology
The research methodology for this study is discussed in general in Section 1.6.1., while detailed discussion
on the selection of each research method and its respective analysis will be detailed in the respective
chapters.
6
1.6.1 Research Method
Table 1.1 shows the essential phases and stages involved in this study, with the inclusion of objectives and
research methods. This study involves two major work phases, which are problem formulation (Chapter 2
and 3) and proposed solution (Chapter 4 to 7).
Table 1.1 Research Method
Work Phases Chapter and Objectives Research Data

Stages Method Analysis
Introduction Chapter 1 To introduce the problem, aim, Literature review Content
objectives and methods of the study. Analysis
Chapter Stage To identify the potential causes of In-depth
2 1 construction site water pollution interview
Stage Systematic
2 review
Stage To categorize the causes of Literature review
PROBLEM FORMULATION
3 construction site water pollution into

distal and proximal factors.
Chapter Stage To develop CLD that demonstrates the In-depth
3 1 interaction between proximal and distal interview
Phase 1
factors in regards to construction site Systematic

water pollution. review
*Results taken
from previous
chapter.
Stage To verify the use of CLD in portraying Case study
2 the dynamic relationship between the Interview
distal and proximal factors against Archival
construction site water pollution. records
Document
review
Chapter Stage To develop a theoretical based Integrative Inductive
4 1 integrated framework that combines literature review Content
water pollution preventive practices Analysis
(WP3) with construction planning
elements
Stage To develop a conceptual integration
2 between the concepts of lean
PROPOSED SOLUTION
PROPOSED SOLUTION
production and cleaner production.

Chapter Stage To develop an industry enhanced CP- Semi-structured Deductive
5 1 P2 based water pollution preventive Interview Content
Phase 2
Phase 2
practices (WP3) with construction Analysis

planning elements framework.
Chapter Stage To provide a conceptual systemic view Literature Review Content
6 1 of the cause-effect relationship between Analysis
administrative process inefficiencies,
lean waste, production (time) and the
environmental sediment pollution)
variable using a system dynamic tool
called Causal Loop Diagram (CLD).
Stage To develop a modified Value Stream- Case study: Lean
2 Process Map (VS-PM) that could Performance
improve both the production and Metrics:
7
environmental variable in a construction -Governmental -Production
project. standards on (Time)
work procedure
-Site record and
documents
-Interview
-Observation
-Site record and -Environment
document. (Sediment
Pollution)
-Document from
the Dept. of
Irrigation and
Drainage (DID)
Malaysia.
Stage To integrate the use of CLD as an Case study: Data from
3 enhancement tool to the VS-PM. CLD
-Interview
-Observation
Chapter Stage To develop and model the use of clean- Case study Production
7 1 lean method for earthwork operation in Interview and
order to reduce the risk of site sediment Observation environmental
pollution and accordingly, to improve Site performance
production performance. document indicators
analysis
Conclusion and Chapter 8 To conclude the study and to provide
Recommendation recommendation for future research
works.
The above research methodology is further derived into detailed work flow in accordance to the two major
phases of this doctoral study. Table 1.2 provides the detailed research methods involved for phase 1 while
Table 1.3 provides the detailed research methods for Phase 2.
8
Table 1.2 Phase 1 (Problem Formulation)
CHAPTER AND
PROCESS FLOWCHART OUTCOME
STAGES
(Industry Input) In-depth interview
20 experts
STAGE 1
Sampling
Environmental Purposive sampling
Selection criterion: Causes of
consultant, local authority construction
1) Experienced in site water pollution
and contractor 2) Min 5 years experience site water
Based in New Zealand pollution
Systematic Review
CHAPTER 2
(Theoretical
STAGE 2
Input)
What causes water Scopus

53 articles Input
pollution in construction? database &
Journals
Literature Review
Distal &
Causal theories
STAGE 3
proximal
Constraint response factors of
model by Suraji et.al. site water
pollution
(2001)
CLD Development
10 distal and 7 proximal factors

STAGE 1
In depth interview (20 experts): Interactive

questioning on the causes of water pollution
Systematic reviews (53 articles)
Validation
Dynamic
CHAPTER 3
Case Study interaction

Data Collection between
Interview: factors of
Selected based on availability - Project engineer, construction
Case study that encountered assistant site water
delay during site clearance of engineer, site pollution
STAGE 2
earthwork supervisor and

6 proximal, 4 distal administrator
Archival record
- site diary
Site document
9
Table 1.3 Phase 2 (Proposed Solution)
CHAPTER AND
PROCESS FLOWCHART OUTCOME
STAGES
Integrative literature review Data sources
Water pollution Storm water runoff, erosion Conceptual

prevention approaches & sediment guideline & framework
standard on the
Construction planning
elements Construction planning integration
STAGE 1
articles between
construction
planning and
Inductive content analysis water
pollution
Open coding
Categorization
Abstraction
CHAPTER 4
Integrative literature review Data sources
Fundamentals of: Journal

Lean production Conference / Proceeding
Guidelines / Clean
Cleaner production lean
Standardization
STAGE 2
approach
Inductive content analysis
Validation Chapter
Validation
Open loading
6 and 7
Categorization
Abstraction
Semi structured interview Sampling
20 experts Purposive sampling

Environment consultant, Local Criterion:
Authority, contractors 1) Expertise in site water
New Zealand (audio recorded) pollution WP3
CHAPTER 5
2) Min 5 years experience Construction

STAGE 1
Planning
framework
Deductive content
analysis
Retest framework
Quantitative
description data
10
Literature review
Dynamism
Administrative process between
inefficiencies administrative
STAGE 1
Content Causal
Lean waste loop process
analysis inefficiencies,
Site sediment pollution diagram
lean waste,
Lean administration
and
environment
Case study Selection criterion

Delay during earthworks
Public governed project Delay due to administrative
Triple-storey district (distal) process
education office in Includes earthwork
Pahang, Malaysia
CHAPTER 6
Lean performance metrics Modified

Data collection VS-PM
Production variable (Time
STAGE 2
metrics and Process Document review (site diary,

completed metrics) meeting minutes, RFI, project
Environment variable details, & government standard)
Sediment pollution (Rainfall Interview with engineer, assistant
erosivity) engineer, site supervisor &
Validation
administration staff
Observation of process flow
Lean mapping
Modified VS-PM
Input
CLD
CLD enhanced
clean lean
STAGE 3
Root cause of waste approach for

Interview (site based personnel) administrative
Observation (process flow of admin) process (distal
factor)
Case study Sources
Commercial and light Interview (site engineer, site supervisor,

industrial unit in Raub, site agent)
Pahang, Malaysia Observation 5 cycles (cut & fill operation)
Earthwork project Site document analysis (site diary, daily no
7 months duration of trips, project drawing, claims) Clean-lean
CHAPTER 7
method for
STAGE 1
earthwork
Operation
Performance metrics (proximal
factor)
Production factor
1) Value Stream map (micro level)
2) Variability (macro level)
Environment factor
1) Site sediment pollution (Rainfall erosivity, R)
11
1.6.2 Ethical Consideration
This doctoral study has been conducted following the ethics approval obtained from the University of
Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee on 17 December 2012 with the reference number 8664.
The ethics approval was granted for a period of three years, resulting in an expiry date for this approval on
17 December 2015. The ethics approval letter for this study is included in the appendix. The participants of
this study have been provided with a Participant Information Sheet (PIS) that describes the nature of this
study as well as the process of data collection. A consent Form (CF) has also been provided to the
participants as an agreement by the participants on the terms stated in the PIS. Samples of those forms
are also given in the appendix.
1.7 Thesis Outline
This doctoral thesis is presented as a manuscript-based thesis. The chapters are arranged in sequence
and flow where each chapter includes extraction of articles that have been submitted to journal for review.
Hence, each chapter will contain extraction of the main manuscript, supported with complementary
manuscripts, which have been presented at conferences. Following the Introduction chapter, this thesis will
begin by having two chapters (Chapter 2 and 3) to properly establish the research problem. Once the
problem has been established, Chapter 4 is conducted to develop conceptual solutions to the problem. The
conceptual solutions will then be enhanced with industrial input and case data portrayed in Chapter 5, 6
and 7. This thesis will be concluded in Chapter 8. Outlines for Chapter 2 to 7 are given as follows:
Chapter 2: Causal Factors for Construction Site Water Pollution aims to establish the underlying
factors for construction site water pollution in effort to recognize the core cause of the problem, rather than
obscuring the issue only on the surface. This chapter that has been conducted using in-depth interview,
systematic review and literature review has identified and categorized causes of construction site water
pollution into distal and proximal factors, which provides a perspective where the issue could root from
outset factors and not only the commonly acknowledged onsite-based deficiencies.
12
Main manuscript:
Belayutham, S, Gonzlez, V.A., and Yiu, T.W. (2015), A Cleaner Production-Pollution Prevention Based
Framework for Construction Site Induced Water Pollution. Journal of Cleaner Production, Submitted for
Review.
Belayutham, S, Gonzlez, V.A., and Yiu, T.W. (2015), The Dynamics of Proximal and Distal Factors in
Construction Site Water Pollution, Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 54-65.
Chapter 3: The Dynamics of Distal and Proximal Factors of Construction Site Water Pollution aims
to utilize the functions of a system dynamics tool called Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) in recognizing
dynamics between the distal and proximal factors in construction site water pollution. Results from the
previous chapter will be portrayed in the form of CLD and those findings will also be enhanced with a case
study where a CLD for the case study will be drawn from data collected through interview, archival records
and document review. Ultimately, the dynamic interaction between those factors has been identified where
the distal factors, which are commonly ignored in construction are found to have domino effects on the
proximal factors.
Main manuscript:
Review.
Chapter 4: The Conception of Prevention-Based Approaches to Manage Construction Site Water
Pollution aims to develop improvement strategies for the problems established in the previous two chapters.
The proposed strategies will be a conceptual integration between the aspects of construction management
and environmental prevention approaches in order to holistically address the production and environmental
factors of construction site water pollution at the planning and operational stage of construction. The use of
integrative literature review for this chapter has resulted in two proposed integration applicable at the
13
construction planning level, which is WP3-Construction Planning Theoretical Framework and at the
operational level, Clean-Lean Integration.
Main manuscript:
Review.
Belayutham, S, Gonzlez, V.A., and Yiu, T.W. (2015), Clean-Lean Integration: A Study on Earthworks
Operation. Journal of Cleaner Production, Submitted for Review.
Supporting manuscript:
Belayutham, S. and Gonzlez, V. (2013), Integrating Lean into Storm water Runoff Management: A
Theoretical Exploration, In: Formoso, C.T. and Tzortzopoulos, P., 21st Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction. Fortaleza, Brazil, 31-2 Aug 2013. pp 875-884
Chapter 5: Industry Enhanced Integration of Construction Planning with Water Pollution Prevention
Practices Framework aims to provide a theoretical-practical framework of integration between construction
planning and water pollution prevention practices. This chapter acts to verify the established conceptual
framework on the integration of WP3-Construction Planning for the planning stage in construction. This
chapter that utilizes semi-structured interview method provides an industrial perspective for the theoretically
proposed framework in Chapter 4. As a result, a Theoretical-Practical WP3-Construction Planning
Framework is established, which provides a prevention-based solution to manage production and the
environmental factor of construction site water pollution at the construction planning stage. The findings in
this chapter have also provided industry verification to the framework established in Chapter 4.
Main manuscript:
Review.
14
Chapter 6: CLD Enhanced Clean-Lean Approach to Manage Administrative Processes (Distal
Factor) for Construction Site Water Pollution aims to apply the clean-lean integration to tackle the distal
factors of administrative processes towards positively improving the risk of site sediment pollution as well
as the production factor during construction. This chapter has utilized various methods of data collection
such as literature review and case study (interview, observation, site document analysis) to provide a
comprehensive perspective of the use of clean-lean method to improve the distal factor of site water
pollution with added functions of CLD. As a result, this chapter has portrayed the interrelationship between
the distal factor, lean waste, production (time) and the environmental (sediment pollution) variable. The
conceptual CLD that has depicted linkages between the aforementioned variables has been verified using
a real project data on the Variation Order (V.O.) approval process that occurred during an earthwork
operation. The V.O. approval process has been explored and further improved with the adapted use of lean
tool and concept through the development of a VS-PM. The VS-PM provides the means to improve the
production (time) and also the environmental (sediment pollution) variables. The findings in this chapter
have also provided validation for the clean-lean integration conceptualized in Chapter 4.
Main manuscript:
Belayutham, S, Gonzlez, V.A., and Yiu, T.W. (2015), Clean-Lean Administrative Processes. Journal of
Cleaner Production, Submitted for Review.
Belayutham, S. and Gonzalez, V. (2014). Enhancement of Pre-Construction Stage through Lean Thinking
and its Impact on Environmental Performance. Proceedings of Building a Better NZ Conference 2014.
Auckland, New Zealand, 3-5 September 2014.
Chapter 7: Clean-Lean Approach to Manage the Proximal Factor (Earthworks Operation) of
Construction Site Water Pollution aims to develop and model the use of clean-lean method for earthwork
operation in order to address the proximal factor of construction site water pollution in order to benefit both
the environmental and production factor of construction. This chapter utilized the research method of case
study which involves interview, observation and site document analysis. This chapter has developed a
15
clean-lean method to demonstrate the application of the conceptual integration between Lean Production
and Cleaner Production in Chapter 4. The integration between lean and clean has shown a great potential
to benefit both the production (time and cost) and environmental (sediment pollution) performance of an
earthwork operation. This chapter validates the clean-lean integration, as discussed conceptually in
Chapter 4.
Main manuscript:
Belayutham, S. and Gonzlez, V. (2015), A Lean Approach to Manage Production and Environmental
Performance of Earthwork Operation, In: Seppnen, O., Gonzlez, V.A. and Arroyo, P., 23rd Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Perth, Australia, 29-31 Jul 2015. pp 743-752
1.8 References
Ab Rahman, N. N. N., Omar, F. M., Ab Kadir, M. O., 2010. Environmental aspects and impacts of
construction industry. In: El-Nemr, A. (Ed.) Impact, Monitoring and Management of Environmental
Pollution, Nova Science Publishers Inc, New York: USA.
Auckland Regional Council. 1999. Erosion and sediment control-guidelines for disturbing activities in the
Auckland region. Technical Publication No.90. Auckland Regional Council.
Brown, W.E. and Caraco, D.S. 1997. Muddy Water In, Muddy Water Out? A Critique of Erosion and
Sediment Control Plans. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(3):393-403
Burton, A. and Pitt, R. 2002. Storm water effects handbook: A toolbox for watershed managers, scientists
and engineers. USA: Lewis Publishers.
Cardoso, T. J. M. 2005. Construction site environmental impact in civil engineering education. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 30, 51-58.
16
Chen, Y., Okudan, G. E. and Riley, D. R. 2010. Sustainable performance criteria for construction method
selection in concrete buildings. Automation in Construction, 19, 235-244.
Cole, R. J. 2000. Building environmental assessment methods: assessing construction practices.
Construction Management and Economics, 18, 949-957.
Da Paz, D. H. F., Dos Santos Neto, F. C., Vaz Lafayette, K. P., Malafaya, F. 2014. Analysis of sustainability
indicators on the management construction sites CDW in Recife, Brazil. Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 19 F, 1377-1389.
Fernndez, J. E., 2007. Resource consumption of new urban construction in China. Journal of Industrial
Ecology 11, 99-115.
Fernndez-Snchez, G. and Rodrguez-Lpez, F. 2010. A methodology to identify sustainability indicators
in construction project management-Application to infrastructure projects in Spain. Ecological
Indicators, 10, 1193-1201.
Gangolells, M., Casals, M., Gass, S., Forcada, N., Roca, X. and Fuertes, A. 2009. A methodology for
predicting the severity of environmental impacts related to the construction process of residential
buildings. Building and Environment, 44, 558-571.
Harbor, J. 1999. Engineering geomorphology at the cutting edge of land disturbance: erosion and sediment
control on construction sites. Geomorphology, 31, 247-263.
Kaufman, M. M. 2000. Erosion control at construction sites: the sciencepolicy gap. Environmental
Management, 26, 89-97.
Li, X., Zhu, Y. and Zhang, Z. 2010. An LCA-based environmental impact assessment model for construction
processes. Building and Environment, 45, 766-775.
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Science, Commissions, New Hampshire Association of
Regional Planning, Planning, New Hampshire Office of Energy and, & Center, New Hampshire Local
Government. (2008). Innovative Land Use Planning Techniques E. Williams (Ed.) A Handbook for
Sustainable Development.
17
North Shore City Council. 2010. Interesting facts. Pollution Prevention [Online]. Available:
http://www2.northshorecity.govt.nz/our_environment/Pollution_prevention/Interesting_facts.htm
Northcutt, G. 2000. Designing More Contractor-Friendly Plans to Limit Erosion and Sediment Losses.
Erosion Control [Online]. Available at:
http://www.erosioncontrol.com/EC/Editorial/Designing_More_ContractorFriendly_Plans_to_Limit_E_4
937.aspx
NZ Transport Agency. 2010. Erosion and sediment control field guide for contractors. Wellington: NZ
Transport Agency.
Parikh, P., Taylor, M. A., Hoagland, T., Thurston, H. & Shuster, W. 2005. Application of market mechanisms
and incentives to reduce stormwater runoff: An integrated hydrologic, economic and legal approach.
Environmental Science & Policy, 8, 133-144.
Prez-Martnez, M., Moreno-Navarro, F., Martn-Marn, J., Ros-Losada, C., Rubio-Gmez, M. C. 2014.
Analysis of cleaner technologies based on waxes and surfactant additives in road construction. Journal
of Cleaner Production 65, 374-379.
Rogers, M., Wilfong, B., Voros, C. & Kishore, A. 2006. Construction best management practices for
Clermont County. Clermont County, Ohio: Clermont County Storm Water Management Department.
Shen, L. Y. and Tam, V. W. Y. 2002. Implementation of environmental management in the Hong Kong
construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 535-543.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Stormwater phase II final rule fact sheet series. U.S.: US
EPA
18
CHAPTER 2
CAUSAL FACTORS FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE WATER POLLUTION
This chapter has been extracted from:
Review.
2.1 Introduction
Major triggers of construction site water pollution usually takes place during the early stages of construction,
which are the land clearing and site preparation stage (Ab Rahman et al., 2010). The progressive change
of land surface from a natural environment setting to cleared bare land during the initial stages of
construction creates impervious surfaces that trigger the intertwined processes of excessive runoff, erosion
and sedimentation (Auckland Regional Council, 1999). Sediment is a pollutant that results from the
uncontrolled processes of excessive runoff and erosion. The mechanism starts with excessive runoff which
is generated due to impervious surfaces such as exposed earth that could not efficiently infiltrate rain water.
The increase in runoff volume easily erodes the soil surface which are not stabilized. This erosion process
will then detach soil from the land surface as sediment. At last, the domino effect will end at streams causing
non-point source pollution (Wu et al., 2012).
The aforementioned processes that trigger construction site water pollution have commonly been
spelled-out in standards and guidelines, which were established to control erosion and sediment from
construction sites (Auckland Regional Council, 1999; Department of Environmental Resources, 1999).
However, little effort has been made to recognize the underlying causes for the upsurge in those factors,
especially from the perspective of manmade errors (Yao et al., 2011). Hence, this chapter aims to establish
the underlying factors for construction site water pollution in effort to address the core cause of the problem,
19
rather than obscuring the issue only on the surface. The objectives of this chapter are twofold: 1) to identify
the potential causes of construction site water pollution and 2) to categorize the causes of construction site
water pollution into distal and proximal factors.
2.2 Misconceptions on the causes of site water pollution
Commonly, water pollution that predominantly occurs during construction may have conveniently placed
the constructing organization as the responsible party (Houser and Pruess, 2009; Barrett et al., 1995;
Lavers and Shiers, 2000). Little thought has been given to other complementing reasons such as change
order, design error and schedule changes, which involve off-site personnel (designer and client) (Shrestha
et al., 2014). Miao et al. (2015) argued that even though polluting companies are the direct source of
pollution, they are not entirely to be blamed because their behaviors may have extended from the lack of
supervision by the local agencies. Similar justification was established by McNeill (1996), who found that
water pollution incident could also be caused by outset factors such as clients cost saving nature, besides
the onset factors by contractors. Generally, outset factors can also be described as latent factors, which
are often being ignored without realizing its criticality where actions from upstream personnel create the
situation for onset factors to be generated (Suraji et al., 2001; Haslam et al., 2005). Therefore, it is essential
to recognize not only the direct factors but also the latent factors for any event under investigation.
The recognition of latent factors in the construction industry can be observed from the
establishment of causal theories in areas such as safety, productivity and sustainability (Han et al., 2014;
Lee et al., 2004; Onat et al., 2014). Nonetheless, a Scopus search using the term causal theory in
construction found this term being used most often in the fields of construction safety and accident. Minimal
research has been observed on the subject of environment, particularly construction site water pollution.
This finding is reinforced by Fuertes et al. (2013), who stated that limited environment related research was
found portraying causal models, potentially due to the difficulty in distinguishing the relation between causal
factors and the environment.
Current disregards of the latent factors in environment related construction research defies the
growing call to implement prevention-based approaches such as Cleaner Production and Pollution
Prevention that emphasize on source reduction and minimization of environmental impacts (Hilson, 2003).
20
In a situation where the source (latent factor) itself is not being recognized, the implemented solutions are
merely controlling rather than preventing (Frondel et al., 2007). The common approach applied to control
sediment from construction sites is by the use of end-of-pipe techniques such as check dams, contour
drain, retention pond, silt fence, dewatering and flocculation (NZTA, 2010). The control facilities to mitigate
site water pollution do come with drawbacks that include high cost, reduction in usable site areas, changes
to natural site hydrology and inflexible site design (Shaver, 2000). Furthermore, the control facilities could
only mitigate the already occurred pollutant rather than to prevent the occurrence at its source. Hence,
latent factor (source) recognition would lead to the establishment of a holistic approach that supports the
notion of pollution prevention in order to reduce the risk of an environmental disaster.
2.3 Causal Theories
The construction safety and accident field has long recognized the root cause of accidents that extend
beyond the construction-based operations by including management factors within the accident causation
models (Hosseinian and Torghabeh, 2012). The accident causation models have originated from different
theories, starting from Heinrichs Dominoes Theory that focused on individual as the cause of accidents.
The theory was further updated by Bird and Loftus by including managements role in an accident
(Hosseinian and Torghabeh, 2012). In a similar note, Reason (1995) proposed that the root cause of
accidents can be traced back to latent failures and organizational errors.
In later years, Suraji et al. (2001) echoed the earlier findings that latent failures are caused by
deficient decisions by the top and line management which consequently becomes the antecedent to unsafe
acts. Due to that, Suraji et al. (2001) has proposed a constraint-response model that categorized causal
factors into two i.e. proximal and distal factors. Proximal factors are factors that directly lead to accident
whilst distal factors have indirect connection with the accident where the inappropriate actions of the distal
factors could lead to the introduction of the proximal factors. This could further increase the risk of accident,
escalate the cost and time constraint, prompting inadequate resource for the construction process. The
causal link provided by Suraji et al. (2001) enables the tracing of accident causes from the lowest level
operatives to the upstream personnel including the client. The works of Suraji et al. (2001) has also been
based upon by other researchers. For example, Haslam et al. (2005) found that off-site stakeholders
21
(designer, manufacturer and supplier) who are involved at the projects concept, design and management
stage were frequently the originating influential factor for site based failures. Also based on an accident
causation model, Miao et al. (2015) has investigated the latent causal chain for industrial water pollution in
China and found institutional defect as the deeper reason for the frequent outbreak. In summary, the
construction safety and accident field has provided a reasonable theoretical foundation that could be
adapted to identify both the proximal and distal factors in environmental studies.
2.4 Research Method to Establish the Underlying Factors in Relation to Construction Site Water
Pollution
This chapter involves three work stages, as shown in Table 2.1. This is an exploratory study that aims to
establish the underlying factors for construction site water pollution through the use of qualitative methods,
similar to other researches that have utilized qualitative approaches for their exploratory study, e.g., Spillane
et al. (2011). Qualitative approach is suited to this study due to the limited research found on issues
regarding construction site water pollution, particularly on the identification of proximal and distal factors.
Two different data collection methods (in-depth interview and systematic review) have been utilized to
obtain data which are both theory and industry supported in order to establish the causes of site water
pollution. The established causes will further be categorized into distal and proximal factors by grounding
it on the accident causation model proposed by Suraji et al. (2001).
Table 2.1 Work Stages for Chapter 2
Work Stage Data Collection Data Analysis Objective

Stage 1 In-depth interview Inductive 1) To identify the potential causes of
Stage 2 Systematic review Content construction site water pollution
Stage 3 Literature review Analysis 2) To categorize the causes of construction
site water pollution into distal and proximal
factors.
2.4.1 In-depth Interview with Industry Practitioners
Work Stage 1 involves the gathering of input from industry practitioners on the causes of site water pollution
through the use of in-depth interview. In-depth interview is used to attain rich and in-depth information which
is useful when attempting to find patterns and generate models (Zhang and Wildermuth, 2009). This kind
22
of interview is commonly conducted among a small number of respondents in order to explore and gather
a holistic understanding of a particular subject (Berry, 1999; Boyce and Neale, 2006). According to
Minichiello et al. (1990), this type of interview does not require predetermined categories of question or
answer. Therefore, the causes of water pollution were not pre-defined prior to this work stage. Similarly,
Tang and Ng (2014) have conducted a study on sustainable building development with the use of input
from interviews.
For sample of respondents, the most common sampling technique, purposive sampling (Marshall,
1996) has been adopted. The specific criteria for selecting the respondents are given as follows: 1) Ranges
from different nature of work but with experience in dealing with construction site water pollution and 2)
Minimum of 5-year experience. Twenty respondents (environmental expert, local authority, constructor)
have been selected based on their expertise and experience in the field of study. Similarly, Fernie et al.
(2003) have also employed twenty respondents for their exploratory study on supply chain management in
construction. According to Bowen (2005), interviews do not entail high number of respondents as it is
evaluated based on comprehensiveness of the acquired information. Hence, this study intent to have a
comprehensive data rather than high quantity but on the surface type of data. The in-depth interview was
conducted by asking an open-ended question in relation to the causes of construction site water pollution.
Respondents were allowed to talk freely on potential reasons for construction site water pollution. Each of
the audio recorded interview sessions took approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour.
Table 2.2 provides brief information of the respondents, categorized based on their work nature: 1)
legislator (L); 2) environmental specialist (ES) and 3) constructor (C).
Table 2.2 Respondents Nature of Work
Respondent Profession Average years of Expertise

experience
L1-L3 Technical specialist 11 Storm water management in the
local council
ES1-ES11 Civil engineer 15 Environmental consultant
C1-C6 Project manager 18 Construction project management

Category of specialization:
Legislator (L): 3; Environmental specialist (ES): 11; Constructors (C): 6
23
2.4.2 Systematic Review (SR)
A systematic review has been conducted to identify the causes of construction site water pollution from the
theoretical aspect. Previous studies have been done to identify the causes of construction site water
pollution but those findings are rather limited due to the convention method of collecting the data.
Systematic review is defined as a literature review that is designed to locate, appraise and synthesize the
best available evidence relating to a specific research question to provide informative and evidence-based
answers (Metzler et al., 2013). Systematic review has been employed to ascertain limited bias in the search
(Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). The method could also provide an overall picture of the subject area,
subsequently providing direction for future research works (Pettigrew and Roberts, 2006). The systematic
review has been conducted by following a well-defined and transparent steps proposed by Petticrew and
Roberts (2006), which was also adapted by Viana et al. (2012) in their study. The general process steps
were further enhanced by incorporating construction management based systematic studies by Yi and
Chan (2014) and Ke et al. (2009). The systematic review steps are discussed as follows:
Step 1: Defining the question
The research question determined for this systematic review is what causes water pollution in
construction? The attempt was to identify the core causes of construction site water pollution before
proceeding to the next work stage.
Step 2: Establishing protocol and literature search
This step started by determining relevant database, keywords and criteria for inclusion/ exclusion of
publications. In general, all searches were limited to works published from year 1994 to current
(approximately 20 years). The reason for searches to start from year 1994 was to provide a comparable
situation between the causes of water pollution with prevention approaches that will be discussed in
subsequent chapters, where most approaches were established in the early 90s. Similar to Stechemesser
and Guenther (2012), only English language articles were included to avoid language bias. Searches were
done via two medium i.e. search engine and specific journals. As suggested by Yi and Chan (2014), the
commonly used Scopus was the choice of search engine. For the Scopus search, there were no limitations
24
imposed on the type of publication. Due to the large scope of water pollution as a subject, a more specific
search term was used to limit the findings. The search was conducted under the title/abstract/keyword
field. The keywords used are: "water pollution" from construction project; "storm water runoff" and
construction; "stormwater runoff" and construction; "soil erosion" and construction; "erosion and
sedimentation" and construction; "erosion and sediment" and construction; causes of soil erosion during
construction; sedimentation and construction project; sediment and "construction process". Those
keywords were restricted to the subject area of environmental science and engineering. To widen the
search, two additional keywords were used: "water pollution" and construction activities"; "water pollution
and construction processes that include all subject areas.
For specific journal search, high ranked journals in Construction Engineering and Management, as
proposed by Wing (1997) and Brochner and Bjork (2008) were utilized. Besides that, top journal related to
cleaner production was also sourced. Hence, the finalized list of journals are given as follows: 1) Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management; 2) Journal of Management in Engineering; 3) Construction
Management and Economics; 4) Automation in Construction; 5) Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management; 6) Building Research and Information; 7) Building and Environment; 8) Journal
of Cleaner Production. The search terms used for all aforementioned journals except for the Journal of
Cleaner Production are as follows: "water pollution"; "storm water runoff"; "stormwater runoff"; "soil erosion";
"erosion and sedimentation"; erosion and sediment; causes of soil erosion during construction;
sedimentation sediment; "water pollution" and "construction activities"; "water pollution" and "construction
processes". Since Journal of Cleaner Production was not a built environment based journal, a more
restrictive search term was used, similar to the search conducted for Scopus, so that results will be
constrained within the domain of construction/ built environment. For journal search, the terms were
searched anywhere in the paper with no limitation to neither title nor abstract. All findings from Scopus and
journals were then cross checked to eliminate redundancies. After elimination, the search result totaled to
1929 articles.
25
Step 3: Screening
The papers were then screened through to find its relevance with the question defined in Step 1. The
inclusion criterion here involves only water pollution that originates from construction site. After screening,
articles that found to be in compliance with the research question were narrowed down to 46 from Scopus
and 74 from journals, which totaled to 120. After reviewing the 120 papers, further elimination was
conducted as contents of some papers were found to be irrelevant to the pre-defined question and the final
articles summed to 53.
Step 4: Data extraction, synthesis
Contents of the 53 papers were then extracted, organized and displayed in graphical/ tabulated form where
conclusion is drawn by identifying the core causes of construction site induced water pollution.
2.4.3 Content Analysis
Content analysis is a method used to analyze written, verbal or visual communication messages (Cole,
1988). In this chapter, inductive content analysis has been adapted to attain a condensed and broad
description on the area of study that will result in categories that best describe the subject area (Elo and
Kyngas, 2008). In this case, potential proximal and distal factors that increase the risk of construction site
water pollution. Steps suggested by Elo and Kyngas (2008) have been adapted for the analysis: 1) Open
coding: Literature were sourced and read through to identify the key terms and headings; 2) Create
category: From the key terms, category is being created to provide a better understanding of the subject
and 3) Abstraction: The categories were further derived with the establishment of sub and main categories.
2.5 Result and Analysis for the Causes of Construction Site Water Pollution
Factors that influence site water pollution has been created using the data gathered from in-depth interview
and systematic review where the factors will further be categorized as either distal or proximal. This study
will use the definition of proximal and distal factors established by Suraji et al. (2001). In short, proximal
factors are the direct cause of water pollution incidents while distal factors function to form the proximal
factors, consequently recognized as the indirect cause of water pollution. Further description on these
factors can be referred to in Section 2.3.
26
2.5.1 In-Depth Interview Result
Data from the in-depth interviews are summarized and shown in Table 2.3. The data was extracted by
following the steps proposed by Elo and Kyngas (2008), after it was transcribed from the initial audio
recordings. The table is arranged based on the construction site water pollution factors given by each
respondent. In reference to the definition of proximal and distal factors provided by Suraji et al. (2001), the
proximal factors of construction site water pollution are represented by variables 1 to 7 while the distal
factors are variables 8 to 17.
27
2.5.2 Systematic Review Result
Findings from the interview are further enhanced with the theoretical perspective by the use of
systematic review. The 53 selected articles have been read through and subsequently being placed
into several categories using similar content analysis steps employed for the interview. The identified
causes were tabulated according to the categories and arranged in the order of most cited to least cited
(Table 2.4 refers). From Table 2.4, it is apparent that erosion is the most common cause of water
pollution in construction. However, erosion does not stand alone because it is an intermediate process
that has dynamic interaction with its enabler (runoff) and resultant (sediment). The top five core causes
sums up the entire mechanism involved in increasing the risk of construction site water pollution. The
dynamic relationship among these causes are shown below:
1. Cleared land + 2. Rainfall = 3. Runoff 4. Erosion 5. Sediment
The quest to fulfil numerous development objectives necessitates the establishment of
construction projects, which commonly kicks off with site clearance activity. The removal of trees and
shrubs causes soil to be disturbed and exposed to transporting agent (rainfall) which could result in
excessive runoff, erosion and sediment (Belayutham and Gonzalez, 2013).
Findings from the systematic review differ slightly from the interview as the theory emphasized
heavily on the immediate causes of water pollution i.e., erosion, cleared site, runoff, sediment and
precipitation processes. Little emphasis was given on factors that involve human or man-made
inefficiencies. This outcome strengthens the exploratory nature and the initial reason for this chapter to
be conducted as there is a clear gap of knowledge where human initiated errors were less recognized
in the literature. Nonetheless, the factors found on man-made errors (factors 6 to 12) are similar with
findings from the interview and can be classified into distal or proximal. The proximal factors involve
factor no. 6, 9, 10 and 11 while distal factors involve factor no. 7, 8 and 12. Due to the similarities of the
factors with the interview data, both sources could be collated to provide a complementary mix of theory
and industry input that provides a complete perspective on the causes of construction site water
pollution.
28
Table 2.3 Factors that Influence the Occurrence of Site Water Pollution (Interview Data)
No. Variables Associated components ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES L1 L2 L3 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Control facilities Allocation
Insufficient; ineffective
2 Enforcement By local agencies; Act
3 Malpractice Contractors work sequence
Ill practices
4 Cleared site Impervious surfaces
5 Work progress Progress at site
6 Time delay Waiting time, delay
7 Rain Rain occurrence
8 Design error Design constraint
Deficient knowledge;
constructability issue
9 Funding Clients budget
10 Land area Limited area for control facilities
11 Traditional Design-bid-build
procurement
12 Fragmentation Design and construction stage
13 Miscommunication Delay in receiving and sending

information
14 Planning Project planning by client
effectiveness
15 Unforeseen situation Utilities; ground condition
Compromised pre-designed
devices
16 Time constraint Limited time available
17 Wet season Winter; monsoon; rainy season
29
Table 2.4 Core Causes of Construction Site Water Pollution (Systematic Review Data)
No. Identified Causes Search Engine (Scopus) Specific Journals Total

Authors No. Authors No. Cited
1 Erosion Al-Ani et al. (2009); Ab Rahman et al. (2010); Faucette et al. (2009); Arulmozhi 22 Yates (2014); Apipattanavis et al. (2010); 9 31
et al. (2015); Ismail & Yee (2012); Ren et al. (2013); Chen et al. (2007); Basri et Veal (1999); Gangolells et al. (2009);
al. (2009); McNeill (1996); Dong et al. (2012); Beighley et al. (2010); Toy et al. Gangolells et al. (2011); Yao et al. (2011);
(1999); Wilson & Sheshukov (2006); Kaufman (2000); Wu et al. (2012); Jia et Fuertes et al. (2013); Ding & Forsythe (2013);
al. (2013); Aird (2012); Trenouth et al. (2013); Belayutham & Gonzalez (2013); Marzouk et al. (2008)
Pudasaini et al. (2004); Cerda (2007); Maniquiz et al. (2009);
2 Cleared site, earthwork, work near water Al-Ani et al. (2009); Ab Rahman et al. (2010); Goodemote (2005); Arulmozhi et 18 Yates (2014); Gangolells et al. (2009); Tsai & 11 29
body al. (2015); Ismail & Yee (2012); Ren et al. (2013); Basri et al. (2009); McNeill Chang (2012); Gangolells et al. (2011);
(1996); Kaufman (2000); Wu et al. (2012); Jia et al. (2013); Trenouth et al. Cheung et al. (2004); Tam et al. (2004);
(2013); Belayutham & Gonzalez (2013); Davis et al. (2003); Pudasaini et al. Fuertes et al. (2013); Ding & Forsythe (2013);
(2004); Cerda (2007); Houser & Pruess (2009); Maniquiz et al. (2009); Cole (2000); Gangolells et al. (2009); Fuertes
et al. (2013);
3 Storm water, runoff Al-Ani et al. (2009); Eisakhani et al. (2011); Faucette et al. (2009); Ismail & Yee 15 Cleveland & Fashokun (2006); Yates (2014); 9 26
(2012); McNeill (1996); Dong et al. (2012); Beighley et al. (2010); Toy et al. Veal (1999); Yao et al. (2011);Glass &
(1999); Kaufman (2000); Jia et al. (2013); Belayutham & Gonzalez (2013); Simmonds (2007); White (2004); Dharmappa
Davis et al. (2003); Cerda (2007); Houser & Pruess (2009); Maniquiz et al. et al. (2000); Ding & Forsythe (2013); Cole
(2009); (2000);
4 Sediment Al-Ani et al. (2009); Zhang & Wang (2010); Ismail & Yee (2012); Beighley et al. 16 Cleveland & Fashokun (2006); Akay et al. 6 22
(2010); Toy et al. (1999); Wilson & Sheshukov (2006); Kaufman (2000); (2008); Ding & Forsythe (2013); Cole (2000);
Figueiredo Gallardo & Sanchez (2004); Jia et al. (2013); Aird (2012); Trenouth Lavers & Shiers (2000); Marzouk et al. (2008)
et al. (2013); Belayutham & Gonzalez (2013); Weese (2007); Houser & Pruess
(2009); Maniquiz et al. (2009); Barrett et al. (1995)
5 Natural factors (rain, geography, geology, Ab Rahman et al. (2010); Goodemote (2005); Ismail & Yee (2012); Ren et al. 13 Chen et al. (2005); Apipattanavis et al. 5 18
soil, topography) (2013); Chen et al. (2007); Dong et al. (2012); Toy et al. (1999); Wu et al. (2010); Akay et al. (2008); Ding & Forsythe
(2012); Jia et al. (2013); Belayutham & Gonzalez (2013); Pudasaini et al. (2013); Cole (2000);
(2004); Cerda (2007); Maniquiz et al. (2009);
6 Control facilities insufficient, not available, Goodemote (2005); Faucette et al. (2009); Basri et al. (2009); McNeill (1996); 9 Shen et al. (2010);Shen et al. (2005); 2 11
maintenance issue Wu et al. (2012); Weese (2007); Pudasaini et al. (2004); Houser & Pruess
(2009); Barrett et al. (1995)
7 Designers issue (Improper documentation, McNeill (1996); Weese (2007); Barrett et al. (1995) 5 Millet (1999); 1 6
Fail to cooperate, Site agent did not
enforce, Knowledge deficient, design fault)
8 Unfavourable season (winter, rainy) either Ab Rahman et al. (2010); Goodemote (2005); Maniquiz et al. (2009); 3 Apipattanavis et al. (2010); Cole (2000); 2 5
being planned or pushed.
9 Contractors process error, negligence, ill 0 Millet (1999); Shen et al. (2005); Dharmappa 5 5
practices. et al. (2000); Lavers & Shiers (2000); Yao et
al. (2011);
10 Waiting time and delay during grading and Al-Ani et al. (2009); Goodemote (2005); Davis et al. (2003); 3 Chen et al. (2005); 1 4
development, schedule change.
11 Compaction Davis et al. (2003); 1 Fuertes et al. (2013); 1 2
12 Clients issue (limited land area, lack of McNeill (1996) 1 Chen et al. (2005); 1 2
budget)
30
2.5.3 Collated Interview and Systematic Review Results into Distal and Proximal Factors of
Construction Site Water Pollution
Data from the interview and systematic review has been grouped and collated into 17 main variables that
could potentially cause construction site water pollution, given in the following. From the 17 variables, 7
proximal (P) and 10 distal (D) factors have been identified. The proximal factors consist of: 1) Control
facilities; 2) Enforcement; 3) Malpractice; 4) Work progress; 5) Cleared site; 6) Time delay; and 7) Rain.
The distal factors consist of: 1) Design error; 2) Funding; 3) Land area; 4) Traditional procurement; 5)
Fragmentation; 6) Miscommunication; 7) Project planning effectiveness; 8) Unforeseen situation; 9) Time
constraint; and 10) Wet season.
2.6 Conclusion
The identification and categorization of construction site water pollution into distal and proximal factors
provides a perspective where the issue could root from outset factors and not only due to construction-
based deficiencies. The acknowledgement of the distal factor besides the proximal factor is important to
ensure the origin of the problem. Theoretically, this chapter has filled the gap of knowledge in identifying
the distal and proximal factors that may contribute in increasing the risk of water pollution. Previously,
limited studies were found in regards to the subject of man-made inefficiencies with construction site based
water pollution. The recognition and elimination of the negative core cause (distal factors) could lead to
reduced negative effect on subsequent factors which could potentially reduce the reliance on control
facilities for water pollution. This will subsequently enhance the application of the pollution prevention
concept that could reduce the threat on sustainability in the construction industry. Nonetheless, a mere
statement or identification of the causes is insufficient as it does not provide an overall view on how those
factors could relate and affect each other with the ultimate resultant of construction site water pollution.
Hence, the next chapter will enhance the findings from this chapter by providing a systemic view to
represent the dynamic interaction between the proximal and distal factors of construction site water
pollution.
31
2.7 References
Ahn, C. R., Lewis, P., Golparvar-Fard, M., Lee, S. 2013. Integrated framework for estimating,
benchmarking, and monitoring pollutant emissions of construction operations. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management. 139(12), A4013003
Aird, J., 2013. Clear water control. Erosion Control 20, 42-47.
Akay, A. E., Erdas, O., Reis, M., Yuksel, A., 2008. Estimating sediment yield from a forest road network by
using a sediment prediction model and GIS techniques. Building and Environment 43, 687-695.
Al-Ani, I. A. R., Mohd Sidek, L., Basri, N. E. A., 2009. Expert system for mitigating erosion and sedimentation
due to storm water during construction activities in Malaysia. European Journal of Scientific Research
38, 38-44.
Apipattanavis, S., Sabol, K., Molenaar, K. R., Balaji Rajagopalan, Xi, Y., Blackard, B., Patil, S., 2010.
Integrated framework for quantifying and predicting weather-related highway construction delays.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136, 1160-1168.
Arulmozhi, R., Subramani, T., Sukumar, S., 2015. Mitigation of environmental impacts due to ghat road
formation in Palamalai Hills, South India, by optimizing cut and fill volumes using GPS and GIS
techniques. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 187, 4094.
Auckland Regional Council, 1999. Erosion and sediment control-guidelines for disturbing activities in the
Auckland Region. In: Technical Publication No.90, Auckland Regional Council, Auckland: New
Zealand, Part A.
Barrett, M. E., Malina Jr, J. F., Charbeneau, R. J., Ward, G. H., 1995. Water quality impacts of highway
construction and operation. In: International Water Resources Engineering Conference, Texas: United
States, 14-18 August 1995, 1844-1848.
32
Basri, N. E. A., Ismail, A., Rahmat, R. A. A. O. K., Abdullah, N. G., Alani, I. A. R., 2009. Rapid prototyping
expert systems for minimizing river pollution during highway construction activities. Journal of Applied
Sciences 9, 2280-2286.
Beighley, R. E., Scholl, B., Faucette, L. B., Governo, J., 2010. Runoff characteristics for construction site
erosion control practices. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 136, 405-413.
Berry, R. S. Y., 1999. Collecting data by in-depth interviewing. In: British Educational Research Association
Annual Conference. University of Sussex, Brighton, 2-5 September 1999.
Bowen, G. A., 2005. Preparing a qualitative research-based dissertation: Lessons learned. The Qualitative
Report 10, 208-222.
Boyce, C., Neale, P., 2006. Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and conducting in-depth
interviews for evaluation input. Pathfinder International tool series. Pathfinder International.
Brchner, J., Bjrk, B.C., 2008. Where to submit? Journal choice by construction management authors.
Construction Management and Economics 26, 739-749.
Cerd, A., 2007. Soil water erosion on road embankments in eastern Spain. Science of the Total
Environment 378, 151-155.
Chen, T., Cui, P., Chen, X., 2007. Prediction of soil erosion on different underlaying surface in construction
period of Xichang to Panzhihua expressway. Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences 12, 699-
704.
Cheung, S. O., Tam, C. M., Tam, V., Cheung, K., Suen, H., 2004. A webbased performance assessment
system for environmental protection: WePass. Construction Management and Economics 22, 927-935.
Cleveland, T. G., Fashokun, A., 2006. Construction-associated solids loads with a temporary sediment
control BMP. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 132, 1122-1125.
Cole, F. L., 1988. Content analysis: process and application. Clinical Nurse Specialist 2, 53-57.
33
Cole, R. J., 2000. Building environmental assessment methods: assessing construction practices.
Davis, C. R., Johnson, P. A., Miller, A. C., 2003. Selection of erosion control measures for highway
construction. In: World Water and Environmental Resources Congress, Pennsylvania: USA, 23-26
June, 262-271.
Department of Environmental Resources, 1999. Low-impact development design strategies: An integrated
design approach. Department of Environmental Resources, Prince George's County, Maryland.
Dharmappa, H. B., Wingrove, K., Sivakumar, M., Singh, R., 2000. Wastewater and stormwater minimisation
in a coal mine. Journal of Cleaner Production 8, 23-34.
Ding, G., Forsythe, P. J., 2013. Sustainable construction: life cycle energy analysis of construction on
sloping sites for residential buildings. Construction Management and Economics 31, 254-265.
Dong, J., Zhang, K., Guo, Z., 2012. Runoff and soil erosion from highway construction spoil deposits: a
rainfall simulation study. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 17, 8-14.
Eisakhani, M., Pauzi, A., Karim, O., Malakahmad, A., 2011. Investigation and management of water
pollution sources in Cameron Highlands, Malaysia. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment
148, 231-241.
Elo S., KyngaS H., 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1),
107115.
Faucette, L. B., Scholl, B., Beighley, R. E., Governo, J., 2009. Large-scale performance and design for
construction activity erosion control best management practices. Journal of Environmental Quality 38,
1248-1254.
Fernie, S., Green, S. D., Weller, S. J., Newcombe, R., 2003. Knowledge sharing: context, confusion and
controversy. International Journal of Project Management 21, 177-187.
Figueiredo Gallardo, A. L. C., Snchez, L. E., 2004. Follow-up of a road building scheme in a fragile
environment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24, 47-58.
34
Frondel, M., Horbach, J., Rennings, K., 2007. End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison
of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries. Business Strategy and the
Environment16, 571584.
Fuertes, A., Casals, M., Gangolells, M., Forcada, N., Macarulla, M., Roca, X., 2013. An environmental
impact causal model for improving the environmental performance of construction processes. Journal
Gangolells, M., Casals, M., Gass, S., Forcada, N., Roca, X., Fuertes, A., 2009. A methodology for
predicting the severity of environmental impacts related to the construction process of residential
buildings. Building and Environment 44, 558-571.
Gangolells, M., Casals, M., Gass, S., Forcada, N., Roca, X., Fuertes, A., 2011. Assessing concerns of
interested parties when predicting the significance of environmental impacts related to the construction
process of residential buildings. Building and Environment 46, 1023-1037.
Glass, J., Simmonds, M., 2007. Considerate construction: case studies of current practice. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management 14, 131-149.
Goodemote, G. J., 2005. Keeping it real. Public Works 136, 56-58.
Han, S., Saba, F., Lee, S., Mohamed, Y., Pea-Mora, F., 2014. Toward an understanding of the impact of
production pressure on safety performance in construction operations. Accident Analysis and
Prevention 68, 106-116.
Haslam, R. A., Hide, S. A., Gibb, A. G. F., Gyi, D. E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S., Duff, A. R., 2005. Contributing
factors in construction accidents. Applied Ergonomics 36, 401-415.
Hilson, G., 2003. Defining cleaner production and pollution prevention in the mining context. Journal of
Cleaner Production 16 (4), 305-321.
Hosseinian, S. S., Torghabeh, Z. J., 2012. Major theories of construction accident causation models: A
literature review. International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology 4, 53-66.
35
Houser, D. L., Pruess, H., 2009. The effects of construction on water quality: A case study of the culverting
of Abram Creek. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 155, 431-442.
Ismail, S. I. H., Yee, H. M., 2012. MUSLE evaluation of soil loss on a construction site by using gauging
weirs. Advanced Materials Research 446-449, 2718-2721.
Jia, H., Yao, H., Yu, S. L., 2013. Advances in LID BMPs research and practice for urban runoff control in
China. Frontiers of Environmental Science and Engineering 7, 709-720.
Kaufman, M. M., 2000. Erosion control at construction sites: the sciencepolicy gap. Environmental
Management 26, 89-97.
Ke, Y., Wang, S., Chan, A. P., Cheung, E., 2009. Research trend of public-private partnership in
construction journals. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 135, 1076-1086.
Lavers, A. P., Shiers, D. E., 2000. Construction law and environmental harm: The liability interface.
Lee, M.J., Hanna, A. S., Loh, W.Y., 2004. Decision tree approach to classify and quantify cumulative impact
of change orders on productivity. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 18, 132-144.
Maniquiz, M. C., Lee, S., Lee, E., Kong, D. S., Kim, L. H., 2009. Unit soil loss rate from various construction
sites during a storm. Water Science and Technology 59, 2187-2196.
Marshall, M. N., 1996. Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice 13, 522-525.
Marzouk, M., Madany, M., AbouZied, A., ElSaid, M., 2008. Handling construction pollutions using multi
objective optimization. Construction Management and Economics 26, 1113-1125.
McNeill, A., 1996. Road construction and river pollution in South-West Scotland. Journal of the Chartered
Institution of Water and Environmental Management 10, 175-182.
Melanta, S., Miller-Hooks, E., and Avetisyan, H. (2013). "Carbon Footprint Estimation Tool for
36
Transportation Construction Projects." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0000598, 547-555. Metzler, K., 2013. Carrying out a systematic review as a masters thesis,
SAGE Publications Ltd. London.
Miao, X., Tang, Y., Wong, C. W., Zang, H., 2015. The latent causal chain of industrial water pollution in
China. Environmental Pollution 196, 473-7.
Millet, R. A., 1999. Failures: how to avoid them. Journal of Management in Engineering 15, 32-36.
Minichiello, V., 1990. In-depth interviewing: Researching people, Longman, Cheshire.
NZTA (New Zealand Transport Agency), 2010. Erosion and sediment control field guide for contractors. NZ
Transport Agency, Wellington, 6-11.
Onat, N. C., Egilmez, G., Tatari, O., 2014. Towards greening the U.S. residential building stock: A system
dynamics approach. Building and Environment 78, 68-80.
Ozcan-Deniz, G., Zhu, Y., 2012. Evaluating construction methods for low carbon emissions using
system dynamics modeling. Computing in Civil Engineering. 610-617.
Petticrew, M., Roberts, H., 2006. Systematic reviews in the social sciences a practical guide. Blackwell
Publishing, Oxford: UK.
Pudasaini, M., Shrestha, S., Riley, S., 2004. Soil erosion control from construction sites: An important
aspect of watershed conservation. In: Self-Sustaining Solutions for Streams, Wetlands, and
Watersheds Conference, Minnesota: USA, 12-15 September 2004, 109-116.
Ren, J., Ran, X., Jiang, C., 2013. Prediction and prevention of water and soil erosion in Qilinsi hydro-electric
power station project construction. Applied Mechanics and Materials 295-298, 2107-2111
Shaver, E., 2000. Low impact design manual for the Auckland region. Technical Publication. Auckland
Regional Council, Auckland.
Shen, L.-Y., Lu, W.-S., Yao, H., Wu, D.H., 2005. A computer-based scoring method for measuring the
environmental performance of construction activities. Automation in Construction 14, 297-309.
37
Shen, L.-Y., Tam, V. W. Y., Tam, L., Ji, Y.B., 2010. Project feasibility study: the key to successful
implementation of sustainable and socially responsible construction management practice. Journal of
Cleaner Production 18, 254-259.
Shrestha, P. P., Shrestha, K., Meyer, N. W., 2014. Delay claim analysis in the construction industry. In: 50th
ASC Annual International Conference, Blacksburg: VA, 26-28 March 2014.
Spillane, J. P., Oyedele, L. O., Meding, J. V., Ashwini Konanahalli1, Jaiyeoba, B. E., Tijani, I. K., 2011.
Confined site construction: A qualitative investigation of critical issues affecting management of health
and safety. Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology 2, 138-146.
Stechemesser, K., Guenther, E., 2012. Carbon accounting: a systematic literature review. Journal of
Suraji, A., Duff, A. R., Peckitt, S. J., 2001. Development of causal model of construction accident causation.
Reason, J., 1995. A systems approach to organizational error. Ergonomics 38(8), 1708-1721.
Tam, C. M., Tam, V. W. Y., Zeng, S. X., 2004. Environmental performance assessment in China and Hong
Kong. Building Research and Information 32, 110-118.
Tang, Z., Ng, S. T., 2014. Sustainable building development in China- A system thinking study. Procedia
Engineering 85, 493-500.
Toy, T. J., Foster, G. R., Renard, K. G., 1999. RUSLE for mining, construction and reclamation lands.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54, 462-467.
Trenouth, W. R., Gharabaghi, B., Macmillan, G., Bradford, A., 2013. Better management of construction
sites to protect inland waters. Inland Waters 3, 167-178.
Tsai, C. Y., Chang, A. S., 2012. Framework for developing construction sustainability items: the example
of highway design. Journal of Cleaner Production 20, 127-136.
38
Viana, D. D., Formoso, C. T., Kalsaas, B. T., 2012. Waste in construction: a systematic literature review on
empirical studies. In: 20th International Group for Lean Construction Conference, San Diego: USA, 17-
22 July 2012.
Weese, D. R., 2007. Site inspections - can you stay out of jail? In: 38th International Erosion Control
Association Conference and Expo, Nevada: USA, 12-17 February 2007, 488-493.
White, R. R., 2004. Managing and interpreting uncertainty for climate change risk. Building Research and
Information 32, 438-448.
Wilson, B. N., Sheshukov, A. Y., 2006. A process based erosion and sediment model for construction sites.
In: World Environmental and Water Resource Congress, Nebraska: United States, 21-25 May 2006.
Wing, C. K., 1997. The ranking of construction management journals. Construction Management and
Economics 15, 387-398.
Wu, Q., Wang, L., Gao, H., Chen, Y., 2012. Current situation analysis on soil erosion risk management in
development and construction project. Advanced Materials Research 430-432, 1967-1969
Yao, H., Shen, L., Tan, Y., Hao, J., 2011. Simulating the impacts of policy scenarios on the sustainability
performance of infrastructure projects. Automation in Construction 20, 1060-1069.
Yates, J. K., 2014. Design and construction for sustainable industrial construction. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 140, B4014005-1 - B4014005-14
Yi, W., Chan, A. P. C., 2014. Critical review of labor productivity research in construction journals. Journal
of Management in Engineering 30, 214-225.
Zhang, Y., Wildemuth, B. M., 2009. Unstructured interviews. In: Wildemuth, B. (Ed.), Applications of Social
Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science. Libraries Unlimited, Westport: CT,
222-231.
Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., 2010. Impact of environmental pollution. In: El-Nemr, A. (Ed.) Impact, Monitoring and
Management of Environmental Pollution, Nova Science Publishers Inc, New York: USA.
39
CHAPTER 3
THE DYNAMICS OF DISTAL AND PROXIMAL FACTORS OF CONSTRUCTION SITE
WATER POLLUTION
Review.
3.1 Introduction
The previous chapter has established the underlying factors that cause construction site water pollution,
which consist of proximal and distal factors. The linear representation of the factors in the previous chapter
lacks dynamism and systemic view of how those factors could affect each other and ultimately the
occurrence of site water pollution. Furthermore, the linear representation disguises the relation between
factors, prompting for mistargeted solutions. In the case of this study, responsibilities for site water pollution
during construction is often placed on the shoulders of the contracting organization as they are supposed
to provide and maintain the control facilities (NZTA, 2010). Solutions for any faultiness found during
construction would be through the imposed penalties, enforcement alongside the remedial works (Kaufman,
2000; Brown and Caraco, 1997). The short-sighted solution to the problem does not expand the perspective
in recognizing the underlying factors which might have triggered the occurrence of the proximal factors.
The current solution, which is applied from a linear perspective will only control the immediate situation
without preventing and attacking the source of problem. Hence, this chapter will enhance the findings of
the previous chapter by utilizing the functions of a system dynamics tool called Causal Loop Diagram (CLD)
in recognizing dynamics between the different factors of construction site water pollution. In summary, this
chapter aims to develop a CLD that portrays causal relationship between the distal and proximal factors of
construction site water pollution. The objectives of this chapter are given as follows: 1) to develop CLD that
40
demonstrates the interaction between proximal and distal factors in regards to construction site water
pollution and 2) to verify the use of CLD in portraying the dynamic relationship between the distal and
proximal factors against construction site water pollution.
3.2 Causal Network
Causal network is used to demonstrate the causal relationship between elements and has been applied in
different construction areas such as safety, quality and environment (Spillane et al., 2011; Love et al., 1999;
Yuan et al., 2014). In terms of finding the causal link for environmental issues, Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) has commonly employed causal network with system analysis such as digraphs, cause
and effect diagram, flow diagram and tree diagram (Perdicolis and Glasson, 2006). Causal network has
been used to identify or predict the impacts of cumulative, direct and indirect factors on the environment.
Environmental effects resulting from those factors can be significant and should be taken into consideration
during decision making processes (Walker and Johnson, 1999). The advantage of using causal network
and system analysis is the explicit multiple representations of impacts from a project, especially for indirect
factors which are difficult to be shown using simpler form of analysis (Walker and Johnson, 1999).
Even though current studies have shown some good understanding on the extent and pattern of
environmental impacts in the construction industry, research regarding the identification of causal factors
from construction sites remain simplistic and incomplete (Fuertes et al., 2013). Therefore, other causal
networks beyond EIA, such as data mining (Fuzzy Neural and Bayesian) and System Dynamics are being
pursued (Perdicolis and Glasson, 2006). Causal network such as system dynamics could overcome the
common concern on linearity in previous versions of the network. The concern on linear representation is
the tendency to ignore the circular chain of cause and effect (Kirkwood, 1998). L and Law (2009) added
that it is very difficult to visualize non-linear effect and feedback interactions within a complex system such
as construction. This situation may create misunderstanding on the actual effect from any implemented
strategy or decision (Yuan et al., 2014). Therefore, a non-linear causal network system is preferred for an
effective representation of the proximal and distal factors in the study of construction site water pollution.
41
3.2.1 Causal Loop Diagram (CLD)
Systemic thinking is one of the most common non-linear causal networks that apply System Dynamics.
System models consist of quantitative (System Dynamics) and qualitative (Causal Loop Diagram) models
(Laurenti et al., 2014). Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) or sometimes being referred to as Influence Diagram
is the qualitative model established prior to running a simulation that results in a quantitative model called
System Dynamics (Coyle, 1999). In general, CLD allows the illustration of cause-effect variables beyond
the common linear interrelationship. CLD involves three main components i.e., 1) causal links between
variables; 2) polarities between the links and 3) feedback loops (Love et al., 1999). The set of variables are
connected using arrows that denote causal influence by pointing from independent to dependent variable.
Each arrow is assigned its polarity, either positive (+) or negative (-), depending on how the dependent
variable changes when the independent variable changes by assuming other variables are constant
(Fernald et al., 2012). CLD consist of two different feedback loops, which are Reinforcing (R) and Balancing
(B) loop. An (R) loop reinforces change with even more change that leads to exponential growth while a
(B) loop seeks to achieve a goal (Love et al., 1999).
CLD has been used in different sectors. For instance, L and Law (2009) developed a CLD to
transfer experiences between designer and operatives while Park et al. (2010) utilized CLD to investigate
the impact of government measures on Koreas housing market. CLD has also been widely used in issues
concerning sustainability. In this regard, Koca and Sverdup (2012) have used CLD and system analysis to
explore alternative climate change strategies in Turkey. He and Liu (2010) proposed a collaborative
conceptual modelling approach that uses CLD to model potential environmental impacts. In essence, CLD
aids in visualizing how the interrelated variables affect each other (Yuan et al., 2014). Given the benefits of
CLD, it is rather dismaying to find limited studies being done on CLD that involves pollution from
construction. The industry is in dire need to have an approach that could identify the causes of pollution
holistically and this study intents to fill the aforementioned gap in knowledge.
42
3.3 Research Method to Develop CLD for the Distal and Proximal Factors of Construction Site
Water Pollution
Currently, the use of CLD in portraying the causal relationship between factors of site water pollution is still
at a very infancy stage. The exploratory nature of the study calls for the use of qualitative approaches,
including the CLD that will be represented as a qualitative model. For this study, a qualitative model is
sufficient to achieve the aim of this chapter, which is to explore and portray the dynamism between the
distal and proximal factors of site water pollution. In order to achieve the aim, two work stages are required
where the first stage is to develop a CLD based on the data obtained in the previous chapter. Similar
approach has been observed in a study done by Mahato and Ogunlana (2011), who have created their
CLD using data from interview and literature. On the other hand, the second stage involves the development
of a CLD based on a case study. The objective of the second stage is to verify the established causes of
construction site water pollution and the use of CLD in portraying the dynamic relationship between the
distal and proximal factors. The work stages involved are given in Table 3.1.
Work Stage Data Collection Data Analysis Output

Stage 1 In-depth interview Content Objective 1:
Systematic review Analysis To develop CLD that demonstrates the
*Results taken from interaction between proximal and distal
previous chapter. factors in regards to construction site
water pollution.
Stage 2 Case study Objective 2:
Interview To verify the established causes of
Archival records construction site water pollution and the
Document review use of CLD in portraying the dynamic
relationship between the distal and
proximal factors.
The use of qualitative model (CLD) has been justified by fulfilling the requirements proposed by
Coyle and Exelby (2000), which are: 1) requirement for quantification; 2) value the quantified model could
add to the qualitative model; 3) to distinguish whether the occurrence of the effect is well known to the
industry players. The explanation for fulfillment of the requirements are given as follows: As mentioned, the
aim of this study is to portray the causal relationship between the distal and proximal factors of construction
site water pollution. At this point of study, no quantification is necessary as the aim is to explore the subject
43
area and potentially, this exploration would establish the basis for further studies. Hence, the qualitative
model is sufficient to portray the potential causes that could lead to the final effect, which is water pollution.
For this study, a quantitative model will not add value to the qualitative model because it is not the intention
of this study to measure the extent of pollution. The focus of this study is to prevent or limit the potential
occurrence by identifying the source of problem by recognizing the potential factors. As for the third
requirement, it is common knowledge in the industry where immediate causes of site water pollution is from
the interlinked processes of runoff, erosion and sediment and there is no need for quantification to prove
the relationship (Department of Environmental Resources, 1999). Similar justification was used by Laurenti
et al. (2014) who presented a Group Model Building that elicit relationships that may cause environmental
impacts through cause effect chains. They found CLD itself is adequate as a system model representation
in achieving their purpose of study.
3.3.1 Stage 1: CLD Development Using Collated Systematic Review and Interview Data
Results from the previous chapter that has adopted in-depth interview and systematic review approach is
used to develop the CLD for this work stage. As discussed in Section 2.5.3 (Chapter 2), data from the
interview and systematic review has been grouped and collated into 17 variables that consist of 10 distal
(D) and 7 proximal (P) factors. A CLD is developed for the data and given in Figure 3.1, with its description
shown in Table 3.2. In the CLD, the factors are linked to each other, consequently influencing the risk of
site water pollution. The CLD is represented with variables that are connected using arrows with its
respective polarity. The polarities were drawn based on the feedback attained from the interviews and
literature. For an example, the polarity between water pollution and control facilities is derived as follows:
Respondent ES1 stated that increase in the allocation of control facilities could reduce the occurrence of
water pollution (negative polarity) and the reduction in water pollution could reduce the requirements for
additional control facilities (positive polarity). In theory, this polarity has been supported by Goodemote
(2005). After the polarities have been established, the loops focusing on water pollution are extracted. From
the diagram, 16 water pollution related loops have been distinguished, which consist of twelve Reinforcing
(R1-R12) and four Balancing (B1-B4) loops. Further descriptions for each of the loops are given in Table
3.2, which is the derivation of Figure 3.1 with subsequent discussions in Section 3.4. In general, Table 3.2
44
shows the interaction between different variables (distal and proximal) for each loop. For example, Loop
R1 involves funding, design error and control facilities factor. Hence, under the R1 column, all sections
for the aforementioned factors are being highlighted. Similar process is undertaken for all the other loops.
The loop description also portrays how proximal factors are being initiated, through the consequence effect
of distal factors. Table 3.2 also shows a significant effect distal factors have over the proximal factors. This
is shown by the amount of associated distal factors (highlighted boxes below the dashed line) as compared
to the proximal factors (highlighted areas above the dashed line). This display of effect could not be shown
if a CLD has not been used.
3.3.2 Stage 2: Verification for the Established Causes of Site Water Pollution and the Use of CLD
Using Case Study
Stage 2 acts to verify the findings established in Stage 1. Data for this stage has been collected using case
study and presented in the form of a CLD. Similar approach was used by Love et al. (1999), who have
identified the causes of reworks using two case studies with the support of literature and displayed them
using a CLD. In this chapter, a particular project is studied in order to find possible causes that may
contribute in increasing the risk of site water pollution. The case study data also acts to verify the findings
on the causes of site water pollution from the in-depth interview and systematic review. Ultimately, results
on the causes of site water pollution is gathered through a triangulation method that consist of interview
and systematic review from Chapter 1 and case study from the current chapter. Yin (2009) has described
case study as a detailed investigation of a phenomenon in a real life setting. Basically, case studies are
suitable when new processes are to be explored as it provides rich information to understand certain
processes (Christie et al., 2000). This is well suited to the aim of this study as it allows for an in-depth
exploration of the subject, which is still at its infancy.
The case project was selected based on pragmatic considerations, namely their availability.
According to Yin (2009), there is no ideal number of case studies to be carried out while Romano (1989)
suggested that the number of cases should be left to the judgement of the individual researcher. Taking
from that, this study intends to use a case project that encountered delay during its initial construction stage
such as site clearance or earthwork. The preliminary stage of construction was particularly chosen because
45
this stage would have the most impervious surfaces, which is highly prone to excessive runoff, erosion and
sediment. Therefore, any work and time delay during that period would contribute in increasing the risk of
water pollution (Goodemote, 2005). Hence, the aim of this case study is to find causes for the delay and
subsequently displaying it using a CLD. Data for this case study have been collected through interviews
with personnel in-charge (project engineer, assistant engineer, site supervisor and administrative staff),
archival records (site diary) and site documents (variation orders).
3.3.3 CLD Model Validation
Coyle and Exelby (2000) suggested that a CLD drawn by an academic should be verified and validated by
the academician him or herself as the problem was initiated by him/ her. In an academic research, the
analyst should be adequately informed on the problem domain in order to stipulate the symptoms,
operations and details. As proposed by Sterman (2002), all models should be grounded and tested against
the widest range of data including numerical and archival information with qualitative data collected from
interviews, observation and other methods. This study has been conducted following the suggestions by
Coyle and Exelby (2000) and Sterman (2002). Authors such as Haslam et al. (2005) and Gambatese et al.
(2008) have validated their model by mapping the established categories against a set of real incident.
Yuan et al. (2014) has also used a case study to illustrate the validation and application of their proposed
model. Similar to the studies mentioned above, a case study is established in Stage 2, where the method
will be used to verify the CLD model developed in Stage 1.
3.4 CLD Model for Construction Site Water Pollution
A CLD that portrays the dynamics between the distal and proximal factors from interview and systematic
review data is drawn following the steps proposed by Kim (1992): 1) theme selection; 2) time span; 3) key
variables; and 4) level of detail. The CLD is shown in Figure 3.1. A quick comparison between the
highlighted boxes in the interview (Refer to Table 2.3 in the previous chapter, Factor 1-7) and CLD (Table
3.2, Factor 8-17) shows a shift of emphasis from proximal to the distal factors. The CLD highlights a greater
influence of the distal factors as compared to the linearly demonstrated data given in Table 2.3. The
summation of linkages between the different variables (distal (D) and proximal factors (P)) portrays the
domino effect of the distal factors when it is represented from a dynamic perspective (Table 3.2 refers). The
46
next section provides discussion on the loops and its related factors. The loops will be discussed in several
groups that contain similar factors, as given in the bolded loop boxes in Table 3.
47
Time Constraint
+
R11
R9
Project Planning
Effectiveness
+
R10
+
Unforeseen Situation
- +
R8 Malpractice
R6 Miscommunication
B3 +
+
Cleared site
R12 + Enforcement
+
B4
R7 R5
+ + B1
Time delay
-
+ - + Fragmentation
+ -
+ Work progress - + Control
- Facilities
- +
Wet season
B2 + -
Water Pollution
+
+ Design Error -
R1
R4
-
R3
Land area
Attributes:
+ +
- R2
Variable - Proximal
Funding
Variable - Distal Rain Traditional Procurement
+ -
Figure 3.1 CLD Model for Construction Site Water Pollution
48
Table 3.2 Description of the Loops
Variables Causal Associated components B1 B2 B3 B4 R1 R2 R4 R3 R6 R9 R10 R11 R12 R5 R7 R8

Factor
Water pollution - Runoff erosion - sediment

1) Control facilities P Allocation
Insufficient, ineffective
2) Enforcement P Enforcement by local agencies; Acts
3) Malpractice P Contractors process error
Ill practices at site
4) Cleared site P Impervious surfaces; exposed soil
5) Work progress P Site progression
6) Time delay P Waiting time; delay; schedule change
7) Rain P Rain occurrence
8) Design error D Design constraint; design error
Deficient knowledge, constructability issue
9) Funding D Clients budget
10) Land area D Limited land area to install control facilities
11) Traditional procurement D Adaptation of design-bid-build; open tender
12) Fragmentation D Segregation btw design and construction.
13) Miscommunication D Delay in receiving and sending information
Error in information; disagreement
14) Project planning effectiveness D Clients initial planning
15) Unforeseen situation D Utilities; pipes; ground condition
Compromised pre-designed devices
16) Time constraint D Clients time restriction
17) Wet season D Winter; monsoon; rainy season
Loop Description
Loop Causal factor
B1 P Water Pollution- Enforcement - Water Pollution
B2 P Water Pollution- Control facilities - Water Pollution
B3 P Water Pollution- Enforcement- Malpractice- Water Pollution
B4 P Water Pollution- Enforcement- Malpractice-Cleared site- Water Pollution
R1 D&P Water Pollution- Funding- Design Error - Control facilities- Water Pollution
R2 D&P Water Pollution-Funding-Land area-Design Error-Control facilities- Water Pollution
R3 D&P Water Pollution-Work progress-Time delay-Wet season-Rain- Water Pollution
R4 D&P Water Pollution- Funding-Traditional Procurement- Fragmentation-Design Error - Control facilities- Water Pollution
R5 D&P Water Pollution- Funding -Traditional-Procurement- Fragmentation-Miscommunication-Malpractice- Water Pollution
R6 D&P Water Pollution- Funding -Design Error -Unforeseen Situation-Time delay- Wet season-Rain- Water Pollution
R7 D&P Water Pollution- Funding -Traditional Procurement-Fragmentation-Miscommunication- Malpractice-Enforcement- Water Pollution
R8 D&P Water Pollution- Funding -Traditional Procurement-Fragmentation-Miscommunication-Malpractice-Cleared site- Water Pollution
R9 D&P Water Pollution- Funding -Traditional Procurement-Fragmentation-Miscommunication-Time delay-Wet season- Rain- Water Pollution
R10 D&P Water Pollution- Funding -Land area-Design Error -Unforeseen Situation-Time delay- Wet season-Rain- Water Pollution
R11 D&P Water Pollution- Funding - Traditional Procurement-Fragmentation-Project Planning Effectiveness Time constraint-Wet season-Rain-Water Pollution
R12 D&P Water Pollution- Funding - Traditional Procurement-Fragmentation-Design errorUnforeseen situation-Time delay-Wet season-Rain-Water Pollution
49
Proximal Factors
Loop B1-B4
Loop B1-B4 consists only of proximal factors that commonly occur during the construction stage. Loop B1
and B2 suggest that the balancing variables within the loop could help to control the occurrence of water
pollution. The main variables identified are enforcement and control facilities, as given in Loop B1 and Loop
B2 respectively. The increase in water pollution incident may increase enforcements and the requirement
to install control facilities (Brown and Caraco, 1997; Faucette et al., 2009; Kaufman, 2000). Furthermore,
Loop B3 shows that enforcement could reduce malpractices at site, consequently reducing the risk of water
pollution (Gallardo and Sanchez, 2004). Similarly, enforcement in Loop B4 also plays a role in controlling
the common ill practice at site which is clearing of site at one go (Auckland Regional Council, 1999). The
restriction set by local authorities that promote pollution prevention strategies such as construction phasing
prohibits the ill-practice. This essentially provides a balance loop that could reduce the water pollution
incident. Hence, at the proximal level, enforcement is the key factor to control the site water pollution
incident besides the effectiveness of the control facility.
Proximal and Distal Factors
Loop R1, R2 and R4
Loop R1 shows that increase in the risk of site water pollution could reduce clients funding as environmental
improvements are always seen as a cost burden (Ab Rahman et al. 2010; Zhang et al. 2014). This further
creates cost constraint which limits designers choice of control facilities (McNeil, 1996) and may
consequently reduce the effectiveness of the control facilities, which in turn will increase the risk of water
pollution (Goodemote, 2005). For Loop R2, the addition of restricted land area purchased due to low funding
(McNeil, 1996) will have the same effect on design and subsequent results will prevail. Accordingly, Loop
R4 exhibits that the use of traditional procurement, mostly by public sectors to secure the lowest bid is
common when cost is the constraint (Gibson et al., 1996; Zhang et al., 2014). Traditional procurement
increases fragmentation between design and construction that exacerbates design errors especially due to
lack of construction knowledge (Song et al., 2009; Barrett et al., 1995). The consequences are similar to
the previous loops.
50
Loop R5, R7 and R8
Loop R5 extends from Loop R4, branching out from the fragmentation variable. Increased fragmentation
escalates the risk of miscommunication that creates error in delivering and receiving information (McNeill,
1996). This situation can increase site process error and results similar to Loop B3 are perceived. Loop R7
and R8 contain similar distal factors with Loop R5. The distal factors in Loop R7 results in the introduction
of proximal factors where the increase in malpractice increases also enforcements that could potentially
reduce water pollution incident over time. However, relying solely on enforcement does not provide a
balancing effect on water pollution as other variables reinforced the occurrence of water pollution. Loop R8
displays a similar proximal result with Loop B4.
Loop R3, R6, R9, R10, R11, R12
Loop R3 extends from the bottom left side of the CLD. The increase in water pollution during construction
may inhibit work progress due to site closure by local authority and the pollution should be resolved before
any work can resume. Reduced work progress increases construction time delay. Due to time delay and
schedule changes, earthwork activities during an earthwork season may be pushed into the wet season
(Goodemote, 2005; Apipattanavis et al., 2010) that consists of high occurrence and intensity of rain (Cerd,
2007). The rainfall could lead to high runoff volume that ultimately increases the risk of water pollution from
the intensified process of erosion and sediment production (Jia et al., 2013).
Loop R6 shows that low budget may cause reduced cost allocation on areas deemed as being less
critical by client, especially for feasibility study. Respondent C3 strongly suggested for clients to increase
the budget for site investigation so that designers would have a clear understanding of what they are about
to design, subsequently reducing the risk imposed on contractors. Shen et al. (2010) also found that
reduction in site investigation may mislead designers on the real site condition. This shortcoming increases
the occurrence of unforeseen situations such as unexpected utilities line. Discoveries of the utilities may
increase time delay due to the possible change in route and location of the lines. The distal factors
discussed lead to the emergence of proximal factors with results similar to Loop R3.
Extending from the distal factors discussed in Loop R4, the increase in fragmentation also
increases miscommunication in Loop R9, especially when delays occur during the transfer of information.
51
Delays in receiving and sending of information between different parties may increase time delay during
construction and proximal consequences observed in Loop R3 are expected.
Loop R10 has the combination of two loops, Loop R2 and Loop R6. In general, the effect of low
funding forces the increase in unforeseen situation that leads to the surge in water pollution risk. The
discussion for Loop R10 could be referred in the aforementioned loops. Loop R12 is the combination of
Loop R4 and R6. Due to low funding, traditional procurement is being preferred in order to find the lowest
bid cost. This type of procurement leads to fragmentation that enhances design errors and unforeseen
situation and could potentially increase the risk of water pollution. The description could also be referred to
in the aforementioned loops.
For Loop R11, the increase in fragmentation exacerbates project planning error. The error may
stem from clients who do not see beyond their constraint of time, cost and quality with minimal
understanding on the risk of water pollution (Wu et al., 2012). An ineffective project plan may further create
time constraint for site work. Respondent ES5 emphasized that clients also usually underestimate the
duration for earthwork and causes them to spend much time on front end works (design and procurement).
This situation creates a short time frame for earthwork contractor that may extend the work into the wet
season that heightens rain occurrence that increases the risk of water pollution.
In summary of the CLD, the essential proximal factor to be guarded is enforcement, while the root
of the issue may lie on the distal factor that stems from funding. This is due to the largest emphasis being
placed on enforcement in the balancing loops. In this context, the balancing loop plays a role in keeping
the occurrence of water pollution at bay and enforcement is the most critical variable, judging from the
highest number of highlighted boxes within the balancing loops (Table 3.2 refers). For the distal factor,
there are no balancing loops involved. This means that all variables in the reinforcing loop will lead to
increase the risk of water pollution. In this case, funding is the most highlighted core cause where positive
improvements in funding could subsequently reduce the negative effect on the ensuing distal and proximal
factors, ultimately reducing the risk of water pollution (Table 3.2 refers).
52
3.5 CLD for Case Project
The case study has been conducted on a public governed project, a three-storey district education office
building. The procurement system applied for this project was Design-Bid-Build using open tender. The
project was scheduled to complete within the duration of 3 years and 8 months. However, the completion
time has been delayed as the contractor was given 2 time extensions that summed to 189 days. The two-
time extension was given for two different work stages i.e., 1) earthwork and 2) electrical installation stage.
This study will focus on the reason for time extension and delays during the earthwork as it is the most
vulnerable stage in regards to water pollution (Ab Rahman et al., 2010).
The contractor was awarded the first extension that lengthened the original duration by 123 days.
According to the project engineer, waiting period during the earthwork occurred due to Variation Order
(V.O.) application. Fisk (1997) defined variation order as any deviation from an agreed well-defined scope
and schedule. The V.O. application was required due to the reason given as follows: After site clearance,
the contractor found that on-site soil is insufficient to build the required platform level. The awarded contract
did not state the requirement to import soil from off-site, giving way to V.O. The additional time request was
granted due to the importing of fill materials from off-site, besides the waiting period for V.O. approval.
A CLD has been drawn based on the input from project personnel. The project personnel were
queried on non-operational (earth moving activities) factors that could have caused time delay during
earthwork. It is a well-known fact that a time delay during earthwork might expose earth to a higher
occurrence of rainfall events, subsequently increasing the risk of water pollution. The case specific CLD
model is given in Figure 3.2. The CLD contains only 2 loops, which are Reinforcing Loops R1 and R2.
Focusing solely on water pollution, Loop R1 portrays the proximal factors that may increase the risk of water
pollution processes. In this particular case, the production measure of time has been extended during the
earthwork activity. Similar to findings from Figure 3.1, the origin of the time delay can be traced back to
clients funding, as shown in Loop R2. Lengthy administrative processes such as V.O. application and
approval causes land to be left opened for a certain period of time as contractors are not allowed to proceed
work on site until the V.O. approval is given. Alnuaimi et al. (2010) also reported similar result where change
order issued during construction is found to be the major cause of time and cost overrun that prone to
53
create confusion, leading to negative effects on the environment. In short, the case specific CLD also shows
a combination of different distal factors that have prompted the occurrence of proximal factors that ultimately
increases the risk of water pollution.
Funding Rain risk-
- Time delay
- +
-
+ R1
+ - -
Training
Work progress
- -
Water Pollution
Administrative Processes
+ +
Staff Competency
R2
Variation Order
+
Pre-construction
+ Stage Error Construction plan
+ changes
Attributes:
Variable - Proximal
Variable - Distal
Loop Variables in the loop

R1 Water Pollution-Work progress-Time delay-Rain- Water Pollution
R2 Water Pollution- Funding- Training- Staff competency-Pre-construction stage error-Construction plan
changes-Variation order- Administrative processes-Time delay-Rain risk- Water Pollution
Figure 3.2 CLD for Case Project
3.6 Discussion
Comparison between the three different methods (interview, review and case study-verification method) of
data collection showed similar trend where all methods provide site water pollution influencing factors that
derive from both distal and proximal factors. The CLDs given in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 portrays the
systemic perspective of the effect distal factors have on proximal factors that further enhances the risk of
water pollution. This negative effect from one variable to another moves in a cyclical manner, where the
circumstances will be on-going negative effects if the distal factors are not improved positively. Furthermore,
54
Figure 3.2 (case study) was drawn following the techniques used to produce the CLD in Figure 3.1 where
it shows that the method could also be applied using real case project data.
It is also worth highlighting the difference between the data represented using a straight forward
linear approach (Table 2.3) as compared to a dynamic approach (Figure 3.1 and Table 3.2). From the linear
perspective, emphasis from the respondents were heavier on the proximal rather than the distal factors
(Table 2.3, bolded box). This is so as the linear system does not take into account how the distal factors
contribute to each of the proximal factors as it only shows simple cause-effect relations. This kind of
representation disregards the interaction between factors which further restricts the holistic perspective of
cause-effect relationship among variables. On the other hand, CLD assembles the different variables into
a system causing dynamic changes. The CLD clearly shows the tendency of distal factors in affecting the
occurrence of proximal factors that could potentially lead to water pollution incidents and how water pollution
could eventually being related back to the distal factors. However, both linear and the systemic thinking
method complement each other where the systems approach still relies on the cause-effect variables.
From the loop, it could be understood that a mere controlling solution, especially at the proximal
level could not solve the problem at its source, in this case, which originates from the distal factors. This
control type approach is commonly known as the end-of-pipe solutions which are usually used to control
pollutions. A holistic view should be embraced in order to break the norm, subsequently enhancing the
concept of Pollution Prevention. The recognition of the source factors could prevent pollution incidences
from taking place. Typically, pollution prevention strategies could reduce the overall cost and provide
substantial savings that may consequently affect the funding factor positively (Ab. Rahman et al. 2010;
Goodemote, 2005). Hill and Bowen (1997) have also encouraged the use of systems approach to identify
the relationship between economics and environment where through the use of CLD, this relationship has
been proven. In this study, the CLD has established the relationship between the proximal and distal factor
with water pollution.
55
3.7 Conclusion
The findings suggest that distal factors have a domino effect on the proximal factors where the dynamic
interaction between them could ultimately increase the risk of site water pollution. The CLD representation
of those variables highlighted the criticality of managing the distal factors, which has commonly being
ignored in construction. Representation of the related factors using the CLD is a new scientific
establishment in the field of site water pollution as earlier studies have provided only the linear cause-effect
factors without acknowledging the systemic interaction between those factors. From the practical point of
view, this research enables the industry players to understand, identify and manage the core cause of site
water pollution from a larger perspective. The use of CLD enables the practitioners to narrow down essential
factors that should be enhanced (balancing factor) as well as factors that should be controlled (reinforcing
factor), especially when many different factors are involved. The holistic perspective allows industry players
to act proactively in solving problems at its core. Besides that, the proposed methods of building the CLD
can be adapted and applied in problematic areas to find the root cause of problem for a holistic and
prevention-based approach.
3.8 References
Alnuaimi, A. S., Taha, R. A., Mohsin, M. A., Al-Harthi, A. S., 2010. Causes, effects, benefits, and remedies
of change orders on public construction projects in Oman. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Apipattanavis, S., Sabol, K., Molenaar, K. R., Balaji Rajagopalan, Xi, Y., Blackard, B., Patil, S., 2010.
Integrated framework for quantifying and predicting weather-related highway construction delays.
56
Auckland Regional Council, 1999. Erosion and sediment control-guidelines for disturbing activities in the
Auckland Region. In: Technical Publication No.90, Auckland Regional Council, Auckland: New
Zealand, Part A.
Barrett, M. E., Malina Jr, J. F., Charbeneau, R. J., Ward, G. H., 1995. Water quality impacts of highway
construction and operation. In: International Water Resources Engineering Conference, Texas: United
States, 14-18 August 1995, 1844-1848.
Brown, W.E., Caraco, D.S., 1997. Muddy water in, muddy water out? A critique of erosion and sediment
control plans. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(3), 393-403
Cerd, A., 2007. Soil water erosion on road embankments in eastern Spain. Science of the Total
Environment 378, 151-155.
Christie, M. J., Rowe, P. A., Perry, C., Chamard, J., 2000. Implementation of realism in case study research
methodology. In: Proceedings of Entrepreneurial SMES-engines for growth in the millennium:
International Council for Small Business World Conference. Brisbane: Queensland, 7-10 June 2000.
Coyle, G., Exelby, D., 2000. The validation of commercial system dynamics models. System Dynamics
Review, 16, 27-41.
Coyle, G., 1999. Qualitative modelling in system dynamics or what are the wise limits of quantification?
Keynote address to the Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Wellington: NZ, 20-23 July 1999.
Department of Environmental Resources, 1999. Low-impact development design strategies: An integrated
design approach. Department of Environmental Resources, Prince George's County, Maryland.
Faucette, L. B., Scholl, B., Beighley, R. E., Governo, J., 2009. Large-scale performance and design for
construction activity erosion control best management practices. Journal of Environmental Quality 38,
1248-1254.
Fisk, E. R., 1997. Construction Project Administration, 5th Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA.
57
Gallardo, A. L. C. F., Snchez, L. E., 2004. Follow-up of a road building scheme in a fragile environment.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24, 47-58.
Gambatese, J. A., Behm, M., Rajendran, S., 2008. Designs role in construction accident causality and
prevention: Perspectives from an expert panel. Safety Science, 46, 675-691.
He Z., Liu, L., 2010. Modelling environmental impact with a goal and causal relation integrated approach.
In: Proceedings of the iEMSs Fourth Biennial Meeting: International Congress on Environmental
Modelling and Software. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, Ottawa: Canada,
5-8 July 2010.
Hill, R. C., Bowen, P. A., 1997. Sustainable construction: principles and a framework for attainment.
Construction Management and Economics 15(3), 223-239.
Jia, H., Yao, H., Yu, S. L., 2013. Advances in LID BMPs research and practice for urban runoff control in
China. Frontiers of Environmental Science and Engineering 7, 709-720.
Kim, D. H., 1992. Guidelines for drawing causal loop diagrams. The Systems Thinker 3, 1-4.
Kirkwood, C. W., 1998. System dynamics methods: A quick introduction. Available at: http://www.
public.asu.edu/~ kirkwood/sysdyn/SDIntro/SDIntro.htm. [Retrieved: 20 July 2015]
58
Koca, D., Sverdup, H., 2012. Use of causal loops diagrams and systems analysis to explore alternative
climate change adaptation strategies in seyhan river basin, Turkey. In: International Conference of the
System Dynamics Society, St. Gallen: Switzerland, 22-26 July 2012.
Laurenti, R., Lazarevic, D., Poulikidou, S., Montrucchio, V., Bistagnino, L., Frostell, B., 2014. Group model-
building to identify potential sources of environmental impacts outside the scope of LCA studies. Journal
L , M. A. T., Law, K. H., 2009. System dynamic approach for simulation of experience transfer in the AEC
industry. Journal of Management in Engineering 25, 195-203.
Love, P. E. D., Mandal, P., Li, H., 1999. Determining the causal structure of rework influences in
construction. Construction Management and Economics 17, 505-517.
Mahato, B. K., Ogunlana, S. O., 2011. Conflict dynamics in a dam construction project: A case study. Built
Environment Project and Asset Management, 1, 176-194.
NZTA (New Zealand Transport Agency). 2010. Erosion and sediment control field guide for contractors. NZ
Park, M., Lee, M.-H., Lee, H.-S., Hwang, S., 2010. Boost, control, or both of Korean housing market: 831
countermeasures. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136, 693-701.
Perdicolis, A., Glasson, J., 2006. Causal networks in EIA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26,
553-569.
Romano, C. A., 1989. Research strategies for small business: A case study approach. International Small
Business Journal 7, 35-43.
59
Shen, L.-Y., Tam, V. W. Y., Tam, L., Ji, Y.B., 2010. Project feasibility study: the key to successful
implementation of sustainable and socially responsible construction management practice. Journal of
Song, L., Mohamed, Y., Abourizk, S., 2009. Early contractor involvement in design and its impact on
construction schedule performance. Journal of Management in Engineering 25, 12-20.
Spillane, J. P., Oyedele, L. O., Meding, J. V., Ashwini Konanahalli1, Jaiyeoba, B. E., Tijani, I. K., 2011.
Confined site construction: A qualitative investigation of critical issues affecting management of health
and safety. Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology 2, 138-146.
Sterman, J. D., 2002. System dynamics: systems thinking and modelling for a complex world. Working
Paper Series. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge: MA.
Walker, L. J., Johnston, J., 1999. Guidelines for the assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts as well
as impact interactions. European Commission, Luxembourg.
Wu, Q., Wang, L., Gao, H., Chen, Y., 2012. Current situation analysis on soil erosion risk management in
development and construction project. Advanced Materials Research 430-432, 1967-1969
Yuan, H., Hao, J., Lu, S., 2014. Modelling effective construction waste management through causal loop
diagrams. In: Wang, J., Ding, Z., Zou, L., Zuo, J. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 17th International
Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Zhang, X., Wu, Y., Shen, L., 2014. Embedding green in project-based organizations: the way ahead in the
construction industry? Journal of Cleaner Production
60
CHAPTER 4
THE CONCEPTION OF PREVENTION-BASED APPROACH TO MANAGE
CONSTRUCTION SITE WATER POLLUTION
Review.
4.1 Introduction
The previous two chapters have explored the causes of construction site water pollution through different
means of data attainment such as systematic review, in-depth interview and case study. The data were
further analyzed and presented in an unconventional way by using a system dynamic tool called Causal
Loop Diagram (CLD). The CLD models have provided a systemic view of the potential factors involved in
increasing the risk of water pollution. The dynamic cause-effect relationship revealed that causal factors
could range from proximal to the commonly overlooked distal factors. Hence, the prior chapters have
provided the basis of the problem for this study. The ensuing chapters will seek to develop solutions for the
established problem of construction site water pollution. The chapters will strive to develop improvement
strategies based on the concept of prevention as it is relatively a better option compared to the common
environmental management system of control-based solution. The proposed strategies are envisaged for
two levels of construction which are the planning and operation stage. For the construction planning stage,
focus will be given on essential construction planning elements such as construction schedule, method and
site layout while for the operational improvement, the concept of lean production will be adopted. All
proposed solutions are in the form of integration between different concepts and elements but towards a
single focus of embracing prevention-based approaches. Therefore, it is essential to first provide a
conceptual integration between the different concepts and elements, which will be addressed in this
61
chapter. This chapter aims to develop conceptual integrations of construction management and
environmental prevention approaches to holistically address the production and environmental factors for
construction site water pollution at the planning and operational stage of construction. The objectives of this
chapter is twofold: 1) to develop a theoretical based integrated framework that combines water pollution
preventive practices (WP3) with construction planning elements and 2) to develop a conceptual integration
between the concepts of lean production and cleaner production.
4.2 Concepts in the Environmental Management Practices
Environmental Management Practices are made up of various concepts in the form of a staircase, as given
in Figure 4.1. Concepts located higher on the staircase includes the concepts below with additional scope
and complexity (Hamner, 1996). The concepts on the staircase are listed as follows, from the highest to the
lowest: Sustainable Development; Industrial Ecology; Cleaner Production; Pollution Prevention; Waste
Minimization; Recycling; Pollution Control; and Waste Disposal.
Scope and
Result
Sustainable Development
Industrial Ecology
Cleaner Production
Pollution Prevention
Waste Minimization
Recycling
Pollution Control
Waste Disposal
Environmental Management Systems
Time and Work
Figure 4.1 Concepts in Environmental Management Practices (Adapted from Hamner, 1996)
4.2.1 Concept of Prevention
Prevention-based approaches enable the critical evaluation and application to reduce and eliminate
problems at its source. The emphasis given by key organizations such as US Environmental Protection
62
Agency (US EPA) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) on preventive approaches have
created a paradigm shift towards decreasing and/or eliminating pollution rather than to manage the pollution
after it has been generated (Freeman, 1995; UNEP, 1996). The emergence of prevention-based
approaches e.g. Cleaner Production (CP) and Pollution Prevention (P2) do not only offer environmental
advantages but also include cost benefits (Hilson, 2003). The concepts have created a reputable image in
the manufacturing and industrial sectors, especially concerning pollutants such as carbon emission.
However, the extent of its usage in construction related water pollution is still minimal as limited studies
were found in regards to water pollution prevention in construction. Hence, this study aims to fill the
knowledge gap by studying and applying preventive strategies to reduce the risk of construction site water
pollution.
4.2.2 Cleaner Production (CP) and Pollution Prevention (P2)
UNEP (1996) defined CP as the continuous application of an integrated preventive environmental strategy
applied to processes, products and services to increase the overall efficiency to reduce risks to humans
and the environment. On the other hand, US EPA defined P2 as the use of materials, processes or
practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants or wastes at the source (Freeman, 1995).
Judging solely from the definition, the concept of CP provides a broader spectrum as compared to P2 and
the distinguished differences between both terms have been thoroughly discussed in Hilson (2003).
According to Hilson (2003), CP is a continuous environmental approach that embraces P2 at its core along
with business concerns. The emphasis is to prevent the production of pollutions rather than to depend on
the end-of-pipe systems where pollutants are being treated after it has been produced (Huisingh and Baas,
1991). This is in line with Van Berkel (2000) who described P2 as being part of CP. However, in terms of
applicability, CP may have a smaller scope as compared to P2 as it is best suited for the production sector,
while P2 can be applied to any sector (Glavi and Lukman, 2007). Together, both concepts, CP-P2 embrace
similar philosophy of pollution prevention through source reduction with minimal utilization of resources
(Glavi and Lukman, 2007).
CP-P2 are gaining popularity in recent times with applications found in different sectors e.g.
manufacturing, industrial, waste water treatment and mining (Basu and Zyl, 2006; Co et al., 2009; Cabello
63
Eras et al., 2013; Wolff, 2015). Nonetheless, the same could not be implied for construction as limited
research has been observed within this sector. From a title/abstract/keyword search in Scopus, the subject
heading cleaner production has yielded 2167 results, but with the addition of the word construction in the
heading, the search returned only 80 findings which consist of 3.7% of the total search. Similarly, search
on pollution prevention yielded 4309 results and the addition of the word construction resulted in 196
findings that represent 4.6% of the total search result. Most construction related CP studies focused on
construction material and technology with major concerns on carbon/ energy emission and construction
demolition waste (Al-Damkhi et al., 2008; Fernndez, 2007; Chou and Le, 2014; Da Paz et al., 2014;
Kucukvar et al., 2014; Pavi et al., 2014; Prez-Martnez et al., 2014), with no particular result found on
water pollution. As for P2, the results for construction were more diverse, which included also health and
safety, marine pollution and water pollution. The context of water pollution itself comprised of 41 (21%)
results out of 196 findings on P2 in construction.
In summary, the CP-P2 could be represented as a prevention concept that falls back to source
reduction. This concept will be integrated with construction planning elements to better manage
construction site water pollution, which will further be explored in Section 4.6.
4.2.3 Cleaner Production: The Environmental-Production Improvement Strategy
In the environmental management practices hierarchy, the cleaner production concept (CP) is found to be
more encapsulating as it addresses also the production factor within a system. CP functions to increase
productivity through efficient use of resource, besides to promote better environmental performance
through source reduction and emission by providing holistic view of a system (Kjaerheim, 2005; Cabello
Eras et al., 2013). In construction, CP has been used to benefit the earthworks construction by improving
the environment and budget performance of an earthwork site (Cabello Eras et al. 2013). The environmental
improvement resulted in less waste (soil), fuel, greenhouse gas emission and other particulate matters. The
Cleaner Production concept that involves the elements of environment and production is suitable to be
integrated at the operational level of construction. However, till date, there is no study found to apply cleaner
production in regards to construction site water pollution and this has created opportunity for this PhD study
to be conducted and to fill the gap in knowledge.
64
4.3 The Common Environmental Approach in Managing Construction Site Water Pollution
4.3.1 Mitigation Approach
The use of mitigation (structural) based erosion and sediment control facilities are common to reduce the
risk of water pollution from construction site. These mitigation approaches require the construction and
installation of control facilities e.g. check dams, contour drain, retention pond, silt fence, dewatering and
flocculation (NZTA, 2010). Numerous works have been done to enhance the functionality of those control
facilities (Al-Ani et al., 2009; Ahmad et al., 2014). However, there are drawbacks of such end-of pipe
approaches that include high requirements in cost, reduction in usable site areas, changes to natural site
hydrology and inflexible site design (Shaver, 2000). In order to overcome these, preventive (non-structural)
approaches based on management and good housekeeping practices were introduced (Hinman, 2005).
However, the common emphasis given on the intermediate process of erosion instead of runoff has caused
pollution management efforts to be non-holistic. Runoff, the enabler for erosion, is often neglected as it is
not recognized as a pollutant since it does not have a well-defined source; unlike sediment (Parikh et al.,
2005). In addition to that, the elements of runoff and erosion sediment have also been dealt in isolation
even though the two elements are in connection with each other. As a result, the common solution which
addresses erosion and sediment rather than runoff gives in to mere superficial remediation solutions that
is based on control rather than prevention (Part of this section has been discussed and can be referred to
in Chapter 1.
4.4 Construction Planning and Operation
Before the start of construction or site mobilisation, the main contractor will usually develop the pre-
construction planning. The planning will then evolve into a more detailed plan with additional input from
sub-contractors during construction. This approach is essential in construction planning to determine what
to do, how to do it, sequence and time to do, required resources and cost of doing (Laufer and Cohenca,
1990). Laufer et al., 1993 defined nine functional areas in construction planning: engineering and method,
organization and contract, schedule, cash flow, major equipment, site layout and logistics, work methods,
manpower and material allocation. Similarly, Hendrikson and Au (2000) associated construction planning
to the choice of construction technology, equipment and material, work task definition, construction site
65
layout, estimation of resources and duration of individual task, estimation of cost, project schedule and
identification of interaction between activities. The common emphasis is on making sure the planning is
being prepared well enough for the operation to proceed smoothly whereby the common goal in
construction is to achieve the targeted time, cost and quality of the project (Faniran et al., 1998). The
planning of construction and its operation has commonly being conducted without much thought given to
the environment, especially on site water pollution. With the growth in concern over environmental impacts
done during construction, the common set of objectives should be revamped by adding in the environmental
aspect. Chen et al. (2005) emphasised that construction planning should not only aim to meet the common
concerns such as time, cost and quality but also to explore the possibility to minimise environmental
impacts. In a common scenario, the environmental aspect is often side-lined. In order to have the best
interest for both aspects, seamless integration to benefit both aspects would be preferred and this is where
this study will contribute.
4.4.1 Construction Planning and Site Sediment Pollution
Major sediment production occurs during the early stages of construction such as the land clearing and site
preparation stage where contractors would have to deal with different issues i.e. construction planning
(time; site layout; method) and erosion sediment control simultaneously. Construction planning and erosion
sediment control facilities are two distinct elements that address issues related to productivity and
environment respectively. The strategies to control site water pollution were prepared by consultants at
initial stage of a project i.e. planning and design (Song et al., 2009). This common procedure lacks input
from contractors, consequently leading to judgments that are incomplete and deficient as they do not have
the best construction knowledge, let alone to arrange time and resources for an efficient construction
planning (Sloat and Redden, 2005). Similar scenario is also applicable during construction where
contractors are unaware of the consequences of their construction planning strategies on erosion and
sediment. For example, a common practice during construction is to clear the entire site as it eases the
movement of work, equipment and vehicles. However, the whole site clearance also increases the risk of
severe erosion and sediment production as the area is left disturbed and will be subjected to rain fall events
during the course of work. As a result, construction planning elements that were planned to achieve
conventional objectives (time, cost, quality) may have negative consequences over other aspects such as
66
erosion and sediment. The control of those consequences is within the scope of contractors and as a result,
they also have the responsibility to reduce the risk of construction induced water pollution. Other sectors
such as safety and health (Hare, 2006) has successfully integrated the element of health and safety into
construction planning but none found on environment. Therefore, the improvement strategies proposed in
this study will include construction planning aspect into construction water pollution prevention approaches.
The theoretical framework of the proposed integration will be established in this chapter where it will further
be verified with the industry and shown in the following chapter.
4.4.2 Construction Operation (Earthworks) and Site Sediment Pollution
Construction operation is the means of achieving the required goal through the use of resources (Halpin,
2005). Construction operation poses the highest risk of construction site water pollution would be during
earthworks where land is being cleared and most vulnerable to erosive agents (Ab Rahman et al., 2010).
Typically, the major concern of this stage is to complete the work within the time, cost and quality expected.
Earthwork has been plagued with productivity issues, consequently igniting interest among researches
seeking to improve this construction operation (Martinez, 1998; Dawood, et al., 2010). Earthworks
progression is crucial in the development of a project because it determines, to a large extent, the proper
flow of work for the following activities (Fu, 2013) that affects the time factor in a project. Furthermore, the
requirements for expensive heavy equipment and skilled manpower involve major cost in a project.
Earthwork has an influential effect on the overall success of a construction project but the uncertain and
highly variable environment makes the success hard to achieve (Kirchbach, et al., 2012). Various factors
could affect the performance of an earthwork operation e.g., types of soil, haul road, site access point,
location of borrow pit, construction method and equipment availability (Martinez, 1998). In addition to that,
weather, operators experience, haul distance and gradient, schedule restriction and conflict with other
activities/ obstructions could also dampen an operations performance (Martinez, 1998; Christian and Xie,
1996).
Earthwork only occupies short time period of a whole construction but the potential risk and threat
to the environment is great through large scale of clearing and grubbing operations (Ooshaksaraie, et al.,
2009; Taylor and Field, 2007). A calculated Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) figure for a cleared
67
earthwork site reveals an estimated 16.14 tonnes of sediment production, in comparison to the pre-
earthwork yield of 3.20 tonnes (Pain, 2014). If a cleared site is left uncontrolled and mismanaged, severe
soil erosion and sediment production could take place, leading to water pollution (Ooshaksaraie, et al.,
2009). Mass grading creates two critical variables i.e., time and size of area exposed, that should be well
managed to minimise the negative effects of site clearance (Brown and Caraco, 1997; Pain, 2014).
Commonly, the environmental problems arising from earthwork operation has been treated in isolation from
production (Lewis and Hajji, 2012). The independent treatment creates segregated efforts that may trigger
the notion of one more important than the other. Hence, to mitigate this situation, mutual benefits in
integrating production and environment should be demonstrated. Works have been done to integrate both
the elements of production and environment in earthwork. Lewis and Hajji (2012) and Golzarpoor, et al.
(2013) have provided a synergistic approach that combine production and environmental factors to
determine the cost, fuel, energy and emission from earthwork operations. Gonzalez and Echaveguren
(2012) and Capony, et al. (2012) also conducted similar research using discrete event simulation and GPS
technology respectively. However, most of the studies concentrated on the issue of air and carbon emission
with least regards for water pollution. Therefore, this research attempts to fill the knowledge gap by
managing environmental issue of earthwork, from the standpoint of water pollution that also benefits the
production.
4.4.2.1 Lean production / lean thinking
Lean thinking is a management philosophy that originated from the Toyota Production System (TPS). The
focus of lean thinking is to deliver value to customers through five principles which consist of the followings:
1) Specify value by specific product (value); 2) Identify value stream for each product (value stream); 3)
Make value flow without interruption (flow); 4) Allow customer to pull value from product (pull) and 5) Pursue
perfection (perfection) (Womack and Jones, 1996). This philosophy was later introduced into construction
by Koskela (1992) who proposed the Transformation-Flow-Value (TFV) theory to replace the common
reliance on the conversion model. The addition of flow and value provides a new perspective for the study
of production processes as it allows the recognition of waste through in-depth understanding of the
processes (Freire and Alarcon, 2002). This process driven performance improvement approach contradicts
68
the commonly employed result driven approach because it relies on making prior improvement to the
arrangement of work processes, rather than using control actions such as inspection. Furthermore, the
result driven approach may inherently increase waste in processes through numerous inspections
conducted to detect defect (Mitropoulos and Howell, 2001).
Waste from a Lean Thinking Perspective
Process activities can be categorized into two types, which are Value Added (VA) and Non-Value Added
(NVA) activities (Barkman and Marks, 2007). VA activities convert material and information towards the
output required by the customer. On the other hand, NVA activities do not add value to the end product and
could further be divided into NVA (necessary) and NVA (waste) activities. NVA (necessary) are supporting
activities such as equipment maintenance that do not create the output but are necessary to ensure the
smooth flow of the VA processes. On the other hand, NVA (waste) are activities that are essential to be
identified and eliminated. Seven types of waste commonly found in production are (Ohno, 1988): 1)
Overproduction; 2) Waiting; 3) Transportation; 4) Over processing/ Complexity; 5) Inventory; 6) Movement;
and 7) Defect. Additional wastes proposed by researches are unutilized resources/ talents (Bodek, 2007)
and output that do not meet customers needs (Womack and Jones, 1996).
4.4.2.2 Lean and the Environment
Apart from the typical production waste, the increased concern on environmental sustainability has
generated a new form of waste called environmental waste. Environmental waste is defined as the
excessive use of resources that result in affluence released into the air, water or land that may endanger
people and also the environment (US EPA, 2007). Detailed relationship between the production and
environmental waste could be found in US EPA (2007) where it portrays the interchangeable relationship
between lean and the environment. The connection between production and environmental performance
has been established with claims that lean reduces the environmental effect (decreased energy, material
use, transportation and solid waste) due to time reduction in processes (Qui and Chen, 2009). This is
supported by various researches who suggested that the integration between lean and environment in
construction provides mutual benefits in terms of productivity and cleaner environment (Belayutham and
69
Gonzlez, 2013; Carneiro et al. 2012; Martinez et al. 2009). However, since lean concept does not explicitly
incorporate environmental considerations, a blind spot is being created with respect to the environment.
4.5 Research Method for Conceptual Integration between Construction Management and
Environmental Prevention Approaches
This chapter has been conceived to provide conceptual integration between construction management and
site water pollution prevention approaches at two levels, which are: 1) Planning level: Construction
planning-water pollution prevention approach and 2) Operational level: Clean-lean concept. For these
conceptual outcomes, the use of integrative literature review has been done. The research works are given
in Table 4.1.
Work Objective Data Collection Data Analysis Outcome

Stage Method
Stage To develop a theoretical based Integrative Inductive Construction
1 integrated framework that literature review Content planning-Water
combines water pollution Analysis pollution prevention
preventive practices (WP3) with Framework
construction planning elements
Stage To develop a conceptual Clean-lean

2 integration between the Framework
concepts of lean production and
cleaner production.
Conceptual framework
According to Jabareen (2009), conceptual framework is a product that emerges from qualitative process of
theorization using qualitative based tools that enables in-depth comprehension of complex and interrelated
occurrences that require multidisciplinary approach. Towards building the conceptual framework, the steps
proposed by Jabareen (2009) have been followed due to similar tenets embraced, where emphasis were
given on linking different disciplines to different knowledge sectors. As such, this phase requires 1) Data
sourcing; 2) Categorization; 3) Concept building; 4) Integrating Concepts and synthesizing to create a
theoretical framework. The following steps of 5) Validating the framework and 6) Rethinking the framework
will discussed in the following sections as this chapter only aims to provide the theoretical framework. In
70
order to ensure a good conceptual framework being produced, criteria suggested by Whetten (1989) i.e.
provide reasoning, minimal use of variables, focused, complete, original and significant were adhered.
Integrative Literature Review
Qualitative approach has been used to explore the subjects of this study. Similar to Spillane et al. (2011)
who has utilized qualitative approach for their exploratory study, a relatively new exploration on the
integration of different construction management aspects with preventive approaches in water pollution is
deemed suitable to be investigated using qualitative approaches. A qualitative approach of integrative
literature review has been conducted to identify the fundamentals of the different concepts before
establishing the connection between them. Integrative literature review is a form of research that reviews,
critiques and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new framework
and perspectives on a topic is generated (Torraco, 2005). This method is considered suitable as this study
will collate different aspects of construction planning and water pollution prevention practices and LP and
CP concept towards producing a conceptual relationship between them. Those subject and concepts will
be compared to find similarities and differences by analyzing its core value. Integrated literature review was
selected over systematic review as the latter was deemed to be unsuitable as it is commonly employed for
a complete compilation of the literature, especially in topics that are already developed (Kohtala, 2014).
Integrated literature review was found to be most appropriate for new studies where the incorporation of
different theoretical subject is required to develop new conceptual framework (Torraco, 2005).
4.5.1 Stage 1
The outcome of this stage is to develop a theoretical based integrated framework that combines water
pollution preventive approaches (WP3) with construction planning elements. Hence, the objective of this
stage is to develop a theoretical based integrated framework that combines water pollution preventive
practices (WP3) with construction planning elements. Primarily, this study is grounded to the core value of
CP-P2, which is prevention. Prevention approaches were focused upon to reduce construction site induced
water pollution. In general, the research identifies preventive approaches used to manage the source of
water pollution which stem from excessive runoff and erosion. The preventive approaches are further
explored to recognize its potential to be managed seamlessly with construction planning. A theoretical
71
based framework will then be produced by integrating water pollution prevention approaches (WP3) with
construction planning. The theoretical framework in this chapter is established by following the steps s
proposed by Jabareen (2009). Step 1 to 4 (data sourcing, categorization, concept building and integrating
and synthesizing concepts) for producing the conceptual framework for Stage 1 will be discussed
seamlessly with the results in the data analysis section in Section 4.6. The last two steps of validating the
framework and rethinking the framework will be discussed in the following chapter.
4.5.2 Stage 2
Stage 2 is conceived to develop an integration between the concepts of Lean production and Cleaner
Production in order to manage the operational aspect of construction towards improving its production and
environmental (site water pollution) aspect. A systematic protocol suggested by Torraco (2005) has been
used to carry out the literature search, as shown in Table 4.2. Findings in Stage 2 will establish the
foundation and forms the direction of the next work phase which is the development of a clean-lean method
to improve the production and environmental aspect of construction.
Table 4.2 Systematic Literature Search
Steps involved Lean Production (LP) Cleaner Production (CP)
Step 1 Initial source of data Web of Science (Highly cited papers)
Criteria All year; English; Engineering, All year; English; Engineering,

Operation research management Environmental science ecology;
science; any type. any type.
Search term lean thinking; lean production; cleaner production

lean concept; lean philosophy
Step 2 Snowball sampling Authors with the highest citation (identified from the articles in Step 1)
Criteria Literature review section; fundamentals of the concept.
Step 3 Data analysis Content analysis
72
Source of data for LP
In order to attain the fundamentals of LP, literature search has first been conducted based on citation
analysis (Step 1) using Web of Science database. Citation analysis reflects work recognition within the
academic community and is a common method used to identify classic works (Lefaivre, 2011). Literature is
sought in order to find the essential components (goal and characteristics) of lean. The articles have been
searched using terms such as lean thinking, lean production, lean concept and lean philosophy. Top
10% from the highest cited papers for each term are selected and to undergo further elimination by going
through the title and abstract. The criteria for elimination are articles which are based on application or the
use of particular lean tools as well as the integration of lean with other concepts. The reason for the
elimination criteria is due to the intent of this study, which is to identify the core concept and not the
application as the derived application by researches might have changed the core value of the original
concept. Thus, the elimination results in a final number of 44 articles that denote the fundamentals of lean.
However, after going through the articles, it is found that most of the contents have referred the lean concept
to prior authors and this has prompted further investigation to identify the initial authors. The subsequent
process is called snow ball sampling (Step 2) whereby articles found in Step 1 are read through to find the
pioneer references for lean by identifying authors with the highest frequency of citation within the articles.
Finally, 11 articles and books have been selected to represent the fundamentals of LP, given as follows:1)
Ohno (1988); 2) Womack et al. (1990); 3) Monden (1993); 4) Womack and Jones (1996); 5) Katayama and
Bennett (1996); 6) Spear and Bowen (1999); 7) Shah and Ward (2003); 8) Liker (2004); 9) Hines et al.
(2004); 10) Bhasin and Burcher (2006).
Source of Data for CP
In order to identify the fundamentals of CP, similar steps to LP have been used. In Step 1, search have
been made based on citation analysis using Web of Science database with the term cleaner production.
From the generated figure, top 10% of the outcome have been selected. From there, an elimination process
has been undertaken to exclude papers that do not represent the fundamentals of CP based on the title
and abstract. Following that, detailed reading has been done on the remaining papers in order to find
contents that fit into the fundamentals of CP where finally, 20 papers are left after elimination. Similar to the
73
findings from LP, the 20 articles have mostly referred the CP concept to previous authors and consequently
prompted further exploration to identify works of the initial authors. Finally, 5 most frequently cited articles
and guidelines have been selected to represent the fundamentals of CP, given as follows: 1) US EPA
(1998); 2) UNEP (1996); 3) Fresner (1998); 4) UNIDO (2002) and 5) Hilson (2003).
Data analysis
All the finalized articles and books were further analyzed using content analysis by following the steps
provided by Elo and Kyngas (2008). The steps involve 1) Open coding: Contents are being read through
and results in several key terms; 2) Categorization: The key terms are further divided into categories to
ease explanation and description; 3) Abstraction: Further, sub-categories are collated into main categories.
Detailed discussion on the integration between LP and CP is given in Section 4.7.
4.6 Relationship between Construction Planning and Water Pollution Prevention
4.6.1 Preventive approaches to manage runoff and erosion
CP-P2 based water pollution approaches
A general search on Scopus database found that limited research has been reported on preventive
measures and therefore, a wider scope of literature search was favored. A different combination of
keywords were used in Google as well as Google Scholar and most related contents were observed in
guidelines and standards provided by governmental departments. This is echoed by earlier finding of 21%
water P2 research that indicates a rather low emphasis given on the subject, as compared to other
environmental concerns such as air, noise and carbon emission. This creates a gap in current knowledge
as the potential damage from water pollution is substantial and more studies should be done to prevent its
occurrence. From the cumulated findings, key terms in regards to water pollution include rainfall runoff,
erosion, sediment, Best Management Practices (BMP), Storm Water Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and other
mitigation based approaches associated with governmental guidelines, standards and acts. There was a
clear distinction between the term runoff and erosion sediment which prompted the subsequent search
to focus on preventive approaches for those subjects. Runoff, erosion and sediment are different elements
but very much interrelated to each other, especially in construction. The chain of reaction starts from runoff
that detaches soil, causing erosion which later transports the soil and is known as sediment. Hence, the
74
control of runoff may subsequently reduce erosion and sediment. However, as the concern on the
environment has increased, many local guidelines have been adopted to address specific problems. The
specialization causes broken linkage between runoff management and erosion control, which are supposed
to be jointly managed (Kaufman, 2000).
In terms of runoff prevention, Low Impact Development (LID) is an alternative method for storm
water management, established by Prince Georges County, Maryland in the early 1990s (LID Center,
2000). Similar approaches were observed in different countries with different terms such as Low Impact
Design in New Zealand and Control at Source in Malaysia (Shaver, 2000; DID, 2000). LID which holds on
to the principle of source reduction was introduced to reduce general storm water runoff using both
structural (bio retention, infiltration trenches, wetlands, grass swales, etc.) and non-structural (preservation
of natural vegetation and reducing impervious surfaces) approaches. Even though LID was not established
exclusively for construction site use, the non-structural approaches do play a big role for construction site
runoff management and can be observed in most governmental standards and guideline (Shaver, 2000;
Hinman, 2005).
Erosion and sediment preventive approaches also contain similar approaches to non-structural LID
techniques but being provided separately, in its relevant guides. Despite the similarities, minimal guidance
is given on ways to combine those approaches together, leaving contractor in the dark. Commonly, different
people design storm water treatments and erosion control practices. Those plans will be submitted to
different agencies with different approvals, which suggests disintegration between the two systems (Brown
and Caraco, 1997). Most Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) manuals also provide vague coverage on
non-structural erosion prevention techniques such as clearing restriction, minimizing disturbance and
construction phasing. In addition, many guidelines are outdated and lack specific guidance on where and
when those approaches are appropriate (Brown and Caraco, 1997). Erosion and sediment prevention
approaches also include material based approaches that utilizes additional facilities/ materials to prevent
erosion e.g. soil stabilization using straw mulch. Nonetheless, these material based prevention approaches
may come with additional cost for material and fixing. Progression towards a more holistic system requires
innovative approaches towards reducing the reliance on additional facilities.
75
The following content reports results from the integrative literature review where literature from
different themes (runoff and erosion prevention approaches) were sourced and sorted to create a new
concept called water pollution prevention practices (WP3). The water pollution prevention practices (WP3)
is a collation of preventive approaches for runoff and erosion, as they were commonly being treated in
isolation. For runoff prevention, the concept of Low Impact Development (LID) has been explored together
with other similar concepts e.g. Low Impact Design and Control at Source Storm Water Management. As
for erosion prevention, no particular concept has been found besides the common erosion prevention Best
Management Practices (BMP). The key practices for both processes are given in Table 4.3.
The sources used to compile the runoff prevention practices are given as follows: Department of
Environmental Resources, 1999; Hinman, 2005; DID, 2000; Shaver, 2000 and EPA Division, 2012. For
erosion prevention practices, the sources referred to are as follows: Department of Irrigation and Drainage,
2010; Auckland Regional Council, 1999; Witheridge, 2012; Environment Protection Authority, 2011; US
EPA, 2012 and EPA Victoria, 1996. The practices found for both processes are very similar to each other
with some redundancies, enhancing the underlying rationale for them to be unified as WP3.
76
Table 4.3 Water Pollution Prevention Practices (WP3)
WP3 Runoff Prevention Practices Erosion Prevention Practices

Stage
1 Design to fit - Plan operation to fit existing site - Plan development to fit site
natural features. - Determine limit of land clearing and shaping
features - Fit design development to land - Divide site into natural drainage areas
Planning and Design
sensitivity - Minimize clearing

2 Erosion and - Soil erosion control practices - Minimize soil erosion
sediment - Minimize soil erosion - Runoff control and management
practices, - Sediment prevention and control - Earthwork and erosion control
drainage - Slope stabilization - Sediment control
control and - Protect water courses - Slope stabilization
slope - Stabilize exposed areas rapidly - Stabilize exposed area rapidly
stabilization - Install perimeter controls - Install perimeter control
- Runoff flow management - Stabilize drainage ways
- Inlet protection
3 Scheduling - Scheduling - Stage construction
- Coordinate planning and activities - Integrate erosion and sediment control issues
- Stage construction into site and construction planning
- Timing - Minimize the extent and duration of site
Pre-Construction
disturbance
- Phase construction
- Work scheduling
4 Method, - Proper equipment - Soil surfaces in a roughened condition
material and - Materials - Minimize excavation, trenching activities
equipment - Reduce soil compaction
5 Access route, - Preserve topsoil and other assets - Preserve top soil
site layout and - Access routes - Access route and site management
management - Soil stockpile and batters
- Minimize site disturbance
6 Inspection, - Inspection and maintenance - Site maintenance
maintenance, - Train personnel implementing - Get registered
Construction
training, project activities - Make sure plan evolves

enforcement, - Maintenance - Assess and adjust
housekeeping, - Enforcement - Monitor site and adjust ESC practices to
etc. maintain performance standard
- Housekeeping
- Education and awareness
The practices were arranged according to categories that were established following the steps
suggested by Elo and Kyngas (2008). Six categories were decided: 1) design to fit natural settings; 2)
erosion and sediment practices; 3) scheduling 4) construction method, material and equipment; 5) site
layout; 6) maintenance and inspection. The six categories of practices apply to different working stages in
construction. Categories 1 and 2 are in the planning and design stage because the ability to design a project
to suit its environment is best done by environmental consultants, whereas the development of mitigation
based erosion, sediment and drainage control are commonly being planned and designed by engineers
(Department of Environmental Resources, 1999; Song et al., 2009). Categories 3, 4 and 5 are mainly under
77
contractors job specification prior to construction, i.e. pre-construction planning (DID, 2000). Contractors
could plan schedule that suits the requirement for runoff and erosion prevention, to select methods which
are less impactful as well as to arrange site layout with minimal vehicle movement and away from sensitive
areas. Category 6 relates to good practices conducted during construction and involves operational
elements of maintenance and control during construction, rather than prevention (DID, 2000). Even though
it is within contractors work scope, the mitigation nature of those practices contradicts the aim of this study,
which is to prevent rather than control. In conclusion, practices in categories 3, 4 and 5 are most relevant
to represent the WP3 to be integrated with site based construction planning.
4.6.2 Theoretical linkage between WP3 and Construction Planning
This section reports results from the integrated literature review approach where it collates the literatures
found on WP3 (Section 4.6.1 refers) and construction planning. The functional areas of construction
planning is given by Laufer et al. (1993) and Hendrikson and Au (2000). Using the inductive content analysis
steps by Elo and Kyngas (2008), the functional areas were sorted into a few categories i.e. schedule,
method, cost and site layout. Referring to Table 4.4, the categories of schedule, method and site layout
shows a direct connection with the categories established in WP3 (Table 4.3 refers), apart from cost. The
cost dimension does not have direct physical implications with the prevention practices and therefore is
beyond the scope of this study.
Table 4.4 Main Categories of Construction Planning
Components Schedule Method Site layout Cost

Laufer et al., Schedule Engineering and method Site layout Organization
1993 Major equipment and logistics and contract
Work method Cash flow
Manpower and material
allocation
Hendrikson and Work task definition Choice of construction Construction Cost estimation
Au, 2000 Resources and task technology site layout
duration estimation Equipment and material
Project schedule
Interaction between
activities
78
In order to achieve a holistic environmental friendly site based construction plan, it is essential to appreciate
WP3 as an integral aspect of construction planning from the beginning. Integrating environmental protection
at the pre-construction planning stage ensures that measures to avoid and reduce pollution can be built-in
to the plans design and work schedule (EPA Victoria, 1996). Therefore, incorporating WP3 at the pre-
construction planning stage as one of the objective, besides the traditional iron triangle, allows contractors
to think, provide input, brainstorm, discuss and navigate ways for construction to be done with minimal
negative impact. In this study, the theoretical integration between WP3 and construction planning is given
in Figure 4.1, with descriptions shown in Figure 4.2.
WP3 -Construction Planning
Construction Planning Construction Site Layout Construction

Schedule Method
Phasing/ Staging Protect sensitive areas Reduce soil compaction.

Timing Minimize site Minimize excavation.
WP3 disturbance. Existing trees.
Limit accessibility. Restrict trenching.
Provide site plan. Equipment.
Figure 4.2 WP3-Construction Planning Theoretical Framework
79
SITE LAYOUT
Protect sensitive areas
Clear off any siting of facilities on sensitive
areas such as easily compacted soil, natural
preservation area and drainage channels METHOD
Layout areas that do not require removal of
trees. Reduce soil compaction
Reduce imperviousness.
Reduce and minimize activities that
Minimise site disturbance involve soil compaction. SCHEDULE
Protect and preserve natural drainage system. Soil compaction should not be done at Phasing/ Staging
Map and provide protection for native soil & protected areas.
natural vegetative area. Establish phases of construction within the
Minimise excavation work zone.
Provide fencing from the existing tree canopy Minimise excavation at critical zone Develop sequence of construction and
Limit clearing & grading to road, utilities, area. methods to be used within the phases,.
building pad, landscape areas & the minimal Use minimal excavation foundation
additional areas needed to maneuver Prepare a schedule for earth moving &
system to reduce grading. building construction activities.
equipment
Limit accessibility
Existing trees Schedule and phase grading & earthmoving
Trees or woody vegetation should be operation to expose the smallest practical area
Install signs to identify and explain the use cut rather than push over with for the shortest possible time.
and management of protected areas. equipment Plan efficient sequencing of construction
Limit construction access to one route, if Prevent wounds to the tree trunk & phases to reduce equipment activities &
feasible. timber. potential damage to protected area.
Locate access where future roads & utility Restrict trenching Timing
corridors will be placed.
Restrict trenching at sensitive area. Schedule large disturbance activities during
Provide site plan
Equipment dry season.
Area of the site to be used Start clearing, grading & heavy construction
Staging areas To reduce degree & depth of activities during the driest month.
Storage areas (material/stockpile) compaction, use equipment with the
least ground pressure to finish task. Reduce time soil left disturbed (within 14
Building site days)
Figure 4.3 Description for the WP3-Construction Planning Theoretical Framework
4.7 Relationship between Cleaner Production and Lean Production (Clean-Lean) Approach
Control at source concept such as Cleaner Production proposes an alternative approach to manage
environmental issues by preventing or limiting the occurrence of the pollutant (UNEP, 1996). Nonetheless,
limited studies have been found to incorporate this concept, especially for sediment pollution and
construction in general. Similarly, lean production is a concept that addresses problems at its source but it
was established to improve production-related issues. In general, both lean production and cleaner
production concept have been created to fulfill different goals but the collation of both aspects could
potentially benefit both production and environmental performance (Degani and Cardoso, 2002). For
example, improving inefficient activities in the production line has reduced the level of carbon emission in
the study done by Wu and Low (2012). However, limited studies were found to combine both concepts.
This creates a new research opportunity for investigating the possibility of integrating both concepts to
80
benefit the earthwork operation from a production and environmental standpoint (the latter refers to
sediment pollution).
In recent years, lean has been combined with green as the focus on sustainability soars within the
construction industry. The relevance has been established as the environmental impact of processes could
be traced back to its inefficiencies (Cabello Eras et al., 2013). The call to integrate lean with the
environment has been intense with researches from different industries advocating for the move (Bergmiller
and McWright, 2009; Martnez et al., 2009 and Lapinski et al., 2006). However, the green-lean integration
might not necessarily address the issue of source reduction or prevention per se as the term green
represents a more general perspective of managing the environmental effect (Baines et al., 2012). As an
example in construction, green construction could involve strategies such as using energy-efficient
equipment and recycling of waste that has already been produced (Govenor, 2008), rather than to prevent
the occurrence of waste at the first instance. In addition to that, it is quite difficult to distinguish a specific
definition for green as the term is broad and could relay different meaning to different person (Zaini and
Endut, 2014).
On the other hand, CP is a focused and specific environmental concept that emphasizes on source
reduction without affecting the production aspect (UNEP, 1996). Similarly, LP also emphasizes on waste
reduction but from a production standpoint where the focus is to reduce the sources of waste (Aziz and
Hafez, 2013). Hence, lean and clean could provide a good platform for integration that benefits the
production and environmental dimensions with emphasis on source reduction. Nonetheless, the
integration between lean and clean is still at its infancy as both concepts have been conceived for different
reasons but has the potential to complement each other well (Degani and Cardoso, 2002). In their study,
Wu and Low (2013) have reduced and achieved low-carbon emission in pre-cast concrete production by
eliminating Non-Value Adding activities in the production line. The lean principles applied in the study have
promoted the search for ineffective and inefficient activities that does not entail high investment cost. By
analyzing flow and energy consumption in an organization, avenues to identify emissions using source
reduction strategies in the production process could be done. Degani and Cardoso (2002) also proposed a
set of clean construction, a combination of CP and LP values in order to meet the environmental demands
81
while respecting production goals from a lean perspective. Therefore, the clean-lean concept should go go
hand-in-hand to improve both the production and environmental dimensions (Degani and Cardoso, 2002).
4.7.1 Integrated Cleaner Production (CP) and Lean Production (LP)
An integrative literature review has been conducted to recognize the fundamental concepts of Cleaner
Production (CP) and Lean Production (LP). The fundamental concepts have been extracted based on the
content analysis procedure proposed by Elo and Kyngas (2008) and is reflected in Table 4.5, along with
the cited references. From the analysis, 12 goals have been derived with some goals mutually applicable
for both concepts (shown in the shaded column) and some exclusive to the particular concept (non-shaded
column). Thus, it is apparent that there are similarities and differences between LP and CP that suggest for
further exploration.
Table 4.5 Relationship between Clean and Lean
LEAN FUNDAMENTAL VALUE OF LEAN CLEAN

AND CLEAN
Reduced time Reduced waste/ emission Source reduction
ENVIRONMENT AND
1,3,8 1,2,5,7,9,11,12,13,14 11,12,13,14
PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION
Flow Reduced cost Modify production processes/

1 2,11,12,13,14 product
11,12
Increased quality Continuous improvement Reduced risk to human and
2,5,7 2,8,11,12,15 environment
Customer Long term philosophy 12,13,14,15
satisfaction 8,11
5,7 Improved technology and innovative
ideas
11,14,7
Cited References: 1)Ohno (1988); 2)Womack et al. (1990); 3)Monden (1993); 4)Womack and Jones (1996);
5)Katayama and Bennett (1996); 6)Spear and Bowen (1999); 7)Shah and Ward (2003); 8)Liker (2004); 9)Hines et
al. (2004); 10)Bhasin and Burcher (2006); 11)US EPA (1998); 12)UNEP (1996); 13)Fresner (1998); 14)UNIDO
(2002) and 15)Hilson (2003).
Referring to Table 4.5, the application of LP and CP could address mutual goals such as reduced
waste/ emission, reduced cost, continuous improvement, long term philosophy and use of innovative
technology and ideas. However, an integration that is based solely on similarities will deprive the real
meaning of LP and CP and could misrepresent the concepts if the differences are being ignored. Hence,
further discussion will detail the differences found between both concepts. LP has goals that differ from CP,
which consist of time reduction, flow in processes, increase quality and customer satisfaction where all
attributes aim to improve the production performance. On the other hand, CPs exclusive attributes are
82
source reduction, process or product modification and reducing risk to the environment where those
attributes aim to simultaneously improve both production and environmental performance (UNEP, 1996).
Even though CP has provided the basis of improving both dimensions of production and environment, the
environmentally driven concept lacks the technique to address the production aspect from the perspective
of process modification. It is common for CP to rely on technological change (Neto et al., 2013) but
fundamentally, CP is not all about technology and should start from the basis of improving the current
processes. On the other hand, LP has been established solely to improve the production aspect and has
been long-practiced to improve production processes in various sectors (Womack et al., 1990). Technically,
lean could act as a function to enhance clean and the relationship is shown in a Venn diagram given in
Figure 4.3. The proposed integration is expected to address all the mutual and different goals derived from
both concepts.
The proposed integration between LP and CP is further shown in Figure 4.3 where it contains two
components of integration, which are: 1) fundamental goals and 2) characteristics (principles and tools).
Based on the fundamental goals of each concept, the goal of modifying processes from CP could be parked
under LP due to the production nature of the attribute (Liker, 2004). The technique or approach for process
modification could be conducted by grounding it to the LP concept as the concept has well-established set
of principles and tools (Womack and Jones, 1996). Process modification will blend along with other LP
goals such as flow in processes and reduced process time that provides increased quality that satisfies
customers. Apart from that, process modification that is to be absorbed and improved using LP tools and
techniques will also ensure the attainment of other CP goals which are source reduction that leads to
reduced risk to the environment (UNEP, 1996). A simple analogy for this relationship is when duration of
the earthwork operation is shortened by the use of LP, rainfall occurrence could be reduced, consequently
reducing the risk of site water pollution (Department of Environmental Resources, 1999). Therefore, LP
could be used to assist CP in achieving the goals of environment and production, consequently addressing
its own production goals. Ultimately, lean will enable clean.
83
CLEAN
LEAN
CLEAN GOALS
Modify processes Source reduction; Reduced risk to human and environment
Clean-Lean Characteristics (Principles and tools)

Waste elimination/ process efficiency 1,2,3,8,9,10,13,12,11
Trace error/ root cause/5 Whys 1,2,13,5,8
Flow Direct/better communication 2,6,8,13
Process mapping/ VSM 10,4,12
Minimum inventory 1,2,3,11
Stream lined/modified processes 7,8,12,13
Reduced time Reliable technology 8,14
Skilled and motivated workforce, 2,3,8,7,5,13
teamwork
People development 8,13,14,13
Increased quality Reduce cost 3,9,11
Perfection/ continuous improvement/ 1,4,7,8,10,3,12
Kaizen
Scientific method of improvement 6,12,13
Customer satisfaction 5S/ Housekeeping 1,2,3,10,8,12,13,11,14
Total productive maintenance (TPM)/ 10,7,11
Preventive maintenance
Cultural/ attitude changes 10,14
Process capability measurement 7,13
Authors: 1)Ohno (1988); 2)Womack et al. (1990); 3)Monden (1993);
4)Womack and Jones (1996); 5)Katayama and Bennett (1996); 6)Spear and
Bowen (1999); 7)Shah and Ward (2003); 8)Liker (2004); 9)Hines et al.
(2004); 10)Bhasin and Burcher (2006); 11)US EPA (1998); 12)UNEP (1996);
13)Fresner (1998); 14)UNIDO (2002) and 15)Hilson (2003).
LEAN GOALS
Figure 4.4 Complementary Functions of Lean and Clean
In addition to that, LP and CP also consist of similar characteristics such as principles and tools.
Figure 4.3 shows the mutual tools and principles of both concepts, which are extracted from the cited
references. The dissimilar tools such as standardization and pull system in LP and pollution prevention and
on-site reuse in CP are not provided in the figure as it could be referred to the individual LP and CP
references given in Table 3. Similar tools and principles could be used to enable the implementation of a
clean-lean method. However, it is not necessary to only utilize similar tools and practices since lean
functions to enhance clean. Therefore, any lean tools or practices could be utilized to support the
84
achievement of the expected goals where LP provides an avenue to support the preventive requirement
of CP through improvement in processes.
4.8 Conclusion
This chapter has provided the conceptual frameworks for the integration of construction
management with site water pollution prevention approach at two levels in construction, which are the
planning and operational level. At the planning level, the conceptual framework integrates construction
planning with water pollution prevention practices, WP3-Construction Planning. For the operational level, a
conceptual framework was established by integrating concepts of Lean Production and Cleaner Production,
Clean-Lean. Both framework functions to simultaneously fulfill the functions of production and
environmental requirement at different levels of construction. The theoretical based conceptual framework
will be validated and demonstrated of its applicability in subsequent chapters.
4.9 References
Pollution, Nova Science Publishers Inc., New York: USA.
Ahmad, H., Miller, J. W., George, R. D., 2014. Minimizing pond size using an off-site pond in a closed basin:
a storm flow mitigation design and evaluation. International Journal of Sustainable Development and
Planning 9, 211-224.
Al-Damkhi, A. M., Abdul-Wahab, S. A., Al-Khalaf, B. N., Al-Nafisi, A. S. 2008. Developing environmental
impact statement (EIS) guidelines for the management of environmental quality at major projects in
Kuwait. Management of Environmental Quality 19, 670-689.
Auckland Regional Council. 1999. Erosion and sediment control-guidelines for disturbing activities in the
Auckland Region. In: Technical Publication No.90, Auckland Regional Council, Auckland: New Zealand,
Part A.
Aziz, R.F. and Hafez, S.M., 2013. Applying lean thinking in construction and performance improvement.
Alexandria Engineering Journal 52(4), 679-695.
85
Barkman, S., Marks, B. S., 2007. Using lean principles to lean out the supply chain. Paper presented at the
92nd Annual International Supply Management Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
Basu, A. J., Van Zyl, D. J. A., 2006. Industrial ecology framework for achieving cleaner production in the
mining and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 299-304.
Belayutham, S., Gonzlez, V. A., 2013. Integrating lean into storm water runoff management: A theoretical
exploration. In Formosa, C. T., and Tzortzopoulos, P. (Ed), Proceedings 21st Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC). Fortaleza, Brazil. 875-884.
Bergmiller, G. G. and McWright, P. R. 2009. Lean manufacturers transcendence to green manufacturing.
Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Miami, Fl.
Bhasin, S., and Burcher, P., 2006. Lean viewed as a philosophy. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 17(1), 56-72.
Bodek, N., 2007. The ninth waste-Saying no. [Online] Retrieved from http:// www.industryweek.com
(Accessed 23 April 2014).
Brown, W.E. and Caraco, D.S. 1997. Muddy water in, muddy water out? A critique of erosion and sediment
control plans. Watershed Protection Techniques, 2(3), pp. 393-403.
Cabello Eras, J. J., Gutirrez, A. S., Capote, D. H., Hens, L., Vandecasteele, C., 2013. Improving the
environmental performance of an earthwork project using cleaner production strategies. Journal of
Capony, A., Lorino, T., Muresan, B., Baudru, Y., Dauvergne, M., Dunand, M., Colin, D. and Jullien, A. 2012.
Assessing the productivity and the environmental impacts of earthwork machines: a case study for gps-
instrumented excavator. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, pp. 256-265.
Carneiro, S. B. M., Campos, I. B., Oliveira, D. M. D., Neto, J. P. B., 2012. Lean and green: a relationship
matrix. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of International Group for Lean Construction.
San Diego, CA.
86
Chen, Z., Li, H. and Wong, C. 2005. EnvironalPlanning: analytic network process model for environmentally
conscious construction planning. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131, 92-101.
Chou, J. S., Le, T. S. 2014. Probabilistic multiobjective optimization of sustainable engineering design.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 18, 853-864.
Christian, J. and Xie, T. X. 1996. Improving earthmoving estimating by more realistic knowledge. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, 23, pp. 250-259.
Co, H. X., Dung, N. T., Le, H. A., An, D. D., Van Chinh, K., Oanh, N. T. K. 2009. Integrated management
strategies for brick kiln emission reduction in Vietnam: a case study. International Journal of
Environmental Studies 66, 113-124.
Da Paz, D. H. F., Dos Santos Neto, F. C., Vaz Lafayette, K. P., Malafaya, F. 2014. Analysis of sustainability
indicators on the management construction sites CDW in Recife, Brazil. Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 19 F, 1377-1389.
Dawood, N., Chavada, R., Benghi, C. and Sanches, R. 2010. Interactive visual lean system for resources
planning of earthwork operations. 18th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Haifa, Israel. IGLC.
Degani, C.M. and Cardoso, F.F., 2002. Environmental performance and lean construction concepts: Can
we talk about a 'Clean Construction'? Paper Presented at The 10th Annual Conference of International
Group for Lean Construction, August 6-8, Gramado, Brazil.
Department of Environmental Resources. 1999. Low-impact development design strategies. An integrated
design approach, Prince George's County Maryland, Largo: Maryland, Chapter 5, 1-6.
Department of Irrigation and Drainage. 2010. Guideline for erosion and sediment control in Malaysia.
Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia, 61-87.
Elo, S. and Kyngas. H., 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1),
107-115.
87
Environment Protection Authority. 2011. Environment protection guidelines for construction and land
development in the act. Department of the environment, climate change, energy and water, Canberra:
Australia, 12-29.
EPA Division (Environmental Protection Agency Division). 2012. WSUD Engineering procedures for
stormwater management in Tasmania. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment.
Tasmania: Australia, Appendix F, 1-8.
EPA Victoria (Environmental Protection Agency Victoria). 1996. Environmental guidelines for major
construction sites. http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/~/media/Publications/480.pdf (accessed 13.06. 2013).
Faniran, O., Oluwoye, J. and Lenard, D. 1998. Interactions between construction planning and influence
factors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124, 245-256.
Fernndez, J. E., 2007. Resource consumption of new urban construction in China. Journal of Industrial
Ecology 11, 99-115.
Freeman, H. M., 1995. All about pollution prevention. In: Freeman, H. M., Puskas, Z., Olbina, R. (Eds.),
Cleaner Technologies and Cleaner Products for Sustainable Development. Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg.
Freire, J., Alarcn, L., 2002. Achieving lean design process: Improvement methodology. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 128(3), 248-256.
Fresner, J., 1998. Cleaner production as a means for effective environmental management. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 6(3-4), 171-179.
Fu, J. 2013. Logistics of earthmoving operations-Simulation and optimization. Licentiate Thesis. KTH Royal
Institute of Technology.
Glavi, P., Lukman, R. 2007. Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. Journal of Cleaner
Production 15, 1875-1885.
88
Golzarpoor, H., Gonzlez, V. and Poshdar, M. 2013. Improving construction environmental metrics through
integration of discrete event simulation and life cycle analysis. 30th ISARC, Montral, Canada, pp. 130-
139.
Gonzlez, V. and Echaveguren, T. 2012. Exploring the environmental modeling of road construction
operations using discrete-event simulation. Automation in Construction, 24, pp. 100-110.
Govenor, T., 2008. Green construction. Ohio BWCs Division of Safety & Hygiene
https://www.bwc.ohio.gov/downloads/blankpdf/SafetyTalk-Greenconstruction.pdf Accessed 4 January
2016.
Halpin, D. W., 2005. Construction Management, Edition 3. Wiley.
Hamner, B., 1996. What is the relationship between cleaner production, pollution prevention, waste
minimization and ISO 14000? The 1st Asian Conference on Cleaner Production in the Chemical
Industry, December 9-10, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hare, B., Cameron, I., A. R. Duff., (2006). Exploring the integration of health and safety with pre-
construction planning. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 13(5), 438 450.
Hendrickson, C. and Au, T. 2000. Project Management for Construction. Fundamental Concepts for
Owners, Engineers, Architects and Builders. 2nd ed. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University.
http://pmbook.ce.cmu.edu/
Hilson, G., 2003. Defining Cleaner Production and Pollution Prevention in the mining context. Minerals
Engineering 16(4), 305-321.
Hinman, C., 2005. Low impact development. Technical guidance manual for Puget Sound. Department of
Ecology, Washington, 61-62.
Hines, P., Holweg, M., and Rich, N., 2004. Learning to evolve: A review of contemporary lean thinking.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24(10), 994-1011.
89
Huisingh, D. and Bass, L.W., 1991. Cleaner production: The most effective approach to achieving improved
water quality. European Water Pollution Control 1, 24.
Jabareen, Y., 2009. Building a conceptual framework: philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods 8, 49-62.
Katayama, H., and D., Bennett, 1996. Lean production in a changing competitive world: A Japanese
perspective. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 16(2), 8-23.
Kirchbach, K., Bregenhorn, T. and Gehbauer, F. 2012. Digital allocation of production factors in earth work
construction. 20th IGLC. San Diego, USA.
Kjaerheim, G., 2005. Cleaner production and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(4), 329-339.
Kohtala, C., 2014. Addressing sustainability in research on distributed production: an integrated literature
review. Journal of Cleaner Production, In Press.
Koskela, L. 1992. Application of the new production philosophy to construction. Stanford University: Center
for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE)
Kucukvar, M., Noori, M., Egilmez, G., Tatari, O. 2014. Stochastic decision modeling for sustainable
pavement designs. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19, 1185-1199.
Lapinski, A., Horman, M., and Riley, D., 2006. Lean processes for sustainable project delivery. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 132, 1083-1091.
Laufer, A. and Cohenca, D. 1990. Factors affecting constructionplanning Outcomes. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 116, 135-156.
Laufer, A., Shapira, A., CohencaZall, D. and Howell, G. 1993. Prebid and preconstruction planning
process. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119, 426-444.
90
Laufer, A., Tucker, R. L., Shapira, A. and Shenhar, A. J. 1994. The multiplicity concept in construction
project planning. Construction Management and Economics, 12, 53-65.
Lefaivre, K. A., Shadgan, B., and OBrien, P. J. 2011. 100 Most Cited Articles in Orthopaedic Surgery. Clin
Orthop Relat Res., 469(5), 1487-1497.
Lewis, P. and Hajji, A. 2012 Estimating the economic, energy, and environmental impact of earthwork
activities. Construction Research Congress, Indiana, United States, 21-23 May 2012. ASCE.
LID Centre (Low Impact Development Centre). 2000. Low impact development. A literature review.
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/upload/lid.pdf (accessed 06.05.2012).
Liker, J., 2004. The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer,
McGraw-Hill.
Martinez, J. C. 1998. Earthmover-simulation tool for earthwork planning. Simulation Conference
Proceedings, Washington, 13-16 Dec 1998. IEEE.
Martnez, P., Gonzlez, V., Fonseca, E. D., 2009. Green-Lean conceptual integration in the project design,
planning and construction. Revista Ingeniera de Construccin Journal, 24(1), 5-32.
Mitropoulos, P. T., Howell, G., 2001. Performance improvement programs and lean construction. Paper
presented at the 9th International Group for Lean Construction Conference, 6-8 August 2001, Kent
Ridge Crescent, Singapore.
Monden, Y., 1993. Toyota production system: An integrated approach to just-in-time. Industrial Engineering
and Management Press.
Neto, R. S., Silvestre, B.S. and Balloni, F., 2013. The impact of the cleaner production technologies in the
mining productive chain: The case of Padua-RJ. 4th International Workshop Advances in Cleaner
Production, May 22-24, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
NZTA (New Zealand Transport Agency). 2010. Erosion and sediment control field guide for contractors. NZ
91
Ohno, T., 1988. Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. Taylor and Francis.
Ooshaksaraie, L., Basri, N. E. A., Bakar, A. A. and Maulud, K. N. A. 2009. An expert system prototype for
minimizing soil erosion on construction site in Malaysia. European Journal of Scientific Research, 33,
pp. 454-460.
Pain, B. 2014. Glenvar ridge road - erosion and sediment control methodology. Auckland: Woods.
Parikh, P., Taylor, M. A., Hoagland, T., Thurston, H., Shuster, W. 2005. Application of market mechanisms
and incentives to reduce stormwater runoff: an integrated hydrologic, economic and legal approach.
Environmental Science and Policy 8, 133-144.
Pavi, P., Mladenovi, A., Mauko, A., Kramar, S., Dolenec, M., Vonina, E., Pavi Vrta, K., Bukovec, P.
2014. Sewage sludge/biomass ash based products for sustainable construction. Journal of Cleaner
Production 67, 117-124.
Prez-Martnez, M., Moreno-Navarro, F., Martn-Marn, J., Ros-Losada, C., Rubio-Gmez, M. C. 2014.
Analysis of cleaner technologies based on waxes and surfactant additives in road construction. Journal
Qui, X., Chen, X., 2009. Evaluate the environmental impacts of implementing lean in production process of
manufacturing industry. Goteborg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology.
Shah, R., and Ward, P.T., 2003. Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal
of Operations Management 21(2), 129-149.
Shaver, E., 2000. Low impact design manual for the Auckland region. Technical Publication. Auckland
Regional Council, Auckland.
Sloat, M., Redden, R. J., 2005. Overview of best practices for surface erosion protection and sediment
control for the development phase of surface mining for coal in northeast British Columbia. In: 29th
British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium, Abbotsford: British Columbia, 19-22 September 2005
92
Song, L., Mohamed, Y., Abourizk, S., 2009. Early contractor involvement in design and its impact on
construction schedule performance. Journal of Management in Engineering 25, 12-20.
Spear, S., and Bowen, H.K., 1999. Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system. Harvard Business
Review 77, No. 5 (SeptemberOctober 1999), 96106.
Spillane, J.P., Oyedele, L.O., Meding, J.V., Ashwini Konanahalli, Jaiyeoba, B.E., Tijani, I.K., 2011. Confined
site construction: A qualitative investigation of critical issues affecting management of health and safety.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology 2, 138-146.
Taylor, K. and Field, M. 2007. Sustainable construction: reducing the impact of creating a building. Available
at:
<http://www.branz.co.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=292a5866bacbf3aad00794c5f014c024f8f36a6
Torraco, R. J., 2005. Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Resource
Development Review 4, 356-367.
UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization). 2002. Manual on the development of cleaner
production policies-Approaches and instruments. Vienna, Austria.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 1996. Cleaner production. First Ed. United Nations
Publication. Paris: France. [Accessed 27 January 2015]
US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Principles of pollution prevention and
cleaner production: An international training course. US EPA. Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
US EPA. 2007. The lean and environment toolkit. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/lean/environment/toolkits/environment/resources/LeanEnviroToolkit.pdf.
US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. National pollutant discharge elimination
system (NPDES). http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm (accessed
20.06.2013).
93
Van Berkel, R., 2000. Cleaner production in Australia: revolutionary strategy or incremental tool? Australian
Journal of Environmental Management 7, 132146.
Winch, G. M. and Kelsey, J. 2005. What do construction project planners do? International Journal of
Project Management, 23, 141-149.
Witheridge, G., 2012. Principles of construction site erosion and sediment control. Catchments and Creeks
Pty Ltd. Brisbane: Queensland, 3-68.
Wolff, E., Schwabe, W. K., Concei o, S. V. 2015. Utilization of water treatment plant sludge in structural
ceramics. Journal of Cleaner Production 96, 282-289.
Womack, James, P., and Daniel, T., Jones, 1996. Lean thinking. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., and Roos, D., 1990. The machine that changed the world. New York, USA:
Rawson Associates.
Wu, P., and Low, S.P., 2012. Lean management and low carbon emissions in precast concrete factories in
Singapore. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 18, 176-186.
Zaini, A.A., and Endut, I.R., 2014. Critical review on the theoretical framework and critical success factors
in green construction. In: Proceedings of the International Civil and Infrastructure Engineering
Conference, Eds. Hassan et al. Springer-Verlag Singapore, 243-252.
94
CHAPTER 5
INDUSTRY ENHANCED INTEGRATION OF CONSTRUCTION PLANNING WITH
WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PRACTICES FRAMEWORK
Review.
5.1 Introduction
Industrial input forms an essential aspect in making sure a theoretical based framework is functional from
a practical perspective. Therefore, this chapter is an enhancer to part of the finding from the previous
chapter. The previous chapter has provided the conceptual integration for the planning stage by integrating
construction planning and water pollution prevention practices. A theoretical framework would demand for
further verification through industrial input to find its applicability. Following Jabareens proposed steps
(Refer to Section 4.5) for a conceptual framework, this chapter acts to complete step no. 5 and 6 where it
represents validating and rethinking of the framework. The aim of this chapter is to provide a theoretical-
practical framework of integration between construction planning and water pollution prevention practices.
The sole objective of this chapter is to develop an industry enhanced CP-P2 based water pollution
preventive practices (WP3) with construction planning elements framework.
5.2 Research Method to Identify Industry Input on the Integrated Framework for Construction
Planning and Water Pollution Prevention Practices
This chapter will generally use the qualitative method of attaining input from experts to verify the proposed
theoretical framework given in Section 4.6, Chapter 4. The exploratory nature of this research is verified
using semi-structured interview. Table 5.1 provides the simplified research method applied in this chapter.
95
Table 5.1 Research Method for Chapter 5
Objective Addressed Data Collection Method Data Analysis
To develop an industry enhanced CP-P2 based Semi-structured interview Deductive content

water pollution preventive practices (WP3) with analysis
construction planning elements framework.
Fulfilment of step no.5 and 6 of Jabareen (2009) for conceptual framework is given in this chapter.
For step no. 5 which is verification, this stage gathers industry input on the theoretical framework, which is
portrayed in this chapter. Besides that, Jabareen (2009) proposed that validation methods for qualitative
based conceptual framework could include presenting the idea at conferences and seminars to receive
feedback. In fulfilling that, the framework has been presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction (Belayutham and Gonzalez, 2013). Accounting for the final step
(Step 6) proposed by Jabareen (2009), comparisons were made between outputs from the interview with
the theoretical framework proposed in Chapter 4. Revisions have been made according to the new insights
so that the framework could serve its purpose in practice.
Further steps to establish validity and reliability within a qualitative research, as proposed by Yin
(2009) is given as follows: 1) chain of evidence; 2) reviewed by key informants and 3) single research
exploratory design, which were all satisfied and reported throughout this study. The study has fulfilled the
first step through having evidence sourced from theory through the use of different sources such as
journals, conference articles as well as governmental guidelines of different departments from different
countries. The second step has been accomplished by providing the theoretical framework to the
respondents for their comments. The third step has been fulfilled where the concern of this framework is
solely on identifying the relationship between construction planning and water pollution prevention
approaches.
5.2.1 Semi-structured Interview
The aim of this chapter is to establish an industrial-enhanced conceptual framework based on the inputs
from construction practitioners. In order to achieve this, a semi-structured interview has been employed to
allow probing of more information from interviewees (King, 1994). The goal of this interview is to attain the
96
perspective of interviewees and to explore how the framework could be adapted into practice (Amaratunga
et al., 2002). The selection of potential respondents have been done using purposive sampling where
judgmental sampling has been applied and the number of respondents is less imperative than the criteria
applied in selecting them (Marshall, 1996). A total of 20 respondents (environmental consultant, local
authority, contractors) have been identified and selected based on their experiences in the field of study,
especially in relation to construction site water pollution to ensure reliable data is obtained. Similar number
of respondents were also chosen by Fernie et al. (2003) for their exploratory study on supply chain
management in construction. Since Bowen (2005) indicated that interview is evaluated from the richness
of its information rather than number of interviews, the contribution of interview is presumed to incline
towards providing quality rather than quantity. The audio recorded face-to-face interviews took
approximately an hour to complete. The data was later transcribed and analyzed.
The semi-structured interview questions were based on findings from the previous chapter where
practitioners are queried on each elements of construction planning and how it could relate to water
pollution prevention practices. They have been asked on the established relationship between the sub and
major categories of WP3 and its relevance with the construction planning categories. The respondents were
also given the proposed theoretical framework to comment on.
5.2.2 Description of Respondents
Respondents for his study have been selected based on several requirements. The criteria used to select
the respondents are as follows: 1) Different nature of work: Respondents are representative of different
organizations in construction, such as the local authority, consultant and contractor; 2) Knowledge in the
subject: respondents are experienced and well-verse in the subject of construction site water pollution or
erosion and sediment during construction; and 3) Years of experience: Respondents have a minimum of 5
year experience in the field of construction. The respondents details are given in Table 5.2, where they
have been categorized according to their specialization, portraying their nature of work. Respondents from
local council were placed under legislator (L), environmental management consultants under environmental
specialist (ES) category whilst constructors (C) were people who manage common/ general construction.
97
The average years of experiences among the respondents are approximately 15 years with several having
over 20 years of experience.
Table 5.2 Details of Respondents
Respondent Organization Position Years of Area of specialization

experiences
L1 Local Technical specialist 5 Storm water management
Authority
L2 Local Technical specialist >7 Storm water management
authority
L3 Local Technical specialist 20 Storm water management
authority
ES1 Consultant Director 26 Water consultant engineer
ES2 Consultant Senior environmental >13 Environmental engineer
engineer/ Director
ES3 Consultant Civil engineer 28 Storm water management
ES4 Consultant Director >6 Land use: LID, storm water,
erosion and sediment
control.
ES5 Consultant Civil engineer 12 Environmental management
ES6 Consultant Project manager 7 Environmental
ES7 Consultant Senior designer 6 Environmental
ES8 Consultant Civil engineer 12 Environmental
ES9 Consultant Civil engineer 9 Erosion and sediment control
ES10 Consultant Civil engineer 14 Environmental
ES11 Consultant Chartered professional >30 Environmental management
engineer
C1 Contractor Project manager 12 General construction
C2 Contractor Quantity surveyor 7 General construction
C3 Contractor Contract manager 10 Infrastructure construction
C4 Consultant Project manager 30 Construction project
management
management
management
Category of specialization:
Legislator (L) : 3
Environmental specialist (ES): 11
Constructors (C) : 6
98
5.2.3 Deductive Data Analysis
Deductive content analysis has been applied for this stage of work as it is most useful for retesting existing
data, categories, models, etc. In this case, the analysis was adapted to reconfirm and evaluate the proposed
framework from the previous chapter through analyzing input form the semi-structured interviews. The steps
involved in the generation of categorization matrix areas follows: 1) Interviews fully transcribed; 2)
Categories based on theoretical framework; 3) Data coded according to categories; 4) Rank of frequencies
according to the similarities of codes representing its respective categories; 5) Quantitative descriptive data
that provides categorization matrix.
5.3 Industrial Input on the Significance of WP3 as part of Construction Planning
The respondents feedbacks are discussed in three parts by following the major and sub categories of
WP3-Construction Planning. Table 5.3 illustrates the opinions from respondents on the functions of WP3
and its relation to construction planning. The feedbacks were assigned as having significant or
insignificant relation, depending on whether the respondents found all sub-categories to be linked, partially
linked or not linked. It is necessary to highlight here that the term significant is to portray the extent of
linkage and relevance the WP3 have with construction planning. Therefore, the use of the term should not
be likened with statistically significant as no statistical analysis were attempted in this study. Percentages
were provided based on categories of respondents, under the column heading categorically. In general,
the feedbacks are satisfactory to show that the functions of WP3 are indeed relevant and related to
construction planning components. Further description on the interviews are given in subsequent sections.
99
Table 5.3 Significance of WP3 as part of Construction Planning
Relation with WP3

Partially No Construction
Specialist Linked Categorically No Linkage Categorically Planning
Linked opinion
Components
Significant Insignificant
Legislator 3 100% 0% Construction
ES 11 100% 0% schedule
Constructor 6 100% 0%
Total 20 0
Percentage 100% 0%
Legislator 2 1 100% 0% Construction

ES 4 6 91% 1 9% Method
Constructor 2 1 50% 1 2 50%
Total 16 4
Percentage 80% 20%
Legislator 3 100% 0% Construction Site

ES 8 73% 3 27% layout
Constructor 3 50% 1 2 50%
Total 14 6
Percentage 70% 30%
5.3.1 Construction Schedule
100% of the respondents thought that construction schedule is linked to WP3 and when planned and
managed properly, it could contribute to prevent/ minimize runoff and erosion. The criticality of phasing and
timing was relevant because major factors for excessive runoff at construction site are large open area and
prolonged duration of soil being exposed, besides other issues such as runoff from other catchments (Ab
Rahman et al., 2010). Phasing allows only small areas to be opened at a time, worked on and stabilized
before moving to the next area (Claytor, 2000). The importance of timing has also been emphasized as
earthworks done during the dry season is much preferred as compared to rainy season (Goodemote, 2005).
According to most interviewees, current construction schedule practices focus more on the
common performance measures i.e. time, resources and cost without thoughts given to the environmental
aspect. There were other deficiencies highlighted in the current scheduling approaches that worsen the
situation with water pollution prevention. ES2 reported that schedules were mismanaged with critical
materials such as stabilizers not available before a storm. The practice for site to be opened at one go was
also common, as a result of being too optimistic with work completion without considering unforeseen
circumstances. Nonetheless, C3 claimed to practice opening small portions of the work because it is
unnecessary to open larger working area than they could cope with. C3 also added that smaller areas of
work are also beneficial in terms of health and safety as it is easier to manage and control leading to reduced
100
risk of mishap. Additional suggestions were also raised by participants which involve sequencing the
installation of critical control structures, especially clean water diversion. The deficiency in the sequence of
installation may result in additional runoff flooding from other catchment, on top of the runoff from the current
site.
Overall, all respondents agreed on the functions of schedule in preventing water pollution. In terms
of applicability, respondents suggested for staging to be financially worthwhile. ES6, ES7, ES8 and ES10
claimed that they have applied staging in their project with the intention of saving cost and not pollution
prevention. The reason given was that larger open area requires larger control system that involves larger
investment. Hence, the application of proper staging and timing within the construction schedule can
simultaneously provide benefits in terms of cost and water pollution prevention. This framework has
provided the respondents with a new perspective on the use of staging that encourages the notion of killing
two birds with one stone.
5.3.2 Construction Method
80% of the respondents found that either all or parts of the sub-categories in WP3 have practical relation
with construction method. Categorically, 100% legislators found all sub-categories of WP3 work well with
construction method planning followed by 91% ES and 50% constructors.
In terms of practice, respondents emphasized the importance of minimizing excavation by exposing
smaller parts in order to alleviate runoff issues, especially at sensitive areas. Most respondents agreed that
mass excavation will induce runoff due to large open areas, especially with the involvement of cut and fill
over the entire site. Nonetheless, there were contrasting opinions from ES6, ES7 and ES8 due to
misunderstanding that excavation involves only the depth and not the extend (area) of excavation. In terms
of method, ES2 agreed that a switch from raft slab system to pile foundation could reduce the extent of
excavation. However, after receiving feedback from other respondents, it was found that foundations were
commonly designed by structural engineers and those structural decisions were beyond contractors
influence.
Respondents also agreed that compaction activities have impact on elevating runoff, particularly
from the theoretical point of view. The equation used to compute quantity of runoff includes a variable that
101
represents the amount of rainfall that could soak into the ground (infiltration) for a particular surface. In this
case, smooth compacted surface may have very low rate of infiltration, consequently creating larger surface
runoff. Nonetheless, L2 mentioned that the impact is more prominent in long term (operational) and not
short term basis (during construction). Also, ES4 and ES5 found this practice to be less relevant from the
practical stand point as construction sites were usually required to abide a certain compaction standard,
especially in highway construction. Typically, this measure does reduce runoff but not applicable to
all/whole construction sites. Relatively, movement of heavy equipment can also increase soil compaction
in theory but in practice, it does not matter much as common areas of construction will eventually be
compacted. Most respondents agreed that restriction in trenching as well as care for existing trees is
essential in reducing site runoff. Accordingly, L3, ES2, ES3 and ES10 suggested besides trees, vegetative/
top cover should be retained where feasible.
Besides the measures given in the framework, the respondents also provided additional
suggestions to enrich the functionality of construction method in reducing runoff. Among the suggestions
provided were provision for hard fill areas at the entrance, contouring, tracking transverse to flow direction,
surface roughening, lengthen flow path and zig-zag type of flow path. Those suggestions are common
control practices that merely reduce the intensity of runoff but do not prevent the issue at its source. Also,
some managerial solutions were also proposed i.e. to increase money allocated to contractors in provision
for storm water control system and a fairer method of contract measurement by using measure and value
as opposed to lump sum contract for earthwork.
5.3.3 Construction Site Layout
70% of the respondents found that either all or parts of WP3 relates to construction site layout planning.
Categorically, 100% legislators convinced that all sub-categories of WP3 are linked to construction site
layout, followed by 73% consultants and 50% constructors.
Most respondents had strong opinions on sensitivity of a site. They believe sensitive areas such as
wetlands and steep slopes should be retained and if possible, preserved by not making any alteration.
Respondents also mentioned the importance of planning the site layout by organizing access route and
machinery tracks so that site workers can be certain of the accessibility and areas to be protected.
102
Nonetheless, some deficiencies were observed in the current system that may impact the WP3. L1
viewed that occasionally, high risk areas were not laid out towards the top of site. L2 thought that site plans
should evolve along with the constantly changing topography, especially during earthwork. By having pre-
planned and evolving site plan, areas that require preservation as well as limits and caution signs can be
provided in real time, subsequently reducing unplanned or unnecessary land openings. Shortcomings
beyond contractors control were also highlighted, i.e. inefficient communication between parties, inefficient
contracting system such as Design-Bid-Build (DBB) and constructability issues.
5.4 Theoretical-Practical Based Framework
The main idea of integration was to instill prevention of runoff and erosion through seamless integration
with construction by assimilating the elements of WP3 into Construction Planning. The initial theoretical
framework is being enhanced with practical insights from interview conducted with industrial practitioners.
From the process, construction schedule is found to be the most significant construction planning
component in preventing runoff and erosion that potentially shapes the direction of future research. Other
findings were also found to be intriguing, i.e. management, contractual, communication and constructability
issues that may have indirect impact on WP3 that could further be recognized as distal factors of water
pollution (Fuertes et al. 2013). The following discussion is focused on the practical insights used to establish
the theoretical-practical driven WP3-Construction Planning framework.
Construction Schedule: Under this theme, the concern on sequencing has been raised where sequence of
activities plays a major role in preventing runoff and sediment. Besides that, critical materials such as
mulches should be available ahead of a forecasted rainfall in order to reduce surface erosion. Hence, the
function of sequencing will be added to the final framework with some shift in the practices and the addition
of critical material acquisition.
Construction Method: During the interview, the term minimizing excavation has created some
misunderstanding among respondents. Hence, in the revised framework, additional description has been
added, changing the original term to minimize excavation area. Under the same heading, use minimal
excavation foundation system to reduce grading was removed as it was perceived to be under the design
phase in construction. Whilst equipment selection and compaction have strong theoretical connections in
103
preventing runoff, in practice, it is deemed to be not viable. This is due to the fact that common construction
require certain equipment and standard of compaction to be fulfilled for a firm foundation. Therefore,
connections with compaction and equipment selection were removed from the final framework. For the
component removing existing trees, it will be changed to trees and top covers. Findings from this study
also prompted other issues (management and contractual) which are beyond the scope of this study but
essential as a holistic solution for the whole system.
Construction Site Layout: A practical suggestion was to include regular plan updates into the site plan
category. Construction site, especially earthworks involve constant changes where regular updates could
keep workers and contractors well informed of sites progress and control measures that should be taken.
The theoretical-practical framework of WP3-Construction Planning in Figure 5.1, with its description
in Table 5.5 is the industry enhanced version of the theoretical framework (Figure 4.1 refers). The
theoretical dimension has been established through the literature. The practical dimension was then added
into the theoretical framework using the input from semi-structured interview with the industry players. The
changes in the revised version (shown in italic in Figure 5.1 and Table 5.5) have been discussed in previous
paragraphs, with minimal changes to the overall structure of the framework.
WP3 -Construction Planning
Construction Planning Construction Site Layout Construction

Schedule Method
Phasing/ Protect sensitive Minimize excavation

Staging areas area
WP3
Timing Minimize site Trees and top covers
Sequencing disturbance Restrict trenching
Limit accessibility
Provide site plan
Figure 5.1 Theoretical-Practical WP3-Construction Planning Framework
104
Table 5.5 Description for the Theoretical-Practical WP3-Construction Planning Framework
Category Sub-category Practices

Schedule Phasing/ Staging Establish phases of construction within the work zone.
Prepare a schedule for earth moving & building construction activities.
Schedule and phase grading & earthmoving operation to expose the
smallest practical area for the shortest possible time.
Timing Schedule large disturbance activities during dry season.
Start clearing, grading & heavy construction activities during the driest
month.
Reduce time soil left disturbed.
Sequencing Sequence critical activities to prevent runoff from other site.
Develop sequence of construction and methods to be used within the
phases.
Plan efficient sequencing of construction phases to reduce equipment
activities & potential damage to protected area.
Critical material acquisition.
Protect sensitive areas Clear off any siting of facilities on sensitive areas such as easily compacted
soil, natural preservation area and drainage channels.
Site Layout Layout areas that do not require removal of trees.
Reduce imperviousness.
Minimize site disturbance Protect and preserve natural drainage system.
Map and provide protection for native soil & natural vegetative area.
Provide fencing from the existing tree canopy
Limit clearing & grading to road, utilities, building pad, landscape areas &
the minimal additional areas needed to maneuver equipment.
Limit accessibility Install signs to identify and explain the use and management of protected
areas.
Limit construction access to one route, if feasible.
Locate access where future roads & utility corridors will be placed.
Provide site plan Area of the site to be used.
Staging areas.
Storage areas (material/stockpile).
Building site.
Regular plan updates.
Method Minimize excavation area Minimize excavation area, especially at critical zone.
Trees and top covers Trees or woody vegetation should be cut rather than push over with
equipment
Prevent wounds to the tree trunk & timber.
Restrict trenching Restrict trenching at sensitive area.
5.5 Conclusion
The findings suggest that WP3 is related to Construction Planning components and the seamless integration
between both element leads towards the establishment of CP-P2 (prevention-based) site water pollution
strategies. Theoretically, the framework has contributed in adapting the CP-P2 concept by integrating two
distinct elements (runoff and erosion) into a single entity termed WP3. In addition to that, the assimilation
between WP3-Construction Planning has provided a new perspective to seamlessly manage production
processes with pollution prevention. Hence, the proposed framework has filled the gap of knowledge within
the area of study where limited works were found on combining the distinctive elements of water pollution
105
prevention with construction planning as most works focused on mitigation. This framework could serve as
a methodology to seamlessly integrate any other environmental concerns into construction planning based
on the CP-P2 concept. However, strong similarities should first be established between the chosen
environmental concern and construction planning before it could be proposed as an integrated entity.
In practice, the established framework could benefit different parties in construction. For
developers, this integration involves non-structural approaches that could eventually reduce the
dependence on structural facilities, leading to cost savings, as stated by some of the respondents in the
interview. As for contractors, the integrated framework allows them to manage construction and runoff-
erosion prevention at the same time where they could simultaneously plan their work with additional benefit
in preventing pollution. This may reduce their work load in preparing for erosion and sediment control
facilities. For the local authorities, this framework could act as a guide in updating the current runoff and
erosion sediment control handbooks towards promoting prevention approaches. Ultimately, the framework
benefits the people and environment as a whole by preventing and reducing the occurrence of water
pollution as well as subsequent issues that may arise from the pollution.
In summary, this chapter has provided a prevention-based solution to manage production and the
environmental factor at the construction planning stage. Only solving the problem at construction planning
is not holistic if the operational stage is not being looked at. Hence, proceeding chapters will provide the
operational based solution using clean-lean method to provide an environmental and production measures
for during construction strategy.
5.6 References
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., Newton, R., 2002. Quantitative and qualitative research in the
built environment: application of mixed research approach. Work Study 51, 17-31.
106
Belayutham, S., Gonzlez, V., 2013. Integrating lean into stormwater runoff management: a theoretical
exploration. In: 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2013,
Fortaleza: Brazil, 29 July - 2 August 2013, 835-844.
Bowen, G. A., 2005. Preparing a qualitative research-based dissertation: lessons learned. The Qualitative
Report 10, 208-222.
Claytor, R., 2000. Practical tips for construction site phasing. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(3): 413-
417.
Fernie, S., Green, S. D., Weller, S. J., Newcombe, R., 2003. Knowledge sharing: context, confusion and
controversy. International Journal of Project Management 21, 177-187.
Jabareen, Y., 2009. Building a conceptual framework: philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods 8, 49-62.
King, N., 1994. The qualitative research interview. In: Cassell C. M., Symon, G., (Eds), Qualitative Methods
in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide. SAGE, London, 1436.
Marshall, M. N., 1996. Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice 13, 522-525.
Yin, R. K., 2009. Case study research: design and methods, Fourth Ed. SAGE Publications, USA.
107
CHAPTER 6
CLEAN-LEAN APPROACH TO MANAGE THE DISTAL FACTOR (ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESSES) OF CONSTRUCTION SITE WATER POLLUTION
Belayutham, S, Gonzlez, V.A., and Yiu, T.W. (2015), Clean-Lean Administrative Processes. Journal of
Cleaner Production, Submitted for Review.
6.1 Introduction
Chapter 3 has earlier established the theoretical framework for integrating cleaner production and lean
production concept by developing a clean-lean approach. Clean-lean approach is an operational level
management of the production and environmental factors in construction. This chapter functions to apply
the conceptually integrated concept to address the distal factors of construction site water pollution, as
recognized in Chapter 1 and 2. The findings in this chapter could provide two different verifications, which
are: 1) data verification in regards to distal factors found in construction water pollution and 2) clean-lean
approach verification conceptualized in Chapter 3. In particular, this chapter will utilize a clean-lean
integration to tackle the distal factors of administrative processes towards positively improving the risk of
site sediment pollution as well as the production factor during construction. Lean based approach such as
lean tools and principles will be integrated with water pollution indicator to improve the administrative
processes that will subsequently benefit the production and environment factor of the construction.
Furthermore, the applicability of CLD to discover core causes, as shown in Chapter 2 will be used here to
enhance the functionalities of the developed approach by narrowing down the root cause of waste as a
subsequent point for improvement. The aim of this chapter is to improve the administrative (distal) process
inefficiencies, simultaneously enhancing also the production and environmental performance through the
use of Causal Loop Diagram, Lean and Cleaner Production concept. The objectives of this study are given
as follows:
108
1) To provide an analytical framework of the cause-effect relationship between administrative process
inefficiencies, lean waste, production (time) and the environmental (sediment pollution) variable using a
system dynamic tool called Causal Loop Diagram (CLD).
2) To develop a CLD enhanced Value Stream-Process Map (VS-PM) that functions to improve both the
production and environmental variable in a construction project.
3) To develop a clean-lean solution to improve the administrative processes, consequently improving also
the production and environmental factors during construction.
This chapter employs a case study to portray the functionalities of a clean-lean approach towards achieving
the established aim and objectives.
6.2 The Side-Lined Administrative Processes in Construction Performance Improvement
Lean thinking is a process-focused performance improvement concept that originated from the
manufacturing sector and has been adapted and adopted into various sectors including construction
(Womack and Jones, 1996b). Typically, construction consist of two different type of processes, which are
production, also known as construction processes that produce output and administrative processes that
do not produce output but necessary in supporting the production (Garvin, 1998). Administrative processes
often function to produce information that allows the production processes to take place. In the aspect of
improvement, lean thinking has mostly been used to improve construction operations performance by
enhancing the effectiveness of production and accordingly, the environment can benefit (Rosenbaum et al.,
2012). However, the extensive focus on the production aspect has caused administrative processes to be
side-lined (Koskela and Blviken, 2013). Inefficient administrative processes are rarely seen as a significant
factor that could influence the production variable, let alone the environmental variable during construction.
However, Alsehaimi and Koskela (2008) stressed that inefficient administrative processes is the primary
cause of delay during construction. Uncertainties in administrative performance such as long sub-
processes may cause certain information to be released late in a process, consequently creating delay to
subsequent processes (Browning, 1998). The criticalities of administrative processes have been
underestimated due to its distant and indirect relationship with the production and environmental variable
during construction (Belayutham et al., 2016). Limited research has also been conducted to observe the
109
aforementioned relationship. The limitation in recognizing the cause-effect relationship between the distinct
variables may stem from the use of linear approaches in visualizing the linkage that disregards the systemic
view of the whole system. This scenario has prompted Koskela and Blviken (2013) to question the
effectiveness of the current improvement approaches that segregate administration and production
processes. In order to implement long-lasting improvements that incorporate the entire system, flow in
processes should be observed and understood, rather than treating administration and production
processes in a discrete fashion (Arleroth and Kristensson, 2011).
Cause and effect are often separated in terms of time and space, where the resulting solutions are
often short-term based and may create larger problems in the long run (Atwater and Pittman, 2006).
Similarly, neglecting inefficiencies in administrative processes may prompt for solutions that are merely
control rather than prevention-based to improve the production or environmental performance during
construction. Short-term solutions for the production aspect of time delay can commonly be observed
through extra working time with requirements for additional manpower (Mochal, 2008). From an
environmental standpoint, mitigating facilities are commonly implemented as a short-term fix but the
approach challenges the concept of Cleaner Production (CP) that advocates to identify and solve problem
at its root (Fresner, 1998). In addition, mitigating facilities are often developed in isolation to the production
process itself where the resulting pollutant is controlled by the means of technological improvements
(UNEP, 1996). Little emphasis has been given to understand the mechanism of the environmental
occurrence, further inhibiting the application of prevention-based approaches.
In the case of sediment pollution, the risk of pollution occurrence increases during construction,
especially when earth clearing activities such as earthworks are involved (Ab Rahman et al., 2010).
Sediment pollution is a global issue as sediment could originate from a construction site as small as 0.34
acres (Owens et al., 2000) that is flowed into local rivers, which will then travel through lakes, estuaries and
finally ends at worlds ocean (Walling and Webb, 1996). Incidence of sediment pollution could affect the
aquatic environment as well as the additional requirement of cost and resources for rectification works (Pitt
et al., 2007). Site sediment pollution could occur when a combination of processes take place, i.e. excessive
runoff, erosion and sedimentation. In general, the larger and longer a cleared land is being left open, the
higher the rate and volume of runoff produced, subsequently causing massive erosion of the soil (US EPA,
110
1999). Commonly, end-of-pipe solution such as sediment pond functions to temporarily store the site runoff
rather than preventing its occurrence. Regardless of that, construction is prone to unpredictable
circumstances where often, works could get interrupted or delayed due to reasons such as force of nature
as well as human factors. Unnecessary delays during crucial work stage such as earthworks could further
increase the risk of sediment pollution. Man-made factors that could influence the risk of sediment pollution
includes both the operational (proximal) and administrative (distal) factors. In regards to administrative
(distal) processes, which is the subject of this study, redundancies and delays in the administrative process
of communicating information during earthworks (Weese, 2007) could prolong the period land being left
opened, which will risk higher frequency of rainfall occurrence leading to increased risk of sediment pollution
(Ab Rahman et al. 2010). Hence, the reduction in construction time delay due to unnecessary administrative
processes could potentially reduce the risk of sediment pollution (Belayutham et al., 2016). Furthermore,
distal factors are commonly being associated as the core cause of problems where in-depth studies on
these factors could provide holistic benefits from the production and environmental standpoint (McNeill,
1996). Hence, this study proposes that enhancement to administrative processes could improve the
production (time) and environmental measures (sediment pollution) of construction, especially on the
earthworks operation.
6.3 Lean Administration in Construction
Lean thinking has also been applied beyond the production line to include administrative processes, giving
rise to terms such as Lean Office (Tapping, 2005) and Lean Government (US EPA, 2009a). The application
of lean thinking towards improving the administrative process waste in construction can be observed in
processes involving consent (Garrett and Lee, 2010) and variation order (Ndihokubwayo and Haupt, 2010).
However, the studies done on administrative processes in construction are still minimal because the
industry rather invest and improve production related works such as material and building technologies
(Arleroth and Kristensson, 2011). Hence, focus on the production process itself has caused administrative
processes to be side lined (Koskela and Blviken, 2013) and this study intents to propagate changes to the
common perception by highlighting the criticality of managing well the administrative processes.
111
In regards to administrative processes in construction, public construction projects have been
slammed with delays and high cost of deliveries that defy the quality standards. Reasons for the poor
performance could be reverted back to lengthy, complex and unpredictable processes involving
government at various administrative levels, local councils, the public, consultants and also contractors
from the private sector (Samset et al., 2006). For example, time for consent approval in the government
sector could almost equal the duration of real value production process such as design and this is
counterproductive, creating the urge to reduce the duration through process improvement (Productivity
Partnership, 2013). Furthermore, the negative impact of lengthy procedures especially in tendering may
cause prices quoted during tendering to be obsolete by the time construction begins (Ssegawa-Kaggwa et
al., 2013). Hence, improvement strategies should include process change by instilling positive improvement
in issues such as organization, duplication of effort and miscommunication (Fresner, 1998).
6.4 Project Background
The case project for this study involves a state owned project of a triple-storey district education office
building within the district of Raub, in the state of Pahang, Malaysia. The traditional system (Design-Bid-
Build) was the choice of procurement for this project. This project that values at approximately RM 7 million
(USD 1.68 million) has an area size of 2.6 hectares. The site has been chosen based on its geographical
location. This site was exposed to the Northeast Monsoon from October to March, which tends to bring
heavy rainfalls during the period. This site was also located close to a river bank (approximately 6 metres
in distance) and created criticality in terms of controlling the sediment produced. In summary, this site was
prone to flood during the rainy season. Also, the social aspect of this site was relevant as adjacent from
this site is a residential area and any sediment spill could create nuisance to the nearby inhabitants. All
those factors made this site particularly critical in terms of sediment pollution and potential prevention
approach would be much preferred rather than relying on the control facilities as the last defence
mechanism.
In regards to the objective of this study on administrative process inefficiencies, the chosen case
project is a public project that has encountered delays during the site clearance and earthwork stage. A
public project has been chosen to be the subject of this study due to the common perception that projects
112
administered by the public authority are complicated with lengthy administrative procedures and processes
(Samset et al., 2006). The site clearance stage was particularly selected because this stage would have
the most impervious surfaces which are highly prone to runoff, erosion and sedimentation (Ab Rahman et
al., 2010). Earthworks with large land openings and exposed for long duration poses the highest risk of
sediment pollution (Shaver et al., 2000). Therefore, any work and time delay during that period would
contribute to increase the risk of sediment pollution.
Initially, the project was expected to be completed within 3 years and 8 months. However, time of
completion has been delayed as the contractor was awarded extension of time of 121 days (approx. 4
months) for delays caused by administration as well as unintended operations during earthworks. Reasons
for the extension are described as follows:
After site clearance, the contractor found that on-site soil was insufficient to provide the required
platform level with a shortage of 0.77m and 4720m3 of soil. The awarded contract did not state the
requirement to import soil from off-site, giving way to Variation Order (V.O.). The administrative
process involved for the 4 months delay involves the V.O. application process while the operation
works involve the importing of soil from off-site, time allocation for natural settlement to take place
and the construction of a retaining wall due to the added height of the fill area.
The focus of this study is on the administrative process, i.e. V.O. process. V.O. application process
is commonly known to cause time delays (Bauch, 2004). Delays in the process will subsequently interrupt
the execution of the current and succeeding works, relatively highlighting the importance of this process to
be streamlined (Tapping, 2003). The period of extension has been given for the month of September to
December where the V.O. process occupied almost a month of the timeframe. Due to the geographic factor
of the site that receives heavy rainfall towards the end of the year, it is crucial for any earthworks to be
completed as soon as possible. Nonetheless, contractors are not allowed to continue with any site work
until the V.O. has been approved, as stipulated in the regulation. Since the V.O. application occurred during
earthwork, the time spent waiting for the approval extends the time land is being left opened and this
increases the risk of soil erosion that leads to sediment pollution.
113
6.5 Research Phases to Develop Clean-Lean Administrative Processes
This exploratory-based study utilizes qualitative approaches due to the limited research found on improving
administrative processes to benefit the production and environmental variables during construction. It is
necessary to highlight that this study is scoped to improve the macro instead of the micro level processes
in administration. Macro in this aspect relates to viewing processes from a larger perspective and the
interest is for proper restructuring of work processes, rather than the micro aspect that involves functional
details such as internal working processes (Nerenz and Neil, 2001). The scope of study is further justified
with the findings by Wood and Gidado (2008) where organizational aspects of an administration contributes
more to project difficulties, rather than the operative and technological aspect. Table 6.1shows the phases
and workflow for this research. Phase 1 act as the conceptual basis of this study by establishing an
analytical framework of relationship between administrative process waste with construction performance
(production and environmental) variables in the form of a CLD. Then, an improvement approach in the form
of clean-lean will be introduced and demonstrated using a case project.
114
Table 6.1 Research Workflow
PHASE WORKFLOW OUTCOME

Literature Review
Database:
Scopus, Google Scholar
Analytical Framework of the
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
Search Subject:
cause-effect relationship
Administrative process inefficiencies, Lean Administration, Lean
between administrative
Management, Causes of site water pollution in relation to time
process inefficiencies, lean
waste, production (time)
PHASE 1
Content Analysis and environmental

(sediment pollution)
variable using a system
Steps by Elo and Kyngas (2008): Literature are being sourced to
identify key terms, allocated into categories, define linkages between dynamic tool called Causal
the categories Loop Diagram (CLD)
Development of CLD (Refer to Section 4.1)
Similar method of data collection and representation is found in

Yuan et al. (2014)
Validation
Stage 1 Current mapping
Sources for production measures
Government standard, Construction site record and document,

Interview, Observation
Sources for environmental measures
Site records and documents, Document from the Department of

Irrigation and Drainage (DID) Malaysia CLD enhanced VS-PM to
improve both the production
and environmental in a
Performance metrics (Refer to 4.4) construction project
CASE STUDY (REFER TO SECTION 4.2)
Production - Time and Project Complexity

Sediment - Rainfall erosivity, R Pollution Factor
Input
VS-PM (Refer to Section 4.3) and CLD
PHASE 2
of the current map
Stage 2 Future Mapping
Elimination of NVA / waste activities
Over processing, waiting, inventory A lean-based solution that

First point of improvement in accordance to the CLD improves the administrative
processes, consequently
Reduce process steps: No. of steps improving also the
production and
environmental factor during
Reduction in production factor: Time construction
Reduction in environment factor: R factor for sediment pollution
VS-PM of Future Map
Verification with project personnel
115
6.5.1 Causal Loop Diagram (CLD)
Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) is a qualitative model, established prior to running a simulation that results in
a quantitative model called System Dynamics (Toole, 2005). It is essential to highlight that the CLD derived
in this study is exploratory and qualitative in nature, where the purpose is not for simulation but as an
enhancement for the lean-based tool, VS-PM. Details of CLD have been discussed and can be referred to
in Section 3.5.1. Functions of the CLD in this study is twofold. First, is to provide a systemic view of the
cause-effect relationship between administrative process inefficiencies, lean waste, production and
environmental variable. It is important to stress that the CLD representation is a preliminary finding to relate
administrative process waste with construction performance variables that was not present in previous
studies. Similar to Toole (2005), the intention was not to provide a complex and complete model but to
provide essential variables, sufficient enough to represent the reality and relationship between the
variables. Secondly, the CLD aims to enhance the functionalities of the VS-PM at the analysis stage by
pointing out the root cause of the administrative waste. The second CLD that is built from a case study data
also acts as a validation model for the analytic framework produced in Phase 1. Haslam et al. (2005) and
Gambatese et al. (2008) have validated their conceptual CLD model by mapping the established categories
against a set of real incident. Similarly, Yuan et al. (2014) have also used a case study to illustrate the
validation and application of their proposed model. The CLD for this study has been drawn following the
steps proposed by Kim (1992), given as follows: 1) selection of subjects; 2) key variables within the subject;
3) relationship between the variables with project boundary and level of details.
6.5.2 Case Study
Data from the case is used to produce a VS-PM, which is further complemented with a CLD. Various
methods have been used to collect the data for this study, given as follows: 1) Document reviews-Archival
records (site diary), project documents such as meeting minutes, Request for Information (RFI), project
details and government standards on variation order work procedure. 2) Interviews have been conducted
with public government agency personnel who have been assigned to manage this project. The project
personnel involved consist of a district engineer, engineer, assistant engineer, site based technical assistant
116
and administrative staffs. 3) An observation has also been carried out to observe the flow of processes
involved in this case.
6.5.3 Lean Mapping
Waste minimization is the aim of an organization that plans to increase the productivity and efficiency of its
processes. The initial step to minimize waste is to identify waste within the system. Waste in production
could be recognized by walking through the whole production process and detailing it using lean tools such
as Value Stream Map (VSM). This representation could highlight the sources of waste (Rother and Shook,
2009), consequently prompting ways to eliminate them through a process of continuous improvement
(Duque and Cadavid, 2007). VSM, which originated from process map instils more advanced functions than
the process map by supplying comprehensive information and quantitative data that enables objective
results to be drawn (Irani and Zhou, 2000). Quantitative data that could be supplemented with VSM are
time (duration), quality (units completed), resources (number of people, distance travelled) and other
indicators that are well-suited to the situation (Rother and Shook, 2009). In this study, the VSM will be
integrated with the process map (VS-PM) to portray the current steps involved in an administrative process,
which will then act as the baseline for future improvements.
6.5.4 Performance Metrics
Performance metrics are essential to measure the performance of processes that require improvement
through the perspective of flow and value (Freire and Alarcon, 2002). Measurement metrics will be used
alongside the lean-based map to represent the performance of current processes quantitatively. It allows
the establishment of baseline for performance improvement and tracking of progress over time (US EPA,
2009a). Metrics selection is unique, depending on goals of improvement. The goal of this study is to improve
the administrative processes so that the production (time) and environmental (sediment pollution) variable
can benefit. Performance metrics proposed for this study are described as follows:
117
1) Production Variables
Time metrics
Time metrics that include variables such as lead time, processing time, VA and NVA time is suggested to
be the universal metric as it has the potential to influence the performance of other variables, i.e. cost and
quality (Krupka, 1992). Nonetheless, the determination of other process metrics such as cost, quality,
outputs and process complexity is also important in order to identify problematic areas to improve (US EPA,
2009a).
The time variables involved in study are lead, cycle and process time. Lead time is used to indicate
anticipated or maximum allowable cycle time for a job whereas cycle time is the average time it takes for a
job to go through a line (Hopp and Spearman, 2011). Process time, also known as VA time is the time spent
adding value to a product (Arbulu et al., 2003). The aforementioned times are typically expressed in hours
or days. The establishment of time allows for further investigation to recognise complexity of the processes
involved.
Process complexity metrics
Process complexity is a metric that affects the length of processes, which includes variables such as
process steps, value-added process steps, decisions, delays, handoffs, loops and black holes (US EPA,
2009a). For example, the EPA Region 7 team has produced new process map that reduces number of
steps and handoffs, ultimately reducing the duration of process time without the need to create a new
process from scratch (US EPA, 2013; US EPA, 2009b). The reduction in complexity may shorten the
duration of processes, consequently enhancing the importance of adapting process complexity as a metrics
besides the time component for process improvement.
In this study, it is crucial to measure complexity of the administrative processes because complexity
increases time duration (Griffin, 1993) where an extended duration, especially during earthwork could
increase the risk of sediment pollution. Complexity within the administrative processes can be determined
through the use of lean government based metrics (US EPA, 2009a). The metrics selected for this study
includes number of process steps and value-added steps.
118
2) Environmental Variable
Sediment Pollution
Ideally, reduction in administrative process waste could lead to shortened earthwork operation time,
consequently lowering the risk of sediment pollution. The claim could be proven using the Universal Soil
Loss Equation (USLE) equation. USLE is an erosion model designed to predict the long-term average
annual soil loss from specific areas (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978). The use of this equation is
advantageous because it has been well-established and tested over the years with its validity being
recognized (Teh, 2011). The USLE equation involves six variables: 1) rainfall and runoff erosivity (R); 2)
soil erodibility (K); 3) slope length (L); 4) slope steepness (S); 5) cover/ management practices (C) and 6)
supporting conservation practices (P), with the equation given as follows:
A=R x K x L x S x C x P
Where, A is the computed spatial and temporal average soil loss per unit of area.
This study is keen to portray the relationship between shortened production time with sediment
pollution, where soil losses may take place. According to King and Holder (1977) and Balousek (2000),
major variable that influences the prediction of soil loss over a short time period such as construction is the
R factor with short term changes in land condition. Hence, only the R factor would be of concern as it
relates to the variable of interest, which is time. For this study, the following steps proposed by King and
Holder (1977) in evaluating soil loss for a short time period has been adapted.
Step 1: Identify area of study and time period where the USLE factors can be presumed to be constant for
the selected period.
Step 2: Calculate the adjusted R factor based on the Erosivity Index distribution curve for the period of
study. The R value in this study will be in the unit of MJ.mm/ha.yr.
Step 3: Evaluate the different values of the R factor with respect to the different time period considered.
Relate the figure to soil loss.
119
Similar technique of adapting the USLE equation is found in a study by Balousek et al. (2000) in predicting
soil loss from construction sites. Their contribution in adapting the USLE into shorter period highlighted the
importance of the time element that signifies the criticality of erosion for certain periods within a year.
6.6 Analytical Framework of the Relationship between the administrative process waste,
production (time) and environmental (sediment pollution) variable
This section provides a systemic view on the linkages between the distinct variables of administrative
process, lean waste, production and the environment. The relationship is portrayed in the form of a CLD,
which will then act as the basis for the subsequent section that aims to improve the administrative waste
by using lean based approaches. After collecting and analyzing the information within the subjects of
Administrative process inefficiencies, Lean Administration, Lean Management and Causes of site water
pollution in relation to time, the subjects of administrative process inefficiencies and lean waste are further
investigated to identify its relation. It is essential to reiterate that this study focuses to improve the macro
processes of administration, which largely concerns restructuring of processes rather than micro
processes that relates more to operational factors. The potential variables for macro administrative
process inefficiencies and its associated lean waste (Refer to Section 2.0) have been derived according to
the US EPA (2009a) and Tapping (2003) and is given in Table 6.2. Accordingly, only three lean wastes are
found to be related with administrative process inefficiencies, as others are more inclined to equipment and
people factor.
Table 6.2 Administrative Process Waste
Lean waste Administrative process inefficiencies

Over processing Numerous and unnecessary approvals and signature levels.
Processing things that the customer Unnecessary steps (unnecessary reviews/ checking)
doesn't want. Handoffs (Numerous change hands for a service/ product)
Waiting Waiting for information.
Idle time that causes workflow to stop. Waiting for decision.
Inventory Backlog of work, the use of batch and queue system.
Excess stock of anything.
Relationships between the administrative process waste, production (time) and environmental
(sediment pollution) variable is shown in Figure 6.1. The CLD resulted in several loops which are all
120
Reinforcing (R) in nature. The R loops will grow exponentially if no actions are taken to combat the causes,
especially the root cause of the problem. Relationships between the variables have been derived through
the use of literature. The variables have been established earlier through the use of content analysis by
following the procedures given by Elo and Kyngas (2008). As an example, the determination for Loop R2
is given as follows: Increase in approval requirement and signature level will subsequently intensify
unnecessary steps in a process (Hofacker, 2007). This is so because the same document has to go through
different approving levels but without any value added to the document. The unnecessary steps of having
to wait for approval and signature will cause time delay (Tapping, 2003), subsequently increasing the lead
time of the process (Womack and Jones, 1996a). The upsurge in lead time increases the duration land
being left opened (Goodemote, 2005). Increased duration or time of operation during earthwork will escalate
rainfall occurrence (Balousek et al., 2000) that increases soil loss (Ab Rahman et al., 2010), consequently
soaring the risk of sediment pollution (Arulmozhi et al., 2015). In reverse, the increase in sediment pollution
will result in amplified amount of approvals in order to control and manage the pollution (DID, 2010).
In reference to Figure 6.1, the CLD shows that different administrative process waste will still
produce similar effects on the production and environmental performance. Hence, reduction or elimination
of the root causes (administrative process waste) would eventually lead to a positive outcome in terms of
the time factor and sediment pollution during construction, towards achieving the aim of the lean-base clean
approach. The diagram also shows that the approvals/ signatures have the highest occurrence of
administrative waste and is the lead to other subsequent wastes. Conceptually, the unnecessary
requirements for approvals/ signatures should be the point of initial improvement as it is found to be the
root for subsequent problems.
121
R4
Handoffs R3
+
+
Unnecessary
Information / Steps
Meeting
Approvals /
+
R2
Signatures
+
Decision
Batch &
Queue
System R1
+
+ Duration Land Rainfall Sediment
+ + Time Delay Lead Time Soil Loss
+ + Left Opened + Occurence + + Pollution
Legend: Over processing Waiting Inventory
Variables Cause-effect factors Loop R1 Loop R2 Loop R3 Loop R4 Frequency
Administrative Approvals/ Signatures 4

Process Information / Meeting 1
Waste Handoffs 1
Unnecessary Steps 1
Decision 1
Effect on Time Delay 4
Production Lead Time 4
Duration Land Left 4
Effect on Rainfall Occurrence 4
Environment Soil Loss 4
Sediment Pollution 4
Figure 6.1 Effect of Administrative Process Waste on the Production and Environmental Variable
6.7 Lean-Based Approach to Improve the Administrative Process Waste
This section involves the development of a lean-based approach by adapting the available lean thinking
tools and concepts towards improving the administrative process waste to benefit both production and
environmental performance. Furthermore, CLD will be used to enhance the functionalities of the developed
approach by narrowing down the root cause of the waste.
122
6.7.1 Current Mapping for the Variation Order (V. O.) Approval Process
The administrative process for V.O. approval has been investigated for improvements so that contractor
could proceed with the pending work as soon as possible. Value Stream-Process Map (VS-PM) (Refer to
Figure 6.2) has been developed to demonstrate the processes involved in the V.O. approval process. The
Current State Map has been produced by following the four steps proposed by Tapping (2003):
1) Task selection: The task selected for improvement is V.O. approval process.
2) Defining main processes: The main process steps were initially derived by following a governmental
document/ standards on working procedures for V.O. approval (Public Works Department, 2008). In a public
project such as this, the working procedures are usually the same in most situations as there are regulated
procedures to be followed.
3) Data collection from real case: The initial representation is further enhanced with site based data. V.O.
process steps for this particular project have been derived from interviews with the district engineer,
engineer, assistant engineer, site based technical assistant and administrative staffs of this project.
4) Discussion on findings: Findings of the map are being discussed in subsequent section.
Value in design processes only involves design activities where other activities are considered as
waste and should be reduced or eliminated (Freire and Alarcon, 2002). Similarly, value for V.O. approval
process involves only works that directly produce the V.O. documentation and approval. In reference to
Figure 2, the V.O. approval processes consist of 17 process steps. In reference to the value consideration
by Freire and Alarcon (2002), only 4 steps could be considered as being VA while NVA steps dominated
76.5% of the system. From the perspective of duration, the total process time is given as 13.63 days whilst
lead time for the whole process is 32.5 days. This shows that the application or document is left idle for
almost half of the entire time.
Summarisation for the VA activities are described as follows: In reference to Figure 6.2, the first
two VA steps represent the preparation and submission of the V.O. document by the contractor where the
steps create value as it contributes directly to the V.O. approval process. The next VA step involves further
123
action by the receiving engineer, who will compile the proposal with supplementary documents for the
consideration of the V.O. committee. The final VA activity is the approval letter provided for the contractor
to resume work. Without all the VA activities, the V.O. process could not be completed and work will be left
pending for a period of time.
Findings on the NVA processes are discussed according to the three categories of administrative
waste derived in Section 5.0.
Over-processing: It is common for waste to occur in administrative processes due to unnecessarily complex
and lengthy approval processes (Krings et al., 2006) and could include redundancies, unnecessary steps
and handoffs. In this case, redundant processes involve numerous approvals and signature requirements.
Unnecessary steps such as notification between various parties have also been identified. For instance,
the notification for V.O. was passed from the contractor to technician and then to the engineer, which do
not add value as the information delivered was redundant. By using the same example as previous, the
movement of document and information from one entity to another (handoffs) could also cause information
to be delivered inaccurately besides the obvious waste of time. In this study, the review and discussion for
the V.O. application goes through several rounds of deliberation (contractor-technician-engineer-quantity
surveyor-district engineer-approval committee) where it could have been completed in one session with all
parties present during the evaluation of options and strategies.
Waiting: Waiting tend to cause delay and time waste. According to Krings et al. (2006) and Tapping (2005),
waiting in administrative processes can be due to waiting for design, meeting and also information. In this
study, problem notification (information) from the contractor to the technician and then to the engineer may
only take a few hours at most through verbal communication. However, the time observed was longer and
delayed as the information was not passed on immediately upon receipt due to having other task in hand.
This causes waiting by the receiving end. In addition to that, waiting for the V.O. committee meeting is also
a waste of time as the submitted document is being left idle alongside the site work, pending the approval.
Inventory: Current work delegation using the batch and queue system also intensifies the current time waste
especially when administrative clerk who have received proposal from the contractor in the morning only
delivers it to the engineer in the afternoon. Upon receipt in the afternoon, the document may only be
124
reviewed on the next day, causing a waiting period. The receipt and review of proposal by the engineer
also depends on the amount of work in hand, besides the priority of the activity. Processes such as receipt
and registration of documents consume time but is not VA as the document is not being worked on until the
next process. The accumulation of documents will also cause works to arrive all at once, defying the
capacity of the individual, consequently prompting for further delays.
From the aspect of environment, the VS-PM is supplemented with a soil loss indicator represented
by the Rainfall Erosivity, R factor. In accordance to the USLE, soil loss is dependent on timing and duration
soil is being exposed to erosive agents (Bureau of Watershed Management, 2015). The R factor in the
USLE calculation provides the rainfall parameter that contributes to soil erosion as it is related to time by
looking at the intensity and duration of a precipitation event. In general, higher R value indicates a more
erosive weather condition (Nearing et al., 2005). The detailed calculation for the R factor is given in the
appendix.
125
Variables Numbers Total process time (days) Total lead time (days)
Process steps 17 13.63 32.5
VA process steps 4 4.5 10
NVA process steps 13 9.13 22.5
R factor for 4 months (September to December): 7012.15 MJ.mm/ha.yr.
Figure 6.2 Current VS-PM of the V.O. Approval Process
6.7.2 The use of CLD in Enhancing the Functionalities of the VS-PM
CLD has been used to overcome the limitations of the VS-PM. The VS-PM has provided the current NVA
processes but could not pin-point its root cause. Hence, the strategy of improvement might be general and
may not tackle the source of problem. As an enhancement, CLD is used to encapsulate the administrative
process waste from the study, subsequently providing the root cause of the waste. The CLD for this case
is given in Figure 6.3. The CLD has been drawn based on similar information obtained in the current VS-
PM by conducting a series of interview with the project personnel. The project personnel have been asked
questions in an iterative manner starting from the consequences of sediment pollution where the response
was given as the increase in corrective actions. Iteratively, the following question is on the consequences
of the increase in corrective action, where similar pattern of questioning has been conducted. Ultimately, a
CLD has been produced where it portrays the effect of V.O. process waste on time and sediment pollution
variable in a systemic view. From Figure 6.3, redundant notification is found to have the highest
occurrence link and proposed to be the initial target for elimination followed by other waste. Therefore, the
CLD provides a direction or starting point for improvement by reducing first the root cause, which may
subsequently reduce the occurrence of other following waste.
126
Waiting for
+
Information
R5
+
Corrective +
Redundant Actions
+
+ R4 Notifications R2
Late Information
Delivery Waiting for
Meeting +
+
R3 Redundant
+ Approvals /
Variability Signatures
R1
+ +
+ + Duration Land Rainfall Sediment
Time Delay Lead Time Soil Loss
+ + Left Opened + Occurence + + Pollution
Variables Loop R1 Loop R2 Loop R3 Loop R4 Loop R5
Sediment Pollution
Corrective Actions
Redundant Approvals
Redundant Notifications
Waiting for Information
Late Information Delivery
Waiting for-Meeting
Variability
Time Delay
Lead Time
Duration Land Left Opened
Rainfall Occurrence
Soil Loss
Sediment Pollution
Figure 6.3 Case Based CLD
6.7.3 Improvements and Future Map for the V.O. Approval Process
This section will address the inefficiencies identified in Section 6.1 and 6.2. According to Koskela (2000),
processes should not be complex and needs to be simplified by eliminating the NVA activities and
subsequently reconfiguring the VA activities. Therefore, NVA activities from the previous section should
first be identified and reduced as much as possible (Bauch, 2004) through the elimination of the identified
process waste. The initial point of improvement has been identified from the CLD given in Figure 6.3, where
improvement efforts first address the over-processing waste of redundant notification, followed by other
waste. Ideally, efforts to improve the current state should be continuous until the Ideal State is achieved,
where only VA activities exist (Bauch, 2004). Ideal State is when a system is perfect and in order to reach
the utopia state, a long-term improvement should be in place. However, it is essential to highlight that this
127
study only provides the Future Map and not the Ideal Map as the Future Map provides a more realistic
representation of progression for short-term improvement goals that could provide fast results (Plenert,
2012).
Future Map (FM) for the V.O. approval process (Refer to Figure 6.4) has been drawn using the
information gathered in Stage 2 (Current Map). According to the concept of continuous flow by Tapping
(2003), it is a necessity to eliminate the deficiencies identified in the Current Map in order to improve the
flow of processes. Additionally, Costa et al. (2013) found that elimination of waste in administrative
processes could improve productions performance. Hence, the entire Current Map has been reshuffled to
reflect a more streamlined process by eliminating the NVA activities, starting from over-processing steps.
The recognition of NVA activities are in accordance to the attributes given in Table 6.2. The goal here is to
eliminate NVA steps while still preserving the basic structure of the processes. Solutions provided in the
FM (See Figure 6.4) are discussed in accordance to the waste categories, given as follows:
Over-processing: In reference to Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2, redundant steps such as several rounds of
notifications through various different parties have been identified as the root cause for other waste and are
removed. The process of evaluating proposal from the contractor has also been shortened by integrating
several steps into one. The engineer will now receive the proposal directly from the contractor without the
need to go through the administrative staff. The engineer could also submit the document directly for the
meeting without the validation by district engineer as the document will still be evaluated during the meeting.
Furthermore, the notice of approval to the contractor will be directly communicated from the V.O. committee
without third party (district engineer) involvement. From the reduction and integration of the over-
processing processes, steps could be streamlined with 53% positive improvement by deducing the process
steps from 17 to 8 with 61.5% of NVA activities have been eliminated as compared to the current states
NVA number.
Waiting: In the case of this public project, waiting for meeting with the V.O. committee is inevitable as the
V.O. process involves additional cost beyond the original contract. Hence, the meeting step has to be
retained in the FM. However, improvement strategy towards achieving the Ideal State could seek to abolish
128
this step by decentralizing the authority for approval at the district level, where district engineer and his
team could decide and approve on the V.O.
Inventory: In terms of inventory waste, no document should be left idle. The batch and queue system
practiced is proposed to be abolished through the use of radical change, as suggested by Womack and
Jones (1996a), for a fast and continuous flow in work. The technique requires changes to take place within
a day. This could be done by requesting administration staff to deliver any document to the related officer
once the document has been received. This could potentially allow the document to be worked on, instead
of it being kept idle on the desk. Also, processes that involve only receipt and submittal of document but
occupy a day of lead time represents waste as the document is not being worked on, apart from the
registration that may take several minutes at most. In the FM, those relevant steps has also been eliminated
or integrated into other processes.
In terms of time measure for the future state, the ultimate goal is to reduce waste time such as
waiting and delays (to reduce lead time) towards achieving a process time of 8.75 days, as compared to
the total current lead time of 20.5 days. It is crucial to highlight that no changes have been made on the
time factor of the processes. The time shortage was purely due to the reduction in NVA steps. For this
study, the FM still includes necessary NVA activities in moving towards the Ideal State. For milestone
improvement effort such as to create an achievable future state, it is suffice to show that the FM is enhanced
with positive improvements both in terms of reduction in process steps and NVA activities that subsequently
reduced the process and lead time of the processes.
From the environmental perspective, the R factor provided here is based on the 2 weeks reduced
time from 32.5 to 20.5 days. Hence, the R factor is quantified for 3.5 months of rainfall and the result is
lower than the initial value quantified in the Current Map. Even though the period is shortened for only 2
weeks, the high occurrence of rainfall, especially towards the end of the year is inevitable and may cause
larger damage and should be prevented. The R factor is reduced by 17% in relevance to the reduction in
time due to the streamlined processes, as shown in the FM. The reduction could reduce the water erosion
risk from the site, consequently reducing the sediment yield. Ultimately, the risk of sediment pollution could
be lowered.
129
For this case study, the proposed FM could positively improve the process, time and environmental
variable in the system, consequently embracing a clean-lean approach. As a verification, an interview
pertaining to the FM was done with the project personnel involved (engineer, assistant engineer and
administrative staff) where their responses were positive and they found the proposed FM to be acceptable.
However, the project personnel highlighted that for the process change to take place in practice, lengthy
request of change in working procedure will be involved as public organisations are tied with the common
work procedure stipulated in a standard governmental document given in Public Works Department (2008).
Nonetheless, the methodology and proposal could be brought to the attention of the person in-charge of
the standard procedures for future improvements or revisions of the current standard of work.
Variables Numbers Total process time Total lead time
FV % Imp. FV (days) % Imp. FV (days) % Imp.
Process steps 8 +52.9 8.75 +33.8 20.5 +36.9
VA process 3 +25 4.0 +11.1 9 +10
NVA process 5 +61.5 4.75 +47.97 11.5 +48.9
R factor for 3.5 months (September to mid-December): 5816.25 MJ.mm/ha.yr.
Figure 6.4 Future Map for the V.O. approval process
130
6.8 Discussion and Conclusion
This study has portrayed the interrelationship between the administrative process, lean waste, production
(time) and the environmental (sediment pollution) variable. The analytical framework using CLD has
depicted linkages between the aforementioned variables and has been further validated using a real project
data on a V.O. approval process that occurred during an earthwork operation. Similar core waste
(overproduction) has been observed between the theoretical and industry-based data. The V.O. approval
process has been explored and further improved with the use of lean tool and concept through the
development of a VS-PM. The VS-PM provides the means to improve the production (time) and also the
environmental (sediment pollution) variables. As a result, the administrative processes of V.O. have been
improved with 53% reduction in process steps that has a positive effect of 37% reduction in lead time
(production) and 17% reduction in the R (environmental) factor. The complementary use of CLD with the
purposively developed VS-PM has provided a new scientific contribution towards identifying and improving
waste in administrative processes related to construction.
The mechanism of the relationship between lean and clean is portrayed here as the core value of
clean has been adapted to improve the production and environmental variables through the use of lean
tools and principles, besides the addition of CLD as an enhancer. The strategy employed here portrays a
clean-lean method where a lean-based approach acts as a catalyst to achieve CP. Nonetheless, the future
challenge lies within the application across the various organizations. As mentioned by the respondents
during the verification stage, changes to the current system will require major revamp that involves
management at national level. Hence, it is suggested for this proposal to be referred directly to the party
involved in producing the Standard of Operation (SOP) of governmental procedures for consideration during
document revisions.
6.9 References
Pollution, Nova Science Publishers Inc., New York: USA.
131
AlSehaimi, A., Koskela, L., 2008. What can be learned from studies on delay in construction? In:
Tzortzopoulos, P. and Kagioglou, M., 16th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction. Manchester, UK, 16-18 July 2008, 95-106.
Arbulu, R., Tommelein, I., Walsh, K., Hershauer, J., 2003. Value stream analysis of a re-engineered
construction supply chain. Building Research and Information, 31(2), 161-171.
Arleroth, J., Kristensson, H., 2011. Waste in lean construction A case study of a PEAB construction site
and the development of a Lean Construction Tool. (Masters), Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden.
Arulmozhi, R., Subramani, T., Sukumar, S., 2015. Mitigation of environmental impacts due to ghat road
formation in Palamalai Hills, South India, by optimizing cut and fill volumes using GPS and GIS
techniques. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 187, 4094.
Atwater, J. B., Pittman, P. H., 2006. Facilitating systemic thinking in business classes. Decision Sciences
Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 273-292.
Balousek, J. D., et al., 2000. Predicting erosion rates on construction sites using the universal soil loss
equation in Dane County, Wisconsin. National Conference on Tool for Urban Water Resource
Management and Protection, Chicago, IL.
Barkman, S., Marks, B. S., 2007. Using lean principles to lean out the supply chain. Paper presented at the
92nd Annual International Supply Management Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
Bauch, C., 2004. Lean Product Development: Making waste transparent. Product Development. (Diploma),
Technical University of Munich. Munich, German,
Belayutham, S., Gonzlez, V. A., 2013. Integrating lean into storm water runoff management: A theoretical
exploration. In Formosa, C. T., and Tzortzopoulos, P. (Ed), Proceedings 21st Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC). Fortaleza, Brazil. 875-884.
Belayutham, S., Gonzlez, V.A., Yiu, T.W., 2016. The dynamics of proximal and distal factors in
construction site water pollution, Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 54-65.
132
Bodek, N., 2007. The ninth waste-Saying no. [Online] Retrieved from http:// www.industryweek.com
(Accessed 23 April 2014).
Browning, T. R., 1998. Sources of schedule risk in complex system development. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the Eighth Annual International Symposium of INCOSE, 26-30 July, Vancouver,
Canada.
Bureau of Watershed Management. 2015. Construction Soil loss and sediment discharge calculation
guidance. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Cabello Eras, J. J., Gutirrez, A. S., Capote, D. H., Hens, L., Vandecasteele, C., 2013. Improving the
environmental performance of an earthwork project using cleaner production strategies. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 47, 368-376.
Carneiro, S. B. M., Campos, I. B., Oliveira, D. M. D., Neto, J. P. B., 2012. Lean and green: a relationship
matrix. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of International Group for Lean Construction.
San Diego, CA.
Costa, H.M., Silva, M.V.V., Mour o, A., Valente, C.P., Larcio, F., 2013, Redesigning administrative
procedures using value stream mapping a case study. In: Formoso, C.T., Tzortzopoulos, P., 21st
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Fortaleza, Brazil, 31-2 Aug 2013.
pp 1049-1056.
Degani, C. M., Cardoso, F. F., 2002. Environmental performance and lean construction concepts: Can we
talk about a 'clean construction'? Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference of International Group
for Lean Construction, 6-8 August, Gramado, Brazil.
DID (Department of Irrigation and Drainage) 2010. Guideline for erosion and sediment control in Malaysia.
Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia, 61-87.
Des, C. M., Tan, K. H., Lim, M., 2013. Green as the new lean: How to use lean practices as a catalyst to
greening your supply chain, Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 93-100.
133
Duque, D. F. M., Cadavid, L. R., 2007. Lean manufacturing measurement: The relationship between lean
activities and lean metrics. Estudios Gerenciales, 23(105), 69-83.
Elo, S., Kyngas. H., 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1),
107115.
Fernald, A., Tidwell, V., Rivera, J., Rodrguez, S., Guldan, S., Steele, C., Ochoa, C., Hurd, B., Ortiz, M.,
Boykin, K., Cibils, A., 2012. Modelling sustainability of water, environment, livelihood, and culture in
traditional irrigation communities and their linked watersheds. Sustainability 4, 2998-3022.
Freire, J., Alarcn, L., 2002. Achieving lean design process: Improvement methodology. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 128(3), 248-256.
Fresner, J., 1998. Cleaner production as a means for effective environmental management. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 6(34), 171-179.
Frondel, M., Horbach, J., Renning, K., 2007. End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison
of environmental innovation and decisions across OECD countries. Business, Strategy and the
Environment, 16, 571-584.
Galeazzo, A., Furlan, A., Vinelli, A., 2014. Lean and green in action: Interdependencies and performance
of pollution prevention projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 191-200.
Gambatese, J. A., Behm, M., Rajendran, S., 2008). Designs role in construction accident causality and
prevention: Perspectives from an expert panel. Safety Science, 46, 675-691.
Garrett, D.F. Lee, J., 2010. Lean construction submittal process-A case study. Quality Engineering, 23(1),
84-93.
Garvin, D. A., 1998. The processes of organization and management. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) Sloan Management Review, 39.
Garza-Reyes, J. A., 2015. Lean and green A systematic review of the state of the art literature. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 102, 18-29.
134
Governor, T., 2008. Green construction. Ohio BWCs Division of Safety & Hygiene
https://www.bwc.ohio.gov/downloads/blankpdf/SafetyTalk-Greenconstruction.pdf. Accessed 4
January 2016.
Griffin, A., 1993. Metrics for measuring product development cycle time. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 10(2), 112-125.
Hofacker, A., 2007. Implications of lean thinking on the procurement process of public buildings.
Construction Department. CURITIBA - KARLSRUHE, Federal University of Paran (UFPR), Brazil.
Masters.
Hopp, W. J., Spearman, M. L., 2011. Factory Physics: Third Edition. USA: Waveland Press.
Irani, S. A., Zhou, J., 2000. Value stream mapping of complete product. OH 43210, Department of Industrial,
Welding and Systems Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus (USA).
Kim, D. H., 1992. Guidelines for drawing causal loop diagrams. The Systems Thinker 3, 1-4.
King, A. D., Holder, T. J., 1977. Preliminary guidance for estimating erosion on areas disturbed by surface
mining activities in the interior Western United States. U. S. EPA
Koskela, L., Blviken, T., 2013. Which are the wastes of construction? In: Formoso, C.T. and
Tzortzopoulos, P., 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Fortaleza,
Brazil, 31-2 August 2013, 3-12.
Koskela, L., 1992. Application of the new production philosophy to construction (CIFE Technical Report
72). Stanford University: Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE).
Koskela, L., 2000. An exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction. PhD
thesis, Helsinki University of Technology.
Krings, D., et al., 2006. The use of lean in local government. public management, International City/County
Management Association (ICMA).
135
Krupka, D. C., 1992. Time as a primary system metric. In Heim, J. A., and Compton, W. D. (Eds.),
Manufacturing systems: Foundations of a world class practice. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 166-172.
Liker, J., 2004. The Toyota Way: 14 Management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer,
McGraw-Hill.
Love, P. E. D., Mandal, P., Li, H., 1999. Determining the causal structure of rework influences in
construction. Construction Management and Economics 17, 505-517.
Martnez, P., Gonzlez, V., Fonseca, E. D., 2009. Green-Lean conceptual integration in the project design,
planning and construction. Revista Ingeniera de Construccin Journal, 24(1), 5-32.
Mitropoulos, P. T., Howell, G., 2001. Performance improvement programs and lean construction. Paper
presented at the 9th International Group for Lean Construction Conference, 6-8 August 2001, Kent
Ridge Crescent, Singapore.
Mochal, T. 2008. 10 ways to get a slipping project back on track. Retrieved from:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10-things/10-ways-to-get-a-slipping-project-back-on-track/
Ndihokubwayo, R., T. Haupt., 2010. Waste reduction through lean and agile thinking: case of variation
orders. RICS Cobra 2010. Dauphine Universit, Paris. 2-3 September
Nearing, M. A., et al., 2005. Modeling response of soil erosion and runoff to changes in precipitation and
cover. CATENA 61(23): 131-154.
Nerenz, D. R., Neil, N., 2001. performance measures for health care systems. Center for Health
Management Research.
Neto, R. S., Silvestre, B.S. and Balloni, F., 2013. The impact of the cleaner production technologies in the
mining productive chain: The case of Padua-RJ. 4th International Workshop Advances in Cleaner
Production, May 22-24, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
136
Ohno, T., 1988. Toyota production System-Beyond Large Scale Production, New York, NY: Productivity
Press.
Owens, D.W., Jopke, P., Hall, D.W., Balousek, J., Roa, A., 2000. Soil erosion from two small construction
sites, Dane County, Wisconsin. U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved from:
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/fs10900
Pitt, R., Clark, S.E., Lake, D., 2007. Construction site erosion and sediment controls. DESTech
Publications, Lancaster, PA
Plenert, G.J., 2012. Lean management principles for information technology, Boca Raton, Fl: CRC Press
(Taylor and Francis Group).
Pojasek, R.B., 2006. Process improvement: Initiative-driven versus process-driven approaches.
Environmental Quality Management, 16(1), 77-86.
Productivity Partnership. 2013. Productivity improvement from value stream mapping the NZ small builder
new house segment. Retrieved from:
http://www.buildingvalue.co.nz/sites/all/themes/productivity/images/Wrap/Reports/Productivity_Improv
ement_From_Value_Stream_Mapping_The_Small_Builder%20Segment_%20Formatted532013PDF(
A868603).pdf
Public Works Department. 2008. Procedure for variation order and contract price adjustment. Ministry of
Works, Government of Malaysia.
Qui, X., Chen, X., 2009. Evaluate the environmental impacts of implementing lean in production process of
manufacturing industry. Goteborg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology.
Resetarits, P. J., 2012. The application of lean management principles to fields other than manufacturing.
Proceedings of PICMET '12: Technology Management for Emerging Technologies. Vancouver,
Canada.
137
Rosenbaum, S., Toledo, M., Gonzalez, V., 2012. Green-lean approach for assessing environmental and
production waste in construction. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of International Group
for Lean Construction. San Diego, CA.
Rother, M., Shook, J., 2009. Learning to see: value-stream mapping to create value and eliminate muda.
Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprises Institute Incorporated.
Samset, K., Berg, P., Klakegg, O. J., 2006. Front end governance of major public projects. Paper presented
at the European Academy of Management (EURAM) Conference, Oslo, Norway.
Shaver, E., (2000). Low Impact Design Manual for the Auckland Region. (Technical Publication 124).
Retrieved from:
http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/technicalpublications/TP124%20Low%20Impact%
20Design%20Manual%20for%20the%20Auckland%20Region%20Chapter%201%20-%202000.pdf
Ssegawa-Kaggwa, J., Ngowi, A. B., Ntshwene, K., 2013. Using a situation analysis to identify the
construction industry deficiencies in Botswana. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 18(1),
1-18.
Tapping, D., 2003. Value stream management for the lean office: 8 steps to planning, mapping, and
sustaining lean improvements in administrative areas. New York, USA, Productivity Press.
Tapping, D., 2005. The Lean Office Pocket Guide XL: MCS Media, Inc.
Teh, S. H., 2011. Soil erosion modeling using RUSLE and GIS on Cameron Highlands, Malaysia for
hydropower development. (Masters). The School for Renewable Energy Science, Akureyri, Iceland.
Toole, T. M., 2005. A project management causal loop diagram. Paper presented at the ARCOM
Conference, London, UK.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 1996. Cleaner production, first ed. United Nations
Publication. Paris: France.
138
(US EPA) Unites States Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Guidance manual for the monitoring and
reporting requirements of the NPDES multi- sector storm water general permit. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/w/sw/dmrswg ui.pdf.
US EPA. 2007. The lean and environment toolkit. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/lean/environment/toolkits/environment/resources/LeanEnviroToolkit.pdf.
US EPA. 2009a. Lean government metrics guide. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/lean/government/pdf/Metrics_guide.pdf.
US EPA. 2009b. Lean government EPA region 7 and 4 states national pollutant discharge elimination
system (NPDES) Kaizen event case study. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/lean/government/pdf/Reg7NPDESFS.pdf.
US EPA. 2011. Lean Manufacturing and Environment Environmental Benefits and Shortcomings.
Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/lean/environment/benefits.html
US EPA. 2013. Lean Government EPA Region 7 Clean Water Act Section 319 Grant Process Lean Kaizen
Event Case Study. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/lean/government/pdf/r7-cwa-section-319.pdf.
Walling D.E., Webb, B.W., 1996. Erosion and sediment yield: A global overview. Proceedings of the Exeter
Symposium, UK. IAHS Publication No. 236.
Weese, D.R., 2007. Site inspections - can you stay out of jail? In: 38th International Erosion Control
Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1978, Predicting rainfall erosion losses A guide to conservation planning,
United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Womack, J. P., Jones D. T., 1996a. Beyond Toyota: How to root out waste and pursue perfection. Harvard
Business Review. September-October.
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., 1996b. Lean thinking. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Wood, H., Gidado, K., 2008. Project complexity in construction. Paper presented at the RICS Construction
and Building Research Conference, Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland.
139
Wu, P., Low, S. P., 2013. Lean and cleaner production applications in prefabrication to reduce carbon
emissions: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Yuan, H., Hao, J., Lu, S., 2014. Modelling effective construction waste management through causal loop
diagrams. In: Wang, J., Ding, Z., Zou, L., Zuo, J. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 17th International
Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Zaini, A.A., and Endut, I.R., 2014. Critical review on the theoretical framework and critical success factors
in green construction. In: Proceedings of the International Civil and Infrastructure Engineering
Conference, Eds. Hassan et al. Springer-Verlag Singapore, 243-252.
140
6.10 Chapter Appendix
Computation steps for the Rainfall Erosivity R factor is given as follows:
Step 1: The area studied is located in the state of Pahang. The original extended duration of earthwork is
4 months (September to December). The enhanced duration after lean improvement is given as 3.5 months
(September to mid-December). The Rainfall Erosivity value for this site is between 16, 000 to 17, 000
MJ.mm/ha.yr. This figure could be found in the Pahang State Isohyet Map, given in DID (2010). Based on
the site location, the average rainfall erosivity value of 16, 500 MJ.mm/ha.yr is selected to represent the
annual R factor.
Step 2: The monthly modification factor (% rain monthly) to calculate the adjusted R factor is given in
Table 1. This is required as the R given in Step 1 is not monthly based. The monthly modification factor
can be referred to in DID (2010). The cumulative value of the % rain was calculated from the month of
January but only values for the affected month is shown here. The short term based R factor can be
calculated by multiplying the cumulative rainfall for the affected month with the annual R factor selected in
Step 1.
Table 1 R Factor Computation
Month August September October November December
% Rain Monthly 0.060 0.075 0.095 0.110 0.145
Cumulated % Rain 0.575 0.65 0.745 0.855 1.000
R for 4 months (Before lean improvement) (1.000-0.575)*16,500 = 7012.15

R for 3.5 months (After lean improvement) R= (0.9275-0.575)*16,500 = 5816.25
Step 3: The lower value of the modified R factor for after lean improvement suggests a lower soil erosion
rate due to rainfall. Hence, the reduction in time land being left opened could reduce the risk of sediment
pollution.
141
CHAPTER 7
CLEAN-LEAN APPROACH TO MANAGE THE PROXIMAL FACTOR
(EARTHWORKS OPERATION) OF CONSTRUCTION SITE WATER POLLUTION
7.1 Introduction
Previous chapter has addressed the distal factor of construction site water pollution using clean-lean
approach. Similar to the previous chapter, this chapter will apply the clean-lean approach to address the
proximal factor of construction site water pollution in order to benefit both the environmental and production
factor of construction. Earthwork operation takes place during the early stages of construction where it
involves land clearing and grading for a short period of time. Regardless of the short duration of operation,
the environmental threat is detrimental, especially from the aspect of water pollution with sediment as the
pollutant (Ooshaksaraie, et al., 2009; Taylor and Field, 2007). Soil loss that occurs during earthwork would
be in a large scale where the calculated annual soil loss for a particular cleared earthwork site is estimated
at 16.14 tons while the pre-earthwork soil loss is given as 3.2 tons (Pain, 2014). Therefore, earthwork is a
critical work stage that requires proper management because an uncontrolled cleared site could result in
sediment pollution (Brown and Caraco, 1997). Sediment pollution could create chains of problems such as
damage to the aquatic ecosystem, health risk to the people and also unnecessary cost and resources for
remedial works (Harbor, 1999).
Brown and Caraco (1997) and Pain (2014) have suggested two critical yet controllable variable for
better management of earthwork site which are duration and size of land exposed at a period of time. The
production factor of time has been hailed as a crucial variable in earthworks because this operation sets
the rhythm for subsequent activities (Fu, 2013). Besides that, the operation also acquires a relatively high
cost in comparison to the time spent on the work, due to the heavy dependence on machineries and skilled
142
operators. Hence, it is common for productivity to be the subject of interest among industry players and
researches who seek to improve the operation (Martinez, 1998; Dawood, et al., 2010). Previously,
productivity studies have focused on the traditional aspects of construction which are time, cost and quality
without relating it to the environment. However, the current scenario differs by progressing towards
integrating environment as part of productivity studies. For example, Golzarpoor et al. (2013) have provided
a synergistic approach that combines production and environmental factors in determining the cost, fuel,
energy and emission from earthwork operations. Gonzlez and Echaveguren (2012) and Capony et al.
(2012) have also conducted similar research using discrete event simulation and GPS technology
respectively. However, most of the studies have concentrated on the common issues of air and carbon
emission with least regards for sediment pollution.
In the area of earthworks, lean approaches have mostly been utilized to improve the work
production. The application of lean in earthworks could be categorized as pure lean or technologically
infused lean approach (Belayutham and Gonzlez, 2015). In the category of pure lean approach, Fidler and
Betts (2008) and Kaiser and Zikas (2009) have used lean tools and principles to stabilize and improve the
efficiencies of the earthwork movement, increase equipment utilization, cost reduction and optimize labor
resources. For improvements done with the help of technology, Dawood et al. (2010) have produced an
interactive visual lean system for earthwork operations planning to achieve transparency, reduce
complexity, waste and positive project time. Similarly, Kemppainen et al. (2004) have used two optimization
algorithms to assist in finding the most cost-efficient schedule and mass haul alternatives that ultimately
increased the functions of Last Planner system in Finlands construction industry. Meanwhile, Kirchbach et
al. (2014) have presented digital kanban, a system supported by machine sensory and Information
Technology that embraces the lean principles for an optimized earthwork productivity. Most works have
been done to apply lean in improving earthworks production with little effort found to enhance the
environmental variable, specifically sediment pollution.
This chapter aims to develop and model the use of clean-lean method for earthwork operation in
order to reduce the risk of site sediment pollution, consequently improving also the production factors. This
chapter works as a data verification for acknowledging the role of proximal factors in construction site water
143
pollution, as discussed in Chapter 1 and 2. This chapter also verifies the use of clean-lean method, as
discussed conceptually in Chapter 3.
7.2 The Proximal Factor of Earthwork Production
The relation of proximal factors in causing construction site water pollution has been discussed in detail in
Chapter 3. Nonetheless, as a refresher, the definition of proximal factor is referred to the works of Suraji et
al. (2001) where proximal causes are factors that directly leads to an incident. Hence, factors that could
directly affect the performance of an earthwork operation could involve operational factors such as
equipment breakdown and lack of skilled operator (Martinez, 1998; Christian and Xie, 1996). Proximal
factors are within the responsibility and judgement of contractors, which makes it relatively easier to amend
or rectify as compared to the distal factors which are beyond their work task. Therefore, this chapter will
identify and provide suggestions to improve the distal factors in an earthwork operation through the use of
a clean-lean method.
7.3 Research Method for Clean-Lean Earthwork
Following that, a clean-lean method is proposed by using earthworks operation with sediment pollution as
the case subject. The research work has been conducted following the elements given in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Research Work Phases
Data Collection Data Analysis Outcome/ Objective

Case study Production and environmental To develop and model the use of clean-
Interview performance indicators lean method for earthwork operation in
Observation order to reduce the risk of site sediment
Site document pollution and accordingly, to improve
analysis production performance.
7.3.1 Case Study for Clean-Lean Method of Earthwork
This chapter involves the development of a clean-lean method for a study on earthwork operation with the
environmental subject of sediment pollution. This study involves various data collection methods to
comprehensively portray the clean-lean method towards improving the earthwork operation. In order to
complete the various steps involved in depicting the clean-lean method, a simplified description of the data
collection method is given below. Further details on this method are given in Section 7.4.
144
Case study
This particular case study has been conducted using several data collection methods which consist of
interview, observation and site document review (site diary, daily production record, project details report).
Case study is particularly relevant for this research because it requires a focused and in-depth investigation
to produce a clean-lean method that represents a real scenario. Similar method of study has been used by
Cabello Eras et al. (2013) to propose cleaner production strategies to improve the environmental
performance of an earthwork project. The case study for this research was selected based on its availability
but essentially, the project must involve earthworks. The selected project involves commercial and light
industrial development, located in the Raub district within the state of Pahang in Malaysia. The project has
initially started off with site clearance activity that was conducted for a period of 3 months prior to the cut
and fill work that commenced from the month of June till December 2013.
7.4 Clean-Lean Method Development
The clean-lean method could demonstrate the application of the integrated concept in order to fulfill
the fundamental goals of the integrated LP and CP concept. In reference to Section 4.7, Chapter 4,
LP enables CP and therefore, the clean-lean method will use lean as the guiding principle towards
achieving simultaneous improvements in the production and environmental performance. The
proposition for clean-lean earthworks operation is where the modification or improvement of earthwork
processes using LP will potentially benefit in reducing the source of site pollution, subsequently
reducing risk to the environment. Additionally, the improved processes will autonomously address the
goals of LP by reduced duration that will increase customer satisfaction besides other mutual goals of
both concepts such as reduced cost.
The basic principles of LP, as introduced by Womack and Jones (1996) are used as the guiding
method for this study as it provides a clear and descriptive step-by-step approach for application,
which consist of: 1) Specify value; 2) Identify value stream; 3) Create flow; 4) Apply pull system and
5) Pursue perfection. Apparently, these steps are also similar to CP implementation plans prescribed
by UNEP (1996), which consist of: 1) Pre-assessment; 2) Measure and identify; 3) Synthesis of
information by identifying waste reduction options and 4) continuous improvement. Step 1 of lean
145
correlates with step 1 and 2 of clean to define and measure the current situation. Then, step 3 and 4
of lean goes along with step 3 of clean to identify waste elimination opportunities and the last steps of
both concept aims to pursue perfection. The similar implementation steps ensure less contradiction
on implementation procedures, which will ease the use of LP procedures as the guiding protocol. Each
steps in the clean-lean method contains various tools and techniques as well as data sources. Each
tool does require certain data display and the methods used to attain the data is given in Table 7.2,
together with the relevant steps. The mutual tools of LP and CP, which is given in Figure 4.3, Chapter
4 are used alongside other related LP tools. The use of those tools will be described within the body
of discussion in the following section.
Table 7.2 Clean-Lean Steps, Tools and Data Sources
Potential Tools and Techniques

Clean-Lean Steps Research Method Details of Research Method
Employed
Step 1: Value Literature Review (Supplier-Input-Process-Output- Literature review: Journal,

Customer) SIPOC; 5 Whys. conference, books, electronic
articles, thesis.
Step 2: Value Stream Literature Review Value Stream Map (VSM), site
Document analysis productivity chart (Process Capability
Measurement) Observation: One earthwork site, 5
Observation cycles of cut and fill.
Interviews
Step 3: Flow Interview Root cause analysis, VSM, process Interviews: Earthworks project
Observation capability measurement, variability personnel (Site engineers, site
agent and site supervisor) with
Document analysis average of 15 years working
experience.
Step 4: Pull Interview Waste elimination, Pull (Just-In-Time)
Observation
Document analysis: Daily site diary,
Step 5: Continuous Interview Standardisation, production levelling, daily number of trips, project
Improvement process efficiency, cost reduction, document (drawing, claim payment)
source reduction, Kaizen
7.4.1 Determination of VALUE
Value is determined from the perspective of the customer (Womack and Jones, 1996). The first step
is to recognize customers requirements as it is the pre-requisite before further works could be done
(Sayer and Williams, 2007). Assuming the customer aims to adopt clean-lean, the value should include
both the goals in terms of production and the environment for an earthwork operation. The potential
clean-lean tools/ practices applicable to this step are: Supplier-Input-Process-Output-Customer
(SIPOC) and 5 Whys. SIPOC is a lean-based tool that is commonly used to attain the voice or
146
requirements from customers (Sayer and Williams, 2007) while 5 Whys is a tool that has been used
in both concepts, as shown in Figure 1. In this study, the SIPOC has been derived from the use of
earthworks related literatures (Pain, 2014; Peurifoy and Oberlender, 2004; Martinez, 1998; Gransberg
et al., 2006; Christian and Xie, 1996) and is shown in Figure 2. The SIPOC is derived by providing
answers to these questions: 1) Who are the suppliers for an earthwork operation? 2) What are the
inputs required for an earthwork operation? 3) What are the processes involved? 4) What are the
expected output from the operation? 5) Who are the customers of this operation? 6) What are the
requirements from the customers? Answers to question 4, 5 and 6 have been searched upon first as
those questions determine the core value of this operation. In general, customer is the recipient of the
output from a process. In this study, the two outputs considered are production and environmental
output that needs to further satisfy a set of different customers and requirements. Then, by working
backwards, answers are provided for question 1, 2 and 3. From figure 2, the requirements could be
broken down into two separate values whereby the first value would satisfy the production aspect of
timely delivery, within budget and quality while the second is the environmental value of clean water
and minimal emission into water bodies. As discussed in Section 7.1, the different values are
commonly being managed in isolation through the use of production and erosion sediment control
methods. In contrary, the clean-lean method proposed here intents for those distinct measures to be
integrated and managed together.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Supplier Input Process Output Customer Requirements
Production
Earthwork Timely
operation Graded delivery
Equipment Client
Earthwork earth Within
Skilled Next
Contractor RL budget
workers contractor
Cut Platform Accepted
quality
Earthwork Land surface

Clean
Environment
plan transformation
Haul Receiving water
Erosion Excessive
Design environment Reduced
and runoff
Engineer and its emission
Sediment Erosion
surroundings to water
control Fill and
body
plan sediment
Figure 7.1 SIPOC for Earthwork Operation
147
Further derivation is required to identify a common point of improvement for the different values
identified between the customers requirements for production and environment (sediment pollution).
Point of improvement could be identified by comprehensively going through factors that could affect
performances of both dimensions. In order to do so, a clean-lean technique called 5 Whys is used to
derive the potential factors. 5 Whys is a lean technique used to identify the root cause of a problem
(Sayer and William, 2007). The application of this technique has also been done with the use of
literature. The procedure begins by asking the question why a problem exist and the answer to the
problem is written below the aforementioned problem and the same procedure will be repeated
approximately five times. Similar steps will be repeated for both production (earthwork operation) and
environmental aspect (water pollution).
Using water pollution as an example, the derivation is given as follows: The most proximal
reasons for water pollution to occur is the intertwined processes of excessive runoff, erosion and
sedimentation (Chen et al., 2007). Then, the answer for why those processes occur is further searched
for and could be divided into natural factors (Ismail and Yee, 2012) and man-made error (Wu et al.,
2012). However, natural factors are beyond the subject of improvement under LP. Hence, only man-
made factors will be the focus for further derivation. The immediate reasons for the man-made factors
can further be divided into areas opened at one time (Goodemote, 2005), duration of work (Davis et
al., 2003), unfavourable season (Maniquiz et al., 2009), faulty facilities (Weese, 2007) and improper
practices (Yao et al., 2011). All factors could further be categorized into either pre-construction based
(distal) or construction based (proximal) factors (Belayutham et al., 2015). However, this study
concerns on the proximal factors that are within the boundary of operation. Similar method of derivation
has been applied to identify factors that affect the production factor of earthwork operation.
From Figure 7.2, time has been identified as the point of similarity for improvement since both
aspects of production and environment are being affected by time. Therefore, efforts to improve the
time variable could first improve the production performance by completing the operation ahead of
schedule or at least on-time and secondly, time reduction could reduce the occurrence of rainfall,
subsequently reducing the risk of excessive runoff and erosion, ultimately minimising the risk of water
148
pollution. This step has provided a theoretical based integration in identifying the similar factor for
simultaneous improvements of the production and environmental aspect of earthwork operation.
Hence, the rest of the clean-lean steps will be scoped to address the time factor.
Figure 7.2 Point of Similarity for Earthwork Production and Environmental Improvement
7.4.2 Identification and mapping of the VALUE STREAM
This section aims to identify and document the current process of earthworks operation by recognizing
its work progression from a short and long duration scale. Short time period allows the identification
of inefficiencies in processes while long time period could provide a perspective in recognizing
variability of the production. This mostly measurement related step will establish indicators to measure
the current status of earthwork from the production and environmental aspect. Detailed discussion on
the measurements and the portrayal of an earthwork operation will be given in the following section,
which is organized into production and environmental measures. The Clean-Lean tools/ practices
adopted for this step are as follows: Value Stream Map (VSM) and site productivity chart (process
capability measurement).
149
Production Measure
In this study, the production measure is proposed to be identified at two levels: 1) Micro level: Detailed
perspective of the production process by mapping the VSM that identifies operation waste and 2) Macro
level: A larger perspective that shows the operations monthly output through the use of bar chart that
displays output variations. It is essential to highlight that days with only soil material as an output will be
considered for this study. The intention is to provide a comparable platform to identify waste and
inefficiencies in the process. Soil accounts for 80.1% of total material from the site under study that includes
also rock at 11.9% and hard material at 8%. At this stage, taking into consideration all the other materials
will only complicate this initial attempt of portraying the use of clean-lean approach. This is due to the
potential outlying reason for inefficiencies that can be related to characteristics of the material, which is
beyond the control of the production team. However, the mentioned scope of work and limitation could be
a point for future studies.
Micro Level (VSM)
VSM is a graphical representation of the flow of processes, information and material in a system
that delivers output. Mapping allows the sources of waste in a system to be identified and eliminated (Rother
and Shook, 2009). In this study, VSM is used to portray current processes involved in the earthwork
operation that comprised of three main processes, i.e. cut, haul and fill (Martinez, 1998). Data for the
purpose of producing this VSM has been collected from an on-site observation as well as discussion with
the project personnel involved in the project. In order to further derive the performance metrics of the
operation, productivity scale of the operation should first be defined. Generally, earthwork productivity could
be measured with volume of earth per unit of time (m3/t) which can be derived from the number of unloading
or trips by the trucks in a day. Capacity of the trucks used in this project is 6m3. Hence, 1 truck unload/ trip
= 6 m3 of soil. The truck load can be converted to quantity of soil where the flowing unit is determined as
m3 of earth. In order to portray the details of earthwork in a VSM, data for the required indicators are shown
in Table 7.3 (NZ Qualification Authority, 2015):
150
Table 7.3 Measured Indicators
Indicators Measurement Indicators Measurement

Start day Month/ day Distance travelled m
Finish day Month/ day No. of workers No.
Start time Hour/ mins./ sec. No. of equipment No.
Finish time Hour/ mins./ sec. No. of trips No.
Idle time Hour/ mins./ sec.
From the indicators, production factors could be processed and is given as follows:
Cycle time (min. / sec.) = The definition of cycle time by Hopp and Spearman (2011) is used where
cycle time is the average time for a job to go through a production line.
Productive time (PT) = Duration when earth is being worked on.
Non-productive time (NPT) = Duration when no movement of earth is observed.
Output per day (m3) = (No. of trips x 6)
Other variables which could also provide measures for the work progression include downtime of
equipment and frequency of downtime. This information was not obtained from observation but has been
provided by the site engineer, which is further verified with the site diary.
For the case studied, the current VSM based on the aforementioned process and indicators is
shown in Figure 7.3. The VSM is drawn based on five cycles of observation with the same haulage distance.
After discussion with the site engineer, it is agreed that a single cycle of work would best be represented
by 10 unloads/trips to portray the earth movement of the related equipment. Therefore, 1 cycle = 10
unloads/trips of earth. It is essential to highlight that the time value provided in the VSM is represented as
the average time. VSM tries to identify opportunities for improvement rather than to produce very accurate
measures of performance, thus, average time is considered reasonable (Rother and Shook, 2009;
Rosenbaum et al., 2014)
151
Figure 7.3 Current Map for Earthwork Operation
VSM has provided measures for the operation at the process level. However, it is difficult to
distinguish the variability of output achievement for a longer period of time. Therefore, a macro perspective
on the performance of the earthwork operation is proposed and the information could be obtained from the
archival data (daily productivity that is represented by number of trips by trucks in a day) of the project. This
macro perspective could not directly pin-point the operational waste but allows the portrayal of output
variability where further enquiries could be done to identify reasons for the variability and potential waste
where variability is significant. For this study, the information obtained is for a period of 7 months where all
data is represented in a monthly basis (Refer to Figure 7.4). The monthly output portrays a large variability
in output between the different months. This macro perspective could complement the limitations of the
conventional VSM by portraying the work performance over a longer period of time, consequently enabling
the identification of the output patterns. The performance pattern allows the assessment of variability in
order to identify the smoothness or unevenness of the output. According to Deif (2012), previous studies
have focused much on waste elimination while variability elimination has been side-lined. From a lean
perspective, it is preferable for output to be smooth rather than to have large variances because variability
could signal subsequent problems such as congestion and longer lead time (Deif, 2012). In this study, the
bar chart of output in Figure 7.4 is supplemented with the Co-efficient of Variation (CoV) analysis. Thomas
and Zavrski (1999) has used CoV to measure variability where higher value of CoV indicates higher
variability in the system. Similarly, Deif (2012) has also used CoV to capture time and flow variances in his
study while Shehata and El-Gohary (2011) concluded that the criteria to improve project performance is
152
through reducing variability in output. In this study, the highest CoV or variability in daily output is for the
month of July. Hence, further analysis is conducted to dig deeper into the output for the month of July in
order to understand the causes of the variability. The summary of output for the month of July is given in
Figure 7.5. Further details of the production level will be discussed in the following section.
Monthly No. of Trips

6000 5382 5289 Month CoV
5000 June 0.01633
No. of trips
4000 3514 July 0.18661

August 0.0946
3000
1923 September 0.11836
2000 1435 October 0.08154
948 685
1000 November 0.17093
0 December 0.17162
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Figure 7.4 Monthly Output
Daily Truck Output

350 324
298 292 287
300 264 257 268 276 278 266 264
233 241
250 226 232 225 225
208 206 209
Total Trips
189
200
150 114
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Days
Figure 7.5 Performance for the Month of July
Environmental Measure
From the perspective of environment (sediment pollution), similar method of calculating the value
of Rainfall Erosivity is adopted (Refer to Chapter 6). Using the established equation, the current earthwork
project acquired a duration of seven months for completion, from June to December. Hence, the calculated
rainfall erosivity R for the given operation period is 10,065 MJ.mm/ha.yr. Detailed calculation of the R
factor is given in the appendix.
153
7.4.3 FLOW creation through waste elimination
This current step functions to identify reasons for the waste found in VSM and variability identified in the
monthly output chart. In the language of lean, this step identifies the inefficiencies that deter smooth flow
of the earthwork operation. Improvements to the identified reasons could further improve the production
factor of time, consequently also the R factor of the environmental dimension. The clean-lean tools
adopted in this step are as follows: root cause analysis; VSM; process capability measurement and
variability.
Waste Recognition from VSM
In reference to the current VSM given in Figure 7.3, the process flow shows both the productive
(cycle) and non-productive (idle) times of the earthwork operation. The percentage of non-productive (idle)
time is 31.5% of the total lead time of 124 minutes. A large portion of the idle time (15 minutes) is found at
the fill area where the dumped soil is not being worked on till it reaches 10 loads. Even though the idle time
did not cause congestion to other work sections, the two idling machineries (dozer and compactor)
represent waste of resources. Another apparent waste can be seen at the cutting area where it shows the
idle time of excavator when soil is not being worked on. Based on a discussion with the site engineer of the
project under study, the resources provided for loading and hauling are two excavators with five trucks,
where the truck will move from cut (C) to fill (F) area. The site engineer also mentioned that 1 excavator will
service between 2 to 3 trucks for a round trip. Using the cycle time given in the VSM, it is observed that
excavator loading time is 2 minutes per trip while the haulage time for truck is 6 minutes per trip. The
movement and position of trucks is shown in Figure 7.6. When the excavator services 3 trucks in a round
trip, the excavator will be idle for at least 2 minutes (dashed line represents non-working time for the
excavator) while waiting for the first truck to return (Refer to Figure 7.6, Excavator 1). At the same time,
Excavator 2 would be servicing 2 trucks and the waiting time by the other excavator for the return of truck
1 is 4 minutes (dashed line represents non-working time for the excavator) (Refer to Figure 7.6, Excavator
2). Theoretically, calculation for the required number of trucks with one excavator is given in the following
equation by Gransberg et al., (2006), which was recognized earlier by Peurifoy and Oberlender (2004). It
is essential to highlight that the equation uses average production rate which is deterministic in nature.
Number of required trucks = truck (loading + going + return + dumping) time / loading time
154
For the current site, the total loading, hauling and dumping time is 8 minutes while the loading time
is 2 minutes (Refer to VSM in Figure 7.3). Hence, a single excavator is expected to serve 4 excavators
where two excavators could serve up to 8 trucks. It is apparent that the current project is running low on
trucks, causing inefficient use of the excavators. Additionally, a smaller portion of the total idle time can be
seen at the cut and fill area with 5 minutes idle time observed for each cycle as the truck prepares to move
and navigate to or from the area. It is essential to reiterate here that the time measurement is given as
average time and is deterministic in nature. There is no doubt that there are more precise modelling options
available such as computer modelling that could provide a stochastic value (Poshdar et al., 2014). However,
the use of stochastic value is not necessary in relation to the purpose of this analysis, which is to identify
improvement opportunities at the current site, which are not visible using traditional management methods.
Figure 7.6 Movement of Truck
Variability Based on Production Output
From the macro perspective, the bar chart given in Figure 7.5 shows a relatively uneven work
output between days in July. According to Thomas and Zavrski (1999), variability in daily output has a
strong correlation with project performance. Hence, the daily output is further investigated by representing
the daily output of trucks (Truck A, B, C, D, E) against the working days in Table 7.4. The information has
been gathered from the particular sites daily record that consist of number of trips by trucks. Furthermore,
CoV value is provided to show the variance between total number of trips daily, which is given as 18.66%.
The highest output is given as 324 trips on day 21 while the lowest output is 114 on day 16. A correlation
between variance and daily output performance is identified among the days with high variance (shaded
rows in Table 7.4) with its respective number of trips by using Pearsons r correlation. Result of the
correlation is given as -0.8146, which indicates a strong negative correlation, whereby increase in variability
will affect daily performance by the decrease in daily total trips. Due to the negative effect of high variability,
the site personnel that consist of site engineer and site supervisor from the contractors organization and
155
site agent who represents the client were first queried on possible reasons for the monthly output
unevenness. The interview with them started off with question why large variability of output is observed
between different days. From the input, the major reason is related to machine breakdown, followed by
rainfall and skill of operators. Besides the deficiencies, it has also been highlighted that the distance may
vary between days and this could have contributed to the different outputs, apart from the discovery of rock
and other hard materials.
Advancing from that, it is also observed that the number of trips differ quite significantly from one
truck to another. Refer to Table 7.4 on the computed CoV based on the daily output of trucks. From the
table, Truck B has the highest output while Truck E has the lowest output. However, due to slight changes
in distance between days, the comparison between days might not reflect an apple to an apple
comparison. According to Thomas and Zavrski (1999), daily variability can be used to set apart good and
bad performing projects. Hence, detailed identification of inefficiencies is done based on daily output
between trucks as this will provide a common ground for comparison due to similar haulage distance in a
day.
Table 7.4 CoV for Daily Truck Output
Working No. of trips Daily Total Daily CoV

days Trips Between Trucks
Truck A Truck B Truck C Truck D Truck E
1 47 50 42 50 37 226 0.12456
2 47 47 46 47 45 232 0.01928
3 41 43 47 38 39 208 0.086
4 60 54 49 48 53 264 0.09024
5 57 51 48 49 52 257 0.06823
6 54 70 69 52 53 298 0.15221
7 60 55 51 50 52 268 0.07532
8 53 69 68 51 51 292 0.15861
9 47 50 41 50 37 225 0.12862
10 62 57 53 51 53 276 0.07938
11 62 57 53 52 54 278 0.07261
12 46 50 42 50 37 225 0.12373
13 37 39 43 34 36 189 0.09049
14 48 47 46 47 45 233 0.02447
15 0 28 28 29 29 114 0.55945
16 41 41 41 59 59 241 0.20454
17 55 55 53 52 51 266 0.03363
156
18 64 59 56 53 55 287 0.07453
19 32 55 54 33 32 206 0.29498
20 42 43 47 38 39 209 0.08526
21 71 62 62 64 65 324 0.05712
22 59 53 49 49 54 264 0.07855
Total Trips 1021 1076 1032 993 973
CoV for daily trips 0.18661
From Table 7.4, 8 out of 22 days provide CoV value greater than 10%. Due to that, the site based
respondents have been queried on the reasons for the difference in output between trucks of the same
distance. The respondents were asked the following question: From the data, particularly on days with high
CoV (shaded in Table 6), we could see that the daily total trips do vary between trucks. Can you please
provide factors that could have caused such variance between the trucks? From the interview, the related
factors that could have caused the unevenness are given as follows:
Machine breakdown, especially when there are no backup resources such as the breakdown of
Truck A on Day 15 which has contributed to the highest CoV of the month.
Skill and experience of the equipment operator, where the difference between experienced and
less experienced ones could result in shortages of at least 12 m3 /day or 2 trips of tipper, as shown
in the lowest CoV day, which is day 2. The differences in skill provides a non-standardised work
execution that causes disruption in the flow of work that can contribute to disturbance in haulage
time, further prompting unnecessary queuing and unevenness in output between trucks.
At the cut section, the position and turning point/ swivel degree of the excavator creates differences
in time and efficiency. Smaller swivel point is much efficient than large swivel points. Hence, if the
truck operator could position the truck to reduce the motion of excavator, the cycle time could be
shortened.
At the fill section, cycle time increases when tipper unloads soil far from the dozer. Common
improper practices can also be found with compactors where vibrators were not activated in attempt
to reduce cost. Non-vibrated compactor could cause a longer cycle time besides further damages
such as failing compaction test that leads to unnecessary halt of the operation.
Those aforementioned reasons also coincide with certain causes of variability in manufacturing
such as different processing time and unavailability of machine, as mentioned by Deif (2012).
157
7.4.4 Respond to customer PULL
Generally, this section discusses on the solutions for the inefficiencies and waste identified at the micro
level which used the VSM. The tools that will be adopted in this step are waste removal, Just in Time (JIT)
and pull system. From the micro perspective of VSM, waste could be identified from the current processes
(Figure 7.3) where activities are linked to each other using the traditional push system. Earth is loaded by
the excavator into the truck, which is then passed on to the fill section. Mismatch happens when push is
being applied without matching the availability of truck that results in idle time for the excavator, as shown
in Figure 7.6. The solutions proposed to address the inefficiencies is either by 1) reducing the number of
excavator to 1 with trucks reduced to 4 or 2) retain both excavators but to add 3 trucks into the system.
This is in order to eliminate the idle time of the excavator that waits for the trucks to return. The truck
requirement is calculated using the deterministic equation given in step 3, with the use of the measured
current loading and hauling time taken from the VSM. The ideal set of trucks to create flow by eliminating
the excavator idle time is 1 excavator = 4 trucks. In order to improve the time factor, which will then benefit
the production and environmental measure, option 2 is the preferred choice as option 1 will cause delay on
the time factor whilst the intended aim is to expedite the completion of the operation. Hence, the current
study would require the addition of 3 trucks to ensure no waste of waiting in the operation. The calculated
outcome of this chosen option is given in Table 7.5. It is shown that with the addition of 3 trucks, the soil
hauling output can be increased by 60% from the original 5 trucks. The number of trips required for this
project is approximately 19176 trips, equivalent to approximately 115056m3 of soil. With the addition of 3
trucks, the number of trips could be achieved as early as the 7th operation day in November. Hence, work
could be completed by the 7th operation day in November. The reduction in time has a positive consequence
on the risk of sediment pollution where the calculated R factor is reduced to 7672.5 MJ.mm/ha.yr.
158
Table 7.5 Outcome with Additional Trucks
Month Current no. Cumulative With 3 additional Cumulative no. of trip with
of trips no. of trips trucks (x1.6 of current added truck
trip)
June 1435 1435 2296 2296
July 5382 6817 8611 10907
August 948 7765 1517 12424
September 685 8450 1096 13520
October 1923 10373 3077 16597
November 3514 13887 5622 19545 7th day November
December 5289 19176 8462
Original R factor:
(1.000-0.39)*16,500 = 10,065 MJ.mm/ha.yr.
R factor with 3 additional trucks:
(0.855-0.39)*16,500 =7,672.5 MJ.mm/ha.yr.
Nonetheless, the issue of cost might be of concern as increase in resources could cause the
increase in cost. Hence, a cost analysis based on direct cost of equipment hire is conducted to ensure the
viability of the improvement strategy. Table 7.6 shows the total cost of equipment hire for the present
situation and also the improved situation with added trucks. The original duration of the project is 75 days
and the increase in truck could shorten the operation to 52 days. The daily rate for those equipment was
given by the site engineer. The total cost of adding trucks is still lower than the total cost with no added
truck but longer operation time. Hence, the proposed strategy benefits the production (time and cost) and
environmental R factor for water pollution.
Table 7.6 Cost of Equipment Hire
Equipment Daily rate Original no. of Trucks With added trucks

(RM) No. Days Hire Cost No. Days Hire Cost
Truck 500 5 75 187500 8 52 208000
Excavator 550 2 82500 2 57200
Compactor 600 1 45000 1 31200
Dozer 650 1 48750 1 33800
Total Cost 363,750 Total Cost 330,200
7.4.5 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT to pursue perfection
The macro level inefficiencies perceived from the variability in output will be addressed here using lean
tools and principles such as standardisation, production levelling, process efficiency, cost reduction, source
reduction and kaizen. Reasons for the variation between trucks have been determined in Step 3 where the
respondents have generally related the variations back to machine breakdown and skill of operators. In
order to pursue perfection, an ideal situation is desired. For an ideal situation, the concept of maximum
production should be in use by eliminating all waste in the operational processes. To improve current
159
processes, the ill-practices identified in Step 3 should be eliminated. Firstly, in order to address machine
breakdowns, proper maintenance schedule should be in place. Hence, it is proposed for the organization
to plan a preventive maintenance program alongside the construction schedule in order to enable
maintenance works to be conducted. LP has heavily emphasized the importance of equipment maintenance
with a simple method called preventive maintenance (Ohno, 1988). Conversation with the site engineer has
revealed that they do not have a fixed maintenance schedule for each operator where the common practice
is to repair the equipment once it is dysfunctional. The second strategy for improvement is to fully utilize
the resources by eliminating idle time. Therefore, it is essential for operators to be educated on the right
and most optimized way of handling the equipment. In order to do that, a baseline productivity should be
attained, where it represents the best performance with minimal to almost no waste or disruption (Abdel-
Razek, 2007). The steps to achieve the baseline productivity should be standardized among all operators.
Following that, unnecessary truck idle time could be eliminated as operators have been taught on the proper
way of positioning the truck for ease of movement at the cut and fill area. For illustration purpose,
supposedly, the maximum output truck would have done the work with minimum to almost no idle time.
Hence, it is suggested that other truck operators could also perform at the maximum level when work is
standardized and idle time eliminated. Hence, the output of trucks could be levelled up to the highest
production of the day. Ideally, if potential output levelling can be achieved following each months maximum
production with no machine breakdown, the operation can be completed by the 5th day in December. Even
though it does not seem to be much, relatively it could reduce up to 12 operation days.
Overview on the Proposed Improvement Strategies
In order to put all the improvement options into perspective, an Ideal Map is presented in Figure
7.7 with the expected productivity and environmental performance improvements (shown in Table 7.7). The
ideal map is drawn over the current map to envisage the elements to be removed and improved. All the
expected to be eliminated (shown as cross in the ideal map) elements is envisioned as a result of having
proper preventive maintenance (elimination of downtime and frequency of downtime), standardized work
(elimination of the 5 minutes between task), using pull system to replace push system and adding 5 to 8
number of trucks. On the other hand, improvement (shown as oval in ideal map) is expected for the
productive times of each process when work standardization is being implemented. The plan for
160
improvement is preferred by first removing time and resource waste through the addition of trucks. This is
followed by stabilisation of production as discussed in the current step by addressing the issue of
maintenance and operator efficiency. The first solution could be applied to solve issues during construction
itself as VSM provides an instant recognition of waste. The second solution which is based on variability of
output might require a longer period of observation as patterns of output needs to be discovered. Overall,
proposed strategies should be implemented progressively towards reaching the ideal state where the
concept of Kaizen is to be practiced in aim to continuously improve the value stream towards pursuing
perfection.
Figure 7.7 Ideal Map
Table 7.7 Proposed Outcome
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Month Current no. of Cumulative Maximum Cumulative With 3 added Cumulative no.
trip no. of trip productivity truck (x1.6 of of trip with
current trip) added truck
Jun 1435 1435 1467 1467 2347 2347
Jul 5382 6817 7128 8595 11405 13752
Aug 948 7765 1056 9651 1690 15442
Sep 685 8450 768 10419 1229 16671
Oct 1923 10373 2443 12862 3909 19184 5th day Oct
Nov 3514 13887 4394 17256 7030
Dec 5289 19176 6596 5th day Dec 10554
R Factor
Month May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
% rain monthly 0.065 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.075 0.095 0.110 0.145
Cumulated % rain 0.39 0.455 0.515 0.575 0.65 0.745 0.855 1.0
Before improvement (1.000-0.39)*16,500 = 10,065 MJ.mm/ha.yr.
After improvement (0.745-0.39)*16,500 =5,857.5 MJ.mm/ha.yr.
161
For this study, the combined approach could result in the project completing by the 5th day of
operation in October and can be viewed in Column 6 and 7 of Table 7.7. This time reduction could
consequently provide an R factor of 5857.5 MJ.mm/ha.yr with 42% positive improvement. The combined
approach also resulted in changes to cost requirement and this is represented in Table 7.8 where cost for
the additional hire of equipment is given. Further reduction in duration due to the stabilisation effort could
reduce the duration to 43 days that relatively results in lower cost compared to the original setting and the
setting with only improvements of adding trucks (Refer to Table 7.7). The proposed integration has received
the acknowledgement from the site personnel as they found this integration interesting because they have
never thought of managing both aspects of production and environment concurrently. They also mentioned
that the strategies are certainly beneficial as it is proven to improve the production factors of time and cost,
besides the reduced risk of sediment pollution. Furthermore, they also commended on the ease of applying
the method, especially on improving the earthworks operation. The operation which involves less trades is
definitely a plus point as it could facilitate the motion of changing the current management system.
Table 7.8 Direct cost of Equipment Hire
Equipment Daily rate Before improvement After improvement

(RM) No. Days Hire Cost No. Days Hire Cost
Truck 500 5 75 187500 8 43 172000
Excavator 550 2 82500 2 47300
Compactor 600 1 45000 1 25800
Dozer 650 1 48750 1 27950
Total Cost 363,750 Total Cost 273,050
7.5 Conclusion
This study has developed a clean-lean method in order to demonstrate the application of the proposed
integration in Chapter 3 towards improving the proximal factors that affects the production and
environmental performance of earthworks operation. The integration between lean and clean has shown a
great potential to benefit both the production (time and cost) and environmental (sediment pollution)
performance of an earthwork operation. However, the various steps involved in the method could contain
certain limitations with some worth mentioning. The calculation for number of trucks has been given in a
deterministic manner, whereas earthworks itself is dynamic with various interaction between factors. This
is well understood by the authors but to delve into the subject of deterministic and stochastic will divert the
original intent of this study, which is to explore the subject matter and propose opportunities to identify and
162
act on production and environmental waste in construction. Nonetheless, this limitation creates a window
of opportunity for future studies by taking stochastic variables and computer simulation into consideration.
In addition, the proposed solution is specifically to address issues in the case under study. Hence, solutions
may vary depending on different cases as every construction project is unique. Hence, more studies should
be done to test the applicability of this method in various industry settings.
Theoretically, this study has filled in the gap of knowledge where previously, limited studies have
been found to integrate the concept of lean and clean comprehensively. The proposed integration benefits
the academia as this initial attempt of integration opens up various opportunities to further advance the
proposed integration. This has also contributed to the body of knowledge for the individual concept of lean
and clean. For lean, the integration has advanced its original production-based functionalities. For clean,
the integration has remedied some grey areas within the concept, especially on process modification.
In the practical world, the clean-lean method could assist practitioners in viewing the importance of
production and environmental measures simultaneously, so that imbalance treatments of the two different
dimensions could be reduced. Furthermore, the techniques introduced could assist practitioners to identify
their inefficiencies in a more systematic manner whether it is for a short term solution by identifying waste
using VSM or long term-based by observing the variability in output. Overall, this integration could benefit
the construction industry in specific and people at the receiving end in general.
7.6 References
Abdel-Razek, H.A., Hany, A.M. and Mohammed, A., 2007. Labour productivity: Benchmarking and
variability in Egyptian projects. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 189-197.
Belayutham, S., and Gonzlez, V.A., 2015. A lean approach to manage production and environmental
performance of earthwork operation. In: Proc. 23rd Ann. Conf. Of The Intl. Group for Lean
Construction. Perth, Australia, July 29-31, 743-752.
Belayutham, S., Gonzlez, V. A., and Yiu, T. W. 2015. The dynamics of proximal and distal factors in
construction site water pollution. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.075.
163
Brown, W.E., and Caraco, D.S., 1997. Muddy water in, muddy water out? A critique of erosion and
sediment control plans. Watershed Protection Techniques, 2(3), 393-403.
Cabello Eras, J.J., Gutirrez, A.S., Capote, D.H., and Hens, L., Vandecasteele, C., 2013. Improving
the environmental performance of an earthwork project using cleaner production strategies.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 368-376.
Capony, A., Lorino, T., Muresan, B., Baudru, Y., Dauvergne, M., Dunand, M., Colin, D., and Jullien,
A., 2012. Assessing the productivity and the environmental impacts of earthwork machines: A
case study for GPS-instrumented excavator. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48,
256-265.
Chen, T., Cui, P. and Chen, X., 2007. Prediction of soil erosion on different underlaying surface in
construction period of Xichang to Panzhihua expressway. Wuhan University Journal of Natural
Sciences, 12, 699-704.
Christie, M.J., Rowe, P.A., Perry, C. and Chamard, J., 2000. Implementation of realism in case study
research methodology. In: Proceedings of Entrepreneurial SMES-Engines for Growth in the
Millennium: International Council for Small Business World Conference. Brisbane:
Queensland, June 7-10, 2000.
Davis, C.R., Johnson, P.A. and Miller, A.C., 2003. Selection of erosion control measures for highway
construction. In: World Water and Environmental Resources Congress, Pennsylvania: USA,
June 23-26, 262-271.
Dawood, N., Chavada, R., Benghi, C., and Sanches, R., 2010. Interactive visual lean system for
resources planning of earthwork operations. In: 18th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction, Haifa, Israel. IGLC.
Deif, A., 2012. Assessing lean systems using variability mapping. Procedia CIRP 3, 2-7.
164
DID (Department of Irrigation and Drainage). 2010. Guideline for erosion and sediment control in
Malaysia. Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia, 61-87.
Fidler, K. and Betts, S., 2008. Lean earthworks. In: LCI Institute UK Summit. England.
Fu, J., 2013. Logistics of earthmoving operations-simulation and optimization. Licentiate Thesis. KTH
Royal Institute of Technology.
Golzarpoor, H., Gonzlez, V., and Poshdar, M., 2013. Improving construction environmental metrics
through integration of discrete event simulation and life cycle analysis. In: 30th ISARC,
Montral, Canada, 130-139.
Gonzlez, V., and Echaveguren, T., 2012. Exploring the environmental modeling of road construction
operations using discrete-event simulation. Automation in Construction, 24, 100-110.
Goodemote, G.J., 2005. Keeping it real. Public Works 136, 56-58.
Gransberg, D., Popescu, C., and Ryan, R., 2006. Construction equipment management for engineers,
estimators, and owners. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis Group.
Harbor, J., 1999. Engineering geomorphology at the cutting edge of land disturbance: Erosion and
sediment control on construction sites. Geomorphology, 31, 247-263.
Hopp, W.J., and Spearman, M.L., 2011. Factory Physics: Third Edition. USA: Waveland Press.
Ismail, S.I.H. and Yee, H.M., 2012. MUSLE evaluation of soil loss on a construction site by using
gauging weirs. Advanced Materials Research 446-449, 2718-2721.
Kaiser, J., and Zikas, T., 2009. Lean management in road and underground construction. Bauportal
[Online]. Available At: <http://Www.Building-Construction-
Machinery.Net/Shop/Topics/Earthworks-Compacting/Topic/Lean-Management-In-Road-And-
Underground-Construction/>[Accessed 3 January 2015].
165
Kemppainen, J., Makinen, J., Seppanen, O., and Kankainen, J., 2004. Lean construction principles in
infrastructure construction. In: 12th Annual International Group for Lean Construction
Conference, Helsingr, Denmark. IGLC.
Kirchbach, K., Koskela, L., and Gehbauer, F., 2014. Digital Kanban for earthwork site management.
In: 22nd IGLC. Oslo, Norway. IGLC.
Maniquiz, M.C., Lee, S., Lee, E., Kong, D.S., and Kim, L. H., 2009. Unit soil loss rate from various
construction sites during a storm. Water Science and Technology 59, 2187-2196.
Martinez, J.C., 1998. Earthmover-simulation tool for earthwork planning. In: Simulation Conference
Proceedings, Washington, 13-16 Dec 1998. IEEE.
NZQA (New Zealand Qualification Authority), 2015. Supervise civil construction earthworks.
Available At:
<http://www.Nzqa.Govt.Nz/Framework/Explore/Domain.Do?Frameworkid=75329>[Accessed
18 February 2015].
Ohno, T., 1988. Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. Taylor and Francis.
Ooshaksaraie, L., Basri, N.E.A., Bakar, A.A. and Maulud, K.N.A., 2009. An expert system prototype
for minimizing soil erosion on construction site in Malaysia. European Journal of Scientific
Research, 33, 454-460.
Pain, B., 2014. Glenvar ridge road - erosion and sediment control methodology. Auckland: Woods.
Peurifoy, R.L., and Oberlender, G.D., 2004. Earthwork and excavation. Estimating Construction Costs,
Fifth Edition, Mcgraw-Hill, New York.
Poshdar, M., Gonzlez, V., Raftery, G., and Orozco, F. 2014. Characterization of Process Variability
in Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 05014009(1)-
05014009(10).
166
Rosenbaum, S., Toledo, M., and Gonzlez, V. 2014. Improving environmental and production
performance in construction projects using Value-Stream Mapping: Case Study. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 140(11), 04013045(1)-04013045(11).
Rother, M., and Shook, J. 2009. Learning to see: value-stream mapping to create value and eliminate
muda. Cambridge, USA: Lean Enterprises Institute Incorporated.
Sayer, N.J., and Williams, B., 2007. Lean for dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: Wiley Publishing
Inc.
Shehata, M., E., and K., M., El-Gohary, 2011. Towards improving construction labor productivity and
projects performance. Alexandria Engineering Journal 50(4), 321-330.
Taylor, K. and Field, M., 2007. Sustainable construction: Reducing the impact of creating a building.
Available at:
<Http://Www.Branz.Co.Nz/Cms_Show_Download.Php?Id=292a5866bacbf3aad00794c5f014
c024f8f36a6d>[Accessed 27 January 2015].
Thomas, H.R. and I., Zavrski, 1999. Construction baseline productivity: Theory and practice. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 125(5), 295-303.
Weese, D.R., 2007. Site inspections - can you stay out of jail? In: 38th International Erosion Control
Womack, James, P., and Daniel, T., Jones, 1996. Lean thinking. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Wu, P., and Low, S.P., 2012. Lean management and low carbon emissions in precast concrete
factories in Singapore. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 18, 176-186.
167
Wu, Q., Wang, L., Gao, H., Chen, Y., 2012. Current situation analysis on soil erosion risk management
in development and construction project. Advanced Materials Research 430-432, 1967-1969.
Yao, H., Shen, L., Tan, Y., Hao, J., 2011. Simulating the impacts of policy scenarios on the
sustainability performance of infrastructure projects. Automation in Construction 20, 1060-
1069.
168
7.7 Chapter Appendix
Example of computation steps for the Rainfall Erosivity R factor is given as follows:
Step 1: The area studied is located in the state of Pahang. The Rainfall Erosivity value for this site is
between 16, 000 to 17, 000 MJ.mm/ha.yr. This figure could be found in the Pahang State Isohyet Map,
given in DID (2010). Based on the site location, the average rainfall erosivity value of 16, 500 MJ.mm/ha.yr
is selected to represent the annual R factor.
Step 2: The monthly modification factor (% rain monthly) to calculate the adjusted R factor is given in
Table 1. This is required as the R given in Step 1 is not monthly based. The monthly modification factor
can be referred to in DID (2010). The cumulative value of the % rain was calculated from the month of
January but only values for the affected month is shown here. The short term based R factor can be
calculated by multiplying the cumulative rainfall for the affected month with the annual R factor selected in
Step 1.
Table 1 R Factor Computation
Month May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
% Rain Monthly 0.065 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.075 0.095 0.110 0.145
Cumulated % Rain 0.39 0.455 0.515 0.575 0.65 0.745 0.855 1.000
R for 7 months (1.000-0.425)*16,500 = 10,065 MJ.mm/ha.yr.
(Before clean-lean improvement)
Step 3: The lower value of the modified R factor for after clean-lean improvement suggests a lower soil
erosion rate due to rainfall. Hence, the reduction in time land being left opened could reduce the risk of
sediment pollution.
169
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Introduction
This chapter is the final chapter of this doctoral thesis. The function of this chapter is to conclude the study
by providing the achievements of the research objectives, highlight the significance of this study and to
acknowledge the limitations of this study. Furthermore, recommendations for future research will be
provided and the chapter will be wrapped-up with a summary.
8.2 Achievement of Research Objectives
8.2.1 Objective 1: Identification and Categorization on the Causes of Site Water Pollution into
Distal and Proximal Factors
This objective has been addressed in Chapter 2 of this thesis. The chapter has first identified the causes
of site water pollution from a theoretical as well as industry perspective. For the theoretical aspect,
systematic review has been used to identify the causes of site water pollution methodically. Previous studies
have not been conducted in such a way with data commonly represented in a narrative form. For the
industry input, in-depth interview has been carried out among industry experts that consist of environmental
consultant, constructor and local authorities. Comparison between the different means of attaining data
highlights the focus of theory on the immediate causes of water pollution which are runoff, erosion and
sediment whereas response from the industry are more inclined to relate the causes to the actions that
might have triggered the aforementioned processes that leads to site water pollution. Nonetheless, the
remaining causes identified in theory besides the aforementioned processes are similar to the ones
mentioned in the interview and all causes are collated into one charter and established as the causes of
site water pollution.
The established causes are further categorized into distal or proximal causes of site water pollution.
This categorization is essential in order to tackle both the direct and indirect sources of problem for the
solution to be holistic. In reference to the accident causation model developed by Suraji et al. (2001), the
170
definition of proximal and distal factor have been borrowed and adapted into the current study by
recognizing the proximal and distal factors of site water pollution. The categorization of the causes of site
water pollution into the two categories by building it on the accident causation model is an original
contribution of knowledge not only for construction site water pollution but also the environmental studies
in the field of construction management. This categorization allows the realization that the causes of water
pollution could originate from parties other than the directly linked contracting organization.
8.2.2 Objective 2: Demonstration of the Dynamic Interaction between the Distal and Proximal
Factors of Site Water Pollution
This objective has been addressed in Chapter 3 of this thesis. This chapter acts to enhance findings from
the previous chapter by representing it in a Causal Loop Diagram (CLD). The chapter has first represented
the dynamic causal relationship between the proximal and distal factors of site water pollution from the
collated in-depth interview and systematic review data. Then, it is followed by stage 2 where a case study
has been conducted to verify the causal findings of the collated data as well as the use of CLD using data
from a case study. From the result, it is shown that the dynamic representation of the causal factors differ
from the representation in the linear form, given in Chapter 2. The emphasis on the distal factors identified
from the CLD shows the criticality of managing the causal factors at its source. Management of the distal
factors will enable reduction in the domino effect, consequently reducing the risk of site water pollution.
This chapter has provided an original contribution to knowledge by representing the causal factors
of site water pollution in a CLD where it is a new scientific establishment in the field of site water pollution.
Previous studies have provided only the linear cause-effect factors without acknowledging the systemic
interaction between those factors. Consequently, this have opened up a new area of study by introducing
system dynamics in preventing or managing pollution in construction. From a practical aspect, the outcome
of this chapter enables industry players to understand, identify and manage the core causes of site water
pollution from a bigger perspective. CLD enables practitioners to narrow down essential factors that should
be enhanced (balancing factor) as well as factors that should be controlled (reinforcing factor), especially
when many different factors are involved. The holistic perspective allows industry players to act proactively
171
in solving problems at its core. The CLD could also be adapted and applied to identify the core causes of
other problematic areas towards building a holistic approach to manage problems.
8.2.3 Objective 3: Development of Conceptual Frameworks to Manage Site Water Pollution at the
Planning and Operational Level by Integrating Construction Planning with Water Pollution
Prevention Approaches and Cleaner Production with Lean Production Concept.
This objective has been addressed in Chapter 4 of this thesis. Two theoretical frameworks that aim to
manage the production and environmental aspects of construction at different levels of construction, i.e.
planning and operational work stage have been established. The first framework, which is the integration
of construction planning and water pollution prevention practices, WP3-Construction Planning is applicable
at the planning level of construction. This integration enables contractors to simultaneously plan their
construction elements such as schedule, method and site layout to fulfill both the production (time, cost and
quality) and environmental (sediment pollution) aspect. The second framework is applicable at the
operational level where two different concepts have been integrated, which are Lean Production and
Cleaner Production (Clean-Lean). The Clean-Lean integration allows practitioners to manage the
production and environmental measures during the operational stage of construction.
The established theoretical frameworks are original contribution to knowledge as there are no
studies found on explicitly making the integration between construction management and water pollution
prevention as well as clean-lean integration. The proposed integration seals the gap in knowledge and the
application of both frameworks would benefit the construction at the planning and operational stage where
both measures of production and environment will be of concern with seamless improvements expected in
both aspects.
8.2.4 Objective 4: Development of an Industry Enhanced Integration of Water Pollution Preventive
Practices (WP3) with Construction Planning Elements Framework
This objective has been addressed in Chapter 5 of this thesis. A theoretical-practical framework of
integration between construction planning and water pollution prevention practices has been developed.
This chapter is the industry validation of the theoretical framework proposed in Chapter 4. The findings
172
suggest that WP3 is related to Construction Planning components and the seamless integration between
both elements lead to the establishment of prevention-based site water pollution strategies.
This pioneer integration between construction planning and prevention approaches for site water
pollution is an original contribution of knowledge where no prior research has been conducted in regards
to this matter. Previously, construction planning has always been planned as a stand-alone subject but
recently, the health and safety sector has integrated the subject of safety into construction planning so that
both measures could be planned and executed simultaneously. Nonetheless, the distinct differences
between construction planning and environment, especially site water pollution has caused both elements
to be planned in isolation. This chapter has provided validation to the theoretical framework and the
agreement from industry players on the practical possibility to integrate both dimensions. In practice,
outcome of the integration could increase contractors awareness of their planning for construction whereby
they could be involved more proactively in planning for their construction by considering also the prevention
techniques of site water pollution. The seamless planning could simultaneously kill two birds with one stone
by potential achievement of both production and environmental measures. This integration could also be
beneficial to local authorities in regards to their guideline and standards where it shows a more explicit
integration method to contractors. In summary, this chapter has provided a prevention-based solution to
manage production and the environmental factor at the construction planning stage.
8.2.5 Objective 5: Development of a Clean-Lean Approach to Manage Distal Factors of Site Water
Pollution
This objective has been addressed in Chapter 6 of this thesis. This study has provided a conceptual
systemic view of the cause-effect relationship between administrative process inefficiencies, lean waste,
production (time) and the environmental (sediment pollution) variable using a system dynamic tool called
Causal Loop Diagram (CLD). Furthermore, the chapter has developed a modified Value Stream-Process
Map (VS-PM) with added functions of CLD to improve both the production and environmental variable in a
construction project. This chapter acts to validate the use of CLD as well as the clean-lean integration. This
chapter is perceived as the solution to distal factors of site water pollution through the use of clean-lean
approach.
173
This chapter is an original contribution to knowledge as there were no previous attempt found on
providing a systemic linkage between administrative process inefficiencies, lean waste, production (time)
and the environmental (sediment pollution) variable. In addition to that, the developed method of modified
Value Stream-Process Map (VS-PM) with added functions of CLD provides a new and unique perspective
on the use of lean to clean an operation. In the past, minimal work has been done to utilize the CLD in lean
improvement efforts but in this study, the versatility of CLD has been portrayed when it has been used to
enhance the functionalities of the VS-PM. Besides the common performance metrics used to measure
production from lean perspective, this study has also established an environmental metric that is unique to
this study, which is the method to measure the environmental performance of site sediment pollution. As
site sediment pollution can be affected by many different factors, this chapter has successful developed a
specific relevant metric to address the environmental measure for this doctoral thesis.
From the practical aspect, this study could benefit the construction industry, particularly the public
sector as they also do play a role in determining the smooth flow of a project. Local authorities deal with
administrative processes such as permit approvals and if delayed, it might hinder the work progress at site.
The proposed use of VS-PM with CLD could provide means for governmental organization to streamline
their administrative processes. The addition of CLD allows practitioner to identify the core cause of their
problem and easily identify a solution to attack the problem at its source. The positive improvements could
relatively translate to better production and environmental performance during construction.
8.2.6 Objective 6: Development of a Clean-Lean Approach to Manage Proximal Factors of Site
Water Pollution
This objective has been addressed in Chapter 7 of this thesis. The study has developed and demonstrated
the use of clean-lean method for earthwork operation in order to reduce the risk of site sediment pollution,
consequently improving also the production factors. This chapter validates the use of clean-lean integration,
as discussed conceptually in Chapter 3.
The clean-lean method proposed to improve the production and environmental variable related to
the proximal factors in earthworks operation is an original contribution to the body of knowledge where in
previous, no research has been done to comprehensively portray the use of clean-lean in improving an
174
earthwork operation from the perspective of site water pollution. In addition, the demonstration of the use
of different tools, especially to cater for micro and macro level operational improvement using VSM and
variability concept provides an enhancement to the common approach of identifying waste. In addition to
the integration, the linkage has also contributed to advance the knowledge of each concept where
environment has been added into the LP concept while CP has been enhanced of its production factor by
using LP.
In a practical world, the simple representation of the clean-lean method could attract contractors to
apply the approach in their respective projects. The integration could also enable contractors to understand
the relationship between production and environmental performance and how they can be improved
simultaneously. The systematic steps proposed could help contractors to plan their operational works to
achieve dual goals which are production and environmental goal and it also consist of continuous
improvement tools to monitor and provide remedy to the observed deficiencies for short term (VSM) and
long term (variability) solution. Overall, this integration could benefit the construction industry in specific and
people at the receiving end in general.
8.3 Value and Significant of the Research
This research is valuable as current construction is striving to reduce their footprint on the environment.
Numerous control actions have been developed and implemented to reduce the impacts of site produced
water pollution on the environment. Nonetheless, the built and installation of control facilities do come with
cost, resource requirement as well as effort by all parties, especially the constructing team. Even with the
control facilities, sediment pollution could also occur when unexpected rainfall event takes place, faultiness
and overloading of the facilities. All in all, control facilities can only do so much to manage the already
produced pollution. This study recognizes the risk endured when basing the environmental management
solely on the end-of-pipe system. Hence, the initial idea to ground the current study of managing site
sediment pollution on the concept of prevention. The concept of prevention will apply source reduction
where the sources of pollution will be reduced and prevented, which will autonomously reduce the risk of
pollution.
175
Prevention is a concept under environmental management system. In order to apply the approach
in isolation, proactive initiative by the construction organization is required. Nonetheless, concern in
construction often falls back on production factors such as time, cost and quality. The additional quest of
having to think and plan for proactive environmental application of prevention could create an additional
burden to the contractor, which is what the current study has worked to improve. This study has developed
an integration between the distinct aspects of environmental concept of prevention with construction
management. The integration has been developed and demonstrated throughout the chapters under Phase
2, which is the proposed solution phase.
The value and significance of this study is not only from the aspect of proposed solution but also
from the initial stage itself, which is phase 1, problem formulation. Previous studies have commonly
identified the causes of water pollution without getting in detail on how those causes function and relate to
each other. Realizing the deficiencies found on previous works, this study has developed a systematic
approach to understand the causes of water pollution as the solution for the causes should be well justified
and relatable. Due to that, this study has triangulated data on the causes of water pollution through
systematic review, in-depth interview and case study. This study has also categorized the causes of water
pollution in accordance to an accident causation model, which has not been explicitly done in previous
studies. The common linear representation of data has also been replaced with the use of a system dynamic
tool called Causal Loop Diagram (CLD). The use of CLD to discover the relationship between different
factors allow systemic view and impact of all potential reasons. The unique representation of the factors by
first categorizing it into distal and proximal factors and subsequently portraying the factors in a dynamic
way using CLD is an original contribution of knowledge. In summary, the value of this study lies within both
of the contributions in problem and solution formulation. Further discussion on the value and significant of
this study is provided in the following sub-sections.
8.3.1 Theoretical contribution of the study
The theoretical contribution of this study stems from the very beginning, which is problem formulation to the
proposed solution. For problem identification, this study has filled the gap of knowledge in providing
comprehensive causes of site water pollution, which is further categorized into distal and proximal factors
176
by grounding it to the concept applied in accident causation model. This rather unique attempt to categorize
the causes enables a larger perspective in identifying the core cause for water pollution so that the proposed
solution could be holistic and preventive in nature. Moving from that, the common linear representation on
the causes of pollution also does not provide a systemic cause-effect relationship between the distal and
proximal factors. Hence, this study has contributed by utilizing a system dynamic tool, CLD to portray the
systemic relationship between the distal and proximal factors of site water pollution. The use of CLD in
identifying the core causes of a problem has been implemented in areas such as productivity improvement
as well as health and safety but none on pollution in construction, specifically water pollution.
For the proposed solution, two major establishments from this study has contributed to the current
body of knowledge. The first major contribution is the integration of water pollution prevention practices with
construction planning. This integration is one of its kind where the prevention approaches for site water
pollution is sought through in order to identify its relevance with construction planning elements of schedule,
method and site layout. This solution is intended to be applied by the constructing team during the
construction planning stage in order to proactively plan the construction alongside the concern on sediment
pollution but without additional hassle. Previously, both elements of construction planning and water
pollution prevention practices, if any, have been dealt in isolation. For site water pollution, it is common that
the approach used to manage it is through the application of control facilities rather than prevention. This
idealistic solution could assist in a paradigm shift towards applying preventive approaches that could be
planned seamlessly with construction where the results would be mutual benefit to the production and
environmental factor without having one aspect treated more than the other.
The second major establishment is the integration between two different concepts, which are Lean
Production (LP) and Cleaner Production (CP). The proposed integration is to be applied at the operational
level to improve both aspects of production and the environment. Previously, no explicit attempt has been
found in integrating the concepts of LP and CP. This study realized the potential of the integration between
both concepts as they have similar relevance and could complement each other well. The significant
identification is where lean enables clean. The benefits of the integration was further demonstrated in detail
of its application in managing both the distal and proximal factors of site water pollution.
177
In addition to the major establishments, the study has also contributed to the method development
for the clean-lean approach. The contribution to cater both distal and proximal factors are rather different
as in the case of distal factors, it is essential to show the relationship of the factor with site water pollution
as the relationship is not apparent. Hence, the clean-lean based solution for the distal factor studied, in this
case administration inefficiencies, has been enhanced with the utilization of CLD. The addition of CLD has
provided an added-value to the common techniques perceived in lean and clean. Environmental
performance is also an essential part of proving the benefits of the clean-lean method besides the common
measurement of time and cost that represents the production factor. Previous studies have established
common environmental measurements such as carbon emission and energy consumption but there is none
found in measuring site water pollution with regards to the production factors. For site sediment pollution,
common methods of measuring water pollution would be through water sampling to test elements such as
suspended solid and turbidity (Pitt et al. 2007). However, those monitoring and control type of application
would be impractical when it is at the planning or operational stage where improvements were to be made
with changes in time. This study has proposed an indicator for site sediment pollution, which is the
measurement of Rainfall Erosivity R factor which involves the component of time, which is functional during
the application of clean-lean. As for the clean-lean approach applied to manage the proximal factors of site
water pollution, a rather different solution to the distal factors has been proposed. Commonly, Value Stream
Map (VSM) will be used to identify the causes of inefficiencies in a system but in this study, the VSM will
be used at the micro level of operation in order to identify waste for short time period while an output bar
chart will be drawn for the operation that functions to identify the variability by recognizing the Co-efficient
of variation (CoV) between the daily outputs. This will be used to view the macro perspective and will assist
the functionalities of the VSM for continuous improvement. Generally, this study has provided a theoretical
contribution in major aspects of this doctoral thesis.
8.3.2 Practicality of the study
Even though this study is an initial attempt in exploring the application of environmental prevention
approaches within the subject of construction management, the findings have been complemented with the
practical aspect, in regards to the requirements of the industry. In the phase of problem identification, the
use of CLD in recognizing the relationship between factors of site water pollution has been triangulated
178
using methods of in-depth interview, systematic review and case study. Hence, the practical applicability of
this tool has been shown from a theory as well as the practical point of view.
For the two major solutions, the practical applicability of the first solution, which is the integration
of water pollution preventive practices with construction planning has been verified among industry players
by the conduct of semi-structured interviews. It is found that all elements of construction planning which are
time schedule, method and site layout could be seamless planned to cater for production as well as water
pollution prevention purpose. Nonetheless, it is found that the time schedule has the most connectivity and
should be the first step taken to incorporate the environmental aspect at the construction planning stage.
For the second integration of clean-lean approach, the proposed framework has been put to test by
conducting two case studies to demonstrate the application of the approach. Results from both the case
study that cater both proximal and distal factors of site water pollution provide convincing results where it
could benefit both the production and environmental factors in construction.
8.3.3 Usability of the study
The outcome of this doctoral study is to highlight more on the approach rather than the result. In relation to
that, the approach of identifying the root cause using CLD could be expanded to other aspects or sectors
where it necessitates the root identification of problem. From an environmental aspect, it provides the
foundation to be based upon, towards achieving prevention rather than control-based system. This
technique provides a complete view of the entire system where the cause-effect relationship in the system
could be easily identified for improvement.
For the WP3-Construction Planning integration, the approach could be implemented at the
construction planning stage through proactive planning in order to reap the benefits from the production
and environmental aspect. For the clean-lean integration, the usability of the method has been
demonstrated in detail in Chapter 6 and 7. In order to tackle the distal factor of site water pollution, the use
of CLD in complementing the modified VS-PM has been demonstrated using a case study where the
method is found to benefit the parties involved, especially the often side-lined functions of local authority.
Similarly, the clean-lean integration has been demonstrated to satisfy the proximal factors where detailed
usability of the method has been shown and validated using a case study. Therefore, the approaches
179
developed in this study are usable at the different levels of construction, which are the planning and
operational level.
8.3.4 Reliability and Validity of the study
According to Abowitz and Toole (2010), using multiple methods such as interviews, observation and
archival data enables the check and balance of strength and weakness of each approach, which further
allows convergence on similar pattern or result. The use of different methods could form a triangulation
where it is an approach to conduct research by simultaneously applying both qualitative and quantitative
approaches to strengthen academic proposition (Fellow and Liu, 2008). Triangulation is also beneficial as
a means to validate research outcome when qualitative methods are utilized (Walker, 1997; Denzin, 2009).
In order to assure the reliability and validity of the findings in Phase 1, data has been obtained from different
methods which consist of systematic review, in-depth interview and case study towards identifying the
causes of water pollution along with its categorization. All the methods have been conducted by following
detailed protocol and procedures which are well documented. Findings of those methods converge in
similar causes of site water pollution that consist of distal and proximal factors.
For works in Phase 2 which deals mostly with the establishment of theoretical framework and its
verification through semi-structured interviews and case studies, the data were also collected by following
proper protocol and procedures. The internal validity of the frameworks have been accomplished by doing
pattern matching and explanation building, which is followed by external validity by demonstrating the
application using real case studies and semi-structured interview. In order to satisfy construct validity, case
study will be based on the theoretical framework with results verified using interviews. The use of specific
and systematic protocols in deriving the findings show that the data collection method is reliable and abide
to the construct validity. The data collected during case study has also been triangulated by the means of
observation, interview with several different personnel in the project and also hard evidence such as
archival data (site diary, project documents/ drawings). As for the developed approach, the internal validity
is established when findings from the semi-structured interview and case studies are being referred back
to the experts in order to get their feedback on the proposed solutions. The external validity of those
approaches has been satisfied by having an in-depth case study database where it could be easily referred
180
for subsequent application in other areas of study. However, further research could be conducted with
multiple case studies to further prove the external validity of the findings. Reliability of the case study can
be provided with a documented methodology of the case study that allows other researchers to access the
document.
8.4 Research Limitations
This doctoral study has been conducted with meticulous effort but still, there are some inherent limitations
of this study that should be mentioned for the purpose of future improvement and research. The research
limitation identified from the study is given as follows:
1) For Phase 1, the qualitative study which is based on a small sample size of in-depth interview may
represent a limitation in this research. The difficulty in obtaining respondents as well as time
constraint has gave way to this limitation. Nonetheless, a triangulation-based research approach
has been used to complement the limitation where findings are enhanced with data gathered from
different sources such as systematic review and case study.
2) For the conceptual integration between WP3-Construction Planning, the limitation lies in the real
project application of the framework. The theoretical framework has been verified by panel of
experts from the industry through semi-structured interview. However, as this study is more focused
on proposing solutions for the problems formulated in the first phase, the conception of this
framework is to provide a holistic solution for the problem by incorporating also construction
planning, besides the subject of attention which is operational improvement. Due to that, the
framework which lacks the application aspect opens up opportunity for subsequent studies to be
conducted on this matter. However, it is important to highlight that this is a conceptual and
exploratory based framework where the aim of this study is not to provide generalization but to
build a conceptual framework to demonstrate the possibility of using construction planning
elements in preventing site runoff and erosion at the initial stage of construction. Hence, future
research is essential to test the application of this framework in a real project, which will be
discussed in Section 8.5.
181
3) The clean-lean integration has been demonstrated its usage to address the distal and proximal
factors of site water pollution. The distal factor addressed in this study is the often side-lined
administrative processes that could have effect on site sediment pollution. In terms of administrative
processes, this study has focused on improving the macro aspect of the process. It is essential to
highlight that due to the qualitative nature of this study, the findings could not be generalized.
Nonetheless, the findings did provide a new research avenue that advocates the criticality of
administrative processes in the flow of construction and how it could also affect the relatively distant
factor such as sediment pollution. This study lack the micro aspect of administration such as office
administrative waste which could include error or defect in documentation as well as unnecessary
movement of workers. The purposively developed CLD and VS-PM approach should also be further
tested by applying the developed system into practice, especially in processes involving local
authorities in construction. For the clean-lean method developed for the proximal factor, the various
steps involved in the method could contain certain limitations with some worth mentioning. The
calculation for number of trucks has been given in a deterministic manner, whereas earthworks
itself is dynamic with various interaction between factors. This is well understood by the authors
but to delve into the subject of deterministic and stochastic will divert the original intent of this study,
which is to explore the subject matter and propose opportunities to identify and act on the
production and environmental waste in construction. Nonetheless, this limitation creates a window
of opportunity for future studies by taking stochastic variables and computer simulation into
consideration. In addition, the proposed solution is specifically to address issues in the case under
study. Hence, solutions may vary depending on different cases as every construction project is
unique. Hence, more studies should be done to test the applicability of this method in various
industry settings.
8.5 Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the research findings and limitations, the following suggestion for future research is proposed:
The suggestions provided below applies to enrich the current findings as well as to expand the current
findings into new area of study.
182
1) In Phase 1, the problem formulation has been approached using three methods of in-depth
interview, systematic review and case study towards having a triangulation. However, the
current findings could further be made comprehensive by having more respondents for the in-
depth interview. The current findings of portraying the causes of water pollution using CLD,
which is in a qualitative representation could open up a new opportunity to embark the research
involving quantitative values. Hence, the application of system dynamics is recommended by
transforming the current CLD into a system dynamics model. The application of system
dynamics could objectively quantify the effects of each causes towards site water pollution.
2) In Phase 2, the integration of WP3-Construction Planning has been established based on
integrated literature review with input from panel of experts on the subject. The framework
could be strengthened in future research by including also survey on the framework in order to
gather larger sample of respondents. Besides that, subsequent research could focus on
applying the framework in real time project. Detailed procedure of implementation could be
thought of, in order to demonstrate the use of the framework in a system. As for a larger
research opportunity, this framework could be further enhanced by incorporating it with the
practice of Information Technology such as Building Information Modelling. Building
Information Modelling could be used to assist the implementation of the framework as it allows
functions such as 4D or 5D visualization that provides the dimensions of time and cost for ease
of planning. Hence, it could be a subject of interest for researches who are keen to apply the
WP3-Construction planning framework with the support of Building Information Modelling.
3) As for the clean-lean integration, the theoretical framework has been demonstrated its usability
using case studies. For the clean-lean approach in addressing the administrative inefficiencies,
it is proposed that future study should also research on the micro aspect of administration that
analyses office administrative waste. A more detailed look into the administrative waste could
involve operational waste such as defects (document error), overproduction (producing
unrequested work), motion (trips to site) and moving (report routing) (Resetarits, 2012). The
findings of the clean-lean integration could further be strengthened by providing more case
studies as an additional data to support the framework. In addition to that, the data provided in
183
the findings are all deterministic in nature. The author understands that construction is dynamic
in nature and therefore, the addition of stochastic value would provide a more realistic figure.
Hence, the current works steps could be improved with the use of construction modelling or
simulations to address the deterministic nature of the current study. Besides that, the current
framework should be put to test in various sectors and situations so that the clean-lean method
could progressively be generalized.
8.6 Summary
This doctoral thesis has provided an original piece of contribution to knowledge by providing a holistic
solution that aims to improve the production and environmental measures at the planning and operational
stage of construction with the ultimate focus of embracing the concept of prevention. The specific
environmental subject of this study is construction site water pollution. The doctoral thesis that begun with
problem formulation and ended with proposed solution has provided a complete preventive approach to
manage site water pollution from the perspective of construction management. This one-of-a-kind attempt
has developed various integration of concepts and methods so that it could be appreciated from the
production and environmental stand-point without involving much additional cost or resources but at the
same time benefits the time, cost, quality and the environmental dimension. This study has also opened up
large windows of opportunities for future research works to take place as this thesis is basically very much
exploratory in nature. The idea of managing construction together with the environment is rather new,
especially from the aspect of site water pollution, which has commonly been managed in isolation through
the use of end-of-pipe systems. It is hoped that findings from this study will be extended beyond the
construction industry by sparking interest from other sectors towards simultaneous accomplishments in the
production and environmental measures.
8.7 References
Abowitz, D. and Toole, T. (2010). "Mixed Method Research: Fundamental Issues of Design, Validity, and
Reliability in Construction Research." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0000026, 108-116.
184
Denzin, N. K. 2009. The Research Act, United States of America, Transaction Publishers-Rutgers.
Fellows, R. F. and A. M. M. Liu (2009). Research Methods for Construction, Wiley
Pitt, R., Clark, S.E., Lake, D., 2007. Construction site erosion and sediment controls. DESTech
Publications, Lancaster, PA.
Resetarits, P. J., 2012. The application of lean management principles to fields other than manufacturing.
Proceedings of PICMET '12: Technology Management for Emerging Technologies. Vancouver,
Canada.
Walker, D. H. T. 1997. Choosing an appropriate research methodology. Construction Management and
Economics. 15(2), pp. 149-159.
185
APPENDICES
1. LETTER OF APPROVAL FOR ETHICS APPLICATION
Will be added in.
2. EXAMPLE OF PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET (PIS)
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

20 Symonds Street Auckland, New Zealand
Telephone 64 9 373 7599 ext 88166; Facsimile 64 9 373 7462
The University of Auckland

Private Bag 92019
Auckland, New Zealand
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET (Chief Executive Officer)
Research Project Title : Construction Planning: Alternative Method to Construction Site Water
Pollution Management
Researcher : Sheila Belayutham
Degree : Phd (Civil Engineering)
Department : Civil and Environmental Engineering
Research Supervisor : Dr. Vicente Gonzalez
Purpose of this Participant Information Sheet (PIS)
The purpose of this Participant Information Sheet (PIS) is to seek for your permission/authority to approach
employees within your organisation, to request their participation in this research. The project is part of the
Doctor of Philosophy Degree, Civil Engineering, in which the researcher, Sheila Belayutham, is currently
enrolled at The University of Auckland, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. The interviews
are an important element of this project, which aims to identify ways to manage construction site storm
water runoff using construction planning elements (method, sequence and spatial layout).
Research Background
This research aims to identify alternative methods to manage construction site water pollution by utilizing
construction planning elements such as sequencing, method and spatial layout. Conventional site water
pollution management utilizes structural approach to mitigate runoff from construction sites by implementing
detention pond and sediment control measures. Those methods do not prevent the occurrence of runoff,
186
merely mitigating the problem. Construction management elements could be utilized to prevent and reduce
the runoff from site by doing construction phasing and through appropriate use of equipment. Therefore,
data collection through interview sessions are crucial in fulfilling the objectives of the research, which are
to produce a systematic framework that utilizes construction planning (method, location of temporary
facilities and time planning) for preventing construction site water pollution and to utilize lean techniques in
identifying and improving current inefficient processes (non-value added activities) that produces
production and environmental waste in construction.
Data Collection
Interviews with site personnel are essential for the completion of this research. Generally, the interview
questions will involve subjects on construction site water pollution.
Participation
The intention is that employees from your organization will be invited to take part in one to two interview
sessions that would last approximately one hour per session. Candidates would be selected on the basis
of their knowledge and experience in managing or involvement in construction projects in New Zealand and
Malaysia. Your endorsement will be relayed to the employees who are invited to participate in this research,
but they will still retain their right to decide whether or not to participate. Furthermore, participants will retain
the right to keep their response transcripts restricted from access/review by other members in your
organization (including yourself). The interview will be made only with the consent of the participating
employees. Participants are not allowed to provide any commercially sensitive issues during the interview
sessions.
Data Management
The interview sessions will be audio recorded upon approval from the participants. Participants are allowed
to turn off the recording anytime during the session, without the need to provide any reason. Answers and
data from interviews will be transferred to a draft interview information sheet in electronic format.
Participants are able to review and withdraw the data provided after undertaking the interviews. Upon
request, an electronic document of the draft interview information sheet will be sent by email within two
weeks after the interview for approval. The participants will be given a period of two weeks from the receipt
of document, to respond and edit the transcribed data in order to comply with the organizations
confidentiality requirement. If the participants decide to withdraw, all information provided will be deleted
immediately. The final date for withdrawal is one month from the date of interview. After applying all
modifications requested, a final interview information sheet will be released and used for analysis and
results presentation. All data will be kept in the researchers and research supervisors computer in a secure
manner for a period of six years. After six years, all data will be destroyed through deleting computer files.
All hard copies will be immediately destroyed and draft interview information sheets deleted. The results of
the research will be presented in the form of a written report and conference papers and papers may be
written as outcomes. This will be done in a manner which will not identify any participants or data source
either by name, inference, or implication. Data collected will be coded so that the participants identity is
protected. All results will appear in a generalized format for interpretational purposes only. The final results
will be made available upon your request, but only after completion of the entire research report. I seek
your assurance that participation, or non-participation, will not affect the employment status of the
participants.
187
Queries
Any queries or concerns regarding the research project can be addressed by contacting:
Mobile : 022 1631362
E-mail : sbel594@aucklanduni.ac.nz
Supervisor : Dr. Vicente Gonzalez
Phone : 09 3737599 ext 84106
E-mail : v.gonzalez@auckland.ac.nz
Head of Dept. : Prof. Pierre Quenneville
Phone : 09 3737599 ext 87920
E-mail : p.quenneville@auckland.ac.nz
For any concerns regarding ethical issues you may contact the Chair, The University of Auckland Human
Participants Ethics Committee, The University of Auckland, Research Office, Private Bag 92019, Auckland
1142. Telephone 09 373-7599 ext. 87830/83761. Email: humanethics@auckland.ac.nz
APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE ON
17th DECEMBER 2012 FOR (3) YEARS FROM 17/12/2012 TO 17/12/2015. REFERENCE NUMBER: 8664
3. EXAMPLE OF CONSENT FORM (CF)
188
DEPERTMENT OF CIVIL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Private Bag 92019
CONSENT FORM (Chief Executive Officer)
THIS FORM WILL BE HELD FOR A PERIOD OF 6 YEARS
Project Title : Construction Planning: Alternative Method to Construction Site Water
Pollution Management
I have read the Participant Information Sheet and understood the nature of the research and why the
participants have been selected. I have also had the opportunity to ask questions and have had them
answered to my satisfaction. I confirm that I hold the appropriate authority to provide consent for the
following statements:
I give permission for employees of my organization to take part in the research.
I give permission for employees of my organization to provide information related to my organization

to support this research. I understand that any such information will be treated confidentially and any
reported information will appear in a general form.
I confirm that the employees participation or non-participation in this research will not, in any way,
affect their employment in my organization.
I understand that employees will retain the right to keep their survey response confidential from me
and other members of my organization.
I know that the data will be analysed by the researcher without the assistance of any third party.
I understand that data will be kept for 6 years, after which they will be destroyed.
I understand that the data from the participants will be stored securely within the university premises
and only the researcher and supervisors can access it.
I understand that the participating employees will have the rights to review a draft report related to the
information they provide to ensure that the information reported satisfies my organizations
confidentiality requirements.
I understand that the interview session will be audio recorded upon receiving consent from them.
I understand that the participants will have the right to turn off the recordings anytime during the
session, without giving any reason.
189
I understand that audio recordings will be transcribed and the participants will be given the permission
to edit their transcript in order to comply with organizations confidentiality requirement, if requested
by them.
I understand that the participants will be given two weeks from the receipt of document, to edit the
transcript to their satisfaction.
I understand the participating employees are free to withdraw their participation in this research at
any time without giving any reasons.
I understand that the participating employees are able to withdraw the data they provide up to one
month after undertaking the survey.
I understand that although data the participants provide will be reported, it will be done in a way that
does not identify the source either by name or inference.
I understand that the participants will not be asked to provide any commercially sensitive issues
during the interview sessions.
I understand that I will be offered a copy of the research report.
Name : ________________________________________
Signature : ____________________________ Date : ___________________________________
Please include your email address in the following space, if you would like to receive a copy of the final
report. _______________________________________
APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE ON
17th DECEMBER 2012 FOR (3) YEARS FROM 17/12/2012 TO 17/12/2015 REFERENCE NUMBER:8664
190
4. EXAMPLE OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Private Bag 92019
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (Consultants)
The aim of this interview is to identify the LID and erosion sediment preventive principles in managing
construction site water pollution. Thus, the views and experiences of practitioners are valuable in providing
the required information. The interview has been designed to encourage the exploration of key issues raised
in the literature. This agenda will act as a checklist to ensure that relevant issues are being addressed.
The participant will be asked to provide information on the following items:
- Current affiliation.
- Years of experience in issues related to site runoff management.
The following questions will be used to guide the interview:
1) What are the causes of construction site water pollution?
2) Can you please describe the non-structural/ source control LID and erosion sediment approaches
for managing site runoff?
3) In your opinion, can the non-structural/source control LID and erosion sediment practices be
categorised into the 3 dimensions of construction planning (time scheduling, choice of construction
method and site layout)?
Next questions will focus on the 3 dimensions of construction planning and its ability to reduce site runoff.
4) In your opinion, how could deficiencies in construction schedule negatively affect the site runoff?
5) Apart from proper phasing and timing of construction, what other elements that constitute a proper
construction schedule for site water pollution prevention?
6) In your opinion, how could certain construction methods negatively affect the site runoff, erosion
and sediment?
7) Apart from reducing soil compaction activities, minimise excavation, care when removing existing
trees, restrict trenching and choose lighter weight equipment, what other pre cautionary measures
should be taken in selecting appropriate method to prevent site runoff, erosion and sediment?
191
8) In your opinion, how could certain arrangements of site layouts negatively affect site runoff, erosion
and sediment?
9) Apart from reducing size of facilities, protect sensitive areas, minimise site disturbance, install pre
caution signs, limit accessibility and provide site plan, what other precautionary measures should
be taken in designing a site layout?
10) From your experiences, how do common contractors manage site runoff, erosion and sediment?
11) Can proper planning of the construction elements (schedule, construction method, site layout)
benefit in reducing runoff, erosion and sediment at construction sites?
________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you so much for your time and cooperation
192

Clean Version Thesis

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Clean Version Thesis

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

THE INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL

APPROACHES IN MANAGING CONSTRUCTION SITE WATER

environment and production aspects of a construction.

1.2 Research Motivation 3

1.3 Research Problems 5

1.4 Research Aim and Objectives 6

1.5 Research Scope 6

1.6 Research Methodology 6

1.6.1 Research Method 7

1.6.2 Ethical Consideration 12

1.7 Thesis Outline 12

CHAPTER 2 CAUSAL FACTORS FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE WATER POLLUTION

2.2 Misconception on the Causes of Site Water Pollution 20

2.3 Causal Theories 21

2.4 Research Method to Establish the Underlying Factors in Relation to Construction 22

Site Water Pollution

2.4.1 In-Depth Interview with Industry Practitioners 22

2.4.2 Systematic Review 24

2.4.3 Content Analysis 26

2.5.1 In-Depth Interview Result 27

2.5.2 Systematic Review Result 28

Proximal Factors of Construction Site Water Pollution

CHAPTER 3 THE DYNAMICS OF DISTAL AND PROXIMAL FACTORS OF CONSTRUCTION SITE

3.2 Causal Network 41

3.2.1 Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) 42

Site Water Pollution

3.3.1 CLD Development Using Collated Systematic Review and 44

Interview Data (Stage 1)

the Use of CLD Using Case Study (Stage 2)

3.3.3 CLD Model Validation 46

3.4 CLD Model for Construction Site Water Pollution 46

3.5 CLD for Case Project 53

CHAPTER 4 THE CONCEPTION OF PREVENTION-BASED APPROACH TO MANAGE

CONSTRUCTION SITE WATER POLLUTION

4.2 Concepts in Environmental Management System 62

4.2.1 Concept of Prevention 62

4.2.2 Cleaner Production (CP) and Pollution Prevention (P2) 63

4.2.3 Cleaner Production: The environmental-production improvement strategy 64

4.4 Construction Planning and Operation 65

4.4.1 Construction Planning 66

4.4.2 Construction Operation 67

4.4.2.1 Lean production / lean thinking 68

4.4.2.2 Lean and the Environment 69

Environmental Prevention Approaches

4.6 Relationship between Construction Planning and Water Pollution Prevention 74

4.6.1 Preventive approaches to manage runoff and erosion 74

4.6.2 Theoretical linkage between WP3 and Construction Planning 78

4.7 Relationship Cleaner Production and Lean Production Approach 80

4.7.1 Integrated Cleaner Production (CP) and Lean Production (LP) 82

CHAPTER 5 INDUSTRY ENHANCED INTEGRATION OF CONSTRUCTION PLANNING WITH

WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PRACTICES FRAMEWORK

Construction Planning and Water Pollution Prevention Practices

5.2.1 Semi-Structured Interview 96

5.2.2 Description of Respondents 97

5.2.3 Deductive data analysis 99

5.3 Industrial Input on the Significance of WP3 as part of Construction Planning 99

5.3.2 Construction Method 101

5.3.3 Construction Site Layout 102

5.4 Theoretical-Practical Based Framework 103

5.5 Conclusion 105

5.6 References 106

CHAPTER 6 CLD ENHANCED CLEAN-LEAN APPROACH TO MANAGE THE DISTAL FACTOR

(ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES) OF CONSTRUCTION SITE WATER POLLUTION