Level II

A Study of Production Management

(Manufacturing into Construction).

By Angela Lee

University of Salford Research Unit April 1999

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

Contents. 1. Introduction. 2. Construction versus manufacturing. 3. Definitions of lean production. 3.1 Goals of the Toyota production system according to Monden [1983]. 3.2 The basic philosophy of the new production system according to NPS Research Association [Shinohara, 1988]. 3.3 The organisation features of a lean plant according to Womack et al [1990]. 3.4 First lay of manufacturing according to Plossl [1991]. 4. The concept of lean production. 4.1 The conversion model. 4.2 Production as a flow. 4.3.1 Construction as a flow. 5. Lean production: the core principles. 5.1 Reduce the share of non value-adding activities. 5.2 Increase the output value through systematic consideration of customer requirements. 5.3 Reduce variability. 5.4 Reduce cycle time. 5.5 Simplify by minimising the number of steps and parts (reducing the batch sizes). 5.6 Increase output flexibility. 5.7 Increase process transparency. 5.8 Focus on the complete process. 5.9 Build continuous improvement into the process. 5.10 Balance flow improvement with conversion improvement. 5.11 Benchmark. 6. Discussion. 7. References. 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 7 8 8 8 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 14 14 17

production 2.doc

-2-

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

1. Introduction. The problems in the construction industry are obvious, and as such, they have been highlighted again in the recent Latham [1994] and Egan [1998] reports. In light of which, lessons from other industries have been suggested as improvement methods, particularly manufacturing initiatives. Manufacturing has been a constant reference point and a source of innovation in construction for many decades [Koskela, 1992]. Computer integration and automation have their origin in manufacturing and their implementation still well ahead compared to that in construction. However, there now appears to be a new phenomenon that is being slowly and steadily exploited. It is based on a new production philosophy rather than on new technology, which stresses the importance of basic theories and principles related to production processes. This notion of lean production first originated in Japan in the 1950s, as a development of the Just-In-Time (JIT) and the Total Quality Control (TQC) production systems, by way to improve the whole production process in manufacturing plants. (For the purpose of this study, the term lean production will be used, though the philosophy has been well publicised under names such as the new production philosophy, world class manufacturing, time-based competition and the new production system). The philosophy embodies the elimination of inventories and other waste through small-lot production, reduced set-up times, semiautonomous machines and co-operation with suppliers [Monden, 1983; Shingo, 1989]. The most prominent example of the philosophy is the Toyota production system [Koskela, 1992; Womack et al, 1990] which successfully harnesses all the benefits of large scale production with little waste, and more importantly, with huge profits. Toyotas lean car production process is characterised as using less of everything compared with that of mass production: half the human effort in the factory, half the manufacturing space, half the investment in tools, and half the engineering hours to develop a new product in half the time. Moreover, they have a consistent lead in stock turnover and productivity as compared to its Japanese competitors. Surely the construction industry should follow suit. Womack et al [1990] concludes that the final limits and benefits of lean production are not yet known and that its diffusion, both within manufacturing and other industries, is still at an early stage. Perhaps the core philosophy behind lean production will become the standard global production system of the twenty-first century, maybe only time will tell [Womack et al, 1990]. Though it is these theories and principles, the translation from manufacturing to construction (lean construction), which will form the basis of this literature review. 2. Construction versus manufacturing. The ability and transfer of practices and theories from other sectors is a constant subject of discussion in the construction industry. Many practitioners are adamant that the industry as a whole is unique and that the translation of principles cannot be adopted whole-heartedly. So much so, that the industry has been the subject of

production 2.doc

-3-

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

constant criticism over the past few decades. Ball [1988] highlights some of the most common arguments used to distinguish construction from other industries: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. The spatial fixity of buildings. The one-of-a-kind product. On-site production. Dependence on land for determined price. The requirement for long-life expectancy. The inexperience of clients. The merchant/producer role of companies. The overwhelmingly domestic industry. The masculine stereotype of workforce. The long cycle from design to production. The high cost of the projects. The amplified reaction in economic crisis. The labour intensive production. The fragmentation of the industry.

However, researchers around the world have started to search for a synthesis and generalisation of a range of theories and principles related to contemporary production management, particularly escalating ideas from other industry initiatives. Many new concepts also surfaced from JIT and TQC efforts. These include timebased competition, value based management, continuous improvement, reengineering and concurrent engineering. Furthermore, for some particular types of construction, this direct transfer of knowledge from manufacturing to construction has been proved possible under the lean construction initiative. Truly, many buildings, such as houses are essentially repeated products that can be continually improved. After all, the process of construction is itself repeated in its essentials from project to project [Egan, 1998]. 3. Definitions of lean production. 3.1 Goals of the Toyota production system according to Monden [1983]: The Toyota production system completely eliminates unnecessary elements in production for the purpose of cost reduction. The basic idea is to produce the kind of units needed, at the time needed, and in the quantities needed. The system, as described in 1983, has three sub-goals: 1. 2. 3. Quality control: which enables the system to adapt to daily and monthly fluctuations in terms of quantities and variety. Quality assurance: which assures that each process will supply only good units to subsequent processes. Respect for humanity, which must be cultivated while the system utilises the human resource to attain its cost objectives.

3.2 The basic philosophy of the new production system according to the NPS Research Association [Shinohara, 1988]:

production 2.doc

-4-

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

1.

2.

To seek a production technology that uses a minimum amount of equipment and labour to produce defect-free goods in the shortest possible time with the least amount of unfinished goods left over (wok-in-progress). To regard as waste any element that does not contribute to meeting the quality, price or delivery deadline required by the customer, and to strive to eliminate all waste through concerted efforts by the administration, R&D, production, distribution, management and all other departments of the company.

3.3 The organisational features of a lean plant according to Womack et al [1990]: It transfers the maximum number of tasks and responsibilities to those workers actually adding value to the product on line, and it has in place a system for detecting defects that quickly traces every problem, once discovered, to its ultimate cause. 3.4 First law of manufacturing according to Plossl [1991]: In manufacturing operations, all benefits will be directly applied proportional to the speed of flow of materials and information. Corollary 1: Corollary 2: Corollary 3: Corollary 4: This law applies to every type of manufacturing business. The tightness of control of manufacturing activities will vary inversely with their cycle times. Any planning and control system will be more effective with fewer problems causing slower rates of materials and information. Solving one problem which slows down or interrupts material or information flow will cost less and be more effective than efforts to cope with the problem effects.

4. The concept of lean production. To fully understand the definitions, as outlined above, there must be a solid understanding of the main concepts that underlie current production management theories. 4.1 The conversion model. The conceptual model dominating the conventional view of production is the conversion model (see Figure 1), and its associated notions of organisation and management. The model illustrates the production system as a set of conversions of inputs into outputs. It is within this concept that the production system and respective processes receive inputs, transforms them, and exports the outputs to the environment or the next process [Koskela, 1992; Vonderembse & White, 1996].

INPUT

CONVERSION

OUTPUT

Figure 1: Model of production as a conversion activity.

production 2.doc

-5-

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

According to Koskela, this model accepts that: Production can be divided into sub processes, which are also conversion activities (analytical reductionism). Cost can be minimised by minimising the cost of each of the sub processes. The output value of a process is associated with the costs (or value) of its input.

The conversion model has very deep roots in Western thinking, as it very often underlies peoples thoughts and, in this way, it is implicit of their actions [Koskela, 1992]. It was established in the nineteenth century, when plants and companies were centred around one conversion [Johnson et al, 1987] and its application generally involved the hierarchical decomposition of activities in order to allow control and optimisation of resources [Koskela, 1995]. Particularly in project management, the work breakdown structure is one of the first steps to define, the individual activities that must be performed as part of the project and the precedence relationships among them [Vonderembse & White, 1996]. However, towards the end of the century the trend was to form hierarchically organised companies, controlling several conversion processes. Production processes were simpler, flows shorter and organisations smaller, so the problems due to the conceptual basis remained negligible. Only later, as the conversion model was applied to more complex production systems, have problems clearly surfaced. Furthermore, the model puts an excessive emphasis upon processing activities and there is a lack of attention to non-value adding activities [Koskela, 1992]. The direct consequence of working under this paradigm is that there is a generation of large quantities of waste, and waste is not compatible with today's highly competitive business conditions and the environmental awareness of public opinion. Therefore, this model alone cannot be the only model to guide the thoughts and actions of people working with production systems. 4.2 Production as a flow. Production can be viewed as a flow, constituting of processing, waiting, inspecting and transporting activities [Koskela, 1992; Womack et al, 1996]. This new conceptual model (see Figure 2: Koskela, 1992) is a synthesis and generalisation of different models suggested in various fields, like the JIT movement [Shingo, 1984]. Here, the production system is better described as a network of process and operation flows, lying along intersecting axes.

Moving

Waiting

Processing

Inspection

Moving

Waiting

Processing

Inspection

Scrap

Scrap

Figure 2: Production as a flow process.

production 2.doc

-6-

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

Production, nevertheless, is a flow of material and/or information from the raw material to the end product. Therefore, in this flow model, Koskela [1992] argues that the material either is being processed (converted), inspected, waiting or moving. These activities are inherently different, and these processes can be characterised by a conversion or a flow, where only the conversion activities add value to the material or piece of information that is being transformed to a product. Moreover, process flow is the designation for the flow of materials/information, and the model represents the pathway of the transformation to the finished product. On the other hand, operations flow or conversion, is the flow of humans or machines that carry the work over the process flow [Shingo, 1989]. The differentiation between the two is fundamental in the search for improvement. Therefore, the improvement of flow activities should primarily be focused on their reduction or elimination, and the conversion activities must be made more efficient. This principle, is the core idea of the new production philosophy [Koskela, 1992]. 4.3.1 Construction as a flow.

Furthermore, construction should be viewed as a composed flow of processes [Koskela, 1992; Santos, 1999]. There are two main processes in a construction project [Koskela, 1992]: Design process: is a stage wise refinement of specifications where vague needs and wishes are transformed into requirements, then via a varying number of steps to detailed designs. Simultaneously, this is a process of problem detection and solving. It can be further divided into individual sub processes and supporting processes. Construction process: is composed of two different types of flows: Material process consisting of the flows of material to the site, including processing and assembling on site. Work process of construction teams. The temporal and spatial flows of construction teams on site are often closely associated with the material processes.

The processes may be characterised by their cost, duration and the value for the customer. Nevertheless, value too consists of a further two components: product performance and defect-free [Koskela, 1992]. In this way, processes in construction can be viewed as value and non-value adding activities: The cost of design is made up of costs of value-adding activities and waste. The waste in the design process is formed by: Rework, due to design errors detected during design. Non value-adding activities in information and work flows. The value of the design for the construction process is determined by: The degree to which requirements and constraints of the construction process have been taken into account. The impact of design errors that are detected during construction. The inherent waste in construction is created by: Rework due to design or construction errors. Non value-adding activities in the material and work flow, such as waiting, moving, inspecting, duplicated activities and accidents.

production 2.doc

-7-

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

5. Lean production: the core principles. The following eleven heuristic principles have evolved as means to aid the process of designing, controlling and improving flow processes in practice [Koskela, 1992]. Principles are fundamental truths and are required to guide a series of activities. According to Weihrisch & Koontz [1993], they may be descriptive or predictive, but not dictative, as they should not describe what people should do. 5.1 Reduce the share of non value-adding activities. As a further clarification, a value-adding activity converts material and/or information towards that which is required by the customer and a non value-adding/supporting activity (also called waste) takes time, resources and space and does not add value. Moreover, according to Shingo [1989], supporting activities obstruct the direct circulation of the main flow of value-adding activities. Furthermore, he uses this principle of isolating supporting activities as one of the core ideas behind a reduction in set-up times at the Toyota Motor Company, and now it is being applied in the most competitive companies worldwide. He recommends the conversion of internal set-up activities to external set-up activities, or rather, to re-examine what steps that has been mistakenly assumed to be internal and added to the main flow. Ideally, processing activities should be aligned in time and space, allowing a continuous flow, since they are the only ones that actually add value. However, very often it is found that many non-essential operations obstruct the direct circulation of the main flow. Therefore, efforts to improve production should include the externalisation of supporting activities. This externalisation may follow some similar steps that are used to reduce set-up times [Monden, 1998; Shingo, 1989]: Separate the value adding activities from the supporting activity: supporting activity involves the actions that can be taken while the processing activity is being carried out. Convert as much as possible the activities in the main flow to supporting activities. Elimination or reduction of the supporting activity itself: the elimination or reduction can be achieved in two different ways. The first is the use of uniform sub-product design and use of the same supporting activity for various different sub-products. The second is the production of various different sub-products at the same time, using the same supporting activity.

5.2 Increase the output value through systematic consideration of customer requirements. Value is generated through fulfilling the customer requirements. However, for each activity there are two types of customers; the next activities and the final customer [Koskela, 1992]. With regards to construction, all customers (stakeholders) should be fully identified and their requirements clarified [Latham, 1994]. 5.3 Reduce variability.

production 2.doc

-8-

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

Production processes are variable. There are differences in any two items, even though they are the same products, and the resources needed to produce them (time, raw material, labour) will vary. The reduction of variability is an important principle since it strongly affects all other principles. Whenever a process is subject to variability, the quality, delivery and cost of that process will vary as well. Koskela [1992] supports that from the customers point of view, a uniform product is better in terms of cost and quality. Furthermore, variability increases the volume of non valueadding activities. This is clearly evident through the queuing theory (also called workin-progress or bottleneck time). The rationale to this theory eliminates the waiting time for machines and/or workers and/or materials, for one operation to be accomplished in order to continue the job, which evidently reduces the cycle time. In an ideal situation, the operator and machines should complete all of their activities with just one visit to the process (one stop operation). This cannot be enforced if the production process is constantly changing. There are two main causes of variability in processes [Koskela, 1992]. The first type is the random factors that are inherent in a process and are very difficult or expensive to control or to eliminate as they are beyond the operatives control, for example, the number of customer orders per day. The other type of variability is due to causes that can be identified, are easier to control and are assignable or special causes. Although both causes may always be present in production systems, it is possible to have procedures in place aiming to reduce or avoid their occurrence [Vonderembse & White, 1996]. Taguchi et al [1990] proposes to attack the random causes of variability by designing products in a way that the output would be minimally influenced by those variations. Though variability is treated simultaneously as a 'principle' itself and as an approach for reducing cycle time. Koskela [1992] suggests the following to reduce variability: Measuring, identifying and eliminating the root causes of problems. Standardisation. Under the poka-yoke theory a device (a foolproof, mistake-proofing or failsafeing instrument) can be devised to guarantee 100% inspection in the manufacturing industry, though it is still rarely seen in the construction industry. The origin of this tool comes from the Japanese works yoke (to avoid) and poka (inadvert errors). It seemingly takes over repetitive tasks or actions that depend on vigilance or memory, thus freeing workers time and mind to pursue more creative and value-adding activities and has three basic functions: shutdown (stop the process), control (correct) and warning (alert the operator).

5.4 Reduce cycle time. A production flow can be characterised by its cycle time, which refers to the time required for a particular piece of material to traverse the flow. It can be measured by the time between the order of a client is placed and the time the customer receives the product, and can be represented as follows: Cycle time = processing time + inspection time + wait time + move time

production 2.doc

-9-

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

The basic rationale of this lean production principle is to compress the cycle time, which forces the reduction of inspection, move and wait time (see Figure 3: Berliner & Brimson, 1988), in order to acquire the following benefits [Hopp et al, 1990]: Faster delivery to the customer. Reduced need to make forecasts about future demand. Decrease of disruption of the production process due to changes in orders. Easier management because there are fewer customers orders to keep track of.

Waste time Waste time Waste time Processing time Processing time Processing time

Processing time

Figure 3: Cycle time can be progressively compressed through elimination of non value-adding activities.

In addition, with respect to continuous improvement, time compression has a very important benefit: the cycle deviation-detection-correction becomes shorter, or rather, people perceive the results of their actions sooner and so can correct them sooner if necessary [Senge, 1990; Koskela, 1992]. Furthermore, these benefits can be gained by [Hopp et al, 1990]: Eliminating work-in-progress (this original JIT goal reduces the waiting time and thus the cycle time). Reducing batch sizes. Changing plant layout so that moving distances are minimised. Keeping things moving: smoothing and synchronising the flows. Reducing variability. Changing activities from sequential order to parallel order. Isolating the main value-adding sequence from support work.

5.5 Simplify by minimising the number of steps and parts (reducing the batch sizes). A fundamental problem with complexity is reliability. Complex systems are inherently less reliable than simple systems. Also, the human ability to deal with

production 2.doc

- 10 -

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

complexity is bounded and easily exceeded. Koskela [1992] supports process simplification by: Reducing the number of components in a product. Reducing the number of steps in a material or information flow (batches).

Furthermore, these can be achieved by [Koskela, 1992]: Shortening the flows by consolidating activities. Reducing the part count of products through design changes or prefabricated parts. Standardising parts, materials, tools, etc. De coupling linkages. Minimising the amount of control information needed.

The reduction of the batch size is among the basic strategies of lean production. In practical terms, it speeds up the delivery of each single unit by reducing the volume of the batch, resulting in a faster identification and correction of errors. Therefore, the conversion of a classic production system using large batches to a clearly specified set of value streams of small batches, flowing continuously as they are pulled by the customer, can rise significantly the productivity of production [Womack et al, 1996]. In addition, with small batches flowing fast throughout the production system, the production flexibility increases requiring high quality supplies and raw materials along with high production quality. This then is an invitation for a continuous learning process since the problems in production flows certainly will arise with the reduction of stocks. Therefore, in principle, the system should aim to reduce the batch size down to a single unit [Santos, 1999]. Furthermore, transport and storage affect practically all production activities, and improvements on its efficiency are likely to have great impact in the production system overall efficiency. The most important veins in this area are the layout planning and ergonomics. With regards to layout, Santos [1999] argues that the most efficient placement is the one that aligns the workstations with the physical flow of processes in order to accelerate that flow. 5.6 Increase output flexibility. As stated earlier, in section 4.2, variability is a principle cause of non value-adding activities, and so this seems contradictory to the idea of simplification. However, inevitably products will vary due to customers requirements and this should be catered for. Practical approaches to increased flexibility include [Stalk & Shulman, 1992; Child et al, 1991]: Minimising lot sizes to closely match demand. Reducing the difficulty of set-ups and changeovers. Customising as late in the process as possible. Training a multi-skilled workforce.

5.7 Increase process transparency.

production 2.doc

- 11 -

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

The lack of process transparency reduces the visibility of errors and diminishes motivation for improvement. Therefore, lean production aims to make the main flow of operations from start to finish, visible and comprehensible to all employees [Stalk & Shulman, 1992] to facilitate control and improvement. Furthermore, transparency also means the increment of the ability of a production process or operation to communicate with people [Santos, 1999]. Today, with the return of ancient models of visual communication and the incorporation of IT innovations, companies world-wide are watching the reborn of this principle. In conventional production systems, information is transmitted in a 'push' mode (rather than being solely customer driven) and the user has little or no control over the amount and type of information that is being transmitted. In contrast, the lean production philosophy moves from a 'silent' production process to a more 'communicative' one, which is more self-explaining, self-ordering, self-regulating and self-improving. According to Galsworth [1997], people shouldn't waste time searching for information as it should be part of the process, as physically as close as possible, which is fresh and available at a glance. Practical approaches to transparency include [Koskela, 1992]: Establishing basic housekeeping to eliminate clutter. Making the process directly observable through appropriate layout and signage. Rendering invisible attributes of the process visible though measurements. Embodying process information in work areas, tools, containers, materials and information systems. Utilising visual controls to enable any person to immediately recognise standards and deviations from them. Reducing the interdependence of production units (focused factories).

5.8 Focus on the complete process. Shingo [1989] says the ability to eliminate waste in production is developed by giving up the belief that there is no other way to perform a given task. Concurrent engineering uses this same approach as lean production, of viewing design and production as a simultaneous process. Its aim is to eliminate waste from the process. Practices such as reduction of rework, team approach, release of information in smaller batch sizes is intensively promoted [Koskela et al, 1996]. Furthermore, substantial timesavings are achieved by providing a team of people with different talents to work concurrently on defined problems, receiving and processing information in small batches. The production process must also focus upon synchronisation and smooth flows, as this is too a fundamental characteristic of lean production systems. According to Shingo [1989], levelling excess capacity and co-ordinating starting and ending times accomplish this. When this is in place, each process produces the exact quantity of the one that precedes it and at the exact time (queuing, bottleneck or work-in-progress theory). In order to obtain this, efforts on design and planning have to be made in order to offer the most repetitive and continuous schedule possible. Ideally, the production system should be able to make products according to sales velocity [Shingo, 1989; Monden, 1983].

production 2.doc

- 12 -

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

5.9 Build continuous improvement into the process. Continuous improvement is at the core of the philosophies related to quality management, and itself is a core principal behind lean production. It takes the idea that nothing is static, and that it is always subject to review so it can always be improved, whether it is a machine, a process, a system or a human activity [Shingo, 1989]. This principle is a conscious effort to reduce waste and to increase value to the process, and itself is an internal, incremental and iterative activity that must be carried out continuously [Santos, 1999]: Measuring and monitoring improvement. Setting stretch targets (e.g. for inventory elimination or cycle time reduction), by means of which problems are unearthed and their solutions are stimulated. Giving responsibility for improvement to all employees; a steady improvement from every organisational unit should be required and rewarded. Using standard procedures as hypotheses of best practice, to be constantly challenged by better ways. Linking improvement to control: improvement should be aimed at the current control constraints and problems of the process. The goal is to eliminate the root of problems rather than to cope with their effects.

Continuous improvement is commonly associated with the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle (PDCA cycle), which is sometimes referred as the Demming Wheel or Shewhart Cycle (see Figure 4: Oakland, 1995).

Check Do Plan Act

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

Figure 4: The PDCA cycle.

When continuous improvement is in place, the PDCA cycle is repeated over and over again. Moreover, each phase of the cycle has an important role to sustain the ongoing improvement in production as following [Vonderembse & White, 1996]:

production 2.doc

- 13 -

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

Plan: identify problems or opportunities for improvement and develop a plan to make changes. Do: implement the plan, documenting any changes made. Check: analyse the revised processes to see if the goals have been achieved. Act: standardise, document and divagate the results. In case of not achieving the goals, determine why not and proceed accordingly.

5.10 Balance flow improvement with conversion improvement. The critical issue with the lean production process is that flow improvement and conversion improvement are intimately interconnected, and both flows and conversions should be addressed [Koskela, 1992]: Better flows require less conversion capacity and thus less equipment investment. More controlled flows make implementation of new conversion technology easier. New conversion technology may provide smaller variability, and thus flow benefits.

5.11 Benchmark. Benchmarking refers to comparing one companys current performance against the world leader in any particular area [Compton, 1992]. In essence, it means finding and implementing the best practices in the world though it is essentially a goal setting procedure, which tries to break down complacency and focuses on business processes, rather than on the technologies used in them. More importantly, it is a useful stimulus to achieve breakthrough improvement through radical reconfiguration of processes and is actively encouraged in lean production. The basic steps of benchmarking include the following [Camp, 1989]: Knowing the process; assessing the strengths and weaknesses of sub processes. Knowing the industry leaders or competitors; finding, understanding and comparing the best practices. Incorporating the best; copying, modifying or incorporating the best practices in your own sub processes. Gaining superiority by combining existing strengths and the best external practices.

6. Discussion. The development and principals behind lean production have been presented here, and Koskela [1992] supports that they can be translated to construction. Furthermore, there are several notable examples of successful implementation of such. Schonberger [1990] reports on a Japanese factory producing prefabricated houses with a customer lead-time of forty days (from order to completion on site), and production time (first to last operation) of one day. A Finnish window manufacturer provides delivery and installation of windows on site with a fifteen minute accuracy [Koskela, 1991]. An American industrial door manufacturer has gained a considerable competitive benefit from short cycle times and JIT production [Stalk & Shulman, 1992].

production 2.doc

- 14 -

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

It does, however, appear to the author that the industry as a whole, is sceptical to take on board the re-engineering of their production processes. Incremental steps, however small, of some nature must be adopted to improve the current situation. Moreover, some construction sub products are produced in a manufacturing character. Windows, doors, prefabricated components, prefabricated houses are examples of this kind of manufactured product. The application of the lean construction appears to be least problematic in this part of the industry: the methods of manufacturing can be applied directly. Consequently, industrialised construction might gain competitive benefits sooner than site construction, though this, in respect, is an improvement. Unfortunately, the peculiarities of construction tend to hamper control and improvement by violating principles of flow design and improvement. However, by implementing structural solutions these peculiarities can be avoided or at least minimised. Under the lean production philosophy, Koskela [1992] suggests the following:

Peculiarity

Process control problems No prototype cycles. - Unsystematic client input. - Co-ordination of uncertain activities

One-of-a-kind

Process improvement problems One-of-a-kind processes do not repeat thus longterm improvement questionable.

Structural solutions Minimise the oneof-a-kind content in the project.

Operational solutions for control - Up-front requirements analysis. Set up artificial cycles. - Buffer uncertain tasks.

Site production

Temporary organisation

- External uncertainties: weather etc. - Internal uncertainties and complexities: flow interdependencies, changing layout, variability of productivity of manual work. Internal uncertainties: exchange of information across organisation borders (flow disconnects). External uncertainty: approval delay.

Difficulty of transferring improvement across sites solely in procedures and skills.

Minimise the activities on site in any material flow.

Difficulty of stimulating and accumulating improvement across organisation borders.

Minimise temporary organisational interfaces (interdependencie s).

Use enclosures etc for eliminating external uncertainty. Detailed and continuous planning. - Multi-skilled work teams. Team building during the project.

Operational solutions for improvement - Enhance flexibility of products and services to cover a wider variety of needs. - Accumulate feedback information from earlier projects. - Enhance planning and risk analysis capability. - Systematised work procedures.

Integrate flows through partnerships.

Regulatory interventions.

Compression of approval cycle. Selfinspection.

In addition to adopting the philosophy for construction process improvement [Koskela, 1992], there is also a need to give responsibility for improvement to all employees. There is currently some disagreement in literature about where should be

production 2.doc

- 15 -

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

the start and who should be leader in the process of continuous improvement. The consensus is that there should be an increase in the share of responsibility to employees and suppliers with regards to continuous improvement, and this has to involve everyone, including both managers and workers. Traditional management understands that workers are not willing to participate and have to suffer some sort of pressure to do so. However, within the new paradigm, managers have to move towards more friendly and respectful relationship with workers. For improvement activities within the team to be effective, everyone in the organisation should have a strong consciousness of the need to eliminate waste and abnormalities from the production system [Monden, 1993; Womack et al, 1990]. This consciousness can only be achieved if people perceive a win-win situation, with a clear understanding of their role in the organisational network in order to achieve the business objectives [Jones, 1992]. Monden [1993] reports that at Toyota the quality control began with independent inspectors and statistical sampling methods, but soon moved to a self-inspection of all units which is based on autonomous control of defects within the production system. Moreover, when it involves a supplier, the winwin relationship can be achieved through the establishments of partnerships. In a partnership the team has to abandon the power based bargain and adopt upon an agreed rational structured of work for jointly analysis costs, determining prices and sharing profits [Womack et al, 1990]. To support this, workers/managers should regard downstream workstations as their clients and make every effort to pass along only good materials or sub-products, in the exact quantity and exact time [Imai, 1986; Womack et al, 1990]. However, in production systems, using a push mode this client-supplier relationship tends to be weak since there is a lack of direct contract between them. This situation often results in poor quality, high level of inventory and consequently, waste of precious resources. However, in contrast, with pull production systems there is significant pressure on the upstream workstations to achieve higher speed but with fewer defects and inventory. It happens because in those systems, the production is initiated using what exactly the system needs rather than relying on buffer stocks. In this way, continuous improvement and empowered employees is a necessary component of pull production systems because they guarantee the agile correction of errors and a smooth flow [Shadur et al, 1995]. It is from this standpoint, that construction should take.

production 2.doc

- 16 -

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

7. References. Ball, M. (1988) Rebuilding Construction: Economic Change in the British Construction Industry. T. J. Press, Padstow. Berliner, C. & Brimson, J. A. ed. (1988) Cost Management for Todays Advanced Manufacturing. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Camp, R. C. (1989) Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that lead to Superior Performance. ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee. Child, P. et al. (1991) The Management of Complexity. Sloan Management Review, Autumn, pp. 73 80. Compton, W. D. (1992) Benchmarking. In Heim, J. A. & Compton, W. D. (ed.) (1992) Manufacturing Systems: Foundations of World-Class Practice. National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp. 100 - 106. Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction. Report form the Construction Task Force, Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, UK. Galsworth, G. D. (1997) Visual Systems: Harnessing the Power of a Visual Workplace. AMACOM. Hopp, W. J., Spearman, M. L. & Woodruff, D. L. (1990) Practical Strategies for Lead-Time Reduction. Manufacturing Review, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 78 84. Imai, M. K. (1986) The key to Japans Competitive Success. McGraw-Hill, New York. Johnson, H. T. & Kaplan, R. S. (1987) Relevance Lost The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting. Harvard Business School, Boston. Jones, D. T. (1992) Beyond the Toyota Production System: The Era of Lean Production in Voss, C. Manufacturing strategy: Process and Content. Chapman & Hill, New Yourk, pp. 188 210. Koskela, L. (1991) State of the Art of Construction Robotics in Finland. The 8th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Stuttgart. Proceedings, pp. 65 70. Koskela, L. (1992) Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction. Technical report #72. VTT Building Technology, Finland. Koskela, L. (1995) Koskela, L. & Houvila, P. (1996) On Foundations of Concurrent Engineering. VTT Building Technology, Finland. Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the Team. H.M.S.O.

production 2.doc

- 17 -

Process Protocol, Level II.

Angela Lee, April 1999.

Monden, Y. (1983) Toyota Production System. Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA. Monden, Y. (1993) Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to JustIn-Time. Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA. Oakland, J. S. (1995) Total Quality Management: The Route to Improving Performance. Butterworth Heinemann Ltd, Second Edition. Plossl, G. W. (1991) Managing in the New World of Manufacturing. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Santos, A. (1999) PhD thesis, University of Salford. Schonberger, R. J. (1990) Building a Chain of Customers. The Free Press, Cambridge. Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation. Century Business. Shadur, M. A., Rodwell, J. J. & Bamber, G. J. (1995) Factors Predicting Employees Approval of Lean Production. Human Relations, v. 48, no. 12, pp. 1403 1423. Shingo, S. (1989) A Study of the Toyota Production System from an Industrial point of View. Translated by Dillon, A. P. Productivity Press. Shinohara, I. (1988) New Production System: JIT Crossing Industry Boundaries. Productivity Press. Stalk, G. E. P. & Shulman, L. (1992) Competing on Capabilities: The new Rules of Corporate Strategy. Harvard Business Review, March April, pp. 57 69. Taguchi, G. & Clausing (1990) Vonderembse, M. A. & White, G. P. (1996) Operations Management: Concepts, Methods and Strategies. West Publishing, New York. Weihrisch & Koontz (1993) Womack, J. P. & Jones, D. T. (1996) Beyond Toyota: How to Root out Waste and Pursue Perfection. Harvard Business Review. Womack, J.P., Jones, D. T. & Roos, D. (1990) The Machine that Changed the World. MacMillan, New York.

production 2.doc

- 18 -