2018Case11KirbyGroupEngineering

45 L EAN C ONSTRUCTION I RELAND A NNUAL B OOK OF C ASES 2018 o Average processing time of a snag (defect). o Average close-out time of a snag (defect). o Average number of project snags per € 1M of project value. o Average number of snags categorised as ‘Other’. • TIMWOODS (8 Wastes) was utilised to identify at a high level where the key areas of waste were occurring. Analyse Phase • A Fishbone Diagram was used to identify the root causes for an inefficient snagging process for a high volume of snags and the long close-out window. • 5 Whys was also used to determine the root cause of each problem area. Improve Phase • The SCAMPER Model was used to generate creative thinking on how to improve the snagging process. This helped to develop a ‘To-Be’ process map for the ideal snagging process. • A Value Stream map was then developed to identify each speci f ic area for waste el iminat ion and potent ial improvement. • A comparison table was created to analyse the different software tools on the market. This was used to determine the most suitable software package available which would facilitate the improvement programme and fit with Kirby Group’s processes. Control Phase • A Standardisation approach was then taken to control the transition from an initial two pilot projects to a company- wide roll-out. This involved the standardisation of the company defect list, which ensured that all defects were grouped into the correct categories, which allowed for improved data analysis to be completed. A “Standardised Toolbox Talk and Training” presentat ion was al so developed to ensure the required level of training was provided for early adoption and understanding. Figure 1. ‘Real time’ Outputs from the Defect Management Software. The following baseline data was collected for the pilot projects: • Pareto Analysis identification (“Other” category = 9%). • Snag close-out window – 40% of snags were taking longer than 3 weeks to close-out (a 5% improvement). • Snag processing time – a detailed analysis during the Analysis Phase identified a process time of 0.57 hours per snag. • Cost of processing a snag was identified as € 25.73 per defect raised. A Quar ter ly Dashboard was developed which was communicated to the Senior Management Team (Directors). This was coupled with a Stakeholder Influence Strategy and a Change and Risk Management register to elicit support and reduce resistance. A quarterly review and analysis of the snags which had been raised was undertaken to determine if the standard snag list required updating. Monthly reviews at project level were conducted to identify repeat snags and Quality Toolbox Talks (QTBTs) given to reduce repetitive snags from reoccurring. LEAN INITIATIVE IMPROVEMENTS & IMPACT The concept of implementing an improved and automated snagging process was proven through the following tangible benefits: • A cost saving of 45.16% was made per processing of one snag. • Number of snags per € 1M project value was significantly reduced, predominantly due to removal of duplications. • Improved snag categorisation – proper allocation of categories that allowed effective action; “Other” category snags decreased from 33% to 9%. • The close-out time of a snag was reduced by 20% due to improved communication and collaboration using a single software platform. • This proves the concept that the improved and automated snagging process brings significant savings to the business, as well as competitive advantage. Figure 2. Real-time Trend Analysis from the Defect Management Software. Figure 3. Pareto Analysis of Number of Defects Raised. The following intangible benefits were also identified: • Better quality real-time data was obtained which improved categorisation, project visibility, dashboard monitoring, automated reporting and data analysis; which improved informat ion shar ing, management , and enhanced communication between project team members. • Snagging trends and analysis of sub-contractor/project performance promoted continuous improvement and provided less room for error – digitised process/no paperwork/exact pin location of snags/photographic proof of close-out , t ime and date stamped – less people “touching” the snag, no dupl icat ions and bui lding regulation compliance re BC(A)R 2014. • Improved customer satisfaction – a more efficient and organised approach to snagging and project completion on time with no significant issues upon final handover.