25 L EAN C ONSTRUCTION I RELAND A NNUAL B OOK OF C ASES 2018 Lean Programme? There is a story told of a young man who inherited a farm, but whose fortunes were progressively declining. He visited the local wise man, who gave him a large container of “magic dust” to sprinkle in the corners of every field and shed every morning at sunrise for three months. Perplexed, the young man did as directed. During his first week he found his workmen were still in bed at sunrise and he decided to remedy this. As the weeks went by, he found more and more that could be done, should be done, needed to be done – repai r work, draining, stock management. Every day he ensured that good work got done. After three months, his fortunes had improved dramatically, but his container of magic dust was empty. He returned to the wise man, who asked him to recount his journey for the three months – the young man explained his journey enthusiastically. On leaving he asked for more dust – “I do not think you need it anymore” the wise man said, “and anyway, it was nothing but common sand. You were the magic ingredient. The point of this story? There are perhaps several points: the first is that it’s all about people, relationships, and trust. The second point reflects the “collateral benefits” delivered when we attempt to do something well – when we pursue excellence in one avenue we see other areas crying out for improvement and we act. The third point is that nothing can replace the daily walk, the continuous targeted walk, the “go and see”. The success of this project therefore is not simply a Lean story. In fact, very few technical Lean tools were employed in a textbook fashion. SISK would argue that strong experienced supervisors and planners can plan the detail of a project quite well, both in the medium-term and the short-term. SISK would likewise argue that the process of interfacing design informat ion and construct ion can be managed qui te successfully using traditional “information required” tracker type systems. SISK would also argue that the “recommended” Lean process of “making ready” is surely so fundamental and instinctive to good supervisors that it does not need another process or discussion. However, the “ownership” and commitment that is secured from all players when it becomes “their project” is significant – this is a softer issue and difficult to measure, but real enough that it can be attested to by the participants. The intentional application of our Lean Programme was a highly significant contributor to the success of this project; however, many of the benefits accrued in a manner which we had not foreseen fully. We set out to strip-back waste, to stop taking unnecessary steps, to spend less time in meetings, to eliminate NVA correspondence. We also set out to do a highly efficient project by providing a shared infrastructure, logistics, a 3D model, and a common data environment for al l project informat ion. Al l of these achieved sol id improvements. The greatest benefit to the project accrued, however, in a manner that we did not clearly foresee. It manifested itself in the collaborative mindset that developed, in the lack of conflict, in the minimalist approach to correspondence of any kind, in the absolute ownership of the project, and in the cooperation and camaraderie received from the trades who have collectively delivered first-class safety and first-class quality. Some key initiative outcomes include: • Safety – 225,000 man-hours worked, zero lost time incidents (LTI), zero reportable occurrences. • Safety – employee engagement in the safety observation reports (SOR) process is 40% higher than the national average performance. • Schedule – schedule on track for an 11-week (15%) improvement. • Cost – outturn cost will be 7.5% under budget, largely achieved through des ign opt imi sat ion, sequencing optimisation, removing unnecessary piping and eliminating rework. • Cost – zero claims from contractors and supply chain. • Cost & Quality – less than 1% rework. • Quality – punch-lists nearing completion are minor compared with experience on other projects. • Efficiency – 30% reduction in time spent at meetings (compared with earlier in the project). • Satisfaction and Engagement – the following quotes from the two most senior supply chain supervisors on the project summarise the impact: o The Electrical Project Manager said, “The One Team approach has influenced behaviours of site personnel. With all documents being available to all, there is an increased sense of project ownership. This, in my opinion, filters throughout the workforce who have developed added pride in their involvement in this Project”. o The Mechanical Project Manager said, “Our experience to date of the One Team Approach has been a positive one especially when it comes to one to one contact across the single office set up, (talking sorts problems) there has also been a very open approach to the safety organisation onsite with both contractor and CMT safety sharing one office which has in turn led to shared discussion on safety matters and a quick decision-making process which helps with productivity onsite. All in all, the One Team Approach i s good for both Cl ient , CMT and contractor”.