2019BookofCases

8 L EAN C ONSTRUCTION I RELAND A NNUAL B OOK OF C ASES 2019 • Only the primary client can change targets. • There are a number of ways to structure commercial terms and to allocate risks and rewards that enable enforcing targets. Steering Construction to Targets Design provides the recipe, but construction prepares the meal – steering is still much needed until the constructed asset is delivered to the client/owner. Typically, construction is executed through contracts of one sort or another with firms that are capable of performing each type of work. Using a building as an example, these types of work vary with the construction phases: substructure, superstructure, envelope, interior framing, mechanical, electrical, fire protection, etc. Steering is done by comparing allocated costs to prospective costs for each type of work or work package, and acting to reduce any negative differences. Actions can be taken in awarding contracts, in purchasing materials and equipment, and in installation and testing. When needed, overruns on one work package can be offset by underruns on another – depending, of course, on commercial terms. Key Tools for TVD TVD can be understood as a big tool that includes smaller tools for performing specific functions. TVD produces better outcomes using methods such as Set-Based Concurrent Engineering, Choosing by Advantages, A3 reports, and the Last Planner System. Set-Based Concurrent Engineering (SCBE) originated in Lean Product Development. ‘Concurrency’ refers to the fact that everyone who touches a product over its life is involved in its design. ‘Set Based’ involves aligning stakeholder requirements before designing, then generating multiple design alternatives for each system and component of the product (Kennedy et al., 2014). Choosing By Advantages (CBA) was created by Jim Suhr of the U.S. Forest Service as a method for evaluating and selecting from alternatives against multiple must-have criteria (requirements) and nice-to-have criteria (preferences), and was first applied to the domain of construction projects by John Koga of The Boldt Companies. CBA differs from other such methods by not weighting requirements, by first agreeing on how well each alternative meets requirements, and by deferring consideration of cost until the total importance of advantages of each alternative have been agreed (Suhr, 1999). A3 reports are used to record proposals and agreements about choosing from alternatives so the knowledge is not lost. ‘A3’ is the metric size of paper to which the report is limited. The standard structure of these reports facilitates a process of reaching consensus among different stakeholders in the decision or action (Shook, 2008). Last Planner® System (LPS) is a method for coordinating action; for planning and controlling. Once targets are set, planning how to achieve them is needed, then proactive steering to targets in sometimes stormy seas. LPS provides organisational alignment but also promotes flexibility in project teams to develop new pathways to existing targets or even to new targets. Its principles include: • Plan in greater detail as the start date for planned tasks approaches. • Produce plans collaboratively with those who are to do the work being planned. • Reveal and remove constraints on planned tasks as a team. • Don’t start tasks that you should not or cannot complete. Commit to perform only those tasks that are properly defined, sound, sequenced and properly sized. • Make and secure rel iable promi ses , and speak up immediately should you lose confidence that you can keep your promises (as opposed to waiting as long as possible and hoping someone else speaks up first). • Learn from breakdowns (unintended consequences of actions taken). • Underload resources to increase reliability of work release. Key Points • Steering design and construction to targets continues by the project team until turnover, then becomes the responsibility of users throughout the life of the product. • Steering construction requires cost allocations to serve as provisional cost targets for work packages. Conclusion It is hoped that Clients/Owners reading this will see the value that TVD provides and look to adopt TVD on their projects. Here are a few things to keep in mind: • Be aware that TVD (and Lean generally) is not magic. Even if properly executed, TVD and Lean projects can go wrong for reasons outside the project’s control . Improper execution includes failing to follow the recommended process and, even more important, leaders’ failure to adopt and live the Lean philosophy. • Be prepared to play new roles. Clients/Owners will be more directly involved in project execution, and must have the needed competencies and capacity. Builders must learn how to add value in design. Designers must learn how to design for net benefits in use over the life of the constructed asset. • Don’t neglect the importance of selecting the right project team members. Some form of best value selection is needed in order to assure that low price doesn’t conceal needed attitudes and willingness to learn. • There is a lot written on TVD (see recommended readings below), and much that can be learned, but organisations should also learn from those who have implemented TVD and Lean before. Reach out to peers (client-to-client, designer-to-designer, builder-to-builder). They will be glad to share their experiences. References Ballard, G. and Pennanen, A. (2013) ‘Conceptual estimating and target costing’, In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Fortaleza, Brazil, 31 July-2 August, pp. 217-226. Kennedy, B.M., Sobek, D.K., and Kennedy, M.N. (2014) ‘Reducing rework by applying set? based practices early in the systems engineering process’, Systems Engineering, Vol.17, No.3, pp.278-296. Shook, J. (2008) Managing to Learn: Using the A3 Management Process to Solve Problems, Gain Agreement, Mentor and Lead, Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute. Suhr, J. (1999) The Choosing by Advantages Decisionmaking System, Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Further Reading Ballard, G. (2011) ‘Target Value Design: Current Benchmark (1.0)’, Lean Construction Journal, pp.79-84. [Available at www.leanconstructionjournal.org ] Ballard, G. and Reiser, P. (2004) ‘The St. Olaf College Fieldhouse Project: A Case Study in Designing to Target Cost’, In Proceedings of the