2019Case18PMGroup

69 L EAN C ONSTRUCTION I RELAND A NNUAL B OOK OF C ASES 2019 activities daily and weekly. Inherently, now the people in the field are actively driving the schedule, and they are making an honest commitment to deliver within the team. This changes the traditional culture and enables the foremen to think in a Lean way. Creating a “people first” collaborative environment is key to achieving high levels of construction progress. LPS promotes a non-blame culture. LPS meetings take place once a week to discuss the next week’s work plan and constraints. These meetings are chaired by the BDS LPS lead and attended by the BDS Construction Manager and other members of the BDS Construction Management (CM) team. In addition, they are attended by at least one design project manager and designated contractor representatives, typically a CM or supervisor. The weekly lookahead is broken down and focused on process zones and rooms. The Weekly Work Plan (WWP) is the output from the weekly LPS meeting and includes: i. Work breakdown by Process Zone and Room. ii. Colour coding of responsible organization/contractor. iii. Resources planned. iv. Percent Planned Complete (PPC). Each week when the plan for the next week’s lookahead is discussed, the team highlights constraints that are to be removed. Constraints vary and include lack of materials, labour, predecessor works, design, field clashes, weather, etc. These items are then logged and dated. The team will then identify a person who will answer or resolve the constraint. For example, to install a process pipe run, the contractor may need a bracket redesigned. They will flag this in the meeting, and a designer at the meeting will undertake to resolve the constraint; promising a date for the redesign to be done. This approach differs from the tradi t ional means of going through a request for information (RFI) process, and improves on it. LPS enables the constraint to be identified to the team and made clear to the party responsible to remove the constraint. In this case, the designer on the spot now knows where the bracket is and that it is on the critical path. Eliminating the interface of an RFI and getting a designer who normally wouldn’t interact with a foreman to be aware of the construction process, helps ensure the workflow will be completed on time. Separate streams of meetings are also arranged to resolve constraints such as design delivery, clashes, and sequencing. These are taken “off-line” for resolution by the key parties outside of the LPS meeting. In addition to identifying future potential constraints, those constraints that have arisen previously are recorded and analysed, and trends are identified so that measures can be put into place to reduce risk of recurrence. Figure 2 illustrates a sample of some of the constraints that have arisen on this BDS Project. After the weekly meeting, the LPS plan is printed and posted on a wall in the LPS meeting room to be checked off daily by the contributing contractor foremen. The contractors will check “yes” or “no” based upon the activity having been completed, and, if not, the reason it wasn’t completed. The data collected from the contractors’ status update on the weekly LPS plan is used to create the PPC. The PPC metric i s a measure of the act ivi t ies actual ly completed within the weekly plans. The PPC is then displayed and this shows how well the weekly plans that are put together each week are working. PPC is linked with constraints and identifies what constraints are hindering construction progress. For instance, if the redesigned bracket did not come as promised, this will prevent the particular activity being completed and so reduce the PPC metric for the week. Over time, PPC data will compound and show what variances are slowing the progress down. In summary, the LPS process makes clear the effect of a break in the delivery chain by any member. This fosters a culture of delivery within the team over a short period of time. Figure 3 . Percent Planned Complete (PPC) Curve PPC is tracked weekly and measures how Figure 2. Extract from BDS Constraints Log