Lean Construction Ireland Annual Book of Cases 2021 47 After several challenging months on the project, it became apparent that the programme was not achievable by continuing in the same fashion.We had to step back from the detail and re-look at the project.We started by agreeing a priority hand-over sequence. Whilst it may sound so simple and basic, it was fundamental to our success for the duration of the project.The project schedule and sequence had started out as logical and well-planned, but with issues such as design changes, the Covid pandemic, Brexit, and other significant challenges, the logic no longer made sense. It was not possible to tell which elements of scope would be impacted with delays, and even more difficult to understand what interlinked elements would suffer as a result. By taking a step back and almost starting again, we were able to clearly align our priorities internally. We then worked with the main contractor to validate the order of priority. Once realigned,we brought the delivery team together and started to map out the works remaining in each area to complete the project, starting with the priority areas along with durations.We worked together to walk the zones and created a detailed list of constraints per area, and we used Procore to attach images to each constraint for increased effectiveness.This simple exercise generated some momentum internally, which in turn brought optimism and positivity that was lacking in the team when hand-over dates were consistently missed.This had a powerful impact. Once complete, we had a works to go list, a visual constraint list per area, and a commitment from our internal team to hit a set of target hand-over dates.The exercise was almost opposite to the pull planning format we are traditionally accustomed too.To create a robust plan,we had to build from a starting date rather than pull from a completion date. Constraint management became paramount to limit unproductive time.The closure dates of constraints were difficult to predict due to high levels of uncertainty, as mentioned above. We then discussed the plan with the Construction Management team for their input, and we got their buy-in and support and were able to amend some dates based on insights they shared, and the result was an extremely ambitious plan to hand-over 26 areas in 12 weeks. We met daily to review progress on constraints, and we would then issue a report to the CMT project director upon his request.We reviewed internal resources, materials, tools and plant, and other trades in the area that had the potential to impact our works.The daily report would filter down from the Project Director and initially resulted in conflict – in particular across organisational boundaries. Highlighting constraints can seem like a negative finger-pointing exercise if people are not familiar with the LPS process. Initially, our team appeared negative rather than proactive, and it took several weeks for other stakeholders to see the benefits of using visual constraints management. By identifying the work that could not be completed, we were able to focus on the works that could be completed, until such time as constraint closure commitments were made. Resources were deployed to productive work that could be completed rather than abortive stop-start tasks that would be impacted by, for example, missing materials. If constraints related to priority tasks were closed, we became better at readjusting the plan to focus on urgent items.Whilst this is against the standard LPS mentality, given the volatility being experienced at the time, we felt an element of flexibility was crucial to success. As part of our LPS approach,we target 80%+ percent plan complete (PPC) each week.The before and after graphs in Figures 5 and 6 demonstrate how our original PPC performance was not consistent and below our target. Figure 6 shows how, with the refocused approach to the Last Planner set-up on site,we increased the weekly average. It is clear that the team’s performance significantly increased when the set-up supported the project needs and the system was utilised as an aid as opposed to a requirement. Figure 5. OriginalWeekly PPC Performance Finally, Figure 6 shows that all 26 areas were completed 3 weeks after the original planned completion date. Rather than being negative, Lean Initiative Improvements & Impact Case 12 Figure 4. Area Hand-over Plan reviews and conversations.This in turn created a more positive outcome with optimum performance.Whilst these issues identified are fundamental requirements for effective team performance and management, we had lost sight of the basics through a continuous firefight of unreasonable delivery requests. Utilising our field management tool, Procore, to effectively manage and support our performance with RTI was hugely beneficial. It enabled the team, in a timely fashion, to identify potential issues or roadblocks that could then be communicated to the construction management team and our trade partners for review and action.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTIzMTIxMw==