Lean Construction Ireland Annual Book of Cases 2021 81 Step 5 –TrackingVariance • From theWCM, the performance of the week’s progress was tracked. • Regular causes of variance could then be reviewed and appropriate action taken. Throughout the project, several risks and challenges were encountered. Early in the project, unforeseeable ground condition issues were encountered across a large portion of the building footprint.Working with the client in an open and collaborative manner, we reviewed the problems and generated a ground stabilisation solution that could be employed on the site.As part of the solution presented, a detailed pull plan had been prepared to generate a revised sequence and programme of works.This revised sequence allowed the project to hit its original project completion date, and, following approval of the solution, we utilised LPS to plan and monitor on-site progress to ensure the key milestones were achieved. Our previous experience on the Lidl Regional Distribution Centre, where we provided an engineered D&B ground treatment solution to provide a suitable platform upon which to build the warehouse, proved invaluable to this process. Following the initial earthworks element of the project, the next critical phase was to construct multiple reinforced concrete cores to allow the main structural steel frame tie into these cores. From initial scheduling of the works, it appeared there would be a significant out of sequence element of work to the structural steel frame.This is where the LPS became invaluable.Through our pull plan sessions and engagement with the subcontractors, the RC contractor committed to improving the programme dates.As a result, significant time was saved on the completion of the RC cores, thus allowing the structural steel frame to be completed in the correct sequence and saving significant time later in the schedule. As the project progressed, each new subcontractor was incorporated into LPS with up to 15 different contractors involved during the peak of the project. Due to the fast-track nature of the project, communication was critical between all parties to ensure successful delivery of the project.This was evident in the pull plan sessions wherein each contractor was identifying potential constraints to the works as the plans were being developed. Constraints could take the form of missing information, open RFIs, resource issues,material issues, variations/design changes, scheduling issues, or clashes with access to areas. In certain instances, design issues were beginning to impact the progress of certain areas of the project. In this case, design team members were invited to review the constraints log from the pull plan sessions to aid in resolving constraints on the spot rather than going through the full RFI process. Eliminating the interface of an RFI and getting the designer, who normally wouldn’t engage in planning sessions on the project, to assist in closing constraints which were impacting the flow of work proved invaluable at key stages during the project. In addition to logging future potential constraints, previous constraints were recorded and trends identified so that measures could be put in place to mitigate any risk of reoccurrence. Following theWCM, updated plans were printed and displayed in the main planning meeting room along with being issued to all contractors.With the plans clearly displayed, the likes of site managers, foremen, and engineers could each review and track works on a day-to-day basis, checking off tasks that were completed or identifying tasks that were delayed. The MasterWeeklyWork Plan data was collected every week and used to generate the Percent Planned Complete (PPC), which is the measure of the actual completed activities against the planned activities in a given week. Each week it became clear where constraints were impacting the PPC, which allowed the team to act and prevent further slippage.A simple example of this is where a subcontractor was underperforming on site and the follow-on trades were impacted.The PPC and the data collected would show the requirement for additional resources which could then be communicated to the subcontractor allowing them to better plan their resources and upcoming works.This type of data review and feedback was useful throughout the project, with communication between John Paul Construction, the subcontractors, and the design team key to success. Additional Tools Deployed to Deliver the Lean Approach • Viewpoint –The entire project team usedViewpoint as a Common Data Environment (CDE) for the sharing and dissemination of all information and project records, with bespoke workflows established from the beginning of the project for technical submittal approval processes, benchmarking process, and the tracking of RFIs.This ensured fast-track production could proceed on a large scale with a clear understanding of acceptable standards and performance metrics. • Fieldview –This is a cloud-based and offline mobile solution that replaces pen and paper in the field, and it was used by the entire team for inspections, including: safety inspections, quality observations (both good and bad),BCAR inspections, snagging, technical queries, benchmarking, and sample approvals to track and close-out issues as they arose.Having single portals for tracking actions and sourcing information proved vital to the delivery of such a large-scale fast-track project. • BIM – John Paul Construction employed several digital tools to manage the different aspects of the project.The fully integrated, coordinated, and up-to-date BIM model allowed the site team to accurately set-out all elements from the model, to generate live as-built records, and to use tablet applications such as DaluxViewer to compare virtual views of the planned installation against actual completed works. Case 22 Lean Initiative Improvements & Impact The communication and shared team goals generated by LPS proved vital to achieving the project milestones. Setting up and implementing LPS was challenging due to the scale, fast-track nature, and the number of contractors involved.This was a large culture change for several contractors, including members of the John Paul Construction team who were used to a more traditional method
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTIzMTIxMw==