Last Planner System

THE LAST PLANNER SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION CONTROL
by
HERMAN GLENN BALLARD
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Engineering
of The University of Birmingham
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
School of Civil Engineering

Faculty of Engineering
The University of Birmingham
May 2000
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals and companies contributed to this research. To name a few:
q David Seymour, my thesis advisor
q Anne Seymour, for giving me a home in Birmingham
q David Hoare and Peter Deasley, thesis examiners
q Greg Howell, business partner and co-thinker
q Lauri Koskela, for his example and inspiration
q Todd Zabelle and the Pacific Contracting team for their willingness to try new
ideas
q Leo Linbeck III, Ed Beck and Kathy Jones of Linbeck Construction for sharing
opportunity and data (3 of the 5 cases were Linbeck projects)
q Norm Barnes and the Barnes Construction team for access to projects
q Iris Tommelein, external thesis advisor and colleague at UC Berkeley
q Jeanne Ballard, my wife, for putting up with me, especially my absences from
home
ABSTRACT
Project controls have traditionally been focused on after-the-fact detection of variances.

This thesis proposes a control system, the Last Planner system, that causes the
realization of plans, and thus supplements project management's concern for management
of contracts with the management of production.
The Last Planner system has previously been successively applied by firms with direct
responsibility for production management; e.g., speciality contractors. This thesis
extends system application to those coordinating specialists, both in design and
construction, through a series of case studies, one of which also explores the limits on
unilateral implementation by specialists.
In addition to the extended application, two questions drive this research. The first
question is 1) What can be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation
of the Last Planner system of production control to increase plan reliability above the
70% PPC level? Previous research revealed substantial improvement in productivity for
those who improved plan reliability to the 70% level, consequently there is reason to
hope for further improvement, possibly in all performance dimensions, especially with
application across an entire project rather than limited to individual speciality firms. That
question is explored in three case studies, the last of which achieves the 90% target.
The second research question is 2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to
increase plan reliability during design processes1? That question is explored in an
extensive case study, which significantly contributes to understanding the design process
from the perspective of active control, but unfortunately does not fully answer the
question, primarily because the project was aborted prior to start of construction.
However, it is argued that the Last Planner system is especially appropriate for design
production control because of the value-generating nature of design, which renders
ineffective traditional techniques such as detailed front end planning and control through
after-the-fact detection of variances.
1
In this thesis, the term “design” is used to designate both design and engineering
activities, not shaping space to aesthetic criteria.
Issues for future research are proposed, including root cause analysis of plan failures
and quantification of the benefits of increased plan reliability for both design and
construction processes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title Page
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
1.0 Introduction 1-1

1.1 Conceptual Framework 1-1
1.2 Assumptions 1-3
1.3 Contribution to Knowledge 1-5
1.4 The Author's Role in the Research
1-5
1.5 Structure of the Dissertation 1-8
2.0 Critique of Production Control 2-1

2.1 What is Production Control? 2-1
2.1.1 The Meaning of “Production” 2-1
2.1.2 The Meaning of “Control” 2-3
2.2 Project Management 2-5
2.2.1 The Project Management Body of Knowledge 2-5
2.2.2 Critique of the Traditional Project Control Model 2-7
2.3 Previous Application of Production Control Concepts to the AEC Industry 2-12
2.3.1 Melles and Wamelink 2-12
2.3.2 Koskela 2-14
2.4 Criteria for a Production Control System 2-15
3.0 Description and History of the Last Planner System of Production Control 3-1
3.1 Hierarchical Structure 3-1
3.2 Should-Can-Will-Did 3-1
3.3 Production Unit Control 3-3
3.4 Work Flow Control 3-5
3.4.1 Constraints Analysis 3-9
3.4.2 Pulling 3-11
3.4.3 Matching Load and Capacity 3-14
3.4.4 The Last Planner System As a Whole 3-15
3.5 A Brief History of the Last Planner System of Production Control 3-16
3.6 Previous Applications of the Last Planner System to Design 3-21
3.7 Evaluation of Last Planner against Criteria for Production Control Systems 3-24
3.8 Research Questions: 1) What can be done by way of tools provided and 3-25
improved implementation of the Last Planner system of production
control to increase plan reliability as measured by Percent Plan Complete?
2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan reliability
during design processes?
4.0 Research Methodology 4-1

4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.1.1 Engineering Management as a Field of Study 4-1
4.1.2 Competing Engineering Management Paradigms 4-4
4.2 Research Design 4-6
4.2.1 Research Question 4-6
4.2.2 Research Strategies 4-8
4.3 Research Methods 4-9
4.3.1 Data Collection 4-9
4.3.2 Data Analysis and Evaluation 4-10
4.3.3 Case Studies 4-12
5.0 Case One: CCSR Project 5-1

5.1 Project Description and Last Planner Implementation 5-1
5.2 PPC and Reasons 5-2
5.3 Observations 5-10
5.4 Learnings 5-11
6.0 Case Two: Next Stage 6-1

6.2 Data 6-2
6.2.1 PPC and Reasons 6-2
6.2.2 Observations 6-5
6.2.3 Feedback from participants 6-5
6.3 The Nature of the Design Process and Implications for Process Control 6-8
6.4 Evaluation of Last Planner Implementation 6-10
6.5 Learnings 6-12
7.0 Case Three: Pacific Contracting 7-1

7.4 Learnings 7-8
8.0 Case Four: Old Chemistry Building Renovation 8-1

8.4 Learnings 8-5
9.0 Case Five: Zeneca 9-1
9.3 Constraint Analysis and Make Ready 9-3
9.5 Learnings 9-6
10.0 Conclusions 10-1

10.1 Summary of Case Study Results 10-1
10.2 Research Question: What can be done by way of tools provided and 10-2
control to increase plan reliability as measured by Percent Plan
Complete?
10.3 Research Question: How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to 10-3
increase plan reliability during design processes?
10.4 Directions for Future Research 10-4
10.5 Conclusions 10-9
Glossary of Terms G-1
List of References R-1
Bibliography Biblio-1
Appendix A: Next Stage Kickoff Meeting A-1
Appendix B: Next StageTeleconferences B-1
Appendix C: Next Stage Action Items Log C-1
Appendix D: Next Stage Issues Log D-1
Appendix E: Next Stage Decisions Log E-1

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
3.1 The formation of assignments in the Last Planner System 3-2
3.2 Lookahead Process 3-6
3.3 Make Ready by Screening and Pulling 3-11
3.4 A Traditional (Push) Planning System 3-13
3.5 Last Planner-A Pull System 3-14
3.6 The Last Planner System 3-16
3.7 PPC (Nokia Project) 3-23
3.8 Participant Survey (Nokia Project) 3-23
5.1 CCSR-Weekly PPC 5-5
5.2 CCSR-Reasons for Noncompletion 5-6
5.3 CCSR-PPC without rain 5-6
6.1 Next Stage-PPC 6-4
7.1 Pacific Contracting-PPC 7-2
7.2 Pacific Contracting-Reasons 7-7
8.1 Old Chemistry Building-PPC 8-3
8.2 Old Chemistry Building-Reasons for Noncompletions 8-4
9.1 Zeneca-PPC 9-2
9.2 Zeneca-Reasons 9-2
10.1 Activity Definition Model 10-4
10.2 Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Directives 10-6
10.3 Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Prerequisites 10-7
10.4 Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Resources 10-8
10.5 Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Process 10-9
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.1 Conversion/Flow/Value 1-1
3.1 Functions of the Lookahead Process 3-7
3.2 Construction Lookahead Schedule 3-9
3.3 Engineering Lookahead Schedule 3-10
3.4 Constraints Analysis 3-12
5.1 CCSR-Weekly Planning Cycle 5-3
5.2 CCSR-Constraints Analysis Form 5-4
5.3 CCSR-PPC and Reasons Data 5-5
5.4 CCSR-Reasons for Noncompletion (detailed and categorized) 5-7
6.1 Next Stage-Reasons for Noncompletion 6-2
6.2 Next Stage-PPC Data 6-3
6.3 Next Stage-Reasons 6-5
7.1 Pacific Contracting-PPC Data and Reasons 7-3
8.1 Old Chemistry Building-PPC Data 8-3
9.1 Zeneca-Constraint Analysis Form 9-5
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Conceptual Framework
Production processes can be conceived in at least three different ways: 1) as a process of
converting inputs to outputs, 2) as a flow of materials and information through time and
space, and 3) as a process for generating value for customers. All three conceptions are
appropriate and necessary. However, the conversion model has been dominant in the
AEC (architectural/engineering/construction) industry until very recently (Koskela and
Huovila, 1997).
Table 1.1
Conversion View Flow View Value Generation
the flows of information a value creating

a series of & resources, which
Nature of activities which process which
release work: composed defines and
Construction convert inputs of conversion,
to outputs. meets customer
inspection, moving and requirements.
waiting.
Hierarchical Decomposition at
decomposition of joints. Elimination of Elimination of value
Main
Principles activities; control and waste (unnecessary loss - the gap
optimization by activities), time between achieved
and possible value.
activity. reduction.
Work breakdown
Team approach, rapid
structure, critical path Development and testing
reduction of
method. Planning of ends against means to
Methods uncertainty, shielding,
concerned with timing determine requirements.
& balancing, decoupling.
start and responsibility Planning concerned with
Practices Planning concerned
for activities through work structure, process
with timing, quality and
contracting or and participation.
release of work.
assigning.
Taking care Taking care that Taking care that

Practical to do the unnecessary customer
Contribution necessary is done as little requirements are
met in the best
things. as possible.
possible manner.
.
Conversion/Flow/Value2
Ballard 1-1 Last Planner

The design and construction of AEC facilities (buildings, process plants, airport
terminals, highways, etc.) poses difficult management problems to which the models and
techniques based on the conversion view have proven inadequate. Tradeoffs between
competing design criteria must be made throughout the design process, often with
incomplete information and under intense budget and schedule pressure. Increasingly,
projects are subject to uncertainty because of the pace of technological change and the
rapid shifting of market opportunities and competitor actions.
Production management concepts and techniques based on the conversion model have
not proven capable of solving these difficult problems. The heart of the conversion model
is the assumption that the work to be done can be divided into parts and managed as if
those parts were independent one from another. Management techniques such as work
breakdown structures and earned value analysis belong to this conversion model. Work
breakdown structures are driven by scoping and budget concerns and have the objectives
of insuring that all the work scope is included in one of the parts, insuring that no work
scopes overlap, and allocating costs to each part such that the rollup yields the total for
the project. This division into parts is necessary in order to allocate responsibility to
internal or external work centers, which can subsequently be controlled against scope,
budget, and schedule commitments.
This is fundamentally a contracting mentality, which facilitates the management of
contracts rather than the management of production or work flow. Production
management is the ‘local’ responsibility of those to whom the various parts are assigned
or contracted. If everyone meets their contractual obligations, the project performs
successfully. Unfortunately, this approach is the opposite of robust. When something
goes wrong, as it very often does, the entire structure is prone to collapse.

If a management philosophy and tools are needed that fully integrate the conversion,
flow, and value models, we might consider the product development processes employed
by firms designing and manufacturing consumer products (automobiles, printers,
toasters, etc.). Such processes have developed potentially useful concepts especially in
the area of value; identification of customer needs and translation into engineering
specifications (Ulrich and Eppinger 1993). Product development processes also are
struggling with other issues relevant to the design of AEC facilities, including design
decomposition, organizational means for integration, etc. (Hayes, et al, 1988; Eppinger,
et al, 1990; Gebala and Eppinger, 1991).
As a contribution to the integration of all three models, this thesis applies the flow
model to managing the design and construction of AEC facilities. Conceptualizing the
design and construction process as a flow of information and materials lends itself to
reducing waste by minimizing time information or materials spend waiting to be used,
time spent inspecting information or materials for conformance to requirements, time
spent reworking information or materials to achieve conformance, and time spent moving
information or materials from one specialist to the next. Further, conceptualizing the
design and construction process as a flow of information and materials allows
coordination of interdependent flows and the integration of design with supply and site
construction.
1.2 Assumptions
Fundamental assumptions underlying this research include the following:

q Current construction industry production management thinking and practice is
dominated by the conversion model, consequently value generation and flow
management concepts and techniques are underdeveloped.
q To be consistent with all three models, conversion, flow, and value, production
management should be conceived as having the purpose of creating customer value
while minimizing waste in time and cost. “Customer value” is understood to include
not only the fitness for use of the facility considered with regard to functionality, but
also with regard to all other criteria to which the customer attaches value, e.g.,
project delivery within a time and for a cost that meets the customer’s market and
financial needs.
q "Production" is understood to include both designing and making. The historical
development of production theory in manufacturing has erroneously suggested that
production is entirely concerned with 'making'.3
q Production management is conceived to consist of criteria determination and work
structuring in the ‘planning’ phase, and to consist of work flow control and
production unit control in the ‘execution’ or ‘control’ phase.
This thesis treats only control functions, not planning functions. It does not treat the very
first and fundamental production management activity; i.e., the determination of
customer needs and their translation into design criteria. Criteria determination belongs
to the value generation view. This thesis treats only the flow view. Similarly, work
structuring activities such as identification, sequencing, and scheduling tasks are also not
3
There may be differences between the U.S. and U.K. in the use of these terms. Hence
the effort to be precise. For the most part, the theory of producing artifacts has emerged
from efforts to better manage factories. More recently, in some instances, the term
"manufacturing" has acquired greater scope than merely factory production.

treated here. The scope of this thesis is the control functions of production unit control
and work flow control.
1.3 Contribution to Knowledge
This dissertation proposes to make the following contributions to knowledge:
q Adapted from manufacturing4, a system for production control, the Last Planner
system, is presented that exemplifies the concept of control as causing events to
conform to plan, as distinct from the traditional conception of project control in
terms of after-the-fact variance detection.
q Appropriate application of the production control system is shown to improve work
flow reliability, which promises substantial benefits in project cost and duration
reduction.
q Improvements to the Last Planner system of production control are developed and
tested in a series of case studies, resulting in new concepts and techniques.
Project controls in the AEC industry have focused on detecting variances from project
objectives for cost and schedule, and have not directly dealt with the management of
production. The Last Planner system of production control has proven an effective tool
for improving the productivity of the production units that implement its procedures and
techniques (Ballard and Howell, 1997). This dissertation shifts the focus from the
productivity of the immediate production unit to the reliability of work flow between
production units, and also extends application of the system to design.
1.4 The Author's Role in the Research
4
I.e., from the models and theories developed in industrial engineering

The Last Planner system has been in development by the author since 1992. Several
papers have previously been published by this author on the subject, the first of them in
1993 (Ballard, 1993) at the founding conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction. Last Planner research began with a focus on improving the quality of
assignments in weekly work plans (Koch Refinery Mid-Plants Project, 1993-45), added a
lookahead process to shape and control work flow (PARC, 19956; DMOS-6, 19967),
and eventually was extended from construction to design (Nokia8 and Hewlett-Packard9,
1996). During that development, the objective shifted from improving productivity to
improving the reliability of work flow. This resulted from a change in conceptual
framework. The initial framework came from the quality management and productivity
improvement initiatives that dominated construction industry performance improvement
efforts in the 1980s. The shift to work flow reliability reflected the author's increasing
awareness of the revolution in manufacturing inspired by the Toyota Production System
and eventually labeled "lean production", and also contact with the thinking of Lauri
Koskela regarding production theory and its application to the construction industry.
A key metric of the Last Planner system is the percentage of assignments completed
(PPC), which is clearly a defect rate and a product of the quality management mentality.
Given the objective of improving productivity, measurements were made of the
relationship between the defect rate of a crew, its PPC, and the productivity of that crew.
Not surprisingly, such measurements revealed a positive correlation10. However, the
5
Ballard and Howell, 1997
6
Ballard, Howell, and Casten (1996)
7
Ballard and Howell, 1997
8
Koskela, Ballard, and Tanhuanpaa (1997)
9
Miles (1998)
10
For examples, see the references footnoted previously.

activity focus characteristic of the productivity improvement 'mind' concealed the
importance of that crew's PPC for the productivity of the crews that followed it and built
upon its work product. Even the introduction of a lookahead process was motivated
initially by the observation that simply shielding a crew from poor assignments was
insufficient to optimize crew productivity. To do so required matching load and capacity,
both of which required managing load or work flow. The more powerful and
fundamental opportunity to coordinate action among multiple crews was hidden by the
dominance of what Koskela has called the "conversion model" and its exclusive focus on
the activity as the unit of control rather than work flow.
Prior to the founding of the Lean Construction Institute (LCI) in August of 199711,
the Last Planner system had evolved to roughly its current form, with a clear conceptual
basis in production theory a la Koskela and an explicit and self-conscious objective of
managing work flow. What remained to be done was to learn how to improve work flow
reliability above the 35%-65% range commonly discovered up to that time. One purpose
of this dissertation is to describe what was done to improve work flow reliability,
measured by PPC, and the results achieved. That improving work flow reliability is
beneficial hardly requires argument. However, identifying and quantifying the specific
benefits will be a matter for future research. The second purpose of this research is to
explore applicability of the Last Planner system to design.
11
The Lean Construction Institute was founded in August of 1997 as a partnership
between Gregory A. Howell and Glenn Ballard, dedicated to research, training and
consulting in construction industry production management. Subsequently, Iris
Tommelein and Todd Zabelle have become partners in the enterprise, along with Mark
Reynolds, Managing Director of Lean Construction International, based in London. All
the case studies reported in this thesis were undertaken as research projects for LCI, of
which this author is Research Director. All case studies were carried out under the

1.4 Structure of the Dissertation
Traditional project control theory and practice is described and critiqued in Chapter
Two. The Last Planner System of Production Control is presented in Chapter Three as
satisfying the requirements revealed by the critique. Chapter Four describes the research
methodology used in the dissertation and is followed by Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, each
devoted to a case study. Conclusions from the case studies are reported in Chapter 10,
followed by a glossary of terms, a list of references, a bibliography, and an appendix
consisting of documents from the design case, Next Stage.
direction of this author, who also was the primary participant in project events and the
primary collector of case study data.

CHAPTER TWO: CRITIQUE OF PRODUCTION
CONTROL
2.1 What is Production Control?
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a critique of production control theory and
practice. But first it is necessary to clarify what is meant by “production control”.
2.1.1 The Meaning of “Production”
Production has been an explicit topic of study primarily in industrial engineering, which
has dealt almost entirely with one type of production; namely, manufacturing (in the
sense of 'making'), with only occasional forays into construction, plant maintenance,
building maintenance, agriculture, forestry, mining, fishing, etc. Design and engineering
have infrequently been conceived as production processes; the focus almost entirely
being placed on making things rather than designing them.
Although the meaning of the term at its most universal is synonymous with “making”,
“manufacturing” is most commonly12 used to denote the making of many copies from a
single design, and consequently is primarily focused on products for a mass market, most
of those products being moveable from the place manufactured to the place of use. There
are exceptions to the products being moveable, although still copies from a single design;
e.g., ships and airplanes. Within the world of construction, manufacturing in this sense is
approached mostly closely by 'manufactured housing'.
12
Exceptions occur with thinkers and writings regarding product development, which by
its nature must integrate designing and making, at least in the sense of making
prototypes.

Various types of making have been proposed, among them ‘assembly’, the joining of
parts into a whole, as distinct from ‘fabricating’, the shaping of materials. For example,
construction is often categorized as a type of ‘fixed position manufacturing’ (Schmenner,
1993), along with shipbuilding and airplane assembly. In all these instances of assembly,
the assembled product eventually becomes too large to be moved through assembly
stations, so the stations (work crews) must be moved through them, adding additional
components and subassemblies until the artifact (building, bridge, tunnel, plant, house,
highway, etc) is completed.
Many publications exist on the topic of production management in manufacturing,
the larger part of which adopt the perspective of the industrial or production engineer
(Bertrand et al, 1990; Hopp and Spearman, 1996; Murrill, 1991; Vollman et al, 1992). A
subset of this category concern themselves with the psychological/sociological aspects of
manufacturing management (Scherer, 1998). The development of alternatives to mass
production over the last 40 years has been revolutionary. Early and influential production
management theorists include Jack Burbidge (1983; 1988) and W. Edwards Deming
(1986), to mention but a few from the West. Taiichi Ohno (1988) and Shigeo Shingo
(1988) were the primary architects of the Toyota Production System, the archetype for
lean production, so named in part to counterpose it to "mass" production. Burbidge's
groundbreaking thought began to emerge in the 1960s. Deming was instrumental in the
implementation of quality management and statistical quality control concepts and
techniques in Japan after the 2nd World War. The work of Ohno and Shingo was
concentrated in the period of the late 50's into the 70's. The Machine That Changed the
World (Womack et al., 1990) reported the findings of an international study of the
automotive industry and was followed by Lean Thinking (Womack and Jones, 1996)

which presented the principles and basic concepts behind the new forms of
manufacturing and proposed to extend them to the entire enterprise. Womack and Jones
have popularized and made more easily accessible the concepts and techniques of lean
production.
Defining production as the designing and making of artifacts allows us to understand
how construction is a type of production and also that design is an essential component
in production generally and in construction specifically. Lauri Koskela (Koskela 1992,
1999; Koskela and Huovila 1997; Koskela et al. 1996, 1997) is the foremost production
theorist in construction. His study of the applicability of newly emergent manufacturing
concepts and techniques to the construction industry has driven him back to the
development of a theory of production as such (Koskela, 1999).
2.1.2 THE MEANING OF “CONTROL”
The term “control” has a wide range of meanings. According to the Concise Oxford
Dictionary, its meanings include to dominate, command; to check, verify; to regulate. It
has long been associated with accounting. The Old French contreroller: to keep a roll of
accounts.
Accounting is the essence of project control theory, more fully described in section
2.2.2 below (Diekmann and Thrush, 1986; Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK), 1996; Riggs, 1986). The essential activity is monitoring actual costs or
schedule performance against target in order to identify negative variances. Corrective
action is obviously necessary in order to correct such negative variances, but the
literature hardly addresses corrective action.

Industrial process control introduces feedback and feedforward mechanisms for
regulating a process (Murrill, 1993). Feedback is initiated by a comparison of actual with
target outputs. Feedforward is initiated by a comparison of actual with target inputs.
The artificial intelligence community contributes the blackboard system of control, in
which coordination of a number of interdependent specialists is managed by rules for
taking turns 'writing on a blackboard'; i.e., for contributing to their collaborative work
(Hayes-Roth, 1985). AI adherents have been in the forefront of empirical study of
design, and despite their technological orientation, have found social and organizational
issues to be of great importance. Finger et al (1995) conclude: “The social process plays
a major role in the articulation and realization of the product design, particularly in large
projects.” (p.89). Bucciarelli (1984) reports that designers spend 85-90% of their time
talking, writing, negotiating, meeting, searching, etc. as opposed to drawing and
calculating.
Production control theorists working in manufacturing distinguish two primary ways
of regulating work flow in manufacturing systems: push and pull. Push systems release
materials or information into a system based on preassigned due dates (from a master
production schedule, for example) for the products of which they are parts. Pull systems
release materials or information into a system based on the state of the system (the
amount of work in process, the quality of available assignments, etc) in addition to due
dates (Hopp and Spearman, 1996). In factory systems, pull may be derivative ultimately
from customer orders. In construction, pull is ultimately derivative from target
completion dates, but specifically applies to the internal customer of each process.
Applicability of these concepts to production control has been explored by this author
(Ballard, 1999).

Some theorists (Kelly, 1994) propose that complex, dynamic systems are regulated
not by anything resembling a central mind, but through the independent action of
distributed decision makers. The following excerpt from Eric Scherer’s introduction to
Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective indicates the emergence of a new conceptual
framework,
“To master the challenges of the future, there must be a change in

our thinking paradigm. Manufacturing is not deterministic! …the
problem of systems design for shop floor control is no longer the
problem of ‘optimization’. The reductionistic paradigm … needs to
be replaced by a holistic paradigm of agile activity, dynamic
behavior, and evolutionary development.”
2.2 Project Management
2.2.1 THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
The construction industry is organized in projects and current production theory and
practice are heavily influenced by the concepts and techniques of project management.
According to PMI’s A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, “a project
is a temporary endeavor undertaken to produce a unique product or service.” The
making (i.e., manufacturing) of multiple copies of a product does not occur through
projects so understood. This focus on product uniqueness and the project form of
organization has dominated thinking about production of the built environment so far as
to discourage learning from non-project industries such as product manufacturing
(Koskela, 1992).
Again according to PMI (1996), project management includes the management of
integration, scope, time, cost, quality, human resources, communications, risk, and
procurement. Any or all of these could conceivably concern the actual production
process itself, but perhaps most of all time and cost.

Time management is said to consist of activity definition, activity sequencing, activity
duration estimating, schedule development, and schedule control. The focus is entirely on
delivering project objectives; in Koskela’s terms, on the transformation or conversion
processes (activities) and not on flow or value generation processes. Activities are to be
defined so as to facilitate a division of labor and subsequent tracking (accounting) of
conformance to requirements. There is no mention of structuring work for flow or of
defining activities so that they facilitate the actual performance of the work. Activity
sequencing assumes that handoffs from one set of specialists to the next occur only once;
that there is no repetition or cycling to be managed (“conditional diagramming methods”
are mentioned-see page 63-but not developed). Schedule control is concerned with
managing changes to the schedule rather than with execution of scheduled work; with
the exception of expediting as a type of time management corrective action (see page
72). Cost management is treated very much in the same way as time management. The
question for project management thus remains: ‘Who manages production and how?’
PMI differentiates between project processes and product-oriented processes (page
27), the former being characteristic of all types of projects and the latter specific to the
various types of production with which projects may be involved. What is missing in this
distinction is the concept of the project itself as a temporary production system linked to
other temporary and permanent production systems for materials, equipment, labor, etc.
Projects as such have no necessary connection with production. For example, a project
may be to solve a problem of getting voters to register. In this broad sense of the term,
‘project’ becomes virtually synonymous with a single instantiation of the problem solving
process, and project management consists of the tools and techniques for managing
problem solving processes in groups. On projects that do have production objectives,

production itself takes place alongside project management, but is not directly the
business of project management. Consequently, project control consists of monitoring
progress toward project objectives and taking corrective action when the ship appears to
be off course.
This concept of project control is very different from production control, which is
dedicated to causing events to conform to plan and to replanning when events cannot be
conformed. Production control conceives production as a flow of materials and
information among cooperating specialists, dedicated to the generation of value for
customer and stakeholders.
2.2.2 CRITIQUE OF THE TRADITIONAL PROJECT CONTROL MODEL
Project control has been hitherto conceived and carried out consistently with the
conversion or transformation view of projects (Koskela and Huovila, 1997). The
received wisdom regarding AEC project control systems is founded on a widely shared
conception of their purpose. “This (project control) system must provide the information
needed for the project team and project participants to identify and correct problem areas
and, ultimately, to keep project costs and schedule ‘under control’.” (Diekmann and
Thrush, 1986). The objective is to detect negative variances from target, so corrective
action can be taken. This is quite different from the active concept of control dominant in
manufacturing production control systems, especially those employing a pull strategy, in
which the purpose of control is to cause events to conform to plan. In the following, we
further examine traditional project controls and their difference from the concept of
control in the Last Planner system, which is to be introduced in Chapter 3.
In traditional project control, the objects of control are time and resources.
Resources (labor hours, material, equipment, indirects) are planned and controlled

through cost control systems, the objective of which is productivity, i.e., efficient use of
resources. A budget is prepared for each resource, the use of resources is monitored
against their budgets, and periodic forecasts are made of resource requirements based on
the current state of the project.
Controlling time involves planning, scheduling, and monitoring. Planning decides
what is to be accomplished and in what sequence. Scheduling determines task duration
and timing. Monitoring checks progress of tasks against the schedule and forecasts when
work will be completed. The objective of time control is production or progress, not
productivity.
Decisions made regarding budget and schedule, productivity and production must
recognize their interdependence. Productivity and production are formally related in
earned value systems, which propose a solution to the problem that progress and
expenditure of resources need not coincide. Rates of resource consumption are
established for the various kinds of work to be performed on a project; e.g., 9.32
engineering labour-hours per piping isometric drawing or 12.4 labour-hours per purchase
order. Completing an individual piping isometric drawing earns 9.32 labour-hours
regardless of the actual number of hours consumed in its production. Progress toward
project completion is tracked by accumulating the earned hours and comparing that to
the total hours to be earned for the entire project. For example, suppose the project
schedule calls for production of 10 piping isometric drawings at time t, but only 9
drawings have been produced. Only 83.88 (9 x 9.32) hours have been earned of the 93.2
scheduled, so that portion of the project is 10% behind schedule (83.88/93.2=.90). That
is a measure of production against schedule.

Productivity can be quite a different story. Suppose it has taken only 80 hours to
produce the 9 piping isometric drawings. Since 83.88 hours were earned, the
performance factor is .95 and the piping group is operating at 95% of its budget for
isometric drawings. In this case, the project is behind schedule, but under budget.
Production is poor and productivity is good.
Earned value analysis is a means for controlling projects through productivity and
progress. By itself, it would have the design manager believe that a project is performing
well if it is earning labor hours at the budget unit rate and also earning sufficient hours to
maintain a scheduled earnings plan expressed as percentages of earned hours to total
hours to be earned. The obvious weakness in this control mechanism is that projects may
exhibit budget productivity and be on the earnings plan, but not be doing the right work
in the right way at the right time. Although things appear to be on track, the train is
destined to eventually run off the rails because work is being produced that does not
conform to product quality requirements or to process quality requirements (e.g., out of
sequence). Consequently, quality control is invoked as a separate control mechanism,
although rarely if ever controlling against the objective of expressing customer needs in
engineering specifications, but rather controlling against the objectives of avoiding
calculational and dimensional errors. As for the issue of the timing of work, it has proven
necessary to establish schedule milestones to enforce adherence to a work sequence.
These rear guard actions are frequently ineffective against the dominant progress and
productivity controls, which consequently cause managers to throw the lever in the
wrong direction because they misevaluate actual project performance (Howell and
Ballard, 1996).

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is a key element in traditional project controls.
“A WBS provides a framework for integrated schedule and cost planning and allows for
monitoring and control by management by establishing the manner in which estimates are
assigned and costs are accumulated and summarized.” (p. 21, Diekmann and Thrush,
1986). The objective is to divide the work to be done in the project into parts so they can
be monitored and controlled. No mention is made of the production process as such.
[NB: Inclusion of the flow view adds new criteria to the decomposition process. Roughly
speaking, we want to break the whole into parts so we can more easily put the parts back
together again. Structure work for flow and assembly, not only for budgeting and
monitoring.]
Further decomposition in the traditional process eventually defines work packages as
the smallest unit. Work packages often correspond to contract packages or to pay items
within a single contract. The dominance of the conversion view is perhaps best revealed
in the following quotes: “A work package is a cost center.” (p. 73, Neil, James M.
Construction Cost Estimating for Project Control, 1982). “The WBS provides the
framework for defining the project from the top all the way down to its smallest
components and for accumulating the costs associated with each piece. In so doing, the
WBS provides a data base from which problem areas can be identified, forecasts made,
and corrective action can be taken.” (p. 21, Diekmann and Thrush, 1986). It appears to
be assumed that costs arise within that part of the project in which they are detected.
Further, control is essentially control of behaviour, given the default assumption that
tasks/work packages/contracts can be carried out. The flow view, with its
interdependence of parts (both as regards the 'product' and the process of making that
product), is neglected in this perspective. Equally neglected is consideration of capability.

We are clearly dealing here with a type of push system and the controls appropriate to a
push system.
Despite the focus on cost and schedule ‘accounting’, theorists recognize the primacy
of the control act itself. “Without corrective actions a project control system becomes
merely a cost/schedule reporting system.” (p. 29, Diekmann and Thrush, 1986).
However, the traditional view is that control consists of correcting deviations from plan.
Deviations are expected, but that expectation is not rooted in the idea that variation is
natural, but rather that sin is inevitable. Diekmann and Thrush devote less than two pages
of a 108 page paper to corrective action and provide no more advice than to inform
managers and supervisors at every level in the project about deviations so they can
“…correct those trouble spots.” (p. 28). They appear to assume that causes of deviation
will be apparent and the appropriate corrective action obvious. “These problems can be
easily traced to their source allowing early detection of unfavorable trends.” (p. 33,
Diekmann and Thrush, 1986). If the standard corrective actions are indeed ‘Try harder!’
and ‘Add more men!’, that would be consistent with the traditional view.
Advocates of system dynamics have proposed to supplement traditional network
analyses and models, adding to the “…growing evidence that network analysis on its
own is not sufficient to model and manage the behaviour of projects.” (Williams et al.,
1995, p. 154). They propose to provide additional information to project managers so
they avoid misevaluating the state of the project and consequently making decisions that
cause things to get worse rather than better (See p. 125 of Rodrigues, 1994). Ballard and
Howell (1996) suggest that it is impossible to make good decisions about causes or
corrections of deviations, relying only on productivity and progress data, without
understanding work flow. One can hardly avoid concluding that the traditional control

system is indeed based almost exclusively on the conversion or activity view of the
production system.
2.3 Previous Applications of Production Control Concepts to the AEC

Industry
A survey of the literature reveals several primary contributors to the theory and practice
of production (as opposed to project) control in the construction industry. Ballard and
Howell’s contributions are described in Chapter Three. Melles and Wamelink (1993)
developed a very similar line of thinking independently, culminating in their joint PhD
thesis at Delft University, The Netherlands. Lauri Koskela, Senior Researcher at
Finland’s building research institute, VTT, is the leading theorist in production
management in construction. The University of Reading has been active in the field of
production management for a number of years. John Bennett’s Construction
Management from 1985 is an excellent example of their work. Addis’ 1990 book,
Structural engineering: the nature and theory of design, is also a highly relevant work
for this research. Alexander Laufer’s work on project planning takes a production
control orientation by virtue of its focus on uncertainty and variability and their
management. Given the relative obscurity of Melles and Wamelink’s, only their work is
presented in detail. The work of Koskela is described only to the extent needed to remind
the reader of his vital contributions. That should in no way be taken as an indication of
relative importance of the various contributions.
2.3.1 MELLES AND WAMELINK
Introducing their discussion of the theory of production control, Melles and Wamelink
(1993) explain, “Contrary to what is customary in the construction industry we shall not

assume, beforehand, the theories in the field of project management. …Production
control in construction companies has traditionally been aimed at the control of
projects.” For Melles and Wamelink, production control consists of “…the activities
relating to the adjustment of all aspects of the production process, so that the
preconditions in which the production process is to be executed, are met.” Drawing on
manufacturing production control, they emphasize: 1) Thinking in terms of hierarchical
levels of decision; i.e., control at company level, factory level, and production unit level,
and 2) Thinking in terms of decision functions within the hierarchical levels; i.e.,
aggregate production control, material coordination, workload control, workorder
release, workload acceptance, detailed workorder scheduling, capacity allocation, and
shop floor control. The manufacturing model on which they rely is that of Bertrand et al.,
1990.
Melles and Wamelink propose a ‘translation’ of the manufacturing model into
decision functions appropriate to various types of construction, identifying at the
‘factory’ level project coordination (achieved in part by network schedules), mobilisation
planning (by means of “six weeks scheme”), and allocation planning (by means of “task
scheme”).
In addition to the primary contribution of directing attention to manufacturing theory
and practice, Melles and Wamelink’s work identifies functionalities AEC industry
production control systems should possess. Their specific objective was to assist in the
design of information systems. Consequently, they did not explicitly apply their model to
evaluation of current management systems and practice. However, the overwhelmingly
negative results of so doing are implicit in their critique of project management software.
For example, speaking of project coordination, they comment, “…it can immediately be

deduced that the project management software available on the market is indeed about a
certain aspect (within the framework, the decision function project coordination). The
other decision functions (resource planning, mobilization planning, etc.) are, generally
speaking, not recognizable.” (p. 35). This critique is made more explicitly in Wamelink et
al., 1993.
2.3.2 KOSKELA
Lauri Koskela (1999) proposes the following design criteria or principles for a
production control system. In fact, he claims they are true for the Last Planner system,
which is to be presented in Chapter Three:
"The first principle is that the assignments should be sound regarding their
prerequisites. This principle has also been called the Complete Kit by Ronen
(Ronen 1992). The Complete Kit suggests that work should not start until all the
items required for completion of a job are available. Thus, this principle strives to
minimize work in suboptimal conditions.
"The second principle is that the realization of assignments is measured and
monitored. The related metrics, Percent Plan Complete (PPC), is the number of
planned activities completed, divided by the total number of planned activities, and
expressed as a percentage. This focus on plan realization diminishes the risk of
variability propagation to downstream flows and tasks.
"Thirdly, causes for non-realization are investigated and those causes are removed.
Thus, in fact, continuous, in-process improvement is realized.
"The fourth principle suggests maintaining a buffer of tasks which are sound for each
crew. Thus, if the assigned task turns out to be impossible to carry out, the crew
can switch to another task. This principle is instrumental in avoiding lost

production (due to starving) or reduced productivity (due to suboptimal
conditions).
"The fifth priciple suggests that in lookahead planning (with time horizon of 3-4
weeks), the prerequisites of upcoming assignments are actively made ready. This,
in fact, is a pull system that is instrumental in ensuring that all the prerequisites are
available for the assignments. On the other hand, it ensures that too great material
buffers do not emerge on site.”
2.4 Criteria for a Design Production Control System
The preceding review and critique of the literature suggests the following guidelines and
criteria for an effective design production control system:
q Variability must be mitigated and remaining variability managed. Variability is virtually
disregarded in current control systems. But the construction industry certainly has its share of
variability: variability in quality, variability in processing times, variability in deliveries, etc.
Neglect of variability causes greater variability, and there is always an associated penalty.
According to Hopp and Spearman (1996), variability results in some or all of the following:
§ buffering of flows, which increases lead times and work-in-process
§ lower resource utilization
§ lost throughput
q Assignments are sound regarding their prerequisites.
q The realization of assignments is measured and monitored.
q Causes for failing to complete planned work are investigated and those causes are removed.
q A buffer of sound assignments is maintained for each crew or production unit.
q The prerequisites of upcoming assignments are actively made ready.
q The traditional schedule-push system is supplemented with pull techniques. Not only do pull
systems usually perform better than push systems (Hopp and Spearman, 1996), but pull systems are

especially needed in conditions of variability.
q Production control facilitates work flow and value generation. Production thinking and practice in
all areas has focused primarily on the task goals of production and neglected flow and value
(Huovila and Koskela, 1997). The object of traditional project control has been behavior. What
needs to be controlled is work flow.
q The project is conceived as a temporary production system. The model for corrective action in
traditional project control is course correction, drawn by analogy from the path of a vehicle bound
for a specific destination with a target arrival time and a specified spending budget or otherwise
limited resources. If the project is to be conceived rather as a temporary production system, the
course correction model is radically oversimplified and inappropriate. The flow of materials and
information is what is to be controlled. They flow through very complex networks of temporary and
permanent production systems. Corrective action must be taken within an understanding of these
networks and of the impact of changes in sequence, processing methodologies, buffer location and
sizing, local control strategies (e.g., pull or push), etc.
q Decision making is distributed in production control systems. Traditional project control assumes
the necessity and possibility of central control. The underlying image is that of a single mind and
many hands. Arguably, dynamic production systems cannot be controlled centrally, but rather are
adaptive creatures driven by decision making at their periphery.
q Production control resists the tendency [of designers and engineers] toward local suboptimization
(Green, 1992). Green's comment was specifically directed to the tendency of designers and
engineers toward local suboptimization, but that is a general tendency of any system in which there
is a division of labor.
In Chapter Three, the Last Planner system of production control is described and
evaluated against these criteria.

CHAPTER THREE: DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF
THE LAST PLANNER SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION
CONTROL
3.1 Hierarchical Structure

Aside from the simplest and smallest jobs, design and construction require planning and
control done by different people, at different places within the organization, and at
different times during the life of a project. Planning high in the organization tends to
focus on global objectives and constraints, governing the entire project. These objectives
drive lower level planning processes that specify means for achieving those ends.
Ultimately, someone (individual or group) decides what physical, specific work will be
done tomorrow. That type of plans has been called "assignments". They are unique
because they drive direct work rather than the production of other plans. The person or
group that produces assignments is called the "Last Planner" (Ballard and Howell 1994).
3.2 Should-Can-Will-Did
The term "assignments" stresses the communication of requirements from Last Planner
to design squad or construction crew. But these products of planning at the production
unit level are also commitments to the rest of the organization. They say what WILL be
done, and (hopefully) are the result of a planning process that best matches WILL with
SHOULD within the constraints of CAN.
Ballard 3-1 Last Planner `

Figure 3.1
SHOULD
LAST PLANNER
CAN PLANNING WILL
PROCESS
The formation of assignments in the Last Planner planning process.
Unfortunately, last planner performance is sometimes evaluated as if there could be no
possible difference between SHOULD and CAN. "What will we do next week?”
“Whatever is on the schedule," or “Whatever is generating the most heat.” Supervisors
consider it their job to keep pressure on subordinates to produce despite obstacles.
Granted that it is necessary to overcome obstacles, that does not excuse creating them or
leaving them in place. Erratic delivery of resources such as input information and
unpredictable completion of prerequisite work invalidates the presumed equation of
WILL with SHOULD, and quickly results in the abandonment of planning that directs
actual production.
Failure to proactively control at the production unit level increases uncertainty and
deprives workers of planning as a tool for shaping the future. What is needed is to shift
the focus of control from the workers to the flow of work that links them together. The
Last Planner production control system is a philosophy, rules and procedures, and a set
of tools that facilitiate the implementation of those procedures. Regarding the
procedures, the system has two components: production unit control and work flow

control. The job of the first is to make progressively better assignments to direct workers
through continuous learning and corrective action. The function of work flow control is
perhaps evident in its name—to proactively cause work to flow across production units
in the best achieveable sequence and rate.
3.3 Production Unit Control

The key performance dimension of a planning system at the production unit level is its
output quality; i.e. the quality of plans produced by the Last Planner. The following are
some of the critical quality characteristics of an assignment:
q The assignment is well defined.

q The right sequence of work is selected.
q The right amount of work is selected.
q The work selected is practical or sound; i.e., can be done.
“Well defined” means described sufficiently that it can be made ready and completion can
be unambiguously determined. The "right sequence" is that sequence consistent with the
internal logic of the work itself, project commitments and goals, and execution strategies.
The "right amount" is that amount the planners judge their production units capable of
completing after review of budget unit rates and after examining the specific work to be
done. "Practical" means that all prerequisite work is in place and all resources are
available.
The quality of a front line supervisor's assignments may be reviewed by a superior
prior to issue, but such in-process inspection does not routinely produce measurement
data, even when corrections are necessary. Planning system performance is more easily
measured indirectly, through the results of plan execution.
Percent Plan Complete (PPC) is the number of planned activities completed divided

by the total number of planned activities, expressed as a percentage. PPC becomes the
standard against which control is exercised at the production unit level, being derivative
from an extremely complex set of directives: project schedules, execution strategies,
budget unit rates, etc. Given quality plans, higher PPC corresponds to doing more of the
right work with given resources, i.e. to higher productivity and progress.
Percent Plan Complete measures the extent to which the front line supervisor's
commitment (WILL) was realized. Analysis of nonconformances can then lead back to
root causes, so improvement can be made in future performance. Measuring
performance at the Last Planner level does not mean you only make changes at that
level. Root causes of poor plan quality or failure to execute planned work may be found
at any organizational level, process or function. PPC analysis can become a powerful
focal point for breakthrough initiatives.
The first thing needed is identification of reasons why planned work was not done,
preferably by front line supervisors or the engineers or craftsmen directly responsible for
plan execution. Reasons could include:
q Faulty directives or information provided to the Last Planner; e.g. the information
system incorrectly indicated that information was available or that prerequisite
work was complete.
q Failure to apply quality criteria to assignments; e.g. too much work was planned.
q Failure in coordination of shared resources; e.g. lack of a computer or plotter.
q Change in priority; e.g. workers reassigned temporarily to a "hot" task.
q Design error or vendor error discovered in the attempt to carry out a planned
activity.
This provides the initial data needed for analysis and improvement of PPC, and
consequently for improving project performance.
3.4 Work Flow Control

Here we turn to the topic of work flow control; i.e., causing work to move between

production units in a desired sequence and rate. Production Unit Control coordinates the
execution of work within production units such as construction crews and design squads.
Work Flow Control coordinates the flow of design, supply, and installation through
production units.
In the hierarchy of plans and schedules, the lookahead process has the job of work
flow control. Lookahead schedules are common in current industry practice, but typically
perform only the function of highlighting what SHOULD be done in the near term. In
contrast, the lookahead process within the Last Planner system serves multiple functions,
as listed in Table 3.1. These functions are accomplished through various specific
processes, including activity definition, constraints analysis, pulling work from upstream
production units, and matching load and capacity, each of which will be discussed in the
following pages.

Figure 3.2
PLANNING SYSTEM
Master
Schedule
Action to
prevent
Selecting, repetitive
Current status sequencing, & errors
sizing work we Lookahead
& forecasts
think can be done
Selecting,
Make work Workable sequencing,
ready by Weekly Chart PPC
Information Backlog & sizing work &
screening Work Plans
we know Reasons
& pulling can be done
Completed
Resources Production Work
Last Planner System with Lookahead Process highlighted
The vehicle for the lookahead process is a schedule of potential assignments for the next
3 to 12 weeks. The number of weeks over which a lookahead process extends is decided
based on project characteristics, the reliability of the planning system, and the lead times
for acquiring information, materials, labor, and equipment. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 are
examples of construction and engineering lookahead schedules, respectively. The
lookahead schedule is not a simple drop out from the master schedule. Indeed, it is often
beneficial to have the team that is to do the work in the next phase of a project
collectively produce a phase schedule that serves to coordinate actions that extend
beyond the lookahead window (the period of time we choose to look ahead).

Table 3.1
Functions of the Lookahead Process
• Shape work flow sequence and rate

• Match work flow and capacity
• Decompose master schedule activities
into work packages and operations
• Develop detailed methods for executing
work
• Maintain a backlog of ready work
• Update and revise higher level schedules
as needed.
Functions of the Lookahead Process

Prior to entry into the lookahead window, master schedule or phase schedule activities
are exploded into a level of detail appropriate for assignment on weekly work plans,
which typically yields multiple assignments for each activity. Then each assignment is
subjected to constraints analysis to determine what must be done in order to make it
ready to be executed. The general rule is to allow into the lookahead window, or allow
to advance from one week to the next within the lookahead window, only activities that
can be made ready for completion on schedule. If the planner is not confident that the
constraints can be removed, the potential assignments are retarded to a later date.
Figure 3.3 is a schematic of the lookahead process, showing work flowing through
time from right to left. Potential assignments enter the lookahead window 6 weeks ahead
of scheduled execution, then move forward a week each week until they are allowed to
enter into workable backlog, indicating that all constraints have been removed and that
they are in the proper sequence for execution. If the planner were to discover a

constraint (perhaps a design change or acquisition of a soils report) that could not be
removed in time, the assignment would not be allowed to move forward. The objective is
to maintain a backlog of sound work, ready to be performed, with assurance that
everything in workable backlog is indeed workable.13 Weekly work plans are then
formed from workable backlog, thus improving the productivity of those who receive the
assignments and increasing the reliability of work flow to the next production unit.
Table 3.2
PROJECT: Pilo t 5 WK LOOKAHEAD
ACTIVITY 1 / 133/
/ 997 1/ 20
# / 97 1 /#2 7/ 97 2 / 3#/ 9 7 NEEDS
M T W T F S M T W T F S M T W T F S M T W T F S
Sc ot t 's cre w
"CUP" AHUs-1 0 CHW, 2 HW X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CHW d elive rs 1 -8 -9 7 t hru
1- 13 .HW de live rs 1 -2 0.
Punch, lab e l, & t ag AHUs x x x Mat er ials on sit e
Ro n's cre w
DI St e a m to Humid ifier x x x Mat er ials on sit e
DI St e a m Blowd own x x Che ck ma t e rial
DI St e a m Co nd. t o x x x x x x x x x x x x x Mat er ial on s it e

co ole rs ( 1 3 )
Charles' cre w
2 00 de g HW 1 -"H" x x x Mat l de live ry 1 -8 -9 7
20 0 de g HW 1 -"B" x x x x x x x x x x Re lea se mat l for 1 -1 5 -9 7

& 1 -"D"
1 st flr 2 0 0 d eg HW x x x x x x x x x x Mat er ial on s it e . Nee d We s t
guide s & ancho rs Wing flr co ve re d.
Richa rd's c rew
2 -"A" HW & CHW x x x x x Co nt rol va lve s for adde d
VAV co ils
CHW in C- E-G t unnels x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ne e d t unne ls paint e d &
re le as e ma t e rials
Misc FCUs & co nd. drains x x x x x x x x x x Ta ke of f & o rde r ma t e rials
in "I" , " J", & "K" 1 st flr
Punch, lab e l & t ag x x x x x x x x x x Mat er ial on s it e
Construction Lookahead Schedule14
13
Deliberately building inventories, inventories of ready work in this case, may seem
contradictory to the goals of just-in-time. To clarify, inventories of all sort are to be
minimized, but as long as there is variability in the flow of materials and information,
buffers will be needed to absorb that variability. Reducing variability allows reduction
of buffer inventories.
14
The "5 Week Lookahead Schedule" excludes the week covered by the Weekly Work
Plan, so shows only 4 weeks.

3.4.1 CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
Once assignments are identified, they are subjected to constraints analysis. Different
types of assignments have different constraints. The construction example in Table 3.4
lists contract, design, submittals, materials, prerequisite work, space, equipment, and
labor; plus an open-ended category for all other constraints. Other constraints might
include permits, inspections, approvals, and so on. Design constraints can virtually be
read from the Activity Definition Model: clarity of directives (level of accuracy required,
intended use of the output, applicable section of code), prerequisite work (data,
evaluations, models), labor and technical resources. We previously met these constraints
in the discussion of Production Unit Control; then as reasons for failing to complete
assignments on weekly work plans.
Table 3.3
Engineering Lookahead Schedule

Project:
Discipline: Process
Planner: s
Checked By; x
Prep. Dt: 3/14/02
Week Ending: Week Ending: Week Ending: Week Ending:
Activity 3/28/02 4/4/02 4/11/02 4/18/02 OUTSTANDING NEEDS
M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F
Provide const support (Q x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Need questions from subs.
& A)
Review submittal(s) x x Need submittals from sub.
Aid with tool install dsgn x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Frozen layout, pkg 1 dwgs.
effort.
Design drains from tools x x x Frozen layout, input from
to tunnel tie-ins. tool install on installation
preferences
Help layout people x x Correct tool list.
complete a layout that will
work well with tool install
routing and drains into
the tunnel.
Complete Pkg 2 x x x x x Final eqpt and mtl usage
specifications from mech & tool install.
Create work plans x x x x
Send package to QA/QC x x Final design dwgs for
reviewer for drain design drains; plot time
review
Start/complete QA/QC x x Set of Package 2 review
review docs, dwgs
Engineering Lookahead Schedule

Constraints analysis requires suppliers of goods and services to actively manage their
production and delivery, and provides the coordinator with early warning of problems,
hopefully with sufficient lead time to plan around them. In the absence of constraints
analysis, the tendency is to assume a throw-it-over-the-wall mentality; to become
reactive to what happens to show up in your in-box or laydown yard.
Figure 3.3
The Lookahead Process: Make Ready by

Screening & Pulling
Master schedule activities entering 6th week
1 2 3 4 5 6
Explode scheduled
Assign- activities into work
ments packages on entry to
the lookahead
window
Screen assignments & make
ready each week enough
Workable work to maintain 2 week
Backlog workable backlog
Notify
Reasons why coordinator
planned work of
not completed constraints
status
Make Ready by Screening and Pulling
3.4.2 PULLING
Pulling is a method of introducing materials or information into a production process.
The alternative method is to push inputs into a process based on target delivery or
completion dates. Construction schedules have traditionally been push mechanisms,

seeking to cause intersections in the future of interdependent actions.
Table 3.4
Screening Assignments: Statusing

Constraints
ID Activity S ta rt C o n tra c t D e s i g n S u b m i t t a l s M a te r i a l s P r e - R e q u i s i t e S p a c e E q u i p m e n t L a b o r O t h e r
S m a llIn t e r i o r W a llF o r m
2 6 0 s L in e s 4 - M . 8 , 3 - M , 3 - 2/9/98
K,4-K.8,3-H O K R F I 6 8 O K O K re b a r O K O K O K N o n e
L a r g e In t e r io r W a l l
3 1 0 2/9/98
Line L Form
In t e r io r S m a l l W a l l s 3 F a
7 0 0 2/9/98
n d 3 D F o r m s
S m a llIn t e r i o r W a llF o r m
1 1 4 2 2/9/98
s L in e s 5 - M . 8 , a n d 5 - K . 8
E a s t W a llB e t w e e n L in e
1 7 0 2/13/98
s 2 a n d 6 L in e D o u b le U p
7 2 0 2/13/98
n d 3 D D o u b le - u p
S m a llIn t e r i o r W a lls L i n
1 1 4 6 e s 5 -M . 8 , a n d 5 - 2/13/98
K . 8 D o u b le -u p
L a r g e In t e r io r W a l l
3 2 2 2/16/98
Line L Doubleup
S m a llIn t e r i o r W a lls L i n
2 9 0 e s 4 -M . 8 , 3 - M , 3 - K , 4 - 2/17/98
K.8,3-HDouble-up
7 3 5 2/18/98
n d 3 D S t rip
Constraints Analysis
By contrast, pulling allows materials or information into a production process only if the
process is capable of doing that work. In our Last Planner system, conformance of
assignments to quality criteria constitute such a check on capability. Further, making
assignments ready in the lookahead process is explicitly an application of pull techniques.
Consequently, Last Planner is a type of pull system.

Figure 3.4
A Traditional (Push)
Planning System
PROJECT
OBJECTIVES
PLANNING THE
INFORMATION WORK SHOULD
EXECUTING
RESOURCES THE PLAN DID
A Traditional (Push) Planning System

Certain things have long been pulled as opposed to pushed; e.g., concrete. With its short
shelf life, concrete cannot be ordered too far in advance of need. Fortunately, the lead
time15 for concrete is short, so it is usually possible to wait until you know when it will
be needed before ordering it.
Generally, a window of reliability greater than supplier lead time is needed in order
for pulling to be most effective. Otherwise, the pulled items may not match up with the
work to which they are to be applied. In the industry now, supplier lead times are for the
most part much greater than our accurate foresight regarding work completion, hence
perhaps a reason for the infrequent use of pulling mechanisms.
15
Lead time is the time in advance of delivery one must place an order. It is often
referred to as “supplier lead time”.

Figure 3.5
Last Planner: A Pull System
SHOULD
LAST PLANNER
CAN PLANNING WILL
PROCESS
Last Planner: A Pull System

3.4.3 MATCHING LOAD AND CAPACITY
Matching load to capacity within a production system is critical for productivity of the
production units through which work flows in the system, and is also critical for system
cycle time, the time required for something to go from one end to the other.
Along with its other functions, the lookahead process is supposed to maintain a backlog
of workable assignments for each production unit (PU). To do so requires estimating the
load various chunks of work will place on PUs and the capacities of PUs to process
those chunks of work. Current estimating unit rates, such as the labor hours required to
erect a ton of steel, are at best averages based on historical data, which are themselves
laden with the tremendous amounts of waste imbedded in conventional practice. When

load and capacity are estimated, are we assuming 30% resource utilization or 60%?
What assumptions are being made about variation around averages? Can we expect
actual unit rates to fall short of the average half the time? Clearly we need much more
accurate data than is typically available.
Whatever the accuracy of load and capacity estimates, the planner must still make
some adjustments. Either load can be changed to match capacity, capacity can be
changed to match load, or, more commonly, a combination of the two. Given the
advantages of maintaining a stable work force and avoiding frequent changes, the
preference is often for adjusting load. However, that will not be the case when there are
pressures to meet scheduled milestones or end dates.
Load can be changed to match capacity by retarding or accelerating work flow.
Capacity can be changed to match load by reducing or increasing resources. Pulling helps
balance load to capacity because the PU can request what it needs and in the needed
amounts.
3.4.4 THE LAST PLANNER SYSTEM AS A WHOLE

Last Planner adds a production control component to the traditional project management
system. As shown in Figure 3.6, Last Planner can be understood as a mechanism for
transforming what SHOULD be done into what CAN be done, thus forming an inventory
of ready work, from which Weekly Work Plans can be formed. Including assignments on
Weekly Work Plans is a commitment by the Last Planners (foremen, squad bosses) to
what they actually WILL do.

Figure 3.6
Project
Objective
Planning the
Information SHOULD
Work
Last Planner
CAN WILL
Process
Resources Production DID
The Last Planner System
3.5 A Brief History of the Last Planner System of Production Control
The functions of production management systems are planning and control. Planning
establishes goals and a desired sequence of events for achieving goals. Control causes
events to approximate the desired sequence, initiates replanning when the established
sequence is either no longer feasible or no longer desirable, and initiates learning when
events fail to conform to plan (Ballard, 1998). When environments are dynamic and the
production system is uncertain and variable, reliable planning cannot be performed in
detail much before the events being planned. Consequently, deciding what and how much

work is to be done next by a design squad or a construction crew is rarely a matter of
simply following a master schedule established at the beginning of the project. How are
such decisions made and can they be made better? These questions were the drivers of
initial research in the area of production unit level planning and control under the title of
the “Last Planner System”, a summary report of which is included in Ballard and Howell
(1997).
A key early finding was that only about half of the assignments made to construction
crews at the beginning of a week were completed when planned. Experiments were
performed to test the hypothesis that failures were in large part a result of lack of
adequate work selection rules (these might also be called work release rules). Quality
criteria were proposed for assignments regarding definition, sequence, soundness, and
size. In addition, the percentage of assignments completed was tracked (PPC: percent
plan complete) and reasons for noncompletion were identified, which amounted to a
requirement that learning be incorporated in the control process.
Definition: Are assignments specific enough that the right type and amount of
materials can be collected, work can be coordinated with other trades, and
it is possible to tell at the end of the week if the assignment was completed?
Soundness: Are all assignments sound, that is: Are all materials on hand? Is
design complete? Is prerequisite work complete? Note: During the plan
week, the foreman will have additional tasks to perform in order to make
assignments ready to be executed, e.g., coordination with trades working in
the same area, movement of materials to the point of installation, etc.
However, the intent is to do whatever can be done to get the work ready
before the week in which it is to be done.
Sequence: Are assignments selected from those that are sound in the
constructability order needed by the production unit itself and in the order
needed by customer processes? Are additional, lower priority assignments
identified as workable backlog, i.e., additional quality tasks available in case
assignments fail or productivity exceeds expectations?
Size: Are assignments sized to the productive capability of each crew or
subcrew, while still being achievable within the plan period? Does the

assignment produce work for the next production unit in the size and
format required?
Learning: Are assignments that are not completed within the week tracked and
reasons identified?
As a result of applying these criteria, plan reliability (the percentage of assignments
completed) increased, and with it, crew productivity also increased (Ballard and Howell,
1997)16.
The use of explicit work selection rules and quality criteria for assignments was
termed “shielding production from upstream uncertainty and variation.” (Ballard and
Howell 1994) Such shielding assures to a large degree that productive capacity is not
wasted waiting for or looking for materials and such. However, because of its short term
nature, shielding cannot avoid underloading resources when work flow is out of
sequence or insufficient in quantity. Further, reasons for failing to complete planned
assignments were dominated in most cases by materials-related problems. Consequently,
a second element of the Last Planner System was created upstream of weekly work
planning to control work flow and to make assignments ready by proactively acquiring
the materials and design information needed, and by expediting and monitoring the
completion of prerequisite work (Ballard, 1997).
The tool for work flow control was lookahead schedules. The construction industry
commonly uses lookahead schedules to focus supervisors’ attention on what work is
supposed to be done in the near future. Experiments in work flow control were
performed using lookahead schedules in a very different way than had been traditional. A
16
On the whole, improvements tended to be from PPC levels around 50% to the 65-70% level, with a
corresponding increase of 30% in productivity. Productivity improvement has ranged from 10% to
40%+. It is hypothesized that these differences result from different initial resource utilization
levels. For example, if initial utilization is 50%, corresponding to a PPC of 50%, then increasing
PPC to 70% is matched with an increase in utilization to 65%, which amounts to a 30%
improvement in productivity.

set of rules was proposed for allowing scheduled activities to remain or enter into each
of the three primary hierarchical levels of the scheduling system:
q Rule 1: Allow scheduled activities to remain in the master schedule unless positive knowledge
exists that the activity should not or cannot be executed when scheduled.
q Rule 2: Allow scheduled activities to remain in the lookahead window only if the planner is
confident that the activity can be made ready for execution when scheduled.
q Rule 3: Allow scheduled activities to be released for selection into weekly work plans only if all
constraints have been removed; i.e., only if the activity has in fact been made ready.
In addition, a set of objectives was proposed for the lookahead process:
q Shape work flow sequence and rate

q Match work flow and capacity
q Decompose master schedule activities into work packages and operations
q Develop detailed methods for executing work
q Maintain a backlog of ready work
Lookahead windows are structured such that week 1 is next week, the week for which a
weekly work plan is being produced. Week 2 is two weeks in the future. Week 3 is three
weeks in the future, and so on. Early data indicated that plans as close to scheduled
execution as Week 2 only contained about half the assignments that later appeared on the
weekly work plans for that week. Week 3’s percentage was only 40% (Ballard, 1997).
Failures to anticipate assignments appear to result in large part from lack of detailed
operations design and consequently could be remedied by incorporating detailed
operations design into the lookahead process (see First Run Studies in the Glossary of
Terms)..
While some operations design can be performed once the type of operation and its
general conditions are known, detailed design (certainly of construction operations)
cannot be done until certain additional information is available; i.e., information
regarding material staging areas, adjacent trades, competing claims on shared resources,
which individuals will be assigned to the work, etc. Consequently, detailed operations

design should be performed within the lookahead window, close in time to the scheduled
start of the operation. It is provisionally assumed that this timing requirement applies also
to design activities, but this will be subject to research findings.
3.6 Previous Applications of the Last Planner System to Design
Previous to the research reported in this dissertation, the Last Planner System had not
been applied in full to design production control. However, elements of the Last Planner
System have previously been applied to the management of production during the design
phase of projects. Koskela et al (1997) report that the traditional method of design
management on their test project was incapable of producing quality assignments, and
described the traditional method as follows:
“A drawing due date schedule, and a summary drawing circulation list form the
basis of design management. There are design meetings every two weeks or so,
where a contractor representative (site manager) acts as the chairman. The
contractor may also organize meetings to address specific problems between design
disciplines.
Thus, the primary control set is to reach the drawing due dates. Instead the order or
timing of individual design tasks is not scheduled, but are left for self-management
by the design team. In practice, the design tasks to be executed or input information
needed are discussed in the weekly design meetings. However, this procedure is not
perfect. There is no effective follow-up of decided action, and only a part of output
due is often available. It seems that often parties come unprepared to the meeting.
Design decisions are often made in improvized style, and decisions taken are not
always remembered in next meetings.” (p. 9)
Among the improvement actions taken was progressive detailing of the schedule (in one
month chunks), documentation of input information needs reported in design meetings,
explicit commitment of design supervisors to tasks in the next few weeks, monitoring of

assignments completed, and identification of reasons for noncompletion. As a result,
PPC soon rose to the 70% level. (The negative dip in design meetings [SK] 10-12
resulted from a major design change.) The design time for the building was 30% under
the standard time for the type of building and participants rated the method favorably, as
shown in Figure 3.7.
Miles (1998) reports a more complete and extensive implementation of the Last
Planner System, which included the lookahead process. Overall PPC averaged around
75%, design was completed approximately 10% earlier than anticipated, and design costs
were reduced by 7%. The research also replicated in design earlier findings in
construction (Howell, 1996) regarding the prevalence of plan quality failures. They
found that failures to complete assignments were divided in a ratio of 2 to 1 between
internal impacts they potentially could control and external impacts over which they had
little or no control.
Figure 3.7
REALIZATION % OF ASSIGNED DESIGN TASKS
100 % 80
90 % 70
80 %
60
70 %
Number of tasks
60 % 50
50 % PPC 40
40 % Number of tasks 30
30 %
20
20 %
10 % 10
0% 0
SK SK SK SK SK SK SK SK SK SK SK SK SK SK
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
VTT Building Technology 1997, VPT
PPC (Koskela et al, 1997)
Figure 3.8

2,00
question 3 question 5 The average replies, on a
1,50
scale of -2 to 2, to the
question 1
1,00 questions :
question 2 1. Was the availability of
0,50 input data improved?
question 4 2. Was the decision
0,00
2
making in design process
-0,50 improved?
3. Did the method yield
-1,00
benefits?
-1,50 4. Was it laborious to
work according to the
-2,00 method?
VTT Building Technology 1997, VPT 5. Should the method be
used in the next project?
Participant Survey (Koskela et al, 1997)
3.7 Evaluation of Last Planner against Criteria for Production Control

Systems
The criteria proposed in the previous chapter were:
q Variability is mitigated and remaining variability managed.

q Assignments are sound regarding their prerequisites.
q The realization of assignments is measured and monitored.
q Causes for failing to complete planned work are investigated and those causes are removed.
q A buffer of sound assignments is maintained for each crew or production unit.
q The prerequisites of upcoming assignments are actively made ready.
q The traditional schedule-push system is supplemented with pull techniques.
q Design production control facilitates work flow and value generation.
q The project is conceived as a temporary production system.
q Decision making is distributed in design production control systems.
q Design production contro resists the tendency toward local suboptimization.
That the Last Planner system of production control conforms to these criteria and
principles should be apparent. It is explicitly dedicated to the reduction and management
of variability. One of the quality criteria for assignments is soundness. PPC measurement
is central. Reasons for plan failure are tracked and analyzed. The lookahead process has
the explicit purpose of maintaining a buffer of sound tasks and also actively makes

scheduled tasks sound and facilitates work flow and value generation. Pulling is evident
both in the assignment quality criteria and in the make ready function within the
lookahead process. The framework for Last Planner is the conception of projects as
temporary production systems. Distributed decision making is evident in the requirement
that only quality assignments be accepted and also in the work flow control decisions to
be made within the lookahead process. And, finally, Last Planner resists the tendency
toward local suboptimization in its application of the criterion 'sequencing', applied both
in lookahead planning and to weekly work plan assignments.
3.8 Research Questions

This new production planning and management method has been in development since
1992 (Ballard & Howell 1997). It has been successfully used in a series of projects
ranging from oil refineries to commercial building construction. Hitherto it has been
used primarily in site construction, rather than in design and engineering and its
implementation has generally resulted in an improvement of work flow reliability, as
measured by percent plan complete, to 65-70% PPC. The questions driving this research
are: 1) What can be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation of the
Last Planner system of production control to increase plan reliability above the 70%
PPC level? 2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan
reliability during design processes ?
It is intuitively obvious that making work flow more reliable (predictable) can reduce
the cost or duration of the total project. When the numerous specialists can rely on
delivery of calculations, drawings, materials, and prerequisite work from other

specialists, both within and outside the project team, they are better able to plan their
own work, and better planning yields better performance. All else being equal, with
greater flow reliability should come more efficient production, less wasted effort and
rework, and better matching of resources to tasks. Even partial and limited
improvements in work flow reliability have demonstrated schedule and cost
improvements (Koskela et al., 1997 and Miles, 1998).
It is also apparent that construction benefits from greater reliability in the flow to the
construction site of information and materials. The impact of more reliable flow of design
information on project cost and duration is much greater in the construction phase of
projects than in design. When constructors can take action in advance of receiving design
information that coordinates the flow of labor and equipment, material deliveries, and
completion of prerequisite work, the project runs more smoothly and efficiently. We
have numerous instances from construction processes showing the benefits of increasing
material and information flow reliability even within the job site itself (Ballard, et al,
1996; Ballard and Howell, 1997).
Consequently, it is appropriate to focus the research question on improving work flow
reliability, with confidence that improving reliability is beneficial to project performance.
Subsequent research may seek to refine and quantify these causal relationships, but the
current research needed is to establish more effective methods for production control in
general and to extend production control techniques to design.

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
This thesis is about engineering management, not about epistemology. However, some
epistemological assumptions lie behind any attempt to add to knowledge, in whatever
field. Making those assumptions explicit allows the reader to better understand and
assess claims and inferences. The purpose of this introduction is to clarify
epistemological assumptions. Three issues will be addressed: 1) To what field of
knowledge is this thesis proposing to contribute? 2) Difficulties associated with
competing paradigms in the field. 3) The research strategy and methods used in this
thesis.
4.1.1 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT AS A FIELD OF STUDY
The topic of this thesis is engineering management, which is assumed to belong to the
general field of technology rather than science. Roozenburg and Eeckels propose that
technology and science pursue different goals through different processes or
methodologies (Roozenburg and Eeckels, 1995, pp. 32-35). Science pursues knowledge
acquisition, while “technology-the design, making, and using of artifacts-is a
systematized form of action.” Both can be pursued methodically. For both, certain rules
have been developed, the observance of which is supposed to “…contribute to efficient
performance of the activity involved.” Both processes involve reasoning. Which
conditions should these two different reasoning processes meet, so they can claim
reliability, meaning that the conclusions to which they lead are correct or true? The
criterion for reliability of scientific reasoning is the truth of the resulting statements. The
criterion for reliability of technological reasoning is the effectiveness of the action

process, based on that reasoning. Of course we may pose a ‘scientific question’ about a
technological claim: ‘Is it indeed true that the proposed action will be effective?’ That is
precisely the type of question posed in this thesis. ‘Is it true that implementing a specific
set of policies and techniques collectively called “the Last Planner system of production
control” improves the reliability of work flow?’
Given this ‘scientific’ question about a technological matter, what methodological
rules are appropriate? What kind of data is needed to answer the question and what kind
of inferences can we expect to make from such data? Many engineering management
theses pose claims about some aspect of engineering management action, use surveys to
collect data regarding same, then apply statistical analyses to test the adequacy of their
claim. This methodology works from a sample of a population to claims about the
population itself by statistical generalization. ‘If 79% of a 151 member sample report that
they include safety records in their prequalification of contractors, what generalization
can I make regarding all members of the population that prequalifies contractors?’ Rules
of statistical generalization exist for answering such questions.
However, statistical generalization from sample to population is an appropriate
methodology in the field of engineering management only if one is interested in testing
claims about current behavior. If the objective is to introduce new policies and behaviors
with the intent of improving engineering management practice, a different type of
methodology is needed. The world of engineering management practice may well be void
of practitioners following the proposed new policies and techniques, so there is no
sample to take. The question is not ‘How many people employ the Last Planner system

and with what effect?’ What’s needed is a type of experiment rather than a survey17. The
relevant question has the form ‘Will the desired consequences result from taking the
proposed action?’
What type of ‘experiment’ is needed to pursue the research questions: 1) What can
be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation of the Last Planner
system of production control to increase plan reliability as measured by Percent Plan
Complete? 2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan reliability
during design processes? As is said in the States, “experiment” is a loaded term.
Scholars differentiate between so-called ‘true’ experiments and quasi-experiments
(Campbell and Stanley, 1966). Some propose that case studies be conceived as a type of
experiment, having similar methodological rules (Yin, 1994). No position is taken here
regarding these matters except that some type of experiment is the appropriate
methodology for the type of research question posed as distinct from a survey of current
practice. ‘Experiment’ is conceived in practical terms to mean acting in the world with an
intended effect. As with all experiments, the researcher must be open to learning more or
different things than expected. As with all experiments, generalization from findings is
problematic.
Experiments don’t prove conclusions in the sense of logical deduction even in the
field of natural science. Experimental reasoning is a type of reductive reasoning from
particular to general quite unlike either formal logical reasoning or statistical
generalization. Everything depends on the specifics of given situations. What are the
17
Surveys may be used in conjunction with an experiment or a case study devoted to
implementation of a policy. For example, one could survey participants for opinions
regarding the effectiveness of the policy. The point here is that survey cannot be the
principal or primary research strategy for conducting policy evaluation.

relevant variables and to what extent can they be controlled? Some experiments in
natural science can approximately isolate one (set of) variable(s) from others and so
argue more persuasively that ‘things don’t burn in the absence of oxygen.’ However,
even that extreme type of argument depends essentially on the cohesion and consistency
of theories. As long as the phlogiston theory held sway, oxygen was invisible to the
mind’s eye (Kuhn, 1962). Generalization from experiments is fundamentally a matter of
telling a good story; i.e., having a good theory.
4.1.2 COMPETING ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT PARADIGMS
According to Thomas Kuhn, in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962),
theories emerge from paradigms, which are fundamental propositions and assumptions
about the subject matter that tend to remain implicit except in periods when paradigms
change. It could be argued that engineering management is currently in just such a period
of paradigm shift. In such periods, communication becomes even more perilous than
normal because the community of researchers and practitioners no longer share a
common language and presuppositions. The research question posed in this thesis
belongs to an emerging engineering management paradigm, in conflict with the prevailing
paradigm. Consequently, care must be taken lest the change in language and
presuppositions hinder the reader. That can best be done by making changes in language
and presuppositions explicit. Recognizing that paradigm shifts are periods of intellectual
conflict, it is not expected that all readers will accept the proposed changes.
In the midst of a paradigm shift, it is difficult and perhaps impossible to clearly
delineate the boundaries of the opposed camps. The conflict is itself producing that
delineation, at the conclusion of which the vanguished disappears into the sands of time

and the victor rides forward toward its own inevitable yet incomprehensible future
defeat. Nonetheless, an effort is required to clarify ‘where all this is coming from.’
The conflict in engineering management was presented in Chapter Two as an
opposition between those who adopt the view of production (the design and making of
physical artifacts) as transforming or converting inputs into outputs and those who add
the flow and value views. At first glance, this hardly appears to belong in the same league
as the shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric cosmology—perhaps the most famous
example of a paradigm shift. Nonetheless, the shift from the conversion to the flow and
value views is enormously important. A prime example is variability, which is itself
virtually invisible from the conversion-only view. Manufacturing has taken the lead in the
development of production theory, yet according to manufacturing theorists,
“…variability is not well understood in manufacturing….” (Hopp and Spearman, 1996,
p. 311) One can only assume that variability is even less well understood in the AEC
industry, where it would seem to be even more an issue. From a pure conversion view,
variability is managed primarily through the provision of schedule and cost contingencies
at the global level of projects, but is neglected in the structuring of work flows and
operations. Once contracts are let, variability ‘officially’ appears only in the form of
failure to meet contractual obligations.
Closely related to the conversion/flow distinction is that between project and
production management. Project management concepts and techniques are oriented to
the determination of project objectives and the means for achieving them (planning), then
to monitoring progress toward those objectives (control). This is a highly abstract
perspective, appropriate to any endeavour that is goal-driven and time-limited; i.e., to
projects. Unfortunately, project management concepts and techniques are employed in

attempts to manage production processes that take on project form without regard to the
specific nature of the projects and production to be managed. This is the more
unfortunate as many projects involve production; i.e., designing and making things.
Management of production projects requires the use of production management concepts
and techniques, which in turn are derivative from the conversion/flow/value views.
Is variability in processing times, arrival rates, errors, and breakdowns visible to
those comfortable with the project management/conversion paradigm? Such matters
might be considered to belong to ‘mere’ production; to be in the province of the
engineering or construction crafts rather than a matter for management. For such
readers, the research questions posed in this thesis may well appear either trivial or
irrelevant.
4.2 Research Design
4.2.1 RESEARCH QUESTION
Prior to selecting a research strategy, it is necessary to determine the research topic,
question, and purpose. The topic of this research is engineering management; more
specifically, improving control of design and construction processes on
architectural/engineering/construction projects. The questions driving this research are:
1) 1) What can be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation of the
Last Planner system of production control to increase plan reliability above the 70%
PPC level? 2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan

reliability during design processes18? The purpose of the research is to evaluate and
improve the effectiveness of this managerial policy and practice.
Evaluation is a type of applied or action research (McNeill, 1989), concerned with
technology in the broad sense; i.e., goal-oriented action. Evaluations typically pursue
improvement of the subject policy or practice in addition to rating effectiveness against
objectives. Simple rating is often made more difficult because of changes made mid-
stream in the policy or practice being evaluated. Opportunity for improvement seldom
waits on the desire for an unambiguous definition of what is to be evaluated. Indeed,
evaluation and improvement often blur together, especially when the researcher is
involved in the creation and implementation of the policies and practices being
implemented and evaluated, as is the case with this researcher and research. Some might
worry about an involved researcher’s objectivity. On the other hand, it may simply be
that technological research demands another concept and procedure than that of
traditional, fact finding research.
Evaluation does not fit neatly within the classification of traditional purposes of
enquiry; i.e., exploratory, descriptive, explanatory. The conceptual model for
technological research appears to have been drawn from the natural sciences, for which
the (immediate) goal is rather to understand than to change the world. Policy evaluation
involves exploration, description, and explanation, but subordinates those purposes to
the overriding purpose of improving practice. Nonetheless, improving practice requires
understanding what works and does not work, and to as great an extent as possible,
understanding why what works and what does not. Consequently, the purpose of this
18
In this thesis, the term “design” is used to designate both design and engineering
activities; not shaping space to aesthetic criteria.

research includes determining the extent to which the Last Planner system is effective
and why it is or is not effective.
4.2.2 RESEARCH STRATEGIES
The three traditional research strategies are experiment, survey, and case study (Robson,
1993, p.40). It has previously been argued in this chapter that a survey strategy is
inappropriate for the question posed by this research. The research strategies that could
possibly lend themselves to investigation of this research question include true
experiments, quasi-experiments, and case studies.
True experiments require establishing a control group that differs in no relevant way
from the experimental group. A true experiment was not appropriate because of the
difficulty of establishing a control group and lack of control over extraneous variables.
At first glance, it would seem to be possible to use a pre-test, post-test, single group
design, measuring flow reliability of the same group before and after implementation of
the Last Planner system. This approach has several difficulties: 1) Work flow reliability is
not an explicit, measured objective of traditional production control systems, so pre-test
quantitative data is not available, and 2) our ability to generalize from the experimental
results is limited by the possibility that those who choose to try the Last Planner method
are somehow different from those who do not so choose. The second difficulty could be
managed by conditioning and qualifying the inferences drawn from the experiment. The
first difficulty, the lack of quantitative data on flow reliability for the pre-test, could be
handled by substituting subjective data, in the form of interview results. However, this is
clearly an inferior solution, and so pushes the researcher to find a more effective research
strategy.

Quasi-experiments are “…experiments without random assignment to treatment and
comparison groups.” (Campbell and Stanley, 1966, cited in Robson, 1993, p. 98) They
admittedly sacrifice some of the rigor of true experiments, but are nonetheless
appropriate for a large range of inquiry, where true experiments are impossible or
inappropriate. The key issue regarding quasi-experiments is what inferences can be
drawn. It is proposed that inferences be justified in terms of study design, the context in
which the study occurs, and the pattern of results obtained (Cook and Campbell, 1979).
While this strategy responds to the difficulty of generalizability posed above, it still
leaves us without pre-test quantitative data on flow reliability in design, and
consequently, is not by itself an adequate strategy for pursuing this research.
Case study is “…a strategy for doing research through empirical investigation of a
contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of
evidence” (Robson, p. 52). Case studies are an appropriate research strategy when there
is little known about the topic of interest, in this case, for example, how production is
managed in design; and a change in theory or practice (production control) is proposed
(Robson, p.169). Multiple case studies allow the researcher to pursue a progressive
strategy, from exploration of a question to more focused examination of trials. Given the
policy nature of the research question being posed, a multiple case study strategy seems
appropriate.
4.3 Research Methods
4.3.1 DATA COLLECTION
Executing a research strategy requires methods for data collection and analysis. What
research methods are available, especially for case studies, the research strategy to be

pursued in this thesis? Of those available, which fit best with conditions such as
accessibility to people and documents, involvement of the researcher in managerial
decision making, time available, etc?
Methods for data collection include direct observation, interviews and questionnaires,
and documentary analysis. A variant of direct observation is participant observation; i.e.,
observational reporting by a researcher who is part of the group being observed.
All these methods of data collection are used in this research. In all cases, the
researcher served as a consultant to the project team, and consequently was in the role of
participant observer rather than a neutral observer. Specific observational data was
collected from participation in project coordination meetings and other events devoted to
planning and controlling design and construction processes. Interviews or questionnaires
were used in all cases to collect team member assessments, both during the course of
each project and at the conclusion of each. Interviews were also used to collect other
participants’ observations of meetings and events relevant to project control at which the
researcher was not present. Records collected included meeting minutes and memos,
various forms of schedules, and action item logs. In all cases, measurements were made
and recorded of short-term assignments, their due dates, actual completion dates, and
reasons for failure to complete assignments on their due dates.
4.3.2 DATA ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
McNeill (1989) suggests three key concepts: reliability, validity, and representativeness.
Reliability concerns the extent to which research can be repeated by others with the same
results. “Validity refers to the problem of whether the data collected is a true picture of
what is being studied.” Representativeness concerns whether the objects of study are
typical of others, and consequently, the extent to which we can generalize.

Reliability in action research is inevitably questionable because of the active role
played by the researcher in generating the phenomena being studied. Validity of findings
is especially difficult in survey research because of the potential difference between what
people say and what they do. It is less a problem for action research because of its public
nature and the availability of measurement data such as PPC (Percent Plan Complete).
Generalizability from the cases is a question that cannot be completely answered, no
more than it can for a limited number of laboratory experiments. However, unlike
laboratory experiments, policy implementations are made in the messy reality of
organizations and social relations. Few if any variables can be completely controlled. In
the case of this research, attempts are made to control key variables of implementation
and execution of the system. However, it is recognized that control is partial and
incomplete. Nonetheless, having demonstrated even on a single project that plan
reliability can be improved is sufficient to establish system effectiveness. Future work
may be devoted to better understanding the conditions necessary for such success.
Another difficulty is that plan reliability is measured by PPC ('percent plan complete';
i.e., percentage of assignments completed), but PPC does not directly measure plan
quality. First of all, success or failure in assignment completion may be a consequence
either of the quality of the assignment or of its execution. Since the Last Planner system
primarily attempts to improve plan quality, execution failures and therefore PPC may not
vary with its effectiveness. In addition, apart from unsound assignments, it is often
difficult to differentiate between an execution and a quality failure. Was the assignment
poorly defined or was the problem with the lack of effort or skill on the part of the
designers or builders?

Yet a further difficulty is the ambiguity of assignment ‘completion’ when assignments
have not been well defined. An assignment to “Produce as many piping drawings as you
can by the end of the week” might be marked as completed. The researcher can partially
guard against this problem by reviewing assignments for adequate definition. However, it
is virtually impossible for the researcher to prevent someone marking assignments
completed in order to ‘make the worse appear better’. The best defense might be to
convince those doing the marking that PPC is not a measure of individual but of system
performance. Unfortunately, that is not quite true. Individuals can be better or worse at
defining, sizing, sequencing, and assessing the soundness of assignments. PPC records of
individual front line supervisors can be revealing of those capabilities.
For these various reasons, evaluating the impact of the Last Planner system on plan
reliability is no straightforward matter. Similar difficulties beset improving the system,
which occurs through understanding and preventing plan quality failures. It is often
difficult to accurately determine reasons for failure. Unsoundness of assignments is the
easiest to determine because something is lacking that is needed to do the assignment
properly; e.g., a soils report, a stress calculation, a decision between alternative designs,
etc. Failures from sizing or sequencing are more difficult to identify. The later case
studies incorporate efforts to improve plan failure analysis based on experiences in the
previous cases.
4.3.3 CASE STUDIES
The research was done through a series of case studies. The first case, the CCSR project,
was an exploratory extension of the Last Planner system to the coordination of multiple
trades on a construction project. The primary improvement from that case was the
addition of the constraints analysis process. The second case, the Next Stage project, is

an exploratory case study on the extension of the Last Planner system to design
production control. Case Three shows the efforts of a speciality contractor, Pacific
Contracting, to improve its work flow reliability. It may well reveal the limits on a
speciality contractor implementing the Last Planner system unilaterally. Case Four, the
Old Chemistry Building Renovation project, shows the potential for improvement in
work flow reliability from a more thorough and deliberate education and training of the
project team. Case Five is the Zeneca Project, one of several implementations of the Last
Planner system undertaken by Barnes Construction with significant education and
coaching provided to the participants, and application of the latest thinking and
techniques in the Last Planner system.

CHAPTER FIVE: CASE ONE-CCSR PROJECT
5.1 Project Description and Last Planner Implementation
The CCSR Project was a laboratory building for Stanford University for which the
general contractor was Linbeck Construction. CCSR stood for Center for Clinical
Services Research. Prior to CCSR, the Last Planner system of production control had
been implemented primarily by contractors doing direct production work. There was
some question about how to apply Last Planner to subcontracted projects and how
effective that application might be. CCSR was selected as a pilot project to explore
feasibility and develop techniques. The specific research question was: How/Can plan
reliability be improved during site construction on largely subcontracted projects?
The research plan was to introduce the techniques listed below during weekly
subcontractor coordination meetings, then measure PPC and track reasons for
noncompletion of weekly assignments.19 In addition to the Last Planner procedures and
techniques previously developed, the intent was to do the following:
1. Detailed scheduling by phase20.
2. Intensive subcontractor involvement in phase scheduling.
3. Collection of status input from subs before the scheduling meeting.
4. Trying to select only tasks each week that are free of constraints.
19
The author introduced the system to the project and visited periodically during the
course of the subsequent three month pilot. Under the author's direction, Abraham
Katz, a Stanford graduate student, assisted the project superintendent with
scheduling and documentation as part of an independent study performed for
Professor Martin Fischer. The author is a consulting professor at Stanford and also at
the University of California at Berkeley.

5. Measuring PPC, identifying and acting on reasons.
A weekly planning cycle (Table 5.1) was established that specified who was to do what
during each week as regards planning and control. For example, subcontractors were to
status their tasks scheduled for the next 3 weeks by noon Monday, so the general
contractor (GC) could revise the short interval schedule, which in their case covered a 6
week lookahead period.
Status reporting consisted of completing a constraints analysis form, shown in Table
5.2, which shows selected scheduled tasks for three of the subcontractors on the project.
Common constraints on the readiness of scheduled tasks for assignment and execution
were included on the form; i.e., contract, design, submittals, materials, prerequisite work,
space, equipment, and labor. An open-ended, "other" category was also provided to
capture less common constraints. The intention was to focus attention and action on
making scheduled tasks ready by removing their constraints.
5.2 PPC and Reasons
Several kinds of data were collected: PPC and reasons, auxiliary documents such as
phase and master schedules, and the observations of the
researcher. PPC and reasons data was collected each week from
12/24/97 through 3/3/98, during the wettest season in the San
Francisco area in recorded history. Although the project had taken
weatherizing precautions to minimize weather-related delays, such
as type of fill material and drainage systems, nonetheless rain was
20
A phase was conceived in terms of a relatively independent facility system. For
example, the first phase-during which this research was conducted-was from

by far the most frequently cited reason for failing to completed
assignments on weekly work plans
Table 5.1
Friday A.M. Friday Noon Mon A.M. Mon P.M. Tu A.M. Tu P.M. Wed-Tu
GC collects GC GC revises
A/E and GC and subs meet GC produces All perform work
information produces a short
subs status to: 1) status this and on the current
needed to preliminary interval
tasks in next week's plan, distributes weekly work plan
produce the short short interval schedule
3 weeks and identify reasons for plan reliability and expedite
interval schedule; schedule &
give back to failing to complete charts and removal of
I. e.g. progress on gives to subs
GC final short
current week's and A/E planned tasks, and constraints on
agree on actions to interval future weeks' work
plan, updated
prevent repetition, schedule plans
delivery schedules
* Subs status tasks for and 2) finalize the
(rebar, responses
these constraints: lookahead
to RFIs, etc), * The plan
contract, design, schedule * GC reviews the
changes in reliability charts
submittals, matls, phase schedule
objectives or measure how
prerequisite work, and master
design well the team is
tools & eqpt, space, Guidelines: 1) schedule for
achieving its
* The short interval schedule labor, other. A/E Schedule for next needed
goal of
covers the construction tasks statuses tasks by week (Wed thru adjustment.
scheduling
required to achieve a schedule specifying the Tu) only tasks that
three weeks
milestone (e.g. slab-on-grade information or decision have no
ahead only
by 2/28/97) and the design needed. constraints or have
tasks that can
and supplier tasks providing *Both subs and A/E only constraints
be completed,
needed information and are answering the you know can be
and completing
materials. The team develops questions: 1) If removed in time. 2)
all tasks
a detailed schedule for each constraints are in your Schedule in the
scheduled up
phase of the job at least 4 control, are you 2nd and 3rd weeks
to three weeks
weeks before starting that confident they will be only tasks you are
ahead. The
phase. The phase schedule removed in time? 2) If confident can be
idea is that
then becomes the control constraints are not in made ready in
productivity will
schedule for short interval your control, what help time. The goal is
be higher when
scheduling each week. do you need from 100% plan
schedules are
others? reliability for the
reliable.
next three weeks.
CCSR-Weekly Planning Cycle
Table 5.2
CCSR Weekly Planning Cycle
excavation to slab-on-grade.

Table 5.2
Wills
II. I Activity Start Contract Design Sub Mate Pre- Space Equip Labor Other
mitta rial Requi ment
D ls site
950 Tunnel Lobby - 3/4/98
Walls Rebar
1040 Footings 6 & 7 3/4/98
Dowels
1220 Footings 6 & 7 3/4/98
Between A and
H Dowels, and
Footings E & G
Dowels
Between 4.5
and 8
630 Line 4 Wall 3/6/98
and Line C
Wall Rebar
344 Large Interior 3/9/98
Wall Line J
and H.8 Rebar
1154 Small Interior 3/9/98
Wall Rebar
Lines 6-K, and
6-M, 6-P
Cupertino
Electric
ID Activity Start Contract Design Sub Mate Pre- Space Equip Labor Other
mitta rial Requi ment
ls site
402 Inspection 3/4/98
Underground 3/5/98
Electrical N-W
S-W Quadrant
CCSR-Constraints Analysis Form
PPC was measured as shown in Figure 5.1, ranging from an initial measurement of 56%
during the week of 12/24/97 to 70% in the week of 3/3/98. Rain
was cited as the reason for 18 plan failures (see Figure 5.2) and
was a contributing reason to even more. Other

frequently cited reasons were lack of prerequisite work (14), availability or quality of
design information (8), and submittals (6).
Removing rain as a reason, weekly PPC would have been as shown in Figure 5.3, with a
mean PPC for the research period of 71% (149 of 211
assignments completed), which compared favorably to work flow
reliability achieved through previous application of the Last
Planner system to projects which were not subcontracted.21
Figure 5.1
90%
80%
70%
60%
% Completed
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
12/24/97 12/31/97 1/6/98 1/14/98 1/18/98 1/25/98 2/3/98 2/10/98 2/17/98 2/24/98 3/3/98
Week
CCSR-Weekly PPC
21
Ballard et al., 1996; Ballard and Howell, 1997

Table 5.3
Week 12/24/97 12/31/97 1/6/98 1/14/98 1/18/98 1/25/98 2/3/98 2/10/98 2/17/98 2/24/98 3/3/98
PPC 56% 86% 57% 67% 73% 75% 50% 53% 74% 44% 70%
Tasks 5 6 8 10 11 18 7 10 23 19 14
Completed
Tasks 9 7 14 15 15 24 14 19 31 43 20
Planned
Rain 1 1 3 6 2 2 1 2 18
Pre-Requisite 2 2 1 7 2 14
Design 1 1 4 2 8
Submittal 2 2 2 6
Other 1 1 1 1 4
Space 1 2 3
Equipment 2 2
Labor 1 1 2
Materials 1 1
Contract 0
CCSR-PPC and Reasons Data
Figure 5.2
25
20
Number Of Ocurrences
15
10
0
Rain Pre-Requisite Design Submittal Other Space Equipment Labor Materials Contract
Reason
CCSR-Reasons for Noncompletion

Figure 5.3
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Weekly PPC
50%
Mean PPC
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
97
97
98
98
98
8
8
/9
/9
/9
/9
/9
/9
4/
1/
6/
3/
3/
14
18
25
10
17
24
/2
/3
1/
2/
3/
1/
1/
1/
2/
2/
2/
12
12
CCSR-PPC without rain
As shown in Table 5.4, reasons for plan failure were categorized as either an Execution
Failure or a Plan Failure22. Of the 57 total failures23, 28 were determined to have resulted
from some defect in planning, while 29 were attributed to some defect in execution. The
18 failures caused by rain were categorized as execution failures. Disregarding rain, Plan
Failures would have amounted to 28 of 38, or 74%, further evidence that to a substantial
degree, our fate is in our own hands as regards planning and work flow. In even extreme
weather conditions, fully half of noncompletions resulted from poor planning.
22
This distinction was introduced into the Last Planner system in Ballard (1994).
23
Note the absence of detailed information for failures in the week of 12/24/97. Their
inclusion would add 4 noncompletions to the total.

Table 5.4
Week 12/31
Activity Reason Type Of Failure
item 6 - Sump Pit Lid Other: Low Priority Plan
Form
Week 1/6
item 3 - Underground Rain Execution
Plumbing
Item 13 - East Wall Design: RFI Execution
Forms
Item 32 - Elevator Wall Pre-Requisite: Not Plan
Forms Identified
Item 43 - 2&3 Line Equipment: Backhoe Execution
Excavation
Item 44 - A,C & 4 Line Equipment: Backhoe Execution
Excavation
Item 45 - 2&3 Line Rebar No Excavation Plan
Week 1/14
item 26 - Elevator 1&2 Floor Drain Submittals Plan
SOG Pour
Item 44 - Elevator Pour Shop Drawings Plan
Up to Tunnel Level
Item 43 - Form South Waiting Rebar Plan
East Quadrant Fabrication
Item 29 - Rebar J Line Waiting On Excavation Plan
Item 7 - Access Panel Submittal Plan
Week 1/18
210 - Design Change Not Back Plan
Rebar Submittals
270 - Interior Wall Rebar Not Back Plan
Submittals
A,C, & 4 Line Excavation Productivity/Rain Execution
A,C, & 4 Line Rebar No Excavation Plan
Week 1/25

Excavate Line F and 7 Rain Execution
(MidWest)
Interior Wall Forms Rain Execution
N,Q,L Lines Rebar Rain Execution
Installation
Reveals Location Waiting On Architect Plan
RFI Line 7 (Cupertino) Answer Incomplete Plan
Tunnel Piping Submittal Approval Plan
Week 2/3

Excavate F Line Rain Execution
Backfill Sump pit Rain Execution
Template Footings A and Rain Execution
4 Line
Electrical Conduit Rain Execution
Elevator 5
Small and Large Walls Rain Execution
Single Form
Wall Double up @ Waiting For Inspection Plan
Tunnel Lobby
Backfill N-E/S-E Quad. Rain Execution
Week 2/10

Plumbing between lines J Rain Execution
&M
Plumbing Line 6.5 Rain Execution
Small Interior Walls Form Eleveator Jack Drilling / Execution
Rain
Small Interior Walls Eleveator Jack Drilling / Execution
Double Up Rain
Large Interior Walls Form Eleveator Jack Drilling / Execution
Rain
Large Interior Walls Eleveator Jack Drilling / Execution
Double Up Rain
Small Wall Rebar Eleveator Jack Drilling / Execution
Rain
Line L wall Rebar Eleveator Jack Drilling / Execution
Rain
E & G Line Rebar from 2 Eleveator Jack Drilling / Execution
to 5 Rain

Week 2/17

Elevator Wal Backfill Rain Execution
Line J Excavation Backfill Execution
Plumbing/Rain/Mud
Line 6.5 Excavation After 6 & 7 Line Concrete Plan
Small Interior Wall Forms Design Change Plan
Small Walls Double Up Design Change Plan
Small Walls Rebar Design Change Plan
Perimeter Wall Line 2 Design Change Plan
Rebar
Footings 6 & 7 Rebar Rain Execution
Week 2/24

Planter Excavation Space Plan
Interior Small Walls Rebar Change/Permit Plan
Tunnel lobby SOG Sequence Change Plan
Line L Wall Rebar Change/Permit Plan
Line J Footing Rain Execution
Wall Line 2 From A-D Man Power Plan
Week 3/3
Footings E&G Excavation Space For Crane Plan
Line J Concrete Rain Execution
Footings 6&7 Concrete Rain Execution
Court Yard Planter Crane Reach Plan
Small Interior Walls Man Power Plan
Pipe Ties In @ Tunne Waiting On Stanford Info Plan
CCSR-Reasons for Noncompletion (detailed and categorized)
5.3 Observations
Subcontractors were not selected based on their understanding or willingness to
participate in the Last Planner production control system. They were selected based on
traditional criteria such as financial soundness and bid price. Subcontractor personnel
first learned about the system and the expectations regarding their roles and

responsibilities within it after coming to the site. Not surprisingly, some were more
capable and enthusiastic about participating than others. Even so, the project
superintendent continued to use the Last Planner system and reported that eventually all
foremen were participating and that they began to hold each other accountable for
keeping their weekly work plan commitments. Nonetheless, it would have been
preferable both to incorporate participation in the production control system in the
selection criteria and subcontracts, and also to have devoted more time and effort to
education and training.
Shortly after introducing the system, it became apparent that more active
involvement of others besides the site foremen was needed. Subcontractor project
managers were invited to attend the weekly meetings and were better able to understand
what was going on, and specifically better able to provide status information regarding
constraints such as submittals, design issues, fabrication, and deliveries. There was also
efforts made to involve the architect and design engineers on the project. Unfortunately,
those efforts failed, in part because of the stage of design completion and the fact that the
production architect/engineer was on a lump sum contract and concerned lest they run
out of money before they ran out of work.
Analysis of constraints was a key element introduced into the Last Planner system on
CCSR. Efforts to collect constraints information from subcontractors prior to the
coordination meeting were mostly unsuccessful, perhaps in large part because there is no
tradition in our industry for such activities. Consequently, much of meeting time was
dedicated to data collection rather than planning and problem solving.

5.4 Learnings
Learnings for future projects included:
q Incorporate production control requirements into subcontracts.
q Select subcontractors for their ability and willingness to participate in the production
control system.
q Involve owner, architect, and engineers in the production control process; preferably
from the beginning of design.
q Send to subcontractor project managers by email or fax each week constraint reports
with the next 5-6 weeks scheduled activities listed and ask them to status their
activities and report back. Make sure this happens so meeting time can be used for
planning and problem solving as opposed to data collection.
q Use team planning techniques to produce schedules for each phase of work, with
participation by foremen, superintendents, and designers.
q Incorporate reasons identification, analysis, and corrective action into weekly
coordinating meetings. Otherwise, there is a danger that incompletions become
accepted as unavoidable.

CHAPTER SIX: CASE 2-NEXT STAGE PROJECT
6.1 Description of the Project and Last Planner Implementation
Next Stage Development was created to design, build, and operate a series of 7,000 seat
enclosed amphitheaters in various U.S. cities, accommodating Broadway shows and
musical entertainment with amplified sound. Its first project was the Texas Showplace,
located in Dallas, Texas. Architect, design consultants, engineering firms, fabricators,
and construction contractors were selected based on qualifications and willingness to
participate in the project. The intent was to create an All-Star team by selecting the very
best.
The general contractor and equity participant in Next Stage Development is Linbeck
Construction, a founding member of the Lean Construction Institute, which was
cofounded by the author and Greg Howell in August, 1997. Next Stage’s management
chose to implement elements of “lean thinking” in the design and construction of its
facilities, specifically including the Last Planner method of production control. A Kickoff
Meeting was held for the production team May 19-21, 1998 in Houston, Texas and co-
facilitated by the author. Key outcomes of the meeting were 1) forming the fifty plus
individuals and multiple companies into a team, and 2) collectively producing a “value
stream” (Womack and Jones’ [1996] term for the flow diagram of a production process
that produces value for the stakeholders in the process). This author's report on the
Kickoff Meeting is included in Appendix A.
In the Kickoff Meeting, the participants were divided into a number of different
teams, corresponding roughly to the facility systems: Site/Civil, Structural, Enclosure/
Architectural, Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection, Theatrical/Interiors, and

Project Support. These teams remained intact as the administrative units for production
of the design.
After the Kickoff Meeting, the design process continued, initially with a target
completion date of 11/15/99. However, after roughly the middle of August, 1998, delays
in arranging equity financing and performance commitments caused the construction
start and end date to slip ever further out, until the project was finally suspended..
The design process was managed primarily through biweekly teleconference
(Appendix B). Tasks needing completion within the next two week period were logged
as Action Items (Appendix C) , with responsibility and due date assigned. Tasks needing
completion beyond the next two week period were logged as Issues (Appendix D).
Design decisions were recorded in a Design Decisions Log (Appendix E). When action
items were not completed as scheduled, reasons were assigned from a standard list
(Table 6.1) and a new due date was provided.
Table 6.1
1. Lack of decision
2. Lack of prerequisites
3. Lack of resources
4. Priority change
5. Insufficient time
6. Late start
7. Conflicting demands
8. Acts of God or the Devil
9. Project changes
10. Other
Next Stage-Reasons for Noncompletion
6.2 Data
6.2.1 PPC AND REASONS
The percentage of action items completed was tracked and published biweekly.

Table 6.2
4 week moving 57% 60% 63% 64% 58% 57% 55%
ave.
PPC - NextStage™ Texas ShowPlace Planning Percent Complete for Preconstruction Meetings
Week 7/1/98 7/15/98 7/29/98 8/12/98 8/26/98 9/9/98 9/23/98 10/7/98 10/21/98 11/4/98
PPC 46% 50% 63% 71% 57% 61% 68% 47% 54% 54%
Tasks 28 33 48 37 29 36 26 20 26 20
Completed
Tasks 61 66 76 52 51 59 38 43 48 37
Planned
Next Stage-PPC Data
The number of tasks or action items completed was divided by the number planned each
two week period and a percentage calculated. For example, In the two week period
beginning 11/4/98, 37 action items were assigned, of which 20 were completed, which
amounts to 54%. In addition, a four week moving average was calculated in order to
smooth the data and hopefully reveal trends. Through 11/4/98, the four week moving
average was 55%, calculated by averaging the previous four weeks data.
The columns in Figure 6.1 represent the aggregate average completion percentage
for all teams for each two week planning periods. PPC rose from an initial measurement
of 46% to above 70% in the 4th two week planning period. Subsequently, perhaps
connected with the end date slipping out, PPC rose and fell in a generally downward
trend, winding up around 55%.

Figure 6.1
Percent of Plan Completed
80%
70%
60%
50%
% Completed
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
7/1/98 7/15/98 7/29/98 8/12/98 8/26/98 9/9/98 9/23/98 10/7/98 10/21/98 11/4/98
Week
Next Stage PPC Data
There was considerable variation between teams. Through 9/9/98, PPC of the various
teams was as follows:
Site/Civil 78%
Structural 35%
Enclosure/Architectural 62%
Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection 55%
Theatrical/Interiors 52%
Project Support 85%
Table 6.3 exhibits the reasons categories used on the project and the frequency of reason
by category each week of the data collection period. It is apparent that three categories
dominate; i.e., lack of prerequisite work, insufficient time, and conflicting demands, in
that order. Unfortunately, such categories reveal little about root causes, so do not
facilitate corrective action.

Table 6.3
Reasons/ 7/1/ 7/15/ 7/29/98 8/12/98 8/26/98 9/9/98 9/23/98 10/7/ 10/21/9 11/4/9 12/2/9 All
Date 98 98 98 8 8 8 Wee
ks
Decision 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 17
Prerequisit 7 16 8 2 7 10 3 5 6 4 68
es
Resources 1 2 0 3
Priority 3 4 6 1 1 15
Change
Insufficient 5 6 1 6 6 10 8 10 6 4 62
Time
Late start 4 1 1 1 1 8
Conflicting 7 7 3 1 7 2 4 6 5 42
Demands
Acts of God 3 0 3
Project 0 1 1
Changes
Other 2 1 3
Next Stage-Reasons
6.2.2 OBSERVATIONS (See Appendices A and B for a report on the Kickoff meeting and
the author’s notes on project teleconferences.)
6.2.3 FEEDBACK FROM PARTICIPANTS
In October, 1998, the Site/Civil team agreed to select five plan failures and analyze them
to root causes by asking "Why?" up to five times in succession. Review of Site/Civil’s
analyses revealed that failure to understand criteria for successful completion of
assignments was the most common cause. Generally, failures were caused by not
understanding something critically important; City requirements for traffic analysis,
applicable codes for drainage, actual soil conditions, who had responsibility for what.
Presenting reasons were often quite distant from root causes and frequently the failing
party did not control the root cause. This sample also raised significant questions about
adherence to quality requirements for assignments. For example, why did Site/Civil
accept #1 (were they sure they had the capacity to take on this additional task?) or #2

(why did they think Mechanical would give them the information they needed in time for
Civil to do its work?)?
Failure #1: Failed to transmit site plan package to the
general contractor as promised. Reason provided: conflicting
demands—“I was overwhelmed during this period.” 5 why’s
revealed that the required time was underestimated for collecting
the information needed because the City’s requirements for traffic
analysis were different and greater than had been assumed.
Failure #2: Failed to revise and submit site drainage for
revised commissary roof drainage. Reason provided: prerequisite
work. The mechanical contractor originally provided drainage
data on pipe sizes, inverts, etc., then discovered that City codes
required additional collection points. Civil is waiting on
Mechanical to provide data on these additional collection points.
Failure #3: Failed to complete Road “D” plan to support
easement and operating items. Reason provided: prerequisite
work. The root cause was the same as for #1; i.e., failure to
understand City requirements for traffic analysis.
Failure #4: Failed to make an engineering determination
from 3 alternative pavement designs provided. Reason provided:
prerequisite work and insufficient time. “This item was not
anticipated. Why was it not anticipated? The City refused to
accept our pavement design. Why did they refuse to accept our

pavement design? Soil conditions were different from past
projects. The lack of prerequisite design work referred to the soil
borings in the borrow site. We also are investigating other sources
for dirt. Why was time insufficient? We neglected to plan for the
time required to mobilize soils testing.” The root cause was
assuming soil conditions would be the same. A process flow
diagram might have revealed the significance of that assumption.
Failure #5: Failed to determine/coordinate location of
easements after final design by Texas Utilities. Reason provided:
prerequisite work. “Prerequisite design work involved the
determination of routing and service options. There was confusion
over who was responsible. There were delays on the part of TU
Electric due to the absence of key people.” Failure to specify who
was to do what prevented requesting a specific commitment from
TU Electric. If TU Electric refused to make that commitment,
Civil could have refused to accept its action item until receipt of
their input. If TU Electric had committed, Civil might have been
informed when key people were absent.
Low PPC was attributed by some members of the management team to the lack of a
construction start date, and the consequent use by suppliers of resources on more urgent
projects. The high percentage of plan failures due to conflicting demands appears to be
supportive of this claim. However, this reasons analysis exercise and observation of
teleconferences suggests that contributing causes were failure to apply quality criteria to

assignments and failure to learn from plan failures through analysis and action on
reasons.
6.3 The Nature of the Design Process and Implications for Process
Control
'Making' has the job of conforming to requirements. Design produces those
requirements. If there were complete predictability of design's output, design would
generate no value. Consequently, variability plays a different role in design as opposed to
construction (Reinertsen, 1997). This raises the question of the type of control
appropriate to generative processes like design.
Let us first consider more closely the nature of the design process. Consider the task
of producing a piping isometric drawing versus the task of doing a piping layout for a
given area. In order to do the layout, the designer must know where other objects are
located in the space. She must know locations, dimensions, material compositions, and
operating characteristics of end-points. Some of these constraints and conditions of her
problem will not change. Some may well change in response to her difficulty achieving a
satisfactory solution. Consequently, the final piping layout will emerge from a process of
negotiation and adjustment, which cannot be determined in advance.
An example from the Next Stage case illustrates the point. The design team was
faced with selecting the theater seats, which might appear at first glance to be a fairly
simple problem of applying criteria derivative from the general level of 'quality' desired in
the facility balanced against the purchase price of the seats. In fact, the criteria are far
from straightforward or simple. Seats can either be mounted on the floor or riser-

mounted, the choice between them being interdependent with the structural pads for the
seats, which in turn constrains choices regarding the return air plenum, which can either
go through the floor or risers. That choice in turn impacts cleaning time and cost: how
quickly can they set up for the next show? As it happens, chairs come with different
types of upholstery, which can change the amount and type of smoke to be removed.
Components such as chairs may not be offered in all varieties; e.g., although we
might prefer a riser-mounted chair, such chairs only come with a certain type of
upholstery that would overload current plans for smoke removal. Everything's connected
to everything. We are designing one whole, so parts have the logic of part to whole,
potentially conflicting properties, etc. Product design decisions can impact the entire
range of 'ilties': buildability, operability, maintainability, etc., etc. In this case, delay in
selecting chairs delayed final determination of structural geometry, which in turn delayed
completion of the 3D model of the structure.
Overly 'rationalistic' models of problem solving processes are inappropriate for the
design process, which rather oscillates between criteria and alternatives, as in a good
conversation from which everyone learns (See Conklin and Weil's "Wicked Problems"
for another presentation of this idea.). In their Soft Systems Methodology, Checkland and
Scholes offer the same critique of 'hard' systems thinking as applied to action research;
i.e., such thinking failed because it assumed that objectives were defined and the task was
simply to determine how to achieve those objectives. Rather than conceiving the project
process to consist of determining design criteria then applying those criteria in the
production of the design, design should be conceived as a value generating process
dedicated to the progressive determination of both ends and means.

Specialization is essential for successful design. No one can understand in detail all
the different types of criteria, constraints, and alternatives that might be considered.
However, specialists tend toward suboptimization because they become advocates for
what they understand to be important, often without sufficient understanding of what
else is important24. Specialists are often advocates for the priority of specific criteria!
Given this value generating nature of design, controls based on the model of after-
the-fact detection of negative variances inevitably focus entirely on controlling time and
cost, leaving design quality as the dependent variable (p.199, Reinertsen, 1997). What is
needed is a production control system that explodes tasks near in time to their
performance, one that counteracts the tendency to suboptimization by explicitly focusing
common attention on design criteria, one that facilitates value generation and information
flow among specialists; i.e., the Last Planner system.
6.4 Evaluation of Last Planner Implementation
Four Next Stage project managers evaluated implementation and effectiveness of the
Last Planner system in response to a short survey produced by the author. The four rated
Last Planner effectiveness relative to traditional forms of project control 5, 5, 6, and 7 on
a scale of 1 to 7, which is equivalent to saying that Last Planner was 44% more effective
than traditional practice. However, examination of actual practice on the project suggests
tremendous opportunity for further improvement.
Plus: -attempted to select only assignments needed to release other work
-measured and communicated PPC and reasons
24
See Lloyd, et al., 1997 for the tendency to see one's task in terms of one's 'product'
rather than in terms of participating in an iterative, interactive, evolving process.

Minus: -minimal preparation of participants
-no work flow control and make ready process
-poor definition of assignments
-no action on reasons
Each action item was determined completed or incomplete, and reasons were selected
from the list of categories. However, no analysis of reasons was done, either during or
between teleconferences. There was also no apparent attempt to act on the reasons that
were identified. Work selection was tested against the ‘pull’ requirement by asking why
it was needed to be done now, but rarely were assignments rejected for unsoundness or
size. Frequently, it appeared that assignments were accepted with the implicit
commitment to do one’s best rather than an explicit commitment to complete based on
knowledge of the execution process, understanding of relevant criteria, identification of
needed informational inputs, and allocation of necessary resources. Assignments were
not systematically exploded into an operations level of detail and, consequently, the
interdependence of assignments was often not understood.
In summary, Next Stage did not fully change its production control system from the
traditional, and either did not implement or did not implement completely the elements of
the Last Planner system; i.e., work flow control, production unit control, and a learning
process. Nonetheless, the Next Stage experience was valuable for its contributions to
learning and further development of the Last Planner System. Much has been learned
and developed since the Next Stage case. Opportunities and needs for the future are well
summarized by Ed Beck, Linbeck project manager, in the following response to the
author's survey question: What improvements in LPS (Last Planner System) objectives,
procedures, or implementation do you suggest for future projects?

q Client buy-in at the user level
q Complete orientation of all participants
q A simpler value stream
q A more systematic format
q A better list of reasons to categorize planning failures
q Utilization of the 5 why's
q Utilization of the 6 week lookahead
q A more expeditious way to meet and create a weekly plan
q Periodic revisiting of the value stream
q Publishing graphs and reasons and answers to questions to all
q A tune-up meeting at strategic times along the course of the project
q Periodic assessment comparing what is happening versus what normally happens.
6.5 Learnings
The Next Stage case study reinforced the need to improve plan reliability in design
processes and also suggested improvements to the production control system required to
achieve better plan reliability.
-make sure project management understands the production control system and
its objectives
-provide additional training to participants
-include ‘puller’ on action item log
-explode scheduled activities using the Activity Definition Model; i.e., specify the
process to be used to complete an assignment, the directives or criteria to which

it must conform, the prerequisite work needed from others, and the resources
necessary to do the work.
-establish a lookahead window with screening criteria for advancement
-track the status of assignments as they move through the lookahead window
-adopt a sizing criterion for assignments that consistently demands less output
from production units than their estimated capacity to accommodate variability in
capacity. (This seems especially important for design. Other studies suggest that
routinely 20% of capacity is used to do needed but previously undefined work
each week.)
-improve the categorization of reasons and reasons analysis to facilitate
implementation of the learning process, which consists of: analyze reasons to
actionable causes, assign or take corrective action, and record results.

CHAPTER SEVEN: CASE THREE-PACIFIC
CONTRACTING
Pacific Contracting is a speciality contractor primarily involved in design and installation
of building envelopes; i.e., cladding and roofing systems. The author began working with
the company in 1995 as a consultant. Subsequently, Pacific Contracting became a charter
member of the Lean Construction Institute and its President, Todd Zabelle, became an
LCI partner.
Implementation of the Last Planner system by a speciality contractor is important for
several reasons. First of all, specialists work for many general contractors, not all of
whom may endorse the Last Planner principles and objectives. Secondly, the specialist
has a different role in the production system than does a general contractor or
construction manager. The latter's role is primarily to coordinate production, but the
production itself is done by specialists, even if they are directly employed by the general
contractor. Drawing on a manufacturing analogy, the speciality contractor is like a job
shop, while the coordinator is like an assembler. Many of the functions of the Last
Planner system, such as matching load to capacity, fall more particularly on the specialist,
whether design or construction, than on the coordinator of design or construction
processes.

7.2 PPC and Reasons
Pacific Contracting, using the latest tools and techniques developed by the author,
participated in the effort to discover how to improve PPC to and above the 90% level, an
LCI research project. The data collection period extended for 41 weeks, ending in mid-
October, 199925. As can be seen from Figure 7.1, there appears to have been a period of
improvement through Week 19, then a decline followed by another upward trend
through Week 28, followed by a brief period of decline, with finally another upward
trend through the period of data collection.
Figure 7.1
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ee 0
W 12
W 14
W 16
W 18
W 20
W 22
W 24
W 26
W 28
W 30
W 32
W 34
W 36
W 38
40
4
8
1
k
k
ee
ee
ee
k
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
W
PercentPlanComplete90%43%67% 4WeekMovingAverage
Pacific Contracting-PPC
25
The LCI research on improving PPC continued beyond the data collection period
reported in this dissertation.

A possible explanation for the decline is that a very small number of assignments were
actually made ready in time to be placed on weekly work plans, so that a single
noncompletion registered as a relatively large percentage of failures. As shown in Table
7.1, from Week 17 through Week 23, no more than 4 tasks were assigned on weekly
work plans. From Week 19 through 23, at least one weekly assignment was not
completed, limiting PPC to a maximum of 75%. This likely impact of lookahead planning
on PPC adds impetus to the need for future development of metrics specifically for the
lookahead process and its improvement.
Table 7.1
Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Percent Plan Complete 90% 43% 67% 50% 67% 100% 69% 100%
4 Week Moving Average 0% 0% 0% 65% 58% 70% 71% 79%
Activities Scheduled 10 7 9 8 12 8 13 5
Activities Complete 9 3 6 4 8 8 9 5
Total Incompletions 1 4 3 4 4 0 4 0
Client 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Engineering 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Materials 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Craft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pre-Requisite 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Subcontractor 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0
Plan 1 1 1 3 3 0 1 0
Weather 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Week 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Client 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equipment 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Craft 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Plan 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Weather 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
Week 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Client 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Craft 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
Plan 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
Weather 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Week 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Client 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Materials 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Craft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plan 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
Weather 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Week 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Percent Plan Complete80% 100% 86% 90% 100% 71% 79% 82% 92%
4 Week Moving Average65% 73% 78% 88% 91% 86% 83% 81% 82%
Activities Scheduled 5 2 7 10 4 7 14 11 12
Activities Complete 4 2 6 9 4 5 11 9 11
Total Incompletions 1 0 1 1 0 2 3 2 1
Activities Scheduled 5 2 7 10 4 7 14 11 12
Client 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Craft 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0
Pre-Requisite 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Subcontractor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plan 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0
Weather 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pacific Contracting-PPC Data and Reasons
Pacific Contracting categorized reasons for noncompletion of weekly assignments in
terms of Client, Engineering, Materials, Equipment, Craft, Prerequisite Work,
Subcontractor, Plan, or Weather. Bret Zabelle, Operations Manager for Pacific
Contracting, provided the following comments regarding their reasons categories:
"As I started to write our definition of engineering as a reason, I had a moment of
clarity. Engineering cannot be a reason. You either have the engineering for a
task complete or you don't. If you don't have the engineering complete, the task
should not be scheduled on a work plan. The only instances I can think of for
engineering is miscalculation of quantities, structural collapse or failure.
"Craft:When all the resources are available to perform a task on the WWP
(weekly work plan) and the craft workers do something different. Also refers to
craft absenteeism.

"Subcontractor: This is similar to engineering as a reason. If we have
a subcontractor who did not complete prerequisite work in front of us, we should
not put our activity on the WWP until it is available. Also refers to fabricators.
They promise components will be fabricated by a certain date and fail.
"Plan: Planning failures occur when we do stupid things like schedule
activities if the engineering is not complete, materials, tools and workers are not
available, our own subcontractors or other contractors have not completed
prerequisite activities. Sometimes we schedule tasks that are more complex than
we thought."
Considering reasons for failures to complete weekly assignments, as shown in Table 7.1
and also graphically in Figure 7.2, much the most common reason was "Plan", Pacific
Contracting's own disregard of assignment quality criteria or inability to understand how
the planned work was to be done, and to anticipate all the steps and resources necessary.
The next most frequent reason was errors of some sort in execution of assignments by
Pacific Contracting's craft supervisors and workers.
Altogether, the vast majority of weekly work plan failures were well within the
control of Pacific Contracting. However, it should be remembered that matters might be
just the opposite as regards the lookahead process which makes ready assignments for
selection in weekly work plans. Again, we are reminded of the importance of measuring
and analyzing lookahead process performance.

Figure 7.2
Weather Client
Engineering
Materials
Plan Equipment
Craft
Pre-Requisite
Subcontractor
Pacific Contracting-Reasons
7.3 Observations
During the period of data collection, Pacific Contracting did not work with a single
general contractor that embraced the Last Planner system. Specialists appear to have
tremendous difficulty achieving high levels of PPC when not working on 'last planner'
projects. The consequent lack of resource utilization is a waste the recovery of which
could contribute to faster or more projects. On the other side of the matter, speciality
contractor efforts to avoid that waste seem inevitably to decrease both plan reliability and
progress of projects as seen from the perspective of project coordinators.
Once work is available to speciality contractors, they appear-based on this one
instance-to be able to achieve a relatively high level of plan reliability, limited mostly by
their own ability to plan and execute.

7.4 Learnings
For speciality contractors to increase plan reliability to the 90% level and above requires
that the coordinators of the projects on which they work embrace the Last Planner
system's objectives and especially the lookahead process, which is dedicated to making
tasks ready for assignment and to balancing load and capacity. For their part, speciality
contractors must adhere to the discipline of Last Planner rules and perhaps also use the
technique of first run studies26 more consistently and well.
26
First run studies are extensive planning of upcoming operations by a cross functional
team including representatives of those who are to do the first operation, followed
by methodical study, redesign of the operation, and retrial until a standard is
established to meet or beat for execution of that operation. First run studies follow
the Shewhart Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, made popular by W. Edwards Deming.

CHAPTER EIGHT: CASE FOUR-OLD CHEMISTRY
BUILDING RENOVATION PROJECT
Linbeck Construction, a founding member of the Lean Construction Institute, was the
general contractor for Rice University's Old Chemistry Building Renovation Project in
Houston, Texas. Linbeck brought John Pasch, Rice's facilities manager, to the Neenan
Company's annual winter conference in 1998. At that conference, James Womack spoke
on the need and opportunity to extend lean production (manufacturing) concepts and
techniques to the construction industry and Greg Howell27 shared the Lean Construction
Institute's vision of that application. John was sufficiently impressed that he allowed
Linbeck to negotiate with its primary subcontractors rather than competitively bid them
as had been the University's practice. At this point, a substantial building program stood
in the offing and Linbeck was one of three contractors competing for the lion's share.
Kathy Jones, Linbeck's project manager, had the author conduct several educational
and training sessions with project personnel, including the architect. Unfortunately, the
architect refused to participate in the Last Planner system. However, the subcontractors
became totally committed and enthusiastic about the planning process during the course
of the job, as did Rice University's personnel. The project was completed to a very
aggressive schedule to the satisfaction of users and within the budget. Rice University
was so well pleased with the performance that Linbeck won its Fondren Library Project,
and is well situated to do roughly half a billion dollars worth of work in the Rice
Program over the next several years.

8.2 PPC and Reasons
The author facilitated team scheduling exercises that produced an overall project
schedule, then a more detailed schedule for the initial phase of work and the design
development needed to support it. That phase schedule became the driver for weekly
work planning, the results of which are shown in Figure 8.1.
Over a period of approximately eleven weeks, PPC rose to a level of 85% or so, then
stabilized at that level for the duration of the project. This was an unprecedented
accomplishment at the time, and resulted from the dedication of the owner, general
contractor, and subcontractor personnel to the Last Planner System and its goal of plan
reliability. Kathy Jones reinforced the Last Planner principles by fining those who used
the expression 'I hope' or 'hopefully' in connection with a commitment to do work. (The
fine was a six pack of beer to be collected at the project-ending celebration.) The project
manager for one subcontractor volunteered at an LCI research workshop that "It's fun to
go to work now!"
27
Co-founder with the author of the Lean Construction Institute in August, 1997.

Figure 8.1
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
PPC
50.0%
4 Wk Mvg Ave.
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Old Chemistry Building-PPC
Table 8.1
Date 1/25/99 2/1/99 2/8/99 2/15/99 2/22/99 2/29/99 3/8/99 3/15/99 3/22/99 3/29/99 4/5/99 4/12/99 4/19/99 4/26/99
Tasks 20 38 40 48 49 44 46 46 56 57 71 66 66 66
Completed
Tasks 39 55 49 57 61 60 57 57 66 66 77 76 75 82
Assigned
Date 5/3/99 5/10/99 5/17/99 5/24/99 6/1/99 6/7/99 6/14/99 6/21/99 6/28/99 7/6/99 7/12/99 7/19/99 7/26/99
Tasks 60 53 65 64 50 55 65 69 62 62 66 63 73
Completed
Tasks 64 62 72 69 56 64 72 80 67 83 76 71 80
Assigned
Date 8/2/99 8/9/99

Tasks Completed 59 53
Tasks Assigned 67 65
Old Chemistry Building-PPC Data

Of the relatively few failures to complete weekly assignments, most were caused by lack
of manpower or failure to complete prerequisite work ("make ready"). As this occurred
during a building boom in the Houston area, the low frequency of manpower problems is
a testament to the subcontractors' dedication to the project.
The remaining reasons categories were Schedule Accuracy (the assignment shouldn't
have been made), Material Deliveries, Design Coordination, Equipment (part of the
building, not construction equipment), Rework, Weather, and Overcrowding.
Figure 8.2
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
k
.
er
cy
ng
dy
er
.
el
rd
el
or
.D
w
th
ra
ea
'l D
di
oo
ew
po
ea
cu
w
pt
R
.C
at
ro
R
an
W
Eq
Ac
e
rc
es
ak
M
ve
d.
D
M
he
O
Sc
Old Chemistry Building-Reasons for Noncompletions
8.3 Observations
Lack of participation by the architect was a serious deficiency on the project, perhaps
concealed by the high PPC and low incidence of design coordination as a reason for
failing to complete weekly work plan assignments. Design problems did impact the job,
but that impact would only be evident in schedule changes and in the lookahead process.

Unfortunately, the lookahead process was not fully and formally developed on this
project, in part because it was still being defined and its techniques created at the time
Old Chemistry was initiated.
Linbeck intends to extend the Last Planner System to the design phase of the
Fondren Library Project, and has Rice University's agreement to keep the same
subcontractors in place for that project. This commercial alliance among Linbeck and its
'preferred' suppliers is a critical component in the recipe for success.
8.4 Learnings
On the positive side, the Old Chemistry Building Renovation Project demonstrated that
PPC could be maintained consistently at a level of 85% through development and
nurturing of teamwork and the subsequent team enforcement of norms and rules. The
commercial success of the general contractor and its subcontractors indicates the power
and impact of increasing plan reliability. Specific techniques that were trialed successfully
on this project included team scheduling, specifically team production of detailed phase
schedules, resulting from intense negotiation among the speciality contractors
themselves, within a schedule framework established by the general contractor.
As for things that might be done better on future projects, implementation of Last
Planner in design and involvement of design professionals is certainly number one. Lesser
issues, but still important, include the need for a more transparent lookahead process and
the need for more explicit learning from analysis and action on reasons for failures.

CHAPTER NINE: CASE FIVE-ZENECA PROJECT
9.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LAST PLANNER IMPLEMENTATION
Barnes Construction is a member of the Lean Construction Institute and is embarked on
transforming itself into a lean organization. Part of that transformation is to be achieved
by implementation and perfection of the Last Planner system of production control.
Implementation of the Last Planner system began with classroom training, followed by
site visits and coaching, all provided by the author.
Zeneca is a biotechnology company located in Richmond, California near San
Francisco. The Zeneca Project reported here is one of a series of seismic retrofits of
laboratory and office buildings being performed by Barnes. Of all the cases included in
this dissertation, the Barnes case incorporates most of all previous learnings and the
latest developments in technique and implementation. One of the critical improvements
to be seen is in the methodical analysis and removal of constraints from scheduled tasks.
9.2 PPC AND REASONS
As shown in Figure 9.1, the period of data collection extended from the week of 6/26/99
through the week of 10/11/99. It appears that PPC gradually improved throughout that
period until culminating in four consecutive weeks in which PPC measured 100%.

Figure 9.1
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
6/28/99 7/6/99 7/12/99 7/19/99 7/26/99 8/2/99 8/9/99 8/16/99 8/23/99 8/30/99 9/7/99 9/13/99 9/20/99 9/27/99 10/4/99 10/11/99 10/18/99 10/25/99 11/1/99
PPC 4 Wk Mvg Ave
Zeneca-PPC
With such a high percentage of weekly assignments completed, there were relatively few
Figure 9.2
Sub Manpower Decided to hold off

6% 6% Pulled from wrong week
Installation Error 6%
6%
Space conflict
11%
Not Defined
16%
Theft of Bobcat wheel

6%
Design
11%
Prerequisite Work
32%
Zeneca-Reasons

noncompletions, and so few occasions for identifying reasons for noncompletions. Such
as were identified are shown in Figure 9.2.
9.3 CONSTRAINT ANALYSIS AND MAKE READY
The technique of constraints analysis, pioneered on the CCSR Project, became a key tool
in Zeneca's success. As originally envisioned, status information regarding constraints
was collected each week on all tasks scheduled to start within the next 6 weeks. Notes
and action items were added to the constraint analysis form to serve as a reminder to
various parties regarding the actions they needed to take to make tasks ready in time to
be performed. The primary rule applied to this lookahead process was to only allow tasks
to retain their scheduled starts if the planners were confident they could be made ready in
time. Otherwise, they were to appeal for help to higher levels of their organizations, then,
if make ready actions indeed could not be taken in time, defer the task until it could be
made ready.
Following is a statement, by this writer, of the directives governing the Last Planner
system installation and execution at Barnes:
Barnes Production Control Requirements
1. Hold weekly subcontractor coordination meetings on each project. Insist

subcontractors give input into weekly work plans and lookahead schedules.
2. Select weekly work plan assignments from those that meet quality criteria of
definition, soundness, sequence, and size. Issue weekly work plans and expect
every superintendent and foreman to have them in their pocket. Use the weekly
work plan form and be sure to complete all sections, including make ready needs
and workable backlog. When assigned tasks extend beyond one week, specify
what work is to be completed within the week.
3. Each week, calculate the percent plan complete (PPC) for the previous week and
identify reasons for each assignment that was not completed. Try to get to root

or actionable causes. Don't beat people up for plan failure, but insist that they
learn from their experience.
4. Maintain a 5 week lookahead schedule at a level of detail needed to identify make
ready needs. Add 1 week each week.
5. Do constraints analysis on each activity on the 5 week lookahead schedule, using
the constraints analysis form. Remember to mark an activity as unconstrained
only if you have positive knowledge that the constraint does not exist or has been
removed ('guilty until proven innocent').
6. Each week, email or fax the constraints analysis form to each subcontractor that
has activities scheduled on the lookahead and ask them to provide status
information.
7. Assign make ready actions as appropriate; e.g., the technical engineer will resolve
RFIs, the project sponsor will expedite outstanding payments, the project
controls manager will deal with contract and change order issues, etc. Obviously,
subcontractors will also have make ready tasks such as generating submittals,
expediting fabrication and deliveries, acquiring necessary equipment and tools,
reserving labor, etc.
8. Maintain a statused and current master project schedule.
9. Involve subcontractors in producing master and phase schedules. Phase schedules
are detailed plans for completing a specific phase of project work; e.g., site
preparation, foundations, superstructure, skin, etc. Use the team scheduling
technique in which participants describe activities on sheets that they stick on a
wall, then negotiate details, sequencing, etc.
Project Checklist
1. Does the project hold weekly subcontractor coordinating meetings?

2. Are weekly work plan forms completed each week, including make ready needs
and workable backlog?
3. Are weekly assignments adequately defined; e.g., is the work to be completed
during the week specified?
4. Are weekly work plans used in the field; e.g., does every foreman and
superintendent carry it with them?
5. Are weekly work plans reviewed in the coordinating meetings, PPC calculated,
and reasons identified?
6. Is a 5 week lookahead schedule maintained, with one week added each week?
7. Are subcontractors requested each week to provide status information regarding
constraints on the activities listed on the project lookahead schedule?
8. Which subcontractors provide information each week for constraints analysis?
Which subcontractors don't?
9. Are make ready actions assigned each week?
10. What people carry out their make ready assignments? Who doesn't?
11. Is the rule followed that activities keep their scheduled dates only if the planner is
confident they can be made ready in time?
12. Of those activities scheduled to start within the next 3 weeks, what percentage
are not made ready?

13. Is the rule followed to only allow activities onto weekly work plans that have had
all constraints removed that could be removed before the start of the plan week?
14. What is the project's PPC? Is it rising, falling, or staying the same?
15. What are the dominant reasons for failing to complete assignments on weekly
work plans?
16. Is a master project schedule and phase schedule maintained current and updated
once a week?
17. Are subcontractors involved in producing master and phase schedules using team
scheduling?
Table 9.1
Activity Activity Description Planned Start

Responsible
Contract / Design Materials LaborEquipment Prereq Weather
ID Date Change Orders

Party AE CompleteSubmittals RFI's Work
E-20 First Floor
Install dowel template 12-Aug NLB X X X X X X X Above X
Pour mat slab @E-10 17-Aug NLB X X X X Concrete X X Above X
Move tower shoring to E-14

23-Aug Safway X X X X X X Crane Above X
Hard demo (Beams) 30-Aug Cal-Wrecking

X X X X X X X Above X
One side walls 13-Sep Peck & Hiller

X X X X X X X Collectors X
Install wall rebar 16-Sep McGrathX X X X X X X Above X
Epoxy dowels 22-Sep NLB X X X X X X X Above X
Pull Test 23-Sep ICI X X X X X X X Above X
Close forms 24-Sep Peck & Hiller

X X X X X X X Above X
E-10 E-10
Fir First Floor
Install tower shoring 23-Aug Safway X X X X X X Crane Cure X
Excavate footing 13-Sep Cal-Wrecking

X X X Possible footing resize
X X Collectors X
Chip footings if necessary

16-Sep Cal-Wrecking
X X XIf necessary X X X X X
Drill and epoxy dowels @mat

16-Sep NLB X X X X X X X X X
Install rebar @mat 17-Sep McGrathX X X X X X X Above X
Rebar template 24-Sep NLB X X X X X X X Above X
Zeneca-Constraint Analysis Form

9.4 OBSERVATIONS
The extremely high level of plan reliability achieved on Zeneca may have resulted in part
from its being relatively simple, not technically but rather operationally. A relatively few
subcontractors were involved28, and few were required to work in close proximity, either
temporally or spatially. On the other hand, the production control processes and
techniques employed appear also to have made a contribution. Apart from the Old
Chemistry Building Renovation Project, in no other case were subcontractors more
intimately involved in the lookahead process or in weekly work planning. Further, the
contractor's execution of the lookahead process, particularly constraints analysis and
assignment of action items to remove constraints, was much more rigorous than on
previous projects.
9.5 LEARNINGS
It is possible to achieve PPC levels above 90% over an extended period of time through
consistent implementation of Last Planner system techniques. Especially important in
28
Once the rebar installation was well underway, rarely were more than 5 subcontractors
scheduled to work on the project in any week. Safway-shoring, McGrath-rebar
installation, ICI-rebar inspection, Peck & Hiller-formwork, Cal-Wrecking-
demolition, National-concrete coring. By contrast, on an interiors project underway
at the same time, an average of 10 subcontractors were given assignments each
week.

this regard are constraint analysis and subcontractor participation in planning and
control.

CHAPTER TEN: CONCLUSIONS
10.1 Summary of Case Study Results
Data collection for the five case studies was concluded in the following order and dates,
all within the period in which this dissertation was in progress:
q Case One-CCSR Project Jan-Mar '98
q Case Two-Next Stage July-Nov '98
q Case Three-Pacific Contracting Jan-Oct '99
q Case Four-Old Chemistry Building Renovation Feb-Aug '99
q Case Five-Zeneca June-Oct '99
CCSR addressed the question how to apply the Last Planner system to subcontracted
projects as distinct from the direct hire production to which for the most part it had
previously been applied. The application was successful and piloted constraints analysis
as a tool for evaluating the readiness of potential assignments and for identifying the
actions needed to make them ready.
Next Stage was an exploratory case study on the application of Last Planner to
design. Interruption of the project prevents drawing firm conclusions, however
participants considered the Last Planner system successful and superior to traditional
methods of project control. Numerous learnings were drawn from the case, perhaps the
most important being the need to explode design tasks into operational detail near in time
to their execution, in order to accommodate the self-generating characteristic of the
design process. The Activity Definition Model was created for that purpose and has
subsequently been applied extensively for the purpose of task explosion.

The Pacific Contracting case explored the limitations faced by a speciality contractor
trying to unilaterally apply the Last Planner system. Diligent adherence to system rules
allowed the contractor to achieve an average 76% PPC level. However, several periods
of precipitously lower performance appear to have been correlated with failure of their
customer projects to make work ready when scheduled, reducing the amount of work
available to Pacific Contracting and consequently making them vulnerable to low PPC
should they experience any plan failures at all. Another interesting finding was that plan
failures within their control tended to be primarily from lack of detailed, advance
operations design. Pacific Contracting has rededicated themselves to the routine use of
First Run Studies in response to this finding.
The Old Chemistry Building Renovation case revealed a sustained PPC of 85%. With
the opportunity to benefit from previous cases, the project team also added a very
successful education and team building component to achieve this breakthrough result.
The fifth and last case study, Barnes Construction's Zeneca Project, sustained a PPC
near 100%, apparently settling the question whether or not that level of plan reliability
can be achieved. It is not suggested that every project will be able to achieve the same
results even should they imitate Zeneca's rigorous application of Last Planner rules and
techniques. The relatively few subcontractors involved during the measurement period
may have simplified the coordination problem beyond the norm. However, the extensive
involvement of subcontractors in planning and constraints analysis is a model to be
imitated by all.
10.2 Research Question: What can be done by way of tools provided and
control to increase plan reliability above the 70% PPC level?

Review of the case studies suggests that plan reliability improves with adherence to the
Last Planner system rules, with extensive education and involvement of participants, and
with use of techniques such as task explosion, constraints analysis, make ready actions,
shielding production from uncertainty through selection of quality assignments, and
identification and action on reasons for failing to complete assigned tasks. The PPC
levels recorded were significantly better than previous measurements. Previously,
measured PPC above 70% was very rare (Ballard and Howell, 1997). In the latter three
case studies, all achieved PPC levels of 76% or higher, with Zeneca consistently above
90%.
10.3 Research Question: How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied

to increase plan reliability during design processes?
Evidence for settling this question is not so decisive. The exploratory case suggested but
did not confirm that Last Planner can effectively be applied to design production control.
However, the Last Planner system as now developed appears to be precisely matched to
the nature of the design process. Unlike making, which covers a wide range of tasks,
including making multiple copies of a single design, design itself is essentially generative.
As such, a process control system is required that does not assume a simple matching of
criteria and design alternatives, but rather facilitates a progressive, dialectical
development of both.
Perhaps the most valuable contribution of the case was its clarification of the nature
of the design process and consequently of the obstacles to management control. The
primary response to those obstacles has been the development and implementation of the
Activity Definition Model as a technique for exploding design tasks as they enter the

lookahead process. Ideas and suggestions for further research on this question are
described below.
10.4 Directions for Future Research
The case studies suggest the need for further modifications to the Last Planner System,
some specifically intended to make it better fit design applications and others for general
improvement. The prevalence of confusion over directives as a reason for plan failure in
the Next Stage case study indicates a need for more explicit specification of the
directives governing design tasks. A tool for making that specification is the Activity
Definition Model29 shown in Figure 10.1.
Figure 10.1
Activity Definition Model

Redo
No
Meets Yes
Directives Release
Criteria?
Prerequisite
Process Output
Work
Resources
Activity Definition Model
ACTIVITY DEFINITION
OUTPUT represents the result or deliverable produced by performing the scheduled
activity. In the case of complex deliverables, a process flow diagram is created and each
of its deliverables is decomposed using the same activity definition model.

What are the DIRECTIVES governing my output, process, and inputs? To what
criteria must my output conform in order to serve the needs of our customer production
units? What PREREQUISITES do I need from others? What RESOURCES do I need to
allocate to this assignment?
Before releasing the output to the PUs that need it, it is to be evaluated against the
criteria and , if nonconforming, either the criteria are revised based on new insights into
customer or stakeholder needs, or the output is revised to better meet the criteria30.
JOINT SUPPLIER/CUSTOMER ASSIGNMENTS
A critical element for success is explicit agreement between ‘customer’ and ‘supplier’
regarding those criteria. The PU producing the output should understand how it is to be
used by the customer PUs before production. Subsequently, inspection can be either by
the producer or jointly by producer and customer.
Self-inspection and joint supplier/customer inspection are key concepts in the method
of in-process inspection, which reduces defects through empowerment of the workers
themselves, as opposed to exclusive reliance on external inspectors. This quality
assurance prior to releasing work between PUs has been extended by some lean
contractors to the progressing of work. Only products and installations that have passed
quality control inspection can be counted as completed work, and then only if they are in
the work packages (batches) needed by the customer PUs.
29
Although developed independently by this author in the mid-1980s, the Activity
Definition Model is similar to IDEF, although arguably the concept of "directives" is
different from the IDEF concept of "constraints".
30
Conformance of outputs to design criteria is not a matter of matching. It is rather the
exception than the rule that any design alternative maximally satisfies all the multiple
criteria. The question is rather at what level of value must tradeoffs be made among

Recognizing the critical need for the supplier process and the customer process to
agree on directives, and the objective of selecting and executing only those assignments
that release work to others, it is proposed to make the supplier and customer jointly
responsible for successful completion of assignments. The supplier should make sure
he/she understands what the customer needs. The customer equally should make sure the
supplier understands what he/she needs. Aside from assignments generated by push
scheduling, in the absence of an explicit pull signal from the customer, the supplier can
assume that the task does not need to be performed at this time.
REASONS CATEGORIZATION AND ANALYSIS
The reasons categories used on the Next Stage Project did not promote identification of
root causes. Consequently, it is proposed to use the elements of the Activity Definition
Model as the primary categories and also to provide a guide for reasons analysis that will
facilitate identification of actionable causes.
those competing criteria. Exploration of such issues is part of the future research
agenda beyond the scope of this thesis.

Figure 10.2
Directives-related Plan
Failures
A-1: I didn't A-2: The directives

Why did understand the real
criteria were incorrect.
criteria for my
change deliverable.
during the
week?
What A.1.1: Didn't Why didn't A.2.1: Incorrect
could be understand what the you specification of What
done to requestor needed and understand prerequisites. changes
avoid the why she wanted it. what the in
need for requestor A.2.2: Incorrect directives
A.1.2: Didn't needed or specification of
change or are
understand the the resources.
to find out needed?
applicable applicable
about the A.2.3: Incorrect Who can
requirements. requiremen
change specification of make the
and ts? What changes?
A.1.3: Redefinition of processes.
include in would
criteria occurred prevent A.2.4: Incorrect
your specification of
during the plan week. repetition?
weekly output.
planning?
Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Directives
The primary categories are directives, prerequisites, resources, and process. Once placed
within one of these categories, a plan failure can be analyzed in accordance with the
guidelines expressed in Figures 10.2-10.5.

Figure 10.3
Prerequisites-related Plan Failures
B.1: Didn't request B.2: B.3: Promise not B.4: Can't make an
needed Incomplete kept by provider of agreement with
prerequisites. request. prerequisite. supplier
Analyze B.3 cases by

starting over again,
selecting A, B, C, or D,
B.2.b: Failed to and carrying out the Why can't
B.1a: Didn't know it identify the provider. analysis. But this time, you make
was needed. B.2.c: Failed to the failure being an
specify content. analyzed is that of the agreement
B.1.b: Knew it was prerequisite provider with the
needed, but didn't B.2.d: Failed to who failed to keep his supplier?
make the request. specify delivery time. promise rather than
B.2.e: Failed to the Last Planner who
Why didn't you know provide sufficient failed to complete an
that prerequisite was lead time assignment because
needed or why didn't
you make the request.
Regarding each of the that provider failed to
above, ask what caused keep his promise.
What would prevent
the failure and what could
repetitions?
prevent it reoccurring.
Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Prerequisites

Figure 10.4
Resources-related
Plan Failures
C.1: Lack of C.2: Insufficient labor

equipment or or time
tools
C.2.a: Didn't C.2.b: Labor was requested

request and allocated but not
C.1.a: enough labor available when needed.
Breakdown or time
(Ask what C.2.b.2:
could be done C.2.b.1: Got Absenteeism (Ask
to prevent C.2.a.1: Didn't bumped by why absence was
breakdowns.) understand higher priority not known in
load. (Ask why
C.1.b: advance; if absence
priority was was avoidable.)
Overloaded
C.2.a.b: Didn't not known in
(Ask why loads
understand advance.) Ask why the priority changed,
were not
capacity. what could be done to avoid
integrated.)
the need for change, or what
could be done to include
knowledge of the change in
weekly planning.
Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Resource

Figure 10.5
Process-related
Plan Failures
d.1 Error in processing d.2 Acts of God or

produced defective output the Devil produced
defective output
d.1.a Processing error was
caused by lack of skill
d.1.b Processing error was What went
Ask for the
caused by inadequate wrong? Why
cause of each
process wasn't it
cause; e.g.,
d.1.c Processing error was anticipated?
why was skill
caused by inadequate tools inadequate?
or equipment ...why was
d.1.d Processing error was process
caused by a change in the inadequate?
working environment
Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Process
10.5 Conclusion
The Last Planner system of production control, improved through the case studies
included in this thesis, has been shown to be effective in achieving and maintaining plan
reliability above the 90% level in site installation. Applicability and effectiveness of the
Last Planner system to design remains to be definitively determined, however the
generative nature of the design process suggests that a control system such as Last
Planner is needed, as opposed to approaches that rely on push scheduling and early

selection from alternatives. Further development of the Last Planner system is suggested
regarding activity definition, joint supplier/customer assignments, and reasons analysis.
In addition, research is needed to quantify and understand the benefits of greater plan
reliability for safety, quality, time, and cost.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS31
activity definition model An input-process-output representation of design tasks,

supplemented by specification of criteria (entering the process rectangle
from above) and of resources (entering the process rectangle from below)
and an inspection process resulting either in redo or release to the customer
process. The model is used as a guide to exploding design tasks into a level
of detail at which their readiness for execution can be assessed and
advanced.
Redo
No
Meets Yes
Criteria Release
Criteria?
Input Process Output
Resources
assignment a directive or order given to a worker or workers directly producing or

contributing to the production of design or construction. Example: Scott,
you and Julie are to make the changes in wall locations detailed in memo
#123 by the end of the week. Anne, you find out what the building
authorities will require for a structural permit.
capacity the amount of work a production unit, whether individual or group, can
accomplish in a given amount of time. Example: Jim the engineer can
perform 10 piping stress analyses per day on average, but the analyses to be
done this week are particularly difficult. He will only be able to do 7. Jim’s
average capacity is 10, but his capacity for the specific work to be done this
week is 7.
commitment planning Planning that results in commitments to deliver on which others in

the production system can rely because they follow the rule that only sound
31
This glossary was produced specifically for this thesis. An expanded version, with
some modifications in definitions, is available at <www.leanconstruction.org>. It was
produced by this author and Iris Tommelein, LCI principal and Associate Professor
at the University of California at Berkeley.
Ballard G-12 Last Planner

assignments are to be accepted or made. Example: On my work plan for
next week, I have included providing Cheryl the soils data she needs to
evaluate alternative substructure systems for the building. All known
constraints have been removed from my task, I understand what’s required
and how the information will be used, and I have reserved needed labor and
equipment.
constraints something that stands in the way of a task being executable or sound.
Typical constraints on design tasks are inputs from others, clarity of criteria
for what is to be produced or provided, approvals or releases, and labor or
equipment resources. Screening tasks for readiness is assessing the status of
their constraints. Removing constraints is making a task ready to be
assigned.
control to cause events to conform to plan, or to initiate replanning and learning.

Example: Exploding master schedule activities into greater detail, screening
the resultant tasks against constraints, and acting to remove those
constraints are all control actions intended to cause events to conform to
plan, or to identify as early as practical the need for replanning. Learning is
initiated through analysis of reasons for failing to cause events to conform to
plan.
customer the user of one’s output. Example: John needs the results of our acoustical
tests in order to select the best location for his mechanical equipment. John
is our customer because he will use what we produce.
design Design is a type of goal-directed, reductive reasoning. There are always

many possible designs. Product design reasons from function to form.
Process design reasons from ends to means.
design criteria the characteristics required for acceptance of product or process design.
Example: The structural engineer needs both geometric and load inputs from
the architect, mechanical engineer, and electrical engineer. Loads need only
be accurate within 20%. Example: The cladding design must be consistent
with the architectural standards of the local historical society. In addition, it
must be within the 2 million pound budget and installable within a 6 week
window concluding no later than 6th April, 2000.
exploding expressing a task in greater detail, typically by producing a flow diagram of

the process of which the output is the task being exploded, then determining
the sub-tasks needed to make the task ready for assignment and execution
when scheduled. Sub-tasks are categorized in terms of the activity definition
model, resulting in actions to clarify or specify criteria, requests for inputs
from suppliers, and reservation of needed resources.
first run studies extensive planning of upcoming operations by a cross functional team
including representatives of those who are to do the first operation, followed

by methodical study, redesign of the operation, and retrial until a standard is
established to meet or beat for execution of that operation. First run studies
follow the Shewhart Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, made popular by W.
Edwards Deming.
last planner the person or group that makes assignments to direct workers. ‘Squad
boss’ and ‘discipline lead’ are common names for last planners in design
processes.
load the amount of output expected from a production unit or individual worker
within a given time. Within a weekly work plan, what is to be accomplished
by a design squad or individual designer, engineer, draftsperson, etc. A
quality assignment ‘loads’ a resource within its capacity.
lookahead planning The middle level in the planning system hierarchy, below front end
planning and above commitment-level planning, dedicated to controlling the
flow of work through the production system.
lookahead schedule the output of lookahead planning, resulting from exploding master
schedule activities by means of the activity definition model, screening the
resultant tasks before allowing entry into the lookahead window or
advancement within the window, and execution of actions needed to make
tasks ready for assignment when scheduled. Lookahead schedules may be
presented in list form or bar charts.
lookahead window how far ahead of scheduled start activities in the master schedule are
subjected to explosion, screening, or make ready. Typically design processes
have lookahead windows extending from 3 to 12 weeks into the future.
make ready take actions needed to remove constraints from assignments to make them
sound.
planning defining criteria for success and producing strategies for achieving
objectives.
plan reliability the extent to which a plan is an accurate forecast of future events,
measured by PPC. For example, if your weekly work plans have a 60% PPC,
they accurately predict completion/release of 60% of the weekly assignments.
PPC percent plan complete; i.e., the number of planned completions divided into
the number of actual completions.
prerequisite work work done by others on materials or information that serves as an

input or substrate for your work. Example: You need to know the surface
area of glass, provided by the architect, in order to size cooling equipment.

production unit(PU) a group of direct production workers that do or share
responsibility for similar work, drawing on the same skills and techniques.
Example: a team of electrical designers and engineers responsible for a
specific area or functions of a building.
productivity the ratio of the amount of work produced to the resources used in its
production. Example: x drawings per labour hour.
PU See production unit.
pulling initiating the delivery of materials or information based on the readiness of the
process into which they will enter for conversion into outputs. Example:
Request delivery of prerequisite information at or before the time you will be
ready to process that information. Note: what’s different here is that the
readiness of the process is known rather than wished. Either the process is
ready prior to requesting delivery or plan reliability is sufficiently high that
work plans can be used to predict readiness.
reasons…for failing to complete weekly assignments; e.g., lack of prerequisites,

insufficient time, unclear requirements. Reasons can also be sought for failing
to advance scheduled tasks from master schedule to lookahead schedule or
from one week to the next within the lookahead schedule.
resources labour or instruments of labour. Resources have production capacities as well

as costs. Consequently, materials and information are not resources, but rather
what resources act on or process.
screening determining the status of tasks in the lookahead window relative to their
constraints, and choosing to advance or retard tasks based on their constraint
status and the probability of removing constraints.
shielding..production units from uncertainty and variation by making only quality

assignments.
should-can-will-did to be effective, production management systems must tell us what

we should do and what we can do, so that we can decide what we will do,
then compare with what we did to improve our planning.
sizing…...assignments to the capacity of the production unit to do the work. Example:

Ruben and James should be able to collect that data and analyze it by
Thursday. But, I forgot, it’s Ruben and Tim. Tim’s not as experienced. I’d
better give them an extra day.
sound assignments that have had all constraints possible removed. Example: We
never make assignments that are not sound. We always check if we have or
can get necessary information from others, if the requirements are clear, etc.

supplier the provider of needed inputs; prerequisite work, materials, information,
resources, directives, etc.
supplier lead time the time from sending a request for delivery to the delivery.
underloading making assignments to a production unit or resource within a production

unit that absorbs less than 100% of its capacity. Underloading is necessary to
accommodate variation in processing time or production rate, in order to
assure plan reliability. Underloading is also done to release time for workers to
take part in training or learning, or for equipment to be maintained.
utilization the percentage of a resource’s capacity that is actually used. Example:

Because of time lost waiting for materials, our labour utilization last week was
only 40%.
weekly work plan a list of assignments to be completed within the specified week;
typically produced as near as possible to the beginning of the week.
window of reliability how far in advance future work completions can be accurately
forecast. Example: If you can accurately forecast only 1 day in advance when
work will be completed, then your window of reliability is 1 day.
workable backlog assignments that have met all quality criteria, except that some must
yet satisfy the sequence criterion by prior execution of prerequisite work
already scheduled. Other backlog assignments may be performed within a
range of time without interfering with other tasks. Example: Completing those
spare parts lists doesn’t have to be completed for 3 months, but it won’t harm
anything if they are produced earlier, so use them as fallback or fill-in work
when needed.
work flow the movement of information and materials through a network of production
units, each of which processes them before releasing to those downstream.
work flow control causing information or materials to move through a network of

production units in a desired sequence and rate.

LIST OF REFERENCES
Addis, William (1990), Structural engineering: the nature and theory of design, Ellis Horwood,
London.
Alarcón, L., ed. (1997) Lean Construction. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ballard, Glenn (1993). "Improving EPC Performance." Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Production, Espoo, Finland, August, 1993. Available in Alarcon, 1997.
Ballard, Glenn (1994). "The Last Planner". Spring Conference of the Northern California Construction
Institute, Monterey, CA, April 22-24, 1994.
Ballard, Glenn and Gregory Howell (1994). “Stabilizing Work Flow.” Proceedings of the 2nd Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Santiago, Chile, October, 1994. Available
in Alarcón, 1997, 101-110.
Ballard, Glenn, Howell, Gregory, and Casten, Mike (1996). “PARC: A Case Study”. Proceedings of the
4th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, University of Birmingham,
U.K.
Ballard, Glenn (1997). “Lookahead Planning: The Missing Link in Production Control”. Proceedings of
the 5th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Griffith University, Gold
Coast, Australia.
Ballard, Glenn and Howell, Gregory (1997). “Shielding Production: An Essential Step in Production
Control.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 124 No. 1, American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, NY, 11-17.
Ballard, Glenn (1998). “Front End Planning”. Unpublished. Workshop on Front End Planning, Lean
Construction Institute, Houston, TX, 11/99.
Ballard, Glenn (1999). “Improving Work Flow Reliability”. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference
of the International Group for Lean Construction, University of California, Berkeley, CA. p. 275-286
Bennett, J. (1985), Construction Project Management, Butterworths, London. 220 p.
Bertrand, J.W.M., J.C. Wortmann, and J. Wijngaard (1990). Production Control: A Structural and
Design Oriented Approach. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1984), “Reflective practice in engineering design”, Design Studies 5(3), 185-190.
Burbidge, J.L. (1983). “Five golden rules to avoid bankruptcy”. Production Engineer, Vol 62, No. 10,
13-4.
Burbidge, J.L. (1989). Production Flow Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J. (1966) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. (1990), Soft systems methodology in action, John Wiley & Sons.
Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: design and analysis issues for field
settings. Rand McNally, Chicago.
Ballard R-17 Last Planner

Conklin, E. Jeffrey and Weil, William (1998). "Wicked problems: Naming the pain in organizations."
Reading Room Research Center; http://www.3mco.fi/meetingnetwork/readingroom/gdss_wicked.html
Deming, W. Edwards (1986). Out Of The Crisis, 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for Advanced
Engineering Study.
Diekmann, James E. and K. Bryan Thrush (1986). Project Control in Design Engineering. Construction
Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin.
Eppinger, S.D., Whitney, D.E., Smith, R.P., and Gebala, D.A. (1990). “Organizing the Tasks in
Complex Design Projects.” ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Chicago.
Finger, Susan, Konda, Suresh, and Subrahmanian, Eswaran (1995), “Concurrent design happens at the
interfaces”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 9, Cambridge
University Press, pp 89-99.
Gebala, David A. and Eppinger, Steven D. (1991). “Methods for analyzing design procedures”. DE-Vol.
31, Design Theory and Methodology, ASME, 227-233.
Green, Marc, editor (1992). Knowledge Aided Design. Academic Press Limited, London.
Hayes, Robert H., Wheelwright, Steven C., and Clark, Kim B. (1988). Dynamic Manufacturing:
Creating the Learning Organization. Free Press, New York, 429 p.
Hayes-Roth, Barbara (1985). “A Blackboard Architecture for Control”. Artificial Intelligence, Elsevier
Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 252-321.
Hopp, Wallace J. and Spearman, Mark L. (1996). Factory Physics: Foundations of Manufacturing
Management. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston, Massachusetts.
Howell, G. (1996). Plan Reliability of Electrical Contractors. A research report prepared for the
Electrical Contracting Foundation, National Electrical Contractors Association, Washington, D.C.
Howell, Gregory and Glenn Ballard (1996). “Can Project Controls Do Its Job?” Proceedings of the 4th
Annual Conference on Lean Construction, Birmingham, England. (Available at
http://web.bham.ac.uk/d.j.crook/lean/)
Kelly, Kevin (1994). Out of Control. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Koskela, L. (1992). Application of the new production philosophy to construction. Tech. Rept. 72,
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, Sept., 75 pp.
Koskela, L., P. Lahdenperaa and V-P. Tanhuanperaa. 1996. Sounding the potential of lean construction:
A case study. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Lean Construction, School of
Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, August 25 - 28, 1996. 11 p.
Koskela, L., Ballard, G., and Tanhuanpaa, Veli-Pekka (1997). “Towards Lean Design Management”.
Proceedings of the 5th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Gold Coast,
Australia.
Koskela, L. & Huovila, P. (1997). “On Foundations of Concurrent Engineering” in Anumba, C. and
Evbuomwan, N. (eds.). Concurrent Engineering in Construction CEC97. London 3-4 July. The
Institution of Structural Engineers, London, 22-32.

Koskela, L. (1999). “Management of Production in Construction: A Theoretical View”. Proceedings of
the 7th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, University of California,
Berkeley, CA. p. 241-252
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Laufer, Alexander (1987). “Essentials of Project Planning: Owner’s Perspective”. Journal of

Management in Engineering, 6(2), 162-176.
Laufer, A. and Tucker, R. (1987). "Is Construction Project Planning Really Doing Its Job?" ASCE
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 5, pp 243-266.
Laufer, A., Tucker, R, Shapira, A., Shenhar, A. (1994) “The multiplicity concept in construction project
planning”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, American Society of Civil
Engineering, New York, NY
Laufer, Alexander, Denker, Gordon R., and Shenhar, Aaron J. (1996). “Simultaneous management: the
key to excellence in capital projects.” International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), Elsevier
Science Ltd., Great Britain. 189-199.
Laufer, Alexander (1997), Simultaneous Management, AMACOM, New York, NY. 313 pp.
Lloyd, Peter, Deasley, Peter, Seymour, David, Rooke, John, and Crook, Darryl (1997). “Ethnographic
Benchmarking in the Aerospace and Construction Sectors: a Method for Inducing Cultural Change”.
[Unpublished IMI Case for Support. Private communication.]
McNeill, Patrick (1989). Research Methods, 2nd edition . Routledge, London.
Melles, Bert and Wamelink, J.W.F. (1993). Production Control in Construction. Delft University Press,
Delft, The Netherlands.
Miles, Robert (1998). “Alliance Lean Design/Construct on a Small High Tech Project”. Proceedings of
the 6th Annual International Conference for Lean Construction. Sao Paolo, Brazil.
Murrill, Paul W. (1991). Fundamentals of process control theory. Instrument Society of America,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Neil, James M. (1982) Construction Cost Estimating for Project Control. Morrison-Knudsen.
Ohno, Taiichi (1988). Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. Productivity Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Translation not credited.)
Project Management Institute, Standards Committee (1996). A Guide to the Project Management Body
of Knowledge. Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA
Reinertsen, Donald (1997). Managing the Design Factory. The Free Press, New York.
Riggs, Leland S. (1986). Cost and Schedule Control in Industrial Construction. Construction Industry
Institute, University of Texas at Austin.
Rittel, Horst W. J. and Webber, Melvin W. (1973). "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning." Policy
Sciences 4 (1973), 155-169.
Robson, Colin 1993. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-
Reseachers. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford, U.K.

Rodrigues, A. (1994). “The role of system dynamics in project management: A comparative analysis
with traditional models”. Proceedings of the 1994 International System Dynamics Society, Lincoln,
MA, USA, 214-225.
Ronen, B. (1992). “The complete kit concept.” International Journal of Production Research, 30(10),
2457-2466.
Roozenburg, N.F.M. and Eekels, J. 1995. Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, U.K.
Scherer, E. (editor) 1998. Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Schmenner, Roger W. (1993). Production/Operations Management: From the Inside Out-5th edition.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 825 p.
Shingo, Shigeo (1988). Non-Stock Production: The Shingo System for Continuous Production.
Productivity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ulrich, Karl T. and Eppinger, Steven D. (1995). Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill, NY,
NY. HD31 U47 1995
Vollman et al, Manufacturing Planning and Control Systems, 3rd edition. Irwin Professional Publishing,
Chicago, 1992.
Wamelink, J.W.F., Melles, B., and Blaauwendraad, J. (1993). Comparison of Control Concepts and
Information Systems in Different Parts of the Dutch Construction Industry. Delft University of
Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Williams, Terry, Eden, Colin, Ackermann, Fran, and Tait, Andrew (1995). “Vicious circles of
parallelism”. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, Elsevier Science Ltd, 151-
155.
Womack, James P., Jones, Daniel T., and Roos, D. (1990). The Machine That Changed the World.
Harper Perennial, NY, NY.
Womack, James P. and Jones, Daniel T. (1996). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in
your Corporation. Simon and Schuster, NY, NY.
Yin, Robert (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

BIBLIOGRAPHY
AASHTO (1991). AASHTO Guidelines for Preconstruction Engineering Management, American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, September, 1991.
AASHTO Task Force on Preconstruction Engineering Management (1996). Guide for Contracting,
Selecting, and Managing Consultants, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC.
Addis, William (1994). The Art of the structural engineer. Artemis, London.
Adler, P., Mandelbaum, A., Nguyen, V., and Schwerer, E. (1996) “Getting the Most out of Your Product
Development Process”. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 1996, pp 4-15.
Akao, Y (1990). Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements Into Product Design.
Productivity Press, Cambridge, 1990.
Allen, Chris (1996). “Value Judgment”. New Civil Engineer, 7th November, pp 18-19.
Allinson, Kenneth. The Wild Card of Design: A Perspective on Architecture in a Project Management
Environment. Butterworth Architecture, 1993.
American Society of Civil Engineers (1981), Proceedings of the Speciality Conference on Effective
Management of Engineering Design.
ASQC Construction Technical Committee (1987). Quality Management In The Constructed Project.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQC Quality Press.
Andersson, Niclas and Johansson, Patrik (1996). “Re-engineering of the Project Planning Process” in
Turk, 1996. 45-53.
Anumba, C. and Evbuomwan, N. (eds.). Concurrent Engineering in Construction CEC97. London 3-4
July. The Institution of Structural Engineers, London.
Applebaum, H. (1982) “Construction Management: Tradition versus Bureaucratic Methods”.

Anthropological Quarterly, 10/82, 55(4).
Archibald, Russell D. (1992). Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects, 2nd edition. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Argyris, Chris, Putnam, Robert, and Smith, Diana McLain (1985). Action Science. Jossey-Bass
Publishers, San Francisco.
Argyris, Chris and Schön, Donald A. (1978). Organizational learning: A Theory of action perspective.
Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Austin, S., Baldwin, A., & Newton, A., (1994), “Manipulating the flow of design information to
improve the programming of building design”, Construction Management and Economics, 12:445-455.
Austin, S., Baldwin A. and Newton, A. (1996). “A Data Flow Model to Plan and Manage the Building
Design Process”. Journal of Engineering Design, 7(1), 3-25.
Ballard Biblio-21 Last Planner

Austin, Simon, Baldwin, Andrew, Li, Baizhan, and Waskett, Paul (1998), Development of the ADePT
Methodology: An Interim Report on the Link IDAC 100 Project, Department of Civil and Building
Engineering, Loughborough University.
Austin, Simon, Baldwin, Andrew, Hammond, Jamie, and Waskett, Paul (1999). “Application of the
Analytical Design Planning Technique in the Project Process”. Proceedings of the Conference on
Concurrent Engineering in Construction, Helsinki, August 25-27, 1999. 10p.
Bacon, Matthew (1998). “Information Management in the Briefing Process”. Product and Process
Modelling in the Building Industry, Amor (ed.), Building Research Establishment Ltd., Watford, U.K.
Ballard, Glenn and Koskela, Lauri (1998). “On the Agenda for Design Management Research.”
Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Guaruja
Beach, Brazil, August, 1998.
Bardram, Jakob E. (1997). “Plans as Situated Action: An Activity Theory Approach to Workflow
Systems” in Hughes et al, 1997.
Barlow, K. (1981) “Effective Management of Engineering Design”. Proceedings of the Speciality

Conference on Effective Management of Engineering Design, American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, NY, pp 1-15.
Bennett, John and Ferry, Douglas (1990). “Specialist contractors: A review of issues raised by their new
role in building”. Construction Management and Economics, 8(3), 259-283.
Bennett, J., Flanagan, R., Lansley, P., Gray, C. and Atkin, B. (1988), Building Britain 2001, Centre for
strategic studies in construction, Reading.
Betts, M. & Lansley, P., (1993), “Construction Management and Economics: A review of the first ten
years”, Construction Management and Economics, 11:221-245.
Betts, M. & Wood-Harper, T. (1994), “Re-engineering construction: a new management research

agenda”, Construction Management and Economics, 12:551-556.
Blanchard, B.S. (1991). System engineering management. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Brailsford Associates, Inc. (1995). Groton School Athletic Facilities Program, Phase I: Preliminary
Assessment Report. Brailsford Associates, Inc., Washington, D.C. DESIGN CRITERIA
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1994). Designing Engineers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bulow, I. von (1989). “The bounding of a problem situation and the concept of a system’s boundary in
soft systems methodology”. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16, 35-41.
Button, Graham and Sharrock, Wes (1997). “The Production of Order and the Order of Production” in
Hughes et al, 1997.
Checkland, P.B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Choo, Hyun Jeong, Tommelein, Iris D., and Ballard, Glenn (1997). “Constraint-Based Database for
Work Package Scheduling.” Submitted for review to the ASCE Computing Congress ’98.
Christiansen, T.R. (1993). Modeling efficiency and effectiveness of coordination in engineering design
teams : VDT - the Virtual Design Team. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stanford
University, 260 pp.

CIB (1996). Towards a 30% productivity improvement in construction. Construction Industry Board,
Working Group 11. Thomas Telford, London.
CIB (1997). Briefing the Team. Construction Industry Board Ltd., Working Group 1. Thomas Telford,
London.
CIDA (1994). Project Definition Guide. Construction Industry Development Agency, Sydney, Australia.
CII (1995). Pre-Project Planning Handbook. Special Publication 39-2, Construction Industry Institute,
University of Texas at Austin.
CIOB (1995). Time for Real Improvement: Learning from Best Practice in Japanese Construction R&D.
Report of DTI Overseas Science and Technology Expert Mission to Japan, The Chartered Institute of
Building, 1995.
CIRIA (1996). Design Management for Productivity. Construction Productivity Network Report WR21,
Construction Industry Research and Information Association, January 1996.
CIRIA (1996). How Others Manage the Design Process. Construction Productivity Network Report
WR20, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, January 1996.
Clark, Kim B. & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product Development Performance, Harvard Business Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Cleland, D.I. and King, W.R. (eds) (1988). The Project Management Handbook, 2nd edition, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, USA.
Clough, Richard and Sears, Glenn (1979). Construction Project Management, 2nd edition. John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Cole, A.J. and Boardman, J.T. (1995). “Modelling Product Development Processes Using a Soft Systems
Methodology” in Integrated Design and Process Technology, Texas.
Coles, Edward J. 1990. Design Management: A study of practice in the building industry. The
Chartered Institute of Building, Occasional Paper No. 40. 32 pp.
COMIC, 1993. Informing CSCW System Requirements. The COMIC Project, Esprit Basic Research
Project 6225. Document ID D2.1. 270 pp.
Concurrent Technologies 1995. Proceedings of the 1995 Concurrent Engineering Conference.

Concurrent Technologies.
Conklin, E. Jeffrey and Weil, William (1998). Wicked Problems: Naming the Pain in Organizations.
http://www.3mco.fi/meetingnetwork/readingroom/gdss_wicked.html
Construction Task Force (1998). Rethinking Construction. Report of the Construction Task Force to the
Dept. of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, United Kingdom.
Cooper, K.G. (1993). “The rework cycle: benchmarks for the project manager”. Project Management
Journal, 1993 24(1).
Cowan, H.J., Gero, J.S., Ding, G.D., and Muncey, R.W. (1968). Models in Architecture, Elsevier,
London.

Cowan, H.J. (1977a). An Historical Outline of Architectural Science, 2nd edition. Applied Science,
London.
Cowan, H.J. (1977b). The Masterbuilders. John Wiley, New York.
Cowan, H.J. (1977c). Science and Building. John Wiley, New York.
Cowan, H.J. (1980). “Quantitative and Qualitative Understanding of Engineering Phenomena”.

Proceedings Ingenieurpädagogik ’80, Wien.
Cowan, H.J. (1981). “Design Education Based on an Expressed Statement of the Design Process”. Proc.
Instn. Civ. Engrs, 70, 743-753.
Coyne, Richard D. (1988). Logic models of design. Pitman, London. 1988. 317 p.
Coyne, Richard D., Michael A. Rosenman, Antony D. Radford, Bala M. Balachandran, and John S.
Gero (1990). Knowledge-Based Design Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts. 567 p.
Crook, Darryl, Rooke, John, and Seymour, David (1996) “Research Techniques in Construction
Information Technology” in Turk, 1996. Pp 133-144.
Crook, D., Rooke, J., and Seymour, D. (1997) “Preserving methodological consistency: a reply to
Raftery, McGeorge, and Walters”. Construction Management and Economics, 1997 (15), pp 491-494.
Cross, Nigel (1993), “Science and Design Methodology: A Review”, Research in Engineering Design,
5:63-69.
Curtis, B. (1992), “Insights from empirical studies of the software design process”, Future Generation
Computing Systems, 7(2-3), 139-149.
Curtis, B., Kellner, M. & Over, J. 1992. “Process modeling”. Communications of

the ACM, vol. 35, no. 9, 75-90.
Dasu, Sriram and Eastman, Charles (1994). Management of Design: Engineering and Management
Perspectives. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Deasley, Peter (1995). “Pragmatic Models of Concurrent Product/Process Development”, EPSRC Grant
Ref GR/K39417.
Dell’Isola, M. (1981) “Methods for establishing design budgets and schedules”. Proceedings of the
Speciality Conference on Effective Management of Engineering Design, American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, NY, pp 99-120.
Dobberstein, M. 1998. “Control on the Verge of Chaos-Analysis of Dynamic Production Structures”.

Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Dorf, Richard C. and Kusiak, Andrew, editors (1994). Handbook of design, manufacturing, and
automation. Wiley, New York. 1042 p.
Economist, The (1999). “Innovation in Industry”. The Economist, February 20, 1999.
El-Bibany, H. and Abulhassan, H. (1997) “Constraint-based collaborative knowledge integration systems

for the AEC industry”. Proceedings of the Conference on Concurrent Engineering in Construction,
Institute of Structural Engineers, London, U.K., pp 216-226.

Eppinger, S.D. (1991). “Model-Based Approaches to Managing Concurrent Engineering”. International
Conference on Engineering Design, Zurich.
Evans, S. (1996). “Implementing Step Change in Supplier Co-Development Capability: The

Management Challenge of Design Across the Extended Enterprise”, IMI Grant (Ref: GR/K 78533).
Finger, Susan, Fox, M.S., Prinz, F.B., & Rinderle, J.R. (1992). “Concurrent design”, Applied Artificial
Intelligence, 6, 257-283.
Finger, S., Gardner, E., & Subrahmanian, E. (1993). “Design support systems for concurrent
engineering: A case study in large power transformer design”, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Engineering Design, ICED ’93, The Hauge.
Fleig, J. and R. Schneider 1998. “The Link to the ‘Real World’: Information, Knowledge and
Experience for Decision Making”. Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New
York.
Galbraith, J.R. (1974). “Organization Design: An Information Processing View”. Interfaces 4 (1974),
28-36.
Gebala, David A. and Eppinger, Steven D. (1991). “Methods for analyzing design procedures”. DE-Vol.
31, Design Theory and Methodology, ASME, 227-233.
Gibson, G.E., Jr. Tortora, A.L., and Wilson, C.T. (1994). Perceptions of project representatives
concerning project success and pre-project planning effort. Source Document 102, Construction
Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin.
Gibson, G.E., Jr. and Hamilton, M.R. (1994). Analysis of pre-project planning effort and success
variables for capital facility projects. Source Document 105, Construction Industry Institute, University
of Texas at Austin.
Gibson, G.E., Jr., Kacczmarowski, J.H., and Lore, H.E., Jr. (1995). “Pre-Project Planning Process for
Capital Facilities”. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(3), 312-318.
Glesne, Corrine and Peshkin, Alan (1991), Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction,
Longman, White Plains, NY.
Gray, Colin, Hughes, Will and Bennett, John (1994). The Successful Management of Design: A
Handbook of Building Design Management. Centre for Strategic Studies in Construction, University of
Reading, Reading, U.K., 100 pp.
Green, Stuart (1994) “Beyond value engineering: SMART value management for building projects”.
International Journal of Project Management, 1994, 49-56.
Green, S. D. (1996). “A metaphorical analysis of client organizations and the briefing process”.
Construction Management and Economics, 14, 155-164.
Green, S. (1998). “The technocratic totalitarianism of construction process improvement: a critical

perspective”. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 1998 5(4), 376-388.
Green, S. (1999). “The missing arguments of lean construction”. Construction Management and
Economics, 17(2), 133-137.
Groak, Steven (1992). The Idea of Building: Thought and Action in the Design and Production of Buildings. E &
FN Spon, London.

Guba, Egon G. (editor, 1990). The Paradigm Dialog. Sage Publications, London. 424 p.
Harmon, Roy L. and Peterson, Leroy D. (1990). Reinventing The Factory: Productivity Breakthroughs In
Manufacturing Today. The Free Press, New York.
Harmon, Roy L. and Peterson, Leroy D. (1992). Reinventing The Factory II: Managing The World Class
Factory. The Free Press, New York.
Haviland, David (1984). Managing Architectural Projects: The Project Management Manual. American
Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C.
Higgin, Gurth and Neil Jessop (1965). Communications in the Building Industry. Tavistock
Publications, London, U.K.
Hoefler, Brian G. and Mar, Brian W. (1992). “Systems-Engineering Methodology for Engineering
Planning Applications”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol.
118, No. 2, April, 1992. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
Holt, Gary (1998). A guide to successful dissertation study for students of the built environment, 2nd
edition. The Built Environment Research Unit, School of Engineering and the Built Environment,
University of Wolverhampton, U.K.
Hounshell, David A. (1984). From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932. The Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Hounshell, David A. (1988). “The Same Old Principles in the New Manufacturing”. Harvard Business
Review, Nov-Dec 1988, 54-61.
Howell, G.A. and Ballard, G. (1995). Managing Uncertainty in the Piping Function. Report to the
Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, TX, Nov., 103 pp.
Howell, G., Laufer, A., and Ballard, G. (1993a). “Uncertainty and Project Objectives” in Project
Appraisal, 8, 37-43. Guildford, England.
Howell, G., Laufer, A., and Ballard, G. (1993b). "Interaction between sub-cycles: one key to improved
methods." ASCE, J. of Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., 119(4), 714-728.
Hughes, J., Somerville, I., Bentley, R., et al. (1993). “Designing with Ethnography: Making Work
Visible”, Interacting with Computers 5:239-253.
Hughes, John; Prinz, Wolfgang; and Schmidt, Kjeld (editors) 1997. Proceedings of the Fifth European
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands.
Hull, Frank M., Collins, Paul D., and Liker, Jeffrey K. (1996). “Composite Forms of Organization as a
Strategy for Concurrent Engineering Effectiveness.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
43(2), 133-142.
Hult, M. and Lennung, S. (1980). “Towards a definition of action research: a note and a bibliography”.
Journal of Management Studies, 17(2), 241-250.
IDC (1985). Design Deliverables Lists: High –Tech Greenfield Facility. Industrial Design Corporation,
Portland, Oregon.
Johnson, H. Thomas, and Kaplan, Robert S. (1987). Relevance Lost: The Rise And Fall Of Management
Accounting. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Josephson, Per-Erik & Hammarlund, Yngve. 1996. Costs of quality defects in the 90’s. Report 49.
Building Economics and Construction Management, Chalmers University of Technology. 125 p. (In
Swedish)
Juran, Joseph, and Gryna, Frank M., Jr. (1986). Quality Planning and Analysis. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Knott, Terry (1996) No Business As Usual. British Petroleum Company, London, U.K.
Kolodner, Janet 1993). Case-Based Reasoning (. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA.
Kusiak, Andrew, editor (1993). Concurrent Engineering: automation, tools, and techniques. Wiley,
New York. 589 p.
Lafford, Geoff, Penny, Charles, O’Hana, Simon, Scott, Neil, Tulett, Mike, and Buttfield, Anne (1998).
Managing the design process in civil engineering design and build – a guide for clients, designers and
contractors. Funders Report /CP/59, Construction Institute for Research and Information Association,
February, 1998.
Latham, Michael (1994). Constructing the Team, HSMO, London. TH425 L3 1994 Engr
Laufer, A. (1998). Implementable Research: A Prerequisite for Implementation of Research Results.

Self-published, Haifa, Israel
Lawson, Bryan (1980). How Designers Think. The Architectural Press Ltd, London, U.K.
Levitt, R.E., Cohen, G.P., Kunz, J.C., Nass, C.I., Christiansen, T., and Jin, Y. (1994). “The ‘Virtual
Design Team’: Simulating How Organization Structure and Information Processing Tools Affect Team
Performance.” in Carley, K.M. and Prietula, M.J. (eds.), Computational Organization Theory.Lawrence
Erlbaum Assoc. Pubs., Hillsdale, N.J.
Lewin, Kurt (1964). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers. Edited by Dorwin
Cartwright, 1951. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticutt. 346 p.
Liker, Jeffrey K. and Fleischer, Mitchell (1992). “Organizational Context Barriers to DFM,” in
Managing Design for Manufacturability, ed. G.I. Susman, Oxford University Press.
Liker, Jeffrey K., Fleischer, Mitchell, and Arnsdorf, David (1992). “Fulfilling the Promises of CAD”.
Sloan Management Review, Spring 1992, 74-86.
Liker, Jeffrey K., Sobek II, Durward K., Ward, Allen C., and Cristiano, John J. (1996). “Involving
Suppliers in Product Development in the United States and Japan: Evidence for Set-Based Concurrent
Engineering”. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(2), 165-178.
*Lloyd, Peter and Deasley, Peter (1997). “What’s the Story? Text Based Analysis of Engineering
Design” in International Conference of Engineering Design (ICED) University of Tampere, Tampere,
Finland, pp 2/371-376.
Lock, Dennis (1993). Handbook of Engineering Management. 2nd edition, Butterworth-Heinemann,

Oxford.
London, Kerry A. and Kenley, R. (199Q). “Client’s Role in Construction Supply Chain Network
Management: A Theoretical Model”.

Lottaz, Claudio, Clément, Denis E., Faltings, Boi V., and Smith, Ian F. C. (1999). “Constraint-Based
Support for Collaboration in Design and Construction”. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 23-35.
MacPherson, S.J., Kelly, J.R., and Webb, R.S. (1993). “How designs develop: Insights from case studies
in building engineering services”, Construction Management and Economics, 11, 475-485.
Manicas, P.T. and Secord, P.J. (1983) “Implications for Psychology of the New Philosophy of Science”.
American Psychologist, 38, 399-413.
McGeorge, D., Raftery, J., and Walters, W. (1997) “Breaking up methodological monopolies: a multi-
paradigm approach to construction management research”. Construction Management and Economics,
1997 (15), pp 291-297
Moldaschl, M. 1998. “Rationality, Culture and Politics of Production”. Shop Floor Control-A Systems
Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Moldaschl, M. and Weber, W.G. (1997). “The ‘Three Waves’ of industrial group work – Historical
reflections on current research in group work.” in The use of social science for social reconstruction,
Human Relations, special issue to the 50th Anniversary of the Tavistock Institute, London.
Morris, P.W.G. and Hough, G.H. (1987). The Anatomy of Major Projects: A Study of the Reality of
Project Management. John Wiley and Sons, UK.
Morris, P.G.W. (1994). The Management of Projects. Thomas Telford, London. 358 p.
Murphy, R. (1981) “Developing Work Packages for Project Control”. Proceedings of the Speciality
Conference on Effective Management of Engineering Design, American Society of Civil Engineers,
1981, p 50-79
National Research Council (1991). Improving Engineering Design. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
O’Brien, W., Fischer, M., and Jucker, J. (1995) “An economic view of project coordination”.
Construction Management and Economics, 13 (3), pp 393-400.
Ohno, Taiichi (1988). Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. Productivity Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Translation not credited.)
Perrow, Charles (1984). Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies. Basic Books, New
York.
Perrow, Charles (1986). Complex organizations: A Critical Essay, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Pietroforte, R. (1997) “Communication and governance in the building process”. Construction

Management and Economics, 15, pp 71-82.
Plossl, George W. (1991). Managing in the New World of Manufacturing: How Companies can Improve
Operations to Compete Globally. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Raz, Tevi and Globerson, Shlomo (1998). “Effective Sizing and Content Definition of Work Packages”.
Project Management Journal, December, 1998, 17-23.
Reinertsen, Donald (1997). Managing the Design Factory. The Free Press, New York.

Rodrigues, Alexandre and Bowers, John (1996). “The role of system dynamics in project management”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 213-220.
Runeson, G. (1997) “The role of theory in construction management research: comment”. Construction
Management and Economics, 1997, pp 299-302.
Scherer, E. 1998. “Understanding Shop Floor Control-A Close Look at Reality.” Shop Floor Control-A
Systems Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Schön, Donald A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Temple
Smith, London.
Schön, Donald A. (1995). “The New Scholarship Requires a New Epistemology”. Change, Vol. 27, No.
6, November/December, 1995, Washington, DC. pp. 26-34.
Schüpbach, H. 1998. “From Central Planning and Control to Self-Regulation on the Shop Floor”. Shop
Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Senge, Peter M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practise of the Learning Organization.
Doubleday Currency, USA.
Senge, Peter M. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. Doubleday, New York.
Seymour, D. and Rooke, J. (1995) “The culture of industry and the culture of research”. Construction
Management and Economics, 13(4), pp 511-523
Seymour, D., Crook, D., and Rooke, J. (1995) “The role of theory in construction management”.
Construction Management and Economics.
Seymour, David 1998. Project Phoenix-Evaluation: First Draft of Final Report. The University of
Birmingham, U.K.
Seymour, David, Rooke, John, and Adams, Kim (1998). “The Organizational Context of Benchmarking
and Metrics”. Submitted for publication.
Seymour, D.E. and Rooke, J. (1998). “Construction Management Research and the Attempt to Build a
Social Science”. Journal of Construction Procurement, Vol 4, No 1, 59-73.
Shammas-Tomas, M., Seymour, D., and Clark, L. (1996) “The effectiveness of form quality
management systems in achieving the required cover in reinforced concrete”. Construction Management
and Economics, 14(3).
Shingo, Shigeo (1981). Study of Toyota Production System. Japan Management Association, Tokyo.
Shingo, Shigeo (1988). Non-Stock Production: The Shingo System for Continuous Production.
Productivity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Simon, Herbert A. (1970). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Stuber, F. 1998. “Approaches to Shop Floor Scheduling-A Critical Review”. Shop Floor Control-A
Systems Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Stuber, F. 1998. “Guidelines for System Design for Operational Production Management.” Shop Floor
Control-A Systems Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.

*Susman, Gerald and Evered, R.D. (1978). “An assessment of the scientific merits of action research”.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 23 (December), 582-603.
Sverlinger, P.O. (1996). “Productivity in Construction-A Survey of Disturbances Affecting Productivity

in the Design Phase.” 2nd International Congress on Construction: Productivity in Construction-
International Experiences, November 5-6, 1996, Singapore.
Tatum, C.B. (1985). “Evaluating Construction Progress.” Project Management Journal, Special
Summer Issue, 1985, 52-57.
Tavistock Institute (1966). Interdependence and Uncertainty. Tavistock Publications, London, U.K.
Taylor, Frederick W. (1985 [1911]). The Principles of Scientific Management. Hive Publishing, Easton,
Pennsylvania.
The Business Roundtable (1997). The Business Stake in Effective Project Systems. Construction Cost
Effectiveness Task Force.
Tommelein, Iris D. (??). “Constructing Site Layouts using Blackboard Reasoning with Layered
Knowledge.” Chapter 10 in Knowledge Representation.
Tommelein, Iris D. (1997a) “Discrete-event Simulation of Lean Construction Processes”. Proceedings of

the Fifth Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Griffith University, Gold Coast,
Australia
Tommelein, Iris D., editor (1997b). Expert Systems for Civil Engineers: Integration Issues. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Tommelein, Iris D. and Ballard, Glenn (1997a). “Look-Ahead Planning: Screening and Pulling.”
Technical Report No. 97-9, Construction Engineering and Management Program, Dept. of
Environmental and Civil Engineering, University of California. Berkeley, CA. Proceedings of the
Second International Seminar on Lean Construction (Seminario Internacional a Construcao sem
Perdas), 20-21 October 1997, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Tommelein, Iris D. and Ballard, Glenn (1997b). “Coordinating Specialists.” Technical Report No. 97-8,
Construction Engineering and Management Program, Dept. of Environmental and Civil Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley, CA. Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Lean
Construction (Seminario Internacional a Construcao sem Perdas), 20-21 October 1997, Sao Paulo,
Brazil.
Tookey, J.E. and Betts, J. (1999). “Concurrent Engineering Issues in the Aerospace Industry-Lessons to
be Learned for Construction?” Proceedings of the Conference on Concurrent Engineering in
Construction, Helsinki, August 25-27, 1999. 11p.
Vollman et al, Manufacturing Planning and Control Systems, 3rd edition. Irwin Professional Publishing,
Chicago, 1992.
Ward, Allen, Jeffrey K. Liker, John J. Cristiano, and Durward K. Sobek II (1995). “The Second Toyota
Paradox: How Delaying Decisions Can Make Better Cars Faster”. Sloan Management Review, Spring
1995, pp. 43-61.

APPENDIX A: NEXT STAGE PRODUCTION TEAM
KICKOFF MEETING
MTG NOTES: MAPPING SESSION, 4/98

-how do they establish need dates and estimate durations?
-how decide who should be involved in what discussions?
-Case: seat selection
(floor-mounted or riser-mounted) is interdependent with (structural pads
for seats), which in turn constrains the (return air plenum), which can go either
(through the floor or risers), which has an impact on (cleaning time and cost: how
quickly can they setup for the next show?). As it happens, chairs come with
different types of upholstery, which can change the amount and type of smoke to
be removed. Points: -components such as chairs may not be offered in all
varieties; e.g., although we might prefer a riser-mounted chair, such chairs only
come with a certain type of upholstery that would overload current plans for
smoke removal. –everything’s connected to everything/designing one whole, so
parts have the logic of part to whole, potentially conflicting properties, etc.
-Important to include directives in conversion maps?
-Discovered in an earlier mapping session with the structural team that could start
structural engineering six weeks later and have steel delivered six weeks earlier
than initially estimated. Result of having members of the steel supply chain
together in the discussion: structural engineer, fabricator, and erector.
Consolidated construction drawings, fabrication drawings, and shop (field
erection) drawings into a single set.
-The production team and I are starting after ‘schematic design’. What happened
then?
-Design production consists of making calculations, producing drawings,
sourcing, etc. These provide info. for further decision making, which is the big
issue.
-Might use some product development techniques, e.g. functionalities, et al.
NOTES ON NEXT STAGE KICKOFF MTG 5/19-21/98

§ Design completed prior to meeting: Size and function of theater (enclosed
“amphitheater”, 7000 seats-by Auerbach Associates, theater consultants),
look and size and most materials of exterior (by ELS Architects, who were
selected with theater consultant’s help) and type of structure (steel frame)-
they could make a model. This approximates conceptual design and perhaps
some elements traditionally included in design development.
§ Ed Beck assembled some members of the building teams prior to the meeting
and mapped their value streams, using block flow diagramming, but switched
to MS Project when he merged the maps. Lots of negative reaction to the
CPM-too small and detailed, hard to read and follow.
Ballard A-31 Last Planner

§ Teams were mgmt/support, theatrical/interiors, MEP/FP, building
enclosure/architectural, and civil/structural. About half the team members had
participated in the initial process mapping with Ed.
§ One purpose of the meeting was to test the feasibility of completing the
project by an 11/15 move-in date and, if feasible, to create a schedule for
doing so. The other primary purpose was to create a team willing and able to
work together.
§ The first half day was devoted to introductions (very effective exercise that
got people loosened up and surfaced expectations), clarification of the
business objectives of NextStages, and the design history. The second half
day was devoted to a brief intro. to the concepts and history of lean thinking
and to the airplane game. The second day started with teams reviewing their
process maps for completeness, then transitioned after some confusion into
subgroups working on problems and a central group creating a milestone-
level CPM for the construction phase, working backwards from the 11/15
move-in. The first half of the third day (plus some) was spent first reviewing
and refining the inputs requested of each team by others, then by extending
the milestone schedule through design to the present. Burning issues were
recorded. Teams created more detailed internal schedules that fit within the
milestone schedule. Many obstacles were identified and removed in side
caucuses-“kill the snake now”.
§ Participants seemed to like it. Architects and engineers said they liked getting
input from fabricators and installers. Everyone liked getting decisions made
on the spot rather than going through multiple loops of submission, review,
rejection, rework, submission, etc.
PROBLEMS SOLVED/DECISIONS MADE

♦ Integrated base frame for ‘suspended’ scaffolding into ceiling grid of House.
♦ GO on wind test.
♦ Agreed to decide on audio proposal asap.
♦ Included cladding attachments in 3D model so can fabricate in shop.
♦ Agreed to start keeping a design decision log (tho’ inexplicit assignment
of responsibility and inexplicit process)
♦ Decoupled front window and sunscreen.
♦ Eliminated one roof elevation.
♦ Substituted PVC membrane for BUR.
♦ ????? Need to collect these for the record
EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENTS
♦ Selection by qualifications not price
♦ Shared business and design information
♦ Open book accounting

♦ Group planning
♦ Pull planning (backward pass)
♦ Cross functional team including owner, architect, engineers, fabricators,
and erectors/installers
♦ Initial attempt to integrate product and process design (needs to be
highlighted and done self-consciously, with prior specification of design
criteria for each)
♦ Production control extended to design as well as construction (future)
♦ Consolidation of drawings: design development, contract documents
(construction doc’s), and shop drawings. (Joint production of same by
engineer, fabricator, and installer?)
WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER

§ Mapping with the teams in advance was probably valuable, but would have been
more so if all team members were present.
§ Timing: Many said this should have been done earlier, but that may have been
with reference to the end date rather than to the stage of design development.
Should it be done earlier in design development?
§ The collaborative process is historically based on the Construction
Management/Guaranteed Maximum Price (CM/GMP) approach. Subcontractors
and fabricators have not previously been included in the collaboration, which was
restricted to the owner, contractor, and architect, with the contractor serving as
the owner’s watchdog over cost during the design process. Management of the
design has not been part of the process. Residue of that approach are still present
in NextStages, which seems to have thought of the architect and theater
consultant as having the closest relationship to the owner, then engineers, then
fabricators and installers. The general contractor still will contract with the
subcontractors, who will (typically) deal directly with suppliers and fabricators.
Better to have installers be in the first tier around the table, then have them bring
in fabricators and engineers? Should the architect be integrated with the
enclosure team, since their concern is with shaping space?
§ Better to have the teams use the same format for mapping so they could be more
visible and more easily integrated into a whole? Better to use workmapping
graphic terminology than block flow diagramming?
§ Explicit attempt to integrate product and process design, with prior specification
of design criteria for each.
§ Explicit commitment to joint production of drawings by engineer, fabricator, and
installer and sub-group planning of that process.
§ WHAT’S DIFFERENT AT ICE HOUSE?

§ Installers in first tier
§ Workmapping

§ Installers (and fabricators?) involved in schematic/conceptual design
§ Explicit identification of criteria for design of product and process
§ Different commercial arrangements?
NOTES TO FILE
§ Design decision log: there was no record of the design brief or basis for making
design and planning decisions. (What’s the relationship between production planning
and design? They are essentially the same kind of processes, both are design
processes, but one is of the product and the other of process for designing or
building the product. Ed initially resisted mixing design decision making in with
scheduling, but they forced themselves together, which seems quite natural and
inevitable given that they are both design processes.)
§ Need to create new names for the phases of the design/construction process in order
to break the grip of the conventional schematic/design development/contract
documents/shop drawings model?
§ I strongly suspect that many design decisions are now made with a mind to
protecting what the decision maker knows is important, but without understanding
what else is important.
§ Everyone seemed released by the prospect of working for the good of the job as a
whole, but also many said that it was just a matter of having costs reimbursable. So
simple if true, but I believe that form needs to be filled with production management
content a la lean thinking.
§ How measure the impact of consolidating DDs, CDs, and SDs into a single set of
drawings?
§ How measure the impact of integrated, team design of product and process?
§ How measure the impact of production control over the entire design-procure-install
process?
§ Need a better process for identifying and developing client values.
§ Ditto for translating those values into design criteria.
§ Need a way to publicize decisions that change the product or process design criteria-
transparency.
WHAT TO RESEARCH AND WHAT/HOW TO MEASURE?

The cross functional team approach to integrated design of product and process.
Also how values are identified, how they are translated into design criteria, and how
those criteria are actually applied in the design process. Keep documents (maps,
schedules, meeting minutes), collect participant evaluations, seek hard measurements of
improvement in product design, cost, or delivery time.
Application of shielding to control of design production. Describe process,

collect data (PPC, reasons, actions), collect participant evaluations, seek hard
measurements of improvement; eg. productivity, durations, costs.

APPENDIX B: NEXT STAGE PROJECT
TELECONFERENCES
Coordination on the Next Stage project was done largely by means of biweekly
teleconferences, in which each design team 'met' in succession throughout one long day,
with the management team present throughout. The notes below are those of this author
made prior to or during the teleconferences of 7/29/98, 8/26/98, 9/9/98, 9/23/98,
10/7/98, and 12/16/98.
PREP FOR 7/29/98 TELECONFERENCE, 7/28/98

-The big issue was lack of pipe inverts (elevations?) at building drainage
collection points.
-Should PPC measure at milestone, submilestone, action item level, or all three?
-Are “dates required” actually that or date it's thought the task will be done?
-Consider deferring decisions to accommodate uncertainty.
-How much is driven by permitting and approvals?
-Making assignments at systems team level-action items. Too detailed?
-Opaque what planning is done from which assignments are accepted; e.g., how
do specialists know loads and capacities?
-Ditto what planning is done after plan period assignments are accepted; e.g., do
teams or specialists create a detailed schedule for the plan period, or incorporate
these assignments in their schedule along with others?
-Goal: eliminate plan quality failures. Then absorb execution failures into
planning.
-Need to prioritize action items? NB: difficult to size.
-How to identify when one action item depends on another in the same plan
period?
-Need to clarify purpose of the teleconference? Is it a planning meeting to
identify tasks, or a meeting to status the plan and learn how to plan better?
-Need to make the planning system explicit: levels and corresponding processes.
-What experiments at Next Stage?
-Pull scheduling; pull as work selection criterion
-Group scheduling
-Organization in system teams
-How to control design?
-How to plan design?
-How to achieve concurrency?
-How to develop a supply chain?
-How to best use 3D(+) modeling?
-How might Last Planner benefit design?
Ballard B-35 Last Planner

-If the designer knows what work is upcoming, he/she (or others) can
prepare for it: better understand the task, make ready: pull prerequisites,
resolve conflicting directives, collect information. Also, design mgmt can
better match capacity to load, reducing idle resource time and
overproduction. Avoid having too many or too few specific skill sets to
do the available work.
-If more assigned tasks are sound (ready), less designer time is spent
switching between assignments. Also, assignments can be more often
completed when scheduled, better advancing the design project.
TELECONFERENCE, 7/29/98
-See AA07.01.8.03 “Resolve building storm/sanitary site collection points and
pipe inverts.” [my comment: need elev. of storm drains and above from ME] This
was assigned as a group task to the mechanical engineer, civil engineer, project
manager, and the plumber due 7/10 and subsequently rescheduled to 7/28. See
also AA07.15.98.09 “Complete site drainage design criteria” [my comment: need
pipe inverts at bldg collection points]
-Poor definition of assignment in AA07.15.98.16 “Meet with Lone Star Park to
discuss terms and conditions for purchasing their borrow material.” Marked
completed, but output unclear.
-NB: importance of really understanding the action: -what’s it mean? –what’s
prerequisite? –how long to perform once sound?
-AB07.01.8.08 wasn’t pulled, so due date was deferred to 8.12.98.
-Perhaps an example of lack of definition: AC07.15.98.02 “Resolve insulation
requirements for shell of the building.” Failed for lack of info from ME on heat
loads. Didn’t ask them specifically although they were included under “Action
by”.
-Completion of 3D model impacted by multiple minor changes. Driver is
intention to use model to produce fabrication drawings. Loading info. is needed
later, but need roughout loads up front. Geometry is needed first—was delayed
by changes in seating platforms.
-“value stream had no cushion.” Need to redo value stream to capture that
learning?
-Interesting example of the complexity of actions lurking beneath a seemingly
simple assignment: AD07.15.98.07 “Coordinate location of proscenium deluge
system with other systems.” Questions that arose in discussion: ‘Does the curtain
have a membrane that will require wetting both sides? How to control the deluge
system? Possibly applicable code requires heat sensors on stage-not yet provided.
Code not explicit about sensor locations, etc.’
-IB07.15.98.03 “Schedule for steel fabrication may be too tight.” Concerned
about tolerances in design and construction, especially regarding the seating
platforms.
-Apparent problem: ‘Committing’ to an action that has predescessors, perhaps in
a chain, some of which do not have identified prerequisites. A constraint: difficult
to know very far in advance what that logic is because it is developed as each
step is taken?

-NB: Important to note when a design criterion is being produced? Also…to
track decisions re design criteria?
-Make ‘issues’ deliberately include next 1-2 plan periods and use to develop
definition of the actions needed?
-Are most/many failures from lack of definition? If so, need a make ready period
in which….
-Clearly the actual planning/replanning rhythmn is faster than biweekly.
-Biweekly: *Adjust milestone (and submilestone?) schedule *Each team statuses
& categorizes the previous plan period. *Each team develops a work plan for the
next plan period. *Teams “meet” to merge work plans. *Hold this meeting, then
finalize team workplan and coordinate by phone-“Can you…?”
-
Should
Lookahead Adjusted
Planning Should
Make Ready Backlog Commitment Will

Planning
*Does this structure work for design? Are strong commitments possible?
*Design tasks are often closely coupled in time, so lots of ‘deliveries’ are
needed within the plan period.
-What statusing and categorizing can be done by individual players? Is a
teleconference the best way to do this?
-Why didn’t Jerry ask Gary for the piping inverts?
-
Project
Milestone Schedule
Team A Team B
Sub-Milestone Schedule
Player A-1 Player A-2 Player Player B-2

Work Plan B-1
*Each player is responsible for pulling what they need from others?
-Perhaps the key virtue in design is rapid replanning rather than

plan reliability.
-A key is understanding each other’s needs and the value stream.
-Levels of Schedule

♦ Milestone Schedule/Value Stream
♦ Submilestone (work release between teams)-PPC measured
♦ Work Plans (actions by players within teams)-PPC measured for use
by player; reported to project as indicator of reliability.
♦ Action Item List
♦ Decision List
♦ Issues List
♦ Player schedules
Each player statuses their work plans,

schedules, calculates PPC, identifies & initiates
- action on reasons for plan failure
Exec
All players attend team meeting to
ution
complete status and corrective action, Measure, Chart,
and to identify/communicate needs and & Publicize
commit to action items. And to look status vs
ahead 1-2 plan periods and refine Milestones
definition of future actions.
Each player develops work

plan, incorporating input Support Team revises
from Support Team, value stream and planning
visible/available to all. process visible/available to
all
-Whoever needs something from someone else is responsible for precisely

defining the need and should pull it from them.
-How to confirm pull? Must someone else give you an order or should each
player work independently toward the milestones unless he receives an order?
Share work plans so others know what you’re doing.
-It’s really hard to know the design criteria for specific design products.
-Many action items result from needs for input info.-loads (structural, heat,
energy, etc.), dimensions, etc. Fits with problem solving model?
-Might help if they had a limited glossary of action types: 1) determine
design/decision criteria, 2) understand the design task and process, 3) collect
input info., 4) generate alternatives 5) evaluate alternatives, 6) select from
alternatives/decide, 7) approve…
[activity definition model].

- Players status work plans & develop preliminary
work plans for next period. (Ask for what you I need to
need. Record what’s been requested that you define the
can do. Email PPC & Reasons to team objectives &
Exec agenda for
coordinator.)
ution these
Team Meetings to communicate meetings.
needs (& to make lookahead items
ready; understand them?) Measure &
Learn
Players develop final work plans & Revise value
share with other players stream
Status
-
Biweekly
Team Meeting Publish Charts
Off
& Corrective
Wee
Execution Actions
ks
Revise Value
Stream
Players develop &
share work plans
weekly
-Still need to decide who does what design (detailing?)-engineering consultants

or speciality contractors?
-These don’t all look like commitments to me.
-Definition of action items is a problem. Don’t fully understand what’s being
pulled (what’s needed), design/decision criteria, prerequisites.
-‘Make ready’-applied to design-starts with understanding the design task,
process & dependencies, & criteria. Should be done prior to work entering the
plan period.
-Are all players developing work plans that include both action items and work
needed to support value stream unless modified by pulls? Urge them to track

their own PPC and act on Reasons. Urge them to come to meetings with action
items statused & categorized and perhaps with something to share about
corrective action.
-Need to update value stream each 2 weeks.
-Make system transparent.
TELECONFERENCE 8/26/98
-AA08.12.98.01 “Revise and submit site drainage…” is a follow-on from the
earlier added collection points issue. Civil engineer still waiting on roof drains
info from mechanical engineer. AA08.26.98.10 “Second set of overflow drains
connect to main system….” Discovered apparent code requirement for a
separate downspout for overflow drain until it turns underground; previously
misunderstood. Project mgmt believes the city will accept an alternative design if
well argued. Some concern expressed that the requirement may have good
reason; i.e., redundant protection of roof from overloading and collapse.
Learning: important (always?) to understand the basis for the directive. NB:
Decision point when ‘negotiating’ directives: ‘fight or flee’.
-Seems like good discipline in action item identification etc.
-When step back and look at the master schedule?
-Example of criteria clarification and importance: AA08.26.98.08 “Contact
TAS/Barrier Free Texas to initiate early review and resolve the filing and
approval process.” CE discovered that they wanted minimum travel from
handicap parking to front entrance, hence a new action item to conform design to
this criterion. Previously assumed less stringent requirement.
-Not identifying or analyzing reasons. How to best do so?
-AB08.26.98.04 Computer memory had to be added to run the model. (Str. Eng.
hasn’t done 3D model before, or smaller?) Str Eng is producing drawings as they
build the model. Need to complete model in order to determine member sizes.
-Need order mill steel 1 month before breaking ground—decision confirmed.
-Would be neat if could easily and quickly see the consequences of choosing
week n or week n+1 for completion of an action. If could, then could choose
sometimes to expedite, add resources, etc. in order to do earlier, if desirable.
-Example of interdependencies: AC07.15.98.02 “Resolving insulation
requirements for shell of the building.” Sound/power ratings of cooling towers
will drive amount of insulation or double sheet rock.
-Good example of detailed info needed by one specialist (cladding contractor)
from another (architect): AC08.26.8.02 “Clearly identify on the concept drawings
the location of each color, and determine quantity of the vertical, horizontal and
smooth panels so the cost for custom colors for each type can be assessed.”
-Ongoing saga of the fire protection curtain: AD08.26.98.03 “Follow up on
proscenium deluge system meeting….” NB: poor definition—“follow up”. Really
a life safety issue that belongs in Theatrical. Opaque curtain is allowed by code
but is not customary.

-Waiting on food service consultant added late to team-Creative Industries.
Didn’t expedite getting equipment layout from them. Supposed pull was from
ME, but he didn’t realize that.
-How well do participants think this management process is working? Useful to
track PPC and reasons? Any actions taken on reasons? How much time is spent
and wasted (respent) re clarity of directives?
-Design output(s) Criteria Authority Advisors Basis

parking lot layout provide handicap city? Texas Access
w/ min travel to
bldg entrance
roof overflow separate downspout city - ind.

prot.
drains from overflow drain
systems
until it turns underground
Pull request Reason needed Requestor Requestee
-Critical to find the ‘hard’ points of the design space. If cost limit is exceeded,
may have to sacrifice functionality, capacity, or ‘quality’.
-Must be discouraging that construction keeps slipping. How to use the added
time? When/how to stop?
-NB: Different issues and tools may be useful for different disciplines. E.g., civil
seems to depend heavily on permitting requirements. Try to list design outputs
and applicable requirements, and criteria (must have/nice to have) for each
discipline and system team.
-There was a mention that ELS would make their next milestone, indicating
some attention is being paid to the milestone schedule.
-A different kind of problem—agree on criteria, but disagree on what satisfies
them. Or, designed to one set of criteria, but a specialist designs to a new set
(e.g., acoustical insulation). Specialists are advocates for specific criteria!
-How often do we not fully understand the design decision to be made? E.g.,
select and locate mechanical equipment to suit requirements for loads at least
cost, then factor in acoustical criteria and discover a cost of $200K in insulation,
wall type, etc.
-Interim assessment of Last Planner?
-Reasons analysis and action-how to?
-Record criteria?…in decisions log?/or activity definition ‘explosion’
-redraw design value stream, incorporating learnings
-record pull in action items log so they can expedite and clarify?

-Team tackle increase in acoustical-related costs: architect (visual, space layout),
acoustical consultant (calculates mitigation techniques), mechanical engineer
(point sources). Acoustical consultant calculates need for 50 foot masonry wall
to provide desired acoustical insulation from mechanical equipment noise.
Alternative is to select quieter equipment, relocate equipment, or shield
equipment locally.
-Issue: Bass Performing Arts Center had a target NB=18, but actual turned out
to be=13. How to ensure not overspending?
-NB: teams are driven by specific milestones; e.g., “complete 3D model” now
appears to be the guiding star for the structural team. What’s driving each team
in each phase? Equipment selection must be a big issue for mechanical and
electrical. Also equipment locations, which includes ducting, etc.
-Need a schedule for completing the design. Calculate from a supposed 11/15
construction start date?
-Seems like if we better understand the interdependence of decisions, we could
better manage the design process.
-NB: highly specialized consultants are expert in: 1) the real requirements;
wiggle room-what can be negotiated; alternatives (wind tunnel tests to determine
‘actual’ wind loads), 2) ways of meeting the real requirements plus desired
criteria, 3) sometimes expertise or technological means for calculating or
assessing alternatives; e.g., a testing lab. or special software.
-AA08.12.98.01 Continuing saga of site drainage—CE didn’t receive info.
needed. Apparently no pull. Wasn’t needed in plan period. Still don’t know if
there is an unavoidable code requirement for multiple leaders, but city is
confident they can allow us ‘what we want’.
-Example of one period action item requiring prerequisites from another
scheduled for same period: AA09.09.98.08 and …09. 8 was to get test data on
possible borrow material. 9 was to make a rec from 3 alt pavement designs. Why
did we think we could do this in the period? May have assumed local material
could be used. Obviously expected to get test results sooner than today, when
CE actually received them.
-Handicap parking saga: Must reconfigure; put more handicap spots in front of
bldg.
-CE didn’t complete many action items during the plan period. What hours were
spent and what was accomplished?
-Considering change in seating. No change to building structure expected. How
big a deal? Decided to defer 3D model transfer until a decision on seating is
made.
-Metal color samples saga: AC08.26.98.01. Manufacturer waiting on receipt of
third of three color samples from paint company.
-Confusion re criteria: AD09.09.98.07. EE thought theatrical didn’t want
transformer in dimmer room, but actually didn’t want it in amplifier room. Even
so, unclear what transformer location is best.
-Deluge curtain saga: Determined applicable code—NFPA (Nat’l. Fire
Protection Ass’n.) 13.
-Rough categorization of decisions in Decision Log: design itself, problem
definition, process, needs definition.

-No review of PPC or reasons within the meeting.
-What can be done to improve sequencing, make ready (soundness), and sizing?
-Revisit the design value stream to make sure we understand the best
sequence.
-Explode master schedule activities as they enter the lookahead window.
Use
activity definition model to make sure we understand the scope of
activities.
-Identify who/what is pulling each assignment in the lookahead.
-Have pullers pull.
-Issue minutes by Friday after Wednesday meetings.
-Have assignees apply assignment quality criteria; empower them to say
‘no’.
-Learn how long tasks actually take and adjust future estimates. Also, be
con- servative.
-Understand the consequences of failing to complete assignments, so can
take better risks.
-Be more precise in the statement of assignments. Avoid “review”,
“follow up”, etc.
-Analyze reasons to actionable causes. Use 5 Whys.
-I’m uncomfortable with the idea that these meetings produce
assignments. Often need additional definition before can apply quality
criteria. Why not allow changes negotiated between ‘suppliers’ and
‘customers’, with notice to all? In other words, make planning continuous
rather than periodic?
-Clear need to issue ‘minutes’ immediately after each meeting. Players not using
action item log.
-Decided to ‘target’ completion of wall/acoustic design (AB09.09.98.0?)
although not sure will complete. Should understand implications of failure.
-Dangerous to complete design without knowing the users of the facility?
-It’s not bad to do more than what’s on the action item log. It is bad to not do
what’s on the log. E.g., the architect chose to spend available time to complete
glass and stair design package, and let slip detailing external wall mockup. Could
have tagged latter as a workable backlog item.
-Communication ‘preferences’: some people are not comfortable with multiple
channels: phone, email, fax, etc.
-Not being colocated is a problem. Personal connections, ease of communication,
getting the right people together, lack of unplanned meetings (water cooler,
corridor).
-Is there a list of equipment with vendor, price, weight, energy requirements, heat
generated, etc?
-Is/Should there be a statement of design criteria for each system, subsystem,
component? Is the Decisions Log sufficient? Per architects, some theatrical
consultants produce room documents/books.

-My actions:
-Analyze reasons with architect.
-Understand how individual planning systems hinge to centralized
planning system. When/how do players match load to capacity? Do they
check that match before accepting assignments? Each player has work to
do that does not appear on the master schedule and may not be pulled
externally.
-Identify action items that involve clarifying or generating design criteria.
-Develop examples of activity definition models
Db25/Fire
rating/Etc
Process Flow Int wall design

Inputs Diagram or single in acoustically
Activity sensitive areas
Resources
-Could do for seat layout, cladding, roofing, etc.

-First screen in evaluating/generating alternative designs is—does it meet
design criteria? 2nd concern: is one preferable in re nonbinding criteria
such as constructability, ease of acquiring materials, cost, time, etc?
-Need a category “Not pulled”?
-Pull what you need: ‘customer’ processes not consistently expediting what they
need from ‘suppliers’.
-Collectively define the task up front; who leads?
-Item No. Item Desc. Action by Pulled by Revised Date Date Completed Need
This Plan Period?
-I would like to see how each player identifies and tracks their work and how
they use the planning system. Are players able to make good commitments;
balance load and capacity?---One weakness appears to be lack of common
understanding of action items at close of meetings.
-Type as we go and email instant for review of wording.
-Design work can reveal more definition of a design activity. E.g., handicap
parking: developed a layout before fully understanding the design criteria.

Investigation revealed that change to conform to actual criteria may require more
fill material.
-Discussion: Civil has had high PPC. Because of external deadlines? Is there an
issue of commitment? On the contrary view, I suggest we find out:
-Are those accepting action items applying quality criteria?
-Are players able to accurately match load and capacity?
-Are players able to accurately predict ‘deliveries’? Do they expedite
deliveries?
-Are players able to sequence activities to best meet project objectives?
-Analysis of reasons: 89/125 (71%)=40 (prerequisites)+24(insufficient
time)+25(conflicting demands). Regarding prerequisites, we’re apparently not
very good at predicting or causing delivery of needed inputs. Regarding
insufficient time, we apparently are not very good at estimating the time needed
to accomplish specific tasks. Regarding conflicting demands, may need
clarification. Does this mean unexpected demands or failure to accurately
quantify multiple demands? If the former, there’s a problem with identifying
priorities even 2 weeks ahead of time. If the latter, same problem as with
insufficient time. (NB: some “prerequisite”-based failures are ripple effects;
failure of prerequisites within same plan period.)
1.Sequence: identify priorities 2 weeks ahead-demands on time and
relative priority of demands. Do we understand the design process? Can
we identify what needs to be done in what order? Do we understand
what’s involved in doing each of these activities?
2.Soundness: predict deliveries; expedite deliveries
3.Size: quantify time needed to accomplish tasks
-Blueline/Online coming up. Will post minutes thereon this time.
-Added administrative assistant to speed production of minutes.
-Target start date now 12/1/98, but February is most likely.
Civil
-CE confused re pull for first item. Thought it wasn’t pulled, but is given target
date. In any case, still lacks storm drain info.
-Easement requested. Added to final plat. Includes electrical yard. CE will copy
Fisk Elec and Texas Utilities. Curt asks if it goes through landscaping-obviously
the architect has not been involved-requested copy. Still need Texas Utilities
acceptance of our elec yard layout. –Have agreement to tie overflow drains into
ceiling verticals. Making proposal to city.
-For action item 05 we need the mechanical engineer. Civil has to conform his
plans for additional drains. (This issue just refuses to die!)
-Grand Prairie school district has 30,000 CY of fill material about 4 miles from
our site. Sandy clay. Pi of 21 & 25. Suitable for cement stabilization. Asking for
proposals. Est. cost of handling $5/CY. Est. cost of material $1? Our budget is
$5 total for select material. This is not select material. Would be $1 over budget.

May be able to mix with cheaper material from other sources. Not ready to select
pavement design.[NB: Estimates become controls; e.g., $5/CY for select
material.]
-(11) General Electric Service scope of work—need Fisk Electric.
-55 foot light pole is agreed.
-(4) Revised handicapped parking plan and posted 9/25.
[Is an issue showing interdependence of action items?]
-Issues:
-Life Safety pkg.: ELS has issued a draft and is collecting comments.
Asked to receive by 9th. Life Safety consultant back next week. Target
issue date is the 16th.
-Timmel to ask TU what they propose to give us.
-Lone Star borrow material not yet pulled.
-Lone Star easement—Halff has sent note requesting.
-No new issues from review of site value stream.
-Statusing site value stream
-Erosion control plan filed? Yes.
-Final plat complete? Yes. Sent to Kaminsky’s attorney for
review.
-Grading permit. Not applied, but should be automatic when
needed.
-Down to closing on land and filing for permits.
-Land trade with District-need to happen 10/14.
-4 Week Moving Average PPC=61%. How to improve?
Proposed to analyze in depth a sample of failures from each team,
selecting only from top 3 reasons. Could a team representative perform 5
Whys on 3 failures of each of the 3 types and report to Ballard?
-Seating configuration: curve schema GO pending cost estimate by Bruce Perry.
Bruce: No difference in cost for stud framing (Merrick Brothers) between
segmented and curved. Estimate: $10k for layout. NB: Bruce careful to state his
assumptions re the design./Need return air openings—to be worked out. Better
to form in concrete or steel?/ELS will detail each type of riser mount heights—3
types./Acoustical issues? ELS thinks not, but will check with
consultant./Decision: Change platform design. Agree will cost <$200K. 5 weeks
to price in detail. Need to work out framing requirements. Merrick says 8 feet.
HW says 20 feet. Same type framing? [Watch this one. How well did we identify
the ripple effect of this design change?]
Structural:
-Riser issue: height of riser, material, attachment method; Merrick, Haynes-

Whaley, Irwin, ELS.
-3D model on hold for revisions to seating platform. Need to complete before
final estimate.
-NB: Robert is clearly pulling duration estimates from his nether region. Often
requests for info. have the flavor of demands for commitment—or just plain
wishful thinking.]

-Prefab stairs. Can use for fire stairs but lobby stairs must be detailed by
structural engineer.
-Structural and foundation permit date will be pushed back by 2 weeks to 11/24.
[Need to do more process mapping! Harder to do at a distance.]
-Update from Haynes-Whaley, Str. Eng: Good meeting with ELS last week.
Finalizing fly tower. Need input from Jaffe re concrete pads for mechanical eqpt.
on low roof. Offline discussions to be held on interior wall design. Steve of CC
wants Peterson to install tall house wall-discuss with HW. Peterson to install all
purlins.
-[NB: The traditional method seems to be for each discipline to push forward
independently, then adjust as as inputs are acquired from others. To what extent
do they proceed on assumptions or pull/wait for what they need?]
Skin:
-NB: Joel asks each team/person if they need anything they don’t have.
-Metal samples and price are in hand. Price not an issue.
-Wall mockup pkg. from ELS: each c. 10’x20’ high; to show 3 conditions; e.g.,
vertical panels and soffits. Locate offsite on adjacent property-Kaminsky’s. Also
applies to construction trailers? Can defer grading until last minute? Cost: ELS to
provide simplified drawings. [Why not do a computer model?]
-Need some concrete under rooftop units on low roofs, but no masonry wall. Not
sure re no. of layers of gyp. board in stud wall. Only possible exception is unit
serving dressing room. [Why has this been so hard/taken so long to resolve?]
-ELS to give CC the change point from X to Y at back of house.
-Material for low canopy roof will be visible from lobby. Need different material?
MEPF:
-How many items of kitchen eqpt. do we now have? No. of supply and exhaust
fans have increased from 6 to 24. Why? Amy couldn’t say. To handle offline.
-Impact of smoking area on exhaust.
-8400 feet of 2 inch slots in seat framing.
-Biggest issue to resolve is concessions.
-Acoustic shielding of mechanical units: when deal with duct noise? When will
duct layout be done? 10/12: main duct runs laid out and sized.
[Collecting status info., clarifying current state of design: “Are there any
mechanical units on the other side of the building?”]
-NB: NC25 not maximum in lobbies and cheap seats.
-Fire pump: What available water pressure? Need a pump? Yes-125hp. Should be
served off emergency generator? Fisk to examine.
-Locations/sources of cable, telephone, etc? Need to meet with phone co.
-How many phone outlets will be required? No. of incoming lines? Need to show
on floor plan-phone, data, closed circuit TV. Bill Cambra.
-[Civil engineer seems to handle all ins and outs from property.]
-Requirements for cable TV? Comes into telephone data room. Satellite dish on
site? On roof backstage?

-Before addition of loading dock, first floor plans showed gas meter location
which now doesn’t work. Where is gas meter now? Where to bring gas to?
-U.G. plumbing at perimeter: lower priority-work to 5 week schedule. [The issue
seems to be what’s needed in order to design the underground plumbing.]
-Duct designer needs seat redesign backgrounds. Need to evaluate but add 2
weeks for design change (10/26).
-Lighting heat loads complete. Emergency power loads need to be updated-now
230 hp, but kitchen eqpt not settled. Also normal loads.
-Mtg on structural issues at ELS last week got chunks of work done. [colocation
issue!]
-[watch for interdependencies/gnarly issues: kitchen, seating, acoustics]
Pricing:
-Cost of project has clearly risen, but need definitive estimate. Becoming the hot
item.
-Estimating is based on drawing takeoffs. Want reproducibles.
-Electronic transfer hasn’t worked. Don’t transmit error free.
-Current categorization of reasons does not reveal actionable causes.
-Has pricing diverted attention from scheduling?
-Why is the estimate so important? Amount of $ needed; financing. Fix GMPs for
each player.
-Don’t always understand the decision chain; e.g., color selections would seem to
be needed late, but may be needed earlier to match exterior and interior colors.
-ELS considering board vs stone wall to lower cost. But not much such matl.
Would violate City’s architectural review? Considering using inside to replace
something else. May be more labor than stone. NB: Functionalities are revealed
by technology and component selections. E.g. need 10 by 10 area for scissor lift
to be used to relamp lights in high lobby ceiling. Could have chosen lights that
could be lowered for relamping.
-The longer the plan period, the more difficult it is to defer commitments until
receipt of prerequisites, rather than betting on the come. The shorter the plan
period, the less lead time is available for planning future periods.
-Missing water and electricity in parking lot.
-Overflow drain issue: now 2 separate systems are required (issue that won’t
die!).
-NB: local differences—CHPA didn’t know gas meter size beforehand.
-scheduled new item: begin fire protection drawings by 1/15. 6-8 week design
period. Need for permit. Focus on distribution system rather than sprinklers.

APPENDIX C: NEXT STAGE ACTION ITEMS LOG
The following log was the primary coordinating device used on the Next Stage project.
Each teleconference was given a sequence number, beginning with AA07.01.98,
indicating the design team (AA indicated Site/Civil, BB indicated Structural, etc.) date of
the teleconference. Action items that were identified within each teleconference were
given a sequence number such as AA07.01.98.01. Assignment of action items was made
to the various companies participating on the project by use of their initials, e.g., ELS
stood for the architectural firm. The date required was specified. If an action item failed
to be completed by the required date, a reason number was (usually) indicated in the
column labeled RNC, and a new required date listed in the column Date Required. Once
completed, a date completed was provided and the rows devoted to the action item were
darkened.
1. Lack of decision
2. Lack of prerequisites
3. Lack of resources
4. Priority change
5. Insufficient time
6. Late start
7. Conflicting demands
8. Acts of God or the Devil
9. Project changes
10. Other
Action items are grouped by design team, sequenced in the order Site/Civil (AA),
Structural (AB), Enclosure/Architectural (AC), Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire
Protection (AD), Theatrical/Interiors (AE), and Project Support (AF).
Ballard C-1 Last Planner

Linbeck Next Stage Development
The Texas Showplace
Action
Items
Log
As of December 2, 1998 Project Progress Meeting Revised: 12.14.98

Date Originated- Item Description Action R Date Date
Item No. Completed
By N Required
C
A.
Site/Civil
Texas Accessibility Standards:
AA07.01.98.01 • Provide TAS requirements to ELS HA 07.07.98 07.07.98
AA07.01.98.02 • Identify preliminary and final TAS review ELS 07.14.98 07.14.98
process.
AA07.01.98.03 Resolve building storm/sanitary site collection CHPA/H 2 07.10.98 08.02.98

points and pipe inverts; still lacking inverts. A/ 07.31.98
Coordinate profiles with water line LCC/TSP
surrounding building to be deeded to City. H
AA07.01.98.04 Develop site and parking lighting compatible TEE/FE/ 6 07.14.98 08.12.98
with Lone Star Race Park for site plan HA 08.12.98
submission for Planning and Zoning approval
(Control Road "B").
AA07.01.98.05 Provide color rendering for submission for ELS 7 07.14.98 07.27.98
Planning and Zoning review/approval; resolve 07.27.98
landscape issues (IA07.01.98.05).
AA07.01.98.06 Transmit Site Plan package (2 sets) to LCC. HA 7 07.14.98 07.17.98
07.17.98
AA07.01.98.07 Review/Revise value stream diagram. HA 07.14.98 07.14.98
AA07.01.98.08 Provide/confirm building electrical load for TEE/HA/ 7 07.14.98 07.28.98
site utility plan. FE 07.17.98
AA07.01.98.09 Provide invert elevation for storm water pipe HA 07.14.98 07.14.98
at loading area.
AA07.15.98.01 Provide recommendation for Accessibility HA 07.17.98 07.15.98
Specialist to ELS
AA07.15.98.02 Contact power company for project TEE 07.20.98 07.20.98
information.
AA07.15.98.03 Have traffic impact analysis completed. HA 07.20.98 07.20.98
AA07.15.98.04 Send copy of traffic plans and traffic impact HA 07.20.98 07.20.98
analysis to Lone Star Park.
AA07.15.98.05 Complete conceptual point grading plan ELS 6 07.20.98 08.11.98
around building. 08.12.98

AA07.15.98.06 Resolve grading at diagonal wall with ELS 6 07.20.98 08.11.98
landscape architect. 08.12.98
AA07.15.98.07 Obtain Accessibility Specialist list from Texas ELS 07.22.98 07.22.98
Dept. of Licensing.
AA07.15.98.08 Select an Accessibility Specialist HA/ELS 07.28.98 07.28.98
AA07.15.98.09 Complete site drainage design criteria HA 2 07.24.98 08.12.98
08.12.98
AA07.15.98.10 Complete off-site civil design of City required HA 07.24.98 09.09.98
items of work (IA07.01.98.04). Submitted 09.09.98
comments, not required for City Council, but
for Plat Approval (Approved at Planning and
Zoning meeting).
AA07.15.98.11 Complete Road "D" plan to support easement HA 2 07.24.98 08.12.98
and operating items negotiations with Lone 08.12.98
Star Park (Received conceptual design
approval 07.24.98).
AA07.15.98.12 Resolve and provide presentation materials to HA 07.24.98 07.24.98
City Planning for internal staff review.
AA07.15.98.13 Planning Department internal staff briefing NS/HA 07.27.98 07.27.98
(IA07.01.98.02).
AA07.15.98.14 Confirm city mailings/posting on-site notice NS/HA 07.27.98 07.27.98
announcing zoning revision hearing
(IA07.01.98.03).
AA07.15.98.15 Determine amount of project requirement for HA 07.28.98 07.27.98
borrow material.
AA07.15.98.16 Meet with Lone Star Park to discuss terms and NS/LCC 07.28.98 07.27.98
conditions for purchasing their borrow
material.
AA07.29.98.01 Resolve date of City Council hearing; NS 07.31.98 08.12.98
coordinate date with Economic Development
assistance package hearing/approval.
AA07.29.98.02 Dialog with Lone Star Race Park manager TEE 08.03.98 08.12.98
regarding lighting fixtures.
AA07.29.98.03 File original drawings/graphics for Planning & HA 08.03.98 08.12.98
Zoning meeting (IA0701.98.07).
AA07.29.98.04 Meet with Grand Prairie building officials to ELS/HA/NS 08.06.98 08.06.98
determine multiple permit packages and
document requirements (IF07.15,98.05).
AA07.29.98.05 Planning and Zoning hearing/approval NS/HA 08.10.98 08.24.98
(IA07.15.98.01). 08.24.98
AA07.29.98.06 Decision regarding rescheduling 08.18.98 City NS/ELSHA 08.12.98 08.12.98
Council hearing
AA07.29.98.07 Complete water line/easement design around HA 08.12.98 08.12.98
building.
AA07.29.98.08 Resolve construction start date NS Issues Log 08.26.98
(IA08.26.98.01).
AA07.29.98.09 Resolve electric power supply options, TEE/HA/LC Issues Log 08.26.98
permanent and temporary. M. Dickman met C
R. Cox of Texas Utilities (IA08.26.98.02)

AA07.29.98.10 Advance terms and conditions for purchasing NS/HA 08.12.98 09.09.98
borrow material from Lone Star Park 09.09.98
(IA07.01.98.09/IA07.15.98.06). Evaluate
material. Pull is the GMP. Est. 50,000 yds
select material.
AA07.29.98.11 Prepare revised Site/Civil estimate. HA 08.12.98 08.26.98
AA08.12.98.01 Revise and submit site drainage (added CHPA/H 2 08.19.98 10.21.98
collection points) for revised commissary roof A 7 09.23.98
drainage (in Pricing Documents) and sanitary 2 10.07.98
(not changed) Received commissary plan.
Storm drain info to HA by 09.16.98 for
completion by 09.23.98 (10.07.98).
AA08.12.98.02 Update site estimate. HA 08.26.98 08.26.98
AA08.12.98.03 Revise and submit site plan to reflect HA/ELS/CH 08.19.98 08.26.98
commissary, and its impact on site - truck PA/NS
entry, loading area, trash containers, etc.
AA08.12.98.04 Design lighting operation/wiring for Road D NS/HA/TEE Issues Log 08.26.98
(IA08..26.98.03). Sketch within one month by
TEE. Needs current site plan.
AA08.12.98.05 Traffic operational plan to be sent to HA. NS 08.14.98 08.26.98
AA08.12.98.06 Resolve traffic/road design issues with Lone NS/HA 08.12.98
Star Park (IA07.01.98.01).
AA08.12.98.07 Complete right-of-way abandonment NS/HA 08.18.98 08.12.98
(IA07.01.98.10). 09.01.98
AA08.12.98.08 Complete district land trade (IA07.01.98.11). NS/HA 09.01.98 08.12.98
AA08.12.98.09 Review of documents/Final Plat for NS/HA 08.12.98
improvement dedication to City.
(IA07.15.98.04)
AA08.12.98.10 Rethink overflow drain vs. scuppers for roof ELS/CHPA 08.26.98 08.26.98
drainage. (Related item AD08.12.98.01)
AA08.12.98.11 Resolve traffic analysis outstanding items, i.e. HA 08.14.98 08.26.98
access route to new commissary prior to
planning and zoning hearing. Prepare related
explanatory drawing. Director of planning
confirmed that there was no need to revise &
resubmit.
AA08.12.98.12 Present revised site plan at Planning & Zoning NS/HA 08.19.98 08.26.98
hearing.
AA08.26.98.01 Provide LCC with a full set of documents HA HA 08.26.98
used to prepare estimate.
AA08.26.98.02 Decision on sign size and location metes and NS/HA/E 1 08.26.98 09.23.98
bounds to support easement documents. LS 09.23.98
AA08.26.98.03 Decision on date for City Council NS 08.28.98
meeting/approval, 09.02.98 (IA07.01.98.08).
AA08.26.98.04 Contact R.Cox,Texas Utilities about HA 08.31.98
coordinating base CAD file.
AA08.26.98.05 Contact R.Cox, Texas Utilties about service NS 08.31.98
provisions and Texas Utilities participation.
AA08.26.98.06 Resolve pavement thickness design prior to the HA 09.01.98
City Council hearing.

AA08.26.98.07 Prepare an exploration plan for borrow HA 09.09.98
material evaluation and comparison.
AA08.26.98.08 Contact TAS/Barrier Free Texas to initiate ELS 09.09.98
early review and resolve the filing and
approval process (BFT completerd early
review with comments. Filing can be in 2 or
more packages).
AA08.26.98.09 Cost-Benefit analysis both light poles and HA/TEE 09.09.98
various schemes.
AA08.26.98.10 Second set of overflow roof drains connect to ELS/CHPA 09.09.98
main system. To be confirmed by Grand
Prairie.
AA08.26.98.11 Texas Utilities acceptance of current FE 2 09.09.98 Combined
configuration of electrical yard 10.07.98 Below
(AA09.09.98.11).
AA09.09.98.01 TAS Accessibility Specialist review to be ELS 09.09.98 09.09.98
complete prior to TAS filing (IA07.15.98.02).
AA09.09.98.02 Organize TAS submittal documents for HA/ELS 09.09.98 09.09.98
internal and external review (IA07.15.98.03).
AA09.09.98.03 Define Lighting for site, including fixture type HA/ELS/NS/ 09.09.98 09.09.98
and configuration/spacing to match Lone Star TEE
Park where feasible (IA08.12.98.01).
AA09.09.98.04 Confirm LCC estimate such that utilizing 55 FE/LCC 09.23.98 09.23.98
foot poles (13) for the parking lot lighting,
each with 3-1000 watt fixtures, at 300 feet
o.c. will result in a net cost savings of $15,000
over 40 foot poles (38) with 1-1000 watt
fixture.
AA09.09.98.05 Determine the most effective design/cost CHPA/EL 2 09.23.98 To MEPF
solution to provide overflow roof drainage. S/ LCC 10.07.98
(AD10.07.98.01)
AA09.09.98.06 Discuss the overflow roof drain situation with NS 09.23.98 09.23.98
City of Grand Prairie and attempt to negotiate
dual system.
AA09.09.98.07 Revise off-site civil design to delete right turn HA 09.23.98 09.23.98
lane from Beltline Road and add a right turn
lane on Lonestar Pkwy where it turns onto
Beltline Road, per the City's request.
AA09.09.98.08 Results of testing program to obtain geotech HA 09.23.98 09.23.98
information on borrow material. Drilling to
commence 09.10.98.
AA09.09.98.09 Based upon borrow material characteristics, HA 2 09.23.98 11.04.98
make engineeering determination from 3 5 10.07.98
alternative pavement designs provided. High 2 10.21.98
PI of borrow material requires inport of 11.04.98
select fill; choose pavement design based on
select fill specification.
AA09.09.98.10 Obtain comparables on fill material for HA 5 09.23.98 10.21.98
negotiation with LSP. 10.23.98

AA09.09.98.11 Upon Texas Utilities final design, and FE/TEE 2 09.23.98 12.02.98
acceptance of current configuration of 2 10.07.98
electrical yard (AA08.26.98.11);resolve the 7 10.21.98
general electric service/scope of work with TU 2 11.04.98
(loop service w/manual transfer switch). 12.02.98
Revised yard layout sent to TU. TU approved.
AA09.09.98.12 Upon final design by Texas Utitlities, HA 2 09.23.98 10.07.98
determine/coordinate location of easements. 10.07.98
AA09.09.98.13 Determine location of handicap parking ELS/HA 09.23.98 09.23.98
relative to main entrance doors; determine if
side doors will be handicap accessible doors
for either egress or ingress.
AA09.09.98.14 Complete study and adjustment of civil list of HA/NS/LCC 09.23.98 09.23.98
cost increases.
AA09.23.98.01 Approval of assistance package by Grand NS/HA 09.23.98 09.23.98
Prairie City Council.
AA09.23.98.02 Followup overflow drain issues with Sharon CHPA 10.07.98 To MEPF
Cherry, Building Official, City of Grand
Prairie. (AD10.07.98.01)
AA09.23.98.03 Confirm depths of 55 foot light pole bases and TEE 10.07.98 10.07.98
added cost to finalize decision to use over 38
foot poles.
AA09.23.98.04 Relocate handicap parking and revise related HA 10.07.98 09.25.98
site grading.
AA10.07.98.01 Prepare documents/Life Safety Issues for ELS 10.07.98 10.07.98
initial TAS review submission
(IA07.29.98.02).
AA10.07.98.02 For city requested right hand turn lane from HA 10.07.98 10.07.98
Beltline Road to Lone Star Parkway, send
sketch/metes & bounds to City
Comptroller/Sports Facilities Development
Corp., A. Cammerata, to make aware of need.
AA10.07.98.03 Review and comment on draft Life Safety NS 10.09.98 10.21.98
document prior to initial TAS review
submission.
AA10.07.98.04 Send sketch to Texas Utilities for new location TEE/FE 10.14.98 To MEPF
of on-site pad mouinted equipment 10.21.98
(switchgear location, pad sizes).
AA10.07.98.05 Complete revised floor plan background upon ELS 10.16.98 10.21.98
which to revise underground/underslab
utilities/structure.
AA10.21.98.01 Follow up borrow material availability and NS/HA 10.21.98 10.21.98
cost from Grand Prairie ISD. Should be less
than $1/CY (IA10.07.98.01).
AA10.21.98.02 Complete paving estimate. HA 10.23.98 11.04.98
AA10.21.98.03 Resolve requirements of joint use of single FE 5 11.04.98 12.02.98
utility trench. Info sent to TEE. 12.02.98
AA10.21.98.04 Request for Letter from Texas Utilities NS 7 11.04.98 12.02.98
memorializing service and their agreed upon 7 12.16.98
responsibilities.

AA10.21.98.05 Sketch of transformer enclosure louvers to ELS 7 11.04.98 12.02.98
Texas Utilities. No longer necessary due to 12.02.98
approval of AA09.09.98.11.
AA10.21.98.06 Decide location of Gas Meter. Location HA/TEE/ 5 11.04.98 12.02.98
decided by CHPA plan; not yet approved by ELS 12.04.98
TU
AA10.21.98.07 Closing occurred 11.02.98; Final Plat utility HA 2 11.04.98 12.02.98
signatures to be obtained and recorded. Half 5 12.16.98
completed.
AA11.04.98.01 Complete City land trade; complete land NS/HA 11.04.98 11.04.98
transfer with City Comptroller/Sports
Facilities Development Corp (IA10.21.98.02).
AA11.04.98.01 Negotiate with Kaminsky,LSRP (and, later, NS/HA 7 12.02.98 12.16.98
GPISD), to purchase common fill borrow
material, 30,000 cuyd at $0.75/cuyd in place
(IA09.09.98.01); look for sand in Kaminsky
material.
AA12.02.98.01 Texas Utilities approval of gas meter location. HA 12.16.98
AA12.02.98.02 Revise site sanitary and storm connection HA/CHPA 12.16.98
points to accomodate changes in the
mechanical/plumbing plan ($10,000 est.added
cost); alternatively, run lines internal to the
building.
AA12.02.98.03 Resolve proposed program changes to add NS/ELS/CH 12.16.98
special events power and water to parking lot. PA/HA
AA12.02.98.04 Decide early construction program. NS/ELS/HA 12.16.98
AA12.02.98.05 Decide contracting format for sitework (Gen NS/HA/LCC 12.16.98
Cond, Supplmntl, Conditions of Contract)
(IA11.04.98.01).
AA12.02.98.06 Send copy of Engineering Joint Council HA 12.16.98
documents.
AA12.02.98.07 Revise grade change at side of commisary. HA 12.16.98
AA12.02.98.08 Landscape not yet released by NS; use HA HA 12.16.98
budget for pricing.
B.
Structural
AB09.09.98.01 Complete 3-D model with member sizes and HW 5 09.23.98 09.23.98
down load to SPI (IB08.26.98.01). Compete 10.02.98
with column sizes; correct download errors..
AB07.01.98.01 • Provide/fax structural tables for beam HW 07.02.98 07.02.98
sizes/spacing to ELS.
AB07.01.98.02 Resolve balcony structural design and sight ELS/HW 1 07.28.98 08.12.98
lines; requires seating envelope/platform to 08.12.98
be resolved.
AB07.01.98.03 Revised low roof slopes required by HW for ELS 07.28.98 07.28.98
structural design.
AB07.01.98.04 Provide elevator shaft dimensions and ELS 07.07.98 07.13.98

structural loads to HW.
AB07.01.98.05 Provide preliminary chase locations and sizes ELS/CHP 7 07.07.98 08.12.98
to HW. A 08.12.98
AB07.01.98.06 Resolve roof loading from hung structural ELS/HW/ 7 07.07.98 07.28.98
platform, scaffolding live load, and acoustical JHSA 07.28.98
panels.
AB07.01.98.07 Resolve seating platform design, elevations, ELS/HW 2 07.07.98 08.12.98
and structural load; geometry, sight lines 08.05.98
refinement based upon revised seat.
AB07.01.98.08 Provide/confirm location and structural loads TEE 7 07.14.98 08.12.98
(confirm) of electrical equipment to HW 08.12.98
(greater than 500 lbs).
AB07.01.98.09 Provide location and structural loads for TS/AA 07.14.98 08.26.98
theatrical rigging system to HW. Also, point 08.26.98
loads for proscenium reduction system.
Geometry of loading is critical. Set for 3-D
model.
AB07.01.98.10 Provide/confirm location and structural loads JHSA 07.14.98 07.29.98
of speakers/audio equipment to HW.
AB07.01.98.11 Provide/confirm location, electrical load, and AA 07.14.98 07.29.98
structural loads of lighting projectors at
balcony to HW/TEE.
AB07.01.98.12 Provide/confirm location and structural loads AA 07.14.98 07.29.98
of audience/house and proscenium reduction
systems to HW.
AB07.01.98.13 Confirm receipt of CHPA drawings indicating HW 07.14.98 07.29.98
duct and pipe locations and loads, including
proscenium deluge system.
AB07.01.98.14 Provide final results of wind tunnel test. ELS/HW 5 07.14.98 08.12.98
08.12.98
AB07.15.98.01 Resolve alternative balcony beam sizes and HW/ELS 5 07.24.98 07.29.98
spacing options; integrate with the 3D model.
AB07.15.98.02 Resolve design wind forces/pressures on the HW 5 07.24.98 08.12.98
building. 08.12.98
AB07.15.98.03 Prepare 90 day structural steel commitment HSC 3 07.28.98 08.26.98
and expenditure schedule, include options for 08.26.98
millrun steel and warehouse steel.
AB07.29.98.01 Resolve concessionaire reprogramming effect NS/ELS/VS 08.05.98 08.26.98
on back of house low roof. ELS package 08.26.98
rec'd last week, based on Scheme 'A'.
AB07.29.98.02 Determine effect of delaying 3D model to HW/HSC/LC 08.12.98 08.26.98
09.16.98 on project schedule, i.e. C 08.26.98
fabrication/detailing.
AB07.29.98.03 Decision required to maintain construction NS 08.12.98 08.12.98
start date and approve structural steel order
for mill run steel and fab shop commitment
without 3D Model(IB07.15.98.02).
AB07.29.98.04 Complete new background drawings for back ELS 08.12.98 08.26.98
of house. 08.26.98
AB07.29.98.05 Provide all input to HW for structural detail of ELS 08.12.98 08.12.98

platform levels.
AB08.12.98.01 Review schedule of four weeks for steel ELS ASAP 08.12.98
fabrication. (IB07.15.98.03)
(AD08.12.98.05)
AB08.12.98.02 Offline conference regarding utilizing 'Total NS/LCC/EL 08.26.98 08.26.98
Station' to do computerized field layout. S/ HW
AB08.26.98.01 Provide HW structural loads for box boom JHSA/AA 2 09.01.98 09.23.98
alternate locations. /ELS 09.23.98
AB08.26.98.02 Verify that box boom alternate locations hit JHSA/AA 2 09.01.98 09.23.98
4000# support points. /ELS/ 09.23.98
HW
AB08.26.98.03 Confirm assumptions for proscenium loads. AA/ELS/ 2 09.04.98 09.23.98
Provide sliding panel information. Major HW 09.23.98
loads resolved and will be faxed.
AB08.26.98.04 Provide preliminary review of 3-D model to HW 09.04.98 09.09.98
HSC/SPI/PB for review of connections and
heavy steel members(IB07.01.98.01).
AB08.26.98.05 Review value stream based on mill order steel HSC/LCC 09.04.98 09.09.98
to determine order lead time.
AB08.26.98.06 Coordination meeting upon completion of 3D JHSA/AA/E Issues Log 09.09.98
model to finalize effect of stage and grid on LS/
structure. (IB08.26.98.02) HW/LCC
AB08.26.98.07 Define/review the structural detailing in a HW/HSC/SP 09.09.98 09.09.98
coordination meeting to develop the I/ PB/LCC
sequence/schedule to serve the shop
drawing/fabrication schedule.
AB09.09.98.01 Complete 3-D model with member sizes and HW 5 09.23.98 09.23.98
down load to SPI (IB08.26.98.01). Compete 10.02.98
with column sizes; correct download errors.
AB09.09.98.02 Meeting @ HW on Monday 9/14/98 @ 1:30 HW/HSC/SP 09.14.98 09.23.98
p.m. to determine detailing input sequence I/ LCC/PB
needed by HW & SPI to accommodate
fabrication schedule shown in 21 month value
stream.
AB09.09.98.03 Finalize wall design/acoustics for F.O.H. JHSA/EL 2 09.23.98 10.07.98
mechanical rooms. CHPA to confirm S/ CHPA 10.07.98
AHUs/configuration to mitigate wall
acoustics; also, alternative wall designs.
AB09.09.98.04 Review HW 3D model data transmission for HS/SPI 09.23.98 09.23.98
system compatibility.
AB09.23.98.01 Schedule work session upon completion of 3D NS/ELS/HW 09.30.98 09.23.98
model with structural and theatrical /
consultants to address issues and detailing of HSC/PB/JHS
stage house and auditorium roof. A/
Coordination meetings set for 09.29.98 and CHPA/TEE/
09.30.98. (Formerly AB08.26.98.06) AA/TSC/SP
(IB08.26.98.02). L/ PA
AB09.23.98.02 Review design/structural implications of JHSA/HW/E 10.07.98 10.07.98
alternate interior wall systems requiring LS
acoustical consideration.

AB10.07.98.01 Develop/detail steel platform design for curved ELS/HW/M 10.09.98 10.21.98
seating format, including curved and slotted BS
riser, and installation of riser mounted seating /AA/LCC
(involve Irwin Seating). Draw section for
each typical riser height.
AB10.07.98.02 Revise structure to reflect development of the HW/ELS/ 2 10.09.98 11.04.98
fly tower and rigging wall. Provide rigging AA 11.04.98
wall section.
AB10.07.98.03 Coordination meeting with CC regarding HW/ELS 10.15.98 10.21.98
purlin framing, wall sections, and wind girts
(locations relative to interior finishes);
fabrication and installation responsibility.
Provide plan and wall section.
AB10.07.98.04 Revise framing to accommodate concrete HW/ELS 5 10.21.98 11.04.98
under roof top units at BOH, top of offices. 11.02.98
AB10.21.98.01 Identify allowable deflection for purlins HW 11.04.98 11.04.98
supporting interior finishes.
AB10.21.98.02 Resolve purlin design with regard to interior HW/ELS/CC 11.04.98 11.04.98
finishes.
AB10.21.98.03 Review riser design with regard to platform MBS 11.04.98 11.04.98
construction.
AB10.21.98.04 Establish overall general design for seating HW 1 11.04.98 12.02.98
risers. Resolve concept design reviewed with 2 12.16.98
MBSI.
AB10.21.98.05 Complete seating platform design to be able to ELS 2 11.06.98 12.02.98
complete 3D Model download by 12.11.98 5
(and ABM by 12.18.98) (IB07.15.98.01).
Havens currently doing hand take-off for
costing.
AB10.21.98.06 Resolve retaining wall location which has been ELS/HW/ 7 11.04.98 12.02.98
influenced by the seating platform curve. PB/ LCC 7 12.16.98
AB10.21.98.07 Review four seating mounting details with ELS 11.04.98 11.04.98
Irwin Seating.
AB10.21.98.08 Resolve the structural support and acoustical ELS/HW/JH 11.04.98 11.04.98
requirements at "meet and greet" areas at west SA
side of building; HVAC Units moved.
AB10.21.98.09 Revisit/update steel detailing value stream HW/HS/SPI/ 11.04.98 11.04.98
sequences to decide how far to proceed. LCC
AB11.04.98.01 Revise 3-D Model to reflect curved seating HW 11.04.98 11.04.98
format (IB10.07.98.01).
AB12.02.98.01 Review prefab stair utilization ELS 12.02.98 12.02.98
(IC08.12.98.02, IB08.12.98.01).
Specifications allow the use of prefab stairs at
specific locations.
AB12.02.98.02 Resolve pricing set coordination issues, i.e. ELS/HW 12.16.98
column locations, to be able to complete 3D
Model.
AB12.02.98.03 HW/PB meeting on 12.03.98 to review HW/PB 12.16.98
erection sequence on which ABM's are based.

AB12.02.98.04 Resolve proposed changes relative to 3D NS/ELS/HW 12.16.98
Model, i.e. stage house.
C. Enclosure/Architectural
AC07.15.98.02 Resolve insulation requirements for shell of ELS/JHSA/ 07.28.98 08.26.98

the building. Refine energy calculations for CHPA 08.18.98
specific R value for walls and roof
(IC07.01.98.01). Sound/Power ratings of
cooling towers will drive amount of
insulation or dbl sheet rock.
AC07.29.98.01 Prepare life safety narrative outline. ELS 08.12.98 08.06.98
AC08.12.98.01 Evaluate status of input for structural HW 08.26.98 08.26.98
detailing. Value stream.
AC08.12.98.02 Determine 'R' value for roof considering both ELS/JHSA/ 08.12.98 08.12.98
thermal insulation and noise. (IC07.15.98.01) CHPA
(DC08.12.98.01)
AC07.15.98.01 Complete louver selection (IC07.01.98.04). ELS/CC 07.22.98 07.29.98
AC07.15.98.03 Resolve material selection at the building base. ELS/LCC Issues 07.29.98
Log
AC08.12.98.03 Complete roof and wall input concept ELS/CHPA 08.25.98 08.26.98
drawings. (IC07.01.98.02) Wal designs
should be complete before roof design begins,
and roof drawings will take about ten days
after that. Scuppers are not an issue.
AC08.26.98.01 Provide metal samples of color and finish for CC/ELS 5 09.09.98 10.07.98
selection (deleting 'and exterior mock ups'); 10.07.98
two of three received.
AC08.26.98.02 Clearly identify on the concept drawings the ELS/CC 09.09.98 09.09.98
location of each color, and determine quantity
of each of the vertical, horizontal and smooth
panels so the cost for custom colors for each
type can be assessed.
AC09.09.98.01 ELS issuance of exterior glass and stair ELS 09.17.98 09.23.98
design package to CC (IC07.01.98.03).
AC09.09.98.02 ELS to detail the desired exterior wall mock- ELS 4 09.23.98 10.07.98
up and proposed location at the site 09.30.98
(IC08.26.98.01).
AC09.09.98.03 Determine metal panel custom colors based on CC/ELS 2 10.07.98 10.07.98
ELS submitted color chips and quantities for
each of the colors.
AC09.09.98.04 Determine metal panel custom colors premium ELS/CC 2 10.07.98 10.07.98
cost based on economic order quantities.
AC09.09.98.05 Determine if roof valley lines to drain ELS/HW 09.23.98 09.23.98
locations can be accomplished with concrete
rather than being built up by PC.
AC09.23.98.01 Confirm concrete wall and roof deck at back ELS 10.07.98 10.07.98
of house low area.
AC10.07.98.01 Revise exterior wall mock-up detail; propose ELS 10.21.98 10.21.98

site location.
AC10.07.98.02 Provide drawing of alternate value engineered ELS 10.21.98 10.21.98
BOH metal panels; reduced parapet height.
AC10.07.98.03 Resolve number of layers of gypsum board as ELSJHSA 2 10.21.98 11.04.98
alternative to CMU to achieve accoustical 11.06.98
objective - Vomitory, etc. To be included in
Pricing Documents.
AC10.21.98.01 Provide enclosure mock-up pricing. LCC/CC 5 11.13.98 12.02.98
AC10.21.98.02 Coordinate interior finish support (interior HW/CC/ELS 11.04.98 11.04.98
studs and drywall) with high wall metal panel
suport girts.
AC10.21.98.03 Identify roofing material for each roofing ELS/LCC 7 11.04.98 12.02.98
section, esp. low canopy roof visible from /PC 6 12.16.98
lobby balcony - aggregate/paver roofscape;
provide pricing and samples.
AC11.04.98.01 Resolve mock-up schedule: 2 months to ELS/LCC 1 12.02.98 12.16.98
fabricate panels; 2 months to erect mock-up, /CC/ NS
make changes, and make decision (3 months to
fabricate building panels; 120 to 150 day
building critical path).
AC11.04.98.02 Resolve door acoustical ratings. Will not have ELS/JHSA 12.02.98 12.02.98
ratings.
AC12.02.98.01 Determine if a mock-up(s) of exterior wall will NS 12.07.98
be required; to be price based. Ordering,
fabricating, erecting, and making decisions
based upon the mock-up are critical path
tasks (IC09.09.98.01).
D. Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire
Protection
AD07.01.98.01 Post Drawings on FTP site. CHPA 3 07.06.98 08.12.98
08.12.98
AD07.01.98.02 Provide/confirm audio system power JHSA 07.07.98 07.07.98
requirements to TEE.
AD07.01.98.03 Provide/confirm audio system cooling JHSA 07.07.98 07.07.98
requirements to CHPA.
AD07.01.98.04 Provide/confirm emergency power items to ELS 07.08.98 07.14.98
TEE/CHPA.
AD07.01.98.05 Provide/confirm normal and emergency loads CHPA 7 07.08.98 07.30.98
to TEE. 07.30.98
AD07.01.98.06 Provide/confirm architectural/theatrical AA 07.08.98 07.08.98
lighting and video power loads to TEE/CHPA.
AD07.01.98.07 Resolve location of main electrical room (162) ELS/TEE/ 5 07.08.98 08.12.98
and electronics storage and shop (158) to CHPA/LC 08.12.98
facilitate piping from cooling tower. LCC to C
provide pricing input. Not applicable due to
commissary design change.
AD07.01.98.08 Provide pipe/duct weights to HW CHPA 07.14.98 07.14.98

AD07.01.98.09 Provide concession/food service electrical NS/ELS 07.08.98 08.26.98
loads to TEE/CHPA. Revise food service 08.26.98
loads due to program change. Note:
Concession charts were received and show
equipment loads and revised floor plan raise
the cost from the current estimate.
AD07.01.98.10 Provide CATV and Data information to TEE. NS/JHSA/A Issues 07.29.98
A Log
AD07.01.98.11 Provide elevator electrical loads/data to TEE. ELS/LCC 07.08.98 07.08.98
AD07.01.98.12 Provide life safety [and exit sign loads] (Rolf ELS 07.08.98 07.29.98
Jensen Assoc.) to TEE.
AD07.01.98.13 Provide/confirm location of raceway loads to AA/JHSA 5 07.14.98 08.12.98
HW/TEE/CHPA. 08.12.98
AD07.01.98.14 Provide transformer sizes to TEE. AA/JHSA 07.14.98 07.14.98
AD07.01.98.15 Provide/confirm general lighting loads to TEE 07.14.98 07.14.98
CHPA.
AD07.01.98.16 Provide emergency power motor sizes to TEE. CHPA 07.14.98 07.14.98
AD07.01.98.17 Provide fire pump information to TEE. WSFP 07.14.98 07.14.98
AD07.01.98.18 Provide concession/food service layout NS/ELS 2 07.14.98 08.12.98
information (Volume Services). Big picture 07.31.98
matrix: 3000 SF
AD07.01.98.19 Air zones approval; block out areas served by NS/CHPA 7 07.14.98 08.12.98
AHU's for review (zones of operation; zones / 07.30.98
for control, ID07.01.98.02). MMC/EL
S
AD07.15.98.01 Confirm subcontractor participation in FE 07.22.98 07.22.98
evaluating on-line project management
approach.
AD07.15.98.02 Resolve sheet metal duct work design; provide CHPA/LL 7 07.20.98 08.12.98
to JHSA for approval. 07.31.98
AD07.15.98.03 Provide feedback/approval of sheet metal JHSA 2 07.22.98 08.12.98
ductwork design to ELS (ID07.01.98.01). 08.03.98
AD07.15.98.04 Provide lobby lighting loads to ELS. TEE/AA 07.22.98 07.22.98
AD07.15.98.05 Meet with cablevision to explore infrastructure NS Thtrcl/Int 07.29.98
requirements for in-house television system.
AD07.15.98.06 Lighting operations approval; block out areas TEE/AA 07.28.98 07.28.98
served by lighting - zones of operation/control
(IE07.01.98.02).
AD07.15.98.07 Coordinate location of proscenium deluge WSFP/H 6 07.28.98 08.12.98
system with other systems. W/ 08.05.98
CHPA/A
A
AD07.29.98.01 Follow up proscenium deluge system meeting - WSFP/H 2 Issues Log 08.12.98
operation, pipe size, curtain physical make-up. W/
(ID08.12.98.04) CHPA/A
A/
LCC/ELS
AD07.29.98.02 Follow up acoustics meeting after JHSA JHSA/EL 2 Issues Log 08.12.98
reviews sheetmetal design. (ID08.12.98.02) S/
CHPA/LC

C
AD07.29.98.03 Resolve safety requirements for proscenium WSFP/C 2 Issues Log 08.12.98
deluge system with Rolf Jensen. HPA/
(ID08.12.98.03) AA/LCC
AD07.29.98.04 Resolve supply duct routing from house to CHPA/JH 2 Issues Log 08.12.98
mechanical chase/AHU. Reworded as: House SA/
duct route and outlet locations move to follow ELS/LCC
new architectural layout. (ID08.12.98.04)
AD07.29.98.05 Resolve additional MEPF requirements for CHPA/TEE 08.05.98 08.26.98
adding commissary kitchen. WSFP/FE/L 08.26.98
CC
AD07.29.98.06 Resolve additional requirements for CHPA/TEE 08.05.98 08.26.98
addition/revision to suite level toilet rooms. ELS/LCC 08.26.98
Add to floor plan.
AD07.29.98.07 Coordinate ceiling acoustical panels and house CHPA/JHSA Issues Log 08.12.98
air outlets. Now combines with / ELS/LCC
AD07.29.98.04 above, becoming
ID08.12.98.04.
AD07.29.98.08 Add acoustics value stream into project value JHSA/LCC Issues Log 08.12.98
stream. (ID08.12.98.05)
AD07.29.98.09 Meet onsite with Texas Utilities to permanent TEE/ELS/H 08.12.98 08.26.98
and temporary electric service. A/ 08.19.98
FE/LCC/NS
AD08.12.98.01 Resolve roof drainage design to complete CHPA/ELS 08.25/98 08.26.98
enclosure package. (Related item
AA08.12.98.10)
AD08.12.98.02 Determine ASHRAE design temperatures. NS 08.19.98 08.26.98
Consider adjusting D/FW design standards
due to temperature change condition.
AD08.12.98.03 Verify exact locations on marked plan to be NS 08.19.98 09.09.98
designated 'smoking areas'. 09.09.98
AD08.12.98.04 Determine effect of suite smoking areas on CHPA 2 09.09.98 09.23.98
mechanical system. 09.16.98
AD08.12.98.05 Reconfigure ductwork at auditorium hard CHPA/M 5 08.26.98 09.23.98
ceiling for JHSA/ELS review. MC/ 09.10.98
LL/LCC
AD08.12.98.06 Team to test assumptions for delivery duct CHPA/M 2 08.26.98 09.23.98
layouts in complying with acoustic CC/ 09.17.98
requirements. Note: Revised duct plans will LL/LCC
be available by 4 Sept. 98. Drawings to JHSA
09.10.98.
AD08.12.98.07 Prepare summary list of electrical load TEE 08.19.98 08.26.98
requirements for presentation to Texas
Utilities.
AD08.26.98.01 Determine roof drain pipe routing and resolve CHPA 5 09.09.98 10.07.98
potential pipe and roof drain locations
conflicts.
AD08.26.98.02 Confirm roof drainage overflow design with CHPA 09.09.98 09.09.98
Grand Prairie.

AD08.26.98.03 Follow up proscenium deluge system meeting - WSFP/H 2 09.09.98 09.09.98
operation, pipe size, curtain physical make-up W/ Move to
(AD07.29.98.01 & AD07.29.98.07) CHPA/A Theatrical
(ID08.12.98.01). A/LCC/E
LS
AD08.26.98.04 Obtain sound/power ratings and provide to CHPA/M 2 09.09.98 09.23.98
JHSA. Waiting on Cook Fan ratings. MC 09.16.98
AD08.26.98.05 Provide concept equipment layout for food NS/CI 7 09.09.98 09.23.98
service areas. Detailed design upon vendor 09.23.98
selection.
AD08.26.98.06 Determine increased power requirements for NS/CI/TEE 09.09.98 09.09.98
food service areas.
AD09.09.98.01 House duct route and outlet locations move to CHPA/JHSA 09.09.98 09.09.98
follow new architectural layout / ELS/LCC
(AD07.29.98.04, ID08.12.98.04).
AD09.09.98.02 Determine routing/enclosure of exterior duct at CHPA 09.09.98 09.09.98
front of house (ID08.26.98.02).
AD09.09.98.03 Review implications of two-hour house/lobby ELS/CHPA/ 09.09.98 09.23.98
separation vs 21,000 cfm lobby smoke LCC 09.23.98
exhaust (selected), life safety and cost.
AD09.09.98.04 Provide per Texas barrier-free access, a ELS 09.09.98 09.23.98
unisex single toilet for each grouping of mens 09.23.98
and womans toilets.
AD09.09.98.05 Provide building infrastructure requirements NS/JHSA/A 09.23.98 09.23.98
for CATV, theatrical, and Data information to A
TEE. Identify the spaces within the building;
09.29/30.98 Meeting (ID07.01.98.10).
AD09.09.98.06 Follow up acoustics meeting after JHSA JHSA/ELS/ 09.23.98 09.23.98
reviews sheetmetal design (AD07.29.98.02, CHPA/LCC
ID08.12.98.04, ID08.12.98.02).
AD09.09.98.07 Coordinate duct sizing and delivery design CHPA/LL 09.23.98 09.23.98
options.
AD09.09.98.08 Review acoustical requirements for mech. ELS/JHS 5 09.23.98 10.07.98
equipment wall systems, central plant A
(formerly AC09.09.98.06) From E/A 09.23.98
AD09.09.98.09 Front Mech.Room: CMU walls may be ELS/JHS 2 09.23.98 10.07.98
needed acoustically; currently metal A
studs/drywall;may require heavier walls (8"
block w/2 layers gypsum) or change in
building envelope enlarging mech.room
(formerly AC09.09.98.07);JHSA sketch to
HW.From E/A 09.23.98
AD09.23.98.01 Provide data for small ahu/fan coil unit in CHPA 09.30.98 10.07.98
basement mechanical equipment room.
AD09.23.98.02 Provide TEE/FE scope of design as a basis for TEE 10.07.98 10.07.98
preconstruction letter agrement and projected
cash flow.
AD09.23.98.03 Confirm/revise layout of electrical room and TEE 10.07.98 10.07.98
electrical yard.

AD09.23.98.04 Provide for 4 to 6 food service exhaust duct CHPA/CI/ 1 10.07.98 10.21.98
fans and returns in lobby area (original ELS 1 12.01.98
program included 2 to 3). Provide location of MMC/LL 2
kitchen supply fans(AD10.07.98.04). Holding
for concession consultant equipment concept.
AD10.07.98.01 Determine effect of concession smoking areas CHPA 10.07.98 From S/C
on mechanical systems. (ID09.23.01) 10.07.98
AD10.07.98.02 Determine the most effective design/cost CHPA 2 09.23.98 From S/C
solution to provide overflow roof drainage. 5 10.07.98 10.07.98
Followup overflow drain issues with Sharon 7 10.14.98 11.04.98
Cherry, Building Official, City of Grand 11.04.98
Prairie (AA09.09.98.05 & AA09.23.98.02).
Provide sketch/documentation to GP.
AD10.07.98.03 Provide revised AHU layout at FOH CHPA 10.21.98 10.21.98
mechanical rooms.
AD10.07.98.04 Meet with cablevision to explore infrastructure NS # 08.07.98 09.23.98
requirements/formats for in-house live 09.23.98
broadcast and closed circuit television system
(AD07.15.98.05). Identify options/design
responsibility/proposal/scope of work.
AD10.07.98.05 Revise Food Service/Commissary program NS/VS/ELS 08.05.98 08.26.98
including upper level food service capabilities 08.26.98
(IE07.01.98.01). (Scheme B received from
ELS during the meeting.)
AD10.07.98.06 Revise Suite Level toilet room NS/CHPA/E 08.05.98 08.26.98
program/design. NextStage to review layouts. LS 08.26.98
AD10.07.98.08 Develop commissary utility metering level. NS/CII 08.14.98 08.26.98
AD10.07.98.09 Confirm that structural engineers have JHS/SP 7 08.14.98 09.10.98
theatrical dimming rack and Audio amplifier 09.23.98
rack loads.
AD10.07.98.10 Clarify the conceptual design/layout in the ELS/CI 7 09.09.98 09.23.98
concessions area relative to headroom 09.23.98
condition.
AD10.07.98.11 Define type and size of stage rear doors for ELSl/AA 09.09.98 09.09.98
framing input.
AD10.07.98.12 Finalize plan layout as a result of adding ELS/NS 08.14.98 08.26.98
commissary.
AD10.07.98.13 Provide location of kitchen supply fans. CHPA 1 10.21.98 Combined
11.04.98 Above
AD10.07.98.14 Revise roof drain design to reflect roof CHPA 10.21.98 10.21.98
changes.
AD10.07.98.15 Review commissary program and confirm NS 10.21.98 10.21.98
food service exhaust duct fans and returns.
New concept.
AD10.07.98.16 Resolve need for fire pump; determine water CHPA/RJA/ 10.21.98 10.21.98
pressure required at roof and proscenium. WSFP/ELS
AD10.07.98.17 Confirm connection of fire pump with respect TEE/FE 10.21.98 10.21.98
to main and emergency generator.
AD10.07.98.18 Provide layout and size of BOH (rear) duct CHPA/LL 2 10.21.98 11.04.98
runs for acoustical analysis. 11.04.98

AD10.07.98.19 Provide layout showing telephone, data, and NS 5 10.21.98 11.04.98
CCTV locations to be serviced with empty 10.28.98
conduit. Provide CATV and data information 11.04.98
to TEE (AD07.01.98.10/IE07.29.98.01).
AD10.07.98.20 Meet with telephone company to review the NS/ELS/ 5 10.21.98 12.02.98
project. Coordinate with NS. NS to negotiate TEE/ FE 7 11.04.98
costs. 12.02.98
AD10.07.98.21 Review/confirm normal and emergency power TEE 2 10.21.98 12.02.98
loads. Schedule requires updating. 2 11.04.98
12.02.98
AD10.21.98.01 Send sketch to Texas Utilities for new location TEE/FE 5 10.14.98 11.04.98
of on-site pad mounted equipment (switchgear 5 10.23.98
location, pad sizes) (AA10.07.98.04). 11.04.98
Develop alternate options for TU
consideration.
AD10.21.98.02 Provide latest mechanical unit layouts; verify CHPA 11.04.98 11.04.98
weight and layout of new units.
AD10.21.98.03 Review/mark-up underseat air slot bands. CHPA 11.04.98 11.04.98
AD10.21.98.04 Completion of Electrical Pricing Documents, TEE 5 11.09.98 11.16.98
including complete underground/underslab 5 12.16.98
electrical construction documents
(ID10.07.98.03). One line and
recepticle/power drawings only submitted.
AD10.21.98.05 Reconsider deluge system decision/design ELS/CHP 2 11.04.98 12.02.98
based upon Rolf Jensen Associates review. A/ WSFP 1 12.16.98
Deluge "A" included in pricing documents.
Alternate:"B" closely spaced sprinkler heads
reacting individually;also, proscenium
reduction system functions as a fire curtain.
AD11.04.98.01 Control of AHU noise as it travels down the CHPA/JHSA 12.02.98 12.02.98
duct path (ID10.07.98.01). Base units
changed.
AD11.04.98.02 Outline options for acoustical consideration CHPA/JHSA 12.02.98 12.02.98
(ID10.07.98.02).
AD11.04.98.03 Followup overflow drain issues with Sharon CHPA 2 12.02.98 12.16.98
Cherry, Building Official, City of Grand
Prairie. Awaiting return response.
AD11.04.98.04 Provide gas meter information - size, TSPH/CH 5 12.02.98 12.16.98
clearance. PA
AD11.04.98.05 Based upon consessionaire design provide gas CHPA 2 12.02.98 12.16.98
requirements for cook areas.
AD11.04.98.06 Resolve generator requirements. CHPA/TEE 12.02.98 12.02.98
AD11.04.98.07 Confirm assumptions regarding lighting CHPA/TEE 12.02.98 Issues
controls (ID12.02.98.01). Log
12.02.98
AD12.02.98.01 Decision regarding code/security acceptance FE 12.16.98
of open yard flexibility w/o having separations
between electrical switch gear, cooling tower,
etc.
AD12.02.98.02 Provide Electrical Specifications. TEE 12.16.98

E. Theatrical/Interiors
AE07.01.98.01 Send/fax theatrical event proforma to NS 07.02.98 07.02.98
AA/JHSA.
AE07.01.98.02 JHSA and SPL to meet to review audio JHSA/SP 7 07.07.98 08.12.98
concepts. L 08.12.98
AE07.01.98.03 AA and PAL to review theatrical lighting AA/PAL 07.07.98 08.12.98
concepts.
AE07.01.98.04 Confirmation of theatrical systems based on AA/PAL/JH 07.07.98 08.12.98
event proforma. SA /SPL
AE07.01.98.05 Confirm/resolve size of mid-house control AA/JHSA/N 07.07.98 08.26.98
position to ELS. S 08.12.98
AE07.01.98.06 Develop alternative audience/house reduction ELS/AA 07.10.98 08.12.98
designs based upon new design parameters.
AE07.15.98.01 Resolve house reduction system options NS 2 07.22.98 08.12.98
(AF07.01.98.05). Provide loads for both 08.05.98
options to HW.
AE07.15.98.02 Resolve front lighting and vertical side box AA/PA 5 07.28.98 08.12.98
boom positions (probably 2). Provide loads 07.31.98
to HW.
AE07.15.98.03 Resolve seat selection options; obtain chair NS/AA/E 5 Issues Log 08.12.98
samples and confirm dimensional envelope. LS
(IE08.12.98.04)
AE09.09.98.01 Follow up proscenium deluge system meeting - WSFP/H 2 09.09.98 Issues
operation, pipe size, curtain physical make-up: W/ 09.23.98 Log
Resolve curtain opaque surface. CHPA/A 09.23.98
(AD07.29.98.01 & A/
AD07.29.98.07)(ID08.12.98.01) LCC/ELS
(IE09.23.98.01).
AE09.09.98.02 Obtain chair samples and confirm within AA/JHSA 5 09.23.98 12.02.98
current seating envelope /ELS/ 5 10.07.98
(AE07.15.98.03,IE08.12.98.04). NS to meet LCC 6 10.21.98
with ELS to make a decision on seating 1 11.04.98
(IE08.12.98.01). Review metal perforated vs. 12.02.98
plastic bottom seats, and provide observations/
concerns to NS.
AE09.09.98.03 Resolve life safety requirements for ELS/CHP 09.23.98 Issues
proscenium deluge system (wet fire curtain) Log
with Rolf Jensen (AD07.29.98.03) 09.23.98
(IE09.23.98.01).
AE09.09.98.04 Resolve alternate designs for mid-house AA/JHSA/N 09.23.98 09.23.98
control position. Row of removable seats in S/ ELS
front.
AE09.09.98.05 Resolve structurally and operationally whether NS/AA/ELS 09.23.98 09.23.98
Box Booms will track or be fixed point loads.
Will be riggged.
AE09.09.98.06 Determine effect of image magnification on AA/ELS 09.23.98 09.23.98
walls and ceiling. Provide 2-20 foot diameter
screens; projector to be 30 feet out.

AE09.09.98.07 Prepare conceptual design for commissary and CI/ELS 09.23.98 09.23.98
loading dock area, including trash compactor
location.
AE09.09.98.08 The commissary/loading dock changes need to ELS 2 09.23.98 10.07.98
be reflected on the ELS drawings, and
provided to Creative Ind.
AE09.09.98.09 Submit Life Safety Program to Grand Prairie ELS 10.16.98 10.21.98
(IE08.12.98.05).
AE09.23.98.01 Provide layout sketch for other equipment - TEE 2 10.07.98 12.02.98
electrical, ie. disconnects - in the 7 10.21.98
amplifier/dimmer rooms. Review size of 11.04.98
amplifyer/dimmer room (AE10.21.98.01).
AE10.07.98.01 Resolve forestage rigging grid issue. Confirm AA/JHSA 10.07.98 10.07.98
both structurals and 3-D model are based on
10' o.c., 4000# pt.lds; maximum gross
tonnage, 3300#. (IE08.12.98.03)
AE10.07.98.02 Determine the extent of theatrical lighting ELS/AA 10.07.98 10.07.98
system that is necessary, i.e. dimmer racks, AA/ELS/NS
etc. to be provided as a part of the base
building capital investment. NS developed
description of essential equipment.
(IE09.09.98.01)
AE10.07.98.03 Review proscenium deluge system:operation, WSFP/HW/ 10.07.98 10.07.98
3in pipe size, volume, curtain makeup: CHPA/AA/
Resolve life safety requirements,(wet fire LCC/ELS
curtain/curtain opaque surface) with Rolf
Jensen.(AD07.29.98.01 & AD07.29.98.07)
(ID08.12.98.01)(AD07.29.98.07)
(09.09.98.01/.03).
AE10.07.98.04 Forward acoustical testing reports from Irwin AA 7 10.14.98 11.04.98
Seating to JHSA. 7 10.21.98
11.04.98
AE10.07.98.05 Relocate Electrical room to opposite side of ELS 10.14.98 10.21.98
AV Room; identify size of AV Room; and,
distribute for verification.
AE10.07.98.06 Provide revised auditorium backgrounds. ELS 10.18.98 10.21.98
AE10.07.98.07 Provide systems plans for each level including AA/JHSA 10.21.98 10.21.98
wiring devices and conduit layout.
(IE09.23.98.02)
AE10.07.98.08 Video//TV broadcast decision. NS/JHSA/A 10.21.98 10.21.98
(IE07.15.98.01) A
AE10.07.98.09 Resolve use of series of gratings instead of "no ELS/AA 2 10.21.98 11.04.98
fall protection." 11.04.98
AE10.07.98.10 Review combination of 3-seat sizes by section ELS/AA 9 10.21.98 12.02.98
to arrive at a final seating plan; adjust aisles 11.04.98
and vomitories (Now Fixed). Irwin Seating to 12.02.98
meet w/NS. Irwin to do seat layout/count.
AE10.07.98.11 Obtain sample of Irwin metal pan perforated LCC 5 10.21.98 Issues
seat with curved lip. No differential envelope 5 11.04.98 Log
(IE12.02.98.01). 12.02.98 12/02.98

AE10.21.98.01 Review size of amplifyer/dimmer room. ELS/AA/JHS 11.04.98 See
A Above
AE10.21.98.02 Send new pit layout/dimensions to JHSA and ELS 10.28.98 11.04.98
AA for review (IE08.26.98.02).
AE10.21.98.03 Review/revise audience reduction system NS/ELS/AA 11.11.98 11.04.98
(IE10.07.98.02).
AE10.21.98.04 Review design program with NS independent ELS/AA/JHS 12.02.98 12.02.98
producer/ reviewer, Peter Wexler. Ongoing. A
AE10.21.98.05 Review proposed 3 reconfigurations and sizes AA/JHSA 2 11.04.98 12.02.98
for control booth/ FOH mixing position 12.02.98
necessitated by radial seating change. Resolve
constraints
AE11.04.98.01 Revisit discussion regarding height of grid NS 11.04.98 11.04.98
above proscenium. Proscenium: Rock 50 FT,
Broadway 32 FT Min. (IE10.07.98.03).
AE12.02.98.01 Send copy of Production Arts Lighting GMP LCC 12.04.98
proposal to NS/ELS.
AE12.02.98.02 Raise Stage House trim height from 80 Ft to ELS/HW 12.16.98
81Ft-3In by lightening stage house steel and
adjustin roof pitch. Requires addding back
rigging pit: 6Ft by 60Ft of basement space,
per earlier drawing issue.
AE12.02.98.03 Send picture and dimensions of typical sound JHSA 12.16.98
board to ELS, for selection of appropriate
sized sissor lift.
AE12.02.98.04 Develop actual speaker locations/'look' of the JHSA/SPL 12.16.98
proscenium; development meeting next week
to generate describing graphics.
AE12.02.98.05 Colors and materials for lobby and house NS/ELS 01.11.98
beign pulled by logo/ color development;
colors and materials presentation after January
1st.
F. Project Support
AF07.01.98.01 Approval of audio and theatrical lighting NS 07.07.98 07.07.98
concepts.
AF07.01.98.02 Issue project insurance memorandum for LCC 07.07.98 07.07.98
discussion.
AF07.01.98.03 Issue subcontractor preconstruction LCC Issues Log 08.26.98

agreements for discussion, (IF08.26.98.01).
(Crown Corr agreement issued).
AF07.01.98.04 Resolve design agreement legal issues and NS/ELS 5 07.10.98 Issues
complete ELS design agreement. Effort 5 10.21.98 Log
continuing. Documents may not be filed for 10.21.98
permits until legal issues are resolved and
designers can be identified in the drawing
title block (IF10.21.98.01).
AF07.01.98.05 Approval of audience/house reduction design NS Thtrcl/Int 07.29.98
solution.

AF07.01.98.06 Identify potential national vendor partners. LCC/ELS Issues Log 08.26.98
Effort continuing (IF08.26.98.02).
AF07.01.98.07 Identify project components not currently LCC/ELS Issues Log 08.26.98
represented by team. Effort continuing.
AF07.01.98.08 Update and issue current project budget, as LCC 07.14.98 07.29.98
revised.
Project Logs:
AF07.01.98.09 • Develop a consistent format for project logs LCC 07.07.98 07.09.98
for review.
AF07.01.98.10 • Refine meeting action items, issue/maintain LCC 07.07.98 07.09.98
Action Items Log.
AF07.01.98.11 • Develop, issue and maintain Issues Log, and LCC 07.10.98 07.09.98
Decision Log.
AF07.01.98.12 Develop, issue and maintain Project Document ELS 07.14.98 07.29.98
Log.
AF07.01.98.13 • Approval of project logs and format. NS 07.14.98 07.15.98
AF07.15.98.01 Amend log format to show Issue, Action Item, LCC/NS 07.29.98 07.29.98
Decision trail; each item to have a discrete
identity.
AF07.15.98.02 Probability of construction start date - Status NS Issues Log 08.26.98
Report (IF08.26.98.03).
AF07.15.98.03 Submit agreement for engineering and other NS/HA Issues Log 08.26.98
consultant services (AF07.15.98.04).
AF07.15.98.04 Submit agreement for architectural services ELS/HA 07.28.98 07.29.98
and other consultant design agreements.
AF07.15.98.05 Resolve agreement with food service NS 07.28.98 07.28.98
concessionaire.
AF07.15.98.06 Revise estimate schedule for GMP. NS/LCC 07.28.98 07.28.98
AF07.29.98.01 Prepare target cash flow estimate for both NS/ELS/LC 08.12.98 09.09.98
consultant design and subcontractor design C 08.26.98
efforts.
AF07.29.98.02 Expand current summary project budget to LCC Issues Log 08.26.98
detailed estimate (IF08.26.98.04)
AF07.29.98.03 Electronic communication of project NC/ELS/ 7 08.12.98 10.07.98
information. Install project documents on LCC 10.07.98
communication web site server
(IF07.15.98.06).
AF07.29.98.04 Include Food Service consultant, Creative NS/LCC 08.12.98 08.12.98
Industries, in project progress meetings. 08.26.98
AF07.29.98.05 Review and report on the status of document ELS 08.12.98 08.12.98
preparation.
AF08.12.98.01 Prepare notes from 8/6/98 meeting with Grand ELS 09.09.98 09.09.98
Prairie building officials.
AF08.12.98.02 Prepare list of proposed permit packages and ELS/LCC 09.09.98 09.09.98
timeline. (Timeline preparation moved to
Issues Log item IF09.09.98.01.)
AF08.26.98.01 Issue Crown Corr Agreement. NS/LCC 09.09.98 09.09.98
AF08.26.98.02 Issue Pacific Agreement. NS/LCC 09.09.98 09.09.98
AF08.26.98.03 Issue Havens Agreement. NS/LCC 09.09.98 09.09.98
AF08.26.98.04 Define format/dates for ELS consultants ELS/LCC Deleted 09.09.98

design scope of work. No one recognized this
as an action item or was a duplicate.
AF08.26.98.00 Resolve design agreement legal issues with NS 09.09.98 To AF 07
ELS. 09.23.98 .01.98.04
AF08.26.98.05 Prepare cash flow to January 1999 by month ELS 5 09.09.98 Combined
for ELS and their consultants based on current 5 10.21.98 Below
value stream (AF10.21.98.01).
AF08.26.98.06 Prepare cash flow to January 1999 by month LCC 5 09.09.98 Combined
for LCC and consultants based on current 5 10.21.98 Below
value stream (AF10.21.98.01).
AF08.26.98.07 Prepare cash flow to January 1999 by month NS 09.09.98 09.09.98
for NS and consultants based on current value
stream.
AF08.26.98.08 Issue SPL Agreement letter (IF10.21.98.02). NS/AA/L 5 09.09.98 Issues
CC 5 10.21.98 Log
10.21.98
AF09.09.98.01 Bob Timmel to review list of cost increases NS/LCC 09.11.98 09.14.98
with Bruce, Pam and Mike on Friday 09.11.98
AF09.09.98.02 Bob Timmel to review list of cost increases NS 09.14.98 09.14.98
with Leo3.
AF09.23.98.01 Prepare permit package timeline ELS/LCC 10.07.98 10.07.98
(AF08.12.98.02/ IF09.09.98.01).
AF09.23.98.02 Continuing improvement in the planning All 10.07.98 Issues
process: improving ability to make quality Log
assignments and ability to meet commitments 10.07.98
(IF10.07.98.01).
AF10.07.98.01 Review with each team the most effective way NS/LCC 10.21.98 10.21.98
to proceed with the development of
construction documents and target cash flows
(IF07.15.98.03).
AF10.21.98.01 Prepare project workplan/target cash ELS/LCC 5 11.04.98 12.02.98
flows(w/manhours): design cash flows assume 12.02.98
12.21.98 construction start (AF08.26.98.05,
AF08.26.98.06, IF10.07.98.02).
AF10.21.98.01 Prepare project workplan/target cash LCC 7 12.02.98 12.16.98
flows(w/manhours): construction cash flows
assume 02.15.98 construction start and18.5
month construction schedule.
AF11.04.98.01 Early construction/other work to achieve NS/ELS/ 1 12.02.98 12.16.98
visual site impact. LCC
AF11.04.98.02 Develop early value stream for remaining LCC/NS/ 7 12.02.98 12.16.98
critical early preconstruction items of work. ELS/ HA
AF12.02.98.01 Blueline Online: recommendation to not ELS 12.16.98
implement until the site is stable.
JDK End of Action Items

APPENDIX D: NEXT STAGE ISSUES LOG
During Next Stage teleconferences, issues requiring action beyond the coming two week
period were placed in an issues log, from which they then moved onto the action items
log when the timing was appropriate. Issues were numbered in the same way as were
action items, except for the IA, IB, etc. prefix.
Linbeck Next Stage Development

The Texas ShowPlace
Issues
Log
As Of December 02, 1998 Project Progress Meeting Revised: 12.14.98
Date Originated- Item Description Action By Target
Item No.
Date
A.
Site/Civil
IA08.26.98.04 Relocation of on-site pad mounted equipment by HA/TEE

Texas Utilities.
IA09.09.98.02 Legal Action filed against NS, by local radio station, NS
re: within 2400 ft, operating since 1950's, 'sole
station', fear of our metal building.
IA10.21.98.01 Select electrical yard surface material; if paved, then HA
concrete.
IA11.04.98.01 Determine the most effective way to contract for the HA/LCC Action
site work (AA12.02.98.05). Log
12.02.98
B.
Structural
IB08.12.98.01 Review utilization of prefab stairs (IC08.12.98.02, ELS/LCC Action

AB12.02.98.04). Log
12.02.98
Ballard D-23 Last Planner

IB09.09.98.03 Review structural connections and heavy steel HSC/SPI/PB
members. (AB08.26.98.04 & IB07.01.98.01)
IB09.23.98.01 Holding an 02.15.99 start of construction requires NS/LCC/HSC/ SPI
steel mill order by 01.15.99; detailing to start by
02.15.99; fabrication to start 03.29.99, and erection
to start on 05.10.99
IB09.23.98.02 After 3D Model, Foundation and Structural Permit HW/ELS
submisssion target 01.04.99 for a 02.05.99 receipt
of permit.
IB12.02.98.01 Mock-up color selection critical; NS moving on NS/ELS
other color decisions based on previously selected
building material colors.
IB12.02.98.02 Select aggregate/paver material for visible low roof; NS/ELS
aggregate is more cost effective if wind load is not
an issue.
IB12.02.98.03 Provide for access to lobby by larger equipment, NS/ELS
10Ft X 10FT, for automobile, large boom type lift to
access relamping.
IC07.29.98.01 Resolve material selection at the building base ELS/LCC
(AC08.12.98.04).
IC09.09.98.01 Determine if a mock-up(s) of exterior wall will be NS/ELS Action
required; to be price based (AC12.02.98.01). Log
12.02.98
D. Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection
ID07.15.98.01 File application and pay fees for temporary power NS/LCC
and telephone four weeks before needed.
ID08.12.98.05 Add acoustics value stream into project value JHSA/LCC
stream.
ID08.26.98.01 Finalize concession design upon selection of NS/CI/ELS/ CHPA/TEE
concessionaire vendor.
ID10.21.98.01 Block diagram equipment layout by Levy NS/LR 12.08.98
Restaurants
ID12.02.98.01 Confirm assumptions regarding lighting controls. CHPA/TEE
Automated M/P systems can control other timed
systems, i.e. parking lighting, etc. Ongoing work
issue (AD11.04.98.07).
IE08.26.98.01 Seating count down from 6900 to 6400. May go up NS/ELS

to 6550 plus 256 for suites. Refer to memo of
08.27.98.
IE10.07.98.01 Evaluate continuing scaffolding or working up from LCC
structural platforms. Method of construction issue

to be decided by LCC.
IE12.02.98.01 Obtain sample of Irwin metal pan perforated seat LCC

with curved lip. No differential envelope
(AE10.07.98.11).
IE12.02.98.02 Irwin Seating critical path, 12 months from design to NS
delivery.
IE12.02.98.03 D.Flannery to layout TV camera positions in the NS
house.
IE12.02.98.04 Price Division 16 infrastructure for video and LCC
communication.
IE12.02.98.05 Provide video communication equipment price. JHSA
F. Project Support
IF07.01.98.01 Develop post-preconstruction contract documents for LCC

review.
IF07.15.98.02 Integrate preconstruction agreement with GMP LCC
contract.
IF07.15.98.04 Develop site utilization/mobilization plan. LCC
IF07.29.98.01 Define long term role of food service consultant. NS
IF07.29.98.02 Review/revise Value Stream in relation to schedule LCC
revisions, project changes, etc.
IF08.12.98.01 Resolution of project insurance program. All
IF08.26.98.01 Issue subcontractor preconstuction agreements for All
discussion, (AF07.01.98.03). Crown Corr
agreement issued.
IF08.26.98.02 Identify potential national vendor partners. Effort LCC/ELS
continuing (AF07.01.98.06).
IF08.26.98.03 Probability of construction start date - Status Report NS
(AF07.15.98.02).
IF08.26.98.04 Expand current summary project budget to detailed LCC
estimate when 3-D model has been
completed.(AF07.29.98.02/IF09.09.98.02).
IF09.09.98.03 Define a point in the design process where it makes NS/ELS/CHPA/TEE/LC
sense to stop additional work until a definitive C
construction start date is known; and, independent of
a construction start date.
IF09.09.98.04 Define how, and at what point, cost escalation NS/LCC
becomes a consideration.
IF10.07.98.01 Continuing improvement in the planning process; All
improving ability to make quality assignments and
ability to meet commitments (AF09.23.98.02).
IF10.21.98.01 Resolve design agreement legal issues and complete NS/ELS 11.28.98
ELS design agreement. Effort continuing.
Documents may not be filed for permits until legal
issues are resolved and designers can be identified
in the drawing title block (AF07.01.98.04).
IF10.21.98.02 Issue SPL Agreement letter (AF08.26.98.08). NS/AA/LCC 12.16.98

IF10.21.98.03 Identify items critical to value stream and follow ALL
through; be clear about what should be on the value
stream.
IF12.02.98.01 Concession architect:Lawrence Berkely Associates. NS
Plans and room finishes to be sent to NS. Counters
and facade to be allowances; LCC to construct shell.
JDK End of Issues

APPENDIX E: NEXT STAGE DECISION LOG
Next Stage maintained a log of design decisions, numbered similarly to action items and
issues, but with a DA prefix for Site/Civil, DB for Structural, etc.
Decision Log
As Of December 02, 1998 Project Progress Meeting Revised: 12.14.98

Date Originated-Item Item Description Decision Decision
No.
By Date
A. Site/Civil
DA07.15.98.01 Retain the services of a TAS Accessibility NS:RT 07.15.98

Specialist.
DA07.15.98.02 There will be multiple collection points for CHPA:GP 07.15.98
storm and sanitary drainage around the building HA:JR
(IA07.01.98.03).
DA07.29.98.01 Specify same site and parking lighting fixtures NS:RT 07.29.98
as Lone Star Park, unless not feasible or too
costly.
DA07.29.98.02 Barrier Free Texas selected as Accessibility NS:RT/ELS 07.29.98
Specialist. :KS
DA07.29.98.03 Uncertain timetable does not allow taking NS:RT 07.29.98
borrow material from existing sewer contractor.
DA08.12.98.01 Use existing lighting for Road D, rewired for NS:RT 08.12.98
new/joint operation with Lone Star Park.
DA08.12.98.02 Grading permit approval does not require ELS:DF 08.12.98
architectural document submission.
DA08.26.98.01 Roadway and building relationships are not HA:JR 08.26.98
affected by the commissary.
DA08.26.98.02 Commissary Scheme A selected (reversal from NS:BC 08.26.98
Scheme B).
DA08.26.98.03 Roof drain overflow to be piped into primary CHPA:GP 08.26.98
drainage system.
DA09.09.98.01 Commence geotechnical exploration/drilling of NS:RT 09.09.98
LSP borrow material.
DA10.07.98.01 Utilize 55 foot light poles in parking area. TEE:CS 10.07.98
DA11.04.98.01 If GPISD material is available at the start of NS:RT 11.04.98
construction, then will make an offer for
subgrade material for automobile parking.
Ballard E-27 Last Planner

B. Structural
DB07.15.98.01 Cantilever balcony structure is not practical nor JA:HW 07.15.98

feasible; cross aisles raised to make cantilever KS:ELS 08.26.98
work.
DB07.29.98.01 Tapered beams will be utilized to support the HW:JA/ 07.29.98
balcony. ELS:KS
DB08.12.98.01 There will be no electrical point loads in the TEE:CS 08.12.98
structure greater than 500 lbs (AB07.01.98.08).
DB08.12.98.02 Design criteria for building exterior will be HW:RT 08.12.98
based upon wind tunnel test results
(AB07.01.98.14).
DB08.12.98.03 Resolved audience reduction and box beam ELS:KS / 08.12.98
loads and location. AA:AS
DB08.12.98.04 Proceed with structural design based upon NS:RT 08.12.98
existing perimeter envelope and seating
platform.
DB08.12.98.05 Extend four week steel fabrication schedule HSC:JK 08.12.98
from 4 weeks to 6 weeks (IB07.15.98.03 /
AB08.12.98.01).
DB08.12.98.06 Resolved low roof impact on structural design NS:BC 08.12.98
by selecting concession scheme 'B'. Reversed to NS:BC 08.26.98
Scheme A.
DB08.12.98.07 Project will not start construction 09.15.98; NS:RT 08.12.98
and, will not utilize warehouse steel.
DB08.12.98.08 Acceptable construction tolerance on seating is ELS:KS 08.12.98
1/2" per riser, platform to platform.
DB09.09.98.01 Initial steel mill order must be made 1 month HSC:JK 09.09.98
prior to start of construction.
DB09.23.98.01 Complete 3D model check; hold-up connection NS:RT 09.23.98
study, detailing, and, trans-mission of 3-D
model until resolution of potential seating layout
change.
DB10.07.98.01 Eliminate CMU walls at FOH mechanical JHSA:RL 10.07.98
rooms due to revised AHU layout.
DB12.02.98.01 Revise column locations at rear of stage house BC:NS 12.02.98
to center the door.
DC07.01.98.01 Construction/shop drawings not necessary to CC:SC 07.01.98

provide GMP for exterior wall enclosure.
DC07.15.98.01 There is not a food service requirement for CHPA:GP 07.15.98
louvers (IC07.01.98.05).
DC07.15.98.02 The site has a "quiet area" designation relating JHSA:RL 07.15.98
to outside area noise.
DC07.15.98.03. GMP for roof can be provided without having PC:TZ 07.15.98
the roof design completed.

DC08.12.98.01 Walls to be rated R20 & Roof R30 Insulation CHPA:GP 08.12.98
(IC07.15.98.01 / AC08.12.98.02). LCC:BP
DC08.26.98.01 R30 Roof and R20 Wall will be the thermal 08.26.98
transmission ratings used.
DC08.26.98.02 Roof design by Pacific to follow Crown Corr PC:TZ 08.26.98
drawings.
DC10.07.98.01 Can specify custom metal panel colors based NS:RT 10.07.98
upon nominal price increase.
D. Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection
DD07.15.98.01 TEE:CS to participate in evaluating online TEE:CS 07.15.98

project management approach.
DD07.29.98.01 FE:WMcD to participate in evaluating online FE:WMcD 07.29.98
project management approach.
DD08.12.98.01 The raceway loads will not affect structural TEE:CS 08.12.98
point loading (AD07.01.98.13). HW:RT
DD08.12.98.02 Location of main electrical room and electronics TEE:CS 08.12.98
storage will maintain existing relationship. LCC:MI
DD08.12.98.03 The back of the house will be a no smoking NS:BC 08.12.98
area.
DD08.12.98.04 Utilize 75 KVA as added electrical load from TEE:CS 08.12.98
commissary.
DD08.26.98.01 Proceed with concession/commissary MEP design based on 08.26.98
current 08.26.98 consultant concept/interim design criteria.
DD08.26.98.02 HVAC design is to be per ASHRAE standards, CHPA:GP 08.26.98
as shown in current Project System Description.
DD08.26.98.03 Provide individual climate control in suites. NS:BC 08.26.98
DD09.09.98.01 Smoking area includes suites and select NS:BC 09.09.98
concession areas (Rooms 123,124)
DD09.23.98.01 Proceed with 21,000 cfm lobby smoke exhaust NS:BC,ELS 09.23.98
as opposed to a house/lobby rated separation. :KS
CHPA:GP
DE07.01.98.01 NC 25 accepted as design criteria. JHSA:CJ 07.01.98

DE07.29.98.01 Provide suite level public toilet rooms; eliminate NS:RT 07.29.98
toilet rooms in suites, but provide infrastructure
MEP.
DE07.29.98.02 Provide expanded commissary kitchen and NS:RT 07.29.98
support areas.
DE08.26.98.01 Sound and lighting control house mix position JHSA:DR 08.26.98
cannot be moved into rear aisle due to ELS:KS
handicapped seating quota. This room requires
the size shown on sketch current as of 08.26.98.
DE08.26.98.02 Hold on final concession design for contracted NS:RT 08.26.98
concessionaire.

DE09.23.98.01 Box Booms will be rigged. NS:BC 09.23.98
DE10.07.98.01 Change seating configuration to curved format. NS:RT 10.07.98
DE10.07.98.02 Provide proscenium deluge system with opaque NS:RT 10.07.98
curtain. ELS:KS
DE10.07.98.03 There will not be a front balcony projection NS:BC 10.07.98
position.
DE10.07.98.04 Eliminate the rigging pit due to revised AA:AS 10.07.98
counterweight design.
DE10.21.98.01 Utilize Video/TV/Broadcast scope prepared by NS:BC 10.21.98
AA/JHSA to define building infrastructure to be
provided.
DE12.02.98.01 Approximately 95% of speakers will be rigged NS:BC 12.02.98
or stacked on stage; all lighting and sound AA:AS
support will be within 60 Feet of stage.
F. Project Support
DF07.01.98.01 It is not necessary to follow Factory Mutual NS:RT 07.01.98

design criteria.
DF07.01.98.02 Project progress meetings will utilize "Last NS:RT 07.01.98
Planner" style.
DF07.15.98.01 Design process to maintain 21 month value NS:RT 07.15.98
stream production schedule.
DF07.15.98.02 Multiple submissions will be made to the City to NS:RT 07.15.98
satisfy the needs of obtaining multiple permit
approvals.
DF09.23.98.01 Keep the design process progressing toward an NS:LL 09.23.98
11.30.98 construction start; the only reason to
hold up progress of the drawings is if it is not
efficient for the design to proceed.
End of Decisions

Last Planner System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Last Planner System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Last Planner System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE LAST PLANNER SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION CONTROL

HERMAN GLENN BALLARD

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Engineering

of The University of Birmingham

for the degree of

School of Civil Engineering

Many individuals and companies contributed to this research. To name a few:

q David Seymour, my thesis advisor

q Anne Seymour, for giving me a home in Birmingham

q David Hoare and Peter Deasley, thesis examiners

q Greg Howell, business partner and co-thinker

q Lauri Koskela, for his example and inspiration

q Iris Tommelein, external thesis advisor and colleague at UC Berkeley

Project controls have traditionally been focused on after-the-fact detection of variances.

1.0 Introduction 1-1

2.0 Critique of Production Control 2-1

4.0 Research Methodology 4-1

5.0 Case One: CCSR Project 5-1

6.0 Case Two: Next Stage 6-1

7.0 Case Three: Pacific Contracting 7-1

8.0 Case Four: Old Chemistry Building Renovation 8-1

10.0 Conclusions 10-1

Glossary of Terms G-1

List of References R-1

Appendix A: Next Stage Kickoff Meeting A-1

Appendix B: Next StageTeleconferences B-1

Appendix C: Next Stage Action Items Log C-1

Appendix D: Next Stage Issues Log D-1

Appendix E: Next Stage Decisions Log E-1

1.0 Conceptual Framework

Production processes can be conceived in at least three different ways: 1) as a process of

AEC (architectural/engineering/construction) industry until very recently (Koskela and

Conversion View Flow View Value Generation

the flows of information a value creating

Taking care Taking care that Taking care that

Ballard 1-1 Last Planner

rapid shifting of market opportunities and competitor actions.

budget, and schedule commitments.

This is fundamentally a contracting mentality, which facilitates the management of

contracts rather than the management of production or work flow. Production

or contracted. If everyone meets their contractual obligations, the project performs

successfully. Unfortunately, this approach is the opposite of robust. When something

Ballard 1-2 Last Planner

by firms designing and manufacturing consumer products (automobiles, printers,

et al, 1990; Gebala and Eppinger, 1991).

reducing waste by minimizing time information or materials spend waiting to be used,

time spent inspecting information or materials for conformance to requirements, time

design and construction process as a flow of information and materials allows

Fundamental assumptions underlying this research include the following:

Ballard 1-3 Last Planner

dominated by the conversion model, consequently value generation and flow

management concepts and techniques are underdeveloped.

management should be conceived as having the purpose of creating customer value

q "Production" is understood to include both designing and making. The historical

development of production theory in manufacturing has erroneously suggested that

production is entirely concerned with 'making'.3

q Production management is conceived to consist of criteria determination and work

production unit control in the ‘execution’ or ‘control’ phase.

first and fundamental production management activity; i.e., the determination of