THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

2

CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
1.0 GENERAL
Construction is a key sector of the national economy for countries all around the world, as traditionally it took up a big portion in nation’s total employment and its significant contribution to a nation’s revenue as a whole. However, until today, construction industries are still facing numbers of contingent problems that were bounded to beresolved since the past time. The chronic problems of construction are well known such as Low productivity, poor safety, inferior working conditions, and insufficient qualityand the phenomenon of the poor performance and conditions inconstruction had long been witnessed and recorded by academics and practitioners throughout the world. Nowadays, increasing foreign competition, the scarcity of skilled labour and the need toimprove construction quality are the key challenges faced by the construction industry.Responding to those challenges imposes an urgent demand to raise productivity, qualityand to incorporate new technologies to the industry. A lack of responsiveness can holdback growth, and to development of the needed infrastructure for the constructionindustry and other key activities in the country. With the lean construction paradigm, construction industry had started to be reviewed and evaluated in the possibilities of implementing these new lean perspectives of production concepts in the construction processes to optimize the overall construction performance on construction stage as well as design stage. Performance improvement opportunities in construction can then be addressed by adopting waste identification/ reduction strategies in the flow processes inparallel with value adding strategies with the introduction of new management tools andwith proper trainings and education programs. Unfortunately, these new leanconstruction concepts especially those on wastes and values most of the times are notwell understood by construction personnel. Particularly, waste is generally associatedwith waste of materials in the construction processes while non-value adding activitiessuch as inspection, delays, transportation of materials and others are not recognised as waste. As the result of that, the productivity of construction industry cannot be fully optimized due to the narrow interpretation on the concept of wastecurrent adopted. In this case, substantial education programs need to be arranged for allrelated parties involved in order to implement the new process improvement strategiessuccessfully throughout the construction process cycle.
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

3

1.1 NEED FOR STUDY
It is presumably that construction industries in india are facing the same generic(process-related) problems/ wastes on construction activities which was also faced bytheir counterparts regardless those in developed countries or developing countries.However, the main problem is the lack of clear indicators on quantitative parameters to assess the extent of thoseproblems/ wastes to have been impacted on the overall performance and productivity oflocal construction industries. To date, there have not been many well-documentedquantitative studies and records on to processrelated problems/ wastes which arisen onconstruction site. As a result of that, the introduction of the concepts and framework of new lean construction ideology are seen as an opportunity to address the existing problems in local construction industry and utilising concepts and framework of new lean construction ideology can then go further to formulate the extent of impactsof those problems/ wastes on a more structured and quantitative basis. Prior to assess the severity of the process-related problems/ wastes which existed in theconstruction processes for the local construction industries, the differentiate oftraditional and new production/ construction concepts will have to be drawn prior tofurther investigation and evaluation on any project performances. New measurementparameters such as waste, value, cycle time or variability that was not covered undertraditional concepts are to be introduced into this study as accordance to the leanconstruction ideologies and the subjects in this case; the local construction personnelwill be subsequently examined with those new parameters to review the level ofunderstanding and practicability in local construction industry compare to therequirements and the concepts set forth by lean construction philosophy.

1.2 OBJECTIVES
1. Examine the general perceptions of the local construction industry with the lean construction principles of practices. 2. Determine the degree of problems arisen from wastes identified in existing scenario and practices in local construction industry. 3. Identify the source of wastes (classified under lean construction) & Study of the potential project productivity improvements by reducing and eliminating the wastes as classified under lean construction.
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

4

1.3 METHODOLOGY

(a) Literature review
Literature available for the past decade by the eminent researchers in the same field will be carried out through the journals, research papers, government norms & regulations.

(b) Data Collection Data will be related to Lean Concepts. Data will be collected from 2 to 3 infrastructure companies located in india.

(c) Data analysis Data collected will be suitably analyzed and efforts will be made to apply the concepts & compare the outcome of the companies.

(d) Conclusion Based on above analysis a suitable conclusion will be formulated and scope for the future work will be suggested.

1.4 SCOPE OF WORK
This study is restricted to infrastructure companies dealing with highway projects in india.

1.5 RESEARCH PLAN
Literature review will be carried out till 1st week of February, 2010 Data collection and data analysis will be completed by 4th week of march, 2010 Conclusion will be finalized at the 3rd week of april, 2010.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

5

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

6

CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Construction industries worldwide have become notorious for under-performance in many aspects such as quality, safety, productivity and product delivery to planned budgets, programmes and client satisfaction. According to Adrain (1987), the construction industry in US has been rated among the worst industries in term of productivity improvement. Koskela (1993) also conducted a study to indicate the order of magnitude of non value-adding activities (waste) on various partial studies carried out in Sweden and US. From Koskela’s data compilation, it has shown that construction processes are characterised by high content of non value-adding activities leading to low productivity as shown in Table 2.1 WASTE Quality cost (non – conformance) External quality cost Lack of constructability Poor materials management Excess consumption of material on site Working time used for non-value adding activities on site Lack of safety 6% of total project cost COST 12% of total project cost 4% of total project cost 6 – 10 % of total project cost 10 – 12% of total project cost 10 % on average Appr. 2/3rd of the total time

TABLE 2.1 :- Waste in construction : compilation of existing data (koskela, 1992)

2.1 PROBLEMS IN CONSTRUCTION
The chronic problems of construction are well known: low productivity, poor safety, inferior working conditions, and insufficient quality. (Koskela, 1993) However, most of the time, those critical problems of construction were left unattended because people of the industry refrained to believe or accept that there is a solution to those problems. According to Koskela (1992), the incapability to improve the productivity level of construction projects is mainly perceived by people in the industry as due to its peculiarities and special features: one-of-a-kind nature of
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

7

projects, site production, and temporary multi-organisation. Most people concluded that its fragmented nature, lack of co-ordination and communication between parties, adversarial contractual relationships, and lack of customer focus inhibit the industry's performance. Therefore, the organisation, planning, allocation and control of these resources, processes and technologies are what finally determine the productivity that can be achieved. Most of the early efforts involved new technology and process adoption from manufacturing practices i.e. industrialisation, prefabrication and modularisation (new process adoption) and computer integrated construction and automated construction (new technology adoption). However, there have been no signs of major improvements to construction has resulting from both trends of process dissemination and solutions as quoted by Koskela (2000). The main reasons behind the failure of achieving any major improvements from both trends are mainly due to certain key features between manufacturing and construction. A comparison with manufacturing shows the key features, which distinguishes construction from manufacturing, is the extent of uncertainty evident throughout the production phase as shown in Table 2.2

What How

Assembly objectives

Improvement strategy

Start of manufacturing production Highly defined Highly defined. Operations plan is in great detail based on many trails. Primary sequence of many tasks is inflexible and the interdependencies are documented and analyzed. Positions in process determine required skills Produces one of a finite set of objects where details of what and how are known at the beginning of assembly Rapid learning during the first units preparing for production line

Start of construction in the field Evolving as means refines ends Partly defined but details unexamined.Extensive planning remains by hard logic but may change. Interdependencies due to conflicting measurements, shared resources, and intermediate products only partly understood. General craft skills to be applied in a variety of positions Make the only one. The details of what and how are not completely known at the beginning of assembly Rapid learning during both planning and early sub-assembly cycles

TABLE 2.2 :- Context of manufacturing & construction production (koskela, 2000)

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

8

2.2 CONCEPT OF NEW PRODUCTION PHILOSOPHY
The core of the new production philosophy is based on the conclusive understanding that all production systems are constituted of 2 main activities: Conversions and Flows (waiting, moving, and inspecting). In the new production paradigm, only conversion activities add value to the final product whereas flow activities do not; value is determined under the value stream of the customers with the satisfaction of their requirements and cost paid on the final product. Therefore, the primary objectives for process/ performance/ productivity improvement under the flagship of new production philosophy should be targeted separately. That can be done through the improvement of flow activities by primarily focusing on reducing or eliminating them and on the other hand, conversion activities should be focused on making them more efficient. This has important implications for the design, control, and improvement of production processes, because according to Koskela (1992), traditional production management paradigm sees the whole process simply as a conversion of an input into an output that can be divided into sub-processes, which are also conversion processes. All activities have been treated as though they were valueadding conversions without separating from the flow processes. Based on the understanding of the production process can be consists of both conversion and flow activities, a generic process improvement plan based on new production philosophy can be derived from the study of Enton (1994) on lean productivity of construction professions. The first step to implement process improvement plan is by analysis and separation of conversions and flows activities. For conversions activities identified, those activities should be channeled into the quality cycles (Quality control, Quality assurance and Total Quality Management) to increase efficiency of value added conversions. Whereas, for flow activities, the approach should be consists of way of flows simplification (through Elimination, simplification and automation) in order to reduce or eliminate non-value added flow activities. The application of lean production philosophy to construction – or Lean Construction, as it has been called by a group of collaborating researchers since 1993 (Koskela, 2000). Since then, the enthusiasms over lean construction paradigm are intensified and widely accepted practitioners and academics around the world under the belief that the implementation of Lean Construction will dramatically improve construction performance and labour productivity.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

9

2.3 CONCEPT OF PRODUCTION
A historical analysis carried out by Koskela (2000) has revealed that there are three concepts of production where the conceptualization of production can be grouped based on the generation of transformation-flow-value model of production theory or simply as TFV model. TRANSFORMATION CONCEPT The first core principle which has been used in conjunction with transformation concept stated that: The transformation process can be decomposed into subprocesses, which also are transformation process of breaking up the total transformation (production process) into much smaller and more manageable transformations and eventually can be further breakdown into individual continual tasks. The second core principle of the transformation model is a general acceptance of independency principle that the cost of the total process can be minimized through minimising the cost of each subprocess. The key issue pertaining to this principle leads to the assumption that every sub-processes of a total process are independent from each other and therefore cost minimisation can be applied through focus on cost management in each operation, sub-process or department. The third core principle formulated currently recommended that It is advantageous to insulate the production process from the external environment through physical or organisational buffering. This principle is related to the independence assumption from the second core principle as discussed above and it reflects that the transformation process that is most important, and it is thus a requisite to shield it from the erratic conditions in the environment. FLOW CONCEPT The flow view of production, firstly proposed by the Gilbreths (1922) in scientific terms, has provided the basis for JIT and lean production. This view was firstly translated into practice by Ford (1926). As a result, the flow view is embodied in JIT and lean production and the triumph of the JIT and lean production has practically proven the power of this conception. The new production concept of flow was emerged apparently from the erroneous view of decomposition in the transformation model of production that is the intervals between transformations, which happen to be non transformations activities. In flow concept, production is viewed as a flow, where, in addition to transformation, there are waiting, inspection and moving
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

10

stages. Production management equates to minimizing the share of non transformation stages of the production flow, especially by reducing variability. In this context, flow model is looking beyond transformation model by taking non-transformations activities into consideration as to improve overall flow efficiency. The first core principle of this flow concept is the introduction of time as resource in production and therefore the main focus is in the amount of time consumed by the total transformation and its parts by aiming for the production improvement at shortening of the total time of production. The second core principle of the flow concept is that time is consumed by two types of activities in the overall production flow which are transformation activities and non-transformation activities. Gilbert (1922) categorised the non transformation activities as transfer, delay and inspection as showed in Figure 1 and it is obvious that these non-transformation activities are unnecessary and the less of them is better and best if there are none of them.

FIGURE 1 :- An exploration towards a production theory & its application to highway construction (lauri, 2000) VALUE GENERATION CONCEPT The value generation view was initiated by Shewhart (1931) and further refined in the framework of the quality movement but also in other circles. The value generation concept are formulated not a same as transformation and flow concept by incorporating customer as the ultimate value determinate to the production and argued that the goal of production is to satisfy customer needs. This third concept of value generation concept views production as a means for the fulfillment of customer needs. Production management equates to translating these needs accurately into a design solution, and then producing products that conform to the specified design. It focus on control of the transformation and flow, namely control for the sake of the customer and it is important to highlights that the value generation concept does not focus on any particular aspect of physical
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

11

production like transformation and flow model do but rather on its control in securing value generated for the customer.

2.4 FLOWS IN CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTION
The production in construction is of assembly-type, where different material flows are connected to the end product. In construction, there are 3 types of flows as suggested by Koskela (2000): material flow (the transportation of components to the site for particular installation), location flow (e.g. one particular trade goes through the different part of the building or construction site to get their work done) and assembly flow (e.g. the sequential of works of assembly and installation). There are at least seven resource flows that unite to generate the construction task as illustrated In Figure 2. Many of these resource flows are of relatively high variability, and thus the probability of a missing input is considerable. Construction productions are subjected to more sources of variability and the insight gained is that construction consists of assembly tasks involving a high number of input flows. Planning and controlling production becomes very important and tasks and flows have to be considered in parallel in production management because: “realization of tasks heavily depends on flows, and progress of flows in turn is dependent on realization of task” (Koskela, 2000)

FIGURE 2 :- The preconditions for a construction task (koskela, 2000)

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

12

2.5 CONSTRUCTION WASTE IN GENERAL
Waste in the construction industry has been the subject of several research projects around the world in recent years. However, Most studies tend to focus on the waste of materials, which is only one of the resources involved in the construction process. This seems to be related to the fact that most studies are based on the conversion model, in which material losses are considered to be synonymous of waste. Formosa, (2002) stated that many people in the industry have considered waste are directly associated with the debris removed from the site and disposed of in landfills and they suggested that the main reason for this relatively narrow view of waste is perhaps the fact that it is relatively easy to see and measure. The main focus for those conventional material waste studies in construction are seen to be restricted to physical waste or material waste in construction and/ or the specific impacts due to the physical waste itself. Formosa, (1999) in their earlier research paper entitled “Method for Waste Control in Building Industry” had significantly grouped some researches and studies done by other researchers around the world on the wastes in construction into 2 main aspects based on the impacts of the construction waste namely : 1. Impacts on the environmental damage that result from the generation of waste material. 2. Economic aspects of waste in construction industry. Some conclusions that were drawn from those conventional construction waste studies above such as: 1. The waste of building materials is occasionally far higher than the nominal figures assumed by the companies in their cost estimates. 2. There is a very high variability of waste indices from site to site. Furthermore, similar sites might present different levels of wastes for the same material. This indicates that a considerable portion of this wastage can be avoided. 3. Some companies do not seem to be concerned about material waste, since they do not apply relatively simple procedures to avoid waste on site. None of them had a well-defined material management policy, neither a systematic control of material usage. 4. The lack of knowledge was an important cause of waste. Most building firms did not know the amount of waste they had.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

13

5. Most causes of waste are related to flaws in the management system, and have very little to do with the lack of qualification and motivation of workers. Also, waste is usually the result of a combination of factors, rather than originated by an isolated incident. 6. A significant portion of waste is caused by problems, which occur in stages that precede production, such as inadequate design, lack of planning, flaws in the material supply system, etc.

2.6 WASTE & VALUE LOSS IN CONSTRUCTION
In search for the waste, loss of value and non value-adding activities in current construction practices, Koskela (1992) has managed to present a few evidences from various partial studies done by other researchers around the world apart from the material waste from conversion activities. Koskela’s has been looking for the evidences of waste and value loss due to quality of works, material management, non-productive time, safety and constructability. • The waste & value loss in terms of quality cost has been 10 – 20% of the project cost. It has also recorded the causes of these quality problems are 46% design-related, 22% construction-related and 15% are related to material supply. • The second factor that contributed to waste and value loss as compiled by Koskela is the factor of constructability. It was found from a constructability report stating that projects where constructability has been specifically addressed have reported 6 - 10% savings of construction costs. • Researchers have estimated that 10 – 12% savings in labour cost could be produced by materials management systems. some researchers also reported that savings of 10% in materials costs can be achieved from vendor cooperation in streamlining the material flow. • It has been found that construction work flow consists of a lot of non value-adding activities where they consume a high percentage of overall working time. All the estimation given from the researches compiled by Koskela, the average distribution of working time used in value-adding activities ranging around 30% to 40%. Oglesby and his co-author estimated around 36% in 1989 while Levy in 1991 claimed that the average share of working time is 31.9 % in the United States. • Another waste factor is lack of safety. safety-related costs are estimated to be 6 percent of total project costs as reported by Levitt & Samelson.
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

14

CONCEPT OF WASTE IN PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES According to the new production philosophy, waste should be understood as any inefficiency that results in the use of equipment, materials, labour, or capital in larger quantities than those considered as necessary in the production of a building. Waste includes both the incidence of material losses and the execution of unnecessary work, which generate additional costs but do not add value to the product (Koskela 1992). Therefore, waste should be defined as any losses produced by activities that generate direct or indirect costs but do not add any value to the product from the point of view of the client. The new production philosophy intend to look into and detail out the dimension of waste by identifying non value-adding activities and introduce new measures to wastes such as additional costs or opportunity costs especially due to time waste and value loss which very much invisible in conversion model.

FIGURE 3 :- Performance improvement in conventional, quality and new production philosophy approaches.(koskela,2000)

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

15

This means that there are 2 approaches to improving processes for new production philosophy compared to conventional conversion view. One is to improve the efficiency of both value-adding and non value-adding work, and the other is to eliminate waste by removing non value-adding activities. Therefore, waste should be defined as any losses produced by activities that generate direct or indirect costs but do not add any value to the product from the point of view of the client. The primary objectives for this new movement will be looking at value to the client and throughput, the movement of information or materials to completion. Improvement results from reducing waste that is the difference between the current situation and perfection, i.e., meeting customer unique requirements in zero time with nothing in store.

2.7 WASTE CLASSIFICATION
Industry researchers and practitioners have acknowledged that there are many non-value adding activities during the design and construction process and majority of those wasteful activities consuming time and effort without adding value for the client. Since the beginning of a construction project, Construction Managers have to deal with many factors that may negatively affect the construction process, producing different types of waste (Serpell,1995). Waste includes both the incidence of material losses and the execution of unnecessary work that generates additional costs but does not add value to the product (Koskela, 1992). Moreover, some researchers, Alarcon (1993), Koskela (1992) and Serpell, (1995) stated that waste in construction and manufacturing include delay times, quality costs, lack of safety, rework, unnecessary transportation trips, long distances, improper choice of management, methods or equipment and poor constructability. Regarding the possibility to control the incidence of waste, Formoso, (1999) commented that there is an acceptable level of waste, which can only be reduced through a significant change in the level of technological development. Based on the ratio of prevention investment cost over the cost of waste itself, they have classified wastes into two general groups: 1. Unavoidable waste (or natural waste), in which the investment necessary to its reduction is higher than the economy produced, The percentage of unavoidable waste in each process depends on the company and on the particular site, since it is related to the level of technological development.
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

16

2. Avoidable waste, when the cost of waste is significantly higher than the cost to prevent it. Waste can also be classified according to its origin, i.e. the stage that the main root cause is related to. Although waste is usually identified during the production stage, it can be originated by processes that precede production, such as materials manufacturing, training of human resources, design, materials supply, and planning as studied by Alarcon (1994), Womack and Jones, (1996), Formoso, et al. (1999), Koskela (2000) and many others. Shingo proposed the following waste classification whereby waste was classified by it nature, which based on the Ohno’s framework of Toyota Production System: 1. Waste due to overproduction; 2. Waste due to wait periods; 3. Waste due to transport; 4. Waste due to system itself; 5. Waste due to stock; 6. Waste due to operation; 7. Waste due to defects; Based on Shingo’s seven wastes, Formoso, (1999) went on to propose their main classification of waste based on the analysis of some project sites they had carried out as shown below. It was thought that the further classification will help managers to understand the different forms of waste, why they occur and how to act in order to avoid them. 1. Overproduction: related to the production of a quantity greater than required or earlier than necessary. This may cause waste of materials, man-hours or equipment usage. It usually produces inventories of unfinished products or even their total loss, in the case of materials that can deteriorate. An example of this kind of waste is the overproduction of mortar that cannot be used on time. 2. Substitution: It is monetary waste caused by the substitution of a material by a more expensive one (with an unnecessary better performance); the execution of simple tasks by an over-qualified worker; or the use of highly sophisticated equipment where a much simpler one would be enough.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

17

3. Waiting time: related to the idle time caused by lack of synchronisation and levelling of material flows, and pace of work by different groups or equipments. One example is the idle time caused by the lack of material or by lack of work place available for a gang. 4. Transportation: It is concerned with the internal movement of materials on site. Excessive handling, the use of inadequate equipment or bad conditions of pathways can cause this kind of waste. It is usually related to poor layout, and the lack of planning of material flows. Its main consequneces are: waste of man hours, waste of energy, waste of space on site, and the possibility of material waste during transportation. 5. Processing: related to the nature of the processing (conversion) activity, which could only be avoided by changing the construction technology. For instance, a percentage of mortar is usually wasted when a ceiling is being plastered. 6. Inventories: related to excessive or unnecessary inventories which lead to material waste (by deterioration, losses due to inadequate stock conditions on site, robbery, vandalism), and monetary losses due to the capital that is tied up. It might be a result of lack of resource planning or uncertainty on the estimation of quantities. 7. Movement: concerned with unnecessary or inefficient movements made by workers during their job. This might be caused by inadequate equipment, ineffective work methods, or poor arrangement of the working place. 8. Production of defective products: it occurs when the final or intermediate product does not fit the quality specifications. This may lead to rework or to the incorporation of unnecessary materials to the building (indirect waste), such as the excessive thickness of plastering. It can be caused by a wide range of reasons: poor design and specification, lack of planning and control, poor qualification of the team work, lack of integration between design and production, etc. 9. Others: waste of any nature different from the previous ones, such as burglary, vandalism, inclement weather, accidents, etc.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

18

Some researchers have proposed some qualitative model by postulating the loss of productivity in construction using categories of non-productive time. Researchers such as Borcherding in 1986 explained the loss of productivity in large and complex constructions using five categories of nonproductivities time as listed below: 1. Waste due to waiting or idle; 2. Waste due to travelling; 3. Waste due to slow work; 4. Waste due to ineffective work; 5. Waste due to rework Borcherding’s five waste categories of non-productive time are found very much similar to the categories of wastes of productive time proposed by Serpell (1995) derived from their case as shown Figure 4 below:

FIGURE 4 :- Categories of wastes of productive time (Serpell. 1995) However, they highlighted some limitations to the waste classification of nonproductive time. For example the waste of time related to slow work is related to the efficiency of processes, construction equipment and personnel. But it is difficult to measure it because it is first necessary to know the optimal efficiency that can be achieved, which is not always possible.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

19

Instead of classifying the waste of productive time, Serpell, (1995) went a step further to breakdown those wastes factors in relation of work categories. There are 3 types of work categories as proposed: 1. Productive work (value-adding activities) 2. Contributory work (non value-adding activities but essential for conversion process): Those contributory work which are classified as waste include transporting, instruction, measuring, cleaning and others 3. Non-contributory work (non value-adding activities): Those non contributory work which are classified as waste include waiting, idle time, travelling, resting, physiological needs, and rework. There are also other categories of waste that have been mentioned in the literature, such as accidents, working under sub-optimal conditions (Koskela 2000), design and products that do not meet users’ needs. (Womack and Jones 1996) The main role of existing classification of waste is to call the attention of people to most likely problems, since not all waste is obvious: it “often appears in the guise of useful work.” (Shingo 1988).

2.8 KEY CONSTRUCTION WASTE CAUSES
After understanding the classification of waste, it is important to examine the type of possible causes that lead to the occurrence of waste in construction process. This is very important because just by knowing the waste itself just would help to monitor them but not reduce or eliminate them from the process loops. To work out a continuous improvement strategy in reducing and eliminating those wastes in construction processes, the origin of the waste itself has to be identified. A typical waste identification survey underlined a few examples of waste sources according to different area of functions such as administration, use of resources and information systems. Several potential sources of waste can be grouped under the particular area of functions and it can be created to suit the need of particular projects such as the diagnostic survey developed by students Francisco Lowener, Francisco Lira and Marcelo Beratto as documented by Alarcon (1994) listed down the following potential sources of waste in their project:

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

20

A. Administration 1. Unnecessary requirements 2. Excessive control 3. Lack of control 4. Poor planning 5. Bureaucracy B. Use of resources 1. Surplus 2. Shortage 3. Misuse 4. Poor distribution 5. Poor quality 6. Availability C. Information systems 1. Unnecessary 2. Defective 3. Late
4. Unclear

Serpell (1995) on the other hand identified several controllable causes of waste. Although his study was mainly concentrated on wasted time but the classification of the causes to waste is found rather structured and detailed compared to the previous listed in waste identification survey. They divided the controllable wastes as identified from their research projects into three different activities, which associate to flows, conversions, and management activities. 1. Controllable causes associated to flows The principal flow causes were as follow: a) Resources • • • • • • Materials: Lack of materials at the work place; materials are not well distributed; inadequate transportation means Equipment: Non availability; inefficient utilisation; inadequate equipment for work needs Labour: personal attitudes of workers; stoppage of work b) Information Lack of information; Poor information quality Timing of delivery is inadequate

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

21

2. Controllable causes associated to conversions The following causes were identified: a) Method • • • • • • • • Deficient design of work crews Inadequate procedures Inadequate support to work activities b) Planning Lack of work space Too much people working in reduced space Poor work conditions c) Quality Poor execution of work Damages to work already finished

3. Controllable causes associated to management activities The following causes were identified: a) Decision making • •

Poor allocation of work to labour Poor distribution of personnel b) Ineffective supervision/ control Poor or lack of supervision

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

22

2.9 MODELLING WASTE & PERFORMANCE IN CONSTRUCTION
The introduction of new production philosophies in construction requires new measures of performance (Koskela, 1992), such as waste, value, cycle time or variability. The shortcomings of the traditional control systems, and models are unable or not appropriate to measure those new performance elements but Alarcon (1993) suggested that some of the concepts developed in previous research can be utilised in modeling new performance elements for construction required for continuos improvement. It is worthwhile to point out some of opinions of different researchers and authors related to the extent of performance elements in the aspects of construction process. Among all, one of the most classical opinions was from Sink (1985, as documented by Alarcon 1993). Sink has characterised performance in a broad definition, as 7 criteria or elements on which management should focus its efforts on: Those 7 criteria or elements are as explained below: 1. Effectiveness: A measure of accomplishment of the ‘right’ things: • • • On time (timeliness), Right (quality), All the ‘right’ things (quantity), where ‘things’ are goals, objectives, activities and so forth,

2. Efficiency: A measure of utilization of resources. It can be represented as a ratio of resource expected to be consumed divided by the resources actually consumed 3. Quality: A measure of conformance to specifications. In construction projects, quality has 2 dimensions: • • The first and overall one is that of the completed project functioning as the owner intended The second concerns the many details involved in producing the results. 4. Productivity: Theoretically this is defined as a ratio between output and input and it is primary measured in terms of cost. In the context of the construction industry, the output is the structure or facility that is built or some components of it. The major input into the construction process includes work force, materials, equipment, management, energy and capital.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

23

5. Quality of work life: A measure of employees’ affective response to working and living in organizational systems. Often, the management focus is on insuring that employees are ‘satisfied’, safe and secure and so forth 6. Innovation: This is the creative process of adaptation of product, service, process or structure in response to internal as well as external pressures, demands and changes, needs and so forth 7. Profitability: A measure or a set of measures of the relationships between financial resources and uses for those financial resources. continuous improvement such as: 1. Waste: Number of defects, rework, number of design errors and omissions, number of change orders, safety costs, excess consumption of materials, etc; 2. Value: Value of the output to the internal customer; 3. Cycle time: Cycle time of main processes and sub processes; 4. Variability: Deviations from the target, such as schedule performance. The problem of performance evaluation is a multi-attribute or multi-criteria one. Generally, the evaluations of performance in construction are concentrated on few aspects only mainly on profitability and productivity. Furthermore, different managers probably will use different performance elements and some will have different weight for each individual measures. Therefore, a model for evaluation or prediction must have the flexibility to include the individual organisational objectives in the evaluation process. It also must have the ability to examine the effect of changes in those objectives in the evaluation process. Embarking with the new production philosophies, Koskela (1992) has proposed some new measures as required for construction, to stimulate

2.10 RESEARCH GAP
 From the study of literature review of last 15 years, it is found that all the researches on lean construction has been done on housing & commercial complexes .  But , uptil now no eminant research has been carried out on highway & trasnsportation sector.  So, efforts are made to analyze the lean construction principle in highway sector.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

24

CHAPTER 3

DATA COLLECTION

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

25

CHAPTER 3 : DATA COLLECTION
3.1 METHOD OF RESEARCH
The purposes of this research thesis is to see whether the lean construction principles of waste concepts have been well comprehended, accepted and adopted by the highway personnel especially in waste recognition, reduction and elimination for the continuous improvement in construction processes. A quantitative research approach was adopted for this thesis requiring the development and dissemination of a questionnaire survey. Due to the population of this research are virtually too difficult to be quantified as the main targeted respondents would include all personnel who has direct managerial experiences in construction field, the non-probability sampling methods will be adopted in this research instead of probability sampling. Purposive sampling for specific groups or types of respondents will be conducted by using expert sampling technique which involves the assembling of a sample of managerial personnel with known experience and expertise in managing construction field processes. The thesis is conducted through structured questionnaires where those questionnaires were sent to the particular “qualified” respondents. The respondents were approached through their companies and firms namely L&T ECC, IRB infrastructures, BACKBONE enterprises, LASA INDIA, MSK PROJECTS(I) LTD.etc. This thesis was postulated around determining the general perceptions and actions of the construction personnel against wastes in construction and the concept of nonproductive time or wasted time were then integrated into the research process as the key element of lean construction philosophy regarding flow concept. In this case, Waste in construction process is classified into three main categories, which are direct conversion waste, non-contributory time waste and contributory time waste. 19 waste elements are outlined consists of 9 direct conversion wastes, 7 non-contributory time wastes and 3 contributory time wastes as shown in Table 3.1

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

26

In response to the examine the frequencies causes of wastes and their inter-relation with waste elements, several waste causes factors were categorised into 5 main groups of cause factors which are Management & Administration Factors (4 factors), People Factors (6 factors), Execution Factors (6 factors), Material Factors (6 factors) and Information and Communication Factors (3 factors). The entire breakdown of the waste cause factors is shown in Table 3.2

Table 3.1 : waste elements in 3 separate waste groups

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

27

Table 3.2 :- waste causes factor group

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

28

3.2 PROFILE OF RESPONDANTS
A randomly selected group of targeted respondents consists of those personnel who have a commanding role in the highway project and resource management and extensive site experiences were targeted as respondents for the sample survey. There has been a wide spectrum of personnel with different position and job title, which had been responded to the survey and for the purpose of analysis and comparison, the whole sample of respondents have been regrouped into 2 main categories which are:1. Project management orientated group 2. Site operative management orientated group Project management orientated group will feature those who have relatively more responsibilities in overall project execution and resource management and not so much on site operative management by its nature of job scope. Therefore, this group will involve personnel more on planning, inter-coordinating and directing role in construction process and as for the sample respondents for this research will include project managers, general managers, project schedulers/ planners, quantity surveyors. Site operative management orientated group will feature those who have relatively more responsibilities on the site operative management by its nature of job scope. The group will mainly involve personnel in solving construction problems on site, more on intra-coordinating with internal groups and trades, and as for the sample respondents for this research will include site managers, site engineers, resident engineer and senior quality manager.

3.3 STRUCTURE OF QUESTIONNAIRE
The structure of questionnaires is divided into 5 main sections. (Refer sample questionnaire on Appendix V) The first 2 sections of questionnaires are intended to examine the general perception and acceptance of Lean Construction philosophy of local construction industries based on the respondents’ waste concepts.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

29

In this case, the respondents were asked to recognise 19 wastes elements and their personnel experiences in controlling those waste elements during construction processes. There are 2options available for the respondents and there were required to answer whether the wastes elements as listed is a waste or non-waste and whether they are controlled or not controlled during the construction processes. The third and fourth sections are intended to review the extent of waste problems in existing local industry by ranking them in term of frequencies of occurrences and rate the likelihood of particular waste sources/ causes in their construction practices where they work. For section 3, Respondents were able to identify how frequently the waste occurred using 5 categories: (1) Never; (2) Very Rare; (3) Seldom; (4) Frequent; and (5) Very Frequent and the respondents were provided with five different scales from 1 (no significant effect variable) to 5 as (high detrimental effect variable); For section 4, Respondents were asked to determine the likelihood of particular waste sources/ causes using 4 categories: (1) Most unlikely; (2) Unlikely; (3) Likely; (4) Most Likely and the respondents were provided with five different scales from 1 (no significant likelihood) to 5 as (high detrimental likelihood) The fifth section is to examine the relevant sources of wastes as outlined in the fourth section to have caused the particular construction wastes. The respondents were asked to identify the most possible causes and other possible causes to the wastes elements in order to create a matrix table between construction wastes and their sources of wastes.

3.4 SCORE ASSIGNMENT
Score assignment is a process of assigning values for each of the item and this is an important process of conducting inferential analysis especially for correlation test using Pearson-r where aggregation of points are required for this research. Score assignment for section 1 and 2, each positive answer is assigned with 2 points and each negative answer is assigned with 1 point. Based on the waste categories in Table 3.1, the maximum points for direct conversion wastes that can be aggregated for each case is (2 X 9) equal to 18 points and the minimum of (1 X 9) equal to 9 points; Maximum points for non-contributory time waste is (2 X 7) or 14 points and minimum of (1 X 7) or 7 points whereas for maximum points for contributory time wastes is (2 X 3) or 6 points and minimum of (1 X 3) or 3 points.
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

30

Score assignment for section 3 and 4 is based on the multiple-scale format. For section 3, points are ranged from 1 to 5 and maximum points that can be aggregated for direct conversion wastes is (5 X 9) or 45 points, minimum of (1 X 9) or 9 points; for noncontributory time wastes, maximum that can be achieved is (5 X 7) or 35 points and minimum of (1 X 7) or 7 points while maximum for contributory time wastes is (5 X 3) or 15 points and minimum of (1 X 3) or 3 points. For section 4, points are ranged from 1 to 4 but since correlation are not going to be tested in this section but rather each item is going to be tested separately with One-way t-test for ranking purposes, therefore not aggregation of points are required.

3.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
After all the primary data have been collected and processed, those data will then be analysed according to the appropriate analysis methods. Analysis methods in this research are mainly divided into 2 parts: (1) Descriptive analysis and (2) Inferential statistical analysis. Descriptive statistical analysis is used to present the background profiles about the respondents and provide further information for the inferential statistical analysis, besides that, the analysis on the descriptive data about the waste recognition and waste control events in section 1 & 2 will also be conducted under the same category. Inferential statistical analysis will be used to test certain research hypothesis, type of analysis tools to be used include Coefficient Pearson r for correlation testing and one-way t-test for frequencies ranking. Inferential statistic analysis will use correlation Pearson-r to conduct testing on 9 hypotheses to see whether any significant inter-relationship existed between understanding of wastes and actual control practices of wastes in construction processes based on 3 cases of waste categories. The 9 hypotheses are: Hypothesis 1: There is inter-relationship between construction’s direct conversion wastes are been perceived with the tendency to control those wastes. Hypothesis 2: There is inter-relationship between construction’s direct conversion wastes are been perceived with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the processes.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

31

Hypothesis 3: There is inter-relationship between the tendency to control those construction’s direct conversion wastes with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the processes. Hypothesis 4: There is inter-relationship between construction’s non-contributory time wastes are been perceived with the tendency to control those wastes. Hypothesis 5: There is inter-relationship between construction’s non-contributory time wastes are been perceived with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the processes. Hypothesis 6: There is inter-relationship between the tendency to control those construction’s non-contributory time wastes with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the processes. Hypothesis 7: There is inter-relationship between construction’s contributory time wastes are been perceived with the tendency to control those wastes. Hypothesis 8: There is inter-relationship between construction’s contributory time wastes are been perceived with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the processes. Hypothesis 9: There is inter-relationship between the tendency to control those construction’s contributory time wastes with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the processes. In every case above, the correlation Pearson-r will tell us the magnitude and direction of the association between two variables. In SPSS, the outcomes of the Pearson-r analysis will provide us three pieces of information: (1) the correlation coefficient, (2) the significance and (3) the number of cases (N). The correlation coefficient is a number between +1 and -1. This number tells us about the magnitude and direction of the association between two variables. The magnitude is the strength of the correlation. The closer the correlation is to either +1 or -1, the stronger the correlation. If the correlation is 0 or very close to zero, there is no association between the two variables. The direction of the correlation tells us how the two variables are related. One-Way t-test will be carried out basically to get the ranking on the frequencies of occurrence of the wastes elements in section 3 and the likelihood of recognition certain wastes causes factors as in section 4. In SPSS, the outcomes of the One-Way t-test analysis will provide us four pieces of information: (1) the number of cases (N), (2) the mean value, (3) the standard deviation and (4) the
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

32

standard error means. The ranking will be done separately in a descending order from the greatest magnitude of the mean value to the lowest mean value to differentiate the degree of frequencies and likelihood from the less significant to the most significant as rated by the respondent of the research. The last part of the analysis will be involving the development of the Causes and Effects Matrix table by combining all the inputs by the respondents in section 5 into the whole list of construction wastes and waste causes table. From there, descriptive statistic analysis will take place in sorting out the wastes causes factors and put them into 6 wastes factors as discussed previously and represent the Matrix Table in Bar charts format for easy interpretation of the results.

3.6 COMPOSITION OF RESPONDANTS
The respondents for this research consists of 81 project and site management personnel with a wide spectrum of positions ranging from project manager, project planner, general manager, construction manager, resident engineer, quality engineer, highway engineer, manager. The composition of the respondent’s position are shown in the Figure 5. site engineer &

16 14 12 10 NO'S 8 6 4 2 0 project manager Series 1 15 project planner 10 general manager 4 construct resident quality highway site ion engineer engineer engineer engineer manager 10 10 10 8 14

FIGURE 5:- COMPOSITION OF RESPONDANTS POSITION

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

33

3.7 PROJECT DETAILS CASE STUDY – 1
PROJECT:- 4 LANING OF ROAD FROM AHMEDABAD TO MALIYA ON SH – 7 & SH – 17 ON BOT BASIS. PROJECT LENGTH ;- 180 KMS. DURATION :- 30 MONTHS. CONTRACT PRICE :- Rs. 1800 CR appx.. DATE OF START :- OCTOBER 2009. CLIENT :- GSRDC(GUJARAT STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- BCEOM LTD. DESIGN CONSULTANT :- LEA ASSOCIATES SOUTH ASIA PVT LTD. EPC CONTRACTOR:- L & T ECC LTD.

CASE STUDY – 2
PROJECT:- 6 LANING FROM SURAT TO DAHISAR AS BOT (TOLL) PROJECT PROJECT LENGTH ;- 239 KMS DURATION :- 30 MONTHS. CONTRACT PRICE :- Rs. 2835 CR appx.. DATE OF START :- 20TH FEBRUARY 2009. DATE OF COMPLETION :- 19TH AUGUST 2011. CLIENT :- NHAI(NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA) INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD PMC CONSULTANT :- FRISHMAN PRABHU PVT. LTD. EPC CONTRACTOR:- IRB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

34

CASE STUDY – 3
PROJECT:- 4 LANING FROM NAGPUR TO HYDERABAD SECTION ON NH – 7. PROJECT LENGTH ;- 30 KMS DURATION :- 12 MONTHS. CONTRACT PRICE :- Rs. 115 CR appx.. DATE OF START :- 4TH OCTOBER 2009. DATE OF COMPLETION :- 3RD OCTOBER 2010. CLIENT :- NHAI(NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA) INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- AARVI ENCON PVT .LTD EPC CONTRACTOR:- IRB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD.

CASE STUDY – 4
PROJECT:- 4 LANING OF ROAD ON SH – 31FROM LEBAD TO NAGDA PROJECT LENGTH ;- 25 KMS DURATION :- 18 MONTHS. CONTRACT PRICE :- Rs. 130 CR appx.. DATE OF START :- FEBRUARY 2009. DATE OF COMPLETION :- AUGUST 2010. CLIENT :- MPRDC (MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- ARTEFACTS PROJECTS LTD. TOTAL PMC :- STUP CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD EPC CONTRACTOR:- PAN INDIA INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

35

CASE STUDY – 5
PROJECT:- 6 LANING FROM BHOPAL TO VISHADA PACKAGE - 1 ON SH – 18. PROJECT LENGTH ;- 36 KMS DURATION :- 18 MONTHS. CONTRACT PRICE :- Rs. 310 CR appx.. DATE OF START :- OCTOBER 2009. DATE OF COMPLETION :- MARCH 2011. CLIENT :- MPRDC (MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- AARVI ENCON PVT .LTD CONTRACTOR :- BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.

CASE STUDY – 6
PROJECT:- 4 LANING OF ROAD FROM HALOL – GODHRA – SHAMLAJI ON STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5 ON BOT (TOLL) BASIS. PROJECT LENGTH ;- 174 KMS DURATION :- 30 MONTHS. CONTRACT PRICE :- Rs. 1700 CR appx.. DATE OF START :- FEBRUARY 2009. DATE OF COMPLETION :- AUGUST 2010. CLIENT :- GSRDC (GUJARAT STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- BCEOM DESIGN CONSULTANT :- LEA ASSOCIATES SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD EPC CONTRACTOR:- L&T ECC LTD.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

36

CASE STUDY – 7
PROJECT:- 6 LANING OF ROAD FROM PIMPALGAON – NASIK – GONDE ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 3 ON BOT (TOLL) BASIS. PROJECT LENGTH ;- 60 KMS DURATION :- 24 MONTHS. CONTRACT PRICE :- Rs. 700 CR appx.. DATE OF START :- MARCH 2010. DATE OF COMPLETION :- SEPTEMBER 2012. CLIENT :- NHAI (NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA) INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- SHELADIA ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD THEME ENGINEERING SERVICES PMC CONSULTANT :- LEA ASSOCIATES SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD EPC CONTRACTOR:- L&T ECC LTD.

CASE STUDY – 8
PROJECT:- DEVAS BHOPAL CORRIDOR PROJECT PROJECT LENGTH ;- 132 KMS DURATION :- 36 MONTHS. CONTRACT PRICE :- Rs. 570 CR appx.. DATE OF START :- DECEMBER 2008. DATE OF COMPLETION :- NOVEMBER 2011. CLIENT :- MPRDC (MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- SAI CONSULTING ENGINEERS PVT. LTD PMC CONSULTANT :- ESSEL GROUP. EPC CONTRACTOR:- MSK PROJECTS (I) LTD.
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

37

CASE STUDY – 9
PROJECT:- 4 LANING OF ROAD FROM LUCKNOW – AYODHYA BYPASS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 28 PROJECT LENGTH ;- 46 KMS DURATION :- 30 MONTHS. CONTRACT PRICE :- Rs. 260 CR appx.. DATE OF START :- FEBRUARY 2009. DATE OF COMPLETION :- AUGUST 2010. CLIENT :- NHAI (NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTORITY OF INDIA) PMC CONSULTANT :- LEA ASSOCIATES SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD EPC CONTRACTOR:- HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD.

CASE STUDY – 10
PROJECT:- 4/6 LANING OF EXISTING 2 LANE CARRIAGEWAY ON NH – 5 FROM BHADRAK TO BALASORE PROJECT LENGTH ;- 62.64 KMS DURATION :- 24 MONTHS. CONTRACT PRICE :- Rs. 241 CR appx.. DATE OF START :- DECEMBER 2008. DATE OF COMPLETION :- NOVEMBER 2011. CLIENT :- NHAI (NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA) INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- SAI CONSULTING ENGINEERS PVT. LTD EPC CONTRACTOR:- BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

38

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

39

CHAPTER 4 : DATA ANALYSIS
4.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter will present all the results obtained from the data analysis waste concepts and waste causes factors in construction processes. Descriptive statistic analysis and inferential statistic analysis will be utilised to present the results. The presentation of analysis of descriptive statistic analysis will be conducted in the form of bar charts, pie charts and matrix tables to show the distribution and frequencies of the particular variables. The presentation of analysis of inferential statistic analysis will be done by using result outputs generated directly from SPSS 16. The respondents for this research consists of 81 project and site management personnel with a wide spectrum of positions ranging from project manager, project planner, general manager, construction manager, resident engineer, quality engineer, highway engineer, site engineer & manager.

4.1 RESPONDANTS WASTE PERCEPTIONS & CONTROL ACTION
The descriptive analysis on the respondent’s waste perceptions and control actions will mainly focusing on identifying the numbers of counts on wastes recognised and waste events controlled as reckon by the respondents for 3 waste categories namely, direct conversion wastes, non contributory wastes and contributory wastes. Since the lean construction philosophy considered all those waste elements as tabulated in the questionnaires as construction wastes which need to be reduced, eliminated or somehow controlled, the degree of perceptions on wastes for the local construction industries eventually can be verified by determining the numbers of positive counts on each of those wastes elements. Besides that, an analysis over a matrix tables by crosstabbing both the waste concepts and waste control actions will be carried out to study the frequencies of 4 different potential scenarios which are anticipated to be occurred.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

40

4.2 ANALYSIS ON DIRECT CONVERSION WASTE
Under this category, there are 9 wastes elements. Those items are indexed as F, G, H, I, J, K, L, N, S in the section A, B and C of the questionnaires. For the total of 81 respondents by calculation as (9 X 81), it sums up a total of 729 overall counts of inputs. For construction waste recognition, all the inputs are tabulated in Table 4.1 below and a total of 612 positive counts are recorded or approximately 84% and it is shown a high recognition on the waste concepts for the elements tested in this category. This analysis concluded that a high recognition rate on direct conversion wastes by the respondents. The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this direct conversion category are shown in Figure 6. The result shows that Item N: (Materials for rework/ repair works/ defective work) is the most recognized construction wastes with 78 positive counts while Item F: (Over-allocation/ Unnecessary equipment) is the least recognised construction wastes with only 57 positive counts under the direct conversion waste category.

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NON WASTE WASTE F 24 57 G 15 66 H 21 60 I 15 66 J 12 69 K 9 72 L 6 75 N 3 78 S 12 69

FIGURE 6 :- BREAKDOWN OF DIRECT CONVERSION WASTE RECOGNITION CASES

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS F 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 G 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 H 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 I 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 J 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 K 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 L 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2

41

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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

1) NON WASTE 2) WASTE

LEGEND :-

F) Over allocation/unnecessary equipments on site G) Over allocation/unnecessary materials on site H) Over allocation/unnecessary workers on site I) Unnecessary procedures & working protocols J) Material loss/stolen from site during
construction periods

K) Material deterioration/damage during
construction periods

L) Mishandling or error in construction
applications/installation

N) Material for rework/repair works/defective
works

S) Accidents on site

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2

42

TABLE 4.1 :- INPUTS OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE RECOGNITION FOR DIRECT CONVERSION WASTE

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

43

For construction waste events control, the total counts will calculated as (9 X 81) equal to 729Nos. of inputs as tabulated in Table 4.2. A total of 531 positive counts are recorded appx. 73% and it shows a slight drop in percentage on the waste control practices for the elements tested compared to the construction waste recognized previously by the same set of respondents. In other words, the respondents recognise the direct conversion wastes more than eventually control them. However, the analysis result still shows that there are high control exercises on direct conversion wastes as reported by the respondents. The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this direct conversion waste category are shown in Figure 7. From chart in Fig. however it shows that Item F: (Overallocation/ Unnecessary equipment on site) have the highest positive counts (69 Nos) on event controlled while Item S: (Accidents on site) is recorded as the least event controlled with 39 Nos. of positive counts. By cross tabbing of both Table 4.1 & 4.2 will result in a matrix table as show in Table 4.3 below. This matrix table can be used to explain the inter-relationship between the direct conversion waste concepts of the respondents with their actual control practices on construction processes. As anticipated, there are 4 potential scenarios as observed, which are Case 1: Waste recognised and controlled; Case 2: Waste not recognised and not controlled; Case 3: Waste recognised but not controlled and Case 4: Waste not recognised but controlled. From the analysis, it is found that Case 1 is the most occurrence scenario with 438 cases (60%) followed by Case 3: 174 cases (23.86%), Case 4: 93 cases (12.75%) and finally Case 2: 24 cases (3.3%). However, These results show that over half of the direct conversion construction wastes have fully been recognised and controlled simultaneously but this analysis result is not very convincing as there are still very high percentage of cases where wastes were partially recognised and controlled and not recognised and controlled at all.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS F 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 G 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 H 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 I 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 J 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 K 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 L 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2

44

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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

1) NOT CONTROL 2) CONTROL

LEGEND :-

F) Over allocation/unnecessary equipments on site G) Over allocation/unnecessary materials on site H) Over allocation/unnecessary workers on site I) Unnecessary procedures & working protocols J) Material loss/stolen from site during
construction periods

K) Material deterioration/damage during
construction periods

L) Mishandling or error in construction
applications/installation

N) Material for rework/repair works/defective
works

S) Accidents on site

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2

45

TABLE 4.2 :- Inputs of construction waste

event control for direct conversion waste

FIGURE 7 :- BREAKDOWN OF DIRECT CONVERSION WASTE EVENT CONTROL CASES
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 F 12 69 G 18 63 H 18 63 I 24 57 J 30 51 K 21 60 L 18 63 N 18 63 S 42 39

NO'S CONTROL

NON CONTROL

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS F 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10 LEGEND :G H I J K L N S

46

Case 1 :- waste & control Case 2 :- Nonwaste & non control Case 3:- waste & non control Case 4 :- non waste & control

F) Over allocation/unnecessary equipments on site G) Over allocation/unnecessary materials on site H) Over allocation/unnecessary workers on site I) Unnecessary procedures & working protocols J) Material loss/stolen from site during
construction periods

K) Material deterioration/damage during
construction periods

L) Mishandling or error in construction
applications/installation

N) Material for rework/repair works/defective
works

S) Accidents on site

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

47

TABLE 4.3 :- MATRIX TABLE FOR DIRECT CONVERSION WASTE

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

48

4.3 ANALYSIS ON NON CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE
Under this category, there are only 7 wastes elements indexed as A, B, C, D, E, M and O in the section A, B and C of the questionnaires. For the total of 81 respondents by calculation as (7 X 81), it sums up a total of 567 overall counts of inputs. For construction waste recognition, all the inputs are tabulated in Table 4.4 below and a total of 387 positive counts are recorded or approximately 68% and it is still a high recognition on the waste concepts for the elements tested in this category but it is relatively lower in percentage compared to analysis carried out previously on direct conversion waste. The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this noncontributory time waste category are shown in Figure 8. It is worthwhile to point out that most of the respondents do not recognised Item O: (Time for workers’ resting during construction) as construction as only 15 out of 81 respondents recognised it as construction waste. On the opposite side, the most recognised construction waste under this non-contributory time waste category is Item M: (Time for rework/ repair work/ defective works) which recorded a 75 positive counts out of the maximum 81. Same is the case for the controlled events which is tabulated in Table 4.5 & total of 465 counts have been recorded or appx.82% and it shows an increase in percentage on the waste event control for the elements tested compared to the construction waste recognised under this category. The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this noncontributory time waste category are shown in Figure 9. It shows that Item E: (Waiting for the clarification and confirmation by client and consultants) is the least controlled waste event where more than half of the respondents reported as waste event not being controlled. Item B: (Waiting for equipment to be delivered on site) on the other hand recorded a perfect waste control event. Same as direct conversion waste analysis, the cross tabbing of both Table 4.4 & 4.5 for noncontributory waste will result in a matrix table as show in Table 4.6. This matrix table can be used to explain the inter-relationship between the non-contributory waste concepts of the respondents with their actual control practices on construction processes. Again, 4 potential scenarios cases are investigated for non-contributory time waste category.
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS A 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 B 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 C 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 D 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 E 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 M 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 O 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2

49

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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

1)NON WASTE 2) WASTE

LEGEND :-

A) Waiting for others to complete their works
before the proceedings works can be carried out

B) Waiting for equipments to be delivered on site C) Waiting for materials to be delivered on site D) Waiting for skilled workers to be on site E) Waiting for clarification & confirmation by client
& consultants

M) Time for rework/repair works/defective works O) Time for workers resting during construction

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

50

TABLE 4.4 :- INPUTS OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE RECOGNITION FOR NON CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

51

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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

C 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

D 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

E 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2

M 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

O 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2

1) NOT CONTROL 2) CONTROL

LEGEND :-

A) Waiting for others to complete their works
before the proceedings works can be carried out

B) Waiting for equipments to be delivered on site C) Waiting for materials to be delivered on site D) Waiting for skilled workers to be on site E) Waiting for clarification & confirmation by client
& consultants

M) Time for rework/repair works/defective works O) Time for workers resting during construction

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2

52

TABLE 4.5 :- INPUTS OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE EVENT CONTROL FOR NON CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

53

90 80 70 60 NO'S 50 40 30 20 10 0 NONWASTE WASTE A 18 63 B 27 54 C 24 57 D 12 69 E 27 54 M 6 75 O 66 15

FIGURE 8 :- BREAK DOWN OF NON – CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE RECOGNITION CASES

90 80 70 60 NO'S 50 40 30 20 10 0 NON CONTROL CONTROL A 3 78 B 0 81 C 9 72 D 15 66 E 42 39 M 12 69 O 21 60

FIGURE 9 :- BREAKDOWN OF NON – CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE CONTROL
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS A 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10 LEGEND :B C D E M

54

Case 1 :- waste & control Case 2 :- Nonwaste & non control Case 3:- waste & non control Case 4 :- non waste & control

A) Waiting for others to complete their works
before the proceedings works can be carried out

B) Waiting for equipments to be delivered on site C) Waiting for materials to be delivered on site D) Waiting for skilled workers to be on site E) Waiting for clarification & confirmation by client
& consultants

M) Time for rework/repair works/defective works O) Time for workers resting during construction

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

55

TABLE 4.6 :- MATRIX DIAGRAM FOR NON – CONTRIBUTORY WASTE

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

56

4.4 ANALYSIS ON CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE
Under this category, there are only 3 wastes elements indexed as P, Q & R in the section A, B and C of the questionnaires. For the total of 81 respondents by calculation as (3 X 81), it sums up a total of 243 overall counts of inputs. For construction waste recognition, all the inputs are tabulated in Table 4.7 below and a total of 30 positive counts are recorded or approximately 12% and this a very low recognition on the waste concepts for the elements tested under this category compared to analysis carried out previously on direct conversion waste and non-contributory time waste. The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this contributory time waste category are shown in Figure 10. It is not surprising to see that all the 3 items registered under contributory time wastes are recording significant negative counts, which represent non waste recognition for the contributory time wastes. Very much different with the first 2 waste recognition analysis, all 3 items are recording high negative counts that above 20 counts where Item P: (Time in supervising and inspecting the construction works) with the greatest numbers of negative counts (26 Nos.) followed by Item R: (Time for transporting workers, equipment and materials) – 23 Nos. and Item Q: (Time for instructions and communication among different tiers and trades of workers) – 22 Nos. Same is the case for the controlled events which is tabulated in Table 4.8 & total of 216 counts have been recorded or appx.89% and it shows an increase in percentage on the waste event control for the elements tested compared to the construction waste recognised under this category. The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this contributory time waste category are shown in Figure 11. It shows that all the 3 items are having high positive counts for waste event control where all 3 items of contributory time waste are recording above 20 Nos. of positive counts lead by Item P: (Time in supervising and inspecting the construction works) with 78 Nos. Again, by cross tabbing of both Table 4.7 & 4.8 for contributory waste will result in a matrix table as show in Table 4.9. Therefore, the inter-relationship between the contributory waste concepts of the respondents with their actual control practices on construction processes can be explained using this matrix table. 4 potential scenarios cases are to be investigated for contributory time waste category.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 R 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 P 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 Q 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 R 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

57

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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

1) NON WASTE 2) WASTE

1) NOT CONTROL 2) CONTROL

LEGEND :-

P) Time in supervising / inspecting the
construction works

Q) Time for instructions & communication
among different tiers & trades of workers

R) Time for transporting workers, equipments
& materials

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

58

TABLE 4.7 INPUTS OF CONSTRUCTION RECOGNITION

TABLE 4.8 INPUTS OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE CONTROL

CASES FOR CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

59

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NON WASTE WASTE P 78 3 Q 66 15 R 69 12

FIGURE 10 :- BREAK DOWN OF CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE RECOGNITION

90 80 70 60 NO'S 50 40 30 20 10 0 NON CONTROL CONTROL P 3 78 Q 15 66 R 12 69

FIGURE 11 :- BREAKDOWN OF TIME WASTE CONTROL CASES

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS P 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10 LEGEND :Q R

60

Case 1 :- waste & control Case 2 :- Nonwaste & non control Case 3:- waste & non control Case 4 :- non waste & control

P) Time in supervising / inspecting the construction
works

Q) Time for instructions & communication among
different tiers & trades of workers

R) Time for transporting workers, equipments &
materials

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

61

TABLE 4.9 :- MATRIX DIAGRAM FOR CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

62

4.5 INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
This section will discuss about the analysis results from inferential analysis. Statistic tools such as correlation Pearson-r and One-Way t-test will be utilised to test some hypotheses of the study and determine the frequency ranking of each particular event or case as rated by the respondents. 4.5.1 CORRELATION AMONG DIRECT CONVERSION WASTES CONCEPTS AND PERCEPTIONS, WASTE EVENT CONTROL AND FREQUENCIES OF WASTE EVENT OCCURRENCES There are 3 hypotheses to be tested under this direct conversion wastes category: Hypothesis 1: There is inter-relationship between construction’s direct conversion wastes are been perceived (D_WASTE1) with the tendency to control those wastes (D_WASTE2) Hypothesis 2: There is inter-relationship between construction’s direct conversion wastes are been perceived (D_WASTE1) with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the processes (D_WASTE3) Hypothesis 3: There is inter-relationship between the tendency to control those construction’s direct conversion wastes (D_WASTE2) with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the processes (D_WASTE3) These 3 hypotheses are to be tested together using correlation Pearson r, and the results show that there are not significant correlations among each other (refer Table 4.10) as the two-tail sig. value (K) is more than 0.05 for 3 cases tested. Hence Hypothesis 1, 2 and 3 is rejected. HYPOTHESIS 1 TEST Variables D WASTE 2 K = .314> .05 HYPOTHESIS 2 TEST Variables D WASTE 3 K = .575>.05 HYPOTHESIS 3 TEST Variables D WASTE 3 K= .593> .05 Table 4.10 showing Correlation Pearson-r results summaries for hypothesis 1, 2 and 3 (Refer Appendix 1 for Correlation Pearson-r result outputs from SPSS 16.0)
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

D WASTE 1 -.145

D WASTE 1 -.040

D WASTE 2 - .056

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

63

4.5.2 CORRELATION AMONG NON-CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTES CONCEPTS AND PERCEPTIONS, WASTE EVENT CONTROL AND FREQUENCIES OF WASTE EVENT OCCURRENCES Same as direct conversion wastes, there are 3 hypotheses to be tested under this noncontributory wastes category: Hypothesis 4: There is inter-relationship between construction’s non-contributory time wastes are been perceived (NON_CON1) with the tendency to control those wastes (NON_CON2) Hypothesis 5: There is inter-relationship between construction’s non-contributory time wastes are been perceived (NON_CON1) with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the processes (NON_CON3) Hypothesis 6: There is inter-relationship between the tendency to control those construction’s non-contributory time wastes (NON_CON2) with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the processes (NON_CON3) These 3 hypotheses are to be tested together using correlation Pearson r, and the results show that there are not significant correlations among each other (refer Table 4.11) as the two-tail sig. value (K) is more than 0.05 for 3 cases tested. Hence Hypothesis 4, 5 and 6 is rejected. HYPOTHESIS 4 TEST Variables NON CON 2 K = .224> .05 HYPOTHESIS 5 TEST Variables NON CON 3 K = .470>.05 HYPOTHESIS 6 TEST Variables NON CON 3 K= .372 > .05 Table 4.11showing Correlation Pearson-r results summaries for hypothesis 4, 5 and 6 (Refer Appendix 1 for Correlation Pearson-r result outputs from SPSS 16.0) NON CON 2 .325 NON CON 1 -.291

NON CON 1 .026

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

64

4.5.3 CORRELATION AMONG CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTES CONCEPTS AND PERCEPTIONS, WASTE EVENT CONTROL AND FREQUENCIES OF WASTE EVENT OCCURRENCES Same as previous 2 wastes categories, there are 3 hypotheses to be tested under this contributory wastes category: Hypothesis 7: There is inter-relationship between construction’s contributory time wastes are been perceived (CON1) with the tendency to control those wastes (CON2) Hypothesis 8: There is inter-relationship between construction’s contributory time wastes are been perceived (CON1) with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the processes (CON3) Hypothesis 9: There is inter-relationship between the tendency to control those construction’s contributory time wastes (CON2) with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the processes (CON3) These 3 hypotheses are to be tested together using correlation Pearson r, and the results show that there are significant correlations between the way contributory time wastes have been perceived (CON1) with the tendency to control those wastes (CON2) as the 2-tail sig. value (K) signify the correlation is significant at 0.01 level or value K < 0.01 with a negative correlation (r = .551) whereas the other 2 cases are tested non-significant with the 2-tail sig. value (K) is more than 0.05. (Refer Table 4.12) Hence Hypothesis 7 is accepted and hypothesis 8 and 9 is rejected. HYPOTHESIS 7 TEST Variables CON 2 K = .004 < .05 HYPOTHESIS 8 TEST Variables CON 3 K = .217>.05 HYPOTHESIS 9 TEST Variables CON 3 K= .185 > .05 Table 4.12 showing Correlation Pearson-r results summaries for hypothesis 7, 8 and 9 (Refer Appendix 1 for Correlation Pearson-r result outputs from SPSS 16.0)
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

CON 1 -.555

CON 1 -.223

CON 2 .281

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

65

4.6 RANKING ON FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROCESSES
The purpose of this analysis is to determine the frequency of occurrences of construction wastes as experienced by the respondents, the frequencies of occurrences for construction wastes are analysed by using one-way t-test to determine the mean values, standard of deviation and standard error mean and the mean of scores were listed as shown in Table 4.13.
Construction waste variables P3 E3 Q3 A3 M3 N3 C3 R3 B3 K3 J3 L3 I3 O3 G3 D3 S3 F3 H3 Time in supervising & inspecting the construction works Waiting for clarification & confirmation by client & consultants Time for instructions & communication among different tiers & trades of workers Waiting for others to complete their works before the proceeding works can be carried out Time for rework/repair works/defective works Materials for rework/repair works/defective works Waiting for materials to be delivered on site Time for transporting workers, equipment & materials Waiting for equipment to be delivered on site Material deterioration/ damaged during construction periods Material loss / stolen from site during construction periods Mishandling or error in construction application/ installation Unnecessary procedures & working protocols Time for workers resting during construction Overallocation / unnecessary materials on site Waiting for skilled workers to be on site Accidents on site Over allocation / unnecessary equipments on site Overallocation / unnecessary workers on site N 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 Mean Std.devi ation 4.00 3.81 3.77 3.66 3.37 3.33 3.29 3.26 3.14 3.11 3.07 3.03 3.00 2.96 2.93 2.66 2.51 2.44 2.40 .821 .776 .741 .724 .679 .724 .941 .932 .853 .880 .818 .886 .948 .843 .818 .908 .691 .836 .833 Std. error mean .091 .086 .082 .080 .075 .080 .104 .103 .094 .097 .090 .098 .105 .093 .090 .100 .076 .093 .092 Waste categories Contributory time Non – contributory time Contributory time Non – contributory time Non – contributory time Direct conversion Non – contributory time Contributory time Non – contributory time Direct conversion Direct conversion Direct conversion Direct conversion Non – contributory time Direct conversion Non – contributory time Direct conversion Direct conversion Direct conversion

TABLE 4.13 CONSTRUCTION WASTE VARIABLES RANKING
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

66

From the mean ranking results, it shows that time wastes categories regardless of contributory time or non-contributory time wastes occurred at the top of the list compared to direct conversion wastes. Therefore, it is recommended that for construction processes improvements, it is eventually those contributory and noncontributory times waste variables that have to be given more attentions and in real fact, most of them are related to process flows and sequences and this can lead to lean construction’s tools and methods which are developed mostly to tackle those wastes resulted from process flow inefficiencies.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

67

4.7 RANKING ON LIKELINESS FOR SOURCES/CAUSES OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE
The purpose of this analysis is to determine the respondent’s recognition of particular sources/ causes factors that cause construction wastes. Same as ranking for the frequencies of wastes occurrences, the rating on these likelihood of waste sources/ causes factors as rated by the respondents are analysed by using one-way t-test and the mean of scores were listed in as shown in Table 4.14
Sources/ causes of construction waste E2 D2 A1 E3 A2 D3 A3 D1 E1 B2 D4 D6 B3 B5 B4 B1 C3 D5 C6 C5 C4 A4 B6 C1 C2 Late information & decision making Poorly scheduled delivery of material to site Poor coordination among project participants Unclear information Poor planning & scheduling Poor quality of material Lack of control Delay of material delivery Defective or wrong information Inexperience inspectors Inappropriate misuse of material Poor material handling on site Too few supervisors Supervision too late Uncontrolled sub – contracting practices Lack of trades skills Equipments shortage Poor storage of material Poor site documentation Poor site layout & setting out Poor equipment choice/ineffective equipment Bureaucracy Poor labour distribution Inappropriate construction methods Outdated equipment N 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 Mean Std.devi ation 3.63 3.37 3.37 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.23 3.22 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.07 3.03 2.96 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.88 2.85 2.81 2.77 2.70 2.66 2.51 .557 .621 .621 .519 .586 .703 .579 .689 .570 .500 .790 .666 .579 .697 .607 .607 .607 .720 .570 .654 .550 .570 .660 .724 .792 Std. error mean .061 .069 .069 .057 .065 .078 .065 .076 .063 .055 .087 .074 .064 .077 .067 .067 .067 .080 .063 .072 .061 .063 .073 .080 .088 Source/cause factor categories Information & communication factors Material factors Management & administration factors Information & communication factors Management & administration factors Material factors Management & administration factors Material factors Information & communication factors People factors Material factors Material factors People factors People factors People factors People factors Execution factors Material factors Execution factors Execution factors Execution factors Management & administration factors People factors Execution factors Execution factors

TABLE 4.14 SOURCES/CAUSES OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE RANKING
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

68

As from the mean ranking result shows that Item E2: (Late information and decision making) is highly regarded as the main contributory sources or causes to the construction wastes with the highest mean value (3.63) and with a 0.26 from the second rank item D2: (Poorly scheduled delivery of material to site). Among the clusters of cause factors observed from Table 6.14, there are 3 categories of waste sources/ causes factors are widely acknowledged as the key contributory factors to construction wastes. Those categories included Information and Communication Factors, Management and Administration Factors and Material Factors as most of the Cause factors captured under these 3 categories are rated with the mean value over 3. Overall, the likelihood of recognising the items above as the sources/ causes of wastes that will impact on the productivity of the projects, are still reasonably high as most of the mean value for the items tested were clustering around the scale “3” value representing “likely as a sources/ causes of wastes”. However, there are also some exceptions such as Item C1: (Inappropriate construction methods) and Item C2: (Outdated equipment) both recorded a slightly low mean values of 2.67 and 2.52 respectively.

4.8 CAUSE & EFFECT MATRIX DIAGRAM
The purpose of this analysis to relate the particular sources or causes to the construction wastes and this is to give us a better picture of what leads to the waste in construction processes as suggested by the respondents feedback on this research. Figure 12 is the overall analysis on Causes and Effects Matrix of the “Major cause” to the construction wastes based on 5 main causes factors while Figure 13 is the Causes and Effects Matrix of the “Other causes” to the construction wastes. (Refer overall Causes and Effects Matrix tables in Appendix 4 for a detailed understanding on actual one to one relationship between wastes causes to wastes itself as per the data gather from the respondents of this research)

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

69

major cause
70

60

50

not relevant information & communication factors material factors

40

30

execution factors people factors

20

management & adminstration factors

10

0 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R

FIGURE 12 :- CAUSE & EFFECT RELATIONSHIP FOR THE MAJOR CAUSES
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

70

other cause
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R not relevant information & communication factors material factors execution factors people factors management & adminstration factors

FIGURE 13 :- CAUSE & EFFECT RELATIONSHIP FOR OTHER CAUSES

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

71

The matrix table provides a clearer insight into the types of causes factors that directly related construction wastes, as we shall see that in Figure 12, Management and Administration Factors has a relatively high counts numbers in causing the construction wastes items ranging from Item A to Item I and Item Q, Materials Factors dominants over Item J & K and People Factors score higher in Item M, N and O. By conducting this causes and effects matrix exercise, we can know that each types of construction wastes has a different roots causes to the problems and it is important to identify those particular causes to the problems in order to a proper corrective or preventive actions can be carried to ensure continuous improvement in performance of construction activities.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

72

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

73

CHAPTER 5 : CONCLUSION
5.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter concludes the whole study based on the findings. The tested hypotheses will be related to the research objectives and further interpreted and conclusion on the achievement of the research objectives. Some recommendations will also be drawn from the findings and the limitations during the research.

5.1 RESEARCH FINDINGS
The discussion on the findings of the research will be carried in 2 separate ways: 1. Relating the research findings to research objectives 2. Rewritten hypotheses and interpret the results 5.1.1 RESEARCH FINDINGS TO RESEARCH OBJECTIVES • Research objective 1: General perceptions on construction wastes based on lean construction principles. From the research results, it is found that the general perceptions and lean concepts of local construction personnel particularly on construction wastes and their tendency to control these wastes are at an acceptable level. The local construction site personnel can identified most wastes as outlined and the tendency of controlling those wastes is even higher than recognising the wastes themselves. However, from the results, it also shows that the recognition over flow related construction wastes is rather low compared to direct conversion wastes or physical wastes especially those related to contributory time wastes. This signify that the local construction personnel are still not fully comprehend the concepts of flows and non value-adding activities and tends to included these contributory work as part and parcel of conversion process. In fact, lean construction philosophy sees these contributory works as not adding any values to the client even though they are sometimes necessary for the progress of the overall construction processes. On the bright side, the research results also show a very high percentage on those contributory works as being controlled during the construction processes signaling that those contributory time wastes are actually well aware off those activities even though they being not recognised as construction wastes.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

74

Research Objective 2: Degree of problems arisen of the wastes identified

Based on the ranking of the event occurrences frequencies for waste events existed in construction processes shows that the most frequent waste events occurred in construction activities are actually flow related with both contributory time wastes and non-contributory time wastes were at the top of the ranking list. On the other hand, many direct conversion wastes are recorded rather low scores mostly in the range of “Seldom” and “Very Rare” occurrence events. Eventually by breaking down the waste categories, it is made clear that the flow time wastes are the prominent events that occurred in construction processes. Therefore, based on that information, a better performance improvement strategies can be arranged to target at those flow related wastes events, as those events are usually invisible or ignored by conventional construction management. The construction processes can be further streamlined by reducing or eliminating those flow waste elements by implementing the lean construction principles and practices such as employee involvements, kanzan, JIT concepts etc at all level of construction processes. • Research Objective 3 : Waste cause and effect relationship and potential improvement strategies

In this research, major sources of wastes are also been identified directly related to the respective construction wastes from the wastes causes and effects matrix as shown in Appendix 4. From the aggregated results shows that management and administrative factors are recognised as the dominant sources of wastes for most of the cases while material factors and people factors are more dominant for a few wastes types. If compared to the ranking of the likelihood for waste factors to impact the construction productivity in general, information and communications factors which are hardly seen as a dominant factor of any construction wastes types at the top of the ranking list follow tightly by management and administrative factors. On the low side, the executive factors and people factors scored relatively low in the ranking. This is a very good exercise to point out the causes and effects relationship between the sources of waste and waste itself for processes control, reengineering or redesign by targeting directly at the respective sources of wastes for processes improvement. In most leaner construction organisition, they usually practise this exercise in a survey called waste identification survey (WIS) through work sampling practices in order to monitor and improve their flow performance from time to time during their construction activities.
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

75

5.1.2 HYPOTHESIS TESTING & INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS From inferential statistical analyses in chapter 4, 9 hypotheses testing were conducted with Pearson-r correlation. The results from the analyses had concluded following hypotheses. 1. There is no significant inter-relationship between construction’s direct conversion wastes perceived with the tendency to control those wastes. 2. There is no significant inter-relationship between construction’s direct conversion wastes perceived with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during construction. 3. There is no significant inter-relationship between the tendency to control direct conversion wastes with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during construction. 4. There is no significant inter-relationship between construction’s noncontributory time wastes perceived with the tendency to control those wastes. 5. There is no significant inter-relationship between construction’s noncontributory time wastes perceived with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during construction. 6. There is no significant inter-relationship between the tendency to control non-contributory time wastes with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during construction. 7. There is no significant inter-relationship between construction’s contributory time wastes perceived with the tendency to control those wastes. 8. There is no significant inter-relationship between construction’s contributory time wastes perceived with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during construction. 9. There is significant inter-relationship between the tendency to control contributory time wastes with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during construction. The non-significant over almost all the hypotheses tested in correlation testing shows that there were not uniformity in the way the construction waste are recognised and controlled even with the high recognition and control rates. Recognising particular construction wastes or frequencies of occurrence of construction wastes on site by the construction personnel do not prompt them to control them and vice versa, recognizing construction wastes are not prompt by the frequencies of occurrence of those wastes during construction site. The construction wastes are treated very subjectively from cases to cases and suggested that no proper doctrine or philosophy in supporting for particular waste recognition and control mechanism.
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

76

In the importance of continuous process and productivity improvement, having the correct concepts and understanding and having the right attitudes to mitigate and control the flow and flow related wastes are very essence. In this case, the worst scenario would be someone actually not knowing what is the waste and therefore not put in any efforts to control it and letting the wastes to repeat from time to time. There might be some other reasons for not recognising wastes and not controlling them. Some would not treat it as a waste as those wastes are recoverable due to defaults by others and some misunderstanding that wastes are necessary to avoid others bigger wastes from happening. For example, as cited from the only 1 qualitative inputs from all 81 questionnaires received stated that waiting for clarification and confirmation by client and consultants is not a waste because he/ she believed that it is important to wait for clarification and confirmation “because lack of this will be more wastage (redo the task)”. From the results of cross-tab matrix tables shows a relatively low percentage of that particular scenario and that should be a good sign for the construction industries.

However, for the scenarios of knowing the wastes but not controlling them hit a rather high numbers of cases and percentage especially in direct conversion wastes. This is particularly not a good sign where those wastes are left behind the construction processes and hinder the full potential of process improvement. The results to this might be abundant. One of the reason would be the costs to control or improve the wastes might be higher that the cost of the wastes itself. Besides that, the reasons of not control the wastes even the wastes are identified and recognised perhaps is due to not sufficient tools and knowledge to control them and some might due to misunderstanding during execution and not well trained personnel.

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

77

REFERENCES
1. Abdul Rashid Abdul Aziz and Abdul Aziz Hussin, (2003) “Construction Safety In Malaysia: A Review Of Industry Performance And Outlook For The Future” in journal of Construction Research, pp.146-148. 2. Alarcón, Luis F. (1993). “Modeling waste and performance in construction.” In Lean Construction, Alarcón (Ed.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1997 3. Alarcón, Luis F. (1994). “Tools for the identification and reduction of waste in construction projects.” In Lean Construction, Alarcón (Ed.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1997 4. Enton, David (1994). “Lean production productivity improvements for construction professions” In Lean Construction, Alarcón (ed.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1997. 5. Formosa, Carlos T et al (2002) “Material waste in building industry: main causes and prevention.” In Journel of Construction Engineering and Management, July/ August, pp. 316-318 6. Koskela, Lauri (1993).”Lean production in construction.” In Lean Construction, Alarcón (ed.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1997. 7. Koskela, Lauri (1992). Application of new production philosophy to construction Tech. Rep. No 72, CIFE, Stanford, California 8. Koskela, Lauri (2000). An Exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction, VTT Publication 408, Finland. 9. Taylor, T.W., (1913) “The principles of scientific management”, Harper and Brothers, New York quoted in Formosa, Carlos T et al (2002) “Material waste in building industry: main causes and prevention.” In Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, July/ August, pp. 317 10. Womack, J and Jones, D. (1996). Lean Thinking. Simon & Schuster WEBSITE:• www. Leanconstruction.org

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

78

APPENDICES
APPENDIX - 1CORRELATION PEARSON R RESULTS FROM SPSS 16
CORRELATIONS :D WASTE 1 PEARSON CORRELATION SIG. ( 2 –TAILED) N D WASTE 2 PEARSON CORRELATION SIG. ( 2 –TAILED) N D WASTE 3 PEARSON CORRELATION SIG. ( 2 –TAILED) N D WASTE 1 1.000 81 -.145 .314 81 -.040 .593 81 D WASTE 2 -.145 .314 81 1.000 81 -.056 .593 81 D WASTE 3 -.040 .593 81 -.056 .593 81 1.000 81

NON CON 1 PEARSON CORRELATION SIG. ( 2 –TAILED) N NON CON 2 PEARSON CORRELATION SIG. ( 2 –TAILED) N NON CON 3 PEARSON CORRELATION SIG. ( 2 –TAILED) N

NON CON 1 1.000 81 .026 .224 81 -.291 .470 81

NON CON 2 .026 .224 81 1.000 81 -.325 .372 81

NON CON 3 -.291 .470 81 -.325 .372 81 1.000 81

CON 1 CON 2 CON 3

PEARSON CORRELATION SIG. ( 2 –TAILED) N PEARSON CORRELATION SIG. ( 2 –TAILED) N PEARSON CORRELATION SIG. ( 2 –TAILED) N

1.000 81 -.555 .004 81 -.223 .217 81

CON 1

-.555 .004 81 1.000 81 .281 .185 81

CON 2

CON 3 -.223 .217 81 .281 .185 81 1.000 81

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

79

APPENDIX 2 ONE WAY T – TEST RESULTS FROM SPSS 16.0

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

80

APPENDIX 3 (A)
A1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 B1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 C1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 D1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2

SPSS DATA INPUT SHEET (WASTE CONCEPTS)
E1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 F1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 G1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 H1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 I1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 J1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 K1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 L1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 M1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 N1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 O1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 P1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Q1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 S1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2

81

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

82

(B)
A2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 B2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 C2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2

SPSS DATA INPUT SHEETS (WASTE CONTROL EVENTS)
D2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 E2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 F2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 G2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 H2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 I2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 J2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 K2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 L2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 M2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 N2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 O2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 P2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 Q2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 R2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 S2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2

83

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

84

(C)

SPSS DATA INPUT SHEETS (FREQUENCIES OF OCCURRENCE)

A3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 5 5 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 5 5

B3 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 3 3 2 4 5 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 3

C3 3 2 4 3 4 4 2 2 3 2 5 3 4 3 4 5 2 4 3 4 4 2 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 4 2 2 3 2 5 3

D3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 4 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 4

E3 5 4 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 3 5 4 3 4 3 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 4

F3 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 3 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3

G3 4 3 3 4 3 4 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 1 2 3 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 2 3 2 4 3 3

H3 4 2 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1

I3 4 4 3 4 3 3 2 1 2 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 1 3 3 5 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 2 1 2 2 4 3

J3 3 2 3 4 2 4 4 1 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 2 3 4 2 4 4 1 3 4 3 2

K3 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 2 3 3 4 2 3 5 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 1 3 4 4 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 2 3 3 4 2

L3 4 3 3 3 2 4 5 2 2 3 3 2 2 5 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 4 5 2 2 3 3 2

M3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 2 3 3 4 3 3 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 2 3 3 4 3

N3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 4 2 3 2 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 4 2 3

O3 3 3 3 3 2 5 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 5 4 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 5 2 2 3 2 2 3

P3 3 5 4 5 3 5 5 4 4 4 3 5 3 2 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 5 3 5 5 4 4 4 3 5

Q3 3 4 4 4 3 5 5 4 3 3 4 5 3 2 4 5 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 5 5 4 3 3 4 5

R3 2 3 4 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 5 5 1 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 2 3 4 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 4

S3 4 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 4 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 2

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 5 5 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 3 2 4 5 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 3 3 2 4 5 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 2 3 3 4 3 4 5 2 4 3 4 4 2 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 4 2 2 3 2 5 3 4 3 4 5 2 4 3 4 4 2 5 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 4 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 4 1 3 2 2 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 4 3 5 4 3 4 3 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 3 5 4 3 4 3 5 4 4 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 3 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 3 2 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 3 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 1 2 3 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 4 2 2 3 2 1 1 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 1 3 3 5 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 2 1 2 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 1 3 3 5 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 2 3 4 2 4 4 1 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 5 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 1 3 4 4 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 2 3 3 4 2 3 5 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 1 3 4 4 2 5 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 4 5 2 2 3 3 2 2 5 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 2 3 3 4 3 3 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 2 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 4 2 3 2 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 5 4 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 5 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 5 4 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 4 2 3 3 3 2 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 5 3 5 5 4 4 4 3 5 3 2 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 5 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 5 5 4 3 3 4 5 3 2 4 5 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 5 5 1 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 2 3 4 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 5 5 1 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 4 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 3

85

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

86

(D) SPSS DATA INPUT SHEETS ( SCORE AGGREGATION )
D WASTE 1 18 17 17 18 14 18 17 12 15 12 18 17 16 18 16 18 18 18 16 18 16 16 18 17 17 15 17 18 17 17 18 14 18 17 12 15 12 18 17 D WASTE 2 15 15 16 16 15 18 14 18 18 13 13 16 16 10 16 17 18 15 17 16 17 18 12 13 15 15 18 15 15 16 16 15 18 14 18 18 13 13 16 D WASTE 3 26 33 29 24 16 28 29 25 30 34 25 23 32 26 17 21 27 21 33 30 21 22 31 21 21 25 28 26 33 29 24 16 28 29 25 30 34 25 23

NON CON 1 11 13 9 11 13 13 12 12 13 9 13 13 10 13 12 14 9 12 13 11 10 13 9 13 13 12 12 11 13 9 11 13 13 12 12 13 9 13 13

NON CON 2 13 14 14 13 14 14 13 14 14 12 12 11 11 8 12 14 14 13 13 14 11 13 12 12 12 14 13 13 14 14 13 14 13 14 14 12 12 11

NON CON 3 23 24 21 24 20 27 25 27 24 22 21 22 27 17 13 22 26 25 24 29 29 23 23 18 21 21 21 23 24 21 24 20 14 27 25 27 24 22 21 22

CON 1 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 5 3 4 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3

CON 2 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 5 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 6 6

CON3 8 12 12 12 10 13 12 10 10 10 10 14 9 8 14 15 9 11 11 12 11 12 11 10 10 10 12 8 12 12 12 10 6 13 12 10 10 10 10 14

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS 16 18 16 18 18 18 16 18 16 16 18 17 17 15 17 18 17 17 18 14 18 17 12 15 12 18 17 16 18 16 18 18 18 16 18 16 16 18 17 17 15 17 16 10 16 17 18 15 17 16 17 18 12 13 15 15 18 15 15 16 16 15 18 14 18 18 13 13 16 16 10 16 17 18 15 17 16 17 18 12 13 15 15 18 32 26 17 21 27 21 33 30 21 22 31 21 21 25 28 26 33 29 24 16 28 29 25 30 34 25 23 32 26 17 21 27 21 33 30 21 22 31 21 21 25 28 10 13 12 14 9 12 13 11 10 13 9 13 13 12 12 11 13 9 11 13 13 12 12 13 9 13 13 10 13 12 14 9 12 13 11 10 13 9 13 13 12 12 11 8 12 14 14 13 13 14 11 13 12 12 12 14 13 13 14 14 13 14 14 13 14 14 12 12 11 11 8 12 14 14 13 13 14 11 13 12 12 12 14 13 27 17 13 22 26 25 24 29 29 23 23 18 21 21 21 23 24 21 24 20 27 25 27 24 22 21 22 27 17 13 22 26 25 24 29 29 23 23 18 21 21 21 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 5 3 4 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 5 3 4 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 5 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 5 6 9 8 14 15 9 11 11 12 11 12 11 10 10 10 12 8 12 12 12 10 13 12 10 10 10 10 14 9 8 14 15 9 11 11 12 11 12 11 10 10 10 12

87

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

88

(E)
A 1 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 A 2 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 A 3 4 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 3

SPSS DATA INPUT SHEETS ( WASTE SOURCES/CAUSES)
A 4 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 B 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 B 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 B 3 4 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 B 4 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 B 5 3 2 2 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 4 3 B 6 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 C 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 4 3 C 2 3 2 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 3 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 3 2 4 2 C 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 C 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 4 2 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 4 2 C 5 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 4 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 4 3 3 2 4 3 C 6 4 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 D 1 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 D 2 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 D 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 D 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 2 3 4 3 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 D 5 4 2 2 3 1 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 1 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 D 6 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 E 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 E 2 2 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 E 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 2 3 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 3 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 4 2 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 4 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 2 3 4 3 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 1 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3

89

4 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

90

APPENDIX 4 CAUSE & EFFECT MATRIX TABLES A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 A 24 21 15 B 36 9 3 C 24 9 D 3 15 15 15 3 E 24 9 6 F 15 15 G 30 12 H 27 15 I 12 18 12 12 J 3 3 3 K 3 6 3 L 6 6 6 M 3 3 15 N 3 3 O 3 27 P 12 6 9 3 15 Q 9 21 3 R 9 3 15 3 B3 B4 B5 B6 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 E1 E2 E3 F 6 9 3 6 3 12 15 3 3 3 6 3 3 21 3 9 6 6 3 6 9 3 3 21 6 3 3 3 33 9 3 3 3 6 3 27 9 9 6 6 6 3 12 9 9 6 6 3 9 12 6 3 21 15 18 3 12 3 3 3 9 3 12 3 3 9 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 6 MAJOR CAUSE
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

91

APPENDIX 4 CAUSE & EFFECT MATRIX TABLES A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R A1 9 12 15 15 3 6 6 9 A2 15 3 6 9 3 6 3 3 3 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 15 3 3 3 6 3 3 9 3 6 9 3 3 6 3 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 3 3 9 9 3 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 6 9 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 B6 C1 C2 C3 3 3 3 9 3 12 3 3 3 3 15 3 6 6 6 9 3 6 3 6 3 3 3 6 9 C4 C5 C6 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 E1 3 3 3 6 3 6 9 3 3 3 3 6 15 6 3 12 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 12 3 3 6 3 3 6 9 3 6 9 9 3 3 9 9 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 E2 E3 F 9 3 3 3 3 15 18 3 3 3 9 3 12 3 6 3 6 3 3

6 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 6 9

3 3

3

OTHER CAUSES

SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH’ 08-10

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful