Case Study

Lean Management and Low Carbon Emissions

in Precast Concrete Factories in Singapore
Peng Wu1 and Sui Pheng Low2

Abstract: Many studies have investigated the benefits that can be achieved through the use of the lean production philosophy to meet the
challenges of sustainable development. These benefits include reduced waste, lead time, inventory, and improved efficiency. Because of the
rising recognition of global climate change, this paper aims to identify the contribution of the lean production philosophy to environmental
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University on 01/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sustainability in precast-concrete factories, using CO2 emissions as the indicator. This study adopts a weighted-factor model comprising 17
precasters in the Singapore precast-concrete industry. Two stages in the production cycle are investigated using the weighted-factor model:
site layout management and delivery management. The results indicate that there are many non-value-adding activities in the precast-concrete
production process that contribute to an increase in the level of carbon emissions. Large storage area, large quantity supply base, lack of just-
in-time (JIT) sourcing with the suppliers, and a lean workforce appear to be the most important non-value-adding activities in site layout
management and delivery management. The analysis provides good-practice guidance and can be used as a checklist for precasters to identify
the non-value-adding activities in the precast-concrete production process to achieve low-carbon production. The results will also be useful
for regulatory agencies to provide recommendations for the precast-concrete industry to reduce carbon emissions. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE
.1943-5568.0000053. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Sustainable development; Concrete; Fabrication; Climate change; Emissions; Singapore.
Author keywords: Sustainability; Concrete fabrication; Prefabrication; Climate change; Lean.

Introduction emissions (Worrell et al. 2001a). The manufacturing of raw mate-

Climate change has emerged as one of the most pressing environ-
mental issues in recent years (Building Research Establishment
2004). Billions of people are exposed to natural disasters that
are caused by global climate change, which takes lives, damages
infrastructures, disrupts economic activities, and threatens social
development (Pelling et al. 2004). The global average sea level
has risen since 1960 at an average rate of 1:8 mm∕year; and since
1993 at 3:1 mm∕year, which has considerable impact on future
development—especially in countries like Singapore that are sur-
rounded by the sea on three sides (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change 2007). The worst-case predictions for rising sea
levels in the Thames Estuary will see the level of the river rise
by up to four meters by 2100; eventually, large parts of London—
one of the world’s business capitals—would be under water (Tang
and Yeoh 2007).
The construction industry contributes to an increase in the level
of carbon emissions in many ways (Kruse 2004). For example, the
cement section alone accounts for 5% of global man-made CO2
1
Faculty of Sciences, Engineering and Health, Central Queensland
Univ., Rockhampton, QLD 4701, Australia; formerly Ph.D. Candidate,
Dept. of Building, School of Design and Environment, National Univ.
of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566, Singapore (corre-
sponding author). E-mail: p.wu@cqu.edu.au
2
Professor, Dept. of Building, School of Design and Environment,
National Univ. of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566,
Singapore. E-mail: bdglowsp@nus.edu.sg
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 22, 2010; approved
on July 19, 2011; published online on July 21, 2011. Discussion period
open until November 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Architectural
Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431/
2012/2-176–186/$25.00.
rials (e.g., cement and steel) and chemicals have a considerable
impact on CO2 emissions (Worrell et al. 2001b). The transport
of raw materials, such as cement, aggregates, and steel, is energy-
intensive, particularly for countries like Singapore that heavily rely
on the import of raw materials. The on-site construction of build-
ings is not always effective and may generate unnecessary carbon
emissions. In addition, the maintenance of buildings consumes
significant energy with respect to heating, lighting, and air
conditioning.
As the largest source of carbon emissions, the building and con-
struction industry is now under increasing pressure to take environ-
mental considerations seriously in the decision-making process
(American Institute of Architects 2007). Precast-concrete products
can be adopted by the construction industry to meet such chal-
lenges. Prefabrication systems are believed to have the potential
for better environmental performance (e.g., Sanders and Phillipson
2003; Gorgolewski 2005; Tam et al. 2006). Glass (2000) observed
that the market for precast concrete was rising because of the large
demand for prefabricated housing in the UK, Germany, the
Netherlands, and other developed countries. However, there remain
many areas in prefabrication systems that can be improved by the
lean production philosophy to achieve sustainability, such as site
layout (Low and Mok 1999), work flow (Ballard et al. 2003),
and inventory control (Ko 2010). However, as Picchi and Granja
(2004) commented, lean applications in manufacturing and at
the construction sites are usually very fragmented; lean tools de-
signed on the basis of a broader lean system analysis was necessary
for more significant results. Tam et al. (2007) also commented that
for an effective and efficient application of prefabrication in the
construction industry, the environment should be placed as the first
priority. This research therefore aims to: (a) examine the perfor-
mance of the precasters in Singapore with respect to a few lean
pillars, such as uninterrupted work flow and just-in-time (JIT)

176 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012

J. Archit. Eng., 2012, 18(2): 176-186

 sourcing; (b) identify and rank the non-value-adding activities in
the precast-concrete production cycle from the lean perspective;
and (c) investigate the general procedure to manage these non-
value-adding activities to achieve low carbon production. The
non-value-adding activities identified in this paper can help guide
precasters’ decision-making process to meet the challenges of
global climate change.
Lean Production Philosophy
Lean production philosophy is believed to have its origin in the
Toyota production system. According to Howell (1999), lean pro-
duction was developed at Toyota by engineer, Ohno. The term
“lean” was coined by the research team working on international
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University on 01/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
automobile production to reflect both the waste-reduction nature of
the Toyota production system and to contrast it with the craft and
mass forms of production (Womack et al. 1990). The core of the
lean production philosophy is the observation that there are two
aspects in all production systems: conversions and flows (Koskela
1992). Conversion activities refer to those which add value to the
product or process. On the other hand, flow activities refer to non-
value-adding activities, which consume time, costs, and resources,
but do not add value to the product or process.
Traditional construction activities are controlled by planning
that determines the sequence and time of the activities. Cost reduc-
tion can therefore be achieved by accelerating activities. However,
under lean thinking, waste also includes costs that can be avoided if
appropriate planning is conducted at the beginning. Cost reduction
is not only achieved by accelerating activities, but also by meeting
customer requirements in zero time with nothing in storage (Howell
and Ballard 1998). The tenets of lean thinking and lean production
were drawn by Womack and Jones (1996), as follows:
1. Specify value by product. Value is defined by the customer and
lean thinking should start with the conscious attempt to pre-
cisely define value in terms of specific products with specific
capabilities, offered at specific prices, through a dialogue with
specific customers.
2. Identify the value stream. This tenet focuses on the time and
method upon which the values established in the first tenet can
be realized. A value-stream mapping process can be adopted to
help project managers identify the hidden issues that will hin-
der the flow of the activities.
3. Make production flow. Making production flow means that the
production process should not be interrupted. The products
that have been produced in factories should be in constant
motion without stopping. However, according to Ballard
and Howell (1998), current construction planning systems
are unable to produce a reliable flow of work, therefore leading
to buffers or wasted capacity.
4. Act at the pull of the customer. This concept is closely related
to the “pull” system, which is derived from the Toyota produc-
tion system. The term “customer” used in this tenet can be ex-
tended to a broader perspective. It usually refers to the ultimate
users of the product. In a perspective, each work station can be
identified as a “customer” and its requirements can flow back
to previous work stations to regulate their activities.
5. Purse perfection, custom product, zero-time delivery, and noth-
ing in stores. By following tenets 1–4, a lean environment can
be created to support a production system with perfect quality
and no inventory.
The lean production philosophy has many other interpretations.
Koskela (1992) identified 11 principles that were essential to
the lean production philosophy, which included: reducing the
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 177
J. Archit. Eng., 2012, 18(2): 176-186
share of non-value-adding activities, variability, and cycle time;
simplifying by minimizing the number of steps; increasing flexibil-
ity and transparency; and continuous improvement. These princi-
ples were supported by many lean techniques, such as just-in-time
(Ohno 1988), total quality control (Shingo 1988), value-based man-
agement (Carothers and Adams 1991), visual management (Greif
1991), total productive maintenance (Nakajima 1988), and em-
ployee involvement (Stendel and Desruelle 1992). Liker (2004)
also proposed 14 management principles that were derived from
the Toyota production system (e.g., continuous improvement and
respect for people), and stated that lean production was actually
invented by Toyota. The core of the lean production philosophy
remains the same, i.e., to eliminate non-value-adding activities
and to increase the efficiency of value-adding activities at the same
time. Despite these principles and techniques derived from the lean
production philosophy, partial implementations of lean thinking—
particularly organizational or relational aspects—have been devel-
oped and used on complex, uncertain, and quick projects (Howell
and Ballard 1998). However, these partial implementations focused
mainly on the improvement of project performance through the ap-
plication of new tools and methodologies, leaving aside organiza-
tional and human issues (Pavez and Alarcón 2006). Garnett et al.
(1998) commented that the construction was simply seen as a num-
ber of disjointed conversion processes. A holistic approach was
needed to overcome the fragmented nature of the construction in-
dustry. Picchi and Granja (2004) stated that lean applications in
manufacturing and in the construction sites were usually very
fragmented, such that lean tools designed on the basis of a broader
lean system analysis was necessary for more significant results.
The premise of this paper is to illustrate that, when applying the
lean concept to address environmental issues in precast-concrete
factories, a more systematic approach should be used in the pro-
duction cycle, rather than using the lean techniques as stand-alone
applications.
Lean and Prefabrication
A value stream is a collection of all actions (value-added as well as
non-value-added) that are required to bring a product (or a group of
products that use the same resources) through the main flows, start-
ing with raw materials and ending with the customer (Rother and
Shook 1999). Value-stream mapping (VSM) is of critical impor-
tance to identify value and waste in process analysis (Rother and
Shook 1999; Hines and Taylor 2000; Rother and Harris 2002; Liker
2004). VSM aims to identify all types of waste in the value stream
and to eliminate these by the following steps (Rother and Shook
1999):
1. Choose a particular product as the target for improvement;
2. Draw a current-state map, that is essentially a snapshot captur-
ing how processes are currently being done; and
3. Identify the non-value-adding activities in each value stage.
Precast-concrete production involves many activities, including
ordering raw materials, setting up the molds, and managing the
stocks. The Construction Industry Research and Information Asso-
ciation (1995) classified the life cycle of construction materials into
three stages: production, in-service use, and after use. Production
includes the extraction of raw materials, storage, transportation,
process, and packaging. Examined using a “cradle-to-gate” con-
cept, the production activities in precast-concrete factories can
therefore be categorized into four phases, which are (1) site layout
management, (2) delivery management of raw materials, (3) pro-
duction management, and (4) stock management (Rebitzer et al.
2004). These four phases are illustrated in Fig. 1.
 Site-layout management: The precast-concrete factory is de-
signed for production activities. The site layout of the factory
may affect the overall efficiency and energy consumption of the
production process, and this is the stage where site-layout manage-
ment is applied. The lean production philosophy has proven effec-
tive to improve site layout. Low and Mok (1999) found that the
prefabrication yard can be improved by the lean principles to im-
prove productivity. Salem et al. (2005) stated that the benefits from
implementation of the 5S principles derived from the lean concept
included improved safety, productivity, quality, and creation
of space.
Delivery management: How the precasters manage order and
delivery may affect the level of carbon emissions. The delivery
should be managed in such a way that it will not cause disruptions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University on 01/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
to other production activities in the precast-concrete factory.
Tommelein and Li (1999) proposed a just-in-time (JIT) delivery
system so that the materials brought to their location were installed
immediately upon arrival to avoid overproduction and delayed de-
livery. Many other studies have proven that by using JIT sourcing,
raw material stocks, scrap, and supplier costs could be significantly
reduced (Ansari and Modarress 1987, 1988; Raia 1990; Das and
Handfield 1997).
Production management: The prefabrication production process
transforms raw materials into finished products, which usually in-
cludes setting up molds, fixing of rebars, concreting, demoulding,
and quality checks. Ballard et al. (2003) applied the lean principles
to a work flow and found that substantial improvements in perfor-
mance could be achieved with little capital investment and without
changing technology or how specific operations were performed.
Ballard and Arbulu (2004) stated that value-stream mapping could
be used to reduce prefabrication lead times. Nahmens (2009) found
that it was a natural extension to apply the lean concept to achieve
green production and construction. By applying the lean concept to
a production line, 6.5–9 people (labor waste), 12% space (equip-
ment waste), and 10% wallboard (material waste) could be reduced
(Nahmens 2009).
Stock management: Stock management represents the fourth
value in the overall value stream in precast-concrete production.
Because time and energy will be expended when building inventory
and singling out the products for delivery, inefficient stock manage-
ment will obstruct the production process from attaining a low-
carbon target. Ballard et al. (2002) proposed a decoupling buffer
between premanufacturing and manufacturing to reduce inventory.
Ko (2010) found that the pull-based nature of lean production could
effectively lower the inventory level in precast plants.
Although four value phases were identified and investigated
in this study, only the first two value streams—site layout manage-
ment and delivery management—are presented in detail in this
paper. Only brief findings relating to production and stock manage-
ment are provided.
Research Methodology
Data Collection
To identify current non-value-adding activities from the lean per-
spective in precast-concrete production, fieldwork, was conducted
that aimed to include all precasters located in Singapore. According
to the Building and Construction Authority (2010), there were 20
registered precasters in the Directory of BCA Registered Contrac-
tors and Licensed Builders. These precasters were classified from
L1 to L6 by their financial grade (L1 representing the lowest finan-
cial grade and L6 representing the highest financial grade). From
178 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012
J. Archit. Eng., 2012, 18(2): 176-186
Table 1. Profile of Respondents
Financial Total number listed Number of precasters
grade in the directory interviewed Response rate
L6 9 8 88.89%
L5 4 4 100%
L4 2 2 100%
L3 3 3 100%
L2 0 Not applicable Not applicable
L1 2 0 0
November 2009 to April 2010, the 20 precasters listed in the
directory were approached by e-mail and telephone. Because of
the complexity of the questionnaire, semistructured interviews
were requested with either the production managers or site manag-
ers of the factories. A total of 17 responses were received. The re-
sponse rate was 85%. The 17 precasters were involved in the
precast-concrete industry for decades, producing a wide range of
precast-concrete products, such as hollow cores, staircases, and
window frames. The two precasters with the lowest financial grade
(L1) were not included in this study because they did not want to be
interviewed. As seen in Table 1, the fieldwork included nearly all
precasters in the highest financial grade. The information obtained
through the semistructured interviews should therefore provide a
fair representation of the Singapore precast-concrete industry.
In the fieldwork, a comprehensive list of non-value-adding
activities from the lean perspective was first obtained through
literature review. Pilot studies were also conducted in two precast-
concrete factories in Singapore to enrich the list and to identify
the value stream of precast-concrete production. The list of the
non-value-adding activities followed the value stream of precast-
concrete production and included four sections: site-layout man-
agement, delivery management, production management, and stock
management. The lists of non-value-adding activities in site-layout
management and delivery management were derived (as shown in
Tables 4 and 6, respectively). Semistructured interviews were re-
quested with either the project managers or site managers of the
precasters. Many open-ended and closed-ended questions relating
to current production practices were asked from the lean perspec-
tive in each value stream to address the first research objective,
i.e., to examine the performance of the precasters in Singapore with
respect to a few lean pillars. The non-value-adding activities were
then rated by the weighted-factor model on the basis of the sugges-
tion made by Williams (1993), who stated that the risk concept can
be broken down into two factors: probability (P) and impact (I).
The severity of the risk (S) can therefore be described by multiply-
ing the probability of occurrence with its corresponding impact, as
shown in the following equation:
S¼P×I
A five-scale value range was adopted to assess the probability of
occurrence of the non-value-adding activities in the precast-
concrete production process. The five-scale value range was:
(1) very low; (2) low; (3) medium; (4) high; and (5) very high. Ac-
cordingly, the impact associated with the non-value-adding activ-
ities on CO2 emissions was assessed by a five-scale value range,
which was (1) insignificant; (2) minor; (3) moderate; (4) major; and
(5) catastrophic.
Data Analysis
The average rating (AR) and standard deviation (SD) of each
non-value-adding activity were calculated on the basis of the rat-
ings from the 17 precasters. The statistical significance between
 different non-value-adding activities was then identified. As the
sample size was small (< 30) with an unknown distribution (nor-
mal or nonnormal), nonparametric tests were used to identify the
statistical significace. Nonparametric tests developed for paired
samples were adopted to test the significance between two different
non-value-adding activities at a 95% confidence interval. The null
hypothesis was that the difference between the two mean values
was zero. If the ρ value was less than 0.05, the null hypothesis could
be rejected. In other words, the two non-value-adding activities
compared in the paired sample were significantly different.
Results
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University on 01/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the precasters in Singapore at the time of this study, which may
impede the delegation of responsibilities. The environmental per-
formance of the employees was not included in the performance-
rating systems for all precasters.
The environmental performance of the precast-concrete facto-
ries was rarely considered. Only two precasters (11.8%) claimed
that the environmental performance of the precast-concrete
factories was considered when designing the site layout. According
to these two precasters, consideration of the environmental perfor-
mance of the factory was purely voluntary. All precasters stated
that there were no statutory requirements of low-carbon emissions
or low-energy consumption when submitting the design for appro-
val. The statutory requirements that must be complied with in-
cluded health and safety [e.g., Workplace Safety and Health Act
2006 (Attorney General’s Chambers 2011)], food hygiene

Site-Layout Management
A few general questions related to current site-layout management
practices were discussed with the precasters before the non-value-
adding activities in this value stage were presented for ranking.
These questions are listed in Table 2. The lean concept required
that fundamental problems be identified, evaluated, and addressed
(Low and Chan 1996). These questions were therefore designed to
examine the performance of the current precast-concrete produc-
tion activities toward sustainable development with respect to envi-
ronmental performance. Activities that may cause an increase in
energy consumption and carbon emissions were identified in many
areas, including regulations, human resources, and site-layout de-
sign, as shown in Table 2.
As seen in Table 2, training programmes for supervisors and
project managers appear to be insufficient to support a smooth pro-
duction flow. Only seven precasters (41.2%) provided enough
training related to the use of materials, plants, and equipment,
which are all important areas from which carbon emissions could
be generated. According to the supervisors and project managers
who gave negative responses, the responsibilities for mastering
the use of materials, plants, and equipment were delegated to op-
erators or the persons who were in charge of these areas. These
operators or the persons were therefore entrusted to obtain in-depth
understanding of the flow of materials and the operation of equip-
ment. In normal cases, the delegation of responsibilities was
reasonable because of the heavy production schedule in the precast-
concrete factories, as long as such delegation was supported by
appropriate employee-performance rating systems. However, such
performance-rating systems were not appropriately designed by
[e.g., Environmental Public Health Regulations 2000 (Attorney
General’s Chambers 2011)], and occupiers’ liability [e.g., Law of
Occupiers’ Liability in Singapore 1985 (Rutter 1985)]. Regulations
related to low-energy consumption and low-carbon emissions
[e.g., Singapore’s National Climate Change Strategy 2008 (Minis-
try of the Environment and Water Resources 2008)] were purely
voluntary for precaster compliance. Reconstruction has never oc-
curred because of a failure to meet these mandatory requirements.
This was a result of the strict regulations in Singapore. Mandatory
regulations had to be complied with before construction permits
were issued.
Changes to the site layout of precast-concrete factories rarely
occurs. Once the factory was designed and constructed, the site-
layout plan remained stable for quite a long time. All precasters
(100%) claimed that the site-layout plans of their factories had
not changed since the factories were built. However, it seems that
there remained a communication gap between the precasters and
the suppliers involved. Only two precasters (11.8%) placed the de-
tails of the site-layout plan on the notice board for information. This
may cause problems, particularly when the suppliers, operators, or
project managers are replaced because of renewal of contracts or
unsatisfied performance. New suppliers, operators and project man-
agers who had little working experience in a particular precast-
concrete factory may have to refer frequently to the site-layout plan.
By putting the information on the notice board, a smooth flow of
information can be obtained.
A large storage area compared with the total area may affect the
flow of production in the precast-concrete factories. The storage
area (percentage) fell into a range of 30-75%, with an average

Table 2. General Questions in the Site-Layout Management Section

Question Positive Positive
number Description response response rate Category
1.1 Are supervisors appropriately trained relating to the use of materials, plants, and equipment? 7 41.2% Human Resources
1.2 Is environmental performance considered when designing the site layout? 2 11.8% Legislation
1.3 Is there any statutory regulation relating to carbon emissions when designing the site layout? 0 0% Legislation
1.4 Is there any statutory regulation relating to low energy consumption 0 0% Legislation
when designing the site layout?
1.5 Has reconstruction happened because of failing to meet statutory requirements? 0 0% Legislation
1.6 Is the site-layout plan sent to contractors and subcontractors and placed 2 11.8% Site-layout design
on the notice board for information?
1.7 Is the site layout designed in such a manner that would allow the materials to 12 70.5% Site-layout design
be used in a “first in, first out” manner?
1.8 Has the site changed since it was first built? 0 0% Site layout design
1.9 What is the percentage of storage area to total area? Largest Smallest Average Site-layout design
75% 30% 43%

JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 179

J. Archit. Eng., 2012, 18(2): 176-186

 Table 3. Seven Major Categories of Non-Value-Adding Activities in Site-
Layout Management
Category
number Description Category
1.1 Building materials Materials
1.2 Site facilities Facilities
1.3 Statutory requirements Legislation
1.4 Contractors’ and subcontractors’ requirements Communication
1.5 Temporary works and services Production
requirements
1.6 Storage area Storage
1.7 Managing the factory Operation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University on 01/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of 43%. It seems that nearly half of the site-layout area was occu-
pied by storage. Twelve precasters (70.5%) were adopting the “first
in, first out” practice when using raw materials. When the pull pro-
duction method is used, the storage area should be smaller. Ko
(2010) stated that the pull-based nature of lean production could
effectively lower the inventory level of precast plants. However,
because of supply disruptions and unstable production schedules,
the precasters preferred the push production method instead of the
pull production method.
Seven categories of non-value-adding identified from literature
review and pilot studies were provided for the precasters to rate.
These activities are shown in Table 3.
Rated with the five-scale value range, the probability, impact,
and severity of the non-value-adding activities in site-layout man-
agement can be obtained, as shown in Table 4. A few implications
can be made from Table 4, including:
1. Providing an excessive storage area was very common in the
precast-concrete industry of Singapore. As seen in Table 4,
providing excessive storage area, in terms of open storage
(factor 1.6.3), secure storage (factor 1.6.1), and weatherproof
storage (factor 1.6.2), were the top three non-value-adding ac-
tivities rated by probability. Other non-value-adding activities
with a high probability of occurrence included
a. 1.1.3 Does not think of alternative design to minimize the
use of materials (4.0)
b. 1.7.3 Site-layout plan is not placed on the notice board for
information (3.29)
c. 1.1.4 Does not think of green building materials (2.94).
The current design of precast-concrete products often fol-
lows a standardized design protocol (factor 1.1.3). Without
pressure from the government or other authorities, the use of
green building materials was not implemented (factor 1.1.4),
particularly when the costs of such materials were higher than
normal construction materials (e.g., the cost of G35 green con-
crete per cubic meter is S$5 higher than normal concrete of the
same grade).
Although it seems acceptable that the precasters did not
place the site-layout plan on the notice board for information
when managers and supervisors know the site quite well, this
may cause communication problems when changing project
managers and suppliers because of the renewal of contracts
or unsatisactory performance (factor 1.7.3).
2. The three most important factors that may increase the level of
carbon emissions were:
a. 1.7.1 Site-layout plan is not tested for economic and effi-
cient production (4.0)
b. 1.1.4 Does not think of green building materials (3.81)
c. 1.3 Does not comply with mandatory statutory require-
ments (3.53)
180 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012
J. Archit. Eng., 2012, 18(2): 176-186
Fifteen precasters (88.24%) agreed that the site layout
should be carefully planned to achieve economic and efficient
production to reduce energy consumption and carbon emis-
sions (factor 1.7.1). By replacing conventional building
materials with green materials, the embodied carbon of
precast-concrete products could be reduced as well (factor
1.1.4). The precasters stated that it was very important to com-
ply with mandatory requirements because rework arising from
failure to do so may significantly increase the carbon emissions
level (factor 1.3).
3. The severity of the non-value-adding activities on the level of
carbon emissions was obtained by multiplying the probability
of occurrence with the resulting impact. The most severe fac-
tors were:
a. 1.6.3 Excessive provision of material storage: open
storage (14.53)
b. 1.6.1 Excessive provision of material storage: secure
storage (13.29)
c. 1.6.2 Excessive provision of material storage: weatherproof
storage (12.82)
d. 1.1.3 Does not think of alternative designs to minimize the
use of materials (11.44)
e. 1.1.4 Does not think of green building materials (10.38).
The precasters agreed that by building up large stores
against supply and production disruptions, carbon emissions
may be largely increased in terms of damaged materials, clas-
sifying activities, transferring, and singling-out activities
(factors 1.6.3, 1.6.1 and 1.6.2). In addition, failing to take al-
ternative designs and green materials into consideration were
two important non-value-adding activities that could cause an
increase in the embodied carbon of the precast-concrete prod-
ucts (factors 1.1.3 and 1.1.4).
However, factors with a high probability of occurrence, but
of low impact, such as factor 1.7.3 (site-layout plan is not
placed on the notice board for information), and factors with
high impact but low probability of occurrence, such as factors
1.7.1 (site-layout plan is not tested for economic and efficient
production) and 1.3 (does not comply with mandatory statu-
tory requirements), were rated with a low degree of severity.
For example, although a carefully planned site layout for eco-
nomic and efficient production (factor 1.7.1) was very impor-
tant as rated by the impact, the severity was very low because
all precasters seemed to perform very well in this area
(P ¼ 1:53).
4. The non-value-adding activities in site-layout management
were divided into four groups, categorized by their severity
on the basis of the nonparametric tests (paired samples). As
seen in Table 4, much attention should therefore be made to
reduce the storage area in precast concrete factories (factors
1.6.3, 1.6.1, and 1.6.2). Factors 1.1.3 (does not think of alter-
native design) and 1.1.4 (does not think of green building ma-
terials) were categorized into ranking group 2, with high
severity, which indicates the importance of alternative design
and green building materials for the precast-concrete industry
to achieve low-carbon emissions. Factors in ranking group 4,
however, did not seem to urgently need to be eliminated and it
may not be efficient to focus on these activities given limited
resources.
Delivery Management
Similar to site-layout management, a few general questions related
to current delivery management practices were discussed with the
precasters before the non-value-adding activities were provided for
ranking. Details of the responses can be seen in Table 5.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University on 01/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 4. Non-Value-Adding Activities in Site Layout Management That May Increase the Level of Carbon Emissions
Probability (P) Impact (I) Severity (S)
Group Factor number Description AR LR SR SD AR LR SR SD AR LR SR SD A. ρ
1 1.6.3 Provide excessive material storage: open storage 4.29 5 4 0.47 3.41 5 2 0.94 14.53 25 8 4.19 N/A
1 1.6.1 Provide excessive material storage: secure storage 4.18 5 3 0.53 3.18 4 2 0.81 13.29 20 8 3.95 0.149
1 1.6.2 Provide excessive material storage: weatherproof storage 4.18 5 3 0.53 3.06 4 2 0.75 12.82 20 8 3.83 0.073
2 1.1.3 Does not think of alternative designs to minimize the use of materials 4.00 5 1 1.03 2.94 4 2 0.77 11.44 16 4 3.69 0.044
N/A
2 1.1.4 Does not think of green building materials 2.94 5 1 1.39 3.81 5 3 0.66 10.38 16 4 4.44 0.253
3 1.1.2 Inaccurate estimation of required quantities 1.75 3 1 0.68 3.50 4 2 0.63 6.13 12 2 2.60 0.001
N/A
3 1.7.1 Site-layout plan is not tested for economic and efficient production 1.53 3 1 0.62 4.00 5 2 0.71 6.00 10 4 2.42 0.774
3 1.1.1 Improper specifications of building materials 1.63 3 1 0.62 3.31 4 2 0.70 5.63 12 2 2.90 0.474
3 1.7.3 Site-layout plan is not placed on the notice board for information 3.29 5 1 1.21 1.71 4 1 0.77 5.53 20 2 4.06 0.380
3 1.5.2 Inappropriate design of temporary works and services: tower cranes fully blocked area 1.71 3 1 0.59 3.18 4 2 0.53 5.47 12 3 2.40 0.721
3 1.5.1 Inappropriate design of temporary works and services: space for access 1.59 2 1 0.51 3.41 4 2 0.62 5.41 8 3 2.03 0.723
3 1.7.4 Changes to site-layout plan are not notified immediately 2.53 4 1 1.18 2.24 4 1 1.15 5.35 16 1 3.57 0.396
3 1.4.4 Does not pay full attention to contractors’ and subcontractors’ requirements: services required 1.76 3 1 0.56 2.88 4 2 0.60 5.24 9 2 2.19 0.412
3 1.5.3 Inappropriate design of temporary works and services: clearance of the blocked area 1.59 2 1 0.51 2.94 4 2 0.66 4.65 8 2 1.84 0.180
3 1.5.4 Inappropriate design of temporary works and services: static plants 1.41 2 1 0.51 3.35 5 2 0.86 4.65 8 2 1.90 0.195
3 1.2.1 No overall consideration of equipment used in future precast-concrete production processes 1.53 3 1 0.62 3.00 4 2 0.87 4.59 12 2 2.40 0.067
3 1.5.5 Inappropriate design of temporary works and services: parking of mobile plants 1.53 2 1 0.51 2.82 5 1 1.01 4.29 8 1 1.99 0.073
4 1.2.2 No overall consideration of infrastructure used in future precast-concrete production processes 1.47 2 1 0.51 2.88 4 2 0.86 4.00 6 2 1.17 0.017
N/A
4 1.4.3 Does not pay full attention to contractors’ and subcontractors’ 1.59 2 1 0.51 2.41 4 1 0.87 4.00 8 1 2.18 0.916
requirements: maximum number of men on-site

J. Archit. Eng., 2012, 18(2): 176-186

4 1.4.2 Does not pay full attention to contractors and subcontractors’ requirements: office space 1.47 2 1 0.51 2.71 4 2 0.69 3.94 8 1 2.14 0.861
4 1.7.2 Site-layout plan is not sent to contractors, subcontractors, and general supervisor 2.06 3 1 0.75 1.88 4 1 0.99 3.88 12 1 2.64 0.621
4 1.3 Does not comply with mandatory statutory requirements 1.00 1 1 0.00 3.53 5 1 1.01 3.53 5 1 1.01 0.254
4 1.4.1 Does not pay full attention to contractors’ and subcontractors’ requirements: duration 1.41 2 1 0.51 2.35 4 1 1.00 3.35 8 1 1.93 0.186

Note: 1. AR = Average Rating; LR = Largest Rating; SR = Smallest Rating; SD = Standard Deviation; A. ρ = Asymptotic Significance (2-tailed). 2. Double rows are used for factors that are the top factor of each
ranking group. It should be noted that N/A is used at the bottom row to indicate that the ρ value of one factor to itself was not applicable. 3. Sources: Richardson (1973); Low and Chan (1996); Low and Chan
(1997); Low and Mok (1999); Ballard et al. (2002); Shook (2003); Xin (2010).

JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 181

 Table 5. General Questions in the Delivery Management Section
Positive Positive
Question number Description response response rate Category
2.1 Is single sourcing adopted in the supply chain? 0 0% JIT sourcing
2.2 Is small lot size adopted in the supply chain? 0 0% JIT sourcing
2.3 Are long-term contracts awarded to achieve loyalty? 0 0% JIT sourcing
2.4 Is the Singapore precast-concrete industry vulnerable to supply disruptions? 8 47.06% Industry information
2.5 Is the company operating under a stable production schedule? 16 94.12% Industry information
2.6 Between the expected costs of small lot delivery and the savings of reduced 0 0 Continuous improvement
inventory, has the company conducted any trade-off investigation?
2.7 What is the current delivery method adopted in the company? Please refer to the explanations Delivery
2.8 How does the company evaluate suppliers? Please refer to the explanations Selecting suppliers
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University on 01/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 6. Non-Value-Adding Activities in Delivery Management That May Increase the Level of Carbon Emissions
Probability (P) Impact (I) Severity (S)
Factor
Group number Description AR LR SR SD AR LR SR SD AR LR SR SD A. ρ
1 2.1.1 Large quantity supply base leads to inflexibility 4.12 5 3 0.60 3.47 5 2 0.80 14.29 20 8 3.77 N/A
1 2.1.2 No long-term contract to achieve loyalty between 4.29 5 3 0.59 3.24 4 2 0.66 13.94 20 8 3.58 0.833
suppliers and precasters
1 2.2.3 Lack of both advance order and order confirmation 4.18 5 3 0.53 3.06 4 2 0.75 12.82 20 8 3.83 0.434
1 2.1.4 No quality audits of the supplier prior to awarding contracts 2.94 5 1 1.39 3.35 5 2 0.93 12.88 20 3 5.16 0.409
2 2.1.3 Transportation not taken into consideration 3.94 5 1 1.25 3.71 4 2 0.59 10.71 20 3 6.11 0.035
N/A
2 2.2.1 Demand fluctuations 3.00 4 2 0.79 3.00 4 1 0.94 9.00 16 3 4.02 0.477
2 2.2.2 Not fully prepared for the arrival of raw materials 2.35 3 1 0.79 3.12 4 2 0.78 7.18 12 3 2.77 0.092
3 2.2.4 Unsatisfied data exchange with suppliers 1.47 2 1 0.51 3.06 4 3 0.24 4.53 8 3 1.74 0.002
Note: 1. AR = Average Rating; LR = Largest Rating; SR = Smallest Rating; SD = Standard Deviation; A. ρ = Asymptotic Significance (2-tailed). 2. Double
rows are used for factors that are the top factor of each ranking group. It should be noted that N/A is used at the bottom row to indicate that the ρ value of one
factor to itself was not applicable. 3. Sources: Tommelein and Li (1999); Lapinski et al. (2006); Blumenthal (2008); Evanson (2008); Wills (2009).

Three important aspects of JIT sourcing, namely single sourc- precasters may incur a cost increase by failing to choose the sup-
ing, small lot size, and long-term relationships, were not adopted at pliers with lower prices.
all in the Singapore precast-concrete industry. All precasters Eight precasters (47.06%) stated that the Singapore precast-
believed that single sourcing may cause interruptions to production concrete industry was vulnerable to supply disruptions. Delays that
if the supplier failed to deliver the materials in time. Small lot size were caused by suppliers occurred occasionally. However, nine pre-
was unnecessary because of the large storage area designed at the casters (52.94%) claimed that suppliers in Singapore operated well
start, which was 43% of the total area on average. In addition, the enough to deliver raw materials on time. Sixteen precasters
awarding of contracts to suppliers was made annually or biennially. (94.12%) had a stable production schedule on the basis of which
If a long-term relationship with suppliers was established, an estimate of the required quantities of raw materials could be con-
ducted. There appears to be a contradiction between the industry
background and the willingness to apply the JIT delivery system.
Site layout management Production management More than half of the precasters (52.94%) believed that the suppli-
Delivery management Stock management ers performed very well, and nearly all precasters (94.12%) had a
stable production schedule. However, none of them applied JIT
sourcing at the time of this study or intended to do so in the foresee-
able future.
Suppliers were evaluted on the basis of several criteria, includ-
Letter of ing a quantitative measure of quality, certification programmes, de-
Submit
award
preliminary
livery performance, and most importantly, the price structure.
received
drawings These criteria were applied by all precasters when selecting suppli-
Submit final
drawings Delivery ers. However, two other important aspects were missing: a quali-
of raw Mould Concreting tative evaluation conducted at the supplier’s plant (only applied by
materials set-up
two precasters) and the geographical location of the supplier (only
Demoulding
Build up applied by three precasters). According to the precasters inter-
stock viewed, a qualitative evaluation at the supplier’s plant was not nec-
essary because the quality could be guaranteed by different
Fig. 1. Value stream of precast-concrete production in precast-concrete
certification programs. In addition, as the cost of transportation
factories
was integrated into the price of the raw materials, the geographical

182 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012

J. Archit. Eng., 2012, 18(2): 176-186

 Step 1:
Identifying categories
(Using P-I tables)
Step 2:
Identifying mitigation
strategies
Step 3:
Allocating resources
(Non-parametric tests)
Step 4:
Defining mitigation
actions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University on 01/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Step 5:
Evaluating mitigation
results
Fig. 2. Process tree to manage non-value-adding activities in precast-
concrete factories
location of the suppliers was unimportant when selecting these sup-
pliers. Two aspects are overlooked. A qualitative evaluation at the
supplier’s plant was not only intended to guarantee the quality of
the products, but also the availability of the suppliers. Whether or
not the suppliers were able to deal with a sudden increase in de-
mand could be identified by such a qualitative evaluation. Using the
“all-in-one” price, instead of taking transportation into considera-
tion, may lead to delays caused by traffic conditions, that are not
indicated by comparing prices alone. Of all the delivery methods
provided (direct delivery, with an interposed warehouse, milk
round collection,or suppliers supply a number of components),
all precasters (100%) were using the direct delivery method. If di-
rect delivery was used and the transportation cost was integrated
into the product price, precasters in Singapore have less control
to guarantee a dependable delivery.
The precasters did not perform well on continuous improvement
with respect to research. None of the precasters were conducting
any research related to small-lot delivery and reduced inventory.
However, the precasters were suffering from problems caused
by large inventory, yet they were satisfied with current production
in case the improvement strategies caused too many changes to the
structure of the company, or indirectly increased production costs.
The lean management philosophy adopted the pull production
system. By adopting the pull production system, JIT sourcing was
necessary. The questionnaire for delivery management was there-
fore designed to include two major categories: selecting suppliers
and the JIT management process.
Similar to on-site layout management, the non-value-adding ac-
tivities in delivery management were rated by both the probability
of occurrence and the impact on CO2 emissions with a five-point
scale. The results are shown in Table 6. A few implications can be
inferred from Table 6, including:
1. The most frequently occurring non-value-adding activities in
delivery management examined from the perspective of the
lean concept were:
a. 2.1.2 No long-term contract to achieve loyalty between sup-
pliers and precasters (4.29)
b. 2.1.1 Large quantity supply base leads to inflexibility (4.12)
c. 2.1.3 Transportation is not taken into consideration (3.94)
d. 2.2.3 Lack of both advance order and order confirma-
tion (3.88).
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 183
J. Archit. Eng., 2012, 18(2): 176-186
The precast-concrete industry in Singapore still follows
routines originating from the mass-production system. There
were no long-term contracts between the suppliers and the pre-
casters (factor 2.1.2). Most contracts were annual or a biennial
agreements in which the suppliers would be reevaluated at the
end of the agreement. Large-quantity supply often occurs and
was rated greater than 4 on the five-point scale (factor 2.1.1).
As the transportation cost was integrated in the price of raw
materials, transportation was usually not a prioritized consid-
eration of the precasters (factor 2.1.3). In addition, a JIT man-
agement process proposed by Tommelein and Li (1999), which
involves the use of both advance orders and order confirma-
tion,was rarely adopted by the precasters (factor 2.3.3). Most
precasters preferred to place a single order, which is perceived
to have the same function with less complications. Data ex-
change between the precasters and the suppliers appeared to
be sufficient when unsatisfactory data exchange (factor 2.2.4)
received a rating of only 1.47.
2. The impact of the non-value-adding activities in delivery man-
agement were considered moderate to major. One precaster sta-
ted that a long-term contract had benefits in simplifying
communications with the suppliers and obtaining discounts
when purchasing materials (factor 2.1.2). However, this may
lead to price inflexibility, causing the precasters to lose the ben-
efit of choosing suppliers with lower prices. The reason that a
high rating was assigned to this long-term relationship was that
the effort required to choose suppliers could be saved when
such relationship was built, as long as the suppliers could pro-
vide reasonably low prices.
3. The most severe non-value-adding activity was factor 2.1.1
(large-quantity supply base leads to inflexibility), with a rating
of 14.29. The precasters agreed that such a large-quantity sup-
ply could cause disruption to production activities by building
a large stockpile. However, the precasters have not conducted
any research to reduce storage, probably because of the poten-
tial costs associated with the research. Factors 2.2.4 (unsatis-
factory data exchange with suppliers) and 2.2.1 (demand
fluctuations) had very low severity because of the associated
low probability — 1.47 and 3.00, respectively. Precasters per-
formed well when handling materials that arrived (factor 2.2.2)
and communicating with suppliers (factor 2.2.4). The severity
of these non-value-adding activities revealed that precasters
performed poorly on JIT sourcing aspects, such as factor 2.1.1
(large-quantity supply base leads to inflexibility) and factor
2.2.3 (lack of both advance ordering and order confirmation).
4. Three groups were identified by the nonparametric tests with
(paired samples). Large-quantity supply bases (factor 2.1.1),
no long-term contracts (factor 2.1.2), no JIT management pro-
cess (factor 2.2.3), and no quality audits (factor 2.1.4) were the
non-value-adding activities with high negative impact on the
carbon emissions level in precast-concrete factories.However,
data exchange (factor 2.2.4) should not be an excessive focus
because the precasters were performing very well in these
areas.
Brief Findings Relating to Production and Stock
Management
The procedure described above was used to identify and quantify
the non-value-adding activities with respect to production and stock
management. Only the most significant findings relating to produc-
tion and stock management are presented in this section.
The most severe non-value-adding activity in production man-
agement was the large inventory in the precast-concrete factories,
with a rating of 13.65. When the precast-concrete factories were
 built, the inventory remained large, causing interruptions to produc-
tion activities.Transfer and singling-out activities increased the car-
bon emissions level of precast-concrete production. Waste of raw
materials during production was very common and was rated as the
second most severe non-value-adding activity in production man-
agement, with a rating of 12.35. According to the precasters in this
study, the average rate of waste during production was 3.04%, with
the highest level at 5% and the lowest at 1%. Wastes, particularly
cement and steel, had a significant impact on the carbon emissions
level because of their high emission factors. The lean production
philosophy could be applied to address these two problems. Its
pull-based nature has proven to be effective to reduce inventory
(Ko 2010). In addition, the principle of waste elimination has been
used in the prefabrication and construction industry to reduce waste
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University on 01/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and improve efficiency (Höök and Stehn 2008; Mossman 2009).
Similarly, the most severe non-value-adding activity in stock
management was the lack of sufficient care from the employees,
with a rating of 9.00. Without sufficient care taken by the employ-
ees, damages to the precast-concrete products could easily occur
during inventory. The lean production philosophy advocates a re-
spect for humanity (Monden 1993). The precasters should therefore
utilize human resources to attain the goals and objectives, which
were to reduce wastes and carbon emissions in precast-concrete
factories.
Discussion
The precasters investigated in this study appear to perform poorly
on a few lean pillars in site-layout management and delivery man-
agement, such as continuous improvement, JIT sourcing, and lean
workforce. These pillars had a moderate to major impact on the
level of carbon emissions, as rated by the project managers inter-
viewed. As seen in Table 4, in site-layout management, the general
protocols to design the site layout, such as categories 1.4 (contrac-
tors’ and subcontractors’ requirements) and 1.5 (temporary works
and services), were strictly followed. However, these areas only had
minor to moderate impact on the level of carbon emissions. The
lean elements, such as continuous improvement (factors 1.1.3
and 1.1.4; i.e., the ability of the precasters to develop alternative
designs and to use green building materials), the pull production
system (category 1.6; i.e., the large storage area), and transparency
(factor 1.7.3; i.e., to display sufficient information on the notice
board to support smooth production flow) were usually not adopted
by the precasters. Ignoring these lean elements could significantly
increase the level of carbon emissions, as observed by the precas-
ters. Interruptions to the production activities have occurred by
ignoring the lean elements, leading to double handling.
Similarly, in delivery management, the lean elements—such as
small-quantity supply (factor 2.1.1), long-term contracts (factor
2.1.2), and JIT sourcing (factors 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 2.2.3)—were
not adopted by the precasters. These elements had a moderate
to major impact on the level of carbon emissions, as rated by
the precasters, because the waste of raw materials and rearranging
transportation of raw materials were caused by ignoring these el-
ements. The two areas with satisfactory performance were the data
exchange (factor 2.2.4) and the preparation for the arrival of raw
materials (2.2.2).
When the non-value-adding activities were identified for the
precasters, the development of mitigating strategies to eliminate
such activities should be investigated. The development followed
a standard procedure, shown in Fig. 2. The procedure was a con-
tinually improving loop process. Continual monitoring and impro-
vemnet were necessary to eliminate non-value-adding activities
184 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012
J. Archit. Eng., 2012, 18(2): 176-186
that may not be fully eliminated by the first application. The steps
are explained further in the text.
Step 1: Identifying categories. In this step, the characteristics of
the non-value-adding activity should be identified. Four categories
could be identified: unlikely and minor, rare catastrophe, frequent
nuisance, and probable disaster (Vose 2008). The category of
unlikely and minor referred nonvalue adding activities with a low
probability of occurrence and a low impact on carbon emissions.
For activities that fell into this category, no actions were necessary
because of the low level of severity. Precasters were either perform-
ing very well in these areas, or the impact of these activities was too
low to be considered. Focusing too much on these activities may
lead to inefficiency caused by limited resources.
Factors in the category of rare catastrophe were caused by low-
probability and high-impact operations. Strategies could be taken to
transfer the risk to parties who were better positioned to absorb the
impact (Vose 2008). Since precasters were performing very well
most of the time, it was not economical to discard the old training
programs For example, factor 2.2.2 (not fully prepared for the
arrival of raw materials) fell into the category of rare catastrophe,
with a low probability and high impact. Supervisors should be as-
signed to such an activity and training programs should be offered
to supervisors to ensure that materials are handled smoothly.
The category of frequent nuisance referred to high-probability
and low-impact non-value-adding activities, such as factor 1.7.3
(site-layout plan is not placed on the notice board for information),
which could be eliminated by assigning appropriate persons to fix
the problem. Training programs to improve the competence of the
employees were sometimes required.
The category of probable disaster referred to non-value-adding
activities with a high probability of occurrence and a high impact,
such as group 1.6 (too much inventory), factors 2.1.1 (large-
quantity supply base), 2.2.3 (lack of both advance ordering and or-
der confirmation), and 3.1.3 (materials damaged during handling).
To eliminate these activities, a review and reexamination of the cur-
rent precast-concrete production practice was necessary. These
non-value-adding activities were probably caused by either the de-
sign of the site layout or the production method that accompanied
the push production system. A review and reexamination was there-
fore necessary before mitigating actions could be developed.
Step 2: Identifying mitigation strategies. Detailed mitigation
strategies were developed in this stage. For example, when decid-
ing the right mitigation strategies to avoid materials being damaged
during handling, it was recommended that the handling process be
reviewed with the involvement of different participants, such as the
operator, the crane assistant, and the charge-hand. The decision to
provide either more training programs to operators or more super-
vision during handling was dependent up on the review process. In
this stage, the mitigation strategies were detailed within the four
categories identified earlier.
Step 3: Allocating resources. This step was conducted by com-
paring the relative priorities of the non-value-adding activities us-
ing nonparametric tests. Factors within the same group of severity,
but with higher average ratings (AR), should be allocated with
more resources, such as more training programs and more eligible
supervisors.
Step 4: Defining mitigation actions. In this step, the mitigation
strategies identified above were elaborated into detailed mitigation
actions. If training programs were proposed as mitigation strate-
gies, the number of persons who should be trained, as well as
the frequency of such training should be developed as mitigation
actions.
Step 5: Evaluating mitigation results. The non-value-adding ac-
tivities should be monitored when the mitigations actions are
 implemented. A looped application of the procedure should be
implemented because the non-value-adding activities may not be
fully eliminated by the first application.
Conclusions
In accordance with previous literature, this study found that many
areas in the prefabrication system can be improved to achieve sus-
tainability. The environment was put as the first priority in this
study for an effective and efficient application of prefabrication
in the Singapore construction industry. In addition, to overcome
the fragmented nature of the construction industry, as suggested
by previous literature, this study examined the whole precast-
concrete production cycle to identify the non-value-adding activ-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University on 01/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ities from the lean perspective. These non-value-adding activities
were described, evaluated, and ranked by a weighted-factor model.
Followed by a general analysis procedure, non-value-adding activ-
ities in two value stages, site-layout management and delivery man-
agement, were classified into several ranking groups categorized by
their severity. The most severe non-value-adding activities were re-
lated to a large-quantity supply base, no long-term contracts, too
much inventory, lack of both advance ordering and order confirma-
tion, as well as no quality audits of the suppliers. Many non-value-
adding activities with intermediate severity that may cause an
increase in the carbon-emissions level were also identified in this
paper. The lean production philosophy could therefore be applied
in the precast-concrete industry to reduce carbon emissions by
eliminating these non-value-adding activities, which may lead to
waste of raw materials, double handling, and double delivery.
Knowing the sources of waste, appropriate actions could there-
fore be adopted to reduce the probability of occurrence of these
non-value-adding activities. These factors could be classified
into four categories: unlikely and minor, rare catastrophe, frequent
nuisance, and probable disaster. In each of the four categories, re-
spective mitigation strategies could be taken. By reducing the prob-
ability of occurrence of such activities, precasters could achieve
some environmental benefits, such as lowcarbon emissions in this
study.
Although this research aims to introduce the lean production
philosophy and its applications to reduce carbon emissions in
precast-concrete factories, this research may face some limitations.
First, the definition of life cycle in this study is restricted to the
production cycle. However, the true life cycle of precast-concrete
products should include transportation, on-site installation, opera-
tion, and demolition. It is therefore proposed that the whole life
cycle of precast-concrete products should be examined in future
studies when applying the lean principles to achieve low carbon
emissions. In addition, quantitative studies should be conducted to
assess the carbon emissions that can be reduced through the appli-
cation of the lean production philosophy in precast-concrete
factories. Non-value-adding activities in production and stock man-
agement were only briefly discussed in this paper. However, this
does not mean that these two stages were not important to reducing
carbon emissions. Production and stock management activities in
precast-concrete factories rely heavily on the use of equipment and
plants and should not be overlooked by precasters.
References
American Institute of Architects. (2007). “Architects and climate change.”
〈http://www.aia.org〉 (Feb. 20, 2008).
Ansari, A., and Modarress, B. (1987). “Potential benefits of JIT purchasing
for US manufacturers.” Proc. Inventory Manage. J., 28(2), 30–35.
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 185
J. Archit. Eng., 2012, 18(2): 176-186
Ansari, A., and Modarress, B. (1988). “JIT purchasing as a quality and
productivity centre.” Int. J. Prod. Res., 26(1), 19–26.
Attorney General’s Chambers. (2011). “Singapore statutes online.” 〈http://
statutes.agc.gov.sg〉 (Jun. 16, 2011).
Ballard, G., and Arbulu, R. (2004). “Making prefabrication lean.” Proc.
IGLC-12, International Group for Lean Construction, 1–14.
Ballard, G., Harper, N., and Zabelle, T. (2002). “An application of lean
concepts and techniques to precast concrete fabrication.”Proc. IGLC-
10, C. T. Formoso and G. Ballard, eds., International Group for Lean
Construction, 1–12.
Ballard, G., Harper, N., and Zabelle, T. (2003). “Learning to see work flow:
An application of lean concepts to precast concrete fabrication.”
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage., 10(1), 6–14.
Ballard, G., and Howell, G. (1998). “Shielding production: An essential
step in production control.” J. Const. Eng. Manage., 124(1), 18–24.
Blumenthal, A. (2008). “Lean logistics, lessons learnt from Japan.”〈http://
www.leanconstruction.org.uk/lci_uk_summit_2008〉 (Aug. 9, 2010).
Building and Construction Authority. (2010). “Directory of BCA-
registered contractors and licensed builders.” 〈http://dir.bca.gov.sg/
bca/index.asp#〉 (Jun. 4, 2010).
Building Research Establishment. (2004). “Climate change: impact on
building design and construction.” BRE Workshop., BRE, Watford, UK.
Carothers, G. H. J., and Adams, M. (1991). “Competitive advantage
through customer value: The role of value-based strategies.”Competing
globally through customer value, M. J. Stahlm and G. M. Bounds, eds.,
Quorum Books, New York, 32–66.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association. (1995). Envi-
ronmental impact of materials, Volume A: Summary, CIRIA, London.
Das, A., and Handfield, R. B. (1997). “Just-in-time and logistics in global
sourcing: An empirical study.” Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logistics Manage.,
27(3/4), 244–259.
Evanson, D. (2008). “Lean construction logistics requirements within
London.” 〈http://www.leanconstruction.org.uk/lci_uk_summit_2008〉
(Aug. 20, 2010).
Garnett, N., Jones, D. T., and Murray, S. (1998). “Strategic application of
lean thinking.” Proc. IGLC-6, C. T. Formoso, ed., International Group
for Lean Construction.
Glass, J. (2000). The future for precast concrete in low-rise housing, British
Precast Concrete Federation, Leicester, UK.
Gorgolewski, M. T. (2005). “The potential for prefabrication in UK housing
to improve sustainability.” Smart and sustainable built environments, J.
Yang, P. S. Brandon, and A. C. Sidwell, eds., Blackwell,
Oxford, UK, 121–128.
Greif, M. (1991). The visual factory, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hines, P., and Taylor, D. (2000). Going lean, Lean Enterprise Research
Centre, Cardiff, UK.
Höök, M., and Stehn, L. (2008). “Applicability of lean principles and prac-
tices in industrialized housing production.” Const. Manage. Econ.,
26(10), 1091–1100.
Howell, G. (1999). “What is lean construction.” Proc. IGLC-7,
I. D. Tommelein, ed., International Group for Lean Construction, 1–10.
Howell, G., and Ballard, G. (1998). “Implementing lean construction:
Understanding and action.” Proc. IGLC-6, C. T. Formoso, ed.,
International Group for Lean Construction, 1–9.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). “Climate change
2007: Synthesis report.”〈http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm〉
(Mar. 9, 2008).
Ko, C. H. (2010). “Application of lean production system in the construc-
tion industry: An empirical study.” J. Eng. Appl. Sci., 5(2), 71–77.
Koskela, L. (1992). “Application of the new production philosophy to con-
struction.” CIFE technical report #72, Stanford University, Palo Alto,
CA.
Kruse, C. (2004). “IIGCC briefing note: Climate change and the construc-
tion sector.” 〈http://www.iigcc.org/docs/PDF/Public/Construction
Sector_2004.pdf〉 (Jun. 17, 2008).
Lapinski, A. R., Horman, M. J., and Riley, D. R. (2006). “Lean processes
for sustainable project delivery.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 132(10),
1083–1091.
Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the
world’s greatest manufacturer, McGraw-Hill, New York.
 Low, S. P., and Chan, Y. M. (1996). “The application of just-in-time prin-
ciples to process layout for precast concrete production.” Singapore
Manage. Rev., 18(2), 23–40.
Low, S. P., and Chan, Y. M. (1997). Managing productivity in construction:
JIT operations and measurements, Ashgate Publishing Co., Brookfield,
VT.
Low, S. P., and Mok, S. H. (1999). “The application of JIT philosophy to
construction: A case study in site layout.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
17(5), 657–668.
Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. (2008). “Singapore’s
national climate change strategy.” 〈http://app.mewr.gov.sg/data/Img
Upd/NCCS_Full_Version.pdf〉 (Jun. 16, 2011).
Monden, Y. (1993). Toyota production system: An integrated approach to
just-in-time, Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross,
GA.
Mossman, A. (2009). “Creating value: A sufficient way to eliminate waste
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anna University on 01/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in lean design and lean production.” Lean Constr. J., 13–23.
Nahmens, I. (2009). “From lean to green construction: A natural exten-
sion.”Proc. 2009 Construction Research Congress, S. T. Ariaratnam
and E. M. Rojas, eds. ASCE, Reston, VA, 1058–1067.
Nakajima, S. (1988). Introduction to TPM, Productivity Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale produc-
tion, Diamond, Tokyo.
Pavez, I., and Alarcón, L. F. (2006). “Qualifying people to support lean
construction in contractor organizations.” Proc. IGLC-14, International
Group for Lean Construction, 513–524.
Pelling, M., Maskrey, A., Ruiz, P., and Hall, L. (2004). Reducing disaster
risk: A challenge for development, United Nations Development Bank,
Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, New York.
Picchi, F. A., and Granja, A. D. (2004). “Construction sites: Using lean
principles to seek broader implementations.” Proc. IGLC-12,
International Group for Lean Construction, 1–12.
Raia, E. (1990). “JIT delivery: Redefining ‘on time.’” Purchasing, 109(3),
64–76.
Rebitzer, G., et al. (2004). “Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal
and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications.” Environ.
Int., 30(5), 701–720.
Richardson, J. G. (1973). Precast concrete production, Cement and
Concrete Association, London.
Rother, M., and Harris, R. (2002). Creating continuous flow, Lean
Enterprise Institute, Brookline, MA.
Rother, M., and Shook, J. (1999). Learning to see: Value stream mapping
to create value and eliminate muda, Lean Enterprise Inst., Brookline,
MA.
Rutter, M. F. (1985). Occupier’s liability in Singapore and Malaysia,
Butterworths, Singapore.
Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A., and Luegring, M. (2005). “Site
186 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012
J. Archit. Eng., 2012, 18(2): 176-186
implementation and assessment of lean construction techniques.” Lean
Constr. J., 2(2), 1–21.
Sanders, C. H., and Phillipson, M. C. (2003). “UK adaptation strategy and
technical measures: The impacts of climate change on buildings.” Build.
Res. Inf., 31(3&4), 210–221.
Shingo, S. (1988). Non-stock production, Productivity Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Shook, J. (2003). “Helpful hints on mapping off the plant floor in support or
administrative operations.” 〈http://www.lean.org/common/display/?
o=913〉 (Apr. 5, 2010).
Stendel, H. J., and Desruelle, P. (1992). Manufacturing in the Nineties: how
to become a mean, lean, world-class competitor, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Tam, V. W. Y., Tam, C. M., Chan, J. K. W., and Ng, W. C. Y. (2006).
“Cutting construction wastes by prefabrication.” Int. J. Constr. Man-
age., 6(1), 15–24.
Tam, V. W. Y., Tam, C. M., Zeng, S. X., and Ng, W. C. Y. (2007). “Towards
adoption of prefabrication in construction.” Build. Environ., 42(10),
3642–3654.
Tang, K., and Yeoh, R. (2007). Cut carbon, grow profits: Business strat-
egies for managing climate change and sustainability, Middlesex
University Press, London.
Tommelein, I. D., and Li, E. Y. (1999). “Just-In-Time concrete delivery
mapping alternatives for vertical supply chain integration.” Proc.
IGLC-7, I. D. Tommelein, ed., International Group for Lean Construc-
tion, 97–108.
Voss, D. (2008). Risk analysis: A quantitative guide, Wiley, Chichester,
UK.
Williams, T. M. (1993). “Risk-management infrastructures.” Int. Proj.
Manage., 11(1), 5–10.
Wills, B. (2009). “The business case for environmental sustainability
(green): Achieving rapid returns from the practical integration of lean
and green.” 〈http://www.leanandgreensummit.com/LGBC.pdf〉 (Oct. 9,
2010).
Womack, J. P., and Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking, Simon and Schuster,
New York.
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., and Roos, D. (1990). The machine that
changed the world: The story of lean production, 1st Ed., Harper
Perennial, New York.
Worrell, E., Price, L. K., Martin, N., Hendriks, C., and Meida, L. O.
(2001a). “Carbon dioxide emissions from the global cement industry.”
Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 26(1), 303–329.
Worrell, E., Price, L., and Martin, N. (2001b). “Energy efficiency and car-
bon dioxide emissions reduction opportunities in the US iron and steel
sector.” Energy, 26(5), 513–536.
Xin, N. (2010). A construction site layout planning decision-making
system: for dynamic, unequal-area and multi-objective optimization
problem, VDM Verlag, Saarbrücken, Germany.