Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Application of Lean Manufacturing Principles To Construction
Application of Lean Manufacturing Principles To Construction
MANUFACTURING PRINCIPLES TO
CONSTRUCTION
by
James E. Diekmann, Mark Krewedl, Joshua Balonick,
Travis Stewart, and Spencer Won
A Report to
The Construction Industry Institute
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas
July 2004
Executive Summary
Over the past three decades, the US construction industry has seen a decline in both its share of
the gross national product and its annual productivity growth rate. The quality of construction
has faltered during this period as well. In contrast, the US manufacturing industry has made
significant progress in increasing productivity and product quality while lowering product lead
times. Manufacturing has essentially made the transition from second class to world class.
The improvements in manufacturing processes have included reducing the amount of human
effort, space and inventory required in the factory and increasing the quality and variety of
products and the flexibility of manufacturing operations. The application of “lean production”
principles to manufacturing processes has been instrumental in achieving these results. Lean
principles were developed in post–World War II Japan at the Toyota Motor Company. These
principles evolved from geographic and economic constraints, from top-down, management-led
innovation and from bottom-up pragmatic problem solving. They became collectively known as
the Toyota Production System (Womack et al. 1990).
The principles of lean theory are conceptualized at the process, project and enterprise or
organization levels. Various principles, methods and tools can be applied at each level, so that
lean production becomes an inclusive philosophy aimed at continuously improving the entire
production organization as well as the physical production process.
If manufacturing can make such vast improvements in quality and productivity, while reducing
costs and lead times, why not construction? This report identifies the core principles of lean
production, compares and contrasts the manufacturing and construction industries, and identifies
the potential for implementing lean principles in the construction industry.
The research team started with the following definition of lean construction:
This definition includes many fundamental aspects of a lean philosophy. It is a philosophy that
requires a continuous improvement effort that is focused on a value stream defined in terms of the
needs of the customer. Improvement is, in part, accomplished by eliminating waste in the
process.
Lean philosophy, broadly defined, can apply to design, procurement and production functions.
To help define and direct research efforts and to present an elemental contribution to
understanding lean principles in construction, the scope of this report was limited primarily to
construction field operations. Although the focus of the inquiry was field operations, researchers
were sensitive to the effects of policy and actions that occur at the enterprise, project and process
levels. Two considerations led the research team to focus primary attention on construction field
operations. First, field operations are where most of the value is added from the customer’s point
of view. Cognizance of customer value is central to a lean philosophy. Second, other researchers
have studied value streams and other aspects of lean philosophy.
iii
From this basis, the following questions were developed:
These questions were investigated using a multifaceted approach. First, lean literature was
examined from manufacturing, construction and other industries such as shipbuilding, aerospace,
and software engineering. Second, advice from lean manufacturing pioneers was used, and the
construction production value stream was studied. Next, contractors (both lean and non-lean)
were surveyed to learn about lean practices that are currently employed in the construction
industry.
Using all of this information, a set of lean principles was developed that is appropriate for
construction. In general, it can be concluded that construction owners and contractors would
significantly benefit from the adoption of lean principles and behaviors. The value added portion
of the typical field construction value stream is exceedingly small, comprising approximately
10 percent of all crew level activities. It was determined that lean behavior among construction
contractors is rare, even with contractors who are actively pursuing the lean ideal, because being
truly lean requires changes to every aspect and level of a company. Additionally, becoming a
lean contractor is difficult in part because of the dynamic nature of construction, but mostly
because construction contractors control such a small portion of the construction value stream.
For those wishing to start the lean journey in their company, a lean workplace can be created
using the following steps:
• Continuously improve.
iv
Becoming lean is a long-term, comprehensive commitment; it amounts to a cultural change for
the company. Construction is no simple deterministic system. Lean principles must be
understood and applied in a context and require a comprehensive understanding of a complex,
interacting and uncertain construction system. Many lean principles can be understood as
attempts to increase preplanning ability, improve organizational design and increase flexibility.
In this light, the final conclusion is that lean cannot be reduced to a set of rules or tools. It must
be approached as a system of thinking and behavior that is shared throughout the value stream.
Given that contractors control such a small portion of the construction value stream (as compared
to their manufacturing counterparts), this is the challenge that faces the potential lean contractor.
If successfully applied, however, lean has the potential to improve the cost structure, value
attitudes and delivery times of the construction industry.
v
Contents
vi
Contents (Continued)
vii
Contents (Continued)
viii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Comparison of the Conversion Model and Flow Model ......................................11
Table 2.2 Knowledge Areas of Management Theories ........................................................19
Table 3.1 Comparison of Lean Manufacturing to Lean Construction Principles.................28
Table 3.2 Lean Construction Principles ...............................................................................32
Table 5.1 Cronbach’s Alpha Results ....................................................................................48
Table 6.1 Comparison of Lean Manufacturing to Lean Construction Waste.......................62
Table 6.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Data Collection Methods ...............65
Table 6.3 Typical Results for Welder Completing an Eight Inch Diameter Spool
Section..................................................................................................................67
Table 6.4 Typical Results for an Entire Crew ......................................................................68
Table 6.5 Results for Case Study No.1 - Structural Steel Erection Process.........................70
Table 6.6 Quick Summary for Case Study No. 1 .................................................................70
Table 6.7 Results for Case Study No. 2 - Structural Steel Erection Process........................71
Table 6.8 Quick Summary for Case Study No. 2 .................................................................71
Table 6.9 Results for Case Study No. 3 - Structural Steel Erection Process........................71
Table 6.10 Quick Summary for Case Study No. 3 .................................................................72
Table 6.11 Results for Case Study No. 4 - Piping Installation Process..................................73
Table 6.12 Quick Summary for Case Study No. 4 .................................................................73
Table 6.13 Result for Case Study No. 5 - Piping Installation Process ...................................74
Table 6.14 Quick Summary for Case Study No. 5 .................................................................74
Table 6.15 Comparison of Different Processes ......................................................................75
Table 6.16 Work Distribution Lifecycle Data ........................................................................89
Table 7.1 Principles that Reduce Uncertainty in the Production Environment
without Increased Planning or Information Handling ........................................118
Table 7.2 Principles that Require Added Planning or Information Handling but
Reduce Uncertainty in the Production Environment..........................................119
Table 7.3 Principles that Require Added Planning or Information Handling but
Reduce the Negative Effects of Instability in Production ..................................120
x
List of Figures
xii
1.0 Introduction
The application of lean production principles to manufacturing processes has been instrumental in
achieving these results. This report explores whether these same principles may be applied to
construction processes to effect similar production improvements.
1
Figure 1.1: Manufacturing Performance (Anecdotal)
Schonberger provides the “v-pattern” to illustrate the fall and rise of US manufacturing
performance caused by both internal and external factors. The figure is not a direct depiction of
economic indicators, but rather a representation of anecdotal evidence (Schonberger 1996). The
negative trend seen between the 1950s and 1970s occurred at a time when manufacturing in the
United States was just coming out of what is known as the post–World War II production era. At
this time, product shortages within the United States increased demand and, subsequently,
manufacturing was focused on producing large quantities of products. When supply had finally
surpassed demand, the nation began to see the proliferation of excess capacity. During the early
1960s, international competition also began to increase its share of the world manufacturing
market. With the immediate threats of excess capacity and foreign competition, the focus of
manufacturing in the United States needed to change from producing volume to producing higher
quality products at minimal cost and lead times. But how was the United States going to change
from large-scale mass production pioneered by the late Henry Ford to more agile, customer-
focused production?
The answer to this question has been the diffusion of Japan’s highly successful production and
management system termed “lean production” (Womack et al. 1990). The term was coined by
John Krafcik, a researcher on the team from the International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP)
(Womack et al. 1990). IMVP was a team organized at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
during the mid-1980s with the objective of studying the innovative techniques used by the
Japanese in their highly successful automotive industry (Womack et al. 1990). The logic of using
the term “lean” will become clearer as the principles are clarified. The fundamental ideas of lean
production have been described under numerous names as researchers and practicing
professionals have sought to study and diffuse the core ideas. Names such as World Class
Manufacturing (Schonberger 1997), New Production Philosophy (Koskela 1992), Lean Thinking
(Womack and Jones 1996), Just-in-Time/Total Quality Control, Time Based Competition, and
many similar methods and principles have been used to describe the same fundamental collection
of ideas (Koskela 1992).
The foundations of lean production were developed in post–World War II Japan, when the
Japanese manufacturing industry underwent a complete rebuilding (Womack et al. 1990). Lean
pioneers Kiichiro Toyoda, Eiji Toyoda and Taiichi Ohno of the Toyota Motor Company
developed many of the underlying principles of lean production in response to pragmatic
considerations and existing geographic circumstances. The impetus for lean production occurred
when Kiichiro, president of Toyota at the time, demanded that Toyota “…catch up with America
in three years. Otherwise the automobile industry of Japan will not survive” (Ohno 1988; Hopp
2
1996). At the time, limited supply of raw materials and inadequate space for inventory in Japan
fostered an atmosphere in which concepts such as just-in-time (JIT) and zero inventories became
necessary. During the spring of 1950, Eiji Toyoda visited American manufacturers, namely
Ford’s Rouge Plant in Detroit, to study mass production and perhaps look for ways to improve
the country’s own rebuilding industry (Womack et al. 1990). This was the second visit to study
US manufacturing practices made by the Toyoda family; the first was made by Kiichiro in 1929.
What Eiji Toyoda found was a system rampant with muda, a Japanese term that encompasses
waste (Womack 1996). He noted that only the worker on the assembly line was adding value to
the process. Another striking feature was the emphasis placed by their American counterparts on
continually running the production line. This common practice was thought to be justified by the
expense of purchasing such equipment. To the Japanese, this practice appeared to compound and
multiply errors, a mistake the Japanese could not afford to make.
Japan’s labor productivity at the time was one ninth that of the United States, and it became
obvious to Toyota that it could not compete with the United States by depending on economies of
scale to produce massive volumes for a small market that did not have the same type of demand
(Ohno 1988; Shingo 1981; Hopp 1996). Toyota then made the strategic decision to focus its
manufacturing efforts not on massive volumes of a product but, rather, on many different
products in smaller volumes. In his numerous experiments focused on reducing machine setup
times, Ohno, Toyota’s chief production engineer, noted that the cost of producing smaller batches
of parts was less than that of producing larger quantities as practiced in the United States. This
was true because making small lot sizes greatly reduced the carrying costs required for huge
inventories, and the cost of rework was reduced because defects showed up instantly in smaller
batches (Womack et al. 1990). Ohno also managed to reduce the amount of time required for
machine setup from an entire day to three minutes, a task that enabled Toyota to increase the
flexibility of its production lines as well as reduce production times. The concept of JIT was
developed to complement this new production philosophy undertaken at Toyota. The model for
JIT was the American supermarket, a relatively new idea to the Japanese in the 1950s (Hopp
1996). The American supermarket provided customers with what they needed, when they needed
it and in the right amount needed. JIT further evolved to include concepts found to be crucial to
the effective operation of the JIT system and that would later become goals of the system. These
concepts are referred to as the seven zeros: zero defects, zero lot size, zero setups, zero
breakdowns, zero handling, zero lead time and zero surging (Hopp 1996).
The contributions of quality pioneer W. Edwards Deming to post–World War II Japan altered the
way Japanese manufacturers viewed quality. Deming’s Total Quality Management (TQM)
system permeated throughout organizations to create a quality culture, where quality became the
primary goal of producers. After World War II, quality had taken a back seat to production, and
it was reasoned that intensive inspection at the end of the process would be adequate. With its
focus on the entire organization, TQM addressed issues that were relatively new to the
manufacturing industry at that time, such as employee empowerment, continuous improvement
and the concept of proactively building quality into products versus the reactive nature of
inspecting for quality at the end of the process (Walton 1986). The Japanese would improve on
the teachings of Deming and create what is known as Total Quality Control (TQC). Thus,
coupled with the company’s move toward multi-skilled teams, guarantees of lifetime employment
and pay raises linked only to seniority within the company, Toyota began to create a culture in
which the quality of its product improved dramatically. In addition to shifting the focus of
Japanese manufacturers to quality, Deming also equipped them with the statistical tools to
achieve it, such as Statistical Quality Control (SQC). The teachings of Deming and other quality
gurus, such as Joseph Juran and Philip Crosby, fueled a quality movement within the Japanese
manufacturing industry that would take decades to diffuse into mainstream Western
3
manufacturing and that would be highly influential to the development of lean production
techniques.
From this background, the Toyota Production System was created in the early 1960s through the
combination of compensation for geographical restrictions, astute observation of current
problems within the industry, development of JIT and the teachings of the quality movement,
among other factors. It seems that postwar Japan, in its state of chaos, provided a perfect
laboratory in which innovative thinking could be implemented and practiced (Womack et al.
1990). The actual process, however, took many years of trial and error. The Toyota Production
System presents an outline of the foundations of lean production. Figure 1.2 illustrates the forces
that influenced the development of lean production.
Limited Mass
Development Limited
Natural Production
of JIT Space
Resources Practices
Beginnings of Lean
Production
In the late 1970s, this new production system was brought to the United States and contributed to
a manufacturing renaissance that continued within the United States for the next three decades
(Schonberger 1996). Studies have shown the incredible benefits lean production methods have
brought specifically to the automobile manufacturing industry where the ideas originated.
According to James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones, two of the leading researchers of lean
production systems and coauthors of numerous lean texts such as The Machine That Changed the
World and Lean Thinking, lean automobile manufacturing has been characterized as using the
following:
…half the human effort in the factory, half the manufacturing space, half the
investment in tools, half the engineering hours to develop a new product in half
the time. Also, it requires keeping far less than half the needed inventory on site,
results in many fewer defects, and produces a greater and ever growing variety of
products (Womack et al. 1990).
The visible success of lean principles in the automobile industry and in manufacturing generally
has prompted other industries to adapt and apply these concepts to achieve similar benefits.
4
1.3 The Diffusion of Lean Ideas
Lean principles have been amended and expanded over the decades by those in other industries
who are transferring lean ideas and successes to their respective industries. The software,
aerospace, air travel and shipbuilding industries all have extensive efforts directed at applying
lean principles to improve profitability and quality and reduce waste.
The architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry has a far-reaching, worldwide
effort to apply lean principles and practices. North America, Europe and South America have
organizations devoted exclusively to studying lean ideas and applying them. In fact, the efforts of
the AEC industry have led the way toward innovative ideas about the application of lean thinking
to the construction industry. Koskela (1992, 2000) originated the idea that construction processes
must be viewed as systems of transformations, flows and value adding actions, the so-called TFV
model. Bertelsen (2002) expanded the manufacturing model of lean to include the ideas of
construction as one-of-a-kind production, construction as a complex system and construction as
cooperation. Ballard and Howell (1998) in their paper, “What Kind of Production is
Construction,” describe differences between manufacturing and construction. In the United
Kingdom, the Construction Task Force produced “Rethinking Construction” (The Egan Report)
that applies the lessons of the manufacturing revolution to the construction sector in the United
Kingdom. Another innovation in the application of lean theory to construction was the
development of the Last Planner (Ballard 2000a) that emphasizes reliability in the planning
function. Others (Matthews 2003; Ballard 2002c; Tommelein 2003; dos Santos 1999) have
addressed the impact that lean principles have had on contracts, project delivery and project
supply chains.
In this way, the core idea of lean principles as originally set forth by Ohno was expanded and
adapted throughout the manufacturing sector. Other management thinkers have coupled diverse
management theories such as concurrent engineering and TQM to these core lean principles.
“Lean theory” and “lean applications” for AEC design, procurement and production functions
have received significant attention in many quarters around the world.
5
A lean philosophy, broadly defined, can apply to design, procurement and production functions.
Lean can apply to the enterprise or company level, to the project level and to the individual
process level.
To help define and direct research efforts and to present an elemental contribution to the
understanding of lean principles in construction, the scope of this report was limited primarily to
construction field operations. Though the focus of the inquiry was field operations, researchers
were sensitive to the effects of policy and actions that occur at the enterprise, project and process
levels. Two considerations led the research team to focus its primary attention on construction
field operations. First, field operations are where most of the value is added from the customer’s
point of view, so cognizance of customer value is central to a lean philosophy. Second, others
have studied various aspects of lean philosophy, and this information could be used as a
foundation for this report. For example, Seymour (1996) and Ballard (2000c) have defined an
agenda for lean construction across the entire project life. Arbulu (2002), Tommelein (2003) and
London (2001) have addressed construction supply chains. Likewise, aspects of the design
process to promote lean principles are discussed by Ballard (2000d), Koskela (1997) and Freire
(2002), who have all addressed different aspects of lean design.
Taking into consideration the history of lean principles and prior research, the following question
was posed:
To explore how manufacturing principles map to the construction process, these questions were
defined:
• What is the value stream for field production activities and for the field portion of
material delivery and handling?
After an understanding is gained about how lean principles apply or can be modified for
construction, these questions may be addressed:
Finally, to benefit the Construction Industry Institute (CII) membership, the following two
questions were considered:
6
1.5 Organization of Report
This report is organized into eight chapters and 10 appendices. Chapter 2 presents a
comprehensive review of both manufacturing and construction literature on lean principles.
Chapter 3 explores the differences between the manufacturing and construction domains.
Chapter 4 describes the methodology used for this study. Chapter 5 describes the development of
a questionnaire that can be used by a contractor to self-assess lean behavior. Chapter 6 describes
the results of the value stream mapping studies. Chapter 7 communicates the study findings
regarding lean principles for construction. Finally, Chapter 8 describes research team
recommendations for the future of lean principles in construction. The appendices contain the
details of each of the value stream case studies as well as information on the validation of the
questionnaire and questionnaire interview notes. Additionally, the appendices contain two
studies on the impacts of excess worker movement.
7
2.0 Lean Theory and Literature
The conventional breakdown of the manufacturing process into a series of activities, each
undertaking the conversion of an input to an output, referred to as the conversion model or
transformation model, is illustrated on Figure 2.2 (adapted from Rother 1998). This type of
production system historically uses what is called a batch and queue theory (Womack 1996).
Batch and queue refers to the theory that for machines to achieve a high utilization rate, they must
be run continually. As a result of this, parts are manufactured in large batches at one process
within a plant and then queued for the next process. Batch and queue theory leads to many
manufacturing problems, such as bottlenecking and large inventories from high work-in-progress
(WIP) levels.
The inventories created by WIP are referred to in manufacturing as buffers (Womack 1996).
Buffers generally reduce the variability of workflows within a plant by shielding downstream
activities from uncertainties that might occur upstream, such as machine failure or differing
machine output rates. Such buffers may be the result of WIP or even planned into the
8
manufacturing process. Buffers can be viewed as an advantage if high degrees of variability exist
within the manufacturing process. Disadvantages associated with overbuffering include
increased product lead times, increases in required working capital, as well as increased space
requirements to produce and store the additional parts and components acting as the buffers. By
using such queuing techniques, manufacturers also become susceptible to quick changes in the
marketplace. For example, if demand in the market for a certain product decreases, the
manufacturer may be caught with high levels of WIP acting as buffers and be forced to decide
whether it would be financially feasible to complete the production of the product or to terminate
production and scrap the partially completed work.
The concept of manufacturing a product based on forecasted sales data and then selling it is
referred to as “push” production (Womack 1996). This differs greatly from the idea of producing
an item only when it has been ordered or purchased, which is “pull” production. In other words,
the market for the product is pulling the production versus pushing the product out to the
customer. The view of manufacturing as a process of conversions tends to emphasize push
production. Thus, products are created because demand has been forecasted and then pushed
onto the market.
In their book, The Machine That Changed the World, James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones and
Daniel Roos provide an excellent descriptive summary of the typical mass producer:
The mass producer uses narrowly skilled professionals to design products made
by unskilled or semiskilled workers tending expensive, single-purpose machines.
These churn out standardized products in very high volume. Because the
machinery costs so much and is so intolerant of disruption, the mass producer
adds many buffers – extra supplies, extra workers, and extra space to assure
smooth production. Because changing over to a new product costs even more,
the mass producer keeps standard designs in production for as long as possible.
The result: The consumer gets lower costs but at the expense of variety and by
means of work methods that most employees find boring and dispiriting
(Womack et al. 1990).
The view of production as a series of conversions is fundamentally different from the second
dominant type of production in the 20th century, the view of manufacturing as a flow model
(Koskela 1992). Production as a flow process is one of the core ideas of lean production.
Figure 2.3 (adapted from Rother 1998) represents a generalized flow model of production.
9
Figure 2.3: Generalized Flow Model
Unlike the traditional view of production, the flow process does not view the production stream
solely as a series of conversions. The conceptualization of manufacturing as a flow model
delineates between those activities that add value to the process (conversion) and those that do
not (Koskela refers to them as flow activities) (Koskela 1992). It should be noted that to avoid
confusion about flow, this report will refer to activities that do not add value as non-value adding.
By defining the different types of activities that occur in production, the focus of improvement
does not become compartmentalized as on Figure 2.2, but rather envelops the entire value stream
(Womack 1996). The value stream of a particular product consists of all activities and parties
involved in its creation, from raw material suppliers to the customer as illustrated on Figure 2.4.
Compartmentalized improvements can become troublesome to downstream activities if the
particular cycle times of sequential operations are not matched. In other words, if Process A has
half the cycle time of Process B, a material buffer will occur at Process B because it cannot keep
up with the amount of work produced by Process A.
Examples of non-value adding activities, or muda, are large inventories, wait times, inspection
time, WIP and overproduction (Womack 1996). Improvement to the system would then entail
not only reducing the cost and improving the efficiency of the value adding activities, but also
reducing and/or eliminating the non-value adding activities. Figure 2.5 (adapted from Koskela
2000) illustrates these concepts.
10
Improving the system through waste elimination and conversion activity improvement allows all
elements of the entire production process to be enhanced.
The flow process tends to focus on the elimination of the large buffers found within mass
manufacturing by emphasizing the constant movement of components from one value adding
activity to the next. This type of system, also referred to as single-piece flow (Womack 1996), is
associated with several benefits. First, the WIP levels are dramatically reduced, which also
reduces the inventory space required as well as the capital to produce and stock extra inventories
of partially completed products. Combined with reducing equipment setup times, low WIP levels
can help a manufacturer become more responsive to market conditions. As a result, the producer
lets the customer, or market, pull the production.
Compared to the conversion model, flow operations are much more tightly controlled in terms of
production times and supply chain coordination to minimize variability within the process. In
fact, the introduction of time as an input to the production process is fundamentally different from
the conversion model of production because the process is no longer conceptualized as solely an
economic abstraction, but rather as a physical process (Koskela 1992). Time was considered
important before the advent of the flow model, but the entire production system was not centered
on time as a goal. This view of time is important because the flow process does not contain the
buffers necessary to minimize variability within the manufacturing process and, therefore, must
rely on the coordination of processes both internal and external to the plant. Table 2.1 and
Figure 2.6 summarize the major differences between the two predominant production theories of
the 20th century.
11
Figure 2.6: Delineation of Activities
• Reducing Cycle Time. Cycle time is defined as the total time required for a
particular piece of material to traverse the flow. Cycle time can be represented as
follows:
Cycle Time= Processing Time +Inspection Time +Wait Time +Move Time
Research has identified the following activities that reduce cycle time:
− Eliminating WIP.
− Reducing variability.
12
• Reducing Variability. Variability of activity duration increases the volume of
non-value adding activities. It may be shown through queuing theory that
variability increases cycle time. Variability reduction is aimed at reducing both
the nonconformance of products as well as duration variability during both value
adding and non-value adding activities. A few strategies aimed at variability
reduction are as follows:
• Increasing Flexibility. The ability of the production line to meet the demands of
the marketplace and change must be increased. Research has recognized the
following activities aimed at increasing output flexibility (Stalk 1990):
• Increasing Transparency. The entire flow operation must be made visible and
comprehensible to those involved so that mistakes can be located and solved
quickly.
13
standardizing parts, tools and materials; and minimizing the amount of control
information needed.
− Decoupling linkages.
James P. Womack and Robert T. Jones (1996) have identified five fundamental and sequential
steps that create a conceptual outline of what they call “lean thinking.” A quick comparison with
the ideas outlined by Koskela reveals many similarities, as the works of Womack and Jones have
proven to be influential within this particular field of study. The steps are as follows:
− Target cost.
− Value must be defined for each product family, along with a target cost
based on the customer’s perception of value.
14
− Compete against perfection by eliminating muda.
− Synchronize and align so there is little waiting time for people and
machines.
− Communicate.
− Increase transparency.
15
Individually, the principles, methods and techniques have been applied with partial success, but
together, they create a powerful framework and philosophy for improving manufacturing
performance. It is important to realize that this framework affects not only the production
process; it requires a fundamental shift in how an organization thinks about itself. The ideas
behind these principles create the backbone of a lean production environment. The overlap of
ideas from JIT, TQM, Visual Management, Time Based Competition and other manufacturing
methodologies, philosophies and practices are explored in the following sections.
The ideas of lean can also be conceptualized on the following three levels (Koskela 2000):
1. Process Level--A set of tools, such as Kanban cards, poke yoke, etc.
Lean implementation may consist of applying lean principles at any of the three levels. A
comprehensive lean implementation will cover all aspects of the business directly related to
production, transport, supply or service activities (dos Santos 1999; Schroeder 1993; Wild 1995).
An examination of several knowledge areas can aid in the understanding of how lean principles
affect the different aspects of a production organization. The knowledge areas of a production
organization can be generalized as follows (Fearon et al. 1979):
16
Figure 2.7: Lean Production Conceptualization
17
7. Supply Chain Management. Supply chain management involves the
management of internal and external sources of materials, supplies and services
to support operations.
Manufacturing has seen a proliferation of theories directed toward improving different aspects of
production and operations management. Many of these theories share similar fundamental goals
with lean production and, in many cases, were highly influential in the development of lean
principles. It can be difficult to distinguish between overlapping concepts in these theories.
Table 2.2 organizes selected manufacturing theories, methodologies and techniques into the
respective knowledge areas of the production organization to which they apply.
A brief review of the concepts of these methodologies reveals that there is a considerable amount
of overlap that occurs when these movements are compared to the principles identified as crucial
to lean. For example, Time Based Competition (TBC) directly relates to the principle of reducing
lead times, while Visual Management (VM) strives to make the process transparent to those
involved. It can be concluded that lean, as it is understood today, is a conglomeration or
synthesis of many theories, philosophies, methods and techniques, many of which are individual
methodologies within the manufacturing community. The evolution of lean ideas within manu-
facturing has been a process of trial and error that has incorporated both “top down” (theoretical)
and “bottom up” (pragmatic) problem solving and many of the ideas discussed in Table 2.2.
As a first step toward establishing a set of lean principles for construction, Chapter 3 considers
the similarities and differences between construction and manufacturing. Chapter 5.0,
Section 5.9, surveys available literature on the implementation of lean principles in construction.
18
Table 2.2: Knowledge Areas of Management Theories
19
Table 2.2: Knowledge Areas of Management Theories (Continued)
2. Work Configuration
A. Visual Management (VM) VM is an orientation toward visual control in production,
quality and workplace organization. The goal is to render
both the standard to be applied and a deviation from it as
immediately recognizable by anyone. This is one of the
original JIT ideas that has been systematically applied
only recently in the West.
B. Cellular Manufacturing Cellular manufacturing is an approach in which
manufacturing work centers (cells) have all the necessary
capabilities to produce an item or a group of similar
items.
C. Flexible Manufacturing Flexible manufacturing is an integrated manufacturing
capability to produce small numbers of a great variety of
items at a low unit cost. Flexible manufacturing is also
characterized by low changeover time and rapid response
time.
3. Scheduling and Planning
A. Line Balancing Line balancing is a means of balancing the appropriate
number of workers needed for a production line by
satisfying cycle time and precedence constraints.
B. Just-in-Time (JIT) JIT is a scheduling philosophy that emphasizes delivery
(when needed) of small lot sizes. JIT includes focusing
on setup cost reduction, small lot sizes, pull systems,
level production and elimination of waste.
C. Critical Path Method/PERT CPM/PERT is a method of determining the critical path
(CPM/PERT) by examining the earliest and latest start and finish times
for each activity.
D. Aggregate Planning Aggregate planning includes the broad, overall decisions
that relate to the programming of resources for
production over an established time horizon.
E. Master Production Schedule MPS is a time-phased plan specifying the number and the
(MPS) time frame for building each end item.
F. Distribution Requirements DRP is the function of determining the need to replenish
Planning (DRP) inventory at branch warehouses over a period of time.
20
Table 2.2: Knowledge Areas of Management Theories (Continued)
21
Table 2.2: Knowledge Areas of Management Theories (Continued)
4. Quality (Continued)
F. Total Quality Control (TQC) The difference between TQM and TQC is epitomized by
the phrase “management vs. control.” Most companies
“control” quality by a series of inspection processes, but
“managing” quality is a continuous quality improvement
program. However, a good control system is the first step
in the development of a management system.
G. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) AQL is a concept that holds that there is some non-zero
level of permissible defects.
H. Six Sigma Six Sigma is a structured application of the tools and
techniques of TQM on a project basis to achieve strategic
business results. It is sometimes defined as a failure rate
of 3.4 parts per million.
I. Zero Defects Zero defects is a concept introduced by Japanese
manufacturers that stresses the elimination of all defects.
This concept contrasts with the idea of AQL.
J. Quality Circles Quality circles are teams that meet to discuss quality
improvement issues.
5. Inventory Management
A. Just-in-Time (JIT) This scheduling philosophy emphasizes delivery when
needed of small lot sizes. JIT includes focusing on setup
cost reduction, small lot sizes, pull systems, level
production and elimination of waste.
B. Material Requirements Planning MRP is a system to support manufacturing and
(MRP) fabrication organizations by the timely release of
production and purchase orders using the production plan
for finished goods to determine the materials required to
make the product.
C. Manufacturing Requirements MRP II is a method for effective planning of all the
Planning (MRP II) resources of a manufacturing company. Ideally, it
addresses operational planning in units, financial
planning in money, and has a simulation capability to
answer “what-if” questions.
D. Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) EOQ deals with the optimal order quantity (batch size)
that minimizes the sum of the carrying and ordering cost.
E. Period Order Quantity (POQ) POQ is a lot sizing rule that defines the order quantity in
terms of the period’s supply.
F. Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) SKU is a unique identification number (or alphanumeric
string) that defines an item for inventory.
22
Table 2.2: Knowledge Areas of Management Theories (Continued)
23
Table 2.2: Knowledge Areas of Management Theories (Continued)
Miscellaneous (Continued)
C. Total Productive Maintenance TPM refers to autonomous maintenance of production
(TPM) machinery by small groups of multiskilled operators.
TPM strives to maximize production output by
maintaining ideal operating conditions.
D. Continuous Improvement Continuous improvement, associated with JIT and TQC,
has emerged as a theme itself. A key to this approach is
to maintain and improve the working standards through
small, gradual improvements. The inherent wastes in the
process are natural targets for continuous improvement.
The term “learning organization” refers partly to the
capability of maintaining continuous improvement.
E. Benchmarking Benchmarking refers to comparing one’s current
performance against the world leader in any particular
area. In essence, it means finding and implementing best
practices in the world. Benchmarking is essentially a
goal setting procedure.
F. Time Based Competition (TBC) TBC refers to compressing time throughout the
organization for competitive benefit. Essentially, this is a
generalization of the JIT philosophy.
G. Value Based Management VBM refers to conceptualized and clearly articulated
(VBM) value as the basis for competing. Continuous
improvement to increase customer value is one essential
characteristic of VBM.
H. Re-Engineering Re-Engineering is the radical reconfiguration of
processes and tasks, especially with respect to
implementation of information technology. Recognizing
and breaking away from outdated rules and fundamental
assumptions is a key issue of re-engineering.
I. Computer-Aided Design/ In this approach, engineering designs may be created and
Computer-Aided Manufacturing tested using computer simulations and then transferred
(CAD/CAM) directly to the production floor where machinery uses the
information to perform production functions.
J. Activity-Based Costing Activity-based costing attempts to collect cost data on all
activities that occur rather than on just the three primary
resources (i.e., materials, labor and machinery). This is
an attempt to define the components of burden. The
objective of this system is to look at all areas where cost
reductions can be implemented.
24
3.0 Differences Between Construction
and Manufacturing
Both of these characterizations of lean are too abstract for the purposes of this report. MacInnes
provides a more comprehensive set of principles for manufacturing:
• Reduce Waste:
25
− Minimize the seven wastes:
a. Overproduction.
b. Waiting.
c. Transport.
d. Extra processing.
e. Inventory.
f. Motion.
g. Defects.
− In production:
a. One-piece flow.
b. Reduce WIP.
c. Pull scheduling.
d. Quick changeover.
e. Standardization.
1
This is derived from the Japanese words for five practices leading to a clean and manageable work area.
26
• Reduce Total Costs:
− Target pricing.
− Value engineering.
− Financial.
− Behavioral.
− Core process.
• Customer Focus:
27
Table 3.1: Comparison of Lean Manufacturing to Lean Construction Principles
Manufacturing Construction
Principle Womack MacInnes Koskela Ballard1
Customer Focus
Meet the requirements of the customer X X X X
Define value from the point of view of the X X X
customer, not from the point of view of
individual participants
Use flexible resources and adaptive X
planning
Cross train crew members X X X
Use target costing/value engineering X X
Culture/People
Provide training X
2 2
Encourage employee empowerment X X
Ensure management commitment X
Work with subcontractors and suppliers to X X X
regularize processes and supply chains
Workplace Organization and Standardization
Use 5S’s X X
Implement poke-yoke devices X X X X
Provide visual management devices X X X X
Create defined work processes X X X
Create logistic/material movement plans X
Waste Elimination X3 X3
Practice JIT delivery X X X1 X
Minimize double handling, minimize X X
movement
Balance crews, synchronize flows X X X X
Use kitting, remove material constraints, X X
reduce input variations
Use production planning, detailed crew X
instructions
28
Table 3.1: Comparison of Lean Manufacturing to Lean Construction Principles
(Continued)
Manufacturing Construction
Principle Womack MacInnes Koskela Ballard1
Waste Elimination (Continued)
Implement last planner/reliable production X
scheduling/short interval production
scheduling
Practice last responsible moment/pull X X X X
scheduling
Ensure predictable takt times X X X
Minimize WIP; use small batch sizes X X X X
Reduce parts count, use standardized parts X X
Optimize production by pre-assembly/ X
prefabrication
Use preproduction engineering/ X
constructability analysis
Reduce difficult setup/changeovers X X X X
Use decoupling linkages, understand buffer X X
size/location
Reduce scrap X
Use Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) X
Continuous Improvement/Built-in Quality
1
Supply chain and design management principles ignored to be consistent with research scope.
2
Implied.
3
Womack treats waste at a high level: identify Type I contributory activity waste and Type II non-
value adding waste, perform root cause analysis and identify value stream.
29
− Owners are much more involved in product features/
configuration, cost, schedule and process.
• Culture/People:
− There are alternate ways of doing each task; production methods are in
the hands of the workers not the manufacturing engineers.
− Production people move through product, rather than the product moving
through production people.
− There are alternate ways of doing each task; production methods are in
the hands of the workers not the manufacturing engineers.
• Waste:
− Material flow is not steady state; supply lines are different at different
project locations.
30
− Construction is resource paced, and manufacturing is typically machine
paced.
The primary issues common to this list are the greater degree of discretionary behavior and
increased uncertainty evident in construction. In manufacturing, production systems are defined
by and controlled by the configuration of the production line. In contrast, with construction, the
production system is defined by project managers and the individual workers. With this in mind,
the manufacturing lean principles were modified, and the subprinciples shown in Table 3.2 were
developed. Table 3.2 includes the question numbers that are relevant to each subprinciple from
the questionnaire (Appendix G) that was developed to assess lean behavior in construction.
Chapter 4 organizes these principles and subprinciples into a graphic “lean wheel” configuration.
31
Table 3.2: Lean Construction Principles
32
Table 3.2: Lean Construction Principles
(Continued)
Principle Subprinciple Question
Waste Elimination, Part II Institute JIT delivery, supply chain 34
(Supply Chain) management
Waste Elimination, Part III Use production planning and detailed crew 35
(Production Scheduling) instructions, predictable task times
Implement last planner/reliable production 36
scheduling/short interval production
scheduling
Practice last responsible moment/pull 37
scheduling
Use small batch sizes, minimize WIP 38, 39
Use decoupling linkages, understand buffer 40
size and location
Waste Elimination, Part IV Reduce parts count, use standardized parts 41
(Product Optimization)
Use pre-assembly and prefabrication 42
Use preproduction engineering and 43, 44
constructability analysis
Continuous Improvement Prepare for organizational learning and root 45, 46
and Built-In Quality cause analysis
Develop and use metrics to measure 47, 48, 49
performance; use stretch targets
Create a standard response to defects 50
Encourage employees to develop a sense of 51, 52
responsibility for quality
33
4.0 Research Methodology
This chapter describes the overall plan for original data collection, data analysis and methods for
answering the research questions stated in Chapter 1.
• What is the value stream for field production activities and for the field portion of
material delivery and handling?
4.2.2 Approach
The approach used was to synthesize the available literature and original field data into a set of
lean principles for construction.
There exists a complex set of relationships between the various questions and the methods used to
answer them. Investigations began with a thorough review of the literature to establish a set of
lean manufacturing principles. Next, using the literature and interviews with lean construction
and lean manufacturing experts, a presumptive set of lean principles for construction was estab-
lished. Two tasks were then performed in parallel. In accordance with the recommendations of
34
Ohno (1988), a value stream analysis was conducted to understand the nature of production value
and waste. The other task was to gain an understanding of the lean behaviors (as defined by the
presumptive set of lean principles) that are actually practiced in construction. As a basis for
defining lean construction behaviors, three sources were relied upon: evaluation of the behaviors
of the companies involved in the value stream analysis case studies, evaluation of companies who
identified themselves as attempting to apply lean principles (early adopters), and evaluation of
behaviors of early adopter companies that were reported in the literature. Finally, using the
knowledge gained by the value stream studies and the evaluation of lean behaviors, a final set of
lean principles for construction was established. From research team observations,
recommendations were developed for actions an organization must take to become lean and
potential problems to avoid. The relationships among these various research tasks are shown on
Figure 4.1.
The following sections describe in detail the goals and methods used for analyzing the value
stream, measuring lean conformance and developing an understanding of lean behavior in
construction.
The following goals were set for measuring conformance to lean principles:
4.3.2 Approach
35
Figure 4.1: Overall Lean Construction Research Plan
36
As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, there are many forms of lean principles in the literature. The
first task was to organize the presumptive set of principles in a manner that would facilitate an
evaluation of AEC organizational behavior against the principles. Additionally, the research team
interviewed several leading lean researchers and early adopters of lean principles. Finally, the
team relied on the experience and opinions of its members, many of whom had lean clients or
who were themselves adopting lean ideas.
A simple visual device, called the “lean wheel,” was developed for the manufacturing industry
(Tapping, Luyster et al. 2002). This tool was adapted for use with the presumptive set of lean
construction principles (Figure 4.2). The wheel is a device to simplify and organize lean princi-
ples into a format that is easily communicated to and understood by those new to lean theory. At
the highest level, the wheel organizes lean ideas into the following five fundamental principles:
• Customer focus.
• Culture/people.
• Workplace standardization.
• Waste elimination.
Each of these principles was further divided into 16 subprinciples, represented graphically on
Figure 4.2.
Customer
Focus
Metrics Flexible
Resources
Organizational Training
Learning
Response Culture/
People
To
Involvement
People
Defects
Optimize Organizational
Production Commitment
Schedule
Waste Supply
Chain Visual
Management
Elimination Management
.
Optimize
Production Workplace
System Organization
Optimize Defined
Work Work
Content Processes
Workplace
Standardization
Figure 4.2: The Lean Wheel (after Tapping, Luyster et al. 2002)
37
One of the goals for this project was to develop a questionnaire that could be used by companies
to help them self-assess their lean behavior. The lean wheel was used as the foundation for the
questionnaire. In addition to helping companies conduct a self-assessment, the questionnaire had
a secondary purpose of helping the research team assess the lean behavior of the lean and non-
lean contractors on this project.
Starting with each subprinciple, questions were developed that were relevant to construction
practices and lean theories. The questionnaires progressed through several iterations as early
drafts were administered at jobsites and company headquarters. Additionally, early versions of
the questionnaire were reviewed by lean practitioners and academics. These early trials led to
further modifications of the questions to make them clearer and more concise and to eliminate
questions that were not effectively measuring lean behavior.
The last step in the questionnaire development was to evaluate its validity. University of
Colorado academic resources helped establish the validity of the questionnaire using both
quantitative and qualitative means. Faculty from Sociology, Psychology, Marketing and Applied
Math were enlisted to improve and test the final questionnaire. Their suggestions prompted
modifications of question phraseology and the scoring scale. In addition, they directed the
research team toward the Cronbach’s alpha technique to measure questionnaire consistency.
The final step in developing the lean wheel was to use the final, validated questionnaire to guide
interviews with case study and early adopter contractors. A more detailed discussion of this
process is presented in Chapter 5.
Waste is commonplace in typical construction projects and processes. The waste that can be
identified on the jobsite represents only a small fraction of the waste in the entire delivery
process. At every level in the typical construction organization, waste is evident. Many top
manufacturing companies reach levels of 60 to 70 percent value adding (VA) time on their shop
floors; most will claim only 5 to 10 percent contribution over their entire value stream from
development to delivery. Using lean concepts as the foundation, the nature of VA actions and
waste can be defined. Ohno (1988) subcategorizes waste into non-value adding but required
(NVAR) Type I muda, and non-value adding (NVA) Type II muda. Because of the relatively
uncontrolled and changeable nature of the construction production environment, the NVAR
actions are relatively more common than in manufacturing production. For instance, in-process
inspections (NVA-Type I muda) are typical for any process piping. The material and welds must
be checked during installation; otherwise, the safety of the workers, and possibly the future
owners of that pipe, may be compromised. While the action of inspecting the pipe does not add
value for the customer, it is an action that is required by current codes and industry standards;
therefore, it cannot be eliminated. This type of action can, however, be limited through
38
reorganization of the work processes or even through the development of an entirely new process
for installing pipe.
After definitions for VA, NVAR and NVA actions were created, the research team focused on
procedures for collecting and analyzing these data for typical construction tasks. Development of
procedures for a construction value stream analysis followed the self-imposed limits of this study.
First, the effects of design activities on lean performance were excluded. Projects can be
designed to facilitate lean performance. Project design can be delivered in such a way so as to
enable lean production. These factors were not considered in the value stream studies. The
effects of supply chain issues that are manifested away from the jobsite were also excluded, but
material supply from the time that materials entered the jobsite was included. Others (Arbulu
2002; Tommelein and Li 1999; Tommelein, Akel et al. 2003) have studied supply chain issues
and lean performance.
Another issue affecting value stream mapping is the time scale over which waste becomes
evident. Most wastes, such as worker inactivity (waiting), are immediately evident and
quantifiable by observing the value creation process of the crews. However, other wastes, such as
punch list items, are only evident to those who can observe the project over a long time. Since
data collection for this study was organized around short site visits, the data analysis was
concentrated on the wastes that were evident over a short time.
The typical value stream map must describe the entire construction process flow (Rother and
Shook 1998). Theoretically, the value stream would begin with the collection of raw material and
end when the owner (end customer) receives the finished product. This study focused on
individual construction production processes in the overall value stream. Specifically, data was
collected, analyzed and then used to create value stream maps for a typical structural steel
erection process and the installation process for large bore piping. These specific processes
represent two very different value generation mechanisms. The structural steel erection process is
an equipment intensive, highly repetitive, configuration driven process with relatively short cycle
times. In contrast, piping installation is a labor intensive, nonrepetitive process that has flexible
work sequences with long cycle times. By focusing on these different processes, it was possible
to show that the value stream mapping procedures are flexible enough to represent most con-
struction production processes.
Ultimately, value stream maps will be used to quantify and track wastes related specifically to
material in their respective processes, as well as the production operation itself. These ideas are
further clarified and expanded in Chapter 6, where the detailed definitions for waste and the
methods used to identify and quantify waste are presented. Chapter 6 also separates the
conventional value stream map into three distinct levels. Level One is used to track wastes
associated with material and provide an overview for the work distribution values related to VA,
NVAR and NVA for an entire construction production process. Level Two tracks wastes
associated with worker and material flow as the process proceeds through the various
construction stages. Level Three dives deeper into the process and analyzes each worker’s
contribution to the various work categories.
39
each of the lean principles identified in the presumptive set. Next, an evaluation was made to
determine which participant in a project should exhibit this lean behavior: the owner, constructor,
subcontractor, material supplier or designer. Finally, it was determined whether the lean principle
should be applied at the contractor’s organization level, project level or crew level.
40
5.0 Creation and Use of a Lean Assessment Instrument
The literature on questionnaire design stresses the need to verify the survey by distributing
sample versions. Oppenheim (1992) suggests that “Questionnaires have to be composed and tried
out, improved and then tried out again, often several times over, until we are certain that they can
do the job for which they are needed. This whole lengthy process of designing and trying out
questions and procedures is usually referred to as pilot work.” In accordance with this rule,
research team members repeatedly asked coworkers to complete the questionnaire and provide
comments. Additionally, early versions of the questionnaire were reviewed by contractors and
academics familiar with lean principles. The following feedback/suggestions were obtained:
• Ensure that the questions not lead the respondent toward a “right” answer.
When comments from evaluators were consistent with advice from survey design literature,
changes were made and the questionnaire was re-administered to new test groups. More details
on this test, modify and re-test procedure are provided in Section 5.5. “It is essential to pilot
every question, every question sequence, every inventory and every scale in your study. If the
pilot work suggests improved wordings, you need to pilot those, too. Take nothing for granted.
Pilot the question lay-out on the page, pilot the instructions given to the respondents, pilot the
answer categories, pilot even the question-numbering system” (Oppenheim 1992). The research
team adhered to this advice and developed the questionnaire with the utmost care. As the
research design became more definitive, the questionnaire changed accordingly. For example,
one part of the research dealt with data collection from field studies pertaining to value stream
mapping. As the lessons from the value stream mapping studies became clearer, certain aspects
of the questionnaire were emphasized or reduced. The process of design and redesign had
unanticipated positive outcomes. First, the overall questionnaire was shortened, which served to
increase the voluntary accurate response rate. Second, questions became more explicit, which
again led to more accurate responses. On the advice of the sample group, some questions were
41
reworded to make them more understandable. Oppenheim (1992) spoke in depth in his book
about the difficult task of the respondent to answer the questions accurately:
...it is difficult enough to obtain a relatively unbiased answer even from a willing
and clear-headed respondent who has correctly understood what we are after,
without making our task virtually impossible by setting off this ‘train of
responding’ on the wrong track through poor question wording.
The questionnaire was designed around pairs of statements. One half of the pair of statements
described a non-lean behavior, and the other half described a corresponding lean behavior. Since
applying lean principles leads to many effective jobsite behaviors, it was difficult to avoid
making those choices more attractive. Wording was selected that made both statements seem
favorable so that the respondent would be forced to choose the one that more accurately described
his or her company. If one statement seemed more favorable than its counterpart, then it could be
perceived as a leading question. Another suggestion that was implemented from the sample
group feedback was to add question numbers. The first draft consisted of 55 unnumbered
statements. Rea and Parker (1997) stated that “...being sensitive to questionnaire length is to
make certain that the questionnaire is not so long and cumbersome to the respondent that it
engenders reluctance to complete the survey instrument, thereby jeopardizing the response rate.”
When question numbering was added, the respondents had an idea as to the parameters of the
document, which in turn focused their attention on answering the questions rather than on the
duration of the process.
A Likert scaling system was used for the questionnaire. “A Likert scale entails a five-, seven-, or
nine-point rating scale in which the attitude of the respondent is measured on a continuum from
highly favorable to highly unfavorable, or vice versa, with an equal number of positive and
negative response possibilities and one middle or neutral category” (Rea and Parker 1997).
The Likert scale is the most popular scale in use today (Oppenheim 1992). It is simple to
understand, and it provides the evaluator more information than that provided by simple yes/no or
agree/disagree responses. A five-point Likert scale was initially used, but on the advice of faculty
colleagues (McClelland 2003), it was changed to a seven-point scale and an N/A response was
included. Figure 5.1 shows an example of a seven-point Likert scale question, in which a score of
“1” corresponds to the statement on the left and a score of “7” corresponds to the statement on the
right. Larger response ranges lead the respondents to answer more accurately and more honestly.
Experts in questionnaire design agree that questionnaires cannot be perfect. There will always be
some degree of uncertainty in the responses. “The function of a question in an interview schedule
or questionnaire is to elicit a particular communication. We hope that our respondents have
certain information, ideas or attitudes on the subject of our enquiry, and we want to get these
from them with a minimum of distortion” (Oppenheim 1992). In summary, the Likert scale
scoring system allowed the desired information to be acquired while at the same time keeping the
survey simple for respondents. “The Likert scale works particularly well in the context of a series
42
of questions that seek to elicit attitudinal information about one specific subject matter” (Rea and
Parker 1997). The specific subject matter was lean construction practices.
While the respondents were filling out the questionnaires, the field study team was evaluating the
contractor’s lean behavior. At the end of each field data gathering phase, the study team graded
the contractor’s lean behavior using the questionnaire. The study team’s average answer was
then compared to the average response from the contractor’s personnel. Attention was focused
on those questions in which the research team’s assessment differed from the contractor
personnel’s assessment by two or more points on the Likert scale. This analysis was repeated so
that questions that had confusing wording or leading answers could be identified. This process
was a principal tool for improving the questionnaire.
The research team distributed and administered the questionnaires in person and was able to
achieve a 100 percent response rate. A response rate of 50 to 60 percent is considered
satisfactory when administering a questionnaire (Rea and Parker 1997). The ability to achieve
full participant response made the task of analyzing the questionnaires much easier. It was not
necessary to establish the type of people that filled out the survey; the participants worked in the
construction industry. This was the anticipated population at which the survey was directed. It
was very beneficial to the team to visit each of the case study jobsites. Each trip presented an
opportunity to explain the questionnaire, its current use and its end goal to a wide variety of
participants.
Ultimately, the questionnaire was distributed to the focus group. The focus group consisted of
the employees working at the jobsites that were visited for data collection. The research team
visited six jobsites, value stream data was collected at all six sites, and the questionnaire was
distributed at five of the jobsites. The sites were located in various parts of the United States:
43
• Birmingham, Alabama--Process Pipe.
At each site, the questionnaire was distributed to approximately 10 employees of the onsite
contractor. On average, four crew members, four project management level employees and two
executives filled out the questionnaire. Each work level received a different questionnaire that
contained only questions relevant to their job.
Companies that professed to be early adopters of lean principles were also interviewed. These
early adopters shared their insights and helped the research team understand their approaches for
implementing lean in construction.
44
lean, as opposed to the others interviewed who were more skeptical about implementing lean
theories. This was evidenced by the fact that early adopters had schedules for implementation of
certain lean practices. Some lean practices were being held for a smaller project so they could be
tested prior to full company implementation. Other lean behaviors were being implemented right
after a previous one was fully absorbed. The difference between the early adopters and the case
study participant companies was the adherence to a schedule for lean implementation.
The results and conclusions from both the early adopters’ interviews and the case study
participant interviews are discussed later in this chapter.
The pilot work was vital in bringing the questionnaire up to standards. This stage did not actually
validate the tool, but was a method for fine-tuning the questionnaire. The sample group
respondents offered suggestions that were utilized in the final design of the questionnaire.
The pilot work was necessary for eventually administering a simple, understandable questionnaire
to the focus group. The participants in the pilot stage were all construction professionals, and if
they were unfamiliar with some terminology used, the questionnaire had to be changed. The
main goal of the pilot work was the development of a comprehensible and clear tool. Eventually,
the questionnaire will be used as the basis for a lean self-assessment tool; therefore, it was
developed to be as easy as possible to administer and understand. The process of improving the
questionnaire continued until there were no more remarks regarding instructions or terminology
definitions.
After the pilot work was complete, the questionnaires were administered to the focus group. The
focus group consisted of employees from each jobsite visited. The questionnaire pertaining to
employees on the crew level was distributed to the field labor, while the questionnaire relevant to
project management was distributed to employees located onsite. The questionnaire pertaining to
the executive level was mailed to the organizational employees working at headquarters. While
in the field, a technique called “debriefing” was used. Fowler (1995) explains that “the most
universal strategy for evaluating self-administered questionnaires is to have respondents complete
them, then carry out a brief interview with the respondents about the survey instrument. In
addition, respondents can be asked about any problems they had with reading and answering
questions.”
45
Evaluation of the accuracy of the participants’ responses was accomplished by measuring them
against an agreed upon standard. The consistent standard used was the research team’s
assessment. Members of the research team who were present at each case study visit completed a
questionnaire based on their personal observation of the activities and practices at the jobsite.
The comparison between the research team’s average answer for each question and the answer
given by the respondents was used to validate the questionnaire. As stated before, if there was an
average discrepancy larger than two on the Likert scale between research team answers and the
respondent’s answer, the question wording and content were further analyzed. Of the 55 original
questions, eight questions were eliminated as a result of this process. Other questions that were
borderline in terms of validity were reworded and retested for adherence to this standard.
It was important to understand how the research team’s unbiased assessment of jobsite lean
performance compared to the contractor’s staff assessment. Differences between the two
assessments could be caused by a poorly worded question or by bias on the part of the contractor
personnel. Some degree of bias from the project management staff and the craft workers was to
be expected. Results were analyzed for a limited degree of bias and a consistent trend in the bias.
That is, if a question exhibited contractor responses that were consistently higher (better) than the
research team responses, the difference was attributed to bias, pride in workmanship, etc. On the
other hand, if the contractor responses showed a large differential, or if the differential was
sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the research team, the difference was attributed to a
misunderstood question. Using this process, questions were improved, reworded and, in some
cases, eliminated from the questionnaire.
Interestingly, the resultant scores from the organization level were the most consistent with those
of the research team observers. The project management level was also very consistent with
those of the research team. The crew level, on the other hand, had the largest discrepancy from
the observers. At the organization level, the average differential between a respondent and the
research team was 1.4 points. At the project management level, the difference was 1.5 points. At
the crew level, the difference was 2.3 points. These results were consistent across all jobs. The
crew level always had the highest discrepancy, while the other two levels were lower and within
decimal points of each other. Since the discrepancies were consistent between company levels
and between jobsites, the final validation test was to statistically analyze the response results for
reliability.
The final step in validating the questionnaire was through statistical reliability testing.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to measure the reliability of the questionnaire.
“Cronbach’s alpha is an index of reliability associated with the variation accounted for by the true
score of the ‘underlying construct.’ The construct is the hypothetical variable that is being
measured” (Hatcher 1994). Cronbach’s alpha can be written as a function of the number of test
items and the average inter-correlation among the items. The formula for the standardized
Cronbach’s alpha is as follows:
N*r
α=
1 + ( N − 1) * r
46
Where:
Cronbach’s alpha is a coefficient from 0 to 1 that measures the consistency and correlation
between responses to a set of similar questions. For this report, the construct measured was the
correlation between the responses for the questions pertaining to certain lean construction
principles. This reliability coefficient test was recommended by several researchers at the
University of Colorado (McClelland, Luftig, Boardman) and by other experts. “You may
compute Cronbach Coefficient Alpha, Kuder Richardson (KR) Formula, or Split-half Reliability
Coefficient to check for the internal consistency within a single test. Cronbach Alpha is
recommended over the other two.” (Yu 1997) “When items are used to form a scale, they need to
have internal consistency. The items should all measure the same thing, so they should be
correlated with one another. A useful coefficient for assessing internal consistency is Cronbach’s
alpha” (Cronbach 1951).
In this questionnaire, questions were developed around each of the five main principles.
Cronbach’s alpha test demonstrated whether the grouped questions were consistent in measuring
the same lean construction principle. Five tests were conducted wherein each of the five main
principles was treated as the single construct. The results of each test were taken to see if the
questions asked were consistent in focusing on that one principle. Since alpha is a coefficient, its
range of values is from 0 to 1 and, therefore, each result was given as a decimal. “There isn’t a
generally agreed cut-off. Usually 0.7 and above is acceptable” (Nunnally 1978). The goal of the
research team was to produce an alpha score of at least 0.7 for all five tested principles.
To perform the statistical tests, SPSS/PC+, a powerful software package for microcomputer data
management and analysis, was used. Questionnaire results were entered into the software
database as an Excel spreadsheet, and then the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was completed for
the designated questions. The SPSS results for each of the five tests are shown in Table 5.1.
The results of the Cronbach’s alpha tests were positive. All five principles had coefficients of at
least 0.76 and up to 0.95. As a result, it was concluded that this questionnaire was valid and
reliable tool for its purpose of measuring conformance to lean principles. The final questionnaire
can be found in Appendix G.
The responses from the completed questionnaires indicated that communication with the client
was not as central to the construction process as lean theory would suggest. Contractors were
unclear about who the owner (client) actually was. Value added processes were not always
defined by the owner’s needs or in terms of the project as a whole. There is still work to be done
in terms of understanding the customers’ requirements and being flexible in meeting their needs.
47
Table 5.1: Cronbach’s Alpha Results
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)
Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 24.0 N of Items = 7
Alpha = 0.7467
Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 41.0 N of Items = 7
Alpha = 0.8564
Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 41.0 N of Items = 10
Alpha = 0.8642
Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 41.0 N of Items = 18
Alpha = 0.9548
Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 41.0 N of Items = 8
Alpha = 0.9039
48
5.6.2 Culture/People
Training was prevalent in the industry, but not to the extent that companies were taking the time
to teach their employees about lean practices. For the most part, training occurred on company
time, and training on matters outside of specific job responsibilities was not common practice.
However, companies were trying to empower their employees to share their improvement ideas.
This was a lean practice that even non-lean companies supported. There was an overall sense of
the need for improvement in the industry by people at the organization level.
Companies encouraged their employees to be clean and organized on the jobsite. These
recommendations, however, were not always followed. There was a need for the project
management level to increase its use of visual aids to encourage the workflow and cleanliness of
the jobsite. It was generally agreed that visual aids would help, but the implementation of this
practice was still in its inception for many of the focus group companies. The documentation of
work processes and a defined logistics plan were inconsistently used within the focus group.
The focus group lacked consistency concerning balancing crew sizes, crew sequencing and
minimizing movement by people, materials and equipment. For the most part, respondents
answered that there was room for improvement in this regard. The question and/or subprinciple
that garnered the most negative responses dealt with the optimization of design with field
installation. Most respondents answered that certain design aspects of their project made
construction more difficult than necessary.
The consensus from the completed questionnaires was that JIT delivery of supplies was still in its
adolescent stage. Some contractors were trying to use this method with large suppliers, but they
would generally feel more comfortable with the needed materials stored in a lay-down area. In
terms of completing work products for the next crew to use, respondents were evenly divided
between making them available in small batches or in large batches of the finished products.
Unlike the lean manufacturing industry, these respondents answered that they try to start a work
activity as soon as possible rather than waiting until the last responsible moment that still
supports the schedule.
One tool that almost all lean construction companies used was a lessons learned file. The
questionnaire results showed that companies that were the least lean also did the least in terms of
lessons learned. The companies that were in the beginning stages of becoming lean tried to
incorporate some sort of lessons learned file into their corporate knowledge base. There was a
split between the focus group as to which companies made a consistent effort to monitor their
work using established metrics. These measurements consisted of productivity reports, quality
assurance reports and sometimes cost reports. In terms of error-proofing, there was still a need to
conduct more constructability reviews before the design was complete. Most of the contractors
made it a point to place some sort of directional marking on their supplies to ease the job of the
installer. Lastly, the focus group was not consistent regarding having a plan in place to deal with
defects.
49
5.7 Case Study Interview Results1
These interviews were conducted primarily by members of the research team with representatives
of the companies working on the value stream case study jobsites. Of those interviewed, only one
of the companies used lean practices on its project. The interviews were valuable in gathering
information that could not have been collected through the questionnaires. All the participants
were eager to describe current practices on their jobsites. The face-to-face interviews provided
deeper understanding of current lean (and non-lean) practices on typical construction jobsites.
The following subsections summarize the results of these interviews according to each of the
major lean principles.
The interviews did not indicate that an intense focus on customer value was common in
construction. Understanding the customer’s requirements is a focal point of lean theory in
construction and manufacturing. The only practice commonly noted by the participants was the
use of formal design review sessions with the owner during the preconstruction phase of their
jobs.
5.7.2 Culture/People
An important aspect of lean behavior is creating a culture wherein employees are confident about
the process and strive for continual improvement. Employee empowerment and the commitment
of the organization to improve its processes are essential for creating a lean culture. Training
sessions are necessary to educate employees about lean principles. All of the participating
companies trained their employees in construction practices, but only one of the companies
focused training sessions on lean behavior. The participants stated that their company
encouraged employees to provide feedback on improvement. This company created a tool called
the Lean Daily Management System which fostered a process of feedback participation. The
participants stated that more people had become involved and empowered because of this tool.
All the companies stated that they were looking for ways to improve their processes.
Workplace organization is a significant part of this principle. Each company works to maintain a
clean and organized workplace, since this invariably increases safety standards. However, no
specific lean practices such as the 5S’s were used by any of the participant companies. Visual
management is an important lean behavior on a manufacturing floor. There was some use of
visual aids regarding schedule, safety and, occasionally, productivity. For the most part, visual
devices were posted in the project management trailers, but not at the worksite as one would
expect for proper lean implementation. The defined work processes used by each company were
typically in the form of site logistics. One company had a lessons learned file for work tasks.
1
Interview notes for the case study contractors can be found in Appendix H.
50
5.7.4 Waste Elimination
This principle was not actively employed by the participant companies. The desire to improve
practices was often cited as a goal; however, most work tasks were organized and planned by
individual work crews. None of contractors used staff to support the planning of individual work
operations. One company stated that a great deal of planning went into minimizing the
movement of its employees between and during work activities. All the participant companies
mentioned the lack of communication between the design team and the field installation team.
One of the companies used a modified version of the “last planner” technique. Another company
made an effort to pass along products in small batches or continuous streams. None of the
companies set their schedule to the last responsible moment that still supported the schedule; they
all believed that was too risky. JIT delivery is still only a vision for most of the companies;
however, some companies made efforts to deliver in smaller batches to eliminate excessive
handling.
Most companies had a lessons learned file on their internal intranet. Effectiveness of lessons
learned appeared to be linked to similarities between a company’s projects. Companies with
many dissimilar jobs did not utilize lessons learned as often as those with jobs that were similar in
nature. All of the companies stated that they measured quality on all their projects. Only two of
the participant companies measured productivity on each job. Regarding error-proofing, the
companies specializing in steel erection were more prone to use poke-yoke (error-proofing)
devices to ensure a one-way only fit and no erection mistakes. Finally, two of the participant
companies had a response plan in place in case a defect occurred. The plan essentially consisted
of “stopping the line” and making a decision about the path forward.
In general, it appeared that case study contractors adhered to industry best practices. With a few
exceptions, most of the contractor personnel were unaware of lean manufacturing principles.
There were numerous practices incorporated by these companies to try to meet customer
requirements. Target costing and value engineering were used to show clients alternate scenarios.
One company encouraged a design-build or design-assist delivery system that forced
communication between the contractor and designer to give the customer the most value. Some
will argue that these are simply best practices in construction; however, all three companies were
steadfast in their belief that constant communication between the client and contractor was
essential in bringing the client the most value. Each of the early adopters used some form of
1
Notes from the interviews with the early adopter contractors can be found in Appendix H.
51
short-term planning to be proactive, rather than reactive, with any new project development. This
type of planning creates flexibility because of the increased communication between all involved
parties.
5.8.2 Culture/People
A clear difference between the early adopters and the case-study companies was the outlook on
creating a lean culture. The early adopters made it a point to push lean thinking throughout their
companies; each had mandatory training sessions based solely on lean behavior. These sessions
ranged from eight-hour sessions to mandated courses that educated on three different levels of
lean theory. The early adopters took training very seriously and spent a considerable amount of
time and money to ensure that their employees were properly trained. The three companies used
different practices to empower their employees, although they all had the same underlying
motive: to create an environment in which employees are always looking for ways to improve.
These practices ranged from the creation of award programs for implemented suggestions to the
mandate that employees provide feedback in the form of opportunities for improvement (OFIs).
These practices encouraged employees to participate in the continual improvement of company
processes. Finally, organizational commitment was obvious for each of the early adopter
companies.
Workplace organization varied a great deal in the early adopter companies. One company was
steadfast in its implementation of the 5S tool (sort, straighten, sweep, standardize and
systematize); while another company said that it was working on implementing 5S in the future.
They all strove for clean and organized jobsites. One company created a box for each crewman
that contained everything he or she would need for the upcoming day. Another difference
between the early adopter companies and the case-study contractors was the use of visual
management. These companies used visual aids to a much greater degree than the other
contractors. It was seen on the actual worksite and in the distribution of project information.
Visual aids representing workflow and site logistics were more available on the early adopter’s
jobsites. One of the companies went to great lengths to produce visual tools that helped
employees plan, communicate and coordinate their activities. They also created numerous
checklists that gave their employees a better picture of what was required for each activity or
overall project. Each of these companies distributed visual aids that tracked productivity, safety,
short-term schedules and material handling requirements. The defined work processes of each
company were communicated through the use of the visual tools.
The lean tools used by these early adopters consisted of last planner meetings or four-week look-
ahead schedules that helped balance and track crew flow. Checklists were used by one of the
contractors to see if the current project was similar to a previous project; this information could
then be used to see how that project was planned. Regarding optimizing work content, one of the
companies provided its architects/engineers with JIT training to improve design coordination and
planning. Two of the companies requested that the design be conceived with more standardized
materials to make installation in the field easier. Prefabrication was another alternative
considered to ensure smooth field installation.
52
Surprisingly, supply chain management was not widely used by the early adopter contractors.
They spoke of JIT delivery, but stated that it was not in prevalent use in their companies. There
were too many possibilities in the current environment for supplies or materials to be delivered
late, which could affect the critical path. Obviously, this is a risk that these companies are not
willing to accept at the present time. However, these companies are focused on the handoff of
finished products between subcontractors and crews. The objective is to hand off the finished
product in a continuous stream or in small batches. This is a lean behavior that is supported by
using the four-week look-ahead tool or the Last Planner System approach.
Similar to the case-study contractors, each of the early adopter companies maintained lessons
learned files. These files included OFIs or Continuous Improvement Messages (CIMs),
depending on the nomenclature used by the company. One of the companies went so far as to
have a separate lessons learned file solely for lean practices. Each of these companies monitored
quality and productivity. One of the companies even measured the amount of unused supplies
and materials on each jobsite as a way of reducing scrap. Another company decentralized its
quality control down to the lowest level of the organization. This practice goes along with the
theory that each worker should check his or her work and ensure its quality before passing the
work down the line. Surprisingly, little emphasis was placed on error-proofing by any of the
early adopters; however, each company encouraged field empowerment so that the affected
employee would raise the flag and act on a defect.
5.9.1.1 The Oscar J. Boldt Construction Company (Tsao 2000). This case
study examined the following lean principles, methods and/or tools:
• Work structuring.
This case study focused on the construction of the Redgranite Correctional Institution in
Wisconsin. This project consisted of two housing buildings that covered a total of
140,000 square feet. These buildings were two stories tall, and their walls were made from
precast concrete panels. The first-level floors were slab-on-grade, while the second-level floors
were precast concrete slabs. The Oscar J. Boldt Construction Company was the construction
manager, and Venture was the project architect. The state awarded Boldt this design-build
project based upon a guaranteed maximum price bid of $48 million.
To illustrate current practices and the opportunities provided by work structuring, this case study
discussed the installation of 510 hollow metal doorframes at the prison project. Because the
53
project was a correctional facility, the doorframe installation process involved a special grouting
procedure, which made the installation process less routine. Those personnel involved
recognized the difficulty of the situation, but better solutions were impeded by the demands of the
installation process. This case study thus provided the opportunity to illustrate how one may
come up with alternative ways to perform the work when not constrained by contractual
agreements and trade boundaries. In addition, the importance of dimensional tolerances in
construction and how these affected the handoff of work chunks from one production unit to the
next were discussed.
While these practices clearly exemplify JIT production, the paper was limited in scope. No data
was included to characterize the actual performance in terms of timeliness, buffer sizes, error
rates, etc. Moreover, the paper focused on batching and delivery, which are only parts of the
entire concrete production system. Current practices for managing the concrete supply chain
upstream in terms of raw materials acquisition or prerequisite work onsite are not geared toward
JIT production. Further investigation is therefore warranted, and significant process
improvements may be achieved by those working toward fully implementing a lean construction
system.
The erection of a building’s structural steel frame is a major construction phase on many projects.
The main resource in this process, the steel erector’s crane, defines not only the pace of steel
erection, but also the pace for handling and installing many other structural and non-structural
materials. This production system cannot afford any delays. Some claim that structural steel is
therefore managed as a JIT process with materials being delivered to the site as needed and
installed promptly. This is the case only in appearance, as is clear when one considers the JIT
54
principles that were developed as part of Toyota’s lean production philosophy. To illustrate the
point, this paper drew on examples of typical structural steel supply chains from the industrial and
building construction sectors. The use of symbols from manufacturing was investigated to map
key production steps, as well as buffers in between them, to elucidate where resources do and do
not flow. Industry practices in these two construction sectors vary significantly. Neither one is
lean. This paper reported on a preliminary investigation into the location of buffers in the
structural steel supply and construction process. The reasons for having buffers at various
locations were explored. A more in-depth investigation is recommended to gain a deeper
understanding of the buffer sizing criteria and steel component sequencing rules that govern
current practices. Insight into these will then help determine which buffers can be trimmed to
reduce WIP cycle times. This will support the effort of achieving “more JIT” by making
processes within individual companies, as well as across the entire steel supply chain, leaner.
5.9.2.1 PARC Project (Ballard, Casten et al. 1997). This case study examined the
following lean principles, methods and/or tools:
• Continuous improvement.
The PARC project was a refinery expansion costing approximately $2.1 billion. In 1994,
consultants Mike Casten, Greg Howell and Glenn Ballard initiated a productivity improvement
program at the PARC project following an initial site visit and diagnosis. The program duration
was from November 1994 until August 1995. Before the program was implemented, the project
suffered from poor labor productivity. As a result, the current direct labor force of 10,000 needed
to be increased to approximately 18,000. This increase in labor force, however, was not an option
because of a lack of skilled workers and the inability of the project to accelerate the supply of
work. As a result, this particular improvement program focused on production planning, since it
was determined that the current planning methods were insufficient to complete the job. The
current project management model needed to be changed from a contract management model to a
production management model, which would be oriented toward the way work is done. The
following three factors were determined as key areas for project improvement:
• How well the project is supplying the basic elements of work to the crews. These
elements include information, materials, tools, equipment, etc.
• How well the accomplishment of the work itself meets the needs of the workers.
55
It was determined that planning reliability was important to improved project performance. To
increase planning reliability, the team of consultants introduced the subcontractors to the Last
Planner System, a system developed to improve production planning, which includes the
following:
Subcontractors were also introduced to first fun studies (FRS), which entailed detailed planning,
study and improvement of field operations. The results from these changes were improved
quality of subcontractor production planning as well as improvements in field operations. The
improvement program resulted in substantial increases in productivity as well as a project
completed on schedule.
This particular case study implemented production planning to increase the reliability of the
subcontractors’ work plans by allowing them to better match labor to their work and identify
reasons why work was not completed.
5.9.2.2 Linbeck Construction (Pappas 1990). This case study examined the
following lean principles, methods and/or tools:
Linbeck Construction used the Last Planner System of production control on a remodel of the
chemistry building at Rice University. The project was a complete demo-to-structure renovation
of a university chemistry building originally built in 1925. The general contractor studied was a
merit shop contractor who specializes in commercial and building construction. Approximately
90 percent of the work on this project was subcontracted; both union and merit shop
subcontractors were involved. The construction contract was $22 million. The entire project,
including assessment and design, was $28.5 million. The construction duration was 12 months.
The contractor was responsible for all material procurement, including laboratory equipment.
The owner procured the furniture. Project staffing included one project manager, two project
engineers, one superintendent, one assistant superintendent, 15 foremen (nine from
subcontractors), and 78 craftsmen (65 from subcontractors). The construction contract was a
negotiated, cost plus fixed fee/guaranteed maximum price contract with graded incentive
bonuses. The five major subcontractors were also under the same contract arrangement. The
incentive bonuses were based primarily on the cost performance of the project.
56
Lean construction methods were fully embraced by the owner, general contractor and all major
subcontractors. There was obviously a great deal of coordination and communication;
contractors worked together, instead of at each other’s expense. This level of commitment was
critical to the success of the project. The designer was willing to implement lean construction as
long as it provided some benefit, but did not fully embrace the program. This had detrimental
effects on the timely completion of the design documents, which negatively affected the start of
the construction schedule. To mitigate some of these delays, the construction permits were
obtained individually for each floor as parts of the design were completed.
The renovation of a 70-year-old building is a challenging task. Add to this the fact that the work
was 90 percent subcontracted, and the project appeared to be a prime candidate for major
coordination problems. The lean construction approach clearly had a positive impact on the
project. Foreman delay survey data showed that delays due to common problems with tools,
information and materials were a fraction of what is experienced on most projects. This indicates
that the planning process was very effective for improving field productivity. The increased
planning, communication and coordination among project participants allowed the work to
progress smoothly, without major conflicts between contractors. This degree of cooperation
indicated that the project team accepted the concept of optimizing the project as a whole, as
opposed to optimizing individual activities or optimizing the work of individual companies.
5.9.3.1 Pacific Contracting (Eagan 1998). This case study examined the following
lean principles, methods and/or tools:
• Employee motivation.
Pacific Contracting of San Francisco, a specialist cladding and roofing contractor, has used the
principles of lean thinking to increase its annual turnover by 20 percent in 18 months with the
same number of staff. The key to this success was improving the design and procurement
processes to facilitate construction onsite and investing in the front end of projects to reduce costs
and construction times. The company identified two major problems to achieving flow in the
entire construction process: inefficient supply of materials that prevented site operations from
flowing smoothly and poor design information from the prime contractor that frequently resulted
in a large amount of redesign work.
To tackle these problems, Pacific Contracting combined the more efficient use of technology with
tools for improving planning of construction processes. A computerized 3D design system was
used to provide a better, faster method of redesign that led to better construction information.
The design system provided a range of benefits, including isometric drawings of components and
interfaces, fit coordination, planning of construction methods, motivation of work crews through
visualization, first run tests of construction sequences and virtual walk-throughs of the product.
A process-planning tool known as Last Planner, developed by Glen Ballard of the Lean
57
Construction Institute, was used to improve the flow of work onsite by reducing constraints such
as lack of materials or labor.
5.9.3.2 The Neenan Company (Eagan 1998). This case study examined the following
lean principles, methods and/or tools:
• Multi-functional teams.
The Neenan Company, a design-build company, is one of the most successful and fastest growing
construction companies in Colorado. It has worked to understand the principles of lean thinking
and looked for applications to its business using “Study Action Teams” of employees to rethink
the way they work. Neenan has reduced project times and costs by up to 30 percent through
developments such as the following:
• Improving the flow of work onsite by defining units of production and using
tools such as visual control of processes.
• Using dedicated design teams working exclusively on one design from beginning
to end and developing a tool known as “Schematic Design in a Day” to
dramatically speed up the design process.
• Innovating in design and assembly; for example, through the use of prefabricated
brick infill panels manufactured offsite and preassembled atrium roofs lifted into
place.
5.9.3.3 Argent (Eagan 1998). This case study examined the following lean principles,
methods and/or tools:
• Strategic partnering.
Argent, a major commercial developer, has used partnering arrangements to reduce the capital
cost of its offices by 33 percent and total project time in some instances by 50 percent since 1991.
It partners with three contractors and a limited number of specialist subcontractors, consultants
and designers.
5.9.3.4 Neil Muller (Eagan 1998). This case study examined the following lean
principles, methods and/or tools:
• TQM.
Neil Muller Construction, South Africa, has used TQM techniques to achieve an 18 percent
increase in output per employee in a year, a 65 percent reduction in absenteeism in four years and
a 12 percent savings on construction time on a major project.
58
6.0 Evaluating a Construction Value Stream
6.2.1 VA Definition
For this research, the team adopted Walbridge-Aldinger’s strict definition for VA activities as
“…any activity that changes the shape, form, or function of materials or information to meet
customer’s needs” (Walbridge-Aldinger 2000).
This definition excludes common construction work such as material handling, inspection or
temporary structures. Another less precise way of thinking about VA activities is that they are
those activities that the client is actually interested in purchasing. For example, one could say
that the client is interested in purchasing a steam line for a power plant, but not the temporary
support or testing activities that are needed to produce a finished pipeline. A VA action in this
process is the physical welding of the pipe spools into their final position. This strict definition
for VA activities has been adopted in this report to provide pinpoint focus on the customer value
equation.
This category can be separated into three subcategories that are required for construction
operations, yet have no permanent effect on the finished product. These subcategories include
material positioning, in-process inspection, and temporary work and support activities (TWSA).
59
6.2.2.1 Material Positioning. This subcategory includes all activities that involve the
movement of a structural steel member or pipe spool into its final position. For example, flying a
column into its final position in the structure is a required action, but it does not actually change
the physical characteristic of the finished product. The structure is physically changed only when
bolts are tightened around the baseplate. (Note: one must be careful when labeling an activity as
material positioning. Material positioning does not include moving a steel member from the lay-
down yard to a staging area. This action should be labeled as “transport,” which is an NVA
activity.)
6.2.2.2 In-Process Inspections. This subcategory includes actions such as the leveling,
plumbing and/or final field measurements of installed material. It also includes in-process or
production weld inspections that are required in accordance with individual project specifications.
This subcategory accounts for current construction requirements of inspecting ongoing and
finished products to ensure quality to the customer. For example, continually plumbing and
leveling the structure as steel members are erected would fall under this subcategory.
Each NVAR activity provides an opportunity to redesign the process to eliminate or reduce the
NVAR component in a cycle. For example, one could redesign a building to allow for multiple
repetitions and reuses of formwork, thereby reducing the work content of the formwork activity.
Alternatively, one could redesign the structure to use precast foundation elements, thereby
eliminating the need for formwork altogether.
Interest in lean construction has increased academic and industry interest in waste reduction in
construction. Waste reduction and elimination is one of the core principles of lean production,
and although it is not the only benefit of lean implementation, it does provide a logical starting
point. The potential cost and time savings achieved by eliminating or reducing NVA activities
are significant. Studies show that only 3 to 20 percent of tasks add value (Ciampa 1991), with
their share in total cycle time measuring between 0.5 and 5 percent (Stalk and Hout 1990).
Womack and Jones (1996) define waste as “…any human activity that absorbs resources but
creates no value.” The definition developed by Walbridge-Aldinger (2000) better conforms to
construction production; waste is defined “…as anything that takes time, resources or space but
does not add value to the product or service delivered to the customer.” To develop the con-
struction production value stream, Ohno’s concepts of production will be modified to more
closely conform with construction production as follows:
60
the course of a typical construction sequence make establishing a proper crew
composition difficult.
Table 6.1 compares the seven major classifications of waste in both manufacturing and
construction contexts.
Each worker in a crew is represented in the first column of the data sheet. Names for each worker
were determined by the position that they were observed in during the various cycles. The
second column describes the specific building component that the worker was working on at a
specific point in an observation period. The third column represents the “real” clock time during
the observation period as measured from the first activity.1 The fourth column indicates the
activity observed for that specific time period. The fifth column shows the duration of time spent
on that activity. The sixth column specifies whether an activity is VA, NVAR or NVA. The
seventh column provides for a further subcategorization of each activity into one of the seven
wastes or one of the three subcategories of NVAR activities.
1
The time shown in Column No. 3 is not in temporal order because analysis of the data required each row
of information to be sorted.
61
Table 6.1: Comparison of Lean Manufacturing to Lean Construction Waste
62
FieldObservationSheet CaseStudy#5
Personor Equipment: EntireGroupCycle#1 Date: 1/15/2003
63
During the hand collection method, each observer was equipped with a stopwatch and a clipboard
containing data sheets. Data was recorded as the activities occurred. Each time a new task was
started, an entry was made on the data sheet. For example, an entry might indicate that a worker
was rigging a bar joist for the crane. The next entry might indicate that the worker was “waiting”
until the crane lowered its hook so that the rigging for the next bar joist could be attached. The
elapsed time for each task was recorded, as well as the observer’s judgment regarding whether the
task was “value-adding” to the process. A digital video camera was also used to record all
actions during the erection sequence. The videotapes were used to conduct a more detailed
analysis of the activities.
Video data collection required two observers each to operate a video camera. The digital video
cameras were positioned to view the activity area at right angles to provide “depth” in both
directions being viewed. In the lab, two televisions were placed next to each other and used to
view the recorded operations. Using both cameras provided a three-dimensional view of the
workspace. Viewing the tapes several times allowed one to record data on each of the observed
crew members.
Both the hand data collection method and the video data collection method worked satisfactorily.
Table 6.2 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each collection method.
The following subsections provide a brief description of the case study projects and the cycle(s)
observed during the observation period. Site-specific information has been removed to prevent
disclosure of proprietary information. A complete analysis of each case study is presented in
Appendices A through F.
Structural Steel Erection Job No. 1. The project was a 200,000 square foot structure, 660 feet
long and 300 feet wide. The entire area was divided into 55 bays, each measuring 60 feet by
60 feet. The team observed the erection activities associated with four bays. Hand data collection
was used.
Structural Steel Erection Job No. 2. The site included roughly 1,700 acres (another 300 acres
were reserved for future development). Several buildings will eventually occupy the site. The
case study focused on an area in the largest of these buildings. The structure was approximately
one million square feet and, when viewed from the plan view, resembled the shape of the letter
64
Table 6.2: Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Data Collection Methods
65
“F.” The structure was composed of several smaller bay sections which roughly measured 60 feet
by 60 feet. The team observed the erection activities associated with two new bays performed by
one crew and the finishing activities of erecting purlins on top of a completed bay section done by
a second crew. Hand data collection was used.
Structural Steel Erection Job No. 3. Three main structures were being erected at this jobsite.
The total square footage for all buildings erected on this site was roughly 1.3 million. The
observation period focused on the largest of these structures, which accounted for more than half
of the total square footage. The structure was composed of several smaller bay sections, roughly
measuring 60 feet by 60 feet. The team observed the erection activities that occurred in four new
bays, with a focus on column, pod beam and spandrel beam erection for one crew, as well as the
erection activities associated with the bar joist members with a second follow-up crew.
Pipe Spool Installation Job No. 1. This project involved the installation of an auxiliary boiler in
an existing power plant. The housing for the boiler was located adjacent to the main power plant
boiler room. From the existing structure, four inch natural gas pipes and eight inch steam piping
were connected by a tee from the existing lines back to the new auxiliary boiler housed in the new
structure. Two separate areas were observed in this study. The focus in Area 1 was the
installation of an eight inch pipe spool approximately two feet long, a relief valve and an
eight inch elbow pipe spool approximately five feet long. All of the piping components observed
in Area 1 were prefabricated and had flanged/bolted connections. The focus of Area 2 was the
erection of an elbow pipe spool in a steam line that will be used as a bypass from the main
boiler’s steam line during down times.
Pipe Spool Installation Job No. 2. The project observed included the construction of a new
chemical processing plant. Several mechanical components and interconnecting pipes were being
installed during the observation period. The main focus during this study was the preparation and
welding of two sections of eight inch diameter prefabricated pipe into one large section. The case
study also included all activities required to lift the final spool into position and temporarily
support the spool section until its final supports could be erected/installed.
Pipe Spool Installation Job No. 3. This case study took place at a large manufacturing facility.
Several large structures were being erected around the site; the study was focused on the largest
of these structures. Unfortunately, during the observation period, several factors prevented the
team from observing VA activities so this became a “lessons learned” case study. This case study
highlights areas that, from the observation teams perspective, were not lean.
The following section describes the process used to analyze the data for each case study. The
purpose of this section is to introduce the reader to the tables and figures located in the
appendices that show the individual and crew results for the various case studies. One or more
66
cycles were observed at each jobsite. A cycle was defined according to the nature of the work
being performed. The structural steel erection process involved three main cycles: column,
girder (beam) and joist (truss) erection. Because the erection process for structural steel is
repetitive, the research team was able to obtain several iterations for each cycle. On the other
hand, piping installation consists of long cycle times. For this reason, the cycles for process
piping were defined as one entire viewing period (i.e., the whole observation period). The
detailed case studies in the appendices provide additional information on the definition of each
cycle.
During each cycle, each individual crew member was evaluated to capture his or her specific
contribution to the various cycles. Each crew was also evaluated as a group to illustrate the
“crew’s value creation” during a cycle. Tables 6.3 and 6.4 show the tabulated results for a crew
member and a crew, respectively. Furthermore, Figures 6.2 and 6.3 graphically represent the data
in Tables 6.3 and 6.4. These results were obtained after all required information was entered into
the data collection spreadsheet for each worker (refer to Figure 6.1). Table 6.3 and Figure 6.2
show the typical results for an individual worker in a cycle. The first column lists each work
category (i.e., VA, NVAR and NVA). In some cases, a worker may not dedicate any time to a
specific work category; this results in the category not being shown at all. The second column
associates each activity with the specific waste category. The third column represents the total
time in a cycle that the crew member spends on a specific waste category. The final column
represents the percentage of the total time a worker spends on each waste category in a cycle.
Showing this level of detail allows one to better understand what is happening during the
construction process. Additionally, analysis at this level of detail highlights areas where
improvement efforts should be focused. For example, time wasted on waiting is typical in a crew
that has unbalanced work assignments. To address this problem, the required work tasks could be
more evenly dispersed throughout the crew or in some cases, crew members could be eliminated.
Table 6.3: Typical Results for Welder Completing an Eight Inch Diameter Spool Section
Activity Classification Waste Classification Time at Activity % of Time at Activity
VA
Value Adding 1:24:11 24.58
VA Total 1:24:11 24.58
NVA
Waiting 1:42:37 29.96
Extra Processing 0:36:28 10.65
Transport 0:25:23 7.41
Motion 0:55:21 16.16
NVA Total 3:39:49 64.18
NVAR
Material Positioning 0:05:33 1.62
In-Process Inspection 0:16:17 4.75
TWSA 0:16:40 4.87
NVAR Total 0:38:30 11.24
67
Table 6.4: Typical Results for an Entire Crew
10:40:25
VA Waste NVAR
Crew Member All Extra Material In Proc. VA +
Activities Waiting Processing Transport Movement Pos. Ins. TWSA Total NVAR
Foreman - Pipe Fitter 0% 19% 10% 6% 22% 12% 18% 14% 100% 44%
Field Laborer 0% 52% 21% 5% 2% 2% 1% 16% 100% 20%
Welder 25% 30% 11% 7% 16% 2% 5% 5% 100% 36%
Group Percentage
13% 30% 12% 7% 15% 5% 8% 10% 100% 36%
Figure 6.2: Typical Results for Welder Completing an Eight Inch Diameter Spool Section
68
Figure 6.3: Typical Results for an Entire Crew
When the entire crew was evaluated, each crew member’s individual results were combined with
those of other crew members. Table 6.4 and Figure 6.3 show the typical results for an entire crew
during one typical cycle. In the upper right corner of Table 6.4, the cumulative time spent by the
crew on the specific work element is shown. The first column lists each worker involved in the
crew, along with the entire crews’ weighted average values on the bottom. For each worker, the
percentages shown are based on the total time that each crew member contributed to the cycle,
not the total cumulative time shown in the upper right corner. This was done because unequal
amounts of time were spent on a cycle by various crew members. Furthermore, if one person was
involved in a cycle longer than another, their time should affect the weighted average values the
most. The next column shows the percentage of time that a crew member contributed toward VA
actions. Columns 3 thru 6 represent each NVA subcategory. Columns 7 thru 9 represent the
three subcategories associated with NVAR actions. The tenth column verifies that all of the
individual crew member’s time in a cycle was accounted for. The remaining column (11) shows
the total percentage value for VA time and NVAR time committed by that crew member to the
building component. Notice that only four of the seven types of waste are represented in these
tabular results.
69
6.5.1 Structural Steel Case Studies
Case Study No. 1 (Appendix A) involved the erection process for light-gauge structural steel.
This study examined the extended control the contractor had on the value stream. The contractor
controlled all aspects of material purchasing, delivery and erection proceedings. The material
element of the value stream included when it was shipped, how it was shipped and the level of
organization in which steel was placed on the ground prior to the erection process. The
contractor controlled the labor component by specifying the number of workers per crew and the
specific tasks each worker was responsible for during the erection cycle. Table 6.5 shows the
results from the observation period.
Table 6.5: Results for Case Study No.1 - Structural Steel Erection Process2
Activity Classification Waste Classification Total Time at Activity % of Total Time
VA
Value Adding 2:51:04 24.89%
VA Total 2:51:04 24.89%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 1:26:53 12.64%
In-Process-Ins. 0:02:58 0.43%
T.W.S.A. 1:00:44 8.84%
NVAR Total 2:30:35 21.91%
NVA
Waiting 3:12:03 27.95%
Extra Proc. 0:41:04 5.98%
Transport 0:15:28 2.25%
Motion 1:56:56 17.02%
NVA Total 6:05:31 53.19%
Table 6.6 shows the Quick Summary results from the value stream map for Case Study No. 1. Of
the 792 total workable hours committed to the steel erection process, only 161 were VA.
Case Study No. 2 involved the erection process for heavy-gauge steel. Large joist girders and
trusses were required for the structural steel skeleton of the facility. The main point of interest for
this study was the material delivery process. The contractor was restricted to delivering only one
phase (three to six bays) of steel ahead of the erection crew; the delivery process resembled a JIT
delivery system. However, the current delivery system was put in place after the original system
of unrestricted deliveries had created safety issues. A direct result of this restriction was the low
inventory days required for each phase. The contractor controlled the movement of steel from the
manufacturer’s facility to its storage position in the parking lot and, finally, to the material lay-
down area. A separate subcontractor controlled the labor portion for erecting the steel, as well as
the steel movement from the lay-down area into its final position. Table 6.7 portrays the results
from the observation period.
2
The crane operator’s time was not included in this analysis because one member of the data collection
crew was called away. However, had his time been included it would have shown that the VA/NVA “% of
Total Time” values dropped slightly, and the NVAR percentage values acquired the difference.
70
Table 6.7: Results for Case Study No. 2 - Structural Steel Erection Process
Activity Classification Waste Classification Time at Activity % of Time at Activity
VA
Value Adding 1:00:18 10.54%
VA Total 1:00:18 10.54%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 1:21:51 14.31%
T.W.S.A. 2:00:56 21.14%
NVAR Total 3:22:47 35.45%
NVA
Waiting 2:18:55 24.28%
Extra Proc. 0:22:42 3.97%
Transport 0:41:40 7%
Motion 1:45:42 18.48%
NVA Total 5:08:59 54.01%
Table 6.8 shows the Quick Summary results from the value stream map for Case Study No. 2. Of
the 2,016 total workable hours committed to the 14 phases of the steel erection process, only 181
were VA.
Case Study No. 3 involved the erection process for light-gauge steel. The main point of interest
for this case study included the use of two separate crews to erect the various steel elements. For
this project, the subcontractor controlled the entire labor value stream and a portion of the
material value stream after the steel had been delivered to the site. The contractor controlled the
portion of the material value stream from procurement to delivery of the steel onto the site. The
subcontractor chose to use two crews for the production process. One crew was responsible for
erecting columns and pod beam combinations (pod beam and spandrel beam connected as one
unit). The second crew was responsible for erecting the interleaving bar joists for each bay. The
design of this multiple crew system was closer to a lean manufacturing ideal. The higher density
of workers provided higher throughput and a smaller amount of WIP. However, while the
process was fast, adding new crew members to the production process caused waste attributed to
“waiting” that consumed nearly half of the total time because of synchronization problems
between Crew 2 and Crew 1. Table 6.9 shows the results from the observation period.
Table 6.9: Results for Case Study No. 3 - Structural Steel Erection Process
Activity Classification Waste Classification Total Time at Activity % of Total Time
VA
Value Adding 2:04:45 9.77%
VA Total 2:04:45 9.77%
NVAR
Mat. Pos 2:00:32 9.44%
In-Process Ins. 0:06:15 0.49%
T.W.S.A. 3:10:01 14.89%
NVAR Total 5:16:48 24.82%
NVA
Waiting 9:41:12 45.53%
Extra Proc. 0:08:09 0.64%
Transport 0:59:17 4.64%
Motion 3:06:19 14.60%
NVA Total 13:54:57 65.41%
71
Table 6.10 shows the Quick Summary results from the value stream map for Case Study No. 3.
Of the 1,544 total workable hours committed to the steel erection process, only 152 were VA.
6.5.1.1 Comparison of Structural Steel Cases. Case Studies No. 1 and No. 3 offer
insight into to the effects of crew variation in a steel erection process. Material on both sites was
organized in a similar fashion. The main difference between these studies was the additional
erection crew in Case Study No. 3. Lean ideology requires balancing processes to create flow in
the value stream. Flow was generated in Case Study No. 3 at the crew level. In Case Study
No. 3, no back-tracking was required such as that observed during Case Study No. 1 (crew
erected two columns and girders, then backtracked to erect bar joists). While the erection process
proved to be faster compared to Case Study No. 1, the waste attributed to waiting nearly doubled
for Case Study No. 3. Similar complications resulting from unbalanced crewmember responsi-
bilities were present in each study. Three lessons were learned from this comparison:
(1) Introducing two (or more) crews to the erection process does not necessarily
create additional value, even though it does increase throughput and reduce WIP.
Multiple ill-designed crews only increase the rate at which waste is accumulated.
The VA percentage dropped from 25 percent for Case Study No. 1 to roughly
10 percent for Case Study No. 2.
(2) Adding another crew to the process can add waste to the value stream if the work
progress of the individual crews is not synchronized. The increase of NVA
percentages from 53 percent (Case Study No. 1) to 65 percent (Case Study No. 3)
highlights this effect.
(3) Even though VA percentages dropped at the project level, the reduction in
overproduction (WIP) and inventory wastes, as viewed from the owner’s
perspective, may offset the decrease in the VA percentage (i.e., the project is
completed earlier, thus allowing income to be generated earlier from a finished
facility).
Comparing Case Study No. 2 to Case Studies No. 1 and No. 3 shows the effect structural design
has on a value stream. The light-gauge steel in Case Studies No. 1 and No. 3 required smaller
amounts of NVAR actions (21.9 and 24.8 percent, respectively) than the heavier-gauge steel for
Case Study No. 2 (35.5 percent). More actions were required during Case Study No. 2 to safely
hoist and secure each structural element into its final position. A decrease in the NVA percentage
would have been shown had material organization in the lay-down area been different in Case
Study No. 2 (i.e., offloading steel elements from the truck to a position on the ground next to their
final place in the structure).
72
The largest VA percentage (24.9 percent) was found in Case Study No. 1 and the smallest
(9.8 percent) in Case Study No. 3. The largest NVAR percentage (35.5 percent) was found in
Case Study No. 2 and the smallest (21.9 percent) in Case Study No. 1. The largest NVA percent-
age (65.45 percent) was found in Case Study No. 3 and the smallest (53.2 percent) in Case Study
No. 1.
Case Study No. 4 (Appendix D) involved the installation process for eight inch diameter piping
components. Two points of interest were highlighted in this case study. First, the contractor
controlled all aspects of the material and labor value streams. Second, the observations included
both prefabricated and field-fabricated piping processes. This second point was of particular
interest because it highlighted the different labor requirements for each piping process. The
prefabricated spool and valve installation process required one fifth of the time needed to field
fabricate and install pipe spools using a similar crew structure. The VA percentage was
18 percent for the prefabricated process and 8 percent for the field-fabricated process. The
weighted VA, NVAR and NVA percentages for the entire observation period are shown in
Table 6.11. Notice the large value for pure NVA waste (Type II muda).
Table 6.11: Results for Case Study No. 4 - Piping Installation Process
Activity Classification Waste Classification Time at Activity % of Time at Activity
VA
Value Adding 1:14:07 10.43%
VA Total 1:14:07 10.43%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 1:26:55 12.23%
In-Process Ins. 0:16:00 2.25%
T.W.S.A. 0:49:11 6.92%
NVAR Total 2:32:06 21.40%
NVA
Waiting 3:14:31 27.37%
Extra Proc. 1:37:57 13.78%
Transport 1:16:51 10.81%
Motion 1:55:08 16.20%
NVA Total 8:04:27 68.17%
Table 6.12 shows the Quick Summary results from the value stream map for Case Study No. 4.
Of the 1,267 total workable hours committed to the piping installation process, only 98 were VA.
Case Study No. 5 (Appendix E) involved the installation of prefabricated pipe spools. The major
point of interest for this study was the cause and effect relationship between the material and
labor value streams. Multiple parties controlled the material value stream before the
prefabricated spools were shipped to the site (e.g., spool fabricator, cleaning and painting
subcontractor). The contractor oversaw the movement of material between each party. The
73
installing subcontractor controlled the material value stream once it was delivered to the site. The
installing subcontractor controlled all aspects of the labor value stream as well. Obstructed
information flow between the various parties resulted in a large extra processing percentage (e.g.,
paint was ground off each end of the delivered spools from the painting subcontractor).
Table 6.13 shows the weighted average values for the entire installation period.
Table 6.13: Result for Case Study No. 5 - Piping Installation Process
Activity Classification Waste Classification Time at Activity % of Time at Activity
VA
Value Adding 1:24:11 8.19%
VA Total 1:24:11 8.19%
NVAR
Material Pos. 0:39:13 3.82%
In-Process Ins. 1:21:47 7.96%
T.W.S.A 1:15:48 7.38%
NVAR Total 3:16:48 19.15%
NVA
Waiting 5:15:40 30.72%
Extra Proc. 3:13:17 18.81%
Transport 1:19:17 7.72%
Motion 2:38:17 15.40%
NVA Total 12:26:31 72.65%
Table 6.14 shows the Quick Summary results from the value stream map for Case Study No. 5.
Of the 800 total workable hours committed to the piping installation process, only 58 were VA.
In Case Study No. 6 (Appendix F) installation of Victaulic pipe was observed. No VA actions
were observed during this visit. The observation period was not representative of the site’s
average work distribution values; therefore, only a “lessons learned” synopsis for Case Study
No. 6 is included.
6.5.2.1 Comparison of Piping Process Cases. Greater control of the process piping
value stream in Case Study No. 4 resulted in the best average work distribution values.
Comparing only the VA percentages from the prefabricated spool processes of each job shows
that there was a net difference of 10 percent (18 percent from Case Study No. 4, 8 percent from
Case Study No. 5). Furthermore, the VA percentage from Case Study No. 5 for prefabricated
spools more closely resembles the field-fabricated values found in Case Study No. 4. When the
value stream is not monitored at the level required, defects pass through the value stream; the
final erection crew was required to fix all upstream defects. These defects were the cause for the
lower VA percentage of the prefabricated spool installation in Case Study No. 5.
Both cases included extra processing (rework) wastes. More than two thirds of the installation
processes resulted in pure waste (NVA). Also, the VA percentage for process piping ranged from
8 to 10.5 percent. Finally, defects pushed through the value stream that required rework on the
74
part of the crew caused variations from the expected work distribution values and the actual work
distribution values.
Table 6.15 compares the weighted average work values found for each case study. Excluding
Case Study No. 1, the majority of processes analyzed in this report resulted in VA percentages
between 8 and 10.5 percent. In other words, at the production level, the typical construction
production process was found to contain from 8 to 10.5 percent VA actions. At best, for a simple,
highly repetitive process, a contractor (one who is trying to apply lean principles) attained a VA
percentage of 25 percent. The objective of a typical lean manufacturing company, in contrast, is
to achieve 75 percent VA activities on an entire assembly line. The construction industry realizes
one sixth (at worst) to one third (at best) of the VA time of the manufacturing industry. Table
6.15 also shows that process piping jobs incur higher percentages of pure waste (NVA) in the
production process. Specifically, the piping production process contributes larger amounts of
time to transport and extra processing waste than does the steel production process. This extra
processing is directly related to defects occurring upstream in the piping value stream.
On average, steel production processes require more NVAR actions than do piping processes. A
large contributor to the steel process NVAR category is material positioning. Because steel
erection processes are more repetitive than piping processes, more time is spent on the act of
aligning each new member into a final position. More time is also required in the steel erection
process for TWSA. However, NVAR waste due to in-process inspections is more typical for
piping processes than for steel processes.
6.5.3.1 Limitations of this Study. The value streams for each case study represent only
those elements specific to the process observed. To map out the entire value stream for the
construction production process, the job would need to be monitored in its entirety. For example,
Toyota’s entire value stream related to its production process can be observed in one day (i.e., a
car takes one full day to go from start to finish). Therefore, to view the entire value stream for a
construction production process, the process must be observed from the start of the project
through completion.
75
6.5.4 Value Stream Analysis
What can be learned from the results of the construction value stream analysis? First, the value
stream map is flexible enough to accommodate two very different construction processes, and
since most construction processes fall between these extremes, the value stream map is capable of
representing most, if not all, remaining processes. Second, by implementing the value stream
map, a systematic approach to identifying problem areas in the production process can be created.
If the problem is not caused at the production level, the value stream map will highlight the
bottlenecked area.
It also seems obvious that the construction industry should take advantage of the ability to reduce
the NVA component of construction value streams. This can be done by working to balance
crews and to make work tasks and task times more predictable. Assigning crews of the
appropriate size and eliminating double and triple handling of materials will also help reduce the
NVA component. Significant gains can be realized by reducing the NVAR component.
However, this will require changes that are broader in scope. Some changes to erection/assembly
techniques will need to be made if the frequency of in-process inspection is to be reduced.
Changes to design will be needed to enable less reliance on temporary supports. More work with
suppliers will be necessary to eliminate excess material positioning time. Finally, improving VA
times will require changes in project design to provide for more repetition, more standardization
and more preassembly and prefabrication.
Perhaps the greatest contribution of these value stream studies is to demonstrate in an objective
way how much improvement is possible in construction value generation.
The labor aspect of the value stream encompasses all labor required to erect and install material
into its final position. Closely associated with labor is construction equipment. For every piece
of equipment on a construction site, there is a human operator. Workers along with machines will
bolt, frame and weld components into their final position. Workers, aided by machines, add
76
value to the final product. How much value they are capable of adding depends upon manage-
ment, work processes, information flow and the skill of the crews.
According to the definitions of waste, waiting, transport, extra processing and motion are most
closely related to the actual work process (i.e., labor and equipment). Overproduction, inventory
and defects are associated with the material supply chain and production scheduling functions.
The observation periods for each case study were brief and focused, which limited the team’s
ability to quantify wastes associated with overproduction, inventory and defects in specific detail.
The typical manufacturing approach identifies all elements in the value stream. The arrows
represent the flow of material and/or information through the production line. The logic
progresses from the left to right, with each box representing a different stage in the production
77
line. For this study, the production line has been limited to the highly repetitive process of
erecting bar joists. The flow in this map begins when steel members are ordered from the
manufacturer. They are then shipped to the jobsite and stored onsite before erection. Finally, the
map shows the individual substages that each crew member participates in during the erection of
the bar joist members.
A construction value stream cannot be represented like a manufacturing value stream. The major
difference between the two systems occurs at the project level when material reaches the site.
Material on the construction site does not flow past the worker, rather the worker must move
(flow) to the material. In manufacturing, the “work station,” where a transformation of the final
product occurs, never has to move in the “ideal” manufacturing line, yet for a construction
process the “work station” continually moves around the jobsite as work progress. Furthermore,
the conventional model on Figure 6.4 assumes a linear relationship between its elements, creating
what is known as a FIFO process. In construction, several tasks in an activity can and/or must
occur simultaneously. The simple manufacturing value stream model does not easily allow for
parallel activities.
Level Three, shown in greater detail on Figure 6.6, consists of three main elements. Area 1
(circled on the figure and labeled Area 1) includes a different table for every major task observed
during the case study. Level Three details how much time each crew member contributed to the
waste category. The specific wastes Level Three details are waiting, extra processing, transport,
and movement. Furthermore, one can see if a crew was sized correctly to minimize waste caused
by waiting. If a worker was waiting for the majority of all tasks, it would be beneficial to the
crew’s productivity to redesign the tasks to eliminate the need for that member. In addition, if
one observed that the majority of the work was carried out by one worker, then balancing the
individual crew member responsibilities more evenly across the crew would be appropriate. The
last table in Area 1 shows the weighted averages of the crew for all tasks. These weighted
averages were combined to create VA, NVAR and NVA total values for the crew shown in
Area 2.
78
Production Control
Project Engineer
Project Feedback
Project
Superintendent
Percent Complete
Steel In
Steel Place
Supplier awaiting
welding
As Required Daily
2 Shipments
O O OO
Forklift Forklift Forklift Forklift Forklift Ground Left Left Right Right X-Bracing X-Bracing
Operator Operator Operator Operator Operator Crewmen Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector
Fifo Fifo Fifo Fifo Staggard Staggard Staggard Staggard Staggard Staggard Staggard Staggard
CT= CT= CT= CT= CT= CT= CT= CT= CT= CT= CT= CT=
CO= CO= CO= CO= CO= CO= CO= CO= CO= CO= CO= CO=
Uptime Uptime Uptime Uptime Uptime Uptime Uptime Uptime Uptime Uptime Uptime Uptime
Avail Avail Avail Avail Avail Avail Avail Avail Avail Avail Avail Avail
time time time time time time time time time time time time
79
Production Control
Project Engineer
Every 1-3 days
Triggering Event
Level One
2 phases of steel are ordered
Percent Complete
Project Superintendent
Distribution of time from VSM
Work Time
80
Columns Total Cumulative Time Spent on Columns 1:19:32 h:m:s
VA Waste NVAR VA +
Crew Member All Extra Material Total %
Waiting Transport Movement In Proc. Ins. T.W.S.A NVAR %
Activities Processing Pos.
Fork Lift Operator 7% 14% 0% 0% 16% 7% 4% 52% 100% 70%
Level Three Ground Crewmen
Left Connector
0%
13%
0%
40%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
46%
0%
0%
Area
0%
0%
1 0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
13%
X-Bracing Con. 0% 66% 0% 0% 34% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Right Connector 0% 53% 0% 0% 18% 29% 0% 0% 100% 29%
Table represents the time distribution for each element viewed during the observation period
Cumulative Average VA Percentage 25%
Number of % of Total Time
Cumulative Time for each Element Time for Cycle time for each % of Total Average NVAR Percentage 22%
members each steel
various element installed Time
observed element requires
categories Average NVA Percentage 53%
Total cumulative Time for two columns 1:19:32 2 0:39:46 12% 5.8%
Total Cumulative Time for 2 Girders 2:10:31 2 1:05:15 19% 9.5%
Total Cumulative Time for 26 Bar Joists 7:57:07 26 0:18:21 69% 2.7%
Total Time 11:27:10 Area 2
Area 3
Figure 6.6: Level Three Data
81
Finally, Area 3 breaks down the proportion of time each substage requires in the main stage. This
distribution is necessary when determining the weighted percentage of total time spent on each
substage in Level Two. From this table, the cycle times can be computed for each building
component erected. For example, the average cycle time to erect a bar joist from the ground into
its final position was calculated by taking the time required to install one element (18 minutes,
21 seconds) and dividing it by the total number of crew members (5). The cycle time for one bar
joist was determined to be three minutes, 40 seconds.
Level Two, shown on Figure 6.7, details the substages that occur in one of the main stages of
Level One. Again, this level is necessary when multiple tasks or crews in one process occur at
the same time. The hatched arrows represent the order of occurrence for each substage. The
number of substages shown in Level Two will be dependent on the level of detail that an
observation team makes while collecting data. For example, on Figure 6.7, three distinct
activities are highlighted: column, girder and bar joist erection. However, in a second structural
steel case study, the column and pod/spandrel beam combination (girder section) is represented as
one substage. This simplifies the data analysis, but limits the information that can be obtained if
these two substages (i.e., crew balance information) are separated.
Note: These Steps occur at the same time.
Columns and Girders are erected first but
cannot be continued until the inner
supporting bar joist have been erected.
Stage Two (B) - Specific Bar
Stage Two (A) - Bar Joists bundles Joists and girders are pulled Bar Joist installed along with x-
2 Columns Erected per bay Joist Girder is erected
are shook out from bundles to be placed in bracing members
each bay
Level Two Days Required 2.5 Days Required 2.5 Days Required 2.0 Days Required 3.2 Days Required 11.8
Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved:
Crane, 2 Crane, Forklift, 2
Forklifts 1 Forklifts 1 Crane, Forklift 2 4 4
Skylift, Forklift Skylifts
Workers involved Workers involved Workers involved Workers involved Workers involved
Crew 2 Crew 2 Crew 5 Crew 5 Crew 5
WT 40 WT 40 WT= 78.7 WT= 129.2 WT= 472
VA ( 0%) 0 VA ( 0%) 0 VA ( 6%) = 4.7 VA ( 8%) = 10.3 VA ( 31%) = 146
NVAR (0%) 0 NVAR (0%) 0 NVAR (34%) = 26.8 NVAR (15%) = 19.4 NVAR (9%) = 42
NVA (100%) 40 NVA (0%) 40 NVA (60%) = 47.2 NVA (77%) = 99.4 NVA (60%) = 283
Figure 6.8 shows one substage box from the steel erection process. The box is developed into
two main sections. Section 1 lists the substage process requirements: days required, equipment
involved and workers involved. Section 2 details the work distribution categories: work, VA,
NVAR and NVA time.
Section 1
82
To further illustrate the calculation process for this level the main stage from Level One must be
introduced, along with its required substages in Level Two (Figure 6.9) and the steps in the
calculation demonstrated.
6.9.2.1 Step 1. The “days required” value is calculated using the weighted percentage of time
spent on a substage. This number is found in Area 3 of Level Three, “% of total time”
(19 percent). This calculation (Equation 6.1) focuses on the days required for girder installation.
Multiply 19 percent by the total number of days required value (17) found in the main stage of
Level One.
Equation 6.1: 17 days x 19% = 3.23 (cumulative days to erect every girder)
The result is 3.23 days. This value indicates that if the crew focused only on the girder erection
process, it would take them a cumulative time period of 3.23 days to erect every girder. Using
this value, the values found in Section 2 of the substage box can be calculated. The equipment
category shows which resources are used for each substage. These values can be used to aid in
balancing the total equipment on a job with the crew to create the best possible flow in the work
process. To complete Section 1, the total number of workers required for the substage was
entered. If the same crew was used for each substage, then this value would remain the same.
However, if two separate crews were involved with the process, these values may not remain the
same between the substage processes.
83
6.9.2.2 Step 2. Section 2 breaks down the work distribution values for that substage. Work
time (WT) is defined as the total workable man-hours a crew can contribute assuming that they
work five days a week, eight hours a day. The calculation for WT is as follows:
Equation 6.2: WT = 8 hours per (day per crew member) x 5 crewmembers x 3.23 days
6.9.2.3 Step 3. This WT value must be used as the basis for the remaining categories of VA,
NVAR and NVA. The percentages shown next to VA, NVAR and NVA were developed from
the Level Three tables.3 For each substage, a table was developed with values for NVA and
NVAR. These values were obtained by totaling the subcategory values that contributed to each
of the main work distribution categories (e.g., NVAR = Mat Pos. Value + In-Process Ins. Value +
TWSA Value = 15 percent for girders). The number of man-hours that were contributed to each
work category can now be calculated.
This step was repeated using the VA and NVA percentages to find their respective values.
6.9.2.4 Step 4. These steps were repeated for each substage until all the categories were
complete. Once completed, the main stage box found on Level One totaled all of the values
found in Section 2 of each substage box, resulting in a weighted final value for each stage in
Level One.
Levels Two and Three are structured to give the contractor (subcontractor) a detailed view of
material movement while onsite, as well as the crew actions required for the installation/erection
of the material into final position. Levels Two and Three allow the contractor to better control
wastes associated with waiting, transport, extra processing and movement. At the project level,
the contractor can use Levels Two and Three to balance crews and the respective tasks required
from each crew member. A balanced crew allows material and processes to reach their ideal
flow. The main reason for the separation of these levels is to give the contractor the ability to
track material movement on two separate time scales. The time required to design, procure and
deliver material to the jobsite (Level One) can be substantially larger than the time required to
install or erect the material after it is onsite (Levels Two and Three).
Level One of the new value stream (Figure 6.10) is nearly identical to the conventional method.
The solid black arrows represent information paths. Information arrows depict the “routes”
information must currently travel to allow certain activities to proceed. For example, information
flows from the Project Engineer to the steel manufacturer in the form of a “notice to proceed.”
3
For those stages in which material was offloaded from the truck to the ground, a 20 percent standard value
has been assigned for the NVAR category. This is to accommodate for the NVAR actions of setting up
hoist lines, safety lines or whatever else was required to safely move the material to the ground.
84
The manufacturer then produces the required steel elements and ships them to the jobsite. Once
the steel (or any other material) is onsite, it is tracked in stages until it has been installed or
erected into its final position. Information arrows also show how often communication is made
between each party, as the “As Required” and “Daily” notations signify.
The dark arrows leading from the last stage box “Steel in Place Awaiting Welding” to the
“Production Control” box offer a means to track overproduction and defect wastes.
Overproduction is represented in various forms depending on the hierarchy in the project’s
management team. At the owner level, overproduction results from “over designing” the facility.
At the project level, overproduction results from starting activities before they are required by the
ideal “latest responsible start schedule.”
Defect wastes are also represented in various forms depending on the hierarchy in the project’s
management team. At the owner level, a defect may result from a facility not meeting its
requirements because of underdesign or overdesign. At the project level, a defect can be
quantified by determining the amount of time a follow-up crew is required to fix errors or
unfinished work left by a previous crew.
Using material as the “traceable” element, a stage or process box (as is shown on the bottom row
of Figure 6.10) must be created to represent the material at that point in the process cycle. Stages
occur each time the material is touched onsite, beginning with offloading the material into a lay-
down yard or staging area. Every time the material is moved or transformed (e.g., two structural
elements are combined on the ground but then left there until the installation stage) prior to the
actual installation process, it must be accounted for by a separate stage box. For the remaining
stages that do not have field data to support the required information, the weighted average values
found in Level Three, Area 2, must be used.
Below the stage boxes is a staggered line with numbers placed between each stage box. These
numbers represent the days of inventory that occur between each stage. The number is based on
each shipment of material to the site. Inventory waste is quantified in Level One by totaling all
inventory days. An inventory day starts when the material is received onsite, and ends when the
last material piece in the shipment is moved to its next staging position or is installed. For
example, if two shipments of steel are delivered to the site, each shipment is treated separately to
identify the element in that shipment that remains on the ground the longest before being moved
to its next stage in the process life cycle. The period of time between each phase gives a portion
of the total inventory waste. The goal of tracking this waste is to reduce the inventory days to the
ideal value of zero. At this point, material flows onto the site, proceeds through all necessary
stages and is installed into its final position without being stored in various completion stages.
Another way to shrink this value is to order smaller batches of material for each delivery. If the
batch size is smaller, the time required to use up all the material in that one batch should decrease.
Therefore, the piece of material remaining longest onsite is governed by the consumption rate of
the crew erecting or installing those elements. In a financial sense, this means that the “front
end” costs of material delivered to the site may not rise as fast as it would with the current
practice of large batch material orders.
Once all stages are complete, the finished process box can be shown. In this example, it is
labeled “Steel in Place Awaiting Welding.” From the finished process box, the information
arrows relate process-specific information such as overall feedback on productivity and percent
complete for billing applications.
85
Production Control
Project Engineer
Every 1-3 days
Triggering Event
Level One Project Feedback
Distribution of time from VSM
2 phases of steel are ordered
Percent Complete
Project Superintendent
Time
Alloc
ation NVA Time
Field
VA Time
Steel Supplier
Supplie
5 cumulative days to deliver steel 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Manhours
O OO O
86
Finally, the table to the right of the stages provides a “quick” summary for all of the stages in
Level One. The bar chart above the table represents these values in a graphical display.
In summary, Level One is structured to allow the contractor to directly control waste associated
with overproduction (WIP) and inventory. Pure overproduction is rare on a construction site,
since most construction is built for a specific order. However, any time that a contractor orders
more material than is required during the project for a specific time period, it contributes to over-
production waste. Overproduction also accounts for WIP where an activity is left partially
completed because insufficient materials were available or the activity was started before it was
called for by the construction schedule. A late start schedule is ideal for limiting waste resulting
from WIP. Inventory accounts for instances when the contractor orders more material than is
required to complete the job, thus resulting in excess raw material at the completion of the
project. A well developed value stream map at this level will also indirectly affect how much
waiting occurs between construction activities, amount of transport required for materials around
the jobsite and the proportion of extra processing (rework) required because of defective
materials delivered onsite.
To create Figure 6.11, the following steps must be repeated. The first step is to create the value
stream map. From the results of this map, the stages defined in Level One can be used to create a
schedule of events, as shown in Table 6.16. In the first column of Table 6.16, the individual
stages are defined. Column 2 lists the primary specific activity that is occurring for that day. The
primary activity is determined by which task is absorbing the majority of the crew’s time for that
day. Each row represents another day, moving left to right across the table. Column 3 details
which day the activity occurred. For simplicity, all processes begin on a Monday. Column 4
shows a running total of calendar days the process takes to complete. Column 5 details the
available hours possible for that day. This value is calculated using the total available crew for
the day multiplied by eight hours. These values will be the same for the Column 11, Workable
Hours, except for the rows representing weekends. Calendar hours include possible weekend
hours. To calculate the possible work hours for each day of the weekend, the total available crew
from the Friday before is used, and then the crew size is multiplied eight hours. Column 11
assumes zero workable hours for the weekend; however, this would change should a process
require weekend shifts. The Cumulative Calendar Hours, Column 6, is a running total of all
available calendar hours. The logic is similar for the Cumulative Workable Hours, Column 12,
except that it is a running total of workable hours.
87
Work Distribution
1200
1000
800
Time (man hours)
200
Note: the percentages used to
create this chart are the
average values from the work
distribution values found for the entire crew.
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Calendar Days
88
Table 6.16: Work Distribution Lifecycle Data
Cumulative Cumulative Hours
Calendar Calendar Workable Crew Workable Cumulative VA NVAR NVA VA Cumulative NVAR Cumulative NVA Cumulative
Stage Primary Activity for the Day Day Calendar Workable worked
Days Hours Days available Hours Work Hours Percentage Percentage Percentage Hours VA Hours Hours NVAR Hrs. Hours NVA Hrs
Hours days per day
Stage 1 Steel is moved from truck to ground Monday 1 16 16 1 1 2 8 16 16 0% 20% 80% 0 0 3.2 3.2 12.8 12.8
Stage 1 Steel is moved from truck to ground Tuesday 2 16 32 1 2 2 8 16 32 0% 20% 80% 0 0 3.2 6.4 12.8 25.6
Stage 2 Steel is shook out Wednesday 3 16 48 1 3 2 8 16 48 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 16 41.6
Stage 2 Steel is shook out Thursday 4 16 64 1 4 2 8 16 64 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 16 57.6
Stage 2 Steel is shook out Friday 5 16 80 1 5 2 8 16 80 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 16 73.6
Weekend Weekend Saturday 6 16 96 0 5 2 0 0 80 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 0 73.6
Weekend Weekend Sunday 7 16 112 0 5 2 0 0 80 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 0 73.6
Stage 2 Steel is shook out Monday 8 16 128 1 6 2 8 16 96 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 16 89.6
Stage 2 Steel is shook out Tuesday 9 16 144 1 7 2 8 16 112 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 16 105.6
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Wednesday 10 40 184 1 8 5 8 40 152 25% 22% 53% 10 10 8.8 15.2 21.2 126.8
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Thursday 11 40 224 1 9 5 8 40 192 25% 22% 53% 10 20 8.8 24 21.2 148
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Friday 12 40 264 1 10 5 8 40 232 25% 22% 53% 10 30 8.8 32.8 21.2 169.2
Weekend Weekend Saturday 13 40 304 0 10 5 0 0 232 25% 22% 53% 0 30 0 32.8 0 169.2
Weekend Weekend Sunday 14 40 344 0 10 5 0 0 232 25% 22% 53% 0 30 0 32.8 0 169.2
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Monday 15 40 384 1 11 5 8 40 272 25% 22% 53% 10 40 8.8 41.6 21.2 190.4
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Tuesday 16 40 424 1 12 5 8 40 312 25% 22% 53% 10 50 8.8 50.4 21.2 211.6
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Wednesday 17 40 464 1 13 5 8 40 352 25% 22% 53% 10 60 8.8 59.2 21.2 232.8
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Thursday 18 40 504 1 14 5 8 40 392 25% 22% 53% 10 70 8.8 68 21.2 254
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Friday 19 40 544 1 15 5 8 40 432 25% 22% 53% 10 80 8.8 76.8 21.2 275.2
Weekend Weekend Saturday 20 40 584 0 15 5 0 0 432 25% 22% 53% 0 80 0 76.8 0 275.2
Weekend Weekend Sunday 21 40 624 0 15 5 0 0 432 25% 22% 53% 0 80 0 76.8 0 275.2
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Monday 22 40 664 1 16 5 8 40 472 25% 22% 53% 10 90 8.8 85.6 21.2 296.4
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Tuesday 23 40 704 1 17 5 8 40 512 25% 22% 53% 10 100 8.8 94.4 21.2 317.6
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Wednesday 24 40 744 1 18 5 8 40 552 25% 22% 53% 10 110 8.8 103.2 21.2 338.8
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Thursday 25 40 784 1 19 5 8 40 592 25% 22% 53% 10 120 8.8 112 21.2 360
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Friday 26 40 824 1 20 5 8 40 632 25% 22% 53% 10 130 8.8 120.8 21.2 381.2
Weekend Weekend Saturday 27 40 864 0 20 5 0 0 632 25% 22% 53% 0 130 0 120.8 0 381.2
Weekend Weekend Sunday 28 40 904 0 20 5 0 0 632 25% 22% 53% 0 130 0 120.8 0 381.2
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Monday 29 40 944 1 21 5 8 40 672 25% 22% 53% 10 140 8.8 129.6 21.2 402.4
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Tuesday 30 40 984 1 22 5 8 40 712 25% 22% 53% 10 150 8.8 138.4 21.2 423.6
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Wednesday 31 40 1024 1 23 5 8 40 752 25% 22% 53% 10 160 8.8 147.2 21.2 444.8
Stage 3 1 crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Thursday 32 40 1064 1 24 5 8 40 792 25% 22% 53% 10 170 8.8 156 21.2 466
89
Column 7, Workable Days, provides a base for the remaining calculations. If a 1 is shown in
Column 7, then the row represents an actual workday; if the value is 0, then it represents a non-
working day (i.e., a weekend or a holiday). Column 8, Cumulative Workable Days is a running
total of possible workdays. The columns representing percentage values for VA, NVAR and
NVA obtain their values from the stage boxes in Level One of the value stream map.
90
7.0 Results - Lean Principles for Construction
100%
In addition, an assessment was made regarding applicability of the principle by industry role; that
is, whether it applies to the owner, contractor, subcontractor, designer or supplier. The roles of
both designers and the material suppliers have been evaluated, although supply chain and design
issues were excluded from the study. Accordingly, the judgments about designer and supplier
roles are not based on the same degree of evidence as are the judgments about the roles of
contractors and subcontractors. These judgments are represented as bar charts, as follows:
100%
80%
60% 50%
40% 20%
10% 10% 10%
20%
0%
)
or
G
rs
or
r
ne
li e
EN
ct
ct
w
tra
pp
ra
O
H
t
on
Su
on
C
R
C
bc
(A
Su
r
ne
ig
es
D
Finally, each subprinciple was evaluated for applicability at all three levels of the organization;
namely, crew, project management and enterprise. This evaluation is both an assessment of the
level at which the principle is best applied and an appraisal of the organization level that has the
primary responsibility for implementing the given principle. This judgment is represented as
follows:
Meeting Requirements of the Customer
100% 100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Enterprise Level Project Level Crew Level
91
7.1.1 Customer Focus
Customer focus is a matter of culture. “Lean” customer focus requires a culture different from
“normal” construction culture. Lean customer focus is quite different from adherence to the
principles of the contract. It is about an exchange of values, but not as currently defined by
contract law, and it has little to do with the commercial terms of the contract. It has everything to
do with the concept that if the customer receives value, both from the product and the process of
construction, the customer will seek return business. The customer must be part of the value
generation process. The customer must understand the importance of certain aspects of value.
This is very different from the current value calculus for manufacturing. In fact, the singular
customer-centric definition of value that is used in custom construction is an aspiration of the
manufacturing sector; e.g., cars built exclusively to order.
40% 60%
20%
20% 10% 10% 10%
40%
0%
20%
r
er
or
rs
ne
or
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
0%
De
nt
Su
on
Co
bc
Therefore, meeting the requirements of the customer is a principle that must be followed by both
the contractor and the owner. It must be part of the culture of the contracting company at both the
enterprise level and the project management level. Meeting the requirements of the customer is
92
also applicable at the worksite/crew level; however, the involvement at this level is more limited
than it is at the higher levels.
Value Adding Is Defined from the View of the Value Adding Is Defined from the View of the
Project Project
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
100% 100%
80% 80%
80%
60%
40% 60%
20% 0% 40%
0%
20%
r
er
or
rs
ne
or
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
0%
De
nt
Su
on
Co
bc
Defining value from the point of view of the ultimate customer is applicable to all major groups
(contractor, subcontractor, designer and supplier) in construction. Likewise, every level in the
project organization must be prepared to add value for the customer. The contractor must take
the lead in establishing the value structure both for its own organization and for all of the other
subordinate organizations involved with the project.
93
Flexible Resources and Adaptive Planning Flexible Resources and Adaptive Planning
100% 100% 100%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
100%
80% 80%
60%
60%
40%
20% 40%
0%
0% 20%
r
or
rs
er
ne
or
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
0%
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
Su
on
Co
Flexible and responsive systems must be developed at every level in the project and by every
member of the project team. The need for flexibility is a natural outgrowth of defining value
from the customer’s viewpoint.
rs
er
ne
or
li e
ct
0%
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
0%
Su
on
Co
bc
Cross training is applicable for both contractors and subcontractors. The field staff must take
primary responsibility for cross training to the extent that it is permitted by labor agreements.
Both designers and suppliers may have minor opportunities to help allow for cross training by
understanding jurisdictional boundaries in union labor agreements.
94
Subprinciple No. 1.5: Use Target Costing and
Value Engineering. Manufacturers use target costing as a
device to focus their cost reduction efforts. In manufacturing,
100%
Toyota made famous the idea that “Profit = Market Price -
Costs.” That is, the market determines the price, and profit can
only be increased by reducing costs. This idea is similar to the
competitive bidding culture prevalent in construction. In fact,
construction’s intense reliance on low-bid pricing shifts the focus away from customer quality to
price. The lean contractor can rely on target costs as a device for reducing costs but not to the
disadvantage of quality. Value engineering is the method commonly used in construction both to
reduce costs and to maintain quality and functionality.
80%
80%
60%
40% 60% 50%
20%
40%
0%
r 20%
er or r er
s
ne
wn ct c to li ig 0%
O n tr a tr a pp es
Co c on Su D 0%
S ub Enterprise Level Project Level Crew Level
Target costing (appropriately applied) and value engineering can be practiced by every member
of the project team. The main responsibility lies with the enterprise level.
7.1.2 Culture/People
Training Training
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
100% 100%
75%
80%
80%
60%
40% 60%
20%
40%
0%
20%
r
or
rs
er
ne
or
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
Su
on
0%
Co
bc
Su
95
All parties to the process must support the central role of training for implementing lean
principles. Even owners must participate in training so that they understand the potential of lean
construction.
rs
or
ne
or
li e
wn
ct
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
Su
on
0%
Co
bc
Su
Owners, designers and suppliers have little involvement in employee empowerment. Contractors
and subcontractors, on the other hand, must institute programs that motivate employees to take
responsibility for quality and process improvement. Some lean contractors use “gain sharing” as
a device to engage the construction workforce in process improvement. All levels of the
organization have significant accountability for ensuring that employees feel empowered to act to
improve project outcomes.
96
Management Commitment Management Commitment
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
100% 100%
80%
80%
60%
40% 60%
20%
40%
0%
20%
r
er
rs
or
ne
or
li e
wn
ct
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
Su
on
Co
0%
bc
Su
Owner, contractor and subcontractors must all embrace the lean ideal for a long period of time.
The use of strategic partnerships between contractor and subcontractor make it easier to sustain
lean behaviors from job to job. All levels of management from the CEO down to the first-line
crew supervisor must be committed to lean practices.
rs
or
ne
or
li e
wn
ct
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
0%
Su
on
Co
bc
97
Owners have little involvement in maintaining the contractor/subcontractor or contractor/supplier
relationship other than to provide a delivery system that enables these relationships. Clearly, the
main responsibility for establishing and maintaining strategic relationships is with the contractor.
Contractor personnel at every level have a role to play in maintaining effective working
relationships with suppliers and subcontractors.
5s's 5s's
100% 100% 100%
100% 100%
80%
80%
60%
40% 60% 50%
20%
0% 0% 0% 40%
0%
20%
r
or
rs
er
ne
or
li e
ct
0%
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
0%
Su
on
Co
bc
Jobsite cleanliness, organization and logistics are the primary responsibility of the contractor and
the subcontractors. Field management must set the requirement for jobsite organization, but it
must be implemented by the work crews and first-line supervisors.
98
“build quality in”; the attitude in construction is often to “inspect quality in.” The significant
attribute that enables error proofing is repetition. Repetition allows the production process to
move toward production work and away from craftwork.
r
or
rs
er
ne
or
0%
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
0%
nt
De
Su
on
Co
bc
The responsibility for error proofing rests with all contributors to the construction production
process. Designers have opportunities to use standard design elements and features that allow
error proofing. Suppliers can be alert for opportunities to mark or modify products to facilitate
error proofing. Contractors and subcontractors alike can standardize processes.
80%
80%
60%
40% 60% 50%
20%
0% 0% 0% 40%
0%
20%
r
er
rs
or
ne
or
li e
wn
ct
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
0%
Su
on
Co
bc
Visual management is the prime responsibility of field personnel. Both the contractor and
subcontractor can employ visual management tools. The impetus for visual management comes
99
from the enterprise level in the organization; the implementation is the responsibility of the
project site management and first-line supervisors.
ne
or
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
0%
Su
on
Co
bc
As with most construction production principles, the foremost responsibility for creating standard
work processes rests with the contractor and subcontractor. Material suppliers and designers have
the prospect of enabling defined work processes through more standardization in design and
materials. Development of standard work processes occurs in the field with field management
and the crew. The enterprise level has the responsibility for ensuring that the standards are
applied across all projects. Reapplication of standardized processes will allow for the
amortization of the cost of development of lean work processes.
100
believes that time and money spent in organizing the worksite and creating production
infrastructure is repaid by reducing waste in direct production activities.
r
or
rs
er
or
ne
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
nt
De
0%
Su
on
Co
bc
The main responsibility for creating logistics and material movement plans rests at the jobsite.
Both the contractor and subcontractors can contribute, but it is the prime contractor that has
overall responsibility for creating the plans. Prime contractors and subcontractors share
implementation responsibilities. The executive level of the company is responsible for
disseminating the practice across all projects. Site management creates and implements the
principle, and site workers must follow the plan.
Part of the challenge is to coordinate the material handling and storage needs among the various
subcontractors. Individual subcontractors attempt to reduce delays by ordering and storing large
quantities of materials near their workplaces (i.e., just-in-case material delivery). However, it is
evident that the more materials stored by subcontractors, the higher the incidence of multiple
handling of stored materials to eliminate space conflicts. This illustrates an important point: for
lean construction to be successful, contractors must find ways to eliminate subcontractors’
attempts to optimize their individual goals (profit, productivity, production) at the expense of the
whole production system. Lean is by its nature an optimization of the whole system.
101
To eliminate storage conflicts, one can closely control access to work locations, require
intermediate storage in remote locations or use just-in-time (JIT) delivery of material.
Controlling and scheduling subcontractor access to work areas tends toward a batch and queue
approach to scheduling. Reducing material storage conflicts at the worksite by requiring
intermediate remote storage causes double (or triple) handling, which is by definition a form of
waste. Relying on JIT deliveries, given the activities of a construction site, is (in the current
climate) very risky. The research for this study found no perfect (i.e., similar to manufacturing
performance) solution for storage conflicts in construction. The best solution appears to be a
tightly defined batch and queue management of work locations, coupled with small batch (almost
JIT) deliveries of material.
80%
80%
60%
60% 50%
40%
20% 40%
0% 0% 0%
0%
20%
r
0%
r
rs
to r
ne
ne
li e
c to
ac
s ig
Ow
pp
0%
tr a
n tr
De
Su
on
Co
Just because it is difficult to achieve manufacturing style material handling performance does not
mean that construction cannot benefit from attention to material handling performance. During
the value stream studies, multiple incidences were observed where coordination with suppliers or
preplanning for staging materials would have significantly reduced double handling. Contractors
and subcontractors must expend more effort in planning and managing the material handling
aspects of the production system if they are to improve lean performance. The responsibility for
these actions rests with field management and the individual crews.
102
scheduling commitments. All flow/crew balancing tasks are made easier if the individual work
task times are reliable. Reliable flow is also facilitated through production/look-ahead planning.
20%
0% 0% 0% 40%
0%
20%
r
r
rs
to r
ne
ne
0%
c to
li e
ac
s ig
Ow
pp
tr a
n tr
De 0%
Su
on
Co
bc
Creating flow and synchronized operations is clearly a field responsibility. However, production
planners cannot rely on the configuration of the assembly line to determine sequence. Also,
production planners must adapt flow to the changing configuration of the product itself.
Therefore, communication of production goals and responsibility is mostly maintained through
strict production planning between contractor and subcontractor and between individual crews.
Kitting, Material Constraints, and Minimizing Kitting, Material Constraints, and Minimizing
Input Variation Input Variation
100% 100% 100%
100% 100%
80%
80%
60%
40% 25% 60% 50%
20% 0% 0% 40%
0%
20%
r
r
rs
to r
ne
ne
0%
r
li e
c to
ac
s ig
Ow
pp
tr a
n tr
0%
De
Su
on
Co
bc
103
Kitting is primarily a field activity carried out by project management personnel working with
suppliers. In some jurisdictions, kitting is accomplished by dedicated crews established to
support production work.
80% 80%
60%
60% 50%
40%
20% 40%
0% 0% 0%
0%
20%
0%
r
er
rs
or
ne
or
li e
wn
ct
ct
s ig
0%
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
Su
on
Co
Minimizing changeover is a field production planning task. The need for changeover can be
reduced by producing larger batches of one product before switching to the next (e.g., erecting
multiple bays of steel before returning to erect the bar joists). Using larger batch sizes increases
work in progress (WIP), however, which is contrary to lean practices.
104
Reduce Scrap Reduce Scrap
40% 60%
20%
0% 40%
25%
0%
20%
r
or
rs
er
ne
or
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
0%
Su
on
Co
bc
Scrap reduction efforts require cooperation between contractor, subcontractor, material supplier
and designer. Planning for scrap reduction occurs at the enterprise and project level. Proactive
management of materials is the responsibility of the crews and field management staff.
20%
0% 0% 0% 40%
0%
20%
r
or
rs
er
ne
or
li e
ct
wn
0%
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
0%
Su
on
Co
bc
TPM activities are administered by the field staff. All field personnel have opportunities to
organize rational maintenance activities for site tools and equipment.
105
7.1.5 Waste Elimination (Aspect 2: Supply Chain)
JIT JIT
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
100% 100%
80%
80%
60%
40% 60% 50%
20%
0% 0% 40%
0%
20%
r
r
rs
to r
ne
ne
r
c to
li e
ac
s ig
Ow
pp
tr a
n tr
De
0%
Su
on
Co
bc
106
production. The craftsman controlled the means and methods of construction. Indeed, even
today, many workers are expected to arrive at the jobsite with their own tools of the trade.
Manufacturing has a different tradition. Tools and methods of production are provided by and
determined by the manufacturer. Accordingly, it is customary in manufacturing to employ
production engineers to help define and design production processes. Manufacturing engineers
determine sequence, materials, fixtures, jigs and tools for the work. They determine storage
location and processing times. In construction (with a few exceptions), all of the functions of the
production engineer are entrusted to the individual craftsperson or the first-line supervisor
(foreman). The disparity between the production engineering approach in manufacturing and the
lack of a production engineering tradition in construction can be explained, in part, by the highly
repetitive nature of most manufacturing tasks. Manufacturers can afford to spend effort on
optimizing the production system, knowing that they will reap benefits on every unit of
production. In construction, the means of production are often entrusted to the worker simply
because each production unit is somewhat unique (e.g., craftwork). However, craft workers are
not typically trained in the methods of production engineering. Often craft workers perform work
in the manner that they were first taught. There is not a practice of thinking about the most
efficient way to sequence the work, stage the materials or the myriad other details of a fully
formed production engineering approach.
rs
or
ne
or
li e
wn
ct
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
0%
Su
on
Co
bc
Manufacturers can afford to spend a thousand dollars to save a dime on every unit produced.
Constructors do not have this luxury. However, given the cost of labor, and more specifically,
given the degree of waste prevalent in construction operations, contractors should do more to
focus on more effective production methods. This focus should not be to find faster ways to weld
or to erect steel. That is, the initial focus should not be on the value adding (VA) activities, but
rather on the non-value adding (NVA) activities. By planning worker sequences, material staging
and equipment allocation, production engineers can do much to reduce the 50 percent of the time
that is consumed by NVA activities. Contractors and subcontractors at every level of the
organization should start to move away from the craft approach to construction production toward
a more controlled and defined production attitude.
107
Others started using the last planner system and then developed other systems that were more
suitable for their individual production systems. The use of a formalized production planning
system is a keystone of becoming a lean constructor. Production planning is not the same as
project planning. Project planning seeks to coordinate delivery of material, design and other
resources in accordance with a sequence of construction to support the required end date of the
project. Production planning is also not production engineering (refer to Subprinciple 4.8,
Subsection 7.1.6), which seeks to organize individual works tasks. Production planning is
systematizing the way in which various crews and subcontractors support the overall production.
To a large extent, production planning is obtaining commitments from individual crews and
subcontractors to perform a given work task by a specified time. These production commitments
are essential for the production planning of the downstream contractors. Part of the last planner
method is to track the proportion of the commitments that were kept by crews and subcontractors.
Metrics are used to measure the degree to which parties kept commitments, thereby allowing for
more reliable project schedules.
20%
0% 40%
0% 25%
20%
r
or
rs
er
ne
or
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
Su
0%
on
Co
bc
Production planning is just one more method used to gain control of the production process.
Production planning involves all of the contractors and subcontractors involved in the production
process. Designers and suppliers are involved in production planning to the extent to which
commitments for delivery of design or materials impede construction progress. Production
planning is primarily a field responsibility.
108
Last Responsible Moment/Pull Scheduling Last Responsible Moment/Pull Scheduling
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
100% 100%
80%
80%
60% 50%
40% 60%
20% 40%
0% 25%
0%
20%
r
or
rs
er
ne
or
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
0%
O
De
nt
Su
on
Co
bc
Pull scheduling is a field responsibility. Given the risky nature of a full pull schedule, the
concept must receive complete support from the executive level of the company.
Minimize WIP - Small Batch Size Minimize WIP - Small Batch Size
100% 100%
100% 100% 100%
100%
75% 75% 80%
80%
60%
60%
40% 25%
20% 40%
0% 25%
20%
r
or
rs
er
ne
or
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
Su
0%
on
Co
bc
109
Unlike most production decisions, WIP decisions directly affect cash flow and production
progress. Therefore, the owner of a lean jobsite must be involved with implementing WIP
reduction programs. This can be accomplished through changes to contract language and
strategy. Operationally, however, WIP reduction and use of small batch sizes are decisions
implemented by the field organizations.
Decoupling Buffers, Buffer Size and Location Decoupling Buffers, Buffer Size and Location
80%
80%
60%
40% 60%
25% 25%
20% 40%
0%
25%
0%
20%
r
er
rs
r
ne
c to
r
c to
li e
wn
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
0%
De
nt
Su
on
Co
bc
The use of buffers is an action taken in the field in coordination with production scheduling.
Buffer size can be reduced through appropriate cooperation with material suppliers (supply chain
management) and by appropriate release of design information.
110
slight increase in material costs could easily be recovered by economies in procurement, material
handling and erection. At another site, long bar joists needed to be reinforced in the field by
welding bridging that ran between the joists at set intervals. The bridging was lifted to the level
of the joists and threaded through the web, positioned, measured and welded in place. This
activity consumed as much labor and equipment as did erecting the bar joist. Again, a design
solution that used a heavier joist that did not require bridging would have substantially saved
money in the field.
rs
or
ne
or
li e
wn
ct
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
0%
nt
Su
on
Co
bc
Using standardized parts and reduced parts count is a cooperative activity between the designer
and contractor or subcontractor. The owner can influence the use of this principle by the choice
of a project delivery system. Design-build projects have a better chance of optimizing design to
allow lean construction.
rs
er
or
ne
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
nt
De
0%
Su
on
Co
bc
111
Adopting more pre-assembly and prefabrication is a choice that must involve the owner.
Generally, prefabrication will require a higher early case flow. Pre-assembly and prefabrication
decisions require close cooperation between designer, supplier and construction.
80%
80%
60% 50%
rs
er
or
ne
li e
ct
0%
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
nt
De
0%
Su
on
Co
bc
112
Organizational Learning Organizational Learning
r
or
rs
er
or
ne
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a 0%
O
nt
De
Su
on
Co
The impetus for creating a learning organization must originate at the highest levels of the
contractor organization. It is the responsibility of the field office to execute organizational
practices. To the extent possible, subcontractor, designer and supplier strategic partners should
be included in learning and root cause analysis.
Initially, as construction goes lean, some of the standard “lean metrics” used in manufacturing
may not be significant metrics for construction. As the value stream analysis showed, the amount
of waste (NVA) activities that exists in the typical construction process should encourage
development of metrics to help identify and eliminate waste. After production operations become
more efficient, the industry can start to focus on more traditional metrics that measure the
effectiveness of the VA processes.
Metrics Metrics
80% 80%
60%
60%
40% 25% 25% 25%
20% 40%
25%
0%
20%
r
or
rs
er
ne
or
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
ra
0%
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
Su
on
Co
113
Since metrics are cross-company measures, the leadership for their institution must come from
the enterprise level. The owner also has a role to play by allowing project performance to be
measured by nonstandard means. It is a “leap of faith” to establish a new performance
measurement standard and the owner’s support in these endeavors is crucial. Field management’s
role is to implement the metrics and field crews must be trained in their importance.
s
er
or
ne
er
ct
wn
ct
s ig
pli
ra
tr a
O
p
nt
De
0%
Su
on
Co
bc
A standard response plan is created by corporate management to reduce future defects by alerting
other projects to the nature of the problem and its causes. A standard response plan should
provide field management with a reliable way of correcting the defect. Defects in subcontractor’s
work must be managed in the same careful manner as those in prime contractor work. Feedback
to designers and suppliers is a key ingredient of a standard response plan.
114
Employee Responsibility for Correcting Defects Employee Responsibility for Correcting Defects
80%
80%
60%
40% 60%
20%
0% 0% 0% 40%
25%
0%
20%
r
or
rs
er
ne
or
li e
ct
wn
ct
s ig
ra
pp
tr a
O
De
nt
0%
Su
on
Co
bc
Developing the concept of personal responsibility for quality is the province of field management.
Some lean contractors maintain a cadre of key field people to act as guides and mentors for craft
workers who are hired temporarily for a project.
Some of the differences between manufacturing production and construction production (e.g., the
role of the owner in design of the product) arise from the dissimilar nature of the respective
businesses. However, a review of Chapter 3.0 suggests that the majority of the differences
between manufacturing and construction resolve themselves into one factor: the stability of the
manufacturing environment compared to the construction production environment. Application
of lean principles to construction must account for the inescapable fact that manufacturing takes
place in a steady-state environment (established design, stable machinery and plant, long-term
supplier relationships, long-standing employees, etc.), and construction production is the
converse. The absence of steady-state operating conditions introduces variability and uncertainty
into the production process. Therefore, one way to identify which principles are appropriate for
construction is to evaluate whether the principle serves to make the production system more
stable or, alternatively, whether the principle serves to reduce the negative impacts of
nonreducible uncertainty.
Because of the repetition and certainty in the manufacturing environment, manufacturers can use
assembly lines and production systems to guide products with high efficiency through the
production cycle. Construction processes are repetitive only at the task level, and the production
facilities are rarely static. Instead of using assembly lines and other production systems to govern
production flow, sequence and throughput, construction often uses an increased level of planning.
As a consequence, lean construction production involves handling an increased amount of
information. Construction production is already dependent on up-to-date project information.
Information that describes progress by upstream contractors, changes to design and status of
material deliveries is central to the effective operation of construction production systems.
Construction managers already use face-to-face meetings, emails, memos and telephone
conversations to gather and disseminate such information. From the perspective of construction
115
managers, the desirability of applying any given lean principle is partially contingent on whether
the principle increases the current information handling requirements of the construction team.
Those principles that create conditions that are closer to manufacturing (i.e., more stability) will
ultimately reduce information processing demands and will be attractive principles to apply.
Those principles that increase the information processing demands without a concomitant
increase in system stability will be attractive only to the extent that the increased information
workload improves quality, reduces costs or increases the reliability of the schedule.
• Creating strong hierarchies to deal with the exceptions that uncertainty creates.
• Establishing clear targets and goals that allow lower organizational levels
increased discretion and responsibility.
If these organizational strategies are inadequate to deal with the uncertainty, organizations may
react in one of the following ways:
• Increasing the organization’s ability to deal with information through the creation
of information processing systems (meetings, reports, computer systems) or by
creation of “lateral” relationships (coordinators, teams, task forces) that cut
across hierarchies.
To help confirm the experientially based conclusions about which principles are applicable to
construction, each principle was reevaluated using the following three conditions:
1. The principle, without the need for increased planning or information handling,
reduces the uncertainty in the production environment.
2. The principle requires increased planning and information handling that will lead
to a more stable production environment and reduce the negative effects of the
instability.
3. The principle requires increased planning and information handling that will
reduce the negative effects of the uncertain production environment, e.g., high
costs, poor quality, unreliable execution.
116
Tables 7.1 through 7.3 group the subprinciples into one of these three categories and describe the
information handling mechanism used to apply the principle.
117
Table 7.1: Principles that Reduce Uncertainty in the Production Environment
without Increased Planning or Information Handling
118
Table 7.2: Principles that Require Added Planning or Information Handling
but Reduce Uncertainty in the Production Environment
119
Table 7.3: Principles that Require Added Planning or Information Handling but
Reduce the Negative Effects of Instability in Production
120
8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Investigations of the construction production process indicated that construction activities are
typically only 10 percent value adding (VA). If a contractor could improve the VA portion to just
15 or 20 percent, the lean contractor would have a significant competitive advantage. However,
when one looks at construction operations with “lean eyes,” little standardization or preplanning
is evident. In fact, the construction process includes little that manufacturing engineers would
recognize as production planning or production engineering. Often, the design of construction
operations is consigned to the individual crews. While the crew members often have the skill and
experience to design specific construction operations, typically they do not have the training or
the mind-set that will lead to a lean operation.
Some will contend that construction is too different from manufacturing to expect
“manufacturing-like” lean results. While acknowledging that manufacturing and construction
operate in different environments and that lean in construction will be more difficult than lean in
manufacturing, interviews with early adopters of lean construction principles cited increased
quality, increased safety, better schedule performance and decreased costs as some of the benefits
of starting the lean journey.
There is historical precedent for starting with production activities; Toyota started its lean work
by concentrating on its shop floor. Starting lean activities with field operations also has a good
rational basis because value is added (from the customer’s viewpoint) during the construction
process. Finally, the strict value definition that was used for the field studies1 provides a lens
through which one can start to identify waste in the field processes.
1
“…any activity that changes the shape, form, or function of materials or information to meet
customer’s needs” (Walbridge-Aldinger 2000).
121
8.2.2 Drive Out the Waste
After a type of waste has been identified, the next step is to drive it out. A given type of waste
(e.g., rework) might have one or several different causes. To drive out the waste, the root cause
must be understood. If the root cause is worker training, design errors or tolerance errors from an
upstream crew, appropriate steps should be taken to eliminate or reduce the waste on future work.
The process of driving out waste leads naturally to many of the other lean principles such as
constructability reviews and Just-In-Time (JIT) scheduling. The EPC contractor should start by
concentrating on the non-value adding (NVA) (i.e., pure waste) activities. With construction
averaging 50 percent NVA activities, there are ample opportunities to reduce these wastes before
turning to the non-value adding but required (NVAR) or VA activities.
After lean practices have been identified, they should be formalized as company standards.
Developing standard practices for construction processes reduces the information burden on the
crew members. One early adopter contractor that was studied created identical gang boxes so that
the crews knew what tools were commonly available and where to find them.
Depending upon how much of the value stream a company controls (i.e., construction only or
EPC), the processes should be formalized within the organization and with strategic partners,
subcontractors and suppliers. One early contractor spent considerable effort training its entire
staff and most of its supplier and subcontractor staffs. Other lean early adopters trained key
partners on a project-by-project basis. A key difference between manufacturing and construction
is the rapidity with which construction partnerships and alliances change with time and location.
After a company has experience with lean principles, its clients should be educated about the
benefits, costs and risks of going lean. The company should start defining value from the
customer’s viewpoint. In some cases, the impetus for going lean has actually originated with a
client organization that had experience with the successes of lean manufacturing.
With all of the above steps under way, a company can start to improve on improvements.
Everyone involved with the project should begin to understand their responsibility for reducing
waste and improving quality. Continuous improvement requires that lean practices and lean
culture be the common basis for doing business.
122
8.3.1 Little General Understanding of Lean
Manufacturers develop their lean practices and systems over long production runs. Manu-
facturers may produce a million or more units before there is a significant change to a product
line. Long stable production runs allow manufacturers to fine-tune processes and relationships to
a degree that is not feasible in construction. This lack of long-term, repetitive projects limit the
degree to which lean can be fully implemented. On the other hand, many EPC projects have
multi-year construction schedules that will allow ample time to develop lean practices.
Manufacturers control their value stream. They control design details, materials and the
production environment. Construction companies rarely pick the site, often do not control the
design and are frequently constrained to develop strategic relationships based on a low-bid model.
The lack of control of the entire value stream makes a case for stronger owner involvement in the
lean process. An owner that fully understands the importance of lean as a “system of interacting
behaviors” will be more amenable to changes in project design and project delivery so that the
full potential of the lean concept may be realized.
For this study, the value stream analyses were conducted at the worksite. There is an entire set of
analyses that should be conducted at the level of interacting crews/subcontractors. It is at this
interface where the true value of buffers and pull scheduling may be most apparent. This topic
can be broadened to include the entire supply chain.
123
8.4.2 Economics of Lean
The economics of manufacturing and construction are different. Minimizing inventory and WIP
is important for a manufacturer because inventory is essentially steady-state; i.e., it is always
there. Construction production experiences fluctuating levels of inventory that are less noticeable
from day to day. Also, manufacturers own their inventory and WIP until they are converted into
sales. In contrast, a contractor’s inventory and WIP are often converted to revenue by the
progress payment process. Finally, from the owner’s viewpoint, the cost of a facility (chip
fabrication, pharmaceutical plant) is often a very small portion of the project’s life-cycle cost.
The owner is often more focused on maintaining schedule than on controlling costs.
Manufacturers develop lean principles to a much higher degree than do EPC companies because
of the high degree of repetition in manufacturing. Some types of construction (high-rise
buildings, single-family home developments) have a higher amount of inherent repetition than do
other types of construction. What is the importance of repetition as regards implementing lean
principles in construction? What is the importance of “granularity” of the repetition? For
example, if the work of only one crew is repetitive (e.g., a repetitive foundation), how does that
compare to an entire project (e.g., a single-family house) that is repetitive?
It has been said that if you are not measuring, you are only practicing. Continuous improvement
suggests that the results obtained from applying lean principles need to be measured and bench-
marked. Lean manufacturers use many metrics to measure lean performance (e.g., inventory
turns, throughput, cycle time). The appropriate metrics for measuring lean construction per-
formance need to be determined, which is beyond the scope of this report.
124
Appendix A
Case Study No.1 - Structural Steel
1.0 Overview
Data was recorded as the activities occurred. An entry was made on the data sheet each time a
new task was started. For example, an entry might indicate that a worker was rigging a bar joist
for the crane. The next entry might indicate that the worker was waiting until the crane had
lowered its hook so the worker could attach the rigging to the hook. The elapsed time for each
task was recorded as well as the observer’s judgment regarding whether the task was value
adding (VA), non-value adding (NVA) or non-value adding but required (NVAR).
125
Step 1: Column Erection Step 2: Support Bar Joist
Step 3: Next Column Erected Step 4: Support Bar Joist Erected Along
with Girder
126
column is pre-positioned at the time of shakeout, with its baseplate oriented toward the
appropriate foundations and anchor bolts. Next, girders are placed between columns. Finally, bar
joists are erected. Typically, two bar joists are erected between each bay along the column line to
provide stability while the remainder of the bay is erected. Once all the columns, girders and
stabilizing bar joist are erected along a column line, the interleaving bar joists are installed in a
highly repetitive process.
For this case study, the configuration of the building frame necessitated that the steel erection
crew perform three separate tasks. The sequence of tasks required movement from location to
location, and each task also required a different mix of equipment and workers. Therefore, in
contrast to a highly repetitive manufacturing sequence, it was very difficult to design an erection
sequence that had the correct number of workers or equipment for each of the three separate
tasks. The contractor for this case study chose to size the crew and equipment mix to be most
efficient at the bar joist erection stage.
• Two columns.
• Two girders.
• 27 bar joists.
• One forklift.
The following section analyzes each worker’s contributions to each cycle. Tables and figures
were developed for each worker and task. The tables and figures describe the time spent on VA,
NVA and NVAR actions within each cycle.
The column erection cycle consisted of the following tasks: preparing the column base, rigging
the column for the crane to lift, guiding the column into place, bolting the column to the
foundation and unhooking the rigging from the column. Figure A.1 shows the major tasks
127
required to complete the steel erection. The shaded areas are used to visually indicate that some
tasks took longer to complete than others, and that those tasks could occur simultaneously with
other tasks. The shaded regions are not intended to show actual task durations (e.g., two hours to
rig the steel member for the crane).
Figure A.1: Critical Path Method (CPM) Schedule for a Column Erection Cycle
Only two members of the crew, the forklift operator and the left connector, were involved with
this activity. The two other crew members were not needed for this task and, therefore, all of
their time was classified as NVA.
The forklift operator was responsible for bracing the columns with the forklift, while the
alignment and bolting of the column to the baseplate occurred on the ground. Table A.1 and
Figure A.2 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the forklift operator. During the column
cycles, the forklift operator spent most of his time performing NVAR actions. The only VA
actions for the forklift operator occurred while bolting the column to the baseplate.
NVA
Waiting 0:05:05 13.62%
Motion 0:06:09 16.48%
NVA Total 0:11:14 30.10%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:02:36 6.97%
In-Process-Ins. 0:01:28 3.93%
T.W.S.A. 0:19:28 52.17%
NVAR Total 0:23:32 63.06%
128
Forklift Operator - Column Cycle
VA
7%
NVA
Waiting
14%
NVAR
TWSA
52%
NVA Motion
16%
NVAR Material
Positioning
7%
NVAR In-Process
Inspections
4%
The left connector was responsible for aligning the column and bolting the column to the
baseplate. Table A.2 and Figure A.3 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the left
connector. The majority of the left connector’s time was NVA and was spent waiting and/or
moving machinery (sky lift). The left connector was only involved in bolting one of the columns.
Table A.2 and Figure A.3 show that 13 percent of the time was spent on bolting, while 87 percent
of the time was spent on wasted actions.
NVA
Waiting 0:05:59 40.16%
Motion 0:06:55 46.42%
NVA Total 0:12:54 86.58%
129
Left Connector - Column Cycle
VA
13%
NVA Motion
47%
NVA Waiting
40%
The right connector and X-bracing connector had limited involvement with the column cycles.
Table A.3/Figure A.4 and Table A.4/Figure A.5 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for each
crew member.
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:03:19 29.31%
NVAR Total 0:03:19 29.31%
130
Right Connector - Column Cycle
NVA Waiting
53%
NVA Motion
18%
NVA Motion
34%
NVA Waiting
66%
131
2.1.2 Girder Erection Cycle
The girder erection process detailed on Figure A.6 included the following subtasks: rigging the
girder, guiding the girder into hands of crew members stationed at the top end of the columns,
adjusting/hammering the girder to fit into slots, bolting the girder into place and unhooking the
crane rigging from the girder.
The forklift operator focused on setting up the rigging for the crane and guiding the girder into
the hands of the crew members above. Table A.5 and Figure A.7 show the VA, NVA and NVAR
summary values for the forklift operator. During the girder cycle, the forklift operator spent most
of the time waiting (approximately 66 percent). None of the forklift operator’s actions were VA.
The only NVAR actions of the forklift operator were rigging the girder and guiding it while it
was being lifted by the crane.
NV AR
M at. P o s. 0:01:33 6.42%
T .W .S.A. 0:03:28 14.36%
NV AR T otal 0:05:01 20.79%
*Four members of the five-man crew were observed during the girder erection cycle. The fifth observer
was unable to record data during this period.
132
Forklift Operator - Girder Cycle
NVAR TWSA
14%
NVA Motion
11%
NVA Waiting
66%
NVA Transport
3%
The left connector performed the following actions: maneuvered the girder to fit into the sleeve
connection point on the column, made final adjustments and bolted the girder into place.
Table A.6 and Figure A.8 show the VA, NVA and NVAR times for the left connector.
NVA
Waiting 0:04:30 11.63%
Extra Proc. 0:17:00 43.93%
Motion 0:00:55 2.37%
NVA Total 0:22:25 57.92%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:10:17 26.57%
NVAR Total 0:10:17 26.57%
133
Left Connector - Girder Cycle
VA
16%
NVAR Material Positioning
27%
NVA Waiting
12%
NVA Motion
2%
The right connector accomplished the following: maneuvered the girder to fit into the sleeve
connection point on the column, made final adjustments and bolted the girder into place.
Table A.7 and Figure A.9 show the VA, NVA and NVAR data for the right connector. The left
and right connectors’ responsibilities were the same for the girder cycle; these included operating
the sky lift, aligning and positioning the girders and bolting each member into its final place.
During the girder cycle, both connectors spent the majority of their time aligning and fitting the
girder into place. During one of the girder cycles, approximately 24 minutes of hammering and
adjustments were needed to fit the girder in place. The remaining time was spent bolting the
girder and waiting on other team members.
NVA
Waiting 0:07:30 24.05%
Extra Proc. 0:18:51 60.45%
NVA Total 0:26:21 84.50%
134
Right Connector - Girder Cycle
VA
15%
NVA Waiting
24%
NVA Extra
Processing
61%
Finally, the x-bracing connector was responsible for releasing the crane rigging from the girder
after the member was in place and secured between the two columns. Table A.8 and Figure A.10
show the VA, NVA and NVAR data for the x-bracing connector.
NVAR
T.W.S.A. 0:04:30 12.33%
NVAR Total 0:04:30 12.33%
135
X-Bracing Connector - Girder Cycle
NVAR TWSA
12%
NVA Motion
1%
NVA Waiting
87%
The majority of the x-bracing connector’s time was NVA. Table A.8 shows that more than one
half hour was spent on waiting. The x-bracing connector’s only physical involvement with the
girder cycle was the release of the crane rigging after the left and right connectors secured the
girder.
The bar joist cycle detailed on Figure A.11 included the following subtasks: bolting the x-bracing
to the bar joists while it was on the ground, attaching the rigging, maneuvering the bar joist into
the hands of the connectors, aligning and positioning the bar joist into its final position on the
structure, bolting the bar joist, attaching the x-bracing to the adjacent bar joist already in place on
the structure and releasing the crane rigging from the bar joist.
All five members were active during this cycle. Two different crew compositions were used in
different cycles. The first crew was composed of a ground crewman (making a five-man crew),
and the other crew omitted the ground crewman (making a four-man crew).
136
The individual task responsibilities for the bar joist cycle were broken down as follows. The
forklift operator was responsible for positioning bundles of bar joist under the crane hook,
attaching the first half of the x-bracing member on the ground and guiding the bar joist members
into the hands of the crewmen above. Table A.9 and Figure A.12 show the VA, NVA and NVAR
summary values of the forklift operator. During the bar joist cycle, the forklift operator was
involved in positioning the bar joist bundles under the crane hook to maximize the crane’s actions
in lifting the bar joists straight up, rather than having to swing the material from side to side. This
action was not included in the bar joist cycle times, though it was a required movement to enable
the cycle to start. The forklift operator contributed 25 percent of his total time to VA activities,
which involved bolting the first end of x-bracing to the bar joist while it remained on the ground.
The average time for this action was one minute and five seconds. Considerable time was also
spent on waiting and moving material. Waiting time was governed by the time it took the crane
to be freed from the previous bar joist.
NV A
W aitin g 0:24:28 23.63%
E xtra Pro c. 0:05:13 5.04%
T ran sp o rt 0:12:48 12.36%
M o tio n 0:21:00 20.28%
NV A T ota l 1:03 :29 6 1.3 1%
NV AR
M at. Po s. 0:03:58 3.83%
In -P ro cess-In s. 0:01:30 1.45%
T .W .S .A. 0:08:29 8.19%
NV AR T otal 0:13 :57 1 3.4 7%
NVA Motion
20%
137
The ground crewman was responsible for guiding the bar joist members into the hands of the
crewmen above and positioning the x-bracing material next to the bar joist bundles to be attached
by the forklift operator. Table A.10 and Figure A.13 show the VA, NVA and NVAR summary
values for the ground crewman. The ground crewman did not complete any VA actions during
the bar joist cycles. It was further noted that the ground crewman was the least effective member
of the group. The forklift operator was more productive when the ground crewman was not
involved. In fact, when the ground crewman was absent, the forklift operator’s waiting time
decreased to almost nothing. This point is made clearer by the crew balance charts presented
later in this case study.
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:10:05 18.11%
T.W.S.A. 0:21:04 37.84%
NVAR Total 0:31:09 55.96%
NVA Waiting
40%
NVAR TWSA
38%
NVA Transport
4%
NVAR Material
Positioning
18%
138
The left connector was responsible for positioning and aligning the bar joist into its final position
on top of the girder. Bolting the bar joist to the girder below followed the positioning and
alignment process. Table A.11 and Figure A.14 show the VA, NVA and NVAR summary values
for the left connector.
NVA
Waiting 0:16:13 15.61%
Motion 0:16:40 16.04%
NVA Total 0:32:53 31.65%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:28:33 27.48%
NVAR Total 0:28:33 27.48%
NVAR Material VA
Positioning 41%
27%
NVA Motion
16%
NVA Waiting
16%
The right connector was responsible for positioning and aligning the bar joist into its final
position on the side opposite the left connector. Bolting the bar joist to the girder followed the
positioning and alignment process. Table A.12 and Figure A.15 show the VA, NVA and NVAR
results for the right connector. The right and left connectors had similar cycles. The only VA
action completed by the connectors involved bolting the bar joist to the girder. On average, the
left connector spent one minute 42 seconds on this task, and the right connector spent one minute
five seconds. Note that the right connector’s VA contribution was significantly less than that of
the left connector. Even with both workers’ contributions to VA actions, a considerable amount
of time was still spent on NVA activities. Another observation made concerning the left
139
connector was that he did not use the Genie lift provided for him. Had he done so, he would have
only needed to tie off one time. Instead, he preferred to walk the girder between joist placements
and tie off with two safety lines to the girder. This added to the total number of actions needed
for him to complete each bar joist cycle. Both workers spent an equal amount of time on NVA
activities.
NVA
Waiting 0:30:42 27.29%
Motion 0:24:55 22.15%
NVA Total 0:55:37 49.44%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:26:32 23.59%
T .W.S.A. 0:01:00 0.89%
NVAR Total 0:27:32 24.47%
NVAR TWSA
1%
NVAR Material
Positioning VA
26%
24%
NVA Motion
22% NVA Waiting
27%
The x-bracing connector’s tasks included bolting the opposite end of the x-bracing member to the
adjacent, already in-place bar joist, and releasing the crane rigging from the bar joist member
after it was secured. Table A.13 and Figure A.16 show the VA, NVA and NVAR results for the
x-bracing connector.
140
Table A.13: Bar Joist Data for the X-Bracing Connector
Activity Classification Waste Classification Total Time at Activity % of Total Time
VA
Value Adding 0:57:45 56.90%
VA Total 0:57:45 56.90%
NVA
Waiting 0:11:00 10.84%
Motion 0:30:00 29.56%
NVA Total 0:41:00 40.39%
NVAR
T.W.S.A. 0:02:45 2.71%
NVAR Total 0:02:45 2.71%
NVA Motion
30%
VA
56%
NVA Waiting
11%
The x-bracing connector’s job was a critical factor in the cycle because the crane was not allowed
to unhook from the bar joist until the x-bracing was bolted to the adjacent bar joist. This VA
action was more than 57 percent of the total time spent by the x-bracing connector during the bar
joist cycle. This worker also maneuvered the sky lift under each new bar joist as it was brought
up by the crane, which accounted for more than 30 percent of his time.
141
balance perspective, however, the difference in efficiency/productivity was significant.
Figures A.17 and A.18 show the two balance charts for the separate crew structures. These charts
were compiled using the average times generated from the entire set of data observations. These
average times resulted in an “idealized” crew balance. Due to the lack of sufficient repetition of
the column and girder cycles, the crew balance charts were constructed using only the bar joist
data.
142
TIME Crew Balance
0:10:00 Waiting Bolting X-Bracing
0:09:45 Bolting BJ
0:09:30 Positioning BJ Aligning BJ Waiting
0:09:15 Aligning BJ
0:09:00 Hook Up Rigging Move
0:08:45 Move Move Unhook Rigging
N o t In v o lv e d in P ro c e s s
0:08:30
0:08:15
0:08:00 Bolting BJ
0:07:45 Attach X-Bracing
0:07:30 Bolting BJ Bolting BJ
0:07:15
0:07:00 Aligning BJ
0:06:45 Waiting
0:06:30
0:06:15
0:06:00 Positioning BJ Aligning BJ Waiting Waiting
0:05:45
0:05:30 Hook Up Rigging Move
0:05:15 Move Move Unhook Rigging
0:05:00
0:04:45
0:04:30 Bolting BJ
0:04:15 Attach X-Bracing
0:04:00 Bolting BJ Bolting BJ
0:03:45
0:03:30 Aligning BJ
0:03:15 Waiting
0:03:00
0:02:45 Move
0:02:30 Positioning BJ Aligning BJ Waiting Unhook Rigging
0:02:15
0:02:00 Hook Up Rigging
0:01:45 Move Move
0:01:30
0:01:15 Bolting BJ
0:01:00 Bolting BJ Bolting BJ
0:00:45 Attach X-Bracing
0:00:30
0:00:15
0:00:00 Aligning BJ Waiting
Forklift Operator Ground Crewman Left Connector Right Connector X-B Connector
Figure A.18: Crew Balance Chart Without Ground Crewman
This idealized balance chart shows that the left connector had no waiting time throughout the
multiple cycles. During a typical cycle, the forklift operator waited an average of one minute
15 seconds, and the ground crewman waited an average of two minutes. The rest of their time
was spent rigging the crane and attaching the x-bracing to the bar joist on the ground. As a result,
one third to one half of the crew time was wasted on waiting for the crane to be released on top.
It is important to note that this is an idealized crew balance using average task times. This ideal
cycle is typically shorter than the actual cycle time in which task time variability causes an
increase in the overall cycle time.
143
attaching the x-bracing, hooking up the rigging for the crane and positioning the bar joist to those
above without delaying the cycle time. The left connector was still the driver (i.e., bottleneck
activity) for this cycle, and the other two workers (right connector and x-bracing connector) were
not affected at all by the reduction of the crew size from a five-man to a four-man crew. This
presents an opportunity to improve the overall cycle time by redesigning the left connector’s
work tasks and practices. The overall outcome shows that crew productivity can be increased by
this minor restructuring of the group.
Table A.14 shows the percentage of time spent on VA, NVA and NVAR as a percentage of total
cumulative time available to each worker for the entire work cycle observed. Table A.15 lists the
subset of activities that occurred to accomplish the entire erection process. In particular, the
NVA category is further divided into time spent in the waiting, extra processing, transport and
movement categories. Additionally, NVAR is broken down into its three subcategories to clarify
how time was spent within the observed cycles. The following analysis categorizes and describes
the various wastes viewed on the jobsite.
144
Table A.15: Summary of Subactivities
Columns Total Cumulative Time Spent on Columns 1:19:32 h:m:s
VA Waste NVAR
Crew Member All Extra Material In-Process VA +
Activities Waiting Processing Transport Movement Positioning Inspection TWSA Total NVAR
Forklift Operator 7% 14% 0% 0% 16% 7% 4% 52% 100% 70%
Ground Crewman 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Left Connector 13% 40% 0% 0% 46% 0% 0% 0% 100% 13%
X-Bracing Connector 0% 66% 0% 0% 34% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Right Connector 0% 53% 0% 0% 18% 29% 0% 0% 100% 29%
Several incidences of waiting occurred throughout the observation period. Table A.15 shows for
the column, girder and bar joist cycles that 35, 46 and 34 percent, respectively, of cumulative
cycle time was attributed to waiting. Even with the highly repetitive actions of the bar joist
erection process, a quarter of the available work time was wasted on waiting. Waiting time for a
crew or equipment was highly dependent on the reliability of the work processes. If an individual
worker or work process is subject to variable completion times for the same task, it disrupts the
entire subsequent operation. Analyses of the variability of individual work tasks are presented in
subsequent sections of this report.
Wasted movement was observed every time the workers moved the sky lift or the ground crew
had to walk to retrieve material for the erection process. Since motion from one work location to
another was part of the construction process, the motion category needed to be divided into
wasted motion (i.e., unnecessary motion due to unsuitable process design) and NVA motion. The
percentage of total time wasted due to motion for the column, girder and bar joist cycles was 26,
3 and 13 percent, respectively. An additional analysis of motion segregated by NVAR and NVA
categories was conducted to illuminate this difficult area (refer to Appendix I).
145
4.1.3 Waste of Extra Processing (Rework)
The interpretation of this category included the use of defective materials delivered onsite that
required modification to be operable. During both girder erection cycles, the crew made site
adjustments to the manufactured connections. This rework accounted for more than 27 percent of
the time available for the girder connections.
Few instances were observed in which material was rehandled. The forklift operator and ground
crewman were required to move bar joist bundles between the column lines. They also moved x-
bracing components next to the crane’s “pick point” to attach the x-bracing to the bar joist just
prior to being lifted. For the column, girder and bar joist cycles, the respective percentage of time
spent on material movement was 0, 0 and 9 percent.
Overproduction waste (meaning too much of a building is produced) is rare in construction. Most
construction reflects a “build to contract mentality” that requires a specific product(s) to be
produced. Work in Progress (WIP), on the other hand, is evident in construction but is dependent
on the activity level being viewed. At the process-specific level, WIP is seldom observed.
However, at the management level, each unfinished component of the production process
represents WIP. For this study, WIP was represented by the unfinished structure.
4.2.2 Inventory
Material deliveries were made twice to this project: once at the beginning of erection, and once
halfway through. On average, structural steel members were onsite for two weeks prior to
erection. Also, in addition to the main steel members, there was an inventory of
bridging/stiffening material onsite to be used after the main structure was erected.
4.2.3 Defects
Defects are defined as errors or deficiencies in a finished product that require additional work on
the part of the original crew or a follow-up crew. A defective structural element (e.g., column,
girder, etc.) is an example of a defect (i.e., the material has been passed through the value stream
to the next workstation). Another example of a defect is included in the punch list process at the
end of a job. When a defect in the finished product is found at this stage, a separate follow-up
crew is activated to correct the defect. Hence, the defect is pushed onto the next workstation. No
waste associated with defects was observed.
146
the material was touched, either to be moved or transformed into its next stage (phase) in the
construction life cycle.
Information on delivery and handling of the steel members was obtained from the site foreman.
Once it arrived onsite, the basic flow of the steel was as follows:
− Each load was handled for the first time by forklifts, and the entire load
was removed from the truck bed. This minimized the amount of time
that the truck was required to stay onsite.
− The first loads were offloaded at, or near, their final staging position.
However, as more loads were delivered, they were required to be placed
in staging areas farther away until space became available for the
remaining bar joists to be placed in their final staging area.
− The design called for several types of bar joists, roughly 40 different
shapes and sizes. After the initial unloading, the next step was to shake
out the bundles. The interior joist members (within each bay, there was a
series of joist beams that were identical in shape and size, which were
always placed in the interior portion of the bay) were bundled together
and could be picked up and dropped off in one move to their next staging
area under their designated bay section.
− The remaining bar joist members required in each bay section were
broken out of their respective bundles, shaken out, and moved with all
other required bar joists in each respective bay. This act of shaking out
the bar joists introduced one more touch to the value stream and a
minimum of four touches by the forklift operator.
− After the joists were placed in their respective staging areas, one of two
patterns was followed. The first pattern involved the crane moving the
girders, bar joists and columns from the staging position to their final
position in the structure. The second pattern involved an extra step for
some of the interior bar joists. Specific bar joist bundles were picked up
by the forklift and rotated 90 degrees to a point directly under their final
place in the structure, and then lifted one by one into position.
147
− X-bracing members were pre-assembled prior to connection to the bar
joists. The two pieces of the x-bracing were delivered onsite and stacked
in the material yard. When the joist beams were ready to be installed,
this pile was then moved to another staging area next to the interior joist
beams.*
The value stream map shown on Figure A.20 was created using the information described in the
preceding section. Each major stage that the structural steel members went through is represented
on Level One. The steel went through two substages during Stage Two before it reached Stage
Three. Although these actions were not observed, the project superintendent confirmed that they
did occur. An estimate of five days total is shown for completion of Stage Two. Each substage
required 50 percent of the total time to accomplish Stage Two. The value stream ended once the
steel erection process reached the detailing and welding stage. Again, the limited observation
period prevented acquiring data about this stage for the entire steel erection process. Attention
was instead focused on the three substages required for Stage Three of the value stream. In
Levels Two and Three, the majority of time spent during the steel erection process was on the bar
joist erection phase. Note that even though the crew was sized specifically for this activity, more
than 60 percent of the time spent on erecting bar joists was NVA. The largest portion of VA
actions was also observed during this substage.
Table A.16 and Figure A.21 show the quick summary results for the work distribution values. Of
the 792 total workable hours committed to the steel erection process, only 161 of them were VA.
The least amount of time was spent on NVAR actions. This number is a little skewed because the
time contributed by the crane operator was not included in the work distribution values for VA,
NVAR and NVA. If his time had been included, a small drop in the VA value and a small
increase in the NVAR value would be evident. During the steel erection process, NVA actions
accounted for the majority of the time expended.
Finally, Figure A.22 and Table A.17 illustrate how the work distribution values changed and
grew throughout the process life cycle. The weighted average results found in Level Three of the
value stream map were used to calculate all of the VA, NVAR and NVA values (Table A.17). As
shown on Figure A.22, the cumulative NVA hours line grew the fastest compared to the other
work distribution values. The black vertical line indicates when the steel delivery and shakeout
processes finished and the steel erection process began. The slope change for the cumulative
workable hours line indicates that more crew members were introduced to the process. As seen
on the figure, the cumulative VA line finally started to grow.
*One idea was to have the cross bracing assembled by the steel manufacturer before it arrived onsite. The
contractor stated that it leaves activities like this to be completed onsite to provide activities for the workers
on inclement weather days.
148
Production Control
Project Engineer
Project Superintendent
Distribution of Time from VSM
Work Time
Level Two Days required 2.5 Days required 2.5 Days required 2.0 Days required 3.2 Days required 11.8
Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved:
Crane, Crane,
Forklifts 1 Forklifts 1 Crane, Forklift 2 Two Skylifts, 4 Two Skylifts, 4
Forklift Forklift
Workers involved: Workers involved: Workers involved: Workers involved: Workers involved:
Crew 2 Crew 2 Crew 5 Crew 5 Crew 5
WT 40 WT 40 WT= 78.7 WT= 129.2 WT= 472
VA ( 0%) 0 VA ( 0%) 0 VA ( 6%) = 4.7 VA ( 8%) = 10.3 VA ( 31%) = 146
NVAR (0%) 0 NVAR (0%) 0 NVAR (34%) = 26.8 NVAR (15%) = 19.4 NVAR (9%) = 42
NVA (100%) 40 NVA (100%) 40 NVA (60%) = 47.2 NVA (77%) = 99.4 NVA (60%) = 283
Table represents the time distribution for each element viewed during the observation period.
Cumulative Number of Cycle Time for % of Total Time Each Average VA Percentage 25%
% of Total
Cumulative Time for each Element Time for Members Each Element
Time
Steel Element Average NVAR Percentage 22%
Various Observed Installed Requires Average NVA Percentage 53%
Total Cumulative Time for Two Columns 1:19:32 2 0:39:46 12% 5.8%
Total Cumulative Time for Two Girders 2:10:31 2 1:05:15 19% 9.5%
Total Cumulative Time for 26 Bar Joists 7:57:07 26 0:18:21 69% 2.7%
Total Time 11:27:10
149
Table A.16: Quick Summary of Steel Process
Quick Summary for Level One
Working Days 24 days
Working Time 792 man-hours
VA Total 161 man-hours
NVAR Total 95 man-hours
NVA Total 536 man-hours
NVA Time
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
Man-Hours
Work Distribution
1200
1000
800
Time (man-hours)
200
Note: the percentages used to
create this chart are the average
values from the work distribution
values found for the entire crew.
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Calendar Days
150
Table A.17: Spreadsheet of Values Used to Create Work Distribution Life Cycle Graph
Cumulative Cumulative Hours Cumulative Cumulative
Stage Primary Activity for the Day Calendar Calendar Calendar Workable Workable Crew Worked Workable Workable VA NVAR NVA VA Cumulative NVAR NVAR NVA Cumulative
Day Days Hours Hours Days Days Available per Day Hours Hours Percentage Percentage Percentage Hours VA Hours Hours Hours Hours NVA Hours
Stage 1 Steel is moved from truck to ground Monday 1 16 16 1 1 2 8 16 16 0% 20% 80% 0 0 3.2 3.2 12.8 12.8
Stage 1 Steel is moved from truck to ground Tuesday 2 16 32 1 2 2 8 16 32 0% 20% 80% 0 0 3.2 6.4 12.8 25.6
Stage 2 Steel is shaken out Wednesday 3 16 48 1 3 2 8 16 48 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 16 41.6
Stage 2 Steel is shaken out Thursday 4 16 64 1 4 2 8 16 64 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 16 57.6
Stage 2 Steel is shaken out Friday 5 16 80 1 5 2 8 16 80 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 16 73.6
Weekend Weekend Saturday 6 16 96 0 5 2 0 0 80 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 0 73.6
Weekend Weekend Sunday 7 16 112 0 5 2 0 0 80 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 0 73.6
Stage 2 Steel is shaken out Monday 8 16 128 1 6 2 8 16 96 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 16 89.6
Stage 2 Steel is shaken out Tuesday 9 16 144 1 7 2 8 16 112 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 16 105.6
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Wednesday 10 40 184 1 8 5 8 40 152 25% 22% 53% 10 10 8.8 15.2 21.2 126.8
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Thursday 11 40 224 1 9 5 8 40 192 25% 22% 53% 10 20 8.8 24 21.2 148
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Friday 12 40 264 1 10 5 8 40 232 25% 22% 53% 10 30 8.8 32.8 21.2 169.2
Weekend Weekend Saturday 13 40 304 0 10 5 0 0 232 25% 22% 53% 0 30 0 32.8 0 169.2
Weekend Weekend Sunday 14 40 344 0 10 5 0 0 232 25% 22% 53% 0 30 0 32.8 0 169.2
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Monday 15 40 384 1 11 5 8 40 272 25% 22% 53% 10 40 8.8 41.6 21.2 190.4
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Tuesday 16 40 424 1 12 5 8 40 312 25% 22% 53% 10 50 8.8 50.4 21.2 211.6
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Wednesday 17 40 464 1 13 5 8 40 352 25% 22% 53% 10 60 8.8 59.2 21.2 232.8
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Thursday 18 40 504 1 14 5 8 40 392 25% 22% 53% 10 70 8.8 68 21.2 254
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Friday 19 40 544 1 15 5 8 40 432 25% 22% 53% 10 80 8.8 76.8 21.2 275.2
Weekend Weekend Saturday 20 40 584 0 15 5 0 0 432 25% 22% 53% 0 80 0 76.8 0 275.2
Weekend Weekend Sunday 21 40 624 0 15 5 0 0 432 25% 22% 53% 0 80 0 76.8 0 275.2
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Monday 22 40 664 1 16 5 8 40 472 25% 22% 53% 10 90 8.8 85.6 21.2 296.4
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Tuesday 23 40 704 1 17 5 8 40 512 25% 22% 53% 10 100 8.8 94.4 21.2 317.6
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Wednesday 24 40 744 1 18 5 8 40 552 25% 22% 53% 10 110 8.8 103.2 21.2 338.8
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Thursday 25 40 784 1 19 5 8 40 592 25% 22% 53% 10 120 8.8 112 21.2 360
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Friday 26 40 824 1 20 5 8 40 632 25% 22% 53% 10 130 8.8 120.8 21.2 381.2
Weekend Weekend Saturday 27 40 864 0 20 5 0 0 632 25% 22% 53% 0 130 0 120.8 0 381.2
Weekend Weekend Sunday 28 40 904 0 20 5 0 0 632 25% 22% 53% 0 130 0 120.8 0 381.2
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Monday 29 40 944 1 21 5 8 40 672 25% 22% 53% 10 140 8.8 129.6 21.2 402.4
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Tuesday 30 40 984 1 22 5 8 40 712 25% 22% 53% 10 150 8.8 138.4 21.2 423.6
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Wednesday 31 40 1024 1 23 5 8 40 752 25% 22% 53% 10 160 8.8 147.2 21.2 444.8
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Thursday 32 40 1064 1 24 5 8 40 792 25% 22% 53% 10 170 8.8 156 21.2 466
151
Appendix B
Case Study No. 2 - Structural Steel
1.0 Overview
Data was recorded as the activities occurred. Each time a new task was started, an entry was
made on the data sheet. For example, an entry might indicate that a worker was rigging a bar
joist for the crane. The next entry might indicate that the worker was waiting until the crane
lowered its hook so the worker could attach the rigging to the hook. The elapsed time for each
task was recorded as well as the observers’ judgment regarding whether the task was value
adding (VA), non-value adding (NVA) or non-value adding but required (NVAR).
152
steel erection activities. However, delayed installation of these caissons would cause unnecessary
equipment movement and other inefficiencies to steel erection activities after this observation
period.
153
The process started with a column erection along a bay section. The area observed focused on a
three by 26 bay section of the entire structure. A Manitoc 4100 crane was used for the steel
erection process. Ideally, the crane could reach three columns along the outside bay, as well as
setting all joist girders and trusses between the columns in one crane movement. During steel
delivery, the columns, girders and trusses were placed around the area of the bay in piles of “like”
members. A ground crewman or foreman then searched the respective piles to locate and draw
directional lines and a north arrow on each steel member. Numbers, originally marked by the
manufacturer on each of the steel members indicated their final location in the structure according
to the given plans. The foreman constructed the erection order on paper that the crane operator
followed. After two neighboring columns were erected, a joist girder was placed between the
columns. Once the columns and joist girders were placed in their final positions in the bay, the
interleaving trusses were installed in a repetitive process.
The process started after the erection of columns, girders and trusses was completed in three bay
sections. A Manitoc 4400 crane was used during the purlin erection cycle. The purlins were
delivered in large bundles next to the bays. No pre-shakeout was completed before delivery.
After the foreman located the purlins on the ground, they were lifted one by one into their
respective positions in the structure. The purlins were placed into their final locations starting
with the outer corner bay (relative to the position of the cranes) of the newly erected structure and
continuing across the back row of the structure. The process started again by filling the middle
row of the three bay sections, and finished with the inner row of bay sections.
The configuration of the building frame necessitated that the steel erection crew perform four
separate tasks. Each task required movement from task location to task location. Each task also
required different amounts of equipment and workers. Therefore, in contrast to a highly
repetitive manufacturing sequence, it was very difficult to design an erection sequence that had
the correct number of workers or equipment for each of the four separate tasks.
154
During the period of observation, the following steel members were installed:
• Three columns.
• Two trusses.
• Twelve purlins.
The following section analyzes each worker’s contributions to each cycle. Tables and figures
were developed for each worker and task. The tables and figures describe the time spent on VA,
NVA and NVAR actions in each cycle.
In the following subsections, each worker is referred to by the position that he or she occupied
during the truss cycles. These references are used for the column and joist girder cycles to
maintain consistency throughout the analysis. (Refer to the end of this case study to review the
data sheets.)
2.3.1.1 Column Erection Cycle. The column erection cycle consisted of the following
tasks: preparing the column base, rigging the column for crane, guiding the column into place,
bolting the base of the column to the baseplate on the foundation and unhooking the rigging from
the column. Figure B.1 shows the major tasks required to complete the column installation. The
shaded areas are used to indicate that some tasks took longer to complete than others, and that
those tasks could occur simultaneously with other tasks. The shaded regions are not intended to
show actual task durations.
155
All members of the crew were involved with the erection of the columns. The main participants
in the column cycles included connector 1, 2 and the ground crewman. The crane operator and
second ground crewman were also involved; however, all of their movements were NVA or
NVAR.
Connector 1 was responsible for preparing the anchor bolts, aligning and bolting the column to
the baseplate, and releasing the crane rigging after the bolting was complete. Table B.1 and
Figure B.2 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for connector 1. During the column cycles,
connector 1 spent most of his time (46.61 percent) performing NVAR actions. The only VA
actions occurred while bolting the column to the baseplate.
NVA
E xtra P ro c . 0 :0 1:3 7 5.3 0%
M o tio n 0 :0 1:4 7 5.8 5%
W aitin g 0 :0 4:3 0 14 .75 %
N V A T o ta l 0 :0 7 :5 4 2 5 .9 0 %
N V AR
M at. P o s. 0 :1 0:0 1 32 .84 %
T .W .S .A . 0 :0 4:1 2 13 .77 %
N V AR T o ta l 0 :1 4 :1 3 4 6 .6 1 %
G ra n d T o ta l 0 :3 0 :3 0 100%
NVAR TWSA
14%
VA
27%
NVA Motion
6%
NVA Waiting
15%
156
Connector 2 mirrored the actions of connector 1 for all tasks involved with the column cycles.
Table B.2 and Figure B.3 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for connector 2. Again,
connector 2 time spent the largest amount of time on NVAR actions (47 percent).
NVA
E xtra P ro c. 0:01:37 5.30%
M o tio n 0:01:47 5.85%
W aitin g 0:04:30 14.75%
N V A T o tal 0:07:54 25.90%
NVAR
E q u ip . R eq . 0:04:12 13.77%
M at. P o s. 0:10:01 32.84%
N V A R T o tal 0:14:13 46.61%
NVAR TWSA
14%
VA
27%
NVA Motion
6%
NVA Waiting
15%
Ground crewman 1 contributed his largest percentage of VA activities during the erection of the
steel columns. Table B.3 and Figure B.4 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for ground
crewman 1. Thirty-seven percent of the time attributed by ground crewman 1 involved bolting
the column to the baseplate. Note that the largest amount of time was spent on the NVA action of
waiting. Ground crewman 1 was only a part of one column cycle. The rest of his time was spent
locating steel and assisting the foreman with the steel erection sequence.
157
Table B.3: Column Cycle - Ground Crewman 1
A c tiv ity C la s s ific a tio n W a s te C la s s ific a tio n T im e a t A c tiv ity % o f T im e a t A c tiv ity
VA
V a lu e A d d in g 0 :0 4 :4 9 3 6 .8 2 %
V A T o ta l 0 :0 4 :4 9 3 6 .8 2 %
NVA
E x tra P ro c . 0 :0 1 :0 3 8 .0 3 %
W a itin g 0 :0 5 :1 9 4 0 .6 4 %
N V A T o ta l 0 :0 6 :2 2 4 8 .6 6 %
NV AR
M a t. P o s . 0 :0 0 :3 4 4 .3 3 %
T .W .S .A . 0 :0 1 :2 0 1 0 .1 9 %
N V A R T o ta l 0 :0 1 :5 4 1 4 .5 2 %
G ra n d T o ta l 0 :1 3 :0 5 100%
NVAR TWSA
10%
NVAR Material VA
Positioning
37%
4%
NVA Waiting
41% NVA Extra Processing
8%
Ground crewman 2 was not involved in any VA tasks during the column erection cycles.
Table B.4 and Figure B.5 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for ground crewman 2. The
majority of the crewman’s time was spent on the NVA action of waiting (53 percent). A minimal
amount of time was contributed to material positioning and equipment requirements.
158
Table B.4: Column Cycle - Ground Crewman 2
Activity Classification Waste Classification Time at Activity % of Time at Activity
NVA
Waiting 0:17:03 53.14%
Extra Proc. 0:02:02 6.34%
Transport 0:02:05 6%
Motion 0:06:57 21.66%
NVA Total 0:28:07 87.64%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:02:10 6.75%
T.W.S.A. 0:01:48 5.61%
NVAR Total 0:03:58 12.36%
NVAR TWSA
6% NVA Extra Processing
6%
NVAR Material
Positioning
7% NVA Motion
22%
NVA Transport
6%
NVA Waiting
53%
The crane operator contributed no VA activities to the column erection cycle. Table B.5 and
Figure B.6 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the crane operator. The crane operator was
primarily involved with transporting columns from their lay-down area to their final position in
the structure. The transport action occurred after the column was “picked” from the lay-down
area to the point above the baseplate. After reaching the baseplate, the crane held the member in
a temporary bracing position until the bolts were sufficiently tightened. These actions contributed
to the NVAR value of 68.76 percent for the temporary work and support activities (TWSA)
category.
159
Table B.5: Column Cycle - Crane Operator
Activity Classification Waste Classification Time at Activity % of Time at Activity
NVA
Motion 0:02:02 6.59%
Transport 0:05:44 19%
Waiting 0:01:52 6.05%
NVA Total 0:09:38 31.24%
NVAR
T.W.S.A. 0:21:12 68.76%
NVAR Total 0:21:12 68.76%
NVA Motion
7%
NVA Transport
19%
NVA Waiting
NVAR TWSA 6%
68%
2.3.1.2 Girder Erection Cycle. The girder erection process included the following
subtasks: preparing the girder with rigging for the crane, guiding the girder into the hands of crew
members stationed at the top end of the columns, adjusting/hammering girders to fit into slots,
bolting the girders into place, and unhooking crane rigging from the girder. Figure B.7 shows the
major tasks required to complete the girder installation. The shaded areas are used to indicate
that some tasks took longer to complete than others, and that those tasks could occur
simultaneously with other tasks. The shaded regions are not intended to show actual task
durations.
Task Order (process flow is shown, NOT TIME)
Joist Girder Erection 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
160
All five members of the crew were observed during the girder erection cycle. Data for the five
crew members is presented below.
Connector 1 spent the majority of his time aligning and securing the joist girder after it was lifted
into position by the crane operator. Table B.6 and Figure B.8 show the VA, NVA and NVAR
values for connector 1. Notice that a slightly larger percentage of time was spent on VA actions
during the joist girder cycle than was spent during the column cycle. The majority (27 percent) of
the NVA time was attributed to movement of the sky lift between upper and lower connections as
well as between opposite ends of the bay section where the girders were placed.
NV A
M o tion 0:09:34 26.59%
W aitin g 0:03:35 9.96%
NV A T otal 0:13:09 36.54%
NV AR
M at. P os. 0:08:38 23.99%
T .W .S.A. 0:01:54 5.28%
NV AR T otal 0:10:32 29.27%
NVAR TWSA
5%
NVAR Material VA
Positioning 34%
24%
NVA Waiting
10% NVA Motion
27%
161
Connector 2 was also involved with aligning and bolting the joist girder after it was lifted into
position by the crane. Table B.7 and Figure B.9 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for
connector 2. One point of interest between the two connectors was the jump in percentage of
time spent on NVA actions to 51 percent. A significant portion of time for connector 2 was spent
hammering and readjusting (extra processing) the girder to fit correctly. This extra processing
required connector 2 to move the sky lift around the girder connection accounting for the extra
time attributed to the NVA waste category of motion (36.35 percent).
NVA
E x tra P ro c . 0 :0 2 :3 7 7 .1 4 %
M o tio n 0 :1 3 :1 9 3 6 .3 5 %
W a itin g 0 :0 2 :4 3 7 .4 2 %
N V A T o ta l 0 :1 8 :3 9 5 0 .9 1 %
N V AR
M a t. P o s . 0 :1 1 :3 9 3 1 .8 0 %
T .W .S .A . 0 :0 0 :3 2 1 .4 6 %
N V AR T o ta l 0 :1 2 :1 1 3 3 .2 6 %
G ra n d T o ta l 0 :3 6 :3 8 100%
NVAR TWSA VA
1% 16%
NVAR Material
Positioning
32% NVA Extra Processing
7%
NVA Waiting
7% NVA Motion
37%
Ground crewman 1 was responsible for locating individual members in the material yard, rigging
the girder for the crane and attaching a structural element used to support the edge of the building
parapet. Table B.8 and Figure B.10 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for ground
crewman 1. The attachment of the parapet member accounted for the VA time (10 percent for the
crewman). The rest of the crewman’s time (90 percent) was attributed to NVA actions.
162
Table B.8: Joist Girder Cycle - Ground Crewman 1
Activity Classification Waste Classification Time at Activity % of Time at Activity
VA
Value Adding 0:01:53 10.13%
VA Total 0:01:53 10.13%
NVA
Extra Proc. 0:08:58 48.25%
Motion 0:03:53 20.90%
Transport 0:01:47 10%
Waiting 0:02:04 11.12%
NVA Total 0:16:42 89.87%
NVA Waiting
11% VA
10%
NVA Transport
10%
NVA Motion
21% NVA Extra Processing
48%
Ground crewman 2 was responsible for rigging each girder member for the crane with a tag line
to help position the girder into the hands of the connectors above. Table B.9 and Figure B.11
show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for ground crewman 2. Ground crewman 2 accomplished
no VA actions during the girder cycle. The largest portion of time (63 percent) was spent waiting
on other crew members.
163
Table B.9: Joist Girder Cycle - Ground Crewman 2
Activity Classification Waste Classification Time at Activity % of Time at Activity
NVA
Motion 0:01:28 4.13%
Transport 0:04:50 14%
Waiting 0:22:22 63.00%
NVA Total 0:28:40 80.75%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:03:00 8.45%
T.W.S.A. 0:03:50 10.80%
NVAR Total 0:06:50 19.25%
NVAR TWSA
11% NVA Motion
4%
NVA Waiting
63%
The crane operator was responsible for lifting and positioning each member into final position in
the structure, as well as providing temporary support for those members during alignment and
bolting into place. Table B.10 and Figure B.12 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the
crane operator. Note that the majority of the crane operator’s time was spent on temporary
support activities (63 percent) while the connectors bolted each girder into place. This portion of
NVAR highlights an area in which the cost of crane operation time could be reduced. The time
attributed to transport included all movements of the girder after being lifted from the lay-down
yard until the crane was temporarily supporting the member in final position in the structure.
164
Table B.10: Crane Operator
Activity Classification Waste Classification Time at Activity % of Time at Activity
NVA
Motion 0:03:08 8.60%
Transport 0:02:41 7%
Waiting 0:01:17 3.52%
NVA Total 0:07:06 19.49%
NVAR
T.W.S.A. 0:29:20 80.51%
NVAR Total 0:29:20 80.51%
NVA Motion
9%
NVA Transport
7%
NVA Waiting
4%
NVAR TWSA
80%
2.3.1.3 Truss Cycle. The truss cycle included the following subtasks: setting up the crane
rigging, positioning the truss into the hands of the connectors above, aligning and positioning the
truss into its final position on the structure, bolting the truss and releasing the crane rigging from
the truss. Figure B.13 shows the major tasks required to complete the truss installation. The
shaded areas are used to indicate that some tasks took longer to complete than others, and that
those tasks could occur simultaneously with other tasks. The shaded regions are not intended to
show actual task durations.
Task Order (process flow is shown, NOT TIME)
Truss Erection 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
165
All five members of the crew were observed during the girder erection cycle. Data for the five
crew members is presented below.
Connector 1 was involved with aligning and positioning each truss member, bolting the end
connections and releasing the crane rigging after the connections were completed. Table B.11
and Figure B.14 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for connector 1. Notice the large jump in
NVA time (62 percent) spent by the connector during the column and girder cycles. Connector 1
contributed the largest portion of his time to the NVA activities of waiting and wasted movement.
The waiting was due to the slow hookup for each member to the crane, along with the large swing
distance required for each pickup between the lay-down yard and the final position of the truss
member in the structure. Another notable observation was the amount of time wasted in motion,
or the movement of the sky lift between each truss (25 percent). Finally, despite the erection of
the truss being the most repetitive activity observed, it proved to be the largest contributor of
NVA activities of all cycles observed for this crewman.
NVA
Motion 0:07:40 24.99%
Waiting 0:11:25 37.21%
NVA Total 0:19:05 62.19%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:06:50 22.27%
T.W.S.A. 0:01:02 3.37%
NVAR Total 0:07:52 25.64%
166
Connector #1 - Truss Data
NVAR TWSA VA
3% 12%
NVAR Material
Positioning
22%
NVA Motion
25%
NVA Waiting
38%
Connector 2 was involved with aligning and positioning each truss member, bolting the end
connections and releasing the crane rigging after the connections were completed. Table B.12
and Figure B.15 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for connector 2. The NVA time spent by
the connector during all cycles remained the same, roughly 50 percent. Connector 2 contributed
the largest portion of his time to NVA activities. Time attributed to connecting the bolts was
nearly twice that of connector 1 for the truss cycle. The difference may be attributed to observer
discretion in determining when the individual tasks would start and stop. Finally, despite the
erection of the truss being the most repetitive activity observed, it proved to be the largest
contributor of NVA actions of all cycles observed for this crewman.
NVA
Extra Proc. 0:00:49 2.71%
Motion 0:06:06 20.25%
Waiting 0:08:16 27.45%
NVA Total 0:15:11 50.42%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:07:01 23.30%
T.W.S.A. 0:00:15 0.83%
NVAR Total 0:07:16 24.13%
167
Connector #2- Truss Data
NVAR TWSA
NVAR Material 1%
Positioning VA
23% 25%
NVA Extra
Processing
3%
NVA Waiting
28% NVA Motion
20%
Ground crewman 1 was responsible for locating and marking individual truss members with a
“north direction” arrow, rigging the truss for the crane and directing the crane operator for
material positioning. Table B.13 and Figure B.16 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for
ground crewman 1. The largest percentage of time was attributed to NVA actions (96 percent),
mainly waiting around. Note that a smaller amount of time was observed for this worker. The
ground crewman left the observation area for the remainder of the observation time and,
therefore, was no longer contributing any action to the cycle.
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:00:31 4.34%
NVAR Total 0:00:31 4.34%
168
Ground Crewman #1 (White Shirt)
Truss Data
NVAR Material
Positioning
4% NVA Extra Processing
24%
NVA Waiting
44%
NVA Motion
28%
Ground crewman 2 was responsible for rigging each truss member for the crane and using a tag
line to position each truss into the hands of the connectors above. Table B.14 and Figure B.17
show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for ground crewman 2. The ground crewman
accomplished no VA actions during the truss erection. The largest portion of time was spent
waiting on the NVAR action of material positioning, roughly 67 percent. Notice that the amount
of time contributed by the ground crewman was smaller than the other crew members. This was
due to the ground crewman’s involvement in locating and rigging joist girders while the
remainder of the crew continued to work on the truss cycle.
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:05:46 62.91%
T.W.S.A. 0:00:25 4.55%
NVAR Total 0:06:11 67.45%
169
Ground Crewman #2 (Orange Shirt)
Truss Data
NVAR TWSA
5%
NVA Waiting
33%
NVAR Material
Positioning
62%
The crane operator was responsible for lifting and positioning each truss member into its final
position in the structure, and providing temporary support while each member was aligned and
bolted into place. Table B.15 and Figure B.18 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the
crane operator. Note that the majority of crane operator time was spent on temporary support
activities (73 percent) while the connectors aligned and bolted each truss into position. This
portion of NVAR highlights an area in which the cost of crane operation time could be reduced.
The time attributed to transport included all movements of the truss after being lifted from the
lay-down yard until the crane was holding/bracing the member in final position in the structure.
NVAR
T.W.S.A. 0:22:13 73.44%
NVAR Total 0:22:13 73.44%
170
Crane Operator - Truss Data
NVA Motion
4%
NVA Transport
23%
NVAR TWSA
73%
Following the erection of the columns, girders and truss, the crew returned to each erected bay to
install the purlins. This cycle was completed before the distance of the farthest bay from the base
of the crane became too great for the crane to safely position the purlin on top of the trusses.
The data collected for the purlins involved a second crew; therefore, the referenced crew
members in the following sections do not correlate to the crew members referenced during steel
erection Cycle No. 1. In the following suibsections, each worker is referenced by the position
that he/she occupied during the purlin cycle. These referenced names were used to identify crew
members throughout the entire erection sequence. (Refer to the end of this case study to view
these data sheets.)
2.3.2.1 Purlin Cycle. Figure B.19 shows the schedule for purlin erection. The purlin cycle
included the following subtasks: setting up the crane rigging, positioning the purlin into the hands
of the connectors above, aligning and positioning the purlin into its final position on the structure,
bolting the truss and releasing the crane rigging from the truss.
Four crew members were observed during the purlin erection cycle. Data for the four crew
members is presented in the following paragraph.
171
Connector 1 was involved in aligning/positioning purlin members, bolting the end connections
and releasing the crane rigging after the connections were complete. Table B.16 and Figure B.20
show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for connector 1. Notice the large percentage of NVA time
(66 percent) that was wasted during the cycle. Connector 1 contributed the largest portion of his
time to the NVA subcategories of waiting and wasted movement (motion). Waiting was due to
the slow hookup for each purlin to the crane along with the large swing distance required for each
pick up between the lay-down yard and the final position of the purlin member in the structure.
Note the amount of time used just for motion, or the movement of the sky lift between each purlin
position (38 percent), which accounted for the largest portion of time consumed during the purlin
cycle.
NVA
Extra Proc. 0:00:30 1.26%
Motion 0:14:57 37.55%
Waiting 0:10:39 26.75%
NVA T otal 0:26:06 65.55%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:05:51 14.69%
T .W.S.A. 0:05:32 13.90%
NVAR T otal 0:11:23 28.59%
NVAR
TWSA VA
14% 6% NVA Extra
Processing
1%
NVAR Material
Positioning
15% NVA Motion
37%
NVA Waiting
27%
172
Connector 2 had similar responsibilities to those of connector 1. Table B.17 and Figure B.21
show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for Connector 2. The results for connector 2 are identical
to those of connector 1.
NVA
Extra Proc. 0:00:39 1.63%
Motion 0:16:27 41.31%
Waiting 0:08:09 20.47%
NVA Total 0:25:15 63.42%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:06:51 17.20%
T.W.S.A. 0:02:43 6.82%
NVAR Total 0:09:34 24.03%
NVAR
TWSA VA
7% 13% NVA Extra
NVAR Material Processing
Positioning 2%
17%
NVA Motion
NVA Waiting 41%
20%
The ground crewman was responsible for locating and marking the individual purlin members
with a “north direction” arrow, rigging the purlin for the crane, using the tag line to position the
purlins into the hands of the connectors above, and directing the crane operator for material
positioning. Table B.18 and Figure B.22 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the ground
crewman. The largest percentage of time was attributed to NVA actions (63 percent), mainly
consisting of waiting around. There was a substantial amount of time spent on TWSA
(30 percent). Support activities for the crane required the worker to attach rigging for each
173
purlin. The time contributed to the motion category was due to the worker walking between
purlin locations on the ground.
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:02:58 7.38%
T.W.S.A. 0:11:52 29.53%
NVAR Total 0:14:50 36.91%
NVA Motion
NVAR 13%
TWSA
NVA
30% Transport
3%
NVAR Material
Positioning
7% NVA Waiting
47%
The crane operator was responsible for lifting and positioning each member into final position in
the structure and providing temporary support of those members during alignment and bolting
into place. Table B.19 and Figure B.23 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the crane
operator. The crane operator spent most of his time (41 percent) transporting each purlin from
the material lay-down area to the final position in the structure. Also, none of the crane operator
time was VA, which was to be expected since he never physically changed the shape of the
structure.
174
Table B.19: Purlin Cycle - Crane Operator
Activity Classification Waste Classification Time at Activity % of Time at Activitiy
NVA
Motion 0:07:02 17.58%
Transport 0:16:25 41.04%
Waiting 0:07:59 19.96%
NVA Total 0:31:26 78.58%
NVAR
T.W.S.A. 0:08:34 21.42%
NVAR Total 0:08:34 21.42%
NVAR
TWSA NVA Motion
21% 18%
NVA Waiting
20% NVA
Transport
41%
175
TIME Crew Balance - Truss Cycle
0:15:45
0:15:30 Swinging Truss to
0:15:15 Waiting Final Position
0:15:00 Positioning Truss
0:14:45 w/ Tag Line Waiting Waiting
0:14:30 Preparing Truss Truss Piece Attached
0:14:15
0:14:00 Swinging to Pick
0:13:45 Locate Steel Piece Hooking Up Tag Line Next Truss
0:13:30 Remove Truss
0:13:15 Remove Truss Rigging
0:13:00 Rigging
0:12:45 Bolting Bottom
0:12:30 Connection
0:12:15 Bolting Bottom
0:12:00 Waiting Waiting Connection
0:11:45
0:11:30
0:11:15 Aligning Truss
0:11:00 Bottom Connection
0:10:45
0:10:30 Waiting Waiting Aligning Truss
0:10:15 Bottom Connection
0:10:00
0:09:45
0:09:30 Temporarily Supporting
0:09:15 Truss Member Move Lift
0:09:00 Waiting Waiting
0:08:45
0:08:30 Move Lift Bolting Top
0:08:15 Connection
0:08:00
0:07:45 Bolting Top
0:07:30 Waiting Waiting Connection
0:07:15
0:07:00
0:06:45
0:06:30 Aligning Truss
0:06:15 Top Connection
0:06:00 Waiting Waiting
0:05:45 Aligning Truss
0:05:30 Top Connection
0:05:15
0:05:00
0:04:45
0:04:30 Waiting Waiting
0:04:15
0:04:00
0:03:45
0:03:30
0:03:15 Waiting
0:03:00 Waiting
0:02:45 Swinging Truss to
0:02:30 Positioning Truss Final Position Waiting
0:02:15 Tag Line
0:02:00 Waiting
0:01:45
0:01:30
0:01:15 Hooking Up Tag Line Waiting
0:01:00 Preparing Truss Truss Piece Attached
0:00:45 Waiting
0:00:30 Waiting Swinging to Pick
0:00:15 Locate Steel Piece Next Truss
0:00:00
Ground Crewman #1 Ground Crewman #2 Crane Operator Connector #1 Connector #2
Note: Average times for each task were used to construct this chart.
Figure B.24: Crew Balance Chart - Cycle No. 1
176
TIME Crew Balance - Purlins - Cycle No. 2
0:10:00 Set Up Rigging Holding Piece in Unhooking Rigging
Bolting Purlin
0:09:45 for Purlin Place to Be Bolted Bolting Purlin
0:09:30 Positioning Purlin
0:09:15 Positioning Purlin
Positioning Purlin
0:09:00
0:08:45
0:08:30
0:08:15 Waiting Waiting
0:08:00 Lifting/Swinging Waiting
0:07:45 Purlin
0:07:30 from Material Yard
0:07:15 to Final Position in
0:07:00 Structure
0:06:45 Holding Tag Line
0:06:30 and Positioning Moving to Moving to
0:06:15 Next Purlin Position Next Purlin Position
0:06:00 Attaching Rigging Holding for Hookup
0:05:45
0:05:30 Unhooking Rigging
Unhooking Rigging
0:05:15 Set Up Rigging Holding Piece in
Bolting Purlin
0:05:00 for Purlin Place to Be Bolted Bolting Purlin
0:04:45 Positioning Purlin
0:04:30 Positioning Purlin
Positioning Purlin
0:04:15
0:04:00
0:03:45
0:03:30 Waiting Waiting
0:03:15 Lifting/Swinging Waiting
0:03:00 Purlin
0:02:45 from Material Yard
0:02:30 to Final Position in
0:02:15 Structure
0:02:00 Holding Tag Line
0:01:45 and Positioning Moving to Moving to
0:01:30 Next Purlin Position Next Purlin Position
0:01:15 Attaching Rigging Holding for Hookup
0:01:00
0:00:45 Unhooking Rigging
Unhooking Rigging
0:00:30 Set Up Rigging Holding Piece in
Bolting Purlin
0:00:15 for Purlin Place to Be Bolted Bolting Purlin
0:00:00 Positioning Purlin Positioning Purlin
Ground Crewman Crane Operator Connector #1 Connector #2
Note: Average times for each task were used to construct this chart.
Figure B.25: Crew Balance Chart - Cycle No. 2
177
3.1 Crew Composition 1: Steel Erection (Cycle No. 1)
The crew balance chart on Figure B.24 compares the five crew members observed during the
truss cycle. Different shaded sections in the chart represent the separate tasks for each worker.
For example, the dotted area represents a portion of the activity in which waiting occurred. The
drivers for this cycle are connectors 1 and connector 2. The crane operator may appear to have
been the driver because he had no waiting time in his cycle. However, if the two connectors had
aligned the end connections at a faster rate, there would not have been much downtime for the
crane while it temporarily supported the truss in final position. The average time from each
activity was used to create a cycle duration. However, there was considerable variation between
the two truss cycles observed. One timed cycle was six minutes 45 seconds in duration, and the
other was 13 minutes 52 seconds. This kind of variability highlights an area where waste from an
activity could be reduced.
It is important to note that Figure B.24 represents an idealized crew balance using average task
times. This ideal cycle is typically shorter than the actual cycle time in which task time
variability causes an increase in the overall cycle time.
The average time it took the crane to lift a truss from the material lay-down area on the ground
and position it into final position in the structure, was two minutes 14 seconds. As noted on the
crew balance chart on Figure B.24, the majority of time for both ground crewmen was spent
waiting. The average waiting time during each cycle was three minutes 48 seconds for ground
crewman 1, and one minute two seconds for ground crewman 2.1
Waiting accounted for 25 percent of the total time contributed by the group to the truss cycle
(refer to the Table B.20 summary sheet for the entire truss cycle). The crew balance chart does
not account for individuals working on other cycles while the remainder of the crew completed
the truss cycle; therefore, in actuality the waiting periods shown for either ground crewman
represent time in which the workers could have been locating and preparing girders and/or
columns for their respective erection cycle.
1
Note that the discrepancy between the two members may have been due to observer error. The crew
balance chart is the idealized representation for the crew for erecting a truss. This ideal crew balance was
structured around the crane operator’s movements.
178
The average time that it took the crane to move a purlin from the material lay-down area on the
ground and position it into final position in the structure was one minute 12 seconds. The crew
balance chart, Figure B.25, shows that a large portion of time for the remaining crewmen was
wasted on waiting. The average waiting time during each cycle was 54 seconds for the ground
crewman; 58 seconds for connector 1; and 41 seconds for connector 2.1
Waiting accounted for 28.67 percent of the total time attributed by the crew members to the
erection of all purlins during this observation period. Refer to Table B.20 for the purlin cycle
waste percentage breakdown.
Table B.20 shows a summary for each cycle as well as the average weighted values for both
cycles. Table B.21 lists the subset of activities that occurred to accomplish Cycle No. 1. Cycle
No. 2 did not have any subset activities. The NVA and NVAR categories were broken down to
clarify how time was spent in the observed cycles.
1
The crew balance chart is the idealized representation for the crew for erecting a purlin. This ideal crew
balance was structured around the crane operator’s movements, and the averages for each crew member
were used to best fit the cycle observed.
179
Table B.20: Entire Activity
Steel Erection - Entire Process Total Cumulative Time Observed for Entire Process 9:32:04 h:m:s
Steel Erection - Column, Girder, Truss Total Cumulative Time Observed for Cycle 1 6:52:15 h:m:s
VA Waste NVAR
Crew Member Extra Material In Proc. VA +
All Activities Waiting Processing Transport Movement Pos. Ins. TWSA Total NVAR
Ground Crewman #1 15% 29% 30% 4% 17% 2% 0% 3% 100% 21%
Ground Crewman #2 0% 55% 3% 9% 11% 14% 0% 8% 100% 22%
Connector #1 25% 20% 2% 0% 20% 26% 0% 7% 100% 59%
Connector #2 22% 16% 5% 0% 22% 29% 0% 5% 100% 57%
Crane Operator #1 0% 3% 0% 16% 6% 0% 0% 75% 100% 75%
Group Percentage - Cycle 2 5% 29% 1% 11% 27% 10% 0% 18% 100% 32%
Weighted Average
Percentages for Group 11% 24% 4% 7% 18% 14% 0% 21% 100% 46%
180
4.1 Waste Associated with Laborers and Equipment
4.1.1 Waiting
Waiting accounted for roughly one quarter of the total time observed during each cycle shown in
Tables B.20 and B.21. The percentage of total time spent on waiting for the various cycles was
as follows:
In addition, the second crew spent 29 percent of its total time on waiting. For both crews, time
spent waiting was highly dependent on the structure of the crew and the task that the crew was
focused on during this observation period. For example, the column erection cycle required both
ground crewmen to help align and position the column on the baseplate. In contrast, the erection
of a truss may have only required one ground crewman to hold the tag line while positioning the
truss member into the hands of the connectors above.
For both crews, wasted motion occurred each time the sky lift was moved between truss, joist
girder and purlin members that were erected during each cycle. Wasted motion also occurred
each time the ground crew walked from point to point to locate material on the ground, or to
position themselves near the next structural member to be erected in the lay-down yard. Finally,
wasted movement occurred each time the crane swung from its holding position above the
structure to the material lay-down area, where each structural member was temporarily located.
The percentage of total time wasted due to motion for the column, joist girder, truss and purlin
cycles was nine, 19, 16 and 27 percent, respectively.
Interpretation of this category included the use of defective materials delivered onsite that
required modification to be operable. This included any preparation work around connection
points such as cleaning out any metal slag that remained in the bolt holes from the manufacturer,
and any other preparation work required for the bolts prior to insertion into the bolt holes. During
truss and joist girder erection, the connection points were hammered to make the connections fit
together. For the column, joist girder, truss and purlin cycles, the respective percentage of time
spent on extra processing was five, seven, four and one percent.
Several instances were observed in which material was rehandled and moved into a more
accessible position for the installation process. Transportation absorbed a significant amount of
the crane operator’s time when moving each structural element from the lay-down yard to its
holding position above the structure. Other material transportation observations included the
ground crew carrying rigging from one steel piece to the next. Transport waste also occurred
181
when the material was positioned in the lay-down yard prior to the crane picking it up. However,
this waste could not be quantified due to a limited observation period.
Overproduction waste (meaning too much of a building is produced) is rare in construction. Most
construction reflects a “build to contract mentality” that requires a specific product(s) to be
produced. WIP, on the other hand, is evident in construction but is dependent on the activity
level being viewed. At the process-specific level, WIP is seldom observed. However, at the
management level, each unfinished component of the production process represents WIP. For
this study, WIP was represented by the unfinished structure.
4.2.2 Inventory/WIP
Material deliveries were made continually throughout the construction process. The steel was
delivered onsite on large flatbed trailers. It was observed sitting in the parking lot on top of
trailers (minus the cab) for several days until the steel was needed in the structure. The material
was moved into the lay-down area next to the structure, where it waited anywhere from one day
to two weeks before being erected in place. The variability of the amount of material onsite was
heavily influenced by the sporadic nature of the erection process. The caisson driller sustained
abnormally high numbers of rejected caisson placements, with several of the concrete caissons
being removed and replaced. The erection crew relocated several times to adjust to the caisson
problem.
4.2.3 Defects
Defects are defined as errors or deficiencies in a finished product that require additional work on
the part of the original crew or a follow-up crew. A defective structural element (e.g., column,
girder, etc.) is an example of a defect (i.e., the material has been passed through the value stream
to the next work station). Another example of defects is included in the punch list process at the
end of a job. When a defect in the finished product is found at this stage, a separate follow-up
crew is activated to correct the defect. Hence, the defect is pushed onto the next work station.
No waste associated with defects was observed.
182
Each steel
Material is Material is
Manufacturer Steel is member is Final
trucked to trucked from
stores offloaded by identified by a placement
site and parking lot to
material a heavy-duty ground of steel
stored on small material
onsite in its forklift onto crewman and member
flatbeds until lay-down area
warehouse. the ground. north arrow by crane.
needed. near bay.
marked on it.
Information on delivery and handling of the steel joists was obtained from the project manager.
(Jackson 2003) Once it arrived onsite, the basic flow of the steel was as follows:
• Each steel shipment consisted of all structural steel members required in one bay.
Steel could not be stored onsite in a large material lay-down yard due to safety
restrictions. The steel for three to four bays was stored on truck trailers (minus
the cab) in the parking lot until needed. It usually remained in the parking lot for
one week before being handled again and moved to the second staging area - a
small material lay-down area next to the bay being erected.
• Each load was handled by a heavy-duty forklift. Depending on the steel member
type, one to three separate lifting actions were needed by the forklift operator to
remove the entire load from the truck bed.
• The load from the truck was placed on the ground in the same manner as it was
on the truck. No shakeout occurred from the truck to the ground.
• The piles from the truck were organized by member type (columns with columns,
trusses with trusses, etc.).
• Each steel member had a number that correlated to a number on the drawings.
Following the placement of each pile on the ground, a ground crewman located
the number on each steel piece and related it back to the foreman. This number
helped the erection crew foreman with the proper erection sequence.
• No shakeout occurred after placement on the ground. The crane was required to
swing over the material lay-down area in random picks to reach each steel piece.
One piece was picked at a time. This created a large material transport time for
the crane operator.
• After the steel members were placed near their respective bay staging areas, the
crane moved the girders, bar joists and columns from the staging position to final
position in the structure.
183
5.1 Case Study No. 2 Value Stream Map
For the value stream map analysis depicted on Figure B.27, three levels were needed to represent
both the material and labor components. Level One represents the major staging positions that
material must go through to reach a finished state. Each time material was moved or transformed,
a stage box is used to represent the process. Some of the stages included substages (Level Two)
to represent processes that occurred simultaneously. The individual crew contributions to the
value stream are represented on Level Three.
Figures B.28, B.29 and B.30 show magnified views for each level introduced on Figure B.27.
For this case study, this value stream represents material and worker movements associated with
one crane. The project required three cranes of similar capacity to erect all the steel. The
weighted average values for each work distribution category represent input from two of the
construction teams. These values are assumed to be a reasonable representation for the entire
erection process on the project. The steel members initially went through three major stages,
which are represented on Level One. In Stage Two, each crane movement was observed; these
crane movements included substages required for the entire steel erection process. Notice that the
steel went through two stages before it reached Stage Three. Before the steel reached Stage One
it sat in the parking lot for an average of five days. This did not occur for all the steel; however,
the rule for inventorying was to represent the material piece in the order that it remained in one of
the “inventory” positions the longest period. This stage was not observed directly. However, it
was identified by the project superintendent as having occurred. The combined time period for
both Stages One and Two was one day. The value stream ended once the steel erection process
reached the detailing and welding stage. Again, the limited observation period prevented
acquiring data about this stage for the entire steel erection process. Attention was focused on the
four substages required for Stage Three of the value stream. In Levels Two and Three, the
majority of time spent during the steel erection process was on the truss erection phase. Even
though the crew was sized specifically for this activity, more than 50 percent of the time spent
erecting trusses was NVA! Many NVAR actions were also observed during this substage
process. The most significant contribution to the NVAR category was the crane operator being
required to temporarily hold the steel members in position while bolt-up occurred.
The most notable area for this value stream involved the multiple crane movements depicted in
Level One, Stage Three. Material was not organized around the worker in any particular fashion.
Instead, the crane was required to move several times in order to pick up a steel member,
transport it to its final position and then hold it in place while being bolted. Waste attributed to
waiting, transport and motion could be significantly reduced if the steel was delivered to the work
area in a more efficient manner.
Table B.22 shows the quick summary results for the work distribution values from Level One.
The value stream map depicts the flow of material and workers for one phase of the steel erection.
This is shown in the Quick Summary Table on the left-hand side. The right side of the table
shows the results for all 14 phases when complete. These values are found by multiplying the
results for one phase by 14. Figures B.31 and B.32 show the results for both sides of the Quick
Summary Table.
184
Production Control
Project Engineer
Triggering Event Distribution of Tme from VSM
Level One
Percent Complete
Time Allocation
Project Superintendent NVA Time
NVAR Time
Field
1
VA Time
Work Time
O OO O NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
Man-hours
Stage One - Steel is moved from parking Stage Two - Steel is offloaded in Stage Three - Structural steel erection Quick Summary for Level One
lot to work area; has not been removed bundles of like S.S. members. process. For One Phase (3-6 bays) For 14 Phases
Days required 0.5 Days required 0.5 Days required 3 Working Days 4 Working Days 56
Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Work Time 144 man-hours Work Time 2016 man-hours
Crane,
Truck 1 Truck, forklifts 2 3
two skylifts VA Total 13 man-hours VA Total 181 man-hours
Inv Workers involved: Inv Workers involved: Inv Workers involved: NVAR Total 48 man-hours NVAR Total 674 man-hours
Crew 2 Crew 4 Crew 5 NVA Total 83 man-hours NVA Total 1162 man-hours
WT 8 WT 16 WT 120.0
VA ( 0%) 0 VA ( 0%) 0 VA ( 11%) 12.9
NVAR (0%) 0 NVAR (20%) 3.2 NVAR (34%) 44.9
NVA (100%) 8 NVA (80%) 12.8 NVA (55%) 62.2
Material Waits on Trailers in Inventory Days per
Parking Lot Phase
5 0 4 9
Group Percentage - Cycle 2 5% 29% 1% 11% 27% 10% 0% 18% 100% 32%
NVA= 68% NVAR= 28%
Steel Erection - Entire Process Total Cumulative Time Observed for Entire Process 9:32:04 h:m:s
Steel Erection - Column, Girder, Truss Total Cumulative Time Observed for Cycle 1 6:52:15 h:m:s
VA Waste NVAR
Crew Member Extra
All Activities Waiting Processing Transport Movement Material Pos. In Proc. Ins. T.W.S.A Total % VA + NVAR %
Ground Crewman #1 15% 29% 30% 4% 17% 2% 0% 3% 100% 21%
Ground Crewman #2 0% 55% 3% 9% 11% 14% 0% 8% 100% 22%
Connector #1 25% 20% 2% 0% 20% 26% 0% 7% 100% 59%
Connector #2 22% 16% 5% 0% 22% 29% 0% 5% 100% 57%
Crane Operator #1 0% 3% 0% 16% 6% 0% 0% 75% 100% 75%
Group Percentage - Cycle 2 5% 29% 1% 11% 27% 10% 0% 18% 100% 32%
Weighted Average
Percentages for Group 11% 24% 4% 7% 18% 14% 0% 21% 100% 46%
Table represents the time distribution for each element viewed during the observation period
Cumulative Time Number of Cycle Time for % of Observed Avg # of Elements Estimated Time to % of ETTRP for % of ETTRP
% of Total
Cumulative Time for Each Element for Various Members Each Element
Time Observed
Time Each Steel Within One Phase Erect All Elements Each Element Consumed by Each
Categories Observed Installed Element Requires (6 Bays) in a Phase Category Element in a Phase
Total Cumulative Time for Three Columns 2:17:00 3 0:45:40 24% 8% 8 6:05:20 12% 1.5%
Total Cumulative Time for Two Girders 2:43:08 2 1:21:34 29% 14% 8 10:52:32 22% 2.7%
Total Cumulative Time for Two Trusses 1:52:07 2 0:56:03 20% 10% 30 4:01:45 56% 1.9%
Total Cumulative Time for Twelve Purlins 2:39:49 12 0:13:19 28% 2% 24 5:19:38 11% 0.4%
Total Time 9:32:04 Estimated Total Time Req. for One Phase (ETTRP) 50:19:15
185
Production Control
Project Engineer
Triggering Event Distribution of Time from VSM
Project Feedback
E v e ry 1 -3 d a y s
for 14 Phases
14 Phases for the Steel Erection Process
Level One
Percent Complete
T im e A llo c a tio n
Project Superintendent NVA Time
NVAR Time
F ie ld
1
VA Time
Work Time
T im e A llo c a tio n F ie ld
Shipment (6 bays per order on avg.) NVA Time
O OO O NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
Man-hours
Stage One - Steel is moved from Quick Summary for Level One
Stage Two - Steel is offloaded in Stage Three - Structural steel erection
parking lot to work area; has not been
bundles of like S.S. members. process. For One Phase (3-6 bays) For 14 Phases
removed from trailers.
Days required 0.5 Days required 0.5 Days required 3 Working Days 4 Working Days 56
Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Work Time 144 man-hours Work Time 2016 man-hours
Truck, Crane,
Truck 1 2 3
Forklifts 2 skylifts VA Total 13 man-hours VA Total 181 man-hours
Inv Workers involved: Inv Workers involved: Inv Workers involved: NVAR Total 48 man-hours NVAR Total 674 man-hours
Crew 2 Crew 4 Crew 5 NVA Total 83 man-hours NVA Total 1162 man-hours
WT 8 WT 16 WT 0.0
VA ( 0%) 0 VA ( 0%) 0 VA ( 11%) 0.0
NVAR (0%) 0 NVAR (20%) 3.2 NVAR (34%) 0.0
NVA (100%) 8 NVA (80%) 12.8 NVA (55%) 0.0
Material Waits on Trailers in Inventory Days per
Parking Lot Phase
5 0 4 9
186
Crane Movement #1 Crane Movement #2 Crane Movement #3 Crane Movement #4
Days Days Days Days
0.51 0.18 1.44 0.87
required required required required
Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved:
Crane, Crane, Crane, Crane,
two 3 two 3 two 3 two 3
skylifts skylifts skylifts skylifts
Workers involved: Workers involved: Workers involved: Workers involved:
Crew 5 Crew 5 Crew 5 Crew 5
Level Two WT 20.2 WT 7.3 WT 57.5 WT 35.0
VA ( 25%, 2.7 VA ( .25%) 1.1 VA ( .12%, 6.1 VA ( 10%) 2.9
NVAR (40% 7.6 NVAR (40% 2.9 NVAR (36% 22.2 NVAR (39% 12.2
NVA (45%, 9.9 NVA (45%) 3.2 NVA (52%, 29.2 NVA (51%) 19.9
Two Exterior Two Exterior Girders Two Interior Columns Two Interior Girders Exterior Bays - Interior Bay - Trusses Purlin Installation
Columns Erected Erected Erected Erected Trusses Are Erected Are Erected Process
Days Days Days Days Days Days Days
0.18 0.32 0.18 0.32 1.11 0.56 0.32
required required required required required required required
Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Equipment involved:
Crane, Crane, Crane, Crane, Crane, Crane, Crane,
two 3 two 3 two 3 two 3 two 3 two 3 two 3
skylifts skylifts skylifts skylifts skylifts skylifts skylifts
Workers involved: Workers involved: Workers involved: Workers involved: Workers involved: Workers involved: Workers involved:
Crew 5 Crew 5 Crew 5 Crew 5 Crew 5 Crew 5 Crew 5
WT 7.3 WT 13.0 WT 7.3 WT 13.0 WT 44.6 WT 22.3 WT 12.7
VA ( 25%) 1.1 VA ( 12%) 1.6 VA ( 25%) 1.1 VA ( 12%) 1.6 VA ( 10%) 4.5 VA ( 10%) 2.3 VA ( 5%) 0.6
NVAR (41% 2.9 NVAR (36% 4.7 NVAR (41% 2.9 NVAR (36% 4.7 NVAR (39% 17.5 NVAR (39% 8.8 NVAR (27% 3.4
NVA (44%) 3.2 NVA (52%) 6.7 NVA (44%) 3.2 NVA (52%) 6.7 NVA (51%) 22.5 NVA (51%) 11.2 NVA (68%) 8.6
187
Columns Total Cumulative Time Spent on Columns 2:17:00 h:m:s
VA Waste NVAR
Crew Member Extra
Level Three All Activities Waiting Processing Transport Movement Material Pos. In-Proc. Ins. TWSA Total VA + NVAR
Ground Crewman #1 37% 41% 8% 0% 0% 4% 0% 10% 100% 51%
Ground Crewman #2 0% 53% 6% 6% 22% 7% 0% 6% 100% 12%
Connector #1 27% 15% 5% 0% 6% 33% 0% 14% 100% 74%
Connector #2 27% 15% 5% 0% 6% 33% 0% 14% 100% 74%
Crane Operator #1 0% 6% 0% 19% 7% 69% 0% 0% 100% 69%
Group Percentage - Cycle 2 5% 29% 1% 11% 27% 10% 0% 18% 100% 32%
NVA= 68% NVAR= 28%
Steel Erection - Entire Process Total Cumulative Time Observed for Entire Process 9:32:04 h:m:s
Steel Erection - Column, Girder, Truss Total Cumulative Time Observed for Cycle 1 6:52:15 h:m:s
VA Waste NVAR
Crew Member Extra
All Activities Waiting Processing Transport Movement Material Pos. In-Proc. Ins. TWSA Total VA + NVAR
Ground Crewman #1 15% 29% 30% 4% 17% 2% 0% 3% 100% 21%
Ground Crewman #2 0% 55% 3% 9% 11% 14% 0% 8% 100% 22%
Connector #1 25% 20% 2% 0% 20% 26% 0% 7% 100% 59%
Connector #2 22% 16% 5% 0% 22% 29% 0% 5% 100% 57%
Crane Operator #1 0% 3% 0% 16% 6% 0% 0% 75% 100% 75%
Group Percentage - Cycle 2 5% 29% 1% 11% 27% 10% 0% 18% 100% 32%
Weighted Average
Percentages for Group 11% 24% 4% 7% 18% 14% 0% 21% 100% 46%
Table represents the time distribution for each element viewed during the observation period
Cumulative Time Number of Cycle Time for % of Observed Avg # of Elements Estimated Time to % of ETTRP for % of ETTRP
% of Total
Cumulative Time for Each Element for Various Members Each Element
Time Observed
Time Each Steel Within One Phase Erect All Elements Each Element Consumed by Each
Categories Observed Installed Element Requires (6 Bays) in a Phase Category Element in a Phase
Total Cumulative Time for Three Columns 2:17:00 3 0:45:40 24 8 8 6:05:20 12 1.5
Total Cumulative Time for Two Girders 2:43:08 2 1:21:34 29 14 8 10:52:32 22 2.7
Total Cumulative Time for Two Trusses 1:52:07 2 0:56:03 20 10 30 4:01:45 56 1.9
Total Cumulative Time for Twelve Purlins 2:39:49 12 0:13:19 28 2 24 5:19:38 11 0.4
Total Time 9:32:04 Estimated Total Time Req. for One Phase (ETTRP) 50:19:15
188
Table B.22
Quick Summary of Steel Process
NVA Time
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
Man-hours
Figure B.31: Quick Summary Table - One Phase of the Steel Process
NVA Time
NVAR Time
F ield
1
VA Time
Work Time
189
Of the 2,016 total workable hours committed to the steel erection process by this crew, only 181
of them were VA. Notice also that the greatest amount of time was spent on NVA actions
(1,162 man-hours). A significant amount of the NVAR time was from the crane operator. This
number could be reduced significantly if the erection processes were streamlined, e.g., by
reducing the amount of waiting by each crew member. When just one phase in the cycle is
considered, the numbers do not stand out as much when compared to the entire process. The fact
that more than half of the man-hours contributed on the job were in the form of waste highlights
an area needing vast improvement.
Figure B.33 and Table B.23 illustrate how the work distribution values changed and grew
throughout the process life cycle. The weighted average results found in Level Three of the value
stream map were used to formulate all the VA, NVAR and NVA values in Table B.23. As shown
on Figure B.33, the cumulative NVA line increased the fastest compared to the other work
distribution values. The black vertical line indicates when the steel delivery and shakeout
processes finished and the steel erection process began. This occurred periodically throughout
the life cycle. The slope change in the cumulative calendar hours line resulted from additional
workers periodically being added to the team to position each new phase of steel in front of the
erection crew. This crew variation affected the data results for the remaining lines shown on
Figure B.33. Material did not require multiple touches before erection. However, because the
material was not organized on the ground in any systematic fashion, this disorganization resulted
in larger values in the waste categories of motion and transportation for the erection crew.
Work Distribution
3000
2500
2000
500
190
Table B.23: Spreadsheet of Values Used to Create Work Distribution Life Cycle Graph
Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Hours Cumulative
Stage Primary Activity for the Day Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Workable Workable Crew Worked Workable Cumulative VA NVAR NVA VA Cumulative NVAR NVAR NVA Cumulative
Day Days Days Hours Hours Days Days Available Per Day Hours Work Hours Percentage Percentage Percentage Hours VA Hours Hours Hours Hours NVA Hours
Stage 1,2 Steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase Monday 1 1 32 32 1 1 4 8 32 32 0% 20% 80% 0 0 6.4 6.4 25.6 25.6
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Tuesday 1 2 40 72 1 2 5 8 40 72 11% 35% 54% 4.4 4.4 14 20.4 21.6 47.2
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Wednesday 1 3 40 112 1 3 5 8 40 112 11% 35% 54% 4.4 8.8 14 34.4 21.6 68.8
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase Thursday 1 4 72 184 1 4 9 8 72 184 11% 35% 54% 7.92 16.72 25.2 59.6 38.88 107.68
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Friday 1 5 40 224 1 5 5 8 40 224 11% 35% 54% 4.4 21.12 14 73.6 21.6 129.28
Stage 3 Weekend Saturday 1 6 40 264 0 5 5 0 0 224 11% 35% 54% 0 21.12 0 73.6 0 129.28
Stage 3 Weekend Sunday 1 7 40 304 0 5 5 0 0 224 11% 35% 54% 0 21.12 0 73.6 0 129.28
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Monday 1 8 40 344 1 6 5 8 40 264 11% 35% 54% 4.4 25.52 14 87.6 21.6 150.88
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase Tuesday 1 9 72 416 1 7 9 8 72 336 11% 35% 54% 7.92 33.44 25.2 112.8 38.88 189.76
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Wednesday 1 10 40 456 1 8 5 8 40 376 11% 35% 54% 4.4 37.84 14 126.8 21.6 211.36
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Thursday 1 11 40 496 1 9 5 8 40 416 11% 35% 54% 4.4 42.24 14 140.8 21.6 232.96
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase Friday 1 12 72 568 1 10 9 8 72 488 11% 35% 54% 7.92 50.16 25.2 166 38.88 271.84
Stage 3 Weekend Saturday 1 13 40 608 0 10 5 0 0 488 11% 35% 54% 0 50.16 0 166 0 271.84
Stage 3 Weekend Sunday 1 14 40 648 0 10 5 0 0 488 11% 35% 54% 0 50.16 0 166 0 271.84
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Monday 1 15 40 688 1 11 5 8 40 528 11% 35% 54% 4.4 54.56 14 180 21.6 293.44
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Tuesday 1 16 40 728 1 12 5 8 40 568 11% 35% 54% 4.4 58.96 14 194 21.6 315.04
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase Wednesday 1 17 72 800 1 13 9 8 72 640 11% 35% 54% 7.92 66.88 25.2 219.2 38.88 353.92
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Thursday 1 18 40 840 1 14 5 8 40 680 11% 35% 54% 4.4 71.28 14 233.2 21.6 375.52
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Friday 1 19 40 880 1 15 5 8 40 720 11% 35% 54% 4.4 75.68 14 247.2 21.6 397.12
Stage 3 Weekend Saturday 1 20 40 920 0 15 5 0 0 720 11% 35% 54% 0 75.68 0 247.2 0 397.12
Stage 3 Weekend Sunday 1 21 40 960 0 15 5 0 0 720 11% 35% 54% 0 75.68 0 247.2 0 397.12
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase Monday 1 22 72 1032 1 16 9 8 72 792 11% 35% 54% 7.92 83.6 25.2 272.4 38.88 436
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Tuesday 1 23 40 1072 1 17 5 8 40 832 11% 35% 54% 4.4 88 14 286.4 21.6 457.6
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Wednesday 1 24 40 1112 1 18 5 8 40 872 11% 35% 54% 4.4 92.4 14 300.4 21.6 479.2
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase Thursday 1 25 72 1184 1 19 9 8 72 944 11% 35% 54% 7.92 100.32 25.2 325.6 38.88 518.08
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Friday 1 26 40 1224 1 20 5 8 40 984 11% 35% 54% 4.4 104.72 14 339.6 21.6 539.68
Stage 3 Weekend Saturday 1 27 40 1264 0 20 5 0 0 984 11% 35% 54% 0 104.72 0 339.6 0 539.68
Stage 3 Weekend Sunday 1 28 40 1304 0 20 5 0 0 984 11% 35% 54% 0 104.72 0 339.6 0 539.68
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Monday 1 29 40 1344 1 21 5 8 40 1024 11% 35% 54% 4.4 109.12 14 353.6 21.6 561.28
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase Tuesday 1 30 72 1416 1 22 9 8 72 1096 11% 35% 54% 7.92 117.04 25.2 378.8 38.88 600.16
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Wednesday 1 31 40 1456 1 23 5 8 40 1136 11% 35% 54% 4.4 121.44 14 392.8 21.6 621.76
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Thursday 1 32 40 1496 1 24 5 8 40 1176 11% 35% 54% 4.4 125.84 14 406.8 21.6 643.36
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase Friday 1 33 72 1568 1 25 9 8 72 1248 11% 35% 54% 7.92 133.76 25.2 432 38.88 682.24
Stage 3 Weekend Saturday 1 34 40 1608 0 25 5 0 0 1248 11% 35% 54% 0 133.76 0 432 0 682.24
Stage 3 Weekend Sunday 1 35 40 1648 0 25 5 0 0 1248 11% 35% 54% 0 133.76 0 432 0 682.24
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Monday 1 36 40 1688 1 26 5 8 40 1288 11% 35% 54% 4.4 138.16 14 446 21.6 703.84
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Tuesday 1 37 40 1728 1 27 5 8 40 1328 11% 35% 54% 4.4 142.56 14 460 21.6 725.44
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase Wednesday 1 38 72 1800 1 28 9 8 72 1400 11% 35% 54% 7.92 150.48 25.2 485.2 38.88 764.32
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Thursday 1 39 40 1840 1 29 5 8 40 1440 11% 35% 54% 4.4 154.88 14 499.2 21.6 785.92
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Friday 1 40 40 1880 1 30 5 8 40 1480 11% 35% 54% 4.4 159.28 14 513.2 21.6 807.52
Stage 3 Weekend Saturday 1 41 40 1920 0 30 5 0 0 1480 11% 35% 54% 0 159.28 0 513.2 0 807.52
Stage 3 Weekend Sunday 1 42 40 1960 0 30 5 0 0 1480 11% 35% 54% 0 159.28 0 513.2 0 807.52
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase Monday 1 43 72 2032 1 31 9 8 72 1552 11% 35% 54% 7.92 167.2 25.2 538.4 38.88 846.4
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Tuesday 1 44 40 2072 1 32 5 8 40 1592 11% 35% 54% 4.4 171.6 14 552.4 21.6 868
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Wednesday 1 45 40 2112 1 33 5 8 40 1632 11% 35% 54% 4.4 176 14 566.4 21.6 889.6
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase Thursday 1 46 72 2184 1 34 9 8 72 1704 11% 35% 54% 7.92 183.92 25.2 591.6 38.88 928.48
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Friday 1 47 40 2224 1 35 5 8 40 1744 11% 35% 54% 4.4 188.32 14 605.6 21.6 950.08
Stage 3 Weekend Saturday 1 48 40 2264 0 35 5 0 0 1744 11% 35% 54% 0 188.32 0 605.6 0 950.08
Stage 3 Weekend Sunday 1 49 40 2304 0 35 5 0 0 1744 11% 35% 54% 0 188.32 0 605.6 0 950.08
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Monday 1 50 40 2344 1 36 5 8 40 1784 11% 35% 54% 4.4 192.72 14 619.6 21.6 971.68
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase Tuesday 1 51 72 2416 1 37 9 8 72 1856 11% 35% 54% 7.92 200.64 25.2 644.8 38.88 1010.56
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Wednesday 1 52 40 2456 1 38 5 8 40 1896 11% 35% 54% 4.4 205.04 14 658.8 21.6 1032.16
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Thursday 1 53 40 2496 1 39 5 8 40 1936 11% 35% 54% 4.4 209.44 14 672.8 21.6 1053.76
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase Friday 1 54 72 2568 1 40 9 8 72 2008 11% 35% 54% 7.92 217.36 25.2 698 38.88 1092.64
Stage 3 Weekend Saturday 1 55 40 2608 0 40 5 0 0 2008 11% 35% 54% 0 217.36 0 698 0 1092.64
Stage 3 Weekend Sunday 1 56 40 2648 0 40 5 0 0 2008 11% 35% 54% 0 217.36 0 698 0 1092.64
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Monday 1 57 40 2688 1 41 5 8 40 2048 11% 35% 54% 4.4 221.76 14 712 21.6 1114.24
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins) Tuesday 1 58 40 2728 1 42 5 8 40 2088 11% 35% 54% 4.4 226.16 14 726 21.6 1135.84
Stage 3 Two crews erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists) Wednesday 1 59 72 2800 1 43 9 8 72 2160 11% 35% 54% 7.92 234.08 25.2 751.2 38.88 1174.72
191
Appendix C
Case Study No. 3 - Structural Steel
1.0 Overview
In the lab, two televisions were placed next to each other and used to view the recorded steel
erection process. Using both cameras provide a three-dimensional view of the workspace for the
data collection process. Each time a new task was started, an entry was made on the data sheet.
For example, an entry might indicate that a worker was positioning a bar joist member. The next
entry might indicate that the worker was bolting the end connection to the girder beneath. The
elapsed time for each task was recorded as well as the observer’s judgment regarding whether the
task was value adding (VA), non-value adding (NVA) or non-value adding but required (NVAR).
192
end column line and will be required to return after the foundation pour to erect the remaining
steel members. This future constraint had no impact on the efficiency within each bay of steel
erection activities.
Bolted Connection
Column
The following figures illustrate the erection cycle available for each movement of the crane.
Figure C.2 shows a column and PBC already erected by Crew No. 1.
Figure C.3 shows Crew No. 1 erecting the next column and PBC, while Crew No. 2 follows
behind erecting the bar joists. This same process is followed for each new bay Crew No. 1 leads,
while Crew No. 2 follows.
Bar Joists
Crew No. 2
PBC
Crew No. 1
Column
Figure C.2: Column and PBC Erected Figure C.3: Column, PBC and Bar Joists
Erected
193
2.1 Erection Cycle No. 1 - Column, Spandrel Beam and Pod
Beam Erection
Cycle No. 1 focused on the erection of one column and one PBC per crane movement. Four
iterations of this cycle occurred during this observation period. The cycle began when the crane
operator lifted the column into position on top of the baseplate. Two ground crewmen and the
foreman aligned and bolted the column to the baseplate. The choker was then removed from the
crane ball. Beam clamps and tag lines (cable lines) were attached to the PBC, which was then
lifted by the crane into final position. The connector used the sky lift to bolt the extruding
spandrel beam section from the PBC to the adjacent PBC. The connector then moved with the
sky lift to the top of the newly erected column and bolted the pod beam base to the top of the
column. From there, the ground crewmen secured tag lines to an anchor device on either side of
the column to temporarily support the member until the interconnecting bar joist was erected. For
safety reasons, the crew could erect only two columns and PBCs ahead of the bar joist crew
(Crew No. 2). Continuing with the cycle, the beam clamps were released from the PBC and the
crane and crew moved to the next column line to continue the erection process. The cycle ended
at the point chosen by the crane operator for the next column; then, the cycle was repeated.
The configuration of the building frame necessitated that the steel erection crews perform four
separate tasks. The bolting of each spandrel beam to a pod beam on the ground was not observed,
but was included as one of the four tasks. Each task required movement from location to another
and also required different amounts of equipment and workers. Therefore, in contrast to a highly
repetitive manufacturing sequence, it was difficult to design an erection sequence that had the
correct number of workers or equipment for each of the four separate tasks.
• Four columns.
• 24 bar joists.
194
• In addition, the following equipment and crew structures were observed:
− Two cranes.
− 12 crew personnel.
The following section analyzes each worker’s contributions to each cycle. Tables and figures
were developed for each worker and for each task. The tables and figures describe the time spent
on VA, NVA and NVAR actions within each cycle.
The cycle consisted of the following tasks: rigging the column for the crane, lifting the column
into place, positioning the column, bolting the base of the column to the baseplate, unhooking the
rigging from the column, attaching beam clamps to the PBC, lifting the PBC, positioning the
PBC into place, bolting the PBC to adjacent PBC, bolting pod beam base to top of column,
releasing beam clamps and moving to the next column line. Figure C.4 shows the major tasks
required to complete the column installation. The shaded areas are used to visually indicate that
some tasks took longer to complete than others, and that those tasks could occur simultaneously
with other tasks. The shaded regions are not intended to show actual task durations.
Column and Pod Beam Combo Task Order (process flow is shown, NOT TIME)
Erection 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
The following analysis details the two structural members (column and PBC) separately to show
how a crew may be sized efficiently for one structural member but over/undersized for another.
Notice also the actual amount of time contributed to the cycle by each crew member. While a
crew member may have a large VA value for his or her result, the total time attributed by that
crew member to the cycle may be minuscule compared to other crew members.
195
2.3.1 Column Erection Cycle
All members of the crew were involved with the column erections. The main participants in the
column cycles included ground crewmen 1 and 2, the crew foreman, the connector and the crane
operator.
Ground crewman 1 was responsible for positioning the column, bolting the column to the
baseplate and releasing the crane rigging after the bolting was complete. Table C.1 and
Figure C.5 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for ground crewman 1. During the column
cycles, ground crewman 1 spent most of his time (45.10 percent) performing NVAR actions. The
only VA actions occurred while he was bolting the column to the baseplate.
NVA
Waiting 0:01:58 38.56%
NVA Total 0:01:58 38.56%
NVAR
Mat. Pos 0:01:30 29.41%
T.W.S.A. 0:00:48 15.69%
NVAR Total 0:02:18 45.10%
Ground Crewman #1
Column Data
NVAR
TWSA VA
16% 16%
196
Ground crewman 2 rigged the column with a choker, positioned the column, bolted the column to
the baseplate and released the choker from the crane once the column was set. Table C.2 and
Figure C.6 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for ground crewman 2. The time spent by
ground crewman 2 on the column was more than what ground crewman 1 spent. In Table C.2, a
large portion of time was spent on NVA actions, specifically on NVA waiting (32.76 percent).
The different results of the two ground crewmen were due to ground crewman 2 spending more
time on column activities.
NVA
W a itin g 0 :0 8 :3 2 3 2 .7 6 %
T ra n s p o rt 0 :0 2 :3 0 9 .6 0 %
M o tio n 0 :0 2 :4 6 1 0 .6 2 %
N V A T o ta l 0 :1 3 :4 8 5 2 .9 8 %
NV AR
M a t. P o s 0 :0 2 :1 3 8 .5 1 %
T .W .S .A . 0 :0 4 :5 1 1 8 .6 2 %
N V A R T o ta l 0 :0 7 :0 4 2 7 .1 3 %
G r a n d T o ta l 0 :2 6 :0 3 1 0 0 .0 0 %
Ground Crewman #2
Column Data
NVAR
TWSA
19% VA
19%
NVAR Material
Positioning
9%
NVA Motion
11%
NVA Waiting
NVA 32%
Transport
10%
197
The crew foreman was involved with positioning and bolting the column into final position.
Table C.3 and Figure C.7 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the crew foreman.
According to Table C.3, 25.5 percent of time attributed to the column was VA. The largest
portion of time (52.92 percent) was attributed to NVA actions.
NVA
W a itin g 0 :0 8 :4 6 4 5 .7 8 %
E x tra P ro c . 0 :0 1 :2 2 7 .1 4 %
N V A T o ta l 0 :1 0 :0 8 5 2 .9 2 %
N V AR
M a t. P o s 0 :0 3 :2 8 1 8 .1 0 %
T .W .S .A . 0 :0 0 :4 0 3 .4 8 %
N V AR T o ta l 0 :0 4 :0 8 2 1 .5 8 %
G ra n d T o ta l 0 :1 9 :0 9 1 0 0 .0 0 %
Crew Foreman
Column Data
NVAR
TWSA
3% VA
NVAR Material
26%
Positioning
18%
NVA Extra
Processing
7%
NVA Waiting
46%
The connector was not involved for a significant amount of time; he only assisted in positioning
and bolting the column into its final place. Table C.4 and Figure C.8 show the VA, NVA and
NVAR values for the connector. Contributing only three minutes 10 seconds to the cycle, the
majority of the connector’s time was spent on the NVA action of waiting (86.84 percent). This
left 25 seconds for the VA action of tightening one bolt on the baseplate.
198
Table C.4: Column Data for the Connector
Activity Classification W aste Classification T otal Time at Activity % of Total T ime
VA
Value Adding 0:00:25 13.16%
VA Total 0:00:25 13.16%
NVA
M otion 0:02:45 86.84%
NVA T otal 0:02:45 86.84%
The Connector
Column Data
VA
13%
NVA Motion
87%
The crane operator did not contribute any VA activities to the column erection cycle. Table C.5
and Figure C.9 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the crane operator. The crane operator
was primarily involved with transporting columns from their lay-down area to their final position
in the structure. After reaching the baseplate, the crane held the member in a temporary bracing
position until the bolts are sufficiently tightened. These actions contributed to the NVAR
subcategory TWSA value of 59.27 percent.
199
Table C.5: Column Data for the Crane Operator
Activity Classification Waste Classification Total Time at Activity % of Total Time
NVA
Motion 0:01:00 6.86%
NVA Total 0:01:00 6.86%
NVAR
Mat. Pos 0:04:56 33.87%
T.W.S.A. 0:08:38 59.27%
NVAR Total 0:13:34 93.14%
NVA Motion
7%
NVAR TWSA
NVAR Material
59% Positioning
34%
All five members of the crew were observed during the PBC erection cycle. Data for the five
crew members are presented below.
Ground crewman 1 positioned the PBC using tag lines and secured each tag line to anchors (an
adjacent column or bar joist bundle lying on the ground) for temporary support. Table C.6 and
Figure C.10 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for ground crewman 1. The majority of
ground crewman 1’s time (52.39 percent) was spent waiting. The small amount of VA actions
shown in Table C.6 came from bolting stringer members to the PBC while it was on the ground.
A significant amount of time (19.25 percent) was spent on TWSA functions.
200
Table C.6: PBC Data for Ground Crewman 1
A c tiv ity C la s s ific a tio n W a s te C la s s ific a tio n T o ta l T im e a t A c tiv ity % o f T o ta l T im e
VA
V a lu e A d d in g 0 :0 0 :5 5 0 .6 8 %
V A T o ta l 0 :0 0 :5 5 0 .6 8 %
NVA
W a itin g 1 :1 0 :5 6 5 2 .3 9 %
T ra n s p o rt 0 :1 1 :2 5 8 .4 3 %
M o tio n 0 :1 9 :1 4 1 4 .2 0 %
N V A T o ta l 1 :4 1 :3 5 7 5 .0 2 %
NV AR
M a t. P o s 0 :0 6 :0 0 4 .4 3 %
In -P ro c e s s In s . 0 :0 0 :5 0 0 .6 2 %
T .W .S .A . 0 :2 6 :0 4 1 9 .2 5 %
N V A R T o ta l 0 :3 2 :5 4 2 4 .3 0 %
G ra n d T o ta l 2 :1 5 :2 4 1 0 0 .0 0 %
Ground Crewman #1
PBC Data
NVAR VA
TWSA
1%
19%
NVAR In-Process
Inspection
1%
NVA Waiting
NVAR Material
Positioning 53%
4%
NVA Motion
14% NVA
Transport
8%
Ground crewman 2 mirrored ground crewman 1 during the PBC erection cycle. He positioned
the PBC with tag lines and secured the tag lines to anchors (an adjacent column or bar joist
bundles). Table C.7 and Figure C.11 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for ground
crewman 2. Again, a small percentage of VA time was spent bolting stringers to the PBC. The
largest percentage of ground crewman 2’s time was spent on waiting (48.30 percent). The TWSA
category made up 25.29 percent of ground crewman 2’s time.
201
Table C.7: PBC Data for Ground Crewman 2
Ac tiv ity C la s s ific a tio n W a s te C la s s ific a tio n T o ta l T im e a t Ac tiv ity % o f T o ta l T im e
VA
V a lu e A d d in g 0 :0 3 :1 4 2 .8 3 %
V A T o ta l 0 :0 3 :1 4 2 .8 3 %
NVA
W a itin g 0 :5 5 :1 7 4 8 .3 0 %
T ra n s p o rt 0 :0 5 :5 3 5 .1 4 %
M o tio n 0 :1 2 :2 6 1 0 .8 6 %
N V A T o ta l 1 :1 3 :3 6 6 4 .3 1 %
N V AR
M a t. P o s 0 :0 7 :1 0 6 .2 6 %
In -P ro c e s s In s . 0 :0 1 :3 0 1 .3 1 %
T .W .S .A . 0 :2 8 :5 7 2 5 .2 9 %
N V AR T o ta l 0 :3 7 :3 7 3 2 .8 7 %
G ra n d T o ta l 1 :5 4 :2 7 1 0 0 .0 0 %
Ground Crewman #2
PBC Data
NVAR VA
TWSA 3%
25%
NVAR In-Process
Inspection
1% NVA Waiting
NVAR Material 49%
Positioning
6%
NVA Motion
11% NVA
Transport
5%
The foreman was responsible for the following actions: checking each member to ensure the
proper erection sequence, attaching beam clamps to each PBC, positioning the PBC while it was
hoisted off the ground and attaching stringer bars to the PBC while it was on the ground.
Table C.8 and Figure C.12 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the foreman. NVA actions,
specifically waiting (73.42 percent), consumed nearly the entire time spent by the foreman on the
PBC. The remaining VA and NVAR actions contributed by the foreman made up only
15 percent, or roughly 16 minutes of the total time.
202
Table C.8: PBC Data for the Foreman
A c tiv ity C la s s ific a tio n W a s te C la s s ific a tio n T o ta l T im e a t A c tiv ity % o f T o ta l T im e
VA
V a lu e A d d in g 0 :0 2 :4 2 2 .2 2 %
V A T o ta l 0 :0 2 :4 2 2 .2 2 %
NVA
W a itin g 1 :2 9 :0 6 7 3 .4 2 %
T r a n s p o rt 0 :0 4 :0 5 3 .3 6 %
M o tio n 0 :1 0 :5 3 8 .9 7 %
N V A T o ta l 1 :4 4 :0 4 8 5 .7 6 %
NV AR
M a t. P o s 0 :0 7 :0 1 5 .7 8 %
In -P ro c e s s In s . 0 :0 3 :5 5 3 .2 3 %
T .W .S .A . 0 :0 3 :3 9 3 .0 1 %
N V A R T o ta l 0 :1 4 :3 5 1 2 .0 2 %
G r a n d T o ta l 2 :0 1 :2 1 1 0 0 .0 0 %
Crew Foreman
PBC Data
NVAR
NVAR In-Process
Inspection TWSA
3% 3%
NVAR Material VA
Positioning 2%
6%
NVA Motion
9%
The connector was involved with the following: positioning and bolting the PBC next to the
adjacent PBC, positioning and bolting the PBC on top of the column, moving the sky lift between
locations and releasing the beam clamps from the PBC after boltup was complete. Table C.9 and
Figure C.13 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the connector. The largest contribution to
VA actions during Cycle No. 1 is shown. This accounted for nearly 25 percent of the connector’s
time. However, over two thirds of the connector’s time (70 percent) was spent on the NVA
actions of excess movement and waiting.
203
Table C.9: PBC Data for the Connector
A c tiv ity C la s s ific a tio n W a s te C la s s ific a tio n T o ta l T im e a t A c tiv ity % o f T o ta l T im e
VA
V a lu e A d d in g 0 :3 3 :4 7 2 4 .6 0 %
V A T o ta l 0 :3 3 :4 7 2 4 .6 0 %
NVA
W a itin g 0 :4 4 :3 7 3 2 .4 9 %
E x tra P ro c . 0 :0 1 :3 2 1 .1 2 %
T ra n s p o rt 0 :0 2 :5 8 2 .1 6 %
M o tio n 0 :4 7 :0 1 3 4 .2 4 %
N V A T o ta l 1 :3 6 :0 8 7 0 .0 0 %
NV AR
M a t. P o s 0 :0 4 :5 2 3 .5 4 %
T .W .S .A . 0 :0 2 :3 3 1 .8 6 %
N V A R T o ta l 0 :0 7 :2 5 5 .4 0 %
G ra n d T o ta l 2 :1 7 :2 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
The Connector
PBC Data
NVAR
TWSA
2%
NVAR Material
Positioning VA
4% 25%
NVA Motion
34%
NVA
Transport
NVA Waiting
2%
NVA Extra 32%
Processing
1%
The crane operator was responsible for lifting and positioning each PBC into its final position, as
well as providing temporary support for the PBC while alignment and bolting took place.
Table C.10 and Figure C.14 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the crane operator. The
majority of the crane operator’s time was spent on TWSA (56.66 percent). This high value for
NVAR actions highlights an area that should be focused on to reduce crane operating costs.
Transport actions occurred when the PBC was lifted one foot off the ground, then held for a
period of time before it was lifted the remaining distance up into position.
204
Table C.10: PBC Data for the Crane Operator
Ac tivity C la ssific a tio n W a ste C la ssific a tio n T o ta l T im e a t Ac tivity % o f T o ta l T im e
NV A
W aitin g 0:10:30 8.34%
E xtra P ro c. 0:01:04 0.85%
T ran sp o rt 0:20:36 16.36%
M o tio n 0:17:24 13.82%
NV A T o ta l 0 :4 9 :3 4 3 9 .3 6 %
NV AR
M at. P o s 0:05:01 3.98%
T .W .S .A. 1:11:21 56.66%
NV AR T o ta l 1 :1 6 :2 2 6 0 .6 4 %
G ra n d T o ta l 2 :0 5 :5 6 1 0 0 .0 0 %
Crane Operator
PBC Data
NVA Waiting
8% NVA Extra
Processing
1%
NVA
Transport
NVAR
16%
TWSA
57% NVA Motion
14%
NVAR Material
Positioning
4%
The bar joist cycle included the following subtasks: attaching x-bracing to the bar joist on the
ground, setting up choker (rigging) for the crane, positioning the bar joist into the hands of the
connectors above, aligning and positioning the bar joist into its final position, bolting each bar
joist to roof beams, bolting x-bracing to adjacent bar joist and releasing the choker (rigging) from
the bar joist. Figure C.15 shows the major tasks required to complete the bar joist installation.
The shaded areas were used to visually indicate that some tasks took longer to complete than
others, and that those tasks could occur simultaneously with other tasks. The shaded regions are
not intended to show actual task durations.
205
Task Order (process flow is shown, NOT TIME)
Bar Joist Erection 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
The second crew was involved with the erection of the bar joist members, and seven new crew
members were observed during this cycle. Again, each worker was referred to by the position that
he/she occupied during the bar joist erection sequence. These references are used to maintain
consistency throughout the analysis. Data for the seven crew members is presented below.
(Refer to the end of this case study to review the data sheets)
The left connector was responsible for aligning and positioning each bar joist member and bolting
the end connections. Table C.11 and Figure C.16 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the
left connector. The left connector spent 17.6 percent of his time on VA activities. However, the
largest portion of his time was spent waiting (47.66 percent). This highlights an area that should
be focused on when trying to balance a crew for different activities.
NV A
W aitin g 0:39:05 47.66%
E xtra P ro c. 0:03:25 4.17%
T ran sp o rt 0:01:05 1.32%
M o tio n 0:07:51 9.57%
NV A T o ta l 0 :5 1 :2 6 6 2 .7 2 %
NV AR
M at. P o s 0:16:08 19.67%
NV AR T o ta l 0 :1 6 :0 8 1 9 .6 7 %
G ra n d T o ta l 1 :2 2 :0 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
206
Left Connector
Bar Joist Data
NVAR Material
Positioning
20% VA
18%
NVA Motion
10%
NVA
Transport
NVA Waiting
1%
NVA Extra 47%
Processing
4%
The right connector’s actions mirrored those of the left connector. He was involved with aligning
and positioning each bar joist and bolting the end connection to the roof beam. Table C.12 and
Figure C.17 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the right connector. Notice the
similarities in the percentage breakdown of time between the right connector and the left
connector. A similar amount of time was spent on VA actions (18.5 percent). Note that roughly
50 percent of the right connector’s time was wasted on waiting between bar joist cycles.
NV A
W a itin g 0:4 4 :36 5 4.3 9%
E x tra P ro c. 0:0 0 :46 0.9 3%
M o tio n 0:1 2 :31 1 5.2 6%
N V A T o ta l 0 :5 7 :5 3 7 0 .5 9 %
N V AR
M at. P o s 0:0 8 :57 1 0.9 1%
N V AR T o ta l 0 :0 8 :5 7 1 0 .9 1 %
G ra n d T o ta l 1 :2 2 :0 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
207
Right Connector
Bar Joist Data
NVAR Material
Positioning
11% VA
18%
NVA Motion
15%
NVA Extra
Processing
1%
NVA Waiting
55%
X-bracing connector 1 was responsible for moving and positioning the sky lift under each bar
joist, hand tightening the bolts and “finish” tightening each bolt with a torque gun. Table C.13
and Figure C.18 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for x-bracing connector 1. For Crew
No. 2, x-bracing connector 1 performed the largest percentage of VA actions; nevertheless, his
NVA activities still consumed the majority of his time. This sizable NVA amount resulted from
moving the sky lift between each bar joist. The NVA subcategory motion accounted for more
than 41 percent of x-bracing connector 1’s time.
NVA
W a itin g 0 :2 0 :5 6 2 5 .5 3 %
M o tio n 0 :3 4 :2 6 4 1 .9 9 %
N V A T o ta l 0 :5 5 :2 2 6 7 .5 2 %
NV AR
T .W .S .A . 0 :0 0 :5 3 1 .0 8 %
N V A R T o ta l 0 :0 0 :5 3 1 .0 8 %
G ra n d T o ta l 1 :2 2 :0 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
208
X-Bracing Connector #1
Bar Joist Data
NVAR
TWSA
1%
VA
31%
NVA Motion
42%
NVA Waiting
26%
X-bracing connector 2 was responsible for aligning each x-bracing member into its final position,
assisting in boltup activities and releasing the choker line following boltup. Table C.14 and
Figure C.19 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for x-bracing connector 2. For the majority
of the bar joist cycle, x-bracing connector 2 was waiting. When the bar joist was in motion,
x-bracing connector 2 focused his time aligning the x-bracing member (32.42 percent) while
x-bracing connector 1 bolted the member into its final position. X-bracing connector 2
contributed time to VA actions when he assisted in bolting the x-bracing member to the adjacent
bar joist.
NV A
W aitin g 0:45:28 55.45%
NV A T o ta l 0 :45 :2 8 55 .4 5%
NV AR
M at. P o s 0:26:35 32.42%
T .W .S .A. 0:04:17 5.22%
NV AR T o ta l 0 :30 :5 2 37 .6 4%
209
X-Bracing Connector #2
Bar Joist Data
NVAR VA
TWSA 7%
5%
NVAR Material
Positioning
32%
NVA Waiting
56%
Ground crewman 3 was involved with the following: bolting one side of the x-bracing member to
the bar joist while it was on the ground, rigging the bar joist with a choker line and
removing/reattaching the choker line for each bar joist lifted into position. Table C.15 and
Figure C.20 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for ground crewman 3. Attaching the
x-bracing members to the bar joist while it remained on the ground contributed to the
14.37 percent VA value. Again, the largest percentage of time was wasted on waiting
(60.61 percent).
NV A
W aitin g 0:49:42 60.61%
T ran sp o rt 0:03:40 4.47%
M o tio n 0:04:42 5.73%
N V A T o ta l 0 :5 8 :0 4 7 0 .8 1 %
N V AR
T .W .S .A . 0:12:09 14.82%
N V AR T o ta l 0 :1 2 :0 9 1 4 .8 2 %
G ra n d T o ta l 1 :2 2 :0 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
210
Ground Crewman #3
Bar Joist Data
NVAR
VA
TWSA 14%
15%
NVA Motion
6%
NVA
Transport
4%
NVA Waiting
61%
Ground crewman 4 was solely responsible for positioning each bar joist member into the hands of
the right connector above as the crane was hoisted. Table C.16 and Figure C.21 show the VA,
NVA and NVAR values for ground crewman 4. No VA time was contributed to the cycle by
ground crewman 4. For nearly the entire bar joist cycle, ground crewman 4 was waiting
(81.44 percent). While his presence was needed for those few seconds in a cycle when the bar
joist was being lifted, eliminating this crewman from the group may be a way to increase
productivity.
NV AR
M at. P o s 0:13:08 16.02%
NV AR T o ta l 0 :1 3 :0 8 1 6 .0 2 %
G ra n d T o ta l 1 :2 2 :0 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
211
Ground Crewman #4
Bar Joist Data
NVAR Material
Positioning
16%
NVA Motion
1%
NVA
Transport
2%
NVA Waiting
81%
Crane operator 2 was responsible for lifting and positioning each bar joist into its final position,
as well as providing temporary support for the bar joist while alignment and bolting took place.
Table C.17 and Figure C.22 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for crane operator 2. The
percentage of TWSA time (30.71 percent) was slightly higher than the percentage of time spent
waiting (30.41 percent). Waiting occurred each time the crane sat while ground crewman 3
hooked up the choker line to the crane ball. It also occurred after the crane lifted the bar joist one
foot off the ground and held it there until the connectors above were ready to receive the next bar
joist.
NV AR
M a t. P o s 0 :1 3 :3 3 1 6 .5 2 %
T .W .S .A . 0 :2 5 :1 1 3 0 .7 1 %
N V A R T o ta l 0 :3 8 :4 4 4 7 .2 4 %
G ra n d T o ta l 1 :2 2 :0 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
212
Crane Operator #2
Bar Joist Data
NVAR
NVA Waiting
TWSA 30%
30%
NVA
Transport
NVAR Material 7%
Positioning
17% NVA Motion
16%
It is important to note that Figure C.23 represents an idealized crew balance using average task
times. This ideal cycle is typically shorter than the actual cycle time in which task time
variability causes an increase in the overall cycle time.
213
TIME
0:20:30
Crew Balance Chart Cycle No.1
0:20:15 Booming down Booming Down
0:20:00 Waiting Waiting to move to next Waiting Moving to
0:19:45 position next position
0:19:30
0:19:15 Waiting Waiting Releasing Beam
0:19:00 Clamps from
0:18:45 P.B.C.
0:18:30 Waiting Waiting Waiting
0:18:15 Waiting
0:18:00
0:17:45 Waiting Waiting
0:17:30
0:17:15 Moving
0:17:00 Waiting Waiting Waiting
0:16:45 Bolting First Holding PBC
0:16:30 Side of P.B.C. In Position
0:16:15 Waiting Waiting again while Bolt-Up
0:16:00 occurs
0:15:45 Moving Sky Lift
0:15:30 Waiting Waiting
0:15:15 Waiting
0:15:00 Bolting opp.
0:14:45 Waiting Waiting Side of P.B.C. to
0:14:30 top of Column
0:14:15
0:14:00 Waiting Waiting
0:13:45 Holding PBC
0:13:30 Moving Sky Lift Waiting In Position
0:13:15 while Bolt-Up
0:13:00 Securing Tag Line Securing Tag Line occurs
0:12:45 to adjacent Column to adjacent Column Bolting P.B.C. to
0:12:30 top of Column
0:12:15
0:12:00 Waiting
0:11:45
0:11:30
0:11:15 walking walking Moving to top
0:11:00 of Column in
0:10:45 Sky Lift
0:10:30
0:10:15 Securing Tag Line Securing Tag Line Bolting Opp. Waiting
0:10:00 to material on to material on Side of connection
0:09:45 ground ground
0:09:30 Holding PBC
0:09:15 Moving Sky Lift In Position
0:09:00 while Bolt-Up
0:08:45 Walking Walking Bolt two P.B.C. Waiitng occurs
0:08:30 Together
0:08:15 Using tag lines Using tag lines
0:08:00 to Position to Position Positioning PBC
0:07:45 P.B.C. while it P.B.C. while it next to adjacent PBC
0:07:30 is lifted into position is lifted into position
0:07:15 Moving Sky Lift Lifting
0:07:00
0:06:45
0:06:30 Waiting Waiitng
0:06:15
0:06:00 Removing Tag Waiting
0:05:45 Line from previous Holding Pod
0:05:30 Removing Tag P.B.C Beam Combo
0:05:15 Line from previous Inspecting Plans
0:05:00 P.B.C Waiting
0:04:45
0:04:30 Holding P.B.C.
0:04:15 while on ground
0:04:00 Attaching Rigging
0:03:45 Releasing Crane Releasing Crane Waiting to Crane ball Lowering Hoist Line
0:03:30 Rigging Rigging Securing Beam to be removed
214
The average time that it took the crane to lift the column into position was one minute
14 seconds, and it took four minutes 53 seconds to lift the PBC from the ground into position.
The PBC time included lifting the member one foot off the ground, holding it in that position
until the connectors were ready, and finally lifting the PBC the remaining distance into position.
The crew balance chart shows that the majority of time for both ground crewmen was spent
waiting. The average waiting time during each cycle for ground crewman 1 was two minutes
46 seconds, and the average waiting time for ground crewman 2 was three minutes 13 seconds.1
Waiting accounted for 41 percent of the total time contributed by the group to the column and
PBC cycle (refer to Table C.20 summary sheet for Cycle No. 1). For each cycle, each crewman
contributed roughly seven minutes to the NVA category of waste. This value sums up the
multiple independent waiting periods that occurred between activities for each ground crewman.
It is shown as one lump segment to simplify the balance chart for easier reading.
Each bar joist member took roughly two minutes 45 seconds to erect. It took Crew No. 2
approximately 33 minutes to erect the 12 bar joists per bay. The driver for this activity was the
crane operator, who contributed a large portion of the cycle time to holding the bar joist in
position while boltup occurred. This action contributed to the NVAR time for the cycle. While
this action may never be completely eliminated from the erection cycle, it could be minimized by
focusing on each crew member’s task while the crane holds the bar joist in position. Refer to
Table C.18 for the waste percentage breakdown for Cycle No. 2.
On average, it took 51 seconds for the crane to hold the bar joist in final position to allow boltup
to occur. The minimum time for this activity was 19 seconds, while the maximum time was two
minutes 55 seconds. This variability in task time highlights an area where cycle time could be
reduced. If Crew No. 2 could consistently position and bolt each bar joist member in 19 seconds,
41 seconds could be eliminated from the bar joist cycle time. This in turn could shave more than
6 minutes from the “ideal” cycle represented on Figure C.24. A large portion of time for the
remaining crewmen was wasted on waiting; roughly 51 percent of the total crew time during
Cycle No. 2 was wasted on waiting. This amounted to four hours 51 minutes 30 seconds of
waiting time shared between the members of Crew No. 2. Refer to Table C.21 for the bar joist
cycle waste percentage breakdown.
1
Note that the discrepancy between the two ground crewmen may be due to observer error. The crew
balance chart is an idealized representation for a column and PBC erection crew. This ideal crew balance is
structured around the crane operator’s movements.
215
TIME
0:10:00 Hand Tightening Bolts
CrewBalance Chart Cycle #2
Pos. Bar Joist Pos. Bar Joist Waiting Lifting B.J. into Pos.
0:09:45 Positioning XB Waiting Positioning
0:09:30 Moving Sky Lift Waiting Waiting Waiting
0:09:15 Bolting one side
0:09:00 Waiting Waiting Waiting Waiting of X-B to Bar Joist Waiting Lifting 1ft off ground
0:08:45 Hooking up Hoist line Waiting For
0:08:30 Waiting Waiting Moving Moving Prepping Bar Joist Waiting Hookup
0:08:15 Lowering Hoist Line
0:08:00 Bolting Bar Joist Bolting Bar Joist Waiting
0:07:45 Tightening bolts Positioning XB to Girder Waiting Holding Bar Joist
0:07:30 with an impact gun Positioning Waiting While Bolt up occurs
0:07:15 Hand Tightening Releasing Crane Rig Bar Joist Positioning Waiting
0:07:00 Bolts Bar Joist Lifting B.J. into Pos.
0:06:45 Positioning XB Waiting Positioning
0:06:30 Moving Sky Lift Waiting Waiting Waiting
0:06:15 Bolting one side
0:06:00 Waiting Waiting Waiting Waiting of X-B to Bar Joist Waiting Lifting 1ft off ground
0:05:45 Hooking up Hoist line Waiting For
0:05:30 Waiting Waiting Moving Moving Prepping Bar Joist Waiting Hookup
0:05:15 Lowering Hoist Line
0:05:00 Bolting Bar Joist Bolting Bar Joist Waiting
0:04:45 Tightening bolts Positioning XB to Girder Waiting Holding Bar Joist
0:04:30 with an impact gun Positioning Waiting While Bolt up occurs
0:04:15 Hand Tightening Releasing Crane Rig Bar Joist Positioning Waiting
0:04:00 Bolts Bar Joist Lifting B.J. into Pos.
0:03:45 Positioning XB Waiting Positioning
0:03:30 Moving Sky Lift Waiting Waiting Waiting
0:03:15 Bolting one side
0:03:00 Waiting Waiting Waiting Waiting of X-B to Bar Joist Waiting Lifting 1ft off ground
0:02:45 Hooking up Hoist line Waiting For
0:02:30 Waiting Waiting Moving Moving Prepping Bar Joist Waiting Hookup
0:02:15 Lowering Hoist Line
0:02:00 Bolting Bar Joist Bolting Bar Joist Waiting
0:01:45 Tightening bolts Positioning XB to Girder Waiting Holding Bar Joist
0:01:30 with an impact gun Positioning Waiting While Bolt up occurs
0:01:15 Hand Tightening Releasing Crane Rig Bar Joist Positioning Waiting
0:01:00 Bolts Bar Joist Lifting B.J. into Pos.
0:00:45 Positioning XB Waiting Positioning
0:00:30 Moving Sky Lift Waiting Waiting Waiting
0:00:15 Waiting Bolting one side Waiting
0:00:00 Waiting Waiting Waiting of X-B to Bar Joist Lifting 1ft off ground
X-BConnector #1 X-BConnector #2 Left Connector Right Connector Ground Crewman #3 Ground Crewman #4 Crane Operator #2
Figure C.24: Crew Balance Chart - Cycle No. 2
216
Table C.18: Waste Percentage Breakdown with Both Crews
Steel Erection - Cycle #1 Total Cumulative Time for Steel Erection 21:16:30 AM h:m:s
VA Waste NVAR VA +
Crew Member All Extra Material In Proc. Total % NVAR
Waiting Transport Movement T.W.S.A
Activities Processing Pos. Ins. %
Crew for Cycle 1
Ground Crewman #1 1% 52% 0% 8% 14% 5% 1% 19% 100% 26%
Ground Crewman #2 6% 45% 0% 6% 11% 7% 1% 24% 100% 38%
Connector 24% 32% 1% 2% 35% 3% 0% 2% 100% 30%
Foreman 5% 70% 1% 3% 8% 7% 3% 3% 100% 19%
Crane Operator #1 0% 7% 1% 15% 13% 7% 0% 57% 100% 64%
Crew For Cycle 2
Left Connector 18% 48% 4% 1% 10% 20% 0% 0% 100% 37%
Right Connector 19% 54% 1% 0% 15% 11% 0% 0% 100% 29%
X-Bracing Con. #1 31% 26% 0% 0% 42% 0% 0% 1% 100% 32%
X-Bracing Con. #2 7% 55% 0% 0% 0% 32% 0% 5% 100% 45%
Ground Crewman #3 14% 61% 0% 4% 6% 0% 0% 15% 100% 29%
Ground Crewman #4 0% 81% 0% 2% 1% 16% 0% 0% 100% 16%
Crane Operator #2 0% 30% 0% 7% 16% 17% 0% 31% 100% 47%
217
Table C.21: Summary for Cycle No. 2 Bar Joists
Bar Joists Total Cumulative Time Spent on Bar Joists 9:34:00 h:m:s
VA Waste NVAR VA +
Crew Member All Extra Material In Proc. Total % NVAR
Waiting Transport Movement T.W.S.A
Activities Processing Pos. Ins. %
Left Connector 18% 48% 4% 1% 10% 20% 0% 0% 100% 37%
Right Connector 19% 54% 1% 0% 15% 11% 0% 0% 100% 29%
X-Bracing Con. #1 31% 26% 0% 0% 42% 0% 0% 1% 100% 32%
X-Bracing Con. #2 7% 55% 0% 0% 0% 32% 0% 5% 100% 45%
Ground Crewman #3 14% 61% 0% 4% 6% 0% 0% 15% 100% 29%
Ground Crewman #4 0% 81% 0% 2% 1% 16% 0% 0% 100% 16%
Crane Operator #2 0% 30% 0% 7% 16% 17% 0% 31% 100% 47%
Table C.18 shows the time spent on VA, NVA and NVAR activities as a percentage of total
cumulative time spent by both crews during the observation period of the steel erection process.
Table C.19 shows the subset of activities that occurred to accomplish the column and PBC
erection process. Tables C.20 and C.21 show the total percentage breakdown for the observed
cycles. The NVA category is further divided into time spent in the waiting, extra processing,
transport and movement categories. Additionally, NVAR is broken down into its three
subcategories to clarify how time was spent within the observed cycles.
Waiting accounts for nearly half of the total time observed for each cycle shown above in
Tables C.18 through C.21. The column erection cycle shows the least amount of waiting at
28 percent, followed by the PBC cycle at 43 percent. Waiting for both crews was highly
dependent on the structure of the crew and the task that the crew was focused on during the
observation period. For example, the column erection cycle required both ground crewmen to
help align and position the column on the baseplate, while the erection of a bar joist might have
only require one ground crewman to position it into the hands of the connectors above.
For both crews, wasted motion occurred each time the sky lift was moved between column lines,
roof beam connection points and bar joist members that were erected during each cycle. Wasted
motion also occurred each time the ground crewmen walked between anchor points to secure the
column and PBC during Cycle No. 2. Finally, motion was wasted each time the connectors
moved between connection points for each bar joist member. The percentage of total time wasted
due to motion for the column, PBC and bar joist cycles was 10, 17, and 13 percent, respectively.
218
4.1.3 Waste of Extra Processing
The interpretation of this category included the use of defective materials delivered onsite that
required modification. This included any preparation work around connection points such as
cleaning out any metal slag that remained in the bolt holes from the manufacturer and any
preparation work required for the bolts prior to insertion into the bolt holes. During the PBC and
bar joist erection, connection points were hammered to make the connections fit together. While
this type of waste did not consume a large portion of time during either cycle (one percent), it
could still be easily eliminated.
Minimal amounts of transportation waste (five percent) occurred during either cycle. The largest
percentage of transportation waste (seven percent) occurred during the PBC erection cycle when
one of the PBC members was lifted and positioned in a different location so that the column for
that bay could be erected. Material layout on the jobsite minimized this type of waste. Material
transport occurred when each structural element was maneuvered via hauling trucks to their
temporary positions along the column lines. Due to the limitations of the study, this action was
not observed by the team and is not accounted for in this case study. Other observations of
material transportation occurred with the ground crew as they carried rigging from one column
line to the next.
Overproduction waste (meaning too much of a building is produced) is rare in construction. Most
construction reflects a “build to contract mentality” that requires a specific product(s) to be
produced. Work in Progress (WIP), on the other hand, is evident in construction but is dependent
on the activity level being viewed. At the process-specific level, WIP is seldom observed.
However, at the management level, each unfinished component of the production process
represents WIP. For this study, WIP was represented by the unfinished structure.
4.2.2 Inventory
Material deliveries were made continually throughout the construction process. The steel was
delivered onsite on large flatbed trucks. Typically four rows of steel, each row consisting of
10 bays, were delivered in one shipment to the jobsite. The material remained onsite anywhere
from one day to a week and a half before being erected into place. The systematic process of
erecting a column, PBC, then bar joists within each bay continued through the first four rows; the
foundation walls were unfinished along the north side of the structure. While the cycles viewed
were not affected by the incomplete foundation, future cycles will be. The outcome will be a
sporadic erection sequence in which the structural members remain as inventory until the
foundation wall is finished.
4.2.3 Defects
Defects are defined as errors or deficiencies in a finished product that required additional work on
the part of the original crew or a follow-up crew. A defective structural element (e.g., column,
219
girder, etc.) is an example of a defect (i.e., the material has been passed through the value stream
to the next work station). Another example of a defect is included in the punch list process at the
end of a job. When a defect in the finished product is found at this stage, a separate follow-up
crew is activated to correct the defect. Hence, the defect is pushed onto the next work station.
No waste associated with defects was observed.
Information on delivery and handling of the steel members was obtained from the project
superintendent. Once it arrived onsite, the basic flow of the steel was as follows.
The steel subcontractor was responsible for ordering and ensuring on-time delivery of all steel
used on the project. The bar joists used on the project were provided by the subcontractor’s own
steel manufacturing plant. The tube columns, spandrel beams and pod beams were all produced
by various steel manufacturers throughout the United States. This required an onsite steel
erector’s management team to coordinate the deliveries from each mill. The responsibility for
handing material (steel) movement once it was delivered onsite was transferred to the project’s
general contractor.
The delivery of the erected steel was not observed. The basic movement of the steel was as
follows. The steel was ordered in three phases for the structure; each phase contained all the steel
necessary to erect four rows and the interconnecting bays. The steel members were delivered in
bundles of like elements. From the truck, the bundles were positioned on the ground next to the
truck. The truck then left the site, allowing for the next truck to enter the lay-down area. One
forklift was dedicated to moving the material from the truck onto the ground, and a second
forklift was used to shake out the material and position it so that it lay parallel to the column
lines. Each structural element required in a bay was positioned on the ground in the adjacent bay
until the erecting crew was ready. Finally, a third forklift repositioned the bar joist bundles so
that they were in the correct order of the erection sequence. After the material was positioned on
the ground, the erection crews moved in to start the erection cycles. There were minimal
incidences of double handling occurred by either crew once the erection process was started.
220
5.1 Case Study No. 3’s Value Stream Map
For the following value stream map analysis, three levels were required to represent both the
material and labor components. Level One represents the major “Staging Positions” material
went through to reach its finished state. Each time material was moved or transformed, a stage
box is used to represent the process. Some of the stages include substages (Level Two) that
represent processes that occurred simultaneously. The individual crew contributions to the value
stream are represented on Level Three.
The value stream map on Figure C.26 was created using available information; Figures C.27
C.28, and C.29 show magnified views for each level. For this case study, the value stream
represents material and worker movements associated with both crews. The weighted average
values for each work distribution category represent input from both crews. These values are
assumed to be a reasonable representation for the entire steel erection processes on the project.
Each major stage that the steel members went through is represented on Level One. For Stage
Four, substage boxes are assigned to each crew. Taken together, all tasks necessary for
completion of the structural steel erection process are identified.
The steel was offloaded from the truck, shaken-out and prepped (PBC bolted together on the
ground) before the erection process Stage Four could begin. All shakeout activities were
represented as one stage (Stage Two). Stage Three covered the first VA actions committed by the
crew. The value stream ended once the steel erection process reached the detailing and welding
stage. Again, the limited observation period prevented acquisition of data at this stage in the
entire steel erection process. Attention was instead focused on the two substages required for
Stage Four of the value stream. The majority of time spent in Levels Two and Three was on the
column and PBC erection phase. The amount of time spent on the bar joist erection process was
not far behind. The separation of the required erection tasks between the two crews allowed for a
more balanced production process. Even though the total time spent by each crew on its
respective tasks was relatively equal, the overall work distribution values for waste were still high
(65 percent weighted NVA value). Attention should be placed on the individual tasks required of
each crew member. Once the tasks within each crew become balanced, the overall process will
go faster and the VA percentage will rise. The largest contribution to the NVAR category was
when the crane operator was required to temporarily hold the steel members in position while
boltup occurred.
Table C.22 and Figure C.30 show the Quick Summary results for the work distribution values
from Level One. The value stream map depicts the flow of material and workers for the entire
steel erection process.
Of 1,544 total workable hours committed to the steel erection process by these crews, only 152 of
them were VA. The largest amount of time was spent on NVA actions (1,018 man-hours). A
significant amount of NVAR time came from the crane operators. This number could be reduced
even further if the tasks required of each crew member were evenly distributed. The ground
crewmen in Crew No. 1 also contributed to this number by securing tag lines.
221
Production Control
Project Engineer
Project Superintendent
Level One
Work Time
O O OO
Inventory Days
2 5 5 12
Column and Pod Beam Erection Cycle-Case study #5 Total Cumulative Time for Steel Erection 11:42:30 h:m:s
Level Three VA Waste NVAR VA +
Crew Member All Extra Total %
Waiting Transport Movement Material Pos. In Proc. Ins. T.W.S.A NVAR %
Activitie Processin
Ground Crewman #1 1% 52% 0% 8% 14% 5% 1% 19% 100% 26%
Ground Crewman #2 6% 45% 0% 6% 11% 7% 1% 24% 100% 38%
Connector 24% 32% 1% 2% 35% 3% 0% 2% 100% 30%
Foreman 5% 70% 1% 3% 8% 7% 3% 3% 100% 19%
Crane Operator #1 0% 7% 1% 15% 13% 7% 0% 57% 100% 64%
222
Production Control
Project Engineer
E v e ry 1 -3 d a y s
Triggering Event Percent Complete
Project Superintendent
Level One
NVAR Time
1
3 days of shipments for each zone VA Time
Work Time
O O OO
Inventory Days
2 5 5 12
223
Column and Pod Beam Erection Cycle-Case study #5 Total Cumulative Time for Steel Erection 11:42:30 h:m:s
Level Three VA Waste NVAR VA +
Crew Member All Extra Total %
Waiting Transport Movement Material Pos. In Proc. Ins. T.W.S.A NVAR %
Activitie Processin
Ground Crewman #1 1% 52% 0% 8% 14% 5% 1% 19% 100% 26%
Ground Crewman #2 6% 45% 0% 6% 11% 7% 1% 24% 100% 38%
Connector 24% 32% 1% 2% 35% 3% 0% 2% 100% 30%
Foreman 5% 70% 1% 3% 8% 7% 3% 3% 100% 19%
Crane Operator #1 0% 7% 1% 15% 13% 7% 0% 57% 100% 64%
224
Distribution of Time from VSM
NVAR Time
1 VA Time
Work Time
Man-hours
Figure C.30: Quick Summary Graph - One Phase of the Steel Process
Figure C.31 and Table C.23 illustrate how the work distribution values changed and grew
throughout the process life cycle. The weighted average results found in Level Three of the value
stream map were used to formulate all the VA, NVAR and NVA values in Table C.23. On
Figure C.26, the cumulative NVA hours line grew the fastest compared to the other work
distribution values. The black vertical line (on the left) indicates when the steel delivery and
shakeout processes finished and the PBC process began. The next vertical line indicates the start
of the steel erection process using both crews. The slope change in the cumulative calendar hours
line resulted from additional workers being added to the team between the various stages. This
crew variation affected the data results for the lines shown on Figure C.31.
Table C.23 includes inventory positions; in these positions, the steel was not touched at all.
These inventory days occurred so that the required crews for the erection phase could be gathered
and organized. The crew was under contract with a second subcontractor, while the material for
the job was controlled by the first subcontractor. This highlights how multiple contracts could
affect the value stream. One subcontractor’s goals were not the same as the second. Until the
ultimate goal (value) is defined by the customer, this value stream will not be capable of reaching
its full potential.
Work Distribution
4500
4000
3500
3000
Time (man-hours)
Stage 1
Finishes
1000
Pod Beams
attached to
Spandrel
500
Note: The percentages used to
create this chart are the
average values from the work
0
distribution values found for the
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 entire crew.
Calendar Days
225
Table C.23: Spreadsheet of Values Used to Create Work Distribution Life Cycle Graph
226
Appendix D
Case Study No. 4 - Process Piping
1.0 Overview
In the lab, two televisions were placed next to each other and used to view the recorded piping
operations. Using both cameras provided a three-dimensional view of the work space for the data
collection process. Each time a new task was started, an entry was made on the data sheet. For
example, an entry might indicate that a worker was grinding a pipe. The next entry might
indicate that the worker had moved to gather the tools or materials necessary to continue prepping
the pipe for installation. The elapsed time for each task was recorded as well as the observer’s
judgment regarding whether the task was value adding (VA), non-value adding (NVA), or non-
value adding but required (NVAR).
Two separate areas were observed for this study. The first area was in the new structure housing
the auxiliary boiler, which was located north of the main power plant facility. The room was
roughly 30 feet wide by 60 feet long and 40 feet high. The focus of the video footage taken in
this area was the erection of an eight-inch pipe spool approximately two feet long, a relief valve
and an eight-inch elbow pipe spool approximately five feet long. All piping components
observed had flanged/bolted connections.
The second area was within the main power plant facility adjacent to the wall between the power
plant facility and the new auxiliary boiler room. The focus of the video footage in this area was
the erection of a pipe elbow piece for the steam line that was to be used to bypass the main boiler
227
steam line. Other work within the same area included placement and welding of a four-inch
natural gas line that was pulled off the main gas line to fire the burner for the auxiliary boiler.
The area of work was located 15 feet above the ground floor on top of temporary scaffolding
erected earlier by a separate carpentry crew. The elbow was constructed with the eight-inch pipe
and was considered a subset of the observed operations that formed part of the overall steps
required to erect the entire steam line. The elbow erection activities were preceded by the
following: cutting the new pipe spool section to the desired length while it was in the material
lay-down yard and installing pipe hangers to hold the pipe in final position within the structure. It
was succeeded by X-ray testing of each weld along the line as well as a pressurized line test to
discover leakage. The material lay-down yard was located 150 to 200 yards away from the final
erection area within the main boiler structure.
228
Diagram 4: Elbow Spool Bolted On
Tee
Section
Diagram 5: Plan View of Work Area Diagram 6: Elevation View of Existing Pipe
Pipe Stands
229
Diagram 9: Finished Line
The observation period started with the positioning of the two-foot pipe spool under its respective
position within the line. A chain fall was used to hoist the pipe spool into position. For each
connection a “greased” gasket was placed between the flange connections. The adjacent
members were then bolted by hand, and an electric torque gun was used to apply the required
torque pressure on the bolt connections. Following the first spool’s erection, a relief valve was
hoisted into position using the chain fall. The connection process was repeated for the flanged
connection as described above. Finally, the five-foot elbow pipe spool was transported from the
material lay-down yard to the work area. It was hoisted into position and its flanged connection
was bolted in a similar fashion as described above. Because of the limited amount of space in the
work area, all of the pipe sections were first stored within the material lay-down yard and
retrieved as required for the erection process. Each of the pipe sections observed during this erec-
tion cycle was prefabricated offsite.
Removal of this section of pipe was required to realign the section at the correct angle for the
steam line to continue inside the power plant. Once removed, the cut section resembled a fire
hydrant with an end cap (nipple drain) at the bottom and an eight-inch open orifice that was
230
connected to the new spool already positioned on temporary bracing. The cut ends, both on the
remaining section of hung pipe and the end piece that was removed, were ground and beveled
prior to re-welding the connection. The end section was attached to the new spool while it
remained on the temporary bracing. Once completed, the entire section of new pipe (new spool
welded to cut section) was positioned into final alignment under the existing hung spool. Tack
welds were completed first to provide stability and alignment between the two spools while the
production weld was completed. The completion of this weld ended the data collection period
and was the end of the cycle.
The erection process for both cycles required a two-man crew. However, the tasks for the two
cycles required different movements and equipment to erect and secure each spool into its final
position. One crewman was required to bolt the connecting members, while the other crewman
was required to install pipe hangers to support the long sections of pipe, as well as weld
connections between the spools. While the crew size was the same for the two cycles, the time
required to perform the separate tasks was not. Therefore, in contrast to the “ideal” highly
repetitive and balanced manufacturing sequence, it would be difficult to design an erection
sequence that balanced the amount of time needed as well as the equipment necessary to
complete each task.
• One two-foot section of eight-inch diameter steel pipe with two flanged
connections.
• One five-foot section of eight-inch diameter steel pipe with a 90 degree elbow
and one flanged connection.
The following section analyzes each worker’s contributions to each cycle. Tables and figures
were developed for each worker and task that describe the time spent on VA, NVA, and NVAR
actions within each cycle.
231
tasks occurred, but were not recorded. Figure D.1 shows the major tasks required to complete the
prefabricated pipe spool installation. The shaded areas are used to indicate that some tasks took
longer to complete than others, and that those tasks could occur simultaneously with other tasks.
The shaded regions are not intended to show actual task durations (e.g., two days for material
delivery).
Prefabricated Pipe Spool Installation Task Order (process flow is shown, NOT TIME)
Process 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
Figure D.1: Schedule for Piping Erection Process with Flanged Connections
Two workers in a piping crew were the main participants involved with installing the various
piping components during this observation period. One other worker was in the area, but his
contributions of time to the work process were minimal.
Worker 1 was involved with the installation of all four piping components erected during the
observation period. His responsibilities included positioning each piping component into final
position, leveling and adjusting pipe segments to correct levels, bolting and final inspections of
the finished product. Table D.1 and Figure D.2 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for
worker 1. During the piping installation process, worker 1 contributed the majority of his time
(68 percent) to NVA actions. The only VA actions for the worker occurred while applying the
greased gasket to the connection and physically bolting the flanged connection to its adjacent
piping component.
NVA
W a itin g 0 :2 1 :4 3 2 5 .2 5 %
E x tra P ro c . 0 :0 8 :3 0 9 .8 8 %
T ra n s p o rt 0 :0 9 :1 5 1 0 .7 6 %
M o tio n 0 :1 8 :5 8 2 2 .0 5 %
N V A T o ta l 0 :5 8 :2 6 6 7 .9 5 %
NV AR
M a t. P o s . 0 :0 1 :0 0 1 .1 6 %
In -P ro c e s s In s . 0 :0 1 :0 1 1 .1 8 %
T .W .S .A 0 :1 0 :4 7 1 2 .5 4 %
N V A R T o ta l 0 :1 2 :4 8 1 4 .8 8 %
G r a n d T o ta l 1 :2 6 :0 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
232
Worker #1
Prefabricated Piping Data - Cycle #1
NVAR TWSA
13%
NVAR In-Process
Inspection VA
1% 17%
NVAR Material
Positioning
1%
NVA Motion
22%
NVA Waiting
25%
NVA Transport
11% NVA Extra Processing
10%
Worker 2 was involved with two of the four piping components installed during this observation
period (a five-foot elbow section and release valve component). His responsibilities included the
following: setup and removal of chain fall rigging, greasing and installing gaskets for flanged
connections, placing piping components into final position, final preparation of flanged
connections (filing) and final bolting. Table D.2 and Figure D.3 show the VA, NVA and NVAR
amounts for worker 2. Notice that worker 2 contributed the majority of his time (54 percent) to
NVA actions. The only time contributed to VA actions occurred while applying the greased
gaskets to the flanged connection area and the physical bolting of flanged connections.
NVA
W a itin g 0 :20 :5 1 2 4 .2 4 %
E x tra P ro c . 0 :04 :3 0 5 .2 3 %
T ra n s p o rt 0 :03 :2 5 3 .9 7 %
M o tio n 0 :17 :3 0 2 0 .3 5 %
N V A T o ta l 0 :4 6 :1 6 5 3 .8 0 %
N V AR
M at. P o s . 0 :16 :4 4 1 9 .4 6 %
In -P ro c e s s In s. 0 :01 :4 0 1 .9 4 %
T .W .S .A 0 :05 :1 0 6 .0 1 %
N V AR T o ta l 0 :2 3 :3 4 2 7 .4 0 %
G ra n d T o ta l 1 :2 6 :0 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
233
Worker #2
Prefabricated Piping Data - Cycle #1
NVAR TWSA
6%
NVAR In-Process VA
Inspection 19%
2%
NVAR Material
Positioning
19%
NVA Waiting
25%
NVA Motion
20% NVA Extra
NVA Transport Processing
4% 5%
Field Fabricated Pipe Spool Installation Task Order (process flow is shown, NOT TIME)
Process 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
Figure D.4: Schedule for Piping Erection Process with Welded Connections
The crew was composed of two workers (labeled worker 3 and worker 4). The focus of the crew
was the installation of an eight-inch diameter pipe spool. Each worker shared all of the tasks
required to erect the spool. The schedule on Figure D.4 represents the erection of a pipe spool
234
from start to finish in an “ideal situation.” In fact, the following data analysis includes time
attributed to the rework of a previously hung section of pipe. All time contributed to the rework
of this prehung spool (labeled as “hung pipe,” and “cut section” on the data spreadsheet) is
classified as “Extra Processing” (NVA). Worker 3 was involved with two of the following three
activities: new pipe spool erection, hung pipe removal and new pipe spool erection. Worker 4
was involved with all three activities: hung pipe removal, cut section prep work and new pipe
spool erection.
Worker 3 was involved with cutting the existing hung spool and positioning the cut section next
to the new pipe spool that was temporarily positioned on stands within the work area. Table D.3
and Figure D.5 show the VA, NVA and NVAR percentages for worker 3. Nearly one hour of
time was dedicated to this process. Of the time spent on the hung pipe, no VA actions occurred,
and 94 percent of the time was classified as NVA. The small amount of time for NVAR actions
came from setting up temporary lighting around the work area and using pipe fitter paper to align
a “cut line” around the hung pipe.
Table D.3: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 3 - Hung Pipe
Activity Classification Waste Classification Time at Activity % of Time at Activity
NVA
Waiting 0:12:09 21.19%
Extra Proc. 0:18:25 32.12%
Transport 0:06:41 11.66%
Motion 0:16:35 28.92%
NVA Total 0:53:50 93.90%
NVAR
T.W.S.A. 0:03:30 6.10%
NVAR Total 0:03:30 6.10%
Worker 4 was involved with the following: cutting the existing hung spool, grinding/beveling the
remaining exposed end of the hung pipe and positioning the cut section next to the new pipe
spool that was temporarily positioned on stands within the work area. Table D.4 and Figure D.6
show the VA, NVA and NVAR percentages for Worker 4. Approximately half an hour was spent
by this worker on the hung section of pipe. The majority of his time was attributed to beveling
(NVA, extra processing) the remaining end of the hung section of pipe to be welded once again to
the cut section with new spool attached. Roughly 94 percent of the time spent was contributed to
NVA actions, leaving 6 percent for NVAR actions.
235
Worker #3 - Previously Hung Pipe
Field Welded Piping Data
NVAR TWSA
6% NVA Waiting
21%
NVA Motion
29%
NVA Extra
NVA Transport Processing
12% 32%
Figure D.5: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 3 - Hung Pipe
Table D.4: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 4 - Hung Pipe
Activity Classification Waste Classification Time at Activity % of Time at Activity
NVA
Waiting 0:05:21 19.96%
Extra Proc. 0:14:07 52.67%
Transport 0:05:27 20.34%
Motion 0:00:10 0.62%
NVA Total 0:25:05 93.59%
NVAR
In-Process Ins. 0:00:30 1.87%
T.W.S.A. 0:01:13 4.54%
NVAR Total 0:01:43 6.41%
236
Worker #4 - Previously Hung Pipe
Field Welded Piping Data
NVAR In Process
Inspection
2% NVAR TWSA
5% NVA Waiting
NVA Motion 20%
1%
NVA Transport
20%
Figure D.6: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 4 - Hung Pipe
Worker 3 contributed no time to the rework required to prep the cut section for attachment back
to the remaining hung pipe section. The opposite end of the cut section that was to be attached to
the new spool section had already been prepared prior to erection into place in the pipeline.
Worker 4 is involved with the following activities: grinding the same end previously attached to
the hung pipe, beveling the end section to prepare it for production weld, positioning the pipe
onto temporary supports to continue prep work for weld, positioning the cut section next to the
new pipe spool and continually inspecting the spool end to ensure a flush connection for the
production weld. Table D.5 and Figure D.7 show the VA, NVA and NVAR percentages for
worker 4. No VA actions were noted throughout this work process. Worker 4 spent the majority
of his time on rework activities such as grinding and beveling the connection point in preparation
for the final production weld between the “cut section” and the “previously hung pipe.” NVAR
actions occurred when the worker rigged and positioned the cut section next to the new pipe spool
to complete the production weld (20 percent).
Table D.5: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 4 - Cut Section
Activity Classification Waste Classification Time at Activity % of Time at Activity
NVA
Waiting 0:08:49 13.49%
Extra Proc. 0:38:21 58.68%
Transport 0:04:24 6.73%
Motion 0:00:47 1.20%
NVA Total 0:52:21 80.11%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:05:51 8.95%
T.W.S.A. 0:07:09 10.94%
NVAR Total 0:13:00 19.89%
237
Worker #4 - Cut Section
Field Welded Piping Data
NVAR TWSA
NVA Waiting
NVA Material 11%
Positioning 13%
9%
NVA Motion
1%
NVA Transport
7%
NVA Extra
Processing
59%
Figure D.7: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 4 - Cut Section
Worker 3 was involved with the following activities: aligning/leveling the new pipe spool to the
level of the cut section of pipe, securing pipe alignment guides and inspecting tack welds and pro-
duction welds. In addition, worker 3 positioned the entire welded component (both the new pipe
spool and cut section as one piece) under the hung pipe and completed a production weld between
the new spool section and hung pipe. Table D.6 and Figure D.8 show the VA, NVA and NVAR
percentages for worker 3. Notice the VA actions in the process. VA levels increased to more
than 20 percent of the total time attributed to the new spool. There was still a large portion of
waste, 54 percent, which highlights an area for improvement in the overall process.
Table D.6: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 3 - New Spool Section
Ac tiv ity C la ss ific a tio n W a s te C la s sific a tio n T im e a t Ac tivity % o f T im e a t Ac tivity
VA
V a lu e A d d in g 0 :4 3 :1 1 2 0 .3 7 %
V A T o ta l 0 :4 3 :1 1 2 0 .3 7 %
NVA
W a itin g 0 :4 1 :4 9 1 9 .7 2 %
E x tra P ro c . 0 :0 5 :4 3 2 .7 0 %
T ra n s p o rt 0 :2 5 :1 5 1 1 .9 1 %
M o tio n 0 :4 1 :2 5 1 9 .5 4 %
N V A T o ta l 1 :5 4 :1 2 5 3 .8 7 %
N V AR
M a t. P o s . 0 :3 1 :2 0 1 4 .7 8 %
In -P ro c e s s In s . 0 :0 9 :0 9 4 .3 2 %
T .W .S .A . 0 :1 4 :0 8 6 .6 7 %
N V AR T o ta l 0 :5 4 :3 7 2 5 .7 6 %
G ra n d T o ta l 3 :3 2 :0 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
238
Worker #3 - New Spool
Field Welded Piping Data
NVAR TWSA
7%
NVAR In-Process VA
Inspection 20.4%
4%
NVAR Material
Positioning
15%
NVA Waiting
20%
Figure D.8: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 3 - New Spool Section
Worker 4 was involved with the following: aligning/leveling the new pipe spool to the same
height as the cut section of pipe, securing pipe alignment guides, inspecting tack welds and
production welds, positioning the entire welded component (including both the new pipe spool
and cut section as one piece) under the hung pipe and grinding sections of the production weld
created by worker 3 to ensure a quality production weld. Table D.7 and Figure D.9 show the VA,
NVA and NVAR percentages for worker 4. Notice that worker 4 contributed no VA actions to
the process. The majority of his time was spent waiting while worker 3 created the production
weld.
Table D.7: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 4: - New Spool Section
Activity Classification Waste Classification Time at Activity % of Time at Activity
NVA
Waiting 1:23:49 47.31%
Extra Proc. 0:08:21 4.71%
Transport 0:22:24 12.64%
Motion 0:19:43 11.13%
NVA Total 2:14:17 75.79%
NVAR
Mat. Pos. 0:32:00 18.06%
In-Process Ins. 0:03:40 2.07%
T.W.S.A. 0:07:14 4.08%
NVAR Total 0:42:54 24.21%
239
Worker #4 - New Spool
Field Welded Piping Data
NVAR TWSA
NVAR In-Process 4%
Inspection
2%
NVA Waiting
NVAR Material 47%
Positioning
18%
NVA Motion
11%
NVA Transport
13% NVA Extra
Processing
5%
Figure D.9: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 4 - New Spool Section
240
Worker Task Breakdown - Pre-fabbed Pipe
Cycle #1
1:26:24
1:23:31
1:20:38
Value Adding Value Adding
1:17:46 0:14:46 0:16:10
1:14:53
Mat. Pos .
1:12:00 0:01:00
1:09:07
In-Proces s Ins .
1:06:14 0:01:01
T.W.S.A
1:03:22 0:10:47 Mat. Pos .
1:00:29 0:16:44
0:57:36
0:54:43 Trans port
In-Proces s Ins .
0:09:15 Value Adding
0:51:50 0:01:40
T.W.S.A Mat. Pos.
0:48:58
0:05:10
Time(h,m,s)
In-Process Ins.
0:46:05 Extra Proc. Transport
0:08:30 T.W.S.A
0:43:12 0:03:25
Extra Proc. Transport
0:40:19 0:04:30 Extra Proc.
0:37:26 Waiting
0:34:34 Motion
0:31:41 Waiting
0:28:48 0:21:43 Waiting
0:20:51
0:25:55
0:23:02
0:20:10
0:17:17
0:14:24
0:11:31
Motion Motion
0:08:38 0:18:58 0:17:30
0:05:46
0:02:53
0:00:00
Worker # 1 Worker # 2
241
Worker Task Breakdown - Field Fabricated
Cycle #2
4:48:00
4:40:48
4:33:36
4:26:24
4:19:12
4:12:00 Mat. Pos.
Value Adding
0:37:51
4:04:48 0:43:11
3:57:36
In-Process Ins
3:50:24 0:04:10
3:43:12 T.W.S.A.
3:36:00 0:15:36
Mat. Pos.
3:28:48 0:31:20
3:21:36
In-Process Ins. Transport
3:14:24 0:32:15
0:09:09
3:07:12
3:00:00 T.W.S.A.
2:52:48 0:17:38
Value Adding
2:45:36
Mat. Pos.
2:38:24
,s)
2:16:48
Extra Proc.
2:09:36
Extra Proc. Waiting
2:02:24 0:24:08
Motion
1:55:12
1:48:00
1:40:48
1:33:36
1:26:24 Waiting
0:53:58
1:19:12
1:12:00 Waiting
1:37:59
1:04:48
0:57:36
0:50:24
0:43:12
0:36:00
Motion
0:28:48 0:58:00
0:21:36
0:14:24 Motion
0:07:12 0:20:40
0:00:00
Worker 3 Worker 4
During the observation period for Cycle 2, a significant portion of the time attributed to the erec-
tion of the new pipe spool involved rework. The limited work space inhibited movement and
affected the ease in which the spool was erected. In addition, incidences occurred in which
workers had to share equipment, which resulted in higher waiting times. Finally, several
movements were attributed to gathering new grinding pads and welding rods that were scattered
around the work area.
242
4.0 Process Improvement Opportunities
A goal of this report was to examine and document the inefficiencies in construction operations.
In general terms, inefficiencies were classified as the following three types: inefficiency due to
waste (NVA activities), inefficiency due to unnecessary work (excessive NVAR activities) and
inefficiency due to poorly designed work processes (ineffective VA activities). The following
section identifies opportunities for process improvement by applying Ohno’s (1988) seven wastes
in production and then evaluating the production process against a more comprehensive set of
lean principles.
Tables D.8 and D.9 list the subset of activities specific to each crew that occurred to accomplish
the entire erection process. The NVA category is further divided into the time spent in the wait-
ing, extra processing, transport and movement categories. Additionally, NVAR is broken down
into its three subcategories to clarify how time was spent within observed cycles.
243
Table D.9: Crew No. 2 Subactivities
Field Welded - Cut Section Total Cumulative Time Spent on Section 1:05:21 h:m:s
VA Waste NVAR
Crew Member All Extra Material In Proc. VA +
Activities Waiting Processing Transport Movement Pos. Ins. TWSA Total NVAR
Worker #3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Worker #4 0% 13% 59% 7% 1% 9% 0% 11% 100% 20%
Group
Percentage 0% 13% 59% 7% 1% 9% 0% 11% 100% 20%
Field Welded - Hung Pipe Total Cumulative Time Spent on Pipe 1:24:08 h:m:s
VA Waste NVAR
Crew Member All Extra Material In Proc. VA +
Activities Waiting Processing Transport Movement Pos. Ins. TWSA Total NVAR
Worker #3 0% 21% 32% 12% 29% 0% 0% 6% 100% 6%
Worker #4 0% 20% 53% 19% 1% 0% 2% 5% 100% 7%
Group
Percentage 0% 21% 39% 14% 19% 0% 1% 6% 100% 7%
Field Welded - New Pipe Spool Total Cumulative Time Spent on Spool 6:29:11 h:m:s
VA Waste NVAR
Crew Member All Extra Material In Proc. VA +
Activities Waiting Processing Transport Movement Pos. Ins. TWSA Total NVAR
Worker #3 20% 20% 3% 12% 20% 15% 4% 7% 100% 46%
Worker #4 0% 47% 5% 13% 11% 18% 2% 4% 100% 24%
Group
Percentage 11% 32% 4% 12% 16% 16% 3% 5% 100% 36%
Table D.10 shows the weighted averages for the observed processes. These averages were used
to represent the piping process in its entirety for this specific case study.
Waiting accounted for roughly one third of the total time observed during each cycle shown in
Tables D.8 and D.9. For the two dominant tasks of each cycle (elbow spool erection for Cycle
No. 1 and new pipe spool erection for Cycle No. 2), a consistent one third of total time was
wasted waiting. Waiting periods are nearly identical for each member within Crew No. 1.
Table D.9 shows that for the Field Welded – New Pipe Spool activity, worker 4 waited twice as
long as worker 3. This variation in waiting was because only one worker was able to weld the
connection at any specific time.
244
4.1.2 Waste of Motion
Tables D.8 and D.9 show waste due to excess motion for both crews. The work areas were
limited in size, which prevented the workers from storing material around the work area. For
example, for Cycle No. 1, there was a 21 percent overall waste percentage. For each piping
component, one worker had to walk to the material lay-down yard to retrieve and transport that
component back to the work area. For Cycle No. 2, a smaller value for motion was recorded –
15 percent of the total time. The majority of the time wasted on motion came from workers
walking around the platform looking for tools/material necessary to continue their work.
Interpretation of this category included the use of defective materials delivered onsite that
required modification to be operable. This included any preparation work around connection
points such as cleaning out any metal slag from the spool, beveling and grinding the end connec-
tions prior to welding them and all preparation work required for the bolts prior to insertion into
the bolt holes. This type of extra preparation work on the flanged connections accounted for the
extra processing time spent during Cycle No. 1. During Cycle No. 2, rework (extra processing)
accounted for over 16 percent of the total time attributed to the piping process. Worker 4 devoted
more than 50 percent of his time to cutting, beveling and reconnecting the defective hung section
of pipe.1
Several instances were observed in which equipment and material had to be rehandled and moved
into an accessible position for the installation process. Transportation absorbed roughly 12 per-
cent of each worker’s time during the cycles observed. A large portion of the time attributed to
transportation involved positioning piping components from the lay-down yard into their holding
position below the “final pipeline.” However, it was the small movements contributed by each
worker while looking for tools and equipment that added large amounts of time to this waste
category. Transport waste also occurred during Cycle No. 2 during positioning of the pipe on top
of pipe stands to further prepare the new pipe spool for installation into final position in the line.
Overproduction waste (meaning too much of a building is produced) is rare in construction. Most
construction reflects a “build to contract mentality” that requires a specific product(s) to be
produced. WIP, on the other hand, is evident in construction but is dependent on the activity
level being viewed. At the process-specific level, WIP is seldom observed. However, at the
management level, each unfinished component of the production process represents WIP. For
this study, WIP was represented by the unfinished pipeline.
1
Note: This differed from the waste category defects discussed in Section 4.2 in that the current
crew was responsible for erecting the hung pipe incorrectly. The defect was not passed down-
stream to the next work station, but was reworked by the existing crew.
245
4.2.2 Inventory
Material deliveries were made continually throughout the construction process. The steel pipe
was delivered onsite on a large flatbed and placed within the material lay-down yard in bundles of
similar pipe. The material was then moved to the tent for field fabrication or, when possible, it
was moved directly to its position within the pipeline. The material was retrieved from the pipe
bundles as needed. The variability of the amount of material onsite was heavily influenced by the
sporadic nature of the pipe erection process. The limited area within the structure where the
installation occurred created a problem for the erection crew to install the pipeline in linear order.
Due to the brief observation time period onsite, it was difficult to quantify the inevitable waste in
inventory that occurred.
4.2.3 Defects
Defects are defined as errors or deficiencies in a finished product that require additional work on
the part of a crew or a follow-up crew. A defective release valve or piping component delivered
onsite from the manufacturer is an example of a defect (i.e., the material has been passed down-
stream through the value stream to the next work station). Another example of a defect is
included in the punch list process at the end of a job. When a defect in the finished product is
found at this stage, a separate follow-up crew is activated to correct the defect. Hence, the defect
is pushed onto the next work station. Time associated with the crew members having to rework
the hung pipe section was accounted for in the Extra Processing column shown in Table D.10.
Furthermore, because of the brief site visit, no waste due to defects was observed.
Information on delivery and handling of the piping components was obtained from the project
manager. Once it arrived onsite, the basic flow of the steel pipe was as follows:
• Raw pipe was pulled from the separate bundles in the yard.
246
• Pipe was cut to desired length.
− Pipe was welded to other pipe sections while remaining in the tent inside
the material lay-down yard.
− Pipe was erected into intended location within the power plant.
The value stream map shown on Figure D.13 was created using the information described in the
preceding section. Each major stage that the piping components went through is represented on
Level One. Two different manufacturers were used to supply piping components to the job and
are represented in this map. Ideally, the material should be tracked separately; however, lack of
information prevented this from occurring. During Stage Two, the components went through two
substages to complete the main stage. Notice that the steel had inventory position here, which
represented the time that the steel sat between fabrication and erection.
Stage One of the value stream was not observed during this site visit. However, the project
superintendent confirmed that Stage One occurred. An estimate of three days’ total was shown
for Stage One completion. This value stream ended once the piping erection process reached the
testing and detailing stage. Again, the brief observation period prevented acquiring data about
this stage in the entire steel erection process.
Attention was instead focused on the two substages required for Stage Two. As shown in
Levels Two and Three, the majority of time spent during the steel erection process was on the
field fabricated spools. Furthermore, the total linear footage required to be field fabricated and
prefabricated was estimated in Area Three of Level Three. Using this value and the value found
for cumulative time spent per linear foot of pipe, the man-hours required to complete each line
(field or prefabricated process) were estimated. These values were used to determine the total
“Days required” for the main substages in Level Two. Refer to the circled areas on Figure D.13;
these values are subject to change with actual data entered in the Estimated Total Linear Feet for
Each Pipe column.
247
Every 1-3 days
Production Control
Project Engineer
Distribution of time from VSM for entire process
Triggering Event Project Feedback
Level One
Steel Is ordered in one large shipment Percent Complete
NVA Time
Project Superintendent
1
VA Time
Daily
Spools are delivered to 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Pipe components are shipped to
the site in bundles of like Manhours
material yard on the site
sizes in standard lengths.
O O O O O O O O
Stage One - Spools and Pipe Stage Two - Pipe Elements (Raw
Components are Offloaded from Spools, Valves, etc…) Are Pulled Quick Summary for Level One
Trucks and positioned in material from Material Yard, Prepped, and For All Spools Worked on During
yard Erected into Final Position. Observation Period
Days required 3 Days required 30 Working Days 33
Equipment involved: Equipment involved: Working Time 1267 man hours
Forklift 1 0 VA Total 98 man hours
Workers involved Workers involved NVAR Total 266 man hours
Crew 4 Crew 9 NVA Total 904 man hours
WT 96 WT 720.0
VA ( 0%) 0 Inv VA ( 8%) 61.5
NVAR (0%) 0 NVAR (19%) 151.6
NVA (100%) 96 NVA (73%) 506.9
Inventory Days
20 22
Raw Spools Are Pulled from Bundles Final Preparation for Onsite
and Fabricated Onsite to Specified Fabricated Spools and their
Dimensions Installation
Days required 14.1 Days required 14.1
Equipment involved: Equipment involved:
Handtools Handtools 0
Workers involved: Workers involved:
Crew 4 Crew 2
WT 451.2 WT 225.6
In
VA ( 8%) 36.1 VA ( 8%) 18.0
NVAR (21%) 94.7 v NVAR (21%) 47.4
NVA (71%) 320.3 2 NVA (71%) 160.2
Crew #2: Field Welded - Entire Process Total Cumulative Time Spent on Column 8:58:40 h:m:s
VA Waste NVAR
Level Three Crew Member Extra
All Activities Waiting Transport Movement Material Pos. In Proc. Ins. TWSA Total VA + NVAR
Processing
Worker #3 16% 20% 9% 12% 22% 12% 3% 7% 100% 38%
Worker #4 0% 36% 23% 12% 8% 14% 2% 6% 100% 21%
248
Another substage process was required for the field fabrication process in Level Two. The spools
were fabricated in a temporary shop designated the “tent.” Four crewmen were entered into this
substage to represent the average number of pipe fitters working in the tent. It was assumed that
the weighted average values found from the observations were representative of the work
distribution values for this substage.
Table D.11 and Figure D.14 show the Quick Summary results for the work distribution values.
Of the 1,267 total workable hours committed to the piping erection process, only 98 of them were
VA. The NVAR category consisted of 266 hours; this value was high as a result of moving the
pipe 15 feet above the ground floor. Finally, the majority of time spent during the piping erection
process was on NVA actions.
NVA Time
Time Allocation Field
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
Man-hours
Figure D.15 and Table D.12 illustrate how the work distribution values changed and grew
throughout the process life cycle. The weighted average results found in Level Three of the value
stream map were used to formulate all the VA, NVAR and NVA values in Table D.12. As shown
on Figure D.15, the cumulative NVA hours line grew the fastest compared to the other work
distribution values. The black vertical line indicates when the pipe delivery process finished and
the steel erection process began. The slope change for the cumulative work hours line indicates
that more crew members were introduced to the process. As seen on the figure, the cumulative
VA hours line finally started to grow.
249
4000
3500
3000
2500
Time (man-hours)
1500
1000
Fabrication and Installation
Begin
250
Table D.12: Spreadsheet of Values Used to Create Work Distribution Life Cycle Graph
251
Appendix E
Case Study No. 5 - Process Piping
1.0 Overview
In the lab, two televisions were placed next to each other and used to view the recorded piping
operations. Using both cameras provided a three-dimensional view of the work space to
document the data collection process. Each time a new task was started, an entry was made on
the data sheet. For example, an entry might indicate that a worker was grinding a pipe. The next
entry might indicate that the worker had moved to gather the tools or materials necessary to
continue preparing the pipe for installation. The elapsed time for each task was recorded as well
as the observer’s judgment regarding whether the task was value adding (VA), non-value adding
(NVA) or non-value adding but required (NVAR).
The study focused on one work area within the construction site, specifically, the final
preparation and hoisting of various prefabricated process piping components into final position.
This could only be done after all mechanical components were set into final position. Subsequent
activities included X-ray testing of each weld and a pressurized line test to determine any leakage.
The material lay-down yard was located 50 to 75 yards away from the final erection area located
on the north side of the facility.
252
2.0 Prefabricated Spool Erection Process
Few repetitive tasks occurred during the prefabricated spool erection process. A repetitive task
was defined as one in which the worker repeated the same movement or action for every
“member” (one pipe spool, valve and elbow) that was erected. For the following sections, an
activity cycle is defined as starting when work began in the area of the spool erection, and
finishing when the pipe was welded or bolted into its final place in the pipeline.
The following sections describe the erection cycles of a four-inch diameter spool approximately
eight feet long, and an eight-inch diameter spool approximately 20 feet long with an elbow in the
center of the spool. Data are also included from work attributed to a two-inch diameter spool and
a 10-inch diameter elbow section. Neither of these spools, however, was erected into final
position before the observation period ended. Figure E.1 shows the layout of the observed work
area and includes the relative position for each piping component.
253
were constructed to hold the pipe in position. The spool was then wrapped with two hoist lines
and lifted into position with a boom crane. The crane held the spool in position while the
temporary bracing was adjusted and the flanged end of the spool was bolted to one of the
mechanical components. This observation cycle ended with the release of the hoist lines from the
spool.
254
Figure E.3: Cut Elbow Section
The work process for all observed cycles required a three-man crew; however, the tasks for the
four cycles required different movements and equipment to erect and secure each spool into its
final position. One cycle required bolting of the flanged end to the mechanical member, while
another cycle required the crew to bolt and weld a connection between different spools. The crew
size also changed during the actual erection process of the spool members, with a second pipe
fitter and a crane operator joining the three-man crew. Due to their limited involvement with the
entire cycle, this data was excluded from the analysis. While the three-man crew remained
constant for all of the cycles, the time required to perform the separate tasks did not. Therefore,
in contrast to the “ideal” highly repetitive and balanced manufacturing sequence, it would be
difficult to design an erection sequence that balanced both the amount of time needed as well as
the equipment necessary to complete each task.
The following section analyzes the workers’ contributions to each cycle. Table and figures show
the work distribution values for each worker and describe the time spent on VA, NVA, and
NVAR actions within each cycle.
• Two 10-foot sections of eight-inch diameter steel pipe, with one having a flanged
connection.
• One 10-foot section of four-inch steel pipe with one flanged connection.
• One six-foot section of 10-inch steel pipe with a 90 degree elbow and one
flanged connection.
• One three-foot section of two-inch steel pipe with one flanged connection.
• One welder.
• One forklift.
255
2.5 Piping Installation Process
In the following subsections, each worker in the crew is referred to by a field name that is used to
track his/her actions for each identified activity. (Refer to the end of this case study to review the
data collection sheets.)
The spool installation process was similar for all components during the observation period.
Each spool installation required the following: final preparation work on the ground, rigging to
lift the spool section, greasing of the flanged connection point, bolting, final adjustment and
inspections. One spool (eight-inch diameter) required an additional step before being lifted into
final position in the pipeline. Ground welding occurred to secure two 10-foot sections of eight-
inch pipe together; Figure E.4 includes this process. Note that ground welding did not occur for
any other spool section during this observation period and should be excluded when looking at
the remaining spool sections. Other minor subcategory tasks occurred, but were not recorded.
Figure E.4 shows the major tasks required to complete the prefabricated pipe spool installation.
The shaded areas are used to indicate that some tasks took longer to complete than others, and
that those tasks could occur simultaneously with other tasks. The shaded regions are not intended
to show actual task durations (e.g., two days for material transport to the work area).
Prefabricated Pipe Spool Installation Task Order (process flow is shown, NOT TIME)
Process 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
Figure E.4. Schedule for Piping Erection Process for Two-, Four-, Eight-
and 10-Inch Diameter Spools
The pipe fitter and field laborer were the only people involved with the two-inch spool section.
The welder did not contribute time to any task involving the two-inch spool section. The field
laborer was responsible for grinding and beveling the spool section while it remained on the
ground. Table E.1 and Figure E.5 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the field laborer.
When working with the two-inch spool section, the field laborer contributed nearly all of his time
(93 percent) to NVA actions. This was a result of the grinding and beveling actions required for
preparation of the pipe spool.
256
Table E.1: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Field Laborer - Two-Inch Diameter
A c t iv it y C la s s if ic a t io W a s t e C la s s if ic a t io n T im e a t A c t iv it y % o f T im e a t A c t iv it y
NVA
W a itin g 0 :2 3 :1 6 3 8 .8 9 %
E x tra P ro c . 0 :2 4 :1 3 4 0 .4 7 %
T ra n s p o rt 0 :0 6 :3 0 1 0 .8 6 %
M o tio n 0 :0 1 :5 5 3 .2 0 %
N V A T o ta l 0 :5 5 :5 4 9 3 .4 3 %
NVAR
M a te ria l P o s . 0 :0 0 :3 5 0 .9 7 %
In -P ro c e s s In s . 0 :0 1 :1 0 1 .9 5 %
T .W .S .A 0 :0 2 :1 1 3 .6 5 %
N V A R T o ta l 0 :0 3 :5 6 6 .5 7 %
G ra n d T o ta l 0 :5 9 :5 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
NVA Extra
Processing
40%
Figure E.5: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Field Laborer - Two-Inch Diameter
The pipe fitter field verified the dimensions of the two-inch diameter spool by measuring and
checking them with the latest construction documents. He was also responsible for final inspec-
tion of the beveled ends. Table E.2 and Figure E.6 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the
pipe fitter. Notice that the pipe fitter contributed the majority (83 percent) of his time to NVA
actions. No time was spent on VA actions.
Table E.2: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - Two-Inch Diameter
Ac tivity C la ssific a tio n W a ste C la ssific a tio n T im e a t Ac tivity % o f T im e a t Ac tivity
NV A
W aitin g 0:02:47 16.78%
E xtra P ro c. 0:03:13 19.40%
M o tio n 0:07:47 46.93%
NV A T o ta l 0 :1 3 :4 7 8 3 .1 2 %
NV AR
In -P ro cess In s. 0:02:48 16.88%
NV AR T o ta l 0 :0 2 :4 8 1 6 .8 8 %
G ra n d T o ta l 0 :1 6 :3 5 1 0 0 .0 0 %
257
Pipe Fitter – 2 Inch Spool Section
NVAR In-Process
Inspection
17% NVA Waiting
17%
NVA Extra
Processing
19%
NVA Motion
47%
Figure E.6: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - Two-Inch Diameter
The pipe fitter was the only crew member involved with the four-inch diameter spool section.
His main responsibilities included field verification of the dimensions of the four-inch spool by
measuring and checking them with the most up-to-date construction documents, preparing the
spool section with a hoist line, constructing temporary stands for the four-inch spool to rest on
until the adjacent spool section could be erected into place, and completing all final leveling and
adjustments while a second pipe fitter secured the flanged end to the mechanical component.
Table E.3 and Figure E.7 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the pipe fitter. Notice that
no actions were contributed to VA time during this erection sequence and all time attributed to
the four-inch spool section was evenly split between NVA and NVAR actions. A second pipe
fitter was introduced for a brief period to secure the flanged end to the mechanical component,
which removed any possible VA actions from the original pipe fitters.
Table E.3: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - Four-Inch Diameter
Activity Classification W aste Classification T ime at Activity % of T ime at Activity
NVA
W aiting 0:18:12 22.80%
Extra Proc. 0:08:48 11.02%
T ransport 0:08:10 10.23%
M otion 0:06:19 7.91%
NVA T otal 0:41:29 51.96%
NVAR
M aterial Pos. 0:07:03 8.83%
In-Process Ins. 0:25:37 32.09%
T .W .S.A 0:05:41 7.12%
NVAR Total 0:38:21 48.04%
258
Pipe Fitter – 4 Inch Spool Section
NVAR TWSA
7% NVA Waiting
23%
NVAR In-Process
Inspection NVA Extra
32% Processing
11%
NVA Transport
NVAR Material 10%
Positioning NVA Motion
9% 8%
Figure E.7: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - Four-Inch Diameter
All three members of the crew were involved with the eight-inch diameter spool section. The
overall tasks required to erect the eight-inch spool section were similar to those for the two- and
four-inch sections. With the eight-inch section, the added step of welding together the 10-foot
sections of pipe on the ground was included in the overall process.
The field laborer was responsible for the following: grinding off the excess paint, beveling each
end that needed to be welded, aligning the ends of each 10-foot section of pipe using a pipe guide,
and continually inspecting the work on the spool section as it progressed. Table E.4 and
Figure E.8 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the field laborer. More than 80 percent of
his time was spent on NVA actions, and waiting consumed the largest amount of time of all the
waste categories (52 percent).
Table E.4: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Field Laborer - Eight-Inch Diameter
Ac tivity C la ssific a tio n W a ste C la ssific a tio n T im e a t Ac tivity % o f T im e a t Ac tivity
NVA
W aitin g 0:57:06 51.75%
E xtra P ro c. 0:23:26 21.24%
T ran sp o rt 0:05:43 5.18%
M o tio n 0:02:09 1.95%
N V A T o ta l 1 :2 8 :2 4 8 0 .1 2 %
N V AR
M aterial P o s. 0:02:30 2.27%
In -P ro cess In s. 0:01:26 1.30%
T .W .S .A 0:18:00 16.31%
N V AR T o ta l 0 :2 1 :5 6 1 9 .8 8 %
G ra n d T o ta l 1 :5 0 :2 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
259
Field Laborer – 8 Inch Pipe Spool
NVAR In-Process
Inspection
1% NVAR TWSA
16%
NVAR Material
Positioning
2%
NVA Motion
2%
NVA Waiting
53%
NVA Transport
5%
NVA Extra
Processing
21%
Figure E.8: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Field Laborer - Eight-Inch Diameter
The pipe fitter was involved with the following: positioning the two 10-foot sections onto pipe
stands within the work area, aligning the two sections together with a pipe guide, and continually
inspecting the work as grinding and welding occurred on the spool. When the weld was finished,
the pipe fitter was involved with rigging and positioning the spool while it was lifted into place.
He was also required to secure the unsupported spool end with temporary bracing until the
adjacent section could be erected. Table E.5 and Figure E.9 show the VA, NVA and NVAR
values for the pipe fitter. No VA actions occurred during the erection sequence. The time spent
on NVA and NVAR actions was evenly split, with NVA and NVAR actions consuming 56 and
44 percent, respectively, of the time.
Table E.5: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - Eight-Inch Diameter
A c t iv it y C la s s if ic a t io n W a s t e C la s s if ic a t io n T im e a t A c t iv it y % o f T im e a t A c t iv it y
NVA
W a itin g 0 :3 4 :5 4 1 8 .6 1 %
E x tra P ro c . 0 :1 7 :5 1 9 .5 2 %
T ra n s p o rt 0 :1 0 :5 2 5 .7 9 %
M o tio n 0 :4 0 :4 7 2 1 .7 4 %
N V A T o ta l 1 :4 4 :2 4 5 5 .6 6 %
NVAR
M a te ria l P o s . 0 :2 2 :3 2 1 2 .0 1 %
In -P ro c e s s In s . 0 :3 4 :1 4 1 8 .2 5 %
T .W .S .A 0 :2 6 :2 5 1 4 .0 8 %
N V A R T o ta l 1 :2 3 :1 1 4 4 .3 4 %
G ra n d T o ta l 3 :0 7 :3 5 1 0 0 .0 0 %
260
Pipe Fitter – 8 Inch Spool Section
NVAR TWSA
14% NVA Waiting
19%
NVAR In Process NVA Extra
Inspection Processing
18% 10%
NVA Transport
6%
NVAR Material
NVA Motion
Positioning 21%
12%
Figure E.9: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - Eight-Inch Diameter
The welder was responsible for the following: positioning the 10-foot sections of pipe onto the
temporary stands, beveling the ends of each 10-foot section to be welded together, aligning the
two ends together using a pipe guide, tack welding, performing final production weld, continu-
ously inspecting the production weld, rigging the finished spool section for the crane, positioning
and securing the eight-inch spool into its final position, and releasing the crane rigging from the
spool section once secured. Table E.6 and Figure E.10 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for
the welder. Twenty-five percent of the welder’s actions were attributed to the VA category. This
value was the largest for the observed three-man crew because of welder involvement with
beveling the end sections and the final production weld. NVA actions consumed the majority of
his time at 64 percent, with the subcategory of waiting being the primary activity. Extra
processing (rework) also consumed a significant portion of time in this cycle.
Table E.6: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Welder - Eight-Inch Diameter
A c t iv it y C la s s if ic a t io n W a s t e C la s s if ic a t io n T im e a t A c t iv it y % o f T im e a t A c t iv it y
VA
V a lu e A d d in g 1 :2 4 :1 1 2 4 .5 8 %
V A T o ta l 1 :2 4 :1 1 2 4 .5 8 %
NVA
W a itin g 1 :4 2 :3 7 2 9 .9 6 %
E x tra P ro c . 0 :3 6 :2 8 1 0 .6 5 %
T ra n s p o rt 0 :2 5 :2 3 7 .4 1 %
M o tio n 0 :5 5 :2 1 1 6 .1 6 %
N V A T o ta l 3 :3 9 :4 9 6 4 .1 8 %
NVAR
M a te ria l P o s . 0 :0 5 :3 3 1 .6 2 %
In -P ro c e s s In s . 0 :1 6 :1 7 4 .7 5 %
T .W .S .A 0 :1 6 :4 0 4 .8 7 %
N V A R T o ta l 0 :3 8 :3 0 1 1 .2 4 %
G ra n d T o ta l 5 :4 2 :3 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
261
Welder – 8 Inch Spool Section
NVAR In-Process
Inspection NVAR TWSA
5% 5%
NVAR Material
Positioning VA
2% 25%
NVA Motion
16%
NVA Transport
7%
NVA Extra NVA Waiting
Processing 29%
11%
Figure E.10: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Welder - Eight-Inch Diameter
The field laborer and pipe fitter were the only members of the three-man crew to work on the
10-inch elbow section. The spool section was already in the work area prior to the recording of
this data. The elbow section needed to be cut due to field variations from the construction
documents.
The field laborer was responsible for the following: positioning the elbow section on the pipe
stands, cutting the elbow section in half, cutting the elbow section down to the desired length and
grinding/beveling the cut ends of the two separated pieces in preparation for further welding.
Table E.7 and Figure E.11 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the field laborer. No VA
action occurred during this cycle. Nearly the entire time (96 percent) was spent on NVA actions,
with approximately 28 percent of the time spent on extra processing actions and 32 percent of the
time spent waiting for the pipe fitter.
Table E.7: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Field Laborer - 10-Inch Diameter
Ac tivity C la ssific a tio n W a s te C la s sific a tio n T im e a t Ac tiv ity % o f T im e a t Ac tiv ity
NVA
W a itin g 0 :5 5 :5 6 3 2 .4 6 %
E x tra P ro c . 0 :4 7 :3 6 2 7 .6 2 %
T ra n s p o rt 0 :2 0 :2 9 1 1 .8 9 %
M o tio n 0 :4 0 :5 3 2 3 .7 2 %
N V A T o ta l 2 :4 4 :5 4 9 5 .6 9 %
N V AR
M a te ria l P o s . 0 :0 1 :0 0 0 .5 8 %
In -P ro c e s s In s . 0 :0 0 :1 5 0 .1 5 %
T .W .S .A 0 :0 6 :1 1 3 .5 9 %
N V AR T o ta l 0 :0 7 :2 6 4 .3 1 %
G ra n d T o ta l 2 :5 2 :2 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
262
Fie ld Labore r - 8" Pipe Spool
NVAR In-Process
Ins.
NVAR T.W.S.A
1%
16%
NVAR Material
Pos.
2%
NVA Motion
2%
NVA Waiting
53%
NVA Transport
5%
The pipe fitter was responsible for the following: field verifying the correct length for the elbow
section, preparing the pipe to be cut and continually inspecting the work as it progressed.
Table E.8 and Figure E.12 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the pipe fitter.
Table E.8: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - 10-Inch Diameter
A c tiv ity C la s s ific a tio n W a s te C la s s ific a tio n T im e a t A c tiv ity % o f T im e a t A c tiv ity
NVA
W a itin g 0 :2 0 :5 2 3 5 .6 7 %
E x tra P ro c . 0 :3 1 :4 2 5 4 .1 9 %
T ra n s p o rt 0 :0 2 :1 0 3 .7 0 %
M o tio n 0 :0 3 :0 6 5 .3 0 %
N V A T o ta l 0 :5 7 :5 0 9 8 .8 6 %
NV AR
T .W .S .A 0 :0 0 :4 0 1 .1 4 %
N V A R T o ta l 0 :0 0 :4 0 1 .1 4 %
G ra n d T o ta l 0 :5 8 :3 0 1 0 0 .0 0 %
NVAR T.W.S.A
NVA Motion 1%
5%
NVA Transport
4%
NVA Waiting
36%
Figure E.12: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - 10-Inch Diameter
263
3.0 Results for the Crew
A work distribution chart (Figure E.13) depicts the time spent on various actions for the prefab-
ricated pipe with flange and the field fabrication production processes. During the observation
period, the erection of two spools was completed. Ground work associated with preparing the
two-inch and 10-inch spools was also observed, but not the actual installation of these com-
ponents. This resulted in two incomplete cycles. Figure E.13 provides an accurate representation
of the cycles observed for the four-inch diameter and eight-inch diameter spools. Both piping
components varied in size and shape and required different equipment and erection procedures.
Similar cycles did not occur during the observation; therefore, a cycle was defined as the entire
observation period. For example, the cycle started with the positioning of the eight-inch spool
onto pipe stands within the temporary workstation and concluded with the bolting and securing of
the eight-inch diameter spool into final position. The mini cycles involving the two-, four- and
10-inch spools all occurred within the total eight-inch cycle time. The different shading on the
chart represents the VA and waste tasks for each worker.
264
Worker Task Breakdown
6:00:00
Material Pos
Material Pos.
Material Pos. 0:05:33
5:24:00 0:04:05
0:29:35
T.W.S.A
4:12:00 0:26:22
T.W.S.A
0:32:46
T.W.S.A
3:36:00 In-Process Ins.
0:16:17 Value Adding
Transport
Transport 0:21:12 Motion
0:32:42 Transport
3:00:00 T.W.S.A
0:16:40 Extra Proc.
In-Process Ins.
Extra Proc. Transport Waiting
2:24:00 Extra Proc.
1:35:15 0:25:23
1:01:34 Material Pos.
Extra Proc.
0:36:28
1:48:00
Waiting
1:12:00 Waiting
2:16:18
1:16:45 Waiting
1:42:37
0:36:00
Motion
0:57:59 Motion
Motion
0:00:00 0:44:57 0:55:21
Field Laborer Pipe Fitter Welder
Table E.9 shows the percentage of time spent on VA, NVA and NVAR as a percentage of total
cumulative time available to each worker for the entire work cycle observed. Table E.10 lists the
subset of activities that occurred to accomplish the entire erection process. In particular, the
265
NVA category is further divided into time spent in waiting, extra processing, transport and
movement categories. Additionally, NVAR actions are broken down into three subcategories to
clarify how time was spent within the observed cycles.
Waiting accounted for roughly one-third of the total time observed during the cycle (Table E.9).
Except for the slightly lower value of the four-inch diameter spool, the waiting time for the
remaining subcategories consistently stayed near one third (Table E.10). Waiting durations for
each member of the crew fluctuated between the different subactivities, which coincided with the
problem of balancing a crew for one work activity; this sometimes resulted in other work
activities being under- or overstaffed. Table E.10 also reflects how crew member experience
affected the amount of time spent on waiting. Table E.9 shows that the pipe fitter contributed the
least amount of time to waiting. This could be attributed to the fact that he was the most skilled
worker in the crew, and that he was coordinating work activities.
Table E.9 shows that excess movement accounted for roughly 15 percent of the entire time spent
during the cycle. Table E.10 shows relatively equal amounts of time contributed to wasted
movement. The crew members walked from the workstation to the tool shed (100 yards away)
several times to retrieve new grinder pads and welding rods. (Note: When the workers carried
material back to the workstation, it was recorded as transport, not movement.)
The interpretation of this category included the use of defective materials delivered onsite that
subsequently required modification to be operable. This included any preparation work around
connection points such as cleaning out any metal slag from the spool, beveling and grinding the
end connections prior to welding, and removing paint from all end connections. Extra processing
(rework) accounted for more than 19 percent of the total time attributed to the piping process.
The field laborer contributed roughly 28 percent of his time to grinding off the paint and cutting
the elbow spool to meet the field measurements. The pipe fitter contributed roughly 18 percent of
his time to the following: rechecking plans, taking field measurements to ensure that the prefabri-
cated spools would fit, and aligning the correct cut line on the elbow section to guide the field
laborer.
266
Table E.10: Subactivities
Pre-Fabbed Pipe: 2" Pipe Spool Total Cumulative Time Spent on Spool 1:16:25 h:m:s
VA Waste NVAR VA +
Crew Member All Extra Material In Proc. Total % NVAR
Waiting Transport Movement T.W.S.A
Activities Processing Pos. Ins. %
Foreman - Pipe Fitter 0% 17% 19% 0% 47% 0% 17% 0% 100% 17%
Field Laborer 0% 39% 40% 11% 3% 1% 2% 4% 100% 7%
Welder 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Transportation was not as large a contributor to wasted time as the other categories. However, it
did consume 8 percent (Table E.9) of the total time. Each time a worker walked back from the
tool shed carrying a new grinder pad or welding rod, time was added to the transportation
category. Transport waste also occurred when positioning the pipe on the pipe standings to
further prepare the spools.
Overproduction waste (meaning too much of a building is produced) is rare in construction. Most
construction reflects a “build to contract mentality” that requires a specific product(s) to be
produced. WIP, on the other hand, is evident in construction but is dependent on the activity
level being viewed. At the process-specific level, WIP is seldom observed. However, at the
management level, each unfinished component of the production process represents WIP. For
this study, WIP was represented by the unfinished pipeline.
4.2.2 Inventory
Material deliveries consisted of two large shipments from the manufacturer. The prefabricated
steel pipe was delivered from the manufacturer to the painting subcontractor. The subcontractor
painted each spool section, then delivered the painted spools to the material lay-down yard. The
spools were then pulled from the material lay-down yard and moved to the workstation, where
267
final preparation work and production welds were completed. Finally, the spools were erected
into final position. It was recognized that waste in inventory occurs; however, it was not possible
to quantify this waste through physical observation.
4.2.3 Defects
Defects are defined as errors or deficiencies in a finished product that required additional work on
the part of the original crew or a follow-up crew. A faulty release valve or piping component
delivered onsite from the manufacturer is an example of a defect (i.e., the material has been
passed through the value stream to the next workstation). Another example of a defect is
included in the punch list process at the end of a job. When a defect in the finished product is
found at this stage, a separate follow-up crew is activated to correct the defect. Hence, the defect
is pushed on to the next workstation. Time spent on reworking the elbow section was accounted
for in the extra processing section. No waste associated with defects was observed.
Rework occurs on
spools that do not
Manufacturer meet field Spool is erected
delivers Spool is measurements and secured into
Material is
material to Fabricated spool positioned in its final position
delivered to
site in two material lay- is transported to work area onto
large down yard work area temporary pipe Final prep
shipments stands work is
performed
on spool
Information on delivery and handling of the piping components was obtained from the steel
erector. The basic flow of the prefabricated spools was as follows:
• Pipe was cut, shaped and welded to specification at the manufacturer’s plant.
• Pipe manufacturer delivered spools to cleaning and painting facility in two large
shipments.
• Cleaned and painted spools were delivered in two large shipments to the lay-
down yard.
• Spools were pulled from the lay-down yard as needed by the field foreman (pipe
fitter) and positioned on temporary pipe stands for final preparation work within
the workstation.
268
• If the spool did not meet the field measurements, rework (cutting spool to desired
shape) occurred on the spool until a perfect fit could be made.
• Crane rigging was attached to the spool sections and the spool was hoisted into
its final position within the pipeline as follows:
• Temporary bracing and supports were put in place until permanent supports
could be installed.
The value stream map shown on Figure E.15 was created using the information described in the
preceding section. Each major stage that the piping components went through is represented on
Level One. Two different manufacturers were used to supply piping components to the job and
are represented on this map. The material flowed from the fabricator to the painting sub-
contractor. An inventory position of five days between the two parties is shown. This uses an
assumption for the amount of time that the material sat before being cleaned and painted. No
substages for Level Two are represented; all values from Level Three can be directly entered into
Stage Two. No observations were made regarding Stage One since it was not directly witnessed;
however, the project superintendent confirmed that those activities occurred. An estimate of
three days total is shown for completion of Stage Two. The value stream ended once the piping
erection process reached the testing and detailing stage. Again, the limited observation period
prevented acquiring data on this stage in the entire steel erection process. Attention instead was
focused on the two substages required for Stage Two of the value stream. In Levels Two and
Three, the majority of time spent during the steel erection process was on the field fabricated
spools. In Area Three of Level Three, the total linear footage that was required to be field
fabricated or prefabricated was estimated. Using this value and the value determined for
Cumulative Time Spent per Linear Foot of Pipe, the total man-hours required to complete each
line (field or prefabricated process) could be estimated. These values are subject to change from
actual data entered into the Total Linear Feet for Each Pipe Diameter column.
269
Figure E.15: Value Stream Map
270
Table E.11 and Figure E.16 show the quick summary results for the work distribution values. Of
the 800 total workable hours committed to the piping erection process, only 58 of them were VA.
Of the total, 153 hours contributed to the NVAR category. This value was high as a result of
moving the pipe 15 feet above the floor. Finally, the overwhelming period of time spent during
the piping erection process was on NVA actions.
Working Days 35
Working Time 800 Man-hours
VA Total 58 Man-hours
NVAR Total 153 Man-hours
NVA Total 590 Man-hours
NVA Time
Time Allocation of Field
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
Manhours
Figure E.17 and Table E.12 illustrate how the work distribution values changed and grew
throughout the process life cycle. The weighted average results found in Level Three of the value
stream map were used to calculate all of the VA, NVAR and NVA values in Table E.12. As
shown on Figure E.17, the cumulative NVA line grew the fastest compared to the other work
distribution values. The black vertical line indicates when the pipe delivery process finished and
the steel erection process began. The slope change for the cumulative workable hours line
indicates that more crew members were introduced to the process. As seen on the figure, the
cumulative VA hours line finally started to grow.
271
Work Distribution
1800
1600
1400
1200
Stage 1, 2 -
Delivery and Cumulative Calendar Hours
1000
material Cumulative Work Hours
Time (man-hours)
200
y = 1.8922x - 6.4148
272
Table E.12: Spreadsheet of Values Used to Create Work Distribution Life-Cycle Graph
Cumulative Cumulative Hours
Calendar Cumulative Calendar Workable Crew Workable Cumulative VA NVAR NVA VA Cumulative NVAR Cumulative NVA Cumulative
Stage Primary Activity for the Day Day Calendar Workable worked
Days Calendat Days Hours Days available Hours Work Hours Percentage Percentage Percentage Hours VA Hours Hours NVAR Hrs. Hours NVA Hrs
Hours days per day
Stage 1 Steel is delivered and offloaded from Paint Subcontractor Monday 1 1 16 16 1 1 2 8 16 16 0% 20% 80% 0 0 3.2 3.2 12.8 12.8
Stage 1 Steel is delivered and offloaded from Paint Subcontractor Tuesday 1 2 16 32 1 2 2 8 16 32 0% 20% 80% 0 0 3.2 6.4 12.8 25.6
Stage 2 Spools are pulled from Yard and Positioned in work area Wednesday 1 3 16 48 1 3 2 8 16 48 0% 0% 100% 0 0 0 6.4 16 41.6
Stage 3 Final Prep Work Thursday 1 4 24 72 1 4 3 8 24 72 8% 19% 73% 1.92 1.92 4.56 10.96 17.52 59.12
Stage 3 Final Prep Work Friday 1 5 24 96 1 5 3 8 24 96 8% 19% 73% 1.92 3.84 4.56 15.52 17.52 76.64
Stage 3 Weekend Saturday 1 6 24 120 0 5 3 0 0 96 8% 19% 73% 0 3.84 0 15.52 0 76.64
Stage 3 Weekend Sunday 1 7 24 144 0 5 3 0 0 96 8% 19% 73% 0 3.84 0 15.52 0 76.64
Stage 3 Final Prep Work and Erection Process Monday 1 8 40 184 1 6 5 8 40 136 8% 19% 73% 3.2 7.04 7.6 23.12 29.2 105.84
Stage 2,3 Spools are pulled from Yard and Positioned in work area, Final Prep Work Tuesday 1 9 40 224 1 7 5 8 40 176 8% 19% 73% 3.2 10.24 7.6 30.72 29.2 135.04
Stage 3 Final Prep Work Wednesday 1 10 24 248 1 8 3 8 24 200 8% 19% 73% 1.92 12.16 4.56 35.28 17.52 152.56
Stage 3 Final Prep Work Thursday 1 11 24 272 1 9 3 8 24 224 8% 19% 73% 1.92 14.08 4.56 39.84 17.52 170.08
Stage 3 Final Prep Work and Erection Process Friday 1 12 40 312 1 10 5 8 40 264 8% 19% 73% 3.2 17.28 7.6 47.44 29.2 199.28
Stage 3 Weekend Saturday 1 13 40 352 0 10 5 0 0 264 8% 19% 73% 0 17.28 0 47.44 0 199.28
Stage 3 Weekend Sunday 1 14 40 392 0 10 5 0 0 264 8% 19% 73% 0 17.28 0 47.44 0 199.28
Stage 2,3 Spools are pulled from Yard and Positioned in work area, Final Prep Work Monday 1 15 40 432 1 11 5 8 40 304 8% 19% 73% 3.2 20.48 7.6 55.04 29.2 228.48
Stage 3 Final Prep Work Tuesday 1 16 24 456 1 12 3 8 24 328 8% 19% 73% 1.92 22.4 4.56 59.6 17.52 246
Stage 3 Final Prep Work Wednesday 1 17 24 480 1 13 3 8 24 352 8% 19% 73% 1.92 24.32 4.56 64.16 17.52 263.52
Stage 3 Final Prep Work and Erection Process Thursday 1 18 40 520 1 14 5 8 40 392 8% 19% 73% 3.2 27.52 7.6 71.76 29.2 292.72
Stage 2,3 Spools are pulled from Yard and Positioned in work area, Final Prep Work Friday 1 19 40 560 1 15 5 8 40 432 8% 19% 73% 3.2 30.72 7.6 79.36 29.2 321.92
Stage 3 Weekend Saturday 1 20 40 600 0 15 5 0 0 432 8% 19% 73% 0 30.72 0 79.36 0 321.92
Stage 3 Weekend Sunday 1 21 40 640 0 15 5 0 0 432 8% 19% 73% 0 30.72 0 79.36 0 321.92
Stage 3 Final Prep Work, Second Delivery of Spools arrives and is positioned on groun Monday 1 22 40 680 1 16 5 8 40 472 8% 19% 73% 3.2 33.92 7.6 86.96 29.2 351.12
Stage 3 Final Prep Work, Second Delivery of Spools arrives and is positioned on groun Tuesday 1 23 40 720 1 17 5 8 40 512 8% 19% 73% 3.2 37.12 7.6 94.56 29.2 380.32
Stage 3 Final Prep Work and Erection Process Wednesday 1 24 40 760 1 18 5 8 40 552 8% 19% 73% 3.2 40.32 7.6 102.16 29.2 409.52
Stage 2,3 Spools are pulled from Yard and Positioned in work area, Final Prep Work Thursday 1 25 40 800 1 19 5 8 40 592 8% 19% 73% 3.2 43.52 7.6 109.76 29.2 438.72
Stage 3 Final Prep Work Friday 1 26 24 824 1 20 3 8 24 616 8% 19% 73% 1.92 45.44 4.56 114.32 17.52 456.24
Stage 3 Weekend Saturday 1 27 40 864 0 20 5 0 0 616 8% 19% 73% 0 45.44 0 114.32 0 456.24
Stage 3 Weekend Sunday 1 28 40 904 0 20 5 0 0 616 8% 19% 73% 0 45.44 0 114.32 0 456.24
Stage 3 Final Prep Work Monday 1 29 24 928 1 21 3 8 24 640 8% 19% 73% 1.92 47.36 4.56 118.88 17.52 473.76
Stage 3 Final Prep Work and Erection Process Tuesday 1 30 40 968 1 22 5 8 40 680 8% 19% 73% 3.2 50.56 7.6 126.48 29.2 502.96
Stage 2,3 Spools are pulled from Yard and Positioned in work area, Final Prep Work Wednesday 1 31 40 1008 1 23 5 8 40 720 8% 19% 73% 3.2 53.76 7.6 134.08 29.2 532.16
Stage 3 Final Prep Work Thursday 1 32 24 1032 1 24 3 8 24 744 8% 19% 73% 1.92 55.68 4.56 138.64 17.52 549.68
Stage 3 Final Prep Work Friday 1 33 24 1056 1 25 3 8 24 768 8% 19% 73% 1.92 57.6 4.56 143.2 17.52 567.2
Stage 3 Weekend Saturday 1 34 40 1096 0 25 5 0 0 768 8% 19% 73% 0 57.6 0 143.2 0 567.2
Stage 3 Weekend Sunday 1 35 40 1136 0 25 5 0 0 768 8% 19% 73% 0 57.6 0 143.2 0 567.2
Stage 3 Final Prep Work and Erection Process Monday 1 36 40 1176 1 26 5 8 40 808 8% 19% 73% 3.2 60.8 7.6 150.8 29.2 596.4
Stage 2,3 Spools are pulled from Yard and Positioned in work area, Final Prep Work Tuesday 1 37 40 1216 1 27 5 8 40 848 8% 19% 73% 3.2 64 7.6 158.4 29.2 625.6
Stage 3 Final Prep Work Wednesday 1 38 24 1240 1 28 3 8 24 872 8% 19% 73% 1.92 65.92 4.56 162.96 17.52 643.12
Stage 3 Final Prep Work Thursday 1 39 24 1264 1 29 3 8 24 896 8% 19% 73% 1.92 67.84 4.56 167.52 17.52 660.64
Stage 3 Final Prep Work and Erection Process Friday 1 40 40 1304 1 30 5 8 40 936 8% 19% 73% 3.2 71.04 7.6 175.12 29.2 689.84
Stage 3 Weekend Saturday 1 41 40 1344 0 30 5 0 0 936 8% 19% 73% 0 71.04 0 175.12 0 689.84
Stage 3 Weekend Sunday 1 42 40 1384 0 30 5 0 0 936 8% 19% 73% 0 71.04 0 175.12 0 689.84
Stage 3 Spools are pulled from Yard and Positioned in work area, Final Prep Work Monday 1 43 40 1424 1 31 5 8 40 976 8% 19% 73% 3.2 74.24 7.6 182.72 29.2 719.04
Stage 3 Final Prep Work Tuesday 1 44 24 1448 1 32 3 8 24 1000 8% 19% 73% 1.92 76.16 4.56 187.28 17.52 736.56
Stage 3 Final Prep Work Wednesday 1 45 24 1472 1 33 3 8 24 1024 8% 19% 73% 1.92 78.08 4.56 191.84 17.52 754.08
Stage 3 Final Prep Work and Erection Process Thursday 1 46 40 1512 1 34 5 8 40 1064 8% 19% 73% 3.2 81.28 7.6 199.44 29.2 783.28
Stage 3 Final Prep Work and Erection Process Friday 1 47 40 1552 1 35 5 8 40 1104 8% 19% 73% 3.2 84.48 7.6 207.04 29.2 812.48
273
Appendix F
Case Study No. 6 - Process Piping
1.0 Overview
This case study took place at a large manufacturing facility. Several large structures were being
erected in various locations onsite, and the study focused on the largest of these structures.
Unfortunately, during the observation period, several factors prevented observation of any value
adding (VA) activities. Thus, this study became a “lessons learned” case study whose purpose
was to highlight areas that, from the perspective of the observation team, were not lean.
Approximately 30 crewmen were identified in the installation crews. These crewmen were
divided into multiple subcrews. Each crew was observed transporting piping components from
the ground to the rafters and temporarily storing the components there until trapezoidal hangers
were erected to support the pipe in final position. During the observation period, no VA actions
were evident (i.e., no hangers were erected, nor were any spools coupled). In fact, the majority of
the time during the observation period was spent on waiting and transportation waste. Rather
than exclude this case study from the report, areas are identified, at both the crew level and at
higher levels that caused the non-value adding (NVA) actions to occur.
The material for the observed work was purchased and handled by the subcontractor. This
included all Victalic spools, couplings, gaskets and trapezoidal hangers. The larger equipment,
such as pumps, air handling units and fans, was purchased by the owner of the facility. For the
work observed, only the spools, couplings, gaskets and trapezoidal hangers were required. The
material that was onsite during the observation period was stored in two lay-down areas. The
first area was located on the north side of the facility, roughly 800 yards away from the work
area. This lay-down area served as the first staging area for material delivered from the
manufacturing facility. The second lay-down area was located in the facility. The bundles of
274
“like” spool diameters were positioned inside the facility at this point. The spools were pulled
from their respective bundles to a staging area on the ground. Different spool sizes were required
in each bay section of the building. The third staging position allowed each required spool
diameter, for each bay section, to be organized and moved at one time to the final staging position
below the rafters. From this final staging position, the spools wre lifted one at a time onto the
rafters (roof trusses). The trapezoidal hangers were not in position at this time. Each spool was
secured above its final position using cables until it could be lowered on top of the trapezoidal
hangers.
The missing hangers highlighted an area of non-lean conformance, i.e., the lack of available
materials. Several spools were temporarily positioned in the trusses even before the observation
period began. This material represented overproduction waste, which is a component of work in
progress (WIP). The cause of this particular WIP was a shortage of couplings and gaskets that
were required to connect each spool. Because these components were not ordered at the same
time as the spools, the assembly of each section was delayed.
Another area of non-lean conformance was the multiple handling of material. Roughly seven
touches were required for each spool section installed in the facility. Ideally, the piping
components would be delivered from the manufacturing facility to their final position in the
rafters. This excess material handling increased the transportation waste associated with NVA
actions.
A gas pipe spool section was observed being hoisted into the trusses and then lowered back to the
ground. Further investigation revealed that the spool was the wrong diameter for that section of
the pipeline, thus requiring it to be removed. Lean philosophy recommends incorporating “error
proof” processes whenever possible. This can be accomplished, for example, by labeling each
pipe component with a bar code, directional arrows and spool diameter. The result of lifting the
gas spool up and then down again was wasted movement, wasted transportation, extra processing
and waiting. Five crewmen were involved with the process.
There was no well-defined work process for the construction activity. At one point during the
observation period, a majority of the crewmen were working in one location. Work was then
stopped in that area of the building, and the workers were shifted to another location. This
“jumping around” was an example of the material value stream not “flowing” as it should. The
non-ideal work flow for installing spools was a result of management requiring one area of the
building to be finished one week, then shifting the focus to another area of the building the
following week before the first area was completed. The critical completion items never stayed
the same. Lean philosophy recommends starting an activity at its latest possible point. This
limits extra processing waste (another component of WIP) and also allows an activity to be
completely finished so that follow-up crews may begin their scheduled tasks.
It was observed that work at the crew level was restricted by activities occurring upstream.
Specifically, the final pour for the concrete slab occurred in the center of the building. This
prevented the pipe installation crew from erecting and installing piping components in a linear
fashion. Instead, the crews installed erected spools in one location until they reached the
incomplete section. Then they started in another location, until once again reaching the
incomplete portion. The piping foreman notified the observation team that coupling and bolting
could not begin until the slab was completed because of two 90 degree turns occurring over the
unfinished concrete slab.
275
Another non-lean area of the case study dealt with training. Several members of the crew were
not educated on the capabilities of Victalic pipe. Many crew members did not think highly of the
material because it did not require them to weld connections, as they had on previous jobs. Lean
philosophy recommends that each worker to be trained and educated in applicable work practices.
Several of the crewmen were not trained in the installation of Victalic pipe resulting in a trial and
error learning atmosphere on the job.
276
Appendix G
Lean Questionnaire and Principle Cross-Reference
This appendix contains the final version of the questionnaire. This questionnaire forms the basis
for the Lean Assessment Tool created by the PT 191 Team. In addition to the questionnaire, this
appendix contains a table that cross-references the individual questions with the lean principle
that is being assessed.
Customer Focus
2 Value added for the project is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A Value added is defined in terms
defined individually by each of the entire project by all the
respective project participant. participants.
277
7 The project is built precisely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A The Contractor discusses ways
according to plans. to modify the plans to reduce
costs while trying to maintain
quality.
Culture/People
Training
Employee Empowerment
11 Employees feel that it takes a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A Employees feel that their ideas
great deal of effort to have matter to the project team.
their supervisors hear what
they have to say.
Management Commitment
14 The company does not need to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A The company works with
work outside their own suppliers, subs, and owners to
organization to improve project improve project effectiveness.
effectiveness.
Workplace Organization/
Standardization
Encourage Workplace
Organization and Use 5S's
278
15 Materials and tools are located 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A Workstations are organized with
about the jobsite where they materials and tools in their
were last used or where designated places.
workers think they are most
convenient.
18 Materials arrive on-site without 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A Methods for site assembly show
directional marks or any piece marks or other methods to
specific assembly instructions, assure a "one way only fit" such
and require communications as color coding, numbering, etc.
with the supplier, engineer, or
fabricator to assemble.
Visual Management
19 Posting information regarding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A The jobsite has visual aids that
schedule, quality, safety, show the job status on schedule,
productivity for the current job quality, safety, and productivity.
is not of great importance.
22 The jobsite's plan for flow of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A Jobsite has a logistics plan
materials and supplies is defining access, deliveries,
conceived at the point of need. movement and work
progression.
279
24 There is no posted site laydown 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A There is a posted site laydown
plan/drawing for storage of plan/drawing for storage of
equipment/materials. equipment/materials.
Eliminate Waste
Part I: Process Optimization
27 Crew members may have idle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A Crew sizes are usually balanced
or free time on the job. and members are working non-
stop.
Reduce Difficult
Setup/Changeovers
30 Large batches of materials are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A The crew has the ability to
produced before changing to switch from one task to another
the next task to avoid to minimize downtime.
downtime.
Reduce Scrap
280
Use TPM (Total Productive
Maintenance)
JIT Delivery
34 Bulk materials are stored on- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A Bulk materials are delivered just
site. prior to installation.
281
Use Decoupling Linkages,
Understand Buffer Size and
Location
42 Jobs are on site labor intensive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A Materials are assembled in off
Little use of off site shops, or site shops or are pre-fabricated
jobsite pre-fabrication or on jobsite, and delivered to work
modularization. area.
Continuous Improvement/Built-
In-Quality
45 Lessons learned in the field are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A Lessons learned in the field are
not documented. documented, and passed on to
others.
282
Develop and Use Metrics to
Measure Performance, Use Stretch
Targets
50 When defects are discovered, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A A plan exists that says what to
the project crew(s) are allowed do when a defect is discovered.
to shut down or pass the defect
on to another sub to fix.
283
Lean Principle/Questionnaire Cross-Reference
284
Appendix H
Interview Notes
This appendix contains a summary of the interview notes that were created during and after the
site visit for each case study project. The interviews used the lean questionnaire as a guide to
discover lean practices used on the project. Also, this appendix contains the interview notes from
our meetings with lean construction early adopters. In some cases, the notes cover
projects/companies that are both case study projects and lean early adopters. In this case, the
interview notes are presented with the case study interview notes.
Customer Focus
Optimize Value
• They are in constant contact with the customer regarding their needs and
requirements.
Flexible Resources
• They make their schedule based on the customer’s requirements, meaning they’ll
fast track it if cost is not an issue, but time is. And vice-versa if time is not an
issue, but cost is the underlying element.
• Resources are moved or the schedule of erection is changed if the customer needs
to use a certain area, or wants a certain part completed.
Culture/People
Training
• No lean behaviors.
People Involvement
• Daily startup sessions/meetings are held everyday at the jobsite and at the
corporate office (kaizen).
Organizational Commitment
285
• Each engineer (structural, material coordinator, technicians) needs to come up
with at least one cost-saving idea for every project they work on. The goal of
this is to force people to “think outside the box.”
Workplace Standardization
Workplace Organization
• They try to promote the idea of “put it away if not using it.”
Visual Management
• They post a flow chart for access/egress for suppliers to gain access to the site.
Eliminate Waste
• No lean behavior.
• Try to implement JIT as much as possible, but have difficulty due to normal
outside barriers that come about in the construction industry.
• On a daily basis, they look at the schedule and evaluate if the resources are
adequate or being used efficiently.
Organizational Learning
• They use a post-job audit to evaluate how they performed on the last project, and
then they classify it as a job specific issue or something that can go into a
Lessons Learned type file.
286
Metrics
Error Proofing
− They provide tension control bolts so that the ironworkers always apply
the correct torque to the bolts.
Response to Defects
Data Unavailable
Customer Focus
Optimize Value
• They conduct formal design review sessions with the owner during the pre-
construction phase of the job.
Flexible Resources
Culture/People
Training
People Involvement
• This company created a tool or system called LDMS, which stands for Lean
Daily Management System. This is a vehicle that allows all the participants
(subs, crews, Project Management, owner) to bring their ideas to the job.
287
Organizational Commitment
• This company has a system called Supply Chain Integration, which they
bring/show to their suppliers and explain their processes to the supplier.
Workplace Standardization
Workplace Organization
Visual Management
• Productivity reports are distributed to General Foreman and posted in the trailer.
• Signs are posted in work area concerning safety (hardhats, safety glasses).
Eliminate Waste
• They prefab as much as possible. The Designer, in their case the structural
engineer meets with the field labor to discuss Constructability. This is a new
phenomenon used since the engineer visited a couple of sites previously and
realized this was a necessary function.
Organizational Learning
• Have a lessons learned file, but not used often due to dissimilar projects.
288
• There is a Suggestions for Improvement box.
Metrics
Error Proofing
• They make sure their steel is delivered with a “one-way only fit.”
Response to Defects
• They have written plans of what to do when a defect occurs. Forms must be
submitted when there is a defect, and these are also placed in their lessons
learned file.
Customer Focus
Optimize Value
• They advocate their General Foremen and Foremen to meet with the Owner’s
operators to understand their specific needs for the site.
• They are flexible with the Owner’s request to meet them on site to discuss any
needs or requirements by the Owner.
Flexible Resources
• They are flexible with their labor workforce since their location is near the
largest local pipe fitter union in the country.
Culture/People
Training
• Training under a person that has already done one’s job is required in the project
management level, meaning there is a specific ladder to climb to finally be able
to run a job.
People Involvement
• This company creates milestones for its workers to strive for, in the purpose of
promoting employee empowerment.
Organizational Commitment
Workplace Standardization
289
Workplace Organization
• They have a standard tool trailer with labeled bins for all the tools.
Visual Management
• Productivity reports are distributed to General Foreman and posted in the trailer.
• Signs are posted in work area concerning safety (hardhats, safety glasses).
• They use a material coordinator to help with the flow of their jobsite.
Eliminate Waste
• No lean behaviors.
• They go to great detail to plan activities that will result in the least amount of
movement.
• No lean behaviors.
• No lean behaviors.
Organizational Learning
• Have a lessons learned file, but not used often due to dissimilar projects.
Metrics
Error Proofing
Response to Defects
290
• They have a Quality Assurance person flag the ISO, a decision will be made if
work can continue or if repairs need to be done before moving on.
Customer Focus
Optimize Value
Flexible Resources
Culture/People
Training
People Involvement
Organizational Commitment
• The company is not satisfied with current practices, and looking to improve.
That is necessary in lean thinking (continually eliminate the waste).
Workplace Standardization
Workplace Organization
Visual Management
• They have a formal contract work process. ISO 9000 related. This work process
is in electronic form.
291
• They conduct weekly meetings to discuss access, logistics.
Eliminate Waste
• They are practicing JIT, but it is due to conditions and not planning. They are
doing JIT by default on this job.
Organizational Learning
• They have a Value Awareness Report. Lessons Learned are included in this file.
Metrics
Error Proofing
Response to Defects
Customer Focus
Optimize Value
292
Flexible Resources
Culture/People
Training
People Involvement
• The Last Planner system that Boldt emphasizes inherently creates employee
empowerment. It forces each participant to explain the work they are doing,
when it will be completed, and also allows them to make suggestions.
Organizational Commitment
• Every year 7-8 strategic goals are stated by the company. At least one of these
goals is focused on innovation and using Lean Construction Initiatives to
improve processes.
Workplace Standardization
Workplace Organization
Visual Management
Eliminate Waste
• They use the combination of CPM and Last Planner to balance their work flow
and crew flow.
293
Optimize Work Content
• Again using the Last Planner system to hand-off products in small batches or in a
continuous stream. They have focused real hard in the last 4 years on the hand-
off principle. Their goal is to better manage the actual hand-off of work between
activities as opposed to managing the activity itself.
Organizational Learning
• They also have a Lessons Learned File that can be accessed through their
intranet.
Metrics
• They are intent on having quality measurements decentralized all the way down
to the lowest level of the organization. This is the theory that each worker should
check his/her own work and make sure it is of good quality before passing it on.
Error Proofing
Response to Defects
294
Early Adopter #3 – Mechanical Design/Build
Customer Focus
Optimize Value
• Make employees fill out a Planning Checklist for each project where questions
are asked to see if the employees know the client’s goals and what business the
clients are in.
Flexible Resources
• Makes sure project teams have clear lines of communication to help if changes
need to be made on the project, especially if made by the client.
Culture/People
Training
• The company has its own Internet system that is used as a tool in many regards.
There are numerous training sessions on the system.
• Foremen are trained once a month as well as whenever there is something they
need to be trained in.
People Involvement
• Employees are rewarded as a team when a project goes well, and not by
individual trades. This forces them to think as a team.
Organizational Commitment
• Company asks suppliers to find more effective practices, which is complied with
since same suppliers are on 95 percent of their projects.
Workplace Standardization
Workplace Organization
• Boxes are created for each crewman with everything they would need for that
day.
295
Visual Management
• There internal system prints out visual reports that define all work processes.
• They have checklists that each employee must follow which include what their
task is, how it should be done, what tools and materials are needed, and the
possible safety hazards and how to prevent them.
Eliminate Waste
Organizational Learning
• Meetings are held to talk about innovative ideas to improve processes for the
future.
296
Metrics
• They measure the amount of unused supplies and materials for each job. This is
done with the help of one of their suppliers. Suppliers are in accordance with this
program since they are usually the same for each job.
Error Proofing
• They color-code their fire sleeves to clarify between supply lines and return lines.
Response to Defects
• Field empowerment is encouraged to raise the flag and deal with the defect at
hand.
Customer Focus
Optimize Value
• Company supplies JIT training to its A/E so they can understand lean and its
communication tools for the owner.
Flexible Resources
Culture/People
Training
People Involvement
297
Organizational Commitment
• Training and conversations always occur with Subs regarding lean practices.
Workplace Standardization
Workplace Organization
Visual Management
• Everything that is tracked is posted. One of the only companies visited that
posted numerous visual aids at the workplace.
• A jobsite logistics plan is used that defines workflow, access, etc. This is a visual
aid as well.
Eliminate Waste
• Architects and Engineers are trained in Just-In-Time concepts. This teaches them
about the benefits of using standardized materials for repetitive tasks.
• The four-week look ahead planning is used here to support smooth flow from sub
to sub.
298
Continuous Improvement/Built-In Quality
Organizational Learning
• They keep three lessons learned files. One for lean behaviors, one for activities,
and one with the CIMs.
Metrics
Error Proofing
Response to Defects
• Employees and subs are encouraged and empowered to report defects, especially
with matters concerning safety.
299
Appendix I
Worker Movement Study No. 1
1.1 Background
In the manufacturing world, where the lean idea was first developed, intercell flow has been
extensively analyzed to optimize factory layout, work space sequence and equipment selection
and to improve overall productivity. An efficient flow of workers, materials and information
among various cells or workstations is one of most important requisites for overall productivity
improvement. However, the construction industry has not readily adopted this flow analysis
concept because of the difficulties of applying the analysis to the construction process. The
following are some characteristics that hamper the construction industry from adopting move-
ment (flow) analysis:
Despite the difficulties of conducting movement (flow) analysis in construction, the need for such
information continues. Although this analysis does not apply to all construction processes, it
serves as an experimental attempt at movement analysis of the steel erection process.
Due to the complexity of the construction process mentioned earlier, this analysis has a few scope
limitations, which are described in the following subsections.
This study evaluated the movement of workers in the Noland Project steel erection process. As
mentioned earlier, there are three types of flow: workers, materials and information. Unlike
300
manufacturing, where most of the workers are stationary and material moves from one location to
another, in construction, both workers and materials move from one location to another.
Therefore, both worker and material movements are equally important. However, material
movement was excluded from this study mainly because the materials were already delivered and
positioned before the observation started. Despite the improvement of communication tools, the
information flows primarily between workers. Therefore, information flow is very much tied to
worker movement and was not considered separately in this study.
There are several factors that contribute to NVA movements. These include inefficient layout,
work space congestion and improper crew and equipment selection. One goal of this study was
to find the cause of unnecessary movement using the perspective of site layout and the work
sequence plan. However, understanding that each project has a unique environment and there are
thousands of other associated activities, this study assumed that the crew and equipment selection
was not changeable.
1.3 Methodology
1.3.1 Worker Movement Diagram Construction
Using field observations, videotape review and the site plan, the structure being constructed and
the movement paths of four workers (forklift operator, x-bracing connector, right connector and
left connector) were sketched. The locations of various workstations and the places where
workers stopped were indicated with marks and numbers. The Actual Movement Diagram,
which contains both the NVA and NVAR movements of workers, is located at the end of this
appendix.
Using observations and a logical thinking process, NVAR movements and unavoidable stops
were identified. With minimum moving distances and stops, an Ideal Movement Diagram was
constructed, which is located at the end of this appendix.
Frequent, unnecessary stops are an indicator of unproductive worker movement. When a worker
finishes or hands off a task and moves to another location, time and energy are consumed.
Therefore, the number of stops can be directly correlated to the level of productivity; fewer stops
mean less wasted movements. The number of stops was counted for both actual and ideal
movements for this analysis. For each worker, this number was then given a rating to convey
stop efficiency as follows:
301
Even if one worker made the same number of stops as another, his movement may still be NVA if
he went the long way around from one point to another. Therefore, total distance traveled is an
equally important factor in the movement efficiency rating, which is computed as follows:
Measuring distance can be a very complex process because of the nature of worker movement in
construction. The construction process can be very three-dimensionally oriented, which means
that activities are carried out above as well as on the ground. This makes it harder to measure the
exact distance between two locations. To overcome this difficulty and achieve more accurate
measurements, a three-dimensional coordinate system was adopted. A reference point was
selected and each workstation and stop were assigned X, Y, and Z coordinates, so that distance
measurement could become simpler.
Curved movement path was another problem in distance measurement. Most construction
activities take place in an open field where no aisle, corridor or walking path yet exists. To
overcome this difficulty, an approximated distance measurement method was used.
Stop Efficiency
Actual Ideal Efficiency
Stops 20 12 0.6
302
Distance Efficiency
Actual Ideal Efficiency
Rectilinear 892 695.0 0.78
Euclidian 735.0 578.3 0.79
Average 0.78
Although the forklift operator had significant wasted movements, the efficiency was relatively
high. This resulted from on-the-ground oriented workstation locations. The two main tasks of
the forklift operator were delivering steel parts from the stock yard to the erection location and
hooking the parts onto the crane cable. Both types of work were conducted on the ground, so the
forklift operator only had two-dimensional oriented movements, which tended to have less waste
relative to three-dimensional movements.
The following is a description of some key wasted movements, corresponding causes and
possible solutions for improvement:
Stop Efficiency
Actual Ideal Efficiency
Stops 31 18 0.58
Distance Efficiency
Actual Ideal Efficiency
Rectilinear 1557.0 312.0 0.20
Euclidian 1157.2 241.3 0.21
Average 0.20
The x-bracing connector encountered the most interference from other workers’ movements
because he worked at an internal location. Therefore, his efficiency was generally lower than the
others. There was not much significance in the stop efficiency, but the distance efficiency was
very low. The x-bracing connector got in the way of material delivery a few times, and it forced
him to pull back from his workstation and led to a significant increase in movement distance.
303
1.4.3 Right Connector
Stop Efficiency
Actual Ideal Efficiency
Stops 21 16 0.76
Distance Efficiency
Actual Ideal Efficiency
Rectilinear 488 230.0 0.47
Euclidian 445.5 230.0 0.52
Average 0.49
Although the right connector had very similar tasks as the left connector, the right connector had
better stop efficiency and worse distance efficiency. The right connector had better stop
efficiency because, by the nature of the work, he could stay on one side of the structure for both
girder and bar joist erection, while the left connector had to move to various locations. The
reason for lower distance efficiency was interference from the crane. During the erection process,
the crane was located at the right side of the structure and got in the way of the right connector’s
man-lift movement.
Stop Efficiency
Actual Ideal Efficiency
Stops 27 17 0.63
Distance Efficiency
Actual Ideal Efficiency
Rectilinear 694 410.0 0.59
Euclidian 595.1 343.0 0.58
Average 0.58
The left connector had relatively good overall efficiency. The left connector worked mostly on
top of the existing structure instead of using a man-lift, and he had little wasted movement. In
addition, the left connector had no significant NVA movement during the observation. The
efficiency rate was not particularly good mainly due to the up and down movements of the man-
lift when moving from one workstation to the next.
304
1.5 Further Analysis Plan
1.5.1 Comparative Case Study of Various Projects
Because of the diversity of task types, equipment and other circumstances, a simple efficiency
rate cannot properly evaluate the movement of various workers. Therefore, analysis of one single
project will not provide reliable, generalizable conclusions. To moderate this obscurity, more
case studies of similar and different project types should be conducted.
As discussed earlier, measuring the exact distance of the arbitrary movements of workers is not
an easy job. Finding a proper tool, such as computer software, will improve the accuracy of
analysis. Employing a Global Positioning System (GPS), which has been significantly enhanced
in terms of accuracy and cost, can be another method to improve analysis.
305
306
307
Appendix J
Worker Movement Study No. 2
A total of 13 beams were installed during the time of analysis. Among 13 beams, six were
shorter and seven were longer. The shorter beams were one span length, and the longer ones
three span lengths. Due to the two different beam sizes, the work order was somewhat complex;
workers had to travel longer distances than necessary and the efficiency of worker movement was
affected.
The right connector had two major duties: to connect the delivered beam and to unhook the crane
cable from the beam. As in the first case study project, the right connector worked on top of a
man-lift. After connecting the beam, he made small movements such as walking a few steps or
bending over to unhook the beam within the lift space. Such small movements were ignored in
the analysis.
The primary movements were made between one beam installation and the next. Therefore, most
movements were made among various workstations. The order of beam installation was mainly
left to right, one row at a time. After the connector moved all the way to the right, he lowered the
man-lift to the ground and drove back to the far left to work on the next row. This travel distance
was significant and lowered efficiency. On the Ideal Movement Diagram located at the end of
this appendix, the work process was designed to work north to south in zigzag order to minimize
travel distance and number of stops. The following tables show the stop number and travel
distance efficiency of the right connector:
Stop Efficiency
Actual Ideal Efficiency
Stops 17 13 0.76
Distance Efficiency
Actual Ideal Efficiency
Rectilinear 480 220.0 0.46
Euclidian 453.7 194.8 0.43
Average 0.44
308
1.2.2 Left Connector
The left connector had the same duties as the right connector. The work time for each task was
almost identical and movements were made in a very synchronic manner. Therefore, the distance
efficiency and stop numbers of the left connector were almost the same as those of the right
connector. The small difference in distance efficiency was caused by the different man-lift
operation styles of the left and right connectors. The following are the results of the analysis:
Stop Efficiency
Actual Ideal Efficiency
Stops 17 13 0.76
Distance Efficiency
Actual Ideal Efficiency
Rectilinear 510 260.0 0.51
Euclidian 461.8 218.6 0.47
Average 0.49
When compared to the others, the Case No. 1 left connector had a somewhat lower stop
efficiency and higher distance efficiency. This was due to the special circumstance of working on
top of the structure next to workstations instead of riding the man-lift. Because of this, he has
been omitted from consideration.
The resulting efficiencies of all other workers were very similar; therefore, it can be concluded
that the overall job efficiencies were comparable for both projects. However, the causes of
efficiency drop between the two projects were quite different. Many unnecessary stops were
made and travel distance was increased due to space congestion in Case Study No. 1. In Case
Study No. 2, an inefficient work order was the primary cause of the efficiency drop. To further
increase efficiency and minimize worker movement at the jobsite, optimal work orders and space
sharing arrangements should be preplanned.
309
An interesting finding in Case Study No. 1 was that space congestion was minimal. The forklift
and ground crews worked from the actual jobsite where the installation took place. This made the
swing angle and carry-over distances greater for the crane; however, it helped to minimize space
congestion on the jobsite.
310
311
312
References
Alves, T. and C. Formosa, 2000, “Guidelines for Managing Physical Flows in Construction
Sites,” Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC-8), Brighton, UK.
Arbulu, R., I. Tommelein, et al., 2002, “Contributors to Lead Time in Construction Supply
Chains: Case of Pipe Supports Used in Power Plants,” 2002 Winter Simulation Conference, San
Diego, CA.
Ballard, G., 1999, “Improving Work Flow Reliability,” Proceedings of the Seventh Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-7), Berkeley, CA.
Ballard, G., 2000a, “Last Planner System of Production Control,” Thesis submitted to Faculty of
Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 192.
Ballard, G., 2000b, “Lean Project Delivery System,” White Paper No. 8, Lean Construction
Institute.
Ballard, G., 2000c, “Managing Work Flow on Design Projects,” CIB W96, Atlanta, GA.
Ballard, G., M. Casten, et al., 1997, “PARC: A Case Study,” Proceedings of the Fourth Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-4), Birmingham, UK.
Ballard, G. and G. Howell, 1998, “What Kind of Production Is Construction,” Proceedings of the
Sixth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-6), Guarujá,
Brazil.
Ballard, G., L. Koskela, et al., 2001, “Production System Design: Work Structuring Revisited,”
White Paper, Lean Construction Institute.
Bertelsen, S. and L. Koskela, 2002, “Managing the Three Aspects of Production in Construction,”
Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
(IGLC-10), Gramado, Brazil.
Ciampa, D., 1991, “The CEO’s Role in Time-Based Competition,” J. D. Blackburn, ed., In Time-
Based Competition, Business One Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Cronbach, L. J., 1951, “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests,” Psychometrika 16,
297-234.
Crowley, A., 1998, “Construction as a Manufacturing Process: Lessons from the Automotive
Industry,” Computers & Structures, 67, 389-400.
313
dos Santos, A., 1998, “Principle of Transparency Applied in Construction,” Proceedings of the
Sixth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-6), Guarujá,
Brazil.
dos Santos, A., 1999, “Application of Flow Principles in the Production Management of
Construction Sites,” School of Construction and Property Management, University of Salford.
Duggan, K. and J. Liker, 2002, Creating Mixed Model Value Streams: Practical Lean Tech-
niques for Building to Demand, New York, NY, Productivity Press.
Eagan, J., 1998, Rethinking Construction, London Department of the Environment, Transport and
the Regions, 40.
Fowler, F. J., 1995, Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation, Thousand Oaks, CA,
Sage Publications.
Freire, J. and L. Alarcon, 2002, “Achieving Lean Design Process: Improvement Methodology,”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Volume 128, No. 3, May-June 2002,
248-256.
Fujimoto, T., 1999, The Evolution of a Manufacturing System at Toyota, New York, NY, Oxford
University Press.
Galbraith, J., 1974, “Organization Design: An Information Processing View,” Interfaces, 4, 28-
36.
Hatcher, L., 1994, “A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS(R) System for Factor Analysis
and Structural Equation Modeling,” Cary, North Carolina, SAS Institute.
Howell, Greg and Glenn Ballard, “Implementing Lean Construction: Understanding and Action,”
Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
(IGLC-6), Guarujá, Brazil.
Koskela, L., 1992, “Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction,” Technical
Report 72, CIFE, Stanford University, 75.
Koskela, L., 2000, An Exploration into a Production Theory and Its Application to Construction,
Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland, VTT Publications, 298.
314
Koskela, L., G. Ballard, et al., 1996, “Towards Lean Design Management,” Proceedings of the
Fourth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-4),
Birmingham, UK.
Lane, R. and G. Woodman, 2000, “Wicked Problems, Righteous Solutions, Back to the Future on
Large Complex Projects,” Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-8), Brighton, UK.
Lareau, W., 2000, Lean Leadership: From Chaos to Carrots to Commitment, Tower II Press,
Carmel, Indiana.
London, K. and R. Kenley, 2001, “An Industrial Organization Economic Supply Chain Approach
for the Construction Industry: A Review,” Construction Management and Economics, 19, 777-
788.
MacInnes, R., 2002, The Lean Enterprise Memory Jogger, Salem, NH, Goal/QPC.
Matthews, O., G. Howell, et al., 2003, “Aligning the Lean Organization: A Contractual
Approach,” Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC-11), Blacksburg, VA.
Nisbett, R., 2003, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently and
Why, New York, NY, The Free Press.
Ohno, T., 1988, Toyota Production System, New York, NY, Productivity Press.
Oppenheim, A. N., 1992, Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement, London, Pinter
Publishing, Ltd.
Pappas, M., 1999, “Evaluating Innovative Construction Management Methods through the
Assessment of Intermediate Impacts,” Civil Engineering, Austin, TX, University of Texas at
Austin.
Picchi, F., 2001, “System View of Lean Construction Application Opportunities,” Proceedings of
the Ninth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-9),
Singapore.
Plossl, G., 1991, Managing in the New World of Manufacturing, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-
Hall.
315
Rea, L. and R. Parker, 1997, Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive
Guide, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Rother, M. and J. Shook, 1998, “Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to Create Value and
Eliminate Muda,” Brookline, MA, The Lean Enterprise Institute.
Schonberger, R. J., 1996, World Class Manufacturing: The Next Decade, New York, NY, The
Free Press.
Schroeder, R., 1993, Operations Management: Decision Making in the Operations Function,
Columbus, OH, McGraw-Hill International Editions.
Serpell, A., 1966, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction (IGLC-4), Birmingham, UK.
Seymour, D., 1996, “Developing Theory in Lean Construction,” University of Birmingham, 24.
Shingo, S., 1981, Study of the Toyota Production System, Japan Management Association, New
York, NY, Productivity Press.
Stalk, G. J. and T. Hout, 1990. Competing Against Time, New York, NY, Free Press.
Tapping, D., T. Luyster, et al., 2002, Value Stream Management, New York, NY, Productivity
Press.
Tommelein, I., N. Akel, et al., 2003, Capital Projects Supply Chain Management: SC Tactics of
a Supplier Organization, Construction Research Congress, Honolulu, HI, ASCE.
Tommelein, I. and A. Li, 1999, “Just in Time Concrete Delivery: Mapping Alternatives for
Vertical Supply Chain Integration,” Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-7), Berkeley, CA.
Tommelein, I., D. Riley, et al., 1998, “Parade Game: Impact of Work Flow Variability on Suc-
ceeding Trade Performance,” Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-6), Guarujá, Brazil.
Tsao, C., I. Tommelein, et al., 2000, “Case Study for Work Structuring: Installation of Metal
Door Frames,” Proceedings of Eighth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC-8), Brighton, UK.
316
Walton, M., 1986, The Deming Management Method, New York, NY, Putnam Publishing.
Wild, R., 1995, Production and Operations Management, 5th Ed., London, Cassell Educational
Ltd.
Winch, G., 2003, “Models of Manufacturing and the Construction Process: The Genesis of Re-
Engineering Construction,” Building Research & Information, 31 (2), 107-118.
Womack, J. P. and D. T. Jones, 1996, Lean Thinking, New York, NY, Simon & Schuster.
Womack, J. P., D. T. Jones, et al., 1990, The Machine That Changed the World, New York, NY,
Rawson.
317
Glossary
Sources:
□ Lean Thinking, James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones
□ The Encyclopedia of Operations Management Terms, Arthur V. Hill
□ Competing in World Class Manufacturing, Craig Giffi, Aleda V. Roth and Gregory M. Seal
□ Fundamentals of Production/Operations Management, Harold E. Fearon, W. Ruch et al.
□ Factory Physics, Wallace Hopp and Mark Spearman
Acceptable Quality Level (AQL)--A concept that states there is some nonzero level of
permissible defects.
Activity-Based Costing--Collecting cost data on all activities that occur rather than just the three
primary resources (materials, labor and machinery). This is an attempt to define the components
of burden. The objective of this system is to look at all areas where cost reductions can be made.
Aggregate Planning--The broad, overall decisions that relate to the programming of resources
for production over an established time horizon.
Batch and Queue--The mass production practice of making large lots of a part and then sending
the batch to wait in the queue before the next operation in the production process. Contrast with
single-piece flow.
Benchmarking--Refers to comparing one’s current performance against the world leader in any
particular area. In essence, it means finding and implementing best practices in the world.
Benchmarking is essentially a goal setting procedure.
Cells--The layout of different types of machines performing varied operations in a tight sequence,
typically in a U-shape, to permit single-piece flow and flexible deployment of human effort by
means of multimachines. Contrast with process villages.
Cellular Manufacturing--An approach in which manufacturing work centers (cells) have the
total capabilities needed to produce an item or a group of similar items.
Cycle Time--The time required to complete one cycle of an operation. If cycle time for every
operation in a complete process can be reduced to equal takt time, products can be made in
single-piece flow.
318
Concurrent (or Simultaneous) Engineering (CE)--Deals primarily with the product design
phase. The term refers to an improved design process characterized by rigorous up-front
requirements analysis, incorporating the constraints of subsequent phases into the conceptual
phase and tightening of change control toward the end of the design process. Compression of the
design time, increase in the number of iterations (i.e., increase in the frequency of information
exchange) and reduction in the number of change orders are three major objectives of concurrent
engineering.
Cross Training and Job Rotation--Employees are rotated out of their job after a certain duration
and trained into a new job. They are not only trained how to do the job, but are also informed of
the quality and maintenance issues that go along with the job. The principle here is that an
employee with a well rounded background of how the company operates will be more valuable to
the company.
Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)--The optimal order quantity (batch size) that minimizes the
sum of the carrying and ordering cost.
Five Whys--Taiichi Ohno’s practice of asking “why” five times whenever a problem was
encountered so that the root cause of the problem can be identified and effective countermeasures
can be developed and implemented.
Five S’s--Derived from the Japanese words for five practices leading to a clean and manageable
work area: seiri (organization), seiton (tidiness), seiso (purity), seiketsu (cleanliness) and
shitsuke (discipline).
Flow--The progressive achievement of tasks along the value stream so that a product proceeds
from design to launch, order to delivery and raw materials into the hands of the customer with no
stoppages, scrap or backflows.
ISO 9000--A set of process quality standards developed by the International Organization for
Standardization and recognized worldwide.
319
Just-in-Time (JIT)--A system for producing and delivering the right items at the right time in the
right amounts. JIT approaches just-on-time when upstream activities occur minutes or seconds
before downstream activities, so single-piece flow is possible. The key elements of JIT are flow,
pull, standard work (with standard in-process inventories) and takt time.
Kanban--A small card attached to boxes of parts that regulates pull in the Toyota Production
System by signaling upstream production and delivery.
Lead Time--The total time a customer must wait to receive a product after placing an order.
When a scheduling and production system is running at or below capacity, lead time and
throughput time are the same. When demand exceeds the capacity of a system, there is
additional waiting time before the start of scheduling and production, and lead time exceeds
throughput time. Refer to throughput time.
Line Balancing--A means of balancing the appropriate amount of workers needed for a
production line by satisfying cycle time and precedence constraints.
Manufacturing Requirements Planning (MRP II)--A method for effective planning of all the
resources of a manufacturing company. Ideally, it addresses operational planning in units,
financial planning in money, and has a simulation capability to answer what-if questions.
Master Production Schedule (MPS)--A time-phased plan specifying how many units are
requested and when the firm plans to build each end item.
320
Outsourcing--Procuring raw materials and components externally rather than creating them
internally.
Perfection--The complete elimination of muda so that all activities along a value stream create
value.
Period Order Quantity (POQ)--A lot sizing rule that defines the order quantity in terms of the
period’s supply.
Poke Yoke--A mistake-proofing device or procedure to prevent a defect during order taking or
manufacture. An order-taking example is a screen for order input developed from traditional
ordering patterns that questions orders falling outside the pattern. The suspect orders are then
examined, often leading to the discovery of input errors or buying based on misinformation. A
manufacturing example is a set of photocells in parts containers along an assembly line to prevent
components from progressing to the next stage with missing parts. The poke yoke in this case is
designed to prevent movement of a component to the next station if a light beam is not broken by
the operator’s hand in each bin containing a part for the product under assembly at that moment.
A poke yoke is sometimes also called a baka yoke.
Processing Time--The time a product is actually being worked on in design or production and
the time an order is actually being processed. Typically, processing time is a small fraction of
throughput time and lead time.
Pull--A system of cascading production and delivery instructions from downstream to upstream
activities in which nothing is produced by the upstream supplier until the downstream supplier
signals a need. The opposite of push. Refer also to kanban.
Queuing Theory--A branch of mathematics concerned with systems in which customers (orders,
calls, etc.) arrive and are served by one or more servers. Queuing theory models are usually
concerned with estimating the steady-state performance of the system such as the utilization, the
mean time in queue, the mean time in system, the mean number in queue and the mean number in
system.
321
Queue Time--The time a product spends in line awaiting the next design, order processing or
fabrication step.
Right-Sized Tool--A design, scheduling or production device that can be fitted directly into the
flow of products within a product family so that production no longer requires unnecessary
transport and waiting.
Seven Muda--Taiichi Ohno’s original enumeration of the wastes commonly found in physical
production. These are overproduction ahead of demand, waiting for the next processing step,
unnecessary transport of materials (for example, between process villages or facilities), over
processing of parts due to poor tool and product design, inventories more than the absolute
minimum, unnecessary movement by employees during the course of their work (looking for
parts, tools, prints, help, etc.) and production of defective parts.
Single-Piece Flow--A situation in which products proceed, one complete product at a time,
through various operations in design, order taking and production, without interruptions,
backflows or scrap. Contrast with batch-and-queue.
Six Sigma--Structured application of the tools and techniques of TQM on a project basis to
achieve strategic business results. Sometimes defined as a failure rate of 3.4 parts per million.
Standard Work--A precise description of each work activity specifying cycle time, takt time,
the work sequence of specific tasks and the minimum inventory of parts on hand needed to
conduct the activity.
Standard Work Design--The design of each work activity specifying cycle time, work sequence
of specific tasks and minimum inventory of parts on hand needed to conduct the activity.
Statistical Quality Control (SQC)--Using statistical methods to identify, prioritize and correct
elements of the manufacturing process that detract from high quality.
Stock Keeping Unit (SKU)--A unique identification number (or alphanumeric string) that
defines an item for inventory.
Taguchi Methods--Developed to improve the implementation of TQC in Japan. They are based
on the design of experiments to provide near optimal quality characteristics for a specific
objective. The goal is to reduce the sensitivity of engineering designs to uncontrollable factors or
noise. Sometimes referred to as “robust design” in the United States.
322
Takt Time--The available production time divided by the rate of customer demand. Takt time
sets the pace of production to match the rate of customer demand and becomes the heartbeat of
any lean system.
Theory of Constraints (TOC)--A management philosophy that recognizes that there are very
few critical areas, resources or policies that truly block the organization from moving forward. If
performance is to be improved, an organization must identify its constraints, exploit the
constraints in the short run and, in the longer term, find ways to overcome the constraints (limited
resources).
Throughput Time--The time required for a product to proceed from concept to launch, order to
delivery or raw materials into the hands of the customer. This includes both processing and
queue time. Contrast with processing time and lead time.
Time Based Competition (TBC)--Refers to compressing time throughout the organization for
competitive benefit. Essentially, this is a generalization of the JIT philosophy.
Total Quality Control (TQC)--The difference between total quality management and total
quality control is epitomized by the phrase “management vs. control.” Most companies “control”
quality by a series of inspection processes, but “managing” quality is a continuous quality
improvement program. However, a good control system is the first step in the development of a
management system.
Total Quality Management (TQM)--An approach for improving quality that involves all areas
of an organization (sales, engineering, manufacturing, purchasing, etc.) with a focus on employee
participation and customer satisfaction. TQM can involve a wide variety of quality control and
improvement tools and emphasizes a combination of managerial principles and statistical tools.
Value--A capability provided to a customer at the right time at an appropriate price, as defined in
each case by the customer.
Value Based Management (VBM)--Refers to conceptualized and clearly articulated value as the
basis for competing. Continuous improvement to increase customer value is one essential
characteristic of value based management.
323
Value Stream--The specific activities required to design, order and provide a specific product,
from concept to launch, order to delivery and raw materials into the hands of the customer.
Value Stream Mapping--Identification of all the specific activities occurring along a value
stream for a product or product family.
Visual Management (VM)--An orientation toward visual control in production, quality and
workplace organization. The goal is to make the applicable standard and any deviation from it
immediately recognizable by anybody. This is one of the original JIT ideas which has been
systematically applied only recently in the West.
Zero Defects--A concept introduced by Japanese manufacturers that stresses the elimination of
all defects. This contrasts with the idea of AQL.
324
Acknowledgments
Students
Sincere thanks to all of the students in the Construction Engineering and Management Program at
the University of Colorado who contributed work, thought and care to this project. Thanks to Jeff
Hlad, Travis Stewart, Spencer Won, Poon Thiengburanthum and Brian Saller and especially to
Mark Krewedl and Josh Balonick.
Practitioners
To those industry people who were so generous with their time and their knowledge - genuine
thanks go out to Greg Holroyd (Southland Industries), Remo Mastriani (Walbridge-Aldinger),
Paul Reiser (Boldt Industries) and Russell Batchelor (BAA).
325