Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Last Planner Technique: A Case Study

Jesus M. de |a Garzax,and Mun-WeiLeong2

Abstract
This paper presents the findings from the application of the Last Planner Technique
to a project involving the construction of the Advanced Communication and
Information Technology Center (ACITC) at the Virginia Tech campus. The scope
of the case study was to measure the reliability of weekly work assignments. Data
collected for a period of ten weeks was analyzed to produce five different Percent
Plan Complete (PPC) ratios. These PPC ratios were used t o compare the
performance of weekly work assignments against weekly, monthly, and baseline
schedules. Related information regarding the reasons for non-completion of work
assignments was also collected. The paper concludes by recommending the use of
weighting factors in the computation of the PPC ratios and the establishment of
industry-wide benchmarks for PPC ratios.

Introduction
Planning (what, who, and how) involves the process of selecting the method and the
order of work to be used on a project from among all the various possible methods
and sequences. Scheduling (who and when) is performed to anticipate the specific
needs of the project in terms of utilization of resources and timing of activities.

Formalized planning and scheduling date back to the use of bar charts (a.k.a. Gantt
Charts) by Henry Gantt in the early 1900's. Since then, advancement in this field
has produced more sophisticated techniques such as the Critical Path Method
(CPM), Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), Arrow Diagramming
Method (ADM), Precedence Diagramming Method (PDM), etc. More recently,
Total Quality Management (TQM) and Just-in-Time (JIT) concepts, also developed
within the manufacturing industry, are being adopted and adapted in the
construction industry [Ballard and Howell 1995, Kuprenas and Kenney 1998].

i Professorof Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering,VirginiaTech, 200 Patton Hail, Blacksburg,

VA 24061-0105.
2 ProjectEngineer, Peter Kiewitand Sons',FormerGraduateResearchAssistantin Construction
Engineeringand Management,Departmentof Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering,VirginiaTech.

680

Construction Congress VI
 CONSTRUCTIONCONGRESSVI 681

Cohenca-Zall recently re-affirmed the fact that construction planning is both: an on-
going and complex process [Cohenca-Zall, et al. 1994]. The Last Planner
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Technique is among the most recent concepts developed to re-engineer the planning
process [Ballard and Howell 1998, Kartam et al. 1995a, 1995b].

The Last Planner Technique (LPT)

LPT [Ballard and Howell 1998] focuses on reducing workflow uncertainty. It was
developed to assist the project planner in reducing the uncertainty inherent in the
planning process. LPT makes use of a systematic planning procedure to produce
reliable work plans aimed at shielding the downstream work processes from
upstream uncertainty by using commitment planning and by matching work load to
available resources. Kartam describes the last planner as, "the person responsible
for producing the last level of plans in the planning hierarchy" [Kartam et al. 1995a,
1995b].

Having reliable work assignments reduces the amount of inventory on the project
and shields the crews from the uncertainty beyond their control. In addition, having
reliable plans enables better just-in-time coordination of the delivery and
distribution of materials on site as well as better coordination of subcontractors'
work sequences. To ensure work is protected from unforeseen conditions, buffers
are used to ensure a continuos flow of work is available.

Buffers can be categorized two ways: a schedule buffer and a plan buffer. A
schedule buffer is the deliberate storage of extra inventory to ensure that work will
continue even if there is an upstream hitch. The second category of buffers is plan
buffer. A plan buffer focuses on the production of a backlog of workable activities.
This is to ensure the production of reliable workable assignments and to ensure a
continuos flow of work. The plan buffer functions by looking at the overall
monthly schedule and identifying activities that can be completed with the existing
resources, hence creating a workable backlog of activities. This backlog shields the
crews from having to mobilize and demobilize due to unexpected problems.

LPT's premise is that having a clear understanding of what needs to be completed

and how to perform the work with the available resources will ensure better
productivity and reduce workflow uncertainty within the crews. Figure 1 depicts
the different components of the LPT. The last planner is responsible for producing
WILL weekly assignments. The criteria recommended by Ballard and Howell
(1998) to produce quality WILL assignments are:

9 Is the work in the right sequence?

9 Is the work in the right amount?
9 Is the work practical?

Once the WILL weekly assignment is agreed upon, the project team commits itself
to finish them. This commitment creates an environment that is conducive to better
productivity and increased performance by having the crews less distracted and/or

Construction Congress VI
 682 CONSTRUCTIONCONGRESSV1

unsure as to what needs to be done for that week. This certainty in the workflow
also reduces the time wasted in looking for work and performing unorganized,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

inefficient, non-critical activities.

)ULE "

\ / Can PLANNING
PROCESS

Figure 1: LPT Implementation (Adapted from Ballard and Howell 1998)

Methodology Applied on the ACITC Project

The following steps detail the process used to collect and analyze the data obtained
during the weekly meetings with the contractor:

1. Examine the baseline schedule and extract the activities that ought to be
performed during the following week. This step generated the SHOULD list of
work assignments.

2. Examine the monthly schedule and extract the activities that ought to be
performed during the following week taking into account resource and space
availability. This step generated the ADJUSTED SHOULD list of work
assignments.

3. Have the project superintendent develop a list of work assignments for the
following week taking into consideration the amount of resources actually
available, space availability, and status of shop drawings. This step generated
the WILL list.

Construction Congress VI
 CONSTRUCTIONCONGRESSVI 683

4. Monitor the actual execution of work items included in the WILL list.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

. Discuss with the project superintendent and project engineer the work done
during the week just ending and generate the WILL list for the following week
(step 3). The following items were covered in the weekly meetings:

a) Obtain the percent complete (PCT) for each of the WILL activities on which
the contractor worked during the week just ending;

b) WILL activities with a PCT greater than 50% are given a value of 1 in the
PPC calculations while WILL activities with less than 50% PCT are given a
value of 0. This arbitrary weighting represents a key departure from LPT's
original definition (a value of 1 for 100% PCT and 0 otherwise);

c) Calculate and plot the PPC ratios for the week just ending according to the
definitions of Table 1;

d) Uncompleted WILL activities, i.e., those assigned a value of 0, are

investigated and the reasons for non-completions are documented.

Table 1: Percent Plan Complete (PPC) Definitions

DEFINITION
RATIO MEANING
The n symbolperformsan
intersectionof two lists

(DID c~ WILL) How the as-built compares

PPC1 WILL to the one-week look
ahead.

(WILL n ADJUSTED SHOULD) How the one-week look

PPC2 ADJUSTED SHOULD ahead compares to the
monthly schedule.

(DID • ADJUSTED SHOULD) How the as-built compares

PPC3
ADJUSTED SHOULD to the monthly schedule.

(WILL c~ SHOULD) How the one-week look

PPC4 SHOULD ahead compares to the
baseline schedule.

(DID n SHOULD) How the as-built compares

PPC5
SHOULD to the baseline schedule.

Construction Congress VI
 684 CONSTRUCTIONCONGRESSVI

Findings
The weekly data collected from the field was analyzed and the five different PPCs
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

were computed. Each of the PPC ratios tells a different story in regards to the
reliability of the contractor's weekly plans as compared to the one-week look-ahead
schedule, the monthly schedule and the baseline schedule. Figure 2 shows a plot of
the five PPC values on the ACITC Project.

The PPCI ratio averages 74% indicating that for the ACITC project only three out
of four anticipated weekly work assignments were actually worked on, i.e.,
activities in the WILL list which achieved a percent complete (PCT) of more than
50%. This short-term look-ahead ratio suggests that improvements to the existing
week-to-week planning process could still be achieved.

Figure 3 shows a plot of PPCt versus PPCs. There is on the average a 59%
difference between what is anticipated from week-to-week and what was
anticipated at the start of the project. In other words, the work assignments that are
planned weekly do not resemble the baseline schedule.

Figure 4 shows an upward trend for both PPCI and PPC3, and a discouraging
downward trend for PPCs. This means that over time, the weekly and monthly
work schedules are becoming more reliable. This finding was reinforced by the
project superintendent's attitude during the weekly planning meetings as he began
to take the weekly and monthly planning process more seriously. However, the
PPC5 ratio, which compares the actual work done against the baseline schedule,
shows a deteriorating trend indicating that current work sequence has little to do
with the original baseline schedule and that the latter needs to be overhauled.

Figures 5 and 6 depict the attribution of 1-PPCI and 1-PPC3 as either execution or
planning failures. Figure 5 suggests that the reasons for failing to achieve the one-
week look-ahead schedule are spread equally, averaging around 13%, between
planning and execution failures.

Figure 6 suggests that the reasons for failing to achieve the monthly schedule are
mostly planning failures. This finding is not surprising given the nature of monthly
and baseline schedule development.

Construction Congress VI
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Construction Congress VI
CONSTRUCTION CONGRESS VI

O
[,.,
OA
685
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

686

Construction Congress VI
Figure 3: PPCI Versus PPCs
CONSTRUCTIONCONGRESSVI

Figure 4: As-Built PPCs Trends

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Construction Congress VI
CONSTRUCTIONCONGRESSVI

Figure 5: Weekly Plan Failures

Figure 6: Monthly Plan Failures

687
 688 CONSTRUCTIONCONGRESSVI

Summary/Conclusions
The objective of this study was to implement the LPT to measure the reliability of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

short-term, mid-term, and long-term schedules on a given project. This study has
provided new insights with respect to the issues surrounding the implementation of
a new concept on a project and the issues related to implementing the Last Planner
Technique.

This study confirmed that in order to implement a new concept, support and
commitment from management is essential. Implementation of the LPT was
attempted in two projects. The first case resulted in failure because jobsite
management was not serious or interested in changing their method of operation.
In this case reported herein, the project superintendent bought into the idea from
the start.

When analyzing the data and presenting the weekly findings to the project
superintendent, it is important to emphasize that the PPC ratios only measure the
reliability of the weekly assignments and do not indicate the true status of the
project. PPC ratios should accompany the traditional schedule analysis when
evaluating the project status.

The use of weighting factors to quantify the criticality of work assignments and/or
to give credit to partial percent complete ought to be considered in LPT
implementations Leong [ 1999]. There is a difference between being able to
identify the right weekly work assignments and being able to identify the correct
amount of work for such assignments. If the superintendent is identifying the right
assignments but is failing to fully complete them, certainly the reliability of his/her
one-week look-ahead plans is neither 0% nor 100%. In our implementation of the
LPT in the ACITC project, we have chosen, albeit arbitrarily, a threshold in the
PCT of the work assignment to determine if it counts as a PPC or not. Our
recommendation is not for a specific threshold value, i.e., 50%, but for the
establishment of a threshold. By doing so, LPT's absolute nature would be
eliminated while encouraging superintendents to move away from their natural
optimistic tendency, to shift towards a more likely way of thinking, and to stay
away from pessimistic attitudes.

Finally, as LPT becomes more widely used in the industry, the development and
establishment of benchmarks for each of the PPC ratios is a must. For example,
what are the trigger values for PPC4 and PPC5 which would force an Owner, A/E,
CM, or GC to seek approval of a revised baseline schedule?

Construction Congress VI
 CONSTRUCTIONCONGRESSVI 689

References
Ballard, G. and Howell, G., (1995). "Toward Construction JIT," Lean
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Construction; Proc., ARCOM Conf., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Ballard, G. and Howell, G., (1998). "Shielding Production: Essential Step in

Production Control," Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
ASCE, 124(1), 11-17.

Cohenca-Zall, D., Laufer, A., Shapira A., and Howell, G., (1994). "Process of
Planning During Construction," Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 120(3), 561-577.

Kartam, S., Ballard, G. and Ibbs, C., (1995a). "ReengineeringConstruction

Planning Systems," Technical Report No.22, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of California at Berkeley, December.

Kartam, S., Ballard, G. and Ibbs, C., (1995b). "Introducing a New Concept and
Approach to Modeling Construction," Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 123(1), 89-97.

Kuprenas, J. and Kenney, M., (1998). "Total Quality Management Implementation

and Results: Progress Update," Practice on Structural Design and Construction,
ASCE, 3(1), 34-39.

Leong, M.W., (1999). "Measuring the Reliability of Short term Planning Using the
Last Planner Technique," Masters Report, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, January.

Construction Congress VI