Early warning Dashboard for Advanced Construction Planning Metrics

Farook HAMZEH1, Ali EZZEDDINE2, Lynn SHEHAB3, Salam KHALIFE4, Ghali

EL-SAMAD5, and Samir EMDANAT6
1
Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; email: hamzeh@ualberta.ca
2
Masters student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, American
University of Beirut, P.O. Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut, Lebanon 1107 2020;
email: ame109@mail.aub.edu
3
Masters student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, American
University of Beirut, P.O. Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut, Lebanon 1107 2020;
email: aas113@mail.aub.edu
4
Ph.D. student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; email: khalife@ualberta.ca
5
Graduate student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, American
University of Beirut, P.O. Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut, Lebanon 1107 2020;
email: ghe02@mail.aub.edu
6
Director of Management Services, Ghafari Associates, LLC, 17101 Michigan
Avenue, Dearborn, Michigan 48126; email: semdanat@ghafari.com

ABSTRACT
With the advancement of technology and computer-based tools, the methods employed
in planning and control of construction projects are becoming more potent. Throughout
this technological evolvement, researchers have introduced several metrics to guide
planners in their assessment of project performance and control as the project
progresses. However, construction projects still encounter failures as a result of
planning deficiencies. This raises concerns regarding the capability of the current
control mechanisms in alarming planners or practitioners and generating an early
warning system to guide future actions. This research proposes a new dashboard system
based on advanced metrics to address several project performance areas that are
currently partially measured. The dashboard is expected to better describe, monitor,
and control the various dynamic aspects of construction planning within the Last
Planner System for production control. Applying the dashboard on data from two
construction projects in the US revealed the ability to assess project performance areas
beyond the capacity of previously available planning metrics.

KEYWORDS
Construction planning, Last Planner System (LPS), Production planning and control,
Lean Construction, Visual dashboard.

1
INTRODUCTION
Technological advancements have facilitated planning and control of
construction projects. Several trials to aid planners and controllers in monitoring,
tracking, and controlling construction projects have been developed and introduced,
including real-time tracking, modeling, and simulation (Song and Eldin 2012).
However, the adoption of technology is not yet fully spread throughout the construction
industry (AbouRizk et al. 2011). Moreover, several project control techniques have
been introduced to the construction industry, and they all have three common pillars,
these are metrics, measurements, and people (Woodrich 2006). Performance indicators
like those introduced by (Sohail and Baldwin 2004), developed metrics, checklists, and
cost control systems (Benjaoran 2009) all assist in the process of project control, but
they do not offer a highly interactive and dynamic interface that facilitates the control
aspect of any construction project.
The Last Planner System (LPS) was developed as part of the Lean Construction
industry to improve project planning reliability and control effectiveness (Ballard
2000). Increasing both the reliability and predictability of workflow during design and
construction is one of the objectives of proper construction project management
(Hamzeh et al. 2009). LPS suggests making reliable promises, learning from failures,
identifying and removing tasks constraints and planning failure causes, and
implementing preventive measures (Hamzeh and Aridi 2013).
Several LPS metrics have also been developed to quantify project components
and give them numerical, measurable, and comparable values. LPS metrics have
allowed the measurement of project progress and results like production rates, cost
deviation, schedule deviation, etc. In 2019, a tool was introduced to monitor projects
in the LPS by live progress tracking and site data insertion by calculating and predicting
LPS metrics before the end of the week of execution (Ezzeddine et al. 2019).
While several studies have developed potential project control and planning
tools, the construction industry in general and lean construction in particular still lack
a framework that tracks metrics and offers an interactive user-friendly interface that
can be used as an early warning system by planners and practitioners. Therefore, this
paper offers a new interactive dashboard that includes advanced metrics to be used for
project tracking and control, as practitioners need a dynamic dashboard visualizing
clearly project data and warnings.

RESEARCH SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

In this study, Design Science Research (DSR) is the main research
methodology followed. DSR is a constructive research methodology that links research
and practice (Rocha et al. 2012). It can be used when practical solutions and artifacts
are being developed in an attempt to tackle real problems faced within the industry. In
this paper, an interactive and user-friendly dashboard to track and give warnings of
construction projects is developed in order to tackle the issue of failures due to planning
and control deficiencies. The research begins with a review on production planning and
control within the LPS. Then, the LPS metrics which were used in the study are
explained and detailed. Lastly, a visual metrics dashboard which aims to help project
managers in visually inspecting and understanding the metrics is proposed. To enhance

2
the dashboard’s visualization and to properly link it the LPS, it was divided into two
interfaces, one for the lookahead phase and another for the WWP.
The structure of this study begins with a brief research background on the
planning and control mechanisms in construction, the advancement of metrics used
within the LPS, and the visual tools and dashboards introduced to the construction
industry so far. Afterwards, the proposed dashboard is presented and explained. The
results from two case studies from the US where the dashboard was applied are then
discussed. The conclusion of this study and future research recommendations are
finally stated.

RESEARCH BACKGROUND

Production Planning and Control within the Last Planner System

The Last Planner System is a production and control system offering increased
planning reliability and reduced variability and uncertainty in production workflow
(Ballard 2000). The LPS covers all project planning phases starting with the master
scheduling which contains what SHOULD be done, then the phase scheduling and the
lookahead planning which shows what CAN be done, and finally states what WILL
be done, which is placed on the weekly work plans to be DONE (Ballard 2000; Hamzeh
2009; Hamzeh et al. 2008; Junnonen and Seppänen 2004).
Project control is a crucial aspect of project management which allows planners
to notice any variation between what was planned and the actual progress to take
corrective measures and ensure that the project is still within time, cost, and quality
constraints (Howell and Ballard 1996). While focusing on these three factors of
planning is valid, attention should also be taken on the aspect of proactive detection of
possible constraints and problems (Hamzeh et al. 2019a). Traditional control is labeled
as being a thermostat control model, which detects deviations and takes corrective
measures afterwards (Howell and Ballard 1996). On the contrary, control within the
LPS takes on a different approach, one that can be labeled as being proactive. Control
in LPS can be divided into two phases. The first is the early identification and removal
of constraints in order to shield activities and make them ready for execution (Hamzeh
2009). The second phase is the analysis of reasons of plan failures and non-completion
of tasks, then ensuring that these reasons are understood and removed. Many metrics
have been developed within the LPS in order to analyze the performance of planning
and execution, and to attain continuous learning and improvement (Hamzeh et al.
2019b).

Advanced LPS Metrics

Several metrics have been introduced to the LPS to measure different aspects
such as planning reliability, capacity, and performance. However, this paper will focus
on those indicated in this research. The most used metric is the Percent Plan Complete
(PPC). PPC is calculated by dividing the tasks that were completed by the tasks on the
Weekly Work Plan (WWP) (Did/Will). It measures the reliability of planning at the
level of the WWP. However, PPC alone has shown some shortcomings, like its inability
to take into account the status of critical tasks. Therefore, more metrics were developed
and used, such as the Tasks Anticipated (TA) and the Tasks Made Ready (TMR). TA
3
is calculated by dividing the anticipated tasks by the total tasks on the WWP. TMR is
calculated by dividing the completed tasks by the tasks that “CAN” be done assigned
in the lookahead planning phase. While TA shows the ability of planners to expect
tasks prior to execution, the TMR shows the ability to screen these tasks and make
them ready for execution (El Samad et al. 2017). A fourth metric included in this
research is the Percent Required Complete and Ongoing (PRCO), which shows the
number of required or critical activities that were done or will be done within their
required completion dates (Emdanat and Azambuja 2016). PRCO is calculated by
dividing the critical tasks completed and critical tasks ongoing on track by the critical
tasks on the WWP. The Required Level (RL) was developed to complement the PRCO
and to show the percentage of critical activities which have been added to the weekly
work plan. (El Samad et al. 2017). It is calculated by dividing the critical tasks on the
WWP (Required Will) by all tasks on the WWP (Will). El Samad et al. 2017 also
suggested the Completed Uncommitted (CU) metric to overcome some of the PPC
limitations. CU is the number of backlog activities completed to the total number of
completed activities. Percent Complete New (PCN) is another metric used in this
research, which is the ratio of the number of the completed new activities to the total
number of new activities committed (Hamzeh et al. 2020). The last metric used is the
Capacity to load ratio (CLR) which is the total number of executed activities divided
by the total number of activities on the WWP. This metric is a measurement of the
ability of teams and crews to efficiently use their resources, and to balance between
their load and capacity (Rizk et al. 2017).
The aforementioned metrics were chosen to cover several aspects of project
planning. TA and TMR cover the efficiency of planning and constraint removal within
the lookahead planning phase. The PPC, PRCO, and RL are used together to better
understand the ability of crews in executing critical activities (Hamzeh et al. 2020). CU
is used to provide a warning about activities being executed, that were not committed.
PCN is an indicator that shows the ability of teams to execute newly emerged tasks that
emerge as critical or required tasks. Finally, CLR is used to show the capacity planning
aspect.
Percent Improvement Complete (PIC) is a new metric introduced by Ezzeddine
et al. 2019. PIC is measured at the end of the week of execution to quantify the team’s
reliability in completing the tasks that needed improvement during the week, in order
to allow project controllers to re-evaluate the progress and get back on track (Ezzeddine
et al. 2019). It is calculated by dividing the number of activities that needed
improvement and were completed by the total number of activities that needed
improvement.

Visual Tools and Dashboards

One of the fourteen principles of Toyota is “Use visual control so no problems
are hidden”. The principle strongly recommends and urges managers to develop and
employ visual systems to give teams an indicator whether they are within control or
not (Liker 2004). The visual aspect is important during control since it gives a direct
warning to planners about their status before digging deep into the numbers. In
construction, visual systems and dashboards are used to convert raw data and numbers
into valuable information that can be inferred directly from the visual dashboards.

4
These visual systems allow project managers to assess performance, and detect any
problems in a more smooth and swift method (Song et al. 2005). Moreover, managers
believe that dashboards help mitigate the problem of dealing with chaotic pieces of
decision-relevant data.
The development of a dashboard is divided into five main phases. The first is
the selection of the metrics to be used in the dashboard. The second phase is the flow
of information and data into the dashboard. Several points should be considered here
such as the frequency of data input of each metric and the importance of each metric
relative to one another. The third step is to develop the relationship between the metrics
inserted in the dashboard in order to develop an integrated control and decision-making
dashboard. The fourth phase is to provide dashboards with the option of forecasting
and developing different scenarios based on the collected metrics data. However, it
should be noted that in construction, dashboards could be linked with active simulation
models to produce better scenarios than the recommend what-if analysis within the
dashboard. The fifth and last phase is the connection to financial consequences, where
this phase aims to integrate the data with their consequences on the firm, and
shareholder values (Pauwels et al. 2009). The last phase aligns perfectly with lean
construction in the way that metrics can be directly linked with one another to increase
value on projects.
However, several factors related to the presentation of the dashboard should be
taken into consideration. For example, dashboards should fit on a single screen, and
should contain colors to better enhance perception (Velcu and Yigitbasioglu 2012).

PROPOSED DASHBOARD
The proposed dashboard’s concept is taken from the electronic dashboards of
motorcycles, which aim to show drivers valuable information in a fast and clear way
to avoid any distractions. It includes clear gauges that indicate the value of the
calculated metrics in a user-friendly manner. Users are able to identify the value of the
needed metric without exerting any effort to calculate or search for the location of the
desired value. The value of the metric shown on the dashboard is colored in green,
orange, or red depending on whether the value is satisfactory, normal, or unsatisfactory
respectively. The gauge does not contain a needle that points to the value, but the curve
is automatically drawn and cut at the obtained level. For example, a Tasks Anticipated
(TA) value of 53% is shown as half a curve with an orange color to indicate that the
value of this metric is normal as shown in Figure 1. Moreover, CLR is visualized as a
battery, since the shape of batteries are often used in vehicle dashboards and electronic
appliances to show its capacity. Hence a full battery shows that the crew is balanced
between their load and capacity, and when the battery percentage is higher than 100
this means that there is an excessive capacity and thus the crew is under-loaded. Also,
PCN is included as a light button in the Lookahead layout since TMR, TA, and PCN
are valuable indicators of performance at the level of the lookahead planning.
Furthermore, two different layouts were designed to differentiate between metrics
calculated at the Lookahead level and Weekly level. The dashboard alternates between
both layouts accordingly. The proposed dashboard layouts are shown in Figure 1 and
Figure 2.

5
Week: 84 LookAhead
Dashboard
100 100
PCN
79%
TMR
TA
75 %
53 %

CLR
0 0
81%

RL PPC PRCO PCN CU PIC

87 % 75 % 75 % 79 % 9% 80 %

Figure 1: Proposed Lookahead Phase Dashboard Layout

Week: 84 WWP
Dashboard

RL PPC PRCO
87 % 75 % 75 %
0 100 0 100 0 100

CLR

PCN CU 81%
79 % 9%
0 100 0 100

100 100
TA TMR
53 % PIC
75 %
80 %
0 0 100 0

Figure 2: Proposed WWP Phase Dashboard Layout

6
CASE STUDIES AND RESULTS
In order to test the proposed dashboard, it was applied on data from two case-
study projects. The first project consisted of 372 Weekly Work Plans (WWPs)
involving 8 teams. The values of the Total Tasks Anticipated (TTA), Total Tasks
Promised (TTP), and Total Tasks Completed (TTC) were calculated. Their values were
relatively low (around 100 tasks) until week 46 when their values started increasing to
reach around 400-500 tasks per week. Moreover, the Percentage of 2-Week, 1-Week,
and WWP-New Tasks with Time were also calculated along the project duration. 2-
Week-New Tasks are tasks whose age is less than 14 days, while 1-Week-New Tasks
are tasks whose age is less than 7 days, and WWP-New Tasks are tasks that have arisen
after the start of the WWP. Their values were as follows; 2-Week-New Tasks ranged
between 5% to 50%, 1-Week-New Tasks ranged between 5% to 40%, and WWP-New
Tasks averaged around 5%.
At the level of the Lookahead Planning TA and TMR were also calculated along
the total project duration. The average TA value was 74%, while that of TMR was 85%.
At the WWP level, the RL was found to be approximately 90% until around the
week 101 when the value dropped to 60%. CLR values were also obtained and were
around 1 until week 51 when the value dropped to slightly lower than 1.
At the end of execution, PPC, PRCO, RCR, PCN, and CU values were
calculated. PPC had an average of 90% at the beginning of the project to later decrease
to 69% by the end of the project. PRCO and RCR vales were both above 85% before
they also decreased by the end of the project. CU values ranged from 0%to 30%.
The second project consisted of 270 WWPs. TTA, TTP, and TTC values were
also calculated for project 2. The tasks averaged between 100 and 200 tasks at the
beginning of the project, to witness some spikes later at weeks 61, 91, and 111. The 2-
Week New Tasks were 20%-60%, 1-Week New Tasks were 10%-40%, and WWP-
New Tasks were 5%.
TA values ranged between 70% at the beginning and 40% towards the end of
the project. TMR values averaged around 82% to reach a maximum of 90%.
RL levels fluctuated around 90% or higher, which later dropped to 40%. For
CLR values, the ratio was less than 1. Finally, PPC, PRCO, RCR, and PCN values
fluctuated around 95% throughout the project.

DISCUSSION
Metric results have various indications. Regarding TA, both project teams faced
some difficulties in anticipating tasks and thus showed unstable TA values. Teams with
high TMR values were not affected by the unstable TA values, while those with low
TMR values also showed a decrease in PCN, indicating their difficulty in completing
new tasks. Therefore, TA, TMR, and PCN can be used together to assess the
performance at the lookahead planning phase.
Both projects showed a drop in RL values by the end of the project, which
indicates that the teams were no longer committing to the required amount of work.
This could mean that the projects were expected to fall behind schedule.
Regarding the CLR results for both projects, low recorded values (below 1)
showed that the teams were overloading their resources in an attempt to make up to

7
being behind schedule. Most teams tend to overload their resources shown by a
decrease in CLR values as they deviate away from the planned schedule
High RL, PRCO, and PPC values indicate reliability of planning. Moreover,
tracking RL, PRCO, and PPC together can indicate the reliability of the planning at the
level of WWP, as PPC alone does not consider the status of critical tasks.
As for CU values, although high CU values might give the impression of a
motivated and agile team, a high CU value with low PPC, PRCO and RL values is not
a good sign, as this shows that the team is completing backlog tasks instead of critical
tasks. Accordingly, CLR and CU reflect the performance of capacity planning.
Even though the proposed dashboard is not used on the projects during
execution, it has proven its importance on the selected case studies through a
retrospective application. The metrics are vividly visualized in the dashboard, and each
metric is given a different representation and position according to its definition and
importance. During a fast track project, this dashboard can act as an early warning for
project managers during any phase of the project, from the lookahead planning where
they can look into details of their metrics, or during execution and control where they
only have time to visually inspect warnings. For example, a red value for the RL metric
in the WWP dashboard would warn project managers of the possibility of the project
falling behind schedule. Moreover, a red low value of the CLR metric indicates that
the actual schedule is negatively deviating from the planned.

CONCLUSION
The paper presents a modern dashboard to enhance project control and give
planners a more visual control aid. Previous research has used dashboards in
construction to visualize planning progress and performance. However, this research
uses LPS metrics to visualize and enhance project control within the LPS at the level
of the Lookahead planning and the WWP. The dashboard represents LPS metrics such
as TA, TMR, PPC, PRCO, PNC, RL, CU, PIC, and the CLR, both visually and
graphically. Colored digital speedometer-like gauges are used to give warnings about
metrics values, and graphs are included so that in depth analysis can be done. The
dashboard was tested based on two case studies. The first project consisted of 372
WWPs involving 8 teams, and the second project consisted of 270 WWPs. Both
projects had fluctuating metrics over certain periods. The importance of dashboards
lies within these fluctuations where planners can be early warned through gauges and
colors so that valuable information is not missed.
As the study have used data retrospectively, it was not possible to collect
feedback from project planners. The usefulness of the dashboard is mainly derived
from the ability of the included metrics to highlight previously-hidden project
dynamics and to inform future planning decisions.
Dashboards showing advanced metrics can be helpful as seen when used on the
two case-study projects retrospectively. However, more research is required to increase
the reliability and effectiveness of dashboards. Future research will focus on deciding
which metrics should be placed on the same dashboard. Furthermore, more work is
required in order to further develop the proposed dashboard into a software application.

8
REFERENCES

AbouRizk, S., Halpin, D., Mohamed, Y., and Hermann, U. (2011). “Research in
Modeling and Simulation for Improving Construction Engineering Operations.”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(10), 843–852.
Ballard, G. (2000). “The Last Planner System of Production Control.” PhD
Dissertation, Faculty of Engineerimg, School of Civil Engineering, The
University of Birmingham, UK.
Benjaoran, V. (2009). “A cost control system development: A collaborative approach
for small and medium-sized contractors.” International Journal of Project
Management, 27(3), 270–277.
Emdanat, S., and Azambuja, M. (2016). “Aligning near and long term planning for
LPS implementations: A review of existing and new metrics.” 24th Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, (IGLC-24),
Toshiba enerugi shisutemuzu, 103–112.
Ezzeddine, A., Shehab, L., Hamzeh, F., and Lucko, G. (2019). “Singularity Functions
to Enhance Monitoring in the Last Planner System.” 27th Annual Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction, International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC), Dublin, Ireland, 287–298.
Hamzeh, F. (2009). “Improving construction workflow- The role of production
planning and control Improving Construction Workflow- The Role of.”
University of California, Berkeley.
Hamzeh, F., Al Hattab, M., Rizk, L., El Samad, G., and Emdanat, S. (2019a).
“Developing new metrics to evaluate the performance of capacity planning
towards sustainable construction.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier, 225,
868–882.
Hamzeh, F. R., and Aridi, O. Z. (2013). “Modeling the Last Planner System Metrics:
A Case Study of an AEZ Company.” Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Contruction IGLC, Fortaleza, Brazil, 599–608.
Hamzeh, F., Ballard, G., and Tommelein, I. D. (2008). “Improving Construction
Work Flow – The Connective Role of Lookahead Planning.” 16th Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, (IGLC-16), 635–
646.
Hamzeh, F., Ballard, G., and Tommelein, I. D. (2009). “Is the Last Planner System
applicable to design?—A case study.” 17th Annual Conf. of the Internation Lean
Construction Group, Taipei, Taiwan, 165–176.
Hamzeh, F. R., El Samad, G., and Emdanat, S. (2019b). “Advanced Metrics for
Construction Planning.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
ASCE, 145(11), pp. 04019063-1-16.
Hamzeh, F. R., Khalifeh, S., El Samad, G., Rizk, L., Abou Ibrahim, H., Al Hattab,
M., and Emdanat, S. (2020). Chapter 6 “Advanced LPS Metrics for Construction
Planning and Control.” Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices in
Modern Construction, L. H. Forbes and S. M. Ahmed, eds., Routledge, 32.
Howell, G., and Ballard, G. (1996). “Can Project Controls Do Its Job?” International
Group of Lean Construction, Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, Birmingham, England, 13.
9
Junnonen, J.-M., and Seppänen, O. (2004). “Task Planning as a Part of Production
Control.”
Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota Wat - 14 Management Principles from the World’s
Greatest Manufacturer. McGraw Hill, NY.
Pauwels, K., Ambler, T., Clark, B. H., Lapointe, P., Reibstein, M. D., Skiera, B.,
Wierenga, B., and Wiesel, T. (2009). “Dashboards as a Service Why, What,
How, and What Research Is Needed?”
Rizk, L., Hamzeh, F., and Emdanat, S. (2017). “Introducing New Capacity Planning
Metrics In Production Planning.” 25th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction, 679–686.
Rocha, C. G., Formoso, C. T., and Tzortzopoulos-fazenda, P. (2012). “Design
Science Research in Lean construction: An Analysis of Research Processes and
Outcomes.” Proceedings for the 20th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction.
El Samad, G., Hamzeh, F., and Emdanat, S. (2017). “Last Planner System – the Need
for New Metrics.” 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, II(July), 637–644.
Sohail, M., and Baldwin, A. N. (2004). “Performance indicators for ‘micro-projects’
in developing countries.” Construction Management and Economics, 22(1), 11–
23.
Song, K., Pollalis, S. N., and Pena-Mora, F. (2005). “Project Dashboard: Concurrent
Visual Representation Method of Project Metrics on 3D Building Models.”
Computing in Civil Engineering, 1–12.
Song, L., and Eldin, N. N. (2012). “Adaptive real-time tracking and simulation of
heavy construction operations for look-ahead scheduling.” Automation in
Construction, Elsevier B.V., 27, 32–39.
Velcu, O., and Yigitbasioglu, O. (2012). “A review of dashboards in performance
management: Implications for design and research.” International Journal of
Accounting Information Systems, 13(1), 41–59.
Woodrich, A. M. (2006). “Partnering: Providing Effective Project Control.” Journal
of Management in Engineering, 9(2), 136–141.

10