Case Study

Lean Homebuilding: Lessons Learned from a

Precast Concrete Panelizer
Isabelina Nahmens1 and Michael A. Mullens2

Abstract: This paper serves as a resource to prefabricated construction managers who are attempting to implement lean thinking to improve
their production operations by eliminating waste. Lean is both a general way of thinking and a specific production management approach that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

emphasizes using less of everything to satisfy the customer by delivering the highest quality at the lowest cost in the shortest time. While
providing an overview of lean principles, this paper focuses on two fundamental lean concepts, standardization and continuous flow.
To develop these concepts, this paper uses a case-study approach to describe the experiences of a large homebuilder confronted by rising
production costs as they migrate wall-building operations from the construction site into a factory. Lean production principles are successfully
applied, yielding a 47% increase in productivity and a 25% reduction in lead time. This study also found employee involvement and the
supplier relationship as key factors for successful lean implementation. Challenges that limited implementation success and the related les-
sons learned are also presented. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000037. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Lean construction; Precast concrete; Case studies; Construction management.
Author keywords: Lean production; Lean construction; Homebuilding; Precast concrete.

Introduction management of construction projects. Furthermore, lean construc-

In 2009, the housing industry faced another challenging year, and
the burden was on homebuilders to persuade consumers to consider
the home-buying opportunities in that market. Builders were deal-
ing with a buyer’s market-high inventory, low consumer confidence
in real estate, and a national credit crisis. Some strategies identified
by builders to survive this market include reducing inventory (by
leasing or eliminating spec homes) and reducing overhead cost. In a
buyer’s market such as today’s, homebuyers have greater expec-
tations: higher quality, lower cost, and more timely delivery. As
market pressures increase, builders are recognizing the need to
redesign their business strategy to remain competitive (Kerber
2000). Dennis (2002) contends that the current profit equation
in most industries, including construction, is fixed price minus
cost. In this business environment, managers are forced to reduce
costs to increase profits. Howell (2000) claims that conventional
construction-management approaches that focus on managing
activities and controlling activity costs will not lead to shorter
project cycle times, cost reduction, and increased profits. Citing
the high level of uncertainty on the construction site, he suggests
that it is more important for management to establish a stable
operating environment by reducing variability and controlling the
flow of construction activities. Howell contends that this approach,
analogous to lean production-control strategies used in manufactur-
ing, will lead to a conceptual breakthrough in reforming the
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Construction Management & Industrial
Engineering, Louisiana State Univ., 3128 Patrick F. Taylor Building, Baton
Rouge, LA 70803-6419 (corresponding author). E-mail: nahmens@lsu.edu
2
Principal, Housing Constructability Lab, Winter Park, FL. E-mail:
mullensm@mail.ucf.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 9, 2009; approved
on January 6, 2011; published online on November 15, 2011. Discussion
period open until May 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Architectural En-
gineering, Vol. 17, No. 4, December 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431/
2011/4-155–161/$25.00.
tion has sought a new foundation for project management (Koskela
2002) and has started to change the way constructors manage their
own operations (Salem et al. 2006).
The use of large-scale prefabricated components is a lean strat-
egy used increasingly by innovative homebuilders. Although there
have been some incredible successes (e.g., the roof truss), not all
prefabrication efforts have been successful in driving down costs.
Attempting to speed start-up and minimize capital costs, early
adopters have often migrated traditional homebuilding practices
into the new factory environment, termed “stick building under
a roof.” The builder/prefabricator then finds that total costs may
actually increase because construction costs do not dramatically
decrease, and the new prefabrication facility must be paid for. This
paper describes the experiences of a large builder confronted by this
situation and the builder’s response with the introduction of lean
production techniques. Implementation challenges and lessons
learned are also presented.
Performance Improvement Using Lean Production:
Overview
Originating with the Toyota production system (Ohno 1988), lean
production is the result of decades of development by automobile
manufacturers who have reduced average labor hours per vehicle
by more than half with one-third the defects [National Association
of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Center 1999]. Other indus-
tries have followed the automobile industry’s lead, achieving sim-
ilar results (Womack and Jones 1996). The goal of lean production
is to satisfy the customer by delivering the highest quality at
the lowest cost in the shortest time. This is accomplished by
continuously eliminating waste. All forms of waste are targeted
by lean production initiatives: defects, overproduction, transporta-
tion, waiting, inventory, motion, and processing. Lean refers to a
general way of thinking and specific practices that emphasize using
less of everything (Cusumano and Nobeoka 1998). Dennis (2002)
summarizes lean production concepts in Fig. 1.

JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011 / 155

J. Archit. Eng. 2011.17:155-161.


Goal
customer focus:
Highest quality, lowest cost, shortest lead time
by continually eliminating muda
Just-In-Time Jidoka
Involvement:
Flexible,
motivated team
members
continually
seeking a better
way
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Standardization
Stability
Fig. 1. Lean production concepts (Dennis 2002, reprinted with permis-
sion from Productivity Press/Taylor and Francis Group LLC)
Stability and Standardization
The foundations of lean production are stability and standardiza-
tion. Stability seeks to bring order to the chaos that is an inherent
part of the manufacturing enterprise. Stability begins in the
workplace, with visual management (e.g., 5 S system) providing
organization and standardization. Visual management facilitates
a self-managing work environment that is self-explaining, self-
ordering, and self-improving (Greif 1991). Stability and standardi-
zation are mutually supportive. Standardization provides stability
to the workplace, and stability is required for a production system
to meet standard (expected) levels of performance. Standardiza-
tion refers to the intentional design of both products and processes
to achieve greater commonality and repeatability. Standard manu-
facturing processes (e.g., process equipment and methods) are the
safest, easiest, and most productive ways of doing the job. They
are also the baseline from which improvements are continuously
made and thus, are transitory. Standardizing processes include
specifying specific work elements that must be performed, the
tools and equipment that are to be used, the layout of the im-
mediate workplace, the time required to perform each element,
and the sequence in which work elements are to be performed.
Just-in-Time and Jidoka
The two supporting walls for lean production are just-in-time (JIT)
delivery of parts and jidoka, automation with an intelligent mind.
The overriding objective of JIT is customer satisfaction, providing
what the customer values when the customer wants it (i.e., produc-
ing the right part at the right time in the right quantity). JIT begins
with the identification of what the customer values, often called the
voice of the customer. JIT then seeks to provide a continuous flow
of work to create this value that simultaneously eliminates all waste
and provides quick response to the customer. Value-stream map-
ping, identifying and charting the steps necessary to create value
for the customer, is used to document the current situation and
to identify wasted steps so that they can be challenged and elim-
inated. Several concepts are fundamental to JIT and continuous
flow:
• Takt time—the demand cycle for the process establishes the
maximum process cycle time that will satisfy customer demand;
• Workload balancing—the process of balancing the workload of
each worker around the Takt time to satisfy demand while
equalizing work and maximizing efficiency and capacity;
156 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011
J. Archit. Eng. 2011.17:155-161.
• Production leveling—leveling the peaks and valleys of customer
demand so that the production system can produce at same pace
every day;
• Pull—no one should produce a part until a customer down-
stream asks for it; kanban, a system of visual signals, formalizes
these requests and synchronizes suppliers and customers both
inside and outside the plant;
• Proximity—machinery and people must be located close
together so that they can provide value continuously;
• Single-piece flow—parts must flow individually (or, if abso-
lutely necessary, in small batches) to allow continuous flow
through the value stream;
• Quick changeover—permits economical single-piece flow
through traditional batch operations; and
• Work-in-process (WIP) inventory—the minimum number of
unfinished parts that must be staged between work elements
to smooth flow.
It should be noted that JIT and continuous flow rely on stability
and standardization in the workplace and a capable, multiskilled
workforce. Hence, results from applying JIT, focusing on waste
management as a key component of site management, showed that
employee involvement, supplier relationship, and continuous im-
provement were key success factors (Pheng and Hut 1999).
Jidoka, automation with a human mind, implies intelligent
workers and machines identifying errors and taking quick counter-
measures. In construction, quality efforts have traditionally been
focused on conformance (i.e., defects are found after installation).
However, lean construction focuses on defect prevention, and the
objective is to make processes defect-free by automatically identi-
fying and containing defects.
Employee Involvement
At the core of lean production is an empowered workforce focused
continuously on seeking a better way. The objective is to nurture
and utilize the vast potential of production workers to improve their
own operations while simultaneously improving the organization’s
prospects for long-term success. Kaizen (continuous improvement)
teams are a successful vehicle for organizing worker involvement.
In lean production, kaizen provides an opportunity for employees
to actively participate in process improvement (Salem et al. 2006).
Lean Construction
Koskela (1993) drew from lean production principles to derive the
philosophy of lean construction. According to the Lean Construc-
tion Institute, lean construction is a production management–based
philosophy emphasizing the need to simultaneously design a new
structure and its production process while minimizing waste and
maximizing value to owners throughout the structure’s life (Howell
1999). This is accomplished by improving performance at the total
project level, by using a conformance-based versus a deviation-
based performance control strategy and improving the reliability
of workflow among project participants. Stated succinctly, lean
construction forces the explicit consideration of value management
and workflow in addition to the traditional construction manage-
ment focus on transformation management, i.e., transferring mate-
rials into building objects (Abdelhamid 2004).
Lean construction research has focused on eliminating waste
and variability (Abdelhamid 2004). Ballard and Howell (1994a)
state that achieving reliable workflow is possible only when sources
of variability are controlled. The damaging effects of variability
on dependent production processes were formally introduced by
Goldratt and Cox (1992) and later addressed in the construction
 context by Tommelein et al. (1999). Common sources of construc-
tion variability include late delivery of material and equipment,
design errors, change orders, equipment breakdowns, tool mal-
functions, improper crew utilization, labor strikes, environmental
effects, and poorly designed production systems. In new home con-
struction, customization is also a significant source of variability.
Planning and scheduling construction activities has been a
major focus of lean homebuilding research. Ballard and Howell
(1994b) identify the quality of weekly work-crew assignments
as a key driver of workflow, with quality assignments shielding
downstream production crews from workflow uncertainty. Ballard
and Howell (1998) suggest that remaining workflow variability
can be mitigated through the use of plan buffers, surge piles, and
flexible capacity.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The NAHB Research Center (1999) claims that several changes

are needed to streamline current homebuilding processes: Fig. 2. Panel forms on forming bed (image by authors)
• Broad-skilled and multidisciplined teams—self-managed teams
consisting of craftsmen with multiple skills for each phase of
construction;
• Continuous workflow—building a set number of houses per
week or month and matching crew sizes to the production rate
so they have continuous flow; and
• Focus on fast cycle times by eliminating non-value-adding
activities.
The implementation of lean production principles often takes the
form of a kaizen, which can be defined as “the planned, organized,
and systematic process of on-going, incremental and company-wide
change of existing practices aimed at improving company perfor-
mance” (Boer et al. 2000). In contrast to scientific management ap-
proaches that split employees into thinkers and doers, kaizen
assumes that all employees can make a contribution to problem
solving and innovation (Bessant et al. 2001). Kaizen methods fol-
low a structured approach that includes the following steps:
(1) document the current process, (2) identify all forms of waste,
(3) develop lean options to reduce waste, (4) pilot-test the options, Fig. 3. Setting precast concrete wall panel (image by authors)
and (5) institutionalize the changes and continue to improve.
The first step involves the development of two key types of pro-
cess documentation: baseline performance metrics (e.g., quality,
cycle time, productivity) and a value-stream map, indicating all Panelizing takes place on two 9,000-square-foot concrete beds,
value-added and non-value-added activities. Waste in all its forms as shown in Fig. 4. Each bed is wide enough to simultaneously
is exposed as the current process is observed, documented, and an- produce two sets of panels. Sufficient clearance is provided be-
alyzed (e.g., non-value-added activities are discovered). When tween the beds to provide access by a concrete delivery truck,
waste is identified, potential process improvements are developed a mobile construction crane (used to load completed panels for
by using lean principles. Selected lean improvements are pilot- shipment), and the panel transporter. Construction materials and
tested in the process and fine-tuned to optimize impact. As the suc- equipment are located in two freight shipping containers, each ap-
cessful changes are institutionalized, the continuous improvement proximately 10 ft. wide by 10 ft. high by 10 ft. long. Wire mesh is
process is repeated in a never-ending cycle. stacked at the left end of the lower bed. Two covered, open-air
structures house a ripsaw and an employee break area. Adminis-
trative functions are located in a modular office. The work environ-
Case Study: Precast Concrete Panelizer ment is harsh. Most of the operation is uncovered, and daily
temperatures routinely exceed 95°F. The operation is largely sur-
rounded by sugarcane, blocking most cooling breezes.
Setting
A large contractor serves Florida homebuilders statewide by con- Current Process
structing the exterior shell of the home: the concrete footings/slab, The panelizing process consists of four sequential phases:
concrete block walls, and roof. The contractor is actively exploring • Layout—form and square perimeter of each panel, form and
innovative alternatives to conventional concrete-block construc- square window/door openings, place plastic and Styrofoam in-
tion, the predominant homebuilding technology in the central serts, inspect, clean surface, spray bond breaker;
and south Florida markets. After learning of the potential of pre- • Prep—lay rebar around perimeter and openings, place lifters/
fabrication, the contractor recently set up and began operation of a straps/other inserts, install wire mesh, tie components to mesh;
precast concrete wall panel production facility. The panels are fab- • Pour—third-party inspection, blow and sweep debris from
ricated in a factory (Fig. 2), transported to the construction sites form, pour and level concrete, finish surface, cover with plastic;
around the state, and quickly assembled by using a construction and
crane (Fig. 3). • Lift—attach to crane cables, lift, and place on transporter.

JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011 / 157

J. Archit. Eng. 2011.17:155-161.


Office
Break Forming Bed
Area Wire
Mesh
#1
WH rial
e
Mat
#2
WH ment
ip
Equ
Saw
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Layout of operation
There are four labor classifications: daily worker, superintend-
ent, yard foreman, and project manager. Daily workers and the
superintendent are provided by a subcontractor. Daily workers
are transient day laborers and may come and go daily. They speak
Spanish, with little or no English speaking skills. Most daily work-
ers are skilled construction workers, primarily roofers and carpen-
ters. The contractor provides no formal training. New workers learn
specific process techniques and sequences by following their more
experienced colleagues. Observations indicated that activities did
not follow a predetermined sequence, and they were sometimes
only partially completed. For example, a crew member starts laying
rebar in Panel 1, then goes to get A1s (steel components) and places
them in Panel 2, without completing Panel 1. Daily workers are
informally supervised by their superintendent. The yard foreman
is in charge of providing material and equipment to the daily work-
ers. This requires the use of a Bobcat, a small yard vehicle. The
yard foreman also performs errands for the project manager.
The project manager plans weekly production and schedules deliv-
ery of concrete and other materials.
Early performance of the new panelizing operation demon-
strated mixed results. Panels could be set on the construction site
and the roof erected in less than one day, meeting expectations.
However, labor costs and cycle times at the precast factory were
much higher than anticipated. Researchers from the University
of Central Florida Housing Constructability Lab were invited to
assist management in incorporating lean production principles.
Researchers used the five-step structured approach discussed
previously. Each step is subsequently discussed.
Methods
The purpose of this study was to implement lean construction in the
precast factory. The study focused on two fundamental lean con-
cepts: standardization and continuous flow of the construction
activities. Kaizen methods were used to streamline the construction
activities that included the following steps: (1) document the
current process, (2) identify all forms of waste, (3) develop lean
options to reduce waste, (4) pilot-test the options, and (5) institu-
tionalize the changes and continue to improve.
Step 1: Document the Current Process
The researchers first met with management (superintendent, yard
foreman, and project manager) to explain the purpose of the study
and the process steps in which the daily workers would be involved.
The research team consisted of the two authors (researchers) and
four graduate students. Researchers used extensive observation, in-
cluding digital monitoring/recording, and interviews to develop a
158 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011
J. Archit. Eng. 2011.17:155-161.
300 ft
30 ft
Forming Bed
Wire
Mesh
Panels under
construction
detailed map of the value stream. The documented process was then
analyzed, and activities that contributed value to the customer and
activities that added no value were identified with input from man-
agement and daily workers. Activities were classified as follows:
V: Value-added activity (grouped into four categories: layout, prep,
pour, and lift)
NVA: Non-value-added activity (included waiting for tools, getting
tools, waiting for materials, getting materials, waiting for instruc-
tion, receiving instructions, waiting for another worker to finish an
activity, waiting for inspection, inspection, talking, rework, breaks,
idle, and cleaning).
Step 2: Identify All Forms of Waste
Time study (to document cycle time) and work sampling (to mea-
sure value-added and non-value-added times) procedures were
performed to estimate cycle times for each value-added and non-
value-added activity. A time study was conducted to determine the
labor hours required for specific wall panels by value-added activ-
ity. Two researchers observed and videotaped the value-added and
non-value-added activities for a single panel from the forming stage
through the lifting stage. The videotape was used as backup to cor-
roborate the data collected. To document all activities, the crew
working on the panel observed was equally divided among re-
searchers. Concurrently, the other two researchers performed a
modified work-sampling procedure to determine the percentage
of time spent on various activities (Aft 2000). Each crew member
was observed for a continuous 2-h period. At least one researcher
was fluent in Spanish to understand the communication between
workers. Every 30 s, the researcher tallied the activity performed
by the crew member. Comments were also added to document
reasons for non-value-added activities.
A summary of these baseline results is shown in Fig. 5. Value-
added activities represented 53% of labor hours consumed.
Excessive material handling (requiring workers to leave the work
area) and rework were primary contributors to the 47% of labor
Value added Activities
28% Layout
12% Preparation
Value Added 8% Lifting
53% 5% Pouring
Non-Value added Activities
Non -Value
25% Getting Tools & Material
Added
15% Rework
7% Others (Instructions,
47%
waiting, etc)
Fig. 5. Summary of baseline process performance
 consumed by non-value-added activities. Once started, the flow of
value-added activity was routinely interrupted. Poor access to ma-
terials and tools, rework, ill-defined process flows, and workforce/
first-line supervision issues were contributing factors.
Step 3: Develop Lean Options
To address these sources of waste and streamline the process,
researchers utilized lean production principles, challenging non-
value-added activities and removing the obstacles to continuous
production flow. Recommended process improvements included
the following:
Standardize Activities
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The primary objective of standardization was to provide the pro-
cedural infrastructure and stability required for balanced workloads
and continuous flow. This, in turn, reduced the non-value-added
activities associated with ad hoc planning and flow experienced
in the previous (existing) process. To accomplish this objec-
tive, researchers developed a new standard procedure that included
the following:
1. Reassigned roles and activities for all personnel: (1) pro-
ject manager—perform office and business tasks, (2) yard
foreman—supervise yard operations, kit material, stage equip-
ment, clean up, direct the pour, (3) utility worker—rip forms,
window subassembly, concrete test, and (4) daily workers—
build panels.
2. Daily workers were organized into two teams of two workers
per team. To focus measurement responsibilities (an important
strategy for preventing rework), one team was assigned all
critical measurement activities. Other activities were assigned
to the teams to balance workload.
3. The two teams were synchronized, with the second team
following the first through a series of activities on a panel.
To minimize congestion, the two teams did not typically work
on the same panel at the same time. However, if the first team
was running slowly, the second team was allowed to begin
work on the same panel to minimize delays.
4. Detailed production schedules were developed for the new
organization to allow continuous flow (Fig. 6).
Kit and Stage Materials in Advance
The objective of material kitting was to minimize production-flow
interruptions resulting from poor material-handling practices. The
concept was for dedicated personnel to provide all materials and
Fig. 6. Sample from detailed production schedule
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011 / 159
J. Archit. Eng. 2011.17:155-161.
equipment needed by both two-person production teams, allowing
the teams to work continuously without interruption. In general,
materials and equipment were prepped the day before forming
and delivered the next morning by the yard foreman. The material
was separated by panels and staged directly adjacent to the panel-
forming location on the bed.
Subassemble Forms for Window and Door Openings
Offline
The objective of these recommendations was to reduce interrup-
tions in production flow, including substantial rework associated
with building and locating the forms for window and door open-
ings. Window and door opening forms were to be subassembled
offline the day before forming by the utility worker. The subassem-
bly would include all forming edges and the two triangular steel
squaring and locating fixtures used to attach the opening forms
to the bed. A locating jig was also developed for locating opening
forms on the wall form.
Enhance Communication and Supervision
Reliable communication and supervision were considered essential
parts of the infrastructure required for high-quality, efficient pro-
duction. To this end, it was recommended that the yard foreman
be given formal responsibility for first-line supervision of daily
workers. This had several implications for the qualifications for
the position: (1) bilingual—fluent in both English and Spanish,
(2) strong supervisory skills—capable of supervising daily workers
in use of new process flow, and (3) technical knowledge—able to
read production drawings and understand new process flow.
Step 4: Pilot-Test
A pilot test was conducted to gauge the effectiveness of the recom-
mendations and uncover unexpected issues. The test took place
over three days. The first day was used to explain new organization
and procedures to the production team and conduct hands-on train-
ing. The second and third days were used for production. Four
graduate-student researchers observed production during the
test and collected productivity data. The test house consisted of
25 panels. The average panel characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Four typical workers were selected to participate in the pilot test.
The yard foreman also participated in the test, supervising yard
operations, staging material/equipment, and directing the pour.
Productivity was calculated by dividing the square feet of wall
produced by the labor hours consumed by each major activity. This
 Table 1. Average Panel Characteristics with the pilot-test results in Table 2. The pilot test only achieved
Panel characteristics Values approximately one-fourth of the productivity gains estimated for
the proposed process scenario. Several challenges faced in the case
Panel height (m) 3.2
study must be addressed before the full potential of lean production
Panel length (m) 3.5
can be attained and the proposed process scenario is achieved.
Gross panel area (m2 ) 11.1 • Supply-chain inefficiencies: Material was delivered on the day
Concrete area (m2 ) 8.5 of production, preventing the yard foreman from kitting materi-
Window/door opening area (m2 ) 2.6 als the day before production. Efficiencies requested of suppli-
Number of window/door openings per panel 0.8 ers were not granted; e.g., the rebar supplier would not agree to
sort rebar by panel and part number, instead sorting by size and
length and requiring resorting after delivery on site.
Table 2. Productivity—m2 of Wall/Labor Hour • Resistance to making even minor investments: The specialized
Process Existing Proposed Pilot Productivity increase workstation for offline subassembly of window and door open-
ings was not available for use by a dedicated utility worker. This
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

phase process process test during test

forced the test teams to assemble openings on the forming bed
Layout 4.93 14.12 8.45 72%
instead of offline as recommended and contributed to disruption
Prep 4.83 13.84 7.34 52% of continuous flow on the forming beds. Also, there was not
Pouring 13.56 19.60 27.50 103% enough equipment for both test and nontest production workers.
Lifting 6.97 40.88 6.97 0% Workers not involved with the test repeatedly removed equip-
Total 1.58 4.55 2.32 47% ment that the yard foreman had staged for the pilot test, resulting
in constant juggling of equipment and disruptions in production.
• Breaking old organizational relationships and assuming new
productivity metric, which expresses hands-on labor consumed per
supervisory responsibilities: Although the yard foreman was
square foot of wall produced, is a key measure of labor resource
assigned to supervise yard operations, kit material, stage equip-
productivity. Activities on the upper end of the scale are more pro-
ment, clean up, and to direct the pour during the test, he was not
ductive. Table 2 summarizes productivity under three scenarios.
available during much of the test. The project manager repeat-
The productivity of the existing process was measured by using
edly redirected the yard foreman, often to perform menial
historical data. Productivity was estimated for the proposed process
errands that did not contribute to production. The yard foreman
changes by using project-scheduling models developed by using
periodically removed himself from the test, the longest instance
Microsoft Project with an overall average productivity increase
being 3 h on the final day to repair the Bobcat. Although
of 188%, compared to the current process. Finally, productivity
researchers were able to play the yard foreman’s first-line super-
was measured during a 3-day pilot test of the lean recommenda-
visory role during the test, they could not deliver materials and
tions. Labor estimates used in the productivity calculations
equipment when needed. As a result, there was some interrup-
include all paid production time for daily workers, including
tion of flow and loss of productivity.
value-added and non-value-added time. As an incentive for partici-
• Empowering a transient, subcontracted labor force: Experience
pating in the test, test crews were released early on the final day of
with lean and 6 sigma production systems suggest that optimum
the test. They were notified of the potential for early release after an
performance requires the trust and involvement of all workers.
unplanned meeting at the end of the third day to address an ob-
In hopes of kick-starting this culture of trust, each test day
served decrease in work pace. Nontest crew members using
started with a 15 min team meeting to discuss what was going
existing procedures completed the pour and performed the lifting
to be done that day. Wrap-up meetings at the end of each day
on the final day. The pour was completed on Friday and was ob-
addressed what went well and recommendations for those
served by researchers. Lifting was performed several days later
things that could be improved. Most importantly, workers
after curing and was not observed; it was assumed to remain at
were asked for their opinions about the operation. Although
historical levels.
these meetings appeared to be well-received and productive, re-
Pilot-test results were encouraging, with an overall average pro-
searchers noticed that worker pace slowed considerably on the
ductivity increase of 47%. Non-value-added labor was reduced
third day of the test. Researchers confronted this issue directly,
from the historical average of 47 to 29%, including delays for
conducting an unplanned meeting with the test workers. Worker
material/equipment/instructions, team meetings during the test,
comments suggested that they were only trying to ensure work
and rework. For the operations actually observed (layout, prep, and
for the following day (Saturday). The outcome of this meeting
pouring), productivity improvement ranged from 52 to 103% with
was a negotiated settlement. Workers agreed to increase the pace
an average of 66%. Even though the pour was made by using nont-
to that of the previous day and finish preparation of the remain-
est crew members and existing processes, pouring productivity in-
ing panels. Management, including the subcontractor and the
creased by 103%. This increase was likely influenced by several
project manager, agreed that the workers could leave immedi-
factors, including the presence of researchers during the pour
ately when finished and be paid for a full day’s work. As a re-
and the relatively large number of panels (25) comprising the test
sult, nontest workers were required to complete pouring and
house, which served to reduce incremental pouring setup time per
loading the panels.
panel and per unit area. The recommended change will also reduce
cycle time. For a typical 12-panel home, cycle time can be reduced
25%, from 4 days to 3 days, including curing and load.
Conclusions: Implications for the Engineering
Manager
Discussions
Several lessons were learned that have implications for prefabri-
Although encouraging, the results were well below our initially cated construction managers attempting to implement lean produc-
high expectations, as seen when comparing the proposed process tion techniques. First, lean production concepts can have a dramatic

160 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011

J. Archit. Eng. 2011.17:155-161.

 impact on production performance. Results from the case study
clearly demonstrate that even a limited application was able to
improve productivity by 47%. Production lead times can also be
reduced, but perhaps not as dramatically. In general, workers per-
formed at a similar pace throughout both data-collection efforts
(e.g., existing process and pilot test), except during the third day
of the pilot test. However, this issue was swiftly addressed, result-
ing in workers increasing their pace to that of the previous days.
The importance of employee empowerment required for a success-
ful lean implementation and the special challenges of empowering
a transient, subcontracted labor force are worth noting. This was
evident in the case study, in which daily workers were more con-
cerned about leaving enough work for the next day than working
efficiently, the builder’s main concern.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The second lesson learned is the importance of developing and
nurturing relationships throughout the supply chain. Suppliers must
be willing to stretch beyond traditional paradigms to provide
greater value, supplying the right parts at the right time, in the right
quantity, and in the right configuration (kit). Increased attention and
empowerment must be given to the transient, subcontracted work-
force, not just to the labor supplier but to the workers who actually
add value. Supervisors must be willing to accept their new role as
facilitators of work and maintainers of flow. Reporting relation-
ships should certainly not create disruptions. Similar to previous
studies (Pheng and Hut 1999; Pheng and Min 2005; Maturana et al.
2007), this study found that employee involvement, supplier rela-
tionship, and continuous improvement are key success factors for
lean implementation. These key factors are tenets to lean construc-
tion. If they are missing in practice, lean construction cannot reach
its full potential indicated in the proposed process scenario. Finally,
as in most worthy endeavors, some investment may be needed to
provide the safest, easiest, and most productive ways of doing the
job. Fearing downturns, the construction industry has traditionally
been reluctant to purchase capital facilities and equipment. Minor
investments in tools/equipment and facilities can have significant
impact on flow and overall waste.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the U.S. DOE, Office of Energy Effi-
ciency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program
for their support in funding the Industrialized Housing Partnership
through the Building America program. This support does not con-
stitute an endorsement by DOE of the views expressed in this re-
port. The authors appreciate the encouragement and support from
George James, program manager in Washington, D.C.
References
Abdelhamid, T. (2004). “Lean production paradigms in the housing
industry.” Proc., NSF Housing Research Agenda Workshop, M. Syal,
M. Hastak, and M. Mullens, eds., Vol. 2, Focus Group 1, Orlando, FL,
72–81.
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011 / 161
J. Archit. Eng. 2011.17:155-161.
Aft, L. S. (2000). Work measurement and methods improvement,
Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Ballard, G., and Howell, G. (1994a). “Implementing lean construction: Im-
proving downstream performance.” Proc., 2nd Annual Meeting of the
Int. Group for Lean Construction, Lean Construction Institute, La Jolla,
CA.
Ballard, G., and Howell, G. (1994b). “Implementing lean construction: Sta-
bilizing work flow.” Proc., 2nd Annual Meeting of the Int. Group for
Lean Construction, Lean Construction Institute, La Jolla, CA.
Ballard, G., and Howell, G. (1998). “Shielding production: Essential step in
production control.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124(1), 11–17.
Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., and Gallagher, M. (2001). “An evolutionary
model of continuous improvement behaviour.” Technovation, 21(2),
67–77.
Boer, H., Berger, A., Chapman, R., and Gertsen, F., eds. (2000). CI
changes: From suggestion box to organizational learning—Continuous
improvement in Europe and Australia, Ashgate, Surrey, UK.
Cusumano, M., and Nobeoka, K. (1998). Thinking beyond lean, The Free
Press, New York.
Dennis, P. (2002). Lean production simplified: A plain language guide to
the world’s most powerful production system, Productivity, New York.
Goldratt, E., and Cox, J. (1992). The goal, North River, Great Barrington,
MA.
Greif, M. (1991). The visual factory: Building participation through shared
information, Productivity, Portland, OR.
Howell, G. (1999). “What is lean construction—1999?” Proc., 7th Annual
Meeting of the Int. Group for Lean Construction, Lean Construction
Institute, La Jolla, CA.
Howell, G. (2000). Engineering news record, McGraw Hill, New York.
Kerber, J. A. (2000). “Dimensions of customer satisfaction in the home-
building industry.” MS thesis, Michigan State Univ.
Koskela, L. (1993). “Lean production in construction.” Proc., 10th Int.
Symp. of Automation and Robotics in Construction, International
Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction, 47–54.
Koskela, L. (2002). “The theory of project management: Explanation to
novel methods.” Proc., Int. Group for Lean Construction 10th Annual
Conf. (IGLC-10), International Group for Lean Construction.
Maturana, S., Alarcon, L. F., Gazmuri, P., and Vrsalovic, M. (2007).
“On-site subcontractor evaluatio method based on lean principles
and partnering practices.” J. Manage. Eng., 23(2), 67–74.
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Center. (1999).
“Lean construction.” NAHB, Upper Marlboro, MD.
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system, Productivity, New York.
Pheng, L. S., and Hut, M. S. (1999). “The application of JIT philosophy to
construction: A case study in site layout.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
17(5), 657–668.
Pheng, L. S., and Min, W. (2005). “Just-in-time management in the ready
mixed concrete industries of Chongqing, China and Singapore.” Constr.
Manage. Econ, 23(8), 815–829.
Salem, M., Solomon, A., Genaidy, A., and Minkarah, I. (2006). “Lean
construction: From theory to implementation.” J. Manage. Eng.,
22(4), 168–175.
Tommelein, I. D., Riley, D., and Howell, G. A. (1999). “Parade game:
Impact of work flow variability on trade performance.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 125(5), 304–310.
Womack, J., and Jones, D. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create
wealth in your corporation, Simon & Schuster, New York.