2022 8th International Conference on Information Management (ICIM)
Improving Construction Waste Management using
Transportation Management and Lean Tools at a
Construction and Hydrocarbons Company
Freddy Calluche-Avendaño Krissia Castillo-Flores
Industrial Engineering Industrial Engineering
Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas
2022 8th International Conference on Information Management (ICIM) | 978-1-6654-5174-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICIM56520.2022.00037
Lima, Peru
0000-0002-0218-7492 0000-0003-1812-2092
u201312826@upc.edu.pe u20131a002@upc.edu.pe
Abstract—The consumption of natural gas has been increasing
in recent years. For this reason, there are a larger number of gas
installation projects, which generate a greater amount of waste
causing environmental, economic, and social impacts. Based on
this, companies are not prepared nor aware that they must
improve their waste management plans in public works. The
contribution of this article is to introduce a Lean model in an
industry where Lean tools are not frequently used, seeking to
increase efficiency in the Construction and Demolition Waste
(CDW) management. The proposed model is based on the Plan-
Do-Check-Act cycle, and it is subdivided into two components,
starting with the 5S methodology that goes hand in hand with
Transportation Management, and ending with Process
Standardization. The results revealed that waste management
efficiency increased by 9%.
Keywords—construction and demolition waste, lean principles,
waste management, waste reduction
I. INTRODUCTION
According to [1], in 2017 an investment of 10.9 trillion
dollars was achieved between goods and infrastructure projects
in the industry, which is equivalent to 13% of world’s GDP. In
addition, it is estimated that, in the coming years, investment in
the construction industry will grow by 3.3% annually. This
denotes the importance and great impact of the construction
industry in the development of the global and national
economies. However, in 2017, more than 6.5 trillion
Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) tons were
generated, of which 55% are construction and demolition waste
[2]. Added to this is the growth of gas excavation and installation
processes due to the consumption of natural gas that has
continued to increase worldwide in 2019 with 2.6% more than
in 2018, which reported a record figure of 5.1%. [3]. In addition,
according to [4] at the end of 2019, natural gas service coverage
in Peru reached 11% compared to 8% the previous year, which
represents a total of 1,113,983 customers, and it is expected that,
by 2025, natural gas users nationwide will increase to 1.5 million
people with a coverage of 18% [4].
Of both industries exposed, inefficiency in solid waste
management in operations generates an excess of CDW. This
problem affects the profitability of company projects, causing
978-1-6654-5174-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/ICIM56520.2022.00037
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Brawijaya. Downloaded on September 11,2023 at 16:22:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Gino Viacava-Campos
Industrial Engineering
Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas
Lima, Peru Lima, Peru
0000-0002-0126-4126
pcingvia@upc.edu.pe
losses of 1.3 trillion dollars worldwide. In other words, if
improvement actions are conducted, the construction industry
can increase 2% of the world’s GDP [1]. For this reason, a model
is proposed that integrates the use of the Lean methodology
together with the implementation of some of its tools in the
construction industry. Even when this has not been widely
implemented, the research references we consulted tell us that
this model can be adapted to this industry.
II. STATE OF THE ART
A. Waste Management
The waste management problems identified from
construction activities represent 35% of companies at a global
scale [5]. In addition, there is a 50% increase in CDW in public
works projects due to management inefficiencies in project
execution phases. [6] In this situation, it is necessary to consider
the following steps for efficient management: identify the types
of waste, set objectives for reducing waste production, conduct
measures to minimize the waste generated, transport the waste
efficiently, record and verify that the change has been
successfully implemented. [7] Furthermore, an efficient on-site
waste collection also includes their transportation. To achieve
this, the weight of the collected waste must be maximized for
each kilometer traveled. Here, the location and allocation of
waste collection points must be considered, as well as the
number of vehicles used for each collection site, their capacity,
and the number of trips planned. Therefore, a linear
programming model would help optimize the waste collection
routes from waste generation points to the authorized waste
treatment points. So, a linear programming model would help
optimize waste collection routes from generation points to
authorized waste treatment points. Then, identifying the sources
and types of waste generated in works can improve your
collection processes that includes the planning of waste
transport and that consequently if done correctly, can increase
efficiency in waste management by 24.84% [8]. Likewise, with
efficient waste management, 40.63% of these can be minimized
and environmental benefits can be achieved that are equivalent
to a reduction in greenhouse gases of 12, 623.30 kg and
reduction of the use of illegal sites as landfills [9]. On the other
hand, the linear programming model for waste collection
166
optimization demonstrates an efficiency increase of 26.08% and
decreases in costs of 44.44% [10].
B. Industry Success Stories
Mapping construction operation processes identifies
problems. In addition, an analysis tool may be used to determine
root causes. Furthermore, a simulation can also be used to verify
the effectiveness of the Lean tools in eliminating or mitigating
these root causes. [11] In this simulation, a process productivity
increased 41%, processes improved 14%, and unproductive
times were reduced by 17%. In addition, after assessing the
waste flow map to identify activities that do not add value and
activities that add value in the construction waste processes, the
costs of construction operations were reduced by 26.78% [12].
A comparative study of Lean and sustainability principles in
India found that their interaction is 13.5%, and that applying
Lean always denotes considerable achievement towards
sustainability. In Saudi Arabia, the construction industry was
able to improve its performance in each process by adopting the
Lean philosophy with a yield of 0.77 to 0.86. Here, total factor
productivity increased by 11.45%, and the total times with added
value and without added value were reduced by 7.5% and
15.47 % respectively [13]. Finally, a study conducted in a
community in Renca, Santiago, Chile, wherein an optimization
model of solid waste collection routes was developed with the
help of a linear programming model with mixed integers,
denoted an improvement in collection efficiency by 26% and in
cost savings of 44% and a reduction of 17.60% of carbon
emissions reduction [14].
C. Main Lean Tool Implementation Roadblocks
The literature tells us that 80% of companies that applied the
Lean methodology failed to achieve the culturalization of their
workers and the organization on the Lean system. Consequently,
the Lean implementation did not achieve the expected results
since there were no effective guidelines for the introduction of
this methodology. Some of the most relevant are an unfavorable
organizational culture, lack of technical skills, not clearly
understanding Lean techniques, poor training, and lack of
knowledge of the Lean approach. Likewise, the authors claim
that companies are usually opposed to changes since traditional
processes have been modified by a new working method, and by
the implementation usually takes a long time [15].
III. CONTRIBUTION
A. Fundamentals
Throughout the years, the construction industry has been
constantly searching for how to improve project execution and
make it more effective and efficient to improve productivity.
Therefore, an exhaustive research study was conducted to find
tools that may solve and improve necessary aspects within the
construction industry.
B. Proposed Model
After reviewing and assessing different scientific articles, a
model based on the PDCA cycle has been developed to be
applied in External Networks Projects (polyethylene projects in
the main roads and metropolitan roads).
167
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Brawijaya. Downloaded on September 11,2023 at 16:22:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
First, the PLAN phase is conducted by diagnosing the
company, where the initial state of the company will be recorded
to identify current problems, such as an inefficient management
of CDW, low truck efficiency rates, and waste generation
estimation errors, among other problems. Based on this,
different objectives will be set so we can work on them
throughout the development of the cycle.
Second, the DO phase seeks to remedy problem causes. Here,
two sub-phases will be applied: Work Standardization to
identify and eliminate Non-Value-Adding (NVA) activities
from the processes; and a linear transportation scheduling to
optimize the transportation system and reduce travel times.
Third, the CHECK phase. The results will be measured
using the proposed indicators, both general and specific.
Likewise, a monitoring will be performed documenting the
results in records, validating that the objectives proposed are
being met.
Finally, in the ACT phase, the results and the new
observations, limitations and new points for improvement that
will be performed at the restart of this cycle to continue with
continuous improvement.
The proposed model seeks to define the tools that will be
used to solve the problem of inefficiency in CDW management
that brings with it the projects in External Networks.
C. Model Indicators
The model raises the following indicators to monitor and
control progress, as well as measuring the impact it will have on
the case study. They are also necessary to assess the changes
performed during the application of the model.
1) Indicator 1: Waste Management Efficiency Percentage.
It will measure the waste management efficiency progress. For
this, it is necessary to estimate the amount of waste expected
and generated. This way, we can control whether the value
obtained is greater than or equal to 90%, which would be
considered as an adequate level.
2) Indicator 2: Efficiency of trucks in waste collection. It
will measure the efficiency of the trucks used for waste
collection. To achieve this, it is necessary to have the total tons
collected per month and the number of trips made per month.
With this information, it is necessary to control that the
percentage is greater than or equal to 85% to conclude that it is
at an adequate level.
3) Indicator 3: Pipe Damages. It will be used to monitor
the number of impacts per project. To achieve this, it is
necessary to determine the total number of interference effects
and the total number of projects that have been conducted. With
both data, it will be possible to arrive at a result that will allow
a better progress analysis. Here, a value greater than or equal to
4 will be deemed as an adequate level.
IV. VALIDATION
The model will be validated through a Pilot Plan at the XYZ
company in its External Networks projects, which will allow us
to verify the hypothesis proposed in the research study. This
validation method is more viable since it will be applied to a
realistic scenario based on the projects conducted by the TABLE II. WEEKLY EXPECTED WASTE FOR EACH MONTH
company during a minimum period of three months. The results Months Advanced Km Expected waste (m3)
from the Pilot Plan will be measured by indicators that will
provide a better understanding of the before and after. January 11.56 111.87

February 12.99 138.17

A. Proposed Process
Using the statistical formula for calculating sample size, it March 11.23 108.68
2021
was obtained that, for each indicator proposed, there must be at April 12.05 120.50
least 73 data items. Therefore, the data obtained will be from all
the projects conducted during the implementation of the model. May 11.29 109.23

To plan the transportation required for the company, the June 10.94 109.39
main processes that generate waste were identified: chopping Based on the collection truck information from 2018 and
and removal process and manual and mechanical excavation 2019, which reported 480 trips each, and according to the
process. From them, the following results were obtained, as estimated amount of waste expected for 2021 calculated, the
shown in Table I. new collection truck information would be a total of 6 trucks
with 12 weekly trips each.
TABLE I. SUMMARY TABLE OF THE YEAR 2018 AND 2019
1) Stage 1: Establishment of Systematized Collection
2018 2019 Points. After creating a database containing total waste
Projects
45 85 information, collection points were designated near the
Waste generated (m3) 36,36 91,13 worksite. Hence, when the trucks arrive at the site, they will
Expected waste (m3) 25,62 41,18 find the waste amount specified at the established place.
2) Stage 2: Optimization of waste collection routes.
Different data were collected for the programming development:
With the information presented in Table I, the forecast plan the transportation times from a garage to a construction site, the
is prepared based on the kilometers advanced as per the 2018 number of trucks available per garage, and the number of trucks
and 2019 data. that each construction site requires to collect waste. The
schedule conducted is presented below:
Indexes: i: Truck (i=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8); j: Work site (j=1,2,3)
Variables: Xij: Number of trips made by truck "i" to the work
site “j”.
Data: Time(ij) // Capacity(i) // Demand(j) //
Model:

 minimize ∑6i=1 ∑8j=1 Xij ×Timeij  

 ∑8j=1 Xij ≤ Capacityi ∀ i=1,..,6 

Fig. 1. Linear Regression (Advanced kilometers)  ∑6i=1 Xij ≥ Demandj ∀ j=1,..,8 

After the analysis of Fig. 1, a forecast of the average monthly
kilometers that the project will progress in 2021 is performed,  Xij ≥0 ∀ i=1,..,6 ∀ j=1,..,8 
which gives a result of 306.16 km. From this, the estimated
amount of waste generated on a weekly basis is calculated as This information is then transferred to the Lingo software to
ideal numbers with the following formula, which the company obtain the results.
takes as a reference as established by the Peruvian Standard G 3) Stage 3: Standardization of work: For the
050 Safety during Construction:
standardization tool it was only applied in the manual work
performed by the operators.
Expected waste ( ) Step 1: Determine the standard time of the activities through
= 1.2m(trench height) × 0.25m(trench width) the taking of time in minutes per meter of trench.
× Km advanced × 1000
Step 2: Definition of corrective or preventive measures.
Then, the estimated results of the weekly works (Monday to
TABLE III. DEFINITION OF CORRECTIVE OR PREVENTIVE MEASURES
Friday) of the first 6 months of the year 2021 were obtained as
shown in the following table: Process Type Causes Solutions

168

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Brawijaya. Downloaded on September 11,2023 at 16:22:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Working with Operator Lack of
How-to guide
bars training X document
for using tools
Electrical Lack of use of Communication review
Interference gloves and Checklist Tools are not
Tool Checklist X
Workplace Preventive completed
conditions measures Order and Failure to
Lack of revision Show plans Cleanliness in X comply with
Pipe affectation
of plans during training the work area schedule
Tools not found Tools Support Use of
Formatting can
5s supporting X
Tool Verification Workspace be complex
(Order and documents
clutter
Cleanliness)
Leave of
absence is Tools Support B. Results
Departure without
exceeded 5s The model presented and developed in the validation section
permission
They leave (Discipline) was carried out in a period of 5 continuous months with the
without warning intention of being able to analyze the proposed indicators and be
able to keep track of these for possible changes or corrections
Step 3: Proposing solutions within the model. However, to carry out a more detailed analysis,
the segmentation technique by months is proposed, which is
TABLE IV. PROPOSED PREVENTIVE MEASURES used to obtain cases of independent studies that will be evaluated
Remove Correct
independently without affecting the other. In this way it will be
Activities Problem possible to propose improvements within the model already
Problem Action
established.
Excavation PPE Use See user
Manual The following is a comparison of the initial diagnosis with
with bars Training guide
the results of the pilot test, measured with indicators:
Runway Pipe Locate plan in TABLE VII. SCENARIO RESULTS AS IS VS PILOT TEST
Training
breakage affectation a visible place
Pilot
Indicator Name Scale As Is
Check Test
Reception and Poor Waste management
Bill of Check Percentage 81.78 91.39
delivery of location of efficiency
Materials List of
materials materials
materials Waste transport efficiency Percentage 68.18 81.94
Leaving Pipeline impacts by
Make work Meet Unit 7 4
Refreshment work project
schedule schedule

x Indicator 1, Waste Management Efficiency did not

Step 4: Register new measures achieve the expected percentage. However, an increase
of approximately 9% was achieved.
TABLE V. ACTIVITIES RECORDED TO CORRECT
x Indicator 2, Waste Transportation Efficiency did not
Activities Correct Action reach the expected percentage. However, it increased by
Excavation with bars View tool usage guide approximately 13%.
Place plan in view of x Indicator 3, Pipeline Impacts per Project reached the
Runway breakage
workers
expected value, where a difference from 7 to 4 pipeline
Reception and delivery of
Check List of Tools impacts were achieved per project.
tools
Meet established schedule CONCLUSIONS
Refreshment
per day The implementation of the proposed model based on
Transportation Management with Linear Programming and the
Step 5: Analysis and comparison of results 5S tool, and coupled with Process Standardization, has
generated significant improvements at the XYZ company. This
TABLE VI. COMPARISON OF RESULTS ACTIVITY AND EFFECT is reflected in the indicators, which in general terms means going
from having an efficiency in waste management of 81.79% to
Does 91.39%. This allows new research for future work, wherein the
Yes
Activity Not Effect Type model may be streamlined so that it may be extended to new
Meets
Comply
projects.

169

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Brawijaya. Downloaded on September 11,2023 at 16:22:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 In addition, the model helped organize Transportation [5]
Management. In other words, each waste collection truck had a
route and a defined collection point, thus reducing transportation
times and costs. Likewise, Process Standardization managed to [6]
considerably reduce the time used in each activity mentioned in
the previous tables.
The proposed model developed in the XYZ case study shows [7]
that there is still work to be done, since in some cases it is evident
that the expected results were not achieved and, in some others,
certain improvements are expected. This is because the [8]
implementation of a new philosophy to a company requires time
for operators to adapt to change and thus everything that has
been established within the model is fulfilled. In addition, it is
[9]
recommended to be in constant evaluation to correct and polish
certain aspects that can be improved to continue with the process
of continuous improvement.
[10]
The present study only considered the management of
construction and demolition waste from the process of
installation and laying of natural gas pipes of External Networks,
this individual analysis and the results presented will have the [11]
scope to all projects carried out by companies that carry out this
work, which will help them improve working conditions, the
efficiency of activities in construction works and the efficient
[12]
management of the waste they generate.
REFERENCES
[13]
[1] McKinsey&Company. (2017). Reinventing Construction: Reinventing
Construction: A route to higher productivity, 3-6. Retrieved from:
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Capital%20Pr
ojects%20and%20Infrastructure/Our%20Insights/Reinventing%20constr
uction%20through%20a%20productivity%20revolution/MGI- [14]
Reinventing-Construction-Executive-summary.ashx.
[2] Suárez-Silgado, S. S., Quiroga, C. B., Benavides, J. M., & Vanegas, L. M.
(2019). Villavicencio : current state, barriers and management
instruments. Entramado, 15(1), 224–244.
[15]
[3] Bandeira, S. R., Maciel, J. B. S., Carlos, J., Oliveira, S. De, & Sanches,
A. E. (2019). Construction and Demolition Waste Management Practices
at Construction Sites. 6495(10), 35–45.
[4] Promigas Peru (2020). Informe del sector gas Peru. Retrieved from:
http://www.promigas.com/Es/Noticias/Paginas/Informe-Sector-
Peru.aspx
170
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Brawijaya. Downloaded on September 11,2023 at 16:22:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Ajayi, S. O., Oyedele, L. O., Bilal, M., Akinade, O. O., Alaka, H. A., &
Owolabi, H. A. (2017). Critical management practices influencing on-site
waste minimization in construction projects. Waste Management, 59,
330–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.040.
Yadav, O. P., Nepal, B. P., Rahaman, M. M., & Lal, V. (2017). Lean
Implementation and Organizational Transformation: A Literature Review.
EMJ - Engineering Management Journal, 29(1), 2–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2016.1263914.
Bajjou, M. S., & Chafi, A. (2018). Barriers of lean construction
implementation in the Moroccan construction industry. AIP Conference
Proceedings, 1952. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5032018.
Sarhan, J., Xia, B., Fawzia, S., Karim, A., & Olanipekun, A. (2018).
Barriers to implementing lean construction practices in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia (KSA) construction industry. Construction Innovation,
18(2), 246–272. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-04-2017-0033.
Shurrab, J., & Hussain, M. (2018). An empirical study of the impact of
lean on the performance of the construction industry in UAE. Journal of
Engineering, Design and Technology, 16(5), 694–710.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-09-2017-0095
Blazquez, C., & Paredes-Belmar, G. (2020). Network design of a
household waste collection system: A case study of the commune of
Renca in Santiago, Chile. Waste Management, 116, 179–189.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.027.
Tafazzoli, M., Mousavi, E., & Kermanshachi, S. (2020). Opportunities
and challenges of green-lean: An integrated system for sustainable
construction. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(11).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114460.
Zhang, X., Azhar, S., Nadeem, A., & Khalfan, M. (2018). Using Building
Information Modelling to achieve Lean principles by improving
efficiency of work teams. International Journal of Construction
Management, 18(4), 293–300.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1382083
Ur Rehman, A., Usmani, Y. S., Umer, U., & Alkahtani, M. (2020). Lean
Approach to Enhance Manufacturing Productivity: A Case Study of Saudi
Arabian Factory. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 45(3),
2263–2280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-019-04277-9.
Hannan, M. A., Begum, R. A., Al-Shetwi, A. Q., Ker, P. J., Al Mamun,
M. A., Hussain, A., Basri, H., & Mahlia, T. M. I. (2020). Waste collection
route optimisation model for linking cost saving and emission reduction
to achieve sustainable development goals. Sustainable Cities and Society,
62(January), 102393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102393.
Issa, U. H., & Alqurashi, M. (2020). A model for evaluating causes of
wastes and lean implementation in construction projects. Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, 26(4), 331–342.
https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2020.12323