The Last Planner

Abstract

The Last Planner System is a more collaborative approach to planning for projects as opposed to the traditional approach. This system was developed by Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell in the 1980s with the intention of improving productivity in the construction industry. It basically involves planning by the actual persons who are set to handle a particular task just before the job begins. It is seen to be more reliable than the traditional approach of planning because of the improved collaboration among the construction workers, construction managers and clients, and the constant evaluation of tasks in progress to ensure they meet the specifications. This essay digs deeper into the origin of the Last Planner System and why it is useful in the construction industry for management dissertation help.

Introduction

Scope of the study

This study involves investigation of the Mace site at Woolwich Creative District in a bid to understand the different approaches to planning employed by construction companies.

Limitations of the study

Visiting only one construction project gives the researcher an exposure to only one approach to planning. It is rare that a particular construction company will employ all the approaches to planning in a single project.

Objectives of the study

The main goal of this study is to explore the different approaches to planning employed by different construction companies. This will be achieved by considering the following specific objectives:

Identifying the characteristics of the different approaches to planning

Analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches to planning

Background information

The last planner system, otherwise abbreviated as LPS, is a synergetic planning process that mainly involves the construction stakeholders planning more and more deeply as the actual time for carrying out a given task approaches. Other equally good terms used for the Last Planner System are Collaborative Planning and Pull Planning. The main reason LPS was created was to make the planning process in projects more reliable. A 2013 report by the Project Management Institute shows that the general percentage of completion of projects for organizations with high management maturity level within the planned time is only 67%. For organizations with medium management maturity level, the figure is 55%. The figure goes further down to 39 % for organizations with low levels of management maturity. Regarding the percentage of the project completed with the stipulated budget, the figures are 68 %, 58 %, and 44% respectively. This shows the inadequacy of the conventional planning systems that have for long been in use. With 70% of projects delivered late and 73% of projects spending more than the tender price, a better approach to planning is essential. Traditional planning systems proved unable to produce predictable workflows. When the workflow is flawed, the entire system is set back, greatly affecting the speed of delivery and costs.

The last planning system is grounded on the fact that all plans are forecasts, and all forecasts are essentially wrong. The earlier the forecast is made, the more wrong it becomes. Additionally, the more the forecast becomes detailed, the more wrong it becomes. The Last Planning System follows 6 major principles. First and foremost, plans should be done in greater detail as the actual time of doing a certain task approaches. Planning in detail for a construction activity that is 6 months away is more or less futile. A better approach is to plan in great detail about 1 week to the execution date of the activity. Secondly, plans should be produced by those who will do the work. Many construction companies have been caught in the wrong practice of Engineers doing all the planning, without the involvement of other players such as foremen, construction managers and the different construction trades such as plumbers, masons, carpenters, steel fixers, and heavy machine operators. The staff in the office may not always be conversant with the nitty gritties of the actual work on site. It is therefore not uncommon to find work that should be done in 1 week is allotted only 2 days. And if not that, two tasks that cannot be done simultaneously may end up being scheduled for the same time, for instance steel fixing and concreting for a foundation. The result is a blame game between the planners and the workers once it is realized that the tasks are taking longer than expected. The third principle of LPS requires determining and removing constraints on planned tasks as a team. The Theory of Constraints points out duration as the main constraint in any given project. Other major constraints include quality, scope, time, cost, benefits, and risks. As a team, all these factors can be weighed out objectively and a common point of understanding reached. The next principle of LPS is about making reliable promises. Given that the plan is developed just before embarking on the work, and that the very persons doing the work are involved in the planning process, promises become more reliable. It is then possible for the foreman to complete a given piece of work in the time agreed, and within the budget. LPS also demands that promises kept should be measured so that the team can take note of unforeseen work disruptions and see how to avoid or incorporate them in the next activity. Lastly, LPS calls for continuous improvement as a team, removal of waste and adjusting performance based on what has been learned in order to beneficially optimize workflows.

(Jim, 2013) highlights the 5 mandatory steps to an effective Last Planner System:

i) Creating a master schedule - This dictates the overall flow of the whole construction project. The lead contractors and subcontractors put their minds together to define major milestones for the project.

ii) Creating phase schedule - In this phase, all individuals are assigned responsibilities. It is also here that the workflow is defined and timelines are set.

iii) Holding ‘Make work ready planning’ meeting - In this meeting, it is ensured that all workers have the resources required to complete their assigned construction activity. This generally takes place for tasks that need to be completed within four weeks time.

iv) Holding weekly check-ins - As the construction project rolls on, a meeting should be held every week to keep the workers at par with the project requirements. The accomplished tasks are reviewed and upcoming tasks are communicated. Any errors in the work done or problems encountered are addressed in these meetings.

v) Holding Learning meetings - This takes place basically at the end of each work day. The workers meet and discuss any issues encountered during the workday. Any obstruction to the workflow is tackled amicably so that the project stays on course.

Advantages and disadvantages of the Last Planner System

Ebbs (2015) highlights 3 major benefits of adopting the Last Planner System. First and foremost, the Last Planner System simplifies design management. When all the team members know what is required of them and given they have amicably agreed with the rest of the team how to go about their tasks, it becomes way much easier to manage the team once the project kicks off. Understanding what the other team members are doing also helps the workers know where they fit in the overall picture and thus they know when and how to act. Another major benefit of the LPS is the better communication and coordination that results from it. In the first place, the plan was made by the workers themselves in collaboration with the construction managers and engineers. The workers already feel part and parcel of the project and know in detail what the goals are. As the project progresses, all team members can visually see how far they are in accomplishing the milestones and what their colleagues are up to. Such coordination ensures instances of unnecessary rework are minimized. Lastly, the LPS improves the reliability of workflow by constantly being in touch with the workers and supporting them to complete their assigned tasks. The daily learning meetings greatly help by solving any arising issues before they get out of hand.

Porwal et. al (2010) highlight a number of disadvantages with the Last Planner System. The first disadvantage is the resistance to change that is characteristic of many workers and organizations. Amicably agreeing on what to do and how to do it may not always be that easy. Some workers or managers may have the attitude of “This is how I’ve always done it.” As such, they may not listen to what others in the team have to say, however sound their opinion may be. Another major shortfall is the contractual issues that may arise with the Last Planner System. Contracts are usually time-bound. The LPS system may lead to unforeseen delays in case there is too much collaboration. Lastly, it may prove difficult to implement the Last Planner System if only a handful of the workers are aware about it and how it works.

Last Planner versus push type approaches to planning and scheduling

Munje and Patil (2014) give a number of difference between the Last Planner approach and the push type approaches to planning. In push type approach, the errors between the dependencies of the activities are not taken into account. For the LPS, the flaws are considered before making the dependencies between the activities. In push type approach, more emphasis is put on increasing the productivity of each activity, and this normally leads to errors and poor quality of work. On the contrary, the LPS mostly focuses on the proper flow of work as per dependencies, and this results in minimal errors. The push type approach doe not involve the client in the planning stage whereas the LPS involves the client in every stage of the project. The push type approach relies on variance detection once the work is finished, whereas in the LPS, controlling is continuously done as the activity progresses.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to The issue of pace-making process in Albania.

Example of LPS system in use

The LPS involves the use of highly visual notes of different colors pinned to the noticeboard. A typical note looks as follows:

Below is an example of LPS in use by Buehler & Buehler Structural Engineers. The project at hand is the construction of the Kings County Courthouse. The main players in this project are the main contractor, electrical subcontractor, mechanical subcontractor, structural team and the architectural team. Each of these have their own row on the pinup to show what they are expected to handle. The tasks are colour-coded according to the team responsible. The tasks are arranged according t the expected date they are to be handled.

Conclusions

Planning is essential to the success of any construction project. Without proper planning, a project is likely to delay beyond the expected completion date. There is also a likelihood of conflict among the workers if the planning phase was undertaken without their involvement. The Last Planner System takes this into consideration, and therefore is a very successful approach to planning.

Recommendations

From the findings of the study, it is recommended that the Last Planner System be adopted by every construction company because of its success rate. It will however raise the need for extensive training so that the workers know how this planning approach works.

References

Baldwin, A and Bordoli, D (2014) A Handbook for Construction Planning and

Scheduling. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons (chapter 7).

Ebbs, P. (2015). Lean Construction Blog. [online] Leanconstructionblog.com. Available at:

https://leanconstructionblog.com/Three-Reasons-Why-the-Last-Planner-System-is-Essential-for-Efficient-Design-Management.html [Accessed 24 Feb. 2020].

Jin, J. (2013). Application of the Last Planner System in Schedule Management of Construction Projects. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 438-439, pp.1777-1781.

Kenley, R. & Seppanen, O. (2010) Location-Based Management for Construction:

Planning, Scheduling and Control. London: Spon Press, London

Munje, A. and Patil, D. (2014). Comparative Study of Last Planner System Over Traditional Construction Processes. Current Trends in Technology and Science, 3(4).

Nutt, H. and Zettel, G. (2013). Intro to The Last Planner® System. Lean Construction Institute.

Patel, A. (2011). The Last Planner System for reliable project delivery.

Porwal, Vishal & Fernandez-Solis, Jose & Lavy, Sarel & Rybkowski, Zofia. (2010). Last planner system implementation challenges. 548-556.