CMAdvisor May/June 2010 - 11

PROFESSIOnAl PRACTICE CORnER
and ultimately floor plans from all three teams looked very similar. By the time it was decided that this directive could be relaxed, it was too late to explore some of the earlier designs that showed more potential for cost savings and functionality. • Lack of leadership when teams merged. Once the three teams merged into one there was no obvious leader. Thus design teams would still argue over whose ideas to use, and there was no independent leader to make this decision. Until early December, while technically one team, the three teams continued to work independently under their own leadership. This was a clear case where a member of the owner group could have taken the reins of the three IPD teams to bring them together rather than assume they would all be able to do this on their own and without an appointed leader. • Tools were used before they were understood. The A3 concept is a perfect example. An A3 report is a means of communicating proposals and conveying information on a singe sheet of paper in a more streamlined and easy-to-grasp method than traditional RFIs or reports. The Toyota Motor Company model was used as a point of reference for how this process could be applied. However, since only a small group of people interested in the A3 method convinced the owner to make this process universal for everyone, it was not fully embraced by all team members. The result was that traditional tools which were well understood (RFIs for example) were simply crammed into the A3 layout, not only defeating the purpose, but also creating twice the paperwork and red tape. A simple question would be met with the challenge, “Did you write an A3 on that?” which in turn would be met with a grumble. The end result was a tail that ended up wagging the dog. • Acceptance was not universal. On a team project, the value of “Lean” is only realized if all parties accept the philosophy, starting with the leadership. Perhaps if lean construction becomes more universal and no longer involves such a staggering amount of training and rework, it will become a more accepted standard in the construction industry. Alan Plummer is a senior cost manager with CUMMING. A degreed construction manager and LEED accredited professional, Alan focuses on the healthcare and hospitality sectors nationwide. He serves as one of Cumming’s lead BIM and sustainability specialists, and is currently involved with projects utilizing Integrated Project Delivery systems. He can be reached at aplummer@ccorpusa.com.

Expertise. Technology. Results.

Lean Construction
Definition: Lean Construction refers to the effort to improve the efficiency of the construction industry, for both time and material resources. Some examples of “going lean” include document management systems with less red tape (such as the A3 system described below), material delivery systems that rely on automated warehouses to compile delivery kits and only deliver when ordered by the foreman (“Just-In-Time delivery”), and “Pull-Planning,” a scheduling method which works from the completion date of the project backwards and thus challenges the traditional “critical path method.” What Worked: • Good intentions. In principle, the philosophy of lean construction is something that the industry will have to face soon. Compared with the evolution of the manufacturing industry, construction has indeed lagged behind in its degree of automation and improved efficiency. What Didn’t Work: • More concern with terminology than results. Lean terms were thrown around the job constantly throughout this project. Training sessions were constantly being scheduled to discuss issues as simple as new vocabulary. Terms like “pull planning” were used with such reverence that people rarely took the time to question whether or not they were more effective than the traditional method. Much of this came about from a steep learning curve from those not familiar with Lean Construction.

Baltimore Boston Richmond Houston San Antonio Salt Lake City Honolulu www.MOCASystems.com

CMAdvisor May/June

COMPREHENSIVE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Program Management - Constructibility Review - Construction Inspection Cost Estimating - Commissioning - CPM Scheduling - Risk Management - Training

WWW.MBPCE.COM 800-898-9088

CMAdvisor May/June

CMAdvisor May/June 2010

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of CMAdvisor May/June 2010