How can you improve project coordination with the Last Planner System?

The traditional construction approach can often end up with contractors using one another as the reason things can't be done. By implementing LPS on site at a major rail programme some years ago, we encouraged open discussion between all the parties, align priorities and put the emphasis where it needed to be. This led us to focus on all of the 'little details' that are not normally spoken about out loud. The discussions, and subsequent collaboration, saved over 200 days of delay on the programme.

There are many in the industry that will look at Lean and Last Planner and say its nothing new, just a collection of best practices. In some ways that is true, but what it really is, is a framework for bringing Lean Productivity practices to the construction industry. It provides a common language and a roadmap to move from our industry’s typical “push” planning, where one scheduler is responsible for making the course of the project, to a “pull” method of planning, where the people who are actually doing the work come together to collaborate on how to move efficiently through the work on the project.

One of the big keys to LPS is improving throughput on the project, by focusing on flow instead of point speed. This is a big change for our industry, where we have typically focused on bringing in a trade and leaning on them hard to go faster. This is typically followed by a period of inactivity while we wait for the next trade in line to arrive, and then we lean on them to go faster. Last Planner shifts the focus to flow and elimination of downtime by working to improve reliability between all members of the project team.

The benefits I have witnessed are usually the opportunity to have better conversations in the right environment. Many years ago, on another rail job, there was a critical piece of work needed to bring a component into service the following summer, eighteen months later. Sounds simple, though there were a lot of moving parts (pun intended) and many stakeholders involved. Running a session for them all based on the LPS principles enabled us to see everything that needed to happen and what needed deciding immediately. Having done that work, we were able to build confidence in the teams ability to deliver on time, avoid unnecessary acceleration costs and keep the broader programme on target

One of the challenges I experience is to focus too heavily on how the work is procured (ie subcontractor) rather than on the individual trades. It takes a high level of trust and safe environment for a subcontractor to share openly their coordination challenges between trades. I find that that over emphasis on planning out items such as design and permits helps to make a broader group aligned to the works of a trade gang and reduce the emphasis on who happens to be contracted for that work.

One of the challenges here is that some practitioners attempt to replace all of our old methods with this new method of planning and scheduling. I don’t think that’s realistic. For example, I don’t think it is possible to completely eliminate the Critical Path Method of planning and scheduling in construction. There are too many parallel paths and too many long lead time items that will not be identified in the Last Planner system. I recommend a merging of the two methods. You can learn more about that here on LinkedIn Learning in the course called Construction Management: Lean Strategies for Improvement at https://www.dhirubhai.net/learning/construction-management-lean-strategies-for-improvement/construction-s-biggest-productivity-killers

We have applied the acronym DRAMPP to every work items. Design; Resources; Access; Materials; Plant and Paperwork. Does each item pass that readiness test? If no, then chase those activities backwards (pull). This often draws more people into the readiness workload and creates empathy / shared objective.

Treat the "white collar" readiness activity as equal to the "blue collar" trade. Ultimately the trades must flow and avoid gaps. If a "white collar" activity appears to be driving the timeline then treat it as a critical resource and provide an intervention to prioritise workload.