The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm

A lean construction framework

with Six Sigma rating

A lean
construction
framework

Raid Al-Aomar
College of Engineering and Computer Science, Abu Dhabi University,
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

299

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the application of lean construction practices in
the construction industry and develop a practical and applicable framework that incorporates Six
Sigma rating into the best practices of lean construction. The objective is to help the industry reduce
waste and cost, increase effectiveness, and improve quality.
Design/methodology/approach A generic yet practical framework of lean construction is
developed using the guidelines of project lean delivery system developed by the Lean Construction
Institute (LCI). Applicable lean techniques and Six Sigma rating are integrated into the developed
framework. A cyclical look-ahead planning and execution approach is used to implement the lean
construction techniques. A set of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) performance indicators is defined to measure
performance, set target threshold values, and guide improvement actions. A case study of the construction
industry in Abu Dhabi (AD) is used to clarify the proposed approach and identify its key practical aspects.
Findings Analysis of wastes in AD construction industry reveals 27 types of construction wastes.
These wastes were categorized into the seven types of wastes. Defects (errors and corrections) are
found to be the most common type of construction waste in the surveyed companies. This calls for
integrating Six Sigma rating into the proposed lean construction framework. The other common types
of wastes are overprocessing and delays. Lean project management is focused on assessing a set of key
performance indictors (KPIs) at the end of each look-ahead period. First lean practices are employed
during the period and Sigma Rating is assessed at the end of the period along with other KPIs. The
proposed LSS-KPIs were able to measure progress and guide improvement.
Research limitations/implications The credibility of the research findings is dependent on the
accuracy and reliability of collected data from construction companies. Implementing lean
construction techniques within a look-ahead period is not expected to achieve significant project
gains in terms of quality, speed, and cost without adopting the overall lean construction framework.
Social implications The work of construction companies largely contributes to the quality and
safety of public and society at large through residential and commercial buildings, transportation, and
infrastructure projects. Lean construction practices and Six Sigma rating positively impact these
important aspects and often result in reducing waste and costs, improving safety, and saving energy
resources in construction projects.
Originality/value Research significance stems from the focus on increasing the effectiveness of the
construction industry. Research contributions include the development of an applicable lean construction
framework that integrates lean construction practices with Six Sigma rating. This contributes to the effort
of applying Lean Six Sigma (LSS) in the vital field of construction. This research prescribes a systematic
approach for implementing the proposed framework within a cyclical look-ahead period and highlights the
practical implications of the proposed approach. Also, the research provides an effective periodic
measurement system of project effectiveness based on five LSS key performance indices.
Keywords United Arab Emirates, Construction industry, Six Sigma, Construction management,
Lean construction, Lean project delivery, Lean Six Sigma, Look-ahead planning
Paper type Research paper

The author would like to thank the College of Research and Graduate Studies (CRGS) at
Abu Dhabi University for funding this research

International Journal of Lean Six

Sigma
Vol. 3 No. 4, 2012
pp. 299-314
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-4166
DOI 10.1108/20401461211284761

IJLSS
3,4

300

1. Introduction
To survive in todays competitive market, it has become imperative for construction
companies to improve the quality of their work, increase work effectiveness, reduce
waste and costs, and increase profit. This is particularly more pressing under the current
financial crisis and economic recession. Consequently, the combination of project speed,
high quality, and low cost has become a key engineering and managerial effort in facing
the growing competition in the construction business. Most construction managers
agree that the industry is susceptible to wasteful spending, delays, errors, and project
inefficiency. Projects seldom finish on time, within budget, or at a quality level accepted
by the customer. Thus, several project management approaches have emerged to
improve construction performance including lean construction, lean project
management, and value-engineering.
Lean construction, as defined by the Lean Construction Institute (LCI), is a production
management-based project delivery system emphasizing the reliable and speedy delivery
of value (LCI, www.leanconstruction.org). Lean construction adopts the concepts of lean
thinking and lean principles drawn from production management (originally developed
at Toyota production system in the 1950s) to create a new way to manage construction
projects. The goal is to build the project while maximizing value, minimizing waste,
and pursuing perfection. In the context of both construction and production, waste is
primarily defined in seven categories: defects, delays, over-processing, over-production,
excess inventory, unnecessary transport and conveyance of materials and equipment,
and unnecessary movement of people.
Although this concept is still new to many construction industries, previous studies
showed that cost reduction using lean techniques can reach up to 25 percent compared
to the traditional project management approach (Koskela, 1993). According to Ballard
and Howell (2003), countries such as UK, Australia, USA and Brazil have gained
significant benefits by adoption of lean construction concepts. Examples of lean
construction applications can be found in Thomassen et al. (2003), Hook and Stehn
(2008) and Senaratne and Wijesiri (2008).
The lean project delivery is focused on implementing the guidelines of Lean Project
Delivery System (LPDS)e developed by the LCI (Ballard, 2008). According to LCI, the
main modules of project delivery system include, but not limited to, lean design, lean
supply, lean assembly, lean production, and lean delivery system. As shown in
Figure 1, these modules interact at the construction site to form a lean construction
environment and platform. The lean definition provides a value-based scope of work
(SOW) and effective master production schedule (MPS) and cost estimations. At the
construction site, the MPS is executed as small work-chunks pulled as needed from a
look-ahead plan.
The lean design phase transforms the conceptual design of the project definition into
a lean product and process design that is consistent with project scope and design criteria.
The lean supply module consists of detailed engineering of the product design, then
fabrication or purchasing of components and materials, and the logistics management
of deliveries and inventories. Lean assembly extends from the first delivery of tools, labor,
materials or components to commissioning and project delivery to the client. Lean
construction keeps an eye on the VA element of the construction process (conversion) as
well as the NVA elements (flow, delay, and errors). A lean delivery emphasizes a
cost-effective and on-time handover with no delays or rejects or quality issues.

A lean
construction
framework
301

Figure 1.
Lean construction process

Six Sigma concept and method can be relevant to all industries including construction
as it seeks to improve quality and reduce variability and errors. Similar to lean
manufacturing and lean services, Six Sigma can play a complementary role to lean
construction. Improving quality in the construction context contributes to the lean focus
on speed delivery and cost effectiveness by reducing reruns, delays, and re-works in the
completed tasks and ensuring the quality of delivered materials to the work site.
Similarly, lean construction contributes to the quality focus of Six Sigma by reducing
process variability, streamlining the work flow, and increasing the transparency of the
work site. Thus, Sigma rating (i.e. assessing the Sigma level of delivered work packages
by teams or contractors) can be used to quantify and benchmark the work quality.
A combined Lean and Six Sigma application to construction projects can be referred to
as Lean Six Sigma-Construction (LSS-C). The objective is to improve the construction
process through lean techniques (less waste and cost) and Six Sigma DMAIC process
(less variability and high quality). As shown in Figure 2, a value stream map (VSM) is
used as a template for integrating lean techniques towards continuous improvement
and DMAIC is used as a process for achieving Six Sigma performance.
From a research perspective, reviewed literature showed that lean construction efforts
have been focused on proposing and applying lean methods and tools in the various sectors
of construction industry. However, few researchers have actually addressed how
to evaluate the impact of lean practices on the quality, speed, and cost of the construction
project. None of the reviewed studies has incorporated Six Sigma in the application of lean
construction practices. Thus, this paper aims to investigate and categorize the different
types of wastes in the construction industry and to develop a lean construction
framework with Six Sigma rating that can be used to quantify and assess the quality, cost,
and schedule implication of lean construction practices. Empirical results from a locally
funded research project that analyzes lean construction practices in Abu Dhabi (AD)
construction industry will be used to clarify the practical aspect of the proposed framework.
2. Literature survey
The lean concept is based around controlling resources in accordance with the
customers needs and reducing unnecessary waste. Womack and Jones (2003) describe

IJLSS
3,4

302

Figure 2.
Lean Six Sigma in
construction

waste (muda in Japanese) as any human activity which absorbs resources, but creates
no value. This includes over production, excess processing, inventory, rework, motion,
transport and material handling, defects, failures, setup and under utilizing peoples
abilities.
As discussed by McCurry and McIvor (2001), lean principles are fundamentally
driven by customer in terms of understanding customer value, value stream analysis,
continuous flow, pull not push demand-driven flow, and perfection. To achieve these
principles, a variety of lean tools have been developed and widely applied. Commonly
used lean tools include value stream analysis, layout redesign, Kanbans, total
productive maintenance (TPM), quality-at-the-source, single minute exchange of die
(SMED), visual aids, 5S, work standards and Kaizen. Details of these tools can be found
in George (2002), Womack and Jones (2003), and Dennis (2002).
Construction is a project-based industry with unique characteristics. Quality, time, and
cost are the three pillars/criteria of a successful construction project. In lean terminology,
the goal is to achieve highest level of work quality with shortest lead time and lowest
cost possible. Traditional thinking of construction focuses on conversion activities and
ignores flow and value considerations. In particular, waste is generally associated with
waste of materials in the construction processes while activities such as inspection,
delays, transportation of materials and others are not recognized as waste. Koskela (1993)
has pioneered the introduction of lean construction as an approach to address these
wastes. Further details of the lean construction approach can be found in Alarcon (1997),
Diekmann et al. (2004), Salem et al. (2006), and Conte and Gransberg (2001).
Latest research on lean construction is focused on lean project management and
issues related to variability and sustainability. Lean project management enhances the
traditional project management process to adopt lean construction methods and
practices. This includes the enhancement of project definition, scoping, scheduling,
cost estimation, procurement, control, and leadership. Details of lean project
management can be found in Leach (2006) and Ballard and Howell (2003). Song and
Liang (2011) studied the implication of lean construction on sustainability. Their focus

was on reducing waste of all types, flow variability and irregularity, and interruptions
in material delivery to the site. Finally, Thomas et al. (2002) investigated the
relationship between variability and project performance. They concluded that
variability in labor productivity has more impact on project performance than output
variability. Hence, they recommended redirecting lean improvement initiatives to
adaptable workforce management capabilities to reduce variability in labor
productivity in order to improve project performance.
On the other hand, Six Sigma provides a data-driven approach for the attainment of
quality products and services with a focus on improving a set of critical-to-quality (CTQ)
measures. It targets product/service attributes as well as the overall process
improvement. It improves process performance by reducing products defects and
process variability with an ultimate goal of meeting or exceeding customer expectations.
Details of Six Sigma methods and applications can be found in Breyfogle (2003), Harry
and Schroeder (2000), Montgomery and Woodall (2008). Lean Six Sigma (LSS) has
emerged as a synergic integration of both lean techniques and Six Sigma method. As
discussed in George (2002), Lean and Six Sigma play a complementary role in real-world
applications to increase efficiency and reduce errors (defects). Snee and Hoerl (2007)
presented a holistic approach for integrating Lean and Six Sigma. LSS has been also
linked to applications that involve creativity and innovation as discussed in Hoerl and
Gardner (2010). Laureani (2012) discussed the Critical Success Factors for LSS
implementation.
Although Six Sigma has been implemented in the manufacturing and other services
industries, it is still a relatively new concept in construction industry. As pointed out
by Stewart and Spencer (2006), despite the large number of studies having addressed
the concept of quality in construction, there is limited research into the use of Six Sigma
to measure quality of construction work or as a strategy for process improvement in
construction. Key challenges stem from the unclear definition of variability, defects, and
yield in the construction contexts combined with the difficulties of applying the DMAIC
process in terms of data collection, measurement, and control. This is similar to the
difficulties of defining VA (conversion) and NVA (flow) activities and the PULL
implications in the lean context.
Aoieong et al. (2002) presented a process approach in measuring quality costs of
construction projects. Pheng and Hui (2004) presented a case study on applying
Six Sigma initiative in the building industry. The paper explains the implementation
phases as well as the training programs. Improvement measures taken by a contractor
helped to raise the Sigma level from 2.66s to 3.95s for the quality of internal finishes.
The findings suggest that management initiative and support, relevant training,
appropriate selection of pilot projects, and commitment by team members are crucial for
the successful implementation of Six Sigma in the organization. Unlike manufacturing
where Six Sigma is applied at a larger scale, Stewart and Spencer (2006) suggest that
applying Six Sigma in construction typically involves breaking down large tasks into
smaller ones that can be re-engineered and improved in a process of continuous
improvement.
3. Lean construction framework
For an effective adoption of lean construction principles in the construction industry,
a framework should be first developed to outline the relevancy and role of various lean

A lean
construction
framework
303

IJLSS
3,4

304

practices at each stage in the construction project. Based on the LPDS of the LCI, the
stages of the traditional project management process (define, design, supply, assemble,
and deliver) are enhanced to become lean (faster and more effective with less waste).
Emphasizing the lean thinking at all project stages is imperative towards the
development of any lean construction framework. The next step is to develop a
transformational roadmap that integrates the lean practices at each project stage.
Figure 3 shows a combined design-supply-assembly lean construction framework.
The three stages are combined together to emphasize the value of integration and the
dynamic nature of construction projects. A lean definition of the project is expected to
result in effective conceptual product and process design that transformed through the
framework into a complete cost effective, on-time, and quality project that is delivered
to the client in a lean process.
As seen in Figure 3, a set-based design and concurrent engineering approach is
followed to transform the conceptual design and the lean definition into a lean
product/process design. The viability of the lean design is verified through product
process compatibility analysis (PPCA) and value engineering to benefit from the
opportunities of waste and cost reduction at the design stage. The viable design is then
adopted and passed to detailed engineering to specify material, components,
specifications, and other information essential for successful and effective procurement.
The lean supply stage includes sourcing decisions-based delivery speed, quality, cost
effectiveness, and flexibility. Logistics and transportation is set for the closest form of
just-in-time (JIT) delivery of project materials and fabricated or purchased components.
VSM is used as a platform to design and optimize the project supply chain with a focus on
maximizing VA activities, reducing inventory and delay, and minimizing NVA activities.
If the procurement scheme passes the lean supply requirements, materials and supplies
are scheduled and delivered to the construction site.
Product & Process Design

Conceptual Design & Criteria

Concurrent Engineering
LEAN
LEAN

Lean layout
5S Work-Site
Flow Analysis

Detailed
Engineering

Process
Design

Product
Design

Lean Supplies, Design & MPS

Lean Work-Site

Set-based Design
Sourcing

Look-ahead Planning
Logistics

PPCA

No
Set Work Packages
(Connected, balanced,
buffered & multi-tasked)

VSM

Value Engineering

Pull-Scheduling
No

Viable?

No

Pass?
Ready?

Figure 3.
Lean construction
framework

Yes

Adopt

Yes
Contract & Procure

Yes
Execute & Check LSS KPIs

No

Lean assembly requires a lean preparation of the construction site and a pull execution
schedule. Lean layout, 5S (sort, set, shine, standardize, and sustain), and flow analysis
are effective lean techniques that can be used to develop a lean construction site. The
pull scheduling starts by setting a look-ahead planning period (e.g. five weeks) and
selecting work packages to be executed during the look-ahead plan. All resources are
set, balanced, and connected (streamlined) to attain the closest form to continuous flow
of small batches (chunks) of work. Buffers (time, capacity, and cost) are used to
synchronize the flow in a critical chain. Multitasking is used to increase resource
utilization and work flexibility. Based on a pull schedule, that starts from the target
work level, work tasks are executed until the end of the look-ahead period. Lean Six
Sigma key performance indicators (LSS-KPIs) are assessed at the end of the look-ahead
period to measure performance and adjust planning and work activities. The cycle is
repeated until the project is completed and a lean delivery process is set to transfer the
project to the client.

A lean
construction
framework
305

3.1 Construction LSS-KPIs

At the end of each look-ahead period, the framework recommends measuring the
construction project performance using five LSS key performance indicators (KPIs);
quality (Sigma rating), speed (schedule performance index), cost (cost performance
index), value (value index), and waste (waste index). As shown in Figure 4,
the combined periodic assessment of the five KPIs will be our guide towards the
attainment of a LSS construction project performance.
In addition to the typical (quality, speed, and cost) project management measures,
the proposed KPIs include waste and value indices. The following is a description and
formulation of the proposed five LSS-KPIs:

Figure 4.
Construction LSS-KPIs

IJLSS
3,4

306

Sigma rating: the quality of worked completed internally or through the

subcontractors is reviewed at the end of each look-ahead period. The quality level
is measured through a Sigma rating to emphasize the complementary function of
Lean and Six Sigma methods. To this end, we count the number of defects (ND) in
the performed work units (WU) or number of quality checks performed at each
contractors work and at each work package performed internally.

Examples from a building include the samples taken or the quality checks or the
performed work units in the foundation, the structure, the internal finishes, the
electrical work, the mechanical work, etc. The % yield (%Y) is computed as follows:


ND
%Y 100% 2
1
WU
The overall yield value can then be translated into a Sigma rating (SR) by estimating its
corresponding Z-score and adding 1.5 to account for the shift in performance. Excele
can be used to determine the Z-score. Thus, the SR formula can be expressed as follows:
SR NORMSINV %Y 1:5

The obtained SR value is compared to a certain company standard or benchmark value

of Sigma rating to decide if a DMAIC Six Sigma improvement study is needed. For
example, the company may not accept any SR value below 3 and they may recommend
that the SR for the contractor work be improved for the next review. Similar action will
be taken for the work done by the owner (if any).
.
The project speed and cost effectiveness are key aspects in lean construction.
Both schedule variance (SV) and cost variance (CV) are typical performance
measures in the earned value management system (EVMS) at the project review
(i.e. the end of look-ahead period in our case). EVMS is a technique that reports
the project status by relating project resources to schedule and technical
performance. The variance is a deviation from the specific plan that should be
mitigated through corrective actions. As discussed in Kerzner (2009), using the
budgeted cost (i.e. planned value, PV) for work scheduled, budgeted cost for
work performed (i.e. earned value, EV), and actual cost (AC) for work performed,
schedule and cost variances are determined as follows:
SV EV 2 PV

CV EV 2 AC

Both SV and CV can be expressed in dollar value or hours. A negative schedule

variance indicates a behind schedule condition and a negative cost variance
indicates a cost overrun. Proper actions to control the project schedule and cost
will be taken accordingly.
From a lean perspective, we need to estimate the cost and schedule effectiveness of the
projects physical progress based on the earned value (EV) during the look-ahead period
compared to the actual cost (AC) and the planned value (PV) during the same period.
This is achieved through a cost performance index (CPI) and a schedule performance
index (SPI). The two indices are estimated as follows:

CPI

EV
AC

SPI

EV
PV

Indices values that are less than 1.0 indicate a cost overrun and a behind schedule
condition, respectively.
.
Finally, the value and waste indices are crucial to measure the tangible impact of
adopting lean techniques in the construction process. In addition to less defects
and higher cost and schedule effectiveness, lean construction practices should
translate on the floor into less material waste, low inventory levels, and less
conveyance and movement of labor and material. As discussed in Thomas et al.
(2002), a project waste index (WI) can be used to indicate waste in material and
working hours. For the material waste, the index compares the amount procured
(P) to the site during the look-ahead period in the material standard unit to the
amount actually used (U) and estimated (E) for the same period, as follows:
WI

P 2 U
E

This is a lower-the-better index with an ideal value of zero which indicates that
lean supply of material results in procuring only the amount actually needed.
The difference between the amount of procured and used material is referred to
as ending inventory in production and is typically carried over to the next
look-ahead period. Thus, low values of this index indicate more frequent JIT
shipments are delivered to the site and low inventory levels are eventually
maintained. An average value can be taken for multiple types materials using
their corresponding units (weight, length, volume, etc.).
The value index (VI) compares the duration of the effective work (conversion time) to
the total duration of the look-ahead period. The focus is on increasing the amount
of time spent in performing conversion activities (value-adding work) and minimizing
delays, interruptions, and the time spent in unnecessary conveyance and movement of
material and labor. By tracking the conversion time (CT) and the flow time (FT) during
the look-ahead period (review period), the VI can be estimated as follows:
VI

CT
CT FT

This is a higher-the-better index with an ideal value of 1.0. The periodic review of this
index checks the amount of work spent in value-adding activities during the
look-ahead (review) period.
3.2 Practical implications
Several practical implications need to be considered when implementing the proposed
lean construction framework. We have to first create a lean awareness amongst all
parties involved in the construction project including labor and contractors to create a
culture against waste in any form in the construction process including errors,

A lean
construction
framework
307

IJLSS
3,4

308

inspection, transportation, waiting, and motion. However, we need to also understand

that the VA (conversion activities) and NVA (flow activities) definitions in lean
production may not be totally applicable to lean construction, especially for moving
material (e.g. cement) and inspection (quality assurance). Second, we need to fight
variability in work performance (due to irregularity of labor, equipment, information,
changes, or logistics) and embrace a steady and uniform work flow in the system
without interruptions. As recommend by Leach (2006), risk management techniques
are used to reduce the vulnerability to special causes of variation while buffers are used
to manage the common causes of variability.
Third, we have to bear in mind that the ideal form of JIT may not be attainable in
the delivery of construction material as well as in the work flow. For example, JIT may
be enforced when relying on ready-mix cement deliveries to the site but may be
difficult for steel deliveries. Similarly, JIT may not work when handing over work
packages from one team to another as we may not be able to hand over part of the work
package. The similar applies to the concept of PULL within the work tasks of
suppliers, contractors, and client.
All these concerns should not discourage construction managers from adopting and
implementing lean construction techniques but these issues need to be addressed and
worked out in an incremental mode. In general, and for a successful implementation of
the lean construction framework, the following practices need to be emphasized for the
look-ahead period:
.
Split work packages to smaller units/tasks (toward a single-unit-flow) with
reduced variability and less simultaneous work (i.e. small work chunks) to
reduce cycle time.
.
Set up the layout of the work site to achieve a seamless work-flow and clean up
and organize the work site daily using 5S techniques.
.
Reduce changeover from one task to another (i.e. apply SMED technique) and
prevent machine and equipment failures (i.e. apply TPM technique).
.
Balance work resources (add/remove resources) based on work flow, rely on
smaller teams, and adjust relations and logic of work tasks accordingly.
.
Arrange for the availability of resources (material, labor, equipment, etc.) for all
work packages, use less internal logistics, remove obstacles, implement
multi-tasking and cross-training. The objective is to be fully ready before the
release of each task in the work package (i.e. no delays, no shortages, no errors, etc.).
.
Use buffers (cost, time, capacity, space, etc.) to absorb work flow variability
(i.e. use Theory of Constraints guidelines). For example, feeding buffers can be
used to synchronize for the rights start and finish of tasks in order to avoid
delays (gaps) and overproduction (delivering work that is not needed at a
particular time). With no buffers, task times are typically estimated at their
maximum and with buffers, tasks times are estimated at their averages, resulting
in less total time to complete all tasks within the look-ahead period.
.
Adopt a quality-at-the source policy so that no bad work is passed down stream
(i.e. stop the work, if needed). Integrating the Six Sigma into the lean construction
framework enables such policy where the focus is on improving the Sigma rating
by reducing the defects.

Pull/release tasks from one station/worker to another when required and all
resources are ready, preceding tasks are completed, and simultaneous tasks are
synchronized.
At the end of the look-ahead period, determine the five LSS-KPIs, compare to targeted
threshold values, and recommend adjustments or improvements accordingly.
Proceed until the project is completed and delivered to the client. Check the
overall quality, schedule, and cost performance and document best practices and
lessons learned.

Needless to say that lean construction practices are to be executed within the overall
lean construction framework shown in Figure 3. The technical actions within the
look-ahead planning period will not be able to achieve the required results unless
integrated into the overall lean construction framework.
Finally, and as guidance for improvement, project managers need to set threshold
values for the LSS-KPIs. Based on the business specifics, companies can update the
values yearly based on progress and benchmark studies. For example, SR can be set to at
least 3 so that about 99 percent of the work meets the specifications. CPI can be set to at
least 1.15 so that we have about 15 percent of cost buffer. Similarly, SPI can be set to 1.1 to
have 10 percent time buffer. WI can be set to zero or in some cases to a maximum 5 percent
to limit the amount of ending inventory and prevent accumulation of material due to
large shipments and overproduction. Finally, the VI can be set for example to 75 percent
(case dependent) to emphasize the conversion tasks and limit the flow activities.
4. Application case study
The framework is verified through a study of lean construction practices in Abu Dhabi
(AD) construction industry. The study adopted an industry research for collecting
empirical data 28 construction companies in AD area. Surveyed companies include
small, medium, and large construction companies. The survey identified the types of
waste currently exist in the industry, investigated the causes and impacts of these
wastes, checked the familiarity of the industry with lean techniques, and measured the
extent of adopting lean construction principles. Part of the study results is used to
clarify the application of the proposed framework and to estimate the LSS-KPIs. The
step-by-step application procedure is implemented in ten steps as follows:
(1) Adopt the lean construction framework (Figure 3) which is based on the LCI
model. One construction company has adopted the lean construction framework.
This is a long-term commitment on behalf of the construction company.
(2) Identify current wastes in the construction company. In this case study, the
company has no record of wastes types and frequency so they benchmarked the
industry wastes (obtained from the industry survey of 28 AD construction
companies). Results identified 27 types of construction wastes. The company
analyzed these wastes and expected that they have similar kinds of waste. However,
the company will start recording wastes types and frequency for future analysis.
(3) Categorize wastes into their seven typical classes. Table I present the seven
waste categories and the classification of the 27 types of waste.
(4) Prioritize the waste categories. Based on the results of the benchmark study,
Figure 5 presents a Pareto diagram of the seven waste categories. The vital few

A lean
construction
framework
309

IJLSS
3,4

Correction
Repair work

310

Table I.
Categories of identified
construction waste

Over-processing

Long approval
process
Equipment
Clarification
breakdown
needs
Work defects Excessive safety
measures
Rework/re-run Excessive
training time
Design errors Excessive
supervision
Execution
Excessive use of
errors
equipment
Retest work
Overqualified
resources
Uncompleted
work

Delay

Inventory

Late work
delivery
Activity
start delays
Work
interruptions
Ineffective
work

Damaged
material
Excess
materials
Pilferage

OverConveyance production Motion

Transport
time
Material
handling

Idle
periods
Excessive
space

Labor
movement

Figure 5.
Ranking the main
categories of construction
wastes

categories of waste include correction, over processing, and delay. Together, they
represent 72.5 percent of all wastes in the surveyed construction companies. The
fact that errors (defects) correction has the highest ranking highlights the need
for integrating Six Sigma rating into the lean construction framework.
(5) Based on the wastes analysis, set lean construction actions within a rational
look-ahead period. In the case, the look-ahead period is set to five weeks and a
set of lean actions are recommended to be implemented in the next look-ahead
period according to LCI model and companys specifics.

(6) Assess the LSS-KPIs for the current status: during a look-ahead period of
five weeks (8 hours a day and six days a week), the total available working
hours are 240. During this period, as shown in Table II, the data collected from a
residential building project are organized as Quality, EVMS, Value, and Waste.
Using formulas (1)-(8), the LSS-KPIs are estimated. Table II shows the collected
data and the estimated values of the LSS-KPIs.
(7) Set threshold values for the 5 LSS-KPIs. The construction company selected the
values for the 5 LSS-KPIs that are summarized in Table III.
(8) Run gap analysis: it is clear from the results in Tables II and III, that the
construction company is not meeting the lean threshold values recommended
by the lean construction framework in Table III. Currently the company is not
implementing the lean construction measures during the look-ahead period.
(9) Recommend improvement actions to close the lean performance gap in the next
look-ahead period. The recommended actions in this case include:
.
A Six Sigma study to reduce the number of errors to around 66,800 in order
to improve the SR to 3.0.
.
The recommended plan for lean actions during the look-ahead period should
be implemented to attain the target values of CPI and SPI. It is clear that the
company is spending more than needed during the review period to complete
less than needed physical work (i.e. resulting in less than 1.0 for both CPI
and SPI). The lean practices are expected to increase the cost effectiveness and
the resources utilization (balanced work) while overcoming flow issues and
bottlenecks.
.
The flow time (conveyance and movement of material and people) is
consuming a large portion of the total work duration. A better site layout
Quality data
EVMS data
Value data
Waste data

Q-Checks
276
PV
$150,000
CT (hr)
128
E (tons)
13

Corrections
45
EV
$142,500
FT (hr)
112
P (tons)
17

DPMO
163,044
AC
$163,000
Period (hr)
240
U (tons)
14

311

SR 2.482
CPI 0.8742
SPI 0.9500
VI 0.5333
WI 0.2308

Waste type

LSS-KPI

Threshold value

Defects/errors
Delay/ineffectiveness
Overproduction
Overprocessing/cost effectiveness
Conveyance

SR
SPI

$3.0 (99 percent of work is defect free)

$1.10 (10 percent time buffer is maintained)

CPI
VI

$1.15 (15 percent cost buffer is maintained)

$0.75 (a maximum of 25 percent conveyance and
movement)

WI

#5 percent (no more than 5 percent ending

inventory of the needed material)

Movement
Inventory/material

A lean
construction
framework

Table II.
Categories of identified
construction waste

Table III.
Selected LSS-KPIs
threshold values

IJLSS
3,4

312

to that creates a streamlined flow is needed along with actions to reduce

material handling and unnecessary moves of equipment and people. The
flow time should be reduced to no more than 60 hours during the look-ahead
period in order to improve the value index to 75 percent.
.
Procured material for the review period needs to be reduced by about 3 tons
even if we have to increase the frequency of delivery (a total cost formula
should be adopted to make the tradeoff including the inventory holding cost
that results from large shipments and overproduction. That should reduce
the WI to be # 5 percent.
(10) Continue the review and adjustment process every look-ahead period until
threshold values are reached or exceeded.
5. Conclusion
A lean construction framework with Six Sigma rating is presented. The focus is on
increasing the effectiveness of the construction industry by reducing the numerous
types of waste in the construction projects (in both conversion and workflow). The
framework recommends specific lean construction techniques to be adopted within a
look-ahead planning scheme. Six Sigma methods were used to compliment the lean
construction practices by placing emphasis on reducing the defects and errors as well as
the variability of project schedule, performance measures, and cost estimates. Five LSS
measures are proposed to quantify the impact of adopting lean construction and Six Sigma
rating on the project in terms of quality, cost, and time. The practical implications of the
proposed framework were presented through a case study in Abu Dhabi construction
industry. The construction wastes in the targeted companies were first identified and
categorized into the commonly used seven types of wastes. Lean techniques are then
implemented and reviewed within a look-ahead period. The LSS-KPIs are assessed at the
end of each review period, compared to a benchmark of preset threshold values,
and improvement/correction actions are recommended and implemented until the project
is concluded. The proposed framework can be adapted to fit the specifics of other
segments of construction industries.
References
Alarcon, L. (Ed.) (1997), Lean Construction, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.
Aoieong, R., Tang, S. and Ahmed, S. (2002), A process approach in measuring quality costs of
construction projects: model development, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 179-92.
Ballard, G. (2008), The lean project delivery system: an update, Lean Construction Journal,
Vol. 4, pp. 1-19.
Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (2003), Lean project management, Building Research and
Information, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 119-33.
Breyfogle, F.W. (2003), Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter Solutions Using Statistical Methods,
2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Conte, A.S.I. and Gransberg, D. (2001), Lean Construction: From Theory to Practice, AACE
International Transactions, Pittsburgh, PA, p. 10.1.
Dennis, P. (2002), Lean Production Simplified: A Plain-language Guide to the Worlds Most
Powerful Production System, Productivity Press, New York, NY.

Diekmann, J.E., Krewedl, M., Balonick, J., Stewart, T. and Wonis, S. (2004), Application of Lean
Manufacturing Principles to Construction, CII Report No. 191.
George, M.L. (2002), Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma Quality with Lean Speed,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Harry, M. and Schroeder, R. (2000), Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy
Revolutionizing the Worlds Top Corporations, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Hoerl, R.W. and Gardner, M. (2010), Lean Six Sigma, creativity, and innovation, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 30-8.
Hook, M. and Stehn, L. (2008), Applicability of lean principles and practices in industrialized
housing production, Construction Management & Economics, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 1091-100.
Kerzner, H. (2009), Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and
Controlling, 10th ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Koskela, L. (1993), Lean production in construction, in Alarcon, L. (Ed.), Lean Construction,
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 1-9.
Laureani, A. (2012), Critical success factors for Lean Six Sigma implementation, Proceedings of
the Fourth International Conference on Lean Six Sigma, SIOM of Strathclyde University,
Glasgow, pp. 144-56.
Leach, L.P. (2006), Lean Project Management: Eight Principles for Success, BookSurge,
Charleston, SC.
McCurry, L. and McIvor, R.T. (2001), Agile manufacturing: 21st century strategy for
manufacturing on the periphery, Conference Proceedings, Irish Academy of Management
Conference, University of Ulster, Belfast.
Montgomery, D.C. and Woodall, W.H. (2008), An overview of Six Sigma, International
Statistics Review, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 329-46.
Pheng, L.S. and Hui, M.S. (2004), Implementing and applying Six Sigma in construction,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 4, pp. 482-9.
Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A. and Minkarah, I. (2006), Lean construction: from theory to
implementation, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 168-75.
Senaratne, S. and Wijesiri, D. (2008), Lean construction as a strategic option: testing its
suitability and acceptability in Sri Lanka, Lean Construction Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 34-48.
Snee, R.D. and Hoerl, R.D. (2007), Integrating Lean and Six Sigma: a holistic approach,
Six Sigma Forum Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 15-21.
Song, L. and Liang, D. (2011), Lean construction implementation and its implication on
sustainability: a contractors case study, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 350-9.
Stewart, R.A. and Spencer, C.A. (2006), Six Sigma as a strategy for process improvement on
construction projects: a case study, Construction Management & Economics, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 339-48.
Thomas, H.R., Horman, M.J., de Souza, U.E.L. and Zavrski, I. (2002), Reducing variability to
improve performance as a lean construction principle, Journal of Construction
Engineering & Management, Vol. 128 No. 2, pp. 144-52.
Thomassen, M.A., Sander, D., Barnes, K.A. and Nielsen, A. (2003), Experience and results from
implementing Lean construction in a large Danish contracting firm, Proceedings of 11th
Annual Conference on Lean Construction, Blacksburg, VA, pp. 644-55.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (2003), Lean Thinking, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.

A lean
construction
framework
313

IJLSS
3,4

314

Further reading
Mann, D. (2005), Creating a Lean Culture: Tools to Sustain Lean Conversions, Productivity Press,
New York, NY.
About the author
Dr Raid Al-Aomar is an Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering and the director of Master
of Engineering (MEM) program at Abu Dhabi University. He holds a PhD in Industrial
Engineering/Operations Research from Wayne State University. He has over 15 years of
experience in the field of Industrial Engineering at companies and universities in Jordan, the
USA and UAE, with over 30 journal and conference papers and several book publications.
His research interests include simulation-based optimization and lean Six Sigma systems.
Raid Al-Aomar can be contacted at: raid.alaomar@adu.ac.ae

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.