Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I, Stanley Tavero George, declare that this research report is my own, unaided
work, except as indicated in the acknowledgements, the texts and references. It
is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master
of Business Administration at Milpark Business School, Johannesburg. It has not
been submitted before, in whole or part for any degree or examination at any
other institution.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am extremely grateful to all the people who helped in the successful
Visagie. I also want to thank all the people who took their valuable
Last but not least I would like to thank my partner and friends for
project.
List of Abbreviations
Table of figures
Table of Tables
1.1 Introduction
The construction business is a key sector in the world economy and more so
for developing countries like South Africa. The industry is probably one of the
longest surviving that has had a slow evolution mainly triggered by advances
in technology. Advances in technology have enabled buildings to be erected
faster and be more complicated in design. The globalization of the world
economy has seen a lot of movement of companies, capital and skills within
the industry. For individual companies this translates to more threats from the
operating environment. Government interventions especially on regulating the
green environment mean that it is not business as usual for most construction
companies. The current downturn in the world economy has resulted in fierce
competition for contracts. For example, the world’s largest destination for
construction work, Dubai, has seen a cut of up to 30% in the amount of
contracts available due to investors suspending projects.( EngineeringNews,
2009)
From its crude beginnings, the construction industry has seen an evolution
where building construction and management has become scientific. Whilst
trying to address endemic problems in the industry such as low productivity,
low client satisfaction, poor health and safety, scholars and practitioners have
developed scientific empirical ways of measuring success in projects. (Leng,
2004). Advances in Total Quality Management and the subsequent
development of the ISO 9000 series are all attempts to ensure that quality
and customer satisfaction are achieved.
Having joined the group recently, the writer has identified some waste on site
and presumably the same observation may be extended to other similar
construction sites within the company. It is assumed that the concept of waste
is not fully understood and by utilizing techniques of Lean Construction and
education of key construction personnel, further competitiveness will be
induced into the company. There is need to bridge the gap between the
existing practices and the Lean Construction paradigm first. Parameters for
waste measurement, value, cycle variability need to be defined and
understood as well as the examination of the current personnel’s
understanding of waste.
1.3.1 Purpose
1.3.2 Importance
Given the current global economic trends it is important for GLTA to position
itself in a very competitive position if successes of the past are to continue
being realised. The group must take a leading role among its peers in the
industry and move the South African construction industry forward in the new
construction management paradigm. According to the centre for Experiential
Education and Shingo (1989), the only way of increasing profits is a
competitive environment is to reduce costs. This fact is an assumed known;
however, it has been scientifically elusive to fathom. Lean Construction
principles are meant to assist in improving the conversion and process flow of
the building process. GLTA has a department of continuous improvement and
this study is meant to assist in proposing Lean Construction as an alternative
solution to the group’s endeavours. This study will set up the ground work for
future thorough studies and implementation of lean construction techniques in
GLTA
1.4 Review of existing Literature
Ballad and Howell (1998) defines construction as the design and assembly of
objects fixed in place. Koskela and Huovila (1997) proposed 3 ways of
conceiving a construction processes: conversion of inputs into outputs, flow of
information and materials and generating value for the customer. However,
Ballad and Howell argue that this view of the conversion process has
dominated thinking and practice for a long time. Moving towards Lean means
consideration of value and flow processes.
The new thinking is Lean Construction that basically involves flow and value
management. This all entails lean design, lean supply, lean assembly, work
structuring and production control. This thinking also recognizes the seven
wastes that must be minimized as: correction, motion, overproduction,
conveyance, inventory, processing and waiting. According to scholars, this
thinking and practice eliminates waste and results in better customer
satisfaction and in turn more profit for the construction company.
A thorough review of literature shall be done in subsequent chapters that will
show the history of production management that culminated in the concept of
Lean Construction.
The research is aimed at one organization but forms a basis for further
research in the subject to the construction industry in South Africa.
1.6.2 Definition
This study is aimed at applying the principles of Lean Construction to GLTA
Building Inland. An evaluation of the current extent of practice of the
principles and wastes identified shall be done and based on that,
recommendation on the way forward in the implementation shall be
suggested.
1.6.3 Scope
There are certain limitations to this research as the writer wishes to highlight:
GLTA has several business units based on province and speciality. This
study will be limited to GLTA Building Inland that is based in Gauteng
Province. The outcomes of the study may be biased towards building
construction projects and to a certain culture created over the years within the
Inland business unit. It is recommended that further extensive research be
carried out throughout the group to get a more representative view of the
performance of the group.
The subject of lean construction is relatively new in South Africa, thus there
may be very little attention at documenting parameters of variability on the
various projects undertaken. This might affect the understanding of questions
by respondents and hence the consistency of the results obtained.
Chapter 1, Introduction:
This chapter covers the overall perspective of the research study such as
background to the study, problem statement, research aims, scope and
objectives, methodology and limitations of the study
This chapter will examine the problems faced in construction and the various
thinking and practices that have been developed over the years to try and
resolve the problems. The concept of Lean Construction will be introduced.
Definition of waste and models for waste minimization shall be discussed as
well.
This chapter shall focus on the design of the questionnaire, formulation of the
hypothesis and how they are to be tested. A general overview of the statistical
analysis to be applied shall also be discussed
This chapter shall conclude the study based on the findings. The findings
shall be used to provide a strategic solution to the problems identified in
GLTA and to provide a roadmap for the formalisation on the practice in the
company
Time lines:
1 Literature review 8
2 Questionnaire design 4
Send out
3 questionnaire 4
4 Data analysis 6
Conclusions and
5 recommendations 4
6 Drafting final report 4
1.8 Conclusion
It is not easy to differentiate strategies among construction companies as there are so
many similarities among them. However, company cultures and practices are
different. Profitability within companies emanates from internal efficiencies. It is
imperative that GLTA embark on a scientific evaluation of its activities to build
efficiencies that will give it an edge over their competition with the ultimate goal of
profitability and customer satisfaction. To this end, this study will attempt to look at
one aspect of operations where the company can improve itself and also to act as a
propellant for further in-depth studies to be carried out within the group.
2.1 Introduction
According to the Construction Industry Indices (CIDB, 2007) there was 26%
customer dissatisfaction, 33 quality problems that were not acceptable, 25%
defects that were not acceptable and safety remains a concern with the
construction industry that recorded the second highest fatalities in the
workplace after mining between the year 2006 and 2007. The CIDB quotes
the M4I as saying “Clients in construction want their projects delivered on
time, on budget, free from defects, efficiently, right the first time, safely and by
profitable companies. Regular clients expect continuous improvement from
their construction companies to achieve a year on year reductions in project
cost and reduction in project cost”. This indicates that customer satisfaction is
also achieved through the organization’s internal processes. According to
research carried out by Koskela (1993) on studies done in Sweden, it was
discovered that there is a lot of none value adding activities in construction
and associated costs as shown below:
Quality (non-conformance) 12%
external quality costs (during facility use) 4%
lack of constructability 6-10%
poor materials management 10%
excess consumption of materials on site 10%
time used for non-value adding activities on site 66%
lack of safety 6%
Problems in Construction
There are endemic problems in construction such as poor work quality, poor
safety practices, low productivity and others that are well known. Most of
these problems have been left unattended for a long time because of the
inherent belief that they cannot be solved. These problems are attributed to
the nature of the industry, such as one-of a kind, once off, in situ, temporary
multi-organization and over time have not been given attention and are simply
factored in on pricing projects. Conclusions from some scholars are that it is
the fragmented nature of the industry, lack of coordination and
communication, adversarial contractual relationships and lack of customer
focus that inhibit industry performance. Scientific study of the industry has
been difficult as appropriate models are difficult to draw. When compared with
manufacturing where activities are controlled and routine, construction has
got a lot of variables that make it difficult to streamline information flow and
waste management. This is exacerbated by use of temporary labour, moving
machinery and other factors that cannot be easily predicted and planned for.
However some of these can be overcome by applying new flow designs,
improving the existing and use of new technology (Alarcon, 1994). The new
thinking is that the solution lies in the organization, planning, allocation and
control of resources, processes and technologies for the achievement of
higher productivity
In the late 1980’s there was a new trend in production that caught the
attention of academics and construction practitioners. The fundamentals of
this new development are that new industries are “lean”, using less of
everything and these changes have been due to application of a new
philosophy called Lean Production. Among the pioneers in the academic
circles to try and adopt this new philosophy are Koskela and Alarcon. Koskela
(1992) identified the dominance of the “conversion” thinking in construction
and argued for the replacement of it with the “conversion-flow” thinking.
Alarcon (1995) also identified this fact and argued that performance could be
improved by waste identification and reduction in parallel to the value adding
strategies. The challenge is identifying and measuring waste as an effective
tool to improve production systems as it points out areas that need attention.
Waste modelling and measurement assist with process management since
operational costs can be properly modelled and information used for
decentralised control
There was a paradigm shift in the 1950’s when Ohno, a former Toyota
executive set out to develop a new production system called the Toyota
Production System (TPS). The basic idea was to adopt strategies that are
based on downstream demand in the production chain. This maintained a
planned pace of production and avoided unnecessary inventories. According
to Conte and Gransberg (2001), the TPS goal is to achieve continuous
production by adopting monitoring measures for each process aiming to
reduce waste. Elimination of inventories and other waste through small lot
production, reduced set up times, semi-autonomous machines, co-operation
with suppliers and other techniques
The off-shoot from this system is termed Just-In-Time (JIT) and has
contributed to major improvements in productivity in manufacturing from the
1970’s (Koskela 2000). Simultaneously quality was attended to through
consultants like Deming, Juran and Feigenbaunm. This was a statistical
method of quality assurance that was refined by industrial engineers through
trial and error. Other philosophies emerged such as Total Quality
Management (TQM), Value Based Management and Concurrent Engineering
but where all based on the same principles viewed from different angles.
At the beginning of the 1990’s, a new production philosophy emerged known
by several names (Lean production, world class production, new production
system). It was mainly applied in manufacturing but has diffused to services,
administration and product development. The latest trend is for a leaner
production chain through all stages of production that must include the whole
value chain. Krafcik coined the name lean to emphasizes less of everything,
less people, less materials and lower cost. Womack and Jones (1996)
suggested that lean thinking provides production processes a way to specify
value, line up value adding processes in best sequence, conduct them
without interruption and more effectively.
Since the 1990’s, the new production system has been applied in the US and
Europe recently on a regular basis where a lot of work is being done by
academics and practitioners to use it to improve the construction industry.
Koskela (1992) identifies the dominance of the conversion thinking in
construction and argues that this should be replaced by the Conversion-Flow
thinking that runs along the new production system. Howell (Civil Engineer)
and Ballard (Researcher), have put forward the concept of Lean Construction
by seeing potential for applying the general principles set by Koskela. The
Lean Construction Institute says that Lean Construction is a production
management based approach to project delivery by maximizing value and
reducing waste. Lean Construction has gained momentum since 1993 and
new curriculum especially at post graduate level is now being introduced to
students. A nationwide “Rethinking Construction” movement in the UK is
taking place led by a report from Sir John Egan in 1998. The essence of the
Egan report is to set targets for improvement on a year-to-year-basis of
productivity processes through waste reduction such as time, cost, rework
and accidents and increasing value in quality, finished products, etc.
Koskela did a historical analysis of the production concept and revealed that
there are 3 sub-concepts to production and that the whole concept could be
identified and separated into Transformation, Flow and Value generation
(TFV Model)
2.7.1 Transformation
This has been the dominant theory since the beginning of the 20th century
where production was viewed as transformation of inputs to outputs.
Production management is there fore the decomposition of transformation
into elementary tasks and transformations, acquiring the inputs to these tasks
with minimal costs and the carrying out as efficiently as possible of these
tasks. The core principle is “the decomposition” of sub- transformations into
smaller and more manageable tasks for individuals”
Materials
Labour
Products
Production Process
Sub-process A Sub-process B
The principles of eliminating the flow activities include reducing the share of
non-value-adding activities, reduce lead time and variability and providing
practical ways in implementation such as simplifying by minimizing the
number of steps, parts and linkages, increase flexibility and increase
transparency.
2.7.3 Value Generation Concept
It focused on control of the transformation and flow, namely control for the
sake of the customer and it is important to highlight that the value generation
concept does not focus on any particular aspect of physical production like
transformation and flow model do but rather on its control in securing value
generated for the customer.
FLO W C OMPR ES SION FLO W D YNAM IC AND F LEXIBILITY FLO W STABILIT Y AND CO NTROL
Reduc e the share of non-val ue addi ng Increas e output value Focus c ontrol on the c omplete proc ess
acti viti es
Increas e output flexi bility Build conti nuous i mpr ovement i nto s ys tem
Reduc e variability
Increas e proc ess transparenc y Bal anc e fl ow i mprovement with conversion
Reduc e the c ycl e ti me benchmar king impr ovement
There are at least seven resource flows that generate the construction task as
illustrated In Figure 2.3 below. Many of these resource flows are of high
variability, and thus the probability of a missing input is considerable.
For instance, it is not uncommon that detailed drawings are still lacking at the
project start date. Latent errors in drawings will emerge as problems during
construction on site. External conditions also form one specific source of
variability. The productivity of manual labour is inherently variable, and the
availability of space and connecting works is dependent on the progress of
tasks of previous trades. The degree of variability is higher in construction
production compared to manufacturing production.
Koskela (2000) says that ‘realization of tasks depends on flows, and progress
in turn is dependent on realization of tasks’, basically meaning that planning
and controlling production is very important and tasks and flows have to be
considered in parallel in production management.
Construction design
Materials
Workers
Equipment TASK
Space
Connecting works
External conditions
Koskela (1992), stated that there has never been any systematic attempt to
observe all wastes in a construction process but nevertheless, partial studies
can be used from various countries to indicate the order of magnitude of non
value-adding activities in construction. He summarized some of the findings
as follows:
According to Lend (2004), some researchers such as Bell & Stukhart have
estimated that 10 - 12% savings in labour costs could be produced by
materials-management systems. Furthermore, a reduction of the bulk material
surplus from 5 - 10% to 1 - 3% would result from a better material
management practice. Besides that, some researchers also reported that
savings of 10% in materials costs can be achieved from vendor cooperation
in streamlining the material flow.
Workers’ time is not usually utilized in activities that add value. All the
estimation given from the researches compiled by Koskela, the average
distribution of working time used in value-adding activities ranging around
30% to 40%. Oglesby and his co-author estimated around 36% in 1989 while
Levy in 1991 claimed that the average share of working time is 31.9 % in the
United States. Leng (2004) indicates that similar figures from other countries
but some other researches did show a greater variance in percentage. For
example, the average distribution of working time of the 17 observed building
projects survey in Chile conducted by Serpell, et al. (1995) during 1990 and
1994 shows that the minimum value of productive work was 35% and the
maximum was 55%.
In the new production paradigm, waste is defined more broadly than its usual
limited scope as any inefficiency that results in the use of equipment,
materials, labour, or capital in larger quantities than those deemed necessary
in the production of a construction project. Waste includes both incidences of
material losses and the execution of unnecessary work, which generate
additional costs but do not add value to the product (Koskela 1992). Waste
may also be defined as any losses produced by activities that generate direct
or indirect costs but do not add any value to the product from the point of view
of the client. Pioneers of Lean production, Toyota, see waste as “Anything
that is different from the minimum quantity of equipment, material, parts and
labour time that is absolutely essential for production.”
The above definitions of waste clearly allude to the fact that waste must be
seen from an activity point of view and not from aggregate inputs such as
material, machinery and labour as the traditional thinking focuses on. Lean
thinking is essentially an extension of the traditional thinking that covers items
that hitherto have not been studied in detail and exposed as stand-alone
waste items. By delving deeper and into more detail on the basis of activities,
Lean Thinking digests construction production into smaller molecules that
help to understand the causes and losses due to waste. It also becomes
easier for practitioners to have specific targets for improving the production
system. There is opportunity to improve production in two ways using the
Lean Thinking approach. The first is to increase efficiency of value adding
activities and the second is to eliminate or reduced waste. From a business
perspective, this increases the bottom line of the organization, that is, more
profit is realized.
There is also a very big benefit to construction production that was not so
obvious using the traditional approach. Using lean thinking, the construction
project is viewed as one production system. This means that customer
satisfaction becomes the primary objective. Instead of concentrating on single
activities as points of focus, total project cost and duration become the single
most important goal. Coordination will be achieved through the central
schedule whilst smaller sections are managed by persons who are aware of
the project goals and work together for the achievement of that goal.
scrap
Controllable area
Operational methods
Conversion
Internal flows p
External flows process
Environment
Figure 2.5 Model of the construction process.
Source: Serpell (1995)
Flow and conversion management are responsible for making the decision
that define the performance of the system. Flows are the inputs to the system
that may be separated in two types, resources (labour, materials and
construction equipment), and information. There are two types of flows as
portrayed in the model. External flows are usually uncontrollable, for example,
suppliers’ provision of resources and design information. Internal flows are
usually controllable, for example, materials from a warehouse. Conversion
activities transform the flows into finished and semi-finished products. The
methods used in this activities decided by the flows and conversion
management. Products are results of conversion activities.
Waste can also be classified according to its origin, that is, the stage that the
main root cause is related to. Although waste is usually identified during the
production stage, it may also be originated by processes that precede
production, such as materials manufacturing, training of human resources,
design, materials supply, and planning.
Waiting time: related to the idle time caused by lack of synchronization and
levelling of material flows, and pace of work by different groups or
equipments. An example would be a gang waiting one operation to be
complete before they can start working.
9. Others: waste of any nature different from the previous ones, such as
burglary, vandalism, inclement weather, accidents, etc.
Waste that is time based is difficult to model because there are no optimal
efficiencies to compare to. Instead of classifying the waste of productive time,
Serpell et. al (1995) broke down those wastes factors in relation of work
categories.
1. Productive work (value-adding activities)
There are endemic problems in the construction industry including waste that
have been attributed historically to the nature of the product, which is, once off,
in- situ and composed of many variables. There has been a drive to steer the
industry towards a manufacturing production kind of scenario where
management and production principles are systematic and scientific. To this end
a new system of thinking called Lean Construction has been put forward to
challenge the conventional thinking that regards construction as a conversion
only process but also to include the flow part of the process. There a lot of
opportunities to recognize waste using Lean Construction models whose aim is
to eventually eliminate or minimize waste. Using Lean Construction models is
both systematic and scientific. The use of the new thinking coupled with other
strategies within organizations is aimed at waste reduction and hence increased
efficiency. It is there fore possible to use the Lean construction models within
GLTA to test waste recognition and mitigation, sources of waste and to
compartmentalize the characteristics of waste.
3.0 Research Methodology
The purpose of this academic research is to find out the degree of awareness
and recognition of waste on site using the Lean Construction process-flow
model as a yardstick. The study will also try to search for the attitude towards
waste by site construction personnel, that is, whether there are deliberate
steps taken of preventing and averting waste should it be recognized. Site
staff that includes foremen, site engineers and managers will be targeted for
this study.
2. People
Lack of trade skills
Inexperienced inspectors
Too few supervisors or foremen
Uncontrolled subcontracting practices
Poor labour distribution
Untimely supervision
3. Execution
Inappropriate construction methods
Outdated equipment
Equipment shortage
Ineffective equipment or poor choice of equipment
Poor site layout
Poor site documentation
4. materials
delay of material deliveries
poorly scheduled delivery of materials to site
poor quality material
misappropriation or misuse of material
poor storage of material
poor material handling on site
The foremen are the specific practitioners who are in direct contact with
labour, material and equipment and execute the construction. Site engineers
generally are the interface between the consultants and the construction
artisans. They interpret and explain the project to the foremen and artisans.
They are also involved in resource requisition and allocation. Site based
management will be involved in overall project execution, resource
management and coordination.
3.3 Hypotheses
Descriptive analysis will be used to decipher the primary data once they are
collected. The descriptive analysis will be used to profile the respondents with
special emphasis being put on their work experience and exposure to the
Grinaker-LTA company culture. It is hoped that there is a correlation between
waste recognition and control with company culture that will emerge.
Analysis will be done separately for the three categories of waste so that
there is a better comparison of the conventional waste and new waste
categories under Lean Construction. The relationship between waste
recognition and deliberate attempt to control the waste will also be examined.
It is logical that recognition must lead to attempted control, but this may not
be so depending on company culture.
Hypothesis 2: Non contributory time wastes are not easily recognized and
there is no attempt to control them
The third and fourth sections are intended to review the extent of waste
problems in the company by ranking them in terms of frequencies of
occurrences and rate the likelihood of particular waste sources and causes in
their construction practices where they work. For section 3, Respondents will
be able to identify how frequently the waste occurs using 5 categories: (1)
Never; (2) Very Rare; (3) Seldom; (4) Frequent; and (5) Very Frequent.
Respondents will be provided with five different scales from 1 (no significant
effect variable) to 5 as (high detrimental effect variable); In Section 4,
Respondents will be asked to determine the likelihood of particular waste
sources/ causes occurring using 4 categories: (1) Most unlikely; (2) Unlikely;
(3) Likely; (4) Most Likely and the respondents will be provided with five
different scales from 1 (no significant likelihood) to 5 (high likelihood).
3.5 Conclusion
4.1 Introduction
This chapter will give a presentation of the results from all returned
questionnaires as well as a discussion on the significance of the results. The
results will be tabulated showing the percentage rating of each variable.
Results from the tables will be drawn into graphs in order to give a visual view
of the results.
4.2 Response
10%
20%
Student
Foreman
Engineer
Manager
20%
50%
10%
10% 30%
0-2yr
2-5yr
5-10yr
10+yr
50%
Direct Conversation
Waste
Contributory Waste
Non Contributory Waste
Variable Description
Waiting for others to complete their work before proceeding
1 with other work
2 Waiting for equipment to be delivered to site
3 Waiting for materials to be delivered to site
4 Waiting for specialist subcontractors to come to site
Waiting for clarification and confirmation from the client and
5 consultants
6 Time for rework/repair of defective work
7 Materials for rework/repair of defective work
8 Time for workers resting on site during working periods
9 Over-allocation/unnecessary equipment on site
10 Over-allocation/unnecessary material on site
11 Over-allocation/unnecessary workers on site
12 Unnecessary protocols on site
13 Unclear lines of communication
14 Materials stolen from site during construction
15 Material deterioration on site
16 Errors in construction applications
17 Accidents on site
18 Time for supervising and inspection of work
Time for instructions and communication among different
19 trades on the same job
20 Time for transporting workers, equipment and materials
Table 4.3 Matrix of results for general waste recognition
Non
Variable Waste Waste
% %
1 80 20
2 90 10
3 100 0
4 80 20
5 100 0
6 100 0
7 90 10
8 80 20
9 100 0
10 90 10
11 90 10
12 90 10
13 100 0
14 90 10
15 100 0
16 100 0
17 100 0
18 30 70
19 30 70
20 20 80
120
100
% Recognition
80
Waste
60
Non Waste
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Variable
Figure 4.3 General waste recognition
Variable Yes No
% %
1 50 50
2 50 50
3 70 30
4 60 40
5 70 30
6 70 30
7 80 20
8 70 30
9 50 50
10 40 60
11 40 60
12 60 40
13 30 70
14 70 30
15 50 50
16 50 50
17 40 60
18 60 40
19 60 40
20 50 50
Mitigation Scenario
90
80
70
% Mitigation
60
50 Mitigation
40 No Mitigation
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Variable
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
% % % % %
1 0 0 20 60 20
2 0 10 40 30 20
3 10 0 40 30 20
4 0 20 40 30 10
5 0 10 30 40 20
6 0 20 10 30 30
7 0 10 40 20 30
8 20 10 40 10 20
9 0 20 40 30 10
10 10 20 30 30 10
11 20 10 40 20 20
12 10 30 30 20 10
13 10 0 20 40 30
14 0 10 20 50 20
15 10 30 20 30 10
16 10 10 40 20 20
17 0 30 30 30 10
18 0 0 30 30 40
19 0 0 40 20 40
20 0 0 50 10 40
70
60
50
never
40 very rare
seldom
30 frequently
very frequently
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
In the table below, the figures in red are the mean values of each selected
rating options.
Most Most
` Description unlikely unlikely likely likely
% % % %
Management
and
1 Administration 0 30 55 15
Poor coordination among project
participants 0 10 80 10
Poor planning and scheduling 0 40 20 40
Lack of control 0 30 60 10
Bureaucracy 0 40 60 0
2 People 4 20 50 26
Lack of trade skills 0 10 40 50
Inexperienced inspectors 20 10 30 40
Too few supervisors 0 40 50 10
Uncontrolled subcontracting practices 0 30 50 20
Poor labour distribution 0 10 80 10
3 Execution 4 40 42 14
Inappropriate construction methods 0 20 70 10
Outdated equipment 0 30 50 20
Lack of equipment 0 40 40 20
Poor site layout 10 60 20 10
Poor site documentation 10 50 30 10
4 Material 10 14 44 34
Poor schedule of delivery of material
to site 10 20 40 30
Late delivery of materials to site 0 20 50 30
Misuse of materials 0 10 60 30
Poor storage of materials 20 10 50 30
Poor handling of materials 20 10 20 50
5 Information and Communication 0 13 23 63
Wrong information 0 30 30 40
Late information 0 0 20 80
Unclear information 0 10 20 70
The results in Table 4.6 above show that all the 5 variables are likely or most
likely sources of waste. In all cases, the mean of the variable being a cause of
waste is above 50%. Poor planning (40%), lack of trade skills (50%), poor
handling of materials (50%), late information (80%) and unclear information
(70%) stand out as the problem areas that most likely cause waste on site
The findings of this study in many respects concur with literature that has
been discussed in Chapter 2. The derivative equation from the conversion
flow model suggests that the cycle time of a process involves conversion,
handling, inspection and waiting. That is
Cycle time = processing + handling + inspection + waiting
The findings also point to the fact that all sources of waste as suggested in
the Lean Construction theory are in fact causes of waste in GLTA. All five
sources had scores of higher than 50% likelihood of being a cause of waste
on site.
According to Shingo and the Institute of Lean Thinking, these findings imply
directly that GLTA is not lean and that it is losing profitability and the
competitive edge by not making its operations efficient.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Introduction
This chapter concludes the study by discussing the results in relation to the
objectives of the study and the hypotheses postulated. Recommendations will
also be suggested on improvements that can be made based on the problem
areas and positives found in the study.
From the research results, it was discovered that there was a high incidence
of recognition of direct conversion and non-contributory waste and a dismally
low recognition of contributory waste. The underlying reasons for this may be
that personnel can easily quantify waste or loss due to conversion processes
and non contributory time into monetary value. For instance, it is easy to
quantify how much loss one makes by paying an employee for an hour for no
work done or throwing away material. Contributory waste is regarded as
acceptable because traditionally without the professional teams’ approval of
work, no further work may be carried out. What must be realised according to
the Lean thinking process is that although contributory waste may be
necessary, it is still a waste that must be minimized. If there is minimization,
then the cycle time is reduced which results in less waste. As surprising as it
is unfathomable, the tendency to mitigate the recognized waste is not as
great. There is need to study why personnel do not have an attitude that
wants to eliminate waste. My suspicions are that this problem may be deep
rooted in the GLTA culture or there is little encouragement and support to
achieve no waste on sites. In conclusion, it seems that there is some
appreciation of Lean Construction principles within the site personnel albeit
unscientific. GLTA is neither traditionalistic nor modernistic in approach and
there is need to formalize the principles of lean construction in order to
achieve less wastage and more profit.
The scenario that close to 90% of waste is identified on site and only 56% is
actively mitigated paints a grim picture of an organization that is trying to
move forward in terms of operational efficiency. The study shows that
personnel are able to see what is going wrong on site and for some reasons
they do not take action to mitigate the wrongs. The extent of the problems is
that on any activity that is happening on site, half the time there is wastage
taking place and nobody bothers to eliminate the waste or its causes.
5.3 Recommendations
Management commitment
Management must provide leadership for the new philosophy. They must
understand the philosophy of Lean Construction and be able to preach it to
their subordinates. There will always be resistance to change especially new
endeavours that may be met with a lot of scepticism from employees that
have been in the organization for along time. Management commitment will
be required for that change to occur. Management must take time to
communicate and filter the new ideology to employees. Road shows may be
conducted on sites and must include junior and senior staff.
Benchmarking
Employee Involvement
Employees are motivated when they are made to be part of the solution.
Hierarchies in the organization do not need to change, but whenever there is
an intervention needed, employees must be made part of the solution seeking
team. This may be done in focus groups that brainstorm solutions. Feedback
must be given back so that they appreciate their involvement. Such solutions
are likely to be accepted and implemented without too much resistance.
Employees must also be given the powers to make major decisions as long
as they fall within the company guidelines. Planning for the job must also
involve foremen and engineers on site so that they take ownership of the
plan, rather than have it forced down their throat.
Learning
References
Buttrick, R. (2005). The Project Workout: A tool for reaping the rewards from
all your business projects (3rd Edition). Prentice Hall, UK
Modular housing project (2009). Quoted from the Dept of Housing website.
http://www.moladi.com
Womack, J. P. and D. T. Jones. 1996. Beyond Toyota: How to root out waste
and pursue perfection. Harvard Business Review (September-October)
Appendix
1. Questionnaire
INTRODUCTION
This questionnaire is part of a study to find the extent to which GLTA Building Inland sites have waste
problems and create a road map to reducing the waste. The questionnaire is divided into 4 sections
that will need to be filled in as accurately as possible depending on your experiences, perception or
opinion
I would you to thank you for taking part in this study and would like to assure you that your responses
will be treated with the utmost confidence
PROFILE
0-2 years
2-5 years
5-10 years
over 10 years
What position do you hold on site
Student
Foremen
Engineer/QS
Management
non-
item Description waste waste
1 Waiting for others to complete their work before proceeding with other work
5 Waiting for clarification and confirmation from the client and consultants
18 Time for instructions and communication among different trades on the same job
20 Accidents on site
2 Existing Scenario
According to your experience in the construction within Grinaker-LTA, are the following items
properly
controlled or mitigated wherever they occur. Please indicate with X whether you agree or disagree
1 Waiting for others to complete their work before proceeding with other work
5 Waiting for clarification and confirmation from the client and consultants
20 Accidents on site
3 Frequency of Occurrence
According to your experience in GLTA, what is the prevalence of occurrence of the following items. The response mu
frequently. Please indicate with X in the appropriate box
Very
item Description Never rare
1 Waiting for others to complete their work before proceeding with other work
2 Waiting for equipment to be delivered to site
3 Waiting for materials to be delivered to site
4 Waiting for specialist subcontractors to come to site
5 Waiting for clarification and confirmation from the client and consultants
6 Over-allocation/unnecessary equipment on site
7 Over-allocation/unnecessary material on site
8 Over-allocation/unnecessary workers on site
9 Unnecessary protocols on site
10 Unclear lines of communication
11 Materials stolen from site during construction
12 Material deterioration on site
13 Errors in construction applications
14 Time for rework/repair of defective work
15 Materials for rework/repair of defective work
16 Time for workers resting on site during working periods
17 Time for supervising and inspection of work
Time for instructions and communication among different trades on the same
18 job
19 Time for transporting workers, equipment and materials
20 Accidents on site
In your opinion and experience in GLTA, rate the items shown in the following Table as the cuases or sources of wast
as most unlikely up to most likely. Indicate with X the appropriate rating
most unlikel
item Description unlikely y
Lack of control
Bureaucracy
2 People
Inexperienced inspectors
3 Execution
Outdated equipment
Lack of equipment
most unlikel
unlikely y
4 Material
Misuse of materials
Wrong information
Late information
Unclear information