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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

Management
Improving construction practice with
management practice with the LPS
Last Planner System: a case study
Abdullah O. AlSehaimi 51
Administration of Projects and Engineering Affairs, Ministry of Health,
Saudi Arabia, and
Patricia Tzortzopoulos Fazenda and Lauri Koskela
University of Salford, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing the Last Planner
System (LPS) to improve construction planning practice and enhance site management in the Saudi
construction industry.
Design/methodology/approach – LPS was implemented in two large state-owned construction
projects through an action research process. The data collection methods included interviews,
observations and a survey questionnaire.
Findings – The findings identify benefits including improved construction planning, enhanced site
management and better communication and coordination between the parties involved. The paper
describes the critical success factors for LPS implementation. The paper also describes barriers to the
realisation the full potential of LPS, including the involvement of many subcontractors and people’s
commitment and attitude to time.
Research limitations/implications – The work reported in this paper is limited to two case
studies.
Practical implications – The study has thus contributed to improving management practice and
may aid the establishment of a basis for the development of further research in the area of lean
construction. The research outcomes can inform practitioners of the opportunity to implement
alternative management methods in construction, and give a good account of the opportunities and
challenges. Beside the direct benefits to managerial practice, the study also contributed to practice by
offering practical recommendation that can assist in the achievement of the full potential of lean and
LPS in Saudi Arabia.
Originality/value – This is the first comprehensive academic study in the Saudi construction sector
concerning the application of lean construction principles and techniques. The study has thus
contributed to practice and developed a basis for the development of further research in the area of
lean construction. It may help construction organisations to establish a new strategy and policies to
improve their managerial practice. The outcomes of the case studies can be used as a reference for
organisations seeking to improve their managerial practice.
Keywords Action research, Construction planning, Last Planner System implementation
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction
While it is accepted that construction management suffers from many practical
problems (Wing et al., 1998; Love et al., 2002), research in this field tends typically to be
descriptive and explanatory, which makes it inappropriate to solve the most persistent Engineering, Construction and
managerial problems (Koskela, 2008). One of the most commonly recurring problems Architectural Management
Vol. 21 No. 1, 2014
in construction is delay. pp. 51-64
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
AlSehaimi et al. (2013) examined most of the available literature about construction 0969-9988
delay in developing countries including a number of delay studies in the Saudi DOI 10.1108/ECAM-03-2012-0032
ECAM construction industry. Their study found that factors related to poor project
21,1 management are common to most of the delay studies, although they vary in their
importance from one study to another. It was also found that the delay causes cluster
around two issues: management and project environment. Management-related
factors include ineffective planning and control, poor site management, poor
communication between the parties involved and unreliable availability of materials.
52 The authors contended that such factors are controllable and efforts should be directed
towards minimising their impact. In contrast, project environment factors (labour
shortage, problems in material supply and financial difficulties), all of which are
related to the immaturity of the economy, financial institutions and labour market in
a developing country, are external factors that have to be taken as given in any project
(AlSehaimi et al., 2013). This paper argues that the impact of such controllable causes
of delay needs to be minimised to improve performance. That is to say, controlling such
causes of delay can be achieved via improving management practice.
One important improvement initiative, with direct practical impacts, has been the
adoption of lean construction. Since the early 1990s, lean construction has evolved
as a new way to manage construction more efficiently and effectively. Diverse lean
techniques have been adopted in practice, aiming to enhance project management by
eliminating waste, improving planning efficiency and reliability, improving
productivity and maximising value (Ballard et al., 2002).
The best known lean construction technique is the Last Planner System (LPS),
which has been demonstrated as a very useful tool for the management of the
construction process and the continuous monitoring of planning efficiency
(Christoffersen et al., 2001; Ballard and Howell, 2003). LPS has been tested in the field
and refined over the last decade, with many reported benefits in diverse environments
around the world, e.g. Fiallo and Revelo (2002) reports LPS implementation in Equator;
Johansen and Porter (2003) in the UK; Thomassen et al. (2003) in Denmark;
Koskenvesa and Koskela (2005) in Finland; Kim and Yang (2005) and Lim et al. (2006)
in Korea; Alarcon et al. (2008) in Chile; and Junior et al. (1998) and Formoso and
Moura (2009) in Brazil.
The literature, however, shows no evidence of LPS practical applications within
Saudi Arabia. Therefore, this study is concerned with the application of existing
principles (LPS) to a new context with a different working environment, where
commitment and attitude to time make it likely to operate differently. The main aim of
this research is to contribute to the improvement of management performance through
practical endeavours. The LPS was tested to examine the utility of the technique in
improving planning practice, thus enhancing management practice.
The paper is organised as follows. First, a literature synthesis on LPS is presented,
including a brief discussion of its prior applications around the world. Second, the
action research method adopted is discussed and the research carried out is described.
Following, the strategy of implementing LPS in two large state-owned projects is
examined and key research findings are presented and compared to the corresponding
outcomes of previous similar LPS studies. Finally, discussion is carried out and
conclusions are offered.

2. Literature review: LPSt

The “Last Planner” is the person or group accountable for production unit control, that
is, the completion of individual assignments at the operational level (Ballard, 1994).
In essence, LPS enables the collaborative management of the network of relationships
and communications needed to guarantee effective programme coordination, Management
production planning and project delivery. It was developed to make programmes practice with
more predictable, thereby improving the chances of delivering projects on time.
LPS was developed to increase the effectiveness of planning and control by making LPS
programmes more predictable, thereby improving the chances of delivering them on
time (Ballard, 2000). The system works to enhance reliability in three ways: through
look ahead planning and the “make-ready” process, in which construction managers 53
make work ready by ensuring that materials, information and equipment are available;
by filtering planned activities through the weekly work planning procedure to ensure
that the preceding activities have been completed; and by seeking conscious and
reliable commitment of labour resources by the leaders of the work teams involved
(Ballard, 2000). According to Ballard and Howell (1994), the LPS focuses on quality
characteristics of weekly work plans by helping in the selection of the right
work sequence and the right amount of work and by ensuring that the selected work
can be done.
The LPS has five main integrated elements (Ballard, 2000; Ballard and Howell,
2003): master planning, phase planning, lookahead planning, weekly work planning,
percent plan complete (PPC) and analysis of reasons for incomplete assignments.
When systematically implemented, they offer major benefits to construction planning
(Ballard and Howell, 2003).
The LPS has been implemented in a large number of projects in several countries
since 1992 (Ballard and Howell, 2003). Many reports and research papers have
confirmed that the technique has achieved remarkable improvements, including better
planning and control, improved work flow reliability, increased productivity,
promotion of team building; improved quality and safety, enhanced predictability,
thereby reducing the duration and cost of projects (e.g. Ballard et al., 1996; Garnett
et al., 1998; Junior et al., 1998; Ballard, 2000; Fiallo and Revelo, 2002; Thomassen et al.,
2003; Koskenvesa and Koskela, 2005; Kim and Yang, 2005). Via its applications in case
studies in many countries, LPS has proven to be a powerful tool for the
management and planning of construction. In the UK, Johansen and Porter (2003)
studied the application of LPS in the UK and found that LPS added value by
structuring the planning process. The study reported that the involvement of many
subcontractors is considered part of the culture of the industry and found to be an
identical barrier in the UK construction industry. In Chile, Alarcon et al. (2008)
acknowledged that the benefits of LPS include improvements in management and
control, enhancement of plan reliability, reduction of urgent procurement requests
and reductions in project schedule. The authors attribute improvements in PPC to
factors including top management support, involvement and understanding of the
implementation process. Another study by Fiallo and Revelo (2002) in Equator,
have concluded that LPS improved the reliability of work flow, thus reducing cost and
duration. The study observed that the incremental improvement is the general
tendency in PPC.

3. Research method
Recently, it has been argued that research approaches such as design science research
(or constructive research) and action research offer alternative methods to improve the
level of performance in practice (van Aken, 2005; Järvinen, 2007; Voordijk, 2009;
AlSehaimi et al., 2013). It is believed that organisations should benefit from advances in
knowledge, rather than just being subjects of research. To make academic research
ECAM relevant, researchers should try out their theories with practitioners in real situations
21,1 and real organisations (Avison et al., 1999).
Action research allows the parties involved to review the existing process (problem
domain), identify the problem, to introduce changes to improve the situation,
to evaluate their effects and to reflect on the process and the outcome, as well as to
generate new knowledge (Baskerville, 1999; Naoum, 2001). What differentiates action
54 research from traditional research approaches is that the researcher plays an active
role in the case under study, working collaboratively with other participants (Naoum,
2001; Herr and Anderson, 2005).
Action research was adopted in this study, to respond to the practical concerns of
people and to provide solutions to existing practical problems ( Järvinen, 2007) and to
enable the data collection and reflection process to focus on aspects that cannot easily
be captured by other, more descriptive research approaches (Eden and Huxham, 1996).

3.1 Research carried out

Two action research studies were conducted in Saudi Arabia to examine the impact of
LPS on improving planning practices in government facilities projects. The contractors
were selected because of their extended history in the business and recognised success
in the market place. According to the Saudi contractors’ classification, the firms were
classified in the top rank of the organisations that typically bid for government
projects and contracts. The two construction organisations were mostly active in
building projects. However, they also worked on other types of construction including
roads, water and drainage networks. Two ongoing projects were selected for the
motivation of their staff with this research, the firm commitment of executive
management and the cooperation of clients in providing access to data.
Data were collected through a number of tools:
(1) Two to three hour semi-structured interviews: conducted with two project
managers, two site managers and one planning engineer working in each of
the projects under study, in order to evaluate the existing planning practices.
Questions included the planning techniques being used, the level of
involvement of other parties in the planning process, frequency of meetings,
the facilitation of medium term planning and means of communication
adopted.
(2) Non-participant observation: lasted for two weeks, and aimed to help in the
identification of existing planning practices, prior to LPS implementation.
(3) Facilitation of LPS implementation, through participant observation: the
researcher attended weekly meetings over 18 weeks with the project teams, at
both case studies. In these meetings, PPC figures were recorded and reasons
for incomplete assignments were tracked and analysed.
(4) Unstructured interviews: including project managers, site engineers, client
representatives and consultant engineers. The aim was to seek their views of
LPS as a planning system, its advantages and the benefits gained during its
implementation. Additionally, these allowed reporting difficulties so that
potential solutions could be examined.
(5) Survey questionnaire: to assess stakeholders’ perceptions of the LPS, aiming
to: evaluate the implementation process and to examine the extent to which the
LPS was perceived to improve planning practice; identify benefits and barriers
 to LPS adoption; and identify the critical success factors (CSFs). In the first Management
project, 32 questionnaires were distributed and 26 responses received. In the practice with
second, 40 questionnaires were distributed and 32 responses received.
LPS
Table I summarises the studied projects in terms of type, contract size and duration.
There was only one subcontractor in the first project, for electrical work, while all other
work was done by the contractor’s personnel. In the second project, there were four
subcontractors, doing structural, architectural, mechanical and electrical work. The 55
last column of the table shows the contractors’ classification. The first contractor was
assessed as class 1 in building work (Ministry of Public Works, 2006), meaning that it
was able to bid for projects over SR 200 millions (USD 53 millions), while the second
was placed in class 2, allowing it to tender for building projects worth up to SR 200
millions. In both case studies, LPS was implemented half way through the project.

4. LPS implementation
4.1 Existing planning practices
In the first phase of the implementation (shown in Figure 1), interviews and
non-participant observation were conducted to examine the current planning practice.
Findings suggest that planning was mostly based on a master plan presented on a bar
chart issued at the beginning of the construction phase. Construction commenced with
a meeting of the main parties involved in the project execution, whose purposes was to
establish acceptable ground rules and to ensure that contractors understood all the
job requirements.
A systematic review of project planning was found to be rare or non-existent.
Regarding project evaluation, most interviewees said that they did not tend to refer to
past job records, as these were either non-existent or inadequate. The interviews also
revealed an absence of detailed short-term planning and improvement meetings to
discuss project progress. As for planning techniques, most of the interviewees stated
that their firms used the critical path method.
After the interviews, the application of LPS was discussed in detail and examples
from previous studies were considered. As part of these discussions, the weaknesses of
the current planning practices were observed and thought was given to how the LPS
could enhance practice. This also included training on LPS implementation.

4.2 LPS implementation

An implementation strategy was developed for each case study company, where
the main components of LPS were gradually implemented in four phases, with an
evaluation at the end of each phase. Whilst in most prior studies on the LPS, the
implementation has started from upstream stages, from master and phase planning,

Percentage of time
Duration elapsed when the LPS Main contractor
Project Contract (months) was implemented Subcontractors classification

1 USD 21 millions 17 50 Electrical Class 1

Structural
Architectural Table I.
Mechanical Description of the
2 USD 10 millions 17 50 Electrical Class 2 projects studied
ECAM
21,1 Phase Tasks

Workshop on Lean and Training on

LPS
First Phase
Observation of the current planning
Work shop and
56 observation for
the current practice
practice
Interviews with PM and planning
engineer about the current practice

Preparing weekly plans + make ready

Second Phase

Short-term weekly Identifying reasons for incomplete

planning+ make ready
Calculating PPC

Third Phase Preparing a list of activities for the

Coming weeks
Weekly planning + Look
ahead planning + Phase Do constraints analysis
Planning
Phase planning Sessions

Fourth Phase Interviews with involved people

Figure 1. Evaluation of LP
LPS implementation implementation
strategy in the studied (Interviews + Survey Questionnaire
Questionnaire)
projects

here the implementation started from weekly planning, and progressed then
towards upstream stages. However, few studies implemented LPS from short-term
planning upwards including Koskenvesa and Koskela (2005) and Bortolazza and
Formoso (2006).
The strategy was agreed upon after intensive discussion between project teams and
the researcher. In both project, strategy of LPS implementation started with the short-
term planning. Figure 1 shows the LPS implementation strategy adopted in both
cases, followed by a description of the phases. In the first phase, a workshop on lean
and training on the use of LPS were provided to highlight the benefits of LPS. After
this, there was a two-week observation period to monitor the current practices, to
interview the participants and to make notes.
In the second phase, it was agreed that PPC and reasons for incomplete
assignments would be recorded weekly for five weeks. The focus was on short-term
planning and make ready, while little attention was directed to lookahead planning.
Two weekly meetings were held with the involvement of all project parties (contractor’s
team, client representatives, consultant engineers). Starting with short-term planning
aimed to gradually introduce the other elements of LPS (look ahead planning, phase
planning and stabilise production planning at the ground level. Invoking specific
requirements such as definition, soundness, sequence, size and learning (Ballard and
Howell, 1994) was introduced to achieve quality assignments. Furthermore, reasons for
incomplete tasks were identified, analysed and acted upon, together with the PPC
calculation in the weekly meetings. Constraints were documented according to
indications given by the project team and constraints analysis was performed jointly Management
by all project members. Data, i.e. PPC and reasons for incomplete assignments, were practice with
collected during the summer, which is a very hot season in Saudi Arabia; in the year
of the study, the temperature reached 521C. Furthermore, data collection coincided LPS
with the month of Ramadan, when Muslims fast during daylight hours. Taken
together, these factors significantly affected labour productivity and, hence assignment
completion. 57
The third phase was the longest, lasting for eleven weeks in each project, during
which two further components of the LPS were introduced: lookahead planning and
phase planning. Phase planning allowed activities to be pulled through by reverse
team planning and for resources to be optimised in the long term. In the first project,
there were two lookahead windows, one covering four weeks and the other six weeks,
whereas in the second case, only the four-week lookahead window was feasible.
A possible explanation is that the involvement of many subcontractors made it difficult
to produce six-week lookahead plans. Lookahead planning was extracted from the
master plan zone by zone, then coordinated in the Last Planner (weekly) sheets. All
planning levels were linked. During the all-day phase planning sessions, sticky notes
were used to show the names, durations, prerequisites and locations of individual
tasks on the project map. Each session was dedicated to a certain type of activity
(i.e. finishing, mechanical), aiming to provide goals in each phase and then work
backwards from the target completion date to achieve the proposed milestones.
In practice, phase planning generates a detailed plan covering the respective project
phase, thus allowing better visualisation of the flow of work, which assists all parties
to negotiate deadlines for the planned work.
In the fourth phase, a survey questionnaire was administered to evaluate the LPS
implementation. The key objective was to allow participants to self-report the benefits
achieved, CSFs and barriers to LPS implementation in the project. The questionnaire
contained ten questions, but only the questions related to the achieved benefits, CSFs
and barriers for LPS implementation are covered here. Questions were formulated
using a five-point Likert scale that requested participants to indicate their degree of
agreement or disagreement with a series of statements. The respondents were given
sufficient time to read the questionnaire, think about it and ask any questions they
wished. Most participants answered in group sessions in the presence of the first
author, who explained the questions, provided any clarification necessary and asked
the participants to choose the answers they believed to be the most appropriate. The
key findings obtained through the questionnaire are discussed in more detail below.

5. Research findings
5.1 Weekly PPC
PPC is a measure of the proportion of promises made that are delivered on time. It is
calculated as the number of activities that are completed as planned divided by the
total number of planned activities, presented as a percentage. At the time when the LPS
implementation started, most of the work carried out consisted of structural activities.
However, architectural activities started after week five and later after week 11,
mechanical and electrical activities started. Generally, there was a gradual increase in
weekly PPC over the implementation period, as shown in Figure 2, which indicates
improvement in the planning practices. In the first project, PPC increased from 69 per cent
in the first week to 86 per cent in the last week, peaking at 100 per cent in the first
week after the introduction of lookahead planning and then stabilising at 86 per cent for
ECAM PPC Values over the entire implementation Period
100%
21,1
90%
80%
70%
60%
58 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
.0 08

.0 08

.0 08

.0 08

.1 08

.1 08

.1 08

.1 08

.1 08

.1 08

.1 08

.1 08

.1 08

.1 08

.1 08

.1 08

.0 08
09
Figure 2.
06 .20

13 .20

20 .20

27 .20

04 .20

12 .20

18 .20

25 .20

01 .20

08 .20

15 .20

22 .20

29 .20

13 .20

20 .20

27 .20

03 .20
20
Weekly PPC values over

1.
8

2
.0

the entire implementation

30

period for the two projects

PPC for the First Project PPC for the Second Project

the last two weeks of the project. In the second project, PPC rose from 56 per cent in
the first week to 82 per cent in the last week, reaching a peak of 84 per cent and
stabilising above 80 per cent for the last five weeks. In this project, PPC stabilised for
many possible reasons; for example, a long time was spent in the preparation
of the lookahead plans particularly during third phase, while learning from failure and
mistakes experienced in the previous phase helped to improve this one. Additionally,
the project team enhanced its professional practice and underwent continuous
assessment to achieve this advanced result. Collectively, the gradual improvement in
PPC over the period of the LPS implementation indicates that planning reliability
improved over this period.

5.2 Reasons for incomplete assignments

Figure 3 shows the reasons for incomplete assignments identified in the two projects.
The numbers in the figure is the accumulative number of occurrence for each cause

Reasons for Incomplete Assignements for the Two Projects

35 Reasons for incomplete for the first project

30 Reasons for incomplete for the second project
25
20
15
10
5
0
ce ling ire tion
In e o ins ign

D ple eiv ion

at k

n
m t

n)
ui ur

Sp s
he ina k

th al s We e
La y

ck ifica r

)
D t
pr al

n
ha A rial
or

tio

c he
en

ge

or
rd or

ac
rit

in me

tio
Eq bo
ed rov

ch ct
w

ith coo ew

lo
a
io

pe at
pm

ka
e
e

co f a pe

rf
e

ng pp

ac
r
st

r
M

de
fo
i

rp
qu

Figure 3.
un
rfa du equ
o r
e

te

/
im t f
er

Reasons for incomplete

ot
r
st es
Pr

(ro
s
C

ic
Sc ect
m
r e qu

assignments over the

at

hn

er
w
e
ve re

ef

ec
h

whole period in the

(T
O te

O
La

two projects
er
te

th
In

O
during the whole implementation period. Prerequisite work was the main reason for Management
incomplete assignments in the first project. This is perhaps due to the nature of the practice with
stage that the project had reached, where most activities were dependent on structural
assignments being completed. In the second project, labour supply was the main LPS
reason for incomplete assignments. It was clear that the project was always struggling
to keep pace with the weekly and lookahead plans, because the available workforce
was insufficient to meet the needs. The underlying cause was in the persistently 59
high demand for skilled labour at a time when the country was passing through an
unprecedented construction boom.
The second main reason for incomplete assignments in both projects was the
restricted availability of materials, which occurred due to several factors. First,
the approval procedure required by the client was time-consuming and caused delays
in orders thus material delivery to the site. Second, suppliers did not always deliver the
materials on time. Sometimes the wrong materials were delivered, mostly because
the supplier was confused by the use of different block types and sizes.
In both projects, the third reason was related to approvals. The client’s approval
system was subject to bureaucracy and the overuse of paper-based communication,
causing significant delays in decision making and in agreeing the purchase of
materials. There was also an issue with requests being submitted too late for decisions
to be made in time for the scheduled start of particular activities.
The fourth most common reason for incomplete assignments in the first project
was a change of priorities, which mostly affected architectural activities, as they were
not always sequence dependent. However, in some cases there was a need to change
priority because of factors including the redistribution of labour between zones,
confusion in sharing resources and the availability of professionals such as builders
and carpenters. In the second project, the fourth reason for assignments incomplete
was prerequisite work, which again applied mostly to structural and architectural
activities.
The fifth reason for incomplete assignments in the first project was labour.
However, in the case of the second project, the fifth reason was late or incomplete
information. The sixth factor in the first project was equipment problems, which
occurred with the same frequency in the second project.

5.3 Questionnaire outcomes (participants perceptions)

5.3.1 The effectiveness of the LPS implementation. There were four questions focused
on the effectiveness of the LPS in improving construction management practice and
improving site management, and the advantages of the LPS over traditional planning.
In both case study companies, after eighteen weeks in implementation, most
respondents agreed that the LPS is effective in improving planning. A strong majority
(about 90 per cent) of the 26 respondents in the first project agreed that LPS was
effective in terms of improving planning practice. In the second project, most of the
32 participants (about 86 per cent) also agreed. In respect to site management, a large
majority agreed that LPS was effective, while most agreed that it was useful in
minimising waste. When enquired about the advantages of LPS over traditional
planning techniques; respondents revealed that benefits include: knowing the
requirements of the project and prerequisites of tasks, helping to facilitate planning
and control, and ability to better predict the completion date of the project.
5.3.2 Perceived benefits, CSFs and barriers. Three questions in the survey enquired
about the CSFs for the implementation of LPS; the potential barriers for full use of the
ECAM system and the possibility of using LPS in the future projects. In terms of the benefits
21,1 gained, results show that the process of implementing LPS was successful and
beneficial for the both projects. The most important benefits, the key CSFs and the
main barriers revealed by interviews and questionnaires are summarised in Table II.
There are strong similarities between the two cases as to the benefits and CSFs, with
slight differences only in the degree of agreement between respondents in the
60 questionnaire.
The suggested benefits given in the questionnaire questions, CSFs and barriers
were gleaned from experience in LPS implementation, from the literature on LPS and
lean construction, and from observation and notes taken during the involvement of the
researcher in the implementation process over a period of time. In all, 16 benefits were
listed and respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with them.
The most important reported benefits shown in Table II include enabling accurate
prediction of resources, enabling site supervisors to plan their workload better,
reducing uncertainty and preparing team members to collaborate. The most commonly
identified CSFs were top management support, commitment to promises, involvement
of all stakeholders and communication and coordination between parties.
The questionnaire survey also revealed that most of the barriers identified were
common to both projects, with disparities only in their degree of importance. These
included: lengthy approval process by the client due to bureaucracy and use of routine
paperwork, cultural issues, commitment and attitude to time. The last two factors
are probably what differentiate Arab societies from others, since in this culture, people
are often not punctual: delays of some hours or even days are usual and tolerated.
It is normal to start meetings an hour late and most people are used to this. Such
attitudes to time can have an impact on the implementation of techniques that are
time-dependent and where a commitment to punctuality is crucial.

Project Benefits Critical success factors Barriers

1 1. Enabling site supervisors 1. Top management support 1. Lengthy approval

to plan their workload 2. Commitment to promises procedure by client
2. Improving learning 3. Involvement of all 2. Cultural issues
process stakeholders 3. Commitment and attitude
3. Improving planning and 4. Communication between to time
control practice parties to achieve 4. Short-term vision
4. Enabling accurate teamwork
prediction of resources 5. Close relationship with
5. Reducing uncertainity suppliers
6. Preparing team members 6. Motivating people to
to collaborate make change
2 1. Enabling accurate 1. Commitment to promises 1. Involvement of many
prediction of resources 2. Communication and subcontractors
2. Improving planning and coordination between 2. Lengthy approval
control parties procedure by client
3. Enabling site supervisors 3. Involvement of all 3. Commitment and attitude
to plan their workload stakeholders to time
4. Improving site 4. Top management support 4. Cultural issues
Table II. management 5. Close relations with 5. Short-term vision
Benefits, CSFs and 5. Improving learning suppliers
barriers to implementation process 6. Managing resistance
of the LPS 6. Reducing uncertainty to change
When asked about implementing the LPS in future projects, the respondents Management
(58 participants) stated: 88 per cent said that they would implement LPS in the future, practice with
while 12 per cent said that they would recommend its use. These positive responses
perhaps reflect the degree of satisfaction of the parties with the system. LPS
5.4 The present study compared to previous implementations of the LPS
It is opportune to compare the PPC achieved in this project to prior studies in LPS 61
implementation. The study by Koskenvesa and Koskela (2005), in Finland, revealed
that the PPC rose from 47 to over 80 per cent (average of four case studies). In this
study, as shown in Figure 2, the PPC stabilized over 80 per cent in the last seven weeks.
Some other quantitative statistics on implementing LPS are given by Koskela and
Ballard (2006): in 1996, a mechanical contractor applied Last Planner to an industrial
project and learned after six weeks of data collection that his PPC was averaging
60 per cent and that 70 per cent of plan failures were the result of late, incomplete or
defective materials or deliveries. After action on the root causes of these failures, PPC
increased to 80 per cent and the contractor completed the project with a 31 per cent
gross margin. In another case study set in Korea (Kim and Yang, 2005), PPC rose from
62 to 85 per cent in the eighth week of LPS implementation after a series of meetings
and after the analysis of reasons for incomplete assignments. Collectively, the tendency
for an incremental improvement in PPCs indicates improvement in construction
planning practice.
Another point for consideration is the causes of assignments incomplete. The
dominant reason for non-completion in the first project was prerequisite work. This is
in agreement with earlier studies (e.g. Ballard, 2000; Koskenvesa and Koskela, 2005).
In the second project, labour was the main cause for incomplete assignments, as was
also the case in a recent study by Formoso and Moura (2009). Their study revealed that
the majority of the problems were of mainly internal origin (including the categories
of labour, materials, equipment, design and planning), while few were of external
origin (client interference, weather problems and suppliers).
Concerning the CSFs, the main CSFs identified by the questionnaire respondents
were top management support, commitment to promises, involvement of all
stakeholders and communication and coordination between parties to achieve
teamwork. This is in agreement with the trends in lean and LPS, since much emphasis
has been placed on these factors (Salem et al., 2005; Alarcon et al., 2008).
Another point of comparison, the major potential barriers to LPS implementation
can be summarised as the involvement of various subcontractors, lengthy approval
procedures on the part of the client (government departments), commitment and
attitude to time in the Arab world and cultural issues (i.e. ideas, beliefs in the
traditional system and behaviours when implementing a new system). The last two
of these are probably what differentiates Arab societies from others. The second
and third factors have been identified in this study for the first time, adding to the
literature on LPS implementation. Previous studies have found some similar barriers;
for example, Johansen and Porter (2003) cite the involvement of many subcontractors
and cultural issues were found to barriers in the UK construction industry.

6. Discussion
In this study, incremental implementation helped to gradually stabilise the elements of
LPS, to minimise resistance to change and to provide an opportunity to evaluate each
phase and gather lessons learned. Additionally, starting by the short-term planning
ECAM enabled bringing all the involved parties together. Moreover, it was noticed that
21,1 participants’ confidence in the tool was strengthened by this gradual implementation.
Short-term planning facilitated the introduction of lookahead planning and other LPS
elements. After the first phase, which was focused on weekly planning, the majority of
the site team believed that the LPS added value by structuring planning. Additionally,
it enhanced the communication and collaboration between parties involved and
62 helping the participants to be more disciplined. Further, participants revealed that LPS
is more elaborated and informative and providing more and easy control for the
successful execution of the project.
The results show a broad similarity between the two projects in the identity of the
factors causing assignments to be incomplete. There was a tendency for PPC to increase
gradually over the period of LPS implementation in the two cases. It is apparent from
Table II that many advantages were gained including improvement in planning and
control practices and enhancement in site management. Other benefits incorporate enable
site supervisors to plan their workload, facilitating accurate prediction of resources and
reducing uncertainty. By calculating PPC, analysing the reasons for incomplete
assignments and conducting a constraints analysis, while the preparation of lookahead
plans, continuous assessment and learning from failures and mistakes all helped to
improve performance. Additionally, the action research process, involving collaboration
between researchers and the organisations studied, allowed the researcher to influence
practice directly (researcher input). At the start of LPS implementation, the researcher
worked as a facilitator of the process. However, three months after the start, the project
teams were able to drive the process forward without the researcher input.
The results of the questionnaire survey demonstrate that the implementation of LPS
was perceived as successful at both case projects. Collectively, responses to the four
questions concerning the effectiveness of LPS in improving management practice indicate
that LPS has positive impact on improving management practice. LPS enabled the
achievement of process stability and resource reliability, as well as the reduction of
uncertainty in relation to the execution of production activities. Such stability has also
been achieved in case study projects presented in previous research efforts, and it has
been stated as an essential initial step towards improvement. LPS has proved to be a very
proactive approach in reorganising the planning process, assisting in collaborative
planning and providing forward information for control. Further, it helped through the
visualisation of prediction of resources. The most important CSFs recognised by
participants and mostly agreed upon include top management support, commitment to
promises and involvement of all stakeholders. Participants’ views of the potential barriers
to LPS implementation indicate the following factors; involvement of many
subcontractors, lengthy approval process by client and commitment and attitude to time.

7. Conclusion
This study contributes to existing construction research in the form of action research
and its integrative implementation, which partially overcame some of the delay
problems in construction projects. Through collaboration between the researchers and
the organisations studied, improvements were achieved in terms of quality of work
practice, enhancement of managerial practice, knowledge expansion and learning.
At the case studies carried out, LPS proved to be a proactive approach to
reorganising the planning process, assisting in collaborative planning and providing
forward information for control. Additionally, LPS enabled site teams to be more
organised, effective and productive, which resulted in significant improvement. LPS
can facilitate a new, more effective way of performing production planning. In the case Management
studies, it improved teamwork and enhanced continuous improvement. practice with
This is the first comprehensive academic study in the Saudi construction sector
concerning the application of lean construction techniques. Besides utilising LPS in its LPS
future projects, the leadership of one of the firms studied has taken an active interest
in introducing lean practices stating “Implementing LPS should be viewed as an initial
step towards building more competitive lean enterprise”. The study has thus 63
contributed to improving management practice and may aid the establishment of
a basis for the development of further research in the area of lean construction.
The research outcomes can inform practitioners of the opportunity to implement
alternative management methods in construction, and give a good account of the
opportunities and challenges. Beside the direct benefits to managerial practice, the study
also contributed to practice by offering practical recommendation that can assist in the
achievement of the full potential of lean and LPS in Saudi Arabia. These include the need
for full support, interaction and commitment from top management and reducing the
reliance on subcontractors. In addition, reconsideration of the bureaucratic style of
management is needed and the adoption of ICT for making communication faster and
more efficient is required. The outcomes of the case studies can be used as a reference for
organisations seeking to improve their managerial practice.

References
Alarcon, L., Diethelm, S., Rojo, O. and Caldero n, R. (2008), “Assessing the impacts of
implementing Lean Construction”, Revista Ingenierı́a de Construcci on, Vol. 23 No. 1,
available at: www.ing.puc.cl/ric (accessed 12 April 2011).
AlSehaimi, A., Koskela, L. and Tzortzopoulos, P. (2013), “The need for alternative research
approaches in construction management: the case of delay studies”, Journal of
Management in Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 407-413.
Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M. and Nielsen, P. (1999), “Action research”, Communications of the
ACM, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 94-97.
Ballard, G. (1994), The Last Planner, Spring Conference of the Northern California Construction
Institute, Monterey, CA, 22-24 April.
Ballard, G. (2000), “The Last Planner System of production control”, PhD thesis, School of Civil
Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (1994), “Implementing lean construction: stabilizing the work flow”,
Proceedings of the 2nd IGLC Conference, Santiago.
Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (2003), “An update to Last Planner”, Proceedings of the 11th IGLC
Conference, Blacksburg, VA.
Ballard, G., Howell, G. and Casten, M. (1996), “PARC: A case study”, Proceedings of the 4th IGLC
Conference, Birmingham, reprinted in Alarcon (1997).
Ballard, G., Tommelein, I., Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2002), “Lean construction tools and
techniques”, in Best, R. and de Valence, G. (Eds), Design and Construction: Building in
Value, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 211-226.
Baskerville, R. (1999), “Investigating information systems with action research”,
Communications of the Association of Information Systems, Vol. 2 No. 19, pp. 7-17.
Bortolazza, R. and Formoso, C. (2006), “A quantitative analysis of data collected from the Last
Planner system in Brazil”, Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction, Santiago, pp. 625-638.
Christoffersen, A., Sander, D. and Bojsen, J. (2001), “Application of lean methods in the Danish
construction industry: getting it started, keeping it going”, Proceedings of the 3rd Annual
Lean Construction Congress, Berkeley, CA.
ECAM Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (1996), “Action research for management research”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 75-86.
21,1 Fiallo, C. and Revelo, V. (2002), “Applying LPS to a construction project: a case study in Quito,
Ecuador”, Proceedings of the 10th IGLC Conference, Gramado.
Formoso, C. and Moura, C. (2009), “Evaluation of the impact of the Last Planner System on the
performance of construction projects”, Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, Taipai 15-17 July, pp. 153-164.
64
Garnett, N., Jones, D. and Murray, S. (1998) “A strategic application of lean thinking”, Proceedings
of the 6th IGLC Conference, Brazil.
Herr, K. and Anderson, G. (2005), The Action Research Dissertation, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Järvinen, P. (2007), “Action research is similar to design science”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 37-54.
Johansen, E. and Porter, G. (2003), “An experience of introducing LPS into a UK construction
project”, Proceedings of the 11th IGLC Conference, Blacksburg, VA.
Junior, A., Scola, A. and Conte, A. (1998), “Last Planner as a site operations tool”, Proceedings of
the 6th IGLC Conference, Guaruja, Sao Paulo.
Kim, Y. and Yang, J. (2005), “Case study: application of Last Planner to heavy civil construction in
Korea”, Proceedings of the 13th IGLC conference, Sydney.
Koskela, L. (2008), “Which kind of science is construction management?”, Proceedings of the 16th
IGLC Conference, Manchester, July.
Koskela, L. and Ballard, G. (2006), “Should project management be based on theories of
economics or production?”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 154-163.
Koskenvesa, A. and Koskela, L. (2005), “Introducing Last Planner – Finnish experiences”, 11th
Joint CIB International Symposium – Combining Forces, Helsinki, 13-16 June.
Lim, C., Yu, J. and Kim, C. (2006), “Implementing PPC in Korea’s construction industry”,
Proceedings of the 14th IGLC Conference, Santiago de Chile.
Love, P., Holt, G. and Li, H. (2002), “Triangulation in construction management research”, Journal
of Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 294-303.
Ministry of public works (2006), Contractors’ Classification, Ministry of Planning, Saudi Arabia.
Naoum, S. (2001), Dissertation Research and Writing for Construction Students, Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford.
Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A. and Luegring, M. (2005), “Site implementation and assessment
of Lean Construction techniques”, Lean Construction Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-21.
Thomassen, M., Sander, D., Barnes, K. and Nielsen, A. (2003), “Experience and results from
implementing Lean Construction in a large Danish contracting firm”, Proceedings of the
13th IGLC Conference, Blacksburg, VA.
Van Aken, J. (2005), “Management research as a design science: articulating the research
products of Mode 2 knowledge production in management”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 19-36.
Voordijk, H. (2009), “Construction management and economics: the epistemology of a multidisciplinary
design science”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 713-720.
Wing, C., Raftery, J. and Walker, A. (1998), “Baby and the bathwater: research methods in construction
management”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 99-104.

Corresponding author
Dr Abdullah AlSehaimi can be contacted at: alsuhaimi76@yahoo.com

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

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