Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Lean and Flexible Project Delivery

Lean and Flexible Project Delivery Article 1, 2 Hajnalka Vaagen * and Glenn Ballard Department of Ocean Operations and Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU in Ålesund, Postboks 1517, NO-6025 Ålesund, Norway Project Production Systems Laboratory, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-1234, USA; gballard@berkeley.edu * Correspondence: hajnalka.vaagen@ntnu.no Abstract: The average cost and time overrun of frequent changes in ETO and construction projects is high, and with steadily increasing cost constraints, productivity increase is critical for future com- petitiveness. Successful lean implementations in project-based production systems have led to great reductions in waste and time to market. However, companies also often struggle with effective cus- tomization of lean principles to their changing contexts. This paper extends the scope of the opera- tional system of lean project delivery, initially focused on a project-based production system with the Last Planner System (LPS ) at core, to enhance master planning with options to flexibly handle changes. The research follows the guidelines of Design Science Research, combining the theory and practice of lean project management with results for project flexibility from quantitative models. The main contribution is the proposed operational system, along with the process to evaluate its intended utility, i.e., to increase the ability to quickly and cost effectively handle late changes. This enables the quantitative assessment of the value of planned flexibility in lean projects, before the decision is taken, and illustrates this value for capturing opportunities from customer-driven Citation: Vaagen, H.; Ballard, G. changes. Insights into the value of design research for the management of project uncertainty are emphasized. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287. https:// doi.org/10.3390/app11199287 Keywords: project uncertainty; engineer-to-order; lean project delivery; Last Planner System (LPS ); flexibility; design science research Academic Editor: Leonardo Marrazzini Received: 27 August 2021 1. Introduction Accepted: 28 September 2021 Published: 6 October 2021 Engineer-To-Order (ETO) and construction projects are subject to impactful uncer- tainties that are difficult to anticipate and quantify early [1–6], driven by, e.g., uncertainty Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- in the market and technological innovations, leading to changes in design, with subse- tral with regard to jurisdictional quent alterations in the activities and their sequencing [7]. In ETO shipbuilding, this can claims in published maps and institu- be everything from changes in scope outfitting (e.g., the engine type) to door and window tional affiliations. positions, also generating changes in piping and electro solutions [4,8]. While limited pre- dictability, the strategic intent (e.g., to capture opportunities from customer-driven design changes) suggests that changes will come to provide competitive advantage to that or- ganization at that time. The exact type of a change is difficult to estimate though. Such Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li- ‘knowable unknown-unknowns’ [9] are most often managed reactively [10,11], bringing censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. overreliance on determinism in project research [12], with important decisions and activ- This article is an open access article ities fixed early [13]. These are necessarily updated in light of new information [14], but distributed under the terms and con- often with large reaction costs [7,8,15], and without the ability to sufficiently exploit un- ditions of the Creative Commons At- certainty to improve project value [16,17]. tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea- tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). With increased understanding of the cost of neglecting project delivery capabilities to explore opportunities [18], the negative impacts of design disturbances [19] and infor- mation inadequacy [20], resilient approaches [21,22] and options for flexibility are increas- ingly sought after [20,23,24]. This is not new though. Between [5], on how project Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11199287 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 2 of 17 management transited from flexible approaches (e.g., the Manhattan project in the 1940s) to control-oriented phased approaches, to summarizing over resilient project delivery strategies in [25], we have Chapman and Ward [17,26], highlighting that conventional project research with focus on risks has limited ability to capture opportunities. Flexibility, i.e., the ability to change the direction of the project within defined time– cost frames, implies the existence of an operational strategy and a planning system that is responsive and handles information arrival and delayed decisions simultaneously [7,15,27]; i.e., a system with options. Otherwise, new information has limited value, as it would not exploit the threats and opportunities that lie in, e.g., allowing customers to make changes. Options for flexibility are to be paid early, while their value is not revealed before changes are materialized, often in the late execution phase [28], which is why flex- ible approaches are often countered with economic arguments [5]. This cost–value struc- ture of systems with options implies a change in the value creation locus, and the need for life-cycle approaches with a new logic of business models [16,29]. One integrated approach is found in [30], with a project management information system for integrated planning, scheduling, and communication, facilitating collaborative and immediate information sharing. While effective to quickly adapt new information, that is not a system where options for flexibility are explicitly implemented. In general, integrated life-cycle approaches to project delivery are few [3,21], and consequently, pre- dictive evaluations of the quantified impact of late changes are rare too [21], and option less valued. Further, the few papers that quantify the value of planning flexibility [8,31] are based on small examples that are difficult to be applied in practice. The learning from these models, on what flexibility and when to develop, has managerial value though. To transfer this learning into practice, lean construction with integrated and lean project de- livery at core [32,33], emerging from the shortcomings of phase-based approaches [2,11,34,35], is found appropriate. The lean philosophy adopted in these, combining for- mal and less formal processes, plays an important role in collaboratively organizing pro- jects to better handle disturbances and to foster innovation [36–38], disrupting the logic of the business models for how the construction industry delivers projects [39]. Further, flex- ible set-based design principles [40], as an essential element of lean construction, support generating multiple solutions to changing conditions. Moreover, a new lean metric is also proposed in [28], named the Overall Construction Productivity (OCP), to quantify the im- pact of identified losses in ETO production systems, and to guide the implementation of improvement actions. What is missing from this framework is an operational strategy and planning system with guidelines to flexibly implement alternatives to reduce disturbances and losses in late phases in lean project delivery, and to quantify the value of flexibility. The paper at hand fills this gap by addressing the following research questions: (1) How to incorporate options for flexibility into project master schedules within the lean project delivery? (2) How to ascertain what is the ‘right’ level of flexibility to appropriately address risks and opportunities, and how to measure its value? The novelty is driven by the new knowledge that the research enables by combining different and largely disconnected research fields, such as lean project management and guidelines for project planning flexibility from model-based research. The novel elements are: (1) extending the operational system of lean project delivery—the Last Planner Sys- tem (LPS )—to master planning with options, to enable ETO organizations to customize lean construction practices to their dynamically changing uncertain contexts; (2) predic- tive evaluations of the quantified impact of late changes and the value of flexibility in lean projects; which also enables (3) to more appropriately deal with opportunities resulting from customer-driven changes (an almost overlooked aspect in project research and prac- tice). The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the theoretical and methodo- logical approach, Section 3 describes the operational system for lean and flexible project Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 3 of 17 delivery, with valuation of planned flexibility and discussion by case tests in Section 4. Section 5 concludes by providing insights the proposed solution and methodological ap- proach add to the management of lean and uncertain projects. 2. Materials and Methods The aim of this research is to develop new knowledge that professionals can use to design good solutions for managing complex construction and ETO projects under uncer- tainty. Design Science Research (DSR) is found appropriate for this purpose, with contri- butions from different scientific disciplines, combining the theory and practice of lean project management with multi-stage thinking from decision theory and guidelines for flexibility in ETO projects developed by stochastic optimization, as well as bringing in practitioner experience. This supports [41] in that construction management research can be characterized as a multidisciplinary design science, with outputs from empiricism, nor- mative approaches that specify what to do under given circumstances, and insights into the interrelation between design, production, and operation of the built environment. In this section we introduce, first, the theoretical lens on what the chosen perspectives bring into the new solution, and second, the steps in the methodological approach. 2.1. Theoretical Lens 2.1.1. Project Uncertainty What counts as important for uncertainty assessment in a planning perspective is its predictability [7–9,42]. Predictable uncertainty (knowable-unknowns [9]), such as varia- tion in activity duration, is the most frequently studied source of uncertainty in project planning [31], anticipated and described statistically, and often handled by buffering around the critical path [43]. This approach, while widely used, may generate unneces- sarily long project timelines and may not prevent the propagation of uncertainty through the schedule [44]. A different source of uncertainty in ETO, building construction, and new product development projects is changes in project scope, design, and technical spec- ifications. The market characteristics, technological innovations, or regulatory interven- tions often dictate the occurrence of such changes, but with difficulties in predicting the exact type and size of a change [4,8,31,42]. Such ‘knowable unknown-unknowns’ [9] may lead to alteration in the project network itself, not only in the duration of predefined ac- tivities [7,31]. Hence, buffering has limited value, as we do not know where and how it is needed. The impact hierarchy of these types of uncertainties is quantified through small stochastic optimization problem instances in [8], pointing to uncertainty in design as most influential for planning ETO projects, dictating what flexibility to develop and where. A second aspect of importance for our uncertainty assessment is the distinction be- tween negative and positive sides of uncertainty, insufficiently exploited in project re- search and practice [2,16,20,21,42,45], overly focused on risks and with limited ability to capture opportunities [17]. Opportunities arising from changing market conditions usu- ally have a defined customer value and ‘market price’ for the change, primarily driving profit, as opposed to risks, primarily driving costs. What is important to understand is that the different objectives of risks and opportunities imply distinct solutions, with po- tentially distinct options, which are to be developed in early project phases. Once the op- tions are enabled, both situations turn into cost-focus to deal with emerging changes then- and-there, with least costs and disturbance. The exploitation of an opportunity requires, hence, significantly different approaches than simply scaling or buffering a baseline plan [7,46]. In project-based production, the net benefits of use are the results of subtracting whole life costs from whole life benefits [36]. In that framework, the fundamental meaning of a threat is the risk of reducing net benefits in use, which can occur either from increasing costs or reducing benefits. Opportunities offer possibilities to increase net benefits in use, which can occur either from reducing cost or increasing benefits. The knowledge needed Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 4 of 17 is centered on ways to reduce costs without reducing benefits, and to increase benefits without increasing cost beyond the target ratio. In conditions of uncertainty, what counts as net benefits in use to a client may change during the project, or events may occur that necessitate a change in the pathway to targeted net benefits in use. 2.1.2. Resilient Approaches to Project Uncertainty Resilient responses to project uncertainty date back to the 1940s [5], with increased consciousness to differentiate between risks and opportunities in [17,26], to borrowing from the agile [25] and operations strategy literature [18] in order to emphasize project delivery capabilities to provide competitive advantage by, e.g., exploring opportunities through customer-driven design changes. Our research falls, hence, within the scope of [18]. Managerial questions to answer when engaging with options for flexibility are how much, how to enable it through the project delivery, and how to measure it. On the first one, from option theory we know that higher uncertainty in the payoff implies higher levels of flexibility and higher value of flexibility [47]. On the other hand, lower levels of flexibility are shown to nearly capture the benefits of full flexibility [48], and high opera- tional uncertainty may reduce the value of options [49]. The second question has been mainly explored in operations strategy in the agile community as a whole, from design projects and job-shop scheduling [50], with the Toyota lean product and process develop- ment as one successful example [40,51] (which also motivated the lean construction envi- ronment to adapt lean from repetitive production), to portfolio management and assort- ment planning [52,53]. In project planning, valuations of planned flexibility are few and largely based on small examples [8,31]. The stochastic program in [7] helps with the un- derstanding of how design flexibility adds value to the project and how to decide for the ‘right’ level of flexibility. In that paper, the reported cost improvements are up to 35% as compared to reactive deterministic approaches. The stochastic programs in [7,8] are not for large applications (due to the complex uncertainty and dependency patterns involved [14]), but these works enable conceptual learning and understanding on the quantified value of planned flexibility and provide examples on how to operationalize design alter- natives in project planning. 2.1.3. Lean Project Delivery and Practitioner Experience Lean project delivery initially focused on a project-based production system to sup- port a new and better way to design and build capital facilities, with the Last Planner ® ® System (LPS ) at the core of its operations [33]. LPS —the first widely adopted approach for design and construction management since the critical path method—has justified its implementation by making significant improvements in cost, time, and quality [33,36,37,54–56]. It builds on the acknowledgement that well-designed processes are both technical and social [33,57], with social skills built on commitment and trust, and knowledge of who has the relevant competence and responsibility to perform an activity. This contributes to a decrease in uncertainty [58], facilitates sharing and combining re- sources, and facilitates high performing teams [1,59,60]. Further, it fosters a decentralized collaborative planning environment to exchange progress and to continuously resolve constraints, with decisions delegated to the lowest level in the planning hierarchy. That said, this process requires adapting to new information from the standpoint of progress made in the project, which may or may not cause a disturbance based on measures taken to prepare changes. LPS has not previously explicitly addressed objec- tives or pathways that may change during the project, nor options to flexibly handle these, apart from advising master plans to be kept at the milestone level between project phases, and planning in greater detail as the time for execution approaches [42]. On the other hand, the responsive and collaborative social capabilities of LPS , along with its wide adoption in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry, provides in- centives to explore planning flexibility within this framework. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 5 of 17 To strengthen our motivation to explore flexibility within lean project delivery, be- low we highlight practitioner experience on current and future-state master planning, documented through interviews with architects, master planners, project managers, and lean consultants from two categories [61]: “Traditionalists who perform their services in the old way (one described it as “... our process is very 1980’s”) and Innovators who are frustrated with the limitations of the old way and are working to improve master planning processes and outcomes”. The shortcomings of “old” approaches to project uncertainty (still used by most construction projects [62]), as seen from Innovators’ perspective, are related to, e.g., or- ganizational and contract issues that hinder integration across project phases and func- tions, the risks of the unpredictable, distrust, fixed-fee master plans, and master plans which pass knowable risks along the design and construction phase, unmitigated, where the impact is more damaging. The Innovators’ answers to these include a large list of es- tablished lean strategies (e.g., collaborative concept phase planning with focus on life-cy- cle optimizing the whole project and team learning), and new solutions such as adapting Last Planner to master planning as a process for not only scheduling work but also for identifying constraints and mitigating risks. Other innovative solutions juxtapose ap- proaches such as just-in-time decision making, rapid prototyping, and set-based planning to evaluate combinations of multiple alternatives. These solutions, while largely ad hoc and experience-based, provide additional support for claims earlier in this paper regard- ing gaps in literature with respect to managing project uncertainty. 2.2. Methodology We applied Design Science Research (DSR), “…fundamentally a problem solving para- digm” [63], with a research process that emphasizes learning through prototyping by build–evaluate learning loops, to gain understanding that is only achieved through cycles of design–construction [64], until the prototype serves the artifact’s intended purpose [63]. DSR is traced back to [65,66] and has been applied to different fields of management [67], such as information systems design [68], organizational development [69], operations re- search [70], operations management [71,72], and construction management [73]. One of the most important activities in DSR is evaluation of the performance of new solutions, with questions on what and why to evaluate, and when and how to evaluate. This connects to how well the artifact performs in relation to its scope, and it is tightly coupled with the artifact design itself. The DSR literature provides little guidance to which evaluation methods to use, why, and how to use them. The authors of [74] propose to distinguish between ex-ante vs. ex-post evaluations, or qualitative vs. quantitative. Ex- ante assessment is found appropriate under substantial uncertainty [74], as it is the re- search at hand. We followed the DSR model in [70], adapted from [75], with: Step 1, awareness of the problem and the theoretical lens (Section 2.1), with a summary of what the chosen per- spectives bring into the new solution in Table 1; Steps 2 and 3, the artifact design and its evaluation, a build–evaluate learning loop until the solution is customized (in terms of the appropriate level of flexibility) to provide expected competitive advantage (Section 3 and 4); Step 4, assessment of the solution in relation to what it adds to the knowledge base of managing project uncertainty [74] (Section 5). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 6 of 17 Table 1. What the chosen perspectives bring into the new solution for lean and flexible project delivery. Decisions under Uncertainty, Lean Construction Practitioner Experience Stochastic Optimization -Guidelines for flexibility assessment, -Collaborative integration of phases -Options for flexibility, -Lean strategies, such as collabora- and stakeholders, -Multi-stage decision process, tive concept phase planning and -LPS , -Minimal information needed for team learning, -PULL planning, decisions, -Just-in-time, -Last Responsible Moment (LRM), -The quantified value of proactive -Rapid prototyping, set-based plan- -Team learning, team responsive- vs. reactive planning, ning, ness, -The impact of design changes, -Continuous risk assessment and -Lean/set-based design, -The impact hierarchy of multiple uncertain- mitigation through the project, -Control is proactive and reactive. ties, -Adapting LPS to the entire project. -Control is proactive and reactive. 3. Results—Lean and Flexible Project Delivery: LPS with Options The main result of this research was the extended LPS with options to enable flexi- bility in lean project delivery, as described in this section. This answers the first research question. The development of the operational system proposed below is tightly inter- twined with the valuation of its intended utility, to increase the ability to quickly and cost effectively adapt changes. This is described in Section 4 and answers the second research question. At the heart of the lean philosophy is the lean ideal: to deliver ever more value with ever less waste. Increasing project flexibility is in the service of the lean ideal, so we are proposing to add to the lean tool kit. What we advocate here is a proactive-reactive operational system that combines the established lean principles of LPS with up-front practices to implement options for flex- ibility in master planning. Incorporating options raises, first, the question of how to set milestones to pursue objectives and implementation pathways that may change during the course of the project, and second, how to connect these to the established LPS opera- tional system. One important issue in this regard is to enable the co-existence of alterna- tives and condition their selection on the arrival of information. This is related to multi- stage thinking in decision theory, with stages defined by points in time when potentially useful information becomes available and when it is also feasible to update a decision. Feasibility is defined by the Last Responsible Moment (LRM) to make a decision, and the minimal information needed to make that decision. We applied pull planning to the first draft master plan in a backward fashion and embedded options at the milestone level in a forward fashion. Pull techniques, doing only that work which is needed and when it is needed, increases value generation in the pro- ject. We worked backward from a target completion date toward the milestones so that the completion of these milestones releases new ones in a backward direction. Uncertainty is assessed by the impact of potential disruptions in a system perspec- tive, without concern on probabilities, in the spirit of [76] with proposed adoption to ETO shipbuilding in [77]. The latter combines the Design Structure Matrix, used to analyze technical relations between design activities [78], and the SFI system of coding of ships [79], to map iteration, rework, and information exchange loops if disturbances occur. Combined with life-cycle costing, this approach helps to quantify the impact of disturb- ances, and removes the need to deal with probabilities where this is not possible or makes little sense, and enables the developing of buffers and flexibility strategies at the right places. For high-impact uncertainties (in terms of rework needed, but disregarding the prob- ability of occurrence), options for flexibility were embedded into the first draft pull plan. This is undertaken by staging the planning process with respect to information arrival for Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 7 of 17 the uncertainty at hand and feasibility assessment. Guidelines on where and what flexi- bility to develop from [7,8] were considered. This planning process requires coordination and interfacing with stakeholders, to continuously align information arrival and material flow with stakeholders’ and project delivery capabilities. The steps in the proposed system are listed below, with their interrelations presented by Figure 1: 1. Implement a collaborative approach to define project value with accepted time–cost– risk estimates; 2. Develop a first draft master plan by applying lean principles for pull planning in a backward fashion from a selected completion date; 3. Assess project uncertainty, by the impact of changes in a systems perspective, disre- garding the occurrence probability; 4. Manage uncertainty, by distinguishing between predictable and less predictable high-impact disruptions (where options may be needed); 5. Validate the project with the chosen level of flexibility, i.e., assess the value of the master plan with and without options, to prove with limited knowledge whether the project satisfies the goals from Step 1; adjust the goals or the plan (level of flexibility and/or buffers). Implement build–evaluate learning loops of Steps 1÷4, until the ac- cepted trade-off between costs and benefits of flexibility is achieved; 6. Apply the established LPS project control schedule (as described below) to progres- sively detail the alternative implementation pathways, to enable the selection of al- ternatives as execution approaches in time and relevant information is revealed. Lookahead planning aims to make scheduled tasks ready for implementation through constraint removal so that they can be performed when scheduled. In case of a potentially impactful change, lookahead planning necessarily involves alternative imple- mentation paths, as enabled in master planning. Commitment plans are formed by select- ing from activities ready for implementation, expressing what will be undertaken in the plan period. Plan failures are analyzed to develop countermeasures for preventing reoc- currence of failures. The LPS social practices facilitate team responsiveness so that smaller changes are effectively dealt with by the means at hand. The predominant metric in LPS , designed to measure and manage the health of the planning and control system, is the Percent Plan Complete (PPC) [80]—the share of com- pleted work from what is committed to be completed (i.e., PPC = did/will). Other metrics are Tasks Anticipated (TA) and Tasks Made Ready (TMR) [36]. With the extension of LPS to master planning with options, new metrics connected to the milestone variance and commitment levels are necessary and discussed in [81]. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 8 of 17 Figure 1. The extended LPS operational system with master planning with options. 4. Discussion—The Utility of the Proposed Operational System The intended utility of the proposed operational system is to increase the ability to quickly and cost effectively adapt changes. This is demonstrated by the value of flexibility enabled by the new approach, measured by the expected cost and time savings while de- livering customer change. The evaluation process enables the comparison of the utility of different solutions, without and with flexibility, before the decision is taken. The evalua- tion process is intertwined with the planning process in Section 5, through build–evaluate learning loops of different levels of flexibility, until the new solution is aligned with ac- cepted performance estimates. As such, the proposed operational solutions provide guidelines for project validation under limited (design) knowledge, an essential part of integrated project delivery in lean construction [82]. The evaluation process is described by, first, using experimental data from [7], and second, real case data from [61] to illustrate the potential gain by exploring opportunities through the proposed planning approach. The research is a proof of concept that requires true validation applied by practitioners. 4.1. The Evaluation Process and Project Validation under Limited Knowledge The utility evaluation process is developed through a small planning problem in ETO shipbuilding from [7,8], with practical interpretation in [8] “…re-outfitting existing ships with competing technologies, e.g., diesel electric or diesel electric-hybrid propulsion systems. Hy- brid technology provides high-efficiency alternative applications in some cases, by storing electrical energy in rechargeable batteries, but its compatibility with existing solutions on one-of-a-kind spe- cialized projects is an acknowledged challenge. It turns out that one solution alternative (e.g., fully customized or modular) is better, with shorter expected duration than others (i.e., negatively cor- related), although substitutable. This understanding only becomes available after collecting infor- mation, in our case after re-opening the ship, often far into the re-build process with a chosen solu- tion.” There, the problem is modeled and solved by stochastic dynamic optimization for different levels of uncertainties and different datasets built to reflect true challenges. For Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 9 of 17 the scope of our paper, we arbitrarily selected planning scenarios with optimal solutions from [7]. Consider master planning with uncertain engine design, with possible outcomes A or B. We assume that the subproject consists of activities piping (P) and electro (D), as PA, DA and PB, DB for designs A and B, respectively, and activity K which is independent of the design choice. Further, assume that the design-dependent activities can follow two implementation paths: (1) specialized for design A or B from the start (i.e., P0A, D0A and P0B, D0B); and (2) flexible, with first-stage activities P1 and D1 standardized over both designs, and second-stage activities customized to real customer preference, P2A, D2A and P2B, D2B, respectively. The planning horizon is 11 periods, with information about the preferred design available in Period 4. “Wrong” activities are undone, with durations equal to the corre- sponding activities, as follows: Activity P0A P0B P1 P2A P2B D0A D0B D1 D2A D2B K Dura- 4 3 3 2 1 3 4 3 1 2 2 tion Two resources are available per period for the unit cost 1.0, a third one can be ac- quired for 1.5, and a fourth one for 2.0. 4.1.1. The Evaluation Process The steps for project validation are illustrated by the flowchart on Figure 2. First, we evaluate the performance with full information, under the assumption of design A (Case 1). Second, that plan is updated to design B, which is what the customer prefers at Period 4 (Case 2). Third, the performance of a lean plan through pull planning is evaluated, with uncertain activities postponed until information on preferred design becomes available in Period 4 (Case 3). Fourth, we evaluate the performance of a proactive approach, where uncertainty is accepted and handled by a flexible strategy to enable adaptation to what- ever the preferred design turns out to be (Case 4). Finally, the performance (durations and costs) of the different cases is compared (Table 2), and structural differences between the planning approaches are discussed (with optimal plans shown by Figure 3 in Section 4.1.2). This ex-ante evaluation process is leading to informed decisions in terms of expec- tations in cost and time. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 10 of 17 Figure 2. The process of project validation under uncertainty. Table 2. Comparing different planning approaches to handle the uncertainty at hand. Planning Strategy Duration Costs Decision Maker Case 1–Fixed design (A) plan 5 9 Believes to end up with this performance, Case 2–Reactive approach but will end up with over 100% increase in 11 23.5 (Update Case 1 plan to design B) time and costs. Case 3–Lean approach 8 9 Postponement and buffering. Flexibility to adapt changes with least time and Case 4–Proactive approach with options 6 11 costs. 4.1.2. Evaluation of the Different Planning Approaches As shown in Table 2, the best possible result (with duration of 5 to a cost of 9) is achieved under (assumed) full information, with the corresponding plan in Figure 3a. This plan leads to substantial rework when the design is different from the assumed one (see Figure 3b), with over 100% increase in time and costs (duration of 11 to a cost of 23.5). With resources available for an extra cost, the overall duration can be reduced from 11 to 10 (still 100% increase as compared to the best possible) but to an even higher cost of 25. Further, in Case 3, postponement and reaction to real-time information (at Period 4) combined with buffering is applied, in the spirit of lean. The time before Period 4 is filled in with activity K that carries no uncertainty. The corresponding plan (Figure 3c) provides a completion time of 8 to a cost of 9, with a schedule buffer of 3 (sized to design B) as compared to the best possible plan under Case 1. This raises the question of how to size buffers. When the variation in activity duration is large, buffering may be counterproduc- tive, and may not even perform its goal. It may be too low, or too large, increasing costs and duration, without creating the ability to react to external factors. This is an important aspect of buffering. In Case 4, we attempt to do better by pursuing options for flexibility, i.e., postpone- ment and flexible two-stage designs. The corresponding plan (Figure 3d) gives a duration Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 11 of 17 of 6 to a cost of 11; about 20% increase as compared to the best possible performance under full information (Case 1), but far better than that of the reactive plan (Case 2), and also better than the lean approach (Case 3). What is more important is that the structure of the proactive and reactive plans differ substantially (the activities to be performed and their sequencing), in that the proactive one “prepares” to adapt real-time information. This is achieved by staging decisions based on information arrival, an essential aspect of planning with options. First-stage decisions are taken in light of uncertainty (standardized to fit both designs before Period 4), and second-stage decisions customized to real-time preferences. (a) Deterministic plan to assumed design A (b) Reactive approach, adapted to design B from plan (a) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 P0A P0A Undo P0A P0B D0A K D0A Undo D0A D0B (c) Lean approach (d ) Proactive approach with options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 P0B D1 D2B K D0B K P1 P2B Figure 3. The optimal plans under the four planning approaches: (a) Deterministic planned to as- sumed design A; (b) Reactive approach, adapted to design B from A; (c) Lean approach; (d) Proac- tive approach with options. 4.2. Utility Evaluation Using a Real Case We built on the Hospital Building Project in [61] to demonstrate the expected gain if flexibility was implemented into the applied lean project delivery solution. We do not replicate that case but provide a different way of analyzing the results, including decision trees. The case makes use of the true lean master plan developed by pull planning, as described by a lead practitioner involved in that process [61]: “We had enabling work in this project. We did pull planning, but it didn’t become a primary driver of the job. In XX hospital project we had to literally move a mountain (700,000CY of earth) before we could start construction. This was considered as an en- abling project so it gave the designers ample time to get the project developed so design would not impact our construction schedule. However, our schedule process was as fol- lows: We developed a Master Schedule or what we called a Validated Target Schedule (VTS) at the initial alignment meeting when YY conducted our offsite Business Case validation meeting. Next, we developed a Pull Schedule from the major milestones off the Master schedule with the major trade contractors. Then we refined the schedule as the design developed and conducted weekly work plans with the people or leaders of the teams that actually performed the work. We only tracked PPC, but we did our learning from our weekly analysis of our PPC and discussions stemming from that data at our weekly work plan meetings.” Options implemented into the pull plan are hypothesized, based on uncertainties that have, and could have, impacted the project (knowable unknown-unknowns). These are listed by lead practitioners, as follows: change in site location, change in dental equip- ment, change in surgery suite design, and change in pharmacy pick system design. For our scope, change in dental equipment (type and quantity of chairs) is chosen. This change is driven by uncertainty in demand for dental services in the hospital region and is ex- pected due to market (demography) uncertainty, although the exact type and size of Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 12 of 17 change is difficult to predict. This uncertainty is estimated to be revealed far into the Con- struction and Prefabrication phase, which takes 413 days, following the Team Selection and Alignment Process phase of 349 days, and the Design phase with 229 days. The last phase, Commission and Inspect, takes 88 days. We assumed two possible demand outcomes: stable (with an estimate of 10 dental chairs) and increase due to expected demographic changes (up to doubled demand, im- plying 20 dental chairs). This represents an opportunity. Following the planning process in Section 5, the option “Delay of the decision on the dental equipment type and quantity, until relevant demand information is obtained” was implemented into the lean master plan. This option carries the mutually dependent sub-options: (1) shell option, to prepare the foundation and floor plan to enable late installation of different types and numbers of chairs (increase space, specify easily removed flooring to install equipment support and others); (2) option contract for a commitment from suppliers to reserve capacity for dental equipment up to the increased demand level. The question to answer for a decision maker is: (i) should the project continue with the current estimate for dental equipment, which is 10, and accept unsatisfied demand in case of increase (deterministic lean approach), or (ii) should it react only if a change occurs, with an update that requires revising multiple project phases with collateral impacts (time, money, and project momentum) on surrounding construction (reactive lean ap- proach)? Or (iii) should the option be implemented into the project plan to enable timely and cost-efficient reaction to demand increase (proactive lean approach)? Under (assumed) known demand, all decisions are fixed early (call it D). However, when demand turns to be different, this approach is leading to iterations and rework loops in three out of four phases (Team Selection and Alignment, Design, and Construction. See [60] for details on the impacted activities and their cost-duration estimates). In the proac- tive approach, with an option implemented in the Team Selection and Alignment phase, rework loops are limited to the Design and Construction phases, and the decision process is staged: with first-stage decision D1 before learning the demand, developed to fit both demand scenarios, and second-stage decisions developed to fit the observed demand (de- Alt1 Alt2 note D2 for stable demand, and D2 for increased demand). Table 3 shows the impact of demand changes on project performance (costs and du- rations) for the three solutions: deterministic, reactive, and proactive, respectively. The results are given for the subproject of dental clinic design and for the entire project (the latter in parentheses). For calculations, we assumed that 33 days equal one unit of time, and USD 1 million equals one unit of cost. Observe that when demand is as expected, the deterministic solution outperforms the flexible one. However, this solution performs badly if demand turns out to be different from the expected one: We report over 300% increase in costs and time for the subproject, an increase in duration from 2.25 to 6.95, and increase in costs from 5.6 to 17.3. For the entire project, we note an 11.3% increase in project duration and 7.8% increase in total costs. Whether this is acceptable is subject to a collab- orative discussion across stakeholders. Under the proactive strategy, the subproject dura- tion is 2.9 and the cost 7.2, for both demand scenarios. This performance is somewhat lower than the best possible when everything is (assumed) known, but far better than that of the reactive plan. To answer the question of which decision to choose, we applied the stochastic deci- sion tree approach and calculated the value of flexibility—the difference between the ex- pected value of the project with and without options. This value was evaluated under two situations: (i) high belief in unchanged/stable demand (common assumption in practice), with probability 0.9; and (ii) equal belief in the two demand scenarios, with probability 0.5 (which practically means limited predictability, and the context of the paper at hand). Without additional information on the future demand, the latter is the correct assumption. The decision tree under high belief in stable demand is shown by Figure 4, with the rectangular nodes representing decisions and valuation nodes and the circular nodes rep- resenting chance (uncertainty) nodes. The decision process moves upward in the decision Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 13 of 17 tree. The performance measures are provided in the decision tree, for both the subproject and the entire project. The expected subproject costs with the option (7.2) minus the ex- pected costs without the option (6.77) suggest that the value of flexibility is negative (higher costs means negative value). This, in order, suggests that the fixed design solution, with all decisions taken early and reaction to a materialized change, should be chosen. This is not unexpected; options and flexibility are less valued under low levels of uncer- tainty. On the other hand, under high levels of uncertainty (i.e., equal belief in the two demand scenarios), the expected performance of the proactive strategy is substantially better than that of the reactive one (duration of 2.9 vs. 4.6; costs of 7.2 vs. 11.45). This situ- ation is not illustrated by a decision tree. The value of flexibility is positive, suggesting that the decision with options is to be preferred. Expectedly, options for flexibility are more valued under higher levels of uncertainty. Figure 4. Decision tree with high belief in stable demand (p = 0.9). Table 3. Comparing different planning approaches to handle the uncertainty at hand. Planning Demand Sat- Lost De- Duration Subproject Costs Subproject Solution isfied mand (Entire Project) (Entire Project) Deterministic 10 0 2.25 (20.8) 5.6 (75) Demand scenario 1 Proactive 10 0 2.9 (21.45) 7.2 (76.6) Deterministic 10 10 2.25 (20.8) 5.6 (75) Demand scenario 2 Reactive 20 0 6.95 (25.5) 17.3 (86.7) Proactive 20 0 2.9 (21.5) 7.2 (76.6) In summary, the proactive planning approach with options enables flexibility to achieve cost efficient and timely delivery of demand increase. Typically, reactive ap- proaches are costly in time and money, and they tend to hurt team chemistry and project momentum. Flexibility may be necessary to effectively switch to alternative solutions. However, options usually come with extra costs that may exceed the cost of doing noth- ing. Quantification is needed before the decision is taken. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 14 of 17 5. Contributions and Conclusions The main result and contribution is the proposed operational system, with options for flexibility implemented into master control schedules within the frame of lean project delivery, along with test results to evaluate the value of planned flexibility, as laid out in Sections 3 and 4. The solution enables the combinative capabilities of lean efficiency through waste reduction and flexibility to pursue objectives and implementation path- ways that may change during the course of the project. This section concludes with insights this research provides to managing complex dy- namically changing projects. (1) The insight the multidisciplinary DSR provides to the management of ETO and construction projects: It is stated that future project management research needs dynamic and agile approaches that are effective responses to real challenges, and that make aca- demic research more relevant to practice [33]. The research presented here demonstrates how to make model-based research more relevant to practice, and more relevant for pro- ject management processes associated with learning. Further, we demonstrated the agility and dynamic capabilities of DSR to develop new knowledge for the management of pro- ject uncertainty. These capabilities are achieved by learning loops of build–evaluate, until a customized planning solution to a particular field project is achieved (‘customized’ in the sense of the chosen level of flexibility, aligned with performance measures agreed upon in collaborative front-end phases). We know that higher levels of flexibility enable improved adaptability, but this comes with additional costs. We also know that lower levels of flexibility may nearly cap- ture the benefits of full flexibility [48]. However, what is the ‘right’ level of flexibility? An exact answer is difficult to obtain in complex projects. Model-based research has helped to improve understanding on what flexibility is appropriate in different circumstances, but these are difficult to apply in practice. What practitioners can do is to apply DSR to quickly build–evaluate different levels of flexibility before the decision is taken. The guidelines to follow in this process are provided in Section 3. The methods and tools to apply within these steps may vary according to the means available to a particular field project. For example, we propose uncertainty assessment by the impact of a change in system perspective, disregarding change probabilities [76], but other methods may be more appropriate in a given context. (2) The insight the proposed planning approach provides to the management of lean projects. We highlight three main aspects of the results: (i) Guidelines professionals can use to customize their lean construction practices to uncertain contexts, consisting of com- ponent processes for pull planning, uncertainty assessment by assessing the impact of changes disregarding their probabilities, and incorporating options into the project mile- stone schedule (described in Section 3). (ii) Guidelines to evaluate quantitatively whether the project with a chosen level of flexibility can be delivered within performance measures agreed upon (described in Section 4). This is also related to project and business case val- idation. (iii) Guidelines to explore the value of planned flexibility for capturing opportu- nities resulting from customer-driven changes (as shown by the case in Section 4.2). The practical relevance and external validity of this research is increased by the wide adoption of LPS in the AEC industry, and increasingly in ETO projects, such as ship- building, as a mechanism to implement lean construction. Limitations and future research direction: The research is a proof of concept of the proposed operational planning solution, to illustrate the potential gain from the proposed solution. Actual validation in practice—with iterations based on the practitioners’ reflec- tions regarding the usability and value of the approach—is not performed within the frame of this paper. This is planned for future research, as proposed in [83]. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 15 of 17 Author Contributions: The authors bring in their core scientific competencies and fields of research, and equally contributed to conceptualization, methodology, development, and validation. G.B. is the developer of the Last Planner System (LPS), and as a co-founder of both the International Group for Lean Construction and the Lean Construction Institute—USA, he brings in knowledge on im- plementing lean in project-based production systems. H.V. brings in research in operational risk management, decision making under uncertainty, and stochastic optimization approaches to inte- grating design and project planning in projects. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was partly funded by (1) the Lean Construction Institute (USA), grant for the LPS 2.0 initiative; (2) the Research Council of Norway, grant number 216418/O70. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: The authors thank anonymous reviewers for valuable comments. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Hansen, M.J.; Vaagen, H.; Van Oorschot, K. Team collective intelligence in dynamically complex projects—A shipbuilding case. Proj. Manag. J. 2020, 51, 633–655. 2. Böhle, F.; Heidling, E.; Schoper, Y. A new orientation to deal with uncertainty in projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1384–1392. 3. Korhonen, T.; Laine, T.; Martinsuo, M. Management control of project portfolio uncertainty: A managerial role perspective. Proj. Manag. J. 2014, 45, 21–37. 4. Emblemsvåg, J. Lean project planning in shipbuilding. J. Ship Prod. Des. 2014, 30, 79–88. 5. Lenfle, S.; Loch, C. Lost roots: How project management came to emphasize control over flexibility and novelty. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2010, 53, 32–55. 6. Lenfle, S. Toward a genealogy of project management: Sidewinder and the management of exploratory projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 921–931. 7. Vaagen, H.; Kaut, M.; Wallace, S.W. The impact of design uncertainty in engineer-to-order project planning. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 261, 1098–1109. 8. Kaut, M.; Vaagen, H.; Wallace, S.W. The combined impact of stochastic and correlated activity durations and design uncertainty on project plans. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 233, 108015. 9. Ramasesh, R.V.; Browning, T.R. A conceptual framework for tackling knowable unknown unknowns in project management. J. Oper. Manag. 2014, 32, 190–204. 10. Hällgren, M.; Maaninen-Olsson, E. Deviations, ambiguity and uncertainty in a project-intensive organization. Proj. Manag. J. 2005, 36, 17–26. 11. Petit, Y.; Hobbs, B. Project portfolios in dynamic environments: Sources of uncertainty and sensing mechanisms. Proj. Manag. J. 2010, 41, 46–58. 12. Padalkar, M.; Gopinath, S. Six decades of project management research: Thematic trends and future opportunities. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1305–1321. 13. Herroelen, W.; Leus, R. Project scheduling under uncertainty: Survey and research potentials. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2005, 165, 289– 14. Jørgensen, T.; Wallace, S.W. Improving project cost estimation by taking into account managerial flexibility. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2000, 127, 239–251. 15. King, A.J.; Wallace, S.W. Modeling with Stochastic Programming; Springer Science & Business Media: Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2012. 16. Jaafari, A. Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: Time for a fundamental shift. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2001, 19, 89–101. 17. Ward, S.; Chapman, C. How to Manage Project Opportunity and Risk: Why Uncertainty Management Can Be a Much Better Approach Than Risk Management; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. 18. Maylor, H.; Turner, N.; Murray-Webster, R. “It worked for manufacturing…!”: Operations strategy in project-based operations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 103–115. 19. Nichols, K. Getting engineering changes under control. J. Eng. Des. 1990, 1, 5–15. 20. Pich, M.T.; Loch, C.H.; Meyer, A.D. On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48, 1008–1023. 21. Atkinson, R.; Crawford, L.; Ward, S. Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 687–698. 22. Sutcliffe, W. Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 16 of 17 23. Servranckx, T.; Vanhoucke, M. A tabu search procedure for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem with alterna- tive subgraphs. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2019, 273, 841–860. 24. Huchzermeier, A.; Loch, C.H. Project management under risk: Using the real options approach to evaluate flexibility in R&D. Manag. Sci. 2001, 47, 85–101. 25. Wied, M.; Koch-Ørvad, N.; Welo, T.; Oehmen, J. Managing exploratory projects: A repertoire of approaches and their shared underpinnings. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2020, 38, 75–84. 26. Ward, S.; Chapman, C. Transforming project risk management into project uncertainty management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 97–105. 27. Wallace, S.W. Stochastic programming and the option of doing it differently. Ann. Oper. Res. 2010, 177, 3–8. 28. Braglia, M.; Dallasega, P.; Marrazzini, L. Overall Construction Productivity: A new lean metric to identify construction losses and analyse their causes in Engineer-to-Order construction supply chains. Prod. Plan. Control 2020, 1–18, doi:10.1080/09537287.2020.1837931. 29. Kujala, S.; Artto, K.; Aaltonen, P.; Turkulainen, V. Business models in project-based firms—Towards a typology of solution- specific business models. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 96–106. 30. Braglia, M.; Frosolini, M. An integrated approach to implement project management information systems within the extended enterprise. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 18–29. 31. Hazir, O.; Ulusoy, G. A classification and review of approaches and methods for modeling uncertainty in projects. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 223, 10752. 32. Tillmann, P.; Ballard, G.; Tzortzopolous, P.; Formoso, C. How Integrated Governance Contributes to Value Generation—In- sights from an IPD Case Study. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, San Diego, CA, USA, 18–20 July 2012. 33. Ballard, G. Lean Project Delivery System; Lean Construction Institute: Arlington, VA, USA, 2000. Available online: https://lean- construction.org (accessed on 26 August 2021). 34. Engebø, A.; Lædre, O.; Young, B.; Larssen, F.; Lohne, J.; Klakegg, O.J. Collaborative project delivery methods: A scoping review. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 278–303. 35. Svejvig, P.; Schlichter, B.R. The long road to benefits management: Toward an integrative management model. Proj. Manag. J. 2020, 51, 312–327. 36. Ballard, G.; Tommelein, I. Current Process Benchmark for the Last Planner (R) System of Project Planning and Control. 2021. Available online: p2sl.berkeley.edu/Benchmarks (accessed on 30 September 2021). 37. Al Sehaimi, A.O.; Fazenda, P.T.; Koskela, L. Improving construction management practice with the Last Planner System: A case study. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2014, 21, 51–64. 38. Solaimani, S.; Talab, A.H.; van der Rhee, B. An integrative view on Lean innovation management. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 105, 109– 39. Mesa, H.A.; Molenaar, K.R.; Alarcón, L.F. Comparative analysis between integrated project delivery and lean project delivery. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 395–409. 40. Ward, A.; Liker, J.K.; Cristiano, J.J.; Sobek, D.K. The second Toyota paradox: How delaying decisions can make better cars faster. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1995, 36, 43. 41. Voordijk, H. Construction management and economics: The epistemology of a multidisciplinary design science. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2009, 27, 713–720. 42. Ballard, G.; Vaagen, H. Project Flexibility and Lean Construction. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Interna- tional Group for Lean Construction, Heraklion, Greece, 9–12 July 2017. 43. Van de Vonder, S.; Demeulemeester, E.; Leus, R.; Herroelen, W. Proactive-reactive project scheduling-trade-offs and procedures. Int. Ser. Oper. Res. Manag. Sci. 2006, 92, 25. 44. Herroelen, W.; Leus, R.; Demeulemeester, E. Critical chain project scheduling—Do not oversimplify. Proj. Manag. J. 2002, 33, 46–60. 45. Vaagen, H.; Aas, B. A multidisciplinary framework for robust planning and decision-making in dynamically changing engi- neering construction projects. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems, Ajaccio, France, 20–24 September 2014; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. 46. Lechler, T.G.; Edington, B.H.; Gao, T. Challenging classic project management: Turning project uncertainties into business op- portunities. Proj. Manag. J. 2012, 43, 59–69. 47. Dixit, R.K.; Pindyck, R.S. Investment under Uncertainty; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2012. 48. Simchi-Levi, D. Operations Rules: Delivering Customer Value through Flexible Operations; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010. 49. Creemers, S.; De Reyck, B.; Leus, R. Project planning with alternative technologies in uncertain environments. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015, 242, 465–476. 50. Ibadov, N.; Kulejewski, J. Construction projects planning using network model with the fuzzy decision node. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 4347–4354. 51. Ward, A.C.; Sobek, D.K., II. Lean Product and Process Development; Lean Enterprise Institute: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014. 52. Vaagen, H.; Wallace, S.W. Product variety arising from hedging in the fashion supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 114, 431– 455. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 17 of 17 53. Vaagen, H.; Wallace, S.W.; Kaut, M. The value of numerical models in quick response assortment planning. Prod. Plan. Control 2011, 22, 221–236. 54. Gao, S.; Low, S.P. The Last Planner System in China’s construction industry—A SWOT analysis on implementation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 1260–1272. 55. Garza, J.M.; Leong, M.-W. Last Planner technique: A case study. In Proceedings of the Construction Congress VI: Building Together for a Better Tomorrow in an Increasingly Complex World, Orlando, FL, USA, 20–22 February 2000. 56. Tzortzopoulos, P.; Kagioglou, M.; Koskela, L. Lean Construction: Core Concepts and New Frontiers; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2020. 57. Ballard, G. The Lean Project Delivery System: An Update. Lean Constr. J. 2008, 1–19. 58. Cook, K. Trust in Society; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2001. 59. Priven, V.; Sacks, R. Social Network Development in Last Planner System™ Implementations. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil, 29 July–2 August 2013. 60. Priven, V.; Sacks, R. Effects of the last planner system on social networks among construction trade crews. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 04015006. 61. Ballard, G.; Vaagen, H.; Kay, B.; Stevens, B.; Pereira, M. Extending the Last Planner System to the Entire Project. Lean Constr. J. 2020, 42–77. 62. Korb, S.; Ballard, H.G. Believing is seeing: Paradigms as a focal point in the lean discourse. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Chennai, India, 18–20 July 2018. 63. Hevner, A.R.; March, S.T.; Park, J.; Ram, S. Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 75–105. 64. Kuechler, B.; Vaishnavi, V. On theory development in design science research: Anatomy of a research project. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2008, 17, 489–504. 65. Johnson, T.H.; Kaplan, R.S. Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1987. 66. Kasanen, E.; Lukka, K.; Siitonen, A. The constructive approach in management accounting research. J. Manag. Account. Res. 1993, 5, 243–264. 67. Aken, J.E.V. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded tech- nological rules. J. Manag. Stud. 2004, 41, 219–246. 68. Peffers, K.; Tuunanen, T.; Rothenberger, M.A.; Chatterjee, S. A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2007, 24, 45–77. 69. Trullen, J.; Bartunek, J.M. What a design approach offers to organization development. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2007, 43, 23–40. 70. Manson, N.J. Is operations research really research? Orion 2006, 22, 155–180. 71. Holmström, J.; Ketokivi, M.; Hameri, A.P. Bridging practice and theory: A design science approach. Decis. Sci. 2009, 40, 65–87. 72. Meredith, J.R.; Raturi, A.; Amoako-Gyampah, K.; Kaplan, B. Alternative research paradigms in operations. J. Oper. Manag. 1989, 8, 297–326. 73. Formoso, C.T.; da Rocha, C.G.; Tzortzopoulos-Fazenda, P.; Koskela, L.; Tezel, A. Design Science Research in Lean Construction: An analysis of Process and Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Con- struction, San Diego, CA, USA, 18–20 July 2012. 74. Venable, J.; Pries-Heje, J.; Baskerville, R. FEDS: A framework for evaluation in design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2016, 25, 77–89. 75. Takeda, H.; Veerkamp, P.; Yoshikawa, H. Modeling design process. AI Mag. 1990, 11, 37. 76. Simchi-Levi, D.; Schmidt, W.; Wei, Y.; Zhang, P.Y.; Combs, K.; Ge, Y.; Gusikhin, O.; Sanders, M.; Zhang, D. Identifying risks and mitigating disruptions in the automotive supply chain. Interfaces 2015, 45, 375–390. 77. Vaagen, H.; Masi, L.C IPD Methodology in Shipbuilding. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Advances in Pro- duction Management Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 546–553. 78. Browning, T.R. Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: A review and new directions. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2001, 48, 292–306. 79. Manchinu, A.; McConnell, F. The SFI coding and classification system for ship information. In Proceedings of the REAPS Technical Symposium; Shipping Research Services Inc: Alexandria, VA, USA, 1977. 80. Ballard, G.; Tommelein, I. Current process benchmark for the Last Planner System. Lean Constr. J. 2016, 89, 57–89. 81. Christian, D.; Pereira, M. THE NEW LPS 2.0 Metrics—What They Are, Why They Are Needed and Where They Are Used. Lean Constr. J. 2020, 119–140. 82. Grau, D.; Cruz-Rios, F.; Sherman, R. Project validation—A novel practice to improve value and project performance. In Pro- ceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Dublin, Ireland, 1–7 July 2019; pp. 63–72. 83. Nübel, K.; Bühler, M.M.; Jelinek, T. Federated Digital Platforms: Value Chain Integration for Sustainable Infrastructure Planning and Delivery. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8996. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Applied Sciences Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Lean and Flexible Project Delivery

Applied Sciences , Volume 11 (19) – Oct 6, 2021

Loading next page...
 
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/lean-and-flexible-project-delivery-ofgDrJpmZy

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright
© 1996-2021 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN
2076-3417
DOI
10.3390/app11199287
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Article 1, 2 Hajnalka Vaagen * and Glenn Ballard Department of Ocean Operations and Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU in Ålesund, Postboks 1517, NO-6025 Ålesund, Norway Project Production Systems Laboratory, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-1234, USA; gballard@berkeley.edu * Correspondence: hajnalka.vaagen@ntnu.no Abstract: The average cost and time overrun of frequent changes in ETO and construction projects is high, and with steadily increasing cost constraints, productivity increase is critical for future com- petitiveness. Successful lean implementations in project-based production systems have led to great reductions in waste and time to market. However, companies also often struggle with effective cus- tomization of lean principles to their changing contexts. This paper extends the scope of the opera- tional system of lean project delivery, initially focused on a project-based production system with the Last Planner System (LPS ) at core, to enhance master planning with options to flexibly handle changes. The research follows the guidelines of Design Science Research, combining the theory and practice of lean project management with results for project flexibility from quantitative models. The main contribution is the proposed operational system, along with the process to evaluate its intended utility, i.e., to increase the ability to quickly and cost effectively handle late changes. This enables the quantitative assessment of the value of planned flexibility in lean projects, before the decision is taken, and illustrates this value for capturing opportunities from customer-driven Citation: Vaagen, H.; Ballard, G. changes. Insights into the value of design research for the management of project uncertainty are emphasized. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287. https:// doi.org/10.3390/app11199287 Keywords: project uncertainty; engineer-to-order; lean project delivery; Last Planner System (LPS ); flexibility; design science research Academic Editor: Leonardo Marrazzini Received: 27 August 2021 1. Introduction Accepted: 28 September 2021 Published: 6 October 2021 Engineer-To-Order (ETO) and construction projects are subject to impactful uncer- tainties that are difficult to anticipate and quantify early [1–6], driven by, e.g., uncertainty Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- in the market and technological innovations, leading to changes in design, with subse- tral with regard to jurisdictional quent alterations in the activities and their sequencing [7]. In ETO shipbuilding, this can claims in published maps and institu- be everything from changes in scope outfitting (e.g., the engine type) to door and window tional affiliations. positions, also generating changes in piping and electro solutions [4,8]. While limited pre- dictability, the strategic intent (e.g., to capture opportunities from customer-driven design changes) suggests that changes will come to provide competitive advantage to that or- ganization at that time. The exact type of a change is difficult to estimate though. Such Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li- ‘knowable unknown-unknowns’ [9] are most often managed reactively [10,11], bringing censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. overreliance on determinism in project research [12], with important decisions and activ- This article is an open access article ities fixed early [13]. These are necessarily updated in light of new information [14], but distributed under the terms and con- often with large reaction costs [7,8,15], and without the ability to sufficiently exploit un- ditions of the Creative Commons At- certainty to improve project value [16,17]. tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea- tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). With increased understanding of the cost of neglecting project delivery capabilities to explore opportunities [18], the negative impacts of design disturbances [19] and infor- mation inadequacy [20], resilient approaches [21,22] and options for flexibility are increas- ingly sought after [20,23,24]. This is not new though. Between [5], on how project Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11199287 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 2 of 17 management transited from flexible approaches (e.g., the Manhattan project in the 1940s) to control-oriented phased approaches, to summarizing over resilient project delivery strategies in [25], we have Chapman and Ward [17,26], highlighting that conventional project research with focus on risks has limited ability to capture opportunities. Flexibility, i.e., the ability to change the direction of the project within defined time– cost frames, implies the existence of an operational strategy and a planning system that is responsive and handles information arrival and delayed decisions simultaneously [7,15,27]; i.e., a system with options. Otherwise, new information has limited value, as it would not exploit the threats and opportunities that lie in, e.g., allowing customers to make changes. Options for flexibility are to be paid early, while their value is not revealed before changes are materialized, often in the late execution phase [28], which is why flex- ible approaches are often countered with economic arguments [5]. This cost–value struc- ture of systems with options implies a change in the value creation locus, and the need for life-cycle approaches with a new logic of business models [16,29]. One integrated approach is found in [30], with a project management information system for integrated planning, scheduling, and communication, facilitating collaborative and immediate information sharing. While effective to quickly adapt new information, that is not a system where options for flexibility are explicitly implemented. In general, integrated life-cycle approaches to project delivery are few [3,21], and consequently, pre- dictive evaluations of the quantified impact of late changes are rare too [21], and option less valued. Further, the few papers that quantify the value of planning flexibility [8,31] are based on small examples that are difficult to be applied in practice. The learning from these models, on what flexibility and when to develop, has managerial value though. To transfer this learning into practice, lean construction with integrated and lean project de- livery at core [32,33], emerging from the shortcomings of phase-based approaches [2,11,34,35], is found appropriate. The lean philosophy adopted in these, combining for- mal and less formal processes, plays an important role in collaboratively organizing pro- jects to better handle disturbances and to foster innovation [36–38], disrupting the logic of the business models for how the construction industry delivers projects [39]. Further, flex- ible set-based design principles [40], as an essential element of lean construction, support generating multiple solutions to changing conditions. Moreover, a new lean metric is also proposed in [28], named the Overall Construction Productivity (OCP), to quantify the im- pact of identified losses in ETO production systems, and to guide the implementation of improvement actions. What is missing from this framework is an operational strategy and planning system with guidelines to flexibly implement alternatives to reduce disturbances and losses in late phases in lean project delivery, and to quantify the value of flexibility. The paper at hand fills this gap by addressing the following research questions: (1) How to incorporate options for flexibility into project master schedules within the lean project delivery? (2) How to ascertain what is the ‘right’ level of flexibility to appropriately address risks and opportunities, and how to measure its value? The novelty is driven by the new knowledge that the research enables by combining different and largely disconnected research fields, such as lean project management and guidelines for project planning flexibility from model-based research. The novel elements are: (1) extending the operational system of lean project delivery—the Last Planner Sys- tem (LPS )—to master planning with options, to enable ETO organizations to customize lean construction practices to their dynamically changing uncertain contexts; (2) predic- tive evaluations of the quantified impact of late changes and the value of flexibility in lean projects; which also enables (3) to more appropriately deal with opportunities resulting from customer-driven changes (an almost overlooked aspect in project research and prac- tice). The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the theoretical and methodo- logical approach, Section 3 describes the operational system for lean and flexible project Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 3 of 17 delivery, with valuation of planned flexibility and discussion by case tests in Section 4. Section 5 concludes by providing insights the proposed solution and methodological ap- proach add to the management of lean and uncertain projects. 2. Materials and Methods The aim of this research is to develop new knowledge that professionals can use to design good solutions for managing complex construction and ETO projects under uncer- tainty. Design Science Research (DSR) is found appropriate for this purpose, with contri- butions from different scientific disciplines, combining the theory and practice of lean project management with multi-stage thinking from decision theory and guidelines for flexibility in ETO projects developed by stochastic optimization, as well as bringing in practitioner experience. This supports [41] in that construction management research can be characterized as a multidisciplinary design science, with outputs from empiricism, nor- mative approaches that specify what to do under given circumstances, and insights into the interrelation between design, production, and operation of the built environment. In this section we introduce, first, the theoretical lens on what the chosen perspectives bring into the new solution, and second, the steps in the methodological approach. 2.1. Theoretical Lens 2.1.1. Project Uncertainty What counts as important for uncertainty assessment in a planning perspective is its predictability [7–9,42]. Predictable uncertainty (knowable-unknowns [9]), such as varia- tion in activity duration, is the most frequently studied source of uncertainty in project planning [31], anticipated and described statistically, and often handled by buffering around the critical path [43]. This approach, while widely used, may generate unneces- sarily long project timelines and may not prevent the propagation of uncertainty through the schedule [44]. A different source of uncertainty in ETO, building construction, and new product development projects is changes in project scope, design, and technical spec- ifications. The market characteristics, technological innovations, or regulatory interven- tions often dictate the occurrence of such changes, but with difficulties in predicting the exact type and size of a change [4,8,31,42]. Such ‘knowable unknown-unknowns’ [9] may lead to alteration in the project network itself, not only in the duration of predefined ac- tivities [7,31]. Hence, buffering has limited value, as we do not know where and how it is needed. The impact hierarchy of these types of uncertainties is quantified through small stochastic optimization problem instances in [8], pointing to uncertainty in design as most influential for planning ETO projects, dictating what flexibility to develop and where. A second aspect of importance for our uncertainty assessment is the distinction be- tween negative and positive sides of uncertainty, insufficiently exploited in project re- search and practice [2,16,20,21,42,45], overly focused on risks and with limited ability to capture opportunities [17]. Opportunities arising from changing market conditions usu- ally have a defined customer value and ‘market price’ for the change, primarily driving profit, as opposed to risks, primarily driving costs. What is important to understand is that the different objectives of risks and opportunities imply distinct solutions, with po- tentially distinct options, which are to be developed in early project phases. Once the op- tions are enabled, both situations turn into cost-focus to deal with emerging changes then- and-there, with least costs and disturbance. The exploitation of an opportunity requires, hence, significantly different approaches than simply scaling or buffering a baseline plan [7,46]. In project-based production, the net benefits of use are the results of subtracting whole life costs from whole life benefits [36]. In that framework, the fundamental meaning of a threat is the risk of reducing net benefits in use, which can occur either from increasing costs or reducing benefits. Opportunities offer possibilities to increase net benefits in use, which can occur either from reducing cost or increasing benefits. The knowledge needed Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 4 of 17 is centered on ways to reduce costs without reducing benefits, and to increase benefits without increasing cost beyond the target ratio. In conditions of uncertainty, what counts as net benefits in use to a client may change during the project, or events may occur that necessitate a change in the pathway to targeted net benefits in use. 2.1.2. Resilient Approaches to Project Uncertainty Resilient responses to project uncertainty date back to the 1940s [5], with increased consciousness to differentiate between risks and opportunities in [17,26], to borrowing from the agile [25] and operations strategy literature [18] in order to emphasize project delivery capabilities to provide competitive advantage by, e.g., exploring opportunities through customer-driven design changes. Our research falls, hence, within the scope of [18]. Managerial questions to answer when engaging with options for flexibility are how much, how to enable it through the project delivery, and how to measure it. On the first one, from option theory we know that higher uncertainty in the payoff implies higher levels of flexibility and higher value of flexibility [47]. On the other hand, lower levels of flexibility are shown to nearly capture the benefits of full flexibility [48], and high opera- tional uncertainty may reduce the value of options [49]. The second question has been mainly explored in operations strategy in the agile community as a whole, from design projects and job-shop scheduling [50], with the Toyota lean product and process develop- ment as one successful example [40,51] (which also motivated the lean construction envi- ronment to adapt lean from repetitive production), to portfolio management and assort- ment planning [52,53]. In project planning, valuations of planned flexibility are few and largely based on small examples [8,31]. The stochastic program in [7] helps with the un- derstanding of how design flexibility adds value to the project and how to decide for the ‘right’ level of flexibility. In that paper, the reported cost improvements are up to 35% as compared to reactive deterministic approaches. The stochastic programs in [7,8] are not for large applications (due to the complex uncertainty and dependency patterns involved [14]), but these works enable conceptual learning and understanding on the quantified value of planned flexibility and provide examples on how to operationalize design alter- natives in project planning. 2.1.3. Lean Project Delivery and Practitioner Experience Lean project delivery initially focused on a project-based production system to sup- port a new and better way to design and build capital facilities, with the Last Planner ® ® System (LPS ) at the core of its operations [33]. LPS —the first widely adopted approach for design and construction management since the critical path method—has justified its implementation by making significant improvements in cost, time, and quality [33,36,37,54–56]. It builds on the acknowledgement that well-designed processes are both technical and social [33,57], with social skills built on commitment and trust, and knowledge of who has the relevant competence and responsibility to perform an activity. This contributes to a decrease in uncertainty [58], facilitates sharing and combining re- sources, and facilitates high performing teams [1,59,60]. Further, it fosters a decentralized collaborative planning environment to exchange progress and to continuously resolve constraints, with decisions delegated to the lowest level in the planning hierarchy. That said, this process requires adapting to new information from the standpoint of progress made in the project, which may or may not cause a disturbance based on measures taken to prepare changes. LPS has not previously explicitly addressed objec- tives or pathways that may change during the project, nor options to flexibly handle these, apart from advising master plans to be kept at the milestone level between project phases, and planning in greater detail as the time for execution approaches [42]. On the other hand, the responsive and collaborative social capabilities of LPS , along with its wide adoption in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry, provides in- centives to explore planning flexibility within this framework. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 5 of 17 To strengthen our motivation to explore flexibility within lean project delivery, be- low we highlight practitioner experience on current and future-state master planning, documented through interviews with architects, master planners, project managers, and lean consultants from two categories [61]: “Traditionalists who perform their services in the old way (one described it as “... our process is very 1980’s”) and Innovators who are frustrated with the limitations of the old way and are working to improve master planning processes and outcomes”. The shortcomings of “old” approaches to project uncertainty (still used by most construction projects [62]), as seen from Innovators’ perspective, are related to, e.g., or- ganizational and contract issues that hinder integration across project phases and func- tions, the risks of the unpredictable, distrust, fixed-fee master plans, and master plans which pass knowable risks along the design and construction phase, unmitigated, where the impact is more damaging. The Innovators’ answers to these include a large list of es- tablished lean strategies (e.g., collaborative concept phase planning with focus on life-cy- cle optimizing the whole project and team learning), and new solutions such as adapting Last Planner to master planning as a process for not only scheduling work but also for identifying constraints and mitigating risks. Other innovative solutions juxtapose ap- proaches such as just-in-time decision making, rapid prototyping, and set-based planning to evaluate combinations of multiple alternatives. These solutions, while largely ad hoc and experience-based, provide additional support for claims earlier in this paper regard- ing gaps in literature with respect to managing project uncertainty. 2.2. Methodology We applied Design Science Research (DSR), “…fundamentally a problem solving para- digm” [63], with a research process that emphasizes learning through prototyping by build–evaluate learning loops, to gain understanding that is only achieved through cycles of design–construction [64], until the prototype serves the artifact’s intended purpose [63]. DSR is traced back to [65,66] and has been applied to different fields of management [67], such as information systems design [68], organizational development [69], operations re- search [70], operations management [71,72], and construction management [73]. One of the most important activities in DSR is evaluation of the performance of new solutions, with questions on what and why to evaluate, and when and how to evaluate. This connects to how well the artifact performs in relation to its scope, and it is tightly coupled with the artifact design itself. The DSR literature provides little guidance to which evaluation methods to use, why, and how to use them. The authors of [74] propose to distinguish between ex-ante vs. ex-post evaluations, or qualitative vs. quantitative. Ex- ante assessment is found appropriate under substantial uncertainty [74], as it is the re- search at hand. We followed the DSR model in [70], adapted from [75], with: Step 1, awareness of the problem and the theoretical lens (Section 2.1), with a summary of what the chosen per- spectives bring into the new solution in Table 1; Steps 2 and 3, the artifact design and its evaluation, a build–evaluate learning loop until the solution is customized (in terms of the appropriate level of flexibility) to provide expected competitive advantage (Section 3 and 4); Step 4, assessment of the solution in relation to what it adds to the knowledge base of managing project uncertainty [74] (Section 5). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 6 of 17 Table 1. What the chosen perspectives bring into the new solution for lean and flexible project delivery. Decisions under Uncertainty, Lean Construction Practitioner Experience Stochastic Optimization -Guidelines for flexibility assessment, -Collaborative integration of phases -Options for flexibility, -Lean strategies, such as collabora- and stakeholders, -Multi-stage decision process, tive concept phase planning and -LPS , -Minimal information needed for team learning, -PULL planning, decisions, -Just-in-time, -Last Responsible Moment (LRM), -The quantified value of proactive -Rapid prototyping, set-based plan- -Team learning, team responsive- vs. reactive planning, ning, ness, -The impact of design changes, -Continuous risk assessment and -Lean/set-based design, -The impact hierarchy of multiple uncertain- mitigation through the project, -Control is proactive and reactive. ties, -Adapting LPS to the entire project. -Control is proactive and reactive. 3. Results—Lean and Flexible Project Delivery: LPS with Options The main result of this research was the extended LPS with options to enable flexi- bility in lean project delivery, as described in this section. This answers the first research question. The development of the operational system proposed below is tightly inter- twined with the valuation of its intended utility, to increase the ability to quickly and cost effectively adapt changes. This is described in Section 4 and answers the second research question. At the heart of the lean philosophy is the lean ideal: to deliver ever more value with ever less waste. Increasing project flexibility is in the service of the lean ideal, so we are proposing to add to the lean tool kit. What we advocate here is a proactive-reactive operational system that combines the established lean principles of LPS with up-front practices to implement options for flex- ibility in master planning. Incorporating options raises, first, the question of how to set milestones to pursue objectives and implementation pathways that may change during the course of the project, and second, how to connect these to the established LPS opera- tional system. One important issue in this regard is to enable the co-existence of alterna- tives and condition their selection on the arrival of information. This is related to multi- stage thinking in decision theory, with stages defined by points in time when potentially useful information becomes available and when it is also feasible to update a decision. Feasibility is defined by the Last Responsible Moment (LRM) to make a decision, and the minimal information needed to make that decision. We applied pull planning to the first draft master plan in a backward fashion and embedded options at the milestone level in a forward fashion. Pull techniques, doing only that work which is needed and when it is needed, increases value generation in the pro- ject. We worked backward from a target completion date toward the milestones so that the completion of these milestones releases new ones in a backward direction. Uncertainty is assessed by the impact of potential disruptions in a system perspec- tive, without concern on probabilities, in the spirit of [76] with proposed adoption to ETO shipbuilding in [77]. The latter combines the Design Structure Matrix, used to analyze technical relations between design activities [78], and the SFI system of coding of ships [79], to map iteration, rework, and information exchange loops if disturbances occur. Combined with life-cycle costing, this approach helps to quantify the impact of disturb- ances, and removes the need to deal with probabilities where this is not possible or makes little sense, and enables the developing of buffers and flexibility strategies at the right places. For high-impact uncertainties (in terms of rework needed, but disregarding the prob- ability of occurrence), options for flexibility were embedded into the first draft pull plan. This is undertaken by staging the planning process with respect to information arrival for Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 7 of 17 the uncertainty at hand and feasibility assessment. Guidelines on where and what flexi- bility to develop from [7,8] were considered. This planning process requires coordination and interfacing with stakeholders, to continuously align information arrival and material flow with stakeholders’ and project delivery capabilities. The steps in the proposed system are listed below, with their interrelations presented by Figure 1: 1. Implement a collaborative approach to define project value with accepted time–cost– risk estimates; 2. Develop a first draft master plan by applying lean principles for pull planning in a backward fashion from a selected completion date; 3. Assess project uncertainty, by the impact of changes in a systems perspective, disre- garding the occurrence probability; 4. Manage uncertainty, by distinguishing between predictable and less predictable high-impact disruptions (where options may be needed); 5. Validate the project with the chosen level of flexibility, i.e., assess the value of the master plan with and without options, to prove with limited knowledge whether the project satisfies the goals from Step 1; adjust the goals or the plan (level of flexibility and/or buffers). Implement build–evaluate learning loops of Steps 1÷4, until the ac- cepted trade-off between costs and benefits of flexibility is achieved; 6. Apply the established LPS project control schedule (as described below) to progres- sively detail the alternative implementation pathways, to enable the selection of al- ternatives as execution approaches in time and relevant information is revealed. Lookahead planning aims to make scheduled tasks ready for implementation through constraint removal so that they can be performed when scheduled. In case of a potentially impactful change, lookahead planning necessarily involves alternative imple- mentation paths, as enabled in master planning. Commitment plans are formed by select- ing from activities ready for implementation, expressing what will be undertaken in the plan period. Plan failures are analyzed to develop countermeasures for preventing reoc- currence of failures. The LPS social practices facilitate team responsiveness so that smaller changes are effectively dealt with by the means at hand. The predominant metric in LPS , designed to measure and manage the health of the planning and control system, is the Percent Plan Complete (PPC) [80]—the share of com- pleted work from what is committed to be completed (i.e., PPC = did/will). Other metrics are Tasks Anticipated (TA) and Tasks Made Ready (TMR) [36]. With the extension of LPS to master planning with options, new metrics connected to the milestone variance and commitment levels are necessary and discussed in [81]. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 8 of 17 Figure 1. The extended LPS operational system with master planning with options. 4. Discussion—The Utility of the Proposed Operational System The intended utility of the proposed operational system is to increase the ability to quickly and cost effectively adapt changes. This is demonstrated by the value of flexibility enabled by the new approach, measured by the expected cost and time savings while de- livering customer change. The evaluation process enables the comparison of the utility of different solutions, without and with flexibility, before the decision is taken. The evalua- tion process is intertwined with the planning process in Section 5, through build–evaluate learning loops of different levels of flexibility, until the new solution is aligned with ac- cepted performance estimates. As such, the proposed operational solutions provide guidelines for project validation under limited (design) knowledge, an essential part of integrated project delivery in lean construction [82]. The evaluation process is described by, first, using experimental data from [7], and second, real case data from [61] to illustrate the potential gain by exploring opportunities through the proposed planning approach. The research is a proof of concept that requires true validation applied by practitioners. 4.1. The Evaluation Process and Project Validation under Limited Knowledge The utility evaluation process is developed through a small planning problem in ETO shipbuilding from [7,8], with practical interpretation in [8] “…re-outfitting existing ships with competing technologies, e.g., diesel electric or diesel electric-hybrid propulsion systems. Hy- brid technology provides high-efficiency alternative applications in some cases, by storing electrical energy in rechargeable batteries, but its compatibility with existing solutions on one-of-a-kind spe- cialized projects is an acknowledged challenge. It turns out that one solution alternative (e.g., fully customized or modular) is better, with shorter expected duration than others (i.e., negatively cor- related), although substitutable. This understanding only becomes available after collecting infor- mation, in our case after re-opening the ship, often far into the re-build process with a chosen solu- tion.” There, the problem is modeled and solved by stochastic dynamic optimization for different levels of uncertainties and different datasets built to reflect true challenges. For Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 9 of 17 the scope of our paper, we arbitrarily selected planning scenarios with optimal solutions from [7]. Consider master planning with uncertain engine design, with possible outcomes A or B. We assume that the subproject consists of activities piping (P) and electro (D), as PA, DA and PB, DB for designs A and B, respectively, and activity K which is independent of the design choice. Further, assume that the design-dependent activities can follow two implementation paths: (1) specialized for design A or B from the start (i.e., P0A, D0A and P0B, D0B); and (2) flexible, with first-stage activities P1 and D1 standardized over both designs, and second-stage activities customized to real customer preference, P2A, D2A and P2B, D2B, respectively. The planning horizon is 11 periods, with information about the preferred design available in Period 4. “Wrong” activities are undone, with durations equal to the corre- sponding activities, as follows: Activity P0A P0B P1 P2A P2B D0A D0B D1 D2A D2B K Dura- 4 3 3 2 1 3 4 3 1 2 2 tion Two resources are available per period for the unit cost 1.0, a third one can be ac- quired for 1.5, and a fourth one for 2.0. 4.1.1. The Evaluation Process The steps for project validation are illustrated by the flowchart on Figure 2. First, we evaluate the performance with full information, under the assumption of design A (Case 1). Second, that plan is updated to design B, which is what the customer prefers at Period 4 (Case 2). Third, the performance of a lean plan through pull planning is evaluated, with uncertain activities postponed until information on preferred design becomes available in Period 4 (Case 3). Fourth, we evaluate the performance of a proactive approach, where uncertainty is accepted and handled by a flexible strategy to enable adaptation to what- ever the preferred design turns out to be (Case 4). Finally, the performance (durations and costs) of the different cases is compared (Table 2), and structural differences between the planning approaches are discussed (with optimal plans shown by Figure 3 in Section 4.1.2). This ex-ante evaluation process is leading to informed decisions in terms of expec- tations in cost and time. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 10 of 17 Figure 2. The process of project validation under uncertainty. Table 2. Comparing different planning approaches to handle the uncertainty at hand. Planning Strategy Duration Costs Decision Maker Case 1–Fixed design (A) plan 5 9 Believes to end up with this performance, Case 2–Reactive approach but will end up with over 100% increase in 11 23.5 (Update Case 1 plan to design B) time and costs. Case 3–Lean approach 8 9 Postponement and buffering. Flexibility to adapt changes with least time and Case 4–Proactive approach with options 6 11 costs. 4.1.2. Evaluation of the Different Planning Approaches As shown in Table 2, the best possible result (with duration of 5 to a cost of 9) is achieved under (assumed) full information, with the corresponding plan in Figure 3a. This plan leads to substantial rework when the design is different from the assumed one (see Figure 3b), with over 100% increase in time and costs (duration of 11 to a cost of 23.5). With resources available for an extra cost, the overall duration can be reduced from 11 to 10 (still 100% increase as compared to the best possible) but to an even higher cost of 25. Further, in Case 3, postponement and reaction to real-time information (at Period 4) combined with buffering is applied, in the spirit of lean. The time before Period 4 is filled in with activity K that carries no uncertainty. The corresponding plan (Figure 3c) provides a completion time of 8 to a cost of 9, with a schedule buffer of 3 (sized to design B) as compared to the best possible plan under Case 1. This raises the question of how to size buffers. When the variation in activity duration is large, buffering may be counterproduc- tive, and may not even perform its goal. It may be too low, or too large, increasing costs and duration, without creating the ability to react to external factors. This is an important aspect of buffering. In Case 4, we attempt to do better by pursuing options for flexibility, i.e., postpone- ment and flexible two-stage designs. The corresponding plan (Figure 3d) gives a duration Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 11 of 17 of 6 to a cost of 11; about 20% increase as compared to the best possible performance under full information (Case 1), but far better than that of the reactive plan (Case 2), and also better than the lean approach (Case 3). What is more important is that the structure of the proactive and reactive plans differ substantially (the activities to be performed and their sequencing), in that the proactive one “prepares” to adapt real-time information. This is achieved by staging decisions based on information arrival, an essential aspect of planning with options. First-stage decisions are taken in light of uncertainty (standardized to fit both designs before Period 4), and second-stage decisions customized to real-time preferences. (a) Deterministic plan to assumed design A (b) Reactive approach, adapted to design B from plan (a) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 P0A P0A Undo P0A P0B D0A K D0A Undo D0A D0B (c) Lean approach (d ) Proactive approach with options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 P0B D1 D2B K D0B K P1 P2B Figure 3. The optimal plans under the four planning approaches: (a) Deterministic planned to as- sumed design A; (b) Reactive approach, adapted to design B from A; (c) Lean approach; (d) Proac- tive approach with options. 4.2. Utility Evaluation Using a Real Case We built on the Hospital Building Project in [61] to demonstrate the expected gain if flexibility was implemented into the applied lean project delivery solution. We do not replicate that case but provide a different way of analyzing the results, including decision trees. The case makes use of the true lean master plan developed by pull planning, as described by a lead practitioner involved in that process [61]: “We had enabling work in this project. We did pull planning, but it didn’t become a primary driver of the job. In XX hospital project we had to literally move a mountain (700,000CY of earth) before we could start construction. This was considered as an en- abling project so it gave the designers ample time to get the project developed so design would not impact our construction schedule. However, our schedule process was as fol- lows: We developed a Master Schedule or what we called a Validated Target Schedule (VTS) at the initial alignment meeting when YY conducted our offsite Business Case validation meeting. Next, we developed a Pull Schedule from the major milestones off the Master schedule with the major trade contractors. Then we refined the schedule as the design developed and conducted weekly work plans with the people or leaders of the teams that actually performed the work. We only tracked PPC, but we did our learning from our weekly analysis of our PPC and discussions stemming from that data at our weekly work plan meetings.” Options implemented into the pull plan are hypothesized, based on uncertainties that have, and could have, impacted the project (knowable unknown-unknowns). These are listed by lead practitioners, as follows: change in site location, change in dental equip- ment, change in surgery suite design, and change in pharmacy pick system design. For our scope, change in dental equipment (type and quantity of chairs) is chosen. This change is driven by uncertainty in demand for dental services in the hospital region and is ex- pected due to market (demography) uncertainty, although the exact type and size of Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 12 of 17 change is difficult to predict. This uncertainty is estimated to be revealed far into the Con- struction and Prefabrication phase, which takes 413 days, following the Team Selection and Alignment Process phase of 349 days, and the Design phase with 229 days. The last phase, Commission and Inspect, takes 88 days. We assumed two possible demand outcomes: stable (with an estimate of 10 dental chairs) and increase due to expected demographic changes (up to doubled demand, im- plying 20 dental chairs). This represents an opportunity. Following the planning process in Section 5, the option “Delay of the decision on the dental equipment type and quantity, until relevant demand information is obtained” was implemented into the lean master plan. This option carries the mutually dependent sub-options: (1) shell option, to prepare the foundation and floor plan to enable late installation of different types and numbers of chairs (increase space, specify easily removed flooring to install equipment support and others); (2) option contract for a commitment from suppliers to reserve capacity for dental equipment up to the increased demand level. The question to answer for a decision maker is: (i) should the project continue with the current estimate for dental equipment, which is 10, and accept unsatisfied demand in case of increase (deterministic lean approach), or (ii) should it react only if a change occurs, with an update that requires revising multiple project phases with collateral impacts (time, money, and project momentum) on surrounding construction (reactive lean ap- proach)? Or (iii) should the option be implemented into the project plan to enable timely and cost-efficient reaction to demand increase (proactive lean approach)? Under (assumed) known demand, all decisions are fixed early (call it D). However, when demand turns to be different, this approach is leading to iterations and rework loops in three out of four phases (Team Selection and Alignment, Design, and Construction. See [60] for details on the impacted activities and their cost-duration estimates). In the proac- tive approach, with an option implemented in the Team Selection and Alignment phase, rework loops are limited to the Design and Construction phases, and the decision process is staged: with first-stage decision D1 before learning the demand, developed to fit both demand scenarios, and second-stage decisions developed to fit the observed demand (de- Alt1 Alt2 note D2 for stable demand, and D2 for increased demand). Table 3 shows the impact of demand changes on project performance (costs and du- rations) for the three solutions: deterministic, reactive, and proactive, respectively. The results are given for the subproject of dental clinic design and for the entire project (the latter in parentheses). For calculations, we assumed that 33 days equal one unit of time, and USD 1 million equals one unit of cost. Observe that when demand is as expected, the deterministic solution outperforms the flexible one. However, this solution performs badly if demand turns out to be different from the expected one: We report over 300% increase in costs and time for the subproject, an increase in duration from 2.25 to 6.95, and increase in costs from 5.6 to 17.3. For the entire project, we note an 11.3% increase in project duration and 7.8% increase in total costs. Whether this is acceptable is subject to a collab- orative discussion across stakeholders. Under the proactive strategy, the subproject dura- tion is 2.9 and the cost 7.2, for both demand scenarios. This performance is somewhat lower than the best possible when everything is (assumed) known, but far better than that of the reactive plan. To answer the question of which decision to choose, we applied the stochastic deci- sion tree approach and calculated the value of flexibility—the difference between the ex- pected value of the project with and without options. This value was evaluated under two situations: (i) high belief in unchanged/stable demand (common assumption in practice), with probability 0.9; and (ii) equal belief in the two demand scenarios, with probability 0.5 (which practically means limited predictability, and the context of the paper at hand). Without additional information on the future demand, the latter is the correct assumption. The decision tree under high belief in stable demand is shown by Figure 4, with the rectangular nodes representing decisions and valuation nodes and the circular nodes rep- resenting chance (uncertainty) nodes. The decision process moves upward in the decision Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 13 of 17 tree. The performance measures are provided in the decision tree, for both the subproject and the entire project. The expected subproject costs with the option (7.2) minus the ex- pected costs without the option (6.77) suggest that the value of flexibility is negative (higher costs means negative value). This, in order, suggests that the fixed design solution, with all decisions taken early and reaction to a materialized change, should be chosen. This is not unexpected; options and flexibility are less valued under low levels of uncer- tainty. On the other hand, under high levels of uncertainty (i.e., equal belief in the two demand scenarios), the expected performance of the proactive strategy is substantially better than that of the reactive one (duration of 2.9 vs. 4.6; costs of 7.2 vs. 11.45). This situ- ation is not illustrated by a decision tree. The value of flexibility is positive, suggesting that the decision with options is to be preferred. Expectedly, options for flexibility are more valued under higher levels of uncertainty. Figure 4. Decision tree with high belief in stable demand (p = 0.9). Table 3. Comparing different planning approaches to handle the uncertainty at hand. Planning Demand Sat- Lost De- Duration Subproject Costs Subproject Solution isfied mand (Entire Project) (Entire Project) Deterministic 10 0 2.25 (20.8) 5.6 (75) Demand scenario 1 Proactive 10 0 2.9 (21.45) 7.2 (76.6) Deterministic 10 10 2.25 (20.8) 5.6 (75) Demand scenario 2 Reactive 20 0 6.95 (25.5) 17.3 (86.7) Proactive 20 0 2.9 (21.5) 7.2 (76.6) In summary, the proactive planning approach with options enables flexibility to achieve cost efficient and timely delivery of demand increase. Typically, reactive ap- proaches are costly in time and money, and they tend to hurt team chemistry and project momentum. Flexibility may be necessary to effectively switch to alternative solutions. However, options usually come with extra costs that may exceed the cost of doing noth- ing. Quantification is needed before the decision is taken. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 14 of 17 5. Contributions and Conclusions The main result and contribution is the proposed operational system, with options for flexibility implemented into master control schedules within the frame of lean project delivery, along with test results to evaluate the value of planned flexibility, as laid out in Sections 3 and 4. The solution enables the combinative capabilities of lean efficiency through waste reduction and flexibility to pursue objectives and implementation path- ways that may change during the course of the project. This section concludes with insights this research provides to managing complex dy- namically changing projects. (1) The insight the multidisciplinary DSR provides to the management of ETO and construction projects: It is stated that future project management research needs dynamic and agile approaches that are effective responses to real challenges, and that make aca- demic research more relevant to practice [33]. The research presented here demonstrates how to make model-based research more relevant to practice, and more relevant for pro- ject management processes associated with learning. Further, we demonstrated the agility and dynamic capabilities of DSR to develop new knowledge for the management of pro- ject uncertainty. These capabilities are achieved by learning loops of build–evaluate, until a customized planning solution to a particular field project is achieved (‘customized’ in the sense of the chosen level of flexibility, aligned with performance measures agreed upon in collaborative front-end phases). We know that higher levels of flexibility enable improved adaptability, but this comes with additional costs. We also know that lower levels of flexibility may nearly cap- ture the benefits of full flexibility [48]. However, what is the ‘right’ level of flexibility? An exact answer is difficult to obtain in complex projects. Model-based research has helped to improve understanding on what flexibility is appropriate in different circumstances, but these are difficult to apply in practice. What practitioners can do is to apply DSR to quickly build–evaluate different levels of flexibility before the decision is taken. The guidelines to follow in this process are provided in Section 3. The methods and tools to apply within these steps may vary according to the means available to a particular field project. For example, we propose uncertainty assessment by the impact of a change in system perspective, disregarding change probabilities [76], but other methods may be more appropriate in a given context. (2) The insight the proposed planning approach provides to the management of lean projects. We highlight three main aspects of the results: (i) Guidelines professionals can use to customize their lean construction practices to uncertain contexts, consisting of com- ponent processes for pull planning, uncertainty assessment by assessing the impact of changes disregarding their probabilities, and incorporating options into the project mile- stone schedule (described in Section 3). (ii) Guidelines to evaluate quantitatively whether the project with a chosen level of flexibility can be delivered within performance measures agreed upon (described in Section 4). This is also related to project and business case val- idation. (iii) Guidelines to explore the value of planned flexibility for capturing opportu- nities resulting from customer-driven changes (as shown by the case in Section 4.2). The practical relevance and external validity of this research is increased by the wide adoption of LPS in the AEC industry, and increasingly in ETO projects, such as ship- building, as a mechanism to implement lean construction. Limitations and future research direction: The research is a proof of concept of the proposed operational planning solution, to illustrate the potential gain from the proposed solution. Actual validation in practice—with iterations based on the practitioners’ reflec- tions regarding the usability and value of the approach—is not performed within the frame of this paper. This is planned for future research, as proposed in [83]. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 15 of 17 Author Contributions: The authors bring in their core scientific competencies and fields of research, and equally contributed to conceptualization, methodology, development, and validation. G.B. is the developer of the Last Planner System (LPS), and as a co-founder of both the International Group for Lean Construction and the Lean Construction Institute—USA, he brings in knowledge on im- plementing lean in project-based production systems. H.V. brings in research in operational risk management, decision making under uncertainty, and stochastic optimization approaches to inte- grating design and project planning in projects. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was partly funded by (1) the Lean Construction Institute (USA), grant for the LPS 2.0 initiative; (2) the Research Council of Norway, grant number 216418/O70. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: The authors thank anonymous reviewers for valuable comments. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Hansen, M.J.; Vaagen, H.; Van Oorschot, K. Team collective intelligence in dynamically complex projects—A shipbuilding case. Proj. Manag. J. 2020, 51, 633–655. 2. Böhle, F.; Heidling, E.; Schoper, Y. A new orientation to deal with uncertainty in projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1384–1392. 3. Korhonen, T.; Laine, T.; Martinsuo, M. Management control of project portfolio uncertainty: A managerial role perspective. Proj. Manag. J. 2014, 45, 21–37. 4. Emblemsvåg, J. Lean project planning in shipbuilding. J. Ship Prod. Des. 2014, 30, 79–88. 5. Lenfle, S.; Loch, C. Lost roots: How project management came to emphasize control over flexibility and novelty. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2010, 53, 32–55. 6. Lenfle, S. Toward a genealogy of project management: Sidewinder and the management of exploratory projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 921–931. 7. Vaagen, H.; Kaut, M.; Wallace, S.W. The impact of design uncertainty in engineer-to-order project planning. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 261, 1098–1109. 8. Kaut, M.; Vaagen, H.; Wallace, S.W. The combined impact of stochastic and correlated activity durations and design uncertainty on project plans. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 233, 108015. 9. Ramasesh, R.V.; Browning, T.R. A conceptual framework for tackling knowable unknown unknowns in project management. J. Oper. Manag. 2014, 32, 190–204. 10. Hällgren, M.; Maaninen-Olsson, E. Deviations, ambiguity and uncertainty in a project-intensive organization. Proj. Manag. J. 2005, 36, 17–26. 11. Petit, Y.; Hobbs, B. Project portfolios in dynamic environments: Sources of uncertainty and sensing mechanisms. Proj. Manag. J. 2010, 41, 46–58. 12. Padalkar, M.; Gopinath, S. Six decades of project management research: Thematic trends and future opportunities. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1305–1321. 13. Herroelen, W.; Leus, R. Project scheduling under uncertainty: Survey and research potentials. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2005, 165, 289– 14. Jørgensen, T.; Wallace, S.W. Improving project cost estimation by taking into account managerial flexibility. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2000, 127, 239–251. 15. King, A.J.; Wallace, S.W. Modeling with Stochastic Programming; Springer Science & Business Media: Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2012. 16. Jaafari, A. Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: Time for a fundamental shift. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2001, 19, 89–101. 17. Ward, S.; Chapman, C. How to Manage Project Opportunity and Risk: Why Uncertainty Management Can Be a Much Better Approach Than Risk Management; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. 18. Maylor, H.; Turner, N.; Murray-Webster, R. “It worked for manufacturing…!”: Operations strategy in project-based operations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 103–115. 19. Nichols, K. Getting engineering changes under control. J. Eng. Des. 1990, 1, 5–15. 20. Pich, M.T.; Loch, C.H.; Meyer, A.D. On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48, 1008–1023. 21. Atkinson, R.; Crawford, L.; Ward, S. Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 687–698. 22. Sutcliffe, W. Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 16 of 17 23. Servranckx, T.; Vanhoucke, M. A tabu search procedure for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem with alterna- tive subgraphs. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2019, 273, 841–860. 24. Huchzermeier, A.; Loch, C.H. Project management under risk: Using the real options approach to evaluate flexibility in R&D. Manag. Sci. 2001, 47, 85–101. 25. Wied, M.; Koch-Ørvad, N.; Welo, T.; Oehmen, J. Managing exploratory projects: A repertoire of approaches and their shared underpinnings. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2020, 38, 75–84. 26. Ward, S.; Chapman, C. Transforming project risk management into project uncertainty management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 97–105. 27. Wallace, S.W. Stochastic programming and the option of doing it differently. Ann. Oper. Res. 2010, 177, 3–8. 28. Braglia, M.; Dallasega, P.; Marrazzini, L. Overall Construction Productivity: A new lean metric to identify construction losses and analyse their causes in Engineer-to-Order construction supply chains. Prod. Plan. Control 2020, 1–18, doi:10.1080/09537287.2020.1837931. 29. Kujala, S.; Artto, K.; Aaltonen, P.; Turkulainen, V. Business models in project-based firms—Towards a typology of solution- specific business models. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 96–106. 30. Braglia, M.; Frosolini, M. An integrated approach to implement project management information systems within the extended enterprise. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 18–29. 31. Hazir, O.; Ulusoy, G. A classification and review of approaches and methods for modeling uncertainty in projects. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 223, 10752. 32. Tillmann, P.; Ballard, G.; Tzortzopolous, P.; Formoso, C. How Integrated Governance Contributes to Value Generation—In- sights from an IPD Case Study. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, San Diego, CA, USA, 18–20 July 2012. 33. Ballard, G. Lean Project Delivery System; Lean Construction Institute: Arlington, VA, USA, 2000. Available online: https://lean- construction.org (accessed on 26 August 2021). 34. Engebø, A.; Lædre, O.; Young, B.; Larssen, F.; Lohne, J.; Klakegg, O.J. Collaborative project delivery methods: A scoping review. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 278–303. 35. Svejvig, P.; Schlichter, B.R. The long road to benefits management: Toward an integrative management model. Proj. Manag. J. 2020, 51, 312–327. 36. Ballard, G.; Tommelein, I. Current Process Benchmark for the Last Planner (R) System of Project Planning and Control. 2021. Available online: p2sl.berkeley.edu/Benchmarks (accessed on 30 September 2021). 37. Al Sehaimi, A.O.; Fazenda, P.T.; Koskela, L. Improving construction management practice with the Last Planner System: A case study. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2014, 21, 51–64. 38. Solaimani, S.; Talab, A.H.; van der Rhee, B. An integrative view on Lean innovation management. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 105, 109– 39. Mesa, H.A.; Molenaar, K.R.; Alarcón, L.F. Comparative analysis between integrated project delivery and lean project delivery. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 395–409. 40. Ward, A.; Liker, J.K.; Cristiano, J.J.; Sobek, D.K. The second Toyota paradox: How delaying decisions can make better cars faster. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1995, 36, 43. 41. Voordijk, H. Construction management and economics: The epistemology of a multidisciplinary design science. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2009, 27, 713–720. 42. Ballard, G.; Vaagen, H. Project Flexibility and Lean Construction. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Interna- tional Group for Lean Construction, Heraklion, Greece, 9–12 July 2017. 43. Van de Vonder, S.; Demeulemeester, E.; Leus, R.; Herroelen, W. Proactive-reactive project scheduling-trade-offs and procedures. Int. Ser. Oper. Res. Manag. Sci. 2006, 92, 25. 44. Herroelen, W.; Leus, R.; Demeulemeester, E. Critical chain project scheduling—Do not oversimplify. Proj. Manag. J. 2002, 33, 46–60. 45. Vaagen, H.; Aas, B. A multidisciplinary framework for robust planning and decision-making in dynamically changing engi- neering construction projects. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems, Ajaccio, France, 20–24 September 2014; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. 46. Lechler, T.G.; Edington, B.H.; Gao, T. Challenging classic project management: Turning project uncertainties into business op- portunities. Proj. Manag. J. 2012, 43, 59–69. 47. Dixit, R.K.; Pindyck, R.S. Investment under Uncertainty; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2012. 48. Simchi-Levi, D. Operations Rules: Delivering Customer Value through Flexible Operations; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010. 49. Creemers, S.; De Reyck, B.; Leus, R. Project planning with alternative technologies in uncertain environments. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015, 242, 465–476. 50. Ibadov, N.; Kulejewski, J. Construction projects planning using network model with the fuzzy decision node. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 4347–4354. 51. Ward, A.C.; Sobek, D.K., II. Lean Product and Process Development; Lean Enterprise Institute: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014. 52. Vaagen, H.; Wallace, S.W. Product variety arising from hedging in the fashion supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 114, 431– 455. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9287 17 of 17 53. Vaagen, H.; Wallace, S.W.; Kaut, M. The value of numerical models in quick response assortment planning. Prod. Plan. Control 2011, 22, 221–236. 54. Gao, S.; Low, S.P. The Last Planner System in China’s construction industry—A SWOT analysis on implementation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 1260–1272. 55. Garza, J.M.; Leong, M.-W. Last Planner technique: A case study. In Proceedings of the Construction Congress VI: Building Together for a Better Tomorrow in an Increasingly Complex World, Orlando, FL, USA, 20–22 February 2000. 56. Tzortzopoulos, P.; Kagioglou, M.; Koskela, L. Lean Construction: Core Concepts and New Frontiers; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2020. 57. Ballard, G. The Lean Project Delivery System: An Update. Lean Constr. J. 2008, 1–19. 58. Cook, K. Trust in Society; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2001. 59. Priven, V.; Sacks, R. Social Network Development in Last Planner System™ Implementations. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil, 29 July–2 August 2013. 60. Priven, V.; Sacks, R. Effects of the last planner system on social networks among construction trade crews. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 04015006. 61. Ballard, G.; Vaagen, H.; Kay, B.; Stevens, B.; Pereira, M. Extending the Last Planner System to the Entire Project. Lean Constr. J. 2020, 42–77. 62. Korb, S.; Ballard, H.G. Believing is seeing: Paradigms as a focal point in the lean discourse. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Chennai, India, 18–20 July 2018. 63. Hevner, A.R.; March, S.T.; Park, J.; Ram, S. Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 75–105. 64. Kuechler, B.; Vaishnavi, V. On theory development in design science research: Anatomy of a research project. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2008, 17, 489–504. 65. Johnson, T.H.; Kaplan, R.S. Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1987. 66. Kasanen, E.; Lukka, K.; Siitonen, A. The constructive approach in management accounting research. J. Manag. Account. Res. 1993, 5, 243–264. 67. Aken, J.E.V. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded tech- nological rules. J. Manag. Stud. 2004, 41, 219–246. 68. Peffers, K.; Tuunanen, T.; Rothenberger, M.A.; Chatterjee, S. A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2007, 24, 45–77. 69. Trullen, J.; Bartunek, J.M. What a design approach offers to organization development. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2007, 43, 23–40. 70. Manson, N.J. Is operations research really research? Orion 2006, 22, 155–180. 71. Holmström, J.; Ketokivi, M.; Hameri, A.P. Bridging practice and theory: A design science approach. Decis. Sci. 2009, 40, 65–87. 72. Meredith, J.R.; Raturi, A.; Amoako-Gyampah, K.; Kaplan, B. Alternative research paradigms in operations. J. Oper. Manag. 1989, 8, 297–326. 73. Formoso, C.T.; da Rocha, C.G.; Tzortzopoulos-Fazenda, P.; Koskela, L.; Tezel, A. Design Science Research in Lean Construction: An analysis of Process and Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Con- struction, San Diego, CA, USA, 18–20 July 2012. 74. Venable, J.; Pries-Heje, J.; Baskerville, R. FEDS: A framework for evaluation in design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2016, 25, 77–89. 75. Takeda, H.; Veerkamp, P.; Yoshikawa, H. Modeling design process. AI Mag. 1990, 11, 37. 76. Simchi-Levi, D.; Schmidt, W.; Wei, Y.; Zhang, P.Y.; Combs, K.; Ge, Y.; Gusikhin, O.; Sanders, M.; Zhang, D. Identifying risks and mitigating disruptions in the automotive supply chain. Interfaces 2015, 45, 375–390. 77. Vaagen, H.; Masi, L.C IPD Methodology in Shipbuilding. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Advances in Pro- duction Management Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 546–553. 78. Browning, T.R. Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: A review and new directions. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2001, 48, 292–306. 79. Manchinu, A.; McConnell, F. The SFI coding and classification system for ship information. In Proceedings of the REAPS Technical Symposium; Shipping Research Services Inc: Alexandria, VA, USA, 1977. 80. Ballard, G.; Tommelein, I. Current process benchmark for the Last Planner System. Lean Constr. J. 2016, 89, 57–89. 81. Christian, D.; Pereira, M. THE NEW LPS 2.0 Metrics—What They Are, Why They Are Needed and Where They Are Used. Lean Constr. J. 2020, 119–140. 82. Grau, D.; Cruz-Rios, F.; Sherman, R. Project validation—A novel practice to improve value and project performance. In Pro- ceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Dublin, Ireland, 1–7 July 2019; pp. 63–72. 83. Nübel, K.; Bühler, M.M.; Jelinek, T. Federated Digital Platforms: Value Chain Integration for Sustainable Infrastructure Planning and Delivery. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8996.

Journal

Applied SciencesMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Oct 6, 2021

Keywords: project uncertainty; engineer-to-order; lean project delivery; Last Planner System (LPS®); flexibility; design science research

There are no references for this article.