Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MANUFACTURING PRINCIPLES TO
CONSTRUCTION
by
James E. Diekmann, Mark Krewedl, Joshua Balonick,
Travis Stewart, and Spencer Won
A Report to
The Construction Industry Institute
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas
July 2004
Executive Summary
Over the past three decades, the US construction industry has seen a decline in both its share of
the gross national product and its annual productivity growth rate. The quality of construction
has faltered during this period as well. In contrast, the US manufacturing industry has made
significant progress in increasing productivity and product quality while lowering product lead
times. Manufacturing has essentially made the transition from second class to world class.
The improvements in manufacturing processes have included reducing the amount of human
effort, space and inventory required in the factory and increasing the quality and variety of
products and the flexibility of manufacturing operations. The application of lean production
principles to manufacturing processes has been instrumental in achieving these results. Lean
principles were developed in postWorld War II Japan at the Toyota Motor Company. These
principles evolved from geographic and economic constraints, from top-down, management-led
innovation and from bottom-up pragmatic problem solving. They became collectively known as
the Toyota Production System (Womack et al. 1990).
The principles of lean theory are conceptualized at the process, project and enterprise or
organization levels. Various principles, methods and tools can be applied at each level, so that
lean production becomes an inclusive philosophy aimed at continuously improving the entire
production organization as well as the physical production process.
If manufacturing can make such vast improvements in quality and productivity, while reducing
costs and lead times, why not construction? This report identifies the core principles of lean
production, compares and contrasts the manufacturing and construction industries, and identifies
the potential for implementing lean principles in the construction industry.
The research team started with the following definition of lean construction:
Lean construction is the continuous process of eliminating waste, meeting or
exceeding all customer requirements, focusing on the entire value stream and
pursuing perfection in the execution of a constructed project.
This definition includes many fundamental aspects of a lean philosophy. It is a philosophy that
requires a continuous improvement effort that is focused on a value stream defined in terms of the
needs of the customer. Improvement is, in part, accomplished by eliminating waste in the
process.
Lean philosophy, broadly defined, can apply to design, procurement and production functions.
To help define and direct research efforts and to present an elemental contribution to
understanding lean principles in construction, the scope of this report was limited primarily to
construction field operations. Although the focus of the inquiry was field operations, researchers
were sensitive to the effects of policy and actions that occur at the enterprise, project and process
levels. Two considerations led the research team to focus primary attention on construction field
operations. First, field operations are where most of the value is added from the customers point
of view. Cognizance of customer value is central to a lean philosophy. Second, other researchers
have studied value streams and other aspects of lean philosophy.
iii
These questions were investigated using a multifaceted approach. First, lean literature was
examined from manufacturing, construction and other industries such as shipbuilding, aerospace,
and software engineering. Second, advice from lean manufacturing pioneers was used, and the
construction production value stream was studied. Next, contractors (both lean and non-lean)
were surveyed to learn about lean practices that are currently employed in the construction
industry.
Using all of this information, a set of lean principles was developed that is appropriate for
construction. In general, it can be concluded that construction owners and contractors would
significantly benefit from the adoption of lean principles and behaviors. The value added portion
of the typical field construction value stream is exceedingly small, comprising approximately
10 percent of all crew level activities. It was determined that lean behavior among construction
contractors is rare, even with contractors who are actively pursuing the lean ideal, because being
truly lean requires changes to every aspect and level of a company. Additionally, becoming a
lean contractor is difficult in part because of the dynamic nature of construction, but mostly
because construction contractors control such a small portion of the construction value stream.
For those wishing to start the lean journey in their company, a lean workplace can be created
using the following steps:
Continuously improve.
iv
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1
Are Lean Manufacturing Principles Useful in Construction? ............................... 1
1.2
History of Lean Production ................................................................................... 1
1.3
The Diffusion of Lean Ideas.................................................................................. 5
1.4
Research Questions ............................................................................................... 5
1.5
Organization of Report.......................................................................................... 7
2.0
3.0
4.0
Research Methodology..................................................................................................... 34
4.1
Restatement of Research Questions .................................................................... 34
4.2
Developing Lean Principles for Construction ..................................................... 34
4.2.1
Goals.....................................................................................................34
4.2.2
Approach ..............................................................................................34
4.3
Measuring Lean Conformance ............................................................................ 35
4.3.1
Goals.....................................................................................................35
4.3.2
Approach ..............................................................................................35
4.4
Value Stream Mapping........................................................................................ 38
4.5
Bringing It Together............................................................................................ 39
5.0
vi
Contents (Continued)
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
vii
Contents (Continued)
7.0
8.0
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
viii
List of Tables
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 5.1
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Table 6.7
Table 6.8
Table 6.9
Table 6.10
Table 6.11
Table 6.12
Table 6.13
Table 6.14
Table 6.15
Table 6.16
Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
List of Figures
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.6
Figure 2.7
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 5.1
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.5
Figure 6.6
Figure 6.7
Figure 6.8
Figure 6.9
Figure 6.10
Figure 6.11
xii
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Are Lean Manufacturing Principles Useful in Construction?
Over the past three decades, the US construction industry has seen a decline in both its share of
the gross national product and its annual productivity growth rate. The quality of construction
has faltered during this period as well, with studies showing the cost of construction
nonconformance reaching as high as 12 percent of total project costs (Koskela 1992). In contrast,
the US manufacturing industry has made significant progress in increasing productivity and
product quality while lowering product lead times:
How have manufacturing organizations achieved the following results?
1996). At the time, limited supply of raw materials and inadequate space for inventory in Japan
fostered an atmosphere in which concepts such as just-in-time (JIT) and zero inventories became
necessary. During the spring of 1950, Eiji Toyoda visited American manufacturers, namely
Fords Rouge Plant in Detroit, to study mass production and perhaps look for ways to improve
the countrys own rebuilding industry (Womack et al. 1990). This was the second visit to study
US manufacturing practices made by the Toyoda family; the first was made by Kiichiro in 1929.
What Eiji Toyoda found was a system rampant with muda, a Japanese term that encompasses
waste (Womack 1996). He noted that only the worker on the assembly line was adding value to
the process. Another striking feature was the emphasis placed by their American counterparts on
continually running the production line. This common practice was thought to be justified by the
expense of purchasing such equipment. To the Japanese, this practice appeared to compound and
multiply errors, a mistake the Japanese could not afford to make.
Japans labor productivity at the time was one ninth that of the United States, and it became
obvious to Toyota that it could not compete with the United States by depending on economies of
scale to produce massive volumes for a small market that did not have the same type of demand
(Ohno 1988; Shingo 1981; Hopp 1996). Toyota then made the strategic decision to focus its
manufacturing efforts not on massive volumes of a product but, rather, on many different
products in smaller volumes. In his numerous experiments focused on reducing machine setup
times, Ohno, Toyotas chief production engineer, noted that the cost of producing smaller batches
of parts was less than that of producing larger quantities as practiced in the United States. This
was true because making small lot sizes greatly reduced the carrying costs required for huge
inventories, and the cost of rework was reduced because defects showed up instantly in smaller
batches (Womack et al. 1990). Ohno also managed to reduce the amount of time required for
machine setup from an entire day to three minutes, a task that enabled Toyota to increase the
flexibility of its production lines as well as reduce production times. The concept of JIT was
developed to complement this new production philosophy undertaken at Toyota. The model for
JIT was the American supermarket, a relatively new idea to the Japanese in the 1950s (Hopp
1996). The American supermarket provided customers with what they needed, when they needed
it and in the right amount needed. JIT further evolved to include concepts found to be crucial to
the effective operation of the JIT system and that would later become goals of the system. These
concepts are referred to as the seven zeros: zero defects, zero lot size, zero setups, zero
breakdowns, zero handling, zero lead time and zero surging (Hopp 1996).
The contributions of quality pioneer W. Edwards Deming to postWorld War II Japan altered the
way Japanese manufacturers viewed quality. Demings Total Quality Management (TQM)
system permeated throughout organizations to create a quality culture, where quality became the
primary goal of producers. After World War II, quality had taken a back seat to production, and
it was reasoned that intensive inspection at the end of the process would be adequate. With its
focus on the entire organization, TQM addressed issues that were relatively new to the
manufacturing industry at that time, such as employee empowerment, continuous improvement
and the concept of proactively building quality into products versus the reactive nature of
inspecting for quality at the end of the process (Walton 1986). The Japanese would improve on
the teachings of Deming and create what is known as Total Quality Control (TQC). Thus,
coupled with the companys move toward multi-skilled teams, guarantees of lifetime employment
and pay raises linked only to seniority within the company, Toyota began to create a culture in
which the quality of its product improved dramatically. In addition to shifting the focus of
Japanese manufacturers to quality, Deming also equipped them with the statistical tools to
achieve it, such as Statistical Quality Control (SQC). The teachings of Deming and other quality
gurus, such as Joseph Juran and Philip Crosby, fueled a quality movement within the Japanese
manufacturing industry that would take decades to diffuse into mainstream Western
manufacturing and that would be highly influential to the development of lean production
techniques.
From this background, the Toyota Production System was created in the early 1960s through the
combination of compensation for geographical restrictions, astute observation of current
problems within the industry, development of JIT and the teachings of the quality movement,
among other factors. It seems that postwar Japan, in its state of chaos, provided a perfect
laboratory in which innovative thinking could be implemented and practiced (Womack et al.
1990). The actual process, however, took many years of trial and error. The Toyota Production
System presents an outline of the foundations of lean production. Figure 1.2 illustrates the forces
that influenced the development of lean production.
Development
of JIT
Lower
Demand
Limited
Space
Quality
Movement
Mass
Production
Practices
Additional
Factors
Beginnings of Lean
Production
A lean philosophy, broadly defined, can apply to design, procurement and production functions.
Lean can apply to the enterprise or company level, to the project level and to the individual
process level.
To help define and direct research efforts and to present an elemental contribution to the
understanding of lean principles in construction, the scope of this report was limited primarily to
construction field operations. Though the focus of the inquiry was field operations, researchers
were sensitive to the effects of policy and actions that occur at the enterprise, project and process
levels. Two considerations led the research team to focus its primary attention on construction
field operations. First, field operations are where most of the value is added from the customers
point of view, so cognizance of customer value is central to a lean philosophy. Second, others
have studied various aspects of lean philosophy, and this information could be used as a
foundation for this report. For example, Seymour (1996) and Ballard (2000c) have defined an
agenda for lean construction across the entire project life. Arbulu (2002), Tommelein (2003) and
London (2001) have addressed construction supply chains. Likewise, aspects of the design
process to promote lean principles are discussed by Ballard (2000d), Koskela (1997) and Freire
(2002), who have all addressed different aspects of lean design.
Taking into consideration the history of lean principles and prior research, the following question
was posed:
To explore how manufacturing principles map to the construction process, these questions were
defined:
What is the value stream for field production activities and for the field portion of
material delivery and handling?
After an understanding is gained about how lean principles apply or can be modified for
construction, these questions may be addressed:
Finally, to benefit the Construction Industry Institute (CII) membership, the following two
questions were considered:
manufacturing process. Buffers can be viewed as an advantage if high degrees of variability exist
within the manufacturing process. Disadvantages associated with overbuffering include
increased product lead times, increases in required working capital, as well as increased space
requirements to produce and store the additional parts and components acting as the buffers. By
using such queuing techniques, manufacturers also become susceptible to quick changes in the
marketplace. For example, if demand in the market for a certain product decreases, the
manufacturer may be caught with high levels of WIP acting as buffers and be forced to decide
whether it would be financially feasible to complete the production of the product or to terminate
production and scrap the partially completed work.
The concept of manufacturing a product based on forecasted sales data and then selling it is
referred to as push production (Womack 1996). This differs greatly from the idea of producing
an item only when it has been ordered or purchased, which is pull production. In other words,
the market for the product is pulling the production versus pushing the product out to the
customer. The view of manufacturing as a process of conversions tends to emphasize push
production. Thus, products are created because demand has been forecasted and then pushed
onto the market.
The conversion model of production views improvement of the production process as a
subprocess task. For example, to improve the process on Figure 2.2, the producer would make
efforts to improve each subprocess individually by either reducing the cost of the specific activity
and/or by increasing the efficiency of the activity. Thus, in theory, by improving each activity
(A, B, C), the entire conversion process will improve. This view is termed reductionist because
it uses analytical reduction to break the process into its individual components and view each as a
separate entity in need of improvement (Koskela 1992). Historically, improvements to the
conversion model have focused on the implementation of new technologies such as automation
and computerization (Koskela 1992).
In their book, The Machine That Changed the World, James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones and
Daniel Roos provide an excellent descriptive summary of the typical mass producer:
The mass producer uses narrowly skilled professionals to design products made
by unskilled or semiskilled workers tending expensive, single-purpose machines.
These churn out standardized products in very high volume. Because the
machinery costs so much and is so intolerant of disruption, the mass producer
adds many buffers extra supplies, extra workers, and extra space to assure
smooth production. Because changing over to a new product costs even more,
the mass producer keeps standard designs in production for as long as possible.
The result: The consumer gets lower costs but at the expense of variety and by
means of work methods that most employees find boring and dispiriting
(Womack et al. 1990).
The view of production as a series of conversions is fundamentally different from the second
dominant type of production in the 20th century, the view of manufacturing as a flow model
(Koskela 1992). Production as a flow process is one of the core ideas of lean production.
Figure 2.3 (adapted from Rother 1998) represents a generalized flow model of production.
10
Improving the system through waste elimination and conversion activity improvement allows all
elements of the entire production process to be enhanced.
The flow process tends to focus on the elimination of the large buffers found within mass
manufacturing by emphasizing the constant movement of components from one value adding
activity to the next. This type of system, also referred to as single-piece flow (Womack 1996), is
associated with several benefits. First, the WIP levels are dramatically reduced, which also
reduces the inventory space required as well as the capital to produce and stock extra inventories
of partially completed products. Combined with reducing equipment setup times, low WIP levels
can help a manufacturer become more responsive to market conditions. As a result, the producer
lets the customer, or market, pull the production.
Compared to the conversion model, flow operations are much more tightly controlled in terms of
production times and supply chain coordination to minimize variability within the process. In
fact, the introduction of time as an input to the production process is fundamentally different from
the conversion model of production because the process is no longer conceptualized as solely an
economic abstraction, but rather as a physical process (Koskela 1992). Time was considered
important before the advent of the flow model, but the entire production system was not centered
on time as a goal. This view of time is important because the flow process does not contain the
buffers necessary to minimize variability within the manufacturing process and, therefore, must
rely on the coordination of processes both internal and external to the plant. Table 2.1 and
Figure 2.6 summarize the major differences between the two predominant production theories of
the 20th century.
Table 2.1: Comparison of the Conversion Model and Flow Model
Description
Conversion Model
Flow Model
Conceptualization
Manufacturing as a combination of
value and non-value adding
activities
Single-piece flow
Inventory Implications
Minimal inventories
Production Trigger
Focus on Improvement
Variability Control
Focus of Control
11
Reducing Cycle Time. Cycle time is defined as the total time required for a
particular piece of material to traverse the flow. Cycle time can be represented as
follows:
Cycle Time= Processing Time +Inspection Time +Wait Time +Move Time
Research has identified the following activities that reduce cycle time:
Eliminating WIP.
Reducing variability.
12
Increasing Flexibility. The ability of the production line to meet the demands of
the marketplace and change must be increased. Research has recognized the
following activities aimed at increasing output flexibility (Stalk 1990):
Increasing Transparency. The entire flow operation must be made visible and
comprehensible to those involved so that mistakes can be located and solved
quickly.
standardizing parts, tools and materials; and minimizing the amount of control
information needed.
Practical approaches to simplification include the following:
Decoupling linkages.
Benchmarking.
Benchmarking can provide the stimulus to achieve
breakthrough improvement through radical reconfiguration of processes.
James P. Womack and Robert T. Jones (1996) have identified five fundamental and sequential
steps that create a conceptual outline of what they call lean thinking. A quick comparison with
the ideas outlined by Koskela reveals many similarities, as the works of Womack and Jones have
proven to be influential within this particular field of study. The steps are as follows:
Target cost.
Value must be defined for each product family, along with a target cost
based on the customers perception of value.
14
Synchronize and align so there is little waiting time for people and
machines.
Communicate.
Increase transparency.
15
Individually, the principles, methods and techniques have been applied with partial success, but
together, they create a powerful framework and philosophy for improving manufacturing
performance. It is important to realize that this framework affects not only the production
process; it requires a fundamental shift in how an organization thinks about itself. The ideas
behind these principles create the backbone of a lean production environment. The overlap of
ideas from JIT, TQM, Visual Management, Time Based Competition and other manufacturing
methodologies, philosophies and practices are explored in the following sections.
Process Level--A set of tools, such as Kanban cards, poke yoke, etc.
2.
3.
Lean implementation may consist of applying lean principles at any of the three levels. A
comprehensive lean implementation will cover all aspects of the business directly related to
production, transport, supply or service activities (dos Santos 1999; Schroeder 1993; Wild 1995).
An examination of several knowledge areas can aid in the understanding of how lean principles
affect the different aspects of a production organization. The knowledge areas of a production
organization can be generalized as follows (Fearon et al. 1979):
1.
16
3.
4.
5.
6.
17
7.
Manufacturing has seen a proliferation of theories directed toward improving different aspects of
production and operations management. Many of these theories share similar fundamental goals
with lean production and, in many cases, were highly influential in the development of lean
principles. It can be difficult to distinguish between overlapping concepts in these theories.
Table 2.2 organizes selected manufacturing theories, methodologies and techniques into the
respective knowledge areas of the production organization to which they apply.
A brief review of the concepts of these methodologies reveals that there is a considerable amount
of overlap that occurs when these movements are compared to the principles identified as crucial
to lean. For example, Time Based Competition (TBC) directly relates to the principle of reducing
lead times, while Visual Management (VM) strives to make the process transparent to those
involved. It can be concluded that lean, as it is understood today, is a conglomeration or
synthesis of many theories, philosophies, methods and techniques, many of which are individual
methodologies within the manufacturing community. The evolution of lean ideas within manufacturing has been a process of trial and error that has incorporated both top down (theoretical)
and bottom up (pragmatic) problem solving and many of the ideas discussed in Table 2.2.
As a first step toward establishing a set of lean principles for construction, Chapter 3 considers
the similarities and differences between construction and manufacturing.
Chapter 5.0,
Section 5.9, surveys available literature on the implementation of lean principles in construction.
18
B. Poke Yoke
C. Modular Design
D. Value Engineering
19
B. Cellular Manufacturing
C. Flexible Manufacturing
A. Line Balancing
B. Just-in-Time (JIT)
D. Aggregate Planning
F. Distribution Requirements
Planning (DRP)
20
C. Taguchi Methods
D. ISO 9000
21
H. Six Sigma
I.
Zero Defects
J.
Quality Circles
A. Just-in-Time (JIT)
C. Manufacturing Requirements
Planning (MRP II)
22
B. Employee Involvement
B. Strategic Partnering
A. Kaizen
B. Kanban
23
D. Continuous Improvement
E. Benchmarking
H. Re-Engineering
I. Computer-Aided Design/
Computer-Aided Manufacturing
(CAD/CAM)
J. Activity-Based Costing
24
Both of these characterizations of lean are too abstract for the purposes of this report. MacInnes
provides a more comprehensive set of principles for manufacturing:
Reduce Waste:
25
Overproduction.
b.
Waiting.
c.
Transport.
d.
Extra processing.
e.
Inventory.
f.
Motion.
g.
Defects.
In production:
a.
One-piece flow.
b.
Reduce WIP.
c.
Pull scheduling.
d.
Quick changeover.
e.
Standardization.
f.
This is derived from the Japanese words for five practices leading to a clean and manageable work area.
26
Target pricing.
Value engineering.
Financial.
Behavioral.
Core process.
Customer Focus:
27
Construction
Womack
MacInnes
Koskela
Ballard1
Principle
Customer Focus
Culture/People
Provide training
X
2
X3
X3
Waste Elimination
X1
X
X
X
X
28
Womack
MacInnes
Construction
Koskela
Ballard1
Reduce scrap
Supply chain and design management principles ignored to be consistent with research scope.
Implied.
Womack treats waste at a high level: identify Type I contributory activity waste and Type II nonvalue adding waste, perform root cause analysis and identify value stream.
29
in
product
features/
Culture/People:
There are alternate ways of doing each task; production methods are in
the hands of the workers not the manufacturing engineers.
Production people move through product, rather than the product moving
through production people.
There are alternate ways of doing each task; production methods are in
the hands of the workers not the manufacturing engineers.
Waste:
Material flow is not steady state; supply lines are different at different
project locations.
30
The primary issues common to this list are the greater degree of discretionary behavior and
increased uncertainty evident in construction. In manufacturing, production systems are defined
by and controlled by the configuration of the production line. In contrast, with construction, the
production system is defined by project managers and the individual workers. With this in mind,
the manufacturing lean principles were modified, and the subprinciples shown in Table 3.2 were
developed. Table 3.2 includes the question numbers that are relevant to each subprinciple from
the questionnaire (Appendix G) that was developed to assess lean behavior in construction.
Chapter 4 organizes these principles and subprinciples into a graphic lean wheel configuration.
This list of principles, although similar to conventional manufacturing principles, separates
waste elimination into four related principles: optimize the process of construction (by
optimizing the production process itself), optimize the production process through supply chain
management, optimize the production process through production planning and optimize the
product design through constructability reviews and pre-assembly. The increased emphasis on
planning is necessary in light of the uncertainty and process discretion prevalent in construction
production. It is from this list of presumptive construction lean principles that the inquiry into
lean construction could be started.
31
Subprinciple
Question
Customer Focus
3, 4, 5
8, 9, 10
11, 12
13
14
15, 16
17, 18
19, 20
21
22, 23, 24
25, 26
27, 28
29
30
Reduce scrap
31, 32
Use TPM
33
Culture/People
Workplace Organization/
Standardization
32
Subprinciple
Question
34
35
36
37
38, 39
40
41
42
43, 44
45, 46
47, 48, 49
50
51, 52
Continuous Improvement
and Built-In Quality
33
What is the value stream for field production activities and for the field portion of
material delivery and handling?
4.2.2 Approach
The approach used was to synthesize the available literature and original field data into a set of
lean principles for construction.
There exists a complex set of relationships between the various questions and the methods used to
answer them. Investigations began with a thorough review of the literature to establish a set of
lean manufacturing principles. Next, using the literature and interviews with lean construction
and lean manufacturing experts, a presumptive set of lean principles for construction was established. Two tasks were then performed in parallel. In accordance with the recommendations of
34
Ohno (1988), a value stream analysis was conducted to understand the nature of production value
and waste. The other task was to gain an understanding of the lean behaviors (as defined by the
presumptive set of lean principles) that are actually practiced in construction. As a basis for
defining lean construction behaviors, three sources were relied upon: evaluation of the behaviors
of the companies involved in the value stream analysis case studies, evaluation of companies who
identified themselves as attempting to apply lean principles (early adopters), and evaluation of
behaviors of early adopter companies that were reported in the literature. Finally, using the
knowledge gained by the value stream studies and the evaluation of lean behaviors, a final set of
lean principles for construction was established.
From research team observations,
recommendations were developed for actions an organization must take to become lean and
potential problems to avoid. The relationships among these various research tasks are shown on
Figure 4.1.
The following sections describe in detail the goals and methods used for analyzing the value
stream, measuring lean conformance and developing an understanding of lean behavior in
construction.
4.3.2 Approach
The approach used included the following actions:
35
36
As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, there are many forms of lean principles in the literature. The
first task was to organize the presumptive set of principles in a manner that would facilitate an
evaluation of AEC organizational behavior against the principles. Additionally, the research team
interviewed several leading lean researchers and early adopters of lean principles. Finally, the
team relied on the experience and opinions of its members, many of whom had lean clients or
who were themselves adopting lean ideas.
A simple visual device, called the lean wheel, was developed for the manufacturing industry
(Tapping, Luyster et al. 2002). This tool was adapted for use with the presumptive set of lean
construction principles (Figure 4.2). The wheel is a device to simplify and organize lean principles into a format that is easily communicated to and understood by those new to lean theory. At
the highest level, the wheel organizes lean ideas into the following five fundamental principles:
Customer focus.
Culture/people.
Workplace standardization.
Waste elimination.
Each of these principles was further divided into 16 subprinciples, represented graphically on
Figure 4.2.
Customer
Focus
Continuous Improvement/
Built-In Quality
Error Proofing
Optimize
Value
Flexible
Resources
Metrics
Training
Organizational
Learning
Response
To
Defects
People
Involvement
Optimize
Production
Schedule
Waste
Elimination
Organizational
Commitment
Supply
Chain
Management
.
Visual
Management
Optimize
Production
System
Workplace
Organization
Optimize
Work
Content
Defined
Work
Processes
Workplace
Standardization
Figure 4.2: The Lean Wheel (after Tapping, Luyster et al. 2002)
37
Culture/
People
One of the goals for this project was to develop a questionnaire that could be used by companies
to help them self-assess their lean behavior. The lean wheel was used as the foundation for the
questionnaire. In addition to helping companies conduct a self-assessment, the questionnaire had
a secondary purpose of helping the research team assess the lean behavior of the lean and nonlean contractors on this project.
Starting with each subprinciple, questions were developed that were relevant to construction
practices and lean theories. The questionnaires progressed through several iterations as early
drafts were administered at jobsites and company headquarters. Additionally, early versions of
the questionnaire were reviewed by lean practitioners and academics. These early trials led to
further modifications of the questions to make them clearer and more concise and to eliminate
questions that were not effectively measuring lean behavior.
The last step in the questionnaire development was to evaluate its validity. University of
Colorado academic resources helped establish the validity of the questionnaire using both
quantitative and qualitative means. Faculty from Sociology, Psychology, Marketing and Applied
Math were enlisted to improve and test the final questionnaire. Their suggestions prompted
modifications of question phraseology and the scoring scale. In addition, they directed the
research team toward the Cronbachs alpha technique to measure questionnaire consistency.
The final step in developing the lean wheel was to use the final, validated questionnaire to guide
interviews with case study and early adopter contractors. A more detailed discussion of this
process is presented in Chapter 5.
38
reorganization of the work processes or even through the development of an entirely new process
for installing pipe.
After definitions for VA, NVAR and NVA actions were created, the research team focused on
procedures for collecting and analyzing these data for typical construction tasks. Development of
procedures for a construction value stream analysis followed the self-imposed limits of this study.
First, the effects of design activities on lean performance were excluded. Projects can be
designed to facilitate lean performance. Project design can be delivered in such a way so as to
enable lean production. These factors were not considered in the value stream studies. The
effects of supply chain issues that are manifested away from the jobsite were also excluded, but
material supply from the time that materials entered the jobsite was included. Others (Arbulu
2002; Tommelein and Li 1999; Tommelein, Akel et al. 2003) have studied supply chain issues
and lean performance.
Another issue affecting value stream mapping is the time scale over which waste becomes
evident. Most wastes, such as worker inactivity (waiting), are immediately evident and
quantifiable by observing the value creation process of the crews. However, other wastes, such as
punch list items, are only evident to those who can observe the project over a long time. Since
data collection for this study was organized around short site visits, the data analysis was
concentrated on the wastes that were evident over a short time.
The typical value stream map must describe the entire construction process flow (Rother and
Shook 1998). Theoretically, the value stream would begin with the collection of raw material and
end when the owner (end customer) receives the finished product. This study focused on
individual construction production processes in the overall value stream. Specifically, data was
collected, analyzed and then used to create value stream maps for a typical structural steel
erection process and the installation process for large bore piping. These specific processes
represent two very different value generation mechanisms. The structural steel erection process is
an equipment intensive, highly repetitive, configuration driven process with relatively short cycle
times. In contrast, piping installation is a labor intensive, nonrepetitive process that has flexible
work sequences with long cycle times. By focusing on these different processes, it was possible
to show that the value stream mapping procedures are flexible enough to represent most construction production processes.
Ultimately, value stream maps will be used to quantify and track wastes related specifically to
material in their respective processes, as well as the production operation itself. These ideas are
further clarified and expanded in Chapter 6, where the detailed definitions for waste and the
methods used to identify and quantify waste are presented. Chapter 6 also separates the
conventional value stream map into three distinct levels. Level One is used to track wastes
associated with material and provide an overview for the work distribution values related to VA,
NVAR and NVA for an entire construction production process. Level Two tracks wastes
associated with worker and material flow as the process proceeds through the various
construction stages. Level Three dives deeper into the process and analyzes each workers
contribution to the various work categories.
39
each of the lean principles identified in the presumptive set. Next, an evaluation was made to
determine which participant in a project should exhibit this lean behavior: the owner, constructor,
subcontractor, material supplier or designer. Finally, it was determined whether the lean principle
should be applied at the contractors organization level, project level or crew level.
40
Ensure that the questions not lead the respondent toward a right answer.
When comments from evaluators were consistent with advice from survey design literature,
changes were made and the questionnaire was re-administered to new test groups. More details
on this test, modify and re-test procedure are provided in Section 5.5. It is essential to pilot
every question, every question sequence, every inventory and every scale in your study. If the
pilot work suggests improved wordings, you need to pilot those, too. Take nothing for granted.
Pilot the question lay-out on the page, pilot the instructions given to the respondents, pilot the
answer categories, pilot even the question-numbering system (Oppenheim 1992). The research
team adhered to this advice and developed the questionnaire with the utmost care. As the
research design became more definitive, the questionnaire changed accordingly. For example,
one part of the research dealt with data collection from field studies pertaining to value stream
mapping. As the lessons from the value stream mapping studies became clearer, certain aspects
of the questionnaire were emphasized or reduced. The process of design and redesign had
unanticipated positive outcomes. First, the overall questionnaire was shortened, which served to
increase the voluntary accurate response rate. Second, questions became more explicit, which
again led to more accurate responses. On the advice of the sample group, some questions were
41
reworded to make them more understandable. Oppenheim (1992) spoke in depth in his book
about the difficult task of the respondent to answer the questions accurately:
...it is difficult enough to obtain a relatively unbiased answer even from a willing
and clear-headed respondent who has correctly understood what we are after,
without making our task virtually impossible by setting off this train of
responding on the wrong track through poor question wording.
The questionnaire was designed around pairs of statements. One half of the pair of statements
described a non-lean behavior, and the other half described a corresponding lean behavior. Since
applying lean principles leads to many effective jobsite behaviors, it was difficult to avoid
making those choices more attractive. Wording was selected that made both statements seem
favorable so that the respondent would be forced to choose the one that more accurately described
his or her company. If one statement seemed more favorable than its counterpart, then it could be
perceived as a leading question. Another suggestion that was implemented from the sample
group feedback was to add question numbers. The first draft consisted of 55 unnumbered
statements. Rea and Parker (1997) stated that ...being sensitive to questionnaire length is to
make certain that the questionnaire is not so long and cumbersome to the respondent that it
engenders reluctance to complete the survey instrument, thereby jeopardizing the response rate.
When question numbering was added, the respondents had an idea as to the parameters of the
document, which in turn focused their attention on answering the questions rather than on the
duration of the process.
A Likert scaling system was used for the questionnaire. A Likert scale entails a five-, seven-, or
nine-point rating scale in which the attitude of the respondent is measured on a continuum from
highly favorable to highly unfavorable, or vice versa, with an equal number of positive and
negative response possibilities and one middle or neutral category (Rea and Parker 1997).
The Likert scale is the most popular scale in use today (Oppenheim 1992). It is simple to
understand, and it provides the evaluator more information than that provided by simple yes/no or
agree/disagree responses. A five-point Likert scale was initially used, but on the advice of faculty
colleagues (McClelland 2003), it was changed to a seven-point scale and an N/A response was
included. Figure 5.1 shows an example of a seven-point Likert scale question, in which a score of
1 corresponds to the statement on the left and a score of 7 corresponds to the statement on the
right. Larger response ranges lead the respondents to answer more accurately and more honestly.
The project is built
precisely according
to plans
The Contractor
discusses ways to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
N/A
modify the plans to
reduce costs while
maintaining quality.
Figure 5.1: Example of a Seven-Point Likert Scale Question
Experts in questionnaire design agree that questionnaires cannot be perfect. There will always be
some degree of uncertainty in the responses. The function of a question in an interview schedule
or questionnaire is to elicit a particular communication. We hope that our respondents have
certain information, ideas or attitudes on the subject of our enquiry, and we want to get these
from them with a minimum of distortion (Oppenheim 1992). In summary, the Likert scale
scoring system allowed the desired information to be acquired while at the same time keeping the
survey simple for respondents. The Likert scale works particularly well in the context of a series
42
of questions that seek to elicit attitudinal information about one specific subject matter (Rea and
Parker 1997). The specific subject matter was lean construction practices.
43
At each site, the questionnaire was distributed to approximately 10 employees of the onsite
contractor. On average, four crew members, four project management level employees and two
executives filled out the questionnaire. Each work level received a different questionnaire that
contained only questions relevant to their job.
44
lean, as opposed to the others interviewed who were more skeptical about implementing lean
theories. This was evidenced by the fact that early adopters had schedules for implementation of
certain lean practices. Some lean practices were being held for a smaller project so they could be
tested prior to full company implementation. Other lean behaviors were being implemented right
after a previous one was fully absorbed. The difference between the early adopters and the case
study participant companies was the adherence to a schedule for lean implementation.
The results and conclusions from both the early adopters interviews and the case study
participant interviews are discussed later in this chapter.
45
Evaluation of the accuracy of the participants responses was accomplished by measuring them
against an agreed upon standard. The consistent standard used was the research teams
assessment. Members of the research team who were present at each case study visit completed a
questionnaire based on their personal observation of the activities and practices at the jobsite.
The comparison between the research teams average answer for each question and the answer
given by the respondents was used to validate the questionnaire. As stated before, if there was an
average discrepancy larger than two on the Likert scale between research team answers and the
respondents answer, the question wording and content were further analyzed. Of the 55 original
questions, eight questions were eliminated as a result of this process. Other questions that were
borderline in terms of validity were reworded and retested for adherence to this standard.
It was important to understand how the research teams unbiased assessment of jobsite lean
performance compared to the contractors staff assessment. Differences between the two
assessments could be caused by a poorly worded question or by bias on the part of the contractor
personnel. Some degree of bias from the project management staff and the craft workers was to
be expected. Results were analyzed for a limited degree of bias and a consistent trend in the bias.
That is, if a question exhibited contractor responses that were consistently higher (better) than the
research team responses, the difference was attributed to bias, pride in workmanship, etc. On the
other hand, if the contractor responses showed a large differential, or if the differential was
sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the research team, the difference was attributed to a
misunderstood question. Using this process, questions were improved, reworded and, in some
cases, eliminated from the questionnaire.
Interestingly, the resultant scores from the organization level were the most consistent with those
of the research team observers. The project management level was also very consistent with
those of the research team. The crew level, on the other hand, had the largest discrepancy from
the observers. At the organization level, the average differential between a respondent and the
research team was 1.4 points. At the project management level, the difference was 1.5 points. At
the crew level, the difference was 2.3 points. These results were consistent across all jobs. The
crew level always had the highest discrepancy, while the other two levels were lower and within
decimal points of each other. Since the discrepancies were consistent between company levels
and between jobsites, the final validation test was to statistically analyze the response results for
reliability.
N*r
1 + ( N 1) * r
46
Where:
N is the number of items, and
47
Customer Focus
0.7467
Culture/People
0.8564
Workplace Standardization
0.8642
Waste Elimination
0.9548
0.9039
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)
Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 24.0
Alpha = 0.7467
N of Items = 7
Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 41.0
Alpha = 0.8564
N of Items = 7
Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 41.0
Alpha = 0.8642
N of Items = 10
Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 41.0
Alpha = 0.9548
N of Items = 18
Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 41.0
Alpha = 0.9039
N of Items = 8
48
5.6.2 Culture/People
Training was prevalent in the industry, but not to the extent that companies were taking the time
to teach their employees about lean practices. For the most part, training occurred on company
time, and training on matters outside of specific job responsibilities was not common practice.
However, companies were trying to empower their employees to share their improvement ideas.
This was a lean practice that even non-lean companies supported. There was an overall sense of
the need for improvement in the industry by people at the organization level.
49
5.7.2 Culture/People
An important aspect of lean behavior is creating a culture wherein employees are confident about
the process and strive for continual improvement. Employee empowerment and the commitment
of the organization to improve its processes are essential for creating a lean culture. Training
sessions are necessary to educate employees about lean principles. All of the participating
companies trained their employees in construction practices, but only one of the companies
focused training sessions on lean behavior. The participants stated that their company
encouraged employees to provide feedback on improvement. This company created a tool called
the Lean Daily Management System which fostered a process of feedback participation. The
participants stated that more people had become involved and empowered because of this tool.
All the companies stated that they were looking for ways to improve their processes.
Interview notes for the case study contractors can be found in Appendix H.
50
Notes from the interviews with the early adopter contractors can be found in Appendix H.
51
short-term planning to be proactive, rather than reactive, with any new project development. This
type of planning creates flexibility because of the increased communication between all involved
parties.
5.8.2 Culture/People
A clear difference between the early adopters and the case-study companies was the outlook on
creating a lean culture. The early adopters made it a point to push lean thinking throughout their
companies; each had mandatory training sessions based solely on lean behavior. These sessions
ranged from eight-hour sessions to mandated courses that educated on three different levels of
lean theory. The early adopters took training very seriously and spent a considerable amount of
time and money to ensure that their employees were properly trained. The three companies used
different practices to empower their employees, although they all had the same underlying
motive: to create an environment in which employees are always looking for ways to improve.
These practices ranged from the creation of award programs for implemented suggestions to the
mandate that employees provide feedback in the form of opportunities for improvement (OFIs).
These practices encouraged employees to participate in the continual improvement of company
processes. Finally, organizational commitment was obvious for each of the early adopter
companies.
52
Surprisingly, supply chain management was not widely used by the early adopter contractors.
They spoke of JIT delivery, but stated that it was not in prevalent use in their companies. There
were too many possibilities in the current environment for supplies or materials to be delivered
late, which could affect the critical path. Obviously, this is a risk that these companies are not
willing to accept at the present time. However, these companies are focused on the handoff of
finished products between subcontractors and crews. The objective is to hand off the finished
product in a continuous stream or in small batches. This is a lean behavior that is supported by
using the four-week look-ahead tool or the Last Planner System approach.
Work structuring.
This case study focused on the construction of the Redgranite Correctional Institution in
Wisconsin. This project consisted of two housing buildings that covered a total of
140,000 square feet. These buildings were two stories tall, and their walls were made from
precast concrete panels. The first-level floors were slab-on-grade, while the second-level floors
were precast concrete slabs. The Oscar J. Boldt Construction Company was the construction
manager, and Venture was the project architect. The state awarded Boldt this design-build
project based upon a guaranteed maximum price bid of $48 million.
To illustrate current practices and the opportunities provided by work structuring, this case study
discussed the installation of 510 hollow metal doorframes at the prison project. Because the
53
project was a correctional facility, the doorframe installation process involved a special grouting
procedure, which made the installation process less routine. Those personnel involved
recognized the difficulty of the situation, but better solutions were impeded by the demands of the
installation process. This case study thus provided the opportunity to illustrate how one may
come up with alternative ways to perform the work when not constrained by contractual
agreements and trade boundaries. In addition, the importance of dimensional tolerances in
construction and how these affected the handoff of work chunks from one production unit to the
next were discussed.
The erection of a buildings structural steel frame is a major construction phase on many projects.
The main resource in this process, the steel erectors crane, defines not only the pace of steel
erection, but also the pace for handling and installing many other structural and non-structural
materials. This production system cannot afford any delays. Some claim that structural steel is
therefore managed as a JIT process with materials being delivered to the site as needed and
installed promptly. This is the case only in appearance, as is clear when one considers the JIT
54
principles that were developed as part of Toyotas lean production philosophy. To illustrate the
point, this paper drew on examples of typical structural steel supply chains from the industrial and
building construction sectors. The use of symbols from manufacturing was investigated to map
key production steps, as well as buffers in between them, to elucidate where resources do and do
not flow. Industry practices in these two construction sectors vary significantly. Neither one is
lean. This paper reported on a preliminary investigation into the location of buffers in the
structural steel supply and construction process. The reasons for having buffers at various
locations were explored. A more in-depth investigation is recommended to gain a deeper
understanding of the buffer sizing criteria and steel component sequencing rules that govern
current practices. Insight into these will then help determine which buffers can be trimmed to
reduce WIP cycle times. This will support the effort of achieving more JIT by making
processes within individual companies, as well as across the entire steel supply chain, leaner.
Continuous improvement.
The PARC project was a refinery expansion costing approximately $2.1 billion. In 1994,
consultants Mike Casten, Greg Howell and Glenn Ballard initiated a productivity improvement
program at the PARC project following an initial site visit and diagnosis. The program duration
was from November 1994 until August 1995. Before the program was implemented, the project
suffered from poor labor productivity. As a result, the current direct labor force of 10,000 needed
to be increased to approximately 18,000. This increase in labor force, however, was not an option
because of a lack of skilled workers and the inability of the project to accelerate the supply of
work. As a result, this particular improvement program focused on production planning, since it
was determined that the current planning methods were insufficient to complete the job. The
current project management model needed to be changed from a contract management model to a
production management model, which would be oriented toward the way work is done. The
following three factors were determined as key areas for project improvement:
How well the project is supplying the basic elements of work to the crews. These
elements include information, materials, tools, equipment, etc.
How well the accomplishment of the work itself meets the needs of the workers.
55
It was determined that planning reliability was important to improved project performance. To
increase planning reliability, the team of consultants introduced the subcontractors to the Last
Planner System, a system developed to improve production planning, which includes the
following:
Subcontractors were also introduced to first fun studies (FRS), which entailed detailed planning,
study and improvement of field operations. The results from these changes were improved
quality of subcontractor production planning as well as improvements in field operations. The
improvement program resulted in substantial increases in productivity as well as a project
completed on schedule.
This particular case study implemented production planning to increase the reliability of the
subcontractors work plans by allowing them to better match labor to their work and identify
reasons why work was not completed.
5.9.2.2
Linbeck Construction used the Last Planner System of production control on a remodel of the
chemistry building at Rice University. The project was a complete demo-to-structure renovation
of a university chemistry building originally built in 1925. The general contractor studied was a
merit shop contractor who specializes in commercial and building construction. Approximately
90 percent of the work on this project was subcontracted; both union and merit shop
subcontractors were involved. The construction contract was $22 million. The entire project,
including assessment and design, was $28.5 million. The construction duration was 12 months.
The contractor was responsible for all material procurement, including laboratory equipment.
The owner procured the furniture. Project staffing included one project manager, two project
engineers, one superintendent, one assistant superintendent, 15 foremen (nine from
subcontractors), and 78 craftsmen (65 from subcontractors). The construction contract was a
negotiated, cost plus fixed fee/guaranteed maximum price contract with graded incentive
bonuses. The five major subcontractors were also under the same contract arrangement. The
incentive bonuses were based primarily on the cost performance of the project.
56
Lean construction methods were fully embraced by the owner, general contractor and all major
subcontractors. There was obviously a great deal of coordination and communication;
contractors worked together, instead of at each others expense. This level of commitment was
critical to the success of the project. The designer was willing to implement lean construction as
long as it provided some benefit, but did not fully embrace the program. This had detrimental
effects on the timely completion of the design documents, which negatively affected the start of
the construction schedule. To mitigate some of these delays, the construction permits were
obtained individually for each floor as parts of the design were completed.
The renovation of a 70-year-old building is a challenging task. Add to this the fact that the work
was 90 percent subcontracted, and the project appeared to be a prime candidate for major
coordination problems. The lean construction approach clearly had a positive impact on the
project. Foreman delay survey data showed that delays due to common problems with tools,
information and materials were a fraction of what is experienced on most projects. This indicates
that the planning process was very effective for improving field productivity. The increased
planning, communication and coordination among project participants allowed the work to
progress smoothly, without major conflicts between contractors. This degree of cooperation
indicated that the project team accepted the concept of optimizing the project as a whole, as
opposed to optimizing individual activities or optimizing the work of individual companies.
Employee motivation.
Pacific Contracting of San Francisco, a specialist cladding and roofing contractor, has used the
principles of lean thinking to increase its annual turnover by 20 percent in 18 months with the
same number of staff. The key to this success was improving the design and procurement
processes to facilitate construction onsite and investing in the front end of projects to reduce costs
and construction times. The company identified two major problems to achieving flow in the
entire construction process: inefficient supply of materials that prevented site operations from
flowing smoothly and poor design information from the prime contractor that frequently resulted
in a large amount of redesign work.
To tackle these problems, Pacific Contracting combined the more efficient use of technology with
tools for improving planning of construction processes. A computerized 3D design system was
used to provide a better, faster method of redesign that led to better construction information.
The design system provided a range of benefits, including isometric drawings of components and
interfaces, fit coordination, planning of construction methods, motivation of work crews through
visualization, first run tests of construction sequences and virtual walk-throughs of the product.
A process-planning tool known as Last Planner, developed by Glen Ballard of the Lean
57
Construction Institute, was used to improve the flow of work onsite by reducing constraints such
as lack of materials or labor.
5.9.3.2 The Neenan Company (Eagan 1998). This case study examined the following
lean principles, methods and/or tools:
Multi-functional teams.
The Neenan Company, a design-build company, is one of the most successful and fastest growing
construction companies in Colorado. It has worked to understand the principles of lean thinking
and looked for applications to its business using Study Action Teams of employees to rethink
the way they work. Neenan has reduced project times and costs by up to 30 percent through
developments such as the following:
Improving the flow of work onsite by defining units of production and using
tools such as visual control of processes.
Using dedicated design teams working exclusively on one design from beginning
to end and developing a tool known as Schematic Design in a Day to
dramatically speed up the design process.
Innovating in design and assembly; for example, through the use of prefabricated
brick infill panels manufactured offsite and preassembled atrium roofs lifted into
place.
5.9.3.3 Argent (Eagan 1998). This case study examined the following lean principles,
methods and/or tools:
Strategic partnering.
Argent, a major commercial developer, has used partnering arrangements to reduce the capital
cost of its offices by 33 percent and total project time in some instances by 50 percent since 1991.
It partners with three contractors and a limited number of specialist subcontractors, consultants
and designers.
5.9.3.4
TQM.
Neil Muller Construction, South Africa, has used TQM techniques to achieve an 18 percent
increase in output per employee in a year, a 65 percent reduction in absenteeism in four years and
a 12 percent savings on construction time on a major project.
58
6.2.1 VA Definition
For this research, the team adopted Walbridge-Aldingers strict definition for VA activities as
any activity that changes the shape, form, or function of materials or information to meet
customers needs (Walbridge-Aldinger 2000).
This definition excludes common construction work such as material handling, inspection or
temporary structures. Another less precise way of thinking about VA activities is that they are
those activities that the client is actually interested in purchasing. For example, one could say
that the client is interested in purchasing a steam line for a power plant, but not the temporary
support or testing activities that are needed to produce a finished pipeline. A VA action in this
process is the physical welding of the pipe spools into their final position. This strict definition
for VA activities has been adopted in this report to provide pinpoint focus on the customer value
equation.
59
6.2.2.1 Material Positioning. This subcategory includes all activities that involve the
movement of a structural steel member or pipe spool into its final position. For example, flying a
column into its final position in the structure is a required action, but it does not actually change
the physical characteristic of the finished product. The structure is physically changed only when
bolts are tightened around the baseplate. (Note: one must be careful when labeling an activity as
material positioning. Material positioning does not include moving a steel member from the laydown yard to a staging area. This action should be labeled as transport, which is an NVA
activity.)
6.2.2.2 In-Process Inspections. This subcategory includes actions such as the leveling,
plumbing and/or final field measurements of installed material. It also includes in-process or
production weld inspections that are required in accordance with individual project specifications.
This subcategory accounts for current construction requirements of inspecting ongoing and
finished products to ensure quality to the customer. For example, continually plumbing and
leveling the structure as steel members are erected would fall under this subcategory.
6.2.2.3
60
Table 6.1 compares the seven major classifications of waste in both manufacturing and
construction contexts.
The time shown in Column No. 3 is not in temporal order because analysis of the data required each row
of information to be sorted.
61
Manufacturing
Construction
1. Overproduction
2. Waiting
3. Transport
4. Extra Processing
(Operations)
5. Inventory
6. Motion
7. Defects
Repair or rework.
62
FieldObservationSheet
CaseStudy#5
Date:
Worker
Member
Classification
Time
Activity
1/15/2003
Timeat
Activity
Waste
Activity Classification Classification
GroundCrewman#1 Column
1:13:12 Waiting
00:18
NVA
Waiting
GroundCrewman#1 Column
1:14:50 Waiting
00:10
NVA
Waiting
GroundCrewman#1 Column
1:51:40 Waiting
01:30
NVA
Waiting
GroundCrewman#1 Column
1:13:30 PositioningColumnontoBasePlate
00:30
NVAR
Mat. Pos
GroundCrewman#1 Column
1:50:40 PositioningColumnontoBasePlate
01:00
NVAR
Mat. Pos
GroundCrewman#1 Column
1:17:12 ReleasingTagLine
00:48
NVAR
T.W.S.A.
GroundCrewman#1 Column
1:14:00 BoltingColumnBase
00:50
VA
ValueAdding
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:09:20 Walking
04:25
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:16:00 Walking
00:50
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:18:10 Walking
00:20
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:22:25 Walking
00:21
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:22:50 Walking
01:40
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:39:50 Walking
00:10
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:41:05 Walking
00:15
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:51:15 Walking
01:28
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:57:30 Walking
00:30
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
1:01:44 Walking
00:16
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
1:04:47 Walking
00:43
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
1:08:30 Walking
04:42
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
1:16:50 Walking
00:22
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
1:18:00 Walking
00:20
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
1:39:55 Walking
00:27
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
1:42:50 Walking
00:20
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
1:46:00 Walking
00:15
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
1:54:40 Walking
01:20
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
2:10:40 Walking
00:30
NVA
Motion
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
01:08
NVA
Transport
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
01:20
NVA
Transport
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
01:25
NVA
Transport
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
00:40
NVA
Transport
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
01:40
NVA
Transport
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
02:22
NVA
Transport
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
00:50
NVA
Transport
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
00:30
NVA
Transport
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
01:30
NVA
Transport
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:00:00 Waiting
00:20
NVA
Waiting
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:02:00 Waiting
05:20
NVA
Waiting
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:19:00 Waiting
02:30
NVA
Waiting
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:22:46 Waiting
00:04
NVA
Waiting
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:25:50 Waiting
02:10
NVA
Waiting
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:28:40 Waiting
08:00
NVA
Waiting
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:41:20 Waiting
02:10
NVA
Waiting
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:44:50 Waiting
03:50
NVA
Waiting
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:48:50 Waiting
01:00
NVA
Waiting
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:53:33 Waiting
00:35
NVA
Waiting
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:56:30 Waiting
01:00
NVA
Waiting
GroundCrewman#1 PodBeamCombo
0:58:00 Waiting
01:25
NVA
Waiting
63
Comments/Remarks
During the hand collection method, each observer was equipped with a stopwatch and a clipboard
containing data sheets. Data was recorded as the activities occurred. Each time a new task was
started, an entry was made on the data sheet. For example, an entry might indicate that a worker
was rigging a bar joist for the crane. The next entry might indicate that the worker was waiting
until the crane lowered its hook so that the rigging for the next bar joist could be attached. The
elapsed time for each task was recorded, as well as the observers judgment regarding whether the
task was value-adding to the process. A digital video camera was also used to record all
actions during the erection sequence. The videotapes were used to conduct a more detailed
analysis of the activities.
64
Advantages
Disadvantages
Different interpretations of
waste categories occur
between the observation team
members.
Requires one observer per
member in the crew.
65
F. The structure was composed of several smaller bay sections which roughly measured 60 feet
by 60 feet. The team observed the erection activities associated with two new bays performed by
one crew and the finishing activities of erecting purlins on top of a completed bay section done by
a second crew. Hand data collection was used.
66
cycles were observed at each jobsite. A cycle was defined according to the nature of the work
being performed. The structural steel erection process involved three main cycles: column,
girder (beam) and joist (truss) erection. Because the erection process for structural steel is
repetitive, the research team was able to obtain several iterations for each cycle. On the other
hand, piping installation consists of long cycle times. For this reason, the cycles for process
piping were defined as one entire viewing period (i.e., the whole observation period). The
detailed case studies in the appendices provide additional information on the definition of each
cycle.
During each cycle, each individual crew member was evaluated to capture his or her specific
contribution to the various cycles. Each crew was also evaluated as a group to illustrate the
crews value creation during a cycle. Tables 6.3 and 6.4 show the tabulated results for a crew
member and a crew, respectively. Furthermore, Figures 6.2 and 6.3 graphically represent the data
in Tables 6.3 and 6.4. These results were obtained after all required information was entered into
the data collection spreadsheet for each worker (refer to Figure 6.1). Table 6.3 and Figure 6.2
show the typical results for an individual worker in a cycle. The first column lists each work
category (i.e., VA, NVAR and NVA). In some cases, a worker may not dedicate any time to a
specific work category; this results in the category not being shown at all. The second column
associates each activity with the specific waste category. The third column represents the total
time in a cycle that the crew member spends on a specific waste category. The final column
represents the percentage of the total time a worker spends on each waste category in a cycle.
Showing this level of detail allows one to better understand what is happening during the
construction process. Additionally, analysis at this level of detail highlights areas where
improvement efforts should be focused. For example, time wasted on waiting is typical in a crew
that has unbalanced work assignments. To address this problem, the required work tasks could be
more evenly dispersed throughout the crew or in some cases, crew members could be eliminated.
Table 6.3: Typical Results for Welder Completing an Eight Inch Diameter Spool Section
Activity Classification
VA
Waste Classification
Time at Activity
% of Time at Activity
Value Adding
1:24:11
1:24:11
24.58
24.58
Waiting
Extra Processing
Transport
Motion
1:42:37
0:36:28
0:25:23
0:55:21
3:39:49
29.96
10.65
7.41
16.16
64.18
Material Positioning
In-Process Inspection
TWSA
NVAR Total
0:05:33
0:16:17
0:16:40
0:38:30
1.62
4.75
4.87
11.24
Grand Total
5:42:30
100.00
VA Total
NVA
NVA Total
NVAR
67
VA
Crew Member
Foreman - Pipe Fitter
Field Laborer
Welder
Group Percentage
Waste
Extra
All
Activities Waiting Processing Transport
NVAR
Material
Movement Pos.
In Proc.
Ins.
TWSA
Total
VA +
NVAR
0%
0%
25%
19%
52%
30%
10%
21%
11%
6%
5%
7%
22%
2%
16%
12%
2%
2%
18%
1%
5%
14%
16%
100%
100%
44%
20%
5%
100%
36%
13%
30%
12%
7%
15%
5%
8%
10%
100%
36%
Figure 6.2: Typical Results for Welder Completing an Eight Inch Diameter Spool Section
68
69
Waste Classification
Value Adding
VA Total
% of Total Time
2:51:04
24.89%
2:51:04
24.89%
1:26:53
0:02:58
12.64%
0.43%
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
In-Process-Ins.
T.W.S.A.
NVAR Total
1:00:44
8.84%
2:30:35
21.91%
3:12:03
0:41:04
0:15:28
1:56:56
27.95%
5.98%
2.25%
17.02%
NVA
Waiting
Extra Proc.
Transport
Motion
NVA Total
Grand Total
6:05:31
53.19%
11:27:10
100.00%
Table 6.6 shows the Quick Summary results from the value stream map for Case Study No. 1. Of
the 792 total workable hours committed to the steel erection process, only 161 were VA.
Table 6.6: Quick Summary for Case Study No. 1
Quick Summary for Level One
Working Days
24 days
Working Time
792 man-hours
VA Total
161 man-hours
NVAR Total
95 man-hours
NVA Total
536 man-hours
Case Study No. 2 involved the erection process for heavy-gauge steel. Large joist girders and
trusses were required for the structural steel skeleton of the facility. The main point of interest for
this study was the material delivery process. The contractor was restricted to delivering only one
phase (three to six bays) of steel ahead of the erection crew; the delivery process resembled a JIT
delivery system. However, the current delivery system was put in place after the original system
of unrestricted deliveries had created safety issues. A direct result of this restriction was the low
inventory days required for each phase. The contractor controlled the movement of steel from the
manufacturers facility to its storage position in the parking lot and, finally, to the material laydown area. A separate subcontractor controlled the labor portion for erecting the steel, as well as
the steel movement from the lay-down area into its final position. Table 6.7 portrays the results
from the observation period.
The crane operators time was not included in this analysis because one member of the data collection
crew was called away. However, had his time been included it would have shown that the VA/NVA % of
Total Time values dropped slightly, and the NVAR percentage values acquired the difference.
70
Table 6.7: Results for Case Study No. 2 - Structural Steel Erection Process
Activity Classification
VA
Waste Classification
Time at Activity
Value Adding
% of Time at Activity
1:00:18
10.54%
1:00:18
10.54%
1:21:51
2:00:56
14.31%
21.14%
3:22:47
35.45%
2:18:55
0:22:42
0:41:40
1:45:42
24.28%
3.97%
7%
18.48%
NVA Total
5:08:59
54.01%
Grand Total
9:32:04
100%
VA Total
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
T.W.S.A.
NVAR Total
NVA
Waiting
Extra Proc.
Transport
Motion
Table 6.8 shows the Quick Summary results from the value stream map for Case Study No. 2. Of
the 2,016 total workable hours committed to the 14 phases of the steel erection process, only 181
were VA.
Table 6.8: Quick Summary for Case Study No. 2
Quick Summary for Level One
For One Phase (three to six bays)
Working Days
4
Working Days
Work Time
144 man-hours
Work Time
VA Total
13 man-hours
VA Total
NVAR Total
48 man-hours
NVAR Total
NVA Total
83 man-hours
NVA Total
For 14 Phases
56
2016
181
674
1162
man-hours
man-hours
man-hours
man-hours
Case Study No. 3 involved the erection process for light-gauge steel. The main point of interest
for this case study included the use of two separate crews to erect the various steel elements. For
this project, the subcontractor controlled the entire labor value stream and a portion of the
material value stream after the steel had been delivered to the site. The contractor controlled the
portion of the material value stream from procurement to delivery of the steel onto the site. The
subcontractor chose to use two crews for the production process. One crew was responsible for
erecting columns and pod beam combinations (pod beam and spandrel beam connected as one
unit). The second crew was responsible for erecting the interleaving bar joists for each bay. The
design of this multiple crew system was closer to a lean manufacturing ideal. The higher density
of workers provided higher throughput and a smaller amount of WIP. However, while the
process was fast, adding new crew members to the production process caused waste attributed to
waiting that consumed nearly half of the total time because of synchronization problems
between Crew 2 and Crew 1. Table 6.9 shows the results from the observation period.
Table 6.9: Results for Case Study No. 3 - Structural Steel Erection Process
Activity Classification
VA
Waste Classification
Value Adding
VA Total
% of Total Time
2:04:45
9.77%
2:04:45
9.77%
NVAR
Mat. Pos
2:00:32
9.44%
In-Process Ins.
T.W.S.A.
0:06:15
3:10:01
0.49%
14.89%
5:16:48
24.82%
9:41:12
0:08:09
0:59:17
3:06:19
45.53%
0.64%
4.64%
14.60%
NVAR Total
NVA
Waiting
Extra Proc.
Transport
Motion
NVA Total
13:54:57
65.41%
Grand Total
21:16:30
100.00%
71
Table 6.10 shows the Quick Summary results from the value stream map for Case Study No. 3.
Of the 1,544 total workable hours committed to the steel erection process, only 152 were VA.
Table 6.10: Quick Summary for Case Study No. 3
Quick Summary for Level One
Working Days
37
Working Time
1544 man-hours
VA Total
152 man-hours
NVAR Total
373 man-hours
NVA Total
1018 man-hours
6.5.1.1 Comparison of Structural Steel Cases. Case Studies No. 1 and No. 3 offer
insight into to the effects of crew variation in a steel erection process. Material on both sites was
organized in a similar fashion. The main difference between these studies was the additional
erection crew in Case Study No. 3. Lean ideology requires balancing processes to create flow in
the value stream. Flow was generated in Case Study No. 3 at the crew level. In Case Study
No. 3, no back-tracking was required such as that observed during Case Study No. 1 (crew
erected two columns and girders, then backtracked to erect bar joists). While the erection process
proved to be faster compared to Case Study No. 1, the waste attributed to waiting nearly doubled
for Case Study No. 3. Similar complications resulting from unbalanced crewmember responsibilities were present in each study. Three lessons were learned from this comparison:
(1)
Introducing two (or more) crews to the erection process does not necessarily
create additional value, even though it does increase throughput and reduce WIP.
Multiple ill-designed crews only increase the rate at which waste is accumulated.
The VA percentage dropped from 25 percent for Case Study No. 1 to roughly
10 percent for Case Study No. 2.
(2)
Adding another crew to the process can add waste to the value stream if the work
progress of the individual crews is not synchronized. The increase of NVA
percentages from 53 percent (Case Study No. 1) to 65 percent (Case Study No. 3)
highlights this effect.
(3)
Comparing Case Study No. 2 to Case Studies No. 1 and No. 3 shows the effect structural design
has on a value stream. The light-gauge steel in Case Studies No. 1 and No. 3 required smaller
amounts of NVAR actions (21.9 and 24.8 percent, respectively) than the heavier-gauge steel for
Case Study No. 2 (35.5 percent). More actions were required during Case Study No. 2 to safely
hoist and secure each structural element into its final position. A decrease in the NVA percentage
would have been shown had material organization in the lay-down area been different in Case
Study No. 2 (i.e., offloading steel elements from the truck to a position on the ground next to their
final place in the structure).
72
The largest VA percentage (24.9 percent) was found in Case Study No. 1 and the smallest
(9.8 percent) in Case Study No. 3. The largest NVAR percentage (35.5 percent) was found in
Case Study No. 2 and the smallest (21.9 percent) in Case Study No. 1. The largest NVA percentage (65.45 percent) was found in Case Study No. 3 and the smallest (53.2 percent) in Case Study
No. 1.
Waste Classification
Value Adding
Time at Activity
% of Time at Activity
1:14:07
10.43%
1:14:07
10.43%
Mat. Pos.
1:26:55
12.23%
In-Process Ins.
T.W.S.A.
0:16:00
0:49:11
2.25%
6.92%
2:32:06
21.40%
VA Total
NVAR
NVAR Total
NVA
Waiting
3:14:31
27.37%
Extra Proc.
Transport
1:37:57
1:16:51
13.78%
10.81%
Motion
NVA Total
Grand Total
1:55:08
16.20%
8:04:27
68.17%
11:50:40
100.00%
Table 6.12 shows the Quick Summary results from the value stream map for Case Study No. 4.
Of the 1,267 total workable hours committed to the piping installation process, only 98 were VA.
Table 6.12: Quick Summary for Case Study No. 4
Quick Summary for Level One
For All Spools Worked on During
Observation Period
Working Days
33
Working Time
1267 man-hours
VA Total
98 man-hours
NVAR Total
266 man-hours
NVA Total
904 man-hours
Case Study No. 5 (Appendix E) involved the installation of prefabricated pipe spools. The major
point of interest for this study was the cause and effect relationship between the material and
labor value streams. Multiple parties controlled the material value stream before the
prefabricated spools were shipped to the site (e.g., spool fabricator, cleaning and painting
subcontractor). The contractor oversaw the movement of material between each party. The
73
installing subcontractor controlled the material value stream once it was delivered to the site. The
installing subcontractor controlled all aspects of the labor value stream as well. Obstructed
information flow between the various parties resulted in a large extra processing percentage (e.g.,
paint was ground off each end of the delivered spools from the painting subcontractor).
Table 6.13 shows the weighted average values for the entire installation period.
Table 6.13: Result for Case Study No. 5 - Piping Installation Process
Activity Classification
VA
Waste Classification
Time at Activity
Value Adding
VA Total
% of Time at Activity
1:24:11
8.19%
1:24:11
8.19%
NVAR
Material Pos.
0:39:13
3.82%
In-Process Ins.
T.W.S.A
1:21:47
1:15:48
7.96%
7.38%
3:16:48
19.15%
5:15:40
3:13:17
1:19:17
30.72%
18.81%
7.72%
NVAR Total
NVA
Waiting
Extra Proc.
Transport
2:38:17
15.40%
NVA Total
Motion
12:26:31
72.65%
Grand Total
17:07:30
100.00%
Table 6.14 shows the Quick Summary results from the value stream map for Case Study No. 5.
Of the 800 total workable hours committed to the piping installation process, only 58 were VA.
Table 6.14: Quick Summary for Case Study No. 5
Quick Summary for Level One
For All Spools Worked on During
Observation Period
Working Days
35
Working Time
800 man-hours
VA Total
58 man-hours
NVAR Total
153 man-hours
NVA Total
590 man-hours
In Case Study No. 6 (Appendix F) installation of Victaulic pipe was observed. No VA actions
were observed during this visit. The observation period was not representative of the sites
average work distribution values; therefore, only a lessons learned synopsis for Case Study
No. 6 is included.
6.5.2.1 Comparison of Piping Process Cases. Greater control of the process piping
value stream in Case Study No. 4 resulted in the best average work distribution values.
Comparing only the VA percentages from the prefabricated spool processes of each job shows
that there was a net difference of 10 percent (18 percent from Case Study No. 4, 8 percent from
Case Study No. 5). Furthermore, the VA percentage from Case Study No. 5 for prefabricated
spools more closely resembles the field-fabricated values found in Case Study No. 4. When the
value stream is not monitored at the level required, defects pass through the value stream; the
final erection crew was required to fix all upstream defects. These defects were the cause for the
lower VA percentage of the prefabricated spool installation in Case Study No. 5.
Both cases included extra processing (rework) wastes. More than two thirds of the installation
processes resulted in pure waste (NVA). Also, the VA percentage for process piping ranged from
8 to 10.5 percent. Finally, defects pushed through the value stream that required rework on the
74
part of the crew caused variations from the expected work distribution values and the actual work
distribution values.
On average, steel production processes require more NVAR actions than do piping processes. A
large contributor to the steel process NVAR category is material positioning. Because steel
erection processes are more repetitive than piping processes, more time is spent on the act of
aligning each new member into a final position. More time is also required in the steel erection
process for TWSA. However, NVAR waste due to in-process inspections is more typical for
piping processes than for steel processes.
6.5.3.1 Limitations of this Study. The value streams for each case study represent only
those elements specific to the process observed. To map out the entire value stream for the
construction production process, the job would need to be monitored in its entirety. For example,
Toyotas entire value stream related to its production process can be observed in one day (i.e., a
car takes one full day to go from start to finish). Therefore, to view the entire value stream for a
construction production process, the process must be observed from the start of the project
through completion.
75
76
value to the final product. How much value they are capable of adding depends upon management, work processes, information flow and the skill of the crews.
According to the definitions of waste, waiting, transport, extra processing and motion are most
closely related to the actual work process (i.e., labor and equipment). Overproduction, inventory
and defects are associated with the material supply chain and production scheduling functions.
The observation periods for each case study were brief and focused, which limited the teams
ability to quantify wastes associated with overproduction, inventory and defects in specific detail.
77
line. For this study, the production line has been limited to the highly repetitive process of
erecting bar joists. The flow in this map begins when steel members are ordered from the
manufacturer. They are then shipped to the jobsite and stored onsite before erection. Finally, the
map shows the individual substages that each crew member participates in during the erection of
the bar joist members.
A construction value stream cannot be represented like a manufacturing value stream. The major
difference between the two systems occurs at the project level when material reaches the site.
Material on the construction site does not flow past the worker, rather the worker must move
(flow) to the material. In manufacturing, the work station, where a transformation of the final
product occurs, never has to move in the ideal manufacturing line, yet for a construction
process the work station continually moves around the jobsite as work progress. Furthermore,
the conventional model on Figure 6.4 assumes a linear relationship between its elements, creating
what is known as a FIFO process. In construction, several tasks in an activity can and/or must
occur simultaneously. The simple manufacturing value stream model does not easily allow for
parallel activities.
78
Production Control
Project Engineer
Project Feedback
Project
Superintendent
Percent Complete
Steel In
Place
awaiting
welding
Steel
Supplier
As Required
2 Shipments
O
Daily
O OO
Forklift
Operator
Fifo
Forklift
Operator
Fifo
Forklift
Operator
Fifo
Forklift
Operator
Fifo
Forklift
Operator
Staggard
Ground
Crewmen
Staggard
Left
Connector
Staggard
Left
Connector
Staggard
Right
Connector
Staggard
Right
Connector
Staggard
X-Bracing
Connector
Staggard
X-Bracing
Connector
Staggard
CT=
CO=
CT=
CO=
CT=
CO=
CT=
CO=
CT=
CO=
CT=
CO=
CT=
CO=
CT=
CO=
CT=
CO=
CT=
CO=
CT=
CO=
CT=
CO=
Uptime
Uptime
Uptime
Uptime
Uptime
Uptime
Uptime
Uptime
Uptime
Uptime
Uptime
Uptime
Avail
time
Avail
time
Avail
time
Avail
time
Avail
time
Avail
time
Avail
time
Avail
time
Avail
time
Avail
time
Avail
time
Avail
time
79
Production Control
Project Engineer
Every 1-3 days
Triggering Event
Level One
2 phases of steel are ordered
Percent Complete
Project Superintendent
Distribution of time from VSM
Project Feedback
Steel Supplier
NVAR Time
1
Daily
As Required
VA Time
Work Time
OO
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Manhours
Equipment involved:
Forklifts
Workers involved
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (20%)
NVA (80%)
Equipment involved:
2
Forklifts
32
0
6.4
25.6
Workers involved
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (0%)
NVA (100%)
2
Inv
2
80
0
0
80
Forklifts
Workers involved
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (0%)
NVA (100%)
Forklifts
2
40
0
0
40
Columns
Crew Member
Fork Lift Operator
Level Three Ground Crewmen
Left Connector
X-Bracing Con.
Right Connector
Group Percentage
6%
Waiting
14%
0%
40%
66%
53%
35%
Waste
Extra
Transport
Processing
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
NVA Sum
0%
61%
Crew Member
Fork Lift Operator
Ground Crewmen
Left Connector
X-Bracing Con.
Right Connector
Group Percentage
VA
All
Activities
0%
0%
16%
0%
16%
8%
Waiting
66%
0%
12%
87%
24%
47%
Waste
Extra
Transport
Processing
0%
3%
0%
0%
44%
0%
0%
0%
60%
0%
0%
27%
NVA =
77%
VA
All
Activities
25%
0%
41%
57%
25%
31%
Waiting
24%
40%
16%
11%
27%
34%
Waste
Extra
Transport
Processing
5%
12%
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
NVA =
25%
28%
9%
60%
2
40
0
0
40
6%
2%
Days Required
Crane, 2
Skylift, Forklift
Workers involved
Crew
WT=
VA ( 8%) =
NVAR (15%) =
NVA (77%) =
5
78.7
4.7
26.8
47.2
1:19:32h:m:s
16%
0%
46%
34%
18%
26%
7%
Total %
VA +
NVAR %
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
70%
0%
13%
0%
29%
100%
34%
2:10:31h:m:s
39%
In Proc. Ins.
T.W.S.A
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
52%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
24%
NVAR
11%
0%
2%
1%
0%
Material
Pos.
6%
0%
27%
0%
0%
3%
9%
Movement
In Proc. Ins.
T.W.S.A
Total %
VA +
NVAR %
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
0%
0%
12%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
21%
0%
42%
12%
16%
6%
101%
23%
0%
15%
7:57:07h:m:s
NVAR
20%
0%
16%
30%
22%
Material
Pos.
4%
18%
27%
0%
24%
13%
1%
Movement
In Proc. Ins.
T.W.S.A
Total %
VA +
NVAR %
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
38%
0%
3%
2%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
39%
56%
68%
60%
51%
3%
99%
40%
5%
9%
11:27:10h:m:s
NVAR
In Proc. Ins.
T.W.S.A
Total %
VA +
NVAR %
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
19%
38%
0%
5%
2%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
43%
56%
57%
42%
42%
9%
100%
46%
18%
0%
16%
23%
17%
Material
Pos.
5%
18%
25%
0%
19%
17%
13%
0%
% of Total
Time
% of Total Time
each steel
element requires
Movement
Table represents the time distribution for each element viewed during the observation period
Cumulative
Number of
Cycle time for each
Time for
members
Cumulative Time for each Element
element installed
various
observed
categories
1:19:32
2
0:39:46
Total cumulative Time for two columns
Total Cumulative Time for 2 Girders
2:10:31
2
1:05:15
Total Cumulative Time for 26 Bar Joists
7:57:07
26
0:18:21
Total Time
11:27:10
12%
19%
69%
Average VA Percentage
Average NVAR Percentage
25%
22%
53%
5.8%
9.5%
2.7%
80
3.2
Equipment involved:
NVAR
Material
Pos.
7%
0%
0%
0%
29%
Movement
NVAR =
Total Cumulative Time for Steel Erection
Waste
Extra
Transport
Processing
3%
8%
0%
4%
11%
0%
0%
0%
12%
0%
2.0
Workers involved
Crew
WT=
VA ( 6%) =
NVAR (34%) =
NVA (60%) =
NVAR =
Total Cumulative Time Spent on Bar Joists
Bar Joists
Crew Member
Crane, Forklift
NVAR Sum
Total Cumulative Time Spent on Girders
Girders
10
Equipment involved:
VA
All
Activities
7%
0%
13%
0%
0%
2 to 4
Columns Erected
Days Required
Workers involved
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (0%)
NVA (0%)
**Graph shows the amount of man-hours atributed to each work category. VA time +
NVAR time + NVA time = Work Time
17.0
680
161
89
430
Inventory Days
10
Note: These Steps occur at the same time. Columns and
Girders are erected first but cannot be continued until the
inner supporting bar joist have been erected.
Inv
Level Two
Equipment involved:
Forklift, crane,
skylifts
Workers involved
Crew
WT=
VA ( 7%, 13%)
NVAR (28%, 21%)
NVA (100%)
5
129.2
10.3
19.4
99.4
11.8
Equipment involved:
Crane,
Forklift, 2
4
Skylifts
Workers involved
Crew
5
WT=
472
VA ( 31%) =
146
NVAR (9%) =
42
NVA (60%) =
283
Columns
Crew Member
Level Three
VA
All
Activities
7%
0%
13%
0%
0%
6%
Waiting
14%
0%
40%
66%
53%
35%
NVA Sum
Girders
Crew Member
Fork Lift Operator
Ground Crewmen
Left Connector
X-Bracing Con.
Right Connector
Group Percentage
VA
All
Activities
0%
0%
16%
0%
16%
8%
Waiting
66%
0%
12%
87%
24%
47%
NVA =
Bar Joists
Crew Member
Fork Lift Operator
Ground Crewmen
Left Connector
X-Bracing Con.
Right Connector
Group Percentage
VA
All
Activities
25%
0%
41%
57%
25%
31%
25%
Waiting
24%
40%
16%
11%
27%
34%
NVA =
Waiting
28%
40%
17%
35%
29%
28%
1:19:32 h:m:s
NVAR
Material
Pos.
7%
0%
0%
0%
29%
70%
0%
13%
0%
29%
100%
34%
2:10:31 h:m:s
39%
52%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
26%
7%
2%
NVAR Sum
Total Cumulative Time Spent on Girders
Waste
NVAR
Extra
Material
Transport
Movement
In Proc. Ins.
Processing
Pos.
0%
3%
11%
6%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
44%
0%
2%
27%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
60%
0%
0%
0%
0%
24%
0%
3%
9%
0%
NVAR =
15%
Total Cumulative Time Spent on Bar Joists
Waste
NVAR
Material
Extra
Movement
In Proc. Ins.
Transport
Pos.
Processing
5%
12%
20%
4%
1%
0%
4%
0%
18%
0%
0%
0%
16%
27%
0%
0%
0%
30%
0%
0%
0%
0%
22%
24%
0%
Total %
VA +
NVAR %
14%
0%
0%
12%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
21%
0%
42%
12%
16%
6%
101%
23%
T.W.S.A
77%
5%
13%
1%
NVAR =
9%
Total Cumulative Time for Steel Erection
Waste
NVAR
Extra
Material
Transport
Movement
In Proc. Ins.
Processing
Pos.
3%
8%
18%
5%
2%
0%
4%
0%
18%
0%
11%
0%
16%
25%
0%
0%
0%
23%
0%
0%
12%
0%
17%
19%
0%
4%
9%
7:57:07 h:m:s
Total %
VA +
NVAR %
8%
38%
0%
3%
2%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
39%
56%
68%
60%
51%
3%
99%
40%
T.W.S.A
60%
6%
2%
17%
13%
0%
Table represents the time distribution for each element viewed during the observation period
Cumulative
Number of
Cycle time for each % of Total
Time for
Cumulative Time for each Element
members
element installed
Time
various
observed
categories
Total cumulative Time for two columns
Total Cumulative Time for 2 Girders
Total Cumulative Time for 26 Bar Joists
Total Time
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
4%
0%
Area
1
0%
61%
27%
VA +
NVAR %
T.W.S.A
0%
0%
Total %
In Proc. Ins.
1:19:32
2:10:31
7:57:07
11:27:10
2
2
26
0:39:46
1:05:15
0:18:21
12%
19%
69%
Area 3
Figure 6.6: Level Three Data
81
% of Total Time
each steel
element requires
5.8%
9.5%
2.7%
11:27:10 h:m:s
Total %
VA +
NVAR %
19%
38%
0%
5%
2%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
43%
56%
57%
42%
42%
9%
100%
46%
T.W.S.A
Average VA Percentage
Average NVAR Percentage
25%
22%
53%
Area 2
Finally, Area 3 breaks down the proportion of time each substage requires in the main stage. This
distribution is necessary when determining the weighted percentage of total time spent on each
substage in Level Two. From this table, the cycle times can be computed for each building
component erected. For example, the average cycle time to erect a bar joist from the ground into
its final position was calculated by taking the time required to install one element (18 minutes,
21 seconds) and dividing it by the total number of crew members (5). The cycle time for one bar
joist was determined to be three minutes, 40 seconds.
Level Two
Days Required
2.5
Days Required
Workers involved
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (0%)
NVA (100%)
2.5
Forklifts
2
40
0
0
40
Workers involved
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (0%)
NVA (0%)
Days Required
Equipment involved:
Equipment involved:
Forklifts
2.0
Days Required
Crane, Forklift
2
40
0
0
40
Workers involved
Crew
WT=
VA ( 6%) =
NVAR (34%) =
NVA (60%) =
3.2
Equipment involved:
Crane, 2
Skylift, Forklift
Workers involved
Crew
WT=
VA ( 8%) =
NVAR (15%) =
NVA (77%) =
Equipment involved:
1
5
78.7
4.7
26.8
47.2
4
5
129.2
10.3
19.4
99.4
Equipment involved:
Crane, Forklift, 2
Skylifts
Workers involved
Crew
WT=
VA ( 31%) =
NVAR (9%) =
NVA (60%) =
11.8
4
5
472
146
42
283
Days Required
3.2
Equipment involved:
Crane, 2 Skylift,
Forklift
Workers involved
Crew
WT=
VA ( 8%) =
NVAR (15%) =
NVA (77%) =
Section 2
5
129.2
10.3
19.4
99.4
Figure 6.8: Typical Setup for a Substage Box in the Value Stream
82
To further illustrate the calculation process for this level the main stage from Level One must be
introduced, along with its required substages in Level Two (Figure 6.9) and the steps in the
calculation demonstrated.
Stage Three - Steel Erection
Process
Days Required
17.0
Equipment involved:
Forklift, crane,
2 to 4
skylifts
Workers involved
Crew
5
WT=
680
VA ( 7%, 13%)
161
NVAR (28%, 21%)
89
NVA (100%)
430
Columns Erected
Days Required
2.0
Days Required
Equipment involved:
Crane, Forklift
Workers involved
Crew
WT=
VA ( 6%) =
NVAR (34%) =
NVA (60%) =
Days Required
Equipment involved:
Crane, 2 Skylift,
Forklift
5
78.7
4.7
26.8
47.2
Workers involved
Crew
WT=
VA ( 8%) =
NVAR (15%) =
NVA (77%) =
11.8
Equipment involved:
Crane, Forklift, 2
Skylifts
5
129.2
10.3
19.4
99.4
Workers involved
Crew
WT=
VA ( 31%) =
NVAR (9%) =
NVA (60%) =
5
472
146
42
283
Figure 6.9: Main Stage from Level One Along with Required Substages from Level Two
6.9.2.1 Step 1. The days required value is calculated using the weighted percentage of time
spent on a substage. This number is found in Area 3 of Level Three, % of total time
(19 percent). This calculation (Equation 6.1) focuses on the days required for girder installation.
Multiply 19 percent by the total number of days required value (17) found in the main stage of
Level One.
Equation 6.1: 17 days x 19% = 3.23 (cumulative days to erect every girder)
The result is 3.23 days. This value indicates that if the crew focused only on the girder erection
process, it would take them a cumulative time period of 3.23 days to erect every girder. Using
this value, the values found in Section 2 of the substage box can be calculated. The equipment
category shows which resources are used for each substage. These values can be used to aid in
balancing the total equipment on a job with the crew to create the best possible flow in the work
process. To complete Section 1, the total number of workers required for the substage was
entered. If the same crew was used for each substage, then this value would remain the same.
However, if two separate crews were involved with the process, these values may not remain the
same between the substage processes.
83
6.9.2.2 Step 2. Section 2 breaks down the work distribution values for that substage. Work
time (WT) is defined as the total workable man-hours a crew can contribute assuming that they
work five days a week, eight hours a day. The calculation for WT is as follows:
Equation 6.2: WT = 8 hours per (day per crew member) x 5 crewmembers x 3.23 days
= 129.2 total available person-hours for the girder erection process
6.9.2.3 Step 3. This WT value must be used as the basis for the remaining categories of VA,
NVAR and NVA. The percentages shown next to VA, NVAR and NVA were developed from
the Level Three tables.3 For each substage, a table was developed with values for NVA and
NVAR. These values were obtained by totaling the subcategory values that contributed to each
of the main work distribution categories (e.g., NVAR = Mat Pos. Value + In-Process Ins. Value +
TWSA Value = 15 percent for girders). The number of man-hours that were contributed to each
work category can now be calculated.
Equation 6.3: NVAR Time = 15% x 129.2 man-hours = 19.4 man-hours
This step was repeated using the VA and NVA percentages to find their respective values.
6.9.2.4 Step 4. These steps were repeated for each substage until all the categories were
complete. Once completed, the main stage box found on Level One totaled all of the values
found in Section 2 of each substage box, resulting in a weighted final value for each stage in
Level One.
Equation 6.4: WT (Stage Three) = WT Substage 1 + WT Substage 2 +WT Substage 3
WT (Stage Three) = 78.7 + 129.2 + 472
WT (Stage Three) = 680 available man-hours
Levels Two and Three are structured to give the contractor (subcontractor) a detailed view of
material movement while onsite, as well as the crew actions required for the installation/erection
of the material into final position. Levels Two and Three allow the contractor to better control
wastes associated with waiting, transport, extra processing and movement. At the project level,
the contractor can use Levels Two and Three to balance crews and the respective tasks required
from each crew member. A balanced crew allows material and processes to reach their ideal
flow. The main reason for the separation of these levels is to give the contractor the ability to
track material movement on two separate time scales. The time required to design, procure and
deliver material to the jobsite (Level One) can be substantially larger than the time required to
install or erect the material after it is onsite (Levels Two and Three).
For those stages in which material was offloaded from the truck to the ground, a 20 percent standard value
has been assigned for the NVAR category. This is to accommodate for the NVAR actions of setting up
hoist lines, safety lines or whatever else was required to safely move the material to the ground.
84
The manufacturer then produces the required steel elements and ships them to the jobsite. Once
the steel (or any other material) is onsite, it is tracked in stages until it has been installed or
erected into its final position. Information arrows also show how often communication is made
between each party, as the As Required and Daily notations signify.
The dark arrows leading from the last stage box Steel in Place Awaiting Welding to the
Production Control box offer a means to track overproduction and defect wastes.
Overproduction is represented in various forms depending on the hierarchy in the projects
management team. At the owner level, overproduction results from over designing the facility.
At the project level, overproduction results from starting activities before they are required by the
ideal latest responsible start schedule.
Defect wastes are also represented in various forms depending on the hierarchy in the projects
management team. At the owner level, a defect may result from a facility not meeting its
requirements because of underdesign or overdesign. At the project level, a defect can be
quantified by determining the amount of time a follow-up crew is required to fix errors or
unfinished work left by a previous crew.
Using material as the traceable element, a stage or process box (as is shown on the bottom row
of Figure 6.10) must be created to represent the material at that point in the process cycle. Stages
occur each time the material is touched onsite, beginning with offloading the material into a laydown yard or staging area. Every time the material is moved or transformed (e.g., two structural
elements are combined on the ground but then left there until the installation stage) prior to the
actual installation process, it must be accounted for by a separate stage box. For the remaining
stages that do not have field data to support the required information, the weighted average values
found in Level Three, Area 2, must be used.
Below the stage boxes is a staggered line with numbers placed between each stage box. These
numbers represent the days of inventory that occur between each stage. The number is based on
each shipment of material to the site. Inventory waste is quantified in Level One by totaling all
inventory days. An inventory day starts when the material is received onsite, and ends when the
last material piece in the shipment is moved to its next staging position or is installed. For
example, if two shipments of steel are delivered to the site, each shipment is treated separately to
identify the element in that shipment that remains on the ground the longest before being moved
to its next stage in the process life cycle. The period of time between each phase gives a portion
of the total inventory waste. The goal of tracking this waste is to reduce the inventory days to the
ideal value of zero. At this point, material flows onto the site, proceeds through all necessary
stages and is installed into its final position without being stored in various completion stages.
Another way to shrink this value is to order smaller batches of material for each delivery. If the
batch size is smaller, the time required to use up all the material in that one batch should decrease.
Therefore, the piece of material remaining longest onsite is governed by the consumption rate of
the crew erecting or installing those elements. In a financial sense, this means that the front
end costs of material delivered to the site may not rise as fast as it would with the current
practice of large batch material orders.
Once all stages are complete, the finished process box can be shown. In this example, it is
labeled Steel in Place Awaiting Welding. From the finished process box, the information
arrows relate process-specific information such as overall feedback on productivity and percent
complete for billing applications.
85
Production Control
Project Engineer
Triggering Event
Project Feedback
Level One
Percent Complete
Project Superintendent
Time
Alloc
ation
Field
NVA Time
1
VA Time
Steel Supplier
Supplie
Daily
As Required
5 cumulative days to deliver steel
O
OO
Equipment involved:
Forklifts
Workers involved
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (20%)
NVA (80%)
Forklifts
2
32
0
6.4
25.6
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Manhours
Work Time
Inv
Workers involved
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (0%)
NVA (100%)
2
80
0
0
80
Inv
86
Finally, the table to the right of the stages provides a quick summary for all of the stages in
Level One. The bar chart above the table represents these values in a graphical display.
In summary, Level One is structured to allow the contractor to directly control waste associated
with overproduction (WIP) and inventory. Pure overproduction is rare on a construction site,
since most construction is built for a specific order. However, any time that a contractor orders
more material than is required during the project for a specific time period, it contributes to overproduction waste. Overproduction also accounts for WIP where an activity is left partially
completed because insufficient materials were available or the activity was started before it was
called for by the construction schedule. A late start schedule is ideal for limiting waste resulting
from WIP. Inventory accounts for instances when the contractor orders more material than is
required to complete the job, thus resulting in excess raw material at the completion of the
project. A well developed value stream map at this level will also indirectly affect how much
waiting occurs between construction activities, amount of transport required for materials around
the jobsite and the proportion of extra processing (rework) required because of defective
materials delivered onsite.
87
Work Distribution
1200
1000
800
Time (man hours)
Cumulative Calendar Hours
Cumulative Work Hours
600
400
Cumulative VA Hours
Delivery and
Preparation
Process
Erection Process is
underway
200
Note: the percentages used to
create this chart are the
average values from the work
distribution values found for the entire crew.
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Calendar Days
88
Day
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Cumulative
Cumulative
Hours
Calendar Calendar
Workable
Crew
Workable Cumulative VA
NVAR
NVA VA Cumulative NVAR Cumulative NVA Cumulative
Calendar
Workable
worked
Days Hours
Days
available
Hours Work Hours Percentage Percentage Percentage Hours VA Hours Hours NVAR Hrs. Hours NVA Hrs
Hours
days
per day
1
16
16
1
1
2
8
16
16
0%
20%
80%
0
0
3.2
3.2
12.8 12.8
2
16
32
1
2
2
8
16
32
0%
20%
80%
0
0
3.2
6.4
12.8 25.6
3
16
48
1
3
2
8
16
48
0%
0%
100% 0
0
0
6.4
16
41.6
4
16
64
1
4
2
8
16
64
0%
0%
100% 0
0
0
6.4
16
57.6
5
16
80
1
5
2
8
16
80
0%
0%
100% 0
0
0
6.4
16
73.6
6
16
96
0
5
2
0
0
80
0%
0%
100% 0
0
0
6.4
0
73.6
7
16
112
0
5
2
0
0
80
0%
0%
100% 0
0
0
6.4
0
73.6
8
16
128
1
6
2
8
16
96
0%
0%
100% 0
0
0
6.4
16
89.6
9
16
144
1
7
2
8
16
112
0%
0%
100% 0
0
0
6.4
16 105.6
10
40
184
1
8
5
8
40
152
25%
22%
53% 10
10
8.8
15.2 21.2 126.8
11
40
224
1
9
5
8
40
192
25%
22%
53% 10
20
8.8
24
21.2 148
12
40
264
1
10
5
8
40
232
25%
22%
53% 10
30
8.8
32.8 21.2 169.2
13
40
304
0
10
5
0
0
232
25%
22%
53%
0
30
0
32.8
0
169.2
14
40
344
0
10
5
0
0
232
25%
22%
53%
0
30
0
32.8
0
169.2
15
40
384
1
11
5
8
40
272
25%
22%
53% 10
40
8.8
41.6 21.2 190.4
16
40
424
1
12
5
8
40
312
25%
22%
53% 10
50
8.8
50.4 21.2 211.6
17
40
464
1
13
5
8
40
352
25%
22%
53% 10
60
8.8
59.2 21.2 232.8
18
40
504
1
14
5
8
40
392
25%
22%
53% 10
70
8.8
68
21.2 254
19
40
544
1
15
5
8
40
432
25%
22%
53% 10
80
8.8
76.8 21.2 275.2
20
40
584
0
15
5
0
0
432
25%
22%
53%
0
80
0
76.8
0
275.2
21
40
624
0
15
5
0
0
432
25%
22%
53%
0
80
0
76.8
0
275.2
22
40
664
1
16
5
8
40
472
25%
22%
53% 10
90
8.8
85.6 21.2 296.4
23
40
704
1
17
5
8
40
512
25%
22%
53% 10
100
8.8
94.4 21.2 317.6
24
40
744
1
18
5
8
40
552
25%
22%
53% 10
110
8.8
103.2 21.2 338.8
25
40
784
1
19
5
8
40
592
25%
22%
53% 10
120
8.8
112 21.2 360
26
40
824
1
20
5
8
40
632
25%
22%
53% 10
130
8.8
120.8 21.2 381.2
27
40
864
0
20
5
0
0
632
25%
22%
53%
0
130
0
120.8
0
381.2
28
40
904
0
20
5
0
0
632
25%
22%
53%
0
130
0
120.8
0
381.2
29
40
944
1
21
5
8
40
672
25%
22%
53% 10
140
8.8
129.6 21.2 402.4
30
40
984
1
22
5
8
40
712
25%
22%
53% 10
150
8.8
138.4 21.2 423.6
31
40
1024
1
23
5
8
40
752
25%
22%
53% 10
160
8.8
147.2 21.2 444.8
32
40
1064
1
24
5
8
40
792
25%
22%
53% 10
170
8.8
156 21.2 466
89
Column 7, Workable Days, provides a base for the remaining calculations. If a 1 is shown in
Column 7, then the row represents an actual workday; if the value is 0, then it represents a nonworking day (i.e., a weekend or a holiday). Column 8, Cumulative Workable Days is a running
total of possible workdays. The columns representing percentage values for VA, NVAR and
NVA obtain their values from the stage boxes in Level One of the value stream map.
90
100%
In addition, an assessment was made regarding applicability of the principle by industry role; that
is, whether it applies to the owner, contractor, subcontractor, designer or supplier. The roles of
both designers and the material suppliers have been evaluated, although supply chain and design
issues were excluded from the study. Accordingly, the judgments about designer and supplier
roles are not based on the same degree of evidence as are the judgments about the roles of
contractors and subcontractors. These judgments are represented as bar charts, as follows:
Meeting Requirements of the Customer
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
50%
20%
10%
10%
G
EN
H
C
(A
R
es
ig
ne
r
Su
pp
li e
rs
or
ra
ct
Su
bc
on
t
on
tra
ct
or
C
ne
r
10%
Finally, each subprinciple was evaluated for applicability at all three levels of the organization;
namely, crew, project management and enterprise. This evaluation is both an assessment of the
level at which the principle is best applied and an appraisal of the organization level that has the
primary responsibility for implementing the given principle. This judgment is represented as
follows:
Meeting Requirements of the Customer
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Enterprise Level
Project Level
91
Crew Level
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
80%
50%
60%
60%
40%
20%
10%
20%
10%
10%
40%
0%
r
s ig
ne
rs
De
pp
Su
tr a
0%
bc
on
li e
or
ct
ct
ra
nt
Enterprise Level
Su
Co
wn
er
or
20%
Project Level
Crew Level
Therefore, meeting the requirements of the customer is a principle that must be followed by both
the contractor and the owner. It must be part of the culture of the contracting company at both the
enterprise level and the project management level. Meeting the requirements of the customer is
92
also applicable at the worksite/crew level; however, the involvement at this level is more limited
than it is at the higher levels.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
20%
0%
40%
r
s ig
ne
rs
0%
De
pp
Su
ct
tr a
20%
bc
on
li e
or
or
ct
ra
nt
Enterprise Level
Su
Co
wn
er
0%
Project Level
Crew Level
Defining value from the point of view of the ultimate customer is applicable to all major groups
(contractor, subcontractor, designer and supplier) in construction. Likewise, every level in the
project organization must be prepared to add value for the customer. The contractor must take
the lead in establishing the value structure both for its own organization and for all of the other
subordinate organizations involved with the project.
93
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Enterprise Level
Project Level
Crew Level
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
0%
0%
r
ne
rs
Su
De
pp
s ig
li e
or
ct
tr a
0%
Su
Co
bc
on
nt
ra
wn
ct
er
or
20%
Flexible and responsive systems must be developed at every level in the project and by every
member of the project team. The need for flexibility is a natural outgrowth of defining value
from the customers viewpoint.
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
20%
10%
0%
10%
50%
40%
r
ne
rs
s ig
0%
De
pp
Su
tr a
20%
0%
Enterprise Level
Su
bc
on
li e
or
ct
ct
ra
nt
Co
wn
er
or
0%
Project Level
Crew Level
Cross training is applicable for both contractors and subcontractors. The field staff must take
primary responsibility for cross training to the extent that it is permitted by labor agreements.
Both designers and suppliers may have minor opportunities to help allow for cross training by
understanding jurisdictional boundaries in union labor agreements.
94
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
20%
50%
40%
0%
wn
er
Co
tr a
ct
or
c
ub
on
c
tr a
to
r
Su
li
pp
s
er
D
ig
es
ne
20%
0%
0%
Enterprise Level
Project Level
Crew Level
Target costing (appropriately applied) and value engineering can be practiced by every member
of the project team. The main responsibility lies with the enterprise level.
7.1.2 Culture/People
Subprinciple No. 2.1: Provide Training at Every
Level. The need for training in developing a lean organization
and a lean culture is undisputed. Lean thinking requires
modification of long-standing ideas about every aspect of the
construction process. All of the lean companies encountered
in the study emphasized the need for training. Some lean
contractors also train their suppliers, subcontractors and craftspersons.
100%
Training
100%
Training
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Enterprise Level
Project Level
Crew Level
100%
75%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
20%
40%
r
De
s ig
ne
rs
pp
Su
tr a
20%
0%
Su
bc
on
li e
or
ct
ct
ra
nt
Co
wn
er
or
0%
95
All parties to the process must support the central role of training for implementing lean
principles. Even owners must participate in training so that they understand the potential of lean
construction.
Employee Empowerment
100%
Employee Empowerment
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
25%
20%
60%
25%
0%
40%
r
De
s ig
ne
rs
pp
Su
ct
tr a
20%
0%
Su
bc
on
li e
or
or
ct
ra
nt
Co
wn
er
0%
Enterprise Level
Project Level
Crew Level
Owners, designers and suppliers have little involvement in employee empowerment. Contractors
and subcontractors, on the other hand, must institute programs that motivate employees to take
responsibility for quality and process improvement. Some lean contractors use gain sharing as
a device to engage the construction workforce in process improvement. All levels of the
organization have significant accountability for ensuring that employees feel empowered to act to
improve project outcomes.
Subprinciple No. 2.3: Ensure Management Commitment. Creating a lean culture is perhaps the best precursor
of superior lean performance. Management commitment to the
lean ideal is fundamental to lean culture. Lean behavior that is
an everyday work ethic of managers, employees and strategic
partners is best ensured by unrelenting commitment to lean
ideals. Toyota has been working on developing the Toyota
Production System for decades. Lean construction will require a commitment of similar duration.
Several lean contractors reported that they have stayed committed to lean principles even though
they have not realized improved profits. Rather, many have cited the need for continued
application and extensions of lean concepts beyond those already adopted to realize the full
promise of a lean system. In the absence of improved profits, many lean contractors cite benefits
other than improved profits, such as improved quality and better employee morale.
100%
96
Management Commitment
100%
100%
100%
Management Commitment
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Enterprise Level
Project Level
Crew Level
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
60%
20%
40%
r
ne
rs
Su
De
pp
s ig
li e
or
tr a
20%
0%
Su
bc
Co
on
nt
ra
ct
ct
wn
or
er
0%
Owner, contractor and subcontractors must all embrace the lean ideal for a long period of time.
The use of strategic partnerships between contractor and subcontractor make it easier to sustain
lean behaviors from job to job. All levels of management from the CEO down to the first-line
crew supervisor must be committed to lean practices.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
75%
80%
60%
40%
60%
25%
20%
0%
40%
r
De
s ig
ne
rs
pp
Su
ct
tr a
20%
0%
bc
on
li e
or
or
ct
ra
nt
Enterprise Level
Su
Co
wn
er
0%
97
Project Level
Crew Level
5s's
100%
5s's
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
20%
0%
0%
0%
40%
40%
20%
50%
ne
rs
s ig
De
pp
Su
tr a
0%
0%
bc
on
li e
or
ct
ct
ra
nt
Enterprise Level
Su
Co
wn
er
or
0%
Project Level
Crew Level
Jobsite cleanliness, organization and logistics are the primary responsibility of the contractor and
the subcontractors. Field management must set the requirement for jobsite organization, but it
must be implemented by the work crews and first-line supervisors.
100%
98
build quality in; the attitude in construction is often to inspect quality in. The significant
attribute that enables error proofing is repetition. Repetition allows the production process to
move toward production work and away from craftwork.
Poke Yoke Devices
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
20%
50%
40%
0%
0%
r
ne
rs
Su
De
pp
s ig
li e
or
ct
tr a
0%
0%
Enterprise Level
Su
Co
bc
on
nt
ra
wn
ct
er
or
20%
Project Level
Crew Level
The responsibility for error proofing rests with all contributors to the construction production
process. Designers have opportunities to use standard design elements and features that allow
error proofing. Suppliers can be alert for opportunities to mark or modify products to facilitate
error proofing. Contractors and subcontractors alike can standardize processes.
Subprinciple No. 3.3: Provide Visual Management Devices. Visual management is the practice of using
graphical and visual devices to help manage and make routine
the production processes.
Visual management tools in
manufacturing cover an array of applications from production
control through quality control. Some lean contractors use
visual management devices to relate cost, quality and schedule
status. Others use visual devices to regulate traffic, lay-down and work zone assignments. Visual
management devices are another means to reduce the load on the workforce and communicate
goals and production metrics.
100%
Visual Management
Visual Management
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0%
50%
40%
0%
0%
r
De
s ig
ne
rs
pp
Su
ct
tr a
0%
bc
on
li e
or
or
ct
ra
nt
Enterprise Level
Su
Co
wn
er
20%
Project Level
Crew Level
Visual management is the prime responsibility of field personnel. Both the contractor and
subcontractor can employ visual management tools. The impetus for visual management comes
99
from the enterprise level in the organization; the implementation is the responsibility of the
project site management and first-line supervisors.
100%
100%
100%
Project Level
Crew Level
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
25%
20%
60%
25%
50%
40%
0%
r
De
s ig
ne
rs
pp
Su
tr a
20%
0%
Enterprise Level
Su
bc
on
li e
or
ct
ct
ra
nt
Co
wn
er
or
0%
As with most construction production principles, the foremost responsibility for creating standard
work processes rests with the contractor and subcontractor. Material suppliers and designers have
the prospect of enabling defined work processes through more standardization in design and
materials. Development of standard work processes occurs in the field with field management
and the crew. The enterprise level has the responsibility for ensuring that the standards are
applied across all projects. Reapplication of standardized processes will allow for the
amortization of the cost of development of lean work processes.
100
believes that time and money spent in organizing the worksite and creating production
infrastructure is repaid by reducing waste in direct production activities.
Logistics Material Movement Plan
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
60%
25%
20%
0%
40%
0%
r
De
s ig
ne
rs
pp
Su
tr a
25%
20%
0%
Enterprise Level
Su
bc
on
li e
or
ct
ct
ra
nt
Co
wn
er
or
0%
50%
Project Level
Crew Level
The main responsibility for creating logistics and material movement plans rests at the jobsite.
Both the contractor and subcontractors can contribute, but it is the prime contractor that has
overall responsibility for creating the plans. Prime contractors and subcontractors share
implementation responsibilities. The executive level of the company is responsible for
disseminating the practice across all projects. Site management creates and implements the
principle, and site workers must follow the plan.
100%
Part of the challenge is to coordinate the material handling and storage needs among the various
subcontractors. Individual subcontractors attempt to reduce delays by ordering and storing large
quantities of materials near their workplaces (i.e., just-in-case material delivery). However, it is
evident that the more materials stored by subcontractors, the higher the incidence of multiple
handling of stored materials to eliminate space conflicts. This illustrates an important point: for
lean construction to be successful, contractors must find ways to eliminate subcontractors
attempts to optimize their individual goals (profit, productivity, production) at the expense of the
whole production system. Lean is by its nature an optimization of the whole system.
101
To eliminate storage conflicts, one can closely control access to work locations, require
intermediate storage in remote locations or use just-in-time (JIT) delivery of material.
Controlling and scheduling subcontractor access to work areas tends toward a batch and queue
approach to scheduling. Reducing material storage conflicts at the worksite by requiring
intermediate remote storage causes double (or triple) handling, which is by definition a form of
waste. Relying on JIT deliveries, given the activities of a construction site, is (in the current
climate) very risky. The research for this study found no perfect (i.e., similar to manufacturing
performance) solution for storage conflicts in construction. The best solution appears to be a
tightly defined batch and queue management of work locations, coupled with small batch (almost
JIT) deliveries of material.
Minimized Double Handling
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0%
50%
40%
0%
0%
r
ne
s ig
De
li e
rs
pp
0%
0%
Enterprise Level
Su
bc
on
Su
c to
tr a
ac
n tr
Co
Ow
ne
to r
20%
Project Level
Crew Level
Just because it is difficult to achieve manufacturing style material handling performance does not
mean that construction cannot benefit from attention to material handling performance. During
the value stream studies, multiple incidences were observed where coordination with suppliers or
preplanning for staging materials would have significantly reduced double handling. Contractors
and subcontractors must expend more effort in planning and managing the material handling
aspects of the production system if they are to improve lean performance. The responsibility for
these actions rests with field management and the individual crews.
102
scheduling commitments. All flow/crew balancing tasks are made easier if the individual work
task times are reliable. Reliable flow is also facilitated through production/look-ahead planning.
Synchronize Flow
100%
Synchronize Flow
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
75%
80%
60%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0%
40%
0%
0%
r
ne
li e
rs
s ig
Su
De
pp
r
c to
tr a
0%
0%
bc
Co
on
n tr
Ow
ac
ne
to r
20%
Su
Enterprise Level
Project Level
Crew Level
Creating flow and synchronized operations is clearly a field responsibility. However, production
planners cannot rely on the configuration of the assembly line to determine sequence. Also,
production planners must adapt flow to the changing configuration of the product itself.
Therefore, communication of production goals and responsibility is mostly maintained through
strict production planning between contractor and subcontractor and between individual crews.
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
60%
25%
20%
0%
0%
50%
40%
0%
r
ne
s ig
De
li e
rs
Su
0%
0%
bc
on
pp
r
c to
tr a
ac
n tr
Enterprise Level
Su
Co
Ow
ne
to r
20%
103
Project Level
Crew Level
Kitting is primarily a field activity carried out by project management personnel working with
suppliers. In some jurisdictions, kitting is accomplished by dedicated crews established to
support production work.
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0%
50%
40%
0%
0%
r
s ig
ne
rs
De
pp
Su
ct
tr a
0%
0%
Enterprise Level
Project Level
Crew Level
Su
bc
on
li e
or
or
ct
ra
nt
Co
wn
er
20%
Minimizing changeover is a field production planning task. The need for changeover can be
reduced by producing larger batches of one product before switching to the next (e.g., erecting
multiple bays of steel before returning to erect the bar joists). Using larger batch sizes increases
work in progress (WIP), however, which is contrary to lean practices.
104
Reduce Scrap
Reduce Scrap
100%
100%
100%
100%
Project Level
Crew Level
100%
100%
75%
80%
80%
50%
60%
60%
40%
20%
40%
0%
r
ne
rs
Su
De
pp
s ig
li e
or
ct
tr a
25%
20%
0%
Enterprise Level
Su
Co
bc
on
nt
ra
wn
ct
er
or
0%
Scrap reduction efforts require cooperation between contractor, subcontractor, material supplier
and designer. Planning for scrap reduction occurs at the enterprise and project level. Proactive
management of materials is the responsibility of the crews and field management staff.
100%
100%
100%
100%
Project Level
Crew Level
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
20%
0%
0%
0%
40%
40%
20%
ne
rs
s ig
De
pp
Su
tr a
0%
0%
Enterprise Level
Su
bc
on
li e
or
ct
ct
ra
nt
Co
wn
er
or
0%
TPM activities are administered by the field staff. All field personnel have opportunities to
organize rational maintenance activities for site tools and equipment.
105
JIT
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
20%
0%
50%
40%
0%
0%
r
ne
s ig
De
li e
rs
Su
0%
bc
on
pp
r
c to
tr a
ac
n tr
Enterprise Level
Su
Co
Ow
ne
to r
20%
Project Level
Crew Level
100%
106
production. The craftsman controlled the means and methods of construction. Indeed, even
today, many workers are expected to arrive at the jobsite with their own tools of the trade.
Manufacturing has a different tradition. Tools and methods of production are provided by and
determined by the manufacturer. Accordingly, it is customary in manufacturing to employ
production engineers to help define and design production processes. Manufacturing engineers
determine sequence, materials, fixtures, jigs and tools for the work. They determine storage
location and processing times. In construction (with a few exceptions), all of the functions of the
production engineer are entrusted to the individual craftsperson or the first-line supervisor
(foreman). The disparity between the production engineering approach in manufacturing and the
lack of a production engineering tradition in construction can be explained, in part, by the highly
repetitive nature of most manufacturing tasks. Manufacturers can afford to spend effort on
optimizing the production system, knowing that they will reap benefits on every unit of
production. In construction, the means of production are often entrusted to the worker simply
because each production unit is somewhat unique (e.g., craftwork). However, craft workers are
not typically trained in the methods of production engineering. Often craft workers perform work
in the manner that they were first taught. There is not a practice of thinking about the most
efficient way to sequence the work, stage the materials or the myriad other details of a fully
formed production engineering approach.
Production Planning, Detailed Crew
Instructions
100%
100%
100%
Project Level
Crew Level
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
0%
0%
0%
40%
60%
20%
20%
De
s ig
ne
rs
pp
Su
ct
tr a
25%
0%
bc
on
li e
or
or
ct
ra
nt
Enterprise Level
Su
Co
wn
er
0%
Manufacturers can afford to spend a thousand dollars to save a dime on every unit produced.
Constructors do not have this luxury. However, given the cost of labor, and more specifically,
given the degree of waste prevalent in construction operations, contractors should do more to
focus on more effective production methods. This focus should not be to find faster ways to weld
or to erect steel. That is, the initial focus should not be on the value adding (VA) activities, but
rather on the non-value adding (NVA) activities. By planning worker sequences, material staging
and equipment allocation, production engineers can do much to reduce the 50 percent of the time
that is consumed by NVA activities. Contractors and subcontractors at every level of the
organization should start to move away from the craft approach to construction production toward
a more controlled and defined production attitude.
100%
107
Others started using the last planner system and then developed other systems that were more
suitable for their individual production systems. The use of a formalized production planning
system is a keystone of becoming a lean constructor. Production planning is not the same as
project planning. Project planning seeks to coordinate delivery of material, design and other
resources in accordance with a sequence of construction to support the required end date of the
project. Production planning is also not production engineering (refer to Subprinciple 4.8,
Subsection 7.1.6), which seeks to organize individual works tasks. Production planning is
systematizing the way in which various crews and subcontractors support the overall production.
To a large extent, production planning is obtaining commitments from individual crews and
subcontractors to perform a given work task by a specified time. These production commitments
are essential for the production planning of the downstream contractors. Part of the last planner
method is to track the proportion of the commitments that were kept by crews and subcontractors.
Metrics are used to measure the degree to which parties kept commitments, thereby allowing for
more reliable project schedules.
Last Planner/Reliable Scheduling etc.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Project Level
Crew Level
100%
80%
80%
50%
60%
40%
60%
25%
20%
40%
0%
r
De
s ig
ne
rs
pp
Su
tr a
25%
20%
0%
bc
on
li e
or
ct
ct
ra
nt
Enterprise Level
Su
Co
wn
er
or
0%
Production planning is just one more method used to gain control of the production process.
Production planning involves all of the contractors and subcontractors involved in the production
process. Designers and suppliers are involved in production planning to the extent to which
commitments for delivery of design or materials impede construction progress. Production
planning is primarily a field responsibility.
Subprinciple No. 4.10: Practice the Last Responsible Moment, Pull Scheduling. Pull scheduling is used
by manufacturers to help with production scheduling and to
reduce WIP. The notion of pull (as opposed to push) scheduling
is that a production item is pulled into the system only as it is
75%
needed. Specifically, demand by a downstream production task
indicates the need for production by an upstream task. Using
pull scheduling reduces WIP and increases throughput.
Conceptually, pull scheduling is very like late start scheduling in the Critical Path Method
(CPM). One lean contractor refers to construction pull scheduling as scheduling at the last
responsible moment. Since WIP is generated later in the construction process, the main benefit
of pull scheduling is a reduction in early cash requirements by the owner and contractors and less
site congestion. The main disadvantage is that pull scheduling uses project float. In the current
uncontrolled production environment, trading float for a reduction in WIP is a risky choice.
108
100%
100%
100%
100%
Project Level
Crew Level
100%
100%
80%
80%
50%
60%
60%
40%
20%
40%
0%
0%
25%
r
ne
rs
Su
De
pp
s ig
li e
or
ct
tr a
0%
bc
Co
on
nt
ra
wn
ct
er
or
20%
Su
Enterprise Level
Pull scheduling is a field responsibility. Given the risky nature of a full pull schedule, the
concept must receive complete support from the executive level of the company.
75%
20%
40%
r
De
s ig
ne
rs
li e
pp
Su
0%
bc
on
Crew Level
25%
20%
Enterprise Level
Su
Co
nt
tr a
ra
ct
ct
or
or
0%
er
Project Level
60%
25%
40%
wn
100%
80%
60%
100%
100%
100%
75%
80%
109
Unlike most production decisions, WIP decisions directly affect cash flow and production
progress. Therefore, the owner of a lean jobsite must be involved with implementing WIP
reduction programs. This can be accomplished through changes to contract language and
strategy. Operationally, however, WIP reduction and use of small batch sizes are decisions
implemented by the field organizations.
100%
100%
Project Level
Crew Level
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
25%
20%
60%
25%
40%
0%
0%
25%
r
s ig
ne
rs
De
Su
pp
li e
r
c to
tr a
bc
on
0%
Enterprise Level
Su
Co
nt
ra
wn
c to
er
20%
The use of buffers is an action taken in the field in coordination with production scheduling.
Buffer size can be reduced through appropriate cooperation with material suppliers (supply chain
management) and by appropriate release of design information.
100%
110
slight increase in material costs could easily be recovered by economies in procurement, material
handling and erection. At another site, long bar joists needed to be reinforced in the field by
welding bridging that ran between the joists at set intervals. The bridging was lifted to the level
of the joists and threaded through the web, positioned, measured and welded in place. This
activity consumed as much labor and equipment as did erecting the bar joist. Again, a design
solution that used a heavier joist that did not require bridging would have substantially saved
money in the field.
Standardized Parts
Standardized Parts
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
25%
60%
25%
20%
40%
0%
25%
25%
Su
r
De
s ig
ne
rs
pp
li e
or
tr a
0%
bc
Co
on
nt
ra
ct
ct
wn
or
er
20%
Su
Enterprise Level
Project Level
Crew Level
Using standardized parts and reduced parts count is a cooperative activity between the designer
and contractor or subcontractor. The owner can influence the use of this principle by the choice
of a project delivery system. Design-build projects have a better chance of optimizing design to
allow lean construction.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
60%
25%
20%
40%
r
De
s ig
ne
rs
pp
Su
tr a
25%
20%
0%
Enterprise Level
Su
bc
on
li e
or
ct
ct
ra
nt
Co
wn
er
or
0%
50%
111
Project Level
Crew Level
Adopting more pre-assembly and prefabrication is a choice that must involve the owner.
Generally, prefabrication will require a higher early case flow. Pre-assembly and prefabrication
decisions require close cooperation between designer, supplier and construction.
Subprinciple No. 4.15: Use Preproduction Engineering and Constructability Analysis. Constructability
analysis or preproduction engineering is not a new idea in
construction. The ability to use constructability analysis is limited
by the project delivery system chosen for the job. The value
generation process used in construction often encourages
suboptimization by the various players in the process. Cooperative
project delivery arrangements allow for more effective use of
100%
constructability methods.
Preproduction Engineering/Constructibility
Preproduction Engineering/Constructibility
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
50%
60%
60%
40%
20%
50%
40%
r
ne
rs
s ig
0%
De
pp
Su
tr a
20%
0%
Enterprise Level
Su
bc
on
li e
or
ct
ct
ra
nt
Co
wn
er
or
0%
Project Level
Crew Level
100%
112
Organizational Learning
Organizational Learning
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
80%
75%
75%
80%
60%
60%
40%
20%
50%
40%
0%
0%
r
s ig
De
pp
Su
bc
on
0%
Enterprise Level
Su
Co
ne
rs
li e
or
ct
tr a
ra
nt
wn
ct
er
or
20%
Project Level
Crew Level
The impetus for creating a learning organization must originate at the highest levels of the
contractor organization. It is the responsibility of the field office to execute organizational
practices. To the extent possible, subcontractor, designer and supplier strategic partners should
be included in learning and root cause analysis.
100%
Initially, as construction goes lean, some of the standard lean metrics used in manufacturing
may not be significant metrics for construction. As the value stream analysis showed, the amount
of waste (NVA) activities that exists in the typical construction process should encourage
development of metrics to help identify and eliminate waste. After production operations become
more efficient, the industry can start to focus on more traditional metrics that measure the
effectiveness of the VA processes.
Metrics
Metrics
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
100%
60%
60%
40%
25%
25%
25%
20%
40%
0%
25%
r
s ig
ne
rs
De
pp
Su
tr a
0%
Enterprise Level
Su
bc
on
li e
or
ct
ct
ra
nt
Co
wn
er
or
20%
113
Project Level
Crew Level
Since metrics are cross-company measures, the leadership for their institution must come from
the enterprise level. The owner also has a role to play by allowing project performance to be
measured by nonstandard means. It is a leap of faith to establish a new performance
measurement standard and the owners support in these endeavors is crucial. Field managements
role is to implement the metrics and field crews must be trained in their importance.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
80%
80%
60%
40%
25%
20%
60%
25%
50%
40%
0%
r
De
s ig
ne
er
s
Su
p
tr a
20%
0%
Enterprise Level
Su
bc
on
pli
or
ct
ct
ra
nt
Co
wn
er
or
0%
Project Level
Crew Level
A standard response plan is created by corporate management to reduce future defects by alerting
other projects to the nature of the problem and its causes. A standard response plan should
provide field management with a reliable way of correcting the defect. Defects in subcontractors
work must be managed in the same careful manner as those in prime contractor work. Feedback
to designers and suppliers is a key ingredient of a standard response plan.
100%
114
100%
100%
100%
Project Level
Crew Level
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
20%
0%
0%
0%
40%
40%
20%
De
s ig
ne
rs
pp
Su
tr a
25%
0%
Enterprise Level
Su
bc
on
li e
or
ct
ct
ra
nt
Co
wn
er
or
0%
Developing the concept of personal responsibility for quality is the province of field management.
Some lean contractors maintain a cadre of key field people to act as guides and mentors for craft
workers who are hired temporarily for a project.
115
managers, the desirability of applying any given lean principle is partially contingent on whether
the principle increases the current information handling requirements of the construction team.
Those principles that create conditions that are closer to manufacturing (i.e., more stability) will
ultimately reduce information processing demands and will be attractive principles to apply.
Those principles that increase the information processing demands without a concomitant
increase in system stability will be attractive only to the extent that the increased information
workload improves quality, reduces costs or increases the reliability of the schedule.
A perspective on how organizations react to increased information processing needs is suggested
by the work of Galbraith (1974). Galbraiths work starts from the proposition that greater task
uncertainty requires an organization to process more information because it is difficult to plan and
schedule the execution of uncertain tasks. Therefore, during actual execution of the task, the need
for more knowledge and information processing leads to changes in schedules and resource
assignments. Since organizations are limited in their ability to process information, they institute
strategies for dealing with this limited ability. Generally, organizations deal with the increased
information processing demands by using the following strategies:
Creating strong hierarchies to deal with the exceptions that uncertainty creates.
Establishing clear targets and goals that allow lower organizational levels
increased discretion and responsibility.
If these organizational strategies are inadequate to deal with the uncertainty, organizations may
react in one of the following ways:
Increasing the organizations ability to deal with information through the creation
of information processing systems (meetings, reports, computer systems) or by
creation of lateral relationships (coordinators, teams, task forces) that cut
across hierarchies.
To help confirm the experientially based conclusions about which principles are applicable to
construction, each principle was reevaluated using the following three conditions:
1.
The principle, without the need for increased planning or information handling,
reduces the uncertainty in the production environment.
2.
The principle requires increased planning and information handling that will lead
to a more stable production environment and reduce the negative effects of the
instability.
3.
The principle requires increased planning and information handling that will
reduce the negative effects of the uncertain production environment, e.g., high
costs, poor quality, unreliable execution.
116
Tables 7.1 through 7.3 group the subprinciples into one of these three categories and describe the
information handling mechanism used to apply the principle.
117
Subprinciple
Mechanism
Customer Focus
Ensure Management
Commitment
Encourage Employee
Empowerment
Use 5Ss
Encourage Employees to
Develop Responsibility for
Quality
Workplace
Organization and
Standardization
Continuous
Improvement and
Built-In Quality
118
Subprinciple
Mechanism
Customer Focus
Workplace
Organization and
Standardization
Waste Elimination
Continuous
Improvement and
Built-In Quality
119
Table 7.3: Principles that Require Added Planning or Information Handling but
Reduce the Negative Effects of Instability in Production
Principle
Subprinciple
Mechanism
Customer Focus
Waste Elimination
Reduce Scrap
120
any activity that changes the shape, form, or function of materials or information to meet
customers needs (Walbridge-Aldinger 2000).
121
122
123
124
Appendix A
Case Study No.1 - Structural Steel
1.0 Overview
1.1 Project Goal
The purpose of this case study was to collect data to develop a value stream map for the
construction process. Observation was limited to structural steel erection. Field data gathered on
two separate value streams included the following: the actual flow of the steel from the time it
arrived on the jobsite until it was erected into final position, and the flow of worker activities
performed to erect the steel.
125
126
column is pre-positioned at the time of shakeout, with its baseplate oriented toward the
appropriate foundations and anchor bolts. Next, girders are placed between columns. Finally, bar
joists are erected. Typically, two bar joists are erected between each bay along the column line to
provide stability while the remainder of the bay is erected. Once all the columns, girders and
stabilizing bar joist are erected along a column line, the interleaving bar joists are installed in a
highly repetitive process.
For this case study, the configuration of the building frame necessitated that the steel erection
crew perform three separate tasks. The sequence of tasks required movement from location to
location, and each task also required a different mix of equipment and workers. Therefore, in
contrast to a highly repetitive manufacturing sequence, it was very difficult to design an erection
sequence that had the correct number of workers or equipment for each of the three separate
tasks. The contractor for this case study chose to size the crew and equipment mix to be most
efficient at the bar joist erection stage.
The following materials were installed during the observation period:
Two columns.
Two girders.
27 bar joists.
One forklift.
The following section analyzes each workers contributions to each cycle. Tables and figures
were developed for each worker and task. The tables and figures describe the time spent on VA,
NVA and NVAR actions within each cycle.
127
required to complete the steel erection. The shaded areas are used to visually indicate that some
tasks took longer to complete than others, and that those tasks could occur simultaneously with
other tasks. The shaded regions are not intended to show actual task durations (e.g., two hours to
rig the steel member for the crane).
Column Erection
Figure A.1: Critical Path Method (CPM) Schedule for a Column Erection Cycle
Only two members of the crew, the forklift operator and the left connector, were involved with
this activity. The two other crew members were not needed for this task and, therefore, all of
their time was classified as NVA.
The forklift operator was responsible for bracing the columns with the forklift, while the
alignment and bolting of the column to the baseplate occurred on the ground. Table A.1 and
Figure A.2 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the forklift operator. During the column
cycles, the forklift operator spent most of his time performing NVAR actions. The only VA
actions for the forklift operator occurred while bolting the column to the baseplate.
Table A.1: Column Data for the Forklift Operator
Activity Classification
VA
Waste Classification
% of Total Time
0:02:33
6.83%
0:02:33
6.83%
0:05:05
0:06:09
13.62%
16.48%
0:11:14
30.10%
0:02:36
0:01:28
0:19:28
6.97%
3.93%
52.17%
NVAR Total
0:23:32
63.06%
Grand Total
0:37:19
100.00%
Value Adding
VA Total
NVA
Waiting
Motion
NVA Total
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
In-Process-Ins.
T.W.S.A.
128
VA
7%
NVA
Waiting
14%
NVAR
TWSA
52%
NVA Motion
16%
NVAR Material
Positioning
7%
NVAR In-Process
Inspections
4%
Waste Classification
Value Adding
% of Total Time
0:02:00
13.42%
0:02:00
13.42%
0:05:59
0:06:55
40.16%
46.42%
NVA Total
0:12:54
86.58%
Grand Total
0:14:54
100.00%
VA Total
NVA
Waiting
Motion
129
VA
13%
NVA Motion
47%
NVA Waiting
40%
Waste Classification
% of Total Time
0:06:00
0:02:00
53.02%
17.67%
0:08:00
70.69%
0:03:19
29.31%
NVAR Total
0:03:19
29.31%
Grand Total
0:11:19
100.00%
Waiting
Motion
NVA Total
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
130
NVA Waiting
53%
NVA Motion
18%
Waste Classification
% of Total Time
0:10:30
0:05:30
65.63%
34.38%
NVA Total
0:16:00
100.00%
Grand Total
0:16:00
100.00%
Waiting
Motion
NVA Motion
34%
NVA Waiting
66%
131
4 5
W aste C lassification
W aitin g
T ran spo rt
M otion
NV A T otal
T otal T im e at Activity
% of T otal T im e
0:15:50
0:00:40
0:02:37
65.61%
2.76%
10.84%
0:19:07
79.21%
NV AR
M at. P o s.
0:01:33
6.42%
T .W .S.A.
0:03:28
14.36%
NV AR T otal
0:05:01
20.79%
G rand T otal
0:24:08
100.00%
*Four members of the five-man crew were observed during the girder erection cycle. The fifth observer
was unable to record data during this period.
132
NVA Motion
11%
NVA Waiting
66%
NVA Transport
3%
Waste Classification
Value Adding
VA Total
% of Total Time
0:06:00
15.50%
0:06:00
15.50%
0:04:30
0:17:00
11.63%
43.93%
NVA
Waiting
Extra Proc.
Motion
NVA Total
0:00:55
2.37%
0:22:25
57.92%
NVAR
0:10:17
26.57%
NVAR Total
Mat. Pos.
0:10:17
26.57%
Grand Total
0:38:42
100.00%
133
VA
16%
NVAR Material Positioning
27%
NVA Waiting
12%
NVA Motion
2%
Waste Classification
Value Adding
% of Total Time
0:04:50
15.50%
0:04:50
15.50%
0:07:30
0:18:51
24.05%
60.45%
NVA Total
0:26:21
84.50%
Grand Total
0:31:11
100.00%
VA Total
NVA
Waiting
Extra Proc.
134
NVA Waiting
24%
NVA Extra
Processing
61%
Waste Classification
% of Total Time
0:31:45
0:00:15
86.99%
0.68%
0:32:00
87.67%
0:04:30
12.33%
NVAR Total
0:04:30
12.33%
Grand Total
0:36:30
100.00%
Waiting
Motion
NVA Total
NVAR
T.W.S.A.
135
NVA Waiting
87%
1 2 3 4 5
136
The individual task responsibilities for the bar joist cycle were broken down as follows. The
forklift operator was responsible for positioning bundles of bar joist under the crane hook,
attaching the first half of the x-bracing member on the ground and guiding the bar joist members
into the hands of the crewmen above. Table A.9 and Figure A.12 show the VA, NVA and NVAR
summary values of the forklift operator. During the bar joist cycle, the forklift operator was
involved in positioning the bar joist bundles under the crane hook to maximize the cranes actions
in lifting the bar joists straight up, rather than having to swing the material from side to side. This
action was not included in the bar joist cycle times, though it was a required movement to enable
the cycle to start. The forklift operator contributed 25 percent of his total time to VA activities,
which involved bolting the first end of x-bracing to the bar joist while it remained on the ground.
The average time for this action was one minute and five seconds. Considerable time was also
spent on waiting and moving material. Waiting time was governed by the time it took the crane
to be freed from the previous bar joist.
Table A.9: Bar Joist Data for the Forklift Operator
Ac tivity C la ssific ation
VA
W aste C lassification
T otal T im e a t Ac tivity
V alu e Ad d in g
% of T otal T im e
0:26:07
25.22%
0:26 :07
2 5.2 2%
W aitin g
E xtra Pro c.
0:24:28
0:05:13
23.63%
5.04%
T ran sp o rt
0:12:48
12.36%
M o tio n
0:21:00
20.28%
1:03 :29
6 1.3 1%
0:03:58
0:01:30
0:08:29
3.83%
1.45%
8.19%
NV AR T otal
0:13 :57
1 3.4 7%
G rand T otal
1:43 :33
10 0.0 0%
V A T otal
NV A
NV A T ota l
NV AR
M at. Po s.
In -P ro cess-In s.
T .W .S .A.
NVAR TWSA
8%
VA
26%
NVAR Material
Positioning
4%
NVA Motion
20%
NVA Waiting
24%
NVA Transport
12%
NVA Extra Processing
5%
137
The ground crewman was responsible for guiding the bar joist members into the hands of the
crewmen above and positioning the x-bracing material next to the bar joist bundles to be attached
by the forklift operator. Table A.10 and Figure A.13 show the VA, NVA and NVAR summary
values for the ground crewman. The ground crewman did not complete any VA actions during
the bar joist cycles. It was further noted that the ground crewman was the least effective member
of the group. The forklift operator was more productive when the ground crewman was not
involved. In fact, when the ground crewman was absent, the forklift operators waiting time
decreased to almost nothing. This point is made clearer by the crew balance charts presented
later in this case study.
Table A.10: Bar Joist Data for the Ground Crewman
Activity Classification
NVA
Waste Classification
% of Total Time
0:22:31
0:02:00
40.45%
3.59%
0:24:31
44.04%
Mat. Pos.
0:10:05
18.11%
T.W.S.A.
0:21:04
37.84%
NVAR Total
0:31:09
55.96%
Grand Total
0:55:40
100.00%
Waiting
Transport
NVA Total
NVAR
NVA Transport
4%
NVAR Material
Positioning
18%
138
The left connector was responsible for positioning and aligning the bar joist into its final position
on top of the girder. Bolting the bar joist to the girder below followed the positioning and
alignment process. Table A.11 and Figure A.14 show the VA, NVA and NVAR summary values
for the left connector.
Table A.11: Bar Joist Data for the Left Connector
Activity Classification
VA
Waste Classification
Value Adding
VA Total
% of Total Time
0:42:28
40.87%
0:42:28
40.87%
0:16:13
0:16:40
15.61%
16.04%
0:32:53
31.65%
NVA
Waiting
Motion
NVA Total
NVAR
0:28:33
27.48%
NVAR Total
Mat. Pos.
0:28:33
27.48%
Grand Total
1:43:54
100.00%
VA
41%
NVA Motion
16%
NVA Waiting
16%
139
connector was that he did not use the Genie lift provided for him. Had he done so, he would have
only needed to tie off one time. Instead, he preferred to walk the girder between joist placements
and tie off with two safety lines to the girder. This added to the total number of actions needed
for him to complete each bar joist cycle. Both workers spent an equal amount of time on NVA
activities.
Table A.12: Bar Joist Data for the Right Connector
Activity Classification
VA
Waste Classification
Value Adding
% of Total Time
0:29:21
26.09%
0:29:21
26.09%
0:30:42
0:24:55
27.29%
22.15%
0:55:37
49.44%
0:26:32
0:01:00
23.59%
0.89%
NVAR Total
0:27:32
24.47%
G rand Total
1:52:30
100.00%
VA Total
NVA
Waiting
Motion
NVA Total
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
T .W.S.A.
NVAR TWSA
1%
NVAR Material
Positioning
24%
VA
26%
NVA Motion
22%
NVA Waiting
27%
140
Waste Classification
Value Adding
VA Total
% of Total Time
0:57:45
56.90%
0:57:45
56.90%
0:11:00
0:30:00
10.84%
29.56%
0:41:00
40.39%
NVA
Waiting
Motion
NVA Total
NVAR
0:02:45
2.71%
NVAR Total
T.W.S.A.
0:02:45
2.71%
Grand Total
1:41:30
100.00%
NVA Motion
30%
VA
56%
NVA Waiting
11%
141
TIME
0:10:00
0:09:45
0:09:30
0:09:15
0:09:00
0:08:45
0:08:30
0:08:15
0:08:00
0:07:45
0:07:30
0:07:15
0:07:00
0:06:45
0:06:30
0:06:15
0:06:00
0:05:45
0:05:30
0:05:15
0:05:00
0:04:45
0:04:30
0:04:15
0:04:00
0:03:45
0:03:30
0:03:15
0:03:00
0:02:45
0:02:30
0:02:15
0:02:00
0:01:45
0:01:30
0:01:15
0:01:00
0:00:45
0:00:30
0:00:15
0:00:00
Waiting
Bolting X-Bracing
Bolting BJ
Waiting
Aligning BJ
Positioning BJ
Waiting
Aligning BJ
Hook Up Rigging
Move
Move
Move
Unhook Rigging
Hook Up Rigging
Waiting
Attach X-Bracing
Bolting BJ
Bolting BJ
Bolting BJ
Aligning BJ
Waiting
Aligning BJ
Waiting
Waiting
Move
Move
Move
Unhook Rigging
Positioning BJ
`
Hook Up Rigging
Hook Up Rigging
Waiting
Attach X-Bracing
Bolting BJ
Bolting BJ
Bolting BJ
Aligning BJ
Waiting
Aligning BJ
Waiting
Move
Move
Move
Unhook Rigging
Positioning BJ
Hook Up Rigging
Hook Up Rigging
Bolting BJ
Waiting
Bolting BJ
Bolting BJ
Ground Crewman
Left Connector
Aligning BJ
Right Connector
Attach X-Bracing
Forklift Operator
142
Waiting
X-B Connector
Crew Balance
TIME
Waiting
Bolting X-Bracing
Bolting BJ
Positioning BJ
Aligning BJ
Waiting
Aligning BJ
Hook Up Rigging
Move
N o t In v o lv e d in P ro c e s s
0:10:00
0:09:45
0:09:30
0:09:15
0:09:00
0:08:45
0:08:30
0:08:15
0:08:00
0:07:45
0:07:30
0:07:15
0:07:00
0:06:45
0:06:30
0:06:15
0:06:00
0:05:45
0:05:30
0:05:15
0:05:00
0:04:45
0:04:30
0:04:15
0:04:00
0:03:45
0:03:30
0:03:15
0:03:00
0:02:45
0:02:30
0:02:15
0:02:00
0:01:45
0:01:30
0:01:15
0:01:00
0:00:45
0:00:30
0:00:15
0:00:00
Attach X-Bracing
Waiting
Positioning BJ
Hook Up Rigging
Attach X-Bracing
Waiting
Positioning BJ
Hook Up Rigging
Move
Move
Unhook Rigging
Bolting BJ
Bolting BJ
Bolting BJ
Aligning BJ
Aligning BJ
Waiting
Waiting
Move
Move
Move
Unhook Rigging
Bolting BJ
Bolting BJ
Bolting BJ
Aligning BJ
Aligning BJ
Waiting
Move
Move
Bolting BJ
Bolting BJ
Left Connector
Aligning BJ
Right Connector
Move
Unhook Rigging
Bolting BJ
Attach X-Bracing
Forklift Operator
Ground Crewman
Waiting
X-B Connector
143
attaching the x-bracing, hooking up the rigging for the crane and positioning the bar joist to those
above without delaying the cycle time. The left connector was still the driver (i.e., bottleneck
activity) for this cycle, and the other two workers (right connector and x-bracing connector) were
not affected at all by the reduction of the crew size from a five-man to a four-man crew. This
presents an opportunity to improve the overall cycle time by redesigning the left connectors
work tasks and practices. The overall outcome shows that crew productivity can be increased by
this minor restructuring of the group.
25%
11:27:10 h:m:s
NVAR
Material In-Process
Extra
Total
Waiting Processing Transport Movement Positioning Inspection TWSA
28%
3%
8%
18%
5%
2%
19%
100%
40%
0%
4%
0%
18%
0%
38%
100%
17%
11%
0%
16%
25%
0%
0%
100%
35%
0%
0%
23%
0%
0%
5%
100%
29%
12%
0%
17%
19%
0%
2%
100%
Total Cumulative Time for Steel Erection
Waste
28%
6%
2%
144
17%
13%
0%
9%
100%
VA +
NVAR
43%
56%
57%
42%
42%
46%
VA
Waste
All
Extra
Activities Waiting Processing Transport Movement
7%
14%
0%
0%
16%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
13%
40%
0%
0%
46%
0%
66%
0%
0%
34%
0%
53%
0%
0%
18%
6%
35%
0%
Forklift Operator
Ground Crewman
Left Connector
X-Bracing Connector
Right Connector
Group Percentage
Bar Joists
Crew Member
Forklift Operator
Ground Crewman
Left Connector
X-Bracing Connector
Right Connector
Group Percentage
26%
7%
2%
VA
Crew Member
0%
Material
Positioning
7%
0%
0%
0%
29%
NVAR
In-Process
Inspection
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Waste
46%
27%
0%
3%
Material
Positioning
6%
0%
27%
0%
0%
In-Process
Inspection
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
0%
VA
Waste
All
Extra
Activities Waiting Processing Transport Movement
25%
24%
5%
12%
20%
0%
40%
0%
4%
0%
41%
16%
0%
0%
16%
57%
11%
0%
0%
30%
25%
27%
0%
0%
22%
32%
34%
4%
TWSA
52%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Total
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
24%
100%
2:10:31 h:m:s
VA +
NVAR
70%
0%
13%
0%
29%
39%
NVAR
All
Extra
Activities Waiting Processing Transport Movement
0%
66%
0%
3%
11%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
16%
12%
44%
0%
2%
0%
87%
0%
0%
1%
16%
24%
60%
0%
0%
8%
1:19:32 h:m:s
9%
13%
TWSA
14%
0%
0%
12%
0%
Total
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
6%
100%
7:57:07 h:m:s
VA +
NVAR
21%
0%
42%
12%
16%
23%
Material
Positioning
4%
18%
27%
0%
24%
NVAR
In-Process
Inspection
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
TWSA
8%
38%
0%
3%
2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA +
NVAR
39%
56%
68%
60%
51%
1%
5%
3%
100%
41%
145
4.2.2 Inventory
Material deliveries were made twice to this project: once at the beginning of erection, and once
halfway through. On average, structural steel members were onsite for two weeks prior to
erection.
Also, in addition to the main steel members, there was an inventory of
bridging/stiffening material onsite to be used after the main structure was erected.
4.2.3 Defects
Defects are defined as errors or deficiencies in a finished product that require additional work on
the part of the original crew or a follow-up crew. A defective structural element (e.g., column,
girder, etc.) is an example of a defect (i.e., the material has been passed through the value stream
to the next workstation). Another example of a defect is included in the punch list process at the
end of a job. When a defect in the finished product is found at this stage, a separate follow-up
crew is activated to correct the defect. Hence, the defect is pushed onto the next workstation. No
waste associated with defects was observed.
146
the material was touched, either to be moved or transformed into its next stage (phase) in the
construction life cycle.
Initial dropoff
Initial shakeout
Secondary shakeout of
different joist beams
and girder members
for each bay
Specific girders
and joist beams
moved to final
staging area for
each bay
Picked up
and
positioned
by forklift
Final
placement
by crane
Each load was handled for the first time by forklifts, and the entire load
was removed from the truck bed. This minimized the amount of time
that the truck was required to stay onsite.
The first loads were offloaded at, or near, their final staging position.
However, as more loads were delivered, they were required to be placed
in staging areas farther away until space became available for the
remaining bar joists to be placed in their final staging area.
The design called for several types of bar joists, roughly 40 different
shapes and sizes. After the initial unloading, the next step was to shake
out the bundles. The interior joist members (within each bay, there was a
series of joist beams that were identical in shape and size, which were
always placed in the interior portion of the bay) were bundled together
and could be picked up and dropped off in one move to their next staging
area under their designated bay section.
The remaining bar joist members required in each bay section were
broken out of their respective bundles, shaken out, and moved with all
other required bar joists in each respective bay. This act of shaking out
the bar joists introduced one more touch to the value stream and a
minimum of four touches by the forklift operator.
After the joists were placed in their respective staging areas, one of two
patterns was followed. The first pattern involved the crane moving the
girders, bar joists and columns from the staging position to their final
position in the structure. The second pattern involved an extra step for
some of the interior bar joists. Specific bar joist bundles were picked up
by the forklift and rotated 90 degrees to a point directly under their final
place in the structure, and then lifted one by one into position.
147
*One idea was to have the cross bracing assembled by the steel manufacturer before it arrived onsite. The
contractor stated that it leaves activities like this to be completed onsite to provide activities for the workers
on inclement weather days.
148
Production Control
Project Engineer
Triggering Event
Level One
Two Phases of Steel are Ordered
Percent Complete
Project Superintendent
Distribution of Time from VSM
Steel Supplier
Project Feedback
Daily
As Required
NVA Time
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
OO
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Man-Hours
Days Required
Equipment involved:
Forklifts
Workers involved
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (20%)
NVA (80%)
Days Required
Equipment involved:
2
Forklifts
32
0
6.4
25.6
Workers involved
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (0%)
NVA (100%)
2
Inv
2
80
0
0
80
Days required
Equipment involved:
Forklifts
Forklifts
2
40
0
0
40
Columns
Forklift Operator
Level Three Ground Crewman
Left Connector
X-Bracing Con.
Right Connector
Group Percentage
Waiting
14%
0%
40%
66%
53%
Extra
Processing
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
All Activities
7%
0%
13%
0%
0%
6%
35%
0%
NVA Sum
Transport
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
VA
Group Percentage
Waiting
66%
0%
12%
87%
24%
Extra
Processing
0%
0%
44%
0%
60%
8%
47%
27%
NVA =
VA
Movement
16%
0%
46%
34%
18%
26%
7%
Waste
Transport
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Waiting
24%
40%
16%
11%
27%
Extra
Processing
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5
78.7
4.7
26.8
47.2
TWSA
52%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
24%
31%
34%
4%
NVA =
25%
9%
100%
34%
2:10:31 h:m:s
28%
6%
39%
NVAR
In-Process
Inspection
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
TWSA
14%
0%
0%
12%
0%
Total
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
VA +
NVAR
21%
0%
42%
12%
16%
3%
9%
0%
6%
101%
23%
15%
7:57:07 h:m:s
Movement
20%
0%
16%
30%
22%
13%
Material
Positioning
4%
18%
27%
0%
24%
NVAR
In-Process
Inspection
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
5%
NVAR =
Waste
TWSA
8%
38%
0%
3%
2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA +
NVAR
39%
56%
68%
60%
51%
3%
99%
40%
9%
11:27:10 h:m:s
Extra
Processing
3%
0%
11%
0%
12%
VA +
NVAR
70%
0%
13%
0%
29%
Material
Positioning
6%
0%
27%
0%
0%
60%
Waiting
28%
40%
17%
35%
29%
Total
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
Movement
11%
0%
2%
1%
0%
Waste
Transport
8%
4%
0%
0%
0%
Movement
18%
0%
16%
23%
17%
Material
Positioning
5%
18%
25%
0%
19%
NVAR
In-Process
Inspection
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
TWSA
19%
38%
0%
5%
2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA +
NVAR
43%
56%
57%
42%
42%
2%
17%
13%
0%
9%
100%
46%
Table represents the time distribution for each element viewed during the observation period.
Cumulative
Number of
Cycle Time for
Time for
Members
Each Element
Cumulative Time for each Element
Various
Observed
Installed
1:19:32
2
0:39:46
Total Cumulative Time for Two Columns
2:10:31
2
1:05:15
Total Cumulative Time for Two Girders
7:57:07
26
0:18:21
Total Cumulative Time for 26 Bar Joists
Total Time
11:27:10
149
3.2
Equipment involved:
Crane,
Two Skylifts,
4
Forklift
Workers involved:
Crew
5
WT=
129.2
VA ( 8%) =
10.3
NVAR (15%) =
19.4
NVA (77%) =
99.4
NVAR
In-Process
Inspection
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
NVAR =
Transport
12%
4%
0%
0%
0%
Days required
1:19:32 h:m:s
Material
Positioning
7%
0%
0%
0%
29%
77%
All Activities
25%
0%
41%
57%
25%
40
0
0
40
Crew Member
Group Percentage
NVAR Sum
Bar Joists
Forklift Operator
Ground Crewman
Left Connector
X-Bracing Con.
Right Connector
Crane, Forklift
Workers involved:
Crew
WT=
VA ( 6%) =
NVAR (34%) =
NVA (60%) =
61%
All Activities
0%
0%
16%
0%
16%
Crew Member
680
161
89
430
Equipment involved:
Waste
Girders
Forklift Operator
Ground Crewman
Left Connector
X-Bracing Con.
Right Connector
Days required
VA
Crew Member
Inventory Days
10
Note: These steps occur at the same time. Columns and
Girders are erected first but cannot be continued until the
inner supporting bar joist has been erected.
Workers involved:
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (0%)
NVA (100%)
2 to 4
Columns Erected
2.5
Equipment involved:
1
**Graph shows the amount of man-hours attributed to each work category. VA time +
NVAR time + NVA time = Work Time
17.0
Equipment involved:
Forklift, crane,
skylifts
Workers involved
Crew
WT=
VA ( 6%, 8%, 31%)
NVAR (34%, 15%, 9%
NVA (60%, 77%, 60%
2.5
Workers involved:
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (0%)
NVA (100%)
Inv
Level Two
Average VA Percentage
Average NVAR Percentage
Average NVA Percentage
25%
22%
53%
11.8
Equipment involved:
Crane,
Two Skylifts,
4
Forklift
Workers involved:
Crew
5
WT=
472
VA ( 31%) =
146
NVAR (9%) =
42
NVA (60%) =
283
NVA Time
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Man-Hours
1000
Time (man-hours)
800
Cumulative Calendar Hours
Cumulative Workable Hours
600
400
Cumulative VA Hours
Delivery and
Preparation
Process
Erection Process Is
Under Way
200
Note: the percentages used to
create this chart are the average
values from the work distribution
values found for the entire crew.
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Calendar Days
150
Table A.17: Spreadsheet of Values Used to Create Work Distribution Life Cycle Graph
Stage
Stage 1
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Weekend
Weekend
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Weekend
Weekend
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Weekend
Weekend
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Weekend
Weekend
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Day
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Cumulative
Cumulative
Hours
Cumulative
Cumulative
NVAR
NVA Cumulative
VA
NVAR
NVA
VA Cumulative NVAR
Calendar Calendar Calendar Workable Workable Crew Worked Workable Workable
Hours
Hours NVA Hours
Hours Percentage Percentage Percentage Hours VA Hours Hours
Days
Available per Day Hours
Hours
Days
Days
Hours
1
16
16
1
1
2
8
16
16
0%
20%
80%
0
0
3.2
3.2
12.8
12.8
2
16
32
1
2
2
8
16
32
0%
20%
80%
0
0
3.2
6.4
12.8
25.6
3
16
48
1
3
2
8
16
48
0%
0%
100%
0
0
0
6.4
16
41.6
4
16
64
1
4
2
8
16
64
0%
0%
100%
0
0
0
6.4
16
57.6
5
16
80
1
5
2
8
16
80
0%
0%
100%
0
0
0
6.4
16
73.6
6
16
96
0
5
2
0
0
80
0%
0%
100%
0
0
0
6.4
0
73.6
7
16
112
0
5
2
0
0
80
0%
0%
100%
0
0
0
6.4
0
73.6
8
16
128
1
6
2
8
16
96
0%
0%
100%
0
0
0
6.4
16
89.6
9
16
144
1
7
2
8
16
112
0%
0%
100%
0
0
0
6.4
16
105.6
10
40
184
1
8
5
8
40
152
25%
22%
53%
10
10
8.8
15.2
21.2
126.8
11
40
224
1
9
5
8
40
192
25%
22%
53%
10
20
8.8
24
21.2
148
12
40
264
1
10
5
8
40
232
25%
22%
53%
10
30
8.8
32.8
21.2
169.2
13
40
304
0
10
5
0
0
232
25%
22%
53%
0
30
0
32.8
0
169.2
14
40
344
0
10
5
0
0
232
25%
22%
53%
0
30
0
32.8
0
169.2
15
40
384
1
11
5
8
40
272
25%
22%
53%
10
40
8.8
41.6
21.2
190.4
16
40
424
1
12
5
8
40
312
25%
22%
53%
10
50
8.8
50.4
21.2
211.6
17
40
464
1
13
5
8
40
352
25%
22%
53%
10
60
8.8
59.2
21.2
232.8
18
40
504
1
14
5
8
40
392
25%
22%
53%
10
70
8.8
68
21.2
254
19
40
544
1
15
5
8
40
432
25%
22%
53%
10
80
8.8
76.8
21.2
275.2
20
40
584
0
15
5
0
0
432
25%
22%
53%
0
80
0
76.8
0
275.2
21
40
624
0
15
5
0
0
432
25%
22%
53%
0
80
0
76.8
0
275.2
22
40
664
1
16
5
8
40
472
25%
22%
53%
10
90
8.8
85.6
21.2
296.4
23
40
704
1
17
5
8
40
512
25%
22%
53%
10
100
8.8
94.4
21.2
317.6
24
40
744
1
18
5
8
40
552
25%
22%
53%
10
110
8.8
103.2
21.2
338.8
25
40
784
1
19
5
8
40
592
25%
22%
53%
10
120
8.8
112
21.2
360
26
40
824
1
20
5
8
40
632
25%
22%
53%
10
130
8.8
120.8
21.2
381.2
27
40
864
0
20
5
0
0
632
25%
22%
53%
0
130
0
120.8
0
381.2
28
40
904
0
20
5
0
0
632
25%
22%
53%
0
130
0
120.8
0
381.2
29
40
944
1
21
5
8
40
672
25%
22%
53%
10
140
8.8
129.6
21.2
402.4
30
40
984
1
22
5
8
40
712
25%
22%
53%
10
150
8.8
138.4
21.2
423.6
31
40
1024
1
23
5
8
40
752
25%
22%
53%
10
160
8.8
147.2
21.2
444.8
32
40
1064
1
24
5
8
40
792
25%
22%
53%
10
170
8.8
156
21.2
466
151
Appendix B
Case Study No. 2 - Structural Steel
1.0 Overview
1.1 Project Goal
The purpose of this case study was to collect data to develop a value stream map for construction
processes. Observations were limited to structural steel erection. Field data was gathered on two
separate value streams. The first was the actual flow of the steel from the time it arrived on the
jobsite until it was erected into final position. The second value stream was the flow of worker
activities performed to erect the steel.
152
steel erection activities. However, delayed installation of these caissons would cause unnecessary
equipment movement and other inefficiencies to steel erection activities after this observation
period.
153
The process started with a column erection along a bay section. The area observed focused on a
three by 26 bay section of the entire structure. A Manitoc 4100 crane was used for the steel
erection process. Ideally, the crane could reach three columns along the outside bay, as well as
setting all joist girders and trusses between the columns in one crane movement. During steel
delivery, the columns, girders and trusses were placed around the area of the bay in piles of like
members. A ground crewman or foreman then searched the respective piles to locate and draw
directional lines and a north arrow on each steel member. Numbers, originally marked by the
manufacturer on each of the steel members indicated their final location in the structure according
to the given plans. The foreman constructed the erection order on paper that the crane operator
followed. After two neighboring columns were erected, a joist girder was placed between the
columns. Once the columns and joist girders were placed in their final positions in the bay, the
interleaving trusses were installed in a repetitive process.
154
During the period of observation, the following steel members were installed:
Three columns.
Two trusses.
Twelve purlins.
The following section analyzes each workers contributions to each cycle. Tables and figures
were developed for each worker and task. The tables and figures describe the time spent on VA,
NVA and NVAR actions in each cycle.
2.3.1.1 Column Erection Cycle. The column erection cycle consisted of the following
tasks: preparing the column base, rigging the column for crane, guiding the column into place,
bolting the base of the column to the baseplate on the foundation and unhooking the rigging from
the column. Figure B.1 shows the major tasks required to complete the column installation. The
shaded areas are used to indicate that some tasks took longer to complete than others, and that
those tasks could occur simultaneously with other tasks. The shaded regions are not intended to
show actual task durations.
Column Erection
155
All members of the crew were involved with the erection of the columns. The main participants
in the column cycles included connector 1, 2 and the ground crewman. The crane operator and
second ground crewman were also involved; however, all of their movements were NVA or
NVAR.
Connector 1 was responsible for preparing the anchor bolts, aligning and bolting the column to
the baseplate, and releasing the crane rigging after the bolting was complete. Table B.1 and
Figure B.2 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for connector 1. During the column cycles,
connector 1 spent most of his time (46.61 percent) performing NVAR actions. The only VA
actions occurred while bolting the column to the baseplate.
Table B.1: Column Data for Connector 1
Ac tiv ity C la ss ific a tio n
VA
W a s te C la ssific a tio n
V alu e A d d in g
V A T o ta l
T im e a t Ac tiv ity
% o f T im e a t Ac tiv ity
0 :0 8:2 3
27 .49 %
0 :0 8 :2 3
2 7 .4 9 %
0 :0 1:3 7
0 :0 1:4 7
5.3 0%
5.8 5%
NVA
E xtra P ro c .
M o tio n
W aitin g
0 :0 4:3 0
14 .75 %
0 :0 7 :5 4
2 5 .9 0 %
0 :1 0:0 1
0 :0 4:1 2
32 .84 %
13 .77 %
N V AR T o ta l
0 :1 4 :1 3
4 6 .6 1 %
G ra n d T o ta l
0 :3 0 :3 0
100%
N V A T o ta l
N V AR
M at. P o s.
T .W .S .A .
NVA Extra
Processing
5%
NVAR Material
Positioning
33%
NVA Motion
6%
NVA Waiting
15%
Figure B.2: Column - Connector 1
156
Connector 2 mirrored the actions of connector 1 for all tasks involved with the column cycles.
Table B.2 and Figure B.3 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for connector 2. Again,
connector 2 time spent the largest amount of time on NVAR actions (47 percent).
Table B.2: Column Cycle - Connector 2
Activity C lassificatio n
VA
W aste C lassificatio n
T im e at Activity
% o f T o tal T im e
(b lan k)
0:08:23
0:08:23
27.49%
27.49%
E xtra P ro c.
M o tio n
W aitin g
0:01:37
0:01:47
0:04:30
0:07:54
5.30%
5.85%
14.75%
25.90%
E q u ip . R eq .
M at. P o s.
N V A R T o tal
0:04:12
0:10:01
0:14:13
13.77%
32.84%
46.61%
G ran d T o tal
0:30:30
100.00%
V A T o tal
NVA
N V A T o tal
NVAR
NVA Extra
Processing
5%
NVAR Material
Positioning
33%
NVA Motion
6%
NVA Waiting
15%
Figure B.3: Column Cycle - Connector 2
Ground crewman 1 contributed his largest percentage of VA activities during the erection of the
steel columns. Table B.3 and Figure B.4 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for ground
crewman 1. Thirty-seven percent of the time attributed by ground crewman 1 involved bolting
the column to the baseplate. Note that the largest amount of time was spent on the NVA action of
waiting. Ground crewman 1 was only a part of one column cycle. The rest of his time was spent
locating steel and assisting the foreman with the steel erection sequence.
157
W a s te C la s s ific a tio n
V a lu e A d d in g
T im e a t A c tiv ity
% o f T im e a t A c tiv ity
0 :0 4 :4 9
3 6 .8 2 %
0 :0 4 :4 9
3 6 .8 2 %
0 :0 1 :0 3
0 :0 5 :1 9
8 .0 3 %
4 0 .6 4 %
0 :0 6 :2 2
4 8 .6 6 %
0 :0 0 :3 4
0 :0 1 :2 0
4 .3 3 %
1 0 .1 9 %
N V A R T o ta l
0 :0 1 :5 4
1 4 .5 2 %
G ra n d T o ta l
0 :1 3 :0 5
100%
V A T o ta l
NVA
E x tra P ro c .
W a itin g
N V A T o ta l
NV AR
M a t. P o s .
T .W .S .A .
NVAR TWSA
10%
NVAR Material
Positioning
4%
VA
37%
NVA Waiting
41%
158
Waste Classification
Time at Activity
Waiting
Extra Proc.
Transport
Motion
NVA Total
% of Time at Activity
0:17:03
0:02:02
0:02:05
0:06:57
53.14%
6.34%
6%
21.66%
0:28:07
87.64%
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
0:02:10
6.75%
T.W.S.A.
0:01:48
5.61%
NVAR Total
0:03:58
12.36%
Grand Total
0:32:05
100%
NVAR Material
Positioning
7%
NVA Motion
22%
NVA Transport
6%
NVA Waiting
53%
159
Waste Classification
Time at Activity
Motion
Transport
Waiting
NVA Total
% of Time at Activity
0:02:02
0:05:44
0:01:52
6.59%
19%
6.05%
0:09:38
31.24%
NVAR
0:21:12
68.76%
NVAR Total
T.W.S.A.
0:21:12
68.76%
Grand Total
0:30:50
100%
NVA Motion
7%
NVA Transport
19%
NVA Waiting
6%
NVAR TWSA
68%
2.3.1.2 Girder Erection Cycle. The girder erection process included the following
subtasks: preparing the girder with rigging for the crane, guiding the girder into the hands of crew
members stationed at the top end of the columns, adjusting/hammering girders to fit into slots,
bolting the girders into place, and unhooking crane rigging from the girder. Figure B.7 shows the
major tasks required to complete the girder installation. The shaded areas are used to indicate
that some tasks took longer to complete than others, and that those tasks could occur
simultaneously with other tasks. The shaded regions are not intended to show actual task
durations.
Joist Girder Erection
160
All five members of the crew were observed during the girder erection cycle. Data for the five
crew members is presented below.
Connector 1 spent the majority of his time aligning and securing the joist girder after it was lifted
into position by the crane operator. Table B.6 and Figure B.8 show the VA, NVA and NVAR
values for connector 1. Notice that a slightly larger percentage of time was spent on VA actions
during the joist girder cycle than was spent during the column cycle. The majority (27 percent) of
the NVA time was attributed to movement of the sky lift between upper and lower connections as
well as between opposite ends of the bay section where the girders were placed.
Table B.6: Joist Girder Cycle - Connector 1
Activity C lassification
VA
W aste C lassification
Value Add in g
T im e at Activity
% of T im e at Activity
0:12:18
34.18%
0:12:18
34.18%
0:09:34
0:03:35
26.59%
9.96%
0:13:09
36.54%
0:08:38
0:01:54
23.99%
5.28%
NV AR T otal
0:10:32
29.27%
G rand T otal
0:35:59
100%
V A T otal
NV A
M o tion
W aitin g
NV A T otal
NV AR
M at. P os.
T .W .S.A.
NVAR Material
Positioning
24%
NVA Waiting
10%
NVA Motion
27%
Figure B.8: Joist Girder Cycle - Connector 1
161
Connector 2 was also involved with aligning and bolting the joist girder after it was lifted into
position by the crane. Table B.7 and Figure B.9 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for
connector 2. One point of interest between the two connectors was the jump in percentage of
time spent on NVA actions to 51 percent. A significant portion of time for connector 2 was spent
hammering and readjusting (extra processing) the girder to fit correctly. This extra processing
required connector 2 to move the sky lift around the girder connection accounting for the extra
time attributed to the NVA waste category of motion (36.35 percent).
Table B.7: Joist Girder Cycle - Connector 2
Ac tiv ity C la s s ific a tio n
VA
W a s te C la s s ific a tio n
V a lu e A d d in g
V A T o ta l
T im e a t Ac tiv ity
% o f T im e a t Ac tiv ity
0 :0 5 :4 8
1 5 .8 3 %
0 :0 5 :4 8
1 5 .8 3 %
0 :0 2 :3 7
0 :1 3 :1 9
7 .1 4 %
3 6 .3 5 %
NVA
E x tra P ro c .
M o tio n
W a itin g
0 :0 2 :4 3
7 .4 2 %
0 :1 8 :3 9
5 0 .9 1 %
0 :1 1 :3 9
0 :0 0 :3 2
3 1 .8 0 %
1 .4 6 %
N V AR T o ta l
0 :1 2 :1 1
3 3 .2 6 %
G ra n d T o ta l
0 :3 6 :3 8
100%
N V A T o ta l
N V AR
M a t. P o s .
T .W .S .A .
VA
16%
NVAR Material
Positioning
32%
NVA Waiting
7%
NVA Motion
37%
162
Waste Classification
Value Adding
Time at Activity
% of Time at Activity
0:01:53
10.13%
0:01:53
10.13%
Extra Proc.
Motion
0:08:58
0:03:53
48.25%
20.90%
Transport
0:01:47
10%
VA Total
NVA
0:02:04
11.12%
NVA Total
Waiting
0:16:42
89.87%
Grand Total
0:18:35
100%
VA
10%
NVA Transport
10%
NVA Motion
21%
163
Waste Classification
Motion
Transport
Waiting
NVA Total
Time at Activity
% of Time at Activity
0:01:28
0:04:50
0:22:22
4.13%
14%
63.00%
0:28:40
80.75%
0:03:00
8.45%
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
0:03:50
10.80%
NVAR Total
T.W.S.A.
0:06:50
19.25%
Grand Total
0:35:30
100%
NVA Motion
4%
NVA Transport
14%
NVAR Material
Positioning
8%
NVA Waiting
63%
164
Waste Classification
Motion
Transport
Waiting
NVA Total
Time at Activity
% of Time at Activity
0:03:08
0:02:41
0:01:17
8.60%
7%
3.52%
0:07:06
19.49%
NVAR
0:29:20
80.51%
NVAR Total
T.W.S.A.
0:29:20
80.51%
Grand Total
0:36:26
100%
NVAR TWSA
80%
2.3.1.3 Truss Cycle. The truss cycle included the following subtasks: setting up the crane
rigging, positioning the truss into the hands of the connectors above, aligning and positioning the
truss into its final position on the structure, bolting the truss and releasing the crane rigging from
the truss. Figure B.13 shows the major tasks required to complete the truss installation. The
shaded areas are used to indicate that some tasks took longer to complete than others, and that
those tasks could occur simultaneously with other tasks. The shaded regions are not intended to
show actual task durations.
Truss Erection
All five members of the crew were observed during the girder erection cycle. Data for the five
crew members is presented below.
Connector 1 was involved with aligning and positioning each truss member, bolting the end
connections and releasing the crane rigging after the connections were completed. Table B.11
and Figure B.14 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for connector 1. Notice the large jump in
NVA time (62 percent) spent by the connector during the column and girder cycles. Connector 1
contributed the largest portion of his time to the NVA activities of waiting and wasted movement.
The waiting was due to the slow hookup for each member to the crane, along with the large swing
distance required for each pickup between the lay-down yard and the final position of the truss
member in the structure. Another notable observation was the amount of time wasted in motion,
or the movement of the sky lift between each truss (25 percent). Finally, despite the erection of
the truss being the most repetitive activity observed, it proved to be the largest contributor of
NVA activities of all cycles observed for this crewman.
Table B.11: Truss Cycle - Connector 1
Activity Classification
VA
Waste Classification
Value Adding
Time at Activity
% of Time at Activity
0:03:44
12.17%
0:03:44
12.17%
0:07:40
0:11:25
24.99%
37.21%
0:19:05
62.19%
0:06:50
0:01:02
22.27%
3.37%
NVAR Total
0:07:52
25.64%
Grand Total
0:30:41
100%
VA Total
NVA
Motion
Waiting
NVA Total
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
T.W.S.A.
166
VA
12%
NVAR Material
Positioning
22%
NVA Motion
25%
NVA Waiting
38%
Waste Classification
Value Adding
VA Total
Time at Activity
% of Time at Activity
0:07:40
25.46%
0:07:40
25.46%
0:00:49
0:06:06
2.71%
20.25%
NVA
Extra Proc.
Motion
Waiting
0:08:16
27.45%
0:15:11
50.42%
0:07:01
0:00:15
23.30%
0.83%
NVAR Total
0:07:16
24.13%
Grand Total
0:30:07
100%
NVA Total
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
T.W.S.A.
167
NVAR Material
Positioning
23%
NVAR TWSA
1%
VA
25%
NVA Extra
Processing
3%
NVA Waiting
28%
NVA Motion
20%
Figure B.15: Truss Cycle - Connector 2
Ground crewman 1 was responsible for locating and marking individual truss members with a
north direction arrow, rigging the truss for the crane and directing the crane operator for
material positioning. Table B.13 and Figure B.16 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for
ground crewman 1. The largest percentage of time was attributed to NVA actions (96 percent),
mainly waiting around. Note that a smaller amount of time was observed for this worker. The
ground crewman left the observation area for the remainder of the observation time and,
therefore, was no longer contributing any action to the cycle.
Table B.13: Truss Cycle - Ground Crewman 1 - White Shirt
Activity Classification
NVA
Waste Classification
Extra Proc.
Motion
Waiting
Time at Activity
% of Time at Activity
0:02:50
0:03:22
0:05:11
23.81%
28.29%
43.56%
0:11:23
95.66%
0:00:31
4.34%
NVAR Total
0:00:31
4.34%
Grand Total
0:11:54
100%
NVA Total
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
168
NVA Waiting
44%
NVA Motion
28%
Waste Classification
Waiting
Time at Activity
% of Time at Activity
0:02:59
32.55%
0:02:59
32.55%
0:05:46
0:00:25
62.91%
4.55%
NVAR Total
0:06:11
67.45%
Grand Total
0:09:10
100%
NVA Total
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
T.W.S.A.
169
NVAR TWSA
5%
NVA Waiting
33%
NVAR Material
Positioning
62%
Waste Classification
Motion
Transport
Time at Activity
% of Time at Activity
0:01:09
0:06:53
3.80%
23%
0:08:02
26.56%
0:22:13
73.44%
NVAR Total
0:22:13
73.44%
Grand Total
0:30:15
100%
NVA Total
NVAR
T.W.S.A.
170
NVAR TWSA
73%
2.3.2.1 Purlin Cycle. Figure B.19 shows the schedule for purlin erection. The purlin cycle
included the following subtasks: setting up the crane rigging, positioning the purlin into the hands
of the connectors above, aligning and positioning the purlin into its final position on the structure,
bolting the truss and releasing the crane rigging from the truss.
Purlin Erection
171
Connector 1 was involved in aligning/positioning purlin members, bolting the end connections
and releasing the crane rigging after the connections were complete. Table B.16 and Figure B.20
show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for connector 1. Notice the large percentage of NVA time
(66 percent) that was wasted during the cycle. Connector 1 contributed the largest portion of his
time to the NVA subcategories of waiting and wasted movement (motion). Waiting was due to
the slow hookup for each purlin to the crane along with the large swing distance required for each
pick up between the lay-down yard and the final position of the purlin member in the structure.
Note the amount of time used just for motion, or the movement of the sky lift between each purlin
position (38 percent), which accounted for the largest portion of time consumed during the purlin
cycle.
Table B.16: Purlin Cycle - Connector 1
Activity Classification
VA
Waste Classification
T ime at Activity
% of T ime at Activitiy
Value Adding
0:02:20
0:02:20
5.86%
5.86%
Extra Proc.
Motion
Waiting
0:00:30
0:14:57
0:10:39
1.26%
37.55%
26.75%
0:26:06
65.55%
NVAR T otal
0:05:51
0:05:32
0:11:23
14.69%
13.90%
28.59%
Grand T otal
0:39:49
100.00%
VA T otal
NVA
NVA T otal
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
T .W.S.A.
VA
6%
NVAR Material
Positioning
15%
NVA Extra
Processing
1%
NVA Motion
37%
NVA Waiting
27%
172
Connector 2 had similar responsibilities to those of connector 1. Table B.17 and Figure B.21
show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for Connector 2. The results for connector 2 are identical
to those of connector 1.
Table B.17: Purlin Cycle - Connector 2
Activity Classification
VA
Waste Classification
Value Adding
0:05:00
0:05:00
12.56%
12.56%
Extra Proc.
Motion
Waiting
0:00:39
0:16:27
0:08:09
1.63%
41.31%
20.47%
0:25:15
63.42%
NVAR Total
0:06:51
0:02:43
0:09:34
17.20%
6.82%
24.03%
Grand Total
0:39:49
100.00%
VA Total
NVA
NVA Total
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
T.W.S.A.
NVAR Material
Positioning
17%
NVAR
TWSA
7%
VA
13%
NVA Extra
Processing
2%
NVA Motion
41%
NVA Waiting
20%
Figure B.21: Purlin Cycle - Connector 2
The ground crewman was responsible for locating and marking the individual purlin members
with a north direction arrow, rigging the purlin for the crane, using the tag line to position the
purlins into the hands of the connectors above, and directing the crane operator for material
positioning. Table B.18 and Figure B.22 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the ground
crewman. The largest percentage of time was attributed to NVA actions (63 percent), mainly
consisting of waiting around. There was a substantial amount of time spent on TWSA
(30 percent). Support activities for the crane required the worker to attach rigging for each
173
purlin. The time contributed to the motion category was due to the worker walking between
purlin locations on the ground.
Table B.18: Purlin Cycle - Ground Crewman
Activity Classification
NVA
Waste Classification
Motion
Transport
Waiting
0:05:04
0:01:15
0:19:02
0:25:21
12.61%
3.11%
47.37%
63.09%
Mat. Pos.
0:02:58
7.38%
T.W.S.A.
NVAR Total
0:11:52
0:14:50
29.53%
36.91%
Grand Total
0:40:11
100.00%
NVA Total
NVAR
NVA Motion
13%
NVAR
TWSA
30%
NVA
Transport
3%
NVAR Material
Positioning
7%
NVA Waiting
47%
Figure B.22: Purlin Cycle - Ground Crewman
The crane operator was responsible for lifting and positioning each member into final position in
the structure and providing temporary support of those members during alignment and bolting
into place. Table B.19 and Figure B.23 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the crane
operator. The crane operator spent most of his time (41 percent) transporting each purlin from
the material lay-down area to the final position in the structure. Also, none of the crane operator
time was VA, which was to be expected since he never physically changed the shape of the
structure.
174
Waste Classification
Motion
Transport
Waiting
0:07:02
0:16:25
0:07:59
0:31:26
17.58%
41.04%
19.96%
78.58%
T.W.S.A.
0:08:34
21.42%
NVAR Total
0:08:34
21.42%
Grand Total
0:40:00
100.00%
NVA Total
NVAR
NVA Motion
18%
NVA Waiting
20%
NVA
Transport
41%
Figure B.23: Purlin Cycle - Crane Operator
175
TIME
0:15:45
0:15:30
0:15:15
0:15:00
0:14:45
0:14:30
0:14:15
0:14:00
0:13:45
0:13:30
0:13:15
0:13:00
0:12:45
0:12:30
0:12:15
0:12:00
0:11:45
0:11:30
0:11:15
0:11:00
0:10:45
0:10:30
0:10:15
0:10:00
0:09:45
0:09:30
0:09:15
0:09:00
0:08:45
0:08:30
0:08:15
0:08:00
0:07:45
0:07:30
0:07:15
0:07:00
0:06:45
0:06:30
0:06:15
0:06:00
0:05:45
0:05:30
0:05:15
0:05:00
0:04:45
0:04:30
0:04:15
0:04:00
0:03:45
0:03:30
0:03:15
0:03:00
0:02:45
0:02:30
0:02:15
0:02:00
0:01:45
0:01:30
0:01:15
0:01:00
0:00:45
0:00:30
0:00:15
0:00:00
Swinging Truss to
Final Position
Waiting
Positioning Truss
w/ Tag Line
Preparing Truss
Waiting
Waiting
Swinging to Pick
Next Truss
Remove Truss
Rigging
Remove Truss
Rigging
Bolting Bottom
Connection
Waiting
Bolting Bottom
Connection
Waiting
Aligning Truss
Bottom Connection
Waiting
Waiting
Aligning Truss
Bottom Connection
Temporarily Supporting
Truss Member
Waiting
Move Lift
Waiting
Move Lift
Waiting
Bolting Top
Connection
Bolting Top
Connection
Waiting
Aligning Truss
Top Connection
Waiting
Waiting
Aligning Truss
Top Connection
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Positioning Truss
Tag Line
Swinging Truss to
Final Position
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Truss Piece Attached
Waiting
Waiting
Locate Steel Piece
Ground Crewman #1
Ground Crewman #2
Note: Average times for each task were used to construct this chart.
Swinging to Pick
Next Truss
Crane Operator
Connector #1
176
Connector #2
TIME
0:10:00
0:09:45
0:09:30
0:09:15
0:09:00
0:08:45
0:08:30
0:08:15
0:08:00
0:07:45
0:07:30
0:07:15
0:07:00
0:06:45
0:06:30
0:06:15
0:06:00
0:05:45
0:05:30
0:05:15
0:05:00
0:04:45
0:04:30
0:04:15
0:04:00
0:03:45
0:03:30
0:03:15
0:03:00
0:02:45
0:02:30
0:02:15
0:02:00
0:01:45
0:01:30
0:01:15
0:01:00
0:00:45
0:00:30
0:00:15
0:00:00
Set Up Rigging
for Purlin
Holding Piece in
Place to Be Bolted
Unhooking Rigging
Bolting Purlin
Bolting Purlin
Positioning Purlin
Positioning Purlin
Positioning Purlin
Waiting
Waiting
Lifting/Swinging
Purlin
from Material Yard
to Final Position in
Structure
Waiting
Moving to
Next Purlin Position
Attaching Rigging
Set Up Rigging
for Purlin
Holding Piece in
Place to Be Bolted
Unhooking Rigging
Bolting Purlin
Moving to
Next Purlin Position
Unhooking Rigging
Bolting Purlin
Positioning Purlin
Positioning Purlin
Positioning Purlin
Waiting
Waiting
Lifting/Swinging
Purlin
from Material Yard
to Final Position in
Structure
Waiting
Moving to
Next Purlin Position
Attaching Rigging
Set Up Rigging
for Purlin
Holding Piece in
Place to Be Bolted
Ground Crewman
Crane Operator
Note: Average times for each task were used to construct this chart.
Unhooking Rigging
Bolting Purlin
Positioning Purlin
Connector #1
177
Moving to
Next Purlin Position
Unhooking Rigging
Bolting Purlin
Positioning Purlin
Connector #2
Note that the discrepancy between the two members may have been due to observer error. The crew
balance chart is the idealized representation for the crew for erecting a truss. This ideal crew balance was
structured around the crane operators movements.
178
The average time that it took the crane to move a purlin from the material lay-down area on the
ground and position it into final position in the structure was one minute 12 seconds. The crew
balance chart, Figure B.25, shows that a large portion of time for the remaining crewmen was
wasted on waiting. The average waiting time during each cycle was 54 seconds for the ground
crewman; 58 seconds for connector 1; and 41 seconds for connector 2.1
Waiting accounted for 28.67 percent of the total time attributed by the crew members to the
erection of all purlins during this observation period. Refer to Table B.20 for the purlin cycle
waste percentage breakdown.
The crew balance chart is the idealized representation for the crew for erecting a purlin. This ideal crew
balance was structured around the crane operators movements, and the averages for each crew member
were used to best fit the cycle observed.
179
13%
VA
Crew Member
Ground Crewman #3
Connector #3
Connector #4
Crane Operator #2
Group Percentage - Cycle 2
Weighted Average
Percentages for Group
5%
6%
15%
16%
Total Cumulative Time Observed for Cycle 2
Waste
Extra
Material
Processing Transport Movement
Pos.
0%
3%
13%
7%
1%
0%
38%
15%
2%
0%
41%
17%
0%
41%
18%
0%
0%
9:32:04 h:m:s
6:52:15 h:m:s
TWSA
3%
8%
7%
5%
75%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
22%
100%
2:39:49 h:m:s
VA +
NVAR
21%
22%
59%
57%
75%
51%
NVAR
In Proc.
Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
TWSA
30%
14%
7%
21%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA +
NVAR
37%
34%
37%
21%
All Activities
0%
6%
13%
0%
Waiting
47%
27%
20%
20%
5%
29%
1%
11%
27%
10%
0%
18%
100%
32%
11%
24%
4%
7%
18%
14%
0%
21%
100%
46%
All Activities
37%
0%
27%
27%
0%
Waiting
41%
53%
15%
15%
6%
16%
24%
VA
Crew Member
Ground Crewman #1
Ground Crewman #2
Connector #1
Connector #2
Crane Operator #1
Group Percentage
Truss
All Activities
10%
0%
34%
16%
0%
Waiting
11%
63%
10%
7%
4%
12%
20%
VA
Crew Member
Ground Crewman #1
Ground Crewman #2
Connector #1
Connector #2
Crane Operator #1
Group Percentage
All Activities
0%
0%
12%
25%
0%
Waiting
44%
33%
37%
27%
0%
10%
25%
6%
180
16%
18%
2:17:00 h:m:s
NVAR
In Proc.
Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
NVAR
In Proc.
Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
TWSA
10%
6%
14%
14%
0%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
24%
100%
2:43:08 h:m:s
TWSA
0%
11%
5%
1%
81%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
22%
100%
1:52:07 h:m:s
VA +
NVAR
51%
12%
74%
74%
69%
56%
VA +
NVAR
10%
19%
63%
49%
81%
48%
NVAR
In Proc.
Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
TWSA
0%
5%
3%
1%
73%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA +
NVAR
4%
67%
38%
50%
73%
0%
21%
100%
49%
In addition, the second crew spent 29 percent of its total time on waiting. For both crews, time
spent waiting was highly dependent on the structure of the crew and the task that the crew was
focused on during this observation period. For example, the column erection cycle required both
ground crewmen to help align and position the column on the baseplate. In contrast, the erection
of a truss may have only required one ground crewman to hold the tag line while positioning the
truss member into the hands of the connectors above.
181
when the material was positioned in the lay-down yard prior to the crane picking it up. However,
this waste could not be quantified due to a limited observation period.
4.2.2 Inventory/WIP
Material deliveries were made continually throughout the construction process. The steel was
delivered onsite on large flatbed trailers. It was observed sitting in the parking lot on top of
trailers (minus the cab) for several days until the steel was needed in the structure. The material
was moved into the lay-down area next to the structure, where it waited anywhere from one day
to two weeks before being erected in place. The variability of the amount of material onsite was
heavily influenced by the sporadic nature of the erection process. The caisson driller sustained
abnormally high numbers of rejected caisson placements, with several of the concrete caissons
being removed and replaced. The erection crew relocated several times to adjust to the caisson
problem.
4.2.3 Defects
Defects are defined as errors or deficiencies in a finished product that require additional work on
the part of the original crew or a follow-up crew. A defective structural element (e.g., column,
girder, etc.) is an example of a defect (i.e., the material has been passed through the value stream
to the next work station). Another example of defects is included in the punch list process at the
end of a job. When a defect in the finished product is found at this stage, a separate follow-up
crew is activated to correct the defect. Hence, the defect is pushed onto the next work station.
No waste associated with defects was observed.
182
Manufacturer
stores
material
onsite in its
warehouse.
Material is
trucked to
site and
stored on
flatbeds until
needed.
Material is
trucked from
parking lot to
small material
lay-down area
near bay.
Steel is
offloaded by
a heavy-duty
forklift onto
the ground.
Each steel
member is
identified by a
ground
crewman and
north arrow
marked on it.
Final
placement
of steel
member
by crane.
Each steel shipment consisted of all structural steel members required in one bay.
Steel could not be stored onsite in a large material lay-down yard due to safety
restrictions. The steel for three to four bays was stored on truck trailers (minus
the cab) in the parking lot until needed. It usually remained in the parking lot for
one week before being handled again and moved to the second staging area - a
small material lay-down area next to the bay being erected.
Each load was handled by a heavy-duty forklift. Depending on the steel member
type, one to three separate lifting actions were needed by the forklift operator to
remove the entire load from the truck bed.
The load from the truck was placed on the ground in the same manner as it was
on the truck. No shakeout occurred from the truck to the ground.
The piles from the truck were organized by member type (columns with columns,
trusses with trusses, etc.).
Each steel member had a number that correlated to a number on the drawings.
Following the placement of each pile on the ground, a ground crewman located
the number on each steel piece and related it back to the foreman. This number
helped the erection crew foreman with the proper erection sequence.
No shakeout occurred after placement on the ground. The crane was required to
swing over the material lay-down area in random picks to reach each steel piece.
One piece was picked at a time. This created a large material transport time for
the crane operator.
After the steel members were placed near their respective bay staging areas, the
crane moved the girders, bar joists and columns from the staging position to final
position in the structure.
183
184
Production Control
Project Engineer
Every 1-3 days
Triggering Event
Project Feedback
Percent Complete
Time Allocation
Field
Level One
Project Superintendent
NVA Time
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
Steel Supplier
Daily
As Required
1500
2000
2500
Man-hours
OO
1000
500
NVA Time
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Man-hours
Inv
Workers involved:
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (0%)
NVA (100%)
Truck, forklifts
Workers involved:
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (20%)
NVA (80%)
Inv
2
8
0
0
8
16
0
3.2
12.8
Crane, two
skylifts
Workers involved:
Crew
WT
VA ( 25%, 12%)
NVAR (40%, 36%)
NVA (45%, 52)
Days required
Equipment involved:
Crane,
two skylifts
Workers involved:
Crew
WT
VA ( 12%)
NVAR (36%)
NVA (52%)
3
5
WT
VA ( 25%)
NVAR (41%)
NVA (44%)
7.3
1.1
2.9
3.2
Columns
VA
Crew Member
Level Three
Ground Crewman #1
Ground Crewman #2
Connector #1
Connector #2
Crane Operator #1
Group Percentage
All Activities
37%
0%
27%
27%
0%
16%
Waiting
41%
53%
15%
15%
6%
Days required
24%
5%
Crew Member
Group Percentage
All Activities
10%
0%
34%
16%
0%
Waiting
11%
63%
10%
7%
4%
12%
20%
14%
10%
25%
3%
6%
16%
18%
Waiting
47%
27%
20%
20%
5%
29%
50%
1%
13%
Waiting
29%
55%
20%
16%
3%
23%
VA
Crew Member
All Activities
0%
6%
13%
0%
Waiting
47%
27%
20%
20%
11%
27%
68%
10%
5%
6%
15%
16%
Total Cumulative Time Observed for Cycle 2
Waste
Extra
Processing
Transport
Movement
Material Pos.
0%
3%
13%
7%
1%
0%
38%
15%
2%
0%
41%
17%
0%
41%
18%
0%
5%
29%
1%
11%
24%
4%
3
2
2
12
0.18
Days required
Equipment involved:
Crane,
two skylifts
Workers involved:
Crew
WT
VA ( 12%)
NVAR (36%)
NVA (52%)
3
5
7.3
1.1
2.9
3.2
0.32
3
5
13.0
1.6
4.7
6.7
2:17:00 h:m:s
NVAR
In Proc. Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
T.W.S.A
10%
6%
14%
14%
0%
Total %
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA + NVAR %
51%
12%
74%
74%
69%
0%
24%
100%
56%
2:43:08 h:m:s
NVAR
In Proc. Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
T.W.S.A
0%
11%
5%
1%
81%
Total %
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA + NVAR %
10%
19%
63%
49%
81%
0%
22%
100%
48%
36%
In Proc. Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
T.W.S.A
0%
5%
3%
1%
73%
Total %
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA + NVAR %
4%
67%
38%
50%
73%
0%
21%
100%
49%
39%
2:39:49 h:m:s
NVAR
In Proc. Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
T.W.S.A
30%
14%
7%
21%
Total %
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA + NVAR %
37%
34%
37%
21%
0%
18%
100%
32%
NVAR=
Table represents the time distribution for each element viewed during the observation period
Cumulative Time
Number of
for Various
Members
Cumulative Time for Each Element
Categories
Observed
2:17:00
Total Cumulative Time for Three Columns
2:43:08
Total Cumulative Time for Two Girders
1:52:07
Total Cumulative Time for Two Trusses
2:39:49
Total Cumulative Time for Twelve Purlins
Total Time
9:32:04
7.3
1.1
2.9
3.2
NVAR =
NVA=
1:52:07 h:m:s
Material Pos.
4%
63%
22%
23%
0%
All Activities
0%
6%
13%
0%
Crane, two
skylifts
Workers involved:
Crew
WT
VA ( .12%,10%)
NVAR (36%,39%)
NVA (52%,51%)
NVAR
Movement
28%
0%
25%
20%
4%
28%
9:32:04 h:m:s
6:52:15 h:m:s
NVAR
In Proc. Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
For 14 Phases
56
2016 man-hours
181 man-hours
674 man-hours
1162 man-hours
Crane Movement #4
1.44
Days Required
T.W.S.A
3%
8%
7%
5%
75%
Total %
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
22%
100%
2:39:49 h:m:s
VA + NVAR %
21%
22%
59%
57%
75%
51%
NVAR
In Proc. Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
T.W.S.A
30%
14%
7%
21%
Total %
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA + NVAR %
37%
34%
37%
21%
11%
27%
10%
0%
18%
100%
32%
7%
18%
14%
0%
21%
100%
46%
11%
35%
54%
185
0.87
Equipment involved:
Equipment involved:
NVAR =
Transport
0%
0%
0%
0%
23%
19%
Extra
Processing
24%
0%
0%
3%
0%
Crew Member
Ground Crewman #3
Connector #3
Connector #4
Crane Operator #2
6%
52%
NVA =
Days required
41%
Waiting
44%
33%
37%
27%
0%
VA
Group Percentage
Steel Erection - Purlins
17%
VA Total
NVAR Total
NVA Total
Crane Movement #3
0.18
NVAR Sum
All Activities
0%
0%
12%
25%
0%
9%
Crew Member
Ground Crewman #3
Connector #3
Connector #4
Crane Operator #2
6%
7%
NVA =
VA
Group Percentage
13 man-hours
48 man-hours
83 man-hours
120.0
12.9
44.9
62.2
Inventory Days per
Phase
9
0.32
Truss
Ground Crewman #1
Ground Crewman #2
Connector #1
Connector #2
Crane Operator #1
13.0
1.6
4.7
6.7
Days required
Equipment involved:
Crane,
two skylifts
Workers involved:
Crew
WT
VA ( 25%)
NVAR (41%)
NVA (44%)
44%
VA
Ground Crewman #1
Ground Crewman #2
Connector #1
Connector #2
Crane Operator #1
20.2
2.7
7.6
9.9
Crane, two
skylifts
Workers involved:
Crew
WT
VA ( .25%)
NVAR (40%)
NVA (45%)
NVA Sum
Joist Girder
Equipment involved:
0.18
VA Total
NVAR Total
NVA Total
Crane Movement #2
0.51
Equipment involved:
Level Two
Workers involved:
Crew
WT
VA ( 11%)
NVAR (34%)
NVA (55%)
Inv
Crane Movement #1
Days required
Crane,
two skylifts
Workers involved
Crew
WT
VA ( 10%)
NVAR (39%)
NVA (51%)
3
5
57.5
6.1
22.2
29.2
3
5
35.0
2.9
12.2
19.9
0.56
Days Required
Equipment involved:
Crane, 2 skylifts
5
22.3
2.3
8.8
11.2
Workers involved
Crew
WT
VA ( 5%)
NVAR (27%)
NVA (68%)
0.32
3
5
12.7
0.6
3.4
8.6
Production Control
Project Engineer
Level One
Project Feedback
Percent Complete
T im e A llo c a tio n
F ie ld
E v e ry 1 -3 d a y s
Triggering Event
Project Superintendent
NVA Time
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
Steel Supplier
Daily
As Required
1500
2000
2500
Man-hours
T im e A llo c a tio n F ie ld
OO
1000
500
NVA Time
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Man-hours
Inv
Workers involved:
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (0%)
NVA (100%)
Inv
2
8
0
0
8
Days required
Equipment involved:
Truck,
Forklifts
Workers involved:
Crew
WT
VA ( 0%)
NVAR (20%)
NVA (80%)
0.5
2
Inv
4
16
0
3.2
12.8
Days required
3
Equipment involved:
Crane,
3
2 skylifts
Workers involved:
Crew
5
WT
0.0
VA ( 11%)
0.0
NVAR (34%)
0.0
NVA (55%)
0.0
Inventory Days per
Phase
9
186
Working Days
Work Time
VA Total
NVAR Total
NVA Total
VA Total
NVAR Total
NVA Total
13 man-hours
48 man-hours
83 man-hours
For 14 Phases
56
2016 man-hours
181 man-hours
674 man-hours
1162 man-hours
Level Two
Two Exterior
Columns Erected
Days
0.18
required
Equipment involved:
Crane,
two
3
skylifts
Workers involved:
Crew
5
WT
7.3
VA ( 25%)
1.1
2.9
NVAR (41%
3.2
NVA (44%)
Crane Movement #1
Crane Movement #2
Crane Movement #3
Crane Movement #4
Days
0.51
required
Equipment involved:
Crane,
two
3
skylifts
Workers involved:
Crew
5
WT
20.2
VA ( 25%,
2.7
7.6
NVAR (40%
9.9
NVA (45%,
Days
0.18
required
Equipment involved:
Crane,
two
3
skylifts
Workers involved:
Crew
5
WT
7.3
VA ( .25%)
1.1
NVAR (40%
2.9
NVA (45%)
3.2
Days
1.44
required
Equipment involved:
Crane,
two
3
skylifts
Workers involved:
Crew
5
WT
57.5
VA ( .12%,
6.1
NVAR (36%
22.2
NVA (52%,
29.2
Days
0.87
required
Equipment involved:
Crane,
two
3
skylifts
Workers involved:
Crew
5
WT
35.0
VA ( 10%)
2.9
NVAR (39%
12.2
NVA (51%)
19.9
187
Purlin Installation
Process
Days
0.32
required
Equipment involved:
Crane,
two
3
skylifts
Workers involved:
Crew
5
WT
12.7
VA ( 5%)
0.6
NVAR (27%
3.4
NVA (68%)
8.6
Columns
VA
Crew Member
Level Three
Ground Crewman #1
Ground Crewman #2
Connector #1
Connector #2
Crane Operator #1
Group Percentage
All Activities
37%
0%
27%
27%
0%
16%
Waiting
41%
53%
15%
15%
6%
24%
VA
Group Percentage
All Activities
10%
0%
34%
16%
0%
Waiting
11%
63%
10%
7%
4%
12%
20%
7%
NVA =
100%
56%
19%
14%
2:43:08 h:m:s
NVAR
In-Proc. Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
TWSA
0%
11%
5%
1%
81%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA + NVAR
10%
19%
63%
49%
81%
0%
22%
100%
48%
NVAR =
36%
1:52:07 h:m:s
NVAR
Movement
28%
0%
25%
20%
4%
Material Pos.
4%
63%
22%
23%
0%
In-Proc. Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
TWSA
0%
5%
3%
1%
73%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA + NVAR
4%
67%
38%
50%
73%
10%
25%
3%
6%
16%
18%
0%
21%
100%
49%
All Activities
0%
6%
13%
0%
Waiting
47%
27%
20%
20%
5%
29%
50%
1%
13%
Waiting
29%
55%
20%
16%
3%
23%
VA
Crew Member
NVAR =
NVA=
24%
Transport
0%
0%
0%
0%
23%
VA
Ground Crewman #3
Connector #3
Connector #4
Crane Operator #2
0%
Extra
Processing
24%
0%
0%
3%
0%
Crew Member
Group Percentage
Steel Erection - Purlins
VA + NVAR
51%
12%
74%
74%
69%
Waiting
44%
33%
37%
27%
0%
NVA =
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
All Activities
0%
0%
12%
25%
0%
Ground Crewman #3
Connector #3
Connector #4
Crane Operator #2
6%
52%
VA
TWSA
10%
6%
14%
14%
0%
41%
Crew Member
Group Percentage
17%
In-Proc. Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
NVAR Sum
Truss
Ground Crewman #1
Ground Crewman #2
Connector #1
Connector #2
Crane Operator #1
9%
44%
Crew Member
Ground Crewman #1
Ground Crewman #2
Connector #1
Connector #2
Crane Operator #1
6%
5%
NVA Sum
Joist Girder
2:17:00 h:m:s
NVAR
11%
27%
68%
10%
39%
2:39:49 h:m:s
NVAR
In-Proc. Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
TWSA
30%
14%
7%
21%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA + NVAR
37%
34%
37%
21%
0%
18%
100%
32%
NVAR=
28%
9:32:04 h:m:s
6:52:15 h:m:s
NVAR
In-Proc. Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
TWSA
3%
8%
7%
5%
75%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
22%
100%
2:39:49 h:m:s
VA + NVAR
21%
22%
59%
57%
75%
51%
NVAR
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA + NVAR
37%
34%
37%
21%
All Activities
0%
6%
13%
0%
Waiting
47%
27%
20%
20%
5%
29%
1%
11%
27%
10%
0%
18%
100%
32%
11%
24%
4%
7%
18%
14%
0%
21%
100%
46%
In-Proc. Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
TWSA
30%
14%
7%
21%
Table represents the time distribution for each element viewed during the observation period
% of Observed Avg # of Elements Estimated Time to % of ETTRP for
% of ETTRP
Cumulative Time
Number of
Cycle Time for
% of Total
Time Each Steel Within One Phase Erect All Elements Each Element Consumed by Each
for Various
Members
Each Element
Cumulative Time for Each Element
Time Observed
Element Requires
Element in a Phase
Categories
Observed
Installed
(6 Bays)
in a Phase
Category
Total Cumulative Time for Three Columns
2:17:00
3
0:45:40
24
8
8
6:05:20
12
1.5
Total Cumulative Time for Two Girders
2:43:08
2
1:21:34
29
14
8
10:52:32
22
2.7
Total Cumulative Time for Two Trusses
1:52:07
2
0:56:03
20
10
30
4:01:45
56
1.9
2:39:49
12
0:13:19
28
2
24
5:19:38
11
0.4
Total Cumulative Time for Twelve Purlins
Total Time
9:32:04
50:19:15
Estimated Total Time Req. for One Phase (ETTRP)
Average VA Percentage
Average NVAR Percentage
Average NVA Percentage
188
11%
35%
54%
Table B.22
Quick Summary of Steel Process
Quick Summary for Level One
For One Phase (3-6 bays)
Working Days
4
Working Days
Work Time
144 man-hours
Work Time
VA Total
13 man-hours
VA Total
NVAR Total
48 man-hours
NVAR Total
NVA Total
83 man-hours
NVA Total
For 14 Phases
56
2016
181
674
1162
man-hours
man-hours
man-hours
man-hours
NVA Time
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Man-hours
Figure B.31: Quick Summary Table - One Phase of the Steel Process
T im e A llo catio n
F ield
NVA Time
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
500
1000
1500
2000
Man-hours
189
2500
Of the 2,016 total workable hours committed to the steel erection process by this crew, only 181
of them were VA. Notice also that the greatest amount of time was spent on NVA actions
(1,162 man-hours). A significant amount of the NVAR time was from the crane operator. This
number could be reduced significantly if the erection processes were streamlined, e.g., by
reducing the amount of waiting by each crew member. When just one phase in the cycle is
considered, the numbers do not stand out as much when compared to the entire process. The fact
that more than half of the man-hours contributed on the job were in the form of waste highlights
an area needing vast improvement.
Figure B.33 and Table B.23 illustrate how the work distribution values changed and grew
throughout the process life cycle. The weighted average results found in Level Three of the value
stream map were used to formulate all the VA, NVAR and NVA values in Table B.23. As shown
on Figure B.33, the cumulative NVA line increased the fastest compared to the other work
distribution values. The black vertical line indicates when the steel delivery and shakeout
processes finished and the steel erection process began. This occurred periodically throughout
the life cycle. The slope change in the cumulative calendar hours line resulted from additional
workers periodically being added to the team to position each new phase of steel in front of the
erection crew. This crew variation affected the data results for the remaining lines shown on
Figure B.33. Material did not require multiple touches before erection. However, because the
material was not organized on the ground in any systematic fashion, this disorganization resulted
in larger values in the waste categories of motion and transportation for the erection crew.
Work Distribution
3000
2500
Time (man-hours)
2000
Cumulative Calendar Hours
Cumulative Work Hours
Cumulative VA Hours
1500
Marks Finishing
Point of Initial
Delivery
1000
500
Note: the values used to create
this chart are the average values
from the Work Distribution values
found for the entire crew.
0
1
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
Calendar Days
190
Table B.23: Spreadsheet of Values Used to Create Work Distribution Life Cycle Graph
Stage
Stage 1,2 Steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 Weekend
Stage 3 Weekend
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase
Stage 3 Weekend
Stage 3 Weekend
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 Weekend
Stage 3 Weekend
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 Weekend
Stage 3 Weekend
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase
Stage 3 Weekend
Stage 3 Weekend
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 Weekend
Stage 3 Weekend
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 Weekend
Stage 3 Weekend
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins);
Stage 1,2,3 steel is moved to work area and offloaded for next phase
Stage 3 Weekend
Stage 3 Weekend
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 One crew erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder, Bar Joists and Purlins)
Stage 3 Two crews erecting S.S. (Columns, Joist Girder and Bar Joists)
Calendar
Day
Days
Monday
1
Tuesday
1
Wednesday
1
Cumulative
Calendar
Days
1
2
3
Calendar
Hours
32
40
40
Cumulative
Cumulative
Hours
Calendar Workable Workable
Crew
Worked
Hours
Days
Days
Available Per Day
32
1
1
4
8
72
1
2
5
8
112
1
3
5
8
Workable Cumulative
VA
NVAR
NVA
VA
Cumulative
Hours Work Hours Percentage Percentage Percentage Hours VA Hours
32
32
0%
20%
80%
0
0
40
72
11%
35%
54%
4.4
4.4
40
112
11%
35%
54%
4.4
8.8
NVAR
Hours
6.4
14
14
Cumulative
NVAR
Hours
6.4
20.4
34.4
NVA
Hours
25.6
21.6
21.6
Cumulative
NVA Hours
25.6
47.2
68.8
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
1
1
1
1
1
4
5
6
7
8
72
40
40
40
40
184
224
264
304
344
1
1
0
0
1
4
5
5
5
6
9
5
5
5
5
8
8
0
0
8
72
40
0
0
40
184
224
224
224
264
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
54%
54%
54%
54%
54%
7.92
4.4
0
0
4.4
16.72
21.12
21.12
21.12
25.52
25.2
14
0
0
14
59.6
73.6
73.6
73.6
87.6
38.88
21.6
0
0
21.6
107.68
129.28
129.28
129.28
150.88
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
1
1
1
9
10
11
72
40
40
416
456
496
1
1
1
7
8
9
9
5
5
8
8
8
72
40
40
336
376
416
11%
11%
11%
35%
35%
35%
54%
54%
54%
7.92
4.4
4.4
33.44
37.84
42.24
25.2
14
14
112.8
126.8
140.8
38.88
21.6
21.6
189.76
211.36
232.96
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
1
1
1
1
1
12
13
14
15
16
72
40
40
40
40
568
608
648
688
728
1
0
0
1
1
10
10
10
11
12
9
5
5
5
5
8
0
0
8
8
72
0
0
40
40
488
488
488
528
568
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
54%
54%
54%
54%
54%
7.92
0
0
4.4
4.4
50.16
50.16
50.16
54.56
58.96
25.2
0
0
14
14
166
166
166
180
194
38.88
0
0
21.6
21.6
271.84
271.84
271.84
293.44
315.04
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
1
1
1
1
1
17
18
19
20
21
72
40
40
40
40
800
840
880
920
960
1
1
1
0
0
13
14
15
15
15
9
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
0
0
72
40
40
0
0
640
680
720
720
720
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
54%
54%
54%
54%
54%
7.92
4.4
4.4
0
0
66.88
71.28
75.68
75.68
75.68
25.2
14
14
0
0
219.2
233.2
247.2
247.2
247.2
38.88
21.6
21.6
0
0
353.92
375.52
397.12
397.12
397.12
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
1
1
1
22
23
24
72
40
40
1032
1072
1112
1
1
1
16
17
18
9
5
5
8
8
8
72
40
40
792
832
872
11%
11%
11%
35%
35%
35%
54%
54%
54%
7.92
4.4
4.4
83.6
88
92.4
25.2
14
14
272.4
286.4
300.4
38.88
21.6
21.6
436
457.6
479.2
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
1
1
1
1
1
25
26
27
28
29
72
40
40
40
40
1184
1224
1264
1304
1344
1
1
0
0
1
19
20
20
20
21
9
5
5
5
5
8
8
0
0
8
72
40
0
0
40
944
984
984
984
1024
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
54%
54%
54%
54%
54%
7.92
4.4
0
0
4.4
100.32
104.72
104.72
104.72
109.12
25.2
14
0
0
14
325.6
339.6
339.6
339.6
353.6
38.88
21.6
0
0
21.6
518.08
539.68
539.68
539.68
561.28
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
1
1
1
30
31
32
72
40
40
1416
1456
1496
1
1
1
22
23
24
9
5
5
8
8
8
72
40
40
1096
1136
1176
11%
11%
11%
35%
35%
35%
54%
54%
54%
7.92
4.4
4.4
117.04
121.44
125.84
25.2
14
14
378.8
392.8
406.8
38.88
21.6
21.6
600.16
621.76
643.36
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
1
1
1
1
1
33
34
35
36
37
72
40
40
40
40
1568
1608
1648
1688
1728
1
0
0
1
1
25
25
25
26
27
9
5
5
5
5
8
0
0
8
8
72
0
0
40
40
1248
1248
1248
1288
1328
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
54%
54%
54%
54%
54%
7.92
0
0
4.4
4.4
133.76
133.76
133.76
138.16
142.56
25.2
0
0
14
14
432
432
432
446
460
38.88
0
0
21.6
21.6
682.24
682.24
682.24
703.84
725.44
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
1
1
1
1
1
38
39
40
41
42
72
40
40
40
40
1800
1840
1880
1920
1960
1
1
1
0
0
28
29
30
30
30
9
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
0
0
72
40
40
0
0
1400
1440
1480
1480
1480
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
54%
54%
54%
54%
54%
7.92
4.4
4.4
0
0
150.48
154.88
159.28
159.28
159.28
25.2
14
14
0
0
485.2
499.2
513.2
513.2
513.2
38.88
21.6
21.6
0
0
764.32
785.92
807.52
807.52
807.52
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
1
1
1
43
44
45
72
40
40
2032
2072
2112
1
1
1
31
32
33
9
5
5
8
8
8
72
40
40
1552
1592
1632
11%
11%
11%
35%
35%
35%
54%
54%
54%
7.92
4.4
4.4
167.2
171.6
176
25.2
14
14
538.4
552.4
566.4
38.88
21.6
21.6
846.4
868
889.6
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
1
1
1
1
1
46
47
48
49
50
72
40
40
40
40
2184
2224
2264
2304
2344
1
1
0
0
1
34
35
35
35
36
9
5
5
5
5
8
8
0
0
8
72
40
0
0
40
1704
1744
1744
1744
1784
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
54%
54%
54%
54%
54%
7.92
4.4
0
0
4.4
183.92
188.32
188.32
188.32
192.72
25.2
14
0
0
14
591.6
605.6
605.6
605.6
619.6
38.88
21.6
0
0
21.6
928.48
950.08
950.08
950.08
971.68
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
1
1
1
51
52
53
72
40
40
2416
2456
2496
1
1
1
37
38
39
9
5
5
8
8
8
72
40
40
1856
1896
1936
11%
11%
11%
35%
35%
35%
54%
54%
54%
7.92
4.4
4.4
200.64
205.04
209.44
25.2
14
14
644.8
658.8
672.8
38.88
21.6
21.6
1010.56
1032.16
1053.76
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
1
1
1
1
1
1
54
55
56
57
58
59
72
40
40
40
40
72
2568
2608
2648
2688
2728
2800
1
0
0
1
1
1
40
40
40
41
42
43
9
5
5
5
5
9
8
0
0
8
8
8
72
0
0
40
40
72
2008
2008
2008
2048
2088
2160
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
54%
54%
54%
54%
54%
54%
7.92
0
0
4.4
4.4
7.92
217.36
217.36
217.36
221.76
226.16
234.08
25.2
0
0
14
14
25.2
698
698
698
712
726
751.2
38.88
0
0
21.6
21.6
38.88
1092.64
1092.64
1092.64
1114.24
1135.84
1174.72
Average VA Percentage
Average NVAR Percentage
Average NVA Percentage
191
11%
35%
54%
Appendix C
Case Study No. 3 - Structural Steel
1.0 Overview
1.1 Project Goal
The purpose of this case study was to collect data to develop a value stream map for the
construction process. Observation was limited to structural steel erection. Field data were
gathered on two separate value streams: the actual flow of the steel from the time it arrived on
the jobsite until it was erected into final position, and the flow of worker activities performed to
erect the steel.
192
end column line and will be required to return after the foundation pour to erect the remaining
steel members. This future constraint had no impact on the efficiency within each bay of steel
erection activities.
Bolted Connection
Spandrel Beam
Pod Beam
Column
Bar Joists
Crew No. 2
PBC
Crew No. 1
Column
Figure C.3: Column, PBC and Bar Joists
Erected
193
Four columns.
24 bar joists.
194
Two cranes.
12 crew personnel.
The following section analyzes each workers contributions to each cycle. Tables and figures
were developed for each worker and for each task. The tables and figures describe the time spent
on VA, NVA and NVAR actions within each cycle.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
195
Waste Classification
Value Adding
VA Total
% of Total Time
0:00:50
16.34%
0:00:50
16.34%
NVA
Waiting
0:01:58
38.56%
0:01:58
38.56%
0:01:30
0:00:48
29.41%
15.69%
NVAR Total
0:02:18
45.10%
Grand Total
0:05:06
100.00%
NVA Total
NVAR
Mat. Pos
T.W.S.A.
Ground Crewman #1
Column Data
NVAR
TWSA
16%
VA
16%
NVAR Material
Positioning
29%
NVA Waiting
39%
196
Ground crewman 2 rigged the column with a choker, positioned the column, bolted the column to
the baseplate and released the choker from the crane once the column was set. Table C.2 and
Figure C.6 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for ground crewman 2. The time spent by
ground crewman 2 on the column was more than what ground crewman 1 spent. In Table C.2, a
large portion of time was spent on NVA actions, specifically on NVA waiting (32.76 percent).
The different results of the two ground crewmen were due to ground crewman 2 spending more
time on column activities.
Table C.2: Column Data for Ground Crewman 2
A c tiv ity C la s s ific a tio n
VA
W a s te C la s s ific a tio n
T o ta l T im e a t A c tiv ity
V a lu e A d d in g
% o f T o ta l T im e
0 :0 5 :1 1
1 9 .9 0 %
0 :0 5 :1 1
1 9 .9 0 %
W a itin g
0 :0 8 :3 2
3 2 .7 6 %
T ra n s p o rt
0 :0 2 :3 0
9 .6 0 %
M o tio n
0 :0 2 :4 6
1 0 .6 2 %
0 :1 3 :4 8
5 2 .9 8 %
0 :0 2 :1 3
0 :0 4 :5 1
8 .5 1 %
1 8 .6 2 %
N V A R T o ta l
0 :0 7 :0 4
2 7 .1 3 %
G r a n d T o ta l
0 :2 6 :0 3
1 0 0 .0 0 %
V A T o ta l
NVA
N V A T o ta l
NV AR
M a t. P o s
T .W .S .A .
Ground Crewman #2
Column Data
NVAR
TWSA
19%
VA
19%
NVAR Material
Positioning
9%
NVA Motion
11%
NVA Waiting
32%
NVA
Transport
10%
197
The crew foreman was involved with positioning and bolting the column into final position.
Table C.3 and Figure C.7 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the crew foreman.
According to Table C.3, 25.5 percent of time attributed to the column was VA. The largest
portion of time (52.92 percent) was attributed to NVA actions.
Table C.3: Column Data for the Foreman
Ac tiv ity C la s s ific a tio n
VA
W a s te C la s s ific a tio n
T o ta l T im e a t Ac tiv ity
V a lu e A d d in g
% o f T o ta l T im e
0 :0 4 :5 3
2 5 .5 0 %
0 :0 4 :5 3
2 5 .5 0 %
W a itin g
0 :0 8 :4 6
4 5 .7 8 %
E x tra P ro c .
0 :0 1 :2 2
7 .1 4 %
0 :1 0 :0 8
5 2 .9 2 %
0 :0 3 :2 8
0 :0 0 :4 0
1 8 .1 0 %
3 .4 8 %
N V AR T o ta l
0 :0 4 :0 8
2 1 .5 8 %
G ra n d T o ta l
0 :1 9 :0 9
1 0 0 .0 0 %
V A T o ta l
NVA
N V A T o ta l
N V AR
M a t. P o s
T .W .S .A .
Crew Foreman
Column Data
NVAR Material
Positioning
18%
NVAR
TWSA
3%
VA
26%
NVA Extra
Processing
7%
NVA Waiting
46%
Figure C.7: Column Data for the Foreman
The connector was not involved for a significant amount of time; he only assisted in positioning
and bolting the column into its final place. Table C.4 and Figure C.8 show the VA, NVA and
NVAR values for the connector. Contributing only three minutes 10 seconds to the cycle, the
majority of the connectors time was spent on the NVA action of waiting (86.84 percent). This
left 25 seconds for the VA action of tightening one bolt on the baseplate.
198
W aste Classification
Value Adding
VA Total
% of Total T ime
0:00:25
13.16%
0:00:25
13.16%
NVA
0:02:45
86.84%
NVA T otal
M otion
0:02:45
86.84%
G rand Total
0:03:10
100.00%
The Connector
Column Data
VA
13%
NVA Motion
87%
Figure C.8: Column Data for the Connector
The crane operator did not contribute any VA activities to the column erection cycle. Table C.5
and Figure C.9 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the crane operator. The crane operator
was primarily involved with transporting columns from their lay-down area to their final position
in the structure. After reaching the baseplate, the crane held the member in a temporary bracing
position until the bolts are sufficiently tightened. These actions contributed to the NVAR
subcategory TWSA value of 59.27 percent.
199
Waste Classification
Motion
NVA Total
% of Total Time
0:01:00
6.86%
0:01:00
6.86%
0:04:56
33.87%
NVAR
Mat. Pos
0:08:38
59.27%
NVAR Total
T.W.S.A.
0:13:34
93.14%
Grand Total
0:14:34
100.00%
NVA Motion
7%
NVAR TWSA
59%
NVAR Material
Positioning
34%
200
W a s te C la s s ific a tio n
V a lu e A d d in g
T o ta l T im e a t A c tiv ity
% o f T o ta l T im e
0 :0 0 :5 5
0 .6 8 %
0 :0 0 :5 5
0 .6 8 %
W a itin g
1 :1 0 :5 6
5 2 .3 9 %
T ra n s p o rt
M o tio n
0 :1 1 :2 5
0 :1 9 :1 4
8 .4 3 %
1 4 .2 0 %
1 :4 1 :3 5
7 5 .0 2 %
0 :0 6 :0 0
0 :0 0 :5 0
0 :2 6 :0 4
4 .4 3 %
0 .6 2 %
1 9 .2 5 %
N V A R T o ta l
0 :3 2 :5 4
2 4 .3 0 %
G ra n d T o ta l
2 :1 5 :2 4
1 0 0 .0 0 %
V A T o ta l
NVA
N V A T o ta l
NV AR
M a t. P o s
In -P ro c e s s In s .
T .W .S .A .
Ground Crewman #1
PBC Data
NVAR
TWSA
19%
NVAR In-Process
Inspection
1%
NVAR Material
Positioning
4%
NVA Motion
14%
NVA
Transport
8%
VA
1%
NVA Waiting
53%
201
W a s te C la s s ific a tio n
T o ta l T im e a t Ac tiv ity
V a lu e A d d in g
% o f T o ta l T im e
0 :0 3 :1 4
2 .8 3 %
0 :0 3 :1 4
2 .8 3 %
W a itin g
0 :5 5 :1 7
4 8 .3 0 %
T ra n s p o rt
0 :0 5 :5 3
5 .1 4 %
M o tio n
0 :1 2 :2 6
1 0 .8 6 %
1 :1 3 :3 6
6 4 .3 1 %
0 :0 7 :1 0
0 :0 1 :3 0
0 :2 8 :5 7
6 .2 6 %
1 .3 1 %
2 5 .2 9 %
N V AR T o ta l
0 :3 7 :3 7
3 2 .8 7 %
G ra n d T o ta l
1 :5 4 :2 7
1 0 0 .0 0 %
V A T o ta l
NVA
N V A T o ta l
N V AR
M a t. P o s
In -P ro c e s s In s .
T .W .S .A .
Ground Crewman #2
PBC Data
VA
3%
NVAR
TWSA
25%
NVAR In-Process
Inspection
1%
NVAR Material
Positioning
6%
NVA Motion
11%
NVA Waiting
49%
NVA
Transport
5%
202
W a s te C la s s ific a tio n
T o ta l T im e a t A c tiv ity
V a lu e A d d in g
% o f T o ta l T im e
0 :0 2 :4 2
2 .2 2 %
0 :0 2 :4 2
2 .2 2 %
W a itin g
1 :2 9 :0 6
7 3 .4 2 %
T r a n s p o rt
0 :0 4 :0 5
3 .3 6 %
M o tio n
0 :1 0 :5 3
8 .9 7 %
1 :4 4 :0 4
8 5 .7 6 %
0 :0 7 :0 1
0 :0 3 :5 5
0 :0 3 :3 9
5 .7 8 %
3 .2 3 %
3 .0 1 %
N V A R T o ta l
0 :1 4 :3 5
1 2 .0 2 %
G r a n d T o ta l
2 :0 1 :2 1
1 0 0 .0 0 %
V A T o ta l
NVA
N V A T o ta l
NV AR
M a t. P o s
In -P ro c e s s In s .
T .W .S .A .
Crew Foreman
PBC Data
NVAR Material
Positioning
6%
NVAR
TWSA
3%
NVAR In-Process
Inspection
3%
VA
2%
NVA Motion
9%
NVA
Transport
3%
NVA Waiting
74%
203
W a s te C la s s ific a tio n
T o ta l T im e a t A c tiv ity
V a lu e A d d in g
% o f T o ta l T im e
0 :3 3 :4 7
2 4 .6 0 %
0 :3 3 :4 7
2 4 .6 0 %
W a itin g
0 :4 4 :3 7
3 2 .4 9 %
E x tra P ro c .
T ra n s p o rt
M o tio n
0 :0 1 :3 2
0 :0 2 :5 8
0 :4 7 :0 1
1 .1 2 %
2 .1 6 %
3 4 .2 4 %
1 :3 6 :0 8
7 0 .0 0 %
0 :0 4 :5 2
0 :0 2 :3 3
3 .5 4 %
1 .8 6 %
N V A R T o ta l
0 :0 7 :2 5
5 .4 0 %
G ra n d T o ta l
2 :1 7 :2 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
V A T o ta l
NVA
N V A T o ta l
NV AR
M a t. P o s
T .W .S .A .
The Connector
PBC Data
NVAR Material
Positioning
4%
NVAR
TWSA
2%
VA
25%
NVA Motion
34%
NVA
Transport
2%
NVA Waiting
32%
NVA Extra
Processing
1%
204
T o ta l T im e a t Ac tivity
% o f T o ta l T im e
W aitin g
0:10:30
8.34%
E xtra P ro c.
0:01:04
0.85%
T ran sp o rt
M o tio n
0:20:36
0:17:24
16.36%
13.82%
0 :4 9 :3 4
3 9 .3 6 %
NV A T o ta l
NV AR
M at. P o s
0:05:01
3.98%
T .W .S .A.
1:11:21
56.66%
NV AR T o ta l
1 :1 6 :2 2
6 0 .6 4 %
G ra n d T o ta l
2 :0 5 :5 6
1 0 0 .0 0 %
Crane Operator
PBC Data
NVA Waiting
8%
NVA Extra
Processing
1%
NVA
Transport
16%
NVAR
TWSA
57%
NVA Motion
14%
NVAR Material
Positioning
4%
Figure C.14: PBC Data for the Crane Operator
205
T ota l T im e a t Ac tivity
% o f T o ta l T im e
0:14:26
17.60%
0 :1 4 :2 6
1 7 .6 0 %
W aitin g
0:39:05
47.66%
E xtra P ro c.
T ran sp o rt
M o tio n
0:03:25
0:01:05
0:07:51
4.17%
1.32%
9.57%
0 :5 1 :2 6
6 2 .7 2 %
V A T o ta l
NV A
NV A T o ta l
NV AR
0:16:08
19.67%
NV AR T o ta l
M at. P o s
0 :1 6 :0 8
1 9 .6 7 %
G ra n d T o ta l
1 :2 2 :0 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
206
Left Connector
Bar Joist Data
NVAR Material
Positioning
20%
VA
18%
NVA Motion
10%
NVA
Transport
1%
NVA Waiting
47%
NVA Extra
Processing
4%
T o ta l T im e a t Ac tivity
% o f T o ta l T im e
0:1 5 :10
1 8.5 0%
0 :1 5 :1 0
1 8 .5 0 %
W a itin g
0:4 4 :36
5 4.3 9%
E x tra P ro c.
0:0 0 :46
0.9 3%
M o tio n
0:1 2 :31
1 5.2 6%
0 :5 7 :5 3
7 0 .5 9 %
V A T o ta l
NV A
N V A T o ta l
N V AR
0:0 8 :57
1 0.9 1%
N V AR T o ta l
M at. P o s
0 :0 8 :5 7
1 0 .9 1 %
G ra n d T o ta l
1 :2 2 :0 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
207
Right Connector
Bar Joist Data
NVAR Material
Positioning
11%
VA
18%
NVA Motion
15%
NVA Extra
Processing
1%
NVA Waiting
55%
Figure C.17: Bar Joist Data for the Right Connector
X-bracing connector 1 was responsible for moving and positioning the sky lift under each bar
joist, hand tightening the bolts and finish tightening each bolt with a torque gun. Table C.13
and Figure C.18 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for x-bracing connector 1. For Crew
No. 2, x-bracing connector 1 performed the largest percentage of VA actions; nevertheless, his
NVA activities still consumed the majority of his time. This sizable NVA amount resulted from
moving the sky lift between each bar joist. The NVA subcategory motion accounted for more
than 41 percent of x-bracing connector 1s time.
Table C.13: Bar Joist Data for X-Bracing Connector 1
A c tiv ity C la s s ific a tio n
VA
W a s te C la s s ific a tio n
V a lu e A d d in g
V A T o ta l
T o ta l T im e a t A c tiv ity
% o f T o ta l T im e
0 :2 5 :4 5
3 1 .4 0 %
0 :2 5 :4 5
3 1 .4 0 %
NVA
W a itin g
0 :2 0 :5 6
2 5 .5 3 %
M o tio n
0 :3 4 :2 6
4 1 .9 9 %
0 :5 5 :2 2
6 7 .5 2 %
N V A T o ta l
NV AR
0 :0 0 :5 3
1 .0 8 %
N V A R T o ta l
T .W .S .A .
0 :0 0 :5 3
1 .0 8 %
G ra n d T o ta l
1 :2 2 :0 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
208
X-Bracing Connector #1
Bar Joist Data
NVAR
TWSA
1%
VA
31%
NVA Motion
42%
NVA Waiting
26%
Figure C.18: Bar Joist Data for X-Bracing Connector 1
X-bracing connector 2 was responsible for aligning each x-bracing member into its final position,
assisting in boltup activities and releasing the choker line following boltup. Table C.14 and
Figure C.19 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for x-bracing connector 2. For the majority
of the bar joist cycle, x-bracing connector 2 was waiting. When the bar joist was in motion,
x-bracing connector 2 focused his time aligning the x-bracing member (32.42 percent) while
x-bracing connector 1 bolted the member into its final position. X-bracing connector 2
contributed time to VA actions when he assisted in bolting the x-bracing member to the adjacent
bar joist.
Table C.14: Bar Joist Data for X-Bracing Connector 2
Activity C lassifica tio n
VA
V A T o tal
T ota l T im e a t Ac tivity
% o f T o tal T im e
0:05:40
6.91%
0 :05 :4 0
6 .91 %
NV A
W aitin g
0:45:28
55.45%
0 :45 :2 8
55 .4 5%
0:26:35
0:04:17
32.42%
5.22%
NV AR T o ta l
0 :30 :5 2
37 .6 4%
G ra n d T o tal
1 :22 :0 0
1 0 0.0 0 %
NV A T o ta l
NV AR
M at. P o s
T .W .S .A.
209
X-Bracing Connector #2
Bar Joist Data
VA
7%
NVAR
TWSA
5%
NVAR Material
Positioning
32%
NVA Waiting
56%
T o ta l T im e a t Ac tivity
% o f T o ta l T im e
0:11:47
14.37%
0 :1 1 :4 7
1 4 .3 7 %
W aitin g
0:49:42
60.61%
T ran sp o rt
M o tio n
0:03:40
0:04:42
4.47%
5.73%
0 :5 8 :0 4
7 0 .8 1 %
V A T o ta l
NV A
N V A T o ta l
N V AR
0:12:09
14.82%
N V AR T o ta l
T .W .S .A .
0 :1 2 :0 9
1 4 .8 2 %
G ra n d T o ta l
1 :2 2 :0 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
210
Ground Crewman #3
Bar Joist Data
NVAR
TWSA
15%
VA
14%
NVA Motion
6%
NVA
Transport
4%
NVA Waiting
61%
T o ta l T im e a t Ac tivity
% o f T o ta l T im e
W aitin g
1:06:47
81.44%
T ran sp o rt
0:01:35
1.93%
M o tio n
0:00:30
0.61%
1 :0 8 :5 2
8 3 .9 8 %
NV A T o ta l
NV AR
0:13:08
16.02%
NV AR T o ta l
M at. P o s
0 :1 3 :0 8
1 6 .0 2 %
G ra n d T o ta l
1 :2 2 :0 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
211
Ground Crewman #4
Bar Joist Data
NVAR Material
Positioning
16%
NVA Motion
1%
NVA
Transport
2%
NVA Waiting
81%
W a s te C la s s ific a tio n
T o ta l T im e a t A c tiv ity
% o f T o ta l T im e
W a itin g
0 :2 4 :5 6
T ra n s p o rt
0 :0 5 :3 0
6 .7 1 %
M o tio n
0 :1 2 :5 0
1 5 .6 5 %
0 :4 3 :1 6
5 2 .7 6 %
0 :1 3 :3 3
0 :2 5 :1 1
1 6 .5 2 %
3 0 .7 1 %
N V A R T o ta l
0 :3 8 :4 4
4 7 .2 4 %
G ra n d T o ta l
1 :2 2 :0 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
N V A T o ta l
3 0 .4 1 %
NV AR
M a t. P o s
T .W .S .A .
212
Crane Operator #2
Bar Joist Data
NVAR
TWSA
30%
NVA Waiting
30%
NVA
Transport
7%
NVAR Material
Positioning
17%
NVA Motion
16%
213
TIME
0:20:30
0:20:15
0:20:00
0:19:45
0:19:30
0:19:15
0:19:00
0:18:45
0:18:30
0:18:15
0:18:00
0:17:45
0:17:30
0:17:15
0:17:00
0:16:45
0:16:30
0:16:15
0:16:00
0:15:45
0:15:30
0:15:15
0:15:00
0:14:45
0:14:30
0:14:15
0:14:00
0:13:45
0:13:30
0:13:15
0:13:00
0:12:45
0:12:30
0:12:15
0:12:00
0:11:45
0:11:30
0:11:15
0:11:00
0:10:45
0:10:30
0:10:15
0:10:00
0:09:45
0:09:30
0:09:15
0:09:00
0:08:45
0:08:30
0:08:15
0:08:00
0:07:45
0:07:30
0:07:15
0:07:00
0:06:45
0:06:30
0:06:15
0:06:00
0:05:45
0:05:30
0:05:15
0:05:00
0:04:45
0:04:30
0:04:15
0:04:00
0:03:45
0:03:30
0:03:15
0:03:00
0:02:45
0:02:30
0:02:15
0:02:00
0:01:45
0:01:30
0:01:15
0:01:00
0:00:45
0:00:30
0:00:15
0:00:00
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Booming down
to move to next
position
Waiting
Booming Down
Moving to
next position
Releasing Beam
Clamps from
P.B.C.
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Moving
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Bolting First
Side of P.B.C.
again
Holding PBC
In Position
while Bolt-Up
occurs
Waiting
Holding PBC
In Position
while Bolt-Up
occurs
Bolting P.B.C. to
top of Column
Waiting
walking
walking
Moving to top
of Column in
Sky Lift
Bolting Opp.
Side of connection
Waiting
Walking
Using tag lines
to Position
P.B.C. while it
is lifted into position
Waiitng
Positioning PBC
next to adjacent PBC
Moving Sky Lift
Waiting
Removing Tag
Line from previous
P.B.C
Releasing Crane
Rigging
Removing Tag
Line from previous
P.B.C
Waiting
Holding Pod
Beam Combo
Inspecting Plans
Waiting
Releasing Crane
Rigging
Waiting
Bolting Stringers
onto P.B.C.
Bolting Column
to Base Plate
Bolting Column
to Base Plate
Positioning Col
Onto =Base Plate
Positioning Col
onto Base Plate
Ground Crewman 1
Lifting
Waiitng
Waiting
Waiting
Holding PBC
In Position
while Bolt-Up
occurs
Holding P.B.C.
while on ground
Attaching Rigging
to Crane ball
Securing Beam
Clamps around
P.B.C.
Bolting Column
to Base Plate
Holding Column
In Position
While Bolting occurs
Positioning Col
onto Base Plate
Lifting Column
into position
Attaching Rigging to
Crane - COL.
Rigging Column
With Crane hoist Line
Ground Crewman 2
Connector
Foreman
214
Moving and
Setting up For
Next Lift
Crane Op.
The average time that it took the crane to lift the column into position was one minute
14 seconds, and it took four minutes 53 seconds to lift the PBC from the ground into position.
The PBC time included lifting the member one foot off the ground, holding it in that position
until the connectors were ready, and finally lifting the PBC the remaining distance into position.
The crew balance chart shows that the majority of time for both ground crewmen was spent
waiting. The average waiting time during each cycle for ground crewman 1 was two minutes
46 seconds, and the average waiting time for ground crewman 2 was three minutes 13 seconds.1
Waiting accounted for 41 percent of the total time contributed by the group to the column and
PBC cycle (refer to Table C.20 summary sheet for Cycle No. 1). For each cycle, each crewman
contributed roughly seven minutes to the NVA category of waste. This value sums up the
multiple independent waiting periods that occurred between activities for each ground crewman.
It is shown as one lump segment to simplify the balance chart for easier reading.
Note that the discrepancy between the two ground crewmen may be due to observer error. The crew
balance chart is an idealized representation for a column and PBC erection crew. This ideal crew balance is
structured around the crane operators movements.
215
TIME
0:10:00 Hand Tightening Bolts
0:09:45
0:09:30 Moving Sky Lift
0:09:15
Waiting
0:09:00
0:08:45
Waiting
0:08:30
0:08:15
0:08:00
0:07:45 Tightening bolts
0:07:30 with an impact gun
0:07:15 Hand Tightening
Bolts
0:07:00
0:06:45
0:06:30 Moving Sky Lift
0:06:15
Waiting
0:06:00
0:05:45
Waiting
0:05:30
0:05:15
0:05:00
0:04:45 Tightening bolts
0:04:30 with an impact gun
0:04:15 Hand Tightening
Bolts
0:04:00
0:03:45
0:03:30 Moving Sky Lift
0:03:15
Waiting
0:03:00
0:02:45
Waiting
0:02:30
0:02:15
0:02:00
0:01:45 Tightening bolts
0:01:30 with an impact gun
0:01:15 Hand Tightening
Bolts
0:01:00
0:00:45
0:00:30 Moving Sky Lift
0:00:15
Waiting
0:00:00
X-BConnector #1
Positioning XB
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Moving
Moving
Waiting
Positioning
Bar Joist
Positioning XB
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Moving
Moving
Waiting
Positioning
Bar Joist
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Moving
Moving
Waiting
Positioning
Bar Joist
Waiting
Left Connector
Waiting
Waiting
Right Connector
Waiting
Holding Bar Joist
While Bolt up occurs
Waiting
Lifting B.J. into Pos.
Waiting
Positioning
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
X-BConnector #2
Waiting
Waiting
Positioning XB
Waiting
Positioning
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Positioning
Bar Joist
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Positioning XB
Waiting
Waiting
Positioning XB
Waiting
Positioning
Waiting
Waiting
Positioning
Bar Joist
Waiting
Positioning XB
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
Positioning
Bar Joist
Waiting
Bolting one side
of X-B to Bar Joist
Hooking up Hoist line
Prepping Bar Joist
Positioning XB
Waiting
Positioning
Waiting
Ground Crewman #4
216
VA
All
Activities
Waste
VA +
NVAR
%
19%
24%
2%
3%
57%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
26%
38%
30%
19%
64%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
5%
15%
0%
31%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
37%
29%
32%
45%
29%
16%
47%
0%
15%
100%
35%
14%
11%
35%
8%
13%
5%
7%
3%
7%
7%
1%
1%
0%
3%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
4%
2%
7%
10%
15%
42%
0%
6%
1%
16%
20%
11%
0%
32%
0%
16%
17%
5%
15%
9%
Waiting
Extra
Processing
1%
6%
24%
5%
0%
52%
45%
32%
70%
7%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
8%
6%
2%
3%
15%
18%
19%
31%
7%
14%
0%
0%
48%
54%
26%
55%
61%
81%
30%
4%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
46%
1%
Transport Movement
21:16:30 AM h:m:s
Total %
Material
Pos.
NVAR
In Proc.
Ins.
T.W.S.A
VA
All
Activities
16%
20%
13%
26%
0%
Group Percentage
Pod Beam Combo
Crew Member
Ground Crewman #1
Ground Crewman #2
Connector
Foreman
Crane Operator #1
17%
Waste
39%
33%
0%
46%
0%
Extra
Processing
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
28%
2%
Waiting
0%
10%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
87%
0%
7%
Material
Pos.
29%
9%
0%
18%
34%
4%
10%
18%
Transport Movement
NVAR
In Proc.
Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
VA
All
Activities
1%
3%
25%
2%
0%
Group Percentage
6%
Waiting
52%
48%
32%
73%
8%
43%
Waste
Extra
Transport Movement
Processing
0%
8%
14%
0%
5%
11%
1%
2%
34%
0%
3%
9%
1%
16%
14%
0%
7%
17%
Material
Pos.
4%
6%
4%
6%
4%
NVAR
In Proc.
Ins.
1%
1%
0%
3%
0%
5%
1%
1:08:02 h:m:s
T.W.S.A
16%
19%
0%
3%
59%
Total %
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
22%
10:34:28 h:m:s
VA +
NVAR
%
61%
47%
13%
47%
93%
56%
19%
25%
2%
3%
57%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA +
NVAR
%
25%
36%
30%
14%
61%
21%
100%
33%
T.W.S.A
Total %
VA
Waste
All
Extra
Material
Waiting
Transport Movement
Activities
Processing
Pos.
1%
52%
0%
8%
14%
5%
6%
45%
0%
6%
11%
7%
24%
32%
1%
2%
35%
3%
5%
70%
1%
3%
8%
7%
0%
7%
1%
15%
13%
7%
7%
41%
1%
7%
217
16%
6%
NVAR
In Proc.
Ins.
1%
1%
0%
3%
0%
1%
11:42:30 h:m:s
19%
24%
2%
3%
57%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA +
NVAR
%
26%
38%
30%
19%
64%
21%
100%
35%
T.W.S.A
Total %
VA
All
Activities
18%
19%
31%
7%
14%
0%
0%
13%
Waste
48%
54%
26%
55%
61%
81%
30%
Extra
Processing
4%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
51%
1%
Waiting
1%
0%
0%
0%
4%
2%
7%
10%
15%
42%
0%
6%
1%
16%
Material
Pos.
20%
11%
0%
32%
0%
16%
17%
2%
13%
14%
Transport Movement
NVAR
In Proc.
Ins.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9:34:00 h:m:s
0%
0%
1%
5%
15%
0%
31%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
VA +
NVAR
%
37%
29%
32%
45%
29%
16%
47%
7%
100%
34%
T.W.S.A
Total %
218
4.2.2 Inventory
Material deliveries were made continually throughout the construction process. The steel was
delivered onsite on large flatbed trucks. Typically four rows of steel, each row consisting of
10 bays, were delivered in one shipment to the jobsite. The material remained onsite anywhere
from one day to a week and a half before being erected into place. The systematic process of
erecting a column, PBC, then bar joists within each bay continued through the first four rows; the
foundation walls were unfinished along the north side of the structure. While the cycles viewed
were not affected by the incomplete foundation, future cycles will be. The outcome will be a
sporadic erection sequence in which the structural members remain as inventory until the
foundation wall is finished.
4.2.3 Defects
Defects are defined as errors or deficiencies in a finished product that required additional work on
the part of the original crew or a follow-up crew. A defective structural element (e.g., column,
219
girder, etc.) is an example of a defect (i.e., the material has been passed through the value stream
to the next work station). Another example of a defect is included in the punch list process at the
end of a job. When a defect in the finished product is found at this stage, a separate follow-up
crew is activated to correct the defect. Hence, the defect is pushed onto the next work station.
No waste associated with defects was observed.
Manufacturer
Initial
Dropoff
Final Placement
by Crane
220
221
Production Control
Project Engineer
Triggering Event
Percent Complete
Project Feedback
Project Superintendent
Level One
Steel Supplier
As Required
Daily
O OO
NVA Time
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
2
2
3
48
0
9.6
38.4
Inv
Equipment involved:
Forklifts
Workers involved
Crew
WT
VA ( 10%)
NVAR (25%)
NVA (65%)
Inv
2
80
8
20
52
Inv
Level Three
16.5
Equipment involved:
Forklift, Skylift
Workers involved
Crew
WT=
VA ( 7%) =
NVAR (28%) =
NVA (65%) =
Avail time/day
Days Required
660
46
185
429
1%
6%
24%
5%
0%
Group Percentage
7%
52%
45%
32%
70%
7%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
41%
1%
NVA Sum
13%
51%
Group Percentage
10%
Waiting
7%
14%
11%
35%
8%
13%
5%
7%
3%
7%
7%
16%
6%
65%
Avail time/day
T.W.S.A
1%
1%
0%
3%
0%
19%
24%
2%
3%
57%
1%
21%
NVAR Sum
Waste
Extra
Transport Movement
Processin
4%
1%
10%
1%
0%
15%
0%
0%
42%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
6%
0%
2%
1%
0%
7%
16%
2%
1%
T.W.S.A
20%
11%
0%
32%
0%
16%
17%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
5%
15%
0%
31%
0%
7%
VA +
NVAR %
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
26%
38%
30%
19%
64%
100%
35%
Total %
VA +
NVAR %
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
37%
29%
32%
45%
29%
16%
47%
100%
34%
Total %
VA +
NVAR %
21%
NVAR Sum
Waste
Extra
Transport Movement
Processin
Total %
NVAR
14%
28%
In Proc. Ins.
13%
755
98
159
499
9:34:00 h:m:s
Material Pos.
66%
11:42:30 h:m:s
NVA Sum
8%
6%
2%
3%
15%
13.5
Equipment involved:
Forklift, Skylift
2
Workers involved
Crew
7
WT=
VA ( 13%) =
NVAR (21%) =
NVA (66%) =
NVAR
Material Pos.
In Proc. Ins.
T.W.S.A
52%
45%
32%
70%
7%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
8%
6%
2%
3%
15%
14%
11%
35%
8%
13%
5%
7%
3%
7%
7%
1%
1%
0%
3%
0%
19%
24%
2%
3%
57%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
26%
38%
30%
19%
64%
48%
54%
26%
55%
61%
81%
30%
4%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
4%
2%
7%
10%
15%
42%
0%
6%
1%
16%
20%
11%
0%
32%
0%
16%
17%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
5%
15%
0%
31%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
37%
29%
32%
45%
29%
16%
47%
15%
9%
0%
15%
100%
35%
46%
1%
5%
Cumulative
Time for
various
11:42:30
9:34:00
21:16:30
Number of
members
observed
4
24
Cycle time
% of Total Time
% of Total Time
for each
each steel
element
element requires
2:55:38
55%
47%
0:23:55
45%
6%
6:14:49 Man-Hours for one Bay
Average VA Percentage
Average NVAR Percentage
Average NVA Percentage
222
2000
1500
Inventory Days
12
Level Two
1000
Manhours
30
Equipment involved:
Forklifts
4
Workers involved
Crew
12
WT=
1416
VA ( 7%, 13%)
144
344
NVAR (28%, 21
928
NVA (65%,66%
500
10%
25%
65%
Production Control
Triggering Event
Order is made for all SS within one of three zones
E v e ry 1 -3 d a y s
Project Engineer
Percent Complete
Project Feedback
Project Superintendent
Level One
Steel Supplier
As Required
Daily
O OO
NVA Time
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
2
2
3
48
0
9.6
38.4
Inv
Inv
Equipment involved:
Forklifts
Workers involved
Crew
WT
VA ( 10%)
NVAR (25%)
NVA (65%)
Days Required
1
2
80
8
20
52
Inv
500
1000
1500
2000
Manhours
30
Equipment involved:
Forklifts
4
Workers involved
Crew
12
WT=
1416
VA ( 7%, 13%)
144
344
NVAR (28%, 21
NVA (65%,66%
928
Inventory Days
12
Level Two
Days Required
16.5
Equipment involved:
Forklift, Skylift
Workers involved
Crew
WT=
VA ( 7%) =
NVAR (28%) =
NVA (65%) =
Avail time/day
660
46
185
429
223
13.5
Avail time/day
Level Three
Group Percentage
7%
41%
NVA Sum
13%
51%
NVA Sum
10%
46%
1%
7%
65%
16%
6%
Waste
Extra
Transport Movement Material Pos.
Processin
4%
1%
10%
20%
1%
0%
15%
11%
0%
0%
42%
0%
0%
0%
0%
32%
0%
4%
6%
0%
0%
2%
1%
16%
0%
7%
16%
17%
1%
1%
NVAR Sum
Total Cumulative Time Spent on Bar Joists
2%
13%
19%
24%
2%
3%
57%
21%
Total %
VA +
NVAR %
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
26%
38%
30%
19%
64%
100%
35%
28%
9:34:00 h:m:s
NVAR
Total %
VA +
NVAR %
0%
0%
1%
5%
15%
0%
31%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
37%
29%
32%
45%
29%
16%
47%
7%
100%
34%
Total %
VA +
NVAR %
T.W.S.A
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
NVAR Sum
Waste
Extra
Transport Movement Material Pos.
Processin
T.W.S.A
In Proc. Ins.
14%
66%
11:42:30 h:m:s
21%
NVAR
In Proc. Ins.
T.W.S.A
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
8%
6%
2%
3%
15%
14%
11%
35%
8%
13%
5%
7%
3%
7%
7%
1%
1%
0%
3%
0%
19%
24%
2%
3%
57%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
26%
38%
30%
19%
64%
4%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
4%
2%
7%
10%
15%
42%
0%
6%
1%
16%
20%
11%
0%
32%
0%
16%
17%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
5%
15%
0%
31%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
37%
29%
32%
45%
29%
16%
47%
15%
9%
0%
15%
100%
35%
1%
5%
Cumulative
Time for
various
11:42:30
9:34:00
21:16:30
Number of
members
observed
4
24
% of Total Time
Cycle time
% of Total Time
each steel
for each
element requires
element
2:55:38
55%
47%
0:23:55
45%
6%
6:14:49 Man-Hours for one Bay
224
Average VA Percentage
Average NVAR Percentage
Average NVA Percentage
10%
25%
65%
NVA Time
NVAR Time
VA Time
Work Time
500
1000
1500
2000
Man-hours
Figure C.30: Quick Summary Graph - One Phase of the Steel Process
Figure C.31 and Table C.23 illustrate how the work distribution values changed and grew
throughout the process life cycle. The weighted average results found in Level Three of the value
stream map were used to formulate all the VA, NVAR and NVA values in Table C.23. On
Figure C.26, the cumulative NVA hours line grew the fastest compared to the other work
distribution values. The black vertical line (on the left) indicates when the steel delivery and
shakeout processes finished and the PBC process began. The next vertical line indicates the start
of the steel erection process using both crews. The slope change in the cumulative calendar hours
line resulted from additional workers being added to the team between the various stages. This
crew variation affected the data results for the lines shown on Figure C.31.
Table C.23 includes inventory positions; in these positions, the steel was not touched at all.
These inventory days occurred so that the required crews for the erection phase could be gathered
and organized. The crew was under contract with a second subcontractor, while the material for
the job was controlled by the first subcontractor. This highlights how multiple contracts could
affect the value stream. One subcontractors goals were not the same as the second. Until the
ultimate goal (value) is defined by the customer, this value stream will not be capable of reaching
its full potential.
Work Distribution
4500
4000
Time (man-hours)
3500
3000
Cumulative Calendar Hours
2500
2000
1500
Stage 1
Finishes
1000
Pod Beams
attached to
Spandrel
500
0
1
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53
Calendar Days
225
Table C.23: Spreadsheet of Values Used to Create Work Distribution Life Cycle Graph
Stage
Stage 1
Stage 1
Stage 1
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Day
Calendar Calendar
Days
Hours
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
24
24
24
24
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
Cumulative
Cumulative
Hours
Workabl
Crew
Workable Cumulative
VA
NVAR
NVA
VA Cumulative NVAR Cumulative NVA Cumulative
Calendar
Workable
worked
e Days
available
Hours Work Hours Percentage Percentage Percentage Hours VA Hours Hours NVAR Hrs. Hours NVA Hrs
Hours
days
per day
24
1
1
3
8
24
24
0%
20%
80%
0
0
4.8
4.8
19.2
19.2
48
1
2
3
8
24
48
0%
20%
80%
0
0
4.8
9.6
19.2
38.4
72
1
3
3
8
24
72
0%
0%
100%
0
0
0
9.6
24
62.4
96
1
4
3
8
24
96
0%
0%
100%
0
0
0
9.6
24
86.4
112
1
5
2
8
16
112
10%
25%
65%
1.6
1.6
4
13.6
10.4
96.8
128
0
5
2
0
0
112
10%
25%
65%
0
1.6
0
13.6
0
96.8
144
0
5
2
0
0
112
10%
25%
65%
0
1.6
0
13.6
0
96.8
160
1
6
2
8
16
128
10%
25%
65%
1.6
3.2
4
17.6
10.4
107.2
176
1
7
2
8
16
144
10%
25%
65%
1.6
4.8
4
21.6
10.4
117.6
192
1
8
2
8
16
160
10%
25%
65%
1.6
6.4
4
25.6
10.4
128
208
1
9
2
8
16
176
10%
25%
65%
1.6
8
4
29.6
10.4
138.4
224
1
10
2
8
16
192
0%
0%
100%
0
8
0
29.6
16
154.4
240
0
10
2
0
0
192
10%
25%
65%
0
8
0
29.6
0
154.4
256
0
10
2
0
0
192
10%
25%
65%
0
8
0
29.6
0
154.4
352
1
11
12
8
96
288
10%
25%
65%
9.6
17.6
24
53.6
62.4
216.8
448
1
12
12
8
96
384
10%
25%
65%
9.6
27.2
24
77.6
62.4
279.2
544
1
13
12
8
96
480
10%
25%
65%
9.6
36.8
24
101.6
62.4
341.6
640
1
14
12
8
96
576
10%
25%
65%
9.6
46.4
24
125.6
62.4
404
736
1
15
12
8
96
672
10%
25%
65%
9.6
56
24
149.6
62.4
466.4
832
0
15
12
0
0
672
10%
25%
65%
0
56
0
149.6
0
466.4
928
0
15
12
0
0
672
10%
25%
65%
0
56
0
149.6
0
466.4
1024
1
16
12
8
96
768
10%
25%
65%
9.6
65.6
24
173.6
62.4
528.8
1120
1
17
12
8
96
864
10%
25%
65%
9.6
75.2
24
197.6
62.4
591.2
1216
1
18
12
8
96
960
10%
25%
65%
9.6
84.8
24
221.6
62.4
653.6
1312
1
19
12
8
96
1056
10%
25%
65%
9.6
94.4
24
245.6
62.4
716
1408
1
20
12
8
96
1152
10%
25%
65%
9.6
104
24
269.6
62.4
778.4
1504
0
20
12
0
0
1152
10%
25%
65%
0
104
0
269.6
0
778.4
1600
0
20
12
0
0
1152
10%
25%
65%
0
104
0
269.6
0
778.4
1696
1
21
12
8
96
1248
10%
25%
65%
9.6
113.6
24
293.6
62.4
840.8
1792
1
22
12
8
96
1344
10%
25%
65%
9.6
123.2
24
317.6
62.4
903.2
1888
1
23
12
8
96
1440
10%
25%
65%
9.6
132.8
24
341.6
62.4
965.6
1984
1
24
12
8
96
1536
10%
25%
65%
9.6
142.4
24
365.6
62.4
1028
2080
1
25
12
8
96
1632
10%
25%
65%
9.6
152
24
389.6
62.4
1090.4
2176
0
25
12
0
0
1632
10%
25%
65%
0
152
0
389.6
0
1090.4
2272
0
25
12
0
0
1632
10%
25%
65%
0
152
0
389.6
0
1090.4
2368
1
26
12
8
96
1728
10%
25%
65%
9.6
161.6
24
413.6
62.4
1152.8
2464
1
27
12
8
96
1824
10%
25%
65%
9.6
171.2
24
437.6
62.4
1215.2
2560
1
28
12
8
96
1920
10%
25%
65%
9.6
180.8
24
461.6
62.4
1277.6
2656
1
29
12
8
96
2016
10%
25%
65%
9.6
190.4
24
485.6
62.4
1340
2752
1
30
12
8
96
2112
10%
25%
65%
9.6
200
24
509.6
62.4
1402.4
2848
0
30
12
0
0
2112
10%
25%
65%
0
200
0
509.6
0
1402.4
2944
0
30
12
0
0
2112
10%
25%
65%
0
200
0
509.6
0
1402.4
3040
1
31
12
8
96
2208
10%
25%
65%
9.6
209.6
24
533.6
62.4
1464.8
3136
1
32
12
8
96
2304
10%
25%
65%
9.6
219.2
24
557.6
62.4
1527.2
3232
1
33
12
8
96
2400
10%
25%
65%
9.6
228.8
24
581.6
62.4
1589.6
3328
1
34
12
8
96
2496
10%
25%
65%
9.6
238.4
24
605.6
62.4
1652
3424
1
35
12
8
96
2592
10%
25%
65%
9.6
248
24
629.6
62.4
1714.4
3520
0
35
12
0
0
2592
10%
25%
65%
0
248
0
629.6
0
1714.4
3616
0
35
12
0
0
2592
10%
25%
65%
0
248
0
629.6
0
1714.4
3712
1
36
12
8
96
2688
10%
25%
65%
9.6
257.6
24
653.6
62.4
1776.8
3808
1
37
12
8
96
2784
10%
25%
65%
9.6
267.2
24
677.6
62.4
1839.2
3904
1
38
12
8
96
2880
10%
25%
65%
9.6
276.8
24
701.6
62.4
1901.6
4000
1
39
12
8
96
2976
10%
25%
65%
9.6
286.4
24
725.6
62.4
1964
4096
1
40
12
8
96
3072
10%
25%
65%
9.6
296
24
749.6
62.4
2026.4
226
Appendix D
Case Study No. 4 - Process Piping
1.0 Overview
1.1 Project Goal
The purpose of this case study was to collect data to develop a value stream map for the
construction process. During this study, observations focused on the installation of eight-inch
diameter steel pipe. Field data were gathered on two separate value streams: the actual flow of
the pipe from the time it arrived on the jobsite until it was erected into final position, and the flow
of worker activities performed to install the eight-inch diameter steel pipe.
227
steam line. Other work within the same area included placement and welding of a four-inch
natural gas line that was pulled off the main gas line to fire the burner for the auxiliary boiler.
The area of work was located 15 feet above the ground floor on top of temporary scaffolding
erected earlier by a separate carpentry crew. The elbow was constructed with the eight-inch pipe
and was considered a subset of the observed operations that formed part of the overall steps
required to erect the entire steam line. The elbow erection activities were preceded by the
following: cutting the new pipe spool section to the desired length while it was in the material
lay-down yard and installing pipe hangers to hold the pipe in final position within the structure. It
was succeeded by X-ray testing of each weld along the line as well as a pressurized line test to
discover leakage. The material lay-down yard was located 150 to 200 yards away from the final
erection area within the main boiler structure.
228
Tee
Section
Pipe Stands
229
230
connected to the new spool already positioned on temporary bracing. The cut ends, both on the
remaining section of hung pipe and the end piece that was removed, were ground and beveled
prior to re-welding the connection. The end section was attached to the new spool while it
remained on the temporary bracing. Once completed, the entire section of new pipe (new spool
welded to cut section) was positioned into final alignment under the existing hung spool. Tack
welds were completed first to provide stability and alignment between the two spools while the
production weld was completed. The completion of this weld ended the data collection period
and was the end of the cycle.
The erection process for both cycles required a two-man crew. However, the tasks for the two
cycles required different movements and equipment to erect and secure each spool into its final
position. One crewman was required to bolt the connecting members, while the other crewman
was required to install pipe hangers to support the long sections of pipe, as well as weld
connections between the spools. While the crew size was the same for the two cycles, the time
required to perform the separate tasks was not. Therefore, in contrast to the ideal highly
repetitive and balanced manufacturing sequence, it would be difficult to design an erection
sequence that balanced the amount of time needed as well as the equipment necessary to
complete each task.
During the observation period, the following materials were installed:
One two-foot section of eight-inch diameter steel pipe with two flanged
connections.
One five-foot section of eight-inch diameter steel pipe with a 90 degree elbow
and one flanged connection.
The following section analyzes each workers contributions to each cycle. Tables and figures
were developed for each worker and task that describe the time spent on VA, NVA, and NVAR
actions within each cycle.
231
tasks occurred, but were not recorded. Figure D.1 shows the major tasks required to complete the
prefabricated pipe spool installation. The shaded areas are used to indicate that some tasks took
longer to complete than others, and that those tasks could occur simultaneously with other tasks.
The shaded regions are not intended to show actual task durations (e.g., two days for material
delivery).
Prefabricated Pipe Spool Installation
Process
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Figure D.1: Schedule for Piping Erection Process with Flanged Connections
Two workers in a piping crew were the main participants involved with installing the various
piping components during this observation period. One other worker was in the area, but his
contributions of time to the work process were minimal.
Worker 1 was involved with the installation of all four piping components erected during the
observation period. His responsibilities included positioning each piping component into final
position, leveling and adjusting pipe segments to correct levels, bolting and final inspections of
the finished product. Table D.1 and Figure D.2 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for
worker 1. During the piping installation process, worker 1 contributed the majority of his time
(68 percent) to NVA actions. The only VA actions for the worker occurred while applying the
greased gasket to the connection and physically bolting the flanged connection to its adjacent
piping component.
Table D.1: Prefabricated Piping Data for Worker 1
A c tiv ity C la s s ific a tio n
VA
W a s te C la s s ific a tio n
V a lu e A d d in g
V A T o ta l
T im e a t A c tiv ity
% o f T im e a t A c tiv ity
0 :1 4 :4 6
1 7 .1 7 %
0 :1 4 :4 6
1 7 .1 7 %
0 :2 1 :4 3
0 :0 8 :3 0
0 :0 9 :1 5
0 :1 8 :5 8
2 5 .2 5 %
9 .8 8 %
1 0 .7 6 %
2 2 .0 5 %
0 :5 8 :2 6
6 7 .9 5 %
NVA
W a itin g
E x tra P ro c .
T ra n s p o rt
M o tio n
N V A T o ta l
NV AR
M a t. P o s .
0 :0 1 :0 0
1 .1 6 %
In -P ro c e s s In s .
T .W .S .A
0 :0 1 :0 1
0 :1 0 :4 7
1 .1 8 %
1 2 .5 4 %
N V A R T o ta l
0 :1 2 :4 8
1 4 .8 8 %
G r a n d T o ta l
1 :2 6 :0 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
232
Worker #1
Prefabricated Piping Data - Cycle #1
NVAR TWSA
13%
NVAR In-Process
Inspection
1%
NVAR Material
Positioning
1%
VA
17%
NVA Motion
22%
NVA Waiting
25%
NVA Transport
11%
T im e a t Ac tivity
% o f T im e a t Ac tivity
0 :16 :1 0
1 8 .8 0 %
0 :1 6 :1 0
1 8 .8 0 %
0 :20 :5 1
0 :04 :3 0
0 :03 :2 5
0 :17 :3 0
2 4 .2 4 %
5 .2 3 %
3 .9 7 %
2 0 .3 5 %
0 :4 6 :1 6
5 3 .8 0 %
M at. P o s .
0 :16 :4 4
1 9 .4 6 %
In -P ro c e s s In s.
T .W .S .A
0 :01 :4 0
0 :05 :1 0
1 .9 4 %
6 .0 1 %
N V AR T o ta l
0 :2 3 :3 4
2 7 .4 0 %
G ra n d T o ta l
1 :2 6 :0 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
V A T o ta l
NVA
W a itin g
E x tra P ro c .
T ra n s p o rt
M o tio n
N V A T o ta l
N V AR
233
Worker #2
Prefabricated Piping Data - Cycle #1
NVAR TWSA
6%
NVAR In-Process
Inspection
2%
NVAR Material
Positioning
19%
VA
19%
NVA Waiting
25%
NVA Motion
20%
NVA Extra
Processing
5%
NVA Transport
4%
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Figure D.4: Schedule for Piping Erection Process with Welded Connections
The crew was composed of two workers (labeled worker 3 and worker 4). The focus of the crew
was the installation of an eight-inch diameter pipe spool. Each worker shared all of the tasks
required to erect the spool. The schedule on Figure D.4 represents the erection of a pipe spool
234
from start to finish in an ideal situation. In fact, the following data analysis includes time
attributed to the rework of a previously hung section of pipe. All time contributed to the rework
of this prehung spool (labeled as hung pipe, and cut section on the data spreadsheet) is
classified as Extra Processing (NVA). Worker 3 was involved with two of the following three
activities: new pipe spool erection, hung pipe removal and new pipe spool erection. Worker 4
was involved with all three activities: hung pipe removal, cut section prep work and new pipe
spool erection.
T.W.S.A.
0:03:30
0:03:30
Grand Total
0:57:20
6.10%
6.10%
100.00%
Worker 4 was involved with the following: cutting the existing hung spool, grinding/beveling the
remaining exposed end of the hung pipe and positioning the cut section next to the new pipe
spool that was temporarily positioned on stands within the work area. Table D.4 and Figure D.6
show the VA, NVA and NVAR percentages for Worker 4. Approximately half an hour was spent
by this worker on the hung section of pipe. The majority of his time was attributed to beveling
(NVA, extra processing) the remaining end of the hung section of pipe to be welded once again to
the cut section with new spool attached. Roughly 94 percent of the time spent was contributed to
NVA actions, leaving 6 percent for NVAR actions.
235
NVAR TWSA
6%
NVA Waiting
21%
NVA Motion
29%
NVA Extra
Processing
32%
NVA Transport
12%
Figure D.5: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 3 - Hung Pipe
Table D.4: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 4 - Hung Pipe
Activity Classification
NVA
Waste Classification
Time at Activity
% of Time at Activity
Waiting
Extra Proc.
0:05:21
0:14:07
19.96%
52.67%
Transport
0:05:27
20.34%
Motion
0:00:10
0.62%
0:25:05
93.59%
0:00:30
0:01:13
1.87%
4.54%
NVAR Total
0:01:43
6.41%
Grand Total
0:26:48
100.00%
NVA Total
NVAR
In-Process Ins.
T.W.S.A.
236
NVAR TWSA
5%
NVA Motion
1%
NVA Waiting
20%
NVA Transport
20%
NVA Extra Processing
52%
Figure D.6: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 4 - Hung Pipe
Waste Classification
Time at Activity
Waiting
Extra Proc.
0:08:49
0:38:21
% of Time at Activity
13.49%
58.68%
Transport
0:04:24
6.73%
Motion
0:00:47
1.20%
0:52:21
80.11%
0:05:51
0:07:09
8.95%
10.94%
NVAR Total
0:13:00
19.89%
Grand Total
1:05:21
100.00%
NVA Total
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
T.W.S.A.
237
NVA Waiting
13%
Positioning
9%
NVA Motion
1%
NVA Transport
7%
NVA Extra
Processing
59%
Figure D.7: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 4 - Cut Section
W a s te C la s sific a tio n
V a lu e A d d in g
T im e a t Ac tivity
% o f T im e a t Ac tivity
0 :4 3 :1 1
2 0 .3 7 %
0 :4 3 :1 1
2 0 .3 7 %
0 :4 1 :4 9
0 :0 5 :4 3
0 :2 5 :1 5
0 :4 1 :2 5
1 9 .7 2 %
2 .7 0 %
1 1 .9 1 %
1 9 .5 4 %
1 :5 4 :1 2
5 3 .8 7 %
0 :3 1 :2 0
0 :0 9 :0 9
0 :1 4 :0 8
1 4 .7 8 %
4 .3 2 %
6 .6 7 %
N V AR T o ta l
0 :5 4 :3 7
2 5 .7 6 %
G ra n d T o ta l
3 :3 2 :0 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
V A T o ta l
NVA
W a itin g
E x tra P ro c .
T ra n s p o rt
M o tio n
N V A T o ta l
N V AR
M a t. P o s .
In -P ro c e s s In s .
T .W .S .A .
238
VA
20.4%
NVAR Material
Positioning
15%
NVA Waiting
20%
NVA Extra
Processing
3%
NVA Motion
20%
NVA Transport
12%
Figure D.8: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 3 - New Spool Section
Worker 4 was involved with the following: aligning/leveling the new pipe spool to the same
height as the cut section of pipe, securing pipe alignment guides, inspecting tack welds and
production welds, positioning the entire welded component (including both the new pipe spool
and cut section as one piece) under the hung pipe and grinding sections of the production weld
created by worker 3 to ensure a quality production weld. Table D.7 and Figure D.9 show the VA,
NVA and NVAR percentages for worker 4. Notice that worker 4 contributed no VA actions to
the process. The majority of his time was spent waiting while worker 3 created the production
weld.
Table D.7: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 4: - New Spool Section
Activity Classification
NVA
Waste Classification
Time at Activity
% of Time at Activity
Waiting
Extra Proc.
1:23:49
0:08:21
47.31%
4.71%
Transport
0:22:24
12.64%
Motion
0:19:43
11.13%
2:14:17
75.79%
0:32:00
0:03:40
0:07:14
18.06%
2.07%
4.08%
NVAR Total
0:42:54
24.21%
Grand Total
2:57:11
100.00%
NVA Total
NVAR
Mat. Pos.
In-Process Ins.
T.W.S.A.
239
NVAR TWSA
4%
NVAR In-Process
Inspection
2%
NVA Waiting
47%
NVAR Material
Positioning
18%
NVA Motion
11%
NVA Transport
13%
NVA Extra
Processing
5%
Figure D.9: Field Welded Piping Data for Worker 4 - New Spool Section
240
Value Adding
0:14:46
1:14:53
Mat. Pos .
0:01:00
1:12:00
1:09:07
1:06:14
1:03:22
Value Adding
0:16:10
T.W.S.A
0:10:47
In-Proces s Ins .
0:01:01
Mat. Pos .
0:16:44
1:00:29
0:57:36
0:54:43
0:51:50
Trans port
0:09:15
In-Proces s Ins .
0:01:40
Time(h,m,s)
0:48:58
0:46:05
0:43:12
Value Adding
T.W.S.A
0:05:10
Transport
0:03:25
Extra Proc.
0:04:30
Extra Proc.
0:08:30
0:40:19
0:37:26
0:28:48
In-Process Ins.
T.W.S.A
Transport
Extra Proc.
Waiting
0:34:34
0:31:41
Mat. Pos.
Motion
Waiting
0:21:43
Waiting
0:20:51
0:25:55
0:23:02
0:20:10
0:17:17
0:14:24
0:11:31
0:08:38
Motion
0:18:58
Motion
0:17:30
Worker # 1
Worker # 2
0:05:46
0:02:53
0:00:00
241
4:48:00
4:40:48
4:33:36
4:26:24
4:19:12
4:12:00
4:04:48
Mat. Pos.
0:37:51
Value Adding
0:43:11
3:57:36
In-Process Ins
0:04:10
3:50:24
3:43:12
3:36:00
3:28:48
T.W.S.A.
0:15:36
Mat. Pos.
0:31:20
3:21:36
3:14:24
3:07:12
3:00:00
2:52:48
T.W.S.A.
0:17:38
Value Adding
Tim
e(h,m
,s)
2:45:36
2:38:24
2:31:12
Mat. Pos.
Transport
0:31:56
Extra Proc.
1:00:49
2:24:00
2:02:24
T.W.S.A.
Transport
2:16:48
2:09:36
In-Process Ins.
Extra Proc.
Extra Proc.
0:24:08
Waiting
Motion
1:55:12
1:48:00
1:40:48
1:33:36
1:26:24
1:19:12
Waiting
0:53:58
Waiting
1:37:59
1:12:00
1:04:48
0:57:36
0:50:24
0:43:12
0:36:00
0:28:48
Motion
0:58:00
0:21:36
0:14:24
Motion
0:20:40
0:07:12
0:00:00
Worker 3
Worker 4
242
VA +
NVAR
62%
0%
Group Percentage
0%
48%
10%
0%
28%
0%
0%
14%
62%
100%
Prefabricated Pipe: Release Valve
Total Cumulative Time Spent on Release Valve 0:36:50 h:m:s
VA
Waste
.
VA +
Crew Member
All
Extra
Material In Proc.
Waiting
Transport Movement
Total NVAR
TWSA
Activities
Processing
Pos.
Ins.
Worker #1
9%
58%
0%
11%
0%
0%
0%
22%
100%
31%
30%
12%
0%
11%
10%
25%
6%
6%
100%
67%
Worker #2
Group Percentage
25%
21%
0%
11%
8%
20%
5%
10%
100%
Prefabricated Pipe: Elbow Spool
Total Cumulative Time Spent on Spool 2:04:44 h:m:s
Waste
NVAR
VA
Crew Member
Extra
Material In Proc.
All
Total
Waiting
Transport Movement
TWSA
Activities
Processing
Pos.
Ins.
Worker #1
14%
24%
12%
9%
27%
2%
0%
12%
100%
13%
30%
8%
0%
26%
17%
0%
6%
100%
Worker #2
Group Percentage
13%
28%
10%
6%
243
26%
8%
0%
9%
100%
60%
VA +
NVAR
28%
36%
30%
VA +
NVAR
0%
20%
20%
VA +
NVAR
6%
7%
7%
VA +
NVAR
46%
24%
36%
Table D.10 shows the weighted averages for the observed processes. These averages were used
to represent the piping process in its entirety for this specific case study.
Table D.10: Summary Table for Piping Process - Weighted Averages
Pipe Spools - Entire Process
Pre-Fabbed Pipe: Entire Process
VA
Crew Member
All Activities
Worker #1
17%
Worker #2
19%
Field Welded - Entire Process
Worker #3
16%
Worker #4
0%
Weighted Average
Percentages for
10%
Group
Waiting
25%
25%
20%
36%
27%
14%
11%
16%
12%
2%
7%
100%
VA + NVAR %
32%
46%
38%
21%
32%
244
Note: This differed from the waste category defects discussed in Section 4.2 in that the current
crew was responsible for erecting the hung pipe incorrectly. The defect was not passed downstream to the next work station, but was reworked by the existing crew.
245
4.2.2 Inventory
Material deliveries were made continually throughout the construction process. The steel pipe
was delivered onsite on a large flatbed and placed within the material lay-down yard in bundles of
similar pipe. The material was then moved to the tent for field fabrication or, when possible, it
was moved directly to its position within the pipeline. The material was retrieved from the pipe
bundles as needed. The variability of the amount of material onsite was heavily influenced by the
sporadic nature of the pipe erection process. The limited area within the structure where the
installation occurred created a problem for the erection crew to install the pipeline in linear order.
Due to the brief observation time period onsite, it was difficult to quantify the inevitable waste in
inventory that occurred.
4.2.3 Defects
Defects are defined as errors or deficiencies in a finished product that require additional work on
the part of a crew or a follow-up crew. A defective release valve or piping component delivered
onsite from the manufacturer is an example of a defect (i.e., the material has been passed downstream through the value stream to the next work station). Another example of a defect is
included in the punch list process at the end of a job. When a defect in the finished product is
found at this stage, a separate follow-up crew is activated to correct the defect. Hence, the defect
is pushed onto the next work station. Time associated with the crew members having to rework
the hung pipe section was accounted for in the Extra Processing column shown in Table D.10.
Furthermore, because of the brief site visit, no waste due to defects was observed.
Manufacturer
delivers
material to
site in one
large
shipment
Pipe spool is
pulled from
bundle and
transported to
work area
Material is
delivered to
material laydown yard in
piping bundles
Pipe spool is
pulled from
bundle to be
field fabricated
to specified
requirement
Spool is erected
and secured into
final position
Spool positioned in
work area beneath
installation point
Fabricated spool
is transported to
work area
Final prep
work is
performed
on spool
Raw pipe was pulled from the separate bundles in the yard.
246
Pipe was welded to other pipe sections while remaining in the tent inside
the material lay-down yard.
(1)
Pipe was erected into intended location within the power plant.
Production Control
Project Engineer
Level One
Project Feedback
Triggering Event
Steel Is ordered in one large shipment
Percent Complete
NVA Time
Project Superintendent
As Required
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
Daily
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Manhours
96
0
0
96
Inv
Inventory Days
22
20
Level Two
14.1
Level Three
4
451.2
36.1
94.7
320.3
16%
0%
20%
36%
8%
28%
In
v
2
All Activities
Waiting
25%
25%
17%
25%
NVA
VA
All Activities
Worker #1
Worker #2
Field Welded - Entire Process
Worker #3
Worker #4
Weighted Average
Percentages for
Group
Waiting
17%
19%
25%
25%
16%
0%
20%
36%
10%
1.8
0
3
43.2
7.3
9.5
26.4
8:58:40
12%
12%
12%
71%
Extra
Processing
10%
5%
Movement
Material Pos.
22%
8%
12%
14%
15%
13%
NVAR
Total Cumulative Time Spent on Spool
27%
14%
Linear Feet
of Various
Spools
8
8
In Proc. Ins.
3%
2%
2%
TWSA
Total
7%
6%
100%
100%
38%
21%
100%
30%
6%
Transport
11%
4%
Movement
11%
Material Pos.
22%
20%
16%
Estimated Total
Cumulative
Linear Feet for
Time Spent
Each Pipe
Per Linear Foot
1:07:20
100
0:21:30
20
Total Estimated Mhrs
21%
2:52:00
h:m:s
In Proc. Ins.
3%
19%
1%
2%
11%
2%
NVAR
TWSA
Total
VA + NVAR
11%
6%
100%
100%
32%
46%
100%
39%
9%
22%
11:50:40
6:52:15
h:m:s
h:m:s
NVAR
Material Pos.
In Proc. Ins.
3%
19%
1%
2%
12%
14%
3%
2%
12%
Estimated Man-hours
to Complete Each
Line
112:13:20
7:10:00
119:23:20
2%
% of Total
Time
94%
6%
TWSA
11%
6%
2:39:49
7%
6%
7%
Total
VA + NVAR
100%
100%
h:m:s
100%
100%
38%
21%
32%
46%
100%
32%
% of Total
Time each LF
of Pipe Spool
0.9%
0.3%
Average VA Percentage
Average NVAR Percentage
Average NVA Percentage
248
VA + NVAR
NVAR
8%
7%
21%
61%
Total Cumulative Time Observed for all Process
Total Cumulative Time Observed for Cycle 1
Waste
Extra
Transport
Movement
Processing
10%
11%
22%
5%
4%
20%
Total Cumulative Time Observed for Cycle 2
9%
12%
22%
23%
12%
8%
Cumulative
Time Observed
for Various
8:58:40
2:52:00
11:50:40
h:m:s
NVAR
Transport
16%
676.8
54.1
142.1
480.5
Waste
17%
19%
Group Percentage
NVA
Crew Member
Waste
Extra
Processing
9%
23%
Worker #1
Worker #2
28.2
10%
21%
68%
1400
Another substage process was required for the field fabrication process in Level Two. The spools
were fabricated in a temporary shop designated the tent. Four crewmen were entered into this
substage to represent the average number of pipe fitters working in the tent. It was assumed that
the weighted average values found from the observations were representative of the work
distribution values for this substage.
Table D.11 and Figure D.14 show the Quick Summary results for the work distribution values.
Of the 1,267 total workable hours committed to the piping erection process, only 98 of them were
VA. The NVAR category consisted of 266 hours; this value was high as a result of moving the
pipe 15 feet above the ground floor. Finally, the majority of time spent during the piping erection
process was on NVA actions.
Table D.11: Quick Summary of Steel Process
Quick Summary for Level One
For All Spools Worked on During
Observation Period
Working Days
33
Working Time
1,267
Man-hours
98
Man-hours
VA Total
NVAR Total
266
Man-hours
904
Man-hours
NVA Total
NVA Time
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Man-hours
249
4000
3500
Time (man-hours)
3000
2500
Cumulative Calendar Hours
Cumulative Workable Hours
2000
Cumulative VA Hours
Cumulative NVAR Hours
Cumulative NVA Hours
1500
1000
Fabrication and Installation
Begin
500
0
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Calendar Days
250
Table D.12: Spreadsheet of Values Used to Create Work Distribution Life Cycle Graph
Stage
Day
Stage 1
Stage 1
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Stage 2
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Cumulative
Cumulative
Hours
Calendar Cumulative Calendar
Workable
Crew
Workable Cumulative
VA
NVAR
NVA
VA Cumulative NVAR Cumulative NVA Cumulative
Calendar
Workable
worked
Days Calendat Days Hours
Days
available
Hours Work Hours Percentage Percentage Percentage Hours VA Hours Hours NVAR Hrs. Hours NVA Hrs
Hours
days
per day
1
1
32
32
1
1
4
8
32
32
0%
20%
80%
0
0
6.4
6.4
25.6
25.6
1
2
32
64
1
2
4
8
32
64
0%
20%
80%
0
0
6.4
12.8
25.6
51.2
1
3
32
96
1
3
4
8
32
96
0%
20%
80%
0
0
6.4
19.2
25.6
76.8
1
4
88
184
1
4
11
8
88
184
10%
21%
68%
8.8
8.8
18.48 37.68
59.84 136.64
1
5
88
272
1
5
11
8
88
272
10%
21%
68%
8.8
17.6
18.48 56.16
59.84 196.48
1
6
88
360
0
5
11
0
0
272
10%
21%
68%
0
17.6
0
56.16
0
196.48
1
7
88
448
0
5
11
0
0
272
10%
21%
68%
0
17.6
0
56.16
0
196.48
1
8
88
536
1
6
11
8
88
360
10%
21%
68%
8.8
26.4
18.48 74.64
59.84 256.32
1
9
88
624
1
7
11
8
88
448
10%
21%
68%
8.8
35.2
18.48 93.12
59.84 316.16
1
10
88
712
1
8
11
8
88
536
10%
21%
68%
8.8
44
18.48 111.6
59.84
376
1
11
88
800
1
9
11
8
88
624
10%
21%
68%
8.8
52.8
18.48 130.08
59.84 435.84
1
12
88
888
1
10
11
8
88
712
10%
21%
68%
8.8
61.6
18.48 148.56
59.84 495.68
1
13
88
976
0
10
11
0
0
712
10%
21%
68%
0
61.6
0
148.56
0
495.68
1
14
88
1064
0
10
11
0
0
712
10%
21%
68%
0
61.6
0
148.56
0
495.68
1
15
88
1152
1
11
11
8
88
800
10%
21%
68%
8.8
70.4
18.48 167.04
59.84 555.52
1
16
88
1240
1
12
11
8
88
888
10%
21%
68%
8.8
79.2
18.48 185.52
59.84 615.36
1
17
88
1328
1
13
11
8
88
976
10%
21%
68%
8.8
88
18.48
204
59.84
675.2
1
18
88
1416
1
14
11
8
88
1064
10%
21%
68%
8.8
96.8
18.48 222.48
59.84 735.04
1
19
88
1504
1
15
11
8
88
1152
10%
21%
68%
8.8
105.6 18.48 240.96
59.84 794.88
1
20
88
1592
0
15
11
0
0
1152
10%
21%
68%
0
105.6
0
240.96
0
794.88
1
21
88
1680
0
15
11
0
0
1152
10%
21%
68%
0
105.6
0
240.96
0
794.88
1
22
88
1768
1
16
11
8
88
1240
10%
21%
68%
8.8
114.4 18.48 259.44
59.84 854.72
1
23
88
1856
1
17
11
8
88
1328
10%
21%
68%
8.8
123.2 18.48 277.92
59.84 914.56
1
24
88
1944
1
18
11
8
88
1416
10%
21%
68%
8.8
132
18.48 296.4
59.84
974.4
1
25
88
2032
1
19
11
8
88
1504
10%
21%
68%
8.8
140.8 18.48 314.88
59.84 1034.24
1
26
88
2120
1
20
11
8
88
1592
10%
21%
68%
8.8
149.6 18.48 333.36
59.84 1094.08
1
27
88
2208
0
20
11
0
0
1592
10%
21%
68%
0
149.6
0
333.36
0
1094.08
1
28
88
2296
0
20
11
0
0
1592
10%
21%
68%
0
149.6
0
333.36
0
1094.08
1
29
88
2384
1
21
11
8
88
1680
10%
21%
68%
8.8
158.4 18.48 351.84
59.84 1153.92
1
30
88
2472
1
22
11
8
88
1768
10%
21%
68%
8.8
167.2 18.48 370.32
59.84 1213.76
1
31
88
2560
1
23
11
8
88
1856
10%
21%
68%
8.8
176
18.48 388.8
59.84 1273.6
1
32
88
2648
1
24
11
8
88
1944
10%
21%
68%
8.8
184.8 18.48 407.28
59.84 1333.44
1
33
88
2736
1
25
11
8
88
2032
10%
21%
68%
8.8
193.6 18.48 425.76
59.84 1393.28
1
34
88
2824
0
25
11
0
0
2032
10%
21%
68%
0
193.6
0
425.76
0
1393.28
1
35
88
2912
0
25
11
0
0
2032
10%
21%
68%
0
193.6
0
425.76
0
1393.28
1
36
88
3000
1
26
11
8
88
2120
10%
21%
68%
8.8
202.4 18.48 444.24
59.84 1453.12
1
37
88
3088
1
27
11
8
88
2208
10%
21%
68%
8.8
211.2 18.48 462.72
59.84 1512.96
1
38
88
3176
1
28
11
8
88
2296
10%
21%
68%
8.8
220
18.48 481.2
59.84 1572.8
1
39
88
3264
1
29
11
8
88
2384
10%
21%
68%
8.8
228.8 18.48 499.68
59.84 1632.64
1
40
88
3352
1
30
11
8
88
2472
10%
21%
68%
8.8
237.6 18.48 518.16
59.84 1692.48
251
Appendix E
Case Study No. 5 - Process Piping
1.0 Overview
1.1 Project Goal
The purpose of this case study was to collect data to develop a value stream map for the
construction process. During this study, observations were focused on the installation of an eightinch diameter pipe spool. Two 10-foot sections of eight-inch diameter pipe were joined on the
ground to form the spool. Work was observed on two-inch diameter and four-inch diameter
spools, and a 10-inch diameter prefabricated elbow section. Field data collected on two separate
value streams included the actual flow of the prefabricated pipe from the time it arrived on the
jobsite until it was erected into final position, and the flow of worker activities performed to
install the several sections of steel pipe.
252
253
were constructed to hold the pipe in position. The spool was then wrapped with two hoist lines
and lifted into position with a boom crane. The crane held the spool in position while the
temporary bracing was adjusted and the flanged end of the spool was bolted to one of the
mechanical components. This observation cycle ended with the release of the hoist lines from the
spool.
254
Two 10-foot sections of eight-inch diameter steel pipe, with one having a flanged
connection.
One 10-foot section of four-inch steel pipe with one flanged connection.
One six-foot section of 10-inch steel pipe with a 90 degree elbow and one
flanged connection.
One three-foot section of two-inch steel pipe with one flanged connection.
One welder.
One forklift.
255
Figure E.4. Schedule for Piping Erection Process for Two-, Four-, Eightand 10-Inch Diameter Spools
256
Table E.1: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Field Laborer - Two-Inch Diameter
A c t iv it y C la s s if ic a t io W a s t e C la s s if ic a t io n
NVA
T im e a t A c t iv it y
W a itin g
E x tra P ro c .
T ra n s p o rt
M o tio n
% o f T im e a t A c t iv it y
0 :2 3 :1 6
0 :2 4 :1 3
0 :0 6 :3 0
0 :0 1 :5 5
3 8 .8 9 %
4 0 .4 7 %
1 0 .8 6 %
3 .2 0 %
0 :5 5 :5 4
9 3 .4 3 %
0 :0 0 :3 5
0 :0 1 :1 0
0 :0 2 :1 1
0 .9 7 %
1 .9 5 %
3 .6 5 %
N V A R T o ta l
0 :0 3 :5 6
6 .5 7 %
G ra n d T o ta l
0 :5 9 :5 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
N V A T o ta l
NVAR
M a te ria l P o s .
In -P ro c e s s In s .
T .W .S .A
NVAR Material
Positioning
1%
NVA Motion
3%
NVA Transport
11%
NVAR In-Process
Inspection
NVAR TWSA
2%
4%
NVA Waiting
39%
NVA Extra
Processing
40%
Figure E.5: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Field Laborer - Two-Inch Diameter
The pipe fitter field verified the dimensions of the two-inch diameter spool by measuring and
checking them with the latest construction documents. He was also responsible for final inspection of the beveled ends. Table E.2 and Figure E.6 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the
pipe fitter. Notice that the pipe fitter contributed the majority (83 percent) of his time to NVA
actions. No time was spent on VA actions.
Table E.2: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - Two-Inch Diameter
Ac tivity C la ssific a tio n
NV A
NV A T o ta l
T im e a t Ac tivity
% o f T im e a t Ac tivity
0:02:47
0:03:13
0:07:47
16.78%
19.40%
46.93%
0 :1 3 :4 7
8 3 .1 2 %
NV AR
0:02:48
16.88%
NV AR T o ta l
In -P ro cess In s.
0 :0 2 :4 8
1 6 .8 8 %
G ra n d T o ta l
0 :1 6 :3 5
1 0 0 .0 0 %
257
NVA Waiting
17%
NVA Extra
Processing
19%
NVA Motion
47%
Figure E.6: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - Two-Inch Diameter
W aste Classification
W aiting
Extra Proc.
T ransport
M otion
T ime at Activity
% of T ime at Activity
0:18:12
0:08:48
0:08:10
0:06:19
22.80%
11.02%
10.23%
7.91%
0:41:29
51.96%
0:07:03
0:25:37
0:05:41
8.83%
32.09%
7.12%
NVAR Total
0:38:21
48.04%
G rand Total
1:19:50
100.00%
NVA T otal
NVAR
M aterial Pos.
In-Process Ins.
T .W .S.A
258
NVA Waiting
23%
NVAR In-Process
Inspection
32%
NVA Extra
Processing
11%
NVAR Material
Positioning
9%
NVA Transport
10%
NVA Motion
8%
Figure E.7: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - Four-Inch Diameter
T im e a t Ac tivity
% o f T im e a t Ac tivity
0:57:06
0:23:26
0:05:43
0:02:09
51.75%
21.24%
5.18%
1.95%
1 :2 8 :2 4
8 0 .1 2 %
0:02:30
0:01:26
0:18:00
2.27%
1.30%
16.31%
N V AR T o ta l
0 :2 1 :5 6
1 9 .8 8 %
G ra n d T o ta l
1 :5 0 :2 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
N V A T o ta l
N V AR
M aterial P o s.
In -P ro cess In s.
T .W .S .A
259
NVAR In-Process
Inspection
1%
NVAR Material
Positioning
2%
NVAR TWSA
16%
NVA Motion
2%
NVA Waiting
53%
NVA Transport
5%
NVA Extra
Processing
21%
Figure E.8: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Field Laborer - Eight-Inch Diameter
The pipe fitter was involved with the following: positioning the two 10-foot sections onto pipe
stands within the work area, aligning the two sections together with a pipe guide, and continually
inspecting the work as grinding and welding occurred on the spool. When the weld was finished,
the pipe fitter was involved with rigging and positioning the spool while it was lifted into place.
He was also required to secure the unsupported spool end with temporary bracing until the
adjacent section could be erected. Table E.5 and Figure E.9 show the VA, NVA and NVAR
values for the pipe fitter. No VA actions occurred during the erection sequence. The time spent
on NVA and NVAR actions was evenly split, with NVA and NVAR actions consuming 56 and
44 percent, respectively, of the time.
Table E.5: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - Eight-Inch Diameter
A c t iv it y C la s s if ic a t io n
NVA
W a s t e C la s s if ic a t io n
W a itin g
E x tra P ro c .
T ra n s p o rt
M o tio n
T im e a t A c t iv it y
% o f T im e a t A c t iv it y
0 :3 4 :5 4
0 :1 7 :5 1
0 :1 0 :5 2
0 :4 0 :4 7
1 8 .6 1 %
9 .5 2 %
5 .7 9 %
2 1 .7 4 %
1 :4 4 :2 4
5 5 .6 6 %
0 :2 2 :3 2
0 :3 4 :1 4
0 :2 6 :2 5
1 2 .0 1 %
1 8 .2 5 %
1 4 .0 8 %
N V A R T o ta l
1 :2 3 :1 1
4 4 .3 4 %
G ra n d T o ta l
3 :0 7 :3 5
1 0 0 .0 0 %
N V A T o ta l
NVAR
M a te ria l P o s .
In -P ro c e s s In s .
T .W .S .A
260
NVA Waiting
19%
NVA Extra
Processing
10%
NVAR In Process
Inspection
18%
NVA Transport
6%
NVAR Material
Positioning
12%
NVA Motion
21%
Figure E.9: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - Eight-Inch Diameter
The welder was responsible for the following: positioning the 10-foot sections of pipe onto the
temporary stands, beveling the ends of each 10-foot section to be welded together, aligning the
two ends together using a pipe guide, tack welding, performing final production weld, continuously inspecting the production weld, rigging the finished spool section for the crane, positioning
and securing the eight-inch spool into its final position, and releasing the crane rigging from the
spool section once secured. Table E.6 and Figure E.10 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for
the welder. Twenty-five percent of the welders actions were attributed to the VA category. This
value was the largest for the observed three-man crew because of welder involvement with
beveling the end sections and the final production weld. NVA actions consumed the majority of
his time at 64 percent, with the subcategory of waiting being the primary activity. Extra
processing (rework) also consumed a significant portion of time in this cycle.
Table E.6: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Welder - Eight-Inch Diameter
A c t iv it y C la s s if ic a t io n
VA
W a s t e C la s s if ic a t io n
V a lu e A d d in g
V A T o ta l
T im e a t A c t iv it y
% o f T im e a t A c t iv it y
1 :2 4 :1 1
2 4 .5 8 %
1 :2 4 :1 1
2 4 .5 8 %
NVA
W a itin g
1 :4 2 :3 7
2 9 .9 6 %
E x tra P ro c .
T ra n s p o rt
M o tio n
0 :3 6 :2 8
0 :2 5 :2 3
0 :5 5 :2 1
1 0 .6 5 %
7 .4 1 %
1 6 .1 6 %
3 :3 9 :4 9
6 4 .1 8 %
0 :0 5 :3 3
0 :1 6 :1 7
1 .6 2 %
4 .7 5 %
N V A T o ta l
NVAR
M a te ria l P o s .
In -P ro c e s s In s .
0 :1 6 :4 0
4 .8 7 %
N V A R T o ta l
T .W .S .A
0 :3 8 :3 0
1 1 .2 4 %
G ra n d T o ta l
5 :4 2 :3 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
261
NVA Waiting
29%
Figure E.10: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Welder - Eight-Inch Diameter
W a s te C la s sific a tio n
W a itin g
E x tra P ro c .
T ra n s p o rt
M o tio n
T im e a t Ac tiv ity
% o f T im e a t Ac tiv ity
0 :5 5 :5 6
0 :4 7 :3 6
0 :2 0 :2 9
0 :4 0 :5 3
3 2 .4 6 %
2 7 .6 2 %
1 1 .8 9 %
2 3 .7 2 %
2 :4 4 :5 4
9 5 .6 9 %
0 :0 1 :0 0
0 :0 0 :1 5
0 :0 6 :1 1
0 .5 8 %
0 .1 5 %
3 .5 9 %
N V AR T o ta l
0 :0 7 :2 6
4 .3 1 %
G ra n d T o ta l
2 :5 2 :2 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
N V A T o ta l
N V AR
M a te ria l P o s .
In -P ro c e s s In s .
T .W .S .A
262
Figure E.11: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Field Laborer - 10-Inch Diameter
The pipe fitter was responsible for the following: field verifying the correct length for the elbow
section, preparing the pipe to be cut and continually inspecting the work as it progressed.
Table E.8 and Figure E.12 show the VA, NVA and NVAR values for the pipe fitter.
Table E.8: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - 10-Inch Diameter
A c tiv ity C la s s ific a tio n
NVA
W a s te C la s s ific a tio n
W a itin g
E x tra P ro c .
T ra n s p o rt
M o tio n
N V A T o ta l
T im e a t A c tiv ity
% o f T im e a t A c tiv ity
0 :2 0 :5 2
0 :3 1 :4 2
0 :0 2 :1 0
0 :0 3 :0 6
3 5 .6 7 %
5 4 .1 9 %
3 .7 0 %
5 .3 0 %
0 :5 7 :5 0
9 8 .8 6 %
NV AR
0 :0 0 :4 0
1 .1 4 %
N V A R T o ta l
T .W .S .A
0 :0 0 :4 0
1 .1 4 %
G ra n d T o ta l
0 :5 8 :3 0
1 0 0 .0 0 %
NVA Motion
5%
NVAR T.W.S.A
1%
NVA Transport
4%
NVA Waiting
36%
Figure E.12: Prefabricated Piping Data for the Pipe Fitter - 10-Inch Diameter
263
264
5:24:00
Material Pos.
0:04:05
4:48:00
In-Process Ins.
0:02:51
4:12:00
T.W.S.A
0:26:22
Material Pos.
0:29:35
In-Process Ins.
1:02:39
Material Pos
0:05:33
Value Adding
1:24:11
T.W.S.A
0:32:46
3:36:00
Transport
0:21:12
Transport
0:32:42
3:00:00
In-Process Ins.
0:16:17
T.W.S.A
Value Adding
Motion
T.W.S.A
0:16:40
Transport
Extra Proc.
In-Process Ins.
Extra Proc.
1:35:15
2:24:00
Extra Proc.
1:01:34
Waiting
Material Pos.
Extra Proc.
0:36:28
1:48:00
1:12:00
Transport
0:25:23
Waiting
2:16:18
Waiting
1:16:45
Waiting
1:42:37
0:36:00
0:00:00
Motion
0:44:57
Field Laborer
Motion
0:57:59
Motion
0:55:21
Pipe Fitter
Welder
265
NVA category is further divided into time spent in waiting, extra processing, transport and
movement categories. Additionally, NVAR actions are broken down into three subcategories to
clarify how time was spent within the observed cycles.
Table E.9: Entire Activity
Prefabricated Pipe - Entire Process
Total Cumulative Time Spent on Spool
VA
Waste
NVAR
Crew Member
All
Extra
Material In Proc.
Waiting
Transport Movement
Activities
Processing
Pos.
Ins.
0%
22%
18%
6%
17%
9%
18%
Foreman - Pipe Fitter
Field Laborer
0%
40%
28%
10%
13%
1%
1%
25%
30%
11%
7%
16%
2%
5%
Welder
Group Percentage
8%
31%
19%
8%
15%
4%
8%
17:07:30 h:m:s
TWSA
Total
VA +
NVAR
10%
8%
5%
100%
100%
100%
37%
10%
36%
7%
100%
27%
266
0%
33%
34%
10%
19%
0%
0%
1:16:25 h:m:s
T.W.S.A
0%
4%
0%
Total %
100%
100%
0%
3%
100%
1:19:50 h:m:s
T.W.S.A
7%
0%
0%
Total %
100%
0%
0%
7%
100%
10:40:25 h:m:s
T.W.S.A
14%
16%
5%
Total %
100%
100%
100%
10%
100%
3:50:50 h:m:s
VA +
NVAR
%
17%
7%
0%
9%
VA +
NVAR
%
48%
0%
0%
48%
VA +
NVAR
%
44%
20%
36%
36%
1%
4%
0%
100%
100%
0%
VA +
NVAR
%
1%
4%
0%
3%
100%
4%
T.W.S.A
Total %
4.2.2 Inventory
Material deliveries consisted of two large shipments from the manufacturer. The prefabricated
steel pipe was delivered from the manufacturer to the painting subcontractor. The subcontractor
painted each spool section, then delivered the painted spools to the material lay-down yard. The
spools were then pulled from the material lay-down yard and moved to the workstation, where
267
final preparation work and production welds were completed. Finally, the spools were erected
into final position. It was recognized that waste in inventory occurs; however, it was not possible
to quantify this waste through physical observation.
4.2.3 Defects
Defects are defined as errors or deficiencies in a finished product that required additional work on
the part of the original crew or a follow-up crew. A faulty release valve or piping component
delivered onsite from the manufacturer is an example of a defect (i.e., the material has been
passed through the value stream to the next workstation). Another example of a defect is
included in the punch list process at the end of a job. When a defect in the finished product is
found at this stage, a separate follow-up crew is activated to correct the defect. Hence, the defect
is pushed on to the next workstation. Time spent on reworking the elbow section was accounted
for in the extra processing section. No waste associated with defects was observed.
Manufacturer
delivers
material to
site in two
large
shipments
Material is
delivered to
material laydown yard
Fabricated spool
is transported to
work area
Spool is
positioned in
work area onto
temporary pipe
stands
Rework occurs on
spools that do not
meet field
measurements
Spool is erected
and secured into
its final position
Final prep
work is
performed
on spool
Pipe was cut, shaped and welded to specification at the manufacturers plant.
Pipe manufacturer delivered spools to cleaning and painting facility in two large
shipments.
Cleaned and painted spools were delivered in two large shipments to the laydown yard.
Spools were pulled from the lay-down yard as needed by the field foreman (pipe
fitter) and positioned on temporary pipe stands for final preparation work within
the workstation.
268
If the spool did not meet the field measurements, rework (cutting spool to desired
shape) occurred on the spool until a perfect fit could be made.
Crane rigging was attached to the spool sections and the spool was hoisted into
its final position within the pipeline as follows:
Temporary bracing and supports were put in place until permanent supports
could be installed.
269
Table E.11 and Figure E.16 show the quick summary results for the work distribution values. Of
the 800 total workable hours committed to the piping erection process, only 58 of them were VA.
Of the total, 153 hours contributed to the NVAR category. This value was high as a result of
moving the pipe 15 feet above the floor. Finally, the overwhelming period of time spent during
the piping erection process was on NVA actions.
Table E.11: Quick Summary of Steel Process
Quick Summary for Level One
For All Spools Worked on During
Observation Period
Working Days
Working Time
VA Total
NVAR Total
NVA Total
35
800
58
153
590
Man-hours
Man-hours
Man-hours
Man-hours
NVA Time
NVAR Time
1
VA Time
Work Time
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Manhours
271
Work Distribution
1800
1600
1400
1200
Stage 1, 2 Delivery and
material
handling
Time (man-hours)
1000
800
600
Stage 3 - Final
Prep and
Erection process
400
y = 17.384x - 20.703
200
y = 1.8922x - 6.4148
0
1
-200
272
Table E.12: Spreadsheet of Values Used to Create Work Distribution Life-Cycle Graph
Stage
Stage 1
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 2,3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 2,3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 2,3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 2,3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 2,3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 2,3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 3
Day
Hours
Cumulative
Cumulative
Workable Cumulative
VA
NVAR
NVA
VA Cumulative NVAR Cumulative NVA Cumulative
Crew
Workable
Calendar Cumulative Calendar
worked
Workable
Calendar
Hours Work Hours Percentage Percentage Percentage Hours VA Hours Hours NVAR Hrs. Hours NVA Hrs
available
Days
Days Calendat Days Hours
per day
days
Hours
1
1
16
16
1
1
2
8
16
16
0%
20%
80%
0
0
3.2
3.2
12.8
12.8
1
2
16
32
1
2
2
8
16
32
0%
20%
80%
0
0
3.2
6.4
12.8
25.6
1
3
16
48
1
3
2
8
16
48
0%
0%
100%
0
0
0
6.4
16
41.6
1
4
24
72
1
4
3
8
24
72
8%
19%
73%
1.92
1.92
4.56
10.96 17.52 59.12
1
5
24
96
1
5
3
8
24
96
8%
19%
73%
1.92
3.84
4.56
15.52 17.52 76.64
1
6
24
120
0
5
3
0
0
96
8%
19%
73%
0
3.84
0
15.52
0
76.64
1
7
24
144
0
5
3
0
0
96
8%
19%
73%
0
3.84
0
15.52
0
76.64
1
8
40
184
1
6
5
8
40
136
8%
19%
73%
3.2
7.04
7.6
23.12
29.2 105.84
1
9
40
224
1
7
5
8
40
176
8%
19%
73%
3.2
10.24
7.6
30.72
29.2 135.04
1
10
24
248
1
8
3
8
24
200
8%
19%
73%
1.92
12.16
4.56
35.28 17.52 152.56
1
11
24
272
1
9
3
8
24
224
8%
19%
73%
1.92
14.08
4.56
39.84 17.52 170.08
1
12
40
312
1
10
5
8
40
264
8%
19%
73%
3.2
17.28
7.6
47.44
29.2 199.28
1
13
40
352
0
10
5
0
0
264
8%
19%
73%
0
17.28
0
47.44
0
199.28
1
14
40
392
0
10
5
0
0
264
8%
19%
73%
0
17.28
0
47.44
0
199.28
1
15
40
432
1
11
5
8
40
304
8%
19%
73%
3.2
20.48
7.6
55.04
29.2 228.48
1
16
24
456
1
12
3
8
24
328
8%
19%
73%
1.92
22.4
4.56
59.6
17.52
246
1
17
24
480
1
13
3
8
24
352
8%
19%
73%
1.92
24.32
4.56
64.16 17.52 263.52
1
18
40
520
1
14
5
8
40
392
8%
19%
73%
3.2
27.52
7.6
71.76
29.2 292.72
1
19
40
560
1
15
5
8
40
432
8%
19%
73%
3.2
30.72
7.6
79.36
29.2 321.92
1
20
40
600
0
15
5
0
0
432
8%
19%
73%
0
30.72
0
79.36
0
321.92
1
21
40
640
0
15
5
0
0
432
8%
19%
73%
0
30.72
0
79.36
0
321.92
1
22
40
680
1
16
5
8
40
472
8%
19%
73%
3.2
33.92
7.6
86.96
29.2 351.12
1
23
40
720
1
17
5
8
40
512
8%
19%
73%
3.2
37.12
7.6
94.56
29.2 380.32
1
24
40
760
1
18
5
8
40
552
8%
19%
73%
3.2
40.32
7.6
102.16 29.2 409.52
1
25
40
800
1
19
5
8
40
592
8%
19%
73%
3.2
43.52
7.6
109.76 29.2 438.72
1
26
24
824
1
20
3
8
24
616
8%
19%
73%
1.92
45.44
4.56
114.32 17.52 456.24
1
27
40
864
0
20
5
0
0
616
8%
19%
73%
0
45.44
0
114.32
0
456.24
1
28
40
904
0
20
5
0
0
616
8%
19%
73%
0
45.44
0
114.32
0
456.24
1
29
24
928
1
21
3
8
24
640
8%
19%
73%
1.92
47.36
4.56
118.88 17.52 473.76
1
30
40
968
1
22
5
8
40
680
8%
19%
73%
3.2
50.56
7.6
126.48 29.2 502.96
1
31
40
1008
1
23
5
8
40
720
8%
19%
73%
3.2
53.76
7.6
134.08 29.2 532.16
1
32
24
1032
1
24
3
8
24
744
8%
19%
73%
1.92
55.68
4.56
138.64 17.52 549.68
1
33
24
1056
1
25
3
8
24
768
8%
19%
73%
1.92
57.6
4.56
143.2 17.52 567.2
1
34
40
1096
0
25
5
0
0
768
8%
19%
73%
0
57.6
0
143.2
0
567.2
1
35
40
1136
0
25
5
0
0
768
8%
19%
73%
0
57.6
0
143.2
0
567.2
1
36
40
1176
1
26
5
8
40
808
8%
19%
73%
3.2
60.8
7.6
150.8
29.2
596.4
1
37
40
1216
1
27
5
8
40
848
8%
19%
73%
3.2
64
7.6
158.4
29.2
625.6
1
38
24
1240
1
28
3
8
24
872
8%
19%
73%
1.92
65.92
4.56
162.96 17.52 643.12
1
39
24
1264
1
29
3
8
24
896
8%
19%
73%
1.92
67.84
4.56
167.52 17.52 660.64
1
40
40
1304
1
30
5
8
40
936
8%
19%
73%
3.2
71.04
7.6
175.12 29.2 689.84
1
41
40
1344
0
30
5
0
0
936
8%
19%
73%
0
71.04
0
175.12
0
689.84
1
42
40
1384
0
30
5
0
0
936
8%
19%
73%
0
71.04
0
175.12
0
689.84
1
43
40
1424
1
31
5
8
40
976
8%
19%
73%
3.2
74.24
7.6
182.72 29.2 719.04
1
44
24
1448
1
32
3
8
24
1000
8%
19%
73%
1.92
76.16
4.56
187.28 17.52 736.56
1
45
24
1472
1
33
3
8
24
1024
8%
19%
73%
1.92
78.08
4.56
191.84 17.52 754.08
1
46
40
1512
1
34
5
8
40
1064
8%
19%
73%
3.2
81.28
7.6
199.44 29.2 783.28
1
47
40
1552
1
35
5
8
40
1104
8%
19%
73%
3.2
84.48
7.6
207.04 29.2 812.48
273
Appendix F
Case Study No. 6 - Process Piping
1.0 Overview
This case study took place at a large manufacturing facility. Several large structures were being
erected in various locations onsite, and the study focused on the largest of these structures.
Unfortunately, during the observation period, several factors prevented observation of any value
adding (VA) activities. Thus, this study became a lessons learned case study whose purpose
was to highlight areas that, from the perspective of the observation team, were not lean.
274
like spool diameters were positioned inside the facility at this point. The spools were pulled
from their respective bundles to a staging area on the ground. Different spool sizes were required
in each bay section of the building. The third staging position allowed each required spool
diameter, for each bay section, to be organized and moved at one time to the final staging position
below the rafters. From this final staging position, the spools wre lifted one at a time onto the
rafters (roof trusses). The trapezoidal hangers were not in position at this time. Each spool was
secured above its final position using cables until it could be lowered on top of the trapezoidal
hangers.
The missing hangers highlighted an area of non-lean conformance, i.e., the lack of available
materials. Several spools were temporarily positioned in the trusses even before the observation
period began. This material represented overproduction waste, which is a component of work in
progress (WIP). The cause of this particular WIP was a shortage of couplings and gaskets that
were required to connect each spool. Because these components were not ordered at the same
time as the spools, the assembly of each section was delayed.
Another area of non-lean conformance was the multiple handling of material. Roughly seven
touches were required for each spool section installed in the facility. Ideally, the piping
components would be delivered from the manufacturing facility to their final position in the
rafters. This excess material handling increased the transportation waste associated with NVA
actions.
A gas pipe spool section was observed being hoisted into the trusses and then lowered back to the
ground. Further investigation revealed that the spool was the wrong diameter for that section of
the pipeline, thus requiring it to be removed. Lean philosophy recommends incorporating error
proof processes whenever possible. This can be accomplished, for example, by labeling each
pipe component with a bar code, directional arrows and spool diameter. The result of lifting the
gas spool up and then down again was wasted movement, wasted transportation, extra processing
and waiting. Five crewmen were involved with the process.
There was no well-defined work process for the construction activity. At one point during the
observation period, a majority of the crewmen were working in one location. Work was then
stopped in that area of the building, and the workers were shifted to another location. This
jumping around was an example of the material value stream not flowing as it should. The
non-ideal work flow for installing spools was a result of management requiring one area of the
building to be finished one week, then shifting the focus to another area of the building the
following week before the first area was completed. The critical completion items never stayed
the same. Lean philosophy recommends starting an activity at its latest possible point. This
limits extra processing waste (another component of WIP) and also allows an activity to be
completely finished so that follow-up crews may begin their scheduled tasks.
It was observed that work at the crew level was restricted by activities occurring upstream.
Specifically, the final pour for the concrete slab occurred in the center of the building. This
prevented the pipe installation crew from erecting and installing piping components in a linear
fashion. Instead, the crews installed erected spools in one location until they reached the
incomplete section. Then they started in another location, until once again reaching the
incomplete portion. The piping foreman notified the observation team that coupling and bolting
could not begin until the slab was completed because of two 90 degree turns occurring over the
unfinished concrete slab.
275
Another non-lean area of the case study dealt with training. Several members of the crew were
not educated on the capabilities of Victalic pipe. Many crew members did not think highly of the
material because it did not require them to weld connections, as they had on previous jobs. Lean
philosophy recommends that each worker to be trained and educated in applicable work practices.
Several of the crewmen were not trained in the installation of Victalic pipe resulting in a trial and
error learning atmosphere on the job.
276
Appendix G
Lean Questionnaire and Principle Cross-Reference
This appendix contains the final version of the questionnaire. This questionnaire forms the basis
for the Lean Assessment Tool created by the PT 191 Team. In addition to the questionnaire, this
appendix contains a table that cross-references the individual questions with the lean principle
that is being assessed.
Customer Focus
Meeting the Requirements of the
Customer
Project objectives and
1
customer requirements are not
usually discussed with all
parties involved.
277
Culture/People
Training
8
1
10 Contractor participates in
training solely as a participant.
Employee Empowerment
11 Employees feel that it takes a
great deal of effort to have
their supervisors hear what
they have to say.
Management Commitment
13 Top management is satisfied
with the status quo.
Workplace Organization/
Standardization
Encourage Workplace
Organization and Use 5S's
278
Visual Management
279
Eliminate Waste
Part I: Process Optimization
Minimize Double Handling and
Worker and Equipment Movement
1
25 Work activities are planned
without regard for movement
of people, materials, and
equipment.
26 Large material/large equipment 1
is stored in separate
laydown/storage areas or in
areas away from the jobsite.
Balance Crews, Synchronize Flows
27 Crew members may have idle
or free time on the job.
280
281
1
41 Non-standard materials,
dimensions, and specifications
are used for ease in configuring
the design.
Use Pre-Assembly and PreFabrication
44 Project designs/constructability 1
reviews are not used or needed
by the contractor before
construction starts.
Continuous Improvement/BuiltIn-Quality
Prepare for Organizational
Learning and Root Cause Analysis
282
1
51 A Suggestions for
Improvement program does not
exist at the jobsite level.
283
284
Question Number(s)
1
2
3, 4, 5
6
7
8, 9, 10
11, 12
13
14
15, 16
17, 18
19, 20
21
22, 23, 24
34
25, 26
29
27, 28
35
36
37
27, 28
38, 39
41
42
43, 44
30
40
31, 32
33
45, 46
47, 48, 49
50
51, 52
Appendix H
Interview Notes
This appendix contains a summary of the interview notes that were created during and after the
site visit for each case study project. The interviews used the lean questionnaire as a guide to
discover lean practices used on the project. Also, this appendix contains the interview notes from
our meetings with lean construction early adopters. In some cases, the notes cover
projects/companies that are both case study projects and lean early adopters. In this case, the
interview notes are presented with the case study interview notes.
Case Study #1 and Early Adopter #1 Structural Steel
Customer Focus
Optimize Value
They are in constant contact with the customer regarding their needs and
requirements.
Flexible Resources
They make their schedule based on the customers requirements, meaning theyll
fast track it if cost is not an issue, but time is. And vice-versa if time is not an
issue, but cost is the underlying element.
Resources are moved or the schedule of erection is changed if the customer needs
to use a certain area, or wants a certain part completed.
Culture/People
Training
No lean behaviors.
People Involvement
Daily startup sessions/meetings are held everyday at the jobsite and at the
corporate office (kaizen).
Organizational Commitment
285
Workplace Standardization
Workplace Organization
They try to promote the idea of put it away if not using it.
Visual Management
They post a flow chart for access/egress for suppliers to gain access to the site.
Eliminate Waste
Optimize Work Content
No lean behavior.
Try to implement JIT as much as possible, but have difficulty due to normal
outside barriers that come about in the construction industry.
On a daily basis, they look at the schedule and evaluate if the resources are
adequate or being used efficiently.
They use a post-job audit to evaluate how they performed on the last project, and
then they classify it as a job specific issue or something that can go into a
Lessons Learned type file.
286
Metrics
Error Proofing
They provide tension control bolts so that the ironworkers always apply
the correct torque to the bolts.
Response to Defects
They conduct formal design review sessions with the owner during the preconstruction phase of the job.
Flexible Resources
Culture/People
Training
People Involvement
This company created a tool or system called LDMS, which stands for Lean
Daily Management System. This is a vehicle that allows all the participants
(subs, crews, Project Management, owner) to bring their ideas to the job.
287
Organizational Commitment
This company has a system called Supply Chain Integration, which they
bring/show to their suppliers and explain their processes to the supplier.
Workplace Standardization
Workplace Organization
Visual Management
Productivity reports are distributed to General Foreman and posted in the trailer.
Signs are posted in work area concerning safety (hardhats, safety glasses).
Eliminate Waste
Optimize Work Content
They prefab as much as possible. The Designer, in their case the structural
engineer meets with the field labor to discuss Constructability. This is a new
phenomenon used since the engineer visited a couple of sites previously and
realized this was a necessary function.
Have a lessons learned file, but not used often due to dissimilar projects.
288
Metrics
Error Proofing
They make sure their steel is delivered with a one-way only fit.
Response to Defects
They have written plans of what to do when a defect occurs. Forms must be
submitted when there is a defect, and these are also placed in their lessons
learned file.
They advocate their General Foremen and Foremen to meet with the Owners
operators to understand their specific needs for the site.
They are flexible with the Owners request to meet them on site to discuss any
needs or requirements by the Owner.
Flexible Resources
They are flexible with their labor workforce since their location is near the
largest local pipe fitter union in the country.
Culture/People
Training
Training under a person that has already done ones job is required in the project
management level, meaning there is a specific ladder to climb to finally be able
to run a job.
People Involvement
This company creates milestones for its workers to strive for, in the purpose of
promoting employee empowerment.
Organizational Commitment
Workplace Standardization
289
Workplace Organization
They have a standard tool trailer with labeled bins for all the tools.
Visual Management
Productivity reports are distributed to General Foreman and posted in the trailer.
Signs are posted in work area concerning safety (hardhats, safety glasses).
They use a material coordinator to help with the flow of their jobsite.
Eliminate Waste
Optimize Work Content
No lean behaviors.
They go to great detail to plan activities that will result in the least amount of
movement.
No lean behaviors.
No lean behaviors.
Have a lessons learned file, but not used often due to dissimilar projects.
Metrics
Error Proofing
Response to Defects
290
They have a Quality Assurance person flag the ISO, a decision will be made if
work can continue or if repairs need to be done before moving on.
Flexible Resources
Culture/People
Training
People Involvement
Organizational Commitment
The company is not satisfied with current practices, and looking to improve.
That is necessary in lean thinking (continually eliminate the waste).
Workplace Standardization
Workplace Organization
Visual Management
They have a formal contract work process. ISO 9000 related. This work process
is in electronic form.
291
Eliminate Waste
Optimize Production System
They are practicing JIT, but it is due to conditions and not planning. They are
doing JIT by default on this job.
They have a Value Awareness Report. Lessons Learned are included in this file.
Metrics
Error Proofing
Response to Defects
Flexible Resources
Culture/People
Training
People Involvement
The Last Planner system that Boldt emphasizes inherently creates employee
empowerment. It forces each participant to explain the work they are doing,
when it will be completed, and also allows them to make suggestions.
Organizational Commitment
Every year 7-8 strategic goals are stated by the company. At least one of these
goals is focused on innovation and using Lean Construction Initiatives to
improve processes.
Workplace Standardization
Workplace Organization
Visual Management
Eliminate Waste
Optimize Production System
They use the combination of CPM and Last Planner to balance their work flow
and crew flow.
Again using the Last Planner system to hand-off products in small batches or in a
continuous stream. They have focused real hard in the last 4 years on the handoff principle. Their goal is to better manage the actual hand-off of work between
activities as opposed to managing the activity itself.
Boldt implemented an OFI program 12 years ago. Opportunities For Improvement are suggestions employees make to improve processes. Last year 250-300
OFIs were documented. The employees earn Boldt bucks for submitting an
OFI and even more Boldt bucks if the ideas are implemented.
They also have a Lessons Learned File that can be accessed through their
intranet.
They are intent on having quality measurements decentralized all the way down
to the lowest level of the organization. This is the theory that each worker should
check his/her own work and make sure it is of good quality before passing it on.
Metrics
Error Proofing
Response to Defects
294
Make employees fill out a Planning Checklist for each project where questions
are asked to see if the employees know the clients goals and what business the
clients are in.
Flexible Resources
Makes sure project teams have clear lines of communication to help if changes
need to be made on the project, especially if made by the client.
Culture/People
Training
The company has its own Internet system that is used as a tool in many regards.
There are numerous training sessions on the system.
Foremen are trained once a month as well as whenever there is something they
need to be trained in.
People Involvement
Employees are rewarded as a team when a project goes well, and not by
individual trades. This forces them to think as a team.
Organizational Commitment
Company asks suppliers to find more effective practices, which is complied with
since same suppliers are on 95 percent of their projects.
Workplace Standardization
Workplace Organization
Boxes are created for each crewman with everything they would need for that
day.
295
Visual Management
There internal system prints out visual reports that define all work processes.
They have checklists that each employee must follow which include what their
task is, how it should be done, what tools and materials are needed, and the
possible safety hazards and how to prevent them.
Eliminate Waste
Optimize Work Content
Meetings are held to talk about innovative ideas to improve processes for the
future.
296
Metrics
They measure the amount of unused supplies and materials for each job. This is
done with the help of one of their suppliers. Suppliers are in accordance with this
program since they are usually the same for each job.
Error Proofing
They color-code their fire sleeves to clarify between supply lines and return lines.
Response to Defects
Field empowerment is encouraged to raise the flag and deal with the defect at
hand.
Company supplies JIT training to its A/E so they can understand lean and its
communication tools for the owner.
Flexible Resources
Culture/People
Training
People Involvement
297
Organizational Commitment
Training and conversations always occur with Subs regarding lean practices.
Workplace Standardization
Workplace Organization
Visual Management
Everything that is tracked is posted. One of the only companies visited that
posted numerous visual aids at the workplace.
A jobsite logistics plan is used that defines workflow, access, etc. This is a visual
aid as well.
Eliminate Waste
Optimize Work Content
Architects and Engineers are trained in Just-In-Time concepts. This teaches them
about the benefits of using standardized materials for repetitive tasks.
The four-week look ahead planning is used here to support smooth flow from sub
to sub.
298
They keep three lessons learned files. One for lean behaviors, one for activities,
and one with the CIMs.
Metrics
Error Proofing
Response to Defects
Employees and subs are encouraged and empowered to report defects, especially
with matters concerning safety.
299
Appendix I
Worker Movement Study No. 1
1.0 Worker Movement Analysis
1.1 Background
In the manufacturing world, where the lean idea was first developed, intercell flow has been
extensively analyzed to optimize factory layout, work space sequence and equipment selection
and to improve overall productivity. An efficient flow of workers, materials and information
among various cells or workstations is one of most important requisites for overall productivity
improvement. However, the construction industry has not readily adopted this flow analysis
concept because of the difficulties of applying the analysis to the construction process. The
following are some characteristics that hamper the construction industry from adopting movement (flow) analysis:
Despite the difficulties of conducting movement (flow) analysis in construction, the need for such
information continues. Although this analysis does not apply to all construction processes, it
serves as an experimental attempt at movement analysis of the steel erection process.
Due to the complexity of the construction process mentioned earlier, this analysis has a few scope
limitations, which are described in the following subsections.
300
manufacturing, where most of the workers are stationary and material moves from one location to
another, in construction, both workers and materials move from one location to another.
Therefore, both worker and material movements are equally important. However, material
movement was excluded from this study mainly because the materials were already delivered and
positioned before the observation started. Despite the improvement of communication tools, the
information flows primarily between workers. Therefore, information flow is very much tied to
worker movement and was not considered separately in this study.
1.3 Methodology
1.3.1 Worker Movement Diagram Construction
Using field observations, videotape review and the site plan, the structure being constructed and
the movement paths of four workers (forklift operator, x-bracing connector, right connector and
left connector) were sketched. The locations of various workstations and the places where
workers stopped were indicated with marks and numbers. The Actual Movement Diagram,
which contains both the NVA and NVAR movements of workers, is located at the end of this
appendix.
Using observations and a logical thinking process, NVAR movements and unavoidable stops
were identified. With minimum moving distances and stops, an Ideal Movement Diagram was
constructed, which is located at the end of this appendix.
301
Even if one worker made the same number of stops as another, his movement may still be NVA if
he went the long way around from one point to another. Therefore, total distance traveled is an
equally important factor in the movement efficiency rating, which is computed as follows:
Distance Efficiency = Ideal Travel Distance/Actual Travel Distance.
Measuring distance can be a very complex process because of the nature of worker movement in
construction. The construction process can be very three-dimensionally oriented, which means
that activities are carried out above as well as on the ground. This makes it harder to measure the
exact distance between two locations. To overcome this difficulty and achieve more accurate
measurements, a three-dimensional coordinate system was adopted. A reference point was
selected and each workstation and stop were assigned X, Y, and Z coordinates, so that distance
measurement could become simpler.
Curved movement path was another problem in distance measurement. Most construction
activities take place in an open field where no aisle, corridor or walking path yet exists. To
overcome this difficulty, an approximated distance measurement method was used.
The curve connecting Points A and B is
arbitrary and makes it very difficult to
measure the length.
However, it is
obvious that the curve length will be
longer than the straight (Euclidian)
distance represented by the single-dotted
line and shorter than the double-dotted
line (Rectilinear). Therefore, the curved
line length was approximated by the
average of the Euclidian and Rectilinear
distances. When the end point coordinate
is known, Euclidian and Rectilinear
distances can be measured using the
following equations:
Rectilinear Distance = |XB - XA| + |YB - YA | + |ZB - ZA|
Euclidian Distance = {|XB - XA|2 + |YB -YA |2 + |ZB - ZA|2}1/2
Actual Distance (Rectilinear Distance + Euclidian Distance)/2
Ideal
12
302
Efficiency
0.6
Distance Efficiency
Actual
Rectilinear
892
Euclidian
735.0
Average
Ideal
695.0
578.3
Efficiency
0.78
0.79
0.78
Although the forklift operator had significant wasted movements, the efficiency was relatively
high. This resulted from on-the-ground oriented workstation locations. The two main tasks of
the forklift operator were delivering steel parts from the stock yard to the erection location and
hooking the parts onto the crane cable. Both types of work were conducted on the ground, so the
forklift operator only had two-dimensional oriented movements, which tended to have less waste
relative to three-dimensional movements.
The following is a description of some key wasted movements, corresponding causes and
possible solutions for improvement:
NVA Occurred Between
02 - 04
Cause
Task in other location
07 - 09
Inefficient routing
Solution
Complete all other tasks before
moving on to the next location
Carefully select route
Ideal
18
Efficiency
0.58
Ideal
312.0
241.3
Efficiency
0.20
0.21
0.20
The x-bracing connector encountered the most interference from other workers movements
because he worked at an internal location. Therefore, his efficiency was generally lower than the
others. There was not much significance in the stop efficiency, but the distance efficiency was
very low. The x-bracing connector got in the way of material delivery a few times, and it forced
him to pull back from his workstation and led to a significant increase in movement distance.
NVA Occurred Between
05 06
08 12
16 20
Cause
Unexpected trouble in the
girder erection
Space congestion
Space congestion
303
Solution
Pause the process until one problem
is completely solved
Preplan work sequence
Preplan work sequence
Ideal
16
Efficiency
0.76
Distance Efficiency
Actual
Rectilinear
488
Euclidian
445.5
Average
Ideal
230.0
230.0
Efficiency
0.47
0.52
0.49
Stops
Although the right connector had very similar tasks as the left connector, the right connector had
better stop efficiency and worse distance efficiency. The right connector had better stop
efficiency because, by the nature of the work, he could stay on one side of the structure for both
girder and bar joist erection, while the left connector had to move to various locations. The
reason for lower distance efficiency was interference from the crane. During the erection process,
the crane was located at the right side of the structure and got in the way of the right connectors
man-lift movement.
NVA Occurred Between
07 09
11 15
Cause
Manlift position adjustment
Detour around the crane
Solution
Minimize worker mistakes
Improve site layout
Ideal
17
Efficiency
0.63
Distance Efficiency
Actual
Rectilinear
694
Euclidian
595.1
Average
Ideal
410.0
343.0
Efficiency
0.59
0.58
0.58
Stops
The left connector had relatively good overall efficiency. The left connector worked mostly on
top of the existing structure instead of using a man-lift, and he had little wasted movement. In
addition, the left connector had no significant NVA movement during the observation. The
efficiency rate was not particularly good mainly due to the up and down movements of the manlift when moving from one workstation to the next.
NVA Occurred Between
11 - 15
Cause
Gets onto the structure for
bar joist erection
304
Solution
Work from the top of the structure
which brings better overall efficiency
305
306
307
Appendix J
Worker Movement Study No. 2
1.0 Worker Movement Analysis
1.1 Overview
This study presents an analysis of two workers (left and right connectors) during two hours of
real-time work. The tasks and installation methods of these connectors were very similar to the
left and right connectors in the Noland Project. However, unlike the Noland Project, only the
beam installation process was effectively filmed and available and only two workers were visible
most of the time in the film. Therefore, this study analyzes only these two workers as they
performed the beam installation; a diagram of their actual movements is included at the end of
this appendix.
A total of 13 beams were installed during the time of analysis. Among 13 beams, six were
shorter and seven were longer. The shorter beams were one span length, and the longer ones
three span lengths. Due to the two different beam sizes, the work order was somewhat complex;
workers had to travel longer distances than necessary and the efficiency of worker movement was
affected.
Ideal
13
Efficiency
0.76
Distance Efficiency
Actual
Rectilinear
480
Euclidian
453.7
Average
Ideal
220.0
194.8
Efficiency
0.46
0.43
0.44
Stops
308
Ideal
13
Efficiency
0.76
Distance Efficiency
Actual
Rectilinear
510
Euclidian
461.8
Average
Ideal
260.0
218.6
Efficiency
0.51
0.47
0.49
Stops
Right
Left
Case No. 1
Case No. 2
Stop No.
0.76
0.76
Distance
0.45
0.44
Stop No.
0.63
0.76
Distance
0.58
0.49
When compared to the others, the Case No. 1 left connector had a somewhat lower stop
efficiency and higher distance efficiency. This was due to the special circumstance of working on
top of the structure next to workstations instead of riding the man-lift. Because of this, he has
been omitted from consideration.
The resulting efficiencies of all other workers were very similar; therefore, it can be concluded
that the overall job efficiencies were comparable for both projects. However, the causes of
efficiency drop between the two projects were quite different. Many unnecessary stops were
made and travel distance was increased due to space congestion in Case Study No. 1. In Case
Study No. 2, an inefficient work order was the primary cause of the efficiency drop. To further
increase efficiency and minimize worker movement at the jobsite, optimal work orders and space
sharing arrangements should be preplanned.
309
An interesting finding in Case Study No. 1 was that space congestion was minimal. The forklift
and ground crews worked from the actual jobsite where the installation took place. This made the
swing angle and carry-over distances greater for the crane; however, it helped to minimize space
congestion on the jobsite.
310
311
312
References
Alarcon, L., 1996, Performance Measuring Benchmarking and Modeling of Construction
Projects, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC-4), Birmingham, UK.
Alves, T. and C. Formosa, 2000, Guidelines for Managing Physical Flows in Construction
Sites, Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC-8), Brighton, UK.
Arbulu, R., I. Tommelein, et al., 2002, Contributors to Lead Time in Construction Supply
Chains: Case of Pipe Supports Used in Power Plants, 2002 Winter Simulation Conference, San
Diego, CA.
Ballard, G., 1999, Improving Work Flow Reliability, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-7), Berkeley, CA.
Ballard, G., 2000a, Last Planner System of Production Control, Thesis submitted to Faculty of
Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 192.
Ballard, G., 2000b, Lean Project Delivery System, White Paper No. 8, Lean Construction
Institute.
Ballard, G., 2000c, Managing Work Flow on Design Projects, CIB W96, Atlanta, GA.
Ballard, G., M. Casten, et al., 1997, PARC: A Case Study, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-4), Birmingham, UK.
Ballard, G. and G. Howell, 1998, What Kind of Production Is Construction, Proceedings of the
Sixth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-6), Guaruj,
Brazil.
Ballard, G., L. Koskela, et al., 2001, Production System Design: Work Structuring Revisited,
White Paper, Lean Construction Institute.
Bertelsen, S. and L. Koskela, 2002, Managing the Three Aspects of Production in Construction,
Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
(IGLC-10), Gramado, Brazil.
Ciampa, D., 1991, The CEOs Role in Time-Based Competition, J. D. Blackburn, ed., In TimeBased Competition, Business One Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Cronbach, L. J., 1951, Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests, Psychometrika 16,
297-234.
Crowley, A., 1998, Construction as a Manufacturing Process: Lessons from the Automotive
Industry, Computers & Structures, 67, 389-400.
313
dos Santos, A., 1998, Principle of Transparency Applied in Construction, Proceedings of the
Sixth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-6), Guaruj,
Brazil.
dos Santos, A., 1999, Application of Flow Principles in the Production Management of
Construction Sites, School of Construction and Property Management, University of Salford.
dos Santos, A. J. Powell, et al., 2000, Reduction of Work-In-Progress in the Construction
Environment, Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC-8), Brighton, UK.
Duggan, K. and J. Liker, 2002, Creating Mixed Model Value Streams: Practical Lean Techniques for Building to Demand, New York, NY, Productivity Press.
Eagan, J., 1998, Rethinking Construction, London Department of the Environment, Transport and
the Regions, 40.
Fearon, H., W. Ruch, et al., 1979, Fundamentals of Production/Operations Management, New
York, NY, West Publishing Company.
Fowler, F. J., 1995, Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation, Thousand Oaks, CA,
Sage Publications.
Freire, J. and L. Alarcon, 2002, Achieving Lean Design Process: Improvement Methodology,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Volume 128, No. 3, May-June 2002,
248-256.
Fujimoto, T., 1999, The Evolution of a Manufacturing System at Toyota, New York, NY, Oxford
University Press.
Galbraith, J., 1974, Organization Design: An Information Processing View, Interfaces, 4, 2836.
Hatcher, L., 1994, A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS(R) System for Factor Analysis
and Structural Equation Modeling, Cary, North Carolina, SAS Institute.
Hopp, W. and M. Spearman, 1996, Factory Physics: Foundations of Manufacturing Management, Boston, MA, Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Howell, Greg and Glenn Ballard, Implementing Lean Construction: Understanding and Action,
Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
(IGLC-6), Guaruj, Brazil.
Koskela, L., 1992, Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction, Technical
Report 72, CIFE, Stanford University, 75.
Koskela, L., 2000, An Exploration into a Production Theory and Its Application to Construction,
Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland, VTT Publications, 298.
314
Koskela, L., G. Ballard, et al., 1996, Towards Lean Design Management, Proceedings of the
Fourth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-4),
Birmingham, UK.
Lane, R. and G. Woodman, 2000, Wicked Problems, Righteous Solutions, Back to the Future on
Large Complex Projects, Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-8), Brighton, UK.
Lantelme, E. and C. Formoso, 2000, Improving Performance Through Measurement: The
Application of Lean Production and Organizational Learning Principles, Proceedings of the
Eighth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-8), Brighton,
UK.
Lareau, W., 2000, Lean Leadership: From Chaos to Carrots to Commitment, Tower II Press,
Carmel, Indiana.
London, K. and R. Kenley, 2001, An Industrial Organization Economic Supply Chain Approach
for the Construction Industry: A Review, Construction Management and Economics, 19, 777788.
MacInnes, R., 2002, The Lean Enterprise Memory Jogger, Salem, NH, Goal/QPC.
Matthews, O., G. Howell, et al., 2003, Aligning the Lean Organization: A Contractual
Approach, Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC-11), Blacksburg, VA.
McClelland, G., 2003, Personal Communication, Department of Psychology, University of
Colorado.
Nisbett, R., 2003, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently and
Why, New York, NY, The Free Press.
Nunnaly, J., 1978, Psychometric Theory, New York, NY, McGraw-Hill.
Ohno, T., 1988, Toyota Production System, New York, NY, Productivity Press.
Oppenheim, A. N., 1992, Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement, London, Pinter
Publishing, Ltd.
Pappas, M., 1999, Evaluating Innovative Construction Management Methods through the
Assessment of Intermediate Impacts, Civil Engineering, Austin, TX, University of Texas at
Austin.
Picchi, F., 2001, System View of Lean Construction Application Opportunities, Proceedings of
the Ninth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-9),
Singapore.
Plossl, G., 1991, Managing in the New World of Manufacturing, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, PrenticeHall.
315
Rea, L. and R. Parker, 1997, Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive
Guide, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Rother, M. and J. Shook, 1998, Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to Create Value and
Eliminate Muda, Brookline, MA, The Lean Enterprise Institute.
Schonberger, R. J., 1996, World Class Manufacturing: The Next Decade, New York, NY, The
Free Press.
Schroeder, R., 1993, Operations Management: Decision Making in the Operations Function,
Columbus, OH, McGraw-Hill International Editions.
Serpell, A., 1966, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction (IGLC-4), Birmingham, UK.
Seymour, D., 1996, Developing Theory in Lean Construction, University of Birmingham, 24.
Shingo, S., 1981, Study of the Toyota Production System, Japan Management Association, New
York, NY, Productivity Press.
Stalk, G. J. and T. Hout, 1990. Competing Against Time, New York, NY, Free Press.
Tapping, D., T. Luyster, et al., 2002, Value Stream Management, New York, NY, Productivity
Press.
Tommelein, I., 1998, Pull-Driven Scheduling of Pipe-Spool Installation: Simulation of Lean
Construction Technique, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 124, No. 4 (July/August), 279-288.
Tommelein, I., N. Akel, et al., 2003, Capital Projects Supply Chain Management: SC Tactics of
a Supplier Organization, Construction Research Congress, Honolulu, HI, ASCE.
Tommelein, I. and A. Li, 1999, Just in Time Concrete Delivery: Mapping Alternatives for
Vertical Supply Chain Integration, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-7), Berkeley, CA.
Tommelein, I., D. Riley, et al., 1998, Parade Game: Impact of Work Flow Variability on Succeeding Trade Performance, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-6), Guaruj, Brazil.
Tommelein, I. and M. Weissenberger, 1999, More Just-In-Time: Location of Buffers in
Structural Steel Supply and Construction Processes, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-7), Berkeley, CA.
Tsao, C., I. Tommelein, et al., 2000, Case Study for Work Structuring: Installation of Metal
Door Frames, Proceedings of Eighth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC-8), Brighton, UK.
Walbridge Aldinger, 2000, Lean Fundamentals, Detroit.
316
Walton, M., 1986, The Deming Management Method, New York, NY, Putnam Publishing.
Wild, R., 1995, Production and Operations Management, 5th Ed., London, Cassell Educational
Ltd.
Winch, G., 2003, Models of Manufacturing and the Construction Process: The Genesis of ReEngineering Construction, Building Research & Information, 31 (2), 107-118.
Womack, J. P. and D. T. Jones, 1996, Lean Thinking, New York, NY, Simon & Schuster.
Womack, J. P., D. T. Jones, et al., 1990, The Machine That Changed the World, New York, NY,
Rawson.
317
Glossary
Sources:
Acceptable Quality Level (AQL)--A concept that states there is some nonzero level of
permissible defects.
Activity-Based Costing--Collecting cost data on all activities that occur rather than just the three
primary resources (materials, labor and machinery). This is an attempt to define the components
of burden. The objective of this system is to look at all areas where cost reductions can be made.
Aggregate Planning--The broad, overall decisions that relate to the programming of resources
for production over an established time horizon.
Batch and Queue--The mass production practice of making large lots of a part and then sending
the batch to wait in the queue before the next operation in the production process. Contrast with
single-piece flow.
Benchmarking--Refers to comparing ones current performance against the world leader in any
particular area. In essence, it means finding and implementing best practices in the world.
Benchmarking is essentially a goal setting procedure.
Cells--The layout of different types of machines performing varied operations in a tight sequence,
typically in a U-shape, to permit single-piece flow and flexible deployment of human effort by
means of multimachines. Contrast with process villages.
Cellular Manufacturing--An approach in which manufacturing work centers (cells) have the
total capabilities needed to produce an item or a group of similar items.
Critical Path Method/Program Evaluation and Review Technique (CPM/PERT)--A method
for determining the critical path by examining the earliest and latest start and finish times for each
activity.
Cycle Time--The time required to complete one cycle of an operation. If cycle time for every
operation in a complete process can be reduced to equal takt time, products can be made in
single-piece flow.
Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM)--Engineering
designs created and tested using computer simulations and then transferred directly to the
production floor where machinery uses the information to perform production functions.
318
Concurrent (or Simultaneous) Engineering (CE)--Deals primarily with the product design
phase. The term refers to an improved design process characterized by rigorous up-front
requirements analysis, incorporating the constraints of subsequent phases into the conceptual
phase and tightening of change control toward the end of the design process. Compression of the
design time, increase in the number of iterations (i.e., increase in the frequency of information
exchange) and reduction in the number of change orders are three major objectives of concurrent
engineering.
Continuous Improvement--Associated with Just-in-Time (JIT) and Total Quality Control
(TQC), continuous improvement has emerged as a theme itself. A key to this concept is to
maintain and improve the working standards through small, gradual improvements. The inherent
wastes in the process are natural targets for continuous improvement. The term learning
organization refers partly to the capability of maintaining continuous improvement.
Cross Training and Job Rotation--Employees are rotated out of their job after a certain duration
and trained into a new job. They are not only trained how to do the job, but are also informed of
the quality and maintenance issues that go along with the job. The principle here is that an
employee with a well rounded background of how the company operates will be more valuable to
the company.
Distribution Requirements Planning (DRP)--The function of determining the need to replenish
inventory at branch warehouses over a forward period of time.
Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)--The optimal order quantity (batch size) that minimizes the
sum of the carrying and ordering cost.
Employee Involvement--Rapid response to problems requires empowerment of workers.
Continuous improvement is heavily dependent on day-to-day observation and motivation of the
work force; hence, the idea of quality circles. To avoid waste associated with division of labor,
multiskilled and/or self-directed teams have been established for product/project/customer based
production.
Five Whys--Taiichi Ohnos practice of asking why five times whenever a problem was
encountered so that the root cause of the problem can be identified and effective countermeasures
can be developed and implemented.
Five Ss--Derived from the Japanese words for five practices leading to a clean and manageable
work area: seiri (organization), seiton (tidiness), seiso (purity), seiketsu (cleanliness) and
shitsuke (discipline).
Flexible Manufacturing--An integrated manufacturing capability to produce small numbers of a
great variety of items at low unit cost. Flexible manufacturing is also characterized by low
changeover time and rapid response time.
Flow--The progressive achievement of tasks along the value stream so that a product proceeds
from design to launch, order to delivery and raw materials into the hands of the customer with no
stoppages, scrap or backflows.
ISO 9000--A set of process quality standards developed by the International Organization for
Standardization and recognized worldwide.
319
Just-in-Time (JIT)--A system for producing and delivering the right items at the right time in the
right amounts. JIT approaches just-on-time when upstream activities occur minutes or seconds
before downstream activities, so single-piece flow is possible. The key elements of JIT are flow,
pull, standard work (with standard in-process inventories) and takt time.
Kaikaku--Radical improvement of an activity to eliminate muda; for example, reorganizing
processing operations for a product so that instead of traveling to and from isolated process
villages, the product proceeds through operations in single-piece flow in one short space. Also
called breakthrough kaizen, flow kaizen and system kaizen.
Kaizen--Continuous, incremental improvement of an activity to create more value with less
muda. Also called point kaizen and process kaizen.
Kanban--A small card attached to boxes of parts that regulates pull in the Toyota Production
System by signaling upstream production and delivery.
Lead Time--The total time a customer must wait to receive a product after placing an order.
When a scheduling and production system is running at or below capacity, lead time and
throughput time are the same. When demand exceeds the capacity of a system, there is
additional waiting time before the start of scheduling and production, and lead time exceeds
throughput time. Refer to throughput time.
Line Balancing--A means of balancing the appropriate amount of workers needed for a
production line by satisfying cycle time and precedence constraints.
Manufacturing Requirements Planning (MRP II)--A method for effective planning of all the
resources of a manufacturing company. Ideally, it addresses operational planning in units,
financial planning in money, and has a simulation capability to answer what-if questions.
Master Production Schedule (MPS)--A time-phased plan specifying how many units are
requested and when the firm plans to build each end item.
Material Requirements Planning (MRP)--A computerized system used to determine the
quantity and timing requirements for materials used in a production operation. MRP systems use
a master production schedule, a bill of materials listing every item needed for each product to be
made, and information on current inventories of these items in order to schedule the production
and delivery of the necessary items. Manufacturing Resource Planning (often called MRP II)
expands MRP to include capacity planning tools, a financial interface to translate operations
planning into financial terms and a simulation tool to assess alternative production plans.
Modular Design--Organizing a set of distinct components that can be developed independently
and then plugged together.
Muda--Any activity that consumes resources but creates no value.
Operation--An activity or activities performed on a product by a single machine. Contrast with
process.
320
Outsourcing--Procuring raw materials and components externally rather than creating them
internally.
Perfection--The complete elimination of muda so that all activities along a value stream create
value.
Period Order Quantity (POQ)--A lot sizing rule that defines the order quantity in terms of the
periods supply.
Poke Yoke--A mistake-proofing device or procedure to prevent a defect during order taking or
manufacture. An order-taking example is a screen for order input developed from traditional
ordering patterns that questions orders falling outside the pattern. The suspect orders are then
examined, often leading to the discovery of input errors or buying based on misinformation. A
manufacturing example is a set of photocells in parts containers along an assembly line to prevent
components from progressing to the next stage with missing parts. The poke yoke in this case is
designed to prevent movement of a component to the next station if a light beam is not broken by
the operators hand in each bin containing a part for the product under assembly at that moment.
A poke yoke is sometimes also called a baka yoke.
Process--A series of individual operations required to create a design, completed order or
product.
Processing Time--The time a product is actually being worked on in design or production and
the time an order is actually being processed. Typically, processing time is a small fraction of
throughput time and lead time.
Processing Villages--The practice of grouping machines or activities by type of operation
performed; for example, grinding machines or order entry. Contrast with cells.
Pull--A system of cascading production and delivery instructions from downstream to upstream
activities in which nothing is produced by the upstream supplier until the downstream supplier
signals a need. The opposite of push. Refer also to kanban.
Quality Circles--Teams that meet to discuss quality improvement issues.
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)--A visual decision-making procedure for multiskilled
project teams that develops a common understanding of the customers voice and a consensus on
the final engineering specifications of the product that has the commitment of the entire team.
QFD integrates the perspectives of team members from different disciplines, ensures that their
efforts are focused on resolving key trade-offs in a consistent manner against measurable
performance targets for the product, and deploys these decisions through successive levels of
detail. The use of QFD eliminates expensive backflows and rework as projects near launch.
Queuing Theory--A branch of mathematics concerned with systems in which customers (orders,
calls, etc.) arrive and are served by one or more servers. Queuing theory models are usually
concerned with estimating the steady-state performance of the system such as the utilization, the
mean time in queue, the mean time in system, the mean number in queue and the mean number in
system.
321
Queue Time--The time a product spends in line awaiting the next design, order processing or
fabrication step.
Re-Engineering--The radical reconfiguration of processes and tasks, especially with respect to
implementation of information technology. Recognizing and breaking away from outdated rules
and fundamental assumptions is a key issue of re-engineering.
Right-Sized Tool--A design, scheduling or production device that can be fitted directly into the
flow of products within a product family so that production no longer requires unnecessary
transport and waiting.
Seven Muda--Taiichi Ohnos original enumeration of the wastes commonly found in physical
production. These are overproduction ahead of demand, waiting for the next processing step,
unnecessary transport of materials (for example, between process villages or facilities), over
processing of parts due to poor tool and product design, inventories more than the absolute
minimum, unnecessary movement by employees during the course of their work (looking for
parts, tools, prints, help, etc.) and production of defective parts.
Single-Piece Flow--A situation in which products proceed, one complete product at a time,
through various operations in design, order taking and production, without interruptions,
backflows or scrap. Contrast with batch-and-queue.
Six Sigma--Structured application of the tools and techniques of TQM on a project basis to
achieve strategic business results. Sometimes defined as a failure rate of 3.4 parts per million.
Standard Work--A precise description of each work activity specifying cycle time, takt time,
the work sequence of specific tasks and the minimum inventory of parts on hand needed to
conduct the activity.
Standard Work Design--The design of each work activity specifying cycle time, work sequence
of specific tasks and minimum inventory of parts on hand needed to conduct the activity.
Statistical Quality Control (SQC)--Using statistical methods to identify, prioritize and correct
elements of the manufacturing process that detract from high quality.
Strategic Partnering--A structural management approach to facilitate teamwork across
contractual boundaries. With such coordination, construction companies may benefit from
reductions in delivery times, improved supplier responsiveness and improved quality of products
and services as well as reductions in costs.
Stock Keeping Unit (SKU)--A unique identification number (or alphanumeric string) that
defines an item for inventory.
Taguchi Methods--Developed to improve the implementation of TQC in Japan. They are based
on the design of experiments to provide near optimal quality characteristics for a specific
objective. The goal is to reduce the sensitivity of engineering designs to uncontrollable factors or
noise. Sometimes referred to as robust design in the United States.
322
Takt Time--The available production time divided by the rate of customer demand. Takt time
sets the pace of production to match the rate of customer demand and becomes the heartbeat of
any lean system.
Theory of Constraints (TOC)--A management philosophy that recognizes that there are very
few critical areas, resources or policies that truly block the organization from moving forward. If
performance is to be improved, an organization must identify its constraints, exploit the
constraints in the short run and, in the longer term, find ways to overcome the constraints (limited
resources).
Throughput Time--The time required for a product to proceed from concept to launch, order to
delivery or raw materials into the hands of the customer. This includes both processing and
queue time. Contrast with processing time and lead time.
Time Based Competition (TBC)--Refers to compressing time throughout the organization for
competitive benefit. Essentially, this is a generalization of the JIT philosophy.
Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)--Refers to autonomous maintenance of production
machinery by small groups of multiskilled operators. TPM strives to maximize production output
by maintaining ideal operating conditions.
Total Quality Control (TQC)--The difference between total quality management and total
quality control is epitomized by the phrase management vs. control. Most companies control
quality by a series of inspection processes, but managing quality is a continuous quality
improvement program. However, a good control system is the first step in the development of a
management system.
Total Quality Management (TQM)--An approach for improving quality that involves all areas
of an organization (sales, engineering, manufacturing, purchasing, etc.) with a focus on employee
participation and customer satisfaction. TQM can involve a wide variety of quality control and
improvement tools and emphasizes a combination of managerial principles and statistical tools.
Transparency/Visual Control--The placement in plain view of all tools, parts, production
activities and indicators of production system performance so that the status of the system can be
understood at a glance by everyone involved.
Value--A capability provided to a customer at the right time at an appropriate price, as defined in
each case by the customer.
Value Based Management (VBM)--Refers to conceptualized and clearly articulated value as the
basis for competing. Continuous improvement to increase customer value is one essential
characteristic of value based management.
Value Engineering--The systematic application of recognized techniques by a multidisciplined
team to identify the function of a product or service, establish a worth for that function, generate
alternatives through the use of creative thinking and provide the needed functions to accomplish
the original purpose of the project reliably and at the lowest life-cycle cost without sacrificing
safety, necessary quality and environmental attributes of the project.
323
Value Stream--The specific activities required to design, order and provide a specific product,
from concept to launch, order to delivery and raw materials into the hands of the customer.
Value Stream Mapping--Identification of all the specific activities occurring along a value
stream for a product or product family.
Visual Management (VM)--An orientation toward visual control in production, quality and
workplace organization. The goal is to make the applicable standard and any deviation from it
immediately recognizable by anybody. This is one of the original JIT ideas which has been
systematically applied only recently in the West.
Zero Defects--A concept introduced by Japanese manufacturers that stresses the elimination of
all defects. This contrasts with the idea of AQL.
324
Acknowledgments
Students
Sincere thanks to all of the students in the Construction Engineering and Management Program at
the University of Colorado who contributed work, thought and care to this project. Thanks to Jeff
Hlad, Travis Stewart, Spencer Won, Poon Thiengburanthum and Brian Saller and especially to
Mark Krewedl and Josh Balonick.
Practitioners
To those industry people who were so generous with their time and their knowledge - genuine
thanks go out to Greg Holroyd (Southland Industries), Remo Mastriani (Walbridge-Aldinger),
Paul Reiser (Boldt Industries) and Russell Batchelor (BAA).
325