Application of Lean Construction To Reduce Waste in Highway Projects

1
THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
SRIKKANT SHAH ( CP2008 ), CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CEPT UNIVESITY, BATCH 08-10
2
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
1.0 GENERAL
Construction is a key sector of the national economy for countries all around the world, as
traditionally it took up a big portion in nations total employment and its significant contribution to
a nations revenue as a whole. However, until today, construction industries are still facing
numbers of contingent problems that were bounded to beresolved since the past time. The
chronic problems of construction are well known such as Low productivity, poor safety, inferior
working conditions, and insufficient qualityand the phenomenon of the poor performance and
conditions inconstruction had long been witnessed and recorded by academics and practitioners
throughout the world.
Nowadays, increasing foreign competition, the scarcity of skilled labour and the need toimprove
construction quality are the key challenges faced by the construction industry.Responding to those
challenges imposes an urgent demand to raise productivity, qualityand to incorporate new
technologies to the industry. A lack of responsiveness can holdback growth, and to development of
the needed infrastructure for the constructionindustry and other key activities in the country.
With the lean construction paradigm, construction industry had started to be reviewed and
evaluated in the possibilities of implementing these new lean perspectives of production concepts in
the construction processes to optimize the overall construction performance on construction stage
as well as design stage. Performance improvement opportunities in construction can then be
addressed by adopting waste identification/ reduction strategies in the flow processes inparallel with
value adding strategies with the introduction of new management tools andwith proper trainings
and education programs. Unfortunately, these new leanconstruction concepts especially those on
wastes and values most of the times are notwell understood by construction personnel.
Particularly, waste is generally associatedwith waste of materials in the construction processes
while non-value adding activitiessuch as inspection, delays, transportation of materials and others
are not recognised as waste. As the result of that, the productivity of construction industry cannot
be fully optimized due to the narrow interpretation on the concept of wastecurrent adopted. In
this case, substantial education programs need to be arranged for allrelated parties involved in
order to implement the new process improvement strategiessuccessfully throughout the
construction process cycle.
3
1.1 NEED FOR STUDY
It is presumably that construction industries in india are facing the same generic(process-related)
problems/ wastes on construction activities which was also faced bytheir counterparts regardless
those in developed countries or developing countries.However, the main problem is the lack of
clear indicators on quantitative parameters to assess the extent of thoseproblems/ wastes to have
been impacted on the overall performance and productivity oflocal construction industries. To
date, there have not been many well-documentedquantitative studies and records on to process-
related problems/ wastes which arisen onconstruction site. As a result of that, the introduction of
the concepts and framework of new lean construction ideology are seen as an opportunity to
address the existing problems in local construction industry and utilising concepts and framework
of new lean construction ideology can then go further to formulate the extent of impactsof those
problems/ wastes on a more structured and quantitative basis.
Prior to assess the severity of the process-related problems/ wastes which existed in
theconstruction processes for the local construction industries, the differentiate oftraditional and
new production/ construction concepts will have to be drawn prior tofurther investigation and
evaluation on any project performances. New measurementparameters such as waste, value, cycle
time or variability that was not covered undertraditional concepts are to be introduced into this
study as accordance to the leanconstruction ideologies and the subjects in this case; the local
construction personnelwill be subsequently examined with those new parameters to review the
level ofunderstanding and practicability in local construction industry compare to therequirements
and the concepts set forth by lean construction philosophy.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
1. Examine the general perceptions of the local construction industry with the lean construction
principles of practices.
2. Determine the degree of problems arisen from wastes identified in existing scenario and
practices in local construction industry.
3. Identify the source of wastes (classified under lean construction) & Study of the potential
project productivity improvements by reducing and eliminating the wastes as classified under
lean construction.
4
1.3 METHODOLOGY
(a) Literature review

Literature available for the past decade by the eminent researchers in the same field will be
carried out through the journals, research papers, government norms & regulations.
(b) Data Collection

Data will be related to Lean Concepts. Data will be collected from 2 to 3 infrastructure
companies located in india.
(c) Data analysis

Data collected will be suitably analyzed and efforts will be made to apply the concepts &
compare the outcome of the companies.
(d) Conclusion
Based on above analysis a suitable conclusion will be formulated and scope for the future
work will be suggested.
1.4 SCOPE OF WORK
This study is restricted to infrastructure companies dealing with highway projects in india.
1.5 RESEARCH PLAN
Literature review will be carried out till 1st week of February, 2010
Data collection and data analysis will be completed by 4th week of march, 2010
Conclusion will be finalized at the 3rd week of april, 2010.
5
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE
REVIEW
6
CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Construction industries worldwide have become notorious for under-performance in many

aspects such as quality, safety, productivity and product delivery to planned budgets, programmes
and client satisfaction. According to Adrain (1987), the construction industry in US has been
rated among the worst industries in term of productivity improvement. Koskela (1993) also
conducted a study to indicate the order of magnitude of non value-adding activities (waste) on
various partial studies carried out in Sweden and US. From Koskelas data compilation, it has
shown that construction processes are characterised by high content of non value-adding activities
leading to low productivity as shown in Table 2.1
WASTE COST
Quality cost (non conformance) 12% of total project cost
External quality cost 4% of total project cost
Lack of constructability 6 10 % of total project cost
Poor materials management 10 12% of total project cost
Excess consumption of material on site 10 % on average
Working time used for non-value adding Appr. 2/3rd of the total time
activities on site
Lack of safety 6% of total project cost
TABLE 2.1 :- Waste in construction : compilation of existing data (koskela, 1992)
2.1 PROBLEMS IN CONSTRUCTION
The chronic problems of construction are well known: low productivity, poor safety, inferior
working conditions, and insufficient quality. (Koskela, 1993) However, most of the time, those
critical problems of construction were left unattended because people of the industry refrained to
believe or accept that there is a solution to those problems. According to Koskela (1992), the
incapability to improve the productivity level of construction projects is mainly perceived by
people in the industry as due to its peculiarities and special features: one-of-a-kind nature of
7
projects, site production, and temporary multi-organisation. Most people concluded that its
fragmented nature, lack of co-ordination and communication between parties, adversarial
contractual relationships, and lack of customer focus inhibit the industry's performance.
Therefore, the organisation, planning, allocation and control of these resources, processes and
technologies are what finally determine the productivity that can be achieved.
Most of the early efforts involved new technology and process adoption from manufacturing
practices i.e. industrialisation, prefabrication and modularisation (new process adoption) and
computer integrated construction and automated construction (new technology adoption).
However, there have been no signs of major improvements to construction has resulting from both
trends of process dissemination and solutions as quoted by Koskela (2000). The main reasons
behind the failure of achieving any major improvements from both trends are mainly due to certain
key features between manufacturing and construction. A comparison with manufacturing shows the
key features, which distinguishes construction from manufacturing, is the extent of uncertainty
evident throughout the production phase as shown in Table 2.2
Start of manufacturing Start of construction in the

production field
What Highly defined Evolving as means refines ends
How Highly defined. Operations plan is in Partly defined but details un-
great examined.Extensive planning
detail based on many trails. remains by hard logic but may
Primary sequence of many tasks is change. Interdependencies due to
inflexible and the interdependencies conflicting measurements, shared
are resources, and intermediate
documented and analyzed. Positions products only partly understood.
in General craft skills to be applied in
process determine required skills a variety of positions
Assembly objectives Produces one of a finite set of Make the only one. The details of
objects what
where details of what and how are and how are not completely
known known at the
at the beginning of assembly beginning of assembly
Improvement strategy Rapid learning during the first units Rapid learning during both
preparing for production line planning and
early sub-assembly cycles
TABLE 2.2 :- Context of manufacturing & construction production (koskela, 2000)
8
2.2 CONCEPT OF NEW PRODUCTION PHILOSOPHY
The core of the new production philosophy is based on the conclusive understanding that all
production systems are constituted of 2 main activities: Conversions and Flows (waiting, moving,
and inspecting). In the new production paradigm, only conversion activities add value to the final
product whereas flow activities do not; value is determined under the value stream of the
customers with the satisfaction of their requirements and cost paid on the final product. Therefore,
the primary objectives for process/ performance/ productivity improvement under the flagship of
new production philosophy should be targeted separately. That can be done through the
improvement of flow activities by primarily focusing on reducing or eliminating them and on the
other hand, conversion activities should be focused on making them more efficient. This has
important implications for the design, control, and improvement of production processes, because
according to Koskela (1992), traditional production management paradigm sees the whole
process simply as a conversion of an input into an output that can be divided into sub-processes,
which are also conversion processes. All activities have been treated as though they were value-
adding conversions without separating from the flow processes.
Based on the understanding of the production process can be consists of both conversion and flow
activities, a generic process improvement plan based on new production philosophy can be derived
from the study of Enton (1994) on lean productivity of construction professions. The first step to
implement process improvement plan is by analysis and separation of conversions and flows
activities. For conversions activities identified, those activities should be channeled into the quality
cycles (Quality control, Quality assurance and Total Quality Management) to increase efficiency of
value added conversions. Whereas, for flow activities, the approach should be consists of way of
flows simplification (through Elimination, simplification and automation) in order to reduce or
eliminate non-value added flow activities.
The application of lean production philosophy to construction or Lean Construction, as it has

been called by a group of collaborating researchers since 1993 (Koskela, 2000). Since then, the
enthusiasms over lean construction paradigm are intensified and widely accepted practitioners and
academics around the world under the belief that the implementation of Lean Construction will
dramatically improve construction performance and labour productivity.
9
2.3 CONCEPT OF PRODUCTION

A historical analysis carried out by Koskela (2000) has revealed that there are three concepts of
production where the conceptualization of production can be grouped based on the generation of
transformation-flow-value model of production theory or simply as TFV model.
TRANSFORMATION CONCEPT
The first core principle which has been used in conjunction with transformation concept stated
that: The transformation process can be decomposed into subprocesses, which also are transformation
process of breaking up the total transformation (production process) into much smaller and more
manageable transformations and eventually can be further breakdown into individual continual
tasks.
The second core principle of the transformation model is a general acceptance of independency
principle that the cost of the total process can be minimized through minimising the cost of each sub-
process. The key issue pertaining to this principle leads to the assumption that every sub-processes
of a total process are independent from each other and therefore cost minimisation can be applied
through focus on cost management in each operation, sub-process or department.
The third core principle formulated currently recommended that It is advantageous to insulate the
production process from the external environment through physical or organisational buffering. This
principle is related to the independence assumption from the second core principle as discussed
above and it reflects that the transformation process that is most important, and it is thus a
requisite to shield it from the erratic conditions in the environment.
FLOW CONCEPT
The flow view of production, firstly proposed by the Gilbreths (1922) in scientific terms, has
provided the basis for JIT and lean production. This view was firstly translated into practice by
Ford (1926). As a result, the flow view is embodied in JIT and lean production and the triumph of
the JIT and lean production has practically proven the power of this conception.
The new production concept of flow was emerged apparently from the erroneous view of
decomposition in the transformation model of production that is the intervals between
transformations, which happen to be non transformations activities. In flow concept, production is
viewed as a flow, where, in addition to transformation, there are waiting, inspection and moving
10
stages. Production management equates to minimizing the share of non transformation stages of the
production flow, especially by reducing variability. In this context, flow model is looking beyond
transformation model by taking non-transformations activities into consideration as to improve
overall flow efficiency.
The first core principle of this flow concept is the introduction of time as resource in production
and therefore the main focus is in the amount of time consumed by the total transformation and its
parts by aiming for the production improvement at shortening of the total time of production.
The second core principle of the flow concept is that time is consumed by two types of activities in
the overall production flow which are transformation activities and non-transformation activities.
Gilbert (1922) categorised the non transformation activities as transfer, delay and inspection as
showed in Figure 1 and it is obvious that these non-transformation activities are unnecessary and
the less of them is better and best if there are none of them.
FIGURE 1 :- An exploration towards a production theory & its application to highway

construction (lauri, 2000)
VALUE GENERATION CONCEPT

The value generation view was initiated by Shewhart (1931) and further refined in the framework
of the quality movement but also in other circles. The value generation concept are formulated not
a same as transformation and flow concept by incorporating customer as the ultimate value
determinate to the production and argued that the goal of production is to satisfy customer needs.
This third concept of value generation concept views production as a means for the fulfillment of
customer needs. Production management equates to translating these needs accurately into a
design solution, and then producing products that conform to the specified design. It focus on
control of the transformation and flow, namely control for the sake of the customer and it is important to
highlights that the value generation concept does not focus on any particular aspect of physical
11
production like transformation and flow model do but rather on its control in securing value
generated for the customer.
2.4 FLOWS IN CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTION
The production in construction is of assembly-type, where different material flows are connected
to the end product. In construction, there are 3 types of flows as suggested by Koskela (2000):
material flow (the transportation of components to the site for particular installation), location flow
(e.g. one particular trade goes through the different part of the building or construction site to get
their work done) and assembly flow (e.g. the sequential of works of assembly and installation).
There are at least seven resource flows that unite to generate the construction task as illustrated In
Figure 2. Many of these resource flows are of relatively high variability, and thus the probability of
a missing input is considerable.
Construction productions are subjected to more sources of variability and the insight gained is that
construction consists of assembly tasks involving a high number of input flows. Planning and
controlling production becomes very important and tasks and flows have to be considered in
parallel in production management because: realization of tasks heavily depends on flows, and progress
of flows in turn is dependent on realization of task (Koskela, 2000)
FIGURE 2 :- The preconditions for a construction task (koskela, 2000)
12
2.5 CONSTRUCTION WASTE IN GENERAL
Waste in the construction industry has been the subject of several research projects around the
world in recent years. However, Most studies tend to focus on the waste of materials, which is only
one of the resources involved in the construction process. This seems to be related to the fact that
most studies are based on the conversion model, in which material losses are considered to be
synonymous of waste. Formosa, (2002) stated that many people in the industry have considered
waste are directly associated with the debris removed from the site and disposed of in landfills and
they suggested that the main reason for this relatively narrow view of waste is perhaps the fact that
it is relatively easy to see and measure. The main focus for those conventional material waste
studies in construction are seen to be restricted to physical waste or material waste in construction
and/ or the specific impacts due to the physical waste itself.
Formosa, (1999) in their earlier research paper entitled Method for Waste Control in Building
Industry had significantly grouped some researches and studies done by other researchers around
the world on the wastes in construction into 2 main aspects based on the impacts of the
construction waste namely :
1. Impacts on the environmental damage that result from the generation of waste material.
2. Economic aspects of waste in construction industry.
Some conclusions that were drawn from those conventional construction waste studies above such
as:
1. The waste of building materials is occasionally far higher than the nominal figures assumed
by the companies in their cost estimates.
2. There is a very high variability of waste indices from site to site. Furthermore, similar sites
might present different levels of wastes for the same material. This indicates that a
considerable portion of this wastage can be avoided.
3. Some companies do not seem to be concerned about material waste, since they do not
apply relatively simple procedures to avoid waste on site. None of them had a well-defined
material management policy, neither a systematic control of material usage.
4. The lack of knowledge was an important cause of waste. Most building firms did not know
the amount of waste they had.
13
5. Most causes of waste are related to flaws in the management system, and have very little to
do with the lack of qualification and motivation of workers. Also, waste is usually the result
of a combination of factors, rather than originated by an isolated incident.
6. A significant portion of waste is caused by problems, which occur in stages that precede
production, such as inadequate design, lack of planning, flaws in the material supply system,
etc.
2.6 WASTE & VALUE LOSS IN CONSTRUCTION

In search for the waste, loss of value and non value-adding activities in current construction
practices, Koskela (1992) has managed to present a few evidences from various partial studies
done by other researchers around the world apart from the material waste from conversion
activities. Koskelas has been looking for the evidences of waste and value loss due to quality of
works, material management, non-productive time, safety and constructability.
The waste & value loss in terms of quality cost has been 10 20% of the project cost. It
has also recorded the causes of these quality problems are 46% design-related, 22%
construction-related and 15% are related to material supply.
The second factor that contributed to waste and value loss as compiled by Koskela is the
factor of constructability. It was found from a constructability report stating that projects
where constructability has been specifically addressed have reported 6 - 10% savings of
construction costs.
Researchers have estimated that 10 12% savings in labour cost could be produced by
materials management systems. some researchers also reported that savings of 10% in
materials costs can be achieved from vendor cooperation in streamlining the material flow.
It has been found that construction work flow consists of a lot of non value-adding activities
where they consume a high percentage of overall working time. All the estimation given
from the researches compiled by Koskela, the average distribution of working time used in
value-adding activities ranging around 30% to 40%. Oglesby and his co-author estimated
around 36% in 1989 while Levy in 1991 claimed that the average share of working time is
31.9 % in the United States.
Another waste factor is lack of safety. safety-related costs are estimated to be 6 percent
of total project costs as reported by Levitt & Samelson.
14
CONCEPT OF WASTE IN PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES

According to the new production philosophy, waste should be understood as any inefficiency that
results in the use of equipment, materials, labour, or capital in larger quantities than those
considered as necessary in the production of a building. Waste includes both the incidence of
material losses and the execution of unnecessary work, which generate additional costs but do not
add value to the product (Koskela 1992). Therefore, waste should be defined as any losses
produced by activities that generate direct or indirect costs but do not add any value to the
product from the point of view of the client.
The new production philosophy intend to look into and detail out the dimension of waste by
identifying non value-adding activities and introduce new measures to wastes such as additional
costs or opportunity costs especially due to time waste and value loss which very much invisible in
conversion model.
FIGURE 3 :- Performance improvement in conventional, quality and new production

philosophy approaches.(koskela,2000)
15
This means that there are 2 approaches to improving processes for new production philosophy
compared to conventional conversion view. One is to improve the efficiency of both value-adding
and non value-adding work, and the other is to eliminate waste by removing non value-adding
activities. Therefore, waste should be defined as any losses produced by activities that generate
direct or indirect costs but do not add any value to the product from the point of view of the
client.
The primary objectives for this new movement will be looking at value to the client and throughput,
the movement of information or materials to completion. Improvement results from reducing
waste that is the difference between the current situation and perfection, i.e., meeting customer
unique requirements in zero time with nothing in store.
2.7 WASTE CLASSIFICATION
Industry researchers and practitioners have acknowledged that there are many non-value adding
activities during the design and construction process and majority of those wasteful activities
consuming time and effort without adding value for the client. Since the beginning of a construction
project, Construction Managers have to deal with many factors that may negatively affect the
construction process, producing different types of waste (Serpell,1995). Waste includes both the
incidence of material losses and the execution of unnecessary work that generates additional costs
but does not add value to the product (Koskela, 1992). Moreover, some researchers, Alarcon
(1993), Koskela (1992) and Serpell, (1995) stated that waste in construction and
manufacturing include delay times, quality costs, lack of safety, rework, unnecessary transportation
trips, long distances, improper choice of management, methods or equipment and poor
constructability.
Regarding the possibility to control the incidence of waste, Formoso, (1999) commented that
there is an acceptable level of waste, which can only be reduced through a significant change in the
level of technological development. Based on the ratio of prevention investment cost over the cost
of waste itself, they have classified wastes into two general groups:
1. Unavoidable waste (or natural waste), in which the investment necessary to its reduction is higher
than the economy produced, The percentage of unavoidable waste in each process depends on the
company and on the particular site, since it is related to the level of technological development.
16
2. Avoidable waste, when the cost of waste is significantly higher than the cost to prevent it. Waste
can also be classified according to its origin, i.e. the stage that the main root cause is related to.
Although waste is usually identified during the production stage, it can be originated by processes
that precede production, such as materials manufacturing, training of human resources, design,
materials supply, and planning as studied by Alarcon (1994), Womack and Jones, (1996),
Formoso, et al. (1999), Koskela (2000) and many others.
Shingo proposed the following waste classification whereby waste was classified by it nature, which
based on the Ohnos framework of Toyota Production System:
1. Waste due to overproduction;
2. Waste due to wait periods;
3. Waste due to transport;
4. Waste due to system itself;
5. Waste due to stock;
6. Waste due to operation;
7. Waste due to defects;
Based on Shingos seven wastes, Formoso, (1999) went on to propose their main classification of
waste based on the analysis of some project sites they had carried out as shown below. It was
thought that the further classification will help managers to understand the different forms of waste,
why they occur and how to act in order to avoid them.
1. Overproduction: related to the production of a quantity greater than required or earlier

than necessary. This may cause waste of materials, man-hours or equipment usage. It usually
produces inventories of unfinished products or even their total loss, in the case of materials
that can deteriorate. An example of this kind of waste is the overproduction of mortar that
cannot be used on time.
2. Substitution: It is monetary waste caused by the substitution of a material by a more

expensive one (with an unnecessary better performance); the execution of simple tasks by
an over-qualified worker; or the use of highly sophisticated equipment where a much
simpler one would be enough.
17
3. Waiting time: related to the idle time caused by lack of synchronisation and levelling of
material flows, and pace of work by different groups or equipments. One example is the idle
time caused by the lack of material or by lack of work place available for a gang.
4. Transportation: It is concerned with the internal movement of materials on site.

Excessive handling, the use of inadequate equipment or bad conditions of pathways can
cause this kind of waste. It is usually related to poor layout, and the lack of planning of
material flows. Its main consequneces are: waste of man hours, waste of energy, waste of
space on site, and the possibility of material waste during transportation.
5. Processing: related to the nature of the processing (conversion) activity, which could only
be avoided by changing the construction technology. For instance, a percentage of mortar is
usually wasted when a ceiling is being plastered.
6. Inventories: related to excessive or unnecessary inventories which lead to material waste

(by deterioration, losses due to inadequate stock conditions on site, robbery, vandalism),
and monetary losses due to the capital that is tied up. It might be a result of lack of resource
planning or uncertainty on the estimation of quantities.
7. Movement: concerned with unnecessary or inefficient movements made by workers

during their job. This might be caused by inadequate equipment, ineffective work methods,
or poor arrangement of the working place.
8. Production of defective products: it occurs when the final or intermediate product

does not fit the quality specifications. This may lead to rework or to the incorporation of
unnecessary materials to the building (indirect waste), such as the excessive thickness of
plastering. It can be caused by a wide range of reasons: poor design and specification, lack of
planning and control, poor qualification of the team work, lack of integration between design
and production, etc.
9. Others: waste of any nature different from the previous ones, such as burglary, vandalism,
inclement weather, accidents, etc.
18
Some researchers have proposed some qualitative model by postulating the loss of productivity in
construction using categories of non-productive time. Researchers such as Borcherding in 1986
explained the loss of productivity in large and complex constructions using five categories of non-
productivities time as listed below:
1. Waste due to waiting or idle;

2. Waste due to travelling;
3. Waste due to slow work;
4. Waste due to ineffective work;
5. Waste due to rework
Borcherdings five waste categories of non-productive time are found very much similar to the
categories of wastes of productive time proposed by Serpell (1995) derived from their case as
shown Figure 4 below:
FIGURE 4 :- Categories of wastes of productive time (Serpell. 1995)
However, they highlighted some limitations to the waste classification of nonproductive time. For
example the waste of time related to slow work is related to the efficiency of processes,
construction equipment and personnel. But it is difficult to measure it because it is first necessary
to know the optimal efficiency that can be achieved, which is not always possible.
19
Instead of classifying the waste of productive time, Serpell, (1995) went a step further to
breakdown those wastes factors in relation of work categories. There are 3 types of work
categories as proposed:
1. Productive work (value-adding activities)
2. Contributory work (non value-adding activities but essential for conversion process): Those
contributory work which are classified as waste include transporting, instruction, measuring,
cleaning and others
3. Non-contributory work (non value-adding activities): Those non contributory work which are
classified as waste include waiting, idle time, travelling, resting, physiological needs, and rework.
There are also other categories of waste that have been mentioned in the literature, such as
accidents, working under sub-optimal conditions (Koskela 2000), design and products that do not
meet users needs. (Womack and Jones 1996) The main role of existing classification of waste is
to call the attention of people to most likely problems, since not all waste is obvious: it often
appears in the guise of useful work. (Shingo 1988).
2.8 KEY CONSTRUCTION WASTE CAUSES
After understanding the classification of waste, it is important to examine the type of possible
causes that lead to the occurrence of waste in construction process. This is very important because
just by knowing the waste itself just would help to monitor them but not reduce or eliminate them
from the process loops. To work out a continuous improvement strategy in reducing and
eliminating those wastes in construction processes, the origin of the waste itself has to be
identified.
A typical waste identification survey underlined a few examples of waste sources according to
different area of functions such as administration, use of resources and information systems. Several
potential sources of waste can be grouped under the particular area of functions and it can be
created to suit the need of particular projects such as the diagnostic survey developed by students
Francisco Lowener, Francisco Lira and Marcelo Beratto as documented by Alarcon (1994) listed
down the following potential sources of waste in their project:
20
A. Administration
1. Unnecessary requirements
2. Excessive control
3. Lack of control
4. Poor planning
5. Bureaucracy
B. Use of resources
1. Surplus
2. Shortage
3. Misuse
4. Poor distribution
5. Poor quality
6. Availability
C. Information systems
1. Unnecessary
2. Defective
3. Late
4. Unclear
Serpell (1995) on the other hand identified several controllable causes of waste. Although his
study was mainly concentrated on wasted time but the classification of the causes to waste is found
rather structured and detailed compared to the previous listed in waste identification survey. They
divided the controllable wastes as identified from their research projects into three different
activities, which associate to flows, conversions, and management activities.
1. Controllable causes associated to flows The principal flow causes were as follow:
a) Resources
Materials: Lack of materials at the work place; materials are not well distributed; inadequate
transportation means
Equipment: Non availability; inefficient utilisation; inadequate equipment for work needs
Labour: personal attitudes of workers; stoppage of work
b) Information
Lack of information;
Poor information quality
Timing of delivery is inadequate
21
2. Controllable causes associated to conversions

The following causes were identified:
a) Method
Deficient design of work crews
Inadequate procedures
Inadequate support to work activities
b) Planning
Lack of work space
Too much people working in reduced space
Poor work conditions
c) Quality
Poor execution of work
Damages to work already finished
3. Controllable causes associated to management activities

The following causes were identified:
a) Decision making
Poor allocation of work to labour
Poor distribution of personnel
b) Ineffective supervision/ control
Poor or lack of supervision
22
2.9 MODELLING WASTE & PERFORMANCE IN CONSTRUCTION
The introduction of new production philosophies in construction requires new measures of

performance (Koskela, 1992), such as waste, value, cycle time or variability. The shortcomings of
the traditional control systems, and models are unable or not appropriate to measure those new
performance elements but Alarcon (1993) suggested that some of the concepts developed in
previous research can be utilised in modeling new performance elements for construction required
for continuos improvement.
It is worthwhile to point out some of opinions of different researchers and authors related to the
extent of performance elements in the aspects of construction process. Among all, one of the most
classical opinions was from Sink (1985, as documented by Alarcon 1993). Sink has characterised
performance in a broad definition, as 7 criteria or elements on which management should focus its
efforts on: Those 7 criteria or elements are as explained below:
1. Effectiveness: A measure of accomplishment of the right things:

On time (timeliness),
Right (quality),
All the right things (quantity), where things are goals, objectives, activities and so forth,
2. Efficiency: A measure of utilization of resources. It can be represented as a ratio of resource
expected to be consumed divided by the resources actually consumed
3. Quality: A measure of conformance to specifications. In construction projects, quality has 2
dimensions:
The first and overall one is that of the completed project functioning as the owner
intended
The second concerns the many details involved in producing the results.
4. Productivity: Theoretically this is defined as a ratio between output and input and it is
primary measured in terms of cost. In the context of the construction industry, the output is
the structure or facility that is built or some components of it. The major input into the
construction process includes work force, materials, equipment, management, energy and
capital.
23
5. Quality of work life: A measure of employees affective response to working and living in
organizational systems. Often, the management focus is on insuring that employees are
satisfied, safe and secure and so forth
6. Innovation: This is the creative process of adaptation of product, service, process or
structure in response to internal as well as external pressures, demands and changes, needs and
so forth
7. Profitability: A measure or a set of measures of the relationships between financial resources
and uses for those financial resources. Embarking with the new production philosophies,
Koskela (1992) has proposed some new measures as required for construction, to stimulate
continuous improvement such as:
1. Waste: Number of defects, rework, number of design errors and omissions,
number of change orders, safety costs, excess consumption of materials, etc;
2. Value: Value of the output to the internal customer;
3. Cycle time: Cycle time of main processes and sub processes;
4. Variability: Deviations from the target, such as schedule performance.
The problem of performance evaluation is a multi-attribute or multi-criteria one. Generally, the

evaluations of performance in construction are concentrated on few aspects only mainly on
profitability and productivity. Furthermore, different managers probably will use different
performance elements and some will have different weight for each individual measures. Therefore,
a model for evaluation or prediction must have the flexibility to include the individual organisational
objectives in the evaluation process. It also must have the ability to examine the effect of changes in
those objectives in the evaluation process.
2.10 RESEARCH GAP

From the study of literature review of last 15 years, it is found that all the researches on
lean construction has been done on housing & commercial complexes .
But , uptil now no eminant research has been carried out on highway & trasnsportation
sector.
So, efforts are made to analyze the lean construction principle in highway sector.
24
CHAPTER 3
DATA
COLLECTION
25
CHAPTER 3 : DATA COLLECTION
3.1 METHOD OF RESEARCH
The purposes of this research thesis is to see whether the lean construction principles of waste
concepts have been well comprehended, accepted and adopted by the highway personnel especially
in waste recognition, reduction and elimination for the continuous improvement in construction
processes.
A quantitative research approach was adopted for this thesis requiring the development and
dissemination of a questionnaire survey. Due to the population of this research are virtually too
difficult to be quantified as the main targeted respondents would include all personnel who has
direct managerial experiences in construction field, the non-probability sampling methods will be
adopted in this research instead of probability sampling. Purposive sampling for specific groups or
types of respondents will be conducted by using expert sampling technique which involves the
assembling of a sample of managerial personnel with known experience and expertise in managing
construction field processes.
The thesis is conducted through structured questionnaires where those questionnaires were sent
to the particular qualified respondents. The respondents were approached through their
companies and firms namely L&T ECC, IRB infrastructures, BACKBONE enterprises, LASA INDIA,
MSK PROJECTS(I) LTD.etc.
This thesis was postulated around determining the general perceptions and actions of the
construction personnel against wastes in construction and the concept of nonproductive time or
wasted time were then integrated into the research process as the key element of lean
construction philosophy regarding flow concept. In this case, Waste in construction process is
classified into three main categories, which are direct conversion waste, non-contributory time
waste and contributory time waste. 19 waste elements are outlined consists of 9 direct conversion
wastes, 7 non-contributory time wastes and 3 contributory time wastes as shown in Table 3.1
26
In response to the examine the frequencies causes of wastes and their inter-relation with waste
elements, several waste causes factors were categorised into 5 main groups of cause factors which
are Management & Administration Factors (4 factors), People Factors (6 factors), Execution Factors
(6 factors), Material Factors (6 factors) and Information and Communication Factors (3 factors).
The entire breakdown of the waste cause factors is shown in Table 3.2
Table 3.1 : waste elements in 3 separate waste groups
27
Table 3.2 :- waste causes factor group
28
3.2 PROFILE OF RESPONDANTS
A randomly selected group of targeted respondents consists of those personnel who have a
commanding role in the highway project and resource management and extensive site experiences
were targeted as respondents for the sample survey. There has been a wide spectrum of personnel
with different position and job title, which had been responded to the survey and for the purpose
of analysis and comparison, the whole sample of respondents have been regrouped into 2 main
categories which are:-
1. Project management orientated group
2. Site operative management orientated group
Project management orientated group will feature those who have relatively more responsibilities
in overall project execution and resource management and not so much on site operative
management by its nature of job scope. Therefore, this group will involve personnel more on
planning, inter-coordinating and directing role in construction process and as for the sample
respondents for this research will include project managers, general managers, project schedulers/
planners, quantity surveyors.
Site operative management orientated group will feature those who have relatively more
responsibilities on the site operative management by its nature of job scope. The group will mainly
involve personnel in solving construction problems on site, more on intra-coordinating with
internal groups and trades, and as for the sample respondents for this research will include site
managers, site engineers, resident engineer and senior quality manager.
3.3 STRUCTURE OF QUESTIONNAIRE
The structure of questionnaires is divided into 5 main sections. (Refer sample questionnaire on
Appendix V) The first 2 sections of questionnaires are intended to examine the general perception
and acceptance of Lean Construction philosophy of local construction industries based on the
respondents waste concepts.
29
In this case, the respondents were asked to recognise 19 wastes elements and their personnel
experiences in controlling those waste elements during construction processes. There are 2-
options available for the respondents and there were required to answer whether the wastes
elements as listed is a waste or non-waste and whether they are controlled or not controlled
during the construction processes.
The third and fourth sections are intended to review the extent of waste problems in existing local
industry by ranking them in term of frequencies of occurrences and rate the likelihood of particular
waste sources/ causes in their construction practices where they work. For section 3, Respondents
were able to identify how frequently the waste occurred using 5 categories: (1) Never; (2) Very
Rare; (3) Seldom; (4) Frequent; and (5) Very Frequent and the respondents were provided with five
different scales from 1 (no significant effect variable) to 5 as (high detrimental effect variable);
For section 4, Respondents were asked to determine the likelihood of particular waste sources/
causes using 4 categories: (1) Most unlikely; (2) Unlikely; (3) Likely; (4) Most Likely and the
respondents were provided with five different scales from 1 (no significant likelihood) to 5 as (high
detrimental likelihood)
The fifth section is to examine the relevant sources of wastes as outlined in the fourth section to
have caused the particular construction wastes. The respondents were asked to identify the most
possible causes and other possible causes to the wastes elements in order to create a matrix table
between construction wastes and their sources of wastes.
3.4 SCORE ASSIGNMENT
Score assignment is a process of assigning values for each of the item and this is an important
process of conducting inferential analysis especially for correlation test using Pearson-r where
aggregation of points are required for this research. Score assignment for section 1 and 2, each
positive answer is assigned with 2 points and each negative answer is assigned with 1 point. Based
on the waste categories in Table 3.1, the maximum points for direct conversion wastes that can
be aggregated for each case is (2 X 9) equal to 18 points and the minimum of (1 X 9) equal to 9
points; Maximum points for non-contributory time waste is (2 X 7) or 14 points and minimum of (1
X 7) or 7 points whereas for maximum points for contributory time wastes is (2 X 3) or 6 points
and minimum of (1 X 3) or 3 points.
30
Score assignment for section 3 and 4 is based on the multiple-scale format. For section 3, points are
ranged from 1 to 5 and maximum points that can be aggregated for direct conversion wastes is (5
X 9) or 45 points, minimum of (1 X 9) or 9 points; for noncontributory time wastes, maximum that
can be achieved is (5 X 7) or 35 points and minimum of (1 X 7) or 7 points while maximum for
contributory time wastes is (5 X 3) or 15 points and minimum of (1 X 3) or 3 points. For section 4,
points are ranged from 1 to 4 but since correlation are not going to be tested in this section but
rather each item is going to be tested separately with One-way t-test for ranking purposes,
therefore not aggregation of points are required.
3.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
After all the primary data have been collected and processed, those data will then be analysed
according to the appropriate analysis methods. Analysis methods in this research are mainly divided
into 2 parts: (1) Descriptive analysis and (2) Inferential statistical analysis. Descriptive statistical
analysis is used to present the background profiles about the respondents and provide further
information for the inferential statistical analysis, besides that, the analysis on the descriptive data
about the waste recognition and waste control events in section 1 & 2 will also be conducted under
the same category. Inferential statistical analysis will be used to test certain research hypothesis,
type of analysis tools to be used include Coefficient Pearson r for correlation testing and one-way
t-test for frequencies ranking.
Inferential statistic analysis will use correlation Pearson-r to conduct testing on 9 hypotheses to see
whether any significant inter-relationship existed between understanding of wastes and actual
control practices of wastes in construction processes based on 3 cases of waste categories. The 9
hypotheses are:
Hypothesis 1: There is inter-relationship between constructions direct conversion wastes

are been perceived with the tendency to control those wastes.
Hypothesis 2: There is inter-relationship between constructions direct conversion wastes
are been perceived with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the
processes.
31
Hypothesis 3: There is inter-relationship between the tendency to control those

constructions direct conversion wastes with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes
during the processes.
Hypothesis 4: There is inter-relationship between constructions non-contributory time
wastes are been perceived with the tendency to control those wastes.
Hypothesis 5: There is inter-relationship between constructions non-contributory time
wastes are been perceived with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the
processes.
constructions non-contributory time wastes with the frequencies of occurrences of such
wastes during the processes.
Hypothesis 7: There is inter-relationship between constructions contributory time wastes
are been perceived with the tendency to control those wastes.
Hypothesis 8: There is inter-relationship between constructions contributory time wastes
are been perceived with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during the
processes.
constructions contributory time wastes with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes
during the processes.
In every case above, the correlation Pearson-r will tell us the magnitude and direction of the
association between two variables. In SPSS, the outcomes of the Pearson-r analysis will provide us
three pieces of information: (1) the correlation coefficient, (2) the significance and (3) the number
of cases (N). The correlation coefficient is a number between +1 and -1. This number tells us about
the magnitude and direction of the association between two variables. The magnitude is the
strength of the correlation. The closer the correlation is to either +1 or -1, the stronger the
correlation. If the correlation is 0 or very close to zero, there is no association between the two
variables. The direction of the correlation tells us how the two variables are related.
One-Way t-test will be carried out basically to get the ranking on the frequencies of occurrence of
the wastes elements in section 3 and the likelihood of recognition certain wastes causes factors as
in section 4. In SPSS, the outcomes of the One-Way t-test analysis will provide us four pieces of
information: (1) the number of cases (N), (2) the mean value, (3) the standard deviation and (4) the
32
standard error means. The ranking will be done separately in a descending order from the greatest
magnitude of the mean value to the lowest mean value to differentiate the degree of frequencies
and likelihood from the less significant to the most significant as rated by the respondent of the
research.
The last part of the analysis will be involving the development of the Causes and Effects Matrix table
by combining all the inputs by the respondents in section 5 into the whole list of construction
wastes and waste causes table. From there, descriptive statistic analysis will take place in sorting out
the wastes causes factors and put them into 6 wastes factors as discussed previously and represent
the Matrix Table in Bar charts format for easy interpretation of the results.
3.6 COMPOSITION OF RESPONDANTS

The respondents for this research consists of 81 project and site management personnel with a
wide spectrum of positions ranging from project manager, project planner, general manager,
construction manager, resident engineer, quality engineer, highway engineer, site engineer &
manager. The composition of the respondents position are shown in the Figure 5.
16
14
12
10
NO'S
0
construct
project project general resident quality highway site
ion
manager planner manager engineer engineer engineer engineer
manager
Series 1 15 10 4 10 10 10 8 14
FIGURE 5:- COMPOSITION OF RESPONDANTS POSITION
33
3.7 PROJECT DETAILS

CASE STUDY 1
PROJECT:- 4 LANING OF ROAD FROM AHMEDABAD TO MALIYA ON SH 7 & SH
17 ON BOT BASIS.
PROJECT LENGTH ;- 180 KMS.
DURATION :- 30 MONTHS.
CONTRACT PRICE :- Rs. 1800 CR appx..
DATE OF START :- OCTOBER 2009.
CLIENT :- GSRDC(GUJARAT STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION)
INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- BCEOM LTD.
DESIGN CONSULTANT :- LEA ASSOCIATES SOUTH ASIA PVT LTD.
EPC CONTRACTOR:- L & T ECC LTD.
CASE STUDY 2
PROJECT:- 6 LANING FROM SURAT TO DAHISAR AS BOT (TOLL) PROJECT
PROJECT LENGTH ;- 239 KMS
DATE OF START :- 20TH FEBRUARY 2009.
DATE OF COMPLETION :- 19TH AUGUST 2011.
CLIENT :- NHAI(NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA)
INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING TECHNOLOGIES
PVT. LTD
PMC CONSULTANT :- FRISHMAN PRABHU PVT. LTD.
EPC CONTRACTOR:- IRB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD.
34
CASE STUDY 3
PROJECT:- 4 LANING FROM NAGPUR TO HYDERABAD SECTION ON NH 7.
DATE OF START :- 4TH OCTOBER 2009.
DATE OF COMPLETION :- 3RD OCTOBER 2010.
CLIENT :- NHAI(NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA)
INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- AARVI ENCON PVT .LTD
EPC CONTRACTOR:- IRB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD.
CASE STUDY 4
PROJECT:- 4 LANING OF ROAD ON SH 31FROM LEBAD TO NAGDA
DATE OF START :- FEBRUARY 2009.
DATE OF COMPLETION :- AUGUST 2010.
CLIENT :- MPRDC (MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION)
INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- ARTEFACTS PROJECTS LTD.
TOTAL PMC :- STUP CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD
EPC CONTRACTOR:- PAN INDIA INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
35
CASE STUDY 5
PROJECT:- 6 LANING FROM BHOPAL TO VISHADA PACKAGE - 1 ON SH 18.
DATE OF START :- OCTOBER 2009.
DATE OF COMPLETION :- MARCH 2011.
CLIENT :- MPRDC (MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY)
INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- AARVI ENCON PVT .LTD
CONTRACTOR :- BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.
CASE STUDY 6
PROJECT:- 4 LANING OF ROAD FROM HALOL GODHRA SHAMLAJI ON STATE
HIGHWAY NO. 5 ON BOT (TOLL) BASIS.
CLIENT :- GSRDC (GUJARAT STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION)
INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- BCEOM
DESIGN CONSULTANT :- LEA ASSOCIATES SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD
EPC CONTRACTOR:- L&T ECC LTD.
36
CASE STUDY 7
PROJECT:- 6 LANING OF ROAD FROM PIMPALGAON NASIK GONDE ON
NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 3 ON BOT (TOLL) BASIS.
DATE OF START :- MARCH 2010.
DATE OF COMPLETION :- SEPTEMBER 2012.
CLIENT :- NHAI (NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA)
INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- SHELADIA ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD

THEME ENGINEERING SERVICES
PMC CONSULTANT :- LEA ASSOCIATES SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD
EPC CONTRACTOR:- L&T ECC LTD.
CASE STUDY 8
PROJECT:- DEVAS BHOPAL CORRIDOR PROJECT
DATE OF START :- DECEMBER 2008.
DATE OF COMPLETION :- NOVEMBER 2011.
CLIENT :- MPRDC (MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION)
INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- SAI CONSULTING ENGINEERS PVT. LTD
PMC CONSULTANT :- ESSEL GROUP.
EPC CONTRACTOR:- MSK PROJECTS (I) LTD.
37
CASE STUDY 9
PROJECT:- 4 LANING OF ROAD FROM LUCKNOW AYODHYA BYPASS ON
NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 28
CLIENT :- NHAI (NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTORITY OF INDIA)
PMC CONSULTANT :- LEA ASSOCIATES SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD
EPC CONTRACTOR:- HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD.
CASE STUDY 10
PROJECT:- 4/6 LANING OF EXISTING 2 LANE CARRIAGEWAY ON NH 5 FROM
BHADRAK TO BALASORE
PROJECT LENGTH ;- 62.64 KMS
DATE OF START :- DECEMBER 2008.
DATE OF COMPLETION :- NOVEMBER 2011.
CLIENT :- NHAI (NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA)
INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- SAI CONSULTING ENGINEERS PVT. LTD
EPC CONTRACTOR:- BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.
38
CHAPTER 4
DATA
ANALYSIS
39
CHAPTER 4 : DATA ANALYSIS

4.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter will present all the results obtained from the data analysis waste concepts and waste
causes factors in construction processes. Descriptive statistic analysis and inferential statistic
analysis will be utilised to present the results. The presentation of analysis of descriptive statistic
analysis will be conducted in the form of bar charts, pie charts and matrix tables to show the
distribution and frequencies of the particular variables. The presentation of analysis of inferential
statistic analysis will be done by using result outputs generated directly from SPSS 16. The
respondents for this research consists of 81 project and site management personnel with a wide
spectrum of positions ranging from project manager, project planner, general manager, construction
manager, resident engineer, quality engineer, highway engineer, site engineer & manager.
4.1 RESPONDANTS WASTE PERCEPTIONS & CONTROL ACTION
The descriptive analysis on the respondents waste perceptions and control actions will mainly
focusing on identifying the numbers of counts on wastes recognised and waste events controlled as
reckon by the respondents for 3 waste categories namely, direct conversion wastes, non
contributory wastes and contributory wastes.
Since the lean construction philosophy considered all those waste elements as tabulated in the
questionnaires as construction wastes which need to be reduced, eliminated or somehow
controlled, the degree of perceptions on wastes for the local construction industries eventually can
be verified by determining the numbers of positive counts on each of those wastes elements.
Besides that, an analysis over a matrix tables by crosstabbing both the waste concepts and waste
control actions will be carried out to study the frequencies of 4 different potential scenarios which
are anticipated to be occurred.
40
4.2 ANALYSIS ON DIRECT CONVERSION WASTE
Under this category, there are 9 wastes elements. Those items are indexed as F, G, H, I, J, K, L, N,
S in the section A, B and C of the questionnaires. For the total of 81 respondents by calculation as
(9 X 81), it sums up a total of 729 overall counts of inputs. For construction waste recognition, all
the inputs are tabulated in Table 4.1 below and a total of 612 positive counts are recorded or
approximately 84% and it is shown a high recognition on the waste concepts for the elements
tested in this category.
This analysis concluded that a high recognition rate on direct conversion wastes by the
respondents. The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this
direct conversion category are shown in Figure 6. The result shows that Item N: (Materials for
rework/ repair works/ defective work) is the most recognized construction wastes with 78 positive
counts while Item F: (Over-allocation/ Unnecessary equipment) is the least recognised construction
wastes with only 57 positive counts under the direct conversion waste category.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
F G H I J K L N S
NON WASTE 24 15 21 15 12 9 6 3 12
WASTE 57 66 60 66 69 72 75 78 69
FIGURE 6 :- BREAKDOWN OF DIRECT CONVERSION WASTE
RECOGNITION CASES
41
F G H I J K L N S
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1) NON WASTE
3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2) WASTE
4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
8 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
9 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 LEGEND :-
10 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2
11 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 F) Over allocation/unnecessary equipments on site
12 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
13 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 G) Over allocation/unnecessary materials on site
14 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
15 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 H) Over allocation/unnecessary workers on site
16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
17 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 I) Unnecessary procedures & working protocols
18 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
19 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 J) Material loss/stolen from site during
20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
21 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
construction periods
22 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
23 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 K) Material deterioration/damage during
24 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 construction periods
25 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
26 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 L) Mishandling or error in construction
27 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 applications/installation
28 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
29 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 N) Material for rework/repair works/defective
30 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
31 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
works
32 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
33 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S) Accidents on site
34 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
35 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
36 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
37 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2
38 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
39 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
40 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
41 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
42 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2
43 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
44 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
45 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
46 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
47 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
48 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
49 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
42
50 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
51 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
52 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
53 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
54 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
55 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
56 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
57 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
58 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
59 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
60 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
61 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
62 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
63 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
64 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2
65 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
66 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
67 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
68 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
69 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2
70 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
71 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
72 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
73 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
74 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
75 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
76 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
77 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
78 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
79 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
80 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
81 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
TABLE 4.1 :- INPUTS OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE RECOGNITION FOR DIRECT

CONVERSION WASTE
43
For construction waste events control, the total counts will calculated as (9 X 81) equal to 729Nos.
of inputs as tabulated in Table 4.2. A total of 531 positive counts are recorded appx. 73% and it
shows a slight drop in percentage on the waste control practices for the elements tested compared
to the construction waste recognized previously by the same set of respondents. In other words,
the respondents recognise the direct conversion wastes more than eventually control them.
However, the analysis result still shows that there are high control exercises on direct conversion
wastes as reported by the respondents. The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements
recognised as wastes under this direct conversion waste category are shown in Figure 7. From
chart in Fig. however it shows that Item F: (Overallocation/ Unnecessary equipment on site) have the
highest positive counts (69 Nos) on event controlled while Item S: (Accidents on site) is recorded as
the least event controlled with 39 Nos. of positive counts.
By cross tabbing of both Table 4.1 & 4.2 will result in a matrix table as show in Table 4.3 below.
This matrix table can be used to explain the inter-relationship between the direct conversion waste
concepts of the respondents with their actual control practices on construction processes. As
anticipated, there are 4 potential scenarios as observed, which are Case 1: Waste recognised and
controlled; Case 2: Waste not recognised and not controlled; Case 3: Waste recognised but not
controlled and Case 4: Waste not recognised but controlled.
From the analysis, it is found that Case 1 is the most occurrence scenario with 438 cases (60%)
followed by Case 3: 174 cases (23.86%), Case 4: 93 cases (12.75%) and finally Case 2: 24 cases
(3.3%). However, These results show that over half of the direct conversion construction wastes
have fully been recognised and controlled simultaneously but this analysis result is not very
convincing as there are still very high percentage of cases where wastes were partially recognised
and controlled and not recognised and controlled at all.
44
F G H I J K L N S
1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1) NOT CONTROL
3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2) CONTROL
4 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
5 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1
8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 LEGEND :-
10 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1
11 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 F) Over allocation/unnecessary equipments on site
12 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2
13 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 G) Over allocation/unnecessary materials on site
14 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
H) Over allocation/unnecessary workers on site
16 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
17 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
18 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 I) Unnecessary procedures & working protocols
19 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
20 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 J) Material loss/stolen from site during
22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
23 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 K) Material deterioration/damage during
25 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
26 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
L) Mishandling or error in construction
27 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
28 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 applications/installation
29 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
30 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 N) Material for rework/repair works/defective
31 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 works
32 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
33 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S) Accidents on site
34 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1
35 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
36 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
37 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1
38 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1
39 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2
40 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2
41 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
42 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
43 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
44 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
45 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
46 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
47 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
48 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
49 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
45
50 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 TABLE 4.2 :- Inputs of construction waste

51 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 event control for direct conversion waste
52 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
53 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
54 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
55 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
56 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
57 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
58 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
59 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
60 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
61 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1
62 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
63 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
64 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1
65 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1
66 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2
67 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2
68 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
69 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
70 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
71 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
72 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
73 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
74 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
75 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
76 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
77 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
78 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1
79 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
80 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
81 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 FIGURE 7 :- BREAKDOWN OF DIRECT
CONVERSION WASTE EVENT CONTROL CASES
90
80
70
60
50
NO'S
40
30
20
10
0
F G H I J K L N S
NON CONTROL 12 18 18 24 30 21 18 18 42
CONTROL 69 63 63 57 51 60 63 63 39
46
F G H I J K L N S
1 Case 1 :- waste & control
2
3 Case 2 :- Nonwaste & non control
4
5
Case 3:- waste & non control
6
Case 4 :- non waste & control
7
8
9
LEGEND :-
10
11 F) Over allocation/unnecessary equipments on site
12
13 G) Over allocation/unnecessary materials on site
14
15 H) Over allocation/unnecessary workers on site
16
I) Unnecessary procedures & working protocols
17
18 J) Material loss/stolen from site during
19 construction periods
20
21 K) Material deterioration/damage during
22 construction periods
23
24 L) Mishandling or error in construction
25 applications/installation
26
27
N) Material for rework/repair works/defective
28
works
29
S) Accidents on site
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
47
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
TABLE 4.3 :- MATRIX TABLE FOR
78 DIRECT CONVERSION WASTE
79
80
81
48
4.3 ANALYSIS ON NON CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE
Under this category, there are only 7 wastes elements indexed as A, B, C, D, E, M and O in the
section A, B and C of the questionnaires. For the total of 81 respondents by calculation as (7 X 81),
it sums up a total of 567 overall counts of inputs.
For construction waste recognition, all the inputs are tabulated in Table 4.4 below and a total of
387 positive counts are recorded or approximately 68% and it is still a high recognition on the
waste concepts for the elements tested in this category but it is relatively lower in percentage
compared to analysis carried out previously on direct conversion waste.
The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this
noncontributory time waste category are shown in Figure 8. It is worthwhile to point out that
most of the respondents do not recognised Item O: (Time for workers resting during construction) as
construction as only 15 out of 81 respondents recognised it as construction waste. On the
opposite side, the most recognised construction waste under this non-contributory time waste
category is Item M: (Time for rework/ repair work/ defective works) which recorded a 75 positive
counts out of the maximum 81.
Same is the case for the controlled events which is tabulated in Table 4.5 & total of 465 counts
have been recorded or appx.82% and it shows an increase in percentage on the waste event
control for the elements tested compared to the construction waste recognised under this
category.
The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this
noncontributory time waste category are shown in Figure 9. It shows that Item E:
(Waiting for the clarification and confirmation by client and consultants) is the least controlled waste
event where more than half of the respondents reported as waste event not being controlled. Item
B: (Waiting for equipment to be delivered on site) on the other hand recorded a perfect waste control
event.
Same as direct conversion waste analysis, the cross tabbing of both Table 4.4 & 4.5 for non-
contributory waste will result in a matrix table as show in Table 4.6. This matrix table can be used
to explain the inter-relationship between the non-contributory waste concepts of the respondents
with their actual control practices on construction processes. Again, 4 potential scenarios cases are
investigated for non-contributory time waste category.
49
A B C D E M O
1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1)NON WASTE
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2) WASTE
4 2 1 1 2 2 2 1
5 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
6 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
7 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
8 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
9 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
10 1 1 1 1 2 1 2
11 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
LEGEND :-
12 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
13 1 1 2 2 1 2 1
A) Waiting for others to complete their works
14 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
15 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 before the proceedings works can be carried out
16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
17 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 B) Waiting for equipments to be delivered on site
18 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
19 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 C) Waiting for materials to be delivered on site
20 2 1 1 2 2 2 1
21 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 D) Waiting for skilled workers to be on site
22 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
23 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 E) Waiting for clarification & confirmation by client
24 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
& consultants
25 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
26 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
27 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
M) Time for rework/repair works/defective works
28 1 2 2 2 1 2 1
29 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 O) Time for workers resting during construction
30 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
31 2 1 1 2 2 2 1
32 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
33 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
34 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
35 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
36 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
37 1 1 1 1 2 1 2
38 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
39 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
40 1 1 2 2 1 2 1
41 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
42 1 2 2 2 2 2 1
43 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
44 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
45 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
46 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
47 2 1 1 2 2 2 1
48 1 1 1 2 2 2 1
49 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
50
50 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
51 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
52 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
53 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
54 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
55 1 2 2 2 1 2 1
56 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
57 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
58 2 1 1 2 2 2 1
59 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
60 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
61 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
62 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
63 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
64 1 1 1 1 2 1 2
65 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
66 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
67 1 1 2 2 1 2 1
68 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
69 1 2 2 2 2 2 1
70 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
71 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
72 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
73 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
74 2 1 1 2 2 2 1
75 1 1 1 2 2 2 1
76 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
77 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
78 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
79 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
80 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
81 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
TABLE 4.4 :- INPUTS OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE RECOGNITION FOR NON

CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE
51
A B C D E M O
1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1) NOT CONTROL
3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2) CONTROL
4 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
10 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
11 2 2 2 1 2 2 1
12 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 LEGEND :-
13 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
14 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 A) Waiting for others to complete their works
15 2 2 2 2 1 1 2
16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 before the proceedings works can be carried out
17 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
18 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 B) Waiting for equipments to be delivered on site
19 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 C) Waiting for materials to be delivered on site
21 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
22 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 D) Waiting for skilled workers to be on site
23 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
24 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 E) Waiting for clarification & confirmation by client
25 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 & consultants
26 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
27 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
28 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
29 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
30 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
O) Time for workers resting during construction
31 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
32 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
33 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
34 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
35 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
36 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
37 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
38 2 2 2 1 2 2 1
39 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
40 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
41 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
42 2 2 2 2 1 1 2
43 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
44 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
45 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
46 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
47 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
52
48 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
49 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
50 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
51 2 2 2 1 1 2 2
52 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
53 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
54 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
55 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
56 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
57 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
58 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
59 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
60 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
61 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
62 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
63 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
64 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
65 2 2 2 1 2 2 1
66 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
67 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
68 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
69 2 2 2 2 1 1 2
70 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
71 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
72 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
73 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
74 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
75 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
76 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
77 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
78 2 2 2 1 1 2 2
79 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
80 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
81 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
TABLE 4.5 :- INPUTS OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE EVENT CONTROL FOR NON

CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE
53
90
80
70
60
50
NO'S
40
30
20
10
0
A B C D E M O
NONWASTE 18 27 24 12 27 6 66
WASTE 63 54 57 69 54 75 15
FIGURE 8 :- BREAK DOWN OF NON CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE

RECOGNITION CASES
90
80
70
60
50
NO'S
40
30
20
10
0
A B C D E M O
NON CONTROL 3 0 9 15 42 12 21
CONTROL 78 81 72 66 39 69 60
FIGURE 9 :- BREAKDOWN OF NON CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE CONTROL
54
A B C D E M
2
4
5
6 Case 4 :- non waste & control
7
8
9
10
11 LEGEND :-
12
13
A) Waiting for others to complete their works
14
before the proceedings works can be carried out
15
B) Waiting for equipments to be delivered on site
16
17 C) Waiting for materials to be delivered on site
18
19 D) Waiting for skilled workers to be on site
20
21 E) Waiting for clarification & confirmation by client
22 & consultants
23
24
25 O) Time for workers resting during construction
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
55
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
TABLE 4.6 :- MATRIX DIAGRAM FOR
77
NON CONTRIBUTORY WASTE
78
79
80
81
56
4.4 ANALYSIS ON CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE
Under this category, there are only 3 wastes elements indexed as P, Q & R in the section A, B and
C of the questionnaires. For the total of 81 respondents by calculation as (3 X 81), it sums up a
total of 243 overall counts of inputs. For construction waste recognition, all the inputs are tabulated
in Table 4.7 below and a total of 30 positive counts are recorded or approximately 12% and this a
very low recognition on the waste concepts for the elements tested under this category compared
to analysis carried out previously on direct conversion waste and non-contributory time waste.
The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this contributory
time waste category are shown in Figure 10. It is not surprising to see that all the 3 items
registered under contributory time wastes are recording significant negative counts, which
represent non waste recognition for the contributory time wastes. Very much different with the
first 2 waste recognition analysis, all 3 items are recording high negative counts that above 20
counts where Item P: (Time in supervising and inspecting the construction works) with the greatest
numbers of negative counts (26 Nos.) followed by Item R: (Time for transporting workers, equipment
and materials) 23 Nos. and Item Q: (Time for instructions and communication among different tiers and
trades of workers) 22 Nos.
Same is the case for the controlled events which is tabulated in Table 4.8 & total of 216 counts
have been recorded or appx.89% and it shows an increase in percentage on the waste event
control for the elements tested compared to the construction waste recognised under this
category. The breakdown of numbers of the waste elements recognised as wastes under this
contributory time waste category are shown in Figure 11. It shows that all the 3 items are having
high positive counts for waste event control where all 3 items of contributory time waste are
recording above 20 Nos. of positive counts lead by Item P: (Time in supervising and inspecting the
construction works) with 78 Nos.
Again, by cross tabbing of both Table 4.7 & 4.8 for contributory waste will result in a matrix table
as show in Table 4.9. Therefore, the inter-relationship between the contributory waste concepts
of the respondents with their actual control practices on construction processes can be explained
using this matrix table. 4 potential scenarios cases are to be investigated for contributory time
waste category.
57
P Q R P Q R
1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2
1) NON WASTE
2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2) WASTE
3 1 1 1 3 2 2 2
4 1 1 1 4 2 2 2
5 1 1 1 5 2 2 2
6 1 1 1 6 2 2 2 1) NOT CONTROL
7 1 1 1 7 2 2 2 2) CONTROL
8 1 1 1 8 2 2 2
9 1 1 1 9 2 2 2
10 2 1 1 10 1 1 1
11 1 1 2 11 2 2 2
12 1 1 1 12 2 2 2
13 1 1 1 13 2 2 2
14 1 1 1 14 2 2 2 LEGEND :-
15 1 1 1 15 2 2 2
16 1 1 2 16 2 2 2 P) Time in supervising / inspecting the
17 1 2 1 17 2 2 2
18 1 1 1 18 2 1 2 construction works
19 1 1 1 19 2 2 2
20 1 1 1 20 2 2 2 Q) Time for instructions & communication
21 1 1 1 21 2 2 2 among different tiers & trades of workers
22 1 2 1 22 1 2 2
23 1 2 2 23 2 1 2 R) Time for transporting workers, equipments
24 1 1 1 24 2 2 2 & materials
25 1 2 1 25 2 2 2
26 1 1 1 26 1 2 2
27 1 1 1 27 2 2 2
28 1 2 2 28 1 1 2
29 1 1 1 29 2 2 2
30 1 1 1 30 2 2 2
31 1 1 1 31 2 2 2
32 1 1 1 32 2 2 2
33 1 1 1 33 2 2 2
34 1 1 1 34 2 2 2
35 1 1 1 35 2 2 2
36 1 1 1 36 2 2 2
37 2 1 1 37 1 1 1
38 1 1 2 38 2 2 2
39 1 1 1 39 2 2 2
40 1 1 1 40 2 2 2
41 1 1 1 41 2 2 2
42 1 1 1 42 2 2 2
43 1 1 2 43 2 2 2
44 1 2 1 44 2 2 2
45 1 1 1 45 2 1 2
46 1 1 1 46 2 2 2
47 1 1 1 47 2 2 2
48 1 1 1 48 2 2 2
49 1 2 1 49 1 2 2
58
50 1 2 2 50 2 1 2
51 1 1 1 51 2 2 2
52 1 2 1 52 2 2 2
53 1 1 1 53 1 2 2
54 1 1 1 54 2 2 2
55 1 2 2 55 1 1 2
56 1 1 1 56 2 2 2
57 1 1 1 57 2 2 2
58 1 1 1 58 2 2 2
59 1 1 1 59 2 2 2
60 1 1 1 60 2 2 2
61 1 1 1 61 2 2 2
62 1 1 1 62 2 2 2
63 1 1 1 63 2 2 2
64 2 1 1 64 1 1 1
65 1 1 2 65 2 2 2
66 1 1 1 66 2 2 2
67 1 1 1 67 2 2 2
68 1 1 1 68 2 2 2
69 1 1 1 69 2 2 2
70 1 1 2 70 2 2 2
71 1 2 1 71 2 2 2
72 1 1 1 72 2 1 2
73 1 1 1 73 2 2 2
74 1 1 1 74 2 2 2
75 1 1 1 75 2 2 2
76 1 2 1 76 1 2 2
77 1 2 2 77 2 1 2
78 1 1 1 78 2 2 2
79 1 2 1 79 2 2 2
80 1 1 1 80 1 2 2
81 1 1 1 81 2 2 2
TABLE 4.7 TABLE 4.8
INPUTS OF INPUTS OF
CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION
RECOGNITION WASTE CONTROL
CASES FOR CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE
59
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
P Q R
NON WASTE 78 66 69
WASTE 3 15 12
FIGURE 10 :- BREAK DOWN OF CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE RECOGNITION
90
80
70
60
50
NO'S
40
30
20
10
0
P Q R
NON CONTROL 3 15 12
CONTROL 78 66 69
FIGURE 11 :- BREAKDOWN OF TIME WASTE CONTROL CASES
60
P Q R
1
3
5
6
7
Case 4 :- non waste & control
8
9
10
11
12
13 LEGEND :-
14
15
P) Time in supervising / inspecting the construction
16 works
17
Q) Time for instructions & communication among
18
different tiers & trades of workers
19
20 R) Time for transporting workers, equipments &
21 materials
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
61
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75 TABLE 4.9 :- MATRIX DIAGRAM
76
FOR CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTE
77
78
79
80
81
62
4.5 INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
This section will discuss about the analysis results from inferential analysis. Statistic tools such as
correlation Pearson-r and One-Way t-test will be utilised to test some hypotheses of the study and
determine the frequency ranking of each particular event or case as rated by the respondents.
4.5.1 CORRELATION AMONG DIRECT CONVERSION WASTES CONCEPTS AND

PERCEPTIONS, WASTE EVENT CONTROL AND FREQUENCIES OF WASTE
EVENT OCCURRENCES
There are 3 hypotheses to be tested under this direct conversion wastes category:
Hypothesis 1: There is inter-relationship between constructions direct conversion
wastes are been perceived (D_WASTE1) with the tendency to control those wastes
(D_WASTE2)
Hypothesis 2: There is inter-relationship between constructions direct conversion

wastes are been perceived (D_WASTE1) with the frequencies of occurrences of such
wastes during the processes (D_WASTE3)

constructions direct conversion wastes (D_WASTE2) with the frequencies of
occurrences of such wastes during the processes (D_WASTE3)
These 3 hypotheses are to be tested together using correlation Pearson r, and the results show
that there are not significant correlations among each other (refer Table 4.10) as the two-tail sig.
value (K) is more than 0.05 for 3 cases tested. Hence Hypothesis 1, 2 and 3 is rejected.
HYPOTHESIS 1 TEST
Variables D WASTE 1
D WASTE 2 -.145
K = .314> .05
HYPOTHESIS 2 TEST
Variables D WASTE 1
D WASTE 3 -.040
K = .575>.05
HYPOTHESIS 3 TEST
Variables D WASTE 2
D WASTE 3 - .056
K= .593> .05
Table 4.10 showing Correlation Pearson-r results summaries for hypothesis 1, 2 and 3
(Refer Appendix 1 for Correlation Pearson-r result outputs from SPSS 16.0)
63
4.5.2 CORRELATION AMONG NON-CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTES CONCEPTS

AND PERCEPTIONS, WASTE EVENT CONTROL AND FREQUENCIES OF WASTE
EVENT OCCURRENCES
Same as direct conversion wastes, there are 3 hypotheses to be tested under this noncontributory
wastes category:
Hypothesis 4: There is inter-relationship between constructions non-contributory

time wastes are been perceived (NON_CON1) with the tendency to control those
wastes (NON_CON2)
Hypothesis 5: There is inter-relationship between constructions non-contributory
time wastes are been perceived (NON_CON1) with the frequencies of occurrences of
such wastes during the processes (NON_CON3)
constructions non-contributory time wastes (NON_CON2) with the frequencies of
occurrences of such wastes during the processes (NON_CON3)
that there are not significant correlations among each other (refer Table 4.11) as the two-tail sig.
value (K) is more than 0.05 for 3 cases tested. Hence Hypothesis 4, 5 and 6 is rejected.
HYPOTHESIS 4 TEST
Variables NON CON 1
NON CON 2 .026
K = .224> .05
HYPOTHESIS 5 TEST
Variables NON CON 1
NON CON 3 -.291
K = .470>.05
HYPOTHESIS 6 TEST
Variables NON CON 2
NON CON 3 .325
K= .372 > .05
Table 4.11showing Correlation Pearson-r results summaries for hypothesis 4, 5 and 6

64
4.5.3 CORRELATION AMONG CONTRIBUTORY TIME WASTES CONCEPTS AND

PERCEPTIONS, WASTE EVENT CONTROL AND FREQUENCIES OF WASTE
EVENT OCCURRENCES
Same as previous 2 wastes categories, there are 3 hypotheses to be tested under this contributory
wastes category:
Hypothesis 7: There is inter-relationship between constructions contributory time

wastes are been perceived (CON1) with the tendency to control those wastes (CON2)
Hypothesis 8: There is inter-relationship between constructions contributory time
wastes are been perceived (CON1) with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes
during the processes (CON3)
constructions contributory time wastes (CON2) with the frequencies of occurrences
of such wastes during the processes (CON3)
that there are significant correlations between the way contributory time wastes have been
perceived (CON1) with the tendency to control those wastes (CON2) as the 2-tail sig. value (K)
signify the correlation is significant at 0.01 level or value K < 0.01 with a negative correlation (r = -
.551) whereas the other 2 cases are tested non-significant with the 2-tail sig. value (K) is more than
0.05. (Refer Table 4.12) Hence Hypothesis 7 is accepted and hypothesis 8 and 9 is rejected.
HYPOTHESIS 7 TEST
Variables CON 1
CON 2 -.555
K = .004 < .05
HYPOTHESIS 8 TEST
Variables CON 1
CON 3 -.223
K = .217>.05
HYPOTHESIS 9 TEST
Variables CON 2
CON 3 .281
K= .185 > .05
Table 4.12 showing Correlation Pearson-r results summaries for hypothesis 7, 8 and 9
65
4.6 RANKING ON FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WASTE IN

HIGHWAY PROCESSES
The purpose of this analysis is to determine the frequency of occurrences of construction wastes as
experienced by the respondents, the frequencies of occurrences for construction wastes are
analysed by using one-way t-test to determine the mean values, standard of deviation and standard
error mean and the mean of scores were listed as shown in Table 4.13.
Construction waste variables N Mean Std.devi Std. Waste categories
ation error
mean
P3 Time in supervising & inspecting the 81 4.00 .821 .091 Contributory time
construction works
E3 Waiting for clarification & confirmation 81 3.81 .776 .086 Non contributory time
by client & consultants
Q3 Time for instructions & communication 81 3.77 .741 .082 Contributory time
among different tiers & trades of workers
A3 Waiting for others to complete their 81 3.66 .724 .080 Non contributory time
works before the proceeding works can
be carried out
M3 Time for rework/repair works/defective 81 3.37 .679 .075 Non contributory time
works
N3 Materials for rework/repair 81 3.33 .724 .080 Direct conversion
works/defective works
C3 Waiting for materials to be delivered on 81 3.29 .941 .104 Non contributory time
site
R3 Time for transporting workers, 81 3.26 .932 .103 Contributory time
equipment & materials
B3 Waiting for equipment to be delivered on 81 3.14 .853 .094 Non contributory time
site
K3 Material deterioration/ damaged during 81 3.11 .880 .097 Direct conversion
J3 Material loss / stolen from site during 81 3.07 .818 .090 Direct conversion
L3 Mishandling or error in construction 81 3.03 .886 .098 Direct conversion
application/ installation
I3 Unnecessary procedures & working 81 3.00 .948 .105 Direct conversion
protocols
O3 Time for workers resting during 81 2.96 .843 .093 Non contributory time
construction
G3 Overallocation / unnecessary materials 81 2.93 .818 .090 Direct conversion
on site
D3 Waiting for skilled workers to be on site 81 2.66 .908 .100 Non contributory time
S3 Accidents on site 81 2.51 .691 .076 Direct conversion
F3 Over allocation / unnecessary 81 2.44 .836 .093 Direct conversion
equipments on site
H3 Overallocation / unnecessary workers on 81 2.40 .833 .092 Direct conversion
site
TABLE 4.13 CONSTRUCTION WASTE VARIABLES RANKING
66
From the mean ranking results, it shows that time wastes categories regardless of contributory
time or non-contributory time wastes occurred at the top of the list compared to direct
conversion wastes. Therefore, it is recommended that for construction processes improvements, it
is eventually those contributory and noncontributory times waste variables that have to be given
more attentions and in real fact, most of them are related to process flows and sequences and this
can lead to lean constructions tools and methods which are developed mostly to tackle those
wastes resulted from process flow inefficiencies.
67
4.7 RANKING ON LIKELINESS FOR SOURCES/CAUSES OF

CONSTRUCTION WASTE
The purpose of this analysis is to determine the respondents recognition of particular sources/
causes factors that cause construction wastes. Same as ranking for the frequencies of wastes
occurrences, the rating on these likelihood of waste sources/ causes factors as rated by the
respondents are analysed by using one-way t-test and the mean of scores were listed in as shown in
Table 4.14
Sources/ causes of construction waste N Mean Std.devi Std. Source/cause factor
ation error categories
mean
E2 Late information & decision making 81 3.63 .557 .061 Information &
communication factors
D2 Poorly scheduled delivery of material to 81 3.37 .621 .069 Material factors
site
A1 Poor coordination among project 81 3.37 .621 .069 Management &
participants administration factors
E3 Unclear information 81 3.26 .519 .057 Information &
A2 Poor planning & scheduling 81 3.26 .586 .065 Management &
administration factors
D3 Poor quality of material 81 3.26 .703 .078 Material factors
A3 Lack of control 81 3.23 .579 .065 Management &
D1 Delay of material delivery 81 3.22 .689 .076 Material factors
E1 Defective or wrong information 81 3.11 .570 .063 Information &
B2 Inexperience inspectors 81 3.11 .500 .055 People factors
D4 Inappropriate misuse of material 81 3.11 .790 .087 Material factors
D6 Poor material handling on site 81 3.07 .666 .074 Material factors
B3 Too few supervisors 81 3.03 .579 .064 People factors
B5 Supervision too late 81 2.96 .697 .077 People factors
B4 Uncontrolled sub contracting practices 81 2.92 .607 .067 People factors
B1 Lack of trades skills 81 2.92 .607 .067 People factors
C3 Equipments shortage 81 2.92 .607 .067 Execution factors
D5 Poor storage of material 81 2.92 .720 .080 Material factors
C6 Poor site documentation 81 2.88 .570 .063 Execution factors
C5 Poor site layout & setting out 81 2.85 .654 .072 Execution factors
C4 Poor equipment choice/ineffective 81 2.81 .550 .061 Execution factors
equipment
A4 Bureaucracy 81 2.77 .570 .063 Management &
B6 Poor labour distribution 81 2.70 .660 .073 People factors
C1 Inappropriate construction methods 81 2.66 .724 .080 Execution factors
C2 Outdated equipment 81 2.51 .792 .088 Execution factors
TABLE 4.14 SOURCES/CAUSES OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE RANKING
68
As from the mean ranking result shows that Item E2: (Late information and decision making) is highly
regarded as the main contributory sources or causes to the construction wastes with the highest
mean value (3.63) and with a 0.26 from the second rank item D2: (Poorly scheduled delivery of
material to site).
Among the clusters of cause factors observed from Table 6.14, there are 3 categories of waste
sources/ causes factors are widely acknowledged as the key contributory factors to construction
wastes. Those categories included Information and Communication Factors, Management and
Administration Factors and Material Factors as most of the Cause factors captured under these 3
categories are rated with the mean value over 3.
Overall, the likelihood of recognising the items above as the sources/ causes of wastes that will
impact on the productivity of the projects, are still reasonably high as most of the mean value for
the items tested were clustering around the scale 3 value representing likely as a sources/ causes
of wastes. However, there are also some exceptions such as Item C1: (Inappropriate construction
methods) and Item C2: (Outdated equipment) both recorded a slightly low mean values of 2.67 and
2.52 respectively.
4.8 CAUSE & EFFECT MATRIX DIAGRAM

The purpose of this analysis to relate the particular sources or causes to the construction wastes
and this is to give us a better picture of what leads to the waste in construction processes as
suggested by the respondents feedback on this research. Figure 12 is the overall analysis on
Causes and Effects Matrix of the Major cause to the construction wastes based on 5 main causes
factors while Figure 13 is the Causes and Effects Matrix of the Other causes to the construction
wastes. (Refer overall Causes and Effects Matrix tables in Appendix 4 for a detailed understanding
on actual one to one relationship between wastes causes to wastes itself as per the data gather
from the respondents of this research)
69
major cause
70
60
50 not relevant
information & communication

40 factors
material factors
30 execution factors
people factors
20
management & adminstration
factors
10
0
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R
FIGURE 12 :- CAUSE & EFFECT RELATIONSHIP FOR THE MAJOR CAUSES
70
other cause
100
90
80
not relevant
70
information & communication
60 factors
material factors
50
execution factors
40
people factors
30
management & adminstration

20 factors
10
0
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R
FIGURE 13 :- CAUSE & EFFECT RELATIONSHIP FOR OTHER CAUSES
71
The matrix table provides a clearer insight into the types of causes factors that directly related
construction wastes, as we shall see that in Figure 12, Management and Administration Factors has
a relatively high counts numbers in causing the construction wastes items ranging from Item A to
Item I and Item Q, Materials Factors dominants over Item J & K and People Factors score higher in
Item M, N and O. By conducting this causes and effects matrix exercise, we can know that each
types of construction wastes has a different roots causes to the problems and it is important to
identify those particular causes to the problems in order to a proper corrective or preventive
actions can be carried to ensure continuous improvement in performance of construction activities.
72
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
73
CHAPTER 5 : CONCLUSION
5.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter concludes the whole study based on the findings. The tested hypotheses will be
related to the research objectives and further interpreted and conclusion on the achievement of
the research objectives. Some recommendations will also be drawn from the findings and the
limitations during the research.
5.1 RESEARCH FINDINGS
The discussion on the findings of the research will be carried in 2 separate ways:
1. Relating the research findings to research objectives
2. Rewritten hypotheses and interpret the results
5.1.1 RESEARCH FINDINGS TO RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Research objective 1: General perceptions on construction wastes based on lean
construction principles.
From the research results, it is found that the general perceptions and lean concepts of local
construction personnel particularly on construction wastes and their tendency to control these
wastes are at an acceptable level. The local construction site personnel can identified most wastes
as outlined and the tendency of controlling those wastes is even higher than recognising the wastes
themselves. However, from the results, it also shows that the recognition over flow related
construction wastes is rather low compared to direct conversion wastes or physical wastes
especially those related to contributory time wastes. This signify that the local construction
personnel are still not fully comprehend the concepts of flows and non value-adding activities and
tends to included these contributory work as part and parcel of conversion process.
In fact, lean construction philosophy sees these contributory works as not adding any values to the
client even though they are sometimes necessary for the progress of the overall construction
processes. On the bright side, the research results also show a very high percentage on those
contributory works as being controlled during the construction processes signaling that those
contributory time wastes are actually well aware off those activities even though they being not
recognised as construction wastes.
74
Research Objective 2: Degree of problems arisen of the wastes identified

Based on the ranking of the event occurrences frequencies for waste events existed in construction
processes shows that the most frequent waste events occurred in construction activities are
actually flow related with both contributory time wastes and non-contributory time wastes were at
the top of the ranking list. On the other hand, many direct conversion wastes are recorded rather
low scores mostly in the range of Seldom and Very Rare occurrence events.
Eventually by breaking down the waste categories, it is made clear that the flow time wastes are the
prominent events that occurred in construction processes. Therefore, based on that information, a
better performance improvement strategies can be arranged to target at those flow related wastes
events, as those events are usually invisible or ignored by conventional construction management.
The construction processes can be further streamlined by reducing or eliminating those flow waste
elements by implementing the lean construction principles and practices such as employee
involvements, kanzan, JIT concepts etc at all level of construction processes.
Research Objective 3 : Waste cause and effect relationship and potential

improvement strategies
In this research, major sources of wastes are also been identified directly related to the respective
construction wastes from the wastes causes and effects matrix as shown in Appendix 4. From the
aggregated results shows that management and administrative factors are recognised as the
dominant sources of wastes for most of the cases while material factors and people factors are
more dominant for a few wastes types. If compared to the ranking of the likelihood for waste
factors to impact the construction productivity in general, information and communications factors
which are hardly seen as a dominant factor of any construction wastes types at the top of the
ranking list follow tightly by management and administrative factors. On the low side, the executive
factors and people factors scored relatively low in the ranking.
This is a very good exercise to point out the causes and effects relationship between the sources of
waste and waste itself for processes control, reengineering or redesign by targeting directly at the
respective sources of wastes for processes improvement. In most leaner construction organisition,
they usually practise this exercise in a survey called waste identification survey (WIS) through work
sampling practices in order to monitor and improve their flow performance from time to time
during their construction activities.
75
5.1.2 HYPOTHESIS TESTING & INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

From inferential statistical analyses in chapter 4, 9 hypotheses testing were conducted with
Pearson-r correlation. The results from the analyses had concluded following hypotheses.
1. There is no significant inter-relationship between constructions direct conversion wastes

perceived with the tendency to control those wastes.
2. There is no significant inter-relationship between constructions direct conversion wastes
perceived with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during construction.
3. There is no significant inter-relationship between the tendency to control direct conversion
wastes with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during construction.
4. There is no significant inter-relationship between constructions noncontributory time wastes

5. There is no significant inter-relationship between constructions noncontributory time wastes
6. There is no significant inter-relationship between the tendency to control non-contributory
time wastes with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during construction.
7. There is no significant inter-relationship between constructions contributory time wastes

8. There is no significant inter-relationship between constructions contributory time wastes
9. There is significant inter-relationship between the tendency to control contributory time
wastes with the frequencies of occurrences of such wastes during construction.
The non-significant over almost all the hypotheses tested in correlation testing shows that there
were not uniformity in the way the construction waste are recognised and controlled even with the
high recognition and control rates. Recognising particular construction wastes or frequencies of
occurrence of construction wastes on site by the construction personnel do not prompt them to
control them and vice versa, recognizing construction wastes are not prompt by the frequencies of
occurrence of those wastes during construction site. The construction wastes are treated very
subjectively from cases to cases and suggested that no proper doctrine or philosophy in supporting
for particular waste recognition and control mechanism.
76
In the importance of continuous process and productivity improvement, having the correct
concepts and understanding and having the right attitudes to mitigate and control the flow and flow
related wastes are very essence. In this case, the worst scenario would be someone actually not
knowing what is the waste and therefore not put in any efforts to control it and letting the wastes
to repeat from time to time. There might be some other reasons for not recognising wastes and
not controlling them. Some would not treat it as a waste as those wastes are recoverable due to
defaults by others and some misunderstanding that wastes are necessary to avoid others bigger
wastes from happening. For example, as cited from the only 1 qualitative inputs from all 81
questionnaires received stated that waiting for clarification and confirmation by client and
consultants is not a waste because he/ she believed that it is important to wait for clarification and
confirmation because lack of this will be more wastage (redo the task). From the results of cross-tab
matrix tables shows a relatively low percentage of that particular scenario and that should be a
good sign for the construction industries.
However, for the scenarios of knowing the wastes but not controlling them hit a rather high
numbers of cases and percentage especially in direct conversion wastes. This is particularly not a
good sign where those wastes are left behind the construction processes and hinder the full
potential of process improvement. The results to this might be abundant. One of the reason would
be the costs to control or improve the wastes might be higher that the cost of the wastes itself.
Besides that, the reasons of not control the wastes even the wastes are identified and recognised
perhaps is due to not sufficient tools and knowledge to control them and some might due to
misunderstanding during execution and not well trained personnel.
77
REFERENCES
1. Abdul Rashid Abdul Aziz and Abdul Aziz Hussin, (2003) Construction Safety In Malaysia: A
Review Of Industry Performance And Outlook For The Future in journal of Construction
Research, pp.146-148.
2. Alarcn, Luis F. (1993). Modeling waste and performance in construction. In Lean
Construction, Alarcn (Ed.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1997
3. Alarcn, Luis F. (1994). Tools for the identification and reduction of waste in construction
projects. In Lean Construction, Alarcn (Ed.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
1997
4. Enton, David (1994). Lean production productivity improvements for construction
professions In Lean Construction, Alarcn (ed.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
1997.
5. Formosa, Carlos T et al (2002) Material waste in building industry: main causes and
prevention. In Journel of Construction Engineering and Management, July/ August, pp. 316-318
6. Koskela, Lauri (1993).Lean production in construction. In Lean Construction, Alarcn (ed.),
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1997.
7. Koskela, Lauri (1992). Application of new production philosophy to construction Tech. Rep. No
72, CIFE, Stanford, California
8. Koskela, Lauri (2000). An Exploration towards a production theory and its application to
construction, VTT Publication 408, Finland.
9. Taylor, T.W., (1913) The principles of scientific management, Harper and Brothers, New
York quoted in Formosa, Carlos T et al (2002) Material waste in building industry: main
causes and prevention. In Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, July/ August,
pp. 317
10. Womack, J and Jones, D. (1996). Lean Thinking. Simon & Schuster
WEBSITE:-
www. Leanconstruction.org
78
APPENDICES
APPENDIX - 1CORRELATION PEARSON R RESULTS FROM SPSS 16
CORRELATIONS :-
D WASTE 1 D WASTE 2 D WASTE 3

D WASTE 1 PEARSON CORRELATION 1.000 -.145 -.040
SIG. ( 2 TAILED) .314 .593
N 81 81 81
D WASTE 2 PEARSON CORRELATION -.145 1.000 -.056
SIG. ( 2 TAILED) .314 .593
N 81 81 81
D WASTE 3 PEARSON CORRELATION -.040 -.056 1.000
SIG. ( 2 TAILED) .593 .593
N 81 81 81
NON CON 1 NON CON 2 NON CON 3

NON CON 1 PEARSON CORRELATION 1.000 .026 -.291
SIG. ( 2 TAILED) .224 .470
N 81 81 81
NON CON 2 PEARSON CORRELATION .026 1.000 -.325
SIG. ( 2 TAILED) .224 .372
N 81 81 81
NON CON 3 PEARSON CORRELATION -.291 -.325 1.000
SIG. ( 2 TAILED) .470 .372
N 81 81 81
CON 1 CON 2 CON 3

CON 1 PEARSON CORRELATION 1.000 -.555 -.223
SIG. ( 2 TAILED) .004 .217
N 81 81 81
CON 2 PEARSON CORRELATION -.555 1.000 .281
SIG. ( 2 TAILED) .004 .185
N 81 81 81
CON 3 PEARSON CORRELATION -.223 .281 1.000
SIG. ( 2 TAILED) .217 .185
N 81 81 81
79
APPENDIX 2
ONE WAY T TEST RESULTS FROM SPSS 16.0
80
APPENDIX 3
(A) SPSS DATA INPUT SHEET (WASTE CONCEPTS)
A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1 G1 H1 I1 J1 K1 L1 M1 N1 O1 P1 Q1 R1 S1
1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2
2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2
1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1
2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2
2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2
1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
81
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1
2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2
2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2
1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1
2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
82
(B) SPSS DATA INPUT SHEETS (WASTE CONTROL EVENTS)

2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1
83
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
84
(C) SPSS DATA INPUT SHEETS (FREQUENCIES OF

OCCURRENCE)
3 3 3 2 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 4
3 3 2 2 4 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 2
3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2
4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 3
4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 2
4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 3
3 1 2 1 4 1 2 2 2 4 4 5 4 3 2 5 5 2 3
2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 1
4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 2
3 4 2 3 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 3
5 4 5 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 3
5 3 3 4 4 3 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 4 2
3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
4 2 3 2 5 2 4 2 4 3 5 5 5 5 3 2 2 4 3
4 4 4 3 5 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 3
4 5 5 4 4 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 2
3 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 3 4 4 1 2
4 4 4 2 4 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3
3 4 4 4 5 2 2 3 5 3 3 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 3
4 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 1
3 4 5 3 4 3 2 2 2 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 2
4 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 3
4 2 3 2 5 3 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 2
3 3 3 2 4 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 2 2
5 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3
3 3 3 2 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 4
3 3 2 2 4 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 2
3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2
4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 3
4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 2
4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 3
3 1 2 1 4 1 2 2 2 4 4 5 4 3 2 5 5 2 3
2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 1
4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 2
3 4 2 3 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 3
5 4 5 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 3
5 3 3 4 4 3 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 4 2
85
3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
4 2 3 2 5 2 4 2 4 3 5 5 5 5 3 2 2 4 3
4 4 4 3 5 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 3
4 5 5 4 4 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 2
3 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 3 4 4 1 2
4 4 4 2 4 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3
3 4 4 4 5 2 2 3 5 3 3 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 3
4 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 1
3 4 5 3 4 3 2 2 2 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 2
4 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 3
4 2 3 2 5 3 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 2
3 3 3 2 4 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 2 2
5 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3
3 3 3 2 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 4
3 3 2 2 4 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 2
3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2
4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 3
4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 2
4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 3
3 1 2 1 4 1 2 2 2 4 4 5 4 3 2 5 5 2 3
2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 1
4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 2
3 4 2 3 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 3
5 4 5 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 3
5 3 3 4 4 3 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 4 2
3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
4 2 3 2 5 2 4 2 4 3 5 5 5 5 3 2 2 4 3
4 4 4 3 5 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 3
4 5 5 4 4 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 2
3 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 3 4 4 1 2
4 4 4 2 4 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3
3 4 4 4 5 2 2 3 5 3 3 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 3
4 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 1
3 4 5 3 4 3 2 2 2 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 2
4 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 3
4 2 3 2 5 3 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 2
3 3 3 2 4 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 2 2
5 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3
86
(D) SPSS DATA INPUT SHEETS ( SCORE AGGREGATION )
D D D
WASTE WASTE WASTE NON NON NON CON
1 2 3 CON 1 CON 2 3 CON 1 CON 2 CON3
18 15 26 11 13 23 5 4 8
17 15 33 13 14 24 3 6 12
17 16 29 9 14 21 3 6 12
18 16 24 11 13 24 3 6 12
14 15 16 13 14 20 3 6 10
18 18 28 13 14 27 3 6 13
17 14 29 12 13 25 3 6 12
12 18 25 12 14 27 3 6 10
15 18 30 13 14 24 3 6 10
12 13 34 9 12 22 4 3 10
18 13 25 13 12 21 4 6 10
17 16 23 13 11 22 3 6 14
16 16 32 10 11 27 3 6 9
18 10 26 13 8 17 3 6 8
16 16 17 12 12 13 3 6 14
18 17 21 14 14 22 4 6 15
18 18 27 9 14 26 4 6 9
18 15 21 12 13 25 3 5 11
16 17 33 13 13 24 3 6 11
18 16 30 11 14 29 3 6 12
16 17 21 10 11 29 3 6 11
16 18 22 13 13 23 4 5 12
18 12 31 9 12 23 5 5 11
17 13 21 13 12 18 3 6 10
17 15 21 13 12 21 4 6 10
15 15 25 12 14 21 3 5 10
17 18 28 12 13 21 3 6 12
18 15 26 11 13 23 5 4 8
17 15 33 13 14 24 3 6 12
17 16 29 9 14 21 3 6 12
18 16 24 11 13 24 3 6 12
14 15 16 13 14 20 3 6 10
18 18 28 13 14 27 3 6 13
17 14 29 12 13 25 3 6 12
12 18 25 12 14 27 3 6 10
15 18 30 13 14 24 3 6 10
12 13 34 9 12 22 4 3 10
18 13 25 13 12 21 4 6 10
17 16 23 13 11 22 3 6 14
87
16 16 32 10 11 27 3 6 9
18 10 26 13 8 17 3 6 8
16 16 17 12 12 13 3 6 14
18 17 21 14 14 22 4 6 15
18 18 27 9 14 26 4 6 9
18 15 21 12 13 25 3 5 11
16 17 33 13 13 24 3 6 11
18 16 30 11 14 29 3 6 12
16 17 21 10 11 29 3 6 11
16 18 22 13 13 23 4 5 12
18 12 31 9 12 23 5 5 11
17 13 21 13 12 18 3 6 10
17 15 21 13 12 21 4 6 10
15 15 25 12 14 21 3 5 10
17 18 28 12 13 21 3 6 12
18 15 26 11 13 23 5 4 8
17 15 33 13 14 24 3 6 12
17 16 29 9 14 21 3 6 12
18 16 24 11 13 24 3 6 12
14 15 16 13 14 20 3 6 10
18 18 28 13 14 27 3 6 13
17 14 29 12 13 25 3 6 12
12 18 25 12 14 27 3 6 10
15 18 30 13 14 24 3 6 10
12 13 34 9 12 22 4 3 10
18 13 25 13 12 21 4 6 10
17 16 23 13 11 22 3 6 14
16 16 32 10 11 27 3 6 9
18 10 26 13 8 17 3 6 8
16 16 17 12 12 13 3 6 14
18 17 21 14 14 22 4 6 15
18 18 27 9 14 26 4 6 9
18 15 21 12 13 25 3 5 11
16 17 33 13 13 24 3 6 11
18 16 30 11 14 29 3 6 12
16 17 21 10 11 29 3 6 11
16 18 22 13 13 23 4 5 12
18 12 31 9 12 23 5 5 11
17 13 21 13 12 18 3 6 10
17 15 21 13 12 21 4 6 10
15 15 25 12 14 21 3 5 10
17 18 28 12 13 21 3 6 12
88
(E) SPSS DATA INPUT SHEETS ( WASTE SOURCES/CAUSES)
A A A A B B B B B B C C C C C C D D D D D D E E E
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3
4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3
3 4 4 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 3
3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
4 3 3 2 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 3
3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 4 4
2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
3 4 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 1 1 3 2 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3
3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 - 4 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3
3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4
4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3
4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
2 2 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
4 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3
3 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 4 3
3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 4 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3
3 4 4 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 3
3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
4 3 3 2 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 3
3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 4 4
2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
3 4 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 1 1 3 2 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3
3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 - 4 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3
3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4
89
4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3
4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
2 2 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
4 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3
3 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 4 3
3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 4 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3
3 4 4 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 3
3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
4 3 3 2 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 3
3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 4 4
2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
3 4 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 1 1 3 2 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3
3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 - 4 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3
3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4
4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3
4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
2 2 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
4 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3
3 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 4 3
3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 4 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
90
APPENDIX 4
CAUSE & EFFECT MATRIX TABLES
A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 E1 E2 E3 F
A 24 21 15 6
B 36 9 3 9 3 6
C 24 9 3 12 15 3
D 3 15 15 15 3 3 3 6 3
E 24 9 6 3 21 3
F 15 15 9 6 6 3
G 30 12 6 9 3 3
H 27 15 21
I 12 18 12 12 6
J 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 9 3
K 3 6 3 3 3 6 3 27 9
L 6 6 6 9 6 6 6 3 12
M 3 3 15 9 9 6 6 3 9
N 3 3 12 6 3 21 15
O 3 27 18 3 12
P 12 6 9 3 15 3 3 3 9
Q 9 21 3 3 12 3 3 9
R 9 3 15 3 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 6
MAJOR CAUSE
91
APPENDIX 4
CAUSE & EFFECT MATRIX TABLES
A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 E1 E2 E3 F
A 9 15 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 6 9 3
B 12 3 6 3 3 9 3 9 9 3 3 3 3
C 15 6 6 3 3 6 15 6 3 12 3 3
D 15 9 9 3 3 6 12 3
E 3 3 3 9 3 3 3 3 3 6 15 18
F 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
G 6 3 3 6 12 3 6 3 3 3
H 9 3 3 3 3 15 3 3
I 3 3 3 6 6 3 3
J 3 6 3 3 9 9
K 3 6 9 3 6 6 3 9 9
L 3 6 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 9 3 6
M 3 9 9 3 9 3 3 3 9 12 3 3
N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 3
O 3 6 3 6 9 3 3 3
P 3 6 3 3 3 6 3
Q 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
R 9 3 6 3 6 9 6 3 3 3 3
OTHER CAUSES

Application of Lean Construction To Reduce Waste in Highway Projects

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of Lean Construction To Reduce Waste in Highway Projects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

THE APPLICATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE WASTE IN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

1.1 NEED FOR STUDY

(a) Literature review

(b) Data Collection

(c) Data analysis

1.4 SCOPE OF WORK

1.5 RESEARCH PLAN

CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW

Construction industries worldwide have become notorious for under-performance in many

TABLE 2.1 :- Waste in construction : compilation of existing data (koskela, 1992)

2.1 PROBLEMS IN CONSTRUCTION

Start of manufacturing Start of construction in the

TABLE 2.2 :- Context of manufacturing & construction production (koskela, 2000)

2.2 CONCEPT OF NEW PRODUCTION PHILOSOPHY

The application of lean production philosophy to construction or Lean Construction, as it has

2.3 CONCEPT OF PRODUCTION

FIGURE 1 :- An exploration towards a production theory & its application to highway

VALUE GENERATION CONCEPT

2.4 FLOWS IN CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTION

FIGURE 2 :- The preconditions for a construction task (koskela, 2000)

2.5 CONSTRUCTION WASTE IN GENERAL

2.6 WASTE & VALUE LOSS IN CONSTRUCTION

CONCEPT OF WASTE IN PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES

FIGURE 3 :- Performance improvement in conventional, quality and new production

2.7 WASTE CLASSIFICATION

1. Overproduction: related to the production of a quantity greater than required or earlier

2. Substitution: It is monetary waste caused by the substitution of a material by a more

4. Transportation: It is concerned with the internal movement of materials on site.

6. Inventories: related to excessive or unnecessary inventories which lead to material waste

7. Movement: concerned with unnecessary or inefficient movements made by workers

8. Production of defective products: it occurs when the final or intermediate product

1. Waste due to waiting or idle;

FIGURE 4 :- Categories of wastes of productive time (Serpell. 1995)

2.8 KEY CONSTRUCTION WASTE CAUSES

2. Controllable causes associated to conversions

3. Controllable causes associated to management activities

2.9 MODELLING WASTE & PERFORMANCE IN CONSTRUCTION

The introduction of new production philosophies in construction requires new measures of

1. Effectiveness: A measure of accomplishment of the right things:

The problem of performance evaluation is a multi-attribute or multi-criteria one. Generally, the

2.10 RESEARCH GAP

CHAPTER 3 : DATA COLLECTION

3.1 METHOD OF RESEARCH

Table 3.1 : waste elements in 3 separate waste groups

Table 3.2 :- waste causes factor group

3.2 PROFILE OF RESPONDANTS

3.3 STRUCTURE OF QUESTIONNAIRE

3.4 SCORE ASSIGNMENT

3.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

Hypothesis 1: There is inter-relationship between constructions direct conversion wastes

Hypothesis 3: There is inter-relationship between the tendency to control those

3.6 COMPOSITION OF RESPONDANTS

FIGURE 5:- COMPOSITION OF RESPONDANTS POSITION

3.7 PROJECT DETAILS

PROJECT LENGTH ;- 180 KMS.

CONTRACT PRICE :- Rs. 1800 CR appx..

DATE OF START :- OCTOBER 2009.

CLIENT :- GSRDC(GUJARAT STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION)

INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :- BCEOM LTD.

DESIGN CONSULTANT :- LEA ASSOCIATES SOUTH ASIA PVT LTD.

EPC CONTRACTOR:- L & T ECC LTD.

PROJECT:- 6 LANING FROM SURAT TO DAHISAR AS BOT (TOLL) PROJECT