IMPROVING PRODUCTION CONTROL - INITIAL OVERVIEW

G. Henrich 1, L. Koskela 2
1
PhD Student, SCRI, University of Salford, Salford-UK, M7 1NU
2
Professor, SCRI, University of Salford, Salford-UK, M7 1NU
E-mail: G.Henrich@pgr.salford.ac.uk

ABSTRACT: The goal of this paper is to make a review of the shortcomings and understand
the gaps that exist in Production Control. This paper explains some concepts of Production
Control. After that, the CPM, Line-of-Balance and Last Planner System methods are
considered in depth. Also comparisons are made between the methods and the concepts. After
that, some future development needs are discussed. And finally, conclusions are made about
these methods and the possibility of combining them is analyzed.

Keywords – Critical Path Method, Last Planner, Line-of-Balance, Percent Plan Complete, Production Control.

1. INTRODUCTION

Production Control is used in civil engineering as a management tool to keep the project
goals as close as possible to those planned. There are a lot of methods illustrated in the
literature of Production Control, but it is very difficult to find one that includes all our needs
in a single process.
The goal of this paper is do a review of the shortcomings and understand the gaps that
exist in Production Control.
Production Control is used to be sure that what was planned in the Master Programme has
been followed in the production level. Furthermore, it is used to mitigate waste.
Consequently, decisions have to be made during the project life to keep it on track.
Also it is necessary to identify what are the requirements for a Production Control. The
requirements will supply orientation to formulate tools to do this control, as well as analyze
the tools already existing.
With this in mind, firstly this paper will explain some concepts of Production Control.
Second, the CPM, Line-of-Balance and Last Planner System methods are considered in depth
and some gaps in Production Control are identified. Also comparisons are made between the
methods and the concepts. Thirdly, future development needs are discussed. And finally,
conclusions are made about these methods and the possibility of combining them is analyzed.

2. CONCEPTUALIZING OF PRODUCTION CONTROL

2.1.Production Control as Decision-making

To keep the project as planned in the Master Programme, it is necessary make some decisions
during the production process. These decisions can be made in all of the three generic
managerial actions: design, operation and improvement of the production system. This means
that the design of the production system should facilitate its operation and improvement. For
example, the production system can be designed to be transparent, which facilitates both
operation and improvement. The operation phase should provide empirical data on the actual
behavior of the production system for the improvement phase. In turn, improvement should
address both the operation and the design of the system (Koskela & Ballard, 2003).
 Second, in the Oxford Dictionary, the meaning of the word decision is the action or
process of deciding. In our case it is the redirection of something in the production process
that is not in agreement with the requirements of Production Control.

Melles and Wamelink (1997) define:

“Decision-making is the act of making a (subject) choice among alternatives, based upon
information which is available, to pursue goal-oriented activities.”
A Management Information System is the total set of methods, resources and activities
which an organization uses to satisfy its information requirements with respect to supporting
functions.

The incoming data flows are:

ƒ production data (from the production process);
ƒ external data (from the construction company environment);
ƒ data concerning the results of the decision process.

The outgoing information flows are:

ƒ information to support the decision process;
ƒ information concerning orders for the production process.

DATA MANAGEMENT INFORMATION INFORMATION

SYSTEM

Fig. 1. Transformation of Data into Information with the Information System

The purpose of the decision system is to make correct decisions based upon the
information provided by the information system in order to achieve the objective of the
controlled system (production process). The purpose of the information system is to
transform internal as well as external data into information which is relevant for the
decision-maker.
Bertrand et al. (1990) distinguishes three main decision functions: ‘aggregate production
planning’, ‘materials coordination’, and ‘work load control’. A fourth decision function,
‘work order release’ is considered to result from a process of negotiation between Materials
Coordination and Work Load Control.
Melles and Wamelink (1997) brought this conception to construction and defined the
decision functions as following:

ƒ Aggregate production planning – is the highest level decision level. Based upon a
number of production-related parameters (for example the desire service level
norm, throughput times and capacity loading percentages) a high-level plan is
developed to schedule the utilization of the production resources capacities for the
medium to long term. The production volume and the resources capacity plan are
related to production units.
 ƒ Materials coordination – involves making decisions concerning the flow of
materials throughout the entire factory. More must be taken into account than just
the basic flow of production materials normally used in the construction industry.
The ‘material coordination’ decision function is authorized to make delivery
agreements with clients (order acceptance). The planned production volume from
‘aggregate production planning’ is specified in work orders based upon the
products to be made, the points in time and the quantities required. Based upon the
assigned due dates, the ‘material coordination’ function can then determine the
proper sequence for processing the work.

ƒ Work load control – is actually an approach whereby the planned production

activities are quantified in terms of the loading of the major resource capacities at
the production unit level. This is based upon the resource capacity plan (prepared
as part of the ‘aggregate production planning’ function). In other words, ‘work
load control’ specifies the degrees of freedom and the restrictions which need to
be taken into account by the material coordination function. This decision function
ensures that the expected capacity loading percentage for the available resource
capacities does not exceed the levels determined by the production unit’s
production-related parameters.

ƒ Work order release – The sequence of work orders determined by the material
coordination function need not be the most desirable sequence from the
perspective of production unit control. New information may become available,
on the basis of which a different sequence may be desired. The decision ‘work
order release’ will determine which work orders can be produced, in principle,
when new information about the availability of materials or resources capacities is
provided.

To summarize, following is what each decision function actually involves.

- Aggregate production planning Æ Master Programme

- Materials control Æ Basic flow of production materials

- Work load control Æ Use of production capacity

- Work order release Æ Which tasks can be started

2.2.Requirements to Production Control

Virtually all managers want on-time delivery, minimal work in process, short customer lead
time, and maximum utilization of resources. Unfortunately, these goals are in conflict. It is
much easier to finish jobs on time if resource utilization is low. Customer lead times can be
made essentially zero if an enormous inventory is maintained. And so on. The goal of
production scheduling is to strike a profitable balance among these conflicting objectives
(Hopp & Spearman, 2001).
According to present understanding of the theory of production, there are three views to
production, each providing for a number of principles for the production system:
transformation, flow and value generation - TFV (Koskela, 2000).
 The objective of the requirements in Production Control is to supply the decision maker
with information about agreed levels of utilization of materials, machines, and labour.
Furthermore, it is achieved by controlling: quality, speed, dependability, flexibility, and cost.
Koskela and Ballard (2003) summarize the most general requirements for a production
system as follows:
A) A production system in construction should be designed to realize at least the
following requirements: delivering the product, minimizing waste and maximizing
value.
B) All managerial functions: design, operation and improvement, must contribute to the
realization of these requirements.
C) The generic peculiarities of construction, as well as the situation wise characteristics,
must be taken into account in the realization of these requirements.
D) All parts and aspects of the production system must be integrated: synergies must be
utilized, and contradicting issues must be balanced.

A Maximize value Minimize waste Deliver the product

Reduce variability

B
Reduce variability in Mitigate variability Address variability
production system design in operation in improvement

C
Eliminate or reduce Apply concepts, principles and
peculiarities of construction tools of product development and
(”construction as manufacturing”) realization

Fig. 2. A partial requirements hierarchy for production systems in construction

(Koskela & Ballard, 2003)

Furthermore, Koskela and Ballard (2003) assume that in terms of primary requirements
(A), Production Control is more focused in ‘deliver the product’ than ‘maximize value’ and
‘minimize waste’, leaving these last two for informal and unsystematic treatment. Regarding
the managerial functions (B), in the absence of a theory of production control managerial
functions are not able to support all primary requirements. The generic peculiarities of
construction (C) and lower levels of productions system will not be discussed in this paper.

2.3.Summarizing

The concepts of Production Control are summarized below. They are grouped according
with each topic.

The four decision functions are:

ƒ Aggregate production planning;

ƒ Materials control;
ƒ Work load control;
ƒ Work order release.
 The main principles of production are:

ƒ Transformation;
ƒ Flow;
ƒ Value.

The managerial actions are:

ƒ Design;
ƒ Operation;
ƒ Improvement.

3. THE PRODUCTION CONTROL METHODS

3.1.The Critical Path Method (CPM)

The network technique is a method for scheduling project activities based upon calculations
which take a number of known activity attributes (interrelationships, date of initiation, and
date of completion) into account. A number of versions of this network technique have been
developed, of which the Critical Path Method (CPM) is the best known.
Fundamental to the CPM is the basic representation of a project. It is characteristic of all
projects that all work must be performed in some well-defined order. These relations of order
can be shown graphically. Each job in the project is represented by an arrow which depicts
(1) the existence of the job, and (2) the direction of time-flows (from the tail to the head of
the arrow). The arrows then are interconnected to show graphically the sequence in which
jobs in the project must be performed. The result is a topological representation of a project
showed in the Fig. 3.

1 3 6

0 8
4
2 7
5

Fig. 3. Example of Critical Path Method

Several things should be noted. It is tacitly assumed that each job in a project is defined
so that it is fully completed before any of its successors can begin. The junctions where
arrows meet are called ‘events’. These are points in time when certain jobs are completed and
others must begin. Associated with each event, as a label, is a non-negative integer that is
used to designate the job that follows.
Having a diagram of a project is only the first step of analyzing a project. Now the plan
must be put on a timetable to obtain a schedule. In order to schedule a project, it is necessary
to assign elapsed time durations to each job. The duration of each job is a random variable
taken from an approximately known distribution (Kelley & Walker, 1959).
 The CPM method has some restriction. Peer (1974) argues that network analysis methods
are incapable of providing a practical construction schedule for site management. Limitation
on its use in planning a production process are imposed by the basic assumption of unlimited
resources without restrictions on hiring and releasing, definite activity durations, and
independence of each activity with regard to shifting it between earliest start and latest finish.
The resulting gap between schedule and reality cannot be eliminated by resources allocation
techniques.
Furthermore, the CPM approach to resource allocation is too simple for construction and
tends to ignore its constraints (Birrell, 1980).

3.2.Line-of-Balance

The Line-of-Balance was originally derived from the manufacturing industry and was
developed by the U.S. Navy Department in 1942 for the programming and controlling of
repetitive or one-off projects. It was later developed by Nation Building Agency (in UK) for
repetitive housing projects. L-o-B is a resource-oriented scheduling tool and mentioned that
scheduling with resources as the starting point may be more realistic than activity-dominated
scheduling.
This method has later been adapted to planning and project control (Lumsden, 1968; Inpe,
1972). Line-of-Balance proposes that activities should be planned within their production
rhythms, in other words, the number of units that a crew can produce in a determined time
unit. These rhythms are shown in a graph ‘time x units’ and it can represent the real
production of units. The Line-of-Balance helps the foreman of a production line, at anytime;
to observe the progress of each activity. In many phases of its application many decisions
have to be taken by the foreman such as: level of detachment in activities planning; crew size;
production expected; rhythm, that result in the number of crew simultaneously in the site;
position; direction of production; and technologies used (Mendes, 1999).

Fig. 4. Example of L-o-B method – DYNAProject software - DSS

Soini et al. (2004) affirm that in their practical implementation of L-o-B and with the help
of a commercial software to do it, the benefits achieved were: less schedule risk, better ways
of analyzing alternatives, cutting of project durations, quick checking of schedule feasibility,
real-time standardized reporting of progress to management, and the possibility to optimize
control actions and actually get the sites to control.

In terms of the limitations of L-o-B method Kavanagh (1985) indicated that this
technique was designed to model simple repetitive production processes and, therefore, does
not transplant readily into a complex and capricious construction environment. On the other
hand, it has been successfully used as the principal scheduling tool in large construction
companies in Finland. It has been utilized to improve the production flow in the projects
(Soini et al., 2004).
Neale and Neale (1989) mentioned that L-o-B can show clearly only a limited amount of
information and a limited degree of complexity, especially when using the technique to
monitor process.

Suhail and Neale (1994) presented a new methodology, CPM/LOB, that adequately
integrates the merits of CPM and L-o-B by taking the initiative of using resources leveling
and the float times calculated by CPM in the L-o-B. They affirm that it centers on resource
leveling and the utilization of float times to streamline the scheduling process and achieve the
project goals in productivity and reduced costs. CPM/LOB is based on resource-driven rates
of completions that can be promptly revised and can produce enhanced LOB information
incorporating float times by utilizing the resource management capacity of the CPM. It
eliminates the troubles associated with the change of sequence of operations with minimal
input and indicates their impacts as a reality on the completion date. It maintains a practical
continuity of work for crews and respects the branching logical relationships of the typical
unit networks.
Russel and Wong (1993) also developed structures that provide a means to marry CPM
with linear scheduling. They affirm that their application is facilitated by the use of a
generalized set of precedents as well as demonstrating the flexibility of these structures.

3.3.The Last Planner System

The Last Planner System (LPS) was originally developed by Ballard and Howell. It is
designed to increase reliability of planning as a mechanism to improve project performance.
It provides planning and control tools that are effective even in quick, uncertain and complex
projects.
The LPS uses a look-ahead and a weekly work plan form to planning. The look-ahead has
as its objectives to identify and eliminate constraints to achieve the milestones of the project,
in a horizon that can be variable from four to eight weeks.

wk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

plan ? plan
review

lookahead 4-6 weeks

Fig. 5. Look-ahead planning - LPS

 The weekly work planning process is built around promises. The agreed programme
defines when tasks should be done and acts as a request to the supplier to do that task. The
last planners only promise once they have clarified the conditions of satisfaction and if they
are clear that the task can be done.
The LPS assumes that planning means selecting from what ‘should’ be done to complete
a project and deciding for a given time frame what ‘will’ be done. Recognize that because of
resource constraints, not all ‘can’ be done, and accordingly, if a subset of what ‘should’ be
done ‘can’ be done, and a subset of what ‘can’ be done ‘will’ be done, then there is a high
likelihood for what has been planned (will) be successfully completed (‘did’) (Ballard 2000).
The Last Planner System just allows load assignments in the weekly work plan that
certainly will be completed in the end of week. It is a good way to increase Percent Plan
Complete (PPC) but, on the other hand, it does not take into account what will happen with
the project as a whole. Thus, the Last Planner system is viewed as a linear flow, finishing
with the learning caused by failures in the PPC, as showed in the Fig. 6.

MASTER
PROGRAMME

SHOULD

LAST PLANNER
CAN PLANNING WILL DID
PROCESS PPC

Fig. 6. Last Planner system - linear flow

Although The Last Planner system has a look-ahead planning view, where the
assignments follow the Master Programme, it does not pay enough attention in the
assignments that ‘should’ be done and will not be done. So it is focused just in what ‘can’ be
done through the material, equipments, and human resources available.

3.4.Comparisons

Do the methods cover all decision functions? Based on the Management Information
System, how the three methods presented lead with the decision functions is demonstrated
below. Thus, it is possible see how much of the Production Control field is covered as well as
identify its gaps.

Table 1. The decision functions through the Production Control methods.

Aggregate
Material Work Load Work Order
Production
Coordination Control Release
Planning
Critical Path
Partial NO Limited Limited
Method (CPM)
Line-of-Balance
Partial NO Limited Partial
(L-o-B)
Last Planner Could Be
NO Partial YES
System integrated
 Analyzing Table 1 what we can notice is a big gap in ‘material coordination’. It is there
because these methods are more concerned with executing the task than in coordinating the
production as a whole. The supply of material is very important to the success of the
production. There is a lot of software on the market such as MRP, MRP-II, ERP, etc for
coordinating this material, but they are still separate and should be integrated with the
Production Control methods.
Still looking at this table, but focusing in the other decision functions, there are some gaps
in each method separately. But it could be resolved by trying to integrate the methods in one
unique way to do Production Control, and adding the material coordination to it too.

Do the methods support the theory of production? Another way that the methods could
be analyzed is under the theory of production view. It is represented in the following table.

Table 2. The methods under the theory of production view (general terms).
Transformation Flow Value
(task definition) (waste) (improve)
Critical Path
YES NO Implicit
Method (CPM)
Line-of-Balance
Partial Partial Implicit
(L-o-B)
Last Planner
YES Partial Implicit
System

The Table 2 shows that in Transformation and Flow concepts the methods could be
completed by themselves, but there is a gap in the Value generation concept. It occurs mainly
because the quality is treated separately in Production Control when it should not be.

Do the methods cover all the managerial actions?

Table 3. The methods and the managerial actions.

Design Operation Improvement
Critical Path
NO YES NO
Method (CPM)
Line-of-Balance
NO YES NO
(L-o-B)
Last Planner
NO YES YES
System

As demonstrated on Table 3 the Production Control is well served in the operation field.
On the other hand, in design the methods are not concerned how they will achieve the goals.
In other words they do not plan in which way the tasks will be executed. Regarding
improvement just the Last Planner System envelops it.

4. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS

Several efforts have been carried out to develop support systems in different countries around
the world. Several interesting tools like Work Move Plan (Choo et al., 1998), Integrated
Production Scheduler (Chua et al., 1999) and Lewis (Sripraset & Dawood, 2002) have been
developed to improve the implementation of the concepts of Lean Construction in the
Industry. On the other hand, the adoptions of these new tools by companies have not been
exempt of problems that have been reported in the literature (Alarcon & Calderon, 2003).

4.1.Integrating decision functions

In terms of general view the Last Planner system could be improved by CPM/LOB
because of two arguments. First, the Last Planner system affirms that it may not be able to
stay on the critical path if it is not possible, but at least this is a conscious decision. Secondly,
instead of the Master Programme driving everything else, the system should look at how it
can reach the next milestone.
A feedback from production to Master Programme is fundamental to obtain a stable
Production Control and consequently a reliable planning. Thus, to close this gap in aggregate
planning control it is suggested that the assignments that will not be processed by the Last
Planner should pass through an analysis which will answer why the assignments will not be
done, as well as giving a forecast when they will be done. Furthermore, these analyses have
to show what impacts are caused by these delays in the Master Programme, such as: cash
flow, end of project date, crew size, future assignments conflicts, etc. Once those impacts are
identified, the manager is able to do a decision-making adjustment of the Master Programme
to achieve the milestones. It is not reliable to leave it to the system to look at how it can reach
the next milestone because it does not have enough information to do it, as for example the
cost involved in these changes. Thus, the production control should be viewed as a closed
cycle flow as showed in the Fig. 7.

IMPACT
MASTER WHY?
FORECAST TO BE
PROGRAMME
DONE?

SHOULD
WILL NOT

LAST PLANNER
CAN PLANNING DID NOT
PROCESS
PPC
WILL DID

Fig. 7. Last Planner System cycle flow with feedback to Master Programme

What is being proposed is that the production planning should be done under a Master
Programme shadow.
The main impacts caused by assignments planned and not done could be seen using the
CPM. It is very useful to identify which are the assignments that we really prioritize toward a
good performance of the Master Programme. Here the term milestone is used to reference the
main tasks that are in the critical path of the project, so they deserve more attention. On the
other hand, CPM provides no mechanism for explicitly checking schedule analysis and tasks
flexibility (buffers).
 The L-o-B method can forecast the delay in the delivery of a unit but cannot forecast any
accompanying delay in total project completion. This is a typical output of the CPM (Carr &
Meyer, 1974)
For a complete control, a material coordination method has to be integrated with these
three methods

4.2.Covering the 3 theories of production

In practice, construction is much focussed in the Transformation principle trying to

realize value-adding activities efficiently. As this field is constantly in development there is
always something to be improved in the process.
The methods of Production Control have to develop the Flow principle to avoid waste in
construction process. It envelops mainly the material coordination that could be integrated
with the managerial action. Furthermore, they have to be concerned in reducing the share of
non-value-adding activities too.
And definitely the Value principle has to be adopted in the methods to improve the
customer value inside the Production Control.

4.3.Integration managerial actions

As demonstrated before in Table 3 the Production Control methods are just interested in
the operation field. What has to be done is to expand their views to design and develop a way
to give feedback to design and operation fields to have a constant improvement.

4.4.Summarizing

Thus, in the point of view of the authors, Production Control could be seen by a new way
of planning and controlling using the three methods discussed before, under the four decision
functions, based in the theory of production (TFV), and using the three managerial actions.
But to achieve the complete control of the project it is still necessary to develop some
studies, tools, and experiences to observe how these concepts and the three methods will
behave when working together.

5. CONCLUSIONS

According with what has been presented the idea emerges that Production Control could
be improved by formulating a specific theory of Production Control, that until now is
nonexistent. It could be started based in Theory of Production (TFV), adding the other two
concepts presented, and future developments.
Each one of the three methods discussed, CPM, L-o-B, and Last Planner system, has its
own peculiarity and acts in a determinate field of Production Control. The goal is to identify
the advantages of each method and try to apply them in combined way. Furthermore, once
the gaps have been identified, it is now possible to improve Production Control. It could be
achieved through integrating material coordination, designing the operation process, and
improvement of quality and value.
In conclusion, we could have a better and more reliable Production Control by integrating
CPM, L-o-B and Last Planner system, under the four decision functions view, based in the
theory of production (TFV), and using the three managerial actions. But to achieve this,
deeper research would be necessary. In continuation of this research further studies will be
done more thoroughly in each method. The application of this will also be tested within the
industry in a case study.

6. REFERENCES

Alarcon, L. F.; Calderon, R. 2003. A production planning support system for construction
projects. 11th Annual Conference on Lean Construction – IGLC – Blacksburg – Virginia.
Ballard, G. 1997. Lookahead planning: the missing link in production control. 5th Annual
Conference on Lean Construction – IGLC – Gold Coast – Australia.
Ballard, G.; Howell, G. 1998. Shielding production: an essential step in production control.
Proceedings of PMI Research Conference 2002 - Project Management Institute.
Ballard, G. 2000. The last planner system of production control. PhD. Thesis. Falculty of
Engineering of The University of Birmingham - UK.
Bertrand, J.W.M.; Wortmann, J.C.; Wijngaard, J. 199O. Production control: a structural and
design oriented approach. Elsevier - The Netherlands. pp. 322.
Birrell, G.S. 198O. Construction planning: beyond the critical path. Journal of the
Construction Division. Vol. 106. pp. 389-407. Sep. 1980.
Conte, A. S. I . 2002. Lean construction: from theory to practice . 10th Annual Conference
on Lean Construction – IGLC – Gramado - Brazil.
Hopp, W. J.; Spearman, M. L., 2001. Factory physics: foundations of manufacturing
management. McGraw-Hill –2ndEd. – New York. pp. 698.
Howell, G.; Koskela, L.; Ballard, G.; Tommelein, I. 2002. Lean Construction tools and
techniques. In: Best, Rick & de Valence, Gerard (ed.). Design and Construction: Building
in Value. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford-UK. Chapter-15, pp. 227 - 255.
Howell, G.; Laufer, A.; Ballard, G.. 1993. Uncertain and project objectives. Project
Appraisal, 8, pp. 37-43. Guildford, England: March, 1993.
Kelley, J.E.; Walker, M.R. 1959. Critical-path planning and scheduling. Proceedings of the
eastern joint computer conference – 1959, pp. 160-173.
Kenley, R. 2004. Project micromanagement: practical site planning and management of
work flow. 12th Annual Conference on Lean Construction – IGLC – Denmark.
Koskela, L. 2000. An exploration towards a production theory and its application to
construction. PhD. Thesis. University of Technology of Spoon - Finland.
Koskela, L.; Ballard, G.; Howell, G.; Tommelein, I. 2002. The foundations of lean
construction. In: Best, Rick & de Valence, Gerard (ed.). Design and Construction:
Building in Value. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford-UK. Chapter-14, pp. 211 - 226.
Koskela, L.; Ballard, G. 2003. What should we require from a production system in
construction? Construction Research Congress In Construction - Wind of Change:
Integration and Innovation, ASCE.
Koskela, L. 2004. Making-do – the eighth category of waste. 12th Annual Conference on
Lean Construction – IGLC – Denmark.
Laufer, A.; Tucker, R. L. 1987. Is construction project planning really doing its job? A
critical examination of focus, role and process. Journal of construction Management and
Economics , V5, pp. 243-266.
Lumsden, P. 1968. The line of balance Method. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1968.
Melles, B.; Wamelink, J.W.F.. 1997. Production control in construction: different
approaches to control, use of information and automated data processing. Delftse
Universitaire Pers - The Netherlands. pp. 318.
Mendes, R. 1999. Programação na construção de edifícios de míltiplos pavimentos. Doctoral
Thesis. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina - PPGEP. Florianópolis-Brazil.
Peer, S. 1974. Network analysis and construction planning. Journal of the Construction
Division. Vol. 100. pp. 203-210. Sep. 1974.
Russel, A.D. 1993. New generation of planning structures. Journal of the Construction
Engineering and Management. Vol.119. No. 2. Sep. 1993 – ASCE.
Soini, M.; Leskela, I.; Seppanen, O. 2004. Implementation of line-of-balance based
scheduling and project control system in a large construction company. 12th Annual
Conference on Lean Construction – IGLC - Denmark.
Suhail, S. A.; Neale, R. H. 1994. CPM/LOB: new methodology to integrate CPM and Line of
Balance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management – ASCE.