• No results found

CHAPTER EIGHT: CASE FOUR-OLD CHEMISTRY BUILDING RENOVATION PROJECT

In document Tesis Doctoral Ballard (Page 103-108)

8.1 Project Description and Last Planner Implementation

Linbeck Construction, a founding member of the Lean Construction Institute, was the general contractor for Rice University's Old Chemistry Building Renovation Project in Houston, Texas. Linbeck brought John Pasch, Rice's facilities manager, to the Neenan Company's annual winter conference in 1998. At that conference, James Womack spoke on the need and opportunity to extend lean production (manufacturing) concepts and techniques to the construction industry and Greg Howell27 shared the Lean Construction Institute's vision of that application. John was sufficiently impressed that he allowed Linbeck to negotiate with its primary subcontractors rather than competitively bid them as had been the University's practice. At this point, a substantial building program stood in the offing and Linbeck was one of three contractors competing for the lion's share.

Kathy Jones, Linbeck's project manager, had the author conduct several educational and training sessions with project personnel, including the architect. Unfortunately, the architect refused to participate in the Last Planner system. However, the subcontractors became totally committed and enthusiastic about the planning process during the course of the job, as did Rice University's personnel. The project was completed to a very aggressive schedule to the satisfaction of users and within the budget. Rice University was so well pleased with the performance that Linbeck won its Fondren Library Project, and is well situated to do roughly half a billion dollars worth of work in the Rice Program over the next several years.

8.2 PPC and Reasons

The author facilitated team scheduling exercises that produced an overall project schedule, then a more detailed schedule for the initial phase of work and the design development needed to support it. That phase schedule became the driver for weekly work planning, the results of which are shown in Figure 8.1.

Over a period of approximately eleven weeks, PPC rose to a level of 85% or so, then stabilized at that level for the duration of the project. This was an unprecedented accomplishment at the time, and resulted from the dedication of the owner, general contractor, and subcontractor personnel to the Last Planner System and its goal of plan reliability. Kathy Jones reinforced the Last Planner principles by fining those who used the expression 'I hope' or 'hopefully' in connection with a commitment to do work. (The fine was a six pack of beer to be collected at the project-ending celebration.) The project manager for one subcontractor volunteered at an LCI research workshop that "It's fun to go to work now!"

27 Co-founder with the author of the Lean Construction Institute in August, 1997.

Figure 8.1

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

PPC 4 Wk Mvg Ave.

Old Chemistry Building-PPC

Table 8.1

Date 1/25/99 2/1/99 2/8/99 2/15/99 2/22/99 2/29/99 3/8/99 3/15/99 3/22/99 3/29/99 4/5/99 4/12/99 4/19/99 4/26/99 Tasks

Completed

20 38 40 48 49 44 46 46 56 57 71 66 66 66

Tasks Assigned

39 55 49 57 61 60 57 57 66 66 77 76 75 82

Date 5/3/99 5/10/99 5/17/99 5/24/99 6/1/99 6/7/99 6/14/99 6/21/99 6/28/99 7/6/99 7/12/99 7/19/99 7/26/99 Tasks

Completed

60 53 65 64 50 55 65 69 62 62 66 63 73

Tasks Assigned

64 62 72 69 56 64 72 80 67 83 76 71 80

Date 8/2/99 8/9/99 Tasks Completed 59 53 Tasks Assigned 67 65

Of the relatively few failures to complete weekly assignments, most were caused by lack of manpower or failure to complete prerequisite work ("make ready"). As this occurred during a building boom in the Houston area, the low frequency of manpower problems is a testament to the subcontractors' dedication to the project.

The remaining reasons categories were Schedule Accuracy (the assignment shouldn't have been made), Material Deliveries, Design Coordination, Equipment (part of the building, not construction equipment), Rework, Weather, and Overcrowding.

Figure 8.2

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Manpower

Make Ready

Sched. Accuracy

Mat'l Del.

Des. Coord. Eqpt. Del Rework Weather

Overcrowding

Old Chemistry Building-Reasons for Noncompletions

8.3 Observations

Lack of participation by the architect was a serious deficiency on the project, perhaps concealed by the high PPC and low incidence of design coordination as a reason for failing to complete weekly work plan assignments. Design problems did impact the job, but that impact would only be evident in schedule changes and in the lookahead process.

Unfortunately, the lookahead process was not fully and formally developed on this project, in part because it was still being defined and its techniques created at the time Old Chemistry was initiated.

Linbeck intends to extend the Last Planner System to the design phase of the Fondren Library Project, and has Rice University's agreement to keep the same subcontractors in place for that project. This commercial alliance among Linbeck and its 'preferred' suppliers is a critical component in the recipe for success.

8.4 Learnings

On the positive side, the Old Chemistry Building Renovation Project demonstrated that PPC could be maintained consistently at a level of 85% through development and nurturing of teamwork and the subsequent team enforcement of norms and rules. The commercial success of the general contractor and its subcontractors indicates the power and impact of increasing plan reliability. Specific techniques that were trialed successfully on this project included team scheduling, specifically team production of detailed phase schedules, resulting from intense negotiation among the speciality contractors themselves, within a schedule framework established by the general contractor.

As for things that might be done better on future projects, implementation of Last Planner in design and involvement of design professionals is certainly number one. Lesser issues, but still important, include the need for a more transparent lookahead process and the need for more explicit learning from analysis and action on reasons for failures.

In document Tesis Doctoral Ballard (Page 103-108)