Improvement  suggestions  for  phase  1B

The second part of the workshop aimed at proposing countermeasures to address the root causes of the problems identified in phase 1A. To this end, a two-pronged approach was adopted. Firstly, an opportunity was given to project participants to voice their opinion in

139

terms of improvements that could be made in phase 1B based on the root cause analysis carried out previously. The attendees decided that no works on site should get started until all uncertainties were resolved (e.g. design issues, material specifications, cost approval).

This decision was made in order to prevent disruptions in the workflow and downtime, thus enabling the compression of the lead time for the next retrofit phase. Also, a web-based project management platform was set up and a meeting was organised by the consultant in order to streamline the communication and foster collaboration amongst the team. Besides, the organisational structure of the project (Figure 33) was clarified throughout the

workshop.

Secondly, countermeasures based on the candidate solutions identified earlier in this research were also suggested as potential improvements. The author met the consultant before the workshop took place and introduced to him the candidate’s solutions in order to assess whether they could be useful for addressing the problems identified in phase 1A. A number of managerial practices and methods were selected during this meeting. These are presented as follows:

• Foster collaboration, engagement, and early involvement;

• Reduce uncertainty;

• Use of visual aids to improve communication and decision-making;

• Early identification of project constraints;

• Visual controls;

• Compress lead time;

• Reduce variability;

• Last Planner System;

• Visual Management;

• Standardisation.

The consultant appreciated the suggestions presented by the researcher, but he warned that there could be too much information to be introduced all at once and therefore suggested to narrow down to a few recommendations. The author proposed the

implementation of the Last Planner System and argued that it could be a good starting point in terms of improvements because that tool has embedded on its design several practices mentioned above such as uncertainty and variability reduction, collaboration, engagement, and early identification of project constraints. The use of visual aids to improve coordination and decision-making is also considered during LPS meetings. He contended that the LPS could be useful to reduce disruption in the workflow on site, hence enabling the

compression of project’s lead time. Thus, the LPS was presented to the attendees during the workshop and included as an improvement for the next phase of the project. The

140

problems faced in phase 1A are summarised in Table 28 along with their root causes and the countermeasures suggested for improving project performance in phase 1B.

Table 28 – Problems, root causes (phase 1A) and candidate solutions (phase 1B)

Problems faced in phase 1A Root causes of problems Countermeasures Inefficient coordination and

collaboration among the team

Lack of a clear communication structure and information flow

A meeting was arranged with the team to streamline communication and collaboration;

A web-based project management platform was set up for improving communication among the team;

Project organisational structure was clarified during the workshop.

Disruptions in the workflow on site, downtime, and high level of work in progress

Inappropriate production planning and control system in place

Shield production against uncertainties;

Implement Last Planner System.

Late material delivery and rework Lack of information for helping with

the window’s measurements Use of Visual Management to improve communication and support standard work.

For instance, use of work standard procedures (laminated A3 on site to show how work should be done).

Long retrofit lead time Poor communication/collaboration among the team and inadequate production planning approach

Improve clarity in terms of roles and responsibilities;

Shield production against uncertainties;

Implement Last Planner System.

Lastly, it is noteworthy that the countermeasures presented earlier focused on tackling the root causes of problems faced in phase 1A. However, there is an important feature of the retrofit in phase 1B that cannot be overlooked, namely, the fact that construction will be conducted in occupied buildings. Consequently, based on the candidate solutions identified throughout his research, the author suggested the following guidelines as a complement to the recommendations mentioned above.

• Safeguard users and existing operations in the building (e.g. train site personnel in order to avoid unnecessary issues with tenants, minimise disruptions via proper planning);

• Effective and continuous communication with tenants (i.e. keep tenants fully informed about the progress of works);

• Maintenance of essential services in the existing building (e.g. heating, water and electricity supply, etc.).

The workshop’s attendees agreed with those recommendations and decided to take them into account in the next phase of the project. After the discussion on improvements, the participants set targets for phase 1B. These are presented as follows:

• Retrofit lead time – 4 weeks;

141

• No disruption due to delays of material deliveries and lack of information;

• No rework;

• No changes in the scope of works without cost information and formal approval.

In the following section, the subject addressed in the final part of the workshop is presented, namely, the method for construction management in refurbishment projects.

5.2.2.3 Feedback to the presented method for construction