Research process in part 2

Part 2 represents the second stage of the research (Figure 3.1) where the LCM model is further developed and applied to two refurbishment projects (instantiation 2A & 2B) in case study 2. Part 2 began in July 2011 and continued until June 2013. Part 2 follows steps 3-6; i.e. design and develop, demonstrate, evaluate and communicate.

The objective of step 3, design and development, is to show how the LCM model was further developed. The objective of the demonstration (step 4) is to form an explanation of how the version 2 of the LCM model was applied based on two instantiations of the model to two refurbishment construction projects. A key focus of this stage of the research is also an evaluation of the utiliy of the model (step 5) and its application and adaptation by both third parties and the researcher to the two refurbishment projects (instantiations 2A & 2B).

97

3.9.1

Case Study 2: Background

Case study 2 in part 2 of the research focuses on the further development of the LCM model and its application to refurbishment construction. It focuses on 2 instantiations (2A & 2B) of the LCM model (version 2) to refurbishment construction. The process of application is the same for both instantiations – the model was adapted during instantiation 2A and applied in the same way to instantiation 2B. Instantiation 2A of the LCM model to refurbishment construction was carried out by a third party. The building had 5 floors; 3 levels of offices and 2 technical levels. The renovation of a further company building was in the pipeline and should the results of this application be successful, it was planned to apply the model to a further project within the same company. Since the first instantiation (2A) to refurbishment was carried out successfully, the decision was made to apply the model to a similar, but more complicated refurbishment. It was more complicated as it was a larger building with many rooms that had unique specifications. The building had 9 floors; 6 levels of offices and 2 technical levels. It was an important strategic building for the client as it was the company headquarters and achieving the completion target was of utmost importance. Instantiation 2B of the LCM model to a commercial refurbishment project was carried out by the researcher. over the course of 14 months.

3.9.1.1 Application of evaluation framework

The goal of the evaluation of the LCM instantiations 2A & 2B to refurbishment projects by third parties and by the researcher was to establish how the model was further developed and to determine whether it was applicable and useful when adapted to a different type of construction scenario. Evidence on the applicability of the model to refurbishment construction is provided by both instantiations of the model to the refurbishment projects.

Version 2 of the LCM model represents a more formalised and improved application in practice to version 1, demonstrated in case study 1. In case study 2, the proposed recommendations and guidelines for implementation had been applied. In case study 2, during instantiation 2A of the model, the researcher takes a step back from the initial development of LCM (version 1) and observes how the suggested improvements have been applied and how it has been further adapted and modified to a new project situation. The key

98

question here according to Lukka (2000), is to analyse the results of the process and its preconditions. According to Lukka (2000) it is important to observe to what extent and with what case by case modifications the artefact is transferable to other organisations (Lukka, 2000).

The usefulness of the model is evaluated based on five lower level criteria: 1) improvement in daily planning, 2) constraint identification and removal, 3) waste identification and removal, 4) improved transparency and 5) measurability of performance (Figures 3.4 and 3.5). The interviews with third parties involved in the LCM instantiations (Chapter 5, Table 5.2) provided a valuable source of data on the perceived effects of the increase in transparency for the evaluation (Chapter 5, Section 5.5). The questions used as basis for the interviews with the LCM manager are shown in Figure 3.4 and 3.5. The questions used as basis for the interview with the foreman and client during instantiation 2 B can be found in the Appendix B.3.

KPI data on On-Time-Performance was also gathered to determine how sound the subcontractors commitments were (i.e if they committed to x number of daily work packages, how many were completed?). The constraints removal was measured by making the number of constraints identified transparent and establishing if these constraints were removed or not (Chapter 5, Section 5.4; Chapter 7, Section 7.4). It was difficult to measure the exact level of waste reduction on both cases studies (walking, searching, movement, transport etc from a number of different crews was difficult to document). However, it was possible to measure the effect the increased transparency had on optimising the buffer times between construction activities, which were made transparent on the planning board (Chapter 5, Section 5.4.2). In both instantiations of the model to refurbishment construction (2A & 2B), it was possible to note positive effects in the stabilisation of daily planning, constraint removal and some areas of waste through the increased transparency (Section 5.5.2). However, there are limitations to the data since no previous data existed to compare these effects to. While the data in most cases show stability in On-Time Performance and quality during the observation period, the data itself is not conclusive. However, this data forms a basis for possible future comparisons.

During part 2, the researcher also conducted a field trip to Brazil to carry out an observational study for three weeks in March 2013. This observational study was part of a triangulation

99

strategy of research validation in order to overcome bias and to observe different perspectives of Visual Management application. Triangulation refers to the “observation of the research issue from at least two different points” (Flick, 2000, p. 178) thus limiting personal and methodological biases and enhancing a studys generalisability and validity (Black, 1993). The researcher was aware of reports of advanced applications of Visual Management at some Brazilian companies and the opportunity arose for her to personally visit some of these companies and sites.

The aim of the observational study was to compare Visual Management practices observed on three construction sites in Brazil to the LCM model. Two of the construction sites were residential projects and one site was the construction of a commercial distribution centre. Visual tools used to plan and control the construction process were observed onsite and from the documentation gathered. This comparison of Visual Management practices observed to the LCM model, would help to determine if similar models of Visual Management application were evident on the sites in Brazil and if the LCM model could contribute to existing practices. Another purpose of the observational study was to verify findings from the literature review that indicated that Visual Management application tended to focus on the application of individual tools rather than the use of systematic models of application (Arbulu et al., 2005; Picchi et al, 2004; Kemmer et al., 2006; Jang & Kim, 2007; Tommelein, 2008; Saurin et al., 2008); Tezel, 2011). This observational study was carried out in part 2 of the research since version 2 of the model represents how it is typically applied in practice and therefore a suitable basis for comparison.

Finally, the research was communicated (step 6) in this phase of the research through the publication of a further IGLC paper in 2013, a CIB paper in 2014 and further presentations of the work to academics and practitioners.