Ijciet 08 04_218

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 8, Issue 4, April 2017, pp.
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976
© IAEME Publication
A CASE STUDY OF IMPLEMENTING LAST
PLANNER SYSTEM IN TIRUCHIRAPPALLI
DISTRICT OF TAMIL NADU
P.G Student, M.Tech Construction Technology and Management
Department of Civil Engineering, M
ABSTRACT
The Last Planner System (LPS) is a production planning system designed to
produce predictable work flow
commissioning of projects. LPS is the most developed Lean Construction tool used in
improving work plans and control of projects. The work described in this paper
presents results of an ongoing construction project
contractor’s implementation of LPS to analyze how lean construction techniques
improve performance and productivity. To achieve this, action research model was
undertaken. The research was carried out in a Bishop Heber coll
where multipurpose buildings were being constructed by a sole contractor. A
comparison-based survey was conducted with construction professionals to identify
current practices and exposure LPS has in India. The results reveal that im
LPS had significant improvements over traditional management and a notable
increase in average Percentage Plan Completed. This progress was enabled by the
way the site was planned, managed and controlled using LPS. The paper concludes by
discussing results of implementing LPS, including benefits, barriers, and the critical
success factors for this project. However, there were some potential barriers reported
which hinder the achieving full potential of LPS.
Key words: Last Planner System
Management, Project Management, Planning and Control.
Cite this Article: C.Vignesh A
Tiruchirappalli District of Tamil Nadu
Engineering and Technology
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.
1. INTRODUCTION
The infrastructure sector is a key driver for the Indian economy. The construction sector is
highly responsible for propelling India’s overall development and enjoys intense focus from
Government for initiating policies that would ensure the time
infrastructure in the country. India as a developing country faces many complex difficulties in
IJCIET/index.asp 1918 editor@iaeme.com
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
2017, pp. 1918–1927 Article ID: IJCIET_08_04_218
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=4
6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
Scopus Indexed
DISTRICT OF TAMIL NADU - INDIA
C. Vignesh
M.Tech Construction Technology and Management
Department of Civil Engineering, Manipal University Jaipur, India.
work flow and rapid learning in designing, construction
presents results of an ongoing construction project in closing phase. It focuses on
undertaken. The research was carried out in a Bishop Heber college construction site,
based survey was conducted with construction professionals to identify
current practices and exposure LPS has in India. The results reveal that im
ing results of implementing LPS, including benefits, barriers, and the critical
which hinder the achieving full potential of LPS.
Last Planner System - LPS, Lean Construction -
Project Management, Planning and Control.
Vignesh A Case Study of Implementing Last planner System in
Tiruchirappalli District of Tamil Nadu - India, International Journal of Civil
ng and Technology, 8(4), 2017, pp. 1918-1927.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=4
Government for initiating policies that would ensure the time-bound creation of world class
editor@iaeme.com
asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=4
INDIA
M.Tech Construction Technology and Management
anipal University Jaipur, India.
construction and
in closing phase. It focuses on
ege construction site,
based survey was conducted with construction professionals to identify
current practices and exposure LPS has in India. The results reveal that implementing
ing results of implementing LPS, including benefits, barriers, and the critical
- LC, Contract
tudy of Implementing Last planner System in
Journal of Civil
asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=4
ation of world class

A Case Study of Implementing Last planner System in Tiruchirappalli District of Tamil
Nadu - India
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1919 editor@iaeme.com
a construction business, such as lack of initiative in implementing new techniques, inadequate
details and documents of preceding data concern risks and lack of adopting modern
techniques for minimizing the effect of risk factors on projects objectives. The objective of
Lean construction(LC) is to utilize the value-adding resources as labour and material better to
get less waste, fewer delays and lower costs or, in other words, to minimize the Non-Value
adding Activity [1]. One way of contributing to improve performance and increase
productivity is to implement lean construction tool, Last Planner System. The four principles
of lean construction are all incorporated in LPS and is, therefore, LPS is a crucial concept for
the implementations of LC. Hence, Planning and control in LC can be achieved through the
implementation of the LPS. It was identified that there was a huge potential of solving the
problems associated with the Indian construction sector if the Lean construction tools were
practically implemented in Indian construction projects. Hence, in carrying out this research,
LPS which is an existing solution is being utilized in a new domain (i.e. the Indian
construction sector; which is fragmented in nature and characterized by poor project
definitions, inadequate project designs, uncompleted projects and poorly completed ones) had
a positive impact on improving the productivity and performance.
2. LAST PLANNER SYSTEM
The LPS is a crucial method of lean project management, which is inspired by the lean
production philosophy. The elaboration of this system shows the adaptation of lean principles
and methods to the project area [2]. It consists of workflow control and production unit
control. Workflow control is accomplished primarily through the look-ahead process, while
production unit control is accomplished primarily through weekly work planning [3]. LPS is
based on a traditional planning system, the condition of SHOULD-CAN-WILL-DID is
implemented. Fig. 1 represented the diagram of the Last Planner System. A reliable
assignment, one that gets done at the required time, determines what WILL be done, after
considering both what SHOULD from higher-level schedules and what CAN be done based
on the situation at hand. Assignments are likely to get done when they are well defined,
resource sound, in the right sequence, and within the capacity of the crew. The team (last
planner’s) job is to make the certain task in the assignment that meets these criteria and to
reject assignments that do not. Last planners can reasonably commit to completing the tasks
on weekly work plans that meet these criteria [1]. To be effective, production management
systems must tell what should be done, what can be done, and what will be done; then, they
compare what was done to improve planning [3]. Fig. 1 illustrates the possible relationships
among SHOULD, CAN, and WILL. Referring to Fig. 2a, a reliable assignment determines
what WILL be done, after considering what SHOULD and CAN get done based on the
situation at hand [3].
Figure 1 Last Planner System. [3]

C. Vignesh
Figure 2A Philosophy of lean planning B. Philosophy of traditional planning
In general Construction projects require planning by different people, in different positions,
possibly at a different organization and during different moments of the life cycle of the
work. The LPS defines definite standards of obligation that require advanced commitments of
production in order to protect the productive units from uncertainty and variability. One of
the founders of lean construction UK, Mossman [4], explains about five key conversations of
the LPS. When all are working together they reinforce each other and the overall benefits are
greater. The conversations are:
1. Collaborative Programming - Creating and agreeing with the production sequence. This
helps the project team get to know each other, identify issues with the project and agree how
to resolve them and design and plan handovers [3-4].
2. Make Ready - Making tasks in the Look Ahead period ready (i.e. constraint-free). This
ensures that the work can be done when they want to do it [3-4].
3. Production Planning - Collaboratively agreeing to the production tasks for the next day or
week. First Run Studies are an opportunity to rehearse critical handovers and understand
where failures might occur so that they can be planned to counteract [3-4].
4. Production Management - Collaboratively monitoring production to keep activities on track.
Weekly or daily production planning meetings lets team check for interdependencies before
they promise [3-4].
5. Measurement, learning and continual improvement - Learning together about and
improving project, planning and production processes. It helps them adjust plans in the light
of new information, & the learning element encourages learning from success & reduces
repeated failures [3-4].
The planning reliability is directly related to productivity [2]. The reliability of the last
planner system is measured in terms of the Percentage of Plan Completed (PPC) as planned at
the end of each week. The causes of failures of assignments fulfillment are identified and also
investigated each week in order to avoid them in the future.
2. METHODOLOGY
This case study reports the implementation process of the LPS as a possible reference for
continuous improvement in Indian construction management practices. In order to study the
impact of LPS, an action research model was conducted. Action research involves actively
participating in a change situation, often via an existing organization, whilst simultaneously
conducting research. As designers and stakeholders, researchers work with others to propose
a new course of action to help their community improve its work practices, assisted or guided

Nadu - India
by professional, with the aim of improving their strategies, practices and knowledge of the
environments within which they practice [5]. The study was performed in an “action
research” environment where author has actually joined in the project as a team coordinator
to collect data, analyze and evaluate the data with the team and examined for beneficial
patterns in order to establish several improvement alternatives, and tested these improvements
dynamically. The implementation process adopted in this study are based on following seven
vital steps[6-7].
1. The last planner participants review the contract and designs, in order to fully understand the
client needs, and consequently develops a schedule. This schedule is going to be used by the
construction manager only as a reference for the second step and it does not have to be
distributed to the other stakeholders.
2. The site manager summons the last planner for a pull session meeting where the construction
schedule is discussed among the subcontractor and other participants. As an output of the pull
session, a master plan is approved with the commitment of all parties, and distributed to the
stakeholders if necessary.
3. Within the master plan, the look-ahead plan is produced by the last planner. The look-ahead
plan identifies the constraints and it proposes a path to avoid or delete bottlenecks. This plan
forecasts six weeks in advance approximately, and identifies the work that has to be cleared of
any constraints. It looks forward to increase the construction flow.
4. The weekly plan is produced every seven days with the involvement of the last planners. The
weekly plan established the detailed work that will be done during the following week as
assignments through promises for PPC.
5. During the weekly meeting, the last planners check the compliancy of the weekly plan
through value stream mapping and identify the reasons of non-compliancy.
6. Percentage of Plan Complete (PPC) is a measure of workflow reliability [2] and is calculated
weekly by dividing the number of tasks completed by the total number of tasks(assignments)
made for the plan period [2]. The causes of non-compliancy are investigated weekly in order
to avoid them in the future. The reliability of the plan is directly related to the productivity
[8]. The equation for PPC is as follows:
PCC (%)= [No. of Task Completed / No. of Task Assigned] x 100
Results are made publicly visibility in the construction site, indicating the performance of
every party for each task implicated. This publicity of results either good or bad is a key
factor to reinforce the commitment.
There is feedback in every step of the process to update the master plan and to get lessons
learned.
4. CASE STUDY BACKGROUND
The case study was carried out with the support of top management from the contractor side
in Bishop Heber college campus in tamilnadu, a southern region of India. The contract value
was approximately 8 cores in INR and with an estimated project duration of 22 months. The
LPS was only implemented half-way through the projects which was already 2 months
behind schedule. For initial 8 weeks, the author undertaking non-participant observations of
traditional management to familiarize how site activities were coordinated. During 8 weeks of
observation, the author found that the average PPC is 37.5%. Meanwhile, interview sessions
with one foreman and four superintendents were undertaken to ascertain the available
planning, control and management practice from neighboring organization to identify the
exposure and practices of LPS to help the implementation strategy of this study.

C. Vignesh
Table 1 Description of the Studied Projects
Project Contract
value
Duration % time elapsed
when LPS starts
Subcontractors Project status
Multipurpose
Building- II
8 cores 22 Months 45 % Structural
Architectural
Mechanical
Electrical
HVAC
Flooring
False ceiling
2 months
behind
schedule
5. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND RESULTS
5.1. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
The aim of the survey is to prepare a framework for implementation strategies for the
adoption of LPS for this study. In order to do so, the current lean construction techniques that
are adopted in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industries are studied
through extensive literature survey in the initial 8 weeks of the project. A questionnaire
survey was developed for the professionals to check the current status of LPS. In this
research, interviewees were selected in one geographic area and companies were contacted
within the Trichy in order to find superintendents and foremen who really interested in Lean
construction. Author reached five interviewees and realized it was enough to improve the
implementation strategy of this study. Each interviewee was selected to assist the author, on
current practices of LPS in construction management and interviewee were all mid and top-
level management personnel at their company. The five interviewees were all males from 35-
50 years of age and all five had a technical degree. Analysis from the survey helped to
identify the possible hinder that may occur and the factors affecting the Indian AEC industry
in the adoption of LPS. The survey questionnaire contained fourteen questions, but only the
questions related to improving LPS implementation in India are covered here. The outcome is
expected to improvise the implementation strategies by identifying the possible hindrances in
advance.
Table 2 Baseline Assessment
Firm Age Qualification Current Position
Experience
(Years) (in
current
position)
Knowledge in
Lean
Construction
LPS
Knowledge
A 32 M.E Superintend 3 Yes No
B 40 B. E Superintend 5 No No
C 34 B. E Superintend 3 No No
D 38 Diploma Foreman 6 No No
E 35 B. E Superintend 8 Yes No

Nadu - India
5.1.1. CROSS-PATTERN ANALYSIS
Table 3 Cross Pattern Analysis
(MS-Master Schedule, PPS-Pull Phase Schedule, LAP-Look ahead Planning, WWP-Weekly Work
Planning, PPC- Percentage Plan Complete)
As observed from literature and case organizations [1], only a few organizations
succeeded in implementing pull phase planning and look ahead planning functions. This led
to a situation where, in scheduling, a transition from the master plan level (i.e. high
level milestones) directly occurred to the monthly or weekly task level. This resulted in sub-
optimal plan performance, resulting in overall confusion since the constraint's analysis was
not carried out, and tasks were not analyzed for appropriate sequencing logic. In some cases,
the project manager and the site supervisor who would normally take responsibility for the
overall planning and scheduling felt that they were no longer responsible when the last
planners coordinated the project. A notable advice commonly given by all interviewees was
to educate participants about LPS, whether that meant breaking LPS down area-by-area or
just explaining how and why the company runs the jobs the way they do according to LPS.
5.1.2. OUTCOME OF THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Some salient initiatives taken to effectively implement and improvise the LPS from the
survey are:
• For better communication and understanding, Training participants involved in the project
become a top priority.
• Establishing the foremen as one of the Last Planner to planning what “will” be done as
opposed to what “should”, highly improved the reliability of planning.
• Driving improvement was made when the majority of workers understand the analysis of
PPC, resulting in coordinating themselves accordingly in keeping or completing the
promises.
• It is being understood that the documentation needs to be user-friendly, demystified and
with reduced jargon since some subcontractor were uneducated. Hence, a standard excel
based A3 spreadsheet was used which included a bar chart of the week’s work, a list of
make ready needs and a make ready checklist and PPC column with a reason for the non-
completion section.
• The client or representative of client was expected to be involved in Last Planner system.
LPS
Component
Firm A Firm B Firm C Firm D Firm E
MS Implemented Implemented Implemented Implemented Implemented
PPS
Not
Implemented
Partial
Implementation
Not
Implemented
Partial
Implementation
Implemented
LAP Implemented Implemented Implemented Implemented Implemented
WWP Implemented Implemented Implemented Implemented Implemented
PPC
Partial
Implementation
Partial
Implementation
Implemented
Not
Implemented
Implemented

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.
• The team who were most professional in their work are rewarded and motivated through
the support by top management.
• Given that LPS implementation also relies on good communication,
equipped with a Closed User Groups(CUG) mobile telephone as a result of authors
request to top management. This enabled them to be called from anywhere at free of cost.
This communication system helped in saving time and promoting be
through Video conferencing call among the project personnel.
5.2. WEEKLY PERCENT OF PLAN COMPLETED (PPC)
The average PPC during the observation of 8 weeks of traditional management of the
contractor was 37.5%. This was prim
coordination between top management and execution team. During LPS implementation, the
PPC started off low in the first few weeks because most of the project team members were
resistant to change from traditional management to
benefits the implementation was going to offer. However, this resistance was overcome
primarily because of the keen interest of the CEO. PPC rose from 53% in the first week to a
level of 96% and peaked at 121% (were 104 assignments completed against 86 planned
assignments) when bonus payment was introduced. The PPC feedback charts gave CEO
weekly progress of how the project was performing. Once the project team understood the
need to keep promises and positive impact that completed assignments had, made the project
team meet targets; improved proactive site planning facilitated control and drastic
improvement in communication between all project stakeholders. The average PPC after
implementation was 85%.
C. Vignesh
IJCIET/index.asp 1924 editor@iaeme.com
The team who were most professional in their work are rewarded and motivated through
the support by top management.
Given that LPS implementation also relies on good communication,
This communication system helped in saving time and promoting be
through Video conferencing call among the project personnel.
5.2. WEEKLY PERCENT OF PLAN COMPLETED (PPC)
Figure 3 PPC
contractor was 37.5%. This was primarily due to inadequate material management and poor
aditional management to LPS. They were skeptical about the
aked at 121% (were 104 assignments completed against 86 planned
and positive impact that completed assignments had, made the project
editor@iaeme.com
The team who were most professional in their work are rewarded and motivated through
all participants were
This communication system helped in saving time and promoting better communication
arily due to inadequate material management and poor
LPS. They were skeptical about the
aked at 121% (were 104 assignments completed against 86 planned
and positive impact that completed assignments had, made the project

Nadu - India
5.3. ANALYSIS OF REASONS FOR INCOMPLETE ASSIGNMENTS
Figure 4 presents the various reasons for incomplete assignments reported for the projects.
Material unavailability was the primary reason for incomplete assignment. This was due
to the local governments ban on supplying fine aggregate, which results in an excessive hike
in prices followed by lorry strike for diesel price hike and, temporary trade ban from
Karnataka due to car very river dispute between two state government. Pre-requisite work
was the second reason for incomplete assignments. This perhaps, due to the nature of the
stage that the project had reached as most activities which again appeared mostly in the
structure and architectural activities. The unavailability skilled labour was the third reason for
incomplete assignments. It was evident that the project was struggling to keep pace with the
weekly plans and look ahead plans because the available workforce was insufficient to meet
the project needs. This is due to a high current demand for skilled labour in Chennai, a
neighboring district where multi-billion dollar projects are under way. This shortage of
labour was however overcome by proper planning and motivating labour by providing bonus
payment, as the result the overall performance of the most individual labour increased and
attracted new skilled labour. The fourth reason was changing the priorities, due to the
frequent repair works given by the client in their old buildings and availability of
professionals such as builders, and carpenters. Other reasons include a long or delayed
process for client approval, submittal, unpredictable interference, overestimating activity and
weather.
5.4. CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR OF THE STUDY
The most identified important Critical Success Factor (CSF) for this study is top management
support because the LPS implementation started off after the project had already commenced
with different trades at work. This was a major setback for the implementation process
because bringing all parties working in the project to embrace a new system after they were
already used to the traditional way of working. When the interviewee was asked, whether
they would implement LPS halfway through their project, they all were hesitant and consider
it as a possible risk. It was not an easy task, but the support from the top management became
a key aspect of successful implementation of LPS. Other CSFs includes participant’s
commitment to promises and coordination in-between subcontractors.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Reasons for Incomplete Assignments
Reasons for Incomplete Assignments

C. Vignesh
5.5. IDENTIFIED BARRIERS HINDERING ACHIEVEMENT OF FULL
POTENTIALS OF LPS
All the participants considered the implementation of LPS successful, particularly the top
management and the client. The majority of site team believed that LPS was the reason that
the project was able to be delivered on time. However, it has been found that there were some
barriers that prevented achievement of the full potential of LPS. These obstacles may have
resulted from:
• Implementing the Look Ahead Planning function remained a problematic due to the lack
of communication in-between subcontractors, which made the coordination among them a
difficult process.
• The top management occasionally had limited control to effectively implement LPS on
this project because they do not have enough influence over the entire parties involved in
project particularly of subcontractors who were nominated by the client.
• The importance of involving physical workers in the planning process still remains a
problem area.
• It is expected that the implementation process would be much easier if it was
implemented from the early start of the project because bringing all parties working on
the project after a while from the start and introducing a different practice technique to
them is not an easy task.
• It was evident that there was an essential need for skilled labour to do the finishing work
but the subcontractor was inefficiency to supply skilled labour to the site resulted in
change in priorities and prerequisite works.
• The commitment was usually not met from participants like suppliers, consultant and
some subcontractors due to their own negligence and lack of commitment, resulted in
affecting the process of LPS implementation.
• Some obstacles were unavoidable during the implementation and these included lack of
commitment to change and innovation, unrealistic expectations and subcontractor’s
failure to keep the promises.
6. CONCLUSION
The objective of this study was to implement and evaluate the Last Planner System on a given
project. This study has provided new insights with respect to the issues surrounding the
implementation of a new concept on an ongoing project and the issues related to
implementing the Last Planner System in India. Through the interviews, it became clear that
the interviewee doesn’t have the proper knowledge about Lean construction techniques or
about LPS. The interviewees were all technical qualified and experienced but only some of
them partially knew about lean construction and none knew about LPS. The three steps
Master Scheduling, Weekly work plan and Look ahead planning were implemented in their
projects without knowing it was from the lean concept. It is concluded that implementing
LPS in Indian AEC particularly in the southern region needs proper awareness and, teaching
should be made from high level management about Lean concepts and its techniques like
LPS. Training must be given to all participants who will become involve in the project. It was
revealed that LPS made plans more predictable. This was evident when the projects catch up
the time lost and when LPS managed the project by identifying and resolving the constrains
before they become problems. Although, there were some obstacles preventing the
achievement of full potentials of LPS, the implementation process in the project was
successful and being followed by the contractor in other two sites.

Nadu - India
REFERENCES
[1] Vignesh.C, Lean Construction - Approach Capable of Dealing with Complexity and
Uncertainty, International Journal of Engineering Research and Application , Vol. 6, Issue
11, ( Part -2) 2016, 22-29.
[2] Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I., Lean management methods for complex projects.
Engineering project organizational journal, 2(1),2012, 85-96.
[3] Aziz, R.F., Hafez, S.M. Applying lean thinking in construction and performance
improvement, Alexandria Eng. Journal, 2014.
[4] Mossman, Last Planner Overview: Collaborative Production Planning, Collaborative
Programme Coordination, Lean Construction Institute, 2005.
[5] McNiff, J; Whitehead, All You Need to Know About Action Research. London, UK:
Sage 2007 3–5.
[6] Rodriguez, A.D., Alarcón, L.F., Pellicer, E., Lagestión de la obradesde la perspectiva del
últimoplanificador. Revista de ObrasPúblicas, 2011, 35-44.
[7] Eugenio Pellicer, Fernando Cerveró, Alicia Lozano, José Luis Ponz-Tienda, The Last
Planner System Of Construction Planning And Control As A Teaching And Learning
Tool, Retrived from
http://www.academia.edu/28031708/The_Last_Planner_System_of_Construction_
Planning_and_Control_as_a_Teaching_and_Learning_Tool on 7-04-2017.
[8] González, V., Alarcón, L.F., Mundaca, F. “Investigating the relationship between
planning reliability and project performance”. Production Planning and Control, 2008,
461-474.

Ijciet 08 04_218

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Ijciet 08 04_218

More from IAEME Publication

Recently uploaded

Ijciet 08 04_218