{"id":25710,"date":"2024-05-07T02:14:06","date_gmt":"2024-05-07T09:14:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/essential.construction\/news\/construction-needs-collaborative-planning-aec-business\/"},"modified":"2024-05-07T02:14:08","modified_gmt":"2024-05-07T09:14:08","slug":"construction-needs-collaborative-planning-aec-business","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/essential.construction\/news\/construction-needs-collaborative-planning-aec-business\/","title":{"rendered":"Construction Needs Collaborative Planning – AEC Business"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"-\"<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

\n

What makes construction different from manufacturing is its dynamic nature. Unlike a systemized production plant, a construction site is a mesh of interconnected processes that are far from optimized. The traditional top-down planning practice does not solve problems on the construction site, as recent research reveals. Making planning collaborative is a necessary step in making construction less wasteful. <\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Everybody
\nin the industry has felt frustration with inefficiencies in construction, but seeing
\nthe data is still disconcerting. I\u2019ve had the pleasure of attending several
\nworkshops organized by the Finnish Aalto University\u2019s research teams. These
\neye-opening events both revealed how much waste we have in construction today
\nand suggested solutions to this problem.<\/p>\n

Four\u00a0Aalto
\nUniversity graduate students shared insights from their research at a workshop of
\nthe Waste Workgroup of the\u00a0Building 2030<\/a>\u00a0consortium.\u00a0They
\nfocused on projects where takt production, a lean construction method, had been
\nused. Takt production breaks the work down into equally timed work batches and typically
\nshortens project lead time considerably\u2014up to 50%. However, even these
\nwell-planned projects included waste and unnecessary movement, as the
\nresearchers found out.<\/p>\n

Even the Best Plans Can Be
\nMade Better<\/h2>\n

Saara
\nSalerto<\/strong> of Skanska used
\nvideo equipment to record the activities in two corridors of the Urban
\nEnvironment House construction site in Helsinki. She measured the utilization
\nrate and possible work disruptions for six weeks. It became evident that the
\nwork did not follow the original takt schedule. For example, in the third week,
\nonly one task was supposed to take place in the area. Instead, two other tasks
\nwere still in progress, one of them starting early. In addition, three
\nunplanned tasks went forward in the area.<\/p>\n

During the
\nbusiest days, up to four contractors worked in the same area, but some of these
\njust for a few minutes. After the rush period, there were times when the
\ncorridors were empty for several days.<\/p>\n

It is
\nnotable that even though takt scheduling led to shortened construction time, the
\nother takt area was empty almost 50% of the time. A paint job that was a
\nspecific week\u2019s only scheduled task took just 50 minutes to complete. Despite
\nthis, 20% attendance in the takt area was enough to keep the project on
\nschedule.<\/p>\n

Unnecessary Movement<\/h2>\n

Another Aalto
\nstudent, NCC\u2019s Anton Ruohom\u00e4ki<\/strong>, shared data from the Vallila Folks Hotel
\nrenovation site. He used surveys and video cameras to record the interior construction of
\ntwo adjacent hotel rooms. The takt time was one day, and the takt area around
\n20 square meters in size.<\/p>\n

On average,
\nthe rooms were empty for 63% of the workday, which is more than the 41% in the
\noriginal plan. There was, however, a great deal of movement when work was
\ntaking place, but much of it unnecessary.<\/p>\n

The events
\nof one particular day in one of the rooms demonstrate this fact. During this
\nday, eight different workers visited the room 62 times in total. One tile
\ninstaller stepped into the room 27 times, and another 26 times. Ten visits
\nlasted longer than five minutes. The average duration of visits under five
\nminutes was 39 seconds!<\/p>\n

Disturbances and
\nInterruptions<\/h2>\n

Henri Ahoste,<\/strong> a graduate student from Skanska, followed
\nthe installation of raised access floors and their underlying electrical
\ninstallations for three months at the Urban Environment House site in Helsinki.
\nThe work took place in three takt areas, each covering an entire floor. Ahoste
\nmeasured and surveyed disturbances and interruptions in the process, which are
\nfactors that cause process waste.<\/p>\n

For example,
\nan absence of initial information led to delayed material deliveries. Sometimes
\nthe planned workforce was not available. There were also conflicts with the
\nprevious task due to a lack of coordination and communication.<\/p>\n

\u201cLocation-based
\nscheduling in Finland is run-of-the-mill stuff, and we use Last Planner
\nSessions quite often. Still, the level of scheduling and production planning on
\nconstruction sites seems to be fairly low,\u201d Ahoste stated.<\/p>\n

\"-\"
Henri Ahoste<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Collaborative Planning Is
\nthe Way Forward<\/h2>\n

Other
\nstudies corroborate Ahoste\u2019s concern. Unclear schedules lead to time pressure,
\ncreate quality issues, and diminish worker well-being. They are typically the
\nresult of a common top-down scheduling practice that has little to do with the
\nrealities of construction sites. Collaborative production planning with the
\nLast Planner System (LPS), in contrast, brings rational scheduling practices to
\nthe jobsite.<\/p>\n

Subcontractors
\non the Urban Environment House construction site were enthusiastic about
\nplanning collaboratively with the LPS. They were able to keep track of the
\nschedule in daily meetings, which gave them a real-time situational picture of
\nthe site. They also started to favor takt planning over conventional planning.
\nThe condensed takt production schedule proved workable, even if some tasks were
\nnot completed 100% as scheduled.<\/p>\n

Ahoste
\nbelieves that future projects should use takt production and collaborative
\nplanning. He recommends that a construction site should use a neutral
\nfacilitator to run the LPS sessions. Having comprehensible visual guidelines
\nand requirements for LPS participants is also important. In order to maximize
\nthe benefits of collaborative planning, it should cover design, production, and
\nprocurement.<\/p>\n

Based on the day\u2019s presentations,\u00a0takt production is a step forward, but it needs to be planned and monitored collaboratively when put into practice.<\/p>\n

Read my full report of the Aalto workshop at building2030.com<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n