A CASE STUDY OF PARTNERING IN LEAN CONSTRUCTION

Per Erik Eriksson

Management and Business Administration, Luleå University of Technology

ABSTRACT

Lean construction is a relatively immature literature field in need of unbiased

theoretical reasoning and case studies in order to investigate how lean
thinking can be applied in a construction project context. The purpose of this
paper is to increase the understanding of how various measures of lean
thinking can be implemented in a construction project and how these
measures work. In order to enhance unbiased theoretical reasoning a frame
of reference is first developed through a literature review of peer-reviewed
journal articles. The empirical part of the research utilises a lean construction
pilot project as a case study. Empirical data was mainly collected through a
series of three questionnaire surveys, responded by project participants that
were involved in the lean implementation effort (approximately 30
responses) and three follow-up workshops in which the key individuals from
all partner companies participated (15-20 individuals). The author of this
paper functioned as a facilitator and action researcher, responsible for the
design and analysis of the surveys and for planning and facilitating the
workshops. Document studies and interviews of twelve project participants
were also conducted in order to increase the richness of the case study data.
The empirical results show that many of the lean related measures identified
in the literature review have been utilised, either implicitly or explicitly, in the
pilot project. These measures have mostly focused on increasing the
cooperation among project actors, for which reason the pilot project is very
similar to a partnering project. Much work remains in order to obtain a full-
fledged lean construction approach. The pilot project, however, has the
potential to serve as a well-built starting point for long-term continuous
improvements and development of lean construction in future projects.

Keywords: Lean construction, Partnering, Procurement, Action research

1
1. INTRODUCTION

Lean thinking, with its roots in the Toyota manufacturing system, has been
adopted from manufacturing sectors to the construction industry (i.e. lean
construction) as a means to improve productivity and project performance
(Egan, 1998, Jorgensen and Emmitt, 2008). The adoption of innovative
management practices, such as lean thinking, from a manufacturing context
to construction is, however, not problem free (Bresnen and Marshall, 2001,
Riley and Clare-Brown, 2001, Bresnen et al., 2005, Mao and Zhang, 2008).
Some lean production measures may not be equally applicable in
construction, for which reason lean construction has to be developed and
modified (Mao and Zhang, 2008). In order to learn more about what
measures work or not in a construction context, case studies of different
approaches to lean construction can add to our knowledge.

The lean construction field has been criticised for being built on
somewhat weak theoretical foundation, since many publications refer to
management books instead of rigorous research efforts in peer-reviewed
journals (Green, 1999, Jorgensen and Emmitt, 2008). Furthermore, many
proponents of lean construction have an overriding positive bias, ignoring the
extensive critical literature on lean manufacturing (Green, 1999, Jorgensen
and Emmitt, 2008). Recently, however, there have been fruitful attempts to
look into also the negative aspects of lean construction (Green, 2002, Green
and May, 2005, Fearne and Fowler, 2006, Jorgensen and Emmitt, 2008). It is
important that any research effort is based on such unbiased and critical
stance, in which earlier experiences are utilised but nevertheless open for
questioning. This paper addresses the abovementioned weaknesses of the
lean construction field by adopting a critical and unbiased theoretical stance
when reporting the findings of a case study. The purpose of this paper is to
increase the understanding of how various measures of lean thinking can be
implemented in a construction project and how these measures work.

2. STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW

A distinctive feature of lean construction literature is the lack of commonly

used definitions (Jorgensen and Emmitt, 2008). The same is, however, true
also for other innovative management practices, like partnering and alliances
(Bresnen and Marshall, 2001, Nyström, 2005). In the latter cases some
researchers argue that the definitions and understanding of those concepts
are best developed by investigating their core elements (Nyström, 2005,
Yeung et al., 2007). Although developing a definition of lean construction is
outside the scope of this paper it has a similar approach, i.e. understanding
lean construction by investigating its core elements. This literature review
has identified six core elements of lean construction and how they can be
achieved through specific measures, see section 2.1. By utilising different
specific measures lean construction can be implemented in different ways. In
section 2.2 different types of lean construction implementation efforts are
discussed and a frame of reference is developed.

2
2.1 The core elements of lean construction

Waste reduction
Perhaps the most obvious and important element of lean is waste reduction
(Green, 1999, Jorgensen and Emmitt, 2008, Mao and Zhang, 2008), which
can be facilitated through the implementation of several different measures.
A central aspect of waste reduction is housekeeping, that is, keeping the
construction site well organised, clean and tidy (Ballard et al., 2003, Salem
et al., 2006, Tam et al., 2006). Workers should therefore be encouraged to
clean the job site once an activity has been completed (Salem et al., 2006).
A related aspect is efficient transportation and stockholding of
construction material, often referred to as Just-In-Time (JIT) delivery, which
is a central part of waste reduction in lean construction (Green and May,
2005, Fearne and Fowler, 2006, Salem et al., 2006, Jorgensen and Emmitt,
2008, Mao and Zhang, 2008). JIT is based on the notion that inventories are
not valuable and should be regarded as waste (Akintoye, 1995, Salem et al.,
2006). Through JIT, contractors strive to receive smaller batches of material
to the site when they need it in order to reduce stockholding and double-
handling of material (Fearne and Fowler, 2006, Mao and Zhang, 2008).
Another important waste reducing measure is information technology
(Ballard et al., 2003, Green and May, 2005). Joint IT-tools in form of 3D-
modelling allow detection and correction of most errors prior to production
(Ballard et al., 2003). Research has found that joint IT-tools, enhancing
integration among project actors and their tasks, increase the chance for cost
and schedule success (O'Connor and Yang, 2004, Yang, 2007).
A fourth central aspect is off-site manufacturing of components and
units, i.e. pre-fabrication (Green and May, 2005). Pre-fabrication has many
advantages similar to lean production in manufacturing industries, such as
reducing material waste, shortening construction duration, improving work
environment, etc.

Process focus in production planning and control

Process focus is central in lean production but a bit more complicated and
problematic in the project-based environment of lean construction. This
literature review has, however, identified three measures that can be
adopted in construction projects in order to enhance focus on production
processes and time schedule.
Especially the Last Planner (LP) system is a key measure, enhancing
efficient production planning and control (Wright, 2000, Ballard et al., 2003,
Green and May, 2005, Salem et al., 2006, Winch, 2006, Jorgensen and
Emmitt, 2008). Last planners prepares weekly work plans to control the work
flow and if assignments are not completed on time they determine root
causes and develop action plans to prevent future problem occurrences.
Another important aspect is autonomation, which is the notion that each
individual takes immediate action regarding their own work (i.e. self-control)
to prevent defects at the source so that they do not flow through the process
(Ballard et al., 2003, Green and May, 2005, Salem et al., 2006). This quality
aspect should be adopted in all activities during the whole buying process

3
(Salem et al., 2006). Traditionally, self-control of construction work is not
performed satisfactory. It requires commitment on behalf of the contractors’
staff since they are used to be controlled by the client side. Nor design
consultants perform self-control satisfactory due to lack of time (Andi and
Minato, 2003). Empowering all types of co-workers to control their own work
is therefore decisive (Ballard et al., 2003).
A third measure that enhances the focus on the schedule and
production plans is to establish project milestones (Salem et al., 2006). By
clarifying the importance of production milestones and making them explicit
for everyone the project participants feel more involved in the execution of
the project (Salem et al., 2006).

End customer focus

End customer focus is vital in lean construction (Wright, 2000, Winch, 2006,
Jorgensen and Emmitt, 2008, Mao and Zhang, 2008). Components and
processes that do not add value for the end customer can be regarded as
waste which should be minimised. Customer satisfaction is dependent not
only on the end product but also on the process during which it is created,
i.e. service quality (Maloney, 2002, Forsythe, 2007). Customer satisfaction is
therefore highly affected by most activities and choices made during the
buying process (Forsythe, 2007).
Increased end customer focus requires the adoption of lean principles
already in the design stage (Wright, 2000). Early involvement of contractors
and integration of design and construction work in concurrent engineering is
therefore important in lean construction (Gil et al., 2004, Green and May,
2005, Winch, 2006, Mao and Zhang, 2008). Concurrent engineering
increases the contractors’ understanding of customers’ demands and
facilitates an efficient construction process through increased buildability. It
also improves teamwork and joint problem-solving, resulting in significant
time savings (Wright, 2000).
Relying on competitive bidding is not an efficient way to procure
customized products in lean construction (Elfving et al., 2005, Green and
May, 2005). Hence, a limited bid invitation of trustworthy and competent
contractors should be coupled with a bid evaluation based on soft parameters
so that partners capable of satisfying the customer’s requirements are
selected (Maloney, 2002, Eriksson and Nilsson, 2008).

Continuous improvements
Lean construction involves a continuous struggle to reduce waste and
increase the efficiency of the construction process over time. A long-term
perspective on continuous improvements is therefore important (Green and
May, 2005, Pheng and Fang, 2005, Salem et al., 2006).
An important measure that enhances continuous improvements is long-
term contracts (e.g. framework agreements), since they can reduce the
traditional short-term focus on cost reduction (Green and May, 2005) and
instead promote lasting improvements. By working together over a series of
projects the actors can more easily transfer knowledge and experiences from

4
one project to another. Traditionally, such knowledge transfer is limited in
construction due to short-term relationships.
Additionally, staff and workers should be given the opportunity to
initiate ideas and solutions to improve and solve problems encountered on
site (Ballard et al., 2003, Pheng and Fang, 2005). This is often not the case.
On the contrary, site workers often believe that they do not have sufficient
opportunity to state their opinions (Riley and Clare-Brown, 2001). In order to
address this weakness it is important that suggestions from workers are
taken seriously in order to enhance their commitment for suggesting
improvements (Ballard et al., 2003).
Knowledge sharing and joint learning is crucial in order to enhance
continuous improvements in lean construction (Green and May, 2005). This
can be facilitated by quality circles, also referred to as “special interest
groups” (SIGs), giving project staff opportunities to participate in the process
improvement (Salem et al., 2006). These teams meet periodically to
exchange knowledge and experience in order to jointly propose ideas for the
most visible problems in the workplace (Salem et al., 2006).
The project participants’ understanding of the lean concept and its pre-
requisites must be improved in order to increase their will and skill to
contribute to continuous improvements. Hence, relevant training is a
precondition for effective lean implementation (Green and May, 2005).

Cooperative relationships
Cooperative relationships (e.g. partnering) is important in lean construction
(Green, 1999, Green and May, 2005, Jorgensen and Emmitt, 2008) in order
to integrate the different actors’ competences and efforts in joint problem-
solving. The higher the complexity, customisation, uncertainty and time
pressure, the more cooperation is required (Eriksson, 2008).
Since traditional procurement and governance forms are often criticised
for producing waste, long lead times, and adversarial relationships (Miller et
al., 2002, Elfving et al., 2005) they need to be changed into a lean
contracting approach (Toolanen, 2008). Central in this aspect is good
communication among different project actors, which improves integration
and coordination (Elfving et al., 2005, Pheng and Fang, 2005). This is
enhanced by utilising various collaborative tools (e.g. joint objectives, joint
project office, facilitator, workshops and teambuilding) throughout the
project duration (Green and May, 2005, Eriksson and Nilsson, 2008).
Since subcontracting account for much of the project value and project
activities are totally interrelated, the relationships between different
contractors demands much cooperation and transparency (Shammas-Toma
et al., 1998). Hence, a harmonization between different types of contractors
is a prerequisite for lean construction (Miller et al., 2002). Accordingly, it is
important to involve key subcontractors in a broad partnering team, allowing
them to contribute to the joint objectives (Eriksson et al., 2007).
In terms of compensation, it is important that all parties will benefit
from improved performance resulting from the implementation of lean
construction (Green and May, 2005). Hence, incentive based compensation
including gain share/pain share arrangements, which increases the actors’

5
commitment for achieving the joint objectives, is important in cooperative
relationships (Eriksson and Pesämaa, 2007).

Systems perspective
It is important to adopt a systems perspective in order to increase the overall
efficiency of lean construction projects and avoid sub-optimizations (Green
and May, 2005, Pheng and Fang, 2005, Winch, 2006, Jorgensen and Emmitt,
2008). A reliable workflow (throughput) in the system as a whole is more
critical than individual activity speed or cost (Miller et al., 2002, Elfving et al.,
2005, Winch, 2006).
An important aspect of systems perspective is to consider the whole
buying process and make coherent procurement decisions (Eriksson and
Pesämaa, 2007). It is, for example, not enough to rearrange only a specific
part, such as compensation forms, when trying to achieve collaborative
relationships. Instead all procurement related choices must be coherent and
support or complement each other.
Furthermore, by minimising the number of steps, parts and linkages the
construction process is simplified (Pheng and Fang, 2005). Lean can not be
achieved by considering construction, design, and operation in isolation, for
which reason a rearrangement of the contractual boundaries between the
parties is required (Green and May, 2005). Accordingly, dividing a project
into many small pieces, involving many different actors during short periods
of time, should be avoided. In order to enhance coordination and integration
large scope contracts are therefore desirable.
A systems perspective is also central in terms of the end result of the
process, i.e. the product (Green and May, 2005). Hence, from an end
customer perspective it is important with properly balanced objectives (e.g.
cost, schedule, and quality). In order to obtain the demanded balance each
project objective should receive suitable amount of attention, relative to its
importance, during the whole project duration.

2.2 Different lean model types: development of a frame of reference

Green and May (2005) identified three stages of lean construction

implementation, with an increasing degree of maturity and sophistication.
This section discusses how the aforementioned measures and core elements
of lean construction are related to the three different lean model types.

Lean Model 1
Green and May (2005) mean that Lean Model 1 focuses on waste elimination
from a technical and operational perspective (i.e. a focus on the “hardware”).
However, the responsibilities and focus are tied to managers rather than
individual workers (i.e. a top-down perspective). Essential parts of this model
are: elimination of needless movements, cut out unnecessary costs, optimize
work flow, and assure that all organizations will benefit from improved
performance (Green and May, 2005). Accordingly, the measures that are
closest related to Lean Model 1 are: housekeeping, just in time deliveries,
milestones, and gain share/pain share compensation (see Table 1).

6
Lean Model 2
Lean Model 2 has a distinct focus on eliminating adversarial relationships and
enhancing cooperative relationships and team work (Green and May, 2005).
In this aspect cooperation, long-term framework agreements, partnering
workshops, and partnering facilitator are essential parts of this model (Green
and May, 2005). Accordingly, the measures that are closest related to Lean
Model 2 are: limited bid invitation, soft parameters in bid evaluation, long-
term contracts, collaborative tools, and broad partnering team.

Lean Model 3
Model 3 is the most sophisticated, involving a structural change in which the
way projects are delivered (Green and May, 2005). Its essential parts are:
information technology, high extent of pre-fabrication, Last planner, stronger
emphasis on individuals and bottom-up activities, a complete rethink of
design and construction, some degree of shelter from competitive forces,
long-term contracts, training at all staff levels, and a systems perspective of
both processes and the product (Green and May, 2005). Accordingly, the
measures that are closest related to Lean Model 3 are: joint IT-tools, pre-
fabrication, Last planner, self-control, concurrent engineering, limited bid
invitation, soft parameters in bid evaluation, long-term contracts, special
interest groups, training, suggestions from workers, coherent procurement
decisions, large scale contracts, and properly balanced objectives.

Presentation of the frame of reference

The frame of reference (Table 1) illustrates how the six core elements and
their specific measures are related to different models of lean construction.

Table 1. Frame of reference.

C o r e e le m e n ts M e a s u re s L e a n m o d e l ty p e
W a s te r e d u c tio n H o u s e k e e p in g M odel 1
J u s t in t im e d e liv e r ie s M odel 1
J o in t IT - to o ls M odel 3
P r e - f a b r ic a t io n M odel 3

P ro c e s s fo c u s L a s t P la n n e r M odel 3
S e lf- c o n tr o l M odel 3
M ile s t o n e s M odel 1

E n d c u s to m e r fo c u s C o n c u r r e n t e n g in e e r in g M odel 3
L im it e d b id in v it a t io n M odel 2+3

S o ft p a r a m e te r s in b id e v a lu a t io n M odel 2+3

C o n tin u o u s im p r o v e m e n ts L o n g -te rm c o n tra c ts M odel 2+3

S p e c ia l in t e r e s t g r o u p s M odel 3
T r a in in g M odel 3
S u g g e s tio n s fr o m w o r k e r s M odel 3

C o o p e r a tiv e r e la t io n s h ip s C o lla b o r a t iv e t o o ls M odel 2

B r o a d p a r tn e r in g t e a m M odel 2
G a in s h a r e / p a in s h a r e M odel 1

S y s te m p e r s p e c tiv e C o h e r e n t p r o c u r e m e n t d e c is io n s M odel 3
L a rg e s c o p e c o n tra c ts M odel 3
P r o p e r ly b a la n c e d o b je c t iv e s M odel 3

7
The measures related to Model 1 are of basic and operational nature and can
be adopted in any efficient and professionally managed construction project.
Hence, Model 1 is perhaps the default and normal state in properly managed
projects and the lean implementation efforts described in the research
literature aim to go beyond this normal situation and achieve Model 2 or 3.
In line with this argument Pheng and Fang (2005) mean that lean
construction does not foremost involve new principles of management
techniques; rather they are a combination of existing principles. Only when
striving to achieve the second and foremost the third model of lean
construction, more radically new and innovative measures are required.

3. RESEARCH PROJECT

3.1 Project description and objectives

The empirical part of the research involved a case study that investigated a
lean construction pilot project. The client Scania is a manufacturer of heavy
vehicles (i.e. trucks and buses). Scania is a professional client, procuring
construction work recurrently, often in form of industrial production facilities.
However, the actual construction management role is mostly outsourced to
their subsidiary company DynaMate, which normally procures and governs
construction projects in a traditional manner. Since Scania has worked with
lean production successfully over many years they have now together with
DynaMate decided to initiate the implementation of lean principles also in the
construction activities. The main idea behind this new approach is to utilise
radically different and innovative ways to govern the construction process
with the aim of reducing waste and decreasing costs and lead times from
investment decision to finished project.

The case study project is DynaMate’s first effort to implement lean in

their construction management work. This particular project was chosen as a
pilot project mostly due to its aggressive schedule. During the programming
stage DynaMate realised that they would never be able to deliver the project
on time with traditional procurement and governance forms. Additionally, the
project size of approximately 7 M€ was considered appropriate for a first
effort. Third, both parties were ready and felt that the time was right to try
lean construction. Hence, this particular project was judged to be suitable for
a pilot effort in order to implement lean in a situation requiring change. Four
contractors responsible for construction, electricity, ventilation, and plumbing
were involved in the lean implementation.

Although the decision to implement lean was taken during the design
stage it kept to the construction stage until it was implemented in larger
scale. Right from the start Scania and DynaMate decided to focus the lean
approach on increasing the cooperation among different project actors
through partnering related procurement procedures. They judged that much
waste can be related to adversarial relationships and that increased
cooperation is a suitable start in enhancing a more efficient construction

8
project. The author of this paper was engaged by DynaMate and Scania as a
facilitator responsible for managing the partnering process. It was jointly
decided that the facilitator was responsible for designing a partnering survey
that would be responded by the project participants three times during the
project duration. Furthermore, the facilitator analysed the survey results and
based on the findings designed and managed three subsequent workshops
during which lean and collaboration aspects of the project were discussed.

3.2 Research methodology

The case study data collection was based on the aforesaid series of three
survey investigations and subsequent workshops. The three surveys were
responded by 26, 29 and 32 project participants. The three workshops were
half day events attended by 15-20 participants. Additionally, twelve project
participants were interviewed in the end of the project. Each interview lasted
between 1 and 3 hours, summing up to a total of approximately 20 hours of
interviews. The interviewees included the owner of the building, the client’s
representative, the client’s procurement manager, the project leader from
DynaMate and two of his superiors, the architect, the project leaders from
the four contractor partners, and the contract manager from one of the
contractor partners. The interviews were semi-structured and based on the
developed frame of reference. The respondents were asked if and how
various measures were utilised in the pilot project and also if and why they
were satisfied/dissatisfied with the way each measure had worked.
Furthermore, approximately 20 hours of document studies were conducted,
focusing on documents regarding joint objectives, contracts, bonus
arrangements and compensation forms.

4. RESEARCH RESULTS

4.1 Presentation of case study data

Waste reduction
Housekeeping was considered well executed although it was not affected
much by lean thinking. The site was very well planned and organised
resulting in efficient handling and stockholding of material. The cleaning of
the site was somewhat improved due to the lean approach. Workers were
encouraged to clean up after them selves and the collaborative climate even
resulted in that workers from different companies helped each other to clean.

Just in time deliveries was not explicitly focused in the project. Some
respondents argued that the project was too small for such an effort. In spite
of this the material deliveries functioned well. Space was a scarce resource at
the site so the material could not be ordered too far in advance. The good
timing of the deliveries was therefore important although it was not affected
by lean thinking. Due to the construction boom in Sweden some material had
very long delivery times, but due to the early involvement of the contractors
they had plenty of time to plan purchases. The respondents have different

9
opinions regarding the suitability of JIT in construction. Some argue that it
has great future potential, although it requires significant changes, while
some mean that it is overrated, increasing the risk for delayed material.

The degree to which joint IT-tools was utilised was not affected by
lean thinking. The actors implemented a joint IT-database for exchange of
documents (e.g. drawings and protocols). This implementation was decided
beforehand and not as a result of lean thinking. The IT-tool was easy to use
and functioned satisfactory for which reason it will be utilised also in
subsequent projects. Some respondents consider 3D-modelling to be a useful
tool in future projects but they did not miss it in the pilot project.

Pre-fabrication was not affected by lean thinking. Some respondents

argued that extensive pre-fabrication is more difficult in complex industrial
facilities than in standardised projects such as apartment buildings.
Nevertheless, much of the reinforcements and some parts of the concrete
framework were pre-fabricated and the participants were satisfied with the
degree of pre-fabrication in the project.

Process focus in production planning and control

Last planner was not utilised. In fact, only one respondent was aware of the
Last planner concept and considered that it would be interesting to try it out
once to see how it worked.

Self-control was affected to some degree of lean thinking. The only

explicit effort was that self-control was always brought up on the agenda at
the coordination meetings, which were held every other week. This resulted
in increased commitment for the execution of self-control since the
contractors knew that they would have to present their actions to the group
regularly. The quality of self-control varied among the different actors, due to
internal differences. It functioned better among contractors than among
consultants. Especially the electrical contractor performed self-control very
well. An important reason to this is that the electrical workers had an explicit
responsibility for always controlling their own work, a task for which they
received a salary raise.

One milestone was established as a result of lean thinking. It had a

high symbolic value since it was connected to the delivery of a very
important piece of machinery which had to be installed directly upon
delivery. The four contractors would receive a shared bonus of 50.000 € if
the construction work was finished to such a degree that the installation of
the machine could start the day it was delivered. The respondents agreed
that this milestone increased the commitment for the schedule and
contractors who were late made a significant effort to increase their speed
and finish their part of the package as promised. In fact, many of the
respondents would like to have more frequent milestones to avoid heavy
time pressure in the end. Bonus connected to milestones can also be in the

10
form of teambuilding events, in order to transfer rewards from the company
level to the individuals who are actually performing the work.

End customer focus

Concurrent engineering was a central part of the lean approach, chiefly in
order to save time since the deadline of the project was very important for
the end customer. Both the client representative and the contractors were
involved in the design stage to a larger extent than normal. This resulted in
faster decisions, improved knowledge about the customer and increased
buildability. The contractors contributed with suggestions of improved
technical solutions, cheaper material, and improved site logistics. All
respondents agreed that concurrent engineering is important and that it
functioned well in the pilot project, although it can be further improved.

Limited bid invitation was taken one step further since DynaMate
negotiated directly with all four contractors. Competitive tendering is
traditionally used for all contractors but was abandoned altogether due to the
lean approach of the project. All contractors were obviously very happy with
this arrangement and argued that it decreases their focus on short-term
profits and increases their focus on satisfying the customer.

Due to the direct negotiation approach DynaMate relied solely on soft

parameters when selecting contractors. All four contractors had worked
widely for the client in the past so they were all well known. Two of them are
actually subsidiary companies to DynaMate and they were chosen partly from
a strategic/political perspective since their participation in the pilot project
was sought after. The construction and electrical contractors were chosen
due to their high competence and experience of partnering projects.

Continuous improvements
Scania do not have long-term contracts regarding construction project work
with the four contractors. However, all contractors have framework
agreements regarding more continuous work involving construction and
installation related maintenance and services. Hence, the contractors have
deep knowledge about the customer’s whole business and also a long-term
commitment to deliver satisfying products. The respondents argued that
these framework agreements facilitated continuous improvements in the
project although they were related to other parts of the business.

Special interest groups were not utilised. Many respondents, however,

considered SIGs to be a good idea for increasing commitment and enhancing
knowledge transfer among different trades. However, they raised the
question if such SIGs can be beneficial and cover their costs in a single
project setting. The client probably has to adopt a long-term perspective,
reaping the benefits of SIGs in the long run over a series of projects.

The amount of training was not affected much by lean thinking. During
the second workshop many respondents expressed a demand for training

11
and education related to partnering and lean construction. As a result of this
demand the action researcher hold a short lecture about partnering and lean
construction during the final workshop. It was also agreed that in the future
an introductory lecture and discussion about these concepts would be held in
the initial stage of the project and that similar lectures could be held
continuously as parts of the workshops.

In order to facilitate suggestions from workers a “suggestions box”

was established. Workers were encouraged to hand in formal and written
improvement suggestions to DynaMate’s project leader. Scania had
earmarked an amount of 10.000 € for rewarding such suggestions (500 € per
suggestion). In spite of good intentions this “suggestions box” did not work
satisfactory. The handling and follow-up of the suggestions were not
performed in a structured and continuous way due to the project leader’s
overload of work. In order to encourage the workers to hand in such
suggestions they have to be handled in a fast and efficient way so that the
workers see what happens with their suggestions. During the final workshop
it was suggested that in future projects the suggestion box should be a
permanent part of the agenda of construction meetings so that suggested
improvements are dealt with shortly after submission.

Cooperative relationships
Several collaborative tools were explicitly utilised in the project. Joint
objectives were formulated first by Scania and DynaMate and then discussed
and approved by the contractors. Two joint project offices were established:
one on the site for the contractors and one client office near the site for the
client representative, the project leader, and some additional staff. The
author of this paper served as a facilitator responsible for the execution of
three partnering surveys and three subsequent follow-up workshops. One
teambuilding event was held during the second half of the project. It was
attended by approximately forty participants. These collaborative tools were
considered very important although there was room for improvements. The
fact that the project was not initiated as a lean project resulted in that the
collaborative tools were not utilised in the very beginning which is an
important stage for establishing a collaborative climate. During the final
workshop it was suggested that in future projects the establishment of joint
objectives should be based on teamwork efforts during a kick-off workshop
instead of being initiated solely by the client side.

A broad partnering team was established, including the client Scania,

the construction management company DynaMate, and the four contractor
companies. Instead of letting the construction contractor serve as main
contractor with the three other companies as subcontractors DynaMate chose
to establish equivalent contracts for all contractors, making them work side
by side as equals. The respondents argued that this solution was very
important for promoting cooperation and teamwork. They were, however, of
the opinion that also important consultants (e.g. the architect and
construction engineer) should be involved in the partnering team.

12
 The compensation form was based on open books and a gain
share/pain share arrangement in which the parties’ shares were relative to
their part of the total project value. Hence, the incentives were based on
group performance instead of performance within the individual contracts.
The respondents stated that this arrangement was a central measure,
facilitating cooperation. No actor had anything to gain by improving his own
performance on the expense of someone else’s.

Systems perspective
Coherent procurement procedures were implemented, establishing an
appropriate foundation for increased cooperation. The key contractors were
procured early through direct negotiation and involved in concurrent
engineering. The compensation form was based on group incentives and the
broad partnering team used several collaborative tools. The respondents
agreed that these procurement procedures were suitable and a central aspect
of the collaborative lean concept that was sought after.

The four partner contractors had large scope contracts. The electricity,
ventilation, and plumbing contracts even included design services, since
these companies had such competences internally. The architect and
construction engineer were, however, contracted by DynaMate. An exclusion
of the large scope approach was that the mechanical supplier and contractor
were procured and managed directly by Scania and therefore outside the
scope of the project managed by DynaMate. The interface between the
mechanical delivery and the construction project did not function perfectly
smooth in all instances so this division of responsibilities was a drawback
from a lean perspective.

The respondents stated that the project had properly balanced

objectives. Quality and function is often most central for Scania. In this
project the time schedule was also highly prioritised and the cost was ranked
as third objective. The actions taken during the project duration were also in
line with this ranking. The actors did never choose alternatives that saved
costs on the expense of quality and time. The ranking of these objectives
was not, however, explicitly discussed. In order to enhance clarity and
mutual understanding the respondents thought that it would have been
useful to discuss the balance of the objectives in the beginning of the project.

4.2 Identification of lean model type in pilot project

Table 2 illustrates the extent to which different measures were used:

measures that were explicitly used to a large extent are marked in bold,
measures that were implicitly used to a large extent are marked in bold/
italic, measures that were explicitly used to some extent are marked in bold/
brackets, measures that were implicitly used to some extent are marked in
bold/italics/brackets, and measures that were not used are in normal text.

13
Table 2. Lean measures utilised in the pilot project.
C o r e e le m e n t s M e a su re s L e a n m o d e l typ e
W a s t e r e d u c t io n H o u s e k e e p in g M odel 1
( J u s t in t im e d e liv e r ie s ) (M o d el 1 )
( J o in t I T - t o o ls ) (M o d el 3 )
( P r e - fa b r ic a t io n ) (M o d el 3 )

P ro c e s s fo c u s L a s t P la n n e r M odel 3
( S e lf- c o n t r o l) (M o d el 3 )
M ile s t o n e s M odel 1

E n d c u s to m e r fo c u s C o n c u r r e n t e n g in e e r in g M odel 3
L im it e d b id in v it a t io n M odel 2+ 3

S o ft p a r a m e t e r s in b id e v a lu a t io n M odel 2+ 3

C o n t i n u o u s im p r o v e m e n t s L o n g -te rm c o n tra c ts M odel 2+ 3

S p e c ia l in t e r e s t g r o u p s M odel 3
( T r a in in g ) (M o d el 3 )
( S u g g e s t io n s fr o m w o r k e r s ) (M o d el 3 )

C o o p e r a t iv e r e l a t io n s h i p s C o lla b o r a t iv e t o o ls M odel 2
B r o a d p a r t n e r in g t e a m M odel 2
G a in s h a r e / p a in s h a r e M odel 1

S y s t e m p e r s p e c t iv e C o h e r e n t p r o c u r e m e n t d e c is io n s M odel 3
(L a rg e s c o p e c o n tra c ts ) (M o d el 3 )
P r o p e r ly b a la n c e d o b je c t iv e s M odel 3

As illustrated in Table 2, all four measures of Model 1 were utilised in the

project to a satisfactory degree. Milestones and the gain share/pain share
arrangement were explicit strategies, whereas housekeeping and just-in-time
deliveries were used more implicitly. This finding is in line with the argument
put forward in Section 2.2 that Lean Model 1 is the default that is performed
in most efficient construction projects, although they do not involve explicit
lean thinking. The table also shows that the measures connected to Model 2
were explicitly utilised to a very high degree. Model 2 focuses on reducing
waste and increasing efficiency foremost by establishing cooperative
relationships among the project actors, which was the explicit aim of the pilot
project. Also the measures connected to Model 3 were used to some extent,
both implicitly and explicitly, but there is, however, still a long way to go in
order to obtain this full-fledged model of lean construction.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this paper was to increase the understanding of how various
measures of lean thinking can be implemented and how they work in a
construction project. A frame of reference, identifying the core elements of
lean construction and how their specific measures are related to three
different models of lean construction, was developed. It served as a basis for
data collection in a case study of a lean construction pilot project, in which
the author of this paper served as an action researcher. The case study
findings show that the pilot project utilised a broad range of measures that

14
resulted in a lean implementation comparable to the intermediate model,
focusing on cooperation. Some measures related to the third model were also
utilised, although there is a long way to go in order to reach this more
sophisticated lean approach. Hence, one can argue that the pilot project had
more similarities to partnering than to a full fledged lean project. Increased
cooperation is, however, a prerequisite for a further development of the lean
concept. The project was successfully executed; both within budget and
schedule, much due to the specific measures that were implemented. The
participants, both at the client and at the supply side, are satisfied with the
project execution and its results. This pilot project will therefore serve as a
well-built starting point of a long-term continuous development of the lean
construction concept within the business of Scania and DynaMate.

7. REFERENCES

Akintoye, A. (1995) 'Just-in-Time Application and Implementation for Building

Material Management'. Construction Management and Economics, 13 (2), 105-113.
Andi, S. & Minato, T. (2003) 'Design Documents Quality in the Japanese Construction
Industry: Factors Influencing and Impacts on Construction Process'. International
Journal of Project Management, 21 (7), 537-546.
Ballard, G., Harper, N. & Zabelle, T. (2003) 'Learning to See Work Flow: An
Application of Lean Concepts to Precast Concrete Fabrication'. Engineering
Construction and Architectural Management, 10 (1), 6-14.
Bresnen, M. & Marshall, N. (2001) 'Understanding the Diffusion and Application of
New Management Ideas in Construction'. Engineering Construction and Architectural
Management, 8 (5/6), 335-345.
Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A. & Swan, J. (2005) 'Implementing Change in
Construction Project Organizations: Exploring the Interplay between Structure and
Agency'. Building Research & Information, 33 (6), 547-560.
Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction. London, HMSO.
Elfving, J., Tommelein, I. & Ballard, G. (2005) 'Consequences of Competitive Bidding
in Project-Based Production'. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 11(4),
173-181.
Eriksson, P. E., Dickinson, M. & Khalfan, M. (2007) 'The influence of partnering and
procurement on subcontractor involvement and innovation'. Facilities, 25 (5/6), 203-
214.
Eriksson, P. E. & Pesämaa, O. (2007) 'Modelling Procurement Effects on
Cooperation'. Construction Management and Economics, 25 (8), 893-901.
Eriksson, P. E. (2008) 'Procurement Effects on Coopetition in Client-Contractor
Relationships'. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134 (2), 103-
111.
Eriksson, P. E. & Nilsson, T. (2008) 'Partnering the Construction of a Swedish
Pharmaceutical Plant: Case Study'. Journal of Management in Engineering, 24 (4),
227-233.
Fearne, A. & Fowler, N. (2006) 'Efficiency versus Effectiveness in Construction
Supply Chains: The Dangers of "Lean" Thinking in Isolation'. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 11 (4), 283-287.
Forsythe, P. (2007) 'A Conceptual Framework for Studying Customer Satisfaction in
Residential Construction'. Construction Management and Economics, 25 (2), 171-
182.
Gil, N., Tommelein, I. & Ballard, G. (2004) 'Theoretical Comparison of Alternative

15
Delivery Systems for Projects in Unpredictable Environments'. Construction
Management and Economics, 22 (5), 495-508.
Green, S. (1999) 'The Missing Arguments of Lean Construction'. Construction
Management and Economics, 17 (2), 133-137.
Green, S. (2002) 'The Human Resource Management Implications of Lean
Construction: Critical Perspectives and Conceptual Chasms'. Journal of Construction
Research, 3 (1), 147-165.
Green, S. & May, S. (2005) 'Lean Construction: Arenas of Enactment, Models of
Diffussion, and the Meaning of 'Leaness''. Building Research & Information, 33 (6),
498-511.
Jorgensen, B. & Emmitt, S. (2008) 'Lost in Transition: The Transfer of Lean
Manufacturing to Construction'. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 15 (4), 383-398.
Maloney, W. (2002) 'Construction Product/Service and Customer Satisfaction'.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128 (6), 522-529.
Mao, X. & Zhang, X. (2008) 'Construction Process Reengineering by Integrating Lean
Principles and Computer Simulation Techniques'. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 134 (5), 371-381.
Miller, C., Packham, G. & Thomas, B. (2002) 'Harmonization between Main
Contractors and Subcontractors: A Prerequisite for Lean Construction?' Journal of
Construction Research, 3 (1), 67-82.
Nyström, J. (2005) 'The Definition of Partnering as a Wittgenstein Family-
Resemblance Concept'. Construction Management and Economics, 23 (5), 473-481.
O'Connor, J. & Yang, L.-R. (2004) 'Project Performance Versus Use of Technologies
at Project and Phase Levels'. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
130 (3), 322-329.
Pheng, L. S. & Fang, T. H. (2005) 'Modern-day lean construction principles: Some
questions on their origin and similarities with Sun Tzu's Art of War'. Management
Decision, 43 (4), 523-541.
Riley, M. & Clare-Brown, D. (2001) 'Comparison of Cultures in Construction and
Manufacturing Industries'. Journal of Management in Engineering, 17 (3), 149-158.
Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A. & Minkarah, I. (2006) 'Lean Construction: From
Theory to Implementation'. Journal of Management in Engineering, 22 (4),
168-175.
Shammas-Toma, M., Seymor, D. & Clark, L. (1998) 'Obstacles to Implementing Total
Quality Management in the UK Construction Industry'. Construction Management and
Economics, 16 (2), 177-192.
Tam, V., Tam, C. M., Shen, L. Y., Zeng, S. X. & Ho, C. M. (2006) 'Environmental
Performance Assessment: Perceptions of Project Managers on the Relationship
Between Operational and Environmental Performance Indicators'. Construction
Management and Economics, 24 (3), 287-299.
Toolanen, B. (2008) Lean Contracting: Relational Contracting Influenced by Lean
Thinking. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Luleå, Luleå University
of Technology.
Winch, G. (2006) 'Towards a Theory of Construction as Production by Projects'.
Building Research & Information, 34 (2), 154-163.
Wright, G. (2000) 'Lean Construction Boosts Productivity'. Building Design &
Construction, 41 (12), 29-32.
Yang, L.-R. (2007) 'Exploring the Links Between Technology Usage and Project
Outcomes'. Construction Management and Economics, 25 (10), 1041-1051.
Yeung, J., Chan, A. & Chan, D. (2007) 'The Definition of Alliancing in Construction as
a Wittgenstein Family-Resemblance Concept'. International Journal of Project
Management, 25 (3), 219-231.

16