• Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
• /
• 제5권2호
• /
• pp.11-15
• /
• 2015

The Last PlannerSystem (LPS) has been implemented on construction projects to increase work flow reliability, a precondition for project performance againstproductivity and progress targets. The LPS encompasses four tiers of planning processes:master scheduling, phase scheduling, lookahead planning, and commitment / weeklywork planning. This research highlights deficiencies in the current implementation of LPS including poor lookahead planning which results in poor linkage between weeklywork plans and the master schedule. This poor linkage undetermines the ability of theweekly work planning process to select for execution tasks that are critical to projectsuccess. As a result, percent plan complete (PPC) becomes a weak indicator of project progress. The purpose of this research is to improve lookahead planning (the bridgebetween weekly work planning and master scheduling), improve PPC, and improve theselection of tasks that are critical to project success by increasing the link betweenShould, Can, Will, and Did (components of the LPS), thereby rendering PPC a betterindicator of project progress. The research employs the case study research method to describe deficiencies inthe current implementation of the LPS and suggest guidelines for a better application ofLPS in general and lookahead planning in particular. It then introduces an analyticalsimulation model to analyze the lookahead planning process. This is done by examining the impact on PPC of increasing two lookahead planning performance metrics: tasksanticipated (TA) and tasks made ready (TMR). Finally, the research investigates theimportance of the lookahead planning functions: identification and removal ofconstraints, task breakdown, and operations design.The research findings confirm the positive impact of improving lookaheadplanning (i.e., TA and TMR) on PPC. It also recognizes the need to perform lookaheadplanning differently for three types of work involving different levels of uncertainty:stable work, medium uncertainty work, and highly emergent work.The research confirms the LPS rules for practice and specifically the need to planin greater detail as time gets closer to performing the work. It highlights the role of LPSas a production system that incorporates deliberate planning (predetermined andoptimized) and situated planning (flexible and adaptive). Finally, the research presents recommendations for production planningimprovements in three areas: process related, (suggesting guidelines for practice),technical, (highlighting issues with current software programs and advocating theinclusion of collaborative planning capability), and organizational improvements(suggesting transitional steps when applying the LPS).

• 한국정보시스템학회지:정보시스템연구
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.145-158
• /
• 2003

Workflow is the automation of a business process, in whole or part, during which documents, information or tasks are passed from one participant to another for action, according to a set of procedural rules. The software selection problem is made difficult by the multiplicity of competing products and the lack of expertise and experience of users in the methods of software evaluation. Although the selection process for workflow is similar to that proposed for the acquisition of any software packages, differences arise in their evaluation criteria and choice methods. In this paper, we suggest the Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP) method for selecting workflow software. The AHP is an intuitively easy method for formulating and analyzing decisions. It was developed to solve a specific class of problems that involves prioritization of potential alternate solutions. We showed how to evaluate 9 commercial workflow products by deciding the relative importance of the main criteria in the AHP model. We utilized the evaluation data for criteria ready suggested by specialist groups. Our methodology will be helpful to those who are going to adopt a best workflow product in their organizations. Although the criteria and their evaluation scores regarding workflow products are suggested, it is not easy to apply them to a real case and get solutions without a model.