The Last Planner System Style of Planning: Its Basis in Learning Theory

The objective of this article is to contribute to creating a better understanding of the Last Planner System (LPS) - which is associated with Lean Construction - in the light of the learning processes at the basis of knowledge development, and of change and innovation. Founded on a theoretical discussion, three research questions are asked, namely: In what ways can the LPS be expected to alter the learning arenas compared to conventional project management in construction; according to learning theory, what are the main challenges associated with implementing the LPS; and, finally, what kind of learning can be linked to an implemented LPS that functions as intended? The implementation of the LPS is shown to require substantial changes to the technical-organisational learning arena. In order for the implementation to be successful, the work identity has to alter on the individual level so that an overlap occurs with the new work practices prescribed by the LPS. The LPS has an inbuilt experiential learning cycle, and provides a good starting point for single-loop learning, as well as for simple forms of double-loop learning (”routinized learning capability”). However, it is argued that the LPS understood as experiential learning has clear limitations with regard to ”evolutionary learning capability”. This is amplified by the context project organisation provides. In terms of theoretical implications, this article promotes an understanding of the planning process informed by the theory describing it as an experiential learning cycle. The conceptualisation which separates the LPS from conventional production control theory is critiqued. Finally, it is argued that an understanding of the LPS grounded in learning theory will improve the possibilities for successful implementation and maximise the learning effects.

[1]  J. Dewey Art as Experience , 1934 .

[2]  W. Whyte,et al.  Participatory Action Research , 1989 .

[3]  Bjørn Gustavsen,et al.  The Nordic Model of Work Organization , 2011 .

[4]  Babatunde A. Ogunnaike,et al.  Process Dynamics, Modeling, and Control , 1994 .

[5]  Massimo Marraffa,et al.  Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice , 1998 .

[6]  J. Habermas The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and system - A critique of functionalist reason , 1990 .

[7]  J. Dewey Experience and Education , 1938 .

[8]  Jürgen Habermas,et al.  Reason and the rationalization of society , 1984 .

[9]  Hal Macomber,et al.  Linguistic Action: Contributing to the Theory of Lean Construction , 2003 .

[10]  Max Elden,et al.  Cogenerative Learning: Bringing Participation into Action Research , 1991 .

[11]  Chris Argyris,et al.  Overcoming organizational defenses : facilitating organizational learning , 1990 .

[12]  Joseph T. Mahoney,et al.  The Evolution of a Manufacturing System at Toyota , 1999 .

[13]  J. Whitney Case Study Research , 1999 .

[14]  W. Deming Out of the crisis : quality, productivity and competitive position , 1986 .

[15]  G. Howell,et al.  Integrated Project Delivery An Example Of Relational Contracting , 2005 .

[16]  Rafael Sacks,et al.  Conceptualization of Interdependency and Coordination Between Construction Tasks , 2011 .

[17]  藤本 隆宏,et al.  The evolution of a manufacturing system at Toyota , 1999 .

[18]  D. Kolb Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development , 1983 .

[19]  J. Dewey Experience and Nature , 1960 .

[20]  J. Piaget,et al.  Psychology and epistemology , 1971 .

[21]  J. Habermas Theory of Communicative Action , 1981 .

[22]  Lauri Koskela,et al.  Last Planner and Critical Chain in Construction Management: Comparative Analysis , 2010 .

[23]  L. Koskela,et al.  Leadership and Project Management: Time for a Shift from Fayol to Flores , 2004 .

[24]  M. Marcelli,et al.  Design and Methods , 2011 .

[25]  J. March The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence , 1999 .

[26]  Jean Piaget,et al.  The place of the sciences of man in the system of sciences , 1974 .

[27]  Lauri Koskela,et al.  An exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction , 2000 .

[28]  W. R. Seed,et al.  Lean construction. , 2010, HERD.

[29]  W. A. Shewhart,et al.  Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control , 1939 .

[30]  Duncan Gallie,et al.  The Quality of Working Life: Is Scandinavia Different? , 2003 .

[31]  J. Habermas,et al.  The theory of communicative action. Volume 2, Lifeworld andsystem : a critique of functionalist reason , 1989 .

[32]  G. Hofstede The Poverty of Management Control Philosophy , 1978 .

[33]  Chien-Ho Ko,et al.  Improving Formwork Engineering Using the Toyota Way , 2011 .

[34]  J. Piaget Play, dreams and imitation in childhood , 1951 .

[35]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice , 1995 .

[36]  Gregory Howell,et al.  The Underlying Theory of Project Management Is Obsolete , 2008, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[37]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations , 1983 .

[38]  B. Lundvall National Systems of Innovation , 1992 .

[39]  K. Lewin Field theory in social science , 1951 .

[40]  Jean Piaget,et al.  What is psychology , 1978 .

[41]  Lauri Koskela,et al.  Should project management be based on theories of economics or production? , 2006 .

[42]  Kenneth L. Artis Design for a Brain , 1961 .

[43]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Case study research , 2004 .

[44]  Hal Macomber,et al.  Managing Promises with the Last Planner System: Closing in on Uninterrupted Flow , 2005 .

[45]  J. Habermas The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society , 1986 .

[46]  J. Dewey,et al.  How We Think , 2009 .

[47]  Aviad Shapira,et al.  A workflow model for systems and interior finishing works in building construction , 2011 .