Lean System-Based Tool for Housing Projects Management in the Pandemic Period

Abstract

This research describes a detailed analysis of the enactment of a lean Tool, the Last Planner System during pandemic period which helps in optimizing resources for better coordination among all stakeholders in a pandemic period. The LPS, as it is known, focusses on minimizing factors such as uncertainties, barriers, and variability to make construction projects more flexible for better project management. These include variations and deviations, supervision, delays in approvals, change resistance, and subcontractor dedication, which are all related to various stakeholders in the project. Following that, a Design Science Research technique is used to evaluate the effect of applying the LPS in buildings to address and achieve the objective of reducing the impact of setbacks created by the stakeholders such as architects, consultants, clients, project management team, etc., during the implementation of the LPS during any pandemic so as not to reduce the progress of execution. An action strategy is being used to attain this goal, and four case studies are documented which concern the implementation of the LPS in the building of the Boy’s Hostel, Research Scholar Quarters, Faculty Housing, and Girls’ Hostel at Chennai, Tamilnadu, India. Data was gathered by observation of site activities, interviews, documentation analysis, and a questionnaire survey and grouped into various factors. While adopting the LPS tool in research, the factors affecting the implementation in the COVID-19 pandemic period were found. Further, these factors were analysed, measured, ranked, and validated for adopting in projects.

1. Introduction

The focus of construction activity is to develop a system for minimizing the waste of all types of resources. Despite various methods and means being available for finding a solution to this issue of reducing the waste, though not fully eradicating it, adopting a simple tool will help the construction industry to have a better control on the waste being generated [1]. Wastage in terms of labour may occur not only with the usage of materials and machineries by the labours but is also connected with the activities of various stakeholders associated with the construction. Any particular tool or a system, before it is adopted in a project, has to be made easily understandable by all the persons associated with the project at all levels.

While this study focusses on implementing a suitable tool to be adopted easily by the labour who are directly involved in the construction, analysis of the various setbacks of achieving the goal of implementing the Lean tool should pave a better path not only by means of adopting the Lean principle, but by reaping the benefits of totally solving the setbacks developed by the various stakeholders during the stages of Lean tool implementation [2].

This research addresses various questions related to the process and impact of implementing the LPS during a pandemic through responses received in questionnaire responses of various stakeholders. Labour productivity has long since been taken into consideration for various researchers [3,4,5]. Ref. [6] has studied the result of the independent systems of the LPS, they are self-interested stakeholders thus focusing only on the subcontractors’ effect on implementing the LPS. In the work [7], research on the effects of the LPS on society based organisational connections within the construction workers is conducted. Again, [8] conducted their research work on the effects of the societal subcontract and the LPS’s involvements in the labour flow of activities in multistorey development projects.

While cost reduction, the improvement of work flow, reduction in variations, and the setting up of buffers for completing the projects on time have been the focus for a certain period of research and implementation, there had been many challenges in the implementation of the various lean tools which are mainly used for enhancing the quality of the project in execution, improving the project management process during the implementation and delivery stages, and also reducing various types of wastages [9]. While various tools such as 5S, the mapping of values, and work standardization are mostly controlled by external factors, the Last Planner System method in executing a project through lean is more influenced by the internal factors associated with the direct executor of the project, the labour. Not only is it the labour who are involved but also the various stakeholders such as the vendors, sub-contractors, architects, and structural and MEP consultants who also have a direct control on the Last Planner System. The Last Planner System tool mainly concentrates on the activities in the execution of the project of the worker who is last in line in the planning and project management. The last planner who is mostly the foreman is unable to make his system flow run smoothly during the course of execution of the project as most of his inputs are received from various stakeholders associated with the project. Many hurdles and setbacks are faced by the last planner in achieving their goal set for the project. These hurdles and setbacks may not only be created within the project, but are also formed by natural hurdles, such as cyclones, unseasonal rainfall, pandemic, etc. The impact of different stakeholders may also vary at times, since they are involved not at the same time but at different staggered periods during the course of executing the project by the last planner’s made-in plan [10]. A better coordinated system among the stakeholders associated with the last planner and a well-defined system and procedure to overcome natural hurdles becomes a necessity of the project, particularly during any long-term pandemic period affecting the smooth work flow in this system. Though such systems can be implemented in the contract conditions during the tendering process, the cost associated with adopting and following such systems and procedures may vary drastically. Hence it becomes imperative that only after the project is in the execution stage of a certain level are new tools, systems, and procedures implemented in accordance with the already set procedures [11]. Such tools have high cost implications and mainly need the support and approval of the top management, since they are the one who control the cost flow of the project.

Though different research has been conducted on the enactment of the Last Planner System to improve the flow of work, reduce cost and wastage, and improve labour productivity, there is a gap in connecting and making all the stakeholders responsible in the combined achievement of the target through the Lean tool implementation, particularly during a pandemic. This research is more specific and concentrates on both the setbacks and the positive factors faced by the last planner during the application of the Last Planner System during the COVID-19 pandemic period and provides a deep insight into the coordination and communication process between the management and the stakeholders of the project with the last planner [12]. Initially, any new tool or system during the adoption stage faces various challenges and doubts in the starting period itself. This research initially started with observing the process of the project management being followed in the four case studies, such as the frequency of meetings being conducted, the mode of communication being followed, the flow of instructions given in the work flow process, the stakeholders’ input method for executing various activities in the project, and the status of implementation of project management tool, if any, in the project. Questionnaires involving various factors of the implementation of the last planner tool were circulated and ranking was performed among eight factors associated with the project management; the priority was set for such factors to be followed both during the pandemic and post-pandemic periods. The responses received to the questionnaires, are connected with all the stakeholders of the project in all the four case studies. Every case study project is unique, not only by their means of cost incurred in the project but also by the various inputs received from various sources, the project management methodology being adopted, the follow up actions being implemented, and the procedures set for executing the various activities to be completed [13]. A consensus on the responses has to be reached based on the questionnaire responses, which is achieved either through ranking or prioritizing method. This study not only gives a methodology for adopting the lean tool but also helps in developing a clear path for all the stakeholders to achieve the results of adopting the lean tool considered in this research for various cost categories of housing accommodation projects during the pandemic period. Ultimately, through statistical analysis and graphs, a prioritized system to be adopted for the various categories of projects based on the cost ranging from less than 50 crores to above 150 crores was given by calculating the performance index of the various factors of project implementation. Thus, the responses received from various stakeholders of the project after the implementation of the LPS shall pave a way to address and reduce the impact of any pandemic to achieve the planned progress of activities during execution.

2. Literature Review

The Last Planner System is a method of the lean principle. It is a system based on the product plans made and promotes effective communication among workers while also increasing plan dependability [14]. The Last Planner System views the plans made and the means of organizing as a combined process, opposed to the current project plans made, which view the plans made and the steps taken to review the plans separately [15]. According to [16], the LPS emphasises combining the plans made and the review of the products made rather than guiding and adapting (cybernetic model) in the traditional project management technique.

The integrated method employed in the LPS improves plan dependability and reduces task variance throughout project execution [17,18]. Ref. [19] discovered that the LPS technique decreases variance in scheduled activities, enhances project performance, and contributes to a 35% increase in productivity when compared to a similar project not handled by the LPS method. This conclusion is supported by research from [20,21]. These studies indicate that the LPS technique enhances planning dependability and job completion quality. This demonstrates the LPS’s ability to efficiently manage the manufacturing process on projects. The frontline supervisor is referred to as the final planner [22].

The LPS is built on five major components: (1) initial main plan, (2) combined programs made in phases for planning, (3) immediate process plans made, (4) activity plans on weekly basis, and (5) review and studying. Studies [23,24] all go into great detail on these processes. The LPS promotes the creation of a coordinated executing relationship and the timely completion of construction projects via the use of these features. However, the Last Planner System is always reviewed in respect of the plans made in phases with respect to the Gantt chart-based programme [25]. Furthermore, [26] contended an emphasis on the overall completion of plans in terms of percentage in last planner evaluation, which may direct subcontractors to alter the results. Nonetheless, the LPS method allows for stakeholders undertaking work to participate in the plans made in phases in order to build a solid plan, which separates it from the standard project management approach.

A case study taking cost into consideration to improve upon the process of construction used the methodologies of lean management [27]. Time, cost, and quality are the three main important factors which possess a greater deviation effect on most of the construction projects. In this research, a project site in Poland was taken for consideration and the activity of column concreting was studied. The authors in [28] used the factor of compatibility in their research to find the labour productivity by means of analysing in a clustered manner. Aside from calculating the time taken by a mason to complete a task as a means of finding the productivity of that mason in a quantitative approach method, the interpersonal relationship between the workers in a crew also provides a qualitative approach in determining the productivity.

The advanced metrics for the Last Planner System combined with the conventional methodology used for the metrics study to find out the outcome of the project schedule [29]. A dashboard and a framework were used to study the planning in production planning and it was found that in the two construction projects considered, one was with the tasks made ready and the other was with the tasks taken later and the work shows a comparative analysis of planning with the CPM, the LPS, and locations-based techniques in three countries, including the USA, Finland, and Brazil. It was initially found in their research that although the above methods focus on schedules, there was no focus on the similarities and differences in these methods.

The barriers in adopting the Lean principles in the construction field through the means within the Jordan construction industry were assessed [30]. Lean construction improves the result in a project’s execution. The study aimed to identify the barriers to such lean tools with the help of a questionnaire with 30 barriers distributed to 326 persons. The main response of the respondents included the non-support of top management, low knowledge of lean, absence of training, and openness as the main barriers to adopting lean construction. Other barriers were also identified, such as the resistance to change had nil incentives and nil motivation, very low wages, less adaptation of design, and build concept [31]. Ultimately, few suggestions to overcome these barriers were given, which were to take an effort to cope with the change, spread the knowledge of lean by government and educational institutions, and conduct many training programmes in lean. Other limitations in this research include the non-usage of the LPS, that no interviews conducted, and the model used to factor the analysis too.

The effect of completion of public construction projects in a systematic way in the four categories of time, cost, quality, and customer satisfaction was assessed [32]. By means of conducting interviews and a thorough study of four construction projects by the Norwegian commissioner, it was found that the systematic way had a very high impact of positiveness on the side of completion of the projects with low cost and within the timeframe schedule. However, only the building commissioner’s perspective and way of thinking were taken into account, and the other connected stakeholders views, such as the design team, contractor’s team, and client, were limited and not fully taken into account [33]. Since it was very systematic, the time taken in error corrections was low and there were savings in the energy expended. Both the planning and the construction tasks were taken up ssimultaneously and issues on technical systems were corrected early.

The conflicts arising out of the expert contractors who use the Last Planner System in building information modelling, thereby improve the planning process through the execution process correlating both the LPS and BIM processes [34]. In using the LPS technique, the best technique was found by using the LPS technique after studying the plans of the expert contractors by applying it in various tasks of the construction project. By using this approach, the time delay of the project is reduced since the conflict, with respect to the time expended by the expert contractors, was minimized [35]. Ultimately, it was concluded that this research reaped the benefits of the LPS to motivate the contractors and consultants and decrease the delays caused due to huge wastage of time, high costs, and bad quality.

The qualitative approach has many similar characteristics which include combining the researcher with the participant, non-artificial development, information being passed based on some subjects, and a specific reasoned way of communicating the matter [36]. In a way, the researcher states the qualitative approach as the method which gives the utmost importance to creating an approach to meaningfully understanding the science related to the society connected with the human, to pave a way for the thought process of the people.

A study of the project execution method revealed that while traditional project management, by using the CP method, focusses on splitting the overall activities into various sub activities, giving floats to non-critical activities, it does not consider the flow of matters and materials [37]. showed that in today’s highly speedy construction process [38], these two flows are very essential and this was achieved with the aid of the Last Planner System. The discussions and responsibilities in construction were effectively managed by means of the Lean tool. After a thorough study of the various literature, it was found that a systematic training of the Last Planner System is very much essential and that the various factors, such as acting on subcontracts, the results of PPC, and assessment matrix, etc., also improve the LPS. Since the LPS flow is from the top to the bottom, the delegation of authority is seen to be an important factor to evolve the full benefits of the Last Planner System. Barriers were also found in the enactment of the Last Planner System in this research.

Here, the application of the Last Planner System in real estate construction projects is reviewed. As the Indian real estate sector is improving at a fast pace of between 6 and 8% at present, and is expected to reach around 13% in the year 2025, the real challenges faced by the real estate sector in India are the non-availability of highly skilled labour, cost and time increasing heavily over the budget, the reduced productivity of labourers, and, above all, the high generation of waste. Hence, waste reduction is considered to be highly important, as it will not only reduce the cost and time, but will also definitely increase productivity by stabilizing the flow management. To conclude the research, it was found that waste is generated by interconnecting previous activity with the current activity. As and when a project progresses, the percentage plan complete improves. Future research is recommended on applying the just-in-time concept in the project for effective monitoring and control.

The effect of autonomy-based agents, namely the self-interested stakeholders, on the Last Planner System was studied. One paper particularly focussed on the subcontractors’ effect on the method of implementing the LPS in a Texas project [39]. Qualitative interviews in eight projects were conducted and it was found that the behaviour of the subcontractors affected the LPS project’s performance. Ultimately, it was concluded that the behaviour of the independent agents affected the enactment of Last Planner System in projects. This behaviour in turn affected the labour productivity in construction. Further research would pave a way to address this behavioural issue and could also perform study in other places. Resource allocation and the tracking of manpower with buffers must be performed to address this issue.

One study aimed to figure out if the Last Planner System could assist in overcoming the risky effects of the design-bid-build concept of procurement [40]. Nine interviews were conducted with different stakeholders such as an architect, engineer, and the construction contractor. By adopting various strategies such as the alliance contract and risk management techniques, the hurdles were overcome. Also, the interviews conducted revealed that building a lean culture was enabled by using the LPS through the means of good proper communication, visualising the facts, openness, and interaction with good relations. Most of the interview results state that the design-bid-build concept possesses a high negative impact on construction projects. Though the LPS adaptation helps in supporting such high systems, the lean culture in this type of project can be improved by the above mentioned means.

Research was conducted on the uses of adopting the Last Planner System in a project in the area of Addis Ababa [41], wherein the Road Project was taken into consideration. Using the super decision model, a more important of tool of lean construction, the LPS, was considered mainly to improve the production output and decrease waste. The barriers to adopting the LPS were found out, and it was revealed that only critical path method-based project planning with push planning methodology was being used and there was no weekly plan and look ahead schedule. The barriers included the labour-oriented work environment, stakeholder’s views, the materials related, and exogenous matters. If the above barriers are overcome, the LPS provides major benefits such as less time and cost and good quality. By means of various questionnaires, surveys, interviews, and discussions, data were collected and the barriers were grouped into 5 categories among 38 barriers. Finally, the criteria were measured for the benefits reaped through the use of the Last Planner System. Although stakeholders are involved in the plans made during this process, there may be barriers and hinderances in adapting to such plans due to unexpected natural calamity, such as pandemic, which has been considered as the gap in the research. The Last Planner System being implemented in various projects had a major impact due to the changes in the work execution due to the pandemic.

3. Research Method

Quantitative-based study involved the accumulation, tabulation, summary, and review of the results found based on numbers [42], highlighting the usefulness of quantitative approaches and methods in researching problem-solving. Qualitative approach is an approach in terms of interpretation and the Quantitative approach is a subject oriented approach.

The entire process was split into three stages to obtain the expected result. The first stage is the Last Planner System (LPS) mobilization stage, where the System has to be implemented. In order to obtain a detailed report on this stage, the method of project execution was first studied mostly by external observation of aspects including the method of arranging the main resources and how they are being organized and allocated, the frequency of meetings conducted in the project, team cooperation and the method of tasks executed as a team in the project, the manner of behaviour and the method of flow of information, and finally the knowledge and process of setting up the Last Planner System (LPS). Then, the next stage was the working stage, wherein the LPS started to be implemented by identifying the list of unfinished tasks through the designated last planner and finding out the reasons for the low percentage plan completion (PPC) of the tasks. There may be various stakeholders in a project who impact the last planner at different stages of the project. The impact also may be different for different activities being executed by the same last planner. Since they are the entities who impact the low PPC of a task, the first step in the third stage of identifying the reasons for the backlog of activities was completed through the various stakeholders. Certain factors were brought out through the responses of various stakeholders and then validated through the reliability and factor analysis limited to only housing accommodation projects. The questionnaire survey process was chosen as a tool, as well as the Last Planner System of implementation in various circumstances, in order to find out the areas where the LPS was being applied, the method of its application, and the hurdles and setbacks faced by the agency responsible for its implementation. The questionnaire survey was then conducted with all the main persons involved in the project and it was developed through factors, such as the methodology of implementation of the LPS, LPS implementation output through execution phase, LPS implementation during the design phase, quality of implementation, hurdles faced during implementation of the lean tool, positive factors effecting the implementation, benefits derived out of the enactment of the Last Planner System, and negative factors affecting the LPS implementation, which were ranked on a scale from 1 to 5. These data were then analysed through calculating the priority index for all the responses received by ranking the method with points. This was constructed in such a way that the entire team of persons directly involved in the project was taken into consideration, as given in Figure 1.

Ranges were set for the factors which had to be given more importance for the effective implementation of the Last Planner System for various categories of the projects based on the project cost. Cost analysis was performed to find out the savings incurred in the project in the four stages, including executing the project in normal conditions, LPS implementation in normal conditions, implementation of the Last Planner System during the COVID-19 pandemic period, and finally the after effect of the implementation of the Last Planner System after the decrease in the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in the projects. Any research analysis needed to be validated for future use in projects, and the statistical approach was used to validate the responses received from various stakeholders by finding out the regression factor.

Stages of Study

The researcher contacted the contractors and enquired if the Last Planner System could develop the process of progress in all the projects. Initially, the contractors had some restrictions on teaming up with the process of enquiry, but when the project progressed, the contractors showed his interest. The data were gathered in three stages of analysis viz., mobilisation stage, working stage, and conclusion stage for the four case study projects in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, and India as given below:

• Case study 1: research scholars’ family accommodation;
• Case study 2: two residential blocks, Ganga and Yamuna, for teaching staff;
• Case study 3: hostel building for student inmates;
• Case study 4: proposed hostel for female students.

In the mobilisation stage of work, the data which were collected involved the ideas of the non-members and meetings were conducted as a part of the existing project management method. The data which were collected for each case study project are given in

Table 1. Project management method—case study 1.

Site Activities	Outcomes
Present scheduling exercise in terms of labour and material planning	Labour and materials were not adequately available as per the schedule
Frequency of site inspection meetings	Daily site meetings were not taking place regularly.
Site coordination	Work was appropriately planned but not accurately coordinated within various disciplines.
Communication and relationships	No proper communication channel or appropriate cordial relationship between the project participants.

,

Table 2. Project management method—case study 2.

Area of Study	Contractor 1 (CONTR 1)	Contractor 2 (CONTR 2)	Contractor 3 (CONTR 3)	Contractor 4 (CONTR 4)
Current schedule formation and period of project meets.	Project meets organized as per requirement.	Weekly project meetings conducted.	Daily project meetings conducted,	Two times a week, meetings organized.
Information flow methods.	No information flow methods adopted.	No information flow methods adopted.	Information flow methods adopted.	Information flow kept by means of walkie talkie.
Lean information know-how.	No information know-how on lean methods.	No information know-how on lean methods.	Know-how exists on lean methods but was not implemented,	No knowledge of lean Information.
Project Management.	Project in charge finished the tasks in main office and the project engineer completed task in the site.	Compelled way of managing when task moved from top management.	Task correctly planned but not rightly organized,	Despite of a senior executive posted, the different opinions in the low level were seen which obstructed the project execution.

,

Table 3. Project management method—case study 3.

Site Project Tasks	Contractor-1	Contractor-2
Current process of schedule—interval of project venue meetings.	Meetings were conducted as and when the requirements come	Communication meets were held every week.
Project management: activity controller	The resident manager and the project engineers were the responsible persons	Charge and site engineers were made responsible for handling site activities.
Information passing mechanism.	No information passing mechanism used.	No information passing mechanism used.
Project control mechanisms in place.	No project control mechanism.	No project control mechanism.
Knowledge of Lean/LPS	No knowledge of lean construction techniques.	Not aware of the Last Planner System method.

and

Table 4. Project management method—case study 4.

Site Activities	Outcomes
Present scheduling exercise in terms of labour and material planning	Labour and materials were not adequately available as per the schedule.
Frequency of site inspection meetings	Daily site meetings were not taking place regularly
Site coordination	Work was appropriately planned but not accurately coordinated within various disciplines.
Communication and relationships	No proper communication channel and appropriate cordial relationship between the project participants.

.

In the working stage, the data were gathered on the usage of the members’ ideas while participating and the percentage status of completion of activities was sort of analysed through investigation. In the conclusion stage, a questionnaire survey was conducted with all the stakeholders in four parts with eight factors related to project management during the pandemic period. The first part involved receiving a broader outlook of the gain of the LPS process of development. The second part focused mainly on the exterior parts of the implementation process. The third part mainly concentrated on the premium process of the workings of the LPS development. The final part existed on the main usages and good results of the working implementation of the Last Planner System.

4. Results

Four different periods were taken into consideration for all the case study projects in the working stage to analyse the status of completion of activities upon implementation of the Last Planner System during the pandemic, and the reasons for incomplete activities were found.

4.1. Case Study 1

The major activities of this case study project were constantly reviewed and the percentage plan complete (PPC) is calculated and explained in

Table 5. Status of tasks completion.

Weeks	Number of Finished Tasks	Number of Unfinished Tasks	Total Tasks	PPC %
21 May 2020 to 27 May 2020	8	3	11	72.72
28 May 2020 to 4 June 2020	11	1	12	91.67
5 June 2020 to 11 June 2020	9	2	11	81.81
12 June 2020 to 18 June 2020	9	1	10	90.00
Total	37	7	44	84.05 (Average)

.

The common reasons for unfinished tasks were found out and tabulated in

Table 6. Reason for non-completion of tasks.

Cause of Unfinished Task	Causes %
Unexpected climate conditions	16
Insufficient design inputs	8
Non-availability of skilled workmen	11
Materials supply delays	6
Repetitive works	6
Pre-conditions of contract	5
Delay in submissions	7
Machinery related issues	11
COVID related restrictions	30

and the same data are illustrated in Figure 2.

4.2. Case Study 2

There were four contractors working on various activities in this case study project. The task completion status of the major activities was reviewed and the percentage plan complete (PPC) is calculated in

Table 7. Status of activities completion.

Weeks	Number of Finished Tasks	Number of Unfinished Tasks	Total Tasks	PPC %
26 October 2020–1 November 2020	9	3	12	75.00
2 November 2020–8 November 2020	7	7	14	50.00
9 November 2020–15 November 2020	10	4	14	71.40
16 November 2020–22 November 2020	7	5	12	58.30
23 November 2020–29 November 2020	11	4	15	73.30
30 November 2020–6 December 2020	8	4	12	66.70
7 December 2020–13 December 2020	6	7	13	46.20
Total	58	34	92	63.10 (Average)

.

The common reasons for the unfinished activities were extracted and tabulated in

Table 8. Reason for non-completion of activities.

Cause of Unfinished Task	Causes %
Unexpected climate conditions	18
Insufficient design inputs	14
Non-availability of skilled workmen	15
Materials supply delays	6
Repetitive works	4
Pre-conditions of contract	3
Delay in submissions	9
Machinery related issues	5
COVID related restrictions	26

and the quanta of these reasons are projected in Figure 3.

4.3. Case Study 3

The case study project under consideration was executed by two different contractors. The contractors had the same plan of action and objective for the project. The prime contractor (CONTR 1) had a staff strength of 150 and the other contractor (CONTR 2) comprised of 65 staff members. In the working stage the major activities were constantly reviewed and the percentage plan complete (PPC) of the items of work executed is calculated as given in

Table 9. Status of tasks completion.

Weeks	Number of Finished Tasks	Number of Unfinished Tasks	Total Tasks	PPC %
29 May 2021 to 5 June 2021	7	6	13	53.84
6 June 2021 to 12 June 2021	3	5	8	37.50
13 June 2021 to 19 June 2021	2	7	9	22.22
20 June 2021 to 26 June 2021	3	4	7	42.85
27 June 2021 to 3 July 2021	4	5	9	44.44
4 July 2021 to 10 July 2021	4	4	8	50.00
11 July 2021 to 17 July 2021	3	4	7	42.85
Total	56	50	106	49.34 (Average)

.

The common factors for the unfinished tasks were studied and tabulated in

Table 10. Reason for unfinished completion of work activities.

Cause of Unfinished Task	Causes %
Unexpected climate conditions	8
Insufficient design inputs	12
Non-availability of skilled workmen	5
Materials supply delays	10
Repetitive works	18
Pre-conditions of contract	4
Delay in submissions	20
Machinery related issues	9
COVID related restrictions	14

and the details of the data are displayed in Figure 4.

4.4. Case Study 4

This case study project was executed by one main contractor. The major activities were constantly reviewed and the percentage plan complete (PPC) is calculated in

Table 11. Status of tasks completion.

Weeks	Number of Finished Tasks	Number of Unfinished Tasks	Total Tasks	PPC %
24 April 2022–30 April 2022	8	6	4	57.14
1 May 2022–7 May 2022	8	7	15	53.33
8 May 2022–14 May 2022	7	5	12	5833
15 May 2022–21 May 2022	8	7	15	53.33
22 May 2022–28 May 2022	5	6	11	45.45
29 May 2022–4 June 2022	7	5	12	58.33
Total	43	36	78	54.32 (Average)

.

The common reasons for the incomplete works were found out and tabulated in

Table 12. Reason for incompletion of tasks.

Cause of Incomplete Tasks	Causes %
Unexpected climate conditions	5
Insufficient design inputs	11
Non-availability of skilled workmen	14
Materials supply delays	13
Repetitive works	8
Pre-conditions of contract	13
Delay in submissions	11
Machinery related issues	8
COVID related restrictions	17

and these reasons are given in Figure 5.

5. Discussion

The prime goal of this research was to implement the Last Planner System by first studying the existing project management method. Initially, while observing the method of project management, every case study was unique in the project management system being followed. The time taken to make the project team adopt this lean tool of the Last Planner System was also different among the four case study projects taken into consideration, while the challenges faced during the pandemic period by implementing the Last Planner System were observed, and then the process of implementing the lean tool was started in a sequential manner. The responses while implementing the Last Planner System were also investigated in such a way that the entire project team was also acquainted with the changes being made to the already existing project management system. Since the pandemic was unexpected, and the rules being framed for executing different activities were changing based on the time taken to execute a particular activity, and the inputs being received from various stakeholders were different, a common consensus on setting up a standard operating procedure for the various team members was a highly challenging one. Thus, the results obtained from giving inputs which accustomed to the ways and means of a common and unique project management system had varying responses from all the project team members. Eight factors had to be set up to scrutinize the results and also the responses to the implementation of the Last Planner System. Hence, to accommodate the above factors, questionnaires were circulated in the conclusion stage amongst the stakeholders of all four projects studied in the case study. The fifty-five questions asked in the questionnaire covered various areas, such as means of execution of the project, methodology of project management, details of LPS implementation in the project load analysis phase, execution phase of the project, analysis of LPS implementation in the project, hurdles faced during implementation of the LPS, positive factors, and finally the benefits delivered from implementing the Last Planner System. The responses were received on a scale of 1 to 5 from various respondents, which equally covered all the stakeholders of the project. The responses were graded through the factors as follows:

5—Highly acceptable, 4—Acceptable, 3—Acceptable only on certain occasions, 2—Unacceptable, 1—Highly unacceptable.

Thus, any response received through the questionnaire had to be analysed to discuss the results and to understand the depth to which the enactment of the Last Planner System had reached the project team members. To achieve this, an indexing method either through arithmetical calculation or through graphical method suited this requirement. In this research study, the arithmetical calculation method was found to be both faster and more appropriate in judging the responses received from the participants of the fifty-five-question questionnaire. Hence, the priority index method was used to analyse the responses as given in Equations (1) and (2):

Priority index method (PI)

PI = (Ō)/k

(1)

Ō = (∑Rx)/(∑R)

(2)

• Ō = Weighted average
• PI = Priority indices of importance
• k = Maximum points on Likert scale
• ∑R = Total number of respondents
• Average PI = Points derived/Total number of questions.
• Overall, PI = Sum of the average PIs for a factor of all projects/Total number of Projects.

The next step was the grading of the priority index to install upon it a theory which would provide an easy approach towards any new lean tool implementation. The results of the priority index were thus divided as follows:

• Highly Acceptable Points—0.7 and Above
• Acceptable Points—0.6–0.69
• Acceptable to certain extents—0.59 and below

The questionnaire survey was conducted by dividing the stakeholders in four individual teams comprising of contractor’s member (53%), client’s engineers (15%), PMC staff (10%), Vendor’s persons (14%) and consultant’s engineers (8%). This was performed in this manner because the Last Planner System implementation belonged to the contractor’s group members and the persons working with the last planner on a daily basis for executing the activities assigned to them also belonged to the contractor. Hence, a maximum weightage is given to the respondents belonging to the contractor’s team, which is 53%. The order of priority for the number of persons to whom the questionnaire was distributed was made in a way that was based on the involvement and the daily requirement of such stakeholders.

The analysis of the Last Planner System was then conducted by circulating the questionnaire with 55 questions covering a wide range of eight factors which cover the optimization of arranging the required inputs during the pandemic to the above respondents, as given below. The responses were then analysed for all the factors of all four case study projects by observing the responses received from the maximum number of the respondents who had given their opinion against the highly unacceptable question for a particular factor. This way, the order of importance of all the respondents was given in an equivalized and a balanced manner.

5.1. Execution of the Project

The questions related to implementing the Last Planner System in the working and completing of activities in the projects are given in

Table 13. Analysis of execution of the project.

S.No	Analysis of Execution
1	By means of effective control capabilities, the labours had easy approach to the work spot management.
2	In the site, there exists cordial understanding among the site execution persons
3	There exists a clear understandable communication among the activities performers.
4	In the activity, an executable safe and healthy environment for the activity exists
5	The collaboration in the site allows and develops project events to be associated with new trends.
6	The project managers follow the progress and allocation of works by using new project management tools.
7	At the site, the project management personnel admit the hard work of labours in the work spot
8	The weather condition was favourable at all times during the execution.

. All the factors are interlinked with this factor as any variation in any of the other seven factors has a deep impact on this factor of execution. It was observed that 63% of the respondents agreed that there was a cordial relationship between the engineers of the project in the below 50 crore project categories. In contradiction to that, it was found that 65% of the respondents expressed that there did not exist a safe and efficient environment in the site premises, and so this required action to be taken to improve the safety measures in this project which falls under the 50–100 crore project categories.

5.2. Methodology of Project Management

The questions regarding the methodology of project management with respect to the implementation of the Last Planner System are given in

Table 14. Analysis of methodology.

S.No	Methodology
1	There prevails a request to mark the status of increment in the work on this activity.
2	There exists a process of management commitment, taking care of all workers during a pandemic.
3	The level of satisfaction of payment made to the workers in the work spot was good.
4	A deep correlation between the operations and the benefits at the project place prevails
5	The process of materials selection and approvals was satisfactory.

. This factor also varies with each four, every activity, and mostly on a day-to-day basis depending on both the quantum and the time taken to receive the required resource among the labour, material and plan, machinery, and the cost allocation of the activity. However, there was an acceptance from 73% of respondents for the COVID-19-like pandemic system compliance, which was prepared based on the standard operating procedure (SOP) to be integrated into the initial plan made for the future projects under the more than 150 crore projects categories. Meanwhile 36% of the respondents in both the 50–100 crore project and 100–150 crore project categories stated that the payment made to the labourers was not satisfactory with the way of working by the labourers. This fact needs to be addressed so that the labourers’ work efficiency and productivity are improved.

5.3. LPS Implementation in the Design Phase

The questions regarding the enactment of the Last Planner System in the design phase are given in

Table 15. Analysis of the design phase.

S.No	Analysis of Design Phase
1	Last Planner System provides for better improvement in technology.
2	The design with analysis addresses solvable construction issues.
3	The LPS implementation in the design phase decreases the period and cost of construction.
4	There exists good interaction with the design members during implementation.
5	The design clubbed with last planner helps to control waste and unwanted activities.
6	There prevails a huge impact due to changes and delay in issue of the drawings during execution.

. The design phase forms a basis for the execution phase. While this design phase was a continuous phase for most of the projects, the input given from the design phase to the execution phase must function simultaneously, since any delay in the design phase will not only have an adverse effect on the particular activity associated with the design but on the entire project also. There was a very high acceptance rate of 83% for the fact that the LPS’s implementation during the design stage reduced the output creation time making the fast completion of the project easy. But there was a huge impact on the design from the changes being made during the activities completion phase of the project, as reported by the majority persons for the 100–150 crore project value category. This has to be reduced so that there is no frequent change in LPS implementation due to the changes in design.

5.4. LPS Implementation in the Construction Phase

The questions regarding the of the lean tool implementation in the construction phase are given in

Table 16. Analysis of the construction phase.

S.No	Construction Phase Analysis
1	There exists an increase in the safety and environmental problems during construction.
2	There is an increase in the quality and final finish of the product.
3	Many aids in finding the barriers within project execution is admitted.
4	Main importance is given to addition of value during construction.
5	Reasonable benchmarks made in the product output periods after construction.
6	There prevails a provision of aid to reduce the movement of site materials during construction.
7	The implementation system helps to benchmark work methodologies.

. For any project, safety is the prime important factor for which more weightages have to be given since the quality, cost, and the time taken for the project are all connected directly with the safety parameter factor of the particular project. The environment and safety measures during implementation of the LPS in the construction phase were efficiently taken care of as accepted by 81% of the respondents, but the benchmarking of activities under the more than 150 crore project category was impossible as only 28% of the respondents agreed to this. Hence, this factor needs to be concentrated on for high value projects.

5.5. Analysis of LPS Implementation

Questions were also framed in direct relation to LPS implementation as given in

Table 17. LPS implementation analysis.

S.No	LPS Implementation Analysis
1	LPS was more active in this project plan.
2	The results obtained from the experimental implementation was satisfactory when compared to the previous projects.
3	The weekly work plans and PPC are very much needed to reach the profit goal.
4	Huge difficulty in implementing of LPS exists.

. This factor is also crucial not only in understanding the effect of carrying out of the Last Planner System but also to correct mistakes, if any, and form an input for future projects also. In the implementation of the LPS in the construction phase, the skill of percentage plan complete and schedules of the project were very effective with an acceptance rate of 85%; however, the feedback of the LPS experimental implementation was very poor in the 50–100 crore project categories with only 18% acceptance. Hence, this factor needs to be concentrated on more.

5.6. Hurdles in LPS Implementation

The hurdles in implementing the LPS were framed as questions, as given in

Table 18. Hurdles in LPS implementation.

S.No	Hurdles in LPS Implementation
1	The system leads to improper management and poor-quality control leading to rework.
2	Many deviations in specifications, additions in quantities and variations in cost is found.
3	The contactor’s involvement is found to be satisfactory.
4	Many changes in design occurs due to LPS implementation.
5	Reasonable availability of vaccination during pandemic restriction period exists.
6	There prevails an acceptance of endorsements.
7	Availability of skilled workers is a major concern.
8	Risks of non-availability of required materials and machineries exists.

. Again, these hurdles also form a varying factor in all four case studies taken into consideration. Among all the hurdles of the projects taken into consideration, the availability of skilled workers was a major hurdle in the implementation of the LPS, since the understanding of the procedure of the LPS by less skilled workers was not so easy. Around 91% had accepted this fact. On the same hand, in the same project category under less than 50 crores value, the availability of COVID vaccines for all age categories as well as frequently changing COVID-19 restrictions by the government lead to a major hurdle. Hence, this has to be paid more concentration, alongside adaptation to fast-changing government policies during any pandemic in the future.

5.7. Quality of LPS Implementation

The quality of LPS implementation was framed as a questionnaire, as given in

Table 19. Quality of LPS implementation.

S.No	Quality of LPS Implementation
1	Quality education and showing a good responsibility to last planner members prevails.
2	There is an improvement in the working of the stakeholders.
3	A positivity in criticizing the people to make changes occurs.
4	There is a difficulty in acquiring the accurate human resource
5	Aid received from the top management is good.
6	Adaptation to negativity to acquire changes is dynamic.
7	Mostly face to face interactions exists with the vendors for all the planned activities.
8	The weather condition is favourable at all times during the execution.

. There exists no compromise on the quality of the system in any project, since any deviation from the expected quality will directly have an adverse effect on the cost of the project. Without any support from the top management, the implementation of any new method is impossible. This was reflected in the fact that 93% of the respondents agreed that there was sufficient support from the top management during all stages of the application of the Last Planner System implementation in the four case studies taken into consideration. Also, acceptance of the procedure by the last planner gained more weightage when compared with the adjusting to the situation of implementation. It was only in the fact that maintaining sufficient human resource in the 50–100 crore project category was difficult throughout the LPS implementation period, while other resources such as materials, plan and machinery, and even the cost had no major effect to undergo any change if required. Hence, this factor of quality maintenance has to be concentrated on more in the 50–100 crore project category.

5.8. Benefits in LPS Implementation

The benefits arising out of the LPS implementation were framed as a questionnaire, as given in

Table 20. Benefits of LPS implementation.

S.No	Benefits of LPS Implementation
1	Means of controlling during LPS implementation and solving issues related to hurdles occurs often.
2	There is a reduction in the part completion of activities and to avoid irrelevant information flow.
3	It is easy in formulating viewing thoughts and reducing the effect on the management.
4	Forming a better judgable and dependable policy is easy.
5	Implementing and handing over of all the project related activities and lean principles adoption is satisfactory.
6	The implementation establishes project activities and gets along with lean principles.
7	There prevails a major development in construction framework.
8	There is no huge requirement of skilled labours.
9	Decreases the problems of risk assessment.
10	Better handing over project activities on time prevails.

. The responses received through the factor associated with the benefits will definitely have a positive effect on the involvement of the stakeholders of any project. While the responses related to benefits were many, the procedural implementation adopted in the Last Planner System and the logistics of the project site, which were also undertaken simultaneously, had a huge number of positive responses in the questionnaire. The improvement in the site logistics was accepted by 87% of the respondents. The risk assessment factor, which is varying and also independent of any implementation, although seeming to be a major benefit, was only in the above 150 crore project category. The risk assessment was not supposed to reduce by LPS implementation and has to be considered individually.

5.9. Analysis of Questionnaire

The responses received from all four case studies for the eight factors were analysed and the overall priority index is calculated and tabulated in

Table 21. Result analysis of questionnaire.

Factors	Overall PI
Execution	0.6
Lean methodology	0.55
Design phase	0.67
Outcomes of lean	0.59
Evaluation of LPS	0.71
Hurdles in LPS	0.62
Quality of LPS	0.71
Benefits of LPS	0.6

; the same data are displayed a bar chart in Figure 6. It was observed that while executing projects during the pandemic, more emphasis had to be given to the methodology of lean tool application and its implementation means.

5.10. Cost Benefits in LPS Implementation

Any project with or without the implementation of a lean tool system has to be cost effective. This is not only considered in acquiring the estimated profit for the project but is also a crucial factor for the growth of the organization as a whole. To reap the benefits of controlling the cost, the planned cost vs. actual cost incurred in all the four case studies was found over four consecutive periods. The first period was considered before implementation of the Last Planner System under normal conditions, the second period was considered during the enactment of the Last Planner System under normal conditions, the third period was considered in the enactment of the LPS during the pandemic period, and the fourth period was considered in the enactment of the LPS during the post-pandemic period. Each time frame was spread over a few months. The gap between the cost worked out in the planning stage and the exact cost incurred in a particular month by executing some activities during the particular month was found out. It was found that in the variation in all four case studies, the actual cost was less than the planned cost during the pre-implementation of the lean tool, which is the Last Planner System. The reasons were found to be avoiding material shortages, remobilization of labours only during the requirement stage, and allocating funds for unexpected medical and sanitation expenses to overcome the impact of the pandemic, etc. Though there was increase in the profit percentage by implementing the Last Planner System, the pandemic’s impact affected the profit. But this was overcome by adopting certain factors among the eight mentioned above to improve the profit during pandemic situation upon implementation of the LPS, as given in

Table 22. Cost analysis through Last Planner System implementation.

Time Frame	Planned Cost in Cr	Actual Cost in Cr	Profit in %	Remarks
Stage 1	7700	6850	11.03	No pandemic without LPS
Stage 2	7500	6400	14.67	No pandemic with LPS
Stage 3	7250	6752	06.87	In pandemic with LPS
Stage 4	4340	4009	07.61	Post pandemic with LPS

and Figure 7.

5.11. Validation

The questionnaire responses received from all four case study projects were then clubbed into a single format to validate the responses through statistical analysis. The responses were received from the various stakeholders who were involved in similar types of residential accommodation projects, since some of the stakeholders may have been involved not only in the case study under consideration but also with any additional projects. Moreover, the questions which were framed were put in order such that the respective projects were first studied prior to the employment of the Last Planner System, proceeding towards enactment of the Last Planner system during normal conditions, then during the pandemic period, and finally analysing the results of implementation of the LPS during the post-pandemic period. The questions were relatively grouped according to the timeframe as mentioned above. Fifty-five questions were circulated among 100 respondents of various categories of stakeholders such as contractors, clients, consultants, skilled workmen, field engineers, etc., in each case study. Reliability and validity tests were conducted to find out the existence of an inner consistent factor of the respondents and the relationship among the responses. The Cronbach’s Alpha value was found to be 0.820. Hence, the reliability of the questions exists since the value is greater than 0.7. Hence, it was observed that there was a relation between the responses received from various category respondents. Further, the KMO and Bartlett’s Test were also conducted as a validity test to find out the relationship between the variables received in the responses. In the statistical analysis, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of adequacy value of the sample and the Sig value also were found. The factor analysis performed for the eight domains of the questions framed was analysed for their association. Among the domains, the type of association present was found by factor analysis. There was both a dependent variable, which were the questions framed among the eight domains, and an independent variable, being the respondents. Since there existed a correlation among the dependent and the independent variable, it was found that the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of adequacy value of sample was 0.766 and the Sig value was found to be 0.000. The total variance was also explained using Eigen values. It was found that the Eigen values for twenty-two out of the fifty-five questions had a value greater than one, as given in the graph below. This meant that the fifty-five questions were separated into twenty-two components. Since the KMO value is greater than 0.7, there exists a relationship among these twenty-two components. Figure 8 shows the details of the questions which were framed into components.

6. Conclusions

By obtaining responses from all the stakeholders of the project, a consensus was achieved for housing projects starting with below 50 crores moving towards projects ranging from 50 crores to 100 crores, moving on to projects ranging from 100 crores to 150 crores, and finally projects ranging above 150 crores, considering the eight factors affecting the implementation of the Last Planner System to achieve the planned progress of execution, in four projects during the pandemic period. As such, the study focussed on initially observing the methodology of project management and the execution of the projects taken into consideration, and then implementing the lean based tool which is the Last Planner System in the four residential accommodation projects. While implementing the Last Planner System, the reason for implementing this system was brought out to all the stakeholders (clients, contractors, consultants, vendors, supervisors) highlighting the impact of both the internal and external factors causing a huge impact in all the activities of the project. The Last Planner System was implemented in all the four projects wherein all the enabling tasks such as resource allocation, periodic meetings, and proper communication among the project team members were taken care of. The COVID-19 pandemic also came as an unexpected and different sort of interruption while implementing the system, but this was overcome through the effective coordination in setting up the standard operating procedures with the Last Planner and the stakeholders. The main factor which was common for all categories of the projects during the application of the Last Planner System during the pandemic period was the factor related to the work methodology to be adopted. This factor can also be relied upon and extrapolated to any construction project in India, since this is an important factor for which a high level of care should be taken during execution, since the resources and inputs received for executing any work in a construction project are common. Even if the factors are evaluated through the priority index method for adoption in housing accommodation projects, future studies can be conducted on the execution of commercial and industrial projects, wherein the inputs of stakeholders and the resources may vary. Further study could also be conducted by implementing any other lean tool for improving the impact of stakeholders in executing the projects during the pandemic period.