Next Article in Journal
Project Management Maturity in Renovation and Remodelling Construction Firms
Previous Article in Journal
High-Speed Videogrammetry for Seismic Performance of the Spherical Reticulated Shell Structure on the Shaking Table
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/buildings13020556
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Implementing Lean Construction: A Literature Study of Barriers, Enablers, and Implications

by
Sina Moradi
* and
Piia Sormunen
Civil Engineering Unit, Faculty of Built Environment, Tampere University, 33720 Tampere, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2023, 13(2), 556; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020556
Submission received: 31 January 2023 / Revised: 10 February 2023 / Accepted: 14 February 2023 / Published: 17 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Construction Management, and Computers & Digitization)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The challenges of adopting and implementing lean construction (LC) have led to substantial but isolated research studies concerning the relevant barriers, enablers, and implications, which lack a comprehensive approach and analytical as well as conceptual perspectives. Hence, this study aims to fill the mentioned knowledge gap by identifying the barriers, enablers, and implications of implementing lean construction and exploring their relatedness. A systematic literature review was carried out through which 230 located studies were analyzed using thematic and content analysis methods to realize the objectives of this study. The findings suggest that the lack of awareness and understanding of LC, resistance to change, and a lack of support and commitment from top management are the top three barriers toward LC adoption and implementation, which can be overcome using the identified enablers, among which the top three ones were developing lean culture, application of lean principles tools and techniques, and top management support and commitment. Moreover, the results present a model which portrays the relatedness between the discovered barriers, enablers, and implications of applying lean construction. The findings can be insightful for the research community and project practitioners in their efforts for facilitating the adoption and implementation of lean construction.

1. Introduction

The construction industry, in the big picture, has been, for a long time, an example of a wasteful sector with high fragmentation and low productivity. This outcome has been mainly attributed to the disadvantages of construction projects with traditional delivery models (e.g., design-bid-build), including late involvement of the contractor in design and planning, unreliable design and planning, rework, an unfair share of risk–reward, mistrust, and unaligned interests of project stakeholders [1,2,3,4,5,6]. As a response to these disadvantages and destructive features, lean construction emerged in the 1990s with a simple but meaningful ideal, which was understanding the customer’s needs and delivering a fit for purpose product/service with high value and low waste. Lean construction has been defined as the adoption and application of principles and techniques related to lean manufacturing in the context of construction to realize the mentioned ideal [7,8,9,10].
According to Dave and Sacks [11], the foundation of lean construction was formed through the proposition of the transformation–flow–value (TFV) theory by Koskela [12] and the development of the lean project delivery system by Ballard [13]. TFV refers to the conceptualization of the production process through three key elements, which are transformation (production of inputs into outputs), flow (movement that is reliable and continuous), and value (what the customer needs and pays for it) [14]. Lean project delivery system, according to Ballard and Howell [15], links five phases (project definition, lean design, lean supply, lean assembly, and use) of the lifecycle. The lean project delivery system addresses construction as production, and reliable production management is of prime importance in lean project delivery systems, which is realized by utilizing the last planner system [15]. The development of the last planner system was undertaken as a reaction to the critical path method (CPM) approach, which has been mostly employed for planning and control in construction projects with traditional delivery models [16]. According to Ballard [16], the last planner system has five components which are master scheduling (SHOULD be done), phase scheduling (SHOULD be done), look ahead planning (CAN be done), daily/weekly work planning (CAN be done), and learning (DID).
As can be understood, there are significant differences between traditional and lean construction. These differences in the holistic view can be explained by mentioning those constructive and key features which lean construction has but traditional construction lacks. These features are production-oriented project delivery, pull planning (the last planner system), unanimous decision-making, joint design of product and process, using contingency reserves for reducing system variability (not local optimization), and aligned interests of stakeholders (through the fair share of risk–reward and joint design and planning) [15,17,18]. Accordingly, it is obvious that the adoption and application of lean construction can be very useful and effective for overcoming the issues of traditional construction [19,20,21]. However, it is also obvious that adopting and implementing lean construction has been very challenging in many countries. In this regard, extensive research has been conducted in the last three decades concerning enablers and barriers (e.g., [22,23,24,25,26]) as well as the implications of implementing lean construction (e.g., [27,28,29,30]).
However, there are very few, if any, studies addressing LC implementation in a systematic manner by identifying the barriers, enablers, and implications of its implementation and revealing the relatedness between them. Thus, this study aims to fill the mentioned knowledge gap through answering the following research questions:
RQ1. What are the barriers and enablers for implementing lean construction?
RQ2. What are the implications of adopting and implementing lean construction?
RQ3. What are the connections between the barriers, enablers, and implications of implementing lean construction?
The resultant paper is structured into six sections. The first one introduces the problem and the objectives of this study. The next section includes the theoretical background, which is followed by an explanation of the methodology. Then, the obtained results are presented and discussed. Finally, the conclusions, drawn from the findings, are stated.

2. Theoretical Background

The research community has been active during the last three decades in undertaking research on lean construction. Analyzing the literature shows that a few research themes can be mentioned regarding lean construction research, including the integration of lean construction with BIM and sustainability (e.g., [31,32,33,34,35,36,37]), lean design and planning (e.g., [38,39,40,41,42,43]), waste identification and elimination (e.g., [44,45,46,47]), lean construction education (e.g., [48,49,50]), and enablers and barriers of adopting and applying LC (e.g., [51,52,53,54]) as well as the implications of implementing lean construction (e.g., [20,30,55,56,57]). Among the mentioned themes, the barriers, enablers, and implications of LC application fit the scope of this study and are discussed in the following.
Exploring the barriers of adopting and implementing lean construction, as a topic, has received considerable attention from the research community. These studies have been conducted in various geographical locations. For instance, the studies conducted in Hong Kong and the USA in 2012 found that a lack of awareness and understanding of LC, a lack of effective communication between all project participants, the size of the construction project, and a lack of sustainable practices hinder the adoption and implementation of lean construction [58,59]. Another study carried out by Khaba and Bhar [26] identified more than 10 barriers toward implementing lean construction, of which insufficient support from the government (providing the required policies, codes, and regulations), lack of performance measurement systems, poor understanding of customer needs and poor customer focus, project subcontracting, financial constraints, and cultural differences can be mentioned as examples. Moreover, the study undertaken by Bajjou and Chafi [60] resulted in the identification of three important barriers which were a lack of awareness, lack of competence (both at managerial and employee level), and financial constraints. These efforts were followed by more research studies between 2019 and 2021 in which important barriers were explored, including resistance to change (management and employees), a lack of involvement and transparency among stakeholders, a lack of planning for quality, implementation costs and time, limited use of off-site construction techniques and prefabrication, and traditional design and delivery approach [61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69].
Identifying enablers of adopting and implementing lean construction has been also addressed by the research community in a considerable manner. In addition, similar studies addressing barriers and previous research on the enablers of LC implementation have been undertaken in various countries. For instance, the study conducted by Alarcón et al. [51] in Chile found out that lean education, training, and research together with continuous improvements in process and product development and collaborative working relationships between project parties are important enablers for implementing lean construction. In addition, research carried out by Yahya and Mohamad [70] in Malaysia discovered that knowledge creation and management, developing LC-oriented performance measurement frameworks, and promoting a culture of teamwork during construction projects play a very important role in enabling the implementation of lean construction. These efforts were then followed by other studies which were conducted in the USA, Brazil, and the UK in 2017, resulting in the identification of enablers such as developing lean culture through promoting lean education, training and research, investor/client requirements, and bottom-up strategy [9,71,72]. This trend continued in the following years (2018–2021) with studies which were conducted in various regions, including China, India, Norway, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Brazil, the USA, Turkey, and Iran. These research efforts revealed the importance of enablers, such as top management support and commitment, building trust, pull production, collaborative practices, promoting a culture of teamwork during construction projects, competent human resources, and support of government and regulatory bodies [53,54,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84].
The third topic here to discuss in relation to the enablers and barriers is the implications of adopting and implementing lean construction. This topic has also been very interesting among different scholars in the research community, and there is great research-based knowledge concerning the benefits of applying lean construction. A similarity between these three topics (enablers, barriers, and implications) is the variety of the contexts in which they have been addressed. Here, previous studies addressing the implications of applying lean construction are explained in three different time spans in a chronological manner. The first time span is 2005–2010 in which five studies were conducted in the UK (2006), the USA (2009, 2010), Taiwan (2010), and Sweden (2010), resulting in the identification of implications such as decreased inventory, waste reduction, the establishment of collaborative climate, and time as well as cost reduction [29,84,85,86,87]. The second time span is 2011–2015 in which three studies can be exemplified which were carried out in the UK (2012) and Iran (2014) and found that implementing lean construction led to increased labor productivity, increased process efficiency, and increased productivity (at task and project levels) [55,88,89]. The last time span is 2016–2022, which contains the majority of the conducted studies regarding this topic. In this period, 15 studies were conducted in 14 different countries (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, France, Lebanon, Norway, Pakistan, India, the UK, Morocco, Canada, Malaysia, Denmark, and Russia). The findings of these studies were not only in line with the results of the previous research but also included explorations of the additional implications of applying lean construction, including better operational performance, quality improvement, and stakeholder satisfaction [19,21,27,28,30,56,57,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98].
To sum up, it can be stated that analyzing the literature shows an obvious research gap concerning a comprehensive view over the barriers, enablers, and implications of adopting and applying lean construction. To fill this knowledge gap, this study aims to answer the research questions which were mentioned earlier in the introduction section.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

In this study, systematic literature review was employed to explore the barriers, enablers, and implications of adopting and implementing lean construction. To do so, the relevant studies were located from Scopus database. This was followed by abstract review of the located studies, resulting in the exclusion of irrelevant ones and repetitions. Then, full-text review of the relevant studies was completed, and the thematic analysis method [99] was utilized for analyzing the extracted research data. Figure 1 shows the process of data collection and analysis in this research. Further details are explained in the following sub-sections.

3.2. Keyword Selection

According to the purpose of this study, the term “Lean Construction” was selected as the keywords for locating the relevant studies from Scopus database. Scopus database was chosen as the main database for locating the relevant studies because it contains most of the relevant and well-known journals on lean construction and construction management. The decision for using “Lean Construction” as the keywords can be justified according to this study’s focus, which was on the previous research addressing enablers, barriers, and implications of implementing lean construction.

3.3. Descriptive Statistics

The performed search resulted in locating 230 accessible studies by authors, of which 55% (127) were journal articles, and 44% (103) were conference proceedings. In total, 3 out of 230 located studies were excluded due to the repetition. This was followed by reviewing and analyzing the full text of the remaining 227 studies. In this study, no specific time span was applied for locating the relevant studies in order to make sure that the search was sufficiently comprehensive. More than 85% of the 227 analyzed studies were published between 2011 and 2022. This is usually important due to the higher relevance of recent publications. Figure 2 shows context of the analyzed studies in this research, addressing enablers, barriers, and implications of implementing lean construction.

3.4. Thematic and Content Analysis

The thematic analysis method was employed for analyzing the located studies [99]. This was accomplished through coding the obtained research data with an inductive approach. According to this study’s objectives, the codes representing barriers, enablers, and benefits/implications of implementing lean construction were structured under three separate themes entitled “LC barriers”, “LC enablers”, and “LC implications”. The mentioned themes included 17, 20, and 20 studies, respectively; therefore, 57 studies (in total) were analyzed under the established themes and were the sources of the obtained results. Then, the codes under the developed theme were further analyzed for three main purposes: first, to identify barriers, enablers, and implications of implementing lean construction; second, to develop syntheses of the detected barriers, enablers, and implications; and third, to model the findings based on their relatedness with each other.
Developing the synthesis of the discovered barriers, enablers, and implications was undertaken based on the similarity or sameness of the meaning and/or title. According to the number of detected barriers, enablers, and implications in each category, certain cut-off number for frequency of appearance on the ligature was chosen to qualify the most important ones. Regarding the barriers, those with three or more frequencies of appearance were selected as the key ones. Concerning the enablers, two or more frequencies of appearance were utilized as the selection criteria. All the identified implications, however, were qualified as important due to their low number compared to the enablers and barriers.
Then, the selected enablers, barriers, and implications were analyzed further to explore their relatedness. This analysis was performed in two steps. First, the barriers and enablers were analyzed based on their conceptual relevance to see which enabler contributes toward overcoming any of the barriers. Then, the same type of analysis, based on conceptual relevance, was conducted for matching the relevant enablers and implications. The obtained results from the explained analysis were combined, resulting in the development of a model.

4. Results

4.1. Barriers and Enablers of Implementing Lean Construction

The first and second groups of findings answer RQ1 and present the discovered barriers and enablers of implementing lean construction. Moreover, the representing contexts of those barriers and enablers are presented in Table 1. The term “representing contexts” in Table 1 refers to those countries in which the studies addressing barriers and enablers have been conducted. The term “frequency of appearance” in Table 1 refers to frequency of appearance of the identified barriers and enablers in the literature. As can be seen in Table 1, a lack of awareness and understanding of LC, resistance to change, and a lack of support and commitment from top management are the top three enablers (see Appendix A for references). It is also important to note that it is difficult to make any interpretation or comparison concerning the identified enablers and barriers solely based on the presented contexts in Table 1. This difficulty is mainly due to the limited and uneven number of the conducted studies and their representing contexts which have addressed the barriers and enablers of implementing lean construction. This statement also applies to the identified implications of LC implementation, which are presented in the following sub-section.
Regarding the enablers, as can be seen in Table 1, developing lean culture through promoting lean education, training and research, the application of lean principles tools and techniques, and top management support and commitment to lean construction, are the top three enablers for adopting and implementing lean construction (see Appendix B for references).

4.2. Implications of LC Application

The third group of results answers RQ2 and shows the positive consequences of adopting and implementing lean construction principles, practices, and techniques as well as tools (See Table 2). Moreover, Table 2 also presents the representing contexts of those identified implications. The term “representing contexts” in Table 2 refers to those countries in which the studies addressing implications of LC implementation have been conducted. As can be seen in Table 2, time and cost reduction, increased productivity (at task and project levels), and increased labor productivity are the top three implications of adopting and implementing lean construction (see Appendix C for references).

4.3. Relatedness between Barriers, Enablers, and Implications of Implementing Lean Construction

Discovering the barriers, enablers, and implications of implementing lean construction provided a basis for exploring their relatedness. Figure 3 shows the relatedness between the identified barriers (Table 1) and enablers (Table 1) and between the enablers and implications (Table 2). The first thing to note in Figure 3 is the considerable relatedness between the identified barriers and enablers and between the enablers and detected implications. This match can be also seen as an indication of the reliability of the findings.
As can be seen in Figure 3, the lack of awareness, competence, and consultants concerning lean construction can be overcome through developing lean culture by promoting education, training, and research and appropriate knowledge management. These actions seem to result in establishment of collaborative climate in projects and better diffusion of lean construction. In addition, poor understanding of customer needs and poor customer focus can be fixed through applying lean construction principles, tools, and techniques, thereby leading to time and cost reduction, increased productivity, increased process efficiency, and better health as well as safety.
Moreover, a lack of involvement and transparency among stakeholders can be resolved through continuous improvements in the process and product development, which seem to result in increased process efficiency, better health and safety, decreased inventory, and quality improvement. The complete details of the relatedness between LC implementation barriers, enablers, and implications can be seen in Figure 3.

5. Discussion

The first and second groups of findings presented barriers and enablers of the adoption and implementation of lean construction. Looking at Table 1, the first impression from the findings is that there is an interesting match between the discovered barriers and enablers, which can be seen as an indication of this study’s reliability. In addition, the root cause of identified enablers and barriers seems to be related to “people” on three levels. The first level is individual and involves two main elements which are character (motives and traits) and leadership competence. The second level is corporate, which includes the four elements of working culture, process, change readiness, and capability in terms of finance and knowledge. Finally, the third level is the governance and refers to the role of regulatory bodies. This level has three elements which are policies, codes, and regulations. Figure 4 shows the explained levels.
The third group of findings revealed the implications of applying lean construction. If we look at these implications from a life cycle perspective, it is interesting to see not only do they cover all life cycle phases of construction projects, but they also involve pre-project (better diffusion of LC) and post-project (increased market share) stages. Among the listed implications in Table 2, competence-based selection in the bidding and establishment of a collaborative climate has the most relevance to the project definition phase. Increased process efficiency, time and cost reduction, labor productivity, and quality improvement are those which are related to both the design and planning and construction phases. Finally, decreased inventory, better operational performance, waste reduction, and better health and safety seem to be mostly related to the construction phase only. The significance of people’s role in the success of adopting and applying LC and the inclusiveness of LC implications in terms of the project life cycle seem to imply an interesting message: developing people and investing on them with long-term vision seem to pay off throughout project life cycle with great benefits which again can only be attributed to people (e.g., higher efficiency of the human resources).
Finally, the last group of findings demonstrated the relatedness between the identified barriers, enablers, and implications. The first interpretation from Figure 3 is that the identified LC enablers and implications clearly reflect the five common challenges which the construction industry has faced. These challenges are safety (accident-free construction), quality (doing it right in the first time), reliability (reliable planning and higher percentage of completion), decision-making (fragmented design and construction), and value for money (competence-based tender instead of price-based) [100,101]. The content of Figure 3 can also be discussed from the lens of the project delivery system and its elements, which are the operational system (the timing and sequence of management events, practices, and techniques), project organization (the roles and relationships of the participants), and contractual relationships (the project parties’ commitments) [102]. Through this lens, the listed barriers, enablers, and implications in Figure 3 can categorized into three groups based on their relevance to the mentioned project delivery elements. Accordingly, it can be said that LC education, training, and research which contribute toward the establishment of LC culture and result in a better diffusion and adoption of LC seems to be related to project organization. In addition, the application of lean principles and techniques and the continuous improvement of the process and product and collaborative delivery system which result in project efficiency and effectiveness in terms of time, cost, quality, and safety lead to the realization of a successful operational system. Finally, the most relevant implications to the contractual relationships (as the third element of project delivery) seem to be increased market share, stakeholder satisfaction, competence-based selection in the bidding phase, and the establishment of a collaborative climate between project parties.
This study’s findings have obvious implications for theory and practice. In terms of the theoretical implications, it can be said that revealing the multilevel influence of people on the adoption and implementation of lean construction enriches the current theory and practice by emphasizing the critical role of human resources and the need for more investment and development in this area. Moreover, the comprehensive assessment of the barriers, enablers, and implications of LC adoption and application provides a frame of reference for future studies. Regarding practical implications, the findings can be insightful for project and company leaders who are interested in adopting and applying lean construction. Moreover, the obtained results can be also very useful for those projects and/or companies which have started LC implementation but are struggling with the barriers and their solutions (enablers) which have been identified in this study.

6. Conclusions

This study aimed to address the enablers, barriers, and implications of implementing lean construction in a comprehensive manner through discovering them separately and exploring their possible relatedness. This was accomplished through undertaking a systematic literature review and thematic, as well as content, analysis of the extracted research data. The obtained results provide the basis for the following conclusions:
  • People are the main root cause of the barriers, enablers, and implications of LC adoption and implementation, and investing in, as well as developing, people pay off throughout the project life cycle.
  • People directly influence the successful implementation of lean construction on three levels: (i) individual level (traits, motives, and leadership), (ii) corporate level (working culture, capability, process, and change readiness), and (iii) governance level (policies, codes, and regulations).
  • A lack of awareness and understanding of LC, resistance to change (management and employees), and a lack of support and commitment from top management are the top three barriers for adopting and implementing lean construction.
  • Developing lean culture through promoting lean education, training and research, the application of lean principles tools and techniques, and top management support and commitment to lean construction are the top three enablers for adopting and implementing lean construction.
  • Time and cost reduction, increased productivity (at task and project levels) and increased labor productivity seem to be the top three implications of applying lean construction.
The obtained results contribute to a body of knowledge on lean construction and provide practical knowledge for project professionals in their efforts to adopt and implement lean construction. As a limitation of this study, it is acknowledged that certain keywords were utilized in the Scopus database for locating the relevant studies, which might have affected the reliability and external validity (generalizability) of the study. The findings raised some questions which can be recommendations for the future studies:
  • To what extent do contextual differences (e.g., working culture, regulations) affect the adoption and implementation of lean construction?
  • What kind of support from regulatory bodies in developing and developed counties can contribute toward the wider application of lean construction?

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M.; methodology, S.M.; formal analysis, S.M.; investigation, S.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M.; writing—review and editing, S.M. and P.S.; visualization, S.M.; funding acquisition, P.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financially supported by the “Hiilineutraalit energiaratkaisut ja lämpöpumpputeknologia” research project (No. 3122801074) at Tampere University in Finland. The funders of this research project are Tampereen korkeakoulusäätiö sr, Tampereen teknillisen yliopiston tukisäätiö sr/Paavo V. Suomisen rahasto, Sähkötekniikan ja energiatehokkuuden edistämiskeskus STEK ry, Granlund Oy, Granlund Pohjanmaa Oy, Granlund Oulu Oy, Granlund Kuopio Oy, Granlund Saimaa Oy, Granlund Tampere Oy, Granlund Lahti Oy, Granlund Joensuu Oy, HUS-kuntayhtymä, HUS Tilakeskus, HUS Kiinteistöt Oy Senaatti- kiinteistöt, and Ramboll Finland Oy.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. LC implementation Barriers

Barrier[26][23][64][59][67][24][62][69][61][63][68][22][60][25][65][66][58]Frequency of AppearanceRank
Lack of awareness and understanding of LC** **** **** **121
Resistance to change (management and employees)** * *** ** 82
Lack of support and commitment from top management * * ** ** 63
Lack of required competencies both at managerial and employee levels * * ** **
Financial constraints* ** ***
Lack of lean consultants, education, and training** *** * 54
Lack of effective communication between all project participants **** *
Insufficient support from the government (providing required policies, codes, and regulations)*** * 45
Lack of performance measurement systems* * * 36
Poor understanding of customer needs and poor customer focus** *
Lack of involvement and transparency among stakeholders * **
Lack of planning for quality** 27
Project subcontracting* *
Implementation costs and time **
Lack of incentives and motivation * *
Centralized decision-making * *
Complexity of lean in eyes of workers * *
High turnover of workforce * *
Limited use of off-site construction techniques and prefabrication * *
Fragmented and cyclic nature of the construction projects * *
Lack of commitment (managerial) * *
Lack of appropriate lean technology or tools **
Insufficient standardization * *
Absence of organizational culture representing LC **
Traditional design approach * *
The dominance of the traditional management practice * *
Lack of information and knowledge sharing and integrated change control * *
Inefficiency in resource planning * *
Traditional culture and attitude of employees * *
Lack of long-term relationships with suppliers * 18
Lack of technical capabilities and green initiatives*
Not recognizing financial advantage*
Cultural differences*
Slow and partially visible results of implementation *
Inaccurate and incomplete drawings *
Reluctance of project participants to share risk–reward *
Lack of long-term philosophy *
Inadequate administration of the necessary information to generate a learning cycle *
Hierarchies in organizational structure *
Lack of waste identification and control *
Inadequate material delivery performance *
Lack of integrated procurements *
Stringent requirements and approvals during contracting *
Lack of alliances between academy and organizations *
Size of construction project (it is difficult to implement LC in small-size construction projects due to the required capacity and capability) *
Lack of sustainable practices *
Lack of knowledge on how to apply LC techniques for safety improvement *
Severity of weather *
Poor materials *
Fierce market competition environment *
Tolerance of untidy workplaces *
Nonrecognition of LC advantages *
Low informatization *
Insufficient program planning *
Lack of effective supervision and control *
Excessive cost savings during construction *
Less personal empowerment *
Avoid making decisions and taking responsibility *
Insufficient attention to green and environmental protection *
Cooperation problems outside the construction department *
Misperception about lean practices *
Failure in operational excellence *
Lack of organizational communication *
Problem in teamwork and diverging aims in lean *
Nonuse of modern techniques and technologies *
Lack of trust *
Choice of contracting mode *
Lack of integration of design and construction *

Appendix B. LC Implementation Enablers

Enabler[83][78][77][82][9][80][51][72][73][84][52][54][81][74][76][70][71][53][79][75]Frequency of AppearanceRank
Developing lean culture through promoting lean education, training, and research* * * ** ** **91
The application of lean principles tools and techniques ** ** * 52
Top management support and commitment to lean construction * * * * 43
Continuous improvement in process and product development ** * 34
Creation and management of relevant knowledge* * 25
Developing LC-oriented KPI for contractor * *
Improving organizational resilience by establishing LC-oriented leadership and culture, enhancing change readiness, and expanding networks and relationships * *
Adopting alternative procurement methods in project delivery (e.g., design, build) * *
Promoting a culture of teamwork during construction projects * *
Investor/client requirement * *
Stabilizing environment through adoption of last planner system* 16
Increasing process transparency through visualization tools such as BIM and Kanban*
Building trust*
Understanding current waste reduction practices at the targeted construction site *
Educating all contractors on the project about lean construction and its benefits *
Specifying value *
Identify value stream *
Establish flow of products *
Pull production *
A proactive interaction with contractor upper management and project organizations *
Collaboration among companies *
Bottom-up strategy *
Adopting 4P Toyota Way model (philosophy, process, people and partners, and problem solving) *
Effective changes in decision-making mechanism *
Sufficient time *
Adopting new construction technologies and methods (e.g., BIM) *
Clear definition of client requirements *
Applying lean methodology at an early stage of the building project delivery (e.g., planning, design stage) *
Coordinating and promoting efforts at a national level (e.g., establishment of National Lean Construction Institute) *
Establishing long-term relationships within the supply chain *
Collaborative practices *
Root cause analysis to investigate problems *
Deploying lean construction systematically *
Willingness to invest in lean practices *
Morning huddles for lean *
Effective communication of LC-implementation/application info to the whole company *
Showing success from early adopters *
Ensuring involvement of company’s HR in implementation process *
Establishing a forum for exchanges of experiences *
Competent human resources *
Effective communication between parties *
Support of government and regulatory bodies *
Planning it right *
Understanding the whole construction life cycle in a non-price factor view *
Benchmarking *

Appendix C. Implications of LC Implementation

Implication[21][29][19][85][20][89][87][95][88][97][55][28][93][94][27][92][56][30][57][90]Frequency of AppearanceRank
Time and cost reduction* * ** * ** * 81
Increased productivity (task and project levels)* * ***42
Increased labor productivity * ** 33
Increased process efficiency * * *
Competence-based selection in bidding phase * * 24
Decreased inventory * *
Better operational performance * *
Quality improvement **
Waste reduction * 15
Better diffusion of LC at managerial levels of company *
Establishment of collaborative climate *
Stakeholder satisfaction *
Better health and safety *
Increased market share *

References

  1. Hauck, A.J.; Walker, D.H.; Hampson, K.D.; Peters, R.J. Project alliancing at national museum of Australia—Collaborative process. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Ibrahim, C.K.I.C.; Costello, S.B.; Wilkinson, S. Application of a team integration performance index in road infrastructure alliance projects. Benchmarking Int. J. 2016, 23, 1341–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Matthews, O.; Howell, G.A. Integrated project delivery an example of relational contracting. Lean Constr. J. 2005, 2, 46–61. [Google Scholar]
  4. Moradi, S.; Kähkönen, K.; Klakegg, O.J.; Aaltonen, K. A Competency Model for the Selection and Performance Improvement of Project Managers in Collaborative Construction Projects: Behavioral Studies in Norway and Finland. Buildings 2021, 11, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Moradi, S.; Kähkönen, K.; Klakegg, O.J.; Aaltonen, K. Profile of Project Managers’ Competencies for Collaborative Construction Projects. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ARCOM Conference, Glasgow, UK, 6–7 September 2021; pp. 350–359. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ratajczak, J.; Schimanski, C.P.; Marcher, C.; Riedl, M.; Matt, D.T. Collaborative tool for the construction site to enhance lean project delivery. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Proceedings of the International Conference on Cooperative Design, Visualization and Engineering, Hangzhou, China, 21–24 October 2018; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 192–199. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mossman, A. What is lean construction: Another look. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Chennai, India, 18–22 July 2018; pp. 1240–1250. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mao, X.; Zhang, X. Construction process reengineering by integrating lean principles and computer simulation techniques. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2008, 134, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Salazar, R.; Rybkowski, Z.; Ballard, G. An Exploration of Compatibility of U.S. Army Culture and Lean Construction. In Proceedings of the LC3 2017 Volume II—The 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Heraklion, Greece, 9–12 July 2017; pp. 413–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Sacks, R.; Koskela, L.; Dave, B.A.; Owen, R. Interaction of lean and building information modeling in construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 968–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Dave, B.; Sacks, R. Project Control Systems for Construction at the Nexus of Lean and BIM. In Lean Construction: Core Concepts and New Frontiers; Tzortzopoulos, P., Kagioglou, M., Koskela, L., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2020; pp. 54–83. [Google Scholar]
  12. Koskela, L. Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction; Stanford University: Redwood City, CA, USA, 1992; Volume 72. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ballard, G. Lean Project Delivery System. White Paper. Lean Constr. J. 2000, 8, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cheng, F. Workflow Analysis for the Lean Construction Process of a Construction Earthmoving Project. In Proceedings of the ICCREM 2015, Luleå, Sweden, 11–12 August 2015; pp. 58–66. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ballard, G.; Howell, G. Lean project management. Build. Res. Inf. 2003, 31, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ballard, G. The Last Planner System. In Lean Construction: Core Concepts and New Frontiers; Tzortzopoulos, P., Kagioglou, M., Koskela, L., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2020; pp. 45–53. [Google Scholar]
  17. Moradi, S.; Kähkönen, K.; Sormunen, P. Analytical and Conceptual Perspectives toward Behavioral Elements of Collaborative Delivery Models in Construction Projects. Buildings 2022, 12, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moradi, S.; Kähkönen, K. Success in collaborative construction through the lens of project delivery elements. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2022, 12, 973–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dakhli, Z.; Lafhaj, Z.; Bernard, M. Application of lean to the bidding phase in building construction: A French contractor’s experience. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2017, 8, 153–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mohammadi, A.; Igwe, C.; Amador-Jimenez, L.; Nasiri, F. Applying lean construction principles in road maintenance planning and scheduling. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 22, 2364–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ramani, P.V.; Ksd, L.K.L. Application of lean in construction using value stream mapping. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 28, 216–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ahmed, S.; Hossain, M.M.; Haq, I. Implementation of lean construction in the construction industry in Bangladesh: Awareness, benefits and challenges. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2021, 39, 368–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Al balkhy, W.; Sweis, R. Barriers to adopting lean construction in the construction industry: A literature review. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2020, 12, 210–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Enshassi, A.; Saleh, N.; Mohamed, S. Barriers to the application of lean construction techniques concerning safety improvement in construction projects. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2021, 21, 1044–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ivina, D.; Olsson, N.O.E. Lean Construction Principles and Railway Maintenance Planning. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC28), Berkeley, CA, USA, 6–12 July 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Khaba, S.; Bhar, C. Modeling the key barriers to lean construction using interpretive structural modeling. J. Model. Manag. 2017, 12, 652–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bajjou, M.S.; Chafi, A. Identifying and managing critical waste factors for lean construction projects. Eng. Manag. J. 2020, 32, 2–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ibrahim, A.R.; Imtiaz, G.; Mujtaba, B.; Vo, X.V.; Ahmed, Z.U. Operational excellence through lean manufacturing: Considerations for productivity management in Malaysia’s construction industry. J. Transnatl. Manag. 2020, 25, 225–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nahmens, I. From lean to green construction: A natural extension. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2009: Building a Sustainable Future, Seattle, WA, USA, 5–7 April 2009; pp. 1058–1067. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sarhan, J.G.; Xia, B.; Fawzia, S.; Karim, A. Lean Construction Implementation in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry. Constr. Econ. Build. 2017, 17, 46–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Evans, M.; Farrell, P. Barriers to integrating building information modelling (BIM) and lean construction practices on construction mega-projects: A Delphi study. Benchmarking Int. J. 2020, 28, 652–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fosse, R.; Ballard, G.; Fischer, M. Virtual design and construction: Aligning BIM and lean in practice. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Heraklion, Greece, 9–12 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
  33. Goyal, M.; Gao, Z. Integration of building information modeling (BIM) and prefabrication for lean construction. In Proceedings of the ICCREM 2018: Innovative Technology and Intelligent Construction, Charleston, SC, USA, 9–10 August 2018; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2018; pp. 78–84. [Google Scholar]
  34. Nguyen, P.; Akhavian, R. Synergistic effect of integrated project delivery, lean construction, and building information modeling on project performance measures: A quantitative and qualitative analysis. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 1267048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Pandithawatta, T.P.W.S.I.; Zainudeen, N.; Perera, C.S.R. An integrated approach of Lean-Green construction: Sri Lankan perspective. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2019, 10, 200–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wijerathne, M.D.I.R.; Gunasekara, K.A.; Perera, B.A.K.S. Overcoming the challenges of sustainable development in Sri Lanka using lean construction principles. In Proceedings of the 8th World Construction Symposium, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 8–10 November 2019; pp. 473–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Moradi, S.; Sormunen, P. Lean and Sustainable Project Delivery in Building Construction: Development of a Conceptual Framework. Buildings 2022, 12, 1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dallasega, P.; Rauch, E.; Frosolini, M. A lean approach for real-time planning and monitoring in engineer-to-order construction projects. Buildings 2018, 8, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Erol, H.H.; Dikmen Toker, İ.; Birgönül, M.T. A Construction Delay Analysis Approach Based on Lean Principles. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Heraklion, Greece, 9–12 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nguyen, T.Q.; Waikar, S.S. A relook at plan reliability measurements in lean construction and new metrics from digitized practical implementation. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International. Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Chennai, India, 18–22 July 2018; pp. 1037–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Pestana, A.C.V.; Alves, T.D.C.; Barbosa, A.R. Application of lean construction concepts to manage the submittal process in AEC projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2014, 30, 05014006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sacks, R.; Goldin, M. Lean management model for construction of high-rise apartment buildings. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2007, 133, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zimina, D.; Ballard, G.; Pasquire, C. Target value design: Using collaboration and a lean approach to reduce construction cost. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2012, 30, 383–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Besklubova, S.; Zhang, X. Improving construction productivity by integrating the lean concept and the Clancey heuristic model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Issa, U.H.; Alqurashi, M. A model for evaluating causes of wastes and lean implementation in construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Gómez-Cabrera, A.; Salazar, L.A.; Ponz-Tienda, J.L.; Alarcón, L.F. Lean Tools Proposal to mitigate Delays and Cost Overruns in Construction Projects. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC28), Berkeley, CA, USA, 6–10 July 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Singh, J.; Mangal, M.; Cheng, J.C.P. IT for Lean Construction-A Survey in India. In Proceedings of the LC3 2017 Volume II—The 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Heraklion, Greece, 9–12 July 2017; pp. 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Forbes, L.H.; Rybkowski, Z.K.; Tsao, C.Y. The evolution of lean construction education (Part 2 of 2): At US-based companies. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Chennai, India, 18–22 July 2018; pp. 1024–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Rybkowski, Z.K.; Forbes, L.H.; Tsao, C.Y. The evolution of lean construction education (Part 1 of 2): At US-based universities. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International. Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Chennai, India, 18–22 July 2018; pp. 1013–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Pütz, C.; Lühr, G.J.; Wenzel, M.; Helmus, M. Potential of gamification for lean construction training: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC29), Lima, Peru, 14–17 July 2021; pp. 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Alarcón, L.F.; Diethelm, S.; Rojo, O.; Calderón, R. Assessing the impacts of implementing lean construction Evaluando los impactos de la implementación de lean construction. Rev. Ing. Constr. 2008, 23, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Koohestani, K.; Poshdar, M.; Gonzalez, V.A. Finding the Way to Success in Implementing Lean Construction in an Unfavourable Context. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC28), Berkeley, CA, USA, 6–12 July 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Uddin, M.M. Lean Construction Quality Assurance Opportunities in Highway Construction. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC28), Berkeley, CA, USA, 6–12 July 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wu, X.; Zhao, W.; Ma, T.; Yang, Z. Improving the efficiency of highway construction project management using lean management. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Abbasian-Hosseini, S.A.; Nikakhtar, A.; Ghoddousi, P. Verification of lean construction benefits through simulation modeling: A case study of bricklaying process. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 18, 1248–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Shahbaz, M.S.; Shaikh, F.A. Impact of lean management practices on operational performance: An empirical investigation from construction supply chain of Pakistan. Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 2019, 10, 85–92. [Google Scholar]
  57. Avelar, W.; Meiriño, M.; Tortorella, G.L. The practical relationship between continuous flow and lean construction in SMEs. TQM J. 2019, 32, 362–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, H.; Guo, H.L.; Li, Y.; Skitmore, M. From IKEA model to the lean construction concept: A solution to implementation. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2012, 12, 47–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Koranda, C.; Chong, W.K.; Kim, C.; Chou, J.S.; Kim, C. An investigation of the applicability of sustainability and lean concepts to small construction projects. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2012, 16, 699–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bajjou, M.S.; Chafi, A. Lean construction implementation in the Moroccan construction industry: Awareness, benefits and barriers. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2018, 16, 533–556. [Google Scholar]
  61. Ahmed, S.; Sobuz, M.H.R. Challenges of implementing lean construction in the construction industry in Bangladesh. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2020, 9, 174–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Al Balkhy, W.; Sweis, R.; Lafhaj, Z. Barriers to Adopting Lean Construction in the Construction Industry—The Case of Jordan. Buildings 2021, 11, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Demirkesen, S.; Wachter, N.; Oprach, S.; Haghsheno, S. Identifying Barriers in Lean Implementation in the Construction Industry. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Dublin, Ireland, 3–5 July 2019; pp. 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Huaman-Orosco, C.; Erazo-Rondinel, A.A. An Exploratory Study of the Main Barriers to Lean Construction Implementation in Peru. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC29), Lima, Peru, 14–17 July 2021; pp. 474–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Innella, F.; Arashpour, M.; Bai, Y. Lean methodologies and techniques for modular construction: Chronological and critical review. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 04019076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Li, L.; Hao, Y. Problems Encountered in Implementing Lean Construction and Solutions. In Proceedings of the ICCREM 2021, Beijing, China, 16–17 October 2021; pp. 392–397. [Google Scholar]
  67. Mano, A.P.; da Costa, S.E.G.; de Lima, E.P. Criticality assessment of the barriers to Lean Construction. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2020, 70, 65–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Thomas, D.; Khanduja, D. ISM–ANP hybrid approach to prioritize the barriers in green lean Six Sigma implementation in construction sector. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2022, 13, 502–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yuan, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Ni, G.; Chen, C.; Wang, W.; Hong, J. Cause analysis of hindering on-site lean construction for prefabricated buildings and corresponding organizational capability evaluation. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 2020, 8876102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yahya, M.A.; Mohamad, M.I. Review on lean principles for rapid construction. J. Teknol. 2011, 54, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Tezel, A.; Koskela, L.; Aziz, Z. Lean construction in small-medium sized enterprises (SMEs): An exploration of the highways supply chain. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Heraklion, Greece, 9–12 July 2017; pp. 845–851. [Google Scholar]
  72. Zanotti, N.L.; Maranhao, F.L.; Aly, V.L.C. Bottom-up strategy for lean construction on site implementation. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Heraklion, Greece, 9–12 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
  73. Ankomah, E.N.; Ayarkwa, J.; Agyekum, K. Conceptual framework for capability and capacity building of SMEs for lean construction adoption. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Chennai, India, 18–22 July 2018; pp. 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Al Heet, M.R.A.H.; Alves, T.C.L.; Lakrori, N. Investigation of the use of Lean Construction Practices in Transportation Construction Projects. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC28), Berkeley, CA, USA, 6–12 July 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chen, L.; Chen, J.; Zhang, J. Research on Lean Construction System in the Background of Construction Industrialization. In Proceedings of the ICCREM 2018: Innovative Technology and Intelligent Construction, Charleston, SC, USA, 9–10 August 2018; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2018; pp. 132–137. [Google Scholar]
  76. Darabseh, M. Lean Applications in Construction: Review Article. U. Porto J. Eng. 2019, 5, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Demirkesen, S.; Bayhan, H.G. A lean implementation success model for the construction industry. Eng. Manag. J. 2020, 32, 219–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Habibi Rad, M.; Mojtahedi, M.; Ostwald, M.J.; Wilkinson, S. A Conceptual Framework for Implementing Lean Construction in Infrastructure Recovery Projects. Buildings 2022, 12, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Karanjawala, K.H.; Baretto, D. Project Delivery through Lean Principles across all disciplines of Construction in a Developing Country Environment. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International. Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Chennai, India, 18–22 July 2018; pp. 1122–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Maradzano, I.; Dondofema, R.A.; Matope, S. Application of lean principles in the South African construction industry. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 2019, 30, 210–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sarhan, J.G.; Xia, B.; Fawzia, S.; Karim, A.; Olanipekun, A.O.; Coffey, V. Framework for the implementation of lean construction strategies using the interpretive structural modelling (ISM) technique: A case of the Saudi construction industry. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 27, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Torp, O.; Knudsen, J.B.; Rønneberg, I. Factors Affecting Implementation of Lean Construcxtion. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Chennai, India, 18–22 July 2018; pp. 1261–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Valente, C.P.; Mourão, C.A.M.A.; Saggin, A.B.; Neto, J.P.B.; Costa, J.M. Achieving Excellence in Lean Implementation at Construction Companies—A Case Study from Brazil. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC28), Berkeley, CA, USA, 6–12 July 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Poshdar, M.; Gonzalez, V.A.; Antunes, R.; Ghodrati, N.; Katebi, M.; Valasiuk, S.; Alqudah, H.; Talebi, S. Diffusion of Lean Construction in Small to Medium-Sized Enterprises of Housing Sector. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Dublin, Ireland, 3–5 July 2019; pp. 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Ko, C.H. Application of lean production system in the construction industry: An empirical study. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2010, 5, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Fearne, A.; Fowler, N. Efficiency versus effectiveness in construction supply chains: The dangers of “lean” thinking in isolation. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2006, 11, 283–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Eriksson, P.E. Improving construction supply chain collaboration and performance: A lean construction pilot project. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2010, 15, 394–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Garrett, D.F.; Lee, J. Lean Construction Submittal Process—A Case Study. Qual. Engineering 2010, 23, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sage, D.; Dainty, A.; Brookes, N. A ‘Strategy-as-Practice’ exploration of lean construction strategizing. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Pasquire, C. Positioning Lean within an exploration of engineering construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2012, 30, 673–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bygballe, L.E.; Endresen, M.; Fålun, S. The role of formal and informal mechanisms in implementing lean principles in construction projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 1322–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Erol, H.; Dikmen, I.; Birgonul, M.T. Measuring the impact of lean construction practices on project duration and variability: A simulation-based study on residential buildings. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2017, 23, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Minnullina, A.; Solopova, N. Optimization of activities of road construction company based on lean manufacturing tools. In Proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences, Kenitra, Morocco, 25–27 December 2020; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2020; Volume 157, p. 06003. [Google Scholar]
  94. Neve, H.H.; Lerche, J.; Wandahl, S. Combining lean methods to improve construction labour efficiency in renovation projects. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC29), Lima, Peru, 14–17 July 2021; pp. 647–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Orlov, A.K.; Kankhva, V.S. Lean Construction Concept Used to Develop Infrastructure Facilities for Tourism Clusters. Buildings 2022, 12, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sarhan, S.; Elnokaly, A.; Pasquire, C.; Pretlove, S. Lean Construction and Sustainability through IGLC Community: A Critical Systematic Review of 25 Years of Experience. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Chennai, India, 18–22 July 2018; pp. 933–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Meng, X. Lean management in the context of construction supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 3784–3798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Daramsis, A.; Faour, K.; Richa Abdel Ahad, L.; Salami, G.; Hamzeh, F. A Lean E-Governance Approach to Mitigate Corruption Within Official Processes in the Construction Industry. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International. Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Chennai, India, 16–22 July 2018; pp. 1251–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Saunders, M.N.K.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research Methods for Business Students, 8th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  100. Forbes, L.H.; Ahmed, S.M. Modern Construction: Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  101. Oakland, J.S.; Marosszeky, M. Total Construction Management: Lean Quality in Construction Project Delivery; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  102. Mesa, H.A.; Molenaar, K.R.; Alarcón, L.F. Comparative analysis between integrated project delivery and lean project delivery. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 395–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 13 00556 g001 550
Figure 1. Research process.
Figure 1. Research process.
Buildings 13 00556 g001
Buildings 13 00556 g002 550
Figure 2. Contexts of studies addressing barriers, enablers, and implications of implementing LC.
Figure 2. Contexts of studies addressing barriers, enablers, and implications of implementing LC.
Buildings 13 00556 g002
Buildings 13 00556 g003 550
Figure 3. Relatedness between LC-implementation barriers, enablers, and implications.
Figure 3. Relatedness between LC-implementation barriers, enablers, and implications.
Buildings 13 00556 g003
Buildings 13 00556 g004 550
Figure 4. Level of the influence of “people” over success or failure of adopting and implementing lean construction.
Figure 4. Level of the influence of “people” over success or failure of adopting and implementing lean construction.
Buildings 13 00556 g004
Table
Table 1. Barriers and enablers of implementing lean construction.
Table 1. Barriers and enablers of implementing lean construction.
BarrierFrequency of
Appearance		Representing Contexts
Lack of awareness and understanding of LC12Bangladesh, China, Hong Kong, India, Jordan, Morocco, Palestine, Sweden,
Resistance to change (management and employees)8Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Germany, Sweden
Lack of support and commitment from top management6China, Jordan, Germany, India
Lack of required competencies both at managerial and employee level6Bangladesh, China, Morocco
Lack of lean consultants, education, and training5Bangladesh, China, Jordan, India
Insufficient funds5Bangladesh, China, India, Morocco
Lack of effective communication among project participants5Bangladesh, Germany, India, Hong Kong
Insufficient support from the government (providing required policies, codes, and regulations)4India, Palestine, Peru
Lack of performance measurement systems3India, China
Poor understanding of customer needs and poor customer focus3India
Lack of involvement and transparency among stakeholders3Jordan, China
EnablerFrequency of
Appearance		Representing Contexts
Developing lean culture through promoting lean education, training, and research9Brazil, Türkiye, the USA, Chile, China, Saudi Arabia, India
The application of lean principles tools and techniques5Türkiye, the USA, Saudi Arabia
Top management support and commitment4Norway, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India
Continuous improvement in process and product development3Chile, South Africa, Saudi Arabia,
Creation and management of relevant knowledge2Brazil, Malaysia
Developing LC-oriented KPI for contractors2Malaysia
Improving organizational resilience by establishing LC-oriented leadership and culture, enhancing change readiness, and explaining networks and relationships2Saudi Arabia
Adopting collaborative project delivery models (e.g., alliance, lean project delivery, partnering)2Saudi Arabia, China
Promoting a culture of teamwork2Saudi Arabia, Malaysia
Investor/client requirement2The UK
Table
Table 2. Implications of adopting and implementing lean construction.
Table 2. Implications of adopting and implementing lean construction.
Implications of LC ApplicationFrequency of AppearanceRepresenting Contexts
Time and cost reduction8India, Canada, Russia, the USA, Morocco, Türkiye, Brazil
Increased productivity
(at task and project levels)		4India, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Brazil
Increased labor productivity3Iran, Russia, Denmark
Increased process efficiency3Iran, Morocco, Saudi Arabia
Competence-based selection in bidding phase2Canada, France
Decreased inventory2Taiwan, Saudi Arabia
Better operational performance2Malaysia, Pakistan
Quality improvement2Brazil, Saudi Arabia
Waste reduction1The USA
Better diffusion of LC in managerial levels of company1The UK
Establishment of collaborative climate1Sweden
Stakeholder satisfaction1Saudi Arabia
Better health and safety1Saudi Arabia
Increased market share1Saudi Arabia
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moradi, S.; Sormunen, P. Implementing Lean Construction: A Literature Study of Barriers, Enablers, and Implications. Buildings 2023, 13, 556. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020556

AMA Style

Moradi S, Sormunen P. Implementing Lean Construction: A Literature Study of Barriers, Enablers, and Implications. Buildings. 2023; 13(2):556. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020556

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moradi, Sina, and Piia Sormunen. 2023. "Implementing Lean Construction: A Literature Study of Barriers, Enablers, and Implications" Buildings 13, no. 2: 556. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020556

APA Style

Moradi, S., & Sormunen, P. (2023). Implementing Lean Construction: A Literature Study of Barriers, Enablers, and Implications. Buildings, 13(2), 556. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020556

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop