**1. Introduction**

The construction industry has lower productivity than other industries, such as manufacturing [1]. The temporality of projects, uniqueness of production, and the complex communication between the actors do not allow control over production, high rates of variability, unsatisfied customers, and waste of resources (workforce, activities, time, and money), resulting in projects with cost overruns and delays [2]. Lean Construction (LC) started its diffusion as a viable solution to the problems, achieving until today its implementation in building projects, road infrastructure, sanitary, mining, industrial plants, and energy and oil project [3].

Lean Construction applies the principles and tools of the Lean philosophy during the entire project lifecycle, from conception, execution, and commissioning [4]. Lean focuses on people as the main actor to improve the organization's management [2]. In addition, Lean encourages teamwork, improves communication, helps people focus on the value activities of the external and internal customer, knows the entire production flow, and identifies errors in the early stages [5]. As a result, Lean Construction has shown benefits of improving the project's overall productivity, reducing accidents, avoiding rework, satisfactory results for the customer, anticipating conflicts between project participants, and achieving project execution at the estimated cost and time [6].

**Citation:** Huaman-Orosco, C.; Erazo-Rondinel, A.A.; Herrera, R.F. Barriers to Adopting Lean Construction in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises—The Case of Peru. *Buildings* **2022**, *12*, 1637. https://doi.org/10.3390/ buildings12101637

Academic Editors: Yongjian Ke, Jingxiao Zhang and Simon P. Philbin

Received: 19 August 2022 Accepted: 27 September 2022 Published: 9 October 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

The implementation of LC in projects is not simple. LC is not a set of tools or recipes; on the contrary, it is a construction management approach. LC implementation requires focusing on many factors. In addition, all organizations have multiple subcultures that generate a variety of conflicts of interest [7–9]. Moreover, integrating multiple cultures creates impressions among teams of activity overload, psychological fatigue, and increased resources to meet project goals [10]. These factors are known as barriers, resulting in the spread of lean with negative results and increased waste in different project stages [11].

Barriers to LC implementation are related to geographic factors of similar economic and cultural contexts [12–14]. These factors are common in most Latin American countries, with the limited implementation of LC in the private sector [15]. The need to implement LC in all sectors, with innovations in design, construction, technology, and materials, could help to efficiently optimize the use of resources (economic, materials, and others) to reduce the infrastructure gaps in about 42 million families [16].

Peru has not had a study identifying the main barriers professionals face. This problem generates concern because of the lack of a priori knowledge of the challenges that will be faced. Therefore, during the implementation, it generates excessive effort in the team, or they desist from using it in the project. Furthermore, Murguia [17] mentions that the company's size determines Lean implementation because it influences communication, complexity, maturity, and coordination effort. Therefore, this study aims to identify the main barriers to Lean implementation perceived by LC practitioners in Peru and to group them by company size. It performs a relationship and correlation analysis to find the most relevant factors for implementation.

SMEs are the companies that predominate in quantity and are the backbone of economic agility and job creation in any country [18]. SMEs are motivated by the positive benefits achieved by large organizations and adopt the lean philosophy [19–21]. In addition, SMEs are directly related to each other; e.g., small companies are active participants as subcontractors of medium and large companies [22]. However, the low Lean competence of small companies does not allow them to collaborate with large companies to transfer value directly to the customer (due to their agility in decision-making and direct dealings with the customer). Moreover, small companies can maintain competitiveness and adapt quickly to the strategies of large organizations [20,23]. For example, the investment of resources in implementation is a determining factor for decision-making in small companies and, to a lesser degree, in medium and large companies [11]. In addition, the maturity of LC implementation is different by the size of the organization; medium and large companies have more significant benefits in the long term by attracting talent, capabilities to negotiate with multiple suppliers, subcontractors, and rethinking strategies [24]. For the adoption of Lean in SMEs to be successful, it is necessary to manage implementation barriers, develop strategies to reduce their impact, and anticipate problems [11,25].

#### **2. Literature Review**

Increasing productivity in products or services through investment focused on technology has given good results in manufacturing, which is why gradually, it has been seeking to implement technology in the construction sector through the implementation of Construction 4.0 [26,27] and Lean Construction 4.0 [28]. However, the construction industry has temporary projects that do not justify personnel training and research in the long term [29]. Therefore, organizations have started to use Lean tools in specific projects [30]; some are successful, others do not obtain the expected results, and they return to traditional management systems [30]. Ballard et al. [31] suggest starting implementation by motivating project leaders, training all project members, implementing tools to form habits, forming a culture over time, and moving on to using the Lean philosophy for continuous improvement. Salvatierra et al. [32] suggested that it is necessary to maintain a balance between tools, culture, and philosophy, to maintain good Lean practices in the long term.

Organizations that implement Lean in their projects have challenges in adopting the philosophy of their workers, processes, and management. For example, in the United

States, there are challenges with low commitment from top management, low awareness of Lean practices, and poor communication between teams to share information [12]. On the other hand, the United Kingdom has the barriers of lack of knowledge of Lean by professionals, resistance to change, and difficulty in adopting the Lean culture [33]. In Colombia, there are barriers such as the perception of uncertainty to obtain positive results, the transparency of information between teams, and state laws that do not allow flexibility for Lean projects [34,35]. Finally, in Chile, the challenge is distributing information at all levels and implementing the project in the long term [36].

#### *2.1. Global Barriers to LC Implementation*

Lean Construction has been implemented in more than 48 countries for more than 20 years, and its evolution has been recorded in more than 1382 research papers [37]. Moreover, most publications are reported from the United States and Europe; however, the Lean system has spread and has a growing adoption in countries such as Brazil, Chile, and Peru. However, many organizations report that they cannot achieve the maximum benefit from the Lean philosophy due to multiple factors [30]. Globally, among the countries that have implemented Lean in construction, 110 barriers were identified, which are grouped into three categories: people (29%), including education, management, operation, and culture; production process (20%) focused on customer identification, management, planning and control; production management and logistics processes (51%) involving governance, longterm business philosophy, processes and system [13]. In the USA, it was identified that the main barrier is in people, especially in their educational and leadership training [12], as well as the scarce standardization of knowledge and Lean concepts, which do not agree among experts, creating learning complexity in beginner practitioners. Colombia has barriers such as resistance to change, high implementation costs, and information transparency manipulation [35,36]. Chile showed that the lack of support from top management and vertical information, which does not reach all levels of the organization, delays decision-making in implementation [38].

Moreover, short-term thinking does not allow solving problems entirely, creating vicious circles that repeat the same [32]. In Peru, the most relevant barriers are the lack of State policies to involve its institutions in Lean projects, the low collaboration between academia and industry, and a perceived high cost of implementation [39]. In addition, resistance to change [40] and problems in the construction stage are carried over from the design stage, making little or no improvement in the construction stage, affecting the degree of customer satisfaction, cost overruns, rework, and project stoppages [41].

#### *2.2. Local Implementation Barriers*

Barriers to Lean implementation have varied according to each country's socio-cultural conditions and technical capabilities [30]. Therefore, it was necessary to align the barriers from the literature and add the barriers perceived by the experts throughout their implementation experiences and to have a complete information base of the study phenomenon. The diversity of the experts in building projects (educational institutions, shopping malls, multi-family buildings, among others), infrastructure (road works, sanitation, railroads), energy, oil, industrial plants, and mining allowed adjusting the questionnaire to meet the objectives.

Most of the researchers and implementers evidenced that the main barrier to Lean is short-term thinking, so the good practices developed in the project are not managed to improve the next project [42]. The study focused on an exploratory study using Exploratory Factor Analysis, and to cover the study phenomenon; it was chosen to group the barriers in the sustainability model of Lean practices of the GEPUC triangle [32]. The GEPUC triangle is composed of culture, tools, and philosophy; the weakness of any of them leads to the implementation not obtaining the maximum benefit or falling over time. The expert interview and literature review could help adapt the barriers to the study phenomenon

and achieve the study's objectives. In addition, the grouping in the GEPUC triangle could help to organize and maintain the balance between the barriers.

#### **3. Research Methodology**

The methodology of the study is shown in Figure 1. It includes the three stages, the tools used, and the activities of each process to achieve the study's objectives. The present study starts with a literature review followed by a valid survey design through semi-structured interviews with six Peruvian experts. The survey was designed with closed and semi-open questions, using the mixed method to understand the study phenomenon better. The figure below shows the process followed in the research.

**Figure 1.** Research Methodology.

Through a literature review, the first stage identified the main barriers to implementation that the professionals have evidenced and obtained a list. Then, the best way to classify the barriers was reviewed, concluding by grouping them into three groups philosophy, tools, and Lean culture. On the other hand, implementation models were reviewed to be able to relate the barriers to the steps or raise barriers. Finally, libraries of Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), ASCE, Lean Construction Journal, and the central repository of theses of Peru were consulted; comprised between the years 2000 to 2020, with keywords such as "Lean Implementation", "Lean challenges", "Lean barriers", and "Lean Construction".

In the second stage, researchers selected six experts from ten candidates with the following characteristics: (a) more than 12 years of experience as a Lean implementation leader and (b) experience in project diversity, university teaching, research, and Lean consultants. The general information of the experts is shown in Table 1. The general information of the experts is shown in Table 1.


**Table 1.** Information from lean experts.

The questionnaire was evaluated and guaranteed with the opinion of six experts, who, based on their experience, suggested adding the barriers of: "Low capacity of people to identify waste" and "Lack of leadership and empowerment of people", which were searched in the literature, finding similarities in manufacturing. The questionnaire underwent three reviews by six experts, all with clear objectives and aligned to the study.

#### *3.1. Research Design and Data Collection*

The mixed method was used to take a holistic "snapshot" of the study phenomenon [43], simultaneously integrating qualitative and quantitative questions. The mixed method allows obtaining a wider range of perspectives of the problem in terms of frequency, generality, complexity, magnitude, and understanding. Quantitative to identify the company's size, years of experience, and frequency of use of good practices. Qualitative to describe their experiences, personal difficulties, or particular experiences. Integrating both methods allowed the questionnaire to be improved by the experts. After the pilot plan, new questions were identified and readjusted thanks to the corroboration of qualitative and quantitative data.

The survey followed a cross-sectional process to obtain the most significant amount of data and ease of remote response. The questionnaire had 40 open-ended and closed-ended questions. The barriers were evaluated with a Likert scale from 1 to 5 points, asking the respondents to assess which variables they most frequently experienced in their project and were evaluated as "Never = 1, Rarely = 2, Occasionally = 3, Frequently = 4, and very frequently = 5".

In addition, the questions of the questionnaire were changed to positive or neutral syntax, with the objective of not influencing the answers or sympathizing [44], avoiding having answers directed to the aim of the study. For example: what is the frequency you experience your team's reflections of the activities performed and suggestions for good practices? The respondent can choose to rate on a scale of 1 to 5. Therefore, the higher frequency of use is a common practice among professionals, and the lower use of practices causes barriers that prevent the development of the implementation.

The questionnaire was disseminated in Spanish through emails, social networks, and professional networks. Peruvian lean dissemination organizations and LC practitioner companies were invited to participate in the study. The survey was distributed virtually through Microsoft Forms. The evaluation survey can be found in supplemental material.

#### *3.2. Population and Sample*

The Last Planner System (LPS) is the commitment and variability control system for excellence [45]. Starting the implementation with LPS allows the control of setbacks

and uncertainties, self-criticizing and enabling team members to identify problems and propose improvements [46,47]. Based on the premise, the study population was limited to all Peruvian professionals with more than two years of experience implementing LPS or participating in projects managed with LPS. The Peruvian Chapter of Lean Construction (LCI Peru) registers as of January 2021, a number of 1360 professionals registered and certified in its Lean Construction training program, which is composed of one year of theoretical training and requires the application of LPS for at least one project, which supports the certification and the ability to implement Lean Construction in more than 2 years.

In addition, the study used non-probabilistic and snowball sampling [48] to obtain as much data as possible under the conditions of the objectives of the study. The survey was disseminated from 18 february 2021 to 24 april 2021. A total of 127 professionals responded to the survey, and data from 125 professionals were used for the statistical analysis of the study. Unfortunately, one was discarded for not completing the questionnaire and the other for presenting strange variations in the correlation. The general data are shown in Table 2.


**Table 2.** Demographic profile of the interviewed.

### *3.3. Validity Test and Data Analysis*

The reliability of the data was determined by Cronbach's coefficient (α), whose values higher than 0.7 represent data with homogeneous distribution; therefore, they are reliable and solid data for the research [48].

The Exploratory Factor Analysis is composed of three main stages: (a) Assessment of the suitability of data for use in the EFA, the Kaiser–Maier–Olkin (KMO) measure, and Bartlett's test of sphericity were used to check the adequacy of the sample and the correlation between variables to test the adequacy of the sample and the correlation between variables. KMO values greater than 0.5 were accepted to perform EFA with data between 100 and 200. In order to reject the null hypothesis of Bartlett's test and show that the data are highly correlated, the matrix determinant is required to be less than 0.001 and have a significance of less than 0.05 [49–51]. (b) For extraction of factors or grouping of variables, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) generates a common grouping of data "commonality", whose commonality is accepted as EFA factors to maintain the greatest amount of information according to the objectives of the study, as well as to reduce the components as necessary [49,50,52]. (c) For rotation and interpretation of the grouping of variables, the orthogonal rotation Vari-max was used, which allows for a better and simple interpretation of the data; in addition, it allows to reduce the number of variables that have a high weight load in the factors, a recommended load is of 0.4 [52,53].

The data analysis was conducted with the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) v25.0, reliability analysis, descriptive statistics, and Kruskal–Wallis tests (H) to differentiate the barriers by study groups. The Kruskal–Wallis test is a rank-based test for non-parametric variables, i.e., to compare more than two independent samples. The analysis starts with the hypothesis that the variables come from the same sample. If the Kruskal–Wallis statistic is significant (*p* ≤ 0.05), the non-parametric multiple comparison tests indicate that the initial hypothesis is accepted; otherwise, it is assumed that the variables have independent provenances [54].

In addition, Microsoft Excel was used for the Relative Importance Index (RII) analysis to discuss priority barriers according to the segmented groups. RII allows the analysis to distribute the variance explained among multiple predictors to better understand the role played by each of them in a regression equation [55].

$$RII = \frac{\sum w}{A.N.}$$

where *w* is the frequency given to each factor by respondents (1 to 5); *A* is the highest frequency of each factor, 5 in this example; and *N* is the total number of respondents, 125 in this example.

### **4. Results**

The literature review resulted in a list of lean implementation barriers, as shown in Table 3.

**Table 3.** List of lean implementation barriers.


**Table 3.** *Cont.*


Table 4 shows the most relevant data from the semi-structured interviews with the experts. The interviews were semi-structured, opting for open and semi-open questions to obtain qualitative data and the most significant amount of information. In addition, the study phenomenon is relatively new in the country, so it is required to have a complete picture of the phenomenon [44].

**Table 4.** Results of interviews with experts.

