D LEAN CONSTRUCTION FRAMEWORK FOR THE SAUDI ARABIAN ... Ghazi I_Sarhan_Thesis.pdf · lean construction such as the barriers and critical success factors (CSFs) for implementing lean

DEVELOPMENT OF A LEAN CONSTRUCTION FRAMEWORK FOR THE SAUDI ARABIAN

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Jamil Ghazi Sarhan

Bachelor of Civil Engineering, UQU, Mecca, KSA, 2007 Master of Engineering Management, QUT

Brisbane, Australia, 2013

A thesis by publication submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

School of Built Environment and Civil Engineering

Science and Engineering Faculty

Queensland University of Technology

2018

Development of a Lean Construction Framework for the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry

Page i

Keywords

Barriers

Construction industry

Construction waste

Critical success factors

Exploratory factor analysis

Framework

Implementation

Interpretive structural modelling

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Lean production

Lean construction

Lean construction framework

Lean construction tools/ techniques

Saudi Arabian construction industry

Page ii Development of a Lean Construction Framework for the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry

Abstract

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia construction industry is bedevilled with many problems. Many

construction projects delivered to poor cost, time, quality performances. In addition, many of

the construction organisations in the KSA operate with inefficient project delivery processes

and produce enormous wastes and low-value return to clients. Lean construction has been

proposed as a management strategy for overcoming the problems associated with construction

project delivery and organisational processes in the KSA construction industry. Despite the

avalanche of frameworks for implementing lean construction strategies, the appropriate

framework for promoting lean construction in the KSA construction industry is lacking. The

result is the limited implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

Beside the lack of an appropriate framework for implementing lean construction strategies,

there is a concerning dearth of research addressing issues pertaining to the implementation of

lean construction such as the barriers and critical success factors (CSFs) for implementing lean

construction in the KSA construction industry. As a result, the state of art of lean construction

in the KSA construction industry is unknown. Therefore, this study is carried out to promote

lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

The research methodology follows a pragmatic research paradigm which allows the combined

use of quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. The quantitative methodology

aspects involve the questionnaire survey of experts to obtain their opinion on the types of

wastes, the tools and techniques that support the implementation of lean construction, benefits

of lean construction, and stages of application of lean methods in the KSA construction

industry. In addition, the questionnaire was used to gather experts’ opinion about the barriers

to the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. The data obtained

from the survey was analysed using powerful statistical analysis techniques such as one-way

ANOVA, and the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. An open-ended questionnaire

combined with an interview scheme was also designed to obtain the experts’ views on the

CSFs for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry. The data obtained

was qualitatively analysed using content analysis to derive a comprehensive list of CSFs for

implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry. On the basis of the list

derived, selected experts were asked to complete a pairwise comparison of the CSFs through

a well-designed row and column questionnaire. An ISM technique was employed to specify

the interrelationships among the CSFs, as well as their hierarchies in order to develop an ISM

model for promoting lean construction in the KSA construction industry. An interview with

experts who have the understanding of lean construction and the operations of the KSA

construction industry was carried out to check for conceptual inconsistencies, and to confirm


Page iii

if the model can be implemented as a lean construction framework for improving the

performance of construction projects and organisations in the KSA construction industry.

The investigation reveals that ‘waiting’ is the most pervasive type of waste in the KSA

construction industry, while the level of pervasiveness of the over-processing and over-

production types of wastes are different between the large and small construction companies

mainly due to resource constraints. There are a myriad number of different tools/techniques

that support the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry, but the

computer aided design (CAD) provides the most support to the implementation of lean

construction. The top ranked barriers which are of greatest concern to the implementation of

LC in the KSA construction industry are: influence of traditional practices, unfavorable

organisational culture, lack of technical skills about lean techniques, and lack of understanding

of lean approaches. In descending order of pervasiveness, the principal factors that constitute

these barriers in the KSA construction industry are the traditional practices barrier, client-

related barrier, standardisation barrier, a technological barrier, performance and knowledge

barrier, and cost related barrier. Of these principal barriers, the client related barrier is a new

kind of barrier to implementing lean construction in the body of knowledge.

There are 12 CSFs for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry. As a

result, an ISM model that specifies the relationship between the CSFs for implementing lean

construction in the KSA construction industry is developed, while a further validation study

confirms that the ISM model can be implemented as a lean construction framework for

improving the performance of construction projects and organisations in the KSA construction

industry. The ISM model comprises of 7 hierarchies (VII-I) of the 12 CSFs. The CSFs in the

top hierarchy are the most important CSFs for implementing lean construction in the KSA

construction industry. Those in the middling hierarchy are very unstable, whereby any action

taken on one or more of them has an effect on another. Therefore, utmost care and

consideration are necessary when putting in place any of these CSFs for the implementation

of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. The CSF in the least hierarchy is the

least important in the KSA construction industry, and to apply this CSF is entirely reliant on

the other CSFs, in other words, other CSFs need to be in place to apply this CSF to the

implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

Overall, the study generates a new knowledge in the area of lean construction in the KSA

construction industry context. This study reveals the state of art of lean construction in the

KSA construction industry. In addition, this study identifies the barriers to, and the CSF for

implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry. This study also develops an

Page iv Development of a Lean Construction Framework for the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry

ISM model that specifies the relationship among the CSFs for implementing lean construction

towards the development of a framework for promoting lean construction in the KSA

construction industry. In contrast to existing frameworks, the framework reflects the socio-

cultural and operation context in the KSA construction industry.


Page v

Table of Contents

Keywords ............................................................................................................................. i Abstract............................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ v List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... xi Statement of Original Authorship ...................................................................................... xii Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... xiii List of Publications........................................................................................................... xiv Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM ........................................................................................... 3 1.3 AIM, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ............................................................................ 4 1.4 SIGNIFICANCE AND OUTCOMES ........................................................................ 5 1.5 LINKING THE PUBLICATIONS TO THE RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES 6 1.6 THESIS OUTLINE ................................................................................................... 9 1.7 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY ....................................................................................10 Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................ 13 2.1 LEAN PRODUCTION .............................................................................................13

2.1.1 Evolution of Lean Production .........................................................................13 2.1.2 Evolution of the Toyota Production System (TPS) ..........................................16 2.1.3 Types of Wastes in the Toyota Production System ..........................................18 2.1.4 Transformation Process in Lean Production ....................................................19 2.1.5 Application of Lean Thinking in Non-Automotive Sectors ..............................21

2.2 LEAN CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................23 2.2.1 Definition of Lean Construction ......................................................................23 2.2.2 The Principles of Lean Construction ...............................................................26 2.2.3 Benefits of Lean Construction .........................................................................29 2.2.4 Lean tools, techniques and principles that support the implementation of

lean construction .............................................................................................30 2.2.5 Construction Waste.........................................................................................47 2.2.6 Lean Construction Frameworks ......................................................................50 2.2.7 Lean construction studies in the Middle East (ME) region ...............................55

2.3 COMMON MANAGEMENT APPROACHES FOR ADDRESSING PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT DELIVERY AND ORGANISATIONAL PROCESSES IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ...........................................................................57

2.3.1 Value Management (VM) ...............................................................................57 2.3.2 Project Management (PM) ..............................................................................58 2.3.3 Building Information Modelling (BIM) ...........................................................59 2.3.4 Supply Chain Management (SCM) .................................................................60

Page vi Development of a Lean Construction Framework for the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry

2.3.5 Sustainable Construction (SC) ........................................................................ 62 2.4 OVERVIEW OF SAUDI ARABIA .......................................................................... 64

2.4.1 The Saudi Construction Industry ..................................................................... 66 2.4.2 Construction Boom in the KSA ...................................................................... 66 2.4.3 Challenges in the KSA Construction Industry ................................................. 68

2.5 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 69 Chapter 3: Research Methodology ................................................................ 71 3.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 71 3.2 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY .................................................................................... 71 3.3 RESEARCH APPROACH/METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 72 3.4 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ................................................................ 72 3.5 TIME HORIZON ..................................................................................................... 80 3.6 UNIT OF ANALYSIS.............................................................................................. 80 3.7 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE ...................................................................................... 80 3.8 RIGOUR IN RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 81 3.9 ETHICS APPROVAL .............................................................................................. 81 Chapter 4: Lean Construction Implementation in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry .......................................................................................... 83 4.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 84 4.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 86 4.3 RESEARCH METHOD ........................................................................................... 91 4.4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 92 4.5 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 94

4.5.1 Types of construction waste ............................................................................ 94 4.5.2 Level of use of tools that support the implementation of lean construction ...... 95 4.5.3 Stages of application of lean methods in the KSA construction industry .......... 97 4.5.4 Benefits of lean construction........................................................................... 98

4.6 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 99 4.7 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 100 Chapter 5: Barriers to Implementing Lean Construction Practices in the Saudi Arabia Construction ................................................................................ 103 5.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 104 5.2 CONCEPT OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION.............................................................. 106 5.3 GLOBAL BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION ... 108 5.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................... 114 5.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 114 5.6 RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 116

5.6.1 Background Information of Respondents ...................................................... 116 5.6.2 Mean Item Score (MIS) Analysis .................................................................. 119 5.6.3 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) ........................................................... 122

5.7 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ............................................................................... 126


Page vii

5.8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 132 5.8.1 Areas of further research ............................................................................... 133

Chapter 6: Critical Success Factors for the Implementation of Lean Construction in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry .............................. 135 6.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 136 6.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 137 6.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 139 6.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................. 140 6.5 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 143 Chapter 7: Framework for the Implementation of Lean Construction Strategies using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) technique: A Case of Saudi Construction Industry .............................................................................. 145 7.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 147 7.2 REVIEW OF EXISTING LEAN CONSTRUCTION FRAMEWORKS .................. 149 7.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 151 7.4 PROCESS OF INTERPRETIVE STRUCTURAL MODELLING (ISM) ................ 151 7.5 Analysis of Results: Development of the ISM framework ....................................... 152 7.6 VALIDATION RESULTS ..................................................................................... 162 7.7 DISCUSSION OF THE ISM MODEL .................................................................... 164 7.8 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 167 Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions ....................................................... 171 8.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 171 8.2 RESEARCH FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 171

8.2.1 Objective 1: Investigation the current status of lean application in the KSA construction industry, covering the types of wastes, the tools and techniques that support the implementation of lean construction, benefits of lean construction, and stages of application of lean methods. .................... 171

8.2.2 Objective 2: Barriers to the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. ........................................................................... 175

8.2.3 Objective 3: Critical success factors (CSFs) of lean construction implementation KSA construction industry. .................................................. 178

8.2.4 Objectives 4 & 5: A framework for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry using interpretive structural modelling (ISM), and the validation from the perspectives of experts ....................................... 180

8.2.5 Application of the ISM model ....................................................................... 184 8.3 IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH ......................................................................... 186 8.4 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY .................................................................................. 190 8.5 RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE STUDIES ................................................ 190 Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 192 Appendices .......................................................................................................... 227 APPENDIX 1: STAGE ONE SURVEY QUESTION PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FORM .............................................................................................................................. 227

Page viii Development of a Lean Construction Framework for the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry

APPENDIX 2: STAGE ONE SURVEY QUESTIONS ..................................................... 233 APPENDIX 3: STAGE ONE SURVEY QUESTION PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FORM (INTERVIEW) ..................................................................................................... 243 APPENDIX 4: STAGE ONE SURVEY QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEW (CSFs) ........... 249 APPENDIX 5: STAGE TWO PAIR-WISE COMPARISON SURVEY ............................ 252 APPENDIX 6: STAGE TWO INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (VALIDATION WORK) ...... 259 APPENDIX 7: CONFERENCE PAPER 2 ........................................................................ 264


Page ix

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 A representation of important phases in the evolution of the lean production system (Shah & Ward, 2007) ...............................................................................16

Figure 2.2 The Toyota House diagram (Liker, 2004) ...........................................................17 Figure 2.3 Lean Project Delivery System (Ballard, 2008; Construction Industry

Institute (CII), 2007) ............................................................................................26 Figure 2.4 Lean Construction Principles (Deshmukh, 2017) ................................................29 Figure 2.5 Conversations of the Last Planner System (Engineers Australia, 2012)...............31 Figure 2.6 The Eight Types of Waste in the Construction Industry (Koskela, 2004a,

2009; Liker, 2004) ...............................................................................................50 Figure 2.7 Lean construction as socio-technological design (Paez et al., 2005) ....................51 Figure 2.8 Lean construction in eight areas (Johansen & Walter, 2007) ...............................52 Figure 2.9 Lean Six Sigma Framework (Al-Aomar, 2012b). ...............................................53 Figure 2.10 Lean, Green and Six-sigma framework (Banawi, 2013). ...................................54 Figure 2.12 Map of Saudi Arabia ........................................................................................65 Figure 2.13 The GCC construction Sector as a Percentage of GDP ....................................67 Figure 2.14 The distribution of the top 100 projects in the KSA construction industry

(Alfouzan, 2013). ................................................................................................68 Figure 3.1 Framework summarizing the steps that will be taken in the ISM (Yang,

2012) ...................................................................................................................79 Figure 4.1 Respondents' organization profile ......................................................................93 Figure 4.2 Respondents' profile ..........................................................................................93 Figure 7.1 Driving power and dependence for CSFs for lean construction

implementation .................................................................................................. 159 Figure 7.2 ISM-based model of lean construction implementation .................................... 160

Page x Development of a Lean Construction Framework for the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Outlines the work presented in each chapter of this thesis...................................... 9 Table 2.1 Definitions of Lean Production ........................................................................... 13 Table 2.2 A Comparison of Lean Practice across Sectors .................................................... 22 Table 2.3 Definition of Lean Construction .......................................................................... 23 Table 2.4 Differences Among Lean Techniques, Tools and Principle .................................. 46 Table 2.5 Similarities and Differences between Lean Construction and other

Management Concepts in the construction industry.............................................. 63 Table 3.1 Summary of methods of data collection and analysis ........................................... 73 Table 4.1 Summary of the lean tools/techniques that support the implementation of

lean construction ................................................................................................. 88 Table 4.2 Types of waste in the Saudi Arabian construction industry .................................. 94 Table 4.3 Level of use of tools that support the implementation of lean construction........... 95 Table 4.4 Stages of application of lean methods in the KSA construction industry .............. 97 Table 4.5 Benefits of lean construction ............................................................................... 98 Table 5.1 Barriers to lean construction as found by the researchers ................................... 112 Table 5.2 Profiles of survey respondents .......................................................................... 117 Table 5.3 MIS analysis of the barriers to implementing lean construction in the KSA

construction industry ......................................................................................... 119 Table 5.4 Mann Whitney test results ................................................................................. 122 Table 5.5 Principal barriers to the successful implementation of lean construction in

the KSA construction industry ........................................................................... 124 Table 6.1 Important critical success factors for lean construction ...................................... 140 Table 7.1 Critical success factors for the implementation of lean construction .................. 153 Table 7.2 Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) .......................................................... 154 Table 7.3 Initial reachability matrix .................................................................................. 155 Table 7.4 Final reachability matrix with driving power and dependence of CSFs .............. 155 Table 7.5 Iteration 1 of level partition ............................................................................... 156 Table 7.6 Level partitioning of criteria ............................................................................. 157 Table 7.7 Background information of experts involved in the validation of the

framework ......................................................................................................... 162


Page xi

List of Abbreviations

BIM Building Information Modelling

CAD Computer Aided Design

CSFs Critical Success Factors

EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis

ISM Interpretative Structural Modelling

JIT Just-In-Time

KSA Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

LC Lean Construction

LPDS Lean Project Delivery System

LPS Last Planner System

MICMAC Matrix of cross-impact multiplications applied to classification analysis

PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle

PM Project Management

SCE Saudi Council of Engineers

SSIM Structural Self-Interaction Matrix

SCM Supply Chain Management

SC Sustainable Construction

TPS Toyota Production System

TQM Total Quality Management

VM Value Management

VSM Value Stream Mapping

Page xii Development of a Lean Construction Framework for the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my

knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by

another person except where due reference is made.

Signature:

Name: Jamil Ghazi Sarhan

Date: 7 June 2018


Page xiii

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank Almighty Allah for his grace and giving me the strength and knowledge to complete this thesis.

I particularly want to acknowledge all the people who have been an integral part of this study. Without them, this thesis would definitely not have been possible. First of all, I would sincerely like to thank my principal supervisor, Associate Professor Paul Xia, for his knowledgeable guidance, wisdom, patience and encouragement during my PhD journey. His mentorship and persistent support fuelled my passion and inspired me with the confidence that this journey was indeed possible to complete on time and that I could survive it.

My deepest appreciation also goes to my associate supervisors, Dr Sabrina Fawzia and Dr Azharul Karim, for their invaluable help in developing ideas, checking sources and the logical flow of my thesis, as well as for their great attention to detail and for willingly sharing their expertise and in-depth knowledge with me.

Additionally, this study would not have been possible without the scholarship provided through the King Salman Scholarship Program from the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia.

I am extremely grateful to my father and mother, Ghazi and Ibtisam, for their heart-warming, generous and unwavering support throughout my studies and the many hardships I have faced during my candidature. So, thank you, Mom and Dad, for everything—you made me believe I could do it.

I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude and love to my wonderful wife, Sahar, and my daughter and son, Ibtisam and Ghazi, for their never-ending support and love. They waited for me to finish this thesis on the weekends and on lonely nights. So, thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

I want to thank my brother, Hattan, and sisters for their cheers and encouragement. Additionally, I am very grateful to my extended family for keeping me in their prayers and thoughts.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Ayokunle Olanipekun, who was my best friend and a great support during my PhD study. Finally, many thanks to my friends and colleagues in Australia and Saudi Arabia for all the emotional support and helping me through such difficult times.

To all,

Thank You.

Page xiv Development of a Lean Construction Framework for the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry

List of Publications

Sarhan, Xia, Fawzia, & Karim (2017). Lean construction implementation in the Saudi Arabian construction industry. Construction Economics and Building, 17(1), pp. 46-69.

Sarhan, Xia, Fawzia, Karim, and Olanipekun (2018). Barriers to implementing lean construction practices in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) construction industry. Construction Innovation, 18(2), pp. 246-272.

Sarhan, Olanipekun, & Xia (2016). Critical success factors for the implementation of lean construction in the Saudi Arabian construction industry. In International Conference on Sustainable Built Environment SBE16, December 11-14, 2016, Seoul, South Korea.

Sarhan, Xia, Fawzia, Karim, Olanipekun and Coffey (2018). Interpretive Structural

Modelling (ISM) for the Successful Implementation of Lean Construction in the Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. (Under review).

Sarhan, Hu, and Xia, (2016). An Overview of the Application of Interpretive Structural

Modelling (ISM) in Construction Management Research. Paper presented at the International

sustainable built environment conference SBE16, Seoul, South Korea.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The construction industry is a very important sector to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s (KSA)

economy. Prior to the crash in the oil price in 2015, the construction industry expenditure was

around US$120 billion in a year (Alrashed, Taj, Phillips, & Kantamaneni, 2014), contributing

highly to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), from 4.3 percent in 2011 to 4.8 percent in 2013

(PRNewswire, 2014). After the crash of oil price, the government of the KSA developed vision

2030 as a long-term strategy to bolster the country’s fiscal position and diversify its economy

(KPMG, 2017). In line with the vision, the country has proposed to fund large-scale

infrastructure projects in the areas of power, housing, transportation, healthcare and tourism

(KPMG, 2017; ONSITE, 2016). For instance, the construction of Fadhili Power Plant valued

at US$4.7 billion, Jeddah Jizan Coastal Highway valued at US$881m, Asir – Jizan New Road

valued at US$956m and King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre in Jeddah valued

at US$658m started in the second half of 2016 (ONSITE, 2016). Therefore, despite the crash

of the oil price, the construction industry becomes increasingly important, especially to

realising the vision 2030.

However, the KSA construction industry is engulfed with many problems associated with

project delivery and organizational processes. In terms of project delivery, many projects

experiences project delay. For example, public construction projects suffer from 70% delay

(Alzara, Kashiwagi, Kashiwagi, & Al-Tassan, 2016). Owing to delays in project delivery,

project costs are also affected negatively in the country (Al-Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009). Fahy

(2015) revealed that mega construction projects such as the $4 billion terminal at King

Abdulaziz International Airport in Jeddah and the $11 billion Haramain high-speed rail link

between Mecca and Medina are running years behind their original schedules and billions of

dollars of budget overrun. Consequently, construction cost is very high in the Gulf region

(Harris, 2015). In addition, many construction projects are completed at low quality than

required standard, leading to building collapse and loss of lives (GNSA, 2015). Furthermore,

as part of the problems in the KSA construction industry, many construction organisations

operate inefficient project delivery processes that produce enormous wastes. This warranted

the Presidency of Meteorology and Environment (The Productivity Press Development Team)

Decree which outlines compulsory strategies for waste reduction for companies within and

outside of the KSA construction industry in 2014 (McCullough, 2014).

2 Chapter 1: Introduction

Lean construction has been proposed as a production strategy to overcome the problems

associated with construction processes and organisations in the KSA construction industry

(Al-Otaib, Osman, & Price, 2013). Lean construction is a concept that originated from the

manufacturing sector as lean production philosophy. The success of this philosophy in the

Toyota Production System (TPS) through improved organizational performance, reduced

wastes and efficiency in production process encouraged its adoption in the construction

settings as lean construction (Moghadam, 2014). The lean construction is an extension of lean

production in the manufacturing sector to the construction industry (Cuperus, 2001). It is the

continuous process of eliminating waste, and meeting or exceeding all customer requirements

by focusing on the entirety of the value stream and pursuing perfection in project delivery

(Diekmann, Krewedl, Balonick, Stewart, & Won, 2004), while it is based on the fundamental

principle of eliminating non-value-adding activities (waste) in the project delivery process

(Love & Li, 1998). Therefore, lean construction helps to improve the sustainability

performance of projects (Nahmens & Ikuma, 2012), promote safety on construction sites

through emphasises on cleanliness and organisation (Bashir, Suresh, Proverbs, & Gameson,

2011) as well as reducing the completion time of construction projects (Issa, 2013). Lean

construction is also beneficial to the broader construction industry level through the

acceleration of best practices in the forms of enhanced innovation (Abdullah, Abdul Razak,

Bakar, Hassan, & Sarrazin, 2009) and a more systematic and structured approach to project

delivery (Omran & Abdulrahim, 2015).

However, despite the benefits of lean construction, the concept is yet to be successfully

implemented in the KSA construction industry. Nevertheless, the exisiting frameworks for

implementing lean construction such as the Al-Aomar (2012b)’s Lean-Six Sigma framework

which focuses on different socio-cultural and operational contexts, are inapplicable in the KSA

construction industry context. This problem is further compounded by the paucity of research

on lean construction in the KSA construction industry. The majority of studies on lean

construction focuses on western countries such as the UK (e.g (Ogunbiyi, Oladapo, &

Goulding, 2014)), while few exists on the entire Middle East region including the KSA. Given

the projections about infrastructure development in the KSA, there is a need for more research

on lean construction as an effective production strategy for enhancing construction processes

and improving organisational effectiveness in the construction industry. It demands for a

framework for implementing lean construction that focuses and reflects the socio-cultural, and

operational contexts of the KSA construction industry.

Therefore, the aim of this study is to develop a framework for promoting lean construction in

the KSA construction industry. This study makes a contribution to both theory and practice.


Theoretically, this study develops the first interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach

for lean construction. In addition, how this methodological technique is applied is

demonstrated in this study. Therefore, this study adds to the existing methodologies for solving

lean construction problems in the construction industry. Practically, the study develops an

interpretive structural modelling (ISM) model that specifies the relationship among the critical

success factors (CSFs) for implementing lean construction towards a framework for promoting

lean construction in the KSA construction industry. Therefore, it addresses the dearth of

research on lean construction in the KSA construction industry context. The framework

captures the socio-cultural and operational context in the KSA construction industry. On this

basis, academics and researchers can adapt the framework to further enhance knowledge of

lean construction in the body of knowledge. Furthermore, operators in the KSA construction

industry such as project clients, top managers and employees in construction organisations and

the government, can obtain a better understanding of lean construction to develop appropriate

strategies to implement, and eventually promote lean construction in the KSA construction

industry. As a result, the performance of construction projects in terms of cost, time, quality

and waste generation during project delivery can be enhanced.

1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM

Lean construction has been demonstrated to be very advantageous to enhancing the

performance of construction projects and organization in the construction industry in many

countries. Lean construction assists in delivering projects on time and within the budget

(Lehman and Reiser, 2000), while it also help to make informed at all levels of the project

delivery (Sarhan, Xia, Fawzia, & Karim, 2017). However, despite the benefits of lean

construction, the existing frameworks for implementing the concept are not applicable in the

KSA construction industry. They are developed for use in other countries such as Australia

(Gao & Low, 2014), and as as result, they are inapplicable in the KSA construction due to

differences in socio-cultural and operational contexts. Meanwhile, cognizance of cultural and

geographical differences is very important in the implementation of lean strategies (Samson

& Ford, 2000; Voss & Blackmon, 1998). Owing to lack of applicable framework, lean

construction is at infancy in the KSA construction industry, and many industry operators lack

the knowledge and awareness, as well as the required commitment to implement lean

construction (Sarhan et al., 2017).

Furthermore, there is a wide research gap in the development of a framework for accelerating

lean construction in the KSA construction industry owing to the dearth of research in the

literature. Only AlSehaimi, Tzortzopoulos, and Koskela (2009)’s study explores the process


of implementing the last planner system (LPS) to improve planning of construction projects

in the KSA construction industry. While the study is focused on KSA, it did not reveal how to

promote or accelerate lean construction in the KSA construction industry. Furthermore, the

existing lean construction frameworks such as Johansen and Walter (2007), and Al-Aomar

(2012b) focuses on other countries, and therefore, do not indicate how to promote lean

construction in the KSA construction industry. Hence, the benefits of lean construction are yet

to be realized in the KSA construction, while problems such as poor project performance and

gross inefficiencies in construction organisations persisted.

1.3 AIM, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

In the KSA construction industry, there is a need to accelerate the implementation of lean

construction for improved performance of construction projects and organisations through the

development of a framework which reflects the socio-cultural and operation contexts in the

industry.

Therefore, this research is aimed at developing a framework for promoting the lean

construction in the KSA construction industry. The objectives of this research are:

Objective 1: To investigate the current status of lean application in the KSA construction

industry.

Objective 2: To examine the barriers to the implementation of lean construction in the KSA

construction industry.

Objective 3: To identify the critical success factors (CSFs) of lean construction

implementation in the KSA construction industry.

Objective 4: To develop a framework for implementing lean construction in the KSA

construction industry by using interpretive structural modelling (ISM).

Objective 5: To validate the developed framework from the perspectives of experts in lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

The geographical scope of this study is the KSA. In addition, the views of all the operators in

the KSA construction industry such as respective construction professionals including those

in the academic environment, different construction organisations, and professional bodies in

order to gather industry-wide and comprehensive input for the developing framework for

promoting lean construction in the industry.


1.4 SIGNIFICANCE AND OUTCOMES

This study develops a framework that reflects the socio-cultural and operational context in the

KSA construction industry in order to ensure successful implementation of lean construction.

Majorly, the framework identifies the CSFs for implementing lean construction and the

interrelationships among them. This is useful for operators, especially the managers in

construction organisations, to identify the important factors to consider, and the sequence to

follow, to successfully implement lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

Therefore, by undertaking this research to develop a framework for promoting lean

construction contributes to enhancing the performance of projects and construction

organisations in the KSA construction industry.

This study advances research in the area of lean construction by developing the first framework

that focuses on promoting lean construction in the entire Middle East countries, and

specifically in the KSA construction industry. Therefore, this study lays the foundation for

more research on lean construction in this region. For instance, the list of barriers to

implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry can be verified elsewhere in

the region. In addition, the effectiveness of the developed framework for implementing lean

construction can be tested using data from countries in the region.

Furthermore, this study investigates the barriers to implementing lean construction in the KSA

construction industry. This is beneficial to stakeholders such as the government agencies and

professional bodies who occupy regulatory positions. By identifying the specific barriers and

types of wastes, these stakeholders can devise appropriate strategies to overcome them in the

KSA construction industry. The list of barriers can be used as a benchmark for evaluating the

performance of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. Therefore, this study

contributes to initiating/invoking the participation of regulatory authorities towards the

implementation of lean construction.

In addition, the awareness of individual construction professionals, as well as of respective

construction organisations is increased by identifying the current tools and techniques that

support the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

Particularly, the construction professionals can utilize these tools and techniques during

project delivery, and thereby advancing their knowledge and skills in the process. For the

management in the construction organisations, they are able to identify the specific lean

construction tools and techniques to procure, and the type of training to be made available for


their employees to utilize them for project delivery purposes. Hence, the investigation of the

current tools and techniques that support the implementation of lean construction in this study

reveals how individual construction professionals, as well as respective construction

organisations can participate in the implementation of lean construction in the KSA


Theoretically, this study develops the first interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach

for successful implantation of lean construction in the Saudi Arabian construction industry.

Therefore, this study adds new solutions to the existing lean construction problems in the

current body of knowledge. Academic researchers in this field can follow this study as a

reference to apply the ISM methodological technique to address lean construction problems.

In addition, an ISM-lean construction model can be developed from this study.

1.5 LINKING THE PUBLICATIONS TO THE RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to develop a framework for promoting the lean construction in the

KSA construction industry. To achieve this aim, different objectives are proposed in section

1.3. Consequently, the outcome of this study through the objectives are presented through

peer-reviewed journal publications. The body of this thesis consists of the overview of the

research methodology employed for answering the research questions in Chapter 3, and three

journal papers, and a conference paper (Chapters 4 to 7) which systematically address the

research questions. Chapter 7 demonstrates the validation of the developed framework.

The following explains the progression of study, which includes how respective Chapters,

publications and monograph addresses the research objectives.

Objective 1: Investigate the current status of lean application in the KSA


This research objective 1 is addressed in Chapter 4 (Sarhan, Xia, Fawzia, & Karim (2017)).

Lean construction implementation in the Saudi Arabian construction industry. Construction

Economics and Building, 17(1), pp. 46-69.

This chapter investigates the current status of lean construction implementation in the

construction industry in the KSA. The objective is to identify types of construction waste, level

of use of tools that support the implementation of lean construction, stages of application of

lean methods, and the benefits of lean construction. To achieve these objectives, a structured

questionnaire survey of 282 construction professionals was carried out, and the data obtained

was analysed using the mean score and ANOVA test. The findings reveal that waiting is the

most common type of waste, while Computer Aided Design (CAD) is the most frequently used


conventional tool supporting the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction

industry. Furthermore, the findings reveal that lean construction is most commonly used in the

construction stage of projects while customer satisfaction is the main benefit derived from lean

construction practices. This study concludes that the level of implementation of lean

construction in the KSA construction industry is increasing. The significance of this chapter

is benchmarking the current state of lean construction implementation, thereby enabling

industry operators to identify strategies to implement lean construction in the KSA

construction industry in accordance with their needs and project goals, to achieve better

productivity.

Objective 2: Identifying the barriers to the implementation of lean construction in

the KSA construction industry

This research objective is addressed in Chapter 5 (Sarhan, Xia, Fawzia, Karim and Olanipekun

(2018)). Barriers to implementing lean construction practices in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

(KSA) construction industry. Construction Innovation, 18(2), pp. 246-272.

The purpose of this Chapter is to identify the barriers to implementing lean construction in the

KSA construction industry, and to prioritise the principal factors that constitute these barriers.

The methodology used to consist of an initial literature review to reveal global barriers to

implementing lean construction. Subsequently, these barriers were incorporated into a

structured questionnaire survey 282 construction professionals in the KSA construction

industry using the convenience sampling technique. The results were analysed using mean

item score (MIS), Mann Whitney U tests and Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The

findings reveal 22 barriers to lean construction implementation in the KSA construction

industry, while the principal factors that constitute these barriers are traditional practices, client

related, technological, performance and knowledge and cost related barriers in descending

order of pervasiveness. The significance of this chapter is the solutions proposed to overcome

these barriers in the KSA construction industry, which can also be applied in other countries

where similar barriers are identified.

Objective 3: Identifying the critical success factors (CSF) for the implementation of

lean construction in the KSA construction industry

This research objective is addressed in Chapter 6 (Sarhan, Olanipekun, & Xia (2016)). Critical

success factors for the implementation of lean construction in the Saudi Arabian construction

industry. In International Conference on Sustainable Built Environment SBE16, December

11-14, 2016, Seoul, South Korea.

This Chapter identifies and evaluates the critical success factors (CSFs) for the implementation

of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. The methodology involves an initial


identification of eighteen CSFs for implementing lean construction from a questionnaire

survey of 282 construction professionals in the KSA construction industry. Afterwards, these

CSFs were validated in one-to-one interviews with sixteen industry professionals (who have

an average of 15 years’ experience covering general construction practices and lean

construction) in the KSA construction industry. The data obtained was analysed using content

analysis. The findings reveal that 12 of the 18 CSFs were retained, and considered to be

relevant in the KSA construction industry. They are: 1. Top management commitment and

leadership of lean construction, 2. Providing education and training for lean construction in

the construction industry, 3. Adopting alternative procurement methods in project delivery, 4.

Adoption of new construction technologies/ methods, 5. Applying appropriate lean

construction tools/ techniques, 6. Implementing organisational change, 7. Promoting a culture

of teamwork during construction projects, 8. Adoption of continuous improvement, 9. Clear

definition of client’s requirements, 10. Applying the lean methodology at an early stage of the

building project delivery, 11. Coordinating and promoting efforts at a national level, and 12.

Establishing long-term relationships within the supply chain. The significance of this chapter

is the demonstration that these 12 CSFs are relevant across the project and organisational levels

for successful implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry.


construction industry by using interpretive structural modelling

(ISM).

Objective 5: To validate the developed framework from the perspectives of experts

in lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

This research objectives 4 and 5 are addressed in Chapter 7 (Sarhan, Xia, Fawzia, Karim,

Olanipekun, and Coffey (2018)). Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) for the Successful

Implementation of Lean Construction in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Engineering,

Construction and Architectural Management. (Under review).

The focus of this Chapter is to develop a framework for the implementation of lean

construction in the KSA construction industry using the interpretive structural modelling (ISM)

technique, and validating the framework from the perspectives of experts. The ISM technique

helps to develop a hierarchical structure of the interrelationships among the critical success

factors (CSFs) for successful implementation of lean construction, while the matrix of cross-

impact multiplications applied to classification analysis (MICMAC) is used to divide the

CSFs into four clusters, namely, autonomous, linkage, dependent and driving clusters. The

findings reveal 7 hierarchies of the interrelationship among the CSFs. The top management

commitment and leadership is in the 7th hierarchy, while establishing long-term relationships


within the construction supply chain is in the 1st hierarchy. This suggests that consideration to

ensure successful implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry

should start with top management commitment and leadership in construction organisations

and end with the establishment of long-term relationships among operators in the construction

supply chain. Furthermore, the top management commitment and leadership, coordinating and

promoting efforts at the national level and providing education and training for lean

construction fall in the driving cluster as the most important CSFs for driving the

implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. There is no CSFs that

fall in the autonomous cluster, which indicate that all the CSFs are required for implementing

lean construction in the KSA construction industry. The validation study confirms the

applicability of this framework in the KSA construction industry context. The significance of

this chapter is the developed ISM model, which will henceforth guide the operators in the KSA

construction industry, especially the construction organisations to successfully implement lean

construction.

1.6 THESIS OUTLINE

Table 1.1 Outlines the work presented in each chapter of this thesis

Outline of work presented in each chapter

CHAPTER CONTENT

1 Introduction

2

Literature Review

Review previous studies related to (i) lean production, (Construction Industry Institute (CII)) global lean construction practices, including the existing lean construction frameworks, tools and techniques and the benefits of lean construction, and (iii) overview of the KSA construction industry

3

Research Methodology Process Describes the philosophical stance and logic of this study, and thereafter the research design. It also describes the processes involved to adopt and implement the research methodology for achieving the aim of this study, including the research design, methodology, time horizon, method of data collection, unit of analysis and data analysis techniques.

4

Lean Construction Implementation in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry Presents the current state of lean construction implementation in the KSA construction industry by identifying: (1) the types of construction waste, (2) level of use of tools that support the implementation of lean construction, (3) stages of application of lean methods, and (4) the benefits of lean construction.


5

Barriers to implementing lean construction practices in the Saudi Arabia construction Presents the barriers to implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry, and the prioritisation of the principal factors that constitute these barriers.

6

Critical Success Factors for the Implementation of Lean Construction in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry Presents the list and the priorities of the critical success factors (CSFs) for the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

7

Implementation of Lean Construction in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) for Framework Development Presents the framework for the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry developed using the interpretive structural modelling (ISM) technique, and subsequent validation to confirm the applicability of the framework from the perspectives of experts.

8

General Discussion and Conclusions Presents the summary of the findings of Chapters 4-7. This includes the comparison of findings with the existing body of knowledge, and the applicability of the findings in real practical sense. In addition, the conclusion of the study is added.

1.7 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

This study carried out an overview of lean construction, identified the barriers to, and the CSFs

for implementing lean construction, as well as developing an ISM model that establishes the

relationship and hierarchy between the CSFs with the aim of promoting lean construction in

the KSA construction industry. Still, there exists some contextual and methodological

limitations that could reduce the outcomes of this study. They are as described below:

1. This study has developed a framework for promoting lean construction in the KSA

construction industry, and thereby only reflecting the socio-cultural and economic

context of the KSA. Therefore, further study might be necessary to apply this

framework in other countries. In addition, as the survey was conducted for a specific

period with professionals working in the KSA construction firms, results may not

represent the whole Saudi Arabian construction industry.

2. The ISM model is based on experts’ opinion, which, sometimes may be biased and

not fully reflecting on industry practice. This limitation is compounded by the non-

validation of the ISM model using statistical analysis, thereby reducing the inferential

generalisation of findings.


A scientific sampling approach was not used in this study due to lack of definite

population of the different operators in the KSA construction industry. This may undermine

the generalisation of findings.

Chapter 2: Literature Review 13

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter provides a comprehensive literature review, leading to the identification of the research

problem. The first part covers lean production, which serves the foundation where lean construction

originated from. The second part focuses on lean construction, covering the definition of lean

construction, the characteristics and principles of lean construction. In addition, the benefits of lean

construction, the lean construction tools/techniques and the existing lean construction frameworks are

covered. To overview the contextual background to the application of lean construction in the

construction industry, the third part covers some common management approaches for addressing

problems associated with project delivery and organisational processes in the construction industry.

These include value management, project management, building information modelling (BIM), supply

chain management (SCM) and sustainable construction, and together they serve as contextual

background to the application of lean construction approach in the construction industry. The fourth part overviews the KSA construction industry, with specific focus on the prospects and the

challenges.

2.1 LEAN PRODUCTION

2.1.1 Evolution of Lean Production

Lean production was initially defined as half the production hours of human effort in the factory with

the half defects in the finished product. The early definition also included half space for the same output

with less than a tenth of in-process inventories (Womack & Jones, 2003). The duo later arrived to a

more refined definition. In their new definition, lean is a means of creating new work and optimizing

the required workforce through production efficiency. In this definition, lean is a philosophy and a

thought process, and not a tool. The philosophy has both the customer and supply relationships in mind

with the objective of removing non-value adding tasks (Howell & Ballard, 1998). Other definitions are

provided in table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Definitions of Lean Production

Author (Year) Definition

Shah and Ward (2007) Lean is an integrated socio-technical system whose main objective is to

eliminate waste by concurrently reducing or minimizing supplier,

customer, and internal variability.

14 Chapter 2: Literature Review

Toussaint and Berry

(2013)

Lean is an organizational cultural commitment to applying scientific

method to designing, performing and continuously improving the work

delivered by teams of people, leading to measurable better value for

stakeholders.

Koskela, Howell,

Ballard, and Tommelein

(2002) in Michigan State

University (2008).

Lean is a way to design production systems to minimize waste of

materials, time and effort in order to generate the maximum possible

amount of value.

Kilpatrick (2003) Lean is defined as a systematic approach to identifying and eliminating

waste through continuous improvement, following the product at the

pull of the customer in pursuit of perfection.

The Japanese auto giant, Toyota Motor Company popularised the concept of lean manufacturing which

they called the Toyota Production System (TPS) (Holweg, 2007; Ohno, 1988; Shah & Ward, 2007).

After World War II, Toyota faced significant challenges regarding its mass production system and the

Toyota Production System changed everything and was the ultimate solution to Toyota’s challenges

(Ohno, 1988). The challenges Toyota faced after World War II included:

• The company was unable to generate the capital needed to massively invest in the new

technologies springing from the west.

• The domestic market had shrunk as the result of the war but required high quality goods.

• The war decreased Toyota’s ability to compete with international auto giants like Ford motors

and General Motors (Cusumano & Studies, 1985).

Toyota turned a constraint into a breakthrough; As there was a dearth of resources after the World War

II and the company couldn’t afford any wastage, they devised an innovative solution to overcome those

problems. That new approach, i.e. the Toyota Production System is also known the Just-In-Time (JIT)

approach. The TPS later served as a stepping stone for Toyota to become a top auto manufacturer. It

was due to the TPS or JIT that Toyota survived the oil crisis in 1973 that largely affected the global

economy. North America was particularly affected by the oil crisis. The TPS yields high efficiency and

minimizes the wastage of resources on the work floor. It also limits the possibility of making mistakes.

The tactics followed via the lean production approach are completely opposite to those devised by Henry

Ford. Ford’s production system originated in the previous century and relied on mass production. In the

1980s, an MIT-based research group examined the Toyota Production System to find that lean


production results in high efficiency and reductions in both product usage and wastage and yet produces

the same amount of high quality goods. This study was later incorporated in a book called The Machine

that Changed the World (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990) which provides an in-depth comparison

between the mass production system and the lean production system. The book also features the benefits

of going lean and the difficulties that may arise. It was after the launch of this book that the concept of

lean manufacturing gained popularity.

Figure 2.1 depicts the history of the lean production approach starting from 1927 with the Ford

Production System and continuing through until the 2000s. The figure sheds light on various procedures

and methodologies that make up the lean manufacturing system. It highlights the fact that lean is a multi-

dimensional concept and it also contains chronologically presented information about the authors.


Figure 2.1 A representation of important phases in the evolution of the lean production system (Shah & Ward, 2007)

2.1.2 Evolution of the Toyota Production System (TPS)

Toyota devised this top notch production system under the guidance of Eiji Toyoda and Taiichi Ohno.

In the 1980s, the world started to realize the value of Japanese quality and efficiency. It was then that

Toyota caught the world’s attention (Liker, 2004). Toyota’s journey towards the development of the

TPS started in the 1950s, when Eiji Toyoda studied the US mass production techniques. Consequently,

Toyota applied the core concepts into its production system, however, it did not implement the mass


production system (Ohno, 1988). While contemplating its own production strategy, Toyota came across

the continuous flow approach being applied by Ford, which seemed to be of value for Toyota as well.

As a result, Toyota devised a system of continuous flow that also offered the flexibility needed to meet

customer demands. Overall Toyota, with small-lot production, required sufficient time to devise and

adapt economies of scale in manufacturing and procurement. Ohno (1988) stated in his book that the

mass production system followed by Ford and the American supermarket was responsible for the

creation of the Just in Time (JIT) production system. To achieve this much acclaimed lean production,

Toyota also implemented the American quality thinking approach that combines the principles of quality

engineering. These quality engineering principles were conceived by Edwards Deming and Joseph

Juran. It was Deming’s idea that the Japanese embrace a systematic problem solving method. This

method was later called the Deming-cycle or the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle (PDCA) and it laid the

foundation of the continuous improvement system (Kaizen) (Imai, 1986).

The concept of minimum waste serves as the basis of the current Toyota Production System (Ohno,

1988). Embedded in the TPS ideology is the idea of reducing waste and cost while maintaining

production volume. Two approaches, Just-in-Time and Jidoka, are deemed to be the main pillars of the

Toyota Production System (Liker, 2004; Monden, 1998; Ohno, 1988; Sugimori, Kusunoki, Cho, &

Uchikawa, 1977) (see Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 The Toyota House diagram (Liker, 2004)


2.1.3 Types of Wastes in the Toyota Production System

There are three main categories of waste, Muda, Mura, and Muri, according to the Toyota Production

System (TPS) and the lean production system classification.

• Muda (Anthony & Konka, 2011; Ren, 2012): the traditional waste or Muda is further divided into

seven subcategories that are discussed below:

1. Transportation

Wastage in transportation has become so common that it is often ignored. However, this wastage should

not be ignored because it translates into wasted energy and wasted time. In an ideal work environment,

there is no excessive action or motion. Therefore, it is important to design all work processes in

accordance with a framework where all items are at a close proximity. This will result in the elimination

of unnecessary movement, such as reaching, turning and lifting.

2. Waiting

The importance of time cannot be denied, as it is an essential and limited commodity. In the

manufacturing industry, preventative maintenance and quick changeovers are integral for staying ahead

of the competition. Time has a direct impact on the manufacturing sector because customer needs are

calculated to the second. This means productivity can be increased by reducing the cycle time.

Therefore, it is extremely essential to eliminate any and all waiting time caused by interruptions,

changeovers, ineffective layout or work patterns and breakdowns.

3. Overproduction

Overproduction breeds waste which is hidden in inventory and in producing goods that are not needed

by the customer. Moreover, overproduction can be divided into two categories: producing more than is

needed and producing something before it is needed. The production process must be governed by a pull

system that directs a manufacturer to produce in accordance with the only the real and current needs of

the market. As customers acquire products from market, therefore, it is important to produce only what

is needed in the market. This has dual benefits, not only does it reduce waste on the manufacturer’s part

but it also saves the customer money.

4. Defects/ Corrections

Production errors result in the wastage of products and defective products harbor various negative effects

for the customer. Moreover, it is also suggested to have only the required workforce to make the

corrections, additional workforce will result in higher expense.


5. Excess Inventory

The success of the TPS is hidden in avoiding excessive inventory and maintaining a continuous work

flow. A smooth work flow is the one where there is no or minimum surplus inventory. However, if there

is a work-in-process situation as a result of an imbalance in capabilities, it is important that the work

flow is balanced immediately.

6. Excess Motion

Motion wastage has penetrated certain work processes. Therefore, it is vital to structure and design work

processes in such a way that any unnecessary movement is eliminated.

7. Over processing

Over processing translates into carrying out additional or unnecessary steps to fulfil the design needs. It

is ineffective and leads to a waste of resources and materials through wasteful activities. Hence, any step

in a process that does not add any value to the product is a wasted step.

• Mura

Mura denotes variation or inequality and it is a well-established phenomenon that quality and variation

in production cannot co-exist. Therefore, variation is also classified as a type of waste as it consumes

both energy and time. Moreover, essential resources are also wasted in determining the level of variation

and to see if the customer will still need the product. The likelihood of generating waste diminishes if a

manufacturer produces exactly the same amount of product every time (Anthony & Konka, 2011).

• Muri

The term Muri means overburden. In the manufacturing context, muri implies wanting too much from

the work processes as well as from the workforce. Overtime is a classic example of muri. Many deem

overtime as an opportunity to earn additional cash, however, it might exhaust the employees and thus

decrease their productivity and increase the likelihood of on the job accidents (Anthony & Konka,

2011).

2.1.4 Transformation Process in Lean Production

According to Cheah, Wong, and Deng (2012), as lean transformation is a change in the workforce

culture, its implementation may not succeed due to several reasons that are hardly ever mentioned.

Henley transformational structure has been used to shed light on the crucial success factors in the

implementation of lean systems. The structure includes mobilization for change and the translation of

strategy into initiatives and objectives. It also includes aligning the organization with those objectives

and designing the change process (Ahrens, 2006).


The strategic views of organizations seek to achieve specific objectives through lean initiatives. Since

the establishment of a lean workplace involves transforming the corporate culture, a robust change in

the management is required. A successful transformation requires a top-down approach in the decision

making process. The implementation process requires a strong commitment from the leadership of the

organization. Therefore, the process involves a careful selection of Kaizen events that support the

strategy and vision of the organization (Cheah et al., 2012).

The perception of lean as a quick fix is the reason that it does not work in certain environments such as

low volume operations. Whereas, such perceptions are absent in the minds of Toyota managers who are

expected to show respect to each other and establish challenges, and to coach co-workers in

troubleshooting (Alpenberg & Scarbrough, 2009).

Apart from the strong leadership provided by the management, the implementation also requires

empowered teams. Empowerment of teams is achieved through continuous improvement. It is in this

area that the role of the managers and supervisors in lean implementation becomes to motivate, coach,

train and facilitate the activities that are adding value, rather than simply telling the teams what to do.

In this manner, the workers become enthused through continuous permission to change the processes

within the Kaizen events. A lean system, thus, leads to personalization of transformation, for instance,

positioning the machines or locating their equipment on their own. This frees employees to allocate time

to improving the processes (Locatelli, Mancini, Gastaldo, & Mazza, 2013).

The current development in paying workers on the piece-work has resulted in changes to the

implementation of lean systems. This new development has led to the integration of a workers’ council

into the change process. However, in a crisis in which companies have to lay-off some of its workforce,

it becomes difficult to motivate the remaining workforce to improve productivity (Ahrens, 2006). Lean

philosophy fails to give answers to address such situations. Some researchers such as Carter et al. (2011)

have argued regarding the implementation of a no-layoff policy. The policy is meant to overcome

workers fears that gains in the productivity will be used to retrench them. This is difficult to do when

short-term cost pressure is realized. This pressure may not permit the organization to reinvest its savings

from productivity gained. Eventually, the managers may be forced to cut personnel costs. Such issues

need to be addressed from the beginning of the implementation process (Ogunbiyi, Oladapo, &

Goulding, 2011).

In organizations that operate through empowered teams, the implementation of lean organization is less

hierarchical than in conventional businesses. In these organizations, it becomes difficult to implement a

lean top-down approach while maintaining the characteristics of empowered teams. This is an indication

that a different implementation strategy is required. One suggestion is that the executive management

needs to join Kaizen events (Hines, Francis, & Found, 2006).


The management’s major role is to engage and motivate a large workforce to work as a team toward

achieving a common goal. Therefore, the organization should be shaped through coaching, giving

examples, and assisting others to achieve their goals rather than blindly submitting to the will of the

management. However, Womack and Jones (2003) suggested that a strong willed top management is

needed during the transformation process. This was seen in the success of Freudenberg during the lean

rollout when it’s CEO, Joe Day spent 35 per cent of his time working on the process (Ahrens, 2006).

One strategy proposed for the forceful adoption of lean philosophy is the creation of crisis within the

organization. Although, only a few authors advocate for this, Porsche and Toyota successes were

majorly based on the crises they underwent (Fujimoto, 2012). Therefore, lean philosophy can succeed

in a troubled business facility or unit. The senior management should, therefore, exhibit impatience

during lean performance reports. On the other hand, this is an indication that it may be difficult to

implement lean thinking in the absence of a crisis (Fujimoto, 2012).

Womack and Jones (2003) suggested that managers who oppose new ideas such as lean thinking are

better removed from the management, whereas, Larco and Henderson proposed that such managers be

confronted or given heart-to-heart talks to convince them of the advantages of the system (Ahrens,

2006). However, there are other researchers who argue that such managers should be left untouched and

not penalized as they assist in achieving the day-to-day normal assignments during the implementation

process (Ahrens, 2006).

2.1.5 Application of Lean Thinking in Non-Automotive Sectors

It is common for companies to improve their operational efficiency, speed, quality, control and

flexibility among other things to get ahead of their competition (Bayou & Korvin, 2008). However, the

tactics applied by companies to gain a competitive advantage over other companies change over time,

be it the automobile industry or any other industry. Additionally, according to Liker (1998), lean

thinking must be applied to effectively manage these changing tactics. Egan (1998) and Koskela (2004b)

believe that these concepts are the same for non-automotive sectors like construction and can be applied

in the management of the supply chain, the design new products and the provision of services to the

clients. It was mentioned in Kenney and Florida (1993) study that it was a long-term transformation

process at the Toyota car manufacturing plant which resulted in the formulation of a lean production

system. However, Garnett, Jones, and Murray (1998) state correctly that outcomes in companies outside

the automotive sector will differ from those seen at Toyota. Womack and Jones (2003) also stated that

there is a need for a good understanding and application of the lean principles to enable managers in

other sectors to achieve optimal operation procedures. Studies suggest that these lean concepts have

been successfully adopted in other sectors such as construction (Salem, Solomon, Genaidy, & Luegring,

2005), aerospace (Haque, 2003), electronics manufacturing (Doolen & Hacker, 2005) and health


(Dickson, Singh, Cheung, & Wyatt, 2007). A summary of the application of lean thinking in different

sectors, namely aerospace, health, electronics, construction, and processing is shown in Table 2.2. A

number of lean techniques adopted to attain targets in respect to the various lean drivers are also listed

in this table.

To engage in lean practices, certain factors are employed by organisations in different sectors; these

factors are collectively known as lean thinking. Every organisation has different objectives when they

apply the lean principles and techniques. Table 2.2 includes a list of lean drivers for different sectors.

For example, some of the benefits commonly attributed to lean practice in UK contracting organizations

include cost reduction benefits, efficiency enhancement, product enhancement and services quality, time

reduction benefits, increasing revenues and client satisfaction (Bashir, Suresh, Oloke, Proverbs, &

Gameson, 2013).

Table 2.2 A Comparison of Lean Practice across Sectors Sectors Lean concepts applied Lean Drivers References Aerospace Continuous improvement activities,

customer focus, enhanced visibility, waste elimination, supplier involvement, standardisation, cross-functional teams, strategic management, customer involvement, systems engineering, design for lifecycle, information and process flow optimization, lean behavioural change

Eliminate waste of resources and non-value adding activities, develop detailed designs, minimise variation, avoid rework, reduce cost, poor military market.

Bayou and Korvin (2008); Crute, Ward, Brown, and Graves (2003); Haque (2003)

Health Kaizen events involving frontline workers, hospital managers and customers; worker empowerment; work standardisation; value stream mapping, Just-in-time; 5S and 5 Whys, waste elimination, error-proofing techniques, process mapping, value stream mapping, functional flow redesign

The continuous rise in health care cost, inefficiencies in health care delivery, delays, more space creation, improvement in patient flow, patients’ satisfaction and patients’ visits, reduce overcrowding, work disruption

Dickson et al. (2007); Dickson, Anguelov, Vetterick, Eller, and Singh (2009); Kim, Spahlinger, and Kin (2006); (King, Ben-Tovim, & Bassham, 2006); NHS (2009)

Construction Last Planner System, Increased visualisation, the 5S (housekeeping), Error-proofing, First run studies and Daily huddle meetings

Decline in profit margin, increased competition, low customer satisfaction, cost overrun, time overrun, elimination of non-value adding activities

Abdelhamid and Salem (2005); Egan (1998); Salem et al. (2005)

Electronics Total quality management, Just-in-time, Error proofing, customer involvement in product design, total product management, cellular manufacturing, setup reduction, levelled production, teamwork, design for manufacturability, on-time deliveries, workplace organisation, concurrent engineering, waste reduction, continuous improvement,

Changing economic conditions; high level of uncertainty in demands; low-volume product policies, rapid increase in customer expectation; the high pace of technological change and competitive global market; to improve performance in terms of cost, operations and

Doolen and Hacker (2005)


visual management, workflow and human resource management

organisational structure; to improve production planning and control, process technology, workers’ management, organisational structure and facilities management

Processing Just-in-time, Kanban, total production maintenance, total quality management, 5S, production smoothing, setup reduction and cellular manufacturing

Demand for improvement activities, competition

Abdullah and Rajgopal (2003); Abdulmalek and Rajgopal (2007)

2.2 LEAN CONSTRUCTION

2.2.1 Definition of Lean Construction

In the past decade, projects in the construction industry have been experiencing delays, wasteful

spending and inefficiency. As a result, several approaches aimed at improving the performances of these

projects have been developed. One of the approaches currently finding its way into the industry is lean

construction. Lean construction integrates lean principles developed mainly for the manufacturing

industry with management systems within the construction industry to provide a new way for project

management (Gerber, Becerik-Gerber, & Kunz, 2010).

Nevertheless, the management of lean construction is different from lean production through typical

contemporary practices. Unlike manufacturing, construction has clear goals for the delivery process.

The construction management also aims to maximize the project performance, and applies control to the

processes throughout the project’s lifespan. In addition, construction managers design the process and

product of the project simultaneously (Hirota, Lantelme, & Formoso, 1999).

Lean construction is defined as a management-based process that placed emphasis on the reliability and

speedy delivery of value to the customer (Forbes & Ahmed, 2010). Its goal is to accomplish the project

goals while minimizing waste, maximizing value and pursuing perfection. Basically, lean construction’s

major objective is to eliminate waste from all the processes involved in construction industry (Gerber et

al., 2010).

According to Inokuma (2012), lean construction is a method of construction used in pursuing non-waste

productivity and assuring significant quality through best practices. These practices include production

leveling, waste reduction, and multi-process operations. Other definitions of lean construction are

provided in Table 2.3 below.

Table 2.3 Definition of Lean Construction


Author (Year) Definition

Pinch (2005) in

Intergraph (2012)

Lean construction is a production management-based project delivery

system, emphasizing the reliable and speedy delivery of value. The goal

is to build the project while maximizing value, minimizing waste, and

pursuing perfection – for the benefit of all stakeholders

UK Constructing

Excellence in Asefeso

(2014)

Lean construction is a philosophy based on the concepts of lean

manufacturing. It is about managing and improving the construction

process to profitably deliver what the customer needs

(El-Kourd, 2009) Lean construction is defined as added value by eliminating the waste of

space floor, material and the productivity of resources

Diekmann et al. (2004) in

Gresh (2011)

Lean construction is the continuous of eliminating waste, meeting or

exceeding all customer requirements, focusing on the entire value

stream, and pursuing perfection in the execution of a constructed

project

McGraw Hill

Construction (2013)

Elimination of waste from construction processes

Koskela et al. (2002) Lean construction attempts to manage the value created by all the

work processes used between project conception and delivery.

LCDC (2011) Lean Construction extends from the objectives of a Lean production

system—maximize value and minimize waste—to specific techniques,

and applies them in a new project delivery process.

Construction Excellence

(2004)

Lean construction is about managing and improving the construction

process to profitably deliver what the customer needs.

Koskela (1992) Lean Construction is defined by a set of interconnected principles that

should be applied in an integrated way in the management of processes

to obtain the expected results.

(Pillai, Shukla, & Magar,

2016)

Lean construction is defined as the continuous process of eliminating

waste, meeting or exceeding all customers requirements, focusing on

the entire stream and pursuing perfection in the execution of the project

work.

(Somani & Minde, 2017) Lean construction is defined as a holistic facility design and delivery

philosophy with an overarching aim of maximizing value to all

stakeholders through systematic, synergistic, and continuous

improvements in the contractual arrangements, the product design, the


construction process design and methods selection, the supply chain, and

the workflow reliability of site operations.

Differences exist between lean construction and the current construction practices. Current construction

practice is based on construction management involving transactional contracts balancing, and defining

goals of different participants. Coordination of a project is managed from a focal point that creates

sequence and determines the point at which an activity starts (Manrodt, Vitasek, & Thompson, n.d.).

Errors, cost and learning take place within the processes. Reduction in the construction cost occurs from

improved productivity, with the project time shortened by streamlining the processes, or through logical

transformation to permit concurrent process. In this system, waste is defined as costs that could have

been avoided during the construction processes (Lehman & Reiser, 2000).

Lean construction, on the other hand, provides a totally different model. Construction processes are

controlled in such a way that activities are aligned to give unique customer value. Cost and time are

considered as part of the “construction system” in the project. According to the construction system, the

total budget of the project and the total duration of the project are more important than the cost and time

of individual activities. The coordination of the project is achieved by the central schedule as the details

of the flow of the work are controlled by individuals who are sincere and support the goals of the project

(Gao & Low, 2014). The primary objectives of the system include value to the customer, information

and material movement. Unlike in the current construction practices, improvements within projects are

achieved via waste reduction, thus, leading to the accomplishment of the customer’s unique needs in

minimum time (IMA, 1999).

There are different phases in the lean construction process. These are project definition, lean design,

lean supply, lean assembly and use (see Figure 2.3) (Ballard, 2000). According to Ballard and Howell

(2003), project definition includes purposes, design criteria, design concepts, cost and duration estimate

and collaborative production with customer and the entire project’s stakeholders. Lean design phase

develops the conceptual design from project definition into process design and product. LPS is applied

to the design phase, being a production control tool, with the help of IT tools such as collaborative design

software and 3D modelling. The lean supply phase includes generating detailed engineering of the

project design followed by material fabrication and delivery to site. The key benefit of the process is to

minimize inventories on site. The whole process should be done to maximize customer value. Once the

resources delivered to the site, the Lean Assembly phase starts and ends when all the works are given

over to the client. Continuous flow process should be efficiently managed through this phase (Ballard,

2008; Ballard & Howell, 2003).


Figure 2.3 Lean Project Delivery System (Ballard, 2008; Construction Industry Institute (CII), 2007)

2.2.2 The Principles of Lean Construction

According to Womack and Jones (1996), the principles of lean construction are the strategic approach

to lean thinking in construction. Furthermore, the principles define the expectations of lean construction.

As illustrated in Figure 2.4, the five principles of lean construction by different authors are analysed and

described in the following sections.

2.2.2.1 Identifying Value The customer’s idea of value, in the construction sector, is defined subjectively. Koskela (2000)

conducted a study on what the term “value” meant in different contexts; and it was discovered that value

could mean either market value or utility value. This perception of value is supported by many other

researchers as presented in lean construction papers. To gain value knowledge about a building design,

two methods are applied: value management and value engineering. Value Management is where the

customer’s demands are kept in mind while creating value through production (Bertelsen & Koskela,

2002). On the other hand, value engineering includes the analytical study of technical building design

with the aim to achieve a reduction in cost without effecting the fitness for purpose. In value

management, the focus is on designing a brief such that the demands of the client can be fulfilled in the

design and a consequent improvement in the value perception of the client (Kelly & Male, 1993).

According to Ballard and Howell (1998), a process of negotiation between the customer’s ends and

means leads to the generation of value. Lindfors (2000) defined value as the products or services that

positively affect the profits while decreasing time and cost, and improving quality for the company as

well as generating profit or value for the customer. According to Leinonen and Huovila (2000) there are

three different kinds of value: exchange value, use value and esteem value. Exchange value and use


value are pretty much like market value and utility value, respectively. However, esteem value entails a

lot more than just the customer product perception. Marosszeky, Thomas, Karim, Davis, and McGeorge

(2002) stressed the importance of working with project culture and values to achieve the desired level

of quality. A model for reinforcing the manager’s belief is applied. Finally, for every organisation or

individual, the concept of quality is different and it is influenced by worldview, culture and experience.

Lean Thinking defines value as the materials, parts or products, the things that can be materialized and

understood (Koskela, 2004b; Womack & Jones, 2003). Value can be classified as external or internal

value, where external value is what the client sees as value and therefore, the desired value of the project,

on the other hand, internal value is the value generated by the participants of the project delivery team

including the contractors, architects, designers etc. (Emmitt, Sander, & Christoffersen, 2005). According

to Emmitt et al. (2005), value is the end-goal of all construction projects, which stresses the need to

discuss and agree upon the value parameters to achieve improved productivity and customer satisfaction.

Emmitt et al. (2005) also added that value is the output of the collective efforts of all the stakeholders

and participants of the design and construction process; central to all productivity; and a comprehensive

framework is thus formulated. In lean construction, value identification is crucial and there is a need

establish it as client requires a product that fulfils its purpose and requirements and is deemed value for

money (Ballard & Howell, 2004).

2.2.2.2 Value Stream Mapping

In lean thinking, mapping the value stream is also very important. A value stream is a framework to

identify all of the necessary steps for the creation and delivery of a product to the customer (Womack

& Jones, 1996). To understand this, there is a need to map the current state. Therefore, in regard to the

implementation of lean thinking, identifying and mapping the value stream are both crucial steps and

the value stream map is an outline of procedures to help produce a valuable product and also to help to

optimise performance in the construction process (Dulaimi & Tanamas, 2001; Forbes & Ahmed, 2011).

Fewings (2013) stated that a value stream is constituted of the value-adding steps necessary in the

design, production and delivery of the product. To achieve an effective delivery process in a construction

project, it is important to minimize all the non-value adding activities that consume resources such as

space, time and money without adding value to the product (Forbes & Ahmed, 2011).

2.2.2.3 Achieving Flow in Processes

According to Fewings (2013), flow is a key procedure in idealizing and adjusting the interconnected

activities through which an item can be produced. It has been proposed that optimizing the flow be

prioritized in development as opposed to a focus on changing to the processes (Koskela & Howell,


2002). In overseeing flow, Koskela (2000) presented seven flows towards the ideal execution of a work

bundle. These flows incorporate space, team, past work, equipment, data, materials, and outside

conditions, for example, weather and climate. It should be noted that each of these flows has its own

particular nature and should be overseen in like manner. Among these flows, the physical stream of

materials is presumably the least demanding to manage, while outside conditions is a flow where things

that are impossible to manage may happen. As indicated by Garnett et al. (1998), flow is deliberately

concerned with defining an all-encompassing path or process via which an item is produced. It puts a

spotlight on divisions in the industry which disrupt the flow and can cause significant wastage. The

fundamental units of investigation in lean construction are data and assets flow.

2.2.2.4 Allowing Customer to Pull

At the strategic level, pull means ensuring the availability of the product whenever the customer needs

it. The Just in Time production mechanism is used in the pull strategy. The pull approach is ideal for

meeting the customer’s requirements of providing customised products that are delivered at a time when

the customer needs them the most (Garnett et al., 1998). We can also say that Pull denotes a company’s

capability to provide customers with the product in the minimum possible time (Bicheno, 2000).

Construction projects are more complicated and a higher level of uncertainty affects their delivery to the

customer occurring at a predetermined time. Moreover, using lesser resources and yet delivering the

product on time is further challenging (Dulaimi & Tanamas, 2001).

2.2.2.5 Pursuing Perfection

Perfection is a crucial element that needs to be integrated into the core construction process at a strategic

level. It underlines the need to arrange the workflow in a such a way that the construction product at the

time of delivery gels into the customer’s life. The actual target behind the principle of perfection is no

waste at all and this can be achieved by producing products that truly match the customer’s quality

standards, producing in an amount that the customer needs, not in excess, pricing the product fairly and

producing it on time (Bicheno, 2000). Continuous supervision and review of the work process is

essential to achieve perfection. Eradicating all the tasks that do not add any value or create hurdles in

the work process is also essential to achieve perfection (Dulaimi & Tanamas, 2001). Therefore, you

have to regularly evaluate the production process and make necessary changes as needed (Dulaimi &

Tanamas, 2001; Womack & Jones, 1996).


Figure 2.4 Lean Construction Principles (Deshmukh, 2017)

2.2.3 Benefits of Lean Construction

There are many benefits of lean construction in the construction industry. Various empirical studies

conducted in different countries, have found that lean processes applied to construction projects can

significantly lower the costs (Salem, Solomon, Genaidy, & Minkarah, 2006), and delivery times

(Diekmann et al., 2004), increase productivity (Agbulos, Mohamed, Al-hussein, Abourizk, & Roesch,

2006; Alex, Fernando, Al-Hussein, & Kung, 2008), improve relationships between working partners

(Miller, Packham, & Thomas, 2002; Salem et al., 2006; Turner Construction Company, 2012), enhance

the reliability of plans (Ballard, 2000; Cho & Ballard, 2011; Liu, Ballard, & Ibbs, 2011), increase overall

product quality (Leonard, 2006), and achieve higher levels of job satisfaction (Nahmens, Ikuma, & Khot,

2012).

Various studies have clearly shown the benefits of lean construction. In the UK, Balfour Beatty (2011),

a successful British contractor, recorded his experience of constructing a sports stadium. He stated that

Just in Time delivery of the pipe reinforcement cages was applied to the construction process of the

Emirates Stadium, which resulted in 20% higher productivity. The Last Planner System of production

control to was applied to other projects to enhance their plan reliability (Ballard, 2000). Case studies in

the Canadian construction sector, where a lean approach was used to deal with drainage issues revealed

that it resulted in 4% better outcomes (Agbulos et al., 2006) and when the approach was applied to the

installation of sewer, productivity increased 35% (Alex et al., 2008). Similarly, Song and Liang (2011)

stated that productivity in terms of formwork installation increased when simulation methods were

applied. Cho and Ballard (2011) followed Ballard (2000)’s footsteps to review various cases where the


project production system was applied and the results show a strong association between the

implementation of the Last Planner System and project performance, in terms of project cost and

delivery time. Moreover, 134 weeks of production data in the 10 working areas of a pipe installation

project were studied by Liu et al. (2011), which showed that work flow variation can be significantly

reduced by the application of the LPS that also results in higher labour productivity. The study further

established the presence of a correlation between the reliability of work flow and the productivity of the

workforce.

Salem et al. (2006) studied the advantages of applying lean construction to a car park project in Ohio,

United Sates, to find that the execution of lean construction techniques resulted in lower costs and earlier

completion of the project. The outcomes also included higher levels of satisfaction exhibited by project

subcontractors. Moreover, Song and Liang (2011)’s study confirms that shorter delivery times is one of

the crucial advantages of using the lean construction approach because it boosts cohesion between the

subcontractors. Maturana, Alarcón, Gazmuri, and Vrsalovic (2007) further studied how lean

construction benefited the subcontractors by devising a method of evaluation of on-site subcontractors

using lean based partnering practices. When this tool was used in Chile, the subcontractors were able to

significantly enhance their performance because these tools enable the provision of periodic feedback.

Nahmens et al. (2012) also conducted a study of the how US industrialized homebuilding sector was

using lean system, with findings showing an 11% increase in job satisfaction. Moreover, Yu, Al-

Hussein, Al-Jibouri, and Telyas (2011) studied the impact of lean implementation on the US modular

building industry to find that, after only 6 months of its application, their production increased 50%,

labour efficiency improved 10%, and layoff costs decreased by 18%. Leonard (2006) studied the kaizen

activities of US home builder and reported a 50% reduction in the inspection time and cost after

implementing the kaizen model.

2.2.4 Lean tools, techniques and principles that support the implementation of lean construction

The following sections contain descriptions of the lean tools, techniques and principles that support the

implementation of the lean construction processes.

The Last Planner System (LPS)

The Last Planner System (LPS) defined as a system for collaboratively managing the network of

relationship and conversations required for program coordination and production planning delivery, by

promoting conversations between trade foremen and site management at appropriate levels of the detail

before the issue becomes critical (Mossman, 2005). The LPS based on the principles of lean construction

was developed by Glenn Ballard, based on a “Should, Can and Will” approach (Ballard, 2000). The LPS


has been demonstrated to be a very effective tool for the management of the construction process, and

continuous monitoring of planning efficiency (Howell, 2000; Mossman, 2005). LPS aims to change the

focus of control from the workers to the flow of work better assignments to direct works through

continuous learning and corrective action, and to cause the work to flow across production units in the

best achievable sequence of rate (Aziz & Hafez, 2013). Based on a traditional planning system, the LPS

is used by field foremen; and the condition of (Should – Can – Will – Did) is implemented (Howell &

Ballard, 1998). Figure 2.5 represents a diagram of the LPS:

Figure 2.5 Conversations of the Last Planner System (Engineers Australia, 2012)

Typically, the last planner is a supervisor, a foreman, or a spot manager, someone who finalizes the

details of the work that is to be performed the next day (Javkhedkar, 2006). The production management

systems prove to be effective only if they detail all the work that needs to be completed, keeping in mind

how, when and what will be done and subsequently, monitor and evaluate completed work to

continuously provide improvements to the work flow (Howell & Ballard, 1998). For good results, last

planners should stick to a routine of finishing the tasks on weekly work plans.

Figure 2.5 shows what WILL be done, after evaluating what SHOULD and CAN be done in a particular

situation (Aziz & Hafez, 2013). In this framework SHOULD denotes hope; CAN indicates likelihood;

and WILL means definitely. There are four levels in the LSP (Mossman, 2008):


1. Master Schedule: the determination strategy and project milestones.

2. Phase Schedule: Pull planning, this entails handoffs and highlights operational problems.

3. Look-ahead Plan: Devise Work Ready Planning to ensure the product is suitable for

installation and prepares a plan of improvement if needed.

4. Weekly Work Plan (WWP): agreement to complete the work in the specified sequence and

pattern.

Value Stream Mapping (VSM)

Value Stream Mapping (VSM) is a tool used for flowcharting lean processes. VSM also offers

illustrations of the information flows, processes, and the control in the work flow (Rother & Shook,

2003). The tool is used to visually represent the product flows. Possessing an understanding of the

production processes, material flows, and information flows that make up the construction process in

order to apply the Lean process is essential. VSM facilitates the understanding of this phenomenon. The

VSM process can be divided into two parts: one that shows the “current state” of the process and anther

that illustrates the “future state” of the process (Jacobs & Chase, 2010). The concept of value needs to

be understood early during the design phase of the project. The process of determining value will be a

learning process between the design professionals and the client as it is a new concept. VSM is a lean

thinking analogue tool for depicting production processes and for improving conditions and

understanding for reducing variability and waste (Rother & Shook, 2000).

5S Work Organization

The 5Ss forms the foundation for lean and continuous improvement. The main idea behind the 5Ss is to

acquire, maintain and improve the standard set-up, organization and design of the workplace and ensure

that safety is intact, together with operating efficiently and decreasing waste, all done in an organized

manner. The Five Ss (5S) are a set of housekeeping guidelines for the workplace which allow for

workplace efficiency to encourage worker productivity and minimisation of waste related to the

organization of the workplace (O'Connor & Swain, 2013).

Each internal customer, via the 5Ss, should be able to develop an ideal environment that engenders pride

and satisfaction in their workforce. People with feelings of contentment and pride towards their

workplace yield better results. Utilization of the 5Ss can be in any of the areas such as offices, storage

areas and site areas. Improved arrangement and set-up of an office or a desk can also be achieved through

this. The workers themselves should perform this betterment process through the 5Ss. The five Ss are

classified as (O'Connor & Swain, 2013; Tezel, 2007):


1. Seiri (Sort): Sorting of things should be done on the basis of its frequency of use;

consequently, allow easy access to regularly used things.

2. Seiton (Set/Straighten): Motion required for finding or obtaining an object should be

minimized to minimize the waste, by providing easy access to required items.

3. Seiso (Shine): A clean and tidy environment and machines will increase the satisfaction level

of the workers, while decreasing waste due to a messy environment.

4. Seiketsu (Standardize): Standardized procedures should be easily understandable to

implement the first 3 Ss all over the workplace.

5. Shitsuke (Sustain): This process should be sustained through promotions, training, and

control, and applied consistently in day-to-day activities.

The 5Ss are ideally suited for a construction site to create easy access to things throughout the site and

to create a safer working environment, and consequently, higher morale and worker satisfaction will be

achieved through a good working environment.

The 5S's activities are very useful for the construction site, because they create a safer working

environment, make things in site easier to see, promotes a good working environment resulting in

improved morale and image.

Kaizen (Continuous Improvement)

According to Tezel (2007), the key element of a lean production system is continuous improvement.

Continuous improvement can further be divided into gradual improvement and periodic big leaps. The

lean production philosophy supports gradual continuous improvement, and from the initial stages

onward encourages regular planned improvements (Kaizen) (Ohno, 1988). Overall, it requires a mindset

that is unwilling to accept the status quo. Thus, everyone involved in the process needs to be vigilant in

identifying and resolving core problems and not to simply treat the symptoms, be open to trying and

implementing new ideas and holistic solutions proposed by team members, show appreciation for good

work, aim to turn challenges into opportunities, and believe that processes can always be enhanced and

improved.

Each process, piece of equipment, training mechanism and principle of a lean system should emphasize

continuous improvement. Kaizen also provides an environment with satisfied and content workers,

functioning in safer surroundings. Continuous improvement can be efficiently implemented through

quantitative (statistical) and qualitative tools. P. D. C. A. (Plan- Do- Check- Act) improvement circle, a

well-known method from Deming can be utilized for continuous improvement. Constant measurements

of the processes are done. A new challenging target for better service is specified and a comparison with

the present situation is conducted. After implementation of the suggested improvements, the processes


are measured again. A standard is set, and if the suggested improvements work better than the current

environment then they become part of the permanent new processes. The measurement stage is reached

again, and the cycle continues (Tezel, 2007).

Total Quality Management (TQM)

Most organisations acquire Total Quality Management (TQM) to increase the productivity and quality

and achieve a competitive position (Hunt, 1992). According to Besterfield (1995), TQM can be

explained as a philosophy along with the set of guiding principles which builds a foundation for constant

growth in an organisation. Ross (1999) define TQM a management strategy through which a quality

consciousness is instilled in every organisational process. The objective of TQM is also to sustain the

quality standards for the entire organization. TQM includes the incorporation of all functions and

processes in an organisation, in order to achieve constant growth of its products and services to fulfil

the requirements of the customer. Achieving quality starts with understanding the requirements of the

customer until the requirements are completely met.

Deming’s 14 points build the foundation for TQM (Saunders, 1995), additionally there are six key areas

that explain the philosophy:

• Managerial leadership and commitment

• Continuous improvement

• Complete satisfaction of the customer

• Education and training

• Involvement and empowerment given to the employee

• Recognizing and rewarding accordingly

Through the TQM programme a non-ending environment of continuous improvement (kaizen) is created

in achieve customer satisfaction through products and services (Moody, 1997). To some extent both

TQM and lean, are considered to be tools, practices, cultures or managerial principles, and they both

follow the concept of continuous improvement with the assistance of employees and problem solving.

TQM ideology is based on an emphasis on the customer; and on the process itself along with its result;

it is about training and empowering workers; prevention of detects rather than detection, good

communication and flow of information to assist decision makers (Jablanski, 1992). TQM based on

these principles can assist lean implementation and practices as a support system or a tool.


Visual Management (VM)

Visual Management (VS) ensures that things can easily be viewed. VM is based on the fact that most

people respond to visual prompts and get more involved in things that they can see clearly and

understand. All over an organization VM can be used to immediately communicate unambiguous so it

can be quickly understood. Construction sites are utilizing VM in various forms, e.g. on board signs for

hazardous or dangerous situations, and colour-coding of fire extinguishers and electrical wiring etc. A

lean construction environment could also utilize the following (O'Connor & Swain, 2013):

• Future work plans based on teams or work area displayed on communication boards, areas of

work shown through marked site layouts and at times colour-coded by trade or function, plans

related to traffic and material logistics, issues and action sheets, charts or graphs used as

performance measures, improvements and successes etc.

• Progress markers to depict work finished within a particular period time, the progress of the

work and work still outstanding.

• Markings displayed on the floor to indicate walkways and where tools, materials and plant are

located to create a workplace that is easy and efficient to navigate and is safe for workers.

High performance is constantly achieved through strong communication practices, as part of visual

management. As a result of viewing and consequently, understanding, the plan is made simple, the status

of the plan or performance and how to achieve it is made clear, concerns that could impact the plan

and/or performance and solutions for any outstanding issue are highlighted; and thus productivity and

quality is increased through safety and efficiency, and working relationships are supported etc.

(O'Connor & Swain, 2013).

Concurrent Engineering

Concurrent engineering is a process whereby various development tasks are performed simultaneously

by multidisciplinary teams, and as a result considering functionality, quality, and productivity the best

possible product is acquired (Rolstadås, 1995). Diagrams, charts, and algorithms alone will not fulfil the

requirement of concurrent engineering. Therefore, to formulate and sift out ideas, communication and

sharing of information by a multidisciplinary team is vital (Kamara, 2003). Participation by everyone

involved in the process, starting with the initial stages, is key to success in lean product process

development as noted by Gil, Tommelein, Kirkendall, and Ballard (2000). Establishing a healthy

relationship with the client can be extremely beneficial, not only to assist in the concurrent engineering

efforts but it can potentially curb project costs. A positive result may be yielded from concurrent

engineering efforts by keeping subcontractors and suppliers as partners.


Just In Time (JIT)

Just after the conclusion of the World War II, the Toyota Production System spawned a new

management philosophy, Just In Time (JIT), comprising three facets: people, plant, and systems. From

its origins in keeping inventory levels in check, it subsequently developed into a managerial philosophy

that broadened to encompass the tasks of maximizing quality, while minimizing costs, of deliverables

(Almeida, 2002).

As an example, JIT could be used to manage the transfer of materials to the construction site, according

to which materials are required on site for immediate use in the construction process, without than

wasting time putting the materials in temporary storage in a laydown or staging area until they are later

required on site. At each step during the process, the main aim of JIT is to deliver timely, accurate

quantities of the correct material (Tommelein & YiLi, 1999). The three elements of JIT are summarized

in the following (Almeida, 2002):

1) People: This includes the stakeholders, e.g. employees, stockholders, suppliers, managers,

customers and labor organizations for support of the mission of the organization.

2) Plant: JIT implementation can involve considerable alterations to the layout of the plant to ensure

maximum flexibility and flow. The implementation of a “pull-strategy” is enabled by the layout of

the plant, where the quantity and time of initiation of production is determined by the demand. The

workers should be given control by the plant organization to stop the system, if any defective part

is detected during inspections or operations.

3) Systems: This includes processes for the management of activities and materials. A limited

number of specialized suppliers are included for the purchase of any part or material in a JIT

implementation. Alongside the organization, the suppliers work to receive support in terms of

finances and technicality, along with a long-term contractual relationship. On the other hand,

suppliers are required to deliver defect-free materials and parts in the accurate quantities with

punctuality. Assurance of the quality is the main concern while preparing the materials; in

contrast to ‘after the fact’ inspection/quality control, the supplier must follow the ‘quality at the

source’ approach.

A JIT system minimizes material handling and storage costs. JIT adopts Taiichi Ohno’s idea of

excluding the non-value added activities by discarding activities such as moving and storing material

that increases cost without adding value and thus produces waste. Waste as a result of overproduction,

transportation, unnecessary motion, and via the production of defective parts is also minimised. The

main characteristics of the JIT process are (Almeida, 2002):


• Limited number of suppliers: Companies utilizing JIT function with fewer suppliers that deliver

in smaller quantities more frequently. Deliveries can be made on a several times a day basis, not

altering the quantities stated by the buyers. The process is based on dependability.

• Plant Layout: Manufacturing flow lines in an organization should be improved to implement JIT

in an effective way. A factory within a factory sort of setup is built in which all the required machines

are located in a single surrounding, in order to manufacture a particular product.

• Flexible workforce: A multi-skilled and flexible workforce is required for JIT to troubleshoot

minor problems, in addition to running maintenance during idle times.

• Setup time: In a JIT manufacture, steps to minimize the setup time should be taken. A single product

or a single product line is usually used for most equipment thus eradicating the setup and producing

the required batches.

• Defective parts: Companies JIT implementing are dedicated to avoiding delay during the process

caused by defective parts, thus minimizing them is their goal. The required target for those

companies is zero defects.

Fail Safe for Quality and Safety

The “Poka-Yoke” devices were introduced by Shingo (1986) to stop defective parts from going through

the process. Possible defects are identified through a fail safe for quality, which is based on an openness

to try new ideas and strategies to identify detects. Traditionally, in contrast to this approach, only a

sample of the materials were inspected and thus defective parts were allowed through and detected after

the process. This approach shares similarities to the lean manufacturing process of Visual inspection.

For safety risk assessment, potential hazards instead of potential defects are found, because of the tool

used from traditional manufacturing practice, therefore, the fail safe should not be extended to safety.

Action plans are required by elements to prevent worst consequences. Implementation of lean

construction logic for improvement requires a certain sequence of initiatives, which progressively reveal

additional opportunities (Ballard, 1997).

Daily Huddle Meetings

Employee involvement is determined through two-way communication, for example, in the form of the

daily huddle meeting process (Salem et al., 2005; Schwaber, 1995). To improve employee satisfaction

in areas such as job meaningfulness, self-esteem, sense of growth etc., providing project awareness and

involvement during problem solving and training through other tools should be provided. With the daily

huddle process, a short meeting is held initially every day as the lean construction model is followed.

This way, team members will be able to convey the status of their work done the previous day, and

importantly, discuss any problems faced in completing their tasks (Salem et al., 2005).


First Run Studies (Plan, Do, Check, Act)

Ballard and Howell (1997) describes First Run Studies as a tool for redesigning critical assignments as

part of continuous improvement effort, including productivity studies and by redesigning and

streamlining the different functions involved to review work methods. To depict the process or to

illustrate work instructions in First Run Studies, video files, photos, and/or graphics are utilised

(Abdelhamid & Salem, 2005). A comprehensive study of the assignment should be carried out in the

first run, including providing suggestions and ideas for alternate ways of performing the task.

Developing the study through a PDCA cycle (plan, do, check, act) is recommended (Forbes & Ahmed,

2011). Selection of the work process for study, gathering people, analysing process steps, brainstorming

to reduce the steps, and checking for safety, quality and productivity are part of the ‘plan’ (Salem et al.,

2006). Attempting the ideas on the first run is ‘do’. Describing and measuring the outcome is ‘check’.

After regrouping the team, ‘act’ is conveying to the team that the improved method is the new standard.

Similarities to a combination of the lean production tools, graphic work instructions, and the traditional

manufacturing technique, time and motion study are observed in this tool (Abdelhamid & Salem, 2005).

The Five Why’s

Repeating ‘why’ (5 whys) five times, when facing a problem will assist in reaching the core of the

problem (Nicholas, 1998). This scientific approach has been installed by the Toyota production system

in order to be practiced and evolved. It got the name from the fact that the core of the problem is reached

after ‘why’ is asked at least five times (Bicheno, 2004). It works on a simple strategy of the workforce

and the management by asking ‘why’ again and again when facing a problem. This will expose the

initial cause of the problem and continue until the cause is re completely exposed and then the problem

can be solved so that it doesn’t reoccur. The quality of the design improves when all the required

corrections are completed after detecting the root of a problem in the design. Supposedly, superiority in

quality, reliability and productivity in the Japanese motor industry has been achieved through use of this

tool.

Build-in quality (Jidoka)

Jidoka refers to a Japanese concept that relates to ensuring that production from one station to another

is free from defects and that the use of people to rum the machines is eliminated as much as possible

(Liker, 2004). The key concept is to uphold the quality during processing to the extent that in the event

a defect or problem is detected, the entire process is halted. The idea may be quite common for

construction firms, owing to the fact that it aligns well with the key concept of TQM (Low & Teo, 2004).

The term “inspect quality in” is commonly used to depict how Jidoka functions. In a construction


process, the Jidoka concept can be implemented by a construction company by utilizing error-proof

devices alongside the establishment of a “build-in quality’ aspect as part of the culture. According to

Diekmann et al. (2004), relevant stakeholders should be encouraged to facilitate the use of error-proof

devices through various endeavours including:

• Construction companies can ensure error proofing through standardizing processes;

• Suppliers should be vigilant to identify any items that have been marked, modified or tampered

with;

• Designers could employ standard design features and elements.

Other means that need to be used to help create a culture of ‘build-in quality’ including empowerment

of employees and training, among others. This will work to change worker’s mindsets and motivate

them to maintain quality in processing (Gao & Low, 2014). Furthermore, with respect to establishing

the ‘build-in’ quality culture, this may involve training, empowerment etc., to change mindsets and to

ensure employees are willing to take responsibility for quality.

Heijunka (level out the workload)

Heinjuka, simply translated as “levelling out the workload”, is among the most difficult of these

concepts to be implemented in the construction sector (Gao & Low, 2014). The idea is used in tandem

with a lean manufacturing approach to address the effect of flow variability. The major variation in this

concept compared to its manufacturing counterpart is the different time requirements for the elements

needed in construction. It should be considered that the heinjunka model and the last planner system

have major similarities. The last planner system, which is sometimes used in place of lean construction,

has extensive documentation in the literature (Ballard, 2000). The last planner refers to an approach

which is used to support the achievement of plans in a manner that is timely (Ballard, 2000). In Heinjuka,

the four levels of plans, which are looking-ahead, master plan, weekly plan and phase plan, are adopted.

However, the emphasis is placed on empowering the foreman so that he or she is able to commit himself

or herself to the day-to-day or weekly tasks that he/she is able to deliver within a given time. This is

meant to accord the foreman a sense of ownership of the project.

Andon system

The andon system refers to a visual management instrument that is commonly employed in

manufacturing systems for the purpose of showcasing the status of ongoing operations. Biotto, Mota,

Araújo, Barbosa, and Andrade (2014) state that the andon system had been extensively employed by

manufacturing firms to enhance the quality of production. However, its use within the construction

industry has been very limited. Nonetheless, Kemmer et al. (2006) points out that the andon system has


been successfully applied in construction with positive results, especially in high rise buildings, where

it utilizes the electrical infrastructure of a building to make it easy for employees to request assistance

and avoid interruptions to activities. The technology has been adopted mostly in horizontal residential

projects, which are mostly forced by huge distances to be wired and covered.

Plan of Conditions and Work Environment in the Construction Industry (PCMAT)

Given that safety activities tend to create constraints when scheduling tasks in construction projects,

Saurin, Formoso, and Guimarães (2004) propose the inclusion of PCMAT as a health and safety plan to

aid in the execution of lean construction projects. In spite of the rising frequency of accidents at the

place of work, many construction companies tend to adopt only mandatory regulations for their health

and safety management strategies (Fonseca, Lima, & Duarte, 2014). However, it is apparent that

complying only with these regulations is not enough to guarantee the required health and safety

standards, given that they are based on the minimal measures (Sarhan et al., 2017). PCMAT, therefore,

comes in as an effective planning strategy for health and safety requirements. These safety activities can

generate limitations for scheduled tasks and that is why PCMAT should be embraced as a part of

assignments. All safety practices are, therefore, amalgamated in short-term planning, which can be

analyzed through daily feedback from crew and subcontractors.

Pull ‘kanban’ system In the automotive industry, Kanban follows the lean approach as a mechanism to pull materials and parts

throughout the value stream based on a just-in-time approach. Kanban in the Japanese language means

‘card’ or ‘sign’ and the name comes from the inventory control card which used in a pull system (The

Productivity Press Development Team, 2002). To fulfil a requirement, in the right quantity, at the right

time, is the main objective of the pull system.

Kanban is an advanced visual control system based on a lean manufacturing environment with its main

emphasis on eliminating overproduction, increasing flexibility to respond to customer demand, and

elimination of waste thus decreasing costs. Two types of kanbans developed in this environment are

transport kanbans and production kanbans (The Productivity Press Development Team, 2002).

Transport kanbans either indicate the need to replenish materials from a preferred supplier, i.e. supplier

kanbans or to indicate the movement of parts or subassemblies from within the factory to the production

line, i.e. in-factory kanbans. On the other hand, production kanbans either indicate the initiation of the

production, i.e. production-ordering kanban or indicate if machinery changeovers are required i.e. signal

kanban.


In building construction, there are two types of kanbans that can be used: production and transportation

kanbans and transportation only kanbans (Heineck, Rocha, Pereira, & Leite, 2009). Production and

transportation of the mortar on the site is the first type used and the second type used is for transportation

of materials produced offsite, e.g. bricks and ceramic tiles (Heineck et al., 2009). A production kanban

for mortar, for example, is built from plastic paper and comprises information about the quantity of the

mortar to be produced, the mortar type, the floor number for delivery and the required time of the

delivery. Similarly, a transportation kanban comprises information about the material to be transported,

the quantity of material, the floor number of the delivery and the required time of the delivery (Heineck

et al., 2009).

Kanban use in building construction produces benefits such as decreased waste, e.g. mortar, increased

engagement and autonomy of employees and managers via decentralized decision-making, curbing of

operational flow, and tighter material inventory control aligned with demand (Heineck et al., 2009).

Standardized Work Standardized work forms the foundation for continuous improvement in lean production, while

standardising both the product and process (Moghadam, 2014). Included in the standardization is that

the production rate for each process be the same as Takt time with no variability; that a particular task

be performed in the same manner throughout; to decrease set-up time and process time variation, product

design is standardized; and to allow for continuous production, inventory is standardised. Each product

is distinct in lean construction; thus, the production system is adopted. Visual management, i.e. posting

project information such as schedule and cost; workplace organization. e.g. organization of workplace

resources so workers can work efficiently; and work processes defined and documented, are all

important elements of standardization (Moghadam, 2014).

Partnering Partnering is a long-term commitment which includes two or more organizations with the aim to achieve

a particular business objective together by obtaining the maximum potential of the resources available

at each point (Ogunbiyi, Oladapo, & Goulding, 2012; Sarhan et al., 2017). The foundation of partnership

is based on achievement of common targets, understanding the values and expectations of the other

partner(s) and, importantly, trust. Partnerships yield common benefits that may include cost

effectiveness and increased efficiency, greater innovation, and the improvement of quality products and

services on a constant basis (Packham, Thomas, & Miller, 2003). Bubshait (2001) explains partnering

as an effective and innovative concept for project organization; and the rewards of partnering come in

the form of cost reduction and lesser conflict in the construction industry.


Total Productive maintenance (TPM)

Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) is a tool that enhances lean and was developed specifically for

TPS. The objective of applying TPM is the elimination of waste resulting from defects and unscheduled

downtown of equipment, and accidents (Ogunbiyi & Goulding, 2013). Thus, an empowered employee

under TPS is trained to carry out maintenance as opposed to engaging specialized engineers. Total

Productive Maintenance requires total participation from all organizational levels and functions

(Enaghani, Arashpour, & Karimi, 2009; Sarhan et al., 2017), and it is meant to raise the overall

effectiveness of machinery used in the processes of lean construction. TPM occurs as a continuous

program, and the objective of incorporating TPM is to increase output while also raising the morale and

job satisfaction of workers.

Computer Aided Design (CAD) models

Computer Aided Design (CAD) is a demonstration of how workspaces and temporary facilities can be

generated to eliminate the conflict between construction plans and spaces (Sacks, Treckmann, &

Rozenfeld, 2009). CAD models allow for the simulation and analysis of possible scenarios before the

work is executed on site (Björnfot & Jongeling, 2007). The use of CAD, therefore, is to aid in visualizing

the design decisions and to improve how decisions regarding the design phase are communicated.

Workers also get the opportunity to focus on the relevant tasks in a workspace that is customized to their

activities which would have otherwise created waste in terms of rework and errors. An adequate

visualization of the progress of the entire project encourages workers to improve their coordination,

which in turn facilitates work flow. When considered in the perspective of lean construction projects

control, CAD applications tend to address the lean requirements in terms of construction planning and

design (R. Sacks et al., 2009; Sarhan et al., 2017).

Pull Planning

Pull planning follows the lean construction practice where all the participants collaboratively work back

from the end goal towards the starting point, progressing step by step to achieve each milestone (Falk,

2017). Working backwards adds a uniqueness to pull planning as compared to other lean construction

techniques, and in addition, a higher level of collaboration is required for this method in comparison to

other lean methods. All the stakeholders work collectively on the construction project, through joint

expertise as a single group work to recognize potential problems and thus, time spent on the project is

minimized.

A hand-written timeline and colour-coded sticky notes for each task is presented in pull planning. The

timeline is then filled with sticky notes, so that every stakeholder can visualize the order of tasks and


task dependencies, moreover, delays may be avoided by detecting possible overlap of tasks or

dependencies (Falk, 2017).

Six Sigma

Pyzdek (2003) defined Six Sigma as an implementation of proven quality principles and techniques

combined in a rigorous, focused and highly effective manner. Business success can be achieved,

sustained and maximised through this comprehensive and flexible system (Pyzdek, 2003). According to

Van Seaton (2010), Six Sigma is principles-based rigorous application for continuous process

improvement methods, tools and analysis done based on statistics. Created in 1980 by Motorola

Corporation in the United States, Six Sigma was designed to provide a powerful approach for business

process improvements in the manufacturing, services and transactional industries (Hayler & Nichols,

2007). After employing Six Sigma, Motorola gained popularity as a leader in quality and profitability

and in 1988 they received the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, after which the public came

to know the secret of their success. The objective behind Six Sigma is to understand the needs of the

customer, using facts, data and statistical analysis in a well-organized way, and a focus on business

processes for ongoing management, improvement, and reinvention (Ogunbiyi et al., 2012; Pande,

Neuman, & Cavanagh, 2000; Sarhan et al., 2017).

DMAIC was presented by Bicheno (2004) as a methodology of Six Sigma as described below:

• D- Define the problem

The opinion of the customer and business, and value stream mapping provide useful input during the

‘define’ stage of the process. The first step of the ‘define’ stage is to identify the main problem for which

a solution is required, and in the final step a clear understanding of the scope of the problem is achieved

with evidence of authorisation and ongoing support from management via allocation of required

resources (Pepper & Spedding, 2010; Shankar, 2009). A clear and concise view of the problem should

be provided and an explanation of the purpose of the project, team members, scope, probable limitations

and resource requirements must be presented. The people included in the process should know what is

at stake, when the project’s goal will be achieved, and who is responsible for what actions (Goldsby &

Martichenko, 2005).

• M- Measure the performance or problem

This ‘measurement’ stage is an assessment of the problem (Goldsby & Martichenko, 2005). During the

‘measure’ stage, basic information about the process that requires problem solving should be revealed.

The initial step is collection of data to quantify the problem. Shankar (2009) identified four essential

steps to be accomplished during the stage as:


Ø Create a process map of the present state to understand the activities in the process.

Ø Carry out a failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to understand the position of risk in the

process.

Ø Calculate the process capability and then determine to what extent the process meets customer

expectations.

Ø Assess the measurement system to check the accuracy of the reported data and to ensure there are

no inherent variations due to the way in which data are collected.

• Analyze the cause of variation and defects

During the ‘analyze’ stage the cause and effect relationship between process performance and the

process inputs are indicated (Goldsby & Martichenko, 2005; Shankar, 2009). In terms of CTQs, causes

for a performance gap are measured, and a solution(s) is proposed for the problem. The solution that

gives the best process performance is then selected.

• Improve

During the ‘improve’ stage, after getting to the core of the problem, actions to correct the problem should

be taken. Note that the same problem may also occur in other companies, therefore, any improvements

implemented via this process can provide a competitive edge.

• C- Control

The last stage of the DMAIC process is ‘Control’, where the emphasis is on regular improvements.

Thus, even when projects appear to be running smoothly and goals are achieved, as soon as the project

strays or any change is observed in the environment, corrective action should be immediately taken to

resolve any problems and improve the processes. The ‘Control’ phase of the DMAIC is grounded in

motivation and measurement.

Combined Lean and Six Sigma initiatives by a few companies have yielded good results. A level of

organisational focus and maturity that includes lean practices, the theory of constraint, and total quality

management is required to achieve these results (Loubser, 2003). Among lean and Six Sigma initiatives,

goals and tools are the common ground. Achieving superiority in all business performance improvement

and productivity, such as cost, quality, responsiveness, and design innovation can be achieved after

implementing a combined lean and Six Sigma initiative approach.

Modularization/ Prefabrication

Modular construction is a tool that assists in achieving the lean process goals with respect to adding

value and eliminating waste as construction speed is embodied in the lean construction concept


(Mehany, 2015). Modular construction may be the latest trend in lean construction, but modular

construction has existed since 1850 when construction speed in the US and Canada was revolutionized

because of the balloon framing system. It was also used during the early 19th century when Sears,

Roebuck & Co. produced home kit assemblies from the 1910s to 1940s in the first mass production of

modular homes in the history of the US, and then after WWII, modular buildings were revolutionized

even further (Marquit & LiMandri, 2013).

The Modular construction approach has many benefits that contribute to lean construction and build on

the foundation of lean principles. Some benefits of the modular construction are as follows (NRC, 2009;

Tam, Tam, Zeng, & Ng, 2007; Yahya & Mohamad, 2011):

1. Improved speed of the overall construction process

2. Less waste throughout the whole construction process

3. Increased labor productivity

4. Improvement in work supervision

5. Less impact from the environment, such as weather

6. Improved construction schedules

7. Requirements for material storage and handling are lowered

8. Worker safety is improved and risk exposure is reduced

The benefits of modular construction have become well-known owing to their contribution to the

concepts of using recycled materials in the process and using Building Information Modelling (BIM),

and as a result communication in the lean process is improved within these modular or prefabricated

construction approaches (Hao, 2012; Lu & Korman, 2010; MBI, 2010). Therefore, productivity is

increased and waste is reduced or eliminated as a result of the implementation of modular construction

into the lean construction process.

Target Costing

Target costing is a management practice for delivering customer values through design, within the

limitations of the project. Also known as target value design (Ballard, 2007), its purpose is to minimize

the product’s overall cost throughout its lifetime. Many disciplines are involved here including research,

design, engineering and production management. Cost is taken as an input into the design process in the

target costing approach rather being the output as it would be in traditional processes. Target costing in

the project initiates during the design phase and the cost is known even before completion of the design.

Consequently, the cost requirements and the project requirements are closely interlinked. And the target

cost must not be exceeded (Cooper & Slagmulder, 1997).

Summary


As shown in Table 2.4, the lean tools, techniques and principles are well differentiated. The techniques

are defined processes to undertake lean processes, while the tools are devices for actualising lean

processes. The principles are neither tools nor techniques. However, they are processes, often

management processes, that aligns with the lean thinking, and as a result, can be followed to achieve

lean goals. Furthermore, it could be seen that many of these lean tools, techniques and principles

originated from the manufacturing sector. Examples are the LPS, VSM, 5S, TQM, CE, and the JIT. Still,

some others originated from the manufacturing sector in Japan. They are: Kaizen, fail safe (poka-yoke),

Jidoka, Heijunka, Andon and Kanban. This classification suggests that the concept of lean is well

developed in the manufacturing sector. Therefore, the sector is a valid context for developing the concept

of lean in the construction industry. Meanwhile, the PCMAT, partnering, pull planning and CAD models

can be related to the construction industry context. Together, they are proposed to facilitate the

implementation of lean construction in this study.

Table 2.4 Differences Among Lean Techniques, Tools and Principle

Techniques Tools Principles

Last Planner System (LPS) Value Stream Mapping (VSM)

Total Quality Management (TQM)

5S Visual Management Concurrent Engineering (CE) Kaizen Fail Safe (Poka-Yoke) Just-in-Time (JIT) Kanban CAD models Daily Huddle Meetings Plan Do Act Check (PDCA) Heijunka Jidoka Andon Standardises Work Partnering

Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)

Pull Planning Six Sigma Prefabrication/Modularisation Target Costing

Manufacturing related Manufacturing related (Japan) Construction related

Last Planner System (LPS) Kaizen PCMAT Value Stream Mapping (VSM) Fail Safe (Poka-Yoke) Partnering 5S Jidoka Pull Planning Total Quality Management (TQM) Heijunka CAD models Concurrent Engineering (CE) Andon Just-in-Time (JIT) Kanban 5Whys Standardised work


Six Sigma Prefabrication/Modularisation

2.2.5 Construction Waste

According to Viana, Formoso, and Kalsaas (2012), understanding the concept of construction waste in

the construction industry is limited. As a result, despite that understanding the concept helps reduce the

barriers to performance improvement (Koskela, Sacks, & Rooke, 2012), construction waste is

interpreted differently by different stakeholders in the construction industry (Koskela & Bølviken,

2013). Nonetheless, many types of construction waste can be identified in the construction industry, and

they are described below.

Overproduction

Overproduction as a waste includes the production of more than is required at the time of fabrication. It

can also include early installation or fabrication of materials. The overproduction of construction

documents is also included in this category of waste (Koskela, 2009). The design architecture may also

design processes that go beyond what is required to meet construction codes and customer requirements.

It can also include the outcome of construction due to speculation or supposed economic changes.

Overproduction is costly and time consuming (Koskela, 2009).

To eliminate overproduction from your everyday routine, focus on (Decker, 2016):

• Producing materials just in time (JIT) instead of just in case.

• Implementing processes for every procedure and task you complete.

• Keeping processes flowing to prevent bottlenecks.

Waiting

Whenever the construction processes involve an ineffective use of time, then the result is waiting waste.

In the construction setting, waiting waste occurs in instances where all processes are not moving or

being worked on (Hines & Rich, 1997). Waiting waste has an effect on both goods and workers. Both

spend time waiting for completion. On the contrary, an ideal state should not have waiting time, but

rather a faster flow of the processes. The time spent on waiting may on the other hand used for training,

maintenance or other important activities without posing the risk of overproduction (Ballard, 2008).

Alwi (2003) revealed that waiting is the most occurring type of waste in Indonesian and Australian

construction projects. L. F. Alarcon (1997) identified waiting construction wastes in the Netherlands.

The most appropriate lean construction tool to address waiting wastes in the construction processes is

activity mapping. The approach is likely to improve process understanding, therefore eliminating the

conditions that would lead to waiting waste (Lapinski, Horman, & Riley, 2006) .


Inventory

Inventory is the work in progress between the operations and materials already purchased from the

supply chain. Most of the time, excess inventory results from overproduction that is the outcome of

processes with long cycle times (Koskela, 2009). Unnecessary inventory has the potential to increase

the lead time, preventing instant detection of problems and creating a demand for additional space. This

then discourages the process of communication. Sarhan et al. (2017), therefore, concluded that

inventories contribute to hiding problems. Correcting problems first require that the problems are found

and this is only possible by reducing inventory. Furthermore, excess inventory comes at a cost, therefore,

lowering the organization’s competitiveness. The 5Ss of LEAN are best suited to eliminate inventory

waste (Hines & Rich, 1997). These are sorting the waste; straightening to set aside the needed items;

shining to ensure the workspace is kept neat and clean, and standardizing to ensure the former Ss become

everyday habits.

Correction

When a mistake occurs that requires extra time and resources to correct, correctional waste and

subsequent rework is deemed necessary. This type of waste comprises activities like redoing the sections

that have errors, to refabricating materials to accommodate changes in design (Ferng & Price, 2005).

Lapinski et al. (2006) further argue that the perfection tool can be used to eliminate the potential of

defects and rework occurring in daily routines. The tool requires that the organization has a full

understanding of required procedures and customer demands before the onset of the task. Checklists and

standardized work plans may be incorporated to realize the difference (Ferng & Price, 2005).

Material Movement

The unnecessary movement of materials and work in progress adds no value to the process. Rather than

enhancing the movement of the materials, lean construction first advocates to minimize or eliminate the

unnecessary movements (Koskela, 2009). Goods do need to be moved about during the construction

processes; however, Mao and Zhang (2008) argue that any movement of materials within the site can

be considered a waste. This, therefore, calls for minimizing the movement of materials rather than

eliminating it entirely. In addition, double handling of materials, as well as excessive movements, leads

to damages and deterioration of the materials. The distance covered before communication occurs is

also proportional to the time taken to relay feedback, creating the risk of generating poor quality reports

and minimal corrective action (Mao & Zhang, 2008). Process activity mapping stands out as the

approach to eliminate unnecessary activities, to simplify or combine others and to seek to change the

sequence of certain activities to reduce waste. Improvement approaches should be mapped out before

settling on the best approach for implementation.


Motion

Motion in construction relates to stretching, bending or walking too far as a result of an inappropriate

location or workplace configuration. Unnecessary motion may also come from the design of tools,

fixtures or parts of inventories (Koskela, 2009) and it involves processes where workers have to stretch

and pick up objects where these actions should be avoidable. Such waste serves only to exhaust

employees and will only lead to poor productivity and quality issues (Mao & Zhang, 2008). The simplest

lean construction tool for eliminating the waste of motion is the 5Ss (Earley, 2017), which challenges

construction teams to review every step of their operation, therefore eliminating potential areas of waste.

Furthermore, the tool would cost the team nothing.

Processing

Non-value adding processing methods or ineffective methods are another source of waste. The waste

may be due to historical factors and organizational reluctance to improve methods that appear to work.

Manufacturability and maintenance are the keys to eliminating the waste. Processing waste can also

mean polishing or finishing in certain areas that is more than required by the client. Over-processing can

occur when complex procedures are performed in areas where a simple process would suffice (El-

Namrouty & Abushaaban, 2013). Lean construction advocates the application of simpler low cost

machinery and processes (Koskela, 2009). The ideal solution is to have small machines that produce the

required quality. These machines need to be located close to the subsequent operations (Hines & Rich,

1997). All undertakings should be recorded, with details of the distance covered; time taken and

employees involved. The approach will serve to eliminate unnecessary processes while simplifying

others, thus reducing waste.

Making-Do

This is the eighth waste category. It is missing in the seven waste categories given by Toyota. Making-

do is the circumstance in which the task is begun without all the required standard inputs in place. It can

also mean the continuation of the execution of the task despite the absence of at least one of the standard

inputs (Koskela, 2004a, 2009). Input in this way refers to machinery, personnel, tools, instructions, and

external conditions among others, it does not only refer to materials (Koskela, 2004a). Making-do is

eliminated by the provision of a set of components and information required to a complete a given

process. The suggestion is that a construction process need not start before until all the items required

to complete the process are available (Koskela, 2004a, 2009). Figure 2.6 shows a summary of the eight

types construction waste in the construction industry.


Figure 2.6 The Eight Types of Waste in the Construction Industry (Koskela, 2004a, 2009; Liker, 2004)

2.2.6 Lean Construction Frameworks

A lean construction framework of interrelated activities that provides the steps required for the

implementation process is required (Banawi, 2013; Lehman & Reiser, 2000). In addition, they are

guidelines for the application of lean construction strategies that enables the proactive control

of the performance of construction projects in the construction industry (Al-Aomar, 2012b;

Swefie, 2013). The use of a framework to implement lean construction helps to achieve significant

project success, especially in terms of cost, time and quality performance (Al-Aomar, 2012b). Therefore,

the following section describes the existing lean construction frameworks in the literature in a

chronological manner.

Socio-technical system of lean construction According to Paez, Salem, Solomon, and Genaidy (2005) a socio technical design serves to combine

technical as well as the human subsystem into the same work design. It is critical to note that lean

construction and lean manufacturing are sub sets of the same socio-technological design due to the fact

that they share objectives, activities and workforce capabilities. They only differ because their technical

systems do not match. On the same basis, a more critical analysis of a socio technical system that

encompasses lean construction and lean manufacturing was discussed by Paez et al. (2005) in Figure

2.7. The framework’s analysis indicates that a lean enterprise occurs when there is intended effort

towards operational improvement that focuses on the joint effort of technical and human elements

inherent in the model.


Figure 2.7 Lean construction as socio-technological design (Paez et al., 2005)

Lean construction models from the perspective of policy makers A study by Green and May (2005) identified three lean models from the perspective of policy makers

in the construction industry. In summary, model 1 focusses mainly on the hardware used in lean

production, hence by enhancing efficiency through cutting out unnecessary costs as opposed to

focussing on the elimination of wastes. The same authors also identified model 2 that focuses on ‘project

partnering’ and ‘strategic partnering’. These two models suffer from limitations of non-incorporation of

human resource practices. In addition, the model 2 is insufficient owing to the fact that it's on introduces

two major aspects without consideration of the fact that the partnership would be one sided. Finally,

Green and May (2005) identified model 3 which is considered the most sophisticated of them all. The

reason for stating this statement accrues from the fact that it is customized based on the institution to

which the project is delivered and inculcates the consideration of social and technological aspects in its

application.

Lean construction in eight areas

Johansen and Walter (2007) came up with a model through which the level of awareness of lean

construction could be assessed. To arrive at the same, they administered a questionnaire that evaluated

eight main areas of an organization which were considered to be the main determinants of lean culture.

The eight are: design, procurement, planning, supply, installation, collaboration, behaviour and

management. Arising from this study, a pilot study was adopted into the German construction industry

from which it was concluded that a wholesome understanding of construction activities was lacking due


to application of a fraction of the concepts from the framework. However, the framework could not

reveal how lean construction can be implemented in different types of construction projects, the adoption

of lean construction remains limited in the German construction industry.

Figure 2.8 Lean construction in eight areas (Johansen & Walter, 2007)

Lean Six Sigma Framework

Al-Aomar (2012b) proposed a six sigma lean construction framework with three stages, namely, Lean

design, Lean construction process and Lean supplies, emphasizing the value of integration and the

dynamic nature of construction projects. The framework is focused on enhancing quality, eliminating

waste and reducing variation in a construction project. Lean Six is based on the combination of six sigma

and lean constructions. Six Sigma is both a quality management philosophy and a methodology that

focusing on reducing variation, improving the quality of products, measuring defects, processes, and

services. However, the framework focuses only on construction waste elimination. Other sources of

construction inefficiencies such as delays and errors are not included in the framework, thus leaving

room for further investigation. The proposed framework and all the steps involved are shown in figure

2.9 below.


Figure 2.9 Lean Six Sigma Framework (Al-Aomar, 2012b).

Lean, Green and Six-sigma Framework

Banawi (2013) developed and implemented a framework to improve the efficiency and performance of

processes in a construction project. In particular, the construction framework incorporated the Six-

sigma, Green and Lean management concepts. The implementation of the framework followed Six-

sigma’s DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control) process. In the basic form, the Lean,

Green and Six-sigma framework involves three main steps, defined according to the DMAIC six-sigma

model (Banawi, 2013).

Define and Measure constitutes the first step that calls for the application of Lean and Green

methodologies to the construction process being evaluated. In this step, the waste generated and its

impacts on the environment are quantified. Analyze and Improve constitutes the second step and it

involves the application of the appropriate six-sigma tools to reduce the waste identified in Step One

above. Control constitutes the third stage and it involves re-evaluation of the selected construction

process using Lean and Green methodologies to examine the effectiveness of waste reduction (Banawi,

2013). Steps One, Two and Three are shown in Figure 2.10 below. Similar to Al-Aomar (2012b)’s

framework, this framework is mainly concerned with waste elimination, despite incorporating Green

and Six Sigma concepts for reducing environmental impact and enhancing productivity levels,

respectively.


Figure 2.10 Lean, Green and Six-sigma framework (Banawi, 2013).

The Toyota Way model for the construction industry

Liker (2004) came up with the Toyota way model. It is made up of 14 principles further categorized into

four layers that represent an alternative framework for the implementation of lean construction. These

layers are: philosophy, process, people and partner and problem-solving models. As opposed to other

frameworks of lean construction, the Toyota Way model incorporates the technical and human aspects.

According to liker (2004), organizations need to encourage managers to come up with decisions that

fulfill long-term vision. This is regardless of whether these decisions contradict the potential short-term

financial benefits. Liker (2004) evaluates the effectiveness of the model using sub-elements. It starts

with the definition of the value of the project from the customer’s perspective. It also includes the

perspectives of the persons from other departments. This applies to all parties, including the contractor

and subcontractors. The model is therefore expected to enhance the performance of all levels within the

construction firm by preparing them to add value to the customer. While many frameworks of lean

construction have a strong technical focus, this framework encompasses technical and human aspects,

thereby providing alternative angles to lean construction implementation.


This literature review reveals the presence of different lean construction frameworks in the construction

industry from different countries. Their significance ranges from revealing how to adapt lean

manufacturing to the construction context, how to increase the adoption of lean construction and

promote effective use, integrating other concepts to complement the effectiveness of lean construction,

and more importantly, providing an indication of how to implement lean construction practices.

However, none of the framework is focused on the KSA construction industry. The frameworks reflect

different socio-cultural and operational contexts that are less applicable in the KSA construction

industry. For instance, the practices in the KSA construction industry, in an Islamic society, are quite

different from those in the western construction industry and the implementation of lean construction

remains very low (AlSehaimi et al., 2009; Sarhan et al., 2017).

2.2.7 Lean construction studies in the Middle East (ME) region

In the ME countries, especially Turkey, Tezel and Nielsen (2013) revealed that construction

companies have a relatively high readiness to conform to the lean construction practices in their

operations. Therefore, at least, in this country, there is a huge potential for the adoption and

implementation of lean construction. In other ME countries, progress towards the

implementation of lean construction has been observed. Abdel-Razek, Abd Elshakour, and

Abdel-Hamid (2006) identified two principles of lean construction, benchmarking and reducing

variability of labour productivity, and examined their impact on labour productivity in Egypt.

The study revealed that variability in daily labour productivity was an important delineator

between good and poorly performing projects. Furthermore, Issa (2013) revealed that the

application of lean construction reduces project construction time drastically. To implement

lean construction in construction industry in this country, Aziz and Hafez (2013) submitted that

it should focused on performance improvements. A dynamic model of performance

improvement process for complex systemic problems was therefore developed.

In the KSA, AlSehaimi (2011) found that lean construction through the last planner system

improved construction planning, enhanced site management and better communication and

coordination between the parties involved in two large state-owned projects. As a result, the

study tinkered the interest of construction companies in the country to adopt better management

practices such as a lean construction in the execution of their projects. However, as revealed by


Sarhan, Olanipekun, and Xia (2016), lean construction remains at an infancy stage in the

country. This shows that much room is left for the implementation of lean construction in the

KSA construction industry. This is also true for other countries in the region. Despite the

benefits of lean construction, there are constraints to the practical application of the concept.

For instance, among other constraints, there is a constraint of uneven involment of construction

participants during the application of lean construction in Lebanon (Hamzeh, Kallassy, Lahoud,

& Azar, 2016). Hamzeh et al. (2016) revealed that such constraints have negative impact on the

planning, and other performance criteria of projects. Enshassi and Abu Zaiter (2014)

investigated the implementation of lean tools in construction projects and the impact on project

safety conditions in Palestine. The study revealed poor attitude among clients and contractors

to the implement new management techniques in the country. However, they concurred that the

application of lean tools such as 5S can improve safety on construction sites. Therefore,

between a poor attitude to implementing new management techniques and admission of the

benefit of lean tools to safety on sites lies an opportunity to promote the implementation of lean

construction in Palestine. In this regard, Enshassi and Abu Zaiter (2014) suggested the need for

more training to increase the knowledge and competencies of the construction participants in

Palestine. Such training helps to build lean culture and participation among different project

participants (Hamzeh et al., 2016). A crisis such as an “alarmingly poor industry-level

performance” may also serve as motivation for implementing lean construction (Small, Al

Hamouri, & Al Hamouri, 2017). However, giving the level of human displacement in Palestine

due to conflicts with neighbouring Israel, lean construction training may be outsourced. As

demonstrated by Eljazzar, Beydoun, and Hamzeh (2013), global development agencies such as

the European Union are available to assist with the implementation of lean construction

processes in the country.

Summarily, it could be seen that there are few studies on lean construction in the ME. However,

the existing studies show that there is progress towards comprehensive adoption and

implementation of lean construction in the ME. Additionally, some of the benefits of lean

construction can be observed in the region as well as drawbacks. Furthermore, strategies for

progress have also been suggested. Nevertheless, in the KSA construction industry, the

implementation of lean construction is still very low. Therefore, this study is focused on the

KSA construction industry.


2.3 COMMON MANAGEMENT APPROACHES FOR ADDRESSING PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT DELIVERY AND ORGANISATIONAL PROCESSES IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

2.3.1 Value Management (VM)

According to Shen and Liu (2003), value management (VM) was introduced into the construction

industry in the early 1960s. The basis of this concept is to enhance the value of a product or a system by

identifying and eliminating unnecessary costs and achieving the level of performance required at the

lowest whole life-cycle costs (Fong & Shen, 2000). Therefore, it is a methodology of achieving best

value-for-money for construction clients (Shen & Liu, 2003). VM properly defined as an effective,

organized, systematic team approach for enhancing value for money by eliminating possible costs

without compromising desired performance (Lin & Shen, 2007). As a result, it is increasingly accepted

in the construction industry, for instance, among cost consultants in the UK (Ellis, Wood, & Keel, 2005)

and construction professionals in Hong Kong (Shen & Chung, 2002). In the construction industry, the

application of VM is carried out through a VM study through workshops that bring together a multi-

discipline team of construction stakeholders to review projects, make sure that the team understands

client needs and develop a cost-effective solution under the coordination of a facilitator who follows a

set of procedures (Lin & Shen, 2007; Zhang, Mao, & AbouRizk, 2009). The success of VM studies in

the construction industry is very much dependent on the team members that are either directly or

indirectly involved. As revealed in Shen and Liu (2003), the combined efforts of team members such as

the client, facilitator and construction professional participants are crucial. For instance, the clients need

to be very supportive of the study, while the VM facilitator should be very competent and provide

leadership to team members (Shen & Liu, 2003).

Both VM and lean construction concepts emphasise on value addition in the execution of construction

processes. As a complementary, lean construction is very important for an effective VM of construction

projects (Lehman & Reiser, 2004). Through prefabricated elements, Björnfot and Sardén (2006)

demonstrated lean construction as a strategy for value generation in construction. The study concluded

that lean construction adds value to all stakeholders involved in the construction process. Furthermore,

lean construction techniques such as the pull push approach and 5s help to promote value generation in

construction (Ogunbiyi et al., 2012). Conversely, VM workshops encourage open communication and

knowledge sharing that contribute to project values in the lean design process (Emmitt et al., 2005).

However, the extent to which lean construction complements VM in construction is still limited

individual perspectives and to the actual construction-site activities at the production level where value

generation is about the satisfaction of client needs (Emmitt et al., 2005; Salvatierra-Garrido & Pasquire,

2011). In addition, the contributions of lean construction to the value generation in the broader society

is still being ignored in the construction industry. Salvatierra-Garrido and Pasquire (2011) suggested


that value generation in the lean construction process should encompass the broader perspectives of

relevant stakeholders and with societal contributions. This will ensure that multiple project deliverables

are accomplished at the same time, including value, productivity and client satisfaction (Emmitt, Sander,

& Christoffersen, 2004).

2.3.2 Project Management (PM)

In the management field, project management is defined as the systematic planning, monitoring and

control of activities and resources designed to achieve stated goals (Hallinger & Snidvongs, 2008). In a

project environment such as the construction industry, PM is defined as a general purpose management

tool that can bring projects to successful completion and to the satisfaction of the project stakeholders

considering the traditional constraints of defined scope, desired quality, budgeted cost, and a schedule

deadline. As defined in the new project management body of knowledge (PMBOK), the PM has ten

knowledge areas that are applicable to successful project management practices in the construction

industry (Abdul Rasid, Wan Ismail, Mohammad, & Long, 2014; Brones, de Carvalho, & de Senzi

Zancul, 2014; Eastham, Tucker, Varma, & Sutton, 2014). These are integration management which

emphasises on unifying all the elements of projects, while also combining all the other knowledge areas

together to form a cohesive manageable project. Scope management ensures the inclusion of all the

works required to complete a project as well as exclusion of those not required. Time management

emphasises on the development of a master timeline for projects and the processes necessary to maintain

the timeline. Cost management includes all the necessary activities for estimating and managing the

costs of projects, while quality management focuses on determining and guaranteeing that the final

constructed product meets the clients’ satisfaction. Others are human resources management, which is

the human processes involved in the planning and leading the project team throughout the project

lifecycle. Communication management includes the processes needed to ensure seamless

communication between team members and other stakeholders during project delivery. Risk

management identifies and assesses the risks to a project including the mitigation planning

arrangements. Procurement management emphasises on the sourcing and purchasing of the resources

required to implement a project while lastly, stakeholder management is the identification of people or

organisations impacted by the execution of a project, and developing strategies to address them.

Consequently, PM has increasingly been employed for the delivery of construction projects through the

different knowledge management areas. For instance, risk prioritisation helps to strengthen the

capacities for risk management in freeway public and private partnership projects in developing

countries (Valipour et al., 2015). A stakeholder management that is rooted in social network analysis is

necessary for successful delivery of mega construction projects (Mok, Shen, & Yang, 2015). The

schedule and cost performances of construction projects are increased with scope definition (Collins,

Parrish, & Gibson, 2017), while the project that integrates the following areas: project charter,


knowledge integration, process integration, staff integration, supply chain integration, and integration

of changes enhances project management performance in the forms of time, cost, quality, safety, and

client satisfaction (Demirkesen & Ozorhon, 2017).

The lean approach to project management has been identified to increase commitment and motivation

from project team, and the satisfaction to clients (Gabriel, 1997). In addition, it is advantageous to reduce

risks to clients by balancing quality, performance and value for money (Gabriel, 1997). Regarding risks,

Issa (2013) demonstrated that lean construction techniques help to minimise risk effects on projects,

which further contributes to improved schedule and cost performance of projects. Hence, as observed

in many studies, lean construction is often employed as a project delivery technique within the PM of

construction projects (Alsaggaf & Parrish, 2016; Kovvuri, Sawhney, Ahuja, & Sreekumar, 2016;

Young, Hosseini, & Lædre, 2016). Abdelhamid and Salem (2005) described lean construction as an

emerging paradigm for managing construction projects. For the delivery of big, complex and speedy

construction projects, Howell and Koskela (2000) suggested the combination of PM and lean

construction together. Howell and Koskela (2000) stated that lean construction would emphasise on the

management of the workflow, as well as the creation and delivery of value in a project management

process. Ballard and Howell (2003) demonstrated that the lean project delivery system resulted in

substantial improvements in the value generated for clients, users and producers, and a reduction in

waste such as waiting time for resources, process cycle times, inventories, defects and errors, and

accidents.

2.3.3 Building Information Modelling (BIM)

Building Information Modelling (BIM) is an increasingly emerging to design, construct and operate

built products in the construction industry (Succar, 2009). There are three interlocking fields of the

domain players and deliverables of BIM. According to Succar (2009), they are technology, process and

policy. The technological domain refers to the software, hardware, equipment and networking systems

for undertaking BIM. The players in this domain are the organisations which generate software solutions

and equipment of direct and indirect applicability to the design, construction and operation of facilities.

The process domain refers to BIM is an activity (Jensen & Jóhannesson, 2013) that comprises of a set

of tasks across time and place, and with defined inputs and outputs (Succar, 2009). The players in this

domain are the construction industry actors such as designers, developers and contractors who procure,

design, construct, use and manage built products. The policy domain refers to the rules that guide the

application of BIM provided by specialised organisations like insurance companies, research centres,

educational institutions and regulatory bodies that play important regulatory and contractual roles in the

design, construction and operation process. Through the interplay of these domains, BIM helps to

integrate digital descriptions of proposed built products and their relationships to others in a precise


manner, so that stakeholders can query, simulate and estimate activities and their effects on the building

process as a lifecycle entity (Arayici, Egbu, & Coates, 2012).

The project benefits of implementing BIM are cost reduction and control through the life of the project,

time savings (Bryde, Broquetas, & Volm, 2013). At the operational stage of a project, BIM helps to

create obtainable concurrent performance information of the project, while it also leaves a digital

document trail resulting from improvements to projects during operation (Yan & Demian, 2008). BIM

employs information technology platforms to foster collaboration among project participants throughout

project lifecycle, and thereby mitigating the elements of fragmentation that thrives in the construction

industry (Arayici et al., 2012). Furthermore, in the broader industry level, the perception of construction

professionals about BIM is very positive, especially regarding the positive contributions to project

quality and time of completion (Suermann & Issa, 2009). BIM has also been suggested to improve the

application of lean construction practices in the construction industry. Arayici et al. (2011) demonstrated

the contributions of BIM to the elimination of wastes and value generation towards lean architectural

practice. For Gerber et al. (2010), BIM facilitates the implementation of lean measures through design

to construction to occupation. Given the benefits of the BIM to lean construction, many studies have

consequently focused on developing frameworks that integrate both concepts with the aim promoting

seamless implementation. For instance, Sacks, Dave, Koskela, and Owen (2009) developed a conceptual

model of interaction of lean construction principles and BIM, while Arayici et al. (2011) developed a

systematic approach for BIM technology adoption for lean architectural practices.

Some challenges also bedevil the implementation of BIM in the construction industry. These include

high initial costs of BIM software, especially for the smaller firms and limited interoperability between

different BIM software packages (Bryde et al., 2013). More complex problems are related to the

humanistic aspects of BIM implementation such as the lack of agreement among implementers to use

common IT platforms, unwillingness to share data and restrictive flow of information from one party to

another due to intellectual property protection (Arayici et al., 2012; Bryde et al., 2013). Regarded as

people barriers, it is considered as the greatest barrier to the implementation of BIM in the construction

industry. For instance, among 40% and 20% of the USA and the UK respondents respectively in the

study of Yan and Demian (2008). Therefore, the application of BIM in the construction industry has

both merits and demerits.

2.3.4 Supply Chain Management (SCM)

Supply chain management (SCM) is a concept that originated in the manufacturing industry, first, as

Just-in-Time (JIT) delivery system to decrease inventories and to regulate the suppliers' interaction with

the production line in the Toyota manufacturing company (Saad, Jones, & James, 2002; Vrijhoef &


Koskela, 2000). Secondly, SCM was stimulated in the field of quality control in the early 1950s to

address leaders in the Japanese industrial sector to work as partners with suppliers in a long term

relationship in order to improve quality and decrease production costs (Vrijhoef & Koskela, 2000).

According to Fernie and Thorpe (2007), underlying SCM is the assumption that developing and

understanding relationships within and between organisations underpins an ability to optimise flow,

break down process discontinuities, develop networks, take decisions about managing competencies and

optimise the use of power. The basic idea of SCM is to recognise the interdependency in the supply

chain, and thereby improve its configuration and control based on such factors as the integration of

business processes (Vrijhoef & Koskela, 2000).

The adoption of SCM in the construction industry can be attributed to the emergence of the collaborative

forms of procurement such as partnering. According to Saad et al. (2002), these forms of procurement

laid the foundation for successful SCM in the construction industry. Hence, according to Love, Irani,

and Edwards (2004), SCM in the construction industry can be defined as the network of facilities and

activities that client and economic value to the functions of design development, contract management,

service and material procurement, materials manufacture and delivery, and facilities management. SCM

in construction a systems view of the production activities of autonomous production units such

subcontractors and suppliers and seeks global optimization of these activities (O’brien, 1999). Vrijhoef

and Koskela (2000) identified four roles of SCM in the construction industry to include: improving the

interface between site activities and the supply chain, improving the supply chain, transferring activities

from the site to the supply chain and integration of site and supply chain. Equally, according to Vrijhoef

and Koskela (2000) and Segerstedt and Olofsson (2010), the construction supply chain is characterised

by the following. Firstly, it is a convergent supply chain where all materials are directed to a construction

site and the proposed built product is assembled. Secondly, it is a temporary supply chain producing one

of construction projects through repeated reconfiguration of project organisations. Thirdly, it is a typical

make-to-order supply chain with individual project creating a new product or prototype.

There are many benefits of SCM in the construction industry such as improved: understanding

production costs and capabilities in construction firms and coordination and control on construction

projects (O’brien, 1999). In the subcontractor supply chain, SCM can also help to reduce the incidence

of defects in subcontractor works (Karim, Marosszeky, & Davis, 2006). A holistic application of SCM

in the construction industry is very essential to ensure seamless integration of the design and production

processes of construction projects. Towards this end, Love et al. (2004) developed an application

framework. The framework emphasises on inter-organisational cooperation, collaboration and learning

to ensure a symbiotic project team entity. This framework, including that of Xue, Li, Shen, and Wang

(2005) helps to overcome construction supply chain problems such as the separation of design and


construction, lack of coordination and integration between various functional disciplines, and poor

communication, thereby leading to improved supply chain performance.

Furthermore, the lean thinking helps to improve the construction supply chain performance. As a result,

the implementation of lean construction methodology in the construction supply chain has increased.

As revealed by Eriksson (2010), the implementation of lean construction practices increase the level of

cooperation and collaboration among the supply chain actors involved. Regarding the cost management

in the construction supply chain, Chen and Xu (2011) reveals that the application of lean thinking can

eliminate all the non-value added activities and wastes, as well as improve the time performance of

construction projects (Broft, 2017). Similarly, Chen (2012) introduces the lean construction supply chain

management (LCSM) to remove wastes and luxurious coordination costs in EPC projects. According to

Emuze and Smallwood (2013), decisions to implement the LSCM in the SME in the developing

countries is even more crucial to ensure a cohesive and coordinated supply chain while also checkmating

variability in production process and thereby enhancing the management of construction projects.

2.3.5 Sustainable Construction (SC)

Sustainable construction (SC) emerged in the construction industry in response to the enormous

contribution of the construction industry activities to both environmental and societal degradation. In

negative terms, construction activities such as transportation of raw materials and actual construction on

sites consume an enormous amount of energy and emits greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (Sev, 2009).

It is a part of the broader sustainable development which emphasises for the type of development that

meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs

(Brundtland, 1987). In other words, sustainable construction is the construction industry’s contribution

to sustainable development in terms of social and economic developments and environmental protection

(Sev, 2009). It is the principle for overcoming the negative impacts of construction and achieving

sustainable development in the process (Anigbogu, 2015; Sev, 2009).

The government in different countries play a very important role to promote the acceptance and

implementation of sustainable construction practices. For instance, Pitt, Tucker, Riley, and Longden

(2009) revealed that government financial incentives and building regulations are very important drivers

of sustainable construction in the UK construction industry. Added to the influence of the government,

sustainable construction practices encompass certain benefits that increases its acceptance in the

construction industry. These benefits can be categorised into environmental, social and economic

benefits. Environmentally, SC practices such as sustainable design reduce the environmental footprint

of built products on the environment and the ecosystem (Zainul Abidin, 2009). Socially, sustainably

constructed buildings increases the satisfaction, comfort and the wellness of occupants (Zainul Abidin,


2009). Economically, sustainable buildings are economically gainful in the forms of profit and high

resale value to developers (Zainul Abidin, 2009).

Lean construction has also been attributed to increase the positive impact of sustainable construction in

the construction industry. Many studies have been carried out to demonstrate this interaction (e.g.

(Huovila & Koskela, 1998; Lapinski et al., 2006; Nahmens & Ikuma, 2012)). Professionals in the

construction industry believe that the integration of both concepts: improve corporate image and

sustainable competitive advantage, improve process flow and productivity, as well as improvement in

environmental quality and increased compliance with customer’s expectations (Ogunbiyi, Goulding, &

Oladapo, 2014). For instance, the strategic application of lean construction in construction companies

promotes sustainable construction as a means of adding value to clients (Valente, Mourão, & Neto,

2013). Hence, this enables the construction companies to implement both lean and green practices

together at the tactical and operational levels of service delivery (Valente et al., 2013). Also, Lapinski,

Horman, and Riley (2005) demonstrated that the incorporation of lean techniques such as continuous

improvement reduces the complexities involved in the delivery of sustainable building projects. Finally,

as lean construction improves sustainable building practices, so also is vice versa (Valente et al., 2013).

For more clarity, the similarities and differences between lean construction and the other management approaches are illustrated in Table 2.5 below.

Table 2.5 Similarities and Differences between Lean Construction and other Management Concepts in

the construction industry

Lean Construction Similarities Differences

Value Management (VM)

VM and lean construction are very much dependent on the team members that are either directly or indirectly involved in both processes.

The basis VM is to enhance the value of a product or a system by identifying and eliminating unnecessary costs, while the major objective of lean construction is to eliminate waste from all the construction project delivery processes involved in construction industry.

Project Management (PM)

PM and lean construction involves different phases. The phases of PM are planning, organising, commanding and coordinating, while the phases of lean construction are lean design, lean supply, lean assembly and use.

PM is focused on multiple project objectives in the successful completion of projects including scope, quality, cost, and schedule performances while lean construction is mainly focused on ensuring reduction of wastes during project delivery.

Building Information Modelling (BIM)

BIM and lean construction are process based activities that comprises of a set of tasks across time and place, and with defined inputs and outputs.

BIM and lean construction are digitally driven. While BIM encompasses digital descriptions to illustrate building proposals, digital features such as process models are


secondary requirements in lean construction process.

Supply Chain Management (SCM)

Both SCM and lean construction requires the participation of multiple construction professionals. As a result, both of them lends to a collaborative form of construction procurement. -

Sustainable Construction (SC)

SC emphasises on efficient use of resources for construction purposes. lean construction seeks to eliminate wastes in construction. Hence, both aligns with sustainable development in the construction industry.

The benefits of SC can be classified into environmental, social and economic dimensions, while lean construction is beneficial at the project and organisational levels in the construction industry.

2.4 OVERVIEW OF SAUDI ARABIA

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is a monarchy, headed by a King. Administratively, the country

is divided into thirteen regions, with a Governor as the head of each region. As shown in Figure 2.12,

the KSA is geographically located between the Asia mainland and Africa, with coastlines along the

Arabian Gulf and the Red Sea. To its north-west is the Suez Canal, while Kuwait and Iraq border the

country to the north. Yemen and the Sultanate of Oman border the country to the south, while to the

west is the Red Sea. In the eastern part, it borders the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and the

Arabian Gulf. The general area of the nation is 2,240,000 km2, 80% of which comprises the Arabian

Peninsula (Johany, Berne, & Mixon, 1986).


Figure 2.11 Map of Saudi Arabia

Economically, the KSA is largely supported by oil, which accounts for over 45% of the nation’s GDP

and 90% of the export revenue. This makes it the largest oil exporter globally while its economy is the

largest in the Arab world and in the Gulf region. Oil exploration and exploitation in the country has been

occurring since 1950s along with incredible transformation to the country in terms of infrastructure

(Saudi Arabia Economy, 2009).

The government plays a very important role in the industrial development of the KSA. According to

MOP (2009b), the government has undertaken various initiatives for the purpose of improving the

country’s infrastructure where funds have been allocated to various construction projects. Many

government initiatives have been created to encourage private sector involvement in industrial

diversification and development under the Saudi system of free enterprise (MoC&I, 2001). The ministry

of Economy and Planning formulates long-term social and economic development, with consideration

of current circumstances while focusing on matters of human development including health, education,

infrastructure and the family (MOP, 2009a). Individual ministries including Finance, Transport,

Agriculture, and Communication are also responsible for overseeing their respective economic sectors.

Furthermore, Vision 2030 of the KSA is designed as the key to opening up the infrastructure sector


because it has the potential to energise the private sector into supporting the construction and transport

sectors (Smith, 2016).

2.4.1 The Saudi Construction Industry

In line with Vision 2030, Saudi Arabia’s construction sector plays a crucial role in the economic and

physical development of the country. The industry which employs over 1.5 million staff contributes 9%

GDP. It is also one of the largest consumers of service and manufacturing goods (MOP, 1997; NCB

Economist, 2003). Therefore, it becomes important for the government, the private sector and

stakeholders to establish means to ensure that the operations of this industry are efficient for the

wellbeing of the nation’s economy. The extensive infrastructure development over the last decade has

accorded the construction industry an opportunity to undertake various large-scale projects.

During the period 2008 to 2012, the Saudi construction sector recorded an annual growth rate (CAGR)

of 7%. This expansion was supported by the various government initiatives to create diversification in

the economic sector. By the end of 2017, the growth is expected to be 6% owing to investment by the

government in infrastructure projects. There is also an overall financial growth of 1.9% projected for

2017 (Sheela, 2017).

According to Reportlinker (2016), the construction market in the KSA will continue to expand over the

forecast period 2016–2010. This follows the government investment in manufacturing plants,

infrastructure, housing projects, healthcare and education facilities. Furthermore, there are expectations

that the actual value of the industry’s output will rise at a compound growth rate of 7.05% over this

period.

2.4.2 Construction Boom in the KSA

The Saudi construction industry has been the center of the Kingdom’s industrial development in the past

forty years since the establishment of the development plan in 1970. During the first years of the 1970s,

the Saudi government spent up to 49.6 per cent of its yearly budget on construction. Some of the areas

that benefited include educational institutions, water supply, reservoirs, roads, hospitals, bridges, and

hospital. The government is also involved in solving the housing shortage that is rising due to the

population growth.

The construction boom in the KSA was followed by high demand for construction materials, technology,

raw materials, equipment, operation methods and managerial techniques (Sarhan, 2013). In coping with

these demands, the KSA embarked on improving and supporting existing departments, especially those

in the public domain to empower them to control the construction activities and infrastructure, in state

buildings, public service, health, education and other arenas. Furthermore, the government ordered the

establishment of new specialized control units for construction and the expansion of the existing ones

for the purpose of improving quality.


The peak of the Kingdom’s construction projects occurred in 2009, with projects in that year equivalent

to 40 per cent of the total awarded projects in the Middle East. This growth increased by 50 per cent

from the previous year. On the other hand, real construction attained a growth of 9.3 and 7.5 per cent in

2008 and 2009, respectively (Alfouzan, 2013). Figure 2.13 shows the percentage GDP contribution of

the Saudi construction industry compared to other Middle East countries. As can be seen in the figure,

the UAE construction sector contributes 10 per cent of its GDP, Qatar 7 per cent, Oman 6 per cent, Saudi

Arabia 5, Bahrain 4 and Kuwait 2.5 per cent (Alfouzan, 2013).

Figure 2.12 The GCC construction Sector as a Percentage of GDP

To further demonstrate the boom in the KSA construction industry, 51.80% of the public expenditure

on infrastructure development was expended on real estate and construction projects in 2013 (Alfouzan,

2013) (Figure 2.14).


Figure 2.13 The distribution of the top 100 projects in the KSA construction industry (Alfouzan, 2013).

In addition to public spending, a study by the Riyadh Chamber of Commerce (2004) established the

potential for the private sector to accumulate around $100 billion worth of construction projects between

2004 and 2010. They further observed that in the next decade, there was a probability of construction

projects surpassing SR 750 billion. In contrast, another study by Business Wire (2017) noted that in

2016, the government had to reduce its budget on construction projects following a decrease in domestic

prices of fuel and taxes as a result of the decline of global fuel prices.

2.4.3 Challenges in the KSA Construction Industry

Despite the construction boom, owing to huge government spending, the KSA construction industry still

grapples with many challenges which reduce the performance of construction projects and

organizations, as well as the effectiveness of the industry as a whole. Expectedly, the main concerns are

timeliness, quality and cost of project completion. For instance, Al-Kharashi and Skitmore (2009)

revealed that more than 70 per cent of public projects in the KSA construction industry experienced time

overrun. In corroboration, Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006) observed that this has become a source of worry

to the government of the KSA.


Furthermore, construction projects are delivered at a very high cost in the KSA construction industry.

Alrashed et al. (2014) revealed that the growth rate of Saudi construction costs increased by 19.5 per

cent between 2010 and 2014, and again, that this is a source of worry to the government (Alfouzan,

2013).

Another uncertainty in the Saudi construction industry is the enormous increase in the fiscal cost of the

projects. According to Alrashed et al. (2014), Saudi construction costs were $72 billion, $71.7 billion,

and $120 billion in 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively and the cost is estimated to increase to $610

billion in the coming five years period. This problem has led to a substantial interest from the

government and the public with a view to understand the causes of the construction cost escalation

(Alfouzan, 2013). Alrashed et al. (2014) also revealed that construction activities in the KSA

construction industry leave a very high environmental impact.

Implementing lean construction practices has been suggested as a strategy to overcome the above

challenges in the KSA construction industry. According to Alrashed et al. (2014), some contractors are

aware of the concept of lean construction, and have implemented some lean construction techniques in

the KSA construction industry. Nevertheless, lean construction is yet to be widely implemented in the


2.5 SUMMARY

As lean construction has been demonstrated to be very advantageous to enhancing the performance of

construction projects and organization in the construction industry, many frameworks have been

developed to facilitate the implementation of lean construction in different countries and contexts.

However, the existing frameworks developed for accelerating lean construction in other countries are

less applicable to the KSA construction industry due to differences in socio-cultural and operational

contexts. As a result, lean construction is not widely implemented in the KSA construction industry.

The literature review carried out revealed the specific gaps in knowledge as follows.

1. There is limited research on lean construction in the KSA construction industry context.

2. There is no framework for implementing lean construction that reflects the socio-cultural and

operational context in the KSA construction industry.

3. The specific barriers to the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction

industry are yet to be identified (See section 5.3 for a comprehensive review of barriers to lean

construction).

4. The CSFs for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry are yet to be

determined (See section 6.4 for the discussion of the CSFs for implementing lean construction).


This study aims to fill these gaps. The experienced views of the operators in the KSA construction

industry will be obtained and analysed to generate findings.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology 71

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1 INTRODUCTION

According to Fellows and Liu (2015), research is a voyage of discovery which consists of systematic

investigation for establishing the facts and reaching new conclusions. Therefore, what is found depends

on the proposed research questions, the techniques for searching, the quality of information obtained,

the analysis carried out, and importantly, the reflection by the investigator on the results of the analyses

carried out in the context of theory and existing practices (Fellows & Liu, 2015). In this regard, this

chapter aims to show that the appropriate methodological process was followed in this study. Firstly, it

describes the philosophical stance of this study. Secondly, this chapter describes the processes involved

to adopt and implement the research methodology for achieving the aim of this study. These include

the research methodology, research methods of data collection and analysis, time horizon, unit of

analysis, and sampling techniques.

3.2 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY

Research philosophy refers to the generic philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality and how

it is understood, and as a result defines what may be researched, what questions are appropriate to be

asked, and which rules should govern the interpretations of answers obtained (Maxwell, 2008).

Different research philosophies exists. According to Phellas, Bloch, and Seale (2011), the positivism

philosophy holds that reality is stable and can be described and observed from an objective view.

Therefore, this requires the manipulation of reality by varying a single independent variable to identify

regularities and hence form the correlation between the constituents of elements of the social world.

The non-positivism philosophy argues that, as part of the pursuit of scientific knowledge, the

understanding of a phenomenon comes only through subjective interpretation of intervention in reality

(Phellas et al., 2011).

While both the positivism and non-positivism philosophies can be used for creating scientific

knowledge, As a result, the problem being researched is the most important consideration (Creswell,

2013). Under this philosophy, research investigators are open to adopt different methods, worldviews

and assumptions, as well as different forms of data collection and analysis (Creswell, 2013). In addition,

this philosophy allows the mixing of the quantitative and qualitative methodologies (Wahyuni, 2012).

Mixing both methodologies is necessary to achive the aim of this study to develop a framework for

promoting the lean construction in the KSA construction industry. To develop the framework, an

industry wide perspectives of construction professionals on issues about the barriers to, and success

factors for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry is required. The

quantitative methodology will be employed in this regard, as well as to statistically analyse, interprete

and explain the data obtained. Consequently, the qualitative methodology will be employed to provide

72 Chapter 3: Research Methodology

a deeper understanding of the quantitative findings through the validation from the perspectives of

experts in the KSA construction industry.

3.3 RESEARCH APPROACH/METHODOLOGY

In line with the pragmatic philosophy employed in this study, the mixed methodology, comprising both

the quantitative and qualitative methodologies, is used. The quantitative methodology is a kind of

enquiry into social phenomenon which evaluated and analysed with the use of statistical techniques to

explain phenomena of interest (Abawi, 2008). As applied in this study, the quantitative methodology

helps to identify critical variables such as the barriers to, and success factors for implementing lean

construction in the KSA construction industry, and explain their meanings after appropriate statistical

analyses and interpretations. The qualitative methodology is an interpretive approach to investigating

social phenomena in their natural settings to reveal in descriptive terms the meanings attached to various

human experiences (Yilmaz, 2013). This methodology is employed in this study to generate deeper

understanding of the conceptual fitness and practical appropriateness of the developed ISM model. By

combining both methodologies, their combined disadvantages are reduced, while their combined

advantages enhanced in this study (Fellows & Liu, 2015).

3.4 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The mixed research methodology described above provides the theoretical and ideological foundation

for the research method in this study (Wahyuni, 2012). According to Rajasekar, Philominathan, and

Chinnathambi (2006), research method refers to the planned, scientific and value-neutral procedures,

schemes and algorithms used during research investigation to collect data and solve a research problem.

This includes the methods of data collection and analysis.

As summarised in Table 3.1, the research methods for this study, are outlined under each of the research

objectives.


Table 3.1 Summary of methods of data collection and analysis

Research aim Research Objectives Research

methodology Methods of data collection Method of data analysis

To develop a framework for successfully implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry

Objective 1: To understand the state of art of lean construction in the KSA construction industry in terms of the types of wastes, the tools/techniques that support the implementation of lean construction, benefits of lean construction, and stages of application of lean methods.

Quantitative Survey questionnaire Descriptive statistics, ANOVA test

Objective 2: To examine the barriers to the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

Quantitative Survey questionnaire Descriptive statistics, Mann Whitney statistical test, Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

Objective 3: To identify the critical success factors (CSFs) for the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

Qualitative Open ended questionnaire, Interview Content analysis

Objective 4: To develop a framework for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

Quantitative Pairwise comparison questionnaire

Interpretive structural modelling (ISM)

Objective 5: To evaluate the relevance and applicability of the framework for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

Qualitative Interview Content analysis


Objectives 1: Investigation of the current status of lean application in the KSA construction

industry, covering the types of wastes, the tools and techniques that support the implementation

of lean construction, benefits of lean construction, and stages of application of lean methods

This research objective use the quantitative methodology to gather industry-level data so as to identify

the major types of wastes, and the tools and techniques that support the implementation of lean

construction, benefits of lean construction, and stages of application of lean methods in the KSA

construction industry. For objective 1, a well-designed questionnaire survey was used to collect data.

The survey questionnaire was structured into two sections. The first section contains questions

requesting general information from the participants including their primary designation, academic

qualifications and the type of organisations they are engaged in. The second section, which is the main

section, focuses on the following: the major types of wastes, the level of use of lean tools and techniques,

the stages of application of lean methods and the benefits of implementing lean construction in the KSA

construction industry. In order to ensure straight forward answers from respondents, the close-ended

questionnaire, which contains questions structured to a 5-point Likert scale was used to collect data

(Ahmed, Opoku, & Aziz, 2016; Chew & Student, 2013). The close-ended survey questionnaire was

administered to the respondents in two ways. The first is through the Survey Monkey online system,

which comprised of a web link and associated email, while the second is mailing of the hardcopy

questionnaire to the respondents. An invitation letter and questionnaire were sent to Saudi Council of

Engineers first to seek their assistance with the questionnaire survey. Thereafter, the Saudi Council of

Engineers helped by sending the survey request to its members, which resulted in 155 respondents

returning their completed questionnaires. Second, hardcopy questionnaires were sent out to 300

individuals from contracting companies, consulting companies, academics, government, and clients.

This strategy resulted in an additional 127 respondents returning completed questionnaires. The data

obtained was analysed using the descriptive statistical techniques such as mean and frequency analysis

to summarise data in a meaningful way, while ANOVA was used to test for the differences among

group means and their associated procedures.

Objective 2: Identifying the barriers to the implementation of lean construction in the KSA

construction industry

This research objective uses the quantitative methodology to gather industry-level data in order to

identify the barriers to the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

Similar to research objective 1, a well-structured and close-ended questionnaire. The survey

questionnaire was structured into two sections. The first section contains questions requesting general

information from the participants including their primary designation, academic qualifications and the

type of organisations they are engaged in. The second section, which is the main section, is based on


the 22 global barriers to the implementation of lean construction that were identified from the literature.

Based on a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 as ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 as ‘strongly agree’, as

well as a ‘don’t know’ option, participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the 22

barriers in the KSA construction industry context.

The administration of the questionnaire commenced in March 2015, and the targeted construction

professionals were approached in two different ways. In the first approach, an online questionnaire

survey using Survey Monkey was conducted to survey members of the Saudi Council of Engineers

including suppliers, specialty contractors, general contractors, subcontractors, architects, project

managers, and clients. An invitation letter and a questionnaire template was initially sent to the

management of SCE to seek their assistance in the survey. Realising the importance and urgency of this

study, the SCE agreed to help by administering the questionnaire among their members, and as a result,

155 responses were obtained. In the second approach, hardcopy questionnaires were sent out to 300

construction professionals ranging from employees of contracting and consulting companies,

academics, government representatives, and clients. This strategy resulted in 127 responses. In total,

282 responses were obtained and used for analysis. The results were analysed using mean item score

(MIS), Mann Whitney U tests, and the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to determine their

factor structures for easy application and management by industry operators (Byrne, 2005). Details of

the data analysis is contained in sections 5.5 & 5.6.

Objective 3: Identifying the critical success factors (CSFs) for the implementation of lean

construction in the KSA construction industry

This research objective uses the qualitative methodology to gather industry-level data in order to

identify the critical success factors (CSFs) for the implementation of lean construction in the KSA

construction industry. This research objective uses an open-ended questionnaire which enables

respondents to provide their own responses and views about CSFs for the implementation of lean

construction in the KSA construction industry without limiting them to a fixed set of possible answers

(Ahmed et al., 2016; Yilmaz, 2013). The administration of the open-ended questionnaire follows similar

pattern as closed ended ones used in objectives 1-2. A slight different is that the questionnaire was

administered in two stages. The first stage is generic to a wide range of professionals in the construction

industry to identify a comprehensive list of CSFs. They were 800 in number. The second stage involves

the participation of much fewer, but more knowledgeable and experienced respondents in the subject

area to validate the applicability of CSFs in the KSA construction industry. These were sixteen experts,

of those who participated in the survey, and were selected purposely based on their experience (≥15

years) in lean construction practices. Given that the data obtained was qualitative, these respondents


carried out repeated (iterative) review of the CSFs to delimit them. (Further information on the process

of administering the questionnaire is contained in Chapter 6)


construction industry by using interpretive structural modelling (ISM)

This research objective follows a quantitative methodology to develop a framework for the

implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry using the interpretive structural

modelling (ISM) technique. According to Attri, Dev, and Sharma (2013), the ISM is a technique for

identifying correlation among various items defining a problem or an issue, and has the following

advantages for research purposes. First, the technique is very efficient and reduction of questions in the

ISM questionnaire by up to 80% is possible, and second, participants in a research employing ISM

technique do not need to possess deep knowledge of the technique to respond to relational questions in

the ISM questionnaire. As a result, Sarhan, Hu, and Xia (2016) revealed that the use of ISM technique

is increasing in construction research, especially for risk management, supply chain management and

construction management research areas. (See Appendix 7 for the conference paper which overviews

the use of ISM in construction research). Likewise in this study, the ISM technique is employed to

analyse the interrelationships among the CSF for the implementation of lean construction in the KSA

construction industry. This involves the use of a well-designed row and column questionnaire for

pairwise comparison of the CSFs identified for the implementation of lean construction in the KSA

construction industry. The questionnaire was designed to question only a few, but knowledgeable and

experienced respondents on the existence of a relation, and associated direction of relation between any

two CSFs. The process of administering the questionnaire is described in section 7.3.

The data obtained was analysed using the interpretive structural modelling (ISM) technique

The ISM technique follows eight steps that are briefly described below and illustrated in Figure 3.1

(Attri et al., 2013). In addition, the comprehensive details of how these steps are carried out in this

research are further described in section 7.3.

Step 1: Identification of Variables This includes a listing of the variables the system or area of study under investigation. According to

Kumar, Kumar, Haleem, and Gahlot (2013), such variables can be identified through the interview in

construction management research. The variables in this study are the critical factors for successful

implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry in Sarhan, Olanipekun, et al.

(2016).


Step 2: Examination of the Contextual Relationship between the Variables The next step is the examination of contextual relationship among identified variables using relational

symbols. For instance, if variable I influences variable J, the influence (I, J) is denoted by symbol V.

Should variable J be influential on variable I, the influence (J, I) is denoted by symbol A. In the case

where I and J influences each other, X is used to symbolize the influence, while in the case of lack of

influence between I and J, symbol O is used. In doing this, 16 experts were asked to complete a pairwise

comparison of the 12 CSFs identified in step 1 via a row and column questionnaire. Specifically, the

experts were instructed to compare the column statement to the row statement for each cell on the

questionnaire and to select an appropriate symbol from the symbol set (V, A, X, O) according to their

perception of direct relationships between the two CSFs in question. In essence, the questionnaire has

been designed in such a way to query the existence of a relationship between any two CSFs and the

associated direction of that relationship.

Step 3: Development of the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) The next step is the development of a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM), which depicts paired

correlation among variables. The SSIM is a technique for finding the contextual relationships among

identified factors using expert opinions Kumar, Agrawal, and Sharma (2013). Hence, the SSIM is

formulated to reveal the pairwise relationships of the CSFs based on the pairwise comparison by the

experts using the V, A, X, O symbols.

Step 4: Development of a Reachability Matrix The next step involves the development of a reachability matrix from the SSIM with the matrix checked

for transitivity. This step involves the substitution of the relational symbols (V, O, A or X) with either

1 or 0 based on the following rules (N. Kumar et al., 2013). If the relation in (I, J) is V, then the matrix

becomes 1 with (J, I) becoming 0. If the relation is A, then (I, J) becomes 0 with (J, I) being 1. An X

relation leads to (I, J) 1 and (J, I) 0. In the O relation, both (I, J) and (J, I) are 0.

Step 5: Preparation of Initial Reachability The rules in step 4 leads to the preparation of the initial reachability, which in turn incorporates

transitivity in gap filling. The transitivity in the correlation among the variables is the basic assumption

in ISM. It asserts that if variable I is related to variable J and J is related to variable K, then variable I

is related to variable.

Step 6: Partitioning of the Reachability

The next step involves partitioning of the initial reachability into various levels by determining the

reachability set and the antecedent set for all variables (Kumar & Kumar, 2016). The reachability set

(R) consists of a variable itself and others which it will support, whereas the antecedent set (C) consists


of the variable itself and others which will help in supporting it (R. Kumar et al., 2013). Consequently,

the intersection set of these sets (i.e. R∩C) is obtained for all the identified CSFs. The variable in the

highest level is the one whereby the reachability (R) and intersection (R∩C) sets are common or the

same (Yang, 2012). This process is repeated iteratively until the respective levels for all the variables

are identified.

Step 7: Drawing the Diagraph

The matrix of cross-impact multiplications applied to classification analysis (MICMAC) is used to

analyse the driving power and dependence power of the identified variables in order to generate the

diagraph. This is usually performed after partitioning of the initial reachability into various levels and

removal of transitivity links.

Step 8: Development of an Interpretive Structural Model

The diagraph is developed into an interpretive structural model by replacing the numbered variables in

their respective hierarchies with their original names. Finally, ISM model undergoes review to identify

inconsistencies and create essential adjustments (N. Kumar et al., 2013).


Figure 3.1 Framework summarizing the steps that will be taken in the ISM (Yang, 2012)

Objective 5: To validate the developed framework from the perspectives of experts in lean

construction in the KSA construction industry

This research objective follows the qualitative methodology to validate the proposed ISM model to

identify any conceptual inconsistency and the appropriateness and applicability in the KSA construction

industry. Data for the validation study was obtained with interview of experts who have deepened

knowledge of lean construction and the workings of the KSA construction industry. As the common

method of gathering qualitative data (Bhattacherjee, 2012) the interview allows both the researcher and

the experts to talk freely through the issues in greater detail and without doubt or ambiguity (Ahmed et

Step 7: Convert the resultant digraph into an ISM-based model by replacing element nodes with the statements.

Step 8: Review the model to check for conceptual inconsistencies and make the necessary alterations.

Step 6: Based on the relationships given above in the reachability matrix, draw a directed graph (digraph) and remove the transitive links.

Step 5: Partition the reachability matrix into different levels.

Step 1: Identify elements (or variables) relevant to the complex system (or problem). These elements could be objectives, barriers, enablers etc. and could be extracted from the survey. These elements (or variables) will refer to the CSFs pending identification in this research.

Step 3: Formulate a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) of CSFs that displays the paired relationship in between.

Step 2: Establish contextual relationships (random and complex interrelationships identified from the questionnaire and interview study) between the CSFs identified in Step 1.

Step 4: Develop a reachability matrix based on the SSIM to calculate the numerical mutual influence, and check the matrix for transitivity. The transitivity of the contextual relation is a basic assumption in ISM which states that if element A is related to B and B is related to C, then A is related to C.


al., 2016). The content and structure of the interview questions, and the mode of administration is

described in section 7.5.

Due to the qualitative nature of data obtained, they were analysed using the content analysis technique

to achieve inferential quality of findings (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992). This follows the preparation phase,

developing a categorisation matrix and exemplification of identified categories (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008).

The preparation phase involves the selection of unit of analysis which is the experienced views and

understanding of experts about the conceptual fit of the proposed model, as well as its appropriateness

and applicability in the KSA construction industry. The next is organising the qualitative data, which

involves open coding by writing notes on the text while reading it. The next is the abstraction which is

the naming of the categories with content-characteristics words. Lastly, the categories are described by

relating them to the context of the investigation.

3.5 TIME HORIZON

As an academic study that has to be completed between three to four years, the time horizon adopted

for this PhD study is cross-sectional. According to Burkett (1989), the cross-sectional kind of study is

a single-shot research that weighs the responses of subjects at a single point in time. As a result, the

research tasks such as data collection, analysis, seminar and thesis reporting are fitted within the period.

3.6 UNIT OF ANALYSIS

The unit of analysis, which refers to the person or the object that is the target in this study is the

individual construction professionals and experts in the area of lean construction in the KSA

construction industry (Bhattacherjee, 2012; Marshall & Rossman, 2011). These professionals constitute

the highest number of working group in the KSA construction industry. In addition, they are responsible

for the day to day workings in different construction organisations in the industry. Hence their opinions

and views are very relevant to success (or otherwise) of lean construction in the industry. For the

experts, they have deep knowledge of lean construction, and rich understanding of the workings of the

KSA construction industry. Hence their views can inform how lean construction model can be

successfully implemented in the KSA construction industry. In line with the pragmatic philosophy of

this study, the opinions of the construction professionals are approached with the quantitative

methodology, while the views of the experts are approached in a qualitative manner to achieve the aim

of this study.

3.7 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

As pointed out in section 3.6 above, the individual level unit of analysis is analysed in this study. The

first category comprises the individual construction professionals who are engage in different

organisations in the KSA construction industry. In this category are members of the Saudi Council of

Engineers (SCE) that included Suppliers, Specialty Contractors, General Contractors, subcontractors,


Architects, Project Managers, and Clients. In addition, this category comprises construction

professionals engaged in contracting, consulting and client organisations, as well as in the academia

and government agencies, but are not members of SCE. Therefore, there is no defined population of

construction professionals in the KSA construction industry. The convenience sampling technique was

employed in this regard for drawing samples of construction professionals that are accessible and

willing to participate in this study (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). More on how this sampling technique was

implemented is described in sections 4.3 and 5.5.

To select the experts who participated in the validation study, it is important to ensure that they are have

sound and adequate knowledge of lean construction , and the experience to determine whether a

proposed model of lean construction is conceptually consistent, and at the same time, practicable in the

KSA construction industry. Therefore the researcher, being a Construction Manager and Engineer in

the KSA construction industry used his working relationship to identify and purposively select few

number of experts who knowledge and wealth of experience can help to evaluate the conceptual

consistencies in the developed ISM model, and determine whether it is practicable in the KSA

construction industry (Yilmaz, 2013).

3.8 RIGOUR IN RESEARCH

The adequacy and accuracy of measurement procedures is ensured in this research with appropriate

reliability and validity assessments (Bhattacherjee, 2012). The quantitative aspects in this study

involves the use of well-structured closed-ended questionnaires to obtain data for statistical analysis.

Thus, the Cronbach’s alpha test was used to ensure the internal consistency of the closed-ended

questionnaires, prior to analysing the data obtained with the questionnaire (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).

Where open ended questionnaires are used, the data obtained were repeatedly (iterative) reviewed by

experts on the subject being investigated to generate findings. These actions help to increase the validity

of the research instruments. According to Tavakol and Dennick (2011), validity is the extent to which

measurement items in a questionnaire relates to the underlying constructs they are to measure.

Furthermore, the developed ISM model in this study was subjected to expert validation to reduce or

eliminate conceptual inconsistencies, and prescribe the best way to implement the model in reality.

Finally, the validity of the research objectives 1-5 is further ensured by subjecting them to many rounds

of peer-review and obtaining expert comments (journal and conference reviewers) for improving them.

3.9 ETHICS APPROVAL

As required by the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and the Singapore

Statement on Research Integrity (http://www.orei.qut.edu.au/about/), the mandatory permission of the

Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Research Ethics Committee (QUTREC) for the data

collection instruments (both closed- and open-ended questionnaires) was sought and obtained, prior to

data collection. This was to ensure that this study meets the existing statutory and research integrity


obligations through the promotion of best research practice and adoption of the principles that inform

these activities. For the closed-ended questionnaire, the QUTREC application was approved under the

Human-Low Risk Ethics Category on the 6th of March 2015 with approval number 1400001019. The

application is valid for five years. Afterwards, a QUTREC variation application for interview data

collection to validate the developed ISM model in this study was sought and obtained under the Human-

Low Risk Ethics Category on the 10th of October 2016. The approval number is 1500000717.

Chapter 4: Lean Construction Implementation in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry 83

Chapter 4: Lean Construction Implementation in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry

Jamil Ghazi Sarhan1, Bo Xia1, Sabrina Fawzia1, Azharul Karim2

1Civil Engineering and Built Environment School, Science and Engineering Faculty,

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 2Mechanical Engineering School, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland

University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Contributor Statement of contribution

Jamil Ghazi Sarhan Candidate Searched the literature, performed a content analysis of selected articles, interpreted the findings, wrote the manuscript

Dr. Bo Xia Principal Supervisor Proposed and discussed the idea, reviewed and edited the manuscript

Dr. Sabrina Fawzia Associate Supervisor Reviewed and edited the manuscript

Dr. Azharul Karim Associate Supervisor Reviewed and edited the manuscript

Principal Supervisor Confirmation I have sighted email or other correspondence from all co-authors confirming their certifying authorship

Dr Bo Xia

84 Chapter 4: Lean Construction Implementation in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry

Name

Signature Date

Abstract

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has witnessed a huge increase in construction

during the last two decades. However, many projects experienced time delays, cost

overruns and the generation of massive amounts of waste. To address these challenges,

lean construction has been introduced into the Saudi construction industry; however, it

is still in its infancy. This study therefore investigates the current state of lean

construction implementation in the construction industry in the KSA. The objectives are

to identify: the types of construction waste, level of use of tools that support the

implementation of lean construction, stages of application of lean methods, and the

benefits of lean construction. To achieve these objectives, a structured questionnaire

survey of 282 construction professionals was carried out. After the analysis of the

collected data using mean score and ANOVA test, the following conclusions were made.

In the construction industry in the KSA, waiting is the most common type of waste,

while Computer Aided Design (CAD) is the conventional tool supporting the

implementation of lean construction. Furthermore, the data suggests that lean

construction is most commonly used in the construction stage of projects while

customer satisfaction is the main benefit derived from lean construction practices. This

study concludes that the level of implementation of lean construction in the KSA

construction industry is increasing. The results will help benchmark the current state of

lean construction implementation, which will enable the construction industry to

identify strategies to implement lean construction in Saudi Arabia in accordance with

their needs and project goals, to achieve better productivity.

Keywords: Construction waste, lean Construction, lean construction tools, Saudi

Arabian construction industry.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has experienced an unprecedented rise in

construction projects during the last twenty years (Ikediashi, Ogunlana, & Alotaibi,

2014). Thus, the Saudi construction industry is booming, with the current expenditure

rising to more than US$120 billion a year (Alrashed et al., 2014). Currently, the

kingdom’s construction industry encompasses 15% of its workforce and consumes more

than 14% of the country’s energy (Dhahran International Exhibition Company, 2015).


However, construction projects in the KSA normally have poor performance, which is

mainly due to huge time and cost overruns (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006). Furthermore,

massive environmental waste is also generated by the construction industry and the

Saudi government issued a decree that requires all construction companies to meet new

resource consumption standards to minimize the impact of waste in the construction

industry (McCullough, 2014). In addition, there has been an increase in occurrences of

buildings collapsing before reaching the end of their expected lifespan (AMEInfor,

2014). The Saudi Council of Engineers report that the average lifespan of a Saudi

building is between 25 and 50 years, compared to the 100 years observed in other

countries (AMEInfor, 2014).

To address these challenges, lean construction has been introduced into the Saudi

construction industry, and several contractors have realized the significance of

implementing lean construction (AlSehaimi et al., 2009). The lean construction concept

is based on the Toyota Production System (TPS), which has been transformed into a

newly systemized construction method. It aims to complete a project that meets

customers’ requirements through waste reduction. It also emphasizes that every process

within the construction project is critical for the improvement of the project, considering

the integrated approaches such as lean and green (Banawi, 2013). Lean construction

also minimizes the direct cost of effective project delivery management and assists

construction managers in making informed project decisions at all levels of the project.

Furthermore, lean construction promotes continuous improvement by encouraging

reflection on lessons learned (Lehman & Reiser, 2000).

However, lean construction in Saudi Arabia is still in its infancy. The implementation

of lean construction concepts in complex projects has not yet begun. Due to the lack of

lean construction adoption in the KSA, which has been constrained by various factors

such as poor equipment, an unskilled workforce, and ineffective planning, it is hard to

conduct effective research in this area (AlSehaimi et al., 2009). To increase the

awareness and understanding of the lean concept in the Saudi Arabian construction

industry, an overview of the current status quo of lean construction application is

urgently required. However, no such studies exist in the current body of knowledge due

to the lack of real data or empirical information in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the lack

of a comprehensive overview of lean construction implementation in Saudi Arabia also

prevents more in-depth studies in this area.

Therefore, this study aims to provide an understanding of the implementation of lean

construction in the KSA construction industry. Through a structured questionnaire

survey of 282 construction professionals in the construction industry in the KSA, this


study mainly investigates (1) major types of waste, (2) the current tools/techniques that

support the implementation of lean construction, (3) stages of application of lean

methods, and (4) the benefits of lean construction. This study will enable stakeholders

such as project owners, contractors, consultants, vendors, and the government to have a

clear picture of the level of implementation of lean construction in the Saudi Arabian

construction industry. In addition, this study provides a platform from which to conduct

further studies of lean construction, and promote its application in the construction

market in Saudi Arabia.

4.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Lean Construction

The term “lean” originated from the Toyota Production System (TPS) developed in the

1990s. It describes the strategy that the company adopted to enhance production and

consumption efficiency of its auto goods and services (Ahrens, 2006; Howell & Ballard,

1998; Womack & Jones, 2003). The concept of lean has its foundation in the

deployment of reproducible activities by Fredrick Winslow Taylor (Taylor’s theory)

and its best historical implementation was based on Henry Ford’s conveyor belt

invention that led to mass production observed in the 19th century (Vieira & Cachadinha,

2011). A major shift in the philosophy of manufacturing then occurred in Japan in 1949

when Toyota sales dwindled forcing them to retrench many their workers after the

company’s evaluation showed that Taylor’s mass production was insufficient and thus

had to be reviewed and revised (Ahrens, 2006). This led to the introduction of the

Toyota Production System (TPS), which resulted in the establishment of lean

production in the 1990s. The Toyota Production System was applied together with Total

Quality Control (TQC) and was meant to reduce waste and causes of manufacturing

defects (Anvari, Ismail, & Hojjati, 2011). The same concept has been adopted in the

western world with the term ‘lean thinking’ (Womack & Jones, 1996). Furthermore, the

construction and manufacturing industries have borrowed it, hence the terms “lean

construction” and “lean manufacturing” respectively.

Lean construction involves ways of designing production systems to minimize waste in

materials, time, and human effort, with the aim of generating maximum cost-effective

value (Howell, 1999; Pinch, 2005). It is concerned with a holistic pursuit of concurrent

and continuous improvements in the design, construction, activation, maintenance,

salvaging and recycling in building projects (Howell, 1999). Lean construction could

be in the form of setting milestones and strategy identification of long lead items,

specifying hand offs and identifying operational conflicts, and making work ready


planning to ensure that work is made ready for installation; re-planning as necessary

(Aziz & Hafez, 2013). This system advocates identifying the root causes of waste,

removing those causes with related tools and techniques, and encouraging the

prevention of waste rather than reactively attempting to overcome the negative effects

of loss (Lapinski et al., 2006; Womack & Jones, 2003).

There are five main principles of lean construction which help to bring production

effectiveness in construction (Howell, 1999). These principles were initially specified

by (Womack & Jones, 1996), as essential for lean thinking. First, the value of the

construction is identified based on the views of the customer. Second, value streams are

generated based on the delivery value. Third, the removal of waste by various processes

influences the flows within work processes. Fourth, the creation of a system of pull

production ensures the system does not allow delivery of materials until they are needed.

Fifth, the recognizing or pursuing of perfection helps to improve systems and processes

and this needs to be constantly sought. These five principles are the principles for the

optimization of the system from which a common spirit flows (N. Kumar et al., 2013).

Lean construction is reported to lead to increased quality and productivity in the

construction industry. For instance, Forbes and Ahmed (2011) reported that the

implementation of lean construction concepts increased the quality and productivity of

construction projects by about 77%. Lean construction results in improved working

conditions at the construction sites by decreasing physical and psychological stress

(Alwi, 2003). Lean construction enhances work flow by reducing upstream variability,

which could be achieved via improved project coordination amongst others

(Abdelhamid & Salem, 2005; Vieira & Cachadinha, 2011).

The adoption of lean construction by AEC firms is still in a transition phase (Sarhan &

Fox, 2012) due to lack of understanding about lean thinking concepts and its

implementation in construction, along with structural (from an organization perspective)

and cultural barriers. Institutional waste, focusing on dynamics of systems and

relationships within organizations, has more influence on lean construction

implementation (Sarhan, Pasquire, & King, 2014). It is argued that relationships can be

generated among lean project management and conventional methods through

restructuring for enhancement of organizational integration (Ballard & Tommelein,

2012). However, organizational culture plays vital role for such integrations.

Furthermore, traditional approaches present significant barriers to adopting innovative

approaches such as lean construction (Forbes & Ahmed, 2011). There is a need for more

empirical evidence to align the lean construction theory to maximise the benefits of lean

thinking concepts (Sarhan & Fox, 2013).


Currently there exists a variety of lean tools and techniques, including the Last Planner

System, Value Stream Mapping (VSM), Standardized Work, The 5S process, Kaizen,

Total Quality Management (TQM), increased visualization, Fail Safe for Quality and

Safety, Daily Huddle Meetings, First run studies, The Five Why’s, Just in Time (JIT),

Plan of Conditions and Work Environment in the Construction Industry (PCMAT),

Concurrent Engineering, Pull ‘kanban’ system, Error Proofing (Poka-yoke), Target

value design (TVD), Partnering, Total Productive maintenance (TPM), Computer Aided

Design (CAD) and Six Sigma. Table 4-1 shows the summary of lean tools/techniques

that support the implementation of lean construction processes.

Table 4.1 Summary of the lean tools/techniques that support the implementation of lean

construction

Lean Tools/Techniques

Definition References

The Last Planner System (LPS)

To achieve lean goals of reducing waste, increasing productivity, and decreasing unpredictability, mainly through a social process, by trying to make planning a mutual attempt and by increasing the reliability of the commitment of team members. In construction, LPS was a method that forms workflow and deals with project variability.

(Ballard & Howell, 1994; Lehman & Reiser, 2000; Salem et al., 2005; Watson, 2003)

Value Stream Mapping (VSM)

This tool establishes the current state of the construction process or supply chain to identify the wastes. The future state helps to develop improvement strategies.

(Arleroth & Kristensson, 2011) (Warcup, 2016)

Standardized Work Flexible regimentation lean construction tool involving the development of a common way for performing specific construction processes based on the available evidence.

(Toussaint & Berry, 2013)

The 5S Process The 5Ss are sorting, straightening, shining, standardizing, and sustaining the facilities and processes used in construction. The 5S process increases the productivity of the project since it reduces the time spent searching for supplies, tools, and equipment etc.

(Umstot, 2013) (Ajay and Sridhar, 2016) (Bascoul and Tommelein, 2017)

Kaizen The Japanese word for continual improvement, Kaizen promotes the idea that every process can and should be continually evaluated and improved in terms of time required, resources used, resultant quality, and other aspects relevant to the process.

(Sniegowski, 2013) (Nahmens et al., 2012)

(Ikuma et al., 2011)

Total Quality Management

Most of the substantial tools used to address construction performance issues are based on the concept of plan-do-act. Functions involve identification and evaluation of the

(CEC, 2005; Marosszeky et al., 2002)


problem, developing, and implementing solutions, and evaluating and measuring the results.

Increased visualization

Communicating key information effectively to the workforce through posting various signs and labels around the construction site; workers can remember elements such as workflow, performance targets, and specific required actions if they repeatedly see them.

(Conte & Gransberg, 2001; Salem et al., 2005)

Fail Safe for Quality and Safety

This is a lean construction tool that ensures no harm or minimum is sustained in the event of specific failures.

(Ogunbiyi, 2014)

Daily Huddle Meetings

These are held to obtain the full involvement of employees in issues regarding the project and to encourage employees to solve problems together. Two-way communication is the key to the daily huddle meeting process to achieve employee involvement.

(Adamu & Hamid, 2012; Aziz & Hafez, 2013; Ogunbiyi, 2014; Salem et al., 2005)

First run studies First-run studies are utilized to remodel important tasks. Operations are scrutinized thoroughly, and ideas and suggestions are raised to explore alternative ways of doing the task. The PDCA (plan, do, check, and act) cycle is used to build up the first-run study.

(Aziz & Hafez, 2013; Ballard & Howell, 1997; Ogunbiyi, 2014)

The Five Why’s This is the lean construction iterative-question-asking technique that elucidates “cause-and-effect” mechanisms associated with a problem. It is a problem-solving tool that aims to find the root cause of a construction-related issue or problem. The questions are usually specific to the project and are not limited to five questions.

(Aziz & Hafez, 2013; El-Kourd, 2009; Nielsen & Tezel, 2013)

Just in Time (JIT) JIT in lean construction is a tool that ensures reduced flow times: production times and response times (end-to-end or between contractors and clients). JIT may include demand-flow or continuous-flow.

(Ogunbiyi, 2014)

(Bajjou et al., 2017)

(Bamana et al., 2017)

Plan of Conditions and Work Environment in the Construction Industry

This is a lean construction tool that assures occupation safety and health management. It manages safety requirements through the risk management cycle consisting of continuous identification of risk, evaluation, and control.

(Aziz & Hafez, 2013; Ogunbiyi, 2014)

Concurrent Engineering

This is an improved design process characterized by rigorous upfront requirements analysis, incorporating the constraints of subsequent phases into the conceptual phase, and tightening of change control towards the end of the design process.

(Ballard & Howell, 2003; Koskela, 1992; Koskela, 1994)

Pull ‘kanban’ system The pull systems are a lean approach developed in the automotive industry as a mechanism to pull materials and parts throughout the value stream on a JIT basis.

The Productivity Press Development Team (2002) mentioned that the Japanese word “Kanban” means ‘card’ or

(Arbulu, Ballard, & Harper, 2003; The Productivity Press Development Team, 2002)


The concept of waste in construction is still evolving. Viana et al. (2012) reported that

the effort of the construction management community for understanding waste is

relatively small, compared to other topics, and many studies about waste have focused

on the consequences, not on the root causes that should be avoided. Waste is normally

understood in two dimensions, i.e. instrumentally and intrinsically, with the main aim

to reduce or eliminate for performance improvement (Koskela et al., 2012). These

interpretations of waste are different in construction which requires empirical

justification, conceptual compatibility, persuasiveness, and motivation for action

(Koskela & Bølviken, 2013). Creating value and only value is the best way to reduce

waste in design and construction (Mossman, 2009).

‘sign’ and is the name given to the inventory control card used in a pull system.

Error Proofing (Poka-yoke)

Poka-yoke is a Japanese word which can be defined as “error-proofing”. Shingo introduced Poka-yoke devices as new elements to avoid defective parts from flowing through the process. It is a lean tool that engages all forms of activities and devices that could help avoid an error from happening.

(Abdelhamid & Salem, 2005; Conner, 2009)

Target value design (TVD)

This approach applies methods for the design to be developed in accordance with the constraints, especially cost (e. ‘deign-to-cost’ or ‘design-to-targets’. TVD considers the customers’/clients’ and stakeholders’ vision to define such restrictions and deliver the required target values.

(Miron, Kaushik, & Koskela, 2015)

Partnering This approach lead to collaboration and open exchange of information which implies a potentially radical change in the management practices and organisational structures.

(Barlow, 1996)

Total Productive maintenance (TPM)

This tool as an integrated approach to maintenance that focuses on proactive and preventative maintenance to maximize the operational time of equipment, TPM blurs the distinction between maintenance and production by placing a strong emphasis on empowering operators to help maintain their equipment.

(Al-Aomar, 2012a; Asay & Wisdom, 2002)

Computer Aided Design (CAD)

In this approach, engineering designs may be created and tested using computer simulations and then transferred directly to the production floor where the machinery uses the information to perform production functions.

(Diekmann et al., 2004; Khanzode, Fischer, & Reed, 2005)

Six Sigma An organized and systematic method for strategic process improvement and new product and service development that relies on statistical methods and scientific method to make dramatic reductions in the customer defined defect rates.

(Linderman, Schroeder, Zaheer, & Choo, 2003)


Many studies have identified the causes of waste in construction projects. Ohno (1988)

suggests that the causes of waste are related to over production, waiting, transportation,

over processing, inventory, movement, and defects. Macomber and Howell (2004)

revealed that under-utilized human potential is a cause of waste, while Koskela (2004a)

added making-do. Making-do is the circumstance in which the task is begun without all

the required standard inputs. Input here refers to machinery, personnel, tools, external

conditions, instructions, and so on. Additionally, Bossink and Brouwers (1996) defined

significant causes of construction waste into six sources: residual, operational, materials

handling, procurement, design, and other sources that may not add value to the project.

Furthermore, Garas, Anis, and El Gammal (2001) classified waste under two main

headings; first, material-related waste, namely over-ordering, over-production,

mishandling, bad storage, manufacturing defects, and theft and vandalism. Second,

waste as related to time, such as waiting, stoppages, clarifications, variations in

information, rework, errors, and interaction between various specialists. Other studies

have identified the most frequent types of waste in construction (Aziz & Hafez, 2013;

Engineers Australia, 2012; Koskela, 2004a). In no specific order, these are: Waiting (on

people, information, material), Corrections (re-work), Transportation (haulage and

soluble handling), Motion, Over-processing (wrong methods), Inventory (storage), over

production (building ahead of time) and Making do.

4.3 RESEARCH METHOD

To investigate the implementation of lean construction in the Saudi Arabian

construction market, a broad questionnaire survey was conducted to understand the

extent to which lean construction tools and techniques have penetrated the industry. The

questionnaire was designed to include two major sections. The first section obtains

general information about the respondents, and the second (main) part attempts to find

the answers of following questions:

(1) What are the major types of waste in the Saudi construction industry?

(2) What is the level of use of lean tools and techniques in the KSA

construction industry?

(3) In which stages is lean construction implemented the KSA


(4) What are the benefits of implementing lean construction in the KSA


A total of 800 questionnaires were dispatched to individuals involved in the construction

industry, and 282 responses were received, representing a response rate of 35%. The


survey was started in March 2015 in Saudi Arabia. The potential respondents were

approached in two ways. First, an online questionnaire survey using Survey Monkey

was conducted with members of the Saudi Council of Engineers that included Suppliers,

Specialty Contractors, General Contractors, subcontractors, Architects, Project

Managers, and Clients. An invitation letter and questionnaire was sent to Saudi Council

of Engineers first to seek their assistance with the questionnaire survey. Thereafter, the

Saudi Council of Engineers helped by sending the survey request to its members, which

resulted in 155 respondents returning their completed questionnaires.

Second, an arbitrary 300 hardcopy questionnaires were posted to different contracting,

consulting, academic, governmental and client-based organisations. The intention was

to obtain the views of the employees in these organisations on the implementation of

lean construction in their individual projects. Therefore, the targeted respondents were

the employee-construction professionals in these organisations. In the KSA, it is

difficult to obtain an updated register of the construction professionals engaged in

different construction organisations. Due to this reason, the sampling approach is a

convenient sampling approach. 127 completed questionnaires were returned by these

employees. They were analysed and presented in the following sections.

4.4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Figure 4.1 presents the background information of 282 respondents, including their

organization, experience, education background, organization or company size based

on the number of employees, approximate annual revenue (for the year 2014) of their

company, and the status of their ISO certification.

The respondents involved in the survey were architects, clients, general contractors,

suppliers, project managers, academics, and government officials. Most respondents

were from project management companies (39%) and general contractors (23%),

followed by design consultant companies (10%) and specialty contractors (9%). The

diversity of their professional backgrounds will help to provide a balanced view for the

research topic.

In this study, companies were categorized into small (less than 200 employees), medium

(201–1000 employees), and large (more than 1000 employees). The results showed that

24% of the respondents were from small companies, 20% from medium companies, and

46% from large companies. Additionally, company size was also analysed regarding

approximate annual revenue (financial year 2014), revealing that 9% of companies


made less than US $2 million, 17% made between US $4 million to US $20 million,

and 36% of companies had a revenue of more than US $20 million. These results

confirm that large companies dominate the Saudi Arabian construction industry.

The International Standard Organization (Wison) certifies organizations based on

proven credibility and quality, especially on products or services that meet customers’

expectations. The analysis of the status of ISO certification of the Saudi Arabian

construction companies showed that nearly half of the organizations have acquired the

certification, significantly higher than those that have not acquired the certification

(17%).

In Figure 4.2, educational background and professional/work experience for most

respondents found they were highly educated (74% have bachelor degree) and

experienced (75% have more than 5 years’ experience), which will ensure the reliability

of the research results.

Figure 4.1 Respondents' organization profile

Figure 4.2 Respondents' profile


4.5 DATA ANALYSIS

4.5.1 Types of construction waste

This section shows the results of the data analysis of the types of construction waste in

the Saudi Arabian construction industry. As shown in Table 4.2, “Waiting” has the

highest mean value of 3.58 and is ranked first. This is closely followed by “Making do”

with a mean value of 3.43 and thus ranked second. From the rear, “over production” is

ranked lowest with an overall mean of 2.96. Except for over production (mean score =

2.96), all types of waste have a mean score higher than 3.00. This suggests that they are

very common in the construction industry in the KSA.

Table 4.2 Types of waste in the Saudi Arabian construction industry

Note: 1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree

ANOVA statistical tests were employed to examine the opinion of construction

professionals whether the types of waste are significantly different between “large” and

“small and medium” construction companies. Table 4.2 shows that except for over-

processing and over production, P-values for other types of waste are greater than the

significant value of 0.05, showing that the null hypothesis is valid, which means there

is no statistically significant difference in the opinion of construction professionals on

the types of waste between large and small-to-medium companies.

As the P-values for “Over processing” and “Over production” are 0.002 and 0.027

respectively, and less than the significance level of 0.05, the null hypothesis is thus

rejected. Over processing is a result of the implementation of the wrong methods. For

example, in design process, over engineering is considered as over processing; likewise,

in the construction stage, stockpiling excess material for concreting near plant or mixer

causing double handling (for arrangement of materials) does not contributing to a good

outcome i.e. a batch of concrete for a specific pour at a given time. Similarly, over

production is the production of building ahead of time and more than is required

(Bertelsen & Koskela, 2002). These types of waste are more significant for smaller

Types of Waste Overall Mean

S.D. Rank Small and Medium

companies

Rank Large companies

Rank ANOVA

p-value

Waiting 3.58 1.14 1 3.49 1 3.56 1 0.076 Making do 3.43 1.94 2 3.44 2 3.45 2 0.670 Corrections 3.38 1.13 3 3.30 4 3.37 3 0.096 Transportation 3.38 1.09 4 3.42 3 3.34 5 0.852 Motion 3.28 1.16 5 3.23 5 3.35 4 0.661 Over-processing 3.25 1.14 6 3.14 6 3.21 6 0.002* Inventory 3.04 1.15 7 3.23 5 2.88 7 0.046 Over Production 2.96 1.17 8 3.14 6 2.76 8 0.027*


companies as they have limited resources compared to large companies with larger

production units. Thus, the percentage of waste in large companies from these two types

is relatively small compared to overall production.

Furthermore, the construction professionals opine that these two types of waste are

similar for both small-to-medium and large companies but the nature of type is different.

Poor management practice is a key reason for over processing and overproduction.

Furthermore, poor quality control and lack of a quality assurance system play a vital

role.

4.5.2 Level of use of tools that support the implementation of lean construction

Even though it has already been established that lean construction methods are

important for achieving beneficial results, it is important to understand the different

levels of implementation of these methods. Table 4.4 shows how often different lean

methods are implemented in the current Saudi Arabian construction industry. Results

obtained are consistent with previous studies such as by Gao and Low (2014), which

indicates that the adoption of lean/techniques in the construction industry is very

prolonged. Forbes and Ahmed (2011) suggest this is because of the averse-to-change

nature of the construction industry.

Table 4.3 Level of use of tools that support the implementation of lean construction

Tools Overall Mean

S.D. Rank

Small to medium companies

Rank

Large companies

Rank

ANOVA p-value

Computer-aided design

3.97 1.55 1 4.04 1 3.92 1 0.747

Preventive maintenance

3.60 1.41 2 3.47 4 3.66 3 0.309

Safety improvement program

3.60 1.40 3 3.55 3 3.77 2 0.020*

Visual inspection 3.55 1.44 4 3.62 2 3.49 4 0.783 Continuous improvement programs

3.35 1.43 5 3.29 6 3.32 5 0.274

Daily huddle meetings 3.34 1.36 6 3.28 7 3.31 6 0.272 Total quality management

3.23 1.47 7 3.15 8 3.25 7 0.566

Use of prefabricated materials

3.18 1.68 8 3.33 5 3.16 12 0.145

Target value design 3.15 1.56 9 3.08 11 3.18 10 0.786 Concurrent engineering

3.14 1.53 10 3.14 9 3.18 11 0.796


Just-in-time techniques

3.12 1.52 11 3.12 10 3.06 14 0.509

Plan of Conditions and Work Environment in the Construction Industry

3.12 1.50 12 2.95 12 3.25 8 0.219

Computerised planning system or ERP

2.98 1.72 13 2.78 15 3.20 9 0.140

Last planner system 2.96 1.50 14 2.87 13 3.04 15 0.631 Information management system

2.96 1.70 15 2.76 16 3.16 13 0.181

5S 2.85 1.71 16 2.82 14 2.84 16 0.840 Six Sigma 2.48 1.69 17 2.45 17 2.58 17 0.352 Kanban 1.93 1.61 18 1.80 18 1.99 18 0.408

Note: 1= Never to 5= Always

As shown in Table 4.3, 12 tools/techniques have mean ≥3.0, while the other 5

tools/techniques have a mean value of <3.00. Therefore, this is taken to mean that 12

tools/techniques are important for supporting the implementation of lean construction

in the construction industry in the KSA. They are computed aided design (mean value

= 3.97), preventative maintenance (mean value = 3.60), safety improvement program

(mean value = 3.60), visual inspection (mean value = 3.55), continuous improvement

program (mean value = 3.35), daily huddle meetings (mean value = 3.34) and Total

quality management (mean value = 3.23). Others are Use of prefabricated material

(mean value = 3.18), Target value design (mean value = 3.15), concurrent engineering

(mean value = 3.14), Just-in-time (mean value = 3.12) and Plan of Conditions and Work

Environment in the Construction Industry (mean value = 3.12). From the rear, Six sigma

and Kanban are ranked at the bottom of list by both small and large construction

companies, as they are not popular and are rarely used by construction professionals.

ANOVA tests were conducted to evaluate whether there is a significant difference in

the use of the tools based on the opinion of construction professionals in large and small-

to-medium companies. Of all the tools identified in Table 4.3, the result reveals that

only the use of the Safety Improvement Program is significantly different between large

and small with p-value <0.05 (0.020). The reason for the difference between both types

of companies can be attributed to the high-level focus on safety in large companies, but

not in small companies who are usually contracted to execute small projects in the KSA.

The other tools have p-values >0.05 (Table 4.3) indicating that there is no significant

difference in their use to support the implementation of lean construction in both large

and small-to-medium companies.


4.5.3 Stages of application of lean methods in the KSA construction industry

There are different stages in any construction project: planning, design, construction,

operation and maintenance, commissioning, and handover. Mehta, Scarborough, and

Armpriest (2008) describe stages of construction project delivery. The planning stage is

where the proposed project is defined in terms of its function, purpose, scope, size, and

economics. The design stage is where the client’s design concept is produced

graphically for visualisation and appreciation. The construction stage is where the

project design by architects or engineers is realised by assembling the elements that

make up the design. The commissioning/handover stage indicates the practical

completion of a project and the handover by the constructor to the client. Usually, a

commissioning professional is assigned to check whether the proposed plan is as built.

The operation/maintenance stage indicates the practical use of the project by occupiers.

Throughout the project life span, maintenance works on dilapidated or weakened

elements are expected to be carried out at regular intervals. All these stages are

important and special teams are allocated to each stage. The implementation levels of

lean construction at each project stage are tabulated in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Stages of application of lean methods in the KSA construction industry

Overall Mean

S.D. Rank

Small and

Medium

Rank Large Rank

ANOVA p-value

Note: 1= No implementation to 5= Complete implementation

As shown in Table 4.4, the construction stage has a mean value of 3.83, followed by the

design stage with a mean value of 3.81, then followed by the planning stage with a mean

value of 3.72. The stages of construction with the lowest mean values are operation and

maintenance, and commissioning and handover, with mean values 3.70 and 3.59

respectively. It could be seen that the mean value for all the stages are >3.0 out of a

maximum of 5.0. This indicates that lean construction is highly implemented in all

stages of construction in the KSA construction industry. However, the

Constructionstage

3.83 1.04 1 3.69 1 3.94 2 0.151

Design stage 3.81 1.1 2 3.6 3 3.95 1 0.025* Planning stage 3.72 1.15 3 3.65 2 3.75 4 0.654 Operation and maintenance stage

3.7 1.13 4 3.6 3 3.79 3 0.383

Commissioning and handover stage

3.59 1.14 5 3.52 4 3.64 5 0.671


commissioning/handover stage has the lowest mean value (3.59). Therefore, future

opportunities for improving the level of implementation of lean construction should be

concentrated on the commissioning/handover stage.

An ANOVA, P-value analysis was done to check for differences from the mean between

the groups. ANOVA P-values vary from 0.025 to 0.671 for different stages for lean

construction between the two groups. In these results, the null hypothesis states that the

mean values are equal for both groups for different reasons, as indicated in the table. As

the P-value for “Design” is 0.025, which is less than the significance level of 0.05, the

null hypothesis is rejected. So, for this technique, large and small-to-medium companies

have a different mean and differing opinions from the respondents. More consideration

is given to the design of large scale projects and sometimes it takes years to complete

just the design phase of larger projects. Whereas in small projects, comparatively less

consideration is given to the design phase, which may be the reason for the differences

in opinion of respondents across the two groups.

On the other hand, for all other stages of construction, in regards to adopting lean

construction methods the ANOVA P-value is greater than the significant value of 0.05

showing that the null hypothesis is valid and there is no significant difference in the

mean of data collected for large and small-to-medium companies. The most agreeable

point is “commissioning and hand over” for both large and small-to-medium companies.

4.5.4 Benefits of lean construction

Table 4.5 shows ranked benefits of lean construction. The results show that generally,

the construction industry is mainly concerned about getting improved customer

satisfaction (with a mean value of 3.91). Construction companies are categorized into

two groups, i.e. “Large” and “small and medium” to provide a clearer analysis of

reasons for adopting a lean construction. First, overall means were calculated as varying

from 3.91 to 3.42, and then the standard deviations were calculated, varying from 1.22

to 1.46. Analysis of the data enables us to rank the reasons for adopting a lean

construction, whereby “Customer satisfaction” is at the top of the list and “Employee

satisfaction” ranks last. Quality improvement and increased productivity are two other

main reasons identified by researchers worldwide, and these are ranked 2nd and 3rd in

the list.

Table 4.5 Benefits of lean construction Benefits of lean

construction Overall Mean

S.D. Rank Small and Medium

companies

Rank Large companies

Rank p-value

Customer satisfaction 3.91 1.27 1 3.85 3 3.83 4 0.020*


Note: 1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree

The benefits of lean construction may differ for different sized companies with different

goals and production units (McGraw Hill Construction, 2013). Thus, an ANOVA

analysis was conducted and the results show that only the P-values for the top two

ranked reasons (i.e. customer satisfaction and quality improvement) are lower than 0.05.

For these two reasons of lean adoption, respondents from large and small-to-medium

companies have significantly different opinions. Customer satisfaction and quality

improvement are two main factors for evaluating the progress and reputation of any

company but it also depends on the clientele and the types and scale of projects

undertaken as large companies are often engaged in mega projects whereas small firms

concentrate more on small scale construction like housing. The point that both large and

small-to-medium companies agree on most is “reduced construction time. This may be

because in Saudi Arabia delays in completion of construction projects have increased

and construction firms want to complete their projects in shorter timeframes.

4.6 DISCUSSION

Lean construction is a comparatively new concept in the construction industry, which

aims to enhance production effectiveness. This research explored the major types of

waste, tools that support the implementation of lean construction, benefits of lean

construction, and stages of application of lean methods in the KSA construction industry.

Results showed that “waiting” is the is the most common type of waste in construction

projects in Saudi Arabia. This may be due to several factors including processing of

bills, delay in supply of materials and staff negligence as reported in previous studies

(Aziz, 2013; Engineers Australia, 2012; Koskela, 2004a). Alwi (2003), suggests that

waiting is most important type of waste in Indonesian and Australian construction

projects. L. F. Alarcon (1997) also identified waste in construction and concluded the

same results for the Netherlands.

Quality improvement 3.90 1.22 2 3.75 4 3.92 1 0.012* Increased productivity 3.88 1.26 3 3.93 1 3.76 5 0.109 Reduced construction time 3.86 1.27 4 3.90 2 3.86 3 0.846 Process improvement 3.83 1.24 5 3.74 5 3.90 2 0.576 Better health and safety record

3.73 1.29 6 3.68 6 3.73 7 0.581

Improved supplier relationship

3.63 1.32 7 3.56 7 3.74 6 0.418

Better inventory control/reduced inventory

3.51 1.46 8 3.48 8 3.50 8 0.828

Increased market share 3.45 1.45 9 3.47 9 3.39 9 0.655 Employee satisfaction 3.42 1.33 10 3.37 10 3.39 9 0.271


Customer satisfaction is the dominant benefit for adopting lean construction techniques

by Saudi Arabian Construction companies. It can be measured by different factors like

the overall quality of the completed project, materials used, cost, user feedback,

fulfilment of the purpose of the project, meeting health and safety criteria amongst

others. Customer satisfaction about the completed project will create a trust bond

between the two parties and will likely result in future collaboration. Quality

improvement and increased productivity are two other main benefits for adopting lean

construction and are ranked 2nd and 3rd in the list of reasons. These findings are in

accordance with those of other researchers, for example, in the Brazil and Netherland

construction industries these two reasons were also identified as the main benefits for

adopting lean construction techniques (Ballard & Howell, 1997; Banik, 1999).

The results show that there are 12 important tools/techniques that supports the

implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. Of the 12

tools/techniques, CAD has the highest mean value, and therefore it is the most important

tool/technique. This agrees with previous studies in the manufacturing sector. Karim,

Aljuhani, Duplock, and Yarlagadda (2011), revealed that CAD is moderately used to

support lean processes in the manufacturing sector. In addition, the high importance of

CAD may be due to the use of the tool for design purpose. In the construction industry

in the KSA, CAD is a common design tool used by many construction professionals,

especially designers and engineers. Thus, it is very easy for these professionals to adapt

the tool for lean construction purposes.

Both large and small-to-medium construction companies in Saudi Arabia implement

lean construction methods mostly during the construction stage. Salem et al. (2005)

have explained lean construction in detail for different stages of construction projects

in the US. Similarly, it is found that lean construction methods are mainly implemented

during the construction stage as this stage is associated with maximum activities with

respect to time, materials, and cost.

4.7 CONCLUSION

In Saudi Arabia, construction projects are facing significant delays and wastage of

resources. Even though lean construction is regarded as a powerful tool to enhance

productivity by reducing wastage, lean construction techniques are not implemented as

widely in Saudi Arabia when compared to the rest of the world. A broad questionnaire

survey of 282 construction industry professionals was conducted to identify major types

of waste, benefits of lean construction, implementation levels of lean tools, and stages

where lean methods are implemented in the KSA construction industry.


The most common types of waste in the KSA construction industry in ascending order

are waiting, making do, corrections, transportation, motion, over processing, inventory

and over production. For both “small and medium” and “large” companies, waiting and

making do are the most common types of waste, furthermore, over processing and over

production are experienced to a similar degree by both types of companies. In contrast,

wastage resulting from ‘transportation’ is highly different between the two types of

companies, whereas, ‘inventory’ is the least different type of waste.

The tools that support the implementation of lean construction in the ascending order of

popularity are: computer aided design, preventive maintenance, safety improvement

programs, visual inspections, continuous improvement programs, daily huddle meetings,

total quality management, use of prefabricated materials, target value design, concurrent

engineering, just-in-time approach, plan of conditions and work environment in the

construction industry, computerised planning system or ERP, information management

system, 5S, six sigma and Kanban. In addition, of all the tools, the use of safety

improvement programs was found to be different between large and small-to-medium

companies in the KSA construction industry.

Furthermore, the benefits of lean construction in the KSA construction industry in

ascending order are customer satisfaction, quality improvement, increased productivity,

reduced construction time, process improvement, better health and safety record,

improved supplier relationships, better inventor control/reduced inventory, increased

market share and employee satisfaction. In addition, both customer satisfaction and

quality improvement are significantly different between large and small-to-medium

companies.

In summary, the following are the main conclusions in this study:

1. Waiting is the most common type of waste in the KSA construction

industry.

2. CAD is the most important tool for supporting the implementation of lean

construction.

3. Lean construction is highly used in all stages of construction, with

opportunities for improvement at the commissioning/handover stage.

4. To achieve customer satisfaction is the major benefit of lean construction

in the KSA construction industry.

This study will be helpful for enhancing efficiency, production, and quality of

construction projects by providing an understanding of the level of implementation of

lean construction in the KSA construction industry. The study provides information


about the most common type of waste, and the tools which can be useful for lean

construction in all construction project stages in the KSA. Despite the value in the

findings, there are opportunities for further research. More research on how lean

construction tools/techniques can be applied to eliminate the different types of waste in

the construction industry in the KSA should be carried out in future. Additionally,

barriers and critical success factors for lean implementation in the construction industry

in the KSA should be investigated.

There are limitations to this research. Notably, the findings in this study were mainly

based on the results of a broad questionnaire survey. As the survey was conducted for a

specific period with professionals working in the KSA construction firms, results may

not represent the whole Saudi Arabian construction industry. There is an earnest need

to do case study based research which will create guidelines to implement in the KSA

construction industry. To obtain more representative results, other methods like

interviews, meetings, polls, seminars, and observations should also be conducted.

Chapter 5: Barriers to Implementing Lean Construction Practices in the Saudi Arabia Construction 103

Chapter 5: Barriers to Implementing Lean Construction Practices in the Saudi Arabia Construction

Jamil Sarhan1, Bo Xia1, Sabrina Fawzia1, Azharul Karim2 Ayokunle Olanipekun1


Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 2Mechanical Engineering School, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University

of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.






Ayokunle Olanipekun Contributor Reviewed and edited the manuscript

Principal Supervisor Confirmation

I have sighted email or other correspondence from all co-authors confirming their certifying

authorship

Dr. Bo Xia

Name Signature Date

104 Chapter 5: Barriers to Implementing Lean Construction Practices in the Saudi Arabia Construction

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify the barriers to implementing lean

construction in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) construction industry and to prioritise the

principal factors that constitute these barriers.

Design/methodology/approach: A literature review was initially employed to reveal global

barriers to implementing lean construction. Subsequently, these barriers were incorporated

into a structured questionnaire and a convenience sample of 282 construction professionals in

the KSA construction industry were surveyed. The results were analysed using mean item

score (MIS), Mann Whitney U tests and Principal Component Analysis (PCA).

Findings: The findings reveal 22 barriers to lean construction implementation in the KSA

construction industry. Principal factors that constitute these barriers were found to be

traditional practices, client related, technological, performance and knowledge and cost related

barriers in descending order of pervasiveness. The study also proposes solutions to overcome

these principal barriers.

Originality/value: This study provides a global overview of the barriers to implementing lean

construction. It contributes to the body of knowledge, as it uncovers for the first time, the

barriers to implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry with reference to

the socio-cultural, economic and operational context of the KSA. Thus, it is relevant to other

countries in the Middle East region because of their shared similarities to the KSA.

Furthermore, the solutions proposed to overcome these barriers in the KSA construction

industry can be applied in other countries where similar barriers are identified.

Keywords: Barriers, Implementation, Lean construction, Saudi construction industry,

Principal component analysis

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Over the years, the Toyota Way principles (Liker, 2004) and equivalent terms such as lean

thinking (Womack & Jones, 1996) have gained popularity and have become recognised as

strategic means that can lead to substantial improvements in quality, productivity and other

performance indicators (Karim, 2009). Consequently, efforts have been initiated to seek their

implementation both in and outside of manufacturing organisations. Success in implementing


lean practices can be attributed to several factors, including a shift in thinking (Atkinson, 2010;

Shook, 1997), a shift in organisational behaviour (Sim & Rogers, 2009) and a culture that

focuses equally on waste elimination and the development of human resources (Liker, 2004).

The construction industry appears to be one of the first industries to embrace lean concepts

and techniques following the manufacturing/automotive industry (Shang & Pheng, 2014). The

lean construction method was developed (Ballard & Howell, 1998), building heavily on lean

principles (Womack & Jones, 1996) and the Toyota Production System (TPS) (Ohno, 1988).

Effective methods of lean implementation in manufacturing industries have also been

suggested (Karim & Zaman, 2013). Despite some criticisms of lean construction (Green, 2002)

such as it being complex and requiring a lengthy period of implementation, the construction

industry has recognised the opportunity to embrace improvements through lean

implementation (de Souza & Pidd, 2011; Egan, 1998; Salem et al., 2006). During the growth

of lean practices in the construction industry, all of the same types of challenges have been

commonly witnessed in the execution phase as those encountered in other industries

(Alinaitwe, 2009; Forbes, Ahmed, & Barcala, 2002).

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has experienced an unprecedented rise in construction

projects during the last twenty years (Ikediashi et al., 2014). It has largest construction industry

in the Middle East and is booming with the current expenditure rising to more than US$120

billion a year (Alrashed et al., 2014). Currently, the kingdom’s construction industry

encompasses 15% of its workforce and consumes more than 14% of the country’s energy

(Dhahran International Exhibition Company, 2015). However, the KSA construction industry

is facing problems in measuring and improving its performance (Bannah, Elmualim, & Tang,

2012). Common problems include, but are not limited to, time delays (Assaf & Al-Hejji,

2006), cost overruns (Harris, 2014), and poor safety and quality issues (AMEInfor, 2014).

To address these problems, the lean construction concept was introduced into the KSA

construction industry (AlSehaimi et al., 2009). Al-Sudairi (2007) reported that lean practices

have significantly improved project performance, especially at the trade level by reducing

waste involved. Despite this, lean construction in Saudi Arabia is still in its infancy. The

implementation of lean construction concepts in large and complex projects has not yet taken

place (Sarhan, Olanipekun, et al., 2016; Sarhan et al., 2017). Organisational problems, social

change, local culture, deficiency of skills and the challenge of selecting the right lean tools

could all contribute to problems when attempting to engage lean concepts. Nevertheless, no

research has been carried out to date to systematically investigate the barriers involved in the

implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. It has been shown that

cultural and geographical differences may contribute to fundamentally different


manufacturing strategies (Samson & Ford, 2000; Voss & Blackmon, 1998). Owing to a lack

of research on the subject, operators such as respective construction organisations and

professionals are unaware of the barriers to implementing lean construction which are specific

to the socio-cultural, economic and operational context in the KSA construction industry.

Consequently, it is difficult to appropriate potential solutions to these barriers.

Therefore, the objective of this study is to identify the barriers to implementing lean

construction in the KSA construction industry, and to prioritise the principal factors that

constitute these barriers. This study is significant because it contributes to the existing body of

knowledge of lean construction, by first prioritising the barriers to lean construction in terms

of level of pervasiveness, and second, by revealing how the socio-cultural, economic and

operational contexts of a country can contribute to the barriers to implementing lean

construction. This will enable operators in the KSA construction industry, and others likewise

in the Middle East region to develop appropriate solutions to overcome the barriers to

implementing lean construction. Meanwhile, this study proposes some universally applicable

solutions to address the principal barriers to lean construction with recommendations that they

should be holistically implemented to encompass the participation of the many operators such

as the management and employees of construction organisations and professional bodies in

the KSA construction industry.

In terms of structure, the paper starts with a description of the lean construction concept, how

it compares to lean manufacturing and its benefits to construction projects and the construction

industry. This is followed by a literature review of the global barriers to implementing lean

construction in both developed and developing countries. After presenting the research

methodology, the results are discussed before conclusions are made and recommendations

proposed.

5.2 CONCEPT OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION

The success of the lean production philosophy of the Toyota Production System (TPS) to

ensuring improved organisational performance in the manufacturing industry has encouraged

the uptake of the concept in the construction industry in the form of lean construction

(Kanafani, 2015; Moghadam, 2014). Thus, lean construction extends the lean production

philosophy to the construction industry in the form of maximising value and minimising

wastes in the construction project delivery process (O. Ogunbiyi et al., 2014). Therefore,

according to Ogunbiyi (2014), lean construction is a philosophy as well as production

management system that utilises unique tools and techniques to cause changes to the culture

within an organisation, while also maximising value to clients by identifying and eliminating


waste, and aiming for perfection in the delivery of construction projects, as well as contributing

towards a sustainable and greener environment (Marhani, Jaapar, & Bari, 2012).

According to Abdullah et al. (2009), the uptake of lean construction in the construction

industry has been very beneficial. Corroboratively, many studies have been able to

demonstrate the benefits of lean construction (e.g. (Alarcón, Diethelm, Rojo, & Calderon,

2011; Locatelli et al., 2013; Nahmens & Ikuma, 2009; Nahmens & Ikuma, 2012; O. Ogunbiyi

et al., 2014)). For example, Nahmens and Ikuma (2012) analysed the effects of lean

construction on the sustainability of modular homebuilding. By applying the lean tool Kaizen

on the project, the study revealed that lean construction positively affected the environmental,

social and economic performance of the project by reducing material wastes, safety hazards

and production hours (Nahmens & Ikuma, 2012). Bashir et al. (2011) focused on a theoretical

analysis of lean construction tools such as the Last Planner System and the 5S (house-keeping)

methodology. The study demonstrates that the features of lean construction tools are

significantly relevant to promoting safety on construction sites. For instance, the 5S (house-

keeping) methodology emphasises workplace organisation and cleanliness which, if

implemented, helps to address poorly organised and unkempt sites (Bashir et al., 2011). In

fact, industrialised home builders in the US confirm that applying the continuous

improvements (CI) principle of lean construction significantly lowers the injury incidence

rates during construction project delivery (Nahmens & Ikuma, 2009). The Last Planner System

is a particularly important lean construction tool, and by implementing lean construction on

an industrial project in Egypt, Issa (2013) showed that this tool helped to reduce project

completion time by 15.57%. On most construction projects where lean construction is

implemented, the constant benefits are shorter delivery time and increased project performance

arising from lean construction principles, enhanced productivity of workforce, better

coordination and communication, minimisation of reworks and zero-value adding activities

(Locatelli et al., 2013). These principles guide the implementation of lean construction in the

construction industry (Marhani et al., 2012).

While the implementation of lean construction contributes directly to the successful delivery

of construction projects (Ogunbiyi, 2014), the greater benefit is ensuring best practices in the

construction industry. According to Abdullah et al. (2009), the uptake of lean construction has

increased the level of innovation in the construction industry over time. Furthermore, by

directly tapping into relevant production theories, (Omran & Abdulrahim, 2015), lean

construction changes the manner in which construction projects are delivered in construction

organisations to be more systematic and effective (Abdullah et al., 2009). This increases best

practices in the construction industry whereby the ineffective traditional processes of project

delivery in many construction organisations are altered, while the lean construction approach


is embraced for enhanced project performance (Abdullah et al., 2009). Furthermore, based on

the perspectives of construction professionals in the UK construction industry, O. Ogunbiyi et

al. (2014) found that lean construction, especially when integrated with sustainable

construction, helps construction organisations to improve their corporate image, competitive

advantage, productivity, and effective compliance to customers’ expectations.

The above accounts indicate that, although lean construction is a concept that originated in the

manufacturing industry, it is very beneficial at the project, industry and organisational levels

in the construction industry. Despite the benefits, there is very low implementation of lean

construction in the construction industry in many developing countries due to various barriers.

For instance, Marhani et al. (2012) revealed an infancy level implementation of lean

construction in the Malaysian construction industry. Abdullah et al. (2009) corroborates the

limited implementation of lean construction in the Malaysian construction industry, which is

the same situation in other developing countries like Ghana (Ayarkkwa, Agyekum, &

Adinyira, 2012) and Libya (Omran & Abdulrahim, 2015). Notably, certain barriers are

responsible for the low implementation of lean construction in these countries. Therefore,

global barriers to the implementation of lean construction are reviewed in the following

section. The intention is to verify these barriers in the KSA construction industry, where there

is equally low implementation of lean construction (Al-Nafil, 2013).

5.3 GLOBAL BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION

Previous studies on the barriers to the implementation of lean construction in the construction

industry can be categorised into studies carried out in developed countries (Balfour Beatty)

and developing countries (six). The developed countries were the UK, where 2 studies were

carried out, and Germany and Singapore. The developing countries were Malaysia, India,

China, Libya, Ghana and Uganda. In addition, the majority of the developing countries (three)

are African countries. This may suggest that, globally, the barriers to the implementation of

lean construction are more pervasive in developing countries, especially those in Africa. The

first study was carried out in the construction industry in Singapore among medium to large

contracting firms (Dulaimi & Tanamas, 2001) and a significant barrier identified was the

unwillingness of the management in the contracting firms to train their workers about lean

construction techniques, which is also linked to legislative bottlenecks against the training of

workers, especially foreign workers in the country. Furthermore, there is high averseness to

change, or to embrace new ideas or innovations such as lean construction among the

contracting organisations, while there is an unfavourable procurement system which pushes

the risks involved in implementing new ideas to only the contractors. Although this study


identifies averseness to change as the most critical barrier, there is no statistical analysis to

support this. Thus, this conclusion may be unreliable and more so given that the country is

currently an economically and technologically advanced country, which is different from when

this study was carried out. According to Johansen and Walter (2007), the level of economic

and technological development in a country influences the implementation of lean

construction. In this regard, Johansen and Walter (2007) found that the barrier of averseness

towards implementing lean construction among construction companies in Germany is due to

the high technological advancement of the country. However, the study advocates for further

verification of this finding since lean construction has been successfully implemented in other

technologically advanced countries such as the USA and Australia (Ballard & Howell, 2003).

The two other studies in developed countries focused on the UK. This is important because

these studies will help to determine whether the barriers to the implementation of lean

construction in the construction industry change with time in the developed countries. After

surveying the opinions of 140 construction professionals, Sarhan and Fox (2013) found that

the barriers to the implementation of lean construction in the UK construction industry are

cultural in nature. The significant cultural barriers are lack of adequate lean awareness and

understanding, lack of top management commitment, and cultural and human attitudinal

issues, in descending order of severity. In addition, lack of financial capital is not considered

to be a threatening barrier to the implementation of lean construction with the lowest severity

(Sarhan & Fox, 2013). Bashir, Suresh, Oloke, Proverbs, and Gameson (2015) appear to

corroborate these findings of Sarhan and Fox (2013). It was found that human related issues,

particularly, the unwillingness of construction industry operators to change their behaviour

and practices, are the most critical barriers to the implementation of lean construction in the

UK construction industry. Consequently, in order to successfully implement lean construction

in the UK construction industry, the greatest emphasis should be on establishing a lean culture

that supports lean transformations in construction organisations (Sarhan & Fox, 2013).

According to Bashir et al. (2015), this responsibility lies with the management of construction

organisations to implement strategies such as providing training avenues for

employees/workers to increase their skills, as well as providing the required facilities and

incentives which can serve as motivation. The workers/employees in these organisations also

have a role to play, specifically to be open to emerging changes, and persist in adopting

changes such as lean construction that may be beneficial to improve project, organisational

and industry performance in the construction industry (Bashir et al., 2015).

Other barriers to the implementation of lean construction in the UK construction industry are

management related issues such as lack of management commitment and high expectations;

technical related issues such as the complexities of lean construction implementation;


educational issues such as lack of knowledge of lean construction concepts amongst

construction industry operators; and financial issues such as the high cost of implementing

lean construction (Bashir et al., 2015). It is also interesting to note that no government related

issues such as inconsistency in policies are found to be barriers to the implementation of lean

construction despite the expanded government role in the UK construction industry since the

Egan (1998) report. Against expectations, the prevalence of the human and cultural barriers

over a 15-year period (2001–2015) signifies that barriers to the implementation of lean

construction in the construction industry do not appear to change over time in developed

countries.

Despite the indication of greater prevalence, as pointed out earlier, the focus on the barriers to

the implementation of lean construction in developing countries began much later than in the

developed countries, with the first studies in Malaysia (Abdullah et al., 2009) and Uganda

(Alinaitwe, 2009) both published in 2009. In Malaysian construction companies, the barriers

to the implementation of lean construction were found to be similar to those in the developed

countries. They are lack of management commitment, limited understanding of the concept of

lean construction and averseness to adopting new ideas (Abdullah et al., 2009). For medium

to top managers in large contracting organisations in Uganda, the critical barriers to the

implementation of lean construction are both financial and management related such as

management’s inability to provide lean construction inputs and technical features when

required (Alinaitwe, 2009). In addition, the barriers that are most difficult to overcome are

related to the inability of management in these organisations to provide the enabling

environment whereby employees/staffers can develop relevant skills and work together to

implement lean construction (Alinaitwe, 2009). The emphasis on these particular barriers

could be a result of the number of respondents being in higher management roles. In other

words, it is possible that barriers to the implementation of lean construction may be different

from the point of view of non-managerial level respondents or employees/workers in

construction organisations in the construction industry in Uganda. Furthermore, similar to the

UK construction industry, the greater onus lies on the management of the construction

organisations, to commit more financial resources and managerial responsibility towards the

implementation of lean construction in the Ugandan construction industry.

The barriers to implementing lean construction in the Ghanaian (Ayarkkwa et al., 2012) and

Libyan (Omran & Abdulrahim, 2015) construction industries are no different from those of

other developed and developing countries. Likewise, the barriers to implementing lean

construction in smaller construction organisations in India (Devaki & Jayanthi, 2014) are

similar to those in larger construction organisations in other countries such as Uganda. In


contrast to the UK, in China, Shang and Pheng (2014) found government related barriers such

as stringent requirements and approvals to be a barrier to the implementation of lean

construction. Similarly, Olamilokun (2015) revealed that corruption and/or corruptive

tendencies from government agencies is a barrier to the implementation of lean construction

in Nigeria. And similar to the Singaporean construction industry (Dulaimi & Tanamas, 2001).

Shang and Pheng (2014) found adversarial relationships and/or lack of cooperativeness among

construction professionals to be a barrier to the implementation of lean construction in the

Chinese construction industry.

From the above, the global barriers to lean construction were published from the years 2001 –

2015 (Table 5.1). Therefore, they are the current barriers to lean construction. In addition, it

could be deduced that the barriers to the implementation of lean construction in the

construction industry in both developed and developing countries around the world are similar

(Table 5.1). Nevertheless, as there are no studies from the Middle East countries to compare,

these barriers may not be applicable to the construction industry in countries in this region.

Even though the KSA has the largest construction market in the Middle East and the

construction industry is a major economic driver (AlSehaimi, 2011), there have been no

studies focusing on the barriers to implementing lean construction in the construction industry

conducted in this country. In comparison to other countries where barriers to implementing

lean construction have been determined, the culture in KSA is different. For instance, in

contrast to western countries like the UK, it is a cultural norm in the KSA to not to adhere to

time commitments, and this has effects on performance in the construction industry

(AlSehaimi, 2011). Furthermore, being an oil rich country, lack of financial resources may not

be a problem in the KSA construction industry as much as it might be, for example, in many

African countries. In addition, the KSA is an Islamic country with strict conservative values

that are not expressly open to adopting western ideas without scrutiny. It is thus important to

identify and prioritise the barriers to implementing lean construction in the KSA construction

industry. It is expected that the barriers will be more reflective of the social-cultural and

operational contexts of the KSA construction industry, as well as those of the Middle East.


Table 5.1 Barriers to lean construction as found by the researchers

Barriers

Bashir et al. (2015)

Ayarkkwa et al. (2012)

Shang and Pheng (2014)

Alinaitwe (2009)

Olamilokun (2015)

Dulaimi and Tanamas (2001)

Johansen and Walter (2007)

Devaki and Jayanthi (2014)

Omran and Abdulrahim (2015)

Sarhan and Fox (2013)

Abdullah et al. (2009)

1. The influence of traditional management practices

a a a a a a

2. Unfavourable organisational culture a a a a a a a a a

3. Lack of technical skills, training and understanding of lean techniques

a a a a a a a a a a

4. Lack of knowledge of the lean construction approaches

a a a a a a a a

5. Lack of committed leadership of top management

a a a a a a a a a a

6. Ineffective communication channels between construction teams

a a a a a a a a

7. Lack of a robust performance measurement system

a a a a a a a

8. Lack of technological adaptations a a

9. Difficulties in understanding the concepts of lean construction

a a a a a a a

10. Traditional design approach a a a a a a a a

11. Long implementation period of lean concepts in construction processes

a a a

12. Lack of client and supplier involvement

a a a a a a a

13. End user preference a


14. Additional cost and high inflation rates

a a a a a

15. Slow decision making processes due to a complex organisational hierarchy

a a a a a a

16. Improper resource management a a a a a a

17. Lack of clear job specification from the client

a a a a a a

18. Lack of provision of benchmark performance

a a

19. Lack of support from government for technological advancements

a a a a

20. Uncertainty in the production process

a a a a

21. Use of non-standard components a a

22. Uncertainty in the supply chain a a a a a a a a


5.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of this study are: (1) to identify the barriers to the implementation of lean

construction in the KSA construction industry, and (2) to establish and prioritise the principal

factors that constitute these barriers. The achievement of these objectives in this study will

help relevant stakeholders in the KSA construction industry to develop appropriate solutions

to overcome these barriers. The quantitative methodology that comprises survey method of

data collection and the application of statistical techniques to analyse data is employed to

achieve the objectives.

5.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The objective of this study is to identify and prioritise the barriers to the implementation of

lean construction in the KSA construction industry. Similar to Durdyev and Mbachu (2017),

the objective focuses on assessing the association among the variables identified as having an

impact on the implementation of lean construction. The aim is to evaluate whether there are

inter-correlations among them, and should this be so, to extract the principal factors that could

explain the variances among the variables.

To gather data for analysis, the survey questionnaire method of data collection was employed.

This research method is commonly used for obtaining data about the barriers to the

implementation of lean construction because it helps to gather a wide range of views from

individuals across the construction industry (see (Ayarkkwa et al., 2012; Omran &

Abdulrahim, 2015; Shang & Pheng, 2014)). Furthermore, this method aligns with the

quantitative research methodology which enables the statistical testing of data to derive varied

but meaningful explanations that increase the understanding of the subject of investigation

(Abawi, 2008).

The survey questionnaire was structured into two sections. The first section contains questions

requesting general information from the participants including their primary designation,

academic qualifications and the type of organisations they are engaged in. The second section,

which is the main section, is based on the 22 global barriers to the implementation of lean

construction that were identified from the literature and summarised in Table 1. The

participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the 22 barriers in the KSA

construction industry context. The barriers were displayed in a tabular format with 5 point

Likert scale ranking that ranged from 1 as ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 as ‘strongly agree’. In

addition, a ‘don’t know’ option was also provided as a standard procedure for participants who

were unable to answer the question.


To identify the barriers to lean construction, industry wide data collection is very important in

order to encompass the views of a broad range of construction professionals and organisations

in the KSA construction industry. The Saudi Council of Engineers (SCE) is the largest

professional group in the KSA construction industry, and members include specialty

contractors, general contractors, subcontractors, architects, project managers, clients and

suppliers. In the KSA construction industry are other construction professionals who are not

members of the SCE, but are engaged in different contracting, consulting and client

organisations, as well as government agencies. Thus, there is no definitive population of

construction professionals and organisations in the KSA construction industry. Given this

position, a convenience sampling of construction professionals that were willing and

accessible was carried out in the KSA construction industry (Teddlie & Yu, 2007).

The administration of the questionnaire commenced in March 2015, and the targeted

construction professionals were approached in two different ways. In the first approach, an

online questionnaire survey using Survey Monkey was conducted to survey members of the

Saudi Council of Engineers including suppliers, specialty contractors, general contractors,

subcontractors, architects, project managers, and clients. An invitation letter and a

questionnaire template was initially sent to the management of SCE to seek their assistance in

the survey. Realising the importance and urgency of this study, the SCE agreed to help by

administering the questionnaire among their members, and as a result, 155 responses were

obtained. In the second approach, hardcopy questionnaires were sent out to 300 construction

professionals ranging from employees of contracting and consulting companies, academics,

government representatives, and clients. This strategy resulted in 127 responses. In total, 282

responses were obtained and used for analysis.

Data analysis was carried out using the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) software

(version 22). The frequency distribution and percentage were used to summarise the

background information of respondents (Olanipekun, 2012), while the mean item score (MIS)

was used to analyse the main responses. The MIS, based on equation 1, is the sum of item

scores for each identified barrier to lean construction divided by the number of items

contributing to it (Taffe, Tonge, Gray, & Einfeld, 2008). Therefore, MIS represents the average

of the agreement among respondents about the barriers to lean construction in the KSA

construction industry (Olanipekun, Abiola-Falemu, & Aje, 2014; Watt & Van den Berg, 1995).

Given that 5-point Likert scale was used, the current barriers to lean construction are those

with an MIS that is higher than the midpoint (≥2.5) of the Likert scale employed (Johns, 2010).

In addition, the MIS is used to rank the level to which the respondents agree with (or are

concerned about) the pervasiveness of the barriers (Olanipekun, 2012).


MIS = &'()*'+),'-).'/)'0'()'+)'-)'/)'0…………..Equation 1

V5…….1 = variables operationalised as barriers to lean construction

Furthermore, Mann Whitney U tests were used to evaluate whether the barriers to

implementing lean construction are significantly different in terms of the individual and

organisational characteristics common to the respondents (Olanipekun, Xia, Hon, & Hu, 2017).

Examples are the level of education of respondents (individual characteristics) and the size of

organisation in which the respondents are engaged (organisational characteristics). Finally, the

exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal component analysis (PCA) extraction method

was used to explore the underlying dimensions of barriers to implementing lean construction

in the KSA construction industry (Norusis, 1992), while the Cronbach’s alpha (α) test was

used to examine the internal consistency of the variables that were loaded on each component

(Ngacho & Das, 2014).

5.6 RESULTS

5.6.1 Background Information of Respondents

Table 5.2 presents the background information of the respondents. Regarding the

organisational characteristics of respondents, 39% work in project management organisations,

23% in general contracting organisations, 10% in architectural firms, 9% in speciality

contracting firms, and 5% in client, academic and government organisations, respectively.

Other respondents work in subcontracting (3%) and supplier (1%) organisations. In the KSA

construction industry, these organisations represent the consulting, contracting, client and

government divisions. Thus, the majority of respondents work in the consulting division

(49%), which comprises the project management and the architectural organisations, followed

by those in the contracting division, comprising general contracting, subcontracting, speciality

contracting and supplier organisations (36%).

In the KSA construction industry, construction organisations with more than 1000 employees

are categorised as “large”, those with 201–1000 employees are categorised as “medium”,

while those with less than 200 employees are categorised as “small’’ (Sarhan et al., 2017).

Table 2 shows that the majority of the respondents work in large organisations (46%), followed

by those in small organisations (24%), while the least number work in medium sized

organisations (20%). The descriptive analysis of the annual revenue size of the construction

organisations where the respondents work shows that 36% of the organisations generate annual

revenue of more than US$20 million, followed by those with revenue between US$4 million


and US$20 million (17%), and those with revenue of less than US$2 million (9%). While this

result indicates that there are more large construction organisations in the KSA construction

industry, 38% of the respondents did not indicate the annual revenue of their organisations.

In terms of the individual characteristics of the respondents, a slight majority of them have

more than 10 years experience in the KSA construction industry (51%), while the rest have

experience ranging from 1 to 10 years (49%). In terms of academic qualifications, the majority

of the respondents have either a Bachelor degree or Diploma (80%), while the rest have

postgraduate qualifications in the form of Masters or PhD (20%). Overall, the background

information of the respondents adds to the feedback quality and the reliability of the findings

in this study (Durdyev & Mbachu, 2017).

Table 5.2 Profiles of survey respondents

Profile Categories Frequency Percent (%)

Organisation Project management 111 39

General contractor 66 23

Architect 28 10

Specialty contractor 25 9

Client 13 5

Academia 14 5

Government 13 5

Subcontractor 9 3

Supplier 3 1

Experience

1 < 5 years 71 25

5 < 10 years 69 24

10 < 20 years 84 30

20 years and Over 58 21

Education

Diploma 18 6

Bachelor’s degree 208 74

Master’s degree 49 17

Doctor’s degree 7 3

Size of organisation (based on number of employees)

Small (1–200) 68 24

Medium (201–1000) 57 20

Large (More than 1000) 131 46

Don’t know 26 10

Less than US$2 million 26 9


Annual revenue of the company (year 2014)

US$4 million to US$20 million 49 17

More than US$ 20 million 102 36

Don’t know 105 38

ISO certification Yes 137 49

No 49 17

Don’t know 96 34


5.6.2 Mean Item Score (MIS) Analysis

Table 5.3 MIS analysis of the barriers to implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry

Consul

t Ran

k Contrac

t Ran

k Small/

M Ran

k Larg

e Ran

k 1-

10y Ran

k >10

y Ran

k Bach

e Ran

k Post

G Ran

k Overal

l Ran

k

Barriers

B1 The influence of traditional management practice 3.94 1 3.72 3 3.71 1 3.92 1

3.78 1 3.94 1 3.85 1 3.82 3 3.84 1

B2 Unfavourable organisational culture 3.77 2 3.75 1 3.70 2 3.74 3

3.71 2 3.80 3 3.72 2 3.82 2 3.74 2

B3

Lack of technical skills, training and understanding of lean techniques 3.75 4 3.66 4 3.67 3 3.86 2

3.66 3 3.85 2 3.69 3 3.89 1 3.73 3

B4 Lack of knowledge of the lean construction approaches 3.76 3 3.52 7 3.62 4 3.72 4

3.65 4 3.72 4 3.65 4 3.79 4 3.68 4

B5 Lack of committed leadership of top management 3.52 11 3.74 2 3.51 7 3.64 6

3.55 7 3.66 7 3.63 5 3.47 14 3.59 5

B6

Ineffective communication channels between the construction teams 3.59 5 3.55 5 3.56 5 3.61 7

3.56 6 3.65 8 3.57 6 3.68 5 3.59 6

B7 Lack of a robust performance measurement system 3.57 6 3.49 11 3.5 8 3.61 8

3.42 14 3.72 5 3.55 7 3.52 10 3.53 7

B8 Lack of technological adaptations 3.54 9 3.46 12 3.39 13 3.68 5 3.63 5 3.33 15 3.53 8 3.45 15 3.51 8

B9 Difficulties in understanding the concepts of lean construction 3.54 10 3.45 13 3.49 9 3.61 10

3.41 15 3.67 6 3.48 11 3.63 7 3.51 9

B10 Traditional design approach 3.54 8 3.50 10 3.48 10 3.48 14

3.45 13 3.57 9 3.48 10 3.55 9 3.49 10

B11

Long implementation period of lean concept in construction processes 3.55 7 3.41 14 3.48 11 3.56 12

3.50 11 3.48 11 3.47 13 3.58 8 3.49 11

B12

Lack of client and supplier involvement 3.42 13 3.54 6 3.45 12 3.59 11

3.54 8 3.40 12 3.51 9 3.39 17 3.48 12

B13 End user preference 3.39 15 3.51 8 3.38 14 3.61 9

3.52 10 3.38 13 3.40 14 3.68 6 3.46 13


B14

Additional cost and high inflation rates 3.38 16 3.50 9 3.53 6 3.43 15

3.52 9 3.37 14 3.47 12 3.42 16 3.46 14

B15

Slow decision-making processes due to a complex organisational hierarchy 3.29 19 3.37 16 3.34 16 3.41 16

3.38 16 3.31 17 3.31 17 3.48 13 3.35 15

B16 Improper resource management 3.31 17 3.32 17 3.28 20 3.49 13

3.25 20 3.50 10 3.35 15 3.34 19 3.34 16

B17

Lack of clear job specification from the client 3.45 12 3.16 20 3.35 15 3.29 24

3.35 18 3.32 16 3.29 18 3.48 12 3.33 17

B18

Lack of provision of benchmark performance 3.24 20 3.39 15 3.34 17 3.35 18

3.37 17 3.25 19 3.32 16 3.34 20 3.32 18

B19

Lack of support from government for technological advancements 3.41 14 3.14 21 3.30 19 3.38 17

3.49 12 2.98 22 3.22 20 3.52 11 3.28 19

B20

Uncertainty in the production process 3.31 18 3.17 18 3.33 18 3.35 19

3.29 19 3.29 18 3.26 19 3.37 18 3.28 20

B21 Use of non-standard components 3.01 21 3.17 19 2.93 22 3.34 20

3.14 21 3.00 21 3.03 21 3.29 21 3.08 21

B22 Uncertainty in the supply chain 2.98 22 3.01 22 3.08 21 3.06 21

3.02 22 3.01 20 2.99 22 3.11 22 3.01 22


Table 5.3 shows the MIS analysis of the barriers to implementing lean construction in the KSA

construction industry. Overall, all the 22 identified barriers to lean construction have MIS >

2.50. The highest ranking barriers are: influence of traditional management practice (MIS =

3.84; 1st), followed by unfavourable organisational culture (MIS = 3.74; 2nd), lack of

technical skills about lean techniques (MIS = 3.73; 3rd) and lack of understanding of lean

construction approaches (3.68; 4th). The lowest ranking barriers are: lack of provision of

benchmark performance (MIS = 3.32; 18th), lack of support from government for

technological advancements (MIS = 3.28; 19th), uncertainty in construction production

process (MIS = 3.28; 20th); use of non-standard components (MIS = 3.08; 21st) and

uncertainty in the supply chain (MIS = 3.01; 22nd).

Furthermore, as shown in Table 5.3, the highest, middle and lowest ranking of the barriers to

lean construction by respondents with different organisational and individual characteristics

are similar. For instance, in terms of the type of organisation, the “influence of traditional

management practice” is ranked in first position (1st) by the respondents working in consulting

organisations, and third position (3rd) by those working in contracting organisations, while

“uncertainty in the supply chain” is ranked in twenty-second (22nd) position by the

respondents from both types of organisations. In terms of size of organisation, the “lack of

knowledge of lean construction approaches” is ranked in third position (3rd) by respondents

from both large and small to medium construction organisations, while the “lack of provision

of benchmark performance is ranked in eighteenth (18th) position by the former and in

seventeenth (17th) position by the latter. In respect to individual characteristics, “unfavourable

organisational culture” is ranked in second position (2nd) by respondents that have up to 10

years of experience, and in third position (3rd) by those with more than 10 years of experience,

while both categories ranked the “use of non-standard components” in twenty-first (21st)

position. In addition, the respondents that have a bachelor degree or lower level of education

ranked the “lack of technical skills about lean techniques” in third position (3rd), and those

with a postgraduate qualification ranked the same barrier in the first position (1st), while both

categories ranked the “uncertainty in the supply chain” in the twenty-second (22nd) position.

The Mann Whitney test results in Table 5.4 confirm that the barriers to implementing lean

construction are not significantly different among the respondents working in either consulting

or contracting organisations (U = 8388.500, p = 0.723 > 0.05), and in either large or small to

medium organisations (U = 7490.500, p = 0.283 > 0.05). In addition, the barriers are not

significantly different among respondents who have bachelor degree qualifications or less and

those who have postgraduate qualifications (U = 9200.500, p = 0.665 > 0.05), as well as among


respondents who have up to 10 years experience and those with more than 10 years experience

(U = 6475.000, p = 0.543 > 0.05). Therefore, the barriers to the implementation of lean

construction are not significantly different on the basis of both organisational (type and size

of organisation) and individual (experience and academic qualifications of respondents)

characteristics of construction professionals in the KSA construction industry.

Table 5.4 Mann Whitney test results

Categories Mean rank U statistic Sig. Remarks

Organisational and individual

characteristics of respondents

Consulting organisations 134.45

8388.500 0.723 Not

significant Contracting organisations 131.08

Large organisations 132.82

7490.500 0.283 Not

significant Small/medium organisations 122.91

>10 years experience 144.11

9200.500 0.665 Not

significant 1–10 years experience 139.80

Postgraduate qualification 147.06

6475.000 0.543 Not

significant

Bachelor degree qualification or lesser 139.93

Note: Statistical significance at 5%

5.6.3 Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

PCA with varimax rotation was employed to explore the underlying dimensions of barriers to

implementing lean construction given that the objective is to establish the principal factors and

prioritise them in the KSA construction industry. Evaluating the appropriateness of the data

for PCA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (Voss & Blackmon) value of 0.909 indicates sufficient

sampling adequacy (Fields, 2000). This result indicates that multicollinearity structures among

the variables are sufficient to justify aggregating the barriers into related sets for the purpose

of extraction of the principal components (Durdyev & Mbachu, 2017). The Bartlett’s test of

sphericity (c2 = 3670.939; df = 378) is significant at ρ < 0.01, thereby indicating that the

correlations are sufficiently large for PCA (Hooper, 2012). Furthermore, the ratio between the

282 data points and the 22 variables is 13:1, indicating a stable factor structure (Ferguson &

Cox, 1993).


In conformity with the scree plot test, the PCA reveals the presence of six principal

components with eigenvalues greater than 1. These principal components account for 61.273%

of the dataset. The first principal component with eigenvalue of 3.632 explains 13.493% of

the variance in the identified barriers to lean construction. Component 2 with an eigenvalue of

3.524 explains 12.164%, while Components 3, 4, 5 and 6 have eigenvalues 3.137, 2.761, 2.626

and 1.275 that explain 11.075%, 10.007%, 8.877% and 5.657%, of the variance. A look at the

components extracted in Table 4 shows that no item correlation is less than 0.5, which suggests

a strong inter-item correlation (Hon, Chan, & Yam, 2012). In addition, there is no incidence

of cross-loading, which indicates a uni-dimensionality of items as reliable measures of

extracted components (Durdyev & Mbachu, 2017). Furthermore, according to Ngacho and

Das (2014), the Cronbach’s alpha (α) test shows that all the extracted components achieve

high internal consistency, i.e. > 0.70 (with the exception of Component 6 which has only one

variable, and was not tested for internal consistency). Still, the internal consistency of all the

variables is very high with a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.915.

As shown in Table 5.5, the majority (5 number) of the variables (22.73%) load strongly on

Component 1, and they are labelled “traditional practices barriers”. Four variables each (or

18.18% of total variables) load on Components 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. They are labelled

“client related barriers”, “standardisation barriers”, “technological barriers”, and

“performance and knowledge barriers”, respectively. Lastly, one variable (4.55% of total

variables) loads on Component 6, labelled as cost related barrier. These six components

constitute the principal factors that are barriers to the implementation of lean construction in



Table 5.5 Principal barriers to the successful implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry

Components 1 2 3 4 5 6

Traditional practices barriers

Client related barriers

Standardisation barriers

Technological barriers

Performance and knowledge barriers

Financial related barrier

Cronbach’s alpha (α) 0.934 0.912 0.891 0.887 0.812 1 B2 Unfavourable organisational culture 0.827

2 B1 The influence of traditional management practices 0.736

3 B6 Ineffective communication channels between the construction teams 0.694

4 B5 Lack of committed leadership of top management 0.673

5 B10 Traditional design approach 0.522 6 B18 Lack of provision of benchmark performance 0.783 7 B17 Lack of clear job specification from the client 0.756 8 B12 Lack of client and supplier involvement 0.731 9 B13 End user preference 0.501 10 B20 Uncertainty in the production process 0.685 11 B21 Use of non-standard components 0.683

12 B15 Slow decision-making processes due to a complex organisational hierarchy 0.673

13 B22 Uncertainty in the supply chain 0.638

14 B19 Lack of support from government for technological advancements 0.778

15 B11 Long implementation period of the lean concept in construction processes 0.58


16 B8 Lack of technological adaptations 0.571

17 B9 Difficulties in understanding the concepts of lean construction 0.549

18 B7 Lack of a robust performance measurement system 0.769

19 B4 Lack of knowledge of the lean construction approaches 0.559

20 B3 Lack of technical skills, training and understanding of lean techniques 0.553

21 B16 Improper resource management 0.520 22 B14 Additional cost and high inflation rates 0.68

Eigen values 3.632 3.524 3.137 2.761 2.626 1.275 Percentage of variance explained 13.493 12.164 11.075 10.007 8.877 5.657

Cumulative percentage 13.493 25.657 36.732 46.739 55.616 61.273 Extraction method: principal component analysis

Rotation method: varimax rotation KMO = 0.909 Bartlett’s test of sphericity = 3670.939 Significance = 0.000


5.7 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The objective of this study is to identify the barriers to the implementation of lean construction,

and to establish and prioritise the principal factors that constitute these barriers in the KSA

construction industry. This section contains the discussion of the findings and their comparison

to the body of knowledge under the following sub-sections.

Identified barriers to implementing lean construction

Table 5.3 shows the 22 barriers to the implementation of lean construction in the KSA

construction industry as identified by the respondents in this study under different

organisational and individual characteristics. The overall MIS for each of the barriers is >2.50,

which suggests, in accordance to Johns (2010), that they are all current barriers to

implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry. However, the higher the

MIS of the barriers, the greater (the level to which the respondent construction professionals

are worried/concerned/agreed about) their pervasiveness (Shang & Pheng, 2014). Therefore,

in a similar manner to previous studies such as Omran and Abdulrahim (2015) and Ayarkkwa

et al. (2012), this study used the MIS to rank the barriers to implementing lean construction in

the KSA construction industry. The highest ranking barriers to implementing lean construction

in this country are influence of traditional practices (B1), unfavourable organisational culture

(B2), lack of technical skills about lean techniques (B3), and lack of understanding of lean

approaches (B4). Based on their rankings, they are of the greatest concern to the construction

professionals in the KSA construction industry. Similar to the findings of Shang and Pheng

(2014), these barriers signify the importance of top management of construction organisations

to the implementation of lean construction. For instance, establishing a lean culture, and

providing resources for training employees to increase their lean construction skills are

responsibilities of the top management.

The rankings of the middle barriers (B5–B17), those ranked 5th to 17th, suggest that the

construction professionals are only moderately concerned about their pervasiveness in the

KSA construction industry. Most of them (B5, B7, B10, B11, B12, B13, B14 and B17) signify

that actions taken during project delivery by the project participants are important to the

implementation of lean construction. The barriers which construction professionals in the KSA

construction industry are least concerned about are lack of benchmark performance, lack of

support from the government for technological advancements, uncertainty in construction

production process, use of non-standard components and uncertainty in the supply chain.

These barriers signify the importance of both the activities of construction participants during


project delivery (e.g. B20) and industry level support and coordination (e.g. B22, B18) on the


In contrast to previous studies (e.g. (Alinaitwe, 2009; Johansen & Walter, 2007)), the barriers

are compared based on the organisational and individual characteristics of construction

professionals in the KSA construction industry. Therefore, based on the Mann Whitney test

result, the barriers to implementing lean construction are not significantly different on the basis

of both the organisational (type and size of organisation) and individual (experience and

academic qualifications of respondents) characteristics of construction professionals in the

KSA construction industry. This suggests that the effect of the barriers to lean construction are

experienced in the same way irrespective of the differences in organisational and individual

characteristics of construction professionals in the KSA construction industry. Therefore, a

holistic solution, which encompasses the organisational and individual differences of

construction professionals is more appropriate to overcoming the barriers to lean construction


Principal barriers to implementing lean construction

This study established and prioritised the principal factors which constitute the barriers to

implementing lean construction. It is expected that potential solutions to overcoming the

barriers to implementing lean construction will focus on these principal factors in the KSA

construction industry. From the PCA, six principal factors were established: traditional

practices barrier, client-related barrier, standardisation barrier, technological barrier,

performance and knowledge barrier, and financial related barrier. With the exception of client-

related barriers, these principal factors are similar to those identified in other developing

countries, especially in the construction industry contexts in Ghana and China (Ayarkkwa et

al., 2012; Shang & Pheng, 2014). The client-related barrier expressed the limited client

involvement in lean construction implementation (B12) and their inability to clearly specify

their lean construction requirements (B17), preference (B13) and expected performance level

(B18). It is often the case that client involvement in lean construction (or otherwise) is never

considered as barrier to lean construction in the construction industry (Alinaitwe, 2009;

Hussain, Nama, & Fatima, 2014). Therefore, the identification of “client-related barrier” in

this study suggests that it is a new kind of barrier to implementing lean construction in the

construction industry. However, as this study is focused on the KSA construction industry,

more research is required to determine the pervasiveness of a client-related barrier to lean

construction in the construction industry in other countries, especially the developed ones.

Regarding the prioritisation of the principal factors which constitute the barriers to

implementing lean construction, the traditional practice barrier, with an eigenvalue of 3.632


that explains 13.493% of the variance in the dataset is the most pervasive barrier to lean

construction in the KSA construction industry. This is a first attempt at empirically supporting

Dulaimi and Tanamas (2001) that traditional practices, mainly in the form of averseness

operators to change from the traditional approach managing construction activities, is the

major barrier to implementing lean construction (Abdullah et al., 2009; Devaki & Jayanthi,

2014). With this barrier, the top and middle management in construction organisations are

often unyielding to adapt lean construction ideas (B5) (Abdullah et al., 2009; Sarhan & Fox,

2013), as well as not promoting lean culture among their employees (B2) (Shang & Pheng,

2014). In addition, many construction organisations are rooted to the traditional design

approach of dichotomous design and construction of projects (B10) (Sarhan and Fox, 2013)

which prevents effective communication among construction team members (B6) to the

hindrance of the implementation of lean construction (Ayarkkwa et al., 2012). In the KSA

construction industry, the plausible reason for the pervasiveness of this barrier is the

conservative nature of the KSA as an Islamic society, whereby the reluctance to change from

traditional ways of doing things to the detriment of lean construction in the KSA construction

industry is highly likely.

The client-related barrier, with an eigenvalue of 3.524 that explains 12.164% of the variance

in the dataset, is the second most pervasive barrier to implementing lean construction in the

KSA construction industry. Despite the important role of the client in making decisions and

providing oversight to ensure successful implementation of lean construction (Ballard, 2008),

this barrier reveals the failure of clients to contribute adequately towards implementing lean

construction in the KSA construction industry. Thus a greater client contribution is necessary

to ensure successful implementation of lean construction in this country.

According to Ballard, Tommelein, Koskela, and Howell (2002), standardisation in

components, inputs and processes is very crucial to the successful implementation of lean

construction. Interestingly, it is the third most pervasive barrier to lean construction in the

KSA construction industry with an eigenvalue of 3.137 that explains 11.075% of the variance

in the dataset. The lack of standardisation has been previously revealed as a barrier to

implementing lean construction (Abdullah et al., 2009; Alinaitwe, 2009). For instance, this

barrier prevents the successful deployment of lean construction principles and tools in the

Ghanaian and Nigerian construction industries (Ayarkkwa et al., 2012; Olamilokun, 2015).

Furthermore, in the Indian construction industry, this barrier is the second most pervasive,

mainly in the form of uncertainty in the production process (B20) and supply chain (B22)

(Devaki & Jayanthi, 2014). Therefore, given the lack of evidence in the developed countries,

the standardisation barrier may be limited to developing countries only, including the KSA


construction industry. This contradicts literature evidence that barriers to implementing lean

construction in developed and developing countries are similar.

The technological barrier, with an eigenvalue of 2.761 that explains 10.007% of the variance

in the dataset, is the fourth most pervasive barrier to implementing lean construction in the

KSA construction industry. This level of pervasiveness is very moderate, which is similar to

the Malaysian context. In Malaysia, Abdullah et al. (2009) identifies the technological barrier

to implementing lean construction as one of the least pervasive in the Malaysian construction

industry in the form of long implementation periods due to the extensive time taken for

operators to understand the associated technological sophistications (B11). In a developed

country context, Bashir et al. (2015) identifies the technological barrier to implementing lean

construction in contracting organisations in the UK in the form of operators experiencing

difficulties in understanding the technological sophistication associated with many lean

construction tools and techniques (B9). Furthermore, similar to the Chinese construction

industry (Shang & Pheng, 2014), in the KSA construction industry the lack of government

support is a barrier to implementing lean construction, in the form of lack of government

support for technological advancements (B19).

With an eigenvalue of 2.626 that explains 8.877% of the variance in the dataset, the

“performance and knowledge barrier” to implementing lean construction in the KSA

construction industry is minimally pervasive, in 5th position. Mostly, this barrier suggests

limited knowledge of lean construction among operators in the construction industry (B4),

which is aggravated by lack of training and training avenues to increase the level of lean

construction skills in the industry (B3) (Abdullah et al., 2009; Ayarkkwa et al., 2012). As a

result, there remains a greater emphasis on the outcome-based traditional performance system

of cost, time and quality, as compared to the process based performance system in lean

construction which evaluates the flow of project delivery in order to eliminate non-value

adding activities (B7) (B13). The minimal level of pervasiveness of this barrier contradicts

many studies (e.g. (Abdullah et al., 2009; Omran & Abdulrahim, 2015; Sarhan & Fox, 2013;

Shang & Pheng, 2014). For instance, Shang and Pheng (2014) reveal that lack of proper

knowledge of lean philosophy is the major barrier to lean construction in the Chinese

construction industry, while in Ghana, it is one of the top barriers to lean construction

(Ayarkkwa et al., 2012). Shang and Pheng (2014) linked this barrier to lack of education. This

suggests that construction professionals in the KSA construction industry are well educated

about lean construction, and as a result they perceive the “performance and knowledge barrier”

to be minimal.


The least pervasive barrier to implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry

is the cost barrier. It has an eigenvalue of 1.275 that explains the variance of 5.657% of the

dataset. This is similar to many studies which reveal the influence of the high cost of providing

lean construction tools and equipment, as well as incentivising and empowering employees

for increased lean culture is a very low barrier to implementing lean construction (Abdullah et

al., 2009; Alinaitwe, 2009; Ayarkkwa et al., 2012; Sarhan & Fox, 2013). Equally, the low

pervasiveness of this barrier in the KSA construction industry could be attributed to the rich

economic status of the KSA as an oil producing country. As one of the sectors which

contributes hugely to the economy, and one which is of a strategic focus of the KSA

government to deemphasise reliance on oil, the KSA construction industry is well funded for

increased development (AlSehaimi, 2011; Husein, 2013). Hence, the respondent construction

professionals perceive the cost barrier as very low hindrance in the KSA construction industry.

Proposed solutions to barriers to lean construction

To overcome the principal barriers to lean construction, universally applicable solutions are

proposed. As the most pervasive barrier to implementing lean construction, the greatest effort

should be concentrated on traditional practices in the KSA construction industry. Within

construction organisations, the management should be open to and committed to making

changes in the construction field (Ayarkkwa et al., 2012). According to Devaki and Jayanthi

(2014), this could be achieved by making changes to the culture in construction organisations

to accommodate lean construction principles as part of organisational policy. If this were to

occur, employees and organisational partners would be compelled to embrace a lean

construction culture. However, as part of cultural changes, Bashir et al. (2015) suggested that

construction organisations should use very simplified terms to convey ideas about lean

construction in the organisation policy. Similarly, as part of a commitment to lean construction

practices, the management should acquire necessary managerial skills to oversee the

successful implementation of lean construction during project delivery (Shang & Pheng,

2014). For instance, employing a participatory style of management which allows employee

participation in decisions leading to lean construction is likely to build their trust and support

for the implementation of lean construction (Bashir et al., 2015; Devaki & Jayanthi, 2014;

Shang & Pheng, 2014). Furthermore, both Sarhan and Fox (2013) and Shang and Pheng (2014)

suggested that the traditional design approach to project delivery should be replaced with an

integrated design approach to reduce dichotomy between the design and construction stages

of project delivery for easy implementation of lean construction.

As the client-related barrier is a new kind of barrier, solutions to overcoming it rest largely on

construction clients. First, they need to insist on the adoption of lean construction in the


delivery of their projects. By inserting lean construction clauses in their contracts, contractors

will automatically be obliged to implement the concept (Bashir et al., 2015; Dulaimi &

Tanamas, 2001). However, this may increase the project cost for the clients. Therefore,

secondly, construction clients need to desist from evaluating the success of their projects on

the basis of primarily cost and time, as both of these are inconsistent with lean construction

principles (Sarhan & Fox, 2013). Instead, construction clients should emphasise achieving

value in their projects through waste minimisation.

Most potential solutions to overcoming the standardisation barrier to lean construction relate

to reducing the uncertainties in the construction supply chain. Devaki and Jayanthi (2014)

advocated that construction organisations should engage in long-term relationships among

themselves to strengthen their working relationships in the construction supply chain in order

to be aware of each other’s style of managing projects with minimal uncertainties. The use of

standards to define construction project requirements and relationships in the supply chain is

also projected to reduce the standardisation barrier to lean construction. For instance, Dulaimi

and Tanamas (2001) recommend the use of standards such as the International Standards

Organisation (Wison) frameworks to benchmark performance requirements in a standardised

format in the construction supply chain. Common metrics which can be followed by operators

to implement lean construction should also be developed in the construction supply chain

(Devaki & Jayanthi, 2014).

According to Bashir et al. (2015), rather than an aggressive and one-off implementation

approach, a step by step, or simplified implementation of lean construction is necessary to

enable operators to adapt to the technological sophistications involved. These sophistications

can also be reduced by supporting the implementation of lean construction with visualisation

mechanisms such as Building Information Modelling (BIM) to enable operators to easily

monitor the process (Devaki & Jayanthi, 2014; R. Sacks et al., 2009). Furthermore, the

government has a role to play to overcome the technological barrier to lean construction,

especially to enact policies that will make lean methods more feasible (Ayarkkwa et al., 2012).

For instance, such policy would set an agenda and provide a direction for construction

organisations to identify and implement feasible lean construction methods (Bashir et al.,

2015; Devaki & Jayanthi, 2014; Shang & Pheng, 2014).

Although the performance and knowledge barrier is minimally pervasive in the KSA

construction industry, it can be overcome by training construction professionals to increase

their knowledge and skills about lean construction (Omran & Abdulrahim, 2015). Such

training should emphasise not only lean construction tools such as the last planner system, but

also lean construction principles, especially the principles of waste minimisation and JIT, to


ensure a balanced understanding required to undertake the concept (Abdullah et al., 2009;

Shang & Pheng, 2014). According to Bashir et al. (2015), the management of construction

organisations should take greater responsibility to provide and sponsor avenues such as

seminars, conferences and workshops to train their employees about lean construction. It is

important because the employees are responsible for daily operation and implementation of

lean construction activities. Nevertheless, lean construction training should be implemented

across board in construction organisations, especially to include middle level managers, and

sub-contractors and suppliers, to ensure that the concept percolates to all levels (Devaki &

Jayanthi, 2014). The management should also seek to retain skilled and newly trained

employees by incentivising them with competitive wages in order to achieve ongoing lean

construction in construction organisations (Shang & Pheng, 2014).

5.8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study has identified the barriers to the implementation of lean construction, and at the

same time, prioritised the principal factors that constitute these barriers in the order of

pervasiveness in the KSA construction industry.

Overall, there are 22 barriers currently hindering the implementation of lean construction in

the KSA construction industry. Based on the MIS, the top ranked barriers that are of the

greatest concern to construction professionals in the KSA construction industry are the

influence of traditional management practices, unfavourable organisational culture, lack of

technical skills, training and understanding of lean techniques and lack of knowledge of the

lean construction approaches, and together, they signify the importance of the involvement of

the top management in construction organisations in implementing lean construction. The

middle ranked barriers that make up the majority of the barriers such as lack of a robust

performance measurement system, traditional design approach, long implementation period of

the lean concept in construction processes, lack of client and supplier involvement and end

user preference, are of moderate concern to construction professionals in the KSA construction

industry (organisational level). Nonetheless, they signify that the actions (and inactions) of

project participants during project delivery are important to the implementation of lean

construction (project level). The barriers which construction professionals in the KSA

construction industry are least worried about are: lack of provision of benchmark performance,

lack of support from government for technological advancements, uncertainty in the

production process, use of non-standard components and uncertainty in the supply chain, and

they mainly signify the importance of the construction industry level support and coordination

to the implementation of lean construction (industry level). Furthermore, despite having

different individual and organisational characteristics, the respondent construction


professionals are undivided in their agreement with the above rankings. Therefore, in

conclusion, construction professionals perceive that the implementation of lean construction

can be influenced at the organisational, project and industry levels in the KSA construction

industry.

The six principal factors that constitute these barriers in the KSA construction industry are

traditional practices, client related, standardisation, technological, performance and

knowledge, and cost related barriers in descending order of pervasiveness. Therefore, the

traditional practices barrier is the most pervasive, while the cost related barrier is the least

pervasive. In addition, literature evidence suggests that these principal barriers exist in other

countries, with the exception of the client-related barrier, which appears to be a new kind of

barrier to the implementation of lean construction in the construction industry. In the KSA

construction industry, the client-related barrier indicates the failure of clients to contribute

adequately towards implementing lean construction. Elsewhere, more research is required to

determine the pervasiveness of a client-related barrier to lean construction.

The socio-cultural, economic and operational context in the KSA is reflected in the level of

the pervasiveness of some of the barriers to implementing lean construction. For instance, the

high pervasiveness of traditional practices as a barrier to implementing lean construction is

linked to the conservative nature of the KSA as an Islamic society, while the least pervasive,

the cost barrier, is related to the economic prosperity of the country. Therefore, the socio-

cultural and economic contexts in different countries are potentially influencing factors on the

barriers to implementing lean construction. Given the similarities in socio-cultural processes,

as well as economic prosperity and mode of operation, the principal barriers to implementing

lean construction in the KSA construction industry may be relevant to other countries in the

Middle East region. However, qualitative research is necessary to explore this causal

relationship empirically, and identify the specific socio-cultural, operational and economic

factors that induce the barriers to lean construction in the construction industry in other

countries outside the Middle East region.

Finally, as identified in section 7, solutions to overcoming the barriers to lean construction in

the KSA construction industry are proposed. This study recommends that these solutions focus

on the traditional practices, client related, standardisation, technological, and the performance

and knowledge barriers, while excluding the cost related barrier due to its minimal

pervasiveness in the KSA construction industry.

5.8.1 Areas of further research


With findings that the conservative nature of the KSA as an Islamic society contributes to the

high pervasiveness of the traditional practices barrier to implementing lean construction in

the KSA construction industry, this study provides an insight to the role of socio-cultural

issues such as national culture to the pervasiveness of the barriers to lean construction .

Although the national culture is very influential on the operations in the construction industry

in different countries, studies exploring the role of national culture in the implementation of

lean construction are very limited. More research is therefore necessary to understand the role

of national culture in the implementation of lean construction, as well as how the national

culture in different countries constitute barriers to the implementation of lean construction.

Furthermore, this study found that the client-related barrier to lean construction is new to the

current body of knowledge. As this study is limited to the KSA, future studies should be

conducted to verify the existence of the client related barrier to implementing lean construction

in other countries.

Chapter 6: Critical Success Factors for the Implementation of Lean Construction in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry 135

Chapter 6: Critical Success Factors for the Implementation of Lean Construction in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry

Jamil Ghazi Sarhan1, Ayokunle Olanipekun1, Bo Xia1


Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.






I have sighted email or other correspondence from all co-authors confirming their

certifying authorship

Dr. Bo Xia

Name

Signature Date

136 Chapter 6: Critical Success Factors for the Implementation of Lean Construction in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry

Abstract

Lean construction reduces waste and improves value in the construction process,

leading to enhancements in the performance of construction projects in the construction

industry. Despite the benefits, the implementation of lean construction is very

challenging. This paper aims to identify and evaluate the critical success factors for the

implementation of lean construction in the Saudi Arabian construction industry.

Eighteen critical success factors for lean implementation were derived from a

questionnaire survey which attracted 282 responses. Further, these factors were

validated in one-to-one interviews with sixteen industry professionals (who had an

average of 15 years’ experience covering general construction practices and lean

construction). The content analysis showed only twelve factors which are considered to

be very relevant in the Saudi Arabian construction industry. These critical success

factors should be taken into consideration across project and organizational levels to

ensure the successful implementation of lean construction in the Saudi Arabian


Keywords: Lean construction, critical success factors, construction industry, Saudi

Arabia

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The construction industry in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has experienced

extraordinary growth during the last twenty years (Ikediashi et al., 2014) with

construction expenditure exceeding 120 billion dollars annually (Alrashed et al., 2014).

However, the industry is experiencing poor performance of construction projects in

terms of cost overruns, some exceeding 70% of total project costs, as well as time

overruns (Al-Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009). Additionally, enormous quantities of waste

are generated from construction activities, partly due to inadequate government control

(AMEInfor, 2014; Harris, 2014). To improve the performance of construction projects,

the implementation of lean construction has been advocated. According to AlSehaimi

et al. (2009), lean construction has great potential to enhance the performance of the

construction industry, through continuous improvement in processes used to deliver

construction projects (Lehman & Reiser, 2000). However, lean construction in the KSA

is still in its infancy and the lack of research in this very domain (AlSehaimi et al., 2009)

makes it difficult to effectively evaluate the implementation of lean construction in the


industry. Therefore, in order to implement lean construction (concepts, principles, tools,

techniques and methods) in the KSA construction industry, a detailed study of its critical

success factors (CSFs) is urgently required, and is carried out in this study.

6.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The lean construction concept was first implemented in the Toyota Production System

(TPS) and it has many critical success factors (CSFs), one of them is top management

commitment and leadership is critical for the lean implementation process (AL-

Najem, Dhakal, & Bennett, 2012). Others are sufficient training of key stakeholders

are key to success of lean construction (Shang & Pheng, 2014), training of staff,

suppliers and customers involved in lean principles (Anvari, Zulkifli, Yusuff, Hojjati,

& Ismail, 2011). Education and training are also recognized as major areas of the lean

concept by Ogunbiyi et al. (2013). Lean methodology and tools should be applied right

from the initial stage to the end of project delivery (Pearce & Pons, 2013). Adopting

the appropriate lean construction techniques such as just in time, creative thinking,

workforce flexibility and automation are the key to success of lean construction

practice (Salem et al., 2006). Issa (2013) also identifies the use of lean construction

techniques such as JIT, benchmarking, waste elimination, pull- driven scheduling, and

decrease of variability in labour productivity, improving flow reliability, and

simplification of operation.

A lean culture should also be implemented as part of the organisational culture to

promote the right working environment for lean construction (Al-Najem et al., 2012).

Firms should also ensure that they understand client needs as well as expectations

(Ayarkkwa et al., 2012). Continuous improvement is one of the key principles of the

lean concept and must be in place for lean construction to be effective as improvement

increases efficiency which in turn decreases waste (Salem et al., 2006). This enhances

the efficiency of lean construction to minimize the wastes of materials, human effort,

and the during project delivery (Koskela, 2009; Pinch, 2005).

Furthermore, establishing long-term relationships with all partners along the supply

chain helps to minimize waste which is a key concept of lean construction (Salem et

al., 2006). According to Banawi (2013), integration of lean methods could increase

efficiency during the early phases of a project (the planning, bidding or designing

phase). In addition, the application of lean methods to Design-Build type of projects

where the contractor is involved in the project from the beginning may increase


benefits of applying the tool. There is a need for coordination to be made at the

national level by establishing a national lean road map which should be implemented

to guide practitioners on how to identify as well as address waste together with its

causes, to enable them to understand when and how to use the various lean principles

within the firm to attain business excellence (Anvari et al., 2011).

Kjartansdóttir (2011) explored the application of BIM Adoption and the relationship

to lean construction. The study shows that there is synergies between BIM and lean

construction. Additionally, Dave, Koskela, Kiviniemi, Owen, and Tzortzopoulis

Fazenda (2013) concluded that BIM maximize the value of the project and minimize

the waste and it is also the main goal of Lean Construction. Younes (2015) surveyed

and concluded that BIM increases the efficiency of lean construction during project

delivery. This was connoted as LeanBIM. Exploring and adopting alternate

procurement methods are essential for implementing the lean concept and it improves

quality and also an effective technique to reduce waste and increase value of the

project (Salem et al., 2006). The firms who understand client needs always adopt

alternate techniques to procure better material and processes to improve the quality of

the project (Ayarkkwa et al., 2012).

Consequently, construction practitioners adopted the concept into their construction

techniques. The main objective of this technique is to generate minimum waste and

satisfy customer needs (Lapinski et al., 2006; Womack & Jones, 2003). Both

requirements are only conceivable, if each and every construction process has been

rationally reviewed and upgraded (Banawi, 2013). Previous studies showed a number

of aspects which influence the successful implementation of lean construction, such

as managerial factors (AL-Najem et al., 2012); education and training factors (Anvari,

Ismail, et al., 2011; Ogunbiyi & Goulding, 2013; Shang & Pheng, 2014); productivity

factors (Issa, 2013; Koskela, 2009; Salem et al., 2006); early integration in projects

(Banawi, 2013; Pearce & Pons, 2013); cultural factors (AL-Najem et al., 2012); focus

on continuous improvement (Salem et al., 2005); efforts to understand client

expectations (Ayarkkwa et al., 2012); establishing long-term relationships (Salem et

al., 2006); developing lean strategy at a national level (Anvari, Zulkifli, et al., 2011);

advances in technology (Dave et al., 2013; Kjartansdóttir, 2011); and alternate

procurement methods (Salem et al., 2006). These factors are operationalized as

common factors for the identification of CSFs for the implementation of lean

construction in this study.



In order to identify the CSFs for the implementation of lean construction, an open-ended

questionnaire survey was conducted in the KSA construction industry. The

questionnaire included six major sections, but this paper focuses on only one section,

i.e. about the CSFs. The questionnaire was sent to 800 construction professionals and

282 valid responses were received, representing a 35% response rate. The content

analysis of the response data revealed the 18 most common CSFs. In order to validate

these CSFs for lean implementation, experts’ opinion was employed so as to enhance

the applicability of outcomes in the industry. Sixteen of the experts who participated in

the survey were selected purposely based on their experience (≥15 years) in lean

construction practices. Nine experts were from the construction industry and seven were

from academia, including four PhD holders. They were asked to validate whether the

CSF are applicable to the KSA construction industry. An iterative review of the 18

factors was carried out by the experts. Each of them iteratively reviewed the 18 factors

independently to retain the important ones. In addition, those that are similar in meaning

were removed. Afterwards, the 12 CSFs that has the highest number (or frequency) of

experts retaining them were selected. Therefore, the CSFs that were selected depended

on the number of experts that retain them. For instance, as highlighted below, 16 of the

18 experts retained “top management commitment and leadership”.

1. Top management commitment and leadership of lean construction (16),

2. Providing education and training for lean construction (16),

3. Adopting alternative procurement methods in project delivery (14),

4. Adoption of new construction technologies/methods (12),

5. Applying appropriate lean construction tools/ techniques (16),

6. Implementing organisational change (16),

7. Promoting a culture of teamwork during construction projects (16),

8. Adoption of continuous improvement (16),

9. Clear definition of client’s requirements (16),

10. Applying the lean methodology at an early stage of project delivery (14),

11. Coordinating and promoting efforts at a national level (16), and

12. Establishing long-term relationships within the supply chain (16).

It could be seen that majority of the CSFs were retained by 16 experts. Two CSFs were

retaind by 14 experts, while a CSF was retained by 12 experts. Other CSFs such as

productivity that were retained by lesser number of experts (8 number) were removed.


6.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 6.1 Important critical success factors for lean construction

This section discusses the content analysis results of the expert validation of the CSFs

for the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. All the

experts agreed that most of the factors identified in the previous section, especially 1, 2,

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12, are very critical to the successful implementation of lean

construction in the KSA construction industry. For instance, as agreed by all 16 experts,

it is essential to have the full support of top management and leadership. According to

Baviskar (2015), management’s commitment is dedication of time and financial

resources to lean program by the directors, managers and leaders in an organisation.

This factor is very crucial to the implementation of lean construction (Ogunbiyi, 2014),

and it further alludes to strong leadership whereby clear vision, strategy and long term

commitment are enacted to build an effective lean culture in an organisation (AL-Najem

et al., 2012).

Similarly, all the experts agreed that it is important to provide education and training

about lean concepts to construction professionals who will be involved in the

implementation process (L. Alarcon, 1997), especially given the current lack of training

about lean concepts in the KSA construction industry. Ogunbiyi (2014) stated that

training the staffs or the employees on lean principles are a reflection of how a

construction organisation is ready for lean construction uptake. This helps to ease the

No. Critical success factors

1 Top management commitment to and leadership of lean construction

2 Providing education and training for lean construction in the construction industry (e.g. Staff, contractors, designers etc.)

3 Adopting alternative procurement methods in project delivery (e.g. Design-Build, early contractor involvement etc.)

4 Adopting new construction technologies/methods (e.g. BIM)

5 Applying appropriate lean construction tools / techniques (e.g. Last Planner System, 5S, Value Stream Mapping etc.)

6 Implementing organisational change (culture, strategy, vision and performance evaluation system) 7 Promoting a culture of teamwork during construction projects 8 Adoption of continuous improvement 9 Clear definition of client’s requirements

10 Applying the lean methodology at an early stage of the building project delivery (e.g. Planning, design stage etc.)

11 Coordinating and promoting efforts at a national level (e.g. establishment of a National Lean Construction Institute)

12 Establishing long-term relationships within the supply chain


process of implementation, thereby helping to achieve fruitful lean construction results

within construction organisations (Baviskar, 2015).

The use of innovative technologies for the implementation of management philosophies

in construction is increasing, and for lean construction, Building Information Modelling

(BIM) has emerged to facilitate the implementation of lean concepts in the delivery of

construction projects (Sacks, Koskela, Dave, & Owen, 2010). The adoption of IT based

technology systems such as BIM is particularly useful for implementation and

integration of lean assessment tools (Baviskar, 2015). Dave et al. (2013) further

reiterated that the effectiveness of lean construction in the form of improving the

predictability of work and waste reduction is increased when integrated with BIM. In

addition, this technology system can be used for analysing and interpreting data from

obtained from lean assessment tools during project delivery (Baviskar, 2015). All the

experts were in agreement with this position, with the addition that there is a need for

formal or informal knowledge about the application of technology in regard to lean

construction implementation. This corroborates the experts’ agreement of the need for

education and training about lean construction implementation. Therefore, the

construction industry board in the KSA should as a matter of urgency provide requisite

education and training to construction professionals on how to employ technologies for

lean implementation.

The 16 experts also agreed on the need for collaboration and teamwork among

construction professionals and for the interoperability of technology systems to be

promoted for a successful implementation of lean construction. As reiterated by

Achanga, Shehab, Roy, and Nelder (2006), there is need to promote the culture of

teamwork during construction projects.

Another CSF is to implement a broad change within an organisation that is

implementing lean construction. Many studies agree with the criticality of this factor to

the successful implementation of lean construction. For instance, Ogunbiyi (2014)

stated that there is a need for cultural change to ensure successful implementation of

lean construction in construction organisations. According to Achanga et al. (2006), this

change can be changes to organisational culture within an organisation. It could also be

the accepting of lean construction and its principles as part of organisational procedures

(Achanga et al., 2006) and to create a culture whereby the staffers and employees are

willing to accept initiatives and develop a sense of ownership (Ogunbiyi, 2014).


Consequently, the lean construction principle becomes acceptable and imbibed, at least,

within an organisation (Ogunbiyi, 2014).

In addition, the application of appropriate tools and techniques for lean construction

implementation is critical. The implementation of lean construction requires the use of

specific tools and techniques such as the 5S, Kanban and last planner system in order to

ensure successful project delivery (Ogunbiyi, 2014). For instance, the use of last planner

system as lean construction tool on an industrial project in Egypt reduced the project

time by 15.57% (Issa, 2013). Furthermore, Adamu and Adulhamid (2016) revealed that

a range of tools and techniques such as the pull system, line of balance and Kanban for

lean construction implementation on 20 housing projects in Nigeria helped to achieve

more stable workflow and reduction in emergency requests, while also ensuring early

completion of the project and increase in productivity.

Furthermore, the experts agreed that is critical to understand each client’s requirements,

which enables value addition in the lean construction implementation (L. Alarcon,

1997).

The other factors identified by the experts as being very critical are national level

coordination and promotion of lean construction and long-term supply chain

relationships. According to Erik Eriksson (2010), lean strategy is an innovative

approach for long-term relationships in the overall supply chain. Finally, it is important

to integrate lean construction into the project delivery process (Jørgensen, 2006), and

thus 14 of the experts agreed that application of lean construction at the early stages of

project development is a CSF. Ogunbiyi et al. (2012) also stated that the lean philosophy

of minimising waste and maximising value should be applied as early as possible in the

design and construction process. But then,this factor is moderately critical to the

successful implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry from

the view of the experts.

Overachingly, the while these CSFs enable the implementation of lean construction,

they also contribute to the effectiveness of lean construction for enhancing project

success. For instance, applying lean construction at an early stage of project delivery

increases its effectiveness (Banawi, 2013), and consequently contribute to project

success (Issa, 2013).


6.5 CONCLUSION

This study has identified and evaluated the critical success factors for the

implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. According to the

experts who validated the data, there are nine very critical success factors and three

moderately critical success factors for the successful implementation of lean

construction in the KSA construction industry. These factors should be taken into

consideration across project and organizational levels to ensure the successful

implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. The derived

CSFs are applicable to the whole industry in general, but further investigations should

be carried out to identify the firm-specific CSFs for implementing lean construction in


Framework for the Implementation of Lean Construction Strategies using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) technique: A Case of Saudi Construction Industry 145

Chapter 7: Framework for the Implementation of Lean Construction Strategies using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) technique: A Case of Saudi Construction Industry

Jamil Ghazi Sarhan1, Bo Xia1, Sabrina Fawzia1, Azharul Karim2 Ayokunle Olanipekun1


Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 2Mechanical Engineering School, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University

of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.







Dr. Vaughan Coffey Contributor Reviewed and edited the manuscript


I have sighted email or other correspondence from all co-authors confirming their certifying

authorship

146 Framework for the Implementation of Lean Construction Strategies using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) technique: A Case of Saudi Construction Industry

Dr. Bo Xia

Name

Signature Date

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to develop a framework for implementing lean

construction, and consequently to improve performance levels in the construction industry

taking Saudi Arabia as the context. There is currently no framework for implementing lean

construction srateges particularly in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) construction industry.

Existing lean construction frameworks are focused on other countries and are less applicable

in the KSA due to differences in socio-cultural and operational contexts.

Design/methodology/approach: This study employs the interpretive structural modelling

(ISM) technique for data collection and analysis. Firstly, following a survey of 282

construction professionals, 12 critical success factors (CSFs) for implementing lean

construction in the KSA construction industry were identified by Sarhan, Olanipekun and Xia

(2016). Secondly, 16 of these professionals who have 15 years or more experience were

exclusively selected to examine the contextual relationship among the 12 CSFs. A row and

column questionnaire was used for a pairwise comparison of the CSFs. A matrix of cross-

impact multiplications was applied to a classification analysis (MICMAC) analysis of the

questionnaire data to develop an ISM model that can serve as framework for implementing

lean construction. Thirdly, the framework was subjected to further validation by interviewing

16 experts in order to check for conceptual inconsistencies and for the applicability of the

framework in the context of the KSA construction industry.

Findings: The findings reveal that the CSFs are divided into four clusters: autonomous,

linkage, dependent, and driving clusters. Additionally, the findings reveal seven hierarchies of

interrelationships among the CSFs. The order of practical application of the CSFs descends

from the seventh hierarchy to the first hierarchy.

Originality/value: The new framework is a significant advancement over existing lean

construction frameworks as it employs an ISM technique to specify the hierarchical

relationships among the different factors that contribute to the successful implementation of

lean construction. The primary value of this study is the development of a new framework that


reflects the socio-cultural and operational contexts in the KSA construction industry and can

guide the successful implementation of lean construction. Therefore, construction industry

operators such as contractors, consultants, government departments and professionals can rely

on the framework to implement lean construction more effectively and successfully.

Keywords: Critical Success Factors (CSFs), Framework, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,

Interpretive structural modelling, Lean Construction

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The construction industry is an important sector globally as it creates the built environment

for a country through the production of a wide range of buildings, and civil and heavy

engineering infrastructure (Jiang & Wong, 2016). This infrastructure serves to enhance the

health, economic, social and cultural aspects of humanity (Xiong, Lu, Skitmore, Chau, & Ye,

2016). In addition, the construction industry provides job opportunities and a livelihood for

both professional practitioners, and skilled and unskilled labourers s (Lu, Yang, & Langston,

2015). The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has the largest construction industry in the Middle

East with an approximate annual expenditure of more than USD 120 billion dollars (Alrashed

et al., 2014), providing about 15% of the total employment in the country (Dhahran

International Exhibition Company, 2015).

In the KSA, many construction projects perform poorly both in terms of cost and time (Assaf

& Al-Hejji, 2006). For instance, the Haramian Railway project experienced a delay of about

one year, thereby increasing the cost of completion to $14 billion, from an initial estimated

completion cost of $11.1 billion (McElroy, 2014). In addition, the quality performance of

construction projects is also poor with many projects collapsing before reaching the end of

their design life span (AMEInfor, 2014). The poor performance of construction projects is also

attributable to the struggles of many construction organisations to efficiently manage the

construction process, minimise waste, increase productivity and control delay (AlSehaimi,

2011). As a result, the KSA construction industry is generally not effective in delivering the

best value for clients (Ali & Wen, 2011).

In the broader construction industry, lean construction is employed as a continuous process of

improving construction projects through the elimination or reduction of wastes while aiming

to meet or even exceed client requirements. (Chandrasekar and Kumar, 2014; Diekmann et al.,


2004). Additionally, the application of lean construction in the construction industry

contributes to eliminating non-value adding activities in the construction process, while

increasing value adding activities (Love and Li, 1998). Therefore, the application of lean

construction practices enable construction projects to be carried out in a more healthy and

sustainable manner, thereby leading to increased construction productivity to both meet the

needs of clients (Marhani et al., 2012) and to improve profitability for constructors (Ogunbiyi

et al., 2011). In order to improve the performance of construction projects and organisations,

especially in terms of construction processes, lean construction strategies have been introduced

to the KSA construction industry (Al-Sudairi 2007; AlSehaimi et al., 2009).

However, despite the importance and demonstrated effectiveness of lean construction for

improving performance in the construction industry, there is currently no framework for

implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry. Existing lean construction

frameworks focus on the construction industry in other countries, and due to differences in

socio-cultural and operational contexts, they are inapplicable in the KSA construction industry

(Sarhan et al., 2017; Sarhan et al., 2018). The KSA is a Middle-eastern society where practices

in the construction industry are quite different from those in the Western construction industry

(Sarhan, Xia, Fawzia, Karim, & Olanipekun, 2018). An example is Al-Aomar’s (2012) Lean–

Six Sigma framework which identifies lean construction activities and incorporates a Six

Sigma rating system to evaluate the cost, quality and scheduling implications of those practices

in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Another one is Banawi’s (2013) framework which

incorporates lean, Green, and Six Sigma for the purpose of reducing wastes during the delivery

of construction projects. A consequence of the inapplicability of the existing frameworks to

the KSA construction industry context is the low level of implementation of lean construction

in the KSA construction industry to date (AlSehaimi et al., 2009; Sarhan et al., 2017).

To promote the implementation of lean construction, and consequently improve performance

levels in the KSA construction industry, there is a need for an applicable framework that

reflects the socio-cultural and operational contexts. The framework will serve as a guideline

to identify relevant lean construction practices and specify step-by-step procedures to

implement lean construction (Lehman and Reiser, 2000; Banawi, 2013; Johansen and Walter,

2007; Al-Aomar, 2012; Banawi and Bilec, 2014). Therefore, the aim of this study is to develop

a framework for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry. To achieve

this aim, the technique of interpretive structural modelling (ISM) was adopted to analyse the

interrelationships among the factors that constitute the proposed framework (Attri et al., 2013).


In contrast to existing lean construction frameworks, the proposed framework specifies the

hierarchies of different factors that contribute to the successful implementation of lean

construction.

The study builds on an existing study by Sarhan, Xia and Olanipekun (2016) which identified

12 critical success factors (CSFs) for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction

industry. The major contribution of the paper is the development of a new framework that

reflects the socio-cultural and operational contexts in the KSA construction industry and can

guide the successful implementation of lean construction. Therefore, construction industry

operators such as contractors, consultants, government departments and industry professionals

in this country can rely on the framework to implement lean construction more effectively and

successfully. The second contribution is that the new framework is an improvement over

existing lean construction frameworks as it employs the ISM technique to specify the

hierarchical relationships among the different factors that contribute to the successful

implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

This paper is structured as follows. Firstly, a review of existing lean construction frameworks

is carried out to identify gaps in the knowledge. Secondly, the research methodology is

presented. This section contains a description of the ISM technique and how it is applied in

this study. Thirdly, a discussion of findings is presented, followed by the conclusion.

7.2 REVIEW OF EXISTING LEAN CONSTRUCTION FRAMEWORKS

Lean construction frameworks, often known as lean construction models, provide guidelines

for the application of lean construction strategies, that enable proactive control of the

performance of construction projects (Al-Aomar, 2012b; Swefie, 2013). The use of a

framework to implement lean construction helps to achieve significant project success,

especially in terms of cost, time and quality performance (Al-Aomar, 2012b).

In the literature, there are a number of lean construction frameworks covered. For instance,

Paez et al. (2005) developed a socio-technological framework, which harmonises both lean

manufacturing and lean construction practices (as they share similar technical and human

elements in their operation), therefore, providing the basis for adopting lean manufacturing

principles into a construction context. Green and May (2005) observed that lean construction

is a concept which has multiple meanings and interpretations in different contexts. This often

undermines how lean construction is interpreted and conceptualized among competing actors


in the construction industry, especially the managerial and non-managerial actors (Green &

May, 2005). Consequently, after interviewing 25 construction sector policy-makers in the UK

construction industry, these authors, determined three dominant concepts that characterized

the meaning of lean construction. The first one is waste elimination, which depicts lean

construction as a process of ensuring resource efficiency. The second one views lean

construction as a partnering concept for bringing together project actors and achieving

collaboration in the construction industry. The third combines the elements of the previous

two, and emphasizes that lean construction can help in bringing about changes in the way

projects are delivered, using a range of approaches from conventional models to more

innovative, technologically driven and collaborative models.

A conceptual framework developed by Johansen and Walter (2007) identifies eight specific

areas where the lean concept can be applied in the construction industry, based on results from

a survey of management-level professionals and operators in 61 top construction companies

in Germany. These areas are design, procurement, supply, installation, management,

planning/control, collaboration and change management (Johansen & Walter, 2007). As the

framework did not reveal how lean construction could be implemented in different types of

construction projects, the adoption of lean construction has remained limited in the German


Al-Aomar (2012b) developed an ambitious framework which identifies lean construction

activities incorporating a Six Sigma rating to evaluate the cost, quality and schedule

implication of those practices. The framework also proposed a look-ahead period of planning

before execution of these practices, whereby performance could be measured and necessary

corrections made. The framework demonstrated how lean construction can be implemented in

reality, using a case study of 28 different sized construction companies in Abu Dhabi.

Although this is a very unique contribution, the framework focuses only on construction-waste

elimination. Other sources of construction inefficiencies such as delays and errors are not

included in the framework, thus allowing for further investigation.

While Al-Aomar (2012b)’s framework can be regarded as a Lean-Six Sigma framework,

Banawi (2013) proposed a Lean-Green-Six Sigma framework. Lean focuses on waste

reduction, Green assesses environmental impacts while Six Sigma is introduced to improve

productivity. The framework comprises of three steps: define and measure, analyse and

improve, and control. In a case study on an institutional facility in Pittsburgh, USA,

implementation of the framework contributed to reducing waste in the construction process.

Similar to Al-Aomar (2012b)’s framework, this framework is mainly concerned with waste


elimination, despite incorporating Green and Six Sigma concepts for reducing environmental

impact and enhancing productivity levels, respectively.

Other recently developed frameworks focus on the implementation of lean construction. This

indicates that implementation of lean construction is a continuing challenge in the construction

industry. For instance, Liker (2004) proposed a ‘Toyota-way’ model, comprising 14 principles

within four layers, as an alternative framework for implementing lean construction. The layers,

each of which can be a separate model, include: philosophy, process, people and partners, and

problem-solving. While many frameworks for lean construction have a strong technical focus,

this framework encompasses both technical and human aspects, thereby providing alternative

approaches to lean construction implementation.

The current literature review reveals the knowledge and use of different lean construction

frameworks in the construction industry. Their significance ranges from revealing how to

adapt lean manufacturing to the construction context, how to increase the adoption of lean

construction and promote its effective use, integrating other concepts to complement the

effectiveness of lean construction, and most importantly, providing an indication of how to

implement lean construction practices. However, none of the previous frameworks have

attempted to address those CSFs that specifically assist in the implementation of lean

construction in the construction industry, nor examined whether there is a relationship between

the CSFs that effectively promote this implementation. Therefore, this study builds on an

existing study that identifies the CSFs for implementing lean construction in the KSA

construction industry (Sarhan, Olanipekun, et al., 2016). Furthermore, it proposes an ISM

approach to specify the interrelationships among the CSFs in order to develop an ISM model

for the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry.


The aim of this study is to develop a framework for the implementation of lean construction

strategies in the KSA construction industry using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM).

7.4 PROCESS OF INTERPRETIVE STRUCTURAL MODELLING (ISM)

According to Warfield (1994), ISM enables an understanding of the relationships among many

elements associated with a system by developing a structured model of these relationships.

This helps to impose order on, and direction to, the relationships among elements in a system,

such that their influence can be analysed (Mandal & Deshmukh, 1994; Sarhan, Hu, et al., 2016;


Sharma, Gupta, & Sushil, 1995; Singh, Shankar, Narain, & Agarwal, 2003). According to N.

Kumar et al. (2013), the various steps involved in ISM are as follows:

Step 1: Identify the factors relevant to the system under investigation. In this project,

this involves a survey of 282 construction professionals in the KSA construction

industry to identify 12 CSFs.

Step 2: Establish contextual relationships among the factors identified in Step 1 based

on expert opinion.

Step 3: Formulate a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) of the factors to reveal

pairwise relationships.

Step 4: Develop a reachability matrix based on the SSIM to calculate the numerical

mutual influence, and check the matrix for transitivity. The transitivity of the contextual

relationship is a basic assumption in ISM, which states that if element A is related to B,

and B is related to C, then A is also related to C.

Step 5: Partition the reachability matrix into different levels.

Step 6: Remove the transitivity links, and draw a directed graph (diagraph), based on

the relationships given in the reachability matrix.

Step 7: Convert the digraph into an ISM-based model by replacing element nodes with

the statements.

Step 8: Review the model to check for conceptual inconsistencies and make any

necessary alterations. In this study, interviews were conducted with experts who have a

sound understanding of lean construction and the operations of the KSA construction

industry, in order to validate the ISM model developed in step 7.

7.5 Analysis of Results: Development of the ISM framework

Step 1: Identify the CSFs: As mentioned previously, the first step in the ISM process was

achieved in a study by Sarhan et al., (2016). Following a questionnaire survey of 282

construction professionals, the study identified the 12 CSFs for successful implementation of

lean construction in the KSA construction industry. Of the 282 respondents, 51 per cent have

more than 10 years of professional working experience, while the other 49 per cent have 1–10

years experience. Additionally, 80 per cent of the respondents have either a bachelor degree

or a diploma, while 20 percent of have postgraduate degree qualifications in the construction


field. From an organisation perspective, 39 per cent of the respondents work in project

management organisations, 23 per cent in general contracting organisations, 10 per cent in

architectural firms, 9 per cent in speciality contracting firms, 5 per cent in client, academic and

government organisations, 3 per cent in subcontracting firms and one per cent in supplier

organisations. The 12 CSFs are presented in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Critical success factors for the implementation of lean construction

Step 2: Examine contextual relationships among the factors identified in Step 1: From the 12

CSFs obtained in step 1, the contextual relationships among the CSFs were identified. Of the

282 construction professionals surveyed, 16 of them, each with 15 years or more working

experience, were selected to examine the contextual relationships among the 12 CSFs. With

the level of experience they have, the selected professionals can each provide their educated

opinion regarding the factors that are more related to each other than to other factors. Hence,

they were asked to complete a pairwise-comparison of the 12 CSFs via a row and column

questionnaire. In the questionnaire, the 12 CSFs in Table 1 are listed in the rows and columns.

However, the CSFs are labelled as shown in Table 2 to enable the pairwise comparison.

Specifically, the experts were instructed to compare the column statement to the row statement

for each cell on the questionnaire and to select an appropriate symbol from the symbol-set (V,

A, X, O), according to their perception of direct relationships between the two CSFs in

question. In essence, the questionnaire has been designed in order to query the existence of a


1 Top management commitment to and leadership of lean construction

2 Providing education and training for lean construction in the construction industry (e.g. Staff, contractors, designers etc.)

3 Adopting alternative procurement methods in project delivery (e.g. Design-Build, early contractor involvement etc.)


5 Applying appropriate lean construction tools / techniques (e.g. Last Planner System, 5S, Value Stream Mapping etc.)

6 Implementing organisational change (culture, strategy, vision and performance evaluation system) 7 Promoting a culture of teamwork during construction projects 8 Adoption of continuous improvement 9 Clear definition of client’s requirements

10 Applying the lean methodology at an early stage of the building project delivery (e.g. Planning, design stage etc.)

11 Coordinating and promoting efforts at a national level (e.g. establishment of a National Lean Construction Institute)



relationship between any two CSFs, and also determine the associated direction of that

relationship. Below is a description of each symbol as stated on the questionnaire.

V – CSF i will help achieve CSF j; but not in the opposite direction

A - CSF j will help to achieve CSF i; but the reverse will not occur

X – CSF i and j will help to achieve each other

O – CSF i and j have no relationship with each other

(Note: the values for ‘i’ and ‘j’ are from CSF 1, 2,….12)

Steps 3: Formulate the structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM): According to R. Kumar et al.

(2013), SSIM is a technique for finding the contextual relationships among identified factors

using expert opinions. On the basis of the pairwise comparison by the experts using the V, A,

X, O symbol-set, the SSIM was formulated to reveal the pairwise relationships of the CSFs in

Table 7.2. Note, the entries in the SSIM were based on the maximum responses obtained for

the pair of CSFs.

Table 7.2 Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM)

Step 4: Develop a reachability matrix based on the SSIM to calculate the numerical mutual

influence, and check the matrix for transitivity: As shown in Table 3, the initial reachability

matrix is derived from the SSIM by substituting the V, A, X and O symbols with binary digits

of either “1” or “0” based on the following rules (see (N. Kumar et al., 2013)).

• If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is V, then the (i, j) entry in the initial reachability matrix

becomes 1 and the (j, i) entry becomes 0; for V(1,12) in SSIM, ‘1’ has been recorded

in cell (1,12) and ‘0’ in cell (12,1)

CSF j → 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 CSF i ↓ 1 Top management commitment and leadership V V V O V V V V V V V 2 Education and training V A V V V V V V V V 3 Adopting alternative procurement methods V A X X V O A A A 4 Adopting new construction technology/methods V A V A X V A X 5 Applying appropriate lean construction tools V A X A X V A 6 Implementing organisational change V A V V V X 7 Promoting a culture of teamwork O A A O X 8 Adoption of continuous improvement V A A O 9 Clear definition of client’s requirements O O A

10 Early application of lean methodology V A 11 Coordination and promotion at a national level V 12 Long-term relationships within the supply chain


• If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is A, then the (i, j) entry in the initial reachability matrix

becomes 0 and the (j, i) entry becomes 1; for A (2,11) in SSIM, ‘0’ has been recorded

in cell (2,11) and ‘1’ in cell (11,2)

• If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is X, then both the (i, j) and (j, i) entries of the initial

reachability matrix becomes 1; for X (5,10) in SSIM, ‘1’ has been recorded in cell

(5,10) and ‘1’ in cell (10,5) and,

• If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is O, then both the (i, j) and (j, i) entries of the initial

reachability matrix becomes 0; for O (7,12) in SSIM, ‘0’ has been recorded in cell

(7,12) and ‘0’ in cell (12, 7).

Table 7.3 Initial reachability matrix

The final reachability matrix is obtained by incorporating transitivity. The transitivity of the

contextual relationship is a basic assumption of the ISM technique, which states that if element

A is related to B, and B is related to C, then A is also related to C (Kumar, Luthra, & Haleem,

2013). In Table 4, ‘*’ indicates the presence of transitivity. For instance, CSF1 is related to

CSF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and CSF 9 is added as a transitive element to CSF 10.

Table 7.4 Final reachability matrix with driving power and dependence of CSFs

CSF j →Initial reachability matrix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CSF i ↓

1 Top management commitment and leadership 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1

2 Education and training 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 Adopting alternative procurement methods 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1

4 Adopting new construction technology/methods 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1

5 Applying appropriate lean construction tools 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1

6 Implementing organisational change 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 Promoting a culture of teamwork 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 8 Adoption of continuous improvement 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 9 Clear definition of client’s requirements 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

10 Early application of lean methodology 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1

11 Coordination and promotion at a national level 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1

12 Long-term relationships within the supply chain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

CSF j � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Driving

power CSF i �


Step 5: Partition the reachability matrix into different levels: According to Haleem, Sushil,

Qadri, and Kumar (2012), the segregation of the components of a structure into different levels

makes it easier to understand the relationships in a hierarchy. The final reachability matrix is

used for the partitioning of the CSFs into different levels, by determining the reachability set

and the antecedent set (Kumar & Kumar, 2016). The reachability set (R) consists of the CSF

itself and other CSF, which it will support, whereas the antecedent set (C) consists of the CSF

itself and other CSF which will help in supporting it (R. Kumar et al., 2013). Consequently,

the intersection of these sets (i.e. R∩C) is obtained for all of the 12 CSFs. As shown in Table

5, CSF 12 has the highest rank or hierarchy because its reachability (R), and intersection

(R∩C) sets are the most similar, or the same (Yang, 2012). The CSF 12 is therefore selected

in hierarchy level I. This process is repeated iteratively until the respective hierarchical levels

for all the CSFs are identified. As shown in Table 6, the CSFs with the highest rank, or

hierarchy, are the ones which have the same reachability (R) and intersection (R∩C), sets. As

shown in Table 7.5, the 12 CSFs are partitioned into several levels (L1 – L7) demonstrated

below.

L1 = (12); L2 = (4, 5, 7, 8); L3 = (3, 9, 10); L4 = (6); L5 = (2); L6 = (11); L7 = (1)

Table 7.5 Iteration 1 of level partition

1 Top management commitment and leadership 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

* 1 1 1 12

2 Education and training 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 10

3 Adopting alternative procurement methods 0 0 1 1

* 1* 0 1

* 1 1 1 0 1 8

4 Adopting new construction technology/methods 0 0 1 1 1 1

* 1 1 1* 1 0 1 9

5 Applying appropriate lean construction tools 0 0 1 1 1 1

* 1 1 1* 1 0 1 9

6 Implementing organisational change 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 9

7 Promoting a culture of teamwork 0 0 0 1*

1* 1 1 1 1

* 1* 0 1

* 8

8 Adoption of continuous improvement 0 0 1

* 1 1 1* 1 1 0 0 0 1 7

9 Clear definition of client’s requirements 0 0 1 1 1 0 1

* 1* 1 1

* 0 1* 8

10 Early application of lean methodology 0 0 1 1

* 1 1* 1 1 1 1 0 1 9

11 Coordination and promotion at a national level 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

* 1 1 1 11

12 Long-term relationships within the supply chain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Dependence 1 3 10 11 11 9 11 11 10 10 2 12


CSF Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level 1 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 1 1 2 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 1,2,11 2 3 3,4,5,7,8,9,10,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11 3,4,5,8,9,10 4 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 5 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 6 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11 4,5,6,7,8,10 7 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 8 3,4,5,6,7,8,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 3,4,5,6,7,8 9 3,4,5,7,8,9,10,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11 3,4,5,7,9,10

10 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11 3,4,5,6,7,9,10 11 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 1,11 11 12 12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 12 I

Table 7.6 Level partitioning of criteria

Step 6: Remove the transitivity links and draw the directed graph (diagraph) based on the

relationships given in the reachability matrix: The matrix of cross-impact multiplications

applied to a classification analysis (MICMAC) is used to analyse the driving power and

dependence power of the 12 CSFs. As shown in Table 7.4, the driving power of each CSF is

the summation of the total number of factor interactions in the row (including itself), which it

affects, while the dependence of each factor is the summation of the total number of factor

interactions in the column (including itself), by which it is affected (Kumar & Kumar, 2016).

Consequently, as shown in Figure 7.1, the driving power and dependence power summations

No. CSF Level

1 Top management commitment and leadership VII

2 Education and training V

3 Adopting alternative procurement methods III

4 Adopting new construction technology/methods II

5 Applying appropriate lean construction tools II

6 Implementing organisational change IV

7 Promoting a culture of teamwork II

8 Adoption of continuous improvement II

9 Clear definition of customer requirements III

10 Early application of lean methodology III

11 Coordination and promotion at a national level VI

12 Long-term relationships within the supply chain I


of the CSFs are plotted into a diagraph of four clusters: autonomous, linkage, dependent and

driving clusters (Mandal & Deshmukh, 1994).

The first cluster, the autonomous cluster, comprises CSFs with weak driving power and weak

dependence. In addition, autonomous cluster CSFs can be disconnected from the entire system,

with little or no impact on other CSFs (S. Kumar et al., 2013). In this study, there are no CSFs

in the autonomous cluster. The second cluster is the dependent cluster, which comprises CSFs

that have weak driving power, but strong dependence power. The one CSF under this cluster

is the establishment of long-term relationships within the construction supply chain (12). Its

strong dependence suggests that it requires other CSFs to be achieved (Haleem et al., 2012).

The third cluster is the linkage cluster, which comprises CSFs that have strong driving power

and strong dependence. There are eight CSFs in this cluster: adopting continuous

improvements, adopting alternative procurement methods in project delivery, clear definition

of client requirements, promoting a teamwork culture during project construction,

organisational change, applying the lean methodology at an early stage of building project

delivery, adopting new construction technologies/methods, and applying appropriate lean

construction tools/techniques. According to Kumar and Kumar (2016), and Haleem et al.

(2012), CSFs in this cluster can be unstable as any action taken on any of these will affect

other CSFs, and can cause feedback on the CSF itself. The last cluster is the driving cluster. It

comprises CSFs that have strong driving power and weak dependence. The three CSFs in this

cluster are: ensuring top management commitment and leadership for lean construction,

coordinating and promoting efforts at a national level, and providing education and training

for lean construction in the construction industry. Given their strong driving power, these CSFs

are the fundamental key to the successful implementation of lean construction techniques

(Attri et al., 2013).


Figure 7.1 Driving power and dependence for CSFs for lean construction implementation

Step 7: Convert the digraph into an ISM-based model by replacing element nodes with the

statements: The ISM model is generated from the final reachability matrix after removing the

transitivity links and replacing the node numbers with statements (N. Kumar et al., 2013). As

shown in Figure 7.2, arrow directions indicate relationship(s) among the CSFs ‘i' and ‘j’

(Haleem et al., 2012). It can be seen that ‘top management commitment and leadership for

lean construction (CSF1)’ is very significant for the implementation of lean construction in

the KSA construction industry, as it appears at the base of the hierarchy in the ISM model. In

addition, ‘establishing long-term relationships within the construction supply chain’ is

identified as the top-level CSF in the ISM model.

1

2

3, 94, 5678

10

11

120123456789

1011121314

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Driv

ing

Pow

er

Dependence Power

MICMAC ANALYSIS

Autonomous CSFs Dependent CSFs

Driving CSFs

Linkage CSFs


Figure 7.2 ISM-based model of lean construction implementation

12. Establishing long-term relationships within the supply chain

4. Adopting new construction technologies/ methods (e.g. BIM)

5. Applying appropriate lean construction tools / techniques (e.g. Last Planner System, 5S, Value Stream Mapping etc.)

7. Promoting a culture of teamwork during construction projects

8. Adoption of continuous improvement

3. Adopting alternative procurement methods in project delivery (e.g. Design-Build, early contractor involvement etc.)

9. Clear definition of client’s requirements

10. Applying the lean methodology at an early stage of building project delivery (e.g. planning, design stage etc.)

6. Implementing organisational change (culture, strategy, vision and performance evaluation system)

2. Providing education and training for lean construction in the construction industry (e.g. staff, contractors, designers etc.)

11. Coordinating and promoting efforts at a national level (e.g. establishment of a National Lean Construction Institute)

1. Top management commitment and leadership for lean construction


Step 8: Review the model to check for conceptual inconsistencies and make the necessary

alterations: This review process was carried out through validation using experts who have a

sound understanding of both lean construction, and the operations of the KSA construction

industry. Therefore, the experts were purposively selected. According to Xia (2010),

validation is the last stage of a research study to verify whether the quality of a developed

model is within an acceptable standard. The experts were asked to review the proposed ISM

model in step 7, for conceptual inconsistencies and thereafter contribute improvements thought

necessary. In addition, the experts were asked to verify the appropriateness and applicability

of the model in the KSA construction industry context.

The validation of the ISM model by the experts was carried out using an interview

methodology. This was preferred because it allows both the researcher and the interviewee to

engage effectively in issues addressed in the interview, and in a greater degree of detail, with

no doubt or ambiguity (Ahmed et al., 2016; Bhattacherjee, 2012). Five interview questions

were framed inductively from the developed ISM model. Each question was provided with a

generic explanatory statement to indicate the findings, with examples in some instances, to

provide context and help the experts fully understand the question. The questions were cast in

an open–ended format to allow the experts to provide their own responses and views about the

questions asked, without constraining them to a fixed set of possible answers (Ahmed et al.,

2016; Yilmaz, 2013). The interview questions were carefully drafted into a one-page document

with an introduction stating the aim of the validation study. and outlining the potential benefits

both to the experts and to the body of knowledge.

The researcher identified 10 experts from among those that participated in the survey in step

1 and eventually, five of these agreed to participate. The interview questions together with the

developed ISM model in a separate document were sent to the experts one week before the

actual interview, to allow them chance to study the model in detail and understand the

questions before the interview. The experts were also instructed to communicate anything in

the interview documents that they could not understand, well before the interview. The

interview took place on the set date as agreed to by the experts. Given the limited number of

questions and the clarity introduced with the explanatory statements added to each of the

questions, the phone interviews with each expert lasted for an average of 20–30 minutes. In

addition, each of the interview sessions was recorded digitally, with a total recorded time of

118 minutes for all interviews. During the interview sessions, whenever responses were

ambiguous or unclear, the experts were asked further probing questions to clarify the meaning


of their responses, especially with regard to analogies and examples. After the completion of

each interview, the experts were thanked for their participation with a promise to provide them

each a brief report of the final outcomes of the study.

The responses from the experts constitute qualitative data, which was analysed using content

analysis in line with the method described in Elo and Kyngäs (2008). Firstly, the overall time

of the interview of the experts was kept relatively short and the recording of each expert

interview was transcribed manually into an Excel worksheet. Secondly, the responses to each

of the interview questions by all the experts were manually merged to identify the themes and

provide a means of description. The third step undertaken was the abstraction, i.e., the naming

of the themes. Lastly, the themes are described by relating them to the implementation of lean

construction in the KSA construction industry.

7.6 VALIDATION RESULTS

The background information of the experts is contained in Table 7.7. These experts are both

practitioners and practitioners with academic affiliations with an average of 15 years

experience covering general construction practices and lean construction in the KSA


Table 7.7 Background information of experts involved in the validation of the framework

Experts description Years of experience Designation

Industry and Academia

Industry

Expert 1 8 X Expert 2 10 X Expert 3 14 X Expert 4 20 X Expert 5 10 X

Firstly, the experts were asked whether lean construction should be implemented in the KSA

construction industry to enable collaboration among project participants, improving

construction processes and overall industry performance. All the experts agreed that lean

construction should be implemented for those purposes. Expert 5 expressed optimism that

implementing lean construction can positively impact the KSA construction industry as a

whole, while Expert 4 stated lean construction can help to improve the efficiency level in the

industry. Expert 2 believed that the implementation of lean construction in the KSA


construction industry would contribute to achieving the KSA 2030 vision of diversifying the

economy and the development of service sectors through efficiency in project delivery and

minimization of waste. In terms of how lean construction should be enforced, Expert 1 argued

for a mandatory, rather than voluntary mode of enforcement. In this case, mandatory

enforcement requires the participation of the government, which is the only entity empowered

to make, and with the responsibility for enacting legislation and enforcing such in the KSA.

Secondly, the experts were asked whether the list of CSFs for successful implementation of

lean construction in the KSA are comprehensive, and if not, whether there are other factors

that should be included. All the experts agreed that the CSFs are very comprehensive.

Meanwhile, Expert 4 suggested the addition of “integrated form of agreement” and

“collaborative forms of project delivery”, which would support more effective lean

construction. This suggestion is already incorporated in “adoption of alternative procurement

systems such as DB” (CSF 3). In line with the intention of the expert, the factor enables early

project involvement by participants, and collaboration in project delivery, in order to ensure

successful lean construction implementation. Another factor which aligns with the intention

of this expert is “promoting the culture of teamwork among participants involved in project

delivery” (CSF 7). Expert 3 proposed that the CSF should be classified into different levels.

Although the goal in this study is not to classify the CSF, the ISM model specifying the

interrelationships among the CSF is divided into 7 levels of hierarchy. At the base of the

hierarchy is ‘top management commitment and leadership for lean construction (CSF1)’, while

“establishing long-term relationships within the construction supply chain’ is at the top of the

hierarchy in the ISM model. Thirdly, the experts were asked whether the 7 levels of hierarchies

identified in the ISM model are logical. All the experts agreed that the levels of hierarchy are

very logical.

Fourthly, the experts were asked whether the framework could contribute to improving the

performance of projects and organisations in the KSA construction industry. There were a

range of responses from the experts. Both Expert 1 and 3 specifically agreed that the ISM

model is implementable in the KSA construction industry, although Expert 1 emphasised the

need to provide industry-wide education and training about lean construction, in order to

ensure that all stakeholders have a fuller understanding of lean construction. Expert 4 pointed

out that more guidance will be required to explain to operators in the construction industry,

how they can implement the model. Accordingly, while the arrow directions are illustrative,

careful explanation about the logical implementation of the framework is described in section

7.7. The comment from Expert 2 about model development was more generic, that outputs


and expectations have to be defined and clarified throughout any model. For the current ISM

model, it means that while the 12 CSFs in their respective levels of hierarchy and

interrelationships are inputs to the implementation, the outputs or expected outcomes need to

be specified. The outcome specified for this model is to improve performance of construction

projects and organisations in the KSA construction industry. All the experts agreed with these,

as being suitable outcomes of the model if implemented. For instance, Expert 5 stated that the

model can contribute to improving the performance of construction projects and organisations

if it is carefully implemented. Expert 4 agreed with Expert 5, and further stated that the

framework will be useful for project clients, and decision and policy makers in the KSA


Lastly, the experts were asked whether the research process described in section 3.1 and 6 was

adequate for the development of the ISM model, and to provide any suggestions for future

improvements. Experts 1, 3 and 5 specifically stated that the research process is already

adequate and they did not suggest any additional improvements. However, as part of the

research process, Expert 3 proposed the use of interviews and/or focus groups to further

support the establishment of the relationships among the CSFs, while Expert 2 mentioned the

need to validate the model using a qualitative case-study approach. This would require

implementing the framework in real construction projects and organisations. The expert also

suggested that based on the research results, further justification needs to be developed to

clearly show that the model fulfils its initial objective, which is to improve the performance of

projects and organisations in the KSA construction industry. Clearly, this is a sound

suggestion, which requires more resources than were able to be provided in this study, but can

be planned for future research.

7.7 DISCUSSION OF THE ISM MODEL

The driver-dependence diagram, or diagraph (Figure 7.1) provides some insights into the

relative importance of the CSFs and their interdependencies, i.e., the links among the CSFs.

On this basis, and in contrast to existing models such as Al-Aomar (2012b)’s, and Banawi and

Bilec (2014)’s, the current ISM model developed by this study reveals the interrelationships

of the 12 CSFs in a hierarchical manner, and is developed for successful implementation of

lean construction in the KSA construction industry. As shown in Figure 7.2, the ISM model is

divided into seven hierarchies (VII-I).

Within the model, the hierarchy of each CSF is based on its ranking in context with its driving

and dependence powers (Kumar & Kumar, 2016). Thus, the top management commitment and


leadership (VII) with a driving power of 12 and a dependence power of 1, is the most important

CSF for the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. Many

studies agree with the high importance of the top management commitment and leadership,

especially to inspire and motivate employees and lower-chain suppliers to embrace lean

construction (AL-Najem et al., 2012; Baviskar, 2015). Other highly important CSFs for the

implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry are: coordinating and

promoting efforts at a national level (VI) and providing education and training for lean

construction in the construction industry (V) with driving powers of 11 and 10, and

dependence powers of 2 and 3, respectively. It is, therefore, important to give more

consideration to these CSFs in the KSA construction industry. On the other hand, establishing

long-term relationships within the construction supply chain (I) with a driving power of 1 and

s dependence power of 1 is the least important CSF for the implementation of lean construction


Similarly, in line with Kumar and Kumar (2016), the directional arrows in the ISM model

(Figure 7.2) indicate that any particular CSF is driven by another, or drives others. Hence, the

top management commitment and leadership in the seventh hierarchy (VII) drives the

coordinating and promoting efforts at a national level in the sixth hierarchy (VI). Within the

KSA construction industry, there are many different organisations involved, such as the

contracting, consulting and supplying companies. These organisations have different

responsibilities in the construction supply chain and are guided by different goals, values and

ambitions. Given these differences, there is a need for the nation-wide coordination in the KSA

to align the different organisations to a singular holistic lean construction view, and focus and

approach nationally and top management in the various construction organisations in the KSA

construction industry are in the best position to achieve this. They collectively are responsible

for making the final decision to follow this path, and provide the resources that will be required

for implementation. They also have the responsibility to lead their employees to follow and

practice nationally-aligned lean construction management and practices.

Consequently, coordination and promotion efforts at a national level also drives the education

and training for lean construction in the construction industry in the fifth hierarchy (V). In

order to attain the effective implementation of a nationally-aligned lean construction initiative,

the participation of employees in construction organisations is important. They are responsible

for daily operations of lean construction in different construction organisations, and for them

to perform these roles effectively that align with a national standard, education and training

across the industry are required. Management in the construction organisations can achieve


this by providing continuous and focused training to their employees. The regulatory and

professional bodies in the KSA construction industry such as the Saudi Council of Engineers

(SCE) are also responsible in this regard, for providing training to their professional members.

With such training, the employees and professional members can increase their understanding

of how lean construction is viewed from a national perspective, and how to effectively

implement the concept (Al-Aomar, 2012a).

By providing education and training for lean construction, the management in construction

organisations, as well as the regulatory and professional bodies, are driving change towards

lean construction principles (IV) by re-orientating the focus of employees in the construction

industry. As part of organisational change for lean construction, which is in the fourth

hierarchy (IV), top management in construction organisations often introduces lean

construction principles as part of the organisational vision and mission for easy access,

understanding and application by employees. According to AL-Najem et al. (2012), it is

possible to employ clear vision and strategy to build an effective lean culture in organisations.

It appears that organisational change leads to both the adoption of alternative procurement

methods (III), and the application of lean methodology at an early stage of project delivery in

the third (III) hierarchy. Mainly at the operational level of the organisation, effective

organisational change in the long-term culminates in the adoption of alternative procurement

systems such as design-build (Sandbhor & Botre), which encourages the early participation of

project participants to work together for the successful implementation of lean construction.

In addition, organisational change needs to focus on early-stage project delivery activities for

the successful implementing lean construction. The latter is also driven by education and

training for lean construction, in addition to a clear definition of clients’ requirements (III).

For instance, in project owner and consulting organisations in the construction industry,

education and training on how to properly define client requirements for the contracting side

of project procurement can be crucial for the successful implementation of lean construction,

while for contracting organisations, education and training can increase the capacity to

evaluate and implement lean construction requirements of clients. Both a clear definition of

clients’ requirements and adoption of alternative procurement methods drive each other, due

to their bi-directional relationship, while the latter drives the application of lean methodologies

at an early stage of project delivery.

There are four CSFs in the second hierarchy (Construction Industry Institute (CII)). The first

one is adopting new construction technologies/methods, and it is driven by a clear definition

of clients’ requirements. The second one is the adoption of continuous improvement such as


Kanban during the project delivery, which has a bi-directional relationship with adoption of

new construction technologies/methods and is driven by adopting alternative procurement

methods. The third one is applying lean construction tools/techniques, and it is driven by three

other CSFs including adoption of continuous improvements, a clear definition of clients’

requirements, and applying lean methodology at an early stage of the project delivery. Notably,

these three CSFs mainly focus on the adoption and implementation of lean tools, techniques

and technologies. The technological involvement suggests that technology is very important

to the implementation of lean construction. In practice, they are more relevant at the

operational level during the project delivery, and must be carried out with high individual

construction professional expertise and skills. The fourth CSF brings together the others in the

second hierarchy, to work collaboratively and promote a culture of teamwork for the

successful implementation of lean construction during project delivery. This CSF is driven

directly by applying appropriate lean construction tools/techniques, and applying lean

methodologies at an early stage of project delivery.

The CSF in the first hierarchy is establishing long-term relationships within the construction

supply chain (I), and is directly driven by adopting new construction technologies/methods,

adoption of continuous improvement and applying appropriate lean construction

tools/techniques. Although this CSF has the least driving power and dependence power, it can

be regarded as the enduring goal for lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

7.8 CONCLUSION

Lean construction strategies help to improve the performance of construction projects and

organisations by identifying and eliminating/minimising waste. This research develops an ISM

model specifying the interrelationships among the 12 CSFs for the implementation of lean

construction in KSA construction industry in seven hierarchical levels (VII-I). The MICMAC

analysis is used to analyse the driving power and dependence power of the 12 CSFs, and to

divide them into autonomous, dependent, linkage, and driving clusters on the diagraph. The

CSFs of top management commitment and leadership, coordinating and promoting efforts at

a national level and providing education and training for lean construction in the construction

industry have the highest driving powers and lowest dependence powers. They are also in the

7th, 6th and 5th hierarchies, respectively, in the ISM model. Therefore, they fall within the

driving cluster on the diagraph as the most important CSFs for driving the implementation of

lean construction in the KSA construction industry.


The majority of the CSFs have strong driving power and strong dependence power at the same

time. In addition, they lie between the 4th and 2nd hierarchy in the ISM model. Therefore, they

fall within the linkage cluster on the diagraph as very unstable CSFs, which when acted upon

also affect other CSFs for the implementation of lean construction. These CSFs include:

adopting continuous improvements, adopting alternative procurement methods in project

delivery, clear definition of client requirements, promoting a teamwork culture during project

construction, and organisational change, while others are: applying the lean methodology at

an early stage of the building project delivery, adopting new construction

technologies/methods, and applying appropriate lean construction tools/techniques.

The establishment of long-term relationships within the construction supply chain is the only

CSF in the dependent cluster. With weak driving power and strong dependence power, and

lying in the 1st hierarchy in the ISM model, this CSF is totally reliant on the other CSFs to be

achieved for the implementation of lean construction. However, there are no CSFs in the

autonomous cluster; indicating that all the 12 CSFs are required for lean implementation.

Finally, the expert opinion about the proposed model reveals that the seven hierarchical levels

and the interrelationships specified in the ISM model are very logical and implementable. In

conclusion, successful implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry

should start with top management commitment and leadership in construction organisations

and end with the establishment of long-term relationships among operators in the construction

supply chain. Furthermore, the ISM model specifying the interrelationships among the 12

CSFs for the implementation of lean construction in seven hierarchical levels can be

implemented to improve the performance of construction projects and organisations, and the

overall performance of the construction industry.

The following insights about the ISM framework for implementing lean construction in the

KSA construction industry contribute to the body of knowledge of lean construction. Firstly,

those in top management positions in construction organisations have a role beyond their

organisation towards ensuring successful implementation of lean construction. This study has

shown that these top managers need to take responsibility for coordinating a holistic

implementation of lean construction throughout the KSA construction industry. Secondly, the

successful implementation of lean construction requires the synergy of efforts between the

management authorities and employees in construction organisations. For instance, the

management provides education and training to the employees who in turn provide effective


lean construction operations on a daily basis. Thirdly, lean construction is both an

organisational and a project-based process. Organisationally, lean construction is part of the

ongoing changes to the construction industry processes, while at the project level, lean

construction is employed as a technique for improving the project delivery process. Lastly,

lean construction is technologically driven. The implementation of lean construction,

especially at the project level requires the application of relevant technologies to ensure

success.

Additionally, this study has a number of practical implications, especially with regard to how

the CSFs will actually be implemented to improve the performance of construction projects

and organisations. Firstly, operators, especially the management of construction organisations,

should accord highest priority to the CSFs in the driving cluster. Secondly, the CSFs in the

linkage cluster should be carefully thought-out and planned before implementation, due to

their unstable interactions. For instance, organisational change is in the linkage cluster, which

directly drives “adopting alternative procurement methods in project delivery” and “applying

lean methodology at an early stage of the building project delivery”, as shown in the ISM

model. Therefore, in the process of making any organisational change to accommodate lean

construction practice, the management in construction organisations should consider and

ensure that such change is conducive to allowing both the selection of procurement methods,

and the application of lean methodology at an early stage of projects. Thirdly, less effort should

be expended on establishing long-term relationships within the construction supply chain, as

this CSF is in the dependent cluster and, therefore, once other CSFs are in place, it will

naturally lead to the formation of long-term relationships within the construction supply chain

for ensuring successful implementation of lean strategies.

It is recommended that regulatory and professional bodies in the KSA construction industry

should position themselves to coordinate and overview nationwide efforts to promote a holistic

view of lean construction. These bodies should also be responsible for informing individual

operators in the industry about the benefits of implementing lean construction into their

projects and into the industry. Furthermore, operators within the industry should employ the

current model to implement lean construction in their companies and during the delivery of

their projects. Researchers in the built environment field can employ this model as a theoretical

framework for further research into the successful implementation of lean construction

strategies. Such further research should employ case study methodology whereby the ISM


model can be applied in real projects. This will increase the understanding of the level of

applicability of the model.

There are some limitations in this study. The model developed in the study was an ISM model

with only 12 CSFs for implementing lean construction in the KSA. The number of CSFs was

restricted to 12 in this case due to the inability of the ISM technique to accommodate too many

variables. Hence, other variables which are less critical to successful implementation may have

been omitted. Furthermore, the validation of the ISM model is based on the opinions of a small

group of experts, which may be biased and not fully reflect the whole of industry practice.

In line with the suggestions of Expert 2, this framework needs to be used in a real life project

in a future research study. Thus, the effectiveness of the framework to improve the

performance of construction projects and organisations can be affirmed, and where necessary,

further modifications can be made. The quantitative and qualitative data used for this study

are limited to the KSA. In future, this study could also be replicated using data from other

countries.

Discussion and Conclusions 171

Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions

8.1 INTRODUCTION

The findings of this study have been presented in three peer reviewed journals, and a peer

reviewed conference paper, structured into chapters 4-7. Chapters 4 and 5, which are journal

papers, address the research objective 1 and 2 respectively. Chapter 6 is a conference paper

and it addresses the research objective 3, while chapter 7 covers the research objectives 4 and

5 into a journal paper. This chapter discusses the ideas in each chapter, and how these chapters

are used to achieve the aim of the study – which is to develop a framework for promoting the

lean construction in the KSA construction industry. In addition, this chapter contains the

highlights the contribution to knowledge contributions and conclusions, in addition to

implications for theory and practice.

8.2 RESEARCH FINDINGS

8.2.1 Objective 1: Investigation the current status of lean application in the KSA construction industry, covering the types of wastes, the tools and techniques that support the implementation of lean construction, benefits of lean construction, and stages of application of lean methods.

8.2.1.1 Discussions, findings and knowledge contributions

This investigation provides an understanding of the state of art of lean construction in the KSA

construction industry. This covers the types of wastes, the tools and techniques that support

the implementation of lean construction, benefits of lean construction, and stages of

application of lean methods. As revealed in Chapter 4, eight types of construction wastes are

identified in the KSA construction industry. They are: waiting, making do, corrections,

transportation, motion, over-processing, inventory and over-production. From the mean score

analysis carried out, all the identified types of construction wastes have a mean score (M.S

>3.0) suggesting that they are common in the KSA construction industry. The exception is

“over-production” type of waste which has a mean score of 2.96. On the basis of the mean

score, waiting is the most common type of construction waste, followed by making-do. The

next are both corrections and transportation types of waste, followed by over-processing,

inventory and over-production respectively. Of the types of waste, it could be seen that waiting

is the most common due to factors such as processing of bills, delay in supply of materials and

172 Discussion and Conclusions

staff negligence (Aziz, 2013). Therefore, the greatest emphasis should be directed to “waiting”

in order to eliminate waste in the KSA construction industry. Waiting has also been found to

be very pervasive type of waste in the construction industry in other countries such as

Indonesia and Australia (Alwi, 2003) and Netherlands (L. Alarcon, 1997), and therefore it is

not limited to KSA construction industry. In addition, solutions to eliminate this type of waste

can be learnt from these countries. Furthermore, of the types of wastes identified, the ANOVA

test reveals that both over-processing (p=0.002) and over-production (p=0.0027) are

significantly different between large and small construction companies. Based on the mean

score shown in Table 4-1, both types of wastes are more pervasive in the smaller companies

than in the large companies in the KSA construction industry. Over-processing is linked to the

implementation of wrong methods in the construction process, while over-production is when

an output is produced ahead of time and more than required (Bertelsen & Koskela, 2002).

Therefore, the difference between the small and large companies can be attributed to limited

resources in the former, which hinders the capacity to set up an effective production control

system in the course of project delivery.

This study also examines the tools/techniques that support the implementation of lean

construction in the KSA construction industry. Of the 17 generic tools/techniques, 12 of them

have the MS >3.0 after verifying them from the views of construction professionals in the

KSA construction industry. Therefore, they are the specific tools/techniques that support the

implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. In descending order of

mean score values, the tools/techniques are: computed aided design (MS = 3.97), preventative

maintenance (MS = 3.60), safety improvement program (MS = 3.60), visual inspection (MS =

3.55), continuous improvement program (MS = 3.35), daily huddle meetings (MS = 3.34) and

total quality management (MS = 3.23), while the others are use of prefabricated material (MS

= 3.18), target value design (MS = 3.15), concurrent engineering (MS = 3.14), Just-in-time

(MS = 3.12) and Plan of Conditions and Work Environment in the Construction Industry (MS

= 3.12). It could be seen that the computer aided design is the tool considered to be most

supportive of the implementation of lean construction. Therefore, while any of the

tools/techniques can be deployed for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction

industry, the computer aided design should be the first to be considered. Furthermore, of all

the tools/techniques, the ANOVA tests reveals that the safety improvement program is the

only one that is significantly different between small and large companies (p = 0.020). Based

on the Table 4-2, the MS of safety improvement program is higher in the large companies (MS

= 3.77) than small companies (3.55). Therefore, it can be summed that “safety improvement

program” is more supportive of lean construction in the large companies than the small


companies. The reason is the large emphasis accorded to safety issues in the large companies.

According to Jannadi and Al-Sudairi (1995), large construction companies in the KSA

construction industry implement robust safety management program to ensure proper control

and management of a wide range of resources such as large number of construction workers

and equipment’s that are utilised for project delivery.

This finding also suggests that safety improvement program can be used to improve lean

construction in the large construction organisations. Thus, it supports the growing body of

knowledge that there is synergy between safety in construction and lean construction in the

construction industry. For instance, Nahmens and Ikuma (2009)’s study reveals low incidence

of injury among industrialised homebuilders that implement the continuous improvement lean

construction technique than those that did not in the USA construction industry. Similarly,

Forman (2013) reveals an intersection between the use of the Last Planner System (LPS) and

health and safety in three large construction companies in Denmark, albeit a change process

perspective. Therefore, while research exploring this synergy should be further deepened, both

concepts of safety and lean construction may be considered as drivers of one another in the

KSA construction industry henceforth.

This study also investigated the stages of construction project delivery whereby lean

construction is implemented in the KSA construction industry. Five stages of construction

project delivery are identified. They are planning, design, construction, commissioning and

handover and the operation/maintenance stages. With overall MS for all the stages >3.0 (Table

4-3), it indicates that lean construction is implemented in all the stages of construction project

delivery in the KSA construction industry. This suggests that lean construction is important in

all the stages of construction project delivery. Furthermore, this study reveals that lean

construction is mainly implemented at the construction stage (MS = 3.83), while it is least

implemented at that commissioning and handover stage (MS = 3.59). In addition, based on the

ANOVA test result in Table 4-3 (p = 0.0025), the level of implementation of lean construction

is significantly different between the large and small construction companies at the design

stage of project delivery. As shown in Table 4-3, MS for the implementation of lean

construction at the design stage is higher in the larger companies (MS = 3.95) than the small

companies (MS = 3.60). Many studies such as Marzouk, Bakry, and El-Said (2011)

acknowledge that lean construction is beneficial to ensure successful project delivery when

implemented at the design stage, especially for the larger companies who undertake complex

and high risk projects. However, there is no significant difference in the other stages between

both types of construction companies. Notably, most existing studies do not consider the

different stages of project delivery where lean construction is implemented. For these studies,


construction project delivery is assumed to be holistic and homogenous (Adamu &

Abdulhamid, 2015; Ruan, Ochieng, Zuofa, & Yang, 2016). Therefore, this study has added to

the existing body of knowledge by identifying the level of implementation of lean construction

at different stages of construction project delivery, and the differences between the types of

construction companies.

This study also verifies the benefits that could be derived from lean construction from the

perspectives of the respondents. The findings reveal that the 10 generic benefits of lean

construction presented to the respondents are relevant in the KSA construction industry. They

all have an overall MS > 3.0 (Table 4-4). They are: customer satisfaction (MS = 3.91), quality

improvement (MS = 3.90), increased productivity, reduced construction time, process

improvement, better health and safety record and improved supplier relationship. Others are

better inventory control/reduced inventory, increased market share and employee satisfaction

(MS = 3.42). It could be seen that both customer satisfaction and quality improvements are

considered to be the top benefits that can be derived from lean construction in the KSA

construction industry, while employee satisfaction is the least. Therefore this study

corroborates existing studies in other countries such as UK (O. Ogunbiyi et al., 2014), Egypt

(Issa, 2013) and the US (Koranda, Chong, Kim, Chou, & Kim, 2012) that lean construction is

beneficial in the construction industry. Still the ANOVA test reveals that the top benefits are

significantly different between large and small companies (p = 0.020; 0.012). As revealed in

Table 4-4, both customer satisfaction and quality improvement are perceived to be of more

benefit in large companies than small companies. In the KSA construction industry, the

possible reason is that the large companies need to engage the top clients including the various

government parastatals, many of who are sensitive to project quality and satisfaction.

Therefore, while lean construction may be beneficial in the construction industry, this study

has shown that such benefits may not be uniform across the construction industry.

8.2.1.2 Conclusion

The overview provides an understanding of the state of art of lean construction in the KSA

construction industry, covering the types of wastes, the tools and techniques that support the

implementation of lean construction, benefits of lean construction, and stages of application

of lean methods. Waiting is the most pervasive type of waste in the KSA construction industry,

which is similar to other countries such as Indonesia and Australia, while the pervasive level

of wastes such as over-processing and over-production are different between the large and

small construction companies mainly due to resource constraints. In the KSA construction

industry, a myriad number of different tools/techniques to support the implementation of lean

construction in the KSA construction industry. However, the computer aided design provides


most support to the implementation of lean construction. In addition, the safety improvement

program tool/technique provides more support to the implementation of lean construction in

the large companies than the small companies in the KSA construction industry. It was also

found that lean construction is implemented in different stages of project delivery, especially

at the construction stage. At the design stage, the implementation of lean construction is

significantly higher in large companies than the small ones. Furthermore, there are many

specific benefits of lean construction in the KSA construction industry, but the topmost ones

are customer satisfaction and quality improvement. In addition, both customer satisfaction and

quality improvement are perceived to be of more benefit in large companies than small

companies. Overall, it could be summed that the state of art of lean construction in the KSA

construction industry is not naive.

8.2.2 Objective 2: Barriers to the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry.


This objective focuses on identifying, and prioritising the barriers to implementing lean

construction, and which are specific to the socio-cultural, economic and operational context in

the KSA construction industry. As revealed in Table 5-3, 22 barriers to implementing lean

construction in the KSA construction industry are identified after a MIS analysis. All the

identified barriers have MIS > 2.50, which suggests that they are current in the KSA

construction industry. Therefore, there is not one, but many barriers to the implementation of

lean construction in the KSA construction industry. Based on the overall MIS, the top ranked

barriers are influence of traditional practices (B1), unfavourable organisational culture (B2),

lack of technical skills about lean techniques (B3), and lack of understanding of lean

approaches (B4). Of note, their top ranked barriers suggest that they are of the greatest concern

in the KSA construction industry. In addition, despite that the barriers are ranked differently,

this study finds that their effects are experienced in the same way irrespective of the differences

in the organisational and individual characteristics of construction professionals in the KSA


Furthermore, owing to the large number of the identified barriers, there is need to scale them

down so that solutions can be better applied to them in the KSA construction industry.

Therefore, the PCA was carried out to identify and prioritise the principal factors that

constitute these barriers. Six principal factors were established. They include: traditional



performance and knowledge barrier, and financial related barrier. With the exception of client-

related barriers, these principal factors are similar to those identified in other developing

countries, especially in Ghana and China (Ayarkkwa et al., 2012; Shang & Pheng, 2014). This

suggests that these principal factors are common barriers to the implementation of lean

construction in developing countries, including the KSA. Both Alinaitwe (2009) and Hussain

et al. (2014) have argued that client involvement in lean construction (or otherwise) is never

considered as barrier to lean construction in the construction industry. Hence, the client related

barrier identified in the KSA is a considered to be a new kind of barrier to implementing lean

construction in the construction industry.

In terms of prioritisation, the traditional practices barrier with an eigenvalue of 3.632 that

explains 13.493% of the variance in the dataset is the most pervasive barrier to implementing

lean construction in the KSA construction industry. This barrier mainly emphasises on the

averseness to change from old practices in the construction industry. The client related barrier

is the second most pervasive barrier to implementing lean construction in the KSA

construction industry, which has an eigenvalue of 3.524 that explains 12.164% of the variance

in the dataset. This barrier suggests that clients in the construction industry constitute

hindrances to the implementation of lean construction. The third most pervasive barrier is the

lack of standardisation, which has an eigenvalue of 3.137 that explains 11.075% of the

variance in the dataset. This is followed by a technological barrier with an eigenvalue of 2.761

that explains 10.007% of the variance in the dataset. This barriers emphasises on the lack of

the technological infrastructure and the technological know-how required in the

implementation of lean construction. With an eigenvalue of 2.626 that explains 8.877% of the

variance in the dataset, the performance and knowledge barrier is the fifth most pervasive

barrier to implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry. This barrier

emphasises on the lack, or shortage of knowledge to carry out lean construction. In addition,

it suggests the focus on an outcome based performance system in terms of cost, time and

quality that is predominant in the construction, as against the preferred process based

performance system that is more fitting to lean construction. The least pervasive barrier to

implementing lean construction in the construction industry is the cost barrier, with an

eigenvalue of 1.275 that explains 5.675% of the variance in the dataset. This barrier

emphasises on the high cost of procuring lean construction tools and technologies, as well as

for providing incentives.

Interestingly, the prioritisation of these barriers evolves some useful insights about the socio-

cultural, economic and operational context in the KSA construction industry. As the most

pervasive barrier, the traditional practices can be attributed to the conservative nature of the


KSA as an Islamic society, which fuels reluctance to change easily from old ways to new ways

of doing things with respect to lean construction. Within this society, the construction industry

clients are also found to be a hindrance to the implementation of lean construction. Mostly,

this study has shown that the socio-cultural context in a country can define the barriers to

implementing lean construction. Similarly, cost barrier is identified as the least pervasive

barrier to implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry. The least

pervasiveness of the cost barrier can be attributed to the high economic prospects of the KSA

as an oil producing country. Owing to this, the construction industry in this country is well

funded through infrastructure development. Hence, cost barrier is perceived to be very low

hindrance. This shows that the economic prospect in a country can define the barriers to

implementing lean construction. Furthermore, the prioritisation of the barriers adds to the

insights on the differences in the implementation of lean construction in both developed and

developing countries. For instance, the lack of standardisation barrier is found to be present

only in developing countries, including the KSA (See (Ayarkkwa et al., 2012; Olamilokun,

2015). There is no evidence to suggest that lack of standardisation is a barrier to the

implementation of lean construction in developed countries. This suggests that this barrier to

lean construction may be present in developing countries only. In other words, the level of

development in a country may be relevant to the implementation of lean construction.

As this study has shown that the barriers to implementing lean construction can be context

specific, some solutions are proposed to overcome each barrier in a respective manner. In

addition, these solutions are universally applicable in order to contribute to eliminating or

reducing the barriers to implementing lean construction elsewhere. However, the notable thing

is that these solutions require the participation of different construction operators, thereby

reflecting the multidisciplinary nature of the construction industry. For instance, within

construction organisations, the top managers need to incorporate lean construction as part of

organisational operations. This is a necessary step to eliminate the traditional practices barrier

by promoting lean culture among employees and their supply chain partners. While the top

managers also need to provide relevant training opportunities for their employees to acquire

lean construction skills, they employees need to be receptive with maximum interest and

commitment to lean construction implementation. The top managers may need to provide

incentives to the employees to tinker their interests. Individual clients in the construction

industry have a role to play, which is to rigidly emphasise on employing lean construction in

the delivery of their construction projects. Furthermore, the government can define new policy

directions to support process efficiencies and implementation of lean construction.

8.2.2.2 Conclusions


There are many barriers to the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction

industry. However, the top ranked ones which are of greatest concern are: influence of

traditional practices, unfavourable organisational culture, lack of technical skills about lean

techniques, and lack of understanding of lean approaches. Furthermore, the principal factors

that constitute these barriers in the KSA construction industry are six. They are: traditional


performance and knowledge barrier, and cost related barrier. However, while all these

principal barriers are existent in other developing countries such as KSA, the client related

barrier is a new kind of barrier to implementing lean construction in the body of knowledge.

The client related barrier suggests that clients in the construction industry constitute hindrances

to the implementation of lean construction. In terms of prioritisation, the traditional practices

barrier, client-related barrier, standardisation barrier, technological barrier, performance and

knowledge barrier, and cost related barrier are the barriers to implementing lean construction

in descending order of pervasiveness. Furthermore, insights from the prioritisation of these

barriers reveal that the traditional practices barrier is the most pervasive in the KSA

construction industry due to the conservative nature of the country as an Islamic society. In

addition, the cost related barrier is least pervasive due to the high economic prospect of the

KSA as an oil producing society which is translated to high construction industry spending

through infrastructure development. In essence, the socio-cultural and economic contexts in a

country can define the barriers to implementing lean construction. The prospecting solutions

to overcome these barriers are universally applicable, and most notably, they require the

participation of many construction industry operators such as project clients, top managers and

employees in construction organisations and the government, thereby reflecting the

multidisciplinary nature of the construction industry.

8.2.3 Objective 3: Critical success factors (CSFs) of lean construction implementation KSA construction industry.


Many barriers to the implementation of lean construction have been identified in the KSA

construction industry. Although some theoretical solutions have been proposed to overcome

these barriers (Sections 5.7 and 8.2.2), this objective provides an empirical solution to identify

the critical success factors (CSFs) for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction

industry, thereby overcoming these barrier. The major finding is that there are 12 CSFs for the

implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry. In no particular level of

criticality, they are: top management commitment and & leadership, education & training,

adopting alternative procurement methods, adoption of new construction


technologies/methods, applying appropriate lean construction tools /techniques, implementing

organizational change, and promoting a teamwork culture. Others are adoption of continuous

improvement, clear definition of client’s requirements, applying the lean methodology in the

early stages, coordination and promotion at a national level, and long-term supply chain

relationships. The descriptions of these CSFs are provided in section 7.5.

However, these CSFs are similar to those identified in many existing studies (e.g. (Adamu &

Adulhamid, 2016; Anvari, Zulkifli, et al., 2011; Banawi, 2013; Dave et al., 2013)). For

instance, Baviskar (2015) identifies management commitment to be a success factor for

implementing lean construction through the dedication of time and financial resources to lean

program by the directors, managers and leaders in an organisation. AL-Najem et al. (2012)

also reveals that strong leadership which involves clear vision, strategy and long term

commitment is necessary to build an effective lean culture in an organisation. Ogunbiyi (2014)

identifies education and training in the forms of training the staffs or the employees on lean

principles to be critical to lean construction uptake in construction organisations. It could

therefore be summed that these CSFs are neither new nor limited to the KSA construction

industry. In other words, these CSFs may be universally applicable for the implementation of

lean construction in the construction industry. Therefore, in the KSA construction industry and

elsewhere, any attempt to implement lean construction should give serious considerations to

these CSFs in order to ensure success.

Many studies have shown that the implementation of lean construction can be carried out at

the project (Ballard, Kim, Jang, & Liu, 2007; Javkhedkar, 2006; Simonsen & Koch, 2004) and

organisational levels (Nesensohn, 2017). The project level refers to the implementation of lean

construction during the undertaking of a construction project, or project delivery, while the

organisational level refers to the organisational level actions or decisions that lead to the

implementation of lean construction. Therefore, the identified CSFs are categorised into those

applicable at the project and organisational levels of the implementation of lean construction.

The CSFs applicable at the project levels of implementing lean construction are adopting new

construction technologies/methods, adoption of continuous improvements, and applying

appropriate lean construction tools/techniques. For instance, new construction technologies

such as BIM can be used for seamless sharing of project information during project delivery.

In addition, their application requires the individual expertise and skills of construction

professionals during project delivery. The CSFs which fall into the organisational level are:

top management commitment and leadership, providing education and training for lean

construction, organisational changes and clear definition of clients’ requirements. Others are

adopting alternative procurement methods, applying lean construction at an early stage of


project delivery and promoting a culture of teamwork. For instance, given commitment and

leadership, the management has the responsibility to sanction the implementation of lean

construction, or incorporate lean construction as part of organisational policies and/or

operations. Furthermore, in addition to existing categories, the CSFs that are applicable at the

industry level are also identified. They include: coordinating and promoting national efforts at

national level and establishing long term relationships within the construction supply chain.

Both of these CSFs require holistic and industry-wide efforts, particularly by professional

bodies or government agencies, to implement them. Therefore, the CSFs for implementing

lean construction should be applied at the project, organisational and industry levels in the


8.2.3.2 Conclusions

There are 12 CSFs for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry. They

are: top management commitment and & leadership, education & training, adopting

alternative procurement methods, adoption of new construction technologies/methods,

Applying appropriate lean construction tools/techniques, implementing organizational change,

and promoting a teamwork culture. Others are adoption of continuous improvement, clear

definition of the client’s requirements, applying the lean methodology in the early stages,

coordination and promotion at a national level, and long-term supply chain relationships.

However, despite identifying these CSFs in the KSA construction industry, they are applicable

elsewhere. In addition, the CSFs for implementing lean construction should be applied at the

project, organisational and industry levels in the KSA construction industry.

8.2.4 Objectives 4 & 5: A framework for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry using interpretive structural modelling (ISM), and the validation from the perspectives of experts


The CSFs for the implementation of lean construction (Section 7.5) are modelled using the

ISM technique to reveal the interrelationship and the hierarchy between them for the

promotion of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. The ISM is a technique that

applies the knowledge of mathematics and computer to relate variables together (Warfield,

1979), and the technique is widely used for research purposes in the fields of management

(Singh & Kant, 2008), automobile (Luthra, Kumar, Kumar, & Haleem, 2011), information

technology (Thakkar, Kanda, & Deshmukh, 2008), engineering (Singh et al., 2003) and

education (Sahney, Banwet, & Karunes, 2010). The use of the technique in this study

contributes to its increasing use for research purpose in the field of construction management


(Sarhan, Hu, et al., 2016). In this study, the technique is used to develop an ISM model that

establishes a relationship among the CSFs for implementing lean construction towards the

development of a framework for promoting lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

A validation study was carried out to among experts who have the understanding of lean

construction and the operations of the KSA construction industry to check for conceptual

inconsistencies and provide necessary alterations. The consensus is that the list of CSFs that

are structured into hierarchies in the ISM model is very comprehensive. In addition, the experts

agree that the ISM model can be implemented as lean construction framework for improving

the performance of construction projects and organisations in the KSA construction industry.

The comprehensive discussion of the ISM model is contained in section 7.5, while new

insights about the model are discussed below.

As revealed in the section 7.5, the MICMAC analysis is used to analyse the driving power and

dependence power of the 12 CSFs, and dividing them into autonomous, dependent, linkage

and driving clusters on the diagraph (Figure 7.1) to reveal their hierarchies on the ISM model

(Figure 7.2). The ISM model reveals 7 levels of hierarchy (VII-I) of the 12 CSFs. From the

MICMAC analysis of the 12 CSFs, the top management commitment and leadership,

coordinating and promoting efforts at national level and providing education and training for

lean construction have the highest driving powers and least dependence powers, and as well

occupy the 7th, 6th and 5th hierarchies respectively in the ISM model. Therefore, they are the

most important CSFs for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

The majority of the CSFs are in the linkage cluster. They are: adopting continuous

improvements, adopting alternative procurement methods in project delivery, clear definition

of client requirements, promoting teamwork culture during project construction,

organisational change, applying the lean methodology at an early stage of building project

delivery, adopting new construction technologies/methods and applying appropriate lean

construction tools/techniques have strong dependence and driving powers equally, and they

lie between the 4th to 2nd hierarchies in the ISM model. Therefore, they are very unstable CSF,

whereby any action taken on one or more of them has an effect on another. For instance, in the

ISM model, both “adopting alternative procurement method and application of lean

methodology at an early stage” have a bidirectional relationship, and hence, affect one another.

The application of an alternative procurement method such as design and build for successful

implementation of lean construction can also ensure that lean construction is implemented at

a very early stage of project delivery. Therefore, utmost care and consideration are necessary

when putting in place any of these CSFs for the implementation of lean construction in the

KSA construction industry. The last CSF, establishment of long term relationship within the


construction supply chain, falls in the dependent cluster due to its weak driving power and

strong dependence power, and thus lies in the 1st hierarchy. Hence, to apply this CSF is entirely

reliant on the other CSFs. In other words, other CSFs need to be in place to apply this CSF to

the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. It is also the least

important of all the CSFs.

As shown in the diagraph (Figure 7.1), there is no CSFs in the autonomous cluster. This means

that all the CSFs in the ISM model are needed to implement lean construction in the KSA

construction industry. However, in line with existing body of knowledge (e.g. (Bolpagni,

Burdi, & Ciribini, 2017; Dlouhy, Binninger, Weichner, & Haghsheno, 2017; Drysdale, 2013;

Fullalove, 2013)), this reinforces the need for the participation of different operators in the

construction industry in the implementation of lean construction. In the KSA construction

industry context, the notable operators are the government through relevant government

agencies such as the Ministry of Housing, top managers and individual construction

professionals in respective contracting, consulting, supplying and sub-contracting companies,

and professional bodies such as the Saudi Council of Engineers (SCE) and construction

industry clients. For instance, one of the important CSF is coordinating and promoting efforts

at national level, which lie in the 6th hierarchy in the ISM model. Therefore, the national

government, through relevant agencies such as the Ministry of Housing and Infrastructure, can

develop a national agenda for efficiency driven construction process, and to also align different

construction organisations together with the agenda in the KSA construction industry. This

corroborates existing literature, whereby in the UK context, the UK Highways Agency is

leading the implementation of lean construction techniques such as the Define Measure

Analyse Improve Control and Transfer (DMAICT) methodology to improve efficiency of road

constructions projects and internal procedures (Drysdale, 2013; Fullalove, 2013). Another one

is the clear definition of clients’ requirements for successful implementation of lean

construction in the KSA construction industry. This is also in alignment with both Dlouhy et

al. (2017) and Bolpagni et al. (2017) that clients in the construction industry are very crucial

to the implementation of lean construction. Therefore, to apply the CSFs in the ISM model,

the participation of different operators in the KSA construction industry is essential.

Furthermore, the CSFs in the ISM model, especially those in the linkage cluster, reinforces

lean construction as a form of construction procurement to achieve project delivery. For

instance, the application of lean methodology is emphasised at an early stage in project

delivery for increased effectiveness. Similarly, adopting alternative procurement methods such

as design and build method promotes the early involvement of contractors in the project

delivery process. Teamwork is also emphasised which supports a more collaborative project


procurement. These are attributes of a typical construction procurement approach. Equally in

the literature, many studies did demonstrate the use of lean construction for construction

procurement. For instance, Haarr and Drevland (2016) demonstrated the use of lean

construction for the delivery of an educational building project in Norway. The use of lean

construction was enforced in the bidding process, and the successful bidder was mandated to

apply lean construction principles for the project delivery (Haarr & Drevland, 2016).

Raghavan, Delhi, Mahalingam, and Varghese (2016) also revealed the use of lean construction

for the project delivery of a Greenfield industrial expansion project undertaken by a

construction and engineering company in India, while Eriksson (2010) further reveals the use

of lean construction among multiple supply chain partners for construction project delivery.

Therefore, in addition to using lean construction as a strategy for improving construction

project delivery, it can be deployed as a project delivery approach on its own in the KSA

construction industry. However, more research in the KSA construction industry context is

necessary to determine the operations of lean construction as a project delivery method. In

addition, such research can seek to adapt lessons from other countries that have deployed lean

construction for construction project delivery to the KSA construction industry.

8.2.4.2 Conclusions

The aim of this study is to develop a framework for promoting lean construction in the KSA

construction industry. Therefore, an ISM model that specifies the relationship between the

CSFs for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry is developed. A

validation study among experts who have the understanding of lean construction and the

operations of the KSA construction industry confirms that the ISM model can be implemented

as a lean construction framework for improving the performance of construction projects and

organisations in the KSA construction industry. The ISM model comprises of 7 hierarchies

(VII-I) of the 12 CSFs. The CSF in the top hierarchy are management commitment and

leadership, coordinating and promoting efforts at national level and providing education and

training for lean construction, and therefore, they are the most important CSFs for

implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry. The CSFs in the middling

hierarchy are many. They are: adopting continuous improvements, adopting alternative

procurement methods in project delivery, clear definition of client requirements, promoting

teamwork culture during project construction and organisational change. Others are: applying

the lean methodology at an early stage of building project delivery, adopting new construction

technologies/methods and applying appropriate lean construction tools/techniques. They are

very unstable CSF, whereby any action taken on one or more of them has an effect on another.

Therefore, utmost care and consideration are necessary when putting in place any of these


CSFs for the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. The last

CSF, which is also in the least hierarchy, is the establishment of long term relationship within

the construction supply chain. To apply this CSF is entirely reliant on the other CSF, in other

words, other CSFs need to be in place to apply this CSF to the implementation of lean

construction in the KSA construction industry. It is also the least important of all the CSFs.

Furthermore, the application of the CSFs in the ISM model for the implementation of lean

construction requires the participation of different operators such as government agencies,

clients, and top managers in different construction organisations in the KSA construction

industry. In addition, the CSFs the linkage cluster in the ISM model suggests that lean

construction can be used as a construction project procurement method in the KSA


8.2.5 Application of the ISM model

The directional arrows in the ISM model in Figure 7.2 indicate the influence of one or more

CSFs on another. The application of the ISM model requires different stakeholder involvement

in the KSA construction industry. Therefore, new roles for the stakeholders can be highlighted.

For instance, the top management commitment and leadership in the seventh hierarchy (VII)

drives the coordinating and promoting efforts at a national level in the sixth hierarchy (VI).

This concerns the top managers in the different construction organisations such as the

contracting, consulting and supplying companies in the KSA construction industry. Because

of the differences in these organisations in terms of goals, mission and visions, there is a need

for a nation-wide coordination to align the different organisations to a singular and holistic

lean construction view, focus and approach nationally. These managers have the responsibility

to use their positions to influence and lead a nationally-aligned lean construction view, focus

and approach. They are responsible for making the final decision to follow this path, and

provide the resources that may be required for implementation.

The arrow direction also shows that coordination and promotion efforts at a national level also

drives the education and training for lean construction in the construction industry in the fifth

hierarchy (V). This concerns the employees in different construction organisations, many of

which are operational level construction professionals. It also concerns the top managers in

these organisations, and the professional and regulatory bodies in the KSA construction

industry. Regarding the employees, they are participate in the daily operations of lean

construction. Hence, educating them is very essential to ensure that they perform their lean

construction roles effectively in line with the national standards and guidelines. These

employees need to be receptive to learning. The managers need to assist these employees to

learn by sponsoring lean construction trainings and providing incentives. Regulatory and


professional bodies such as the Saudi Council of Engineers (SCE) have enormous

responsibility in this regard to provide structured lean construction training to their

professional members. This can be in the form of CPD arrangement. With the belief that it

adds to their professional growth, professionals in the construction industry are often keener

to undertake trainings under CPD arrangements.

The provision of education and training for lean construction contributes to driving the always-

speculated changes in the construction industry. This is evident in the fourth hierarchy (IV) as

implementing organisational change through lean construction. Under this change, the role of

the top managers in construction organisations is also evident, to introduce lean construction

principles as part of the organisational vision and mission for easy access, understanding and

application by employees.

The arrow direction also indicates that organisational change leads to both the adoption of

alternative procurement methods (III) and the application of lean methodology at an early

stage of project delivery in the third (III) hierarchy. This concerns the operational aspects of

lean construction in construction organisations. For the managers, such organisational changes

should be directed at the adoption of alternative procurement systems such as design-build

(Sandbhor & Botre) which encourages the early participation of project participants to work

together for the successful implementation of lean construction. Added to this, the change

should emphasise on on early-stage project delivery activities for the successful implementing

lean construction. Managers should ensure that the education and training for lean construction

should cover both early stage application of lean construction during project delivery and

proper definition of client requirements. The latter is very important in project owners and

consulting organisations to be able to properly define client requirements for the contracting

side of project procurement during lean construction implementation, while for the

contracting side, it assists the players to evaluate and implement the lean construction

requirements of the clients. The arrow direction still indicates that both a clear definition of

clients’ requirements and adopting alternative procurement methods are influential on each

other through their bi-directional relationship, while the latter influences the application of

lean methodology at an early stage of the project delivery.

There are four CSFs in the second hierarchy (Construction Industry Institute (CII)), three of

which emphasises on the adoption and implementation of lean tools, techniques and

technologies. The first one is adopting new construction technologies/methods, and it is driven

by a clear definition of clients’ requirements. The second one is the adoption of continuous

improvement such as Kanban during the project delivery, which has a bi-directional


relationship with adoption of new construction technologies/methods and is driven by

adopting alternative procurement methods. The third one is applying lean construction

tools/techniques and it is driven by three other CSFs including adoption of continuous

improvements, a clear definition of clients’ requirements and applying lean methodology at

an early stage of the project delivery. The technological involvement suggests that technology

is very important to the implementation of lean construction. In practice, it is more relevant at

the operational level during the project delivery. Therefore, the individual expertise and skill

of employee construction professionals is very essential to apply relevant technologies for the

successful implementation of lean construction. The managers in the construction

organisations have a role to play to provide necessary technological resources and equipments

for lean construction implementation. Construction clients also have a role to insist on the use

of lean construction technologies in the execution of their projects. The fourth CSF brings

together the others in the second hierarchy to work collaboratively and promote a culture of

teamwork for the successful implementation of lean construction during project delivery.

Team working is a responsibility of all project participants involved in lean construction

implementation. However, it should be coordinated by project lead or managers, firstly, to

devise a charter of cooperation among participants, and secondly, to apportion responsibilities

to other participants. Still, the arrow direction shows that team work for successful

implementation of lean construction can be driven by applying appropriate lean construction

tools/techniques and applying lean methodology at an early stage of the project delivery.

The CSF in the first hierarchy is establishing long-term relationships within the construction

supply chain (I), and is directly driven by adopting new construction technologies/methods,

adoption of continuous improvement and applying appropriate lean construction

tools/techniques. Although this CSF has the least driving power and dependence power, it can

be regarded as the enduring goal of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. This

requires a top-down approach in the KSA construction industry. The professional and

regulatory bodies have a role in this regard to charter a course of lean construction practices

for their members. The support of the top managers in construction organisations is also

essential to support these bodies and encourage their employees to embrace lean construction

practices.

8.3 IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH

The results of this study have implications for both theory and practice.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS:


• Application of ISM to lean construction research: The ISM is a technique that

applies the knowledge of mathematics and computer analyse interrelationship among

factors that constitute a phenomenon based on expert views. The application of the

technique in this study is the first of its kind to lean construction research. Therefore,

this study contributes to the existing body of lean construction knowledge by applying

the ISM technique. As a result, academics and researchers in the field can adapt this

study for more application of ISM as a methodology for lean construction researcher

and even broader construction management research.

• Nexus between lean construction and other management approaches in the

construction industry: The literature review reveals that the application of lean

construction accentuates other management approaches for solving different problems

in the construction industry. Some of these approaches are value management, project

management, BIM, and supply chain management. For instance, lean construction

complements the value management approach to generate and add value to clients in

the delivery of construction projects. Theoretically, the contribution is that the

implementation of lean construction serves as avenue for accentuating these other

approaches in the construction industry.

• Socio-cultural effect on lean construction: It is well known to the body of

knowledge that context, such as organisational size and geographical location

influences the extent of the implementation of lean construction. In addition to these,

this study has revealed that the socio-cultural context in a country or a society can

influence aspects of lean construction. This study reveals that traditional practices is

the most pervasive barrier to implementing lean construction in the KSA construction

industry, which is attributable to the conservative nature of people in the KSA as an

Islamic society. This study reports that such conservatism fuels reluctance to change

easily from old ways to new ways of doing things with respect to lean construction in

the KSA construction industry. In addition, this study finds that cost barrier is the least

pervasive barrier to lean construction in the KSA construction industry. This is

attributable to the high economic prospect of the KSA as an oil producing nation, and

as a result, cost or financial issues are not perceived as pervasive barriers to

implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry. Therefore, one

additional CSFs for implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry

is to give greater consideration for the socio-cultural context. Elsewhere, the socio-


cultural context where lean construction is to be implemented should be taken into

serious consideration.

• Bases for comparing lean construction in KSA and elsewhere: The outcomes in

this study provide some bases comparing lean construction as it is in the KSA

construction industry and elsewhere. This study identifies six principal barriers to

implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry. All the barriers are

existent in other developed and developing countries except the client related barrier,

which is somewhat new in the construction industry. Still, it demonstrates that lean

construction in the KSA construction industry may be dissimilar to other countries.

However, the CSFs to the implementation of lean construction in the KSA

construction industry are found not be dissimilar to other countries. Instead, they are

universally applicable for the implementation of lean construction in the construction

industry. Similarly like elsewhere, the CSFs for implementing lean construction

should be applied at the project, organisational and industry levels in the KSA

construction industry. Therefore, barriers to lean construction, the CSFs and the

different levels of lean construction implementation can be regarded as bases for

comparing lean construction in the KSA and elsewhere.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

• Revealing the state of art of lean construction: The overview of lean construction

in the KSA construction industry was carried out, to reveal the state of art in practice.

It revealed the types of wastes, the tools and techniques that support lean construction

implementation and benefits of lean construction in the KSA construction industry.

Therefore, this account can be used for stocktaking by government agencies, and

organised professional bodies to determine the status of lean construction

development, and make developmental plans for the future. For instance, waiting is

the most pervasive type of waste in the KSA construction industry, and thus, attempts

at eliminating constructions should be focused on this type of waste. In addition, off

all lean construction tools/techniques, the computer aided design should be given most

attention to support the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction

industry. The study also reveals that lean construction is implemented at planning,

design, construction, commissioning and handover and the operation/maintenance

stages of project delivery in the KSA construction industry. This negates the common

notion that the implementation of lean construction is low in the KSA construction


industry. Therefore, strategies for improving lean construction should focus on these

stages in the KSA construction industry. However, in the KSA construction industry,

differences exist between the large and small construction organisations in the areas

of types of wastes, tools/techniques for supporting the implementing lean construction,

stages of implementing lean construction and the benefits of lean construction. These

differences can be taken into cognizance when implementing lean construction in the

different construction organisations in the KSA construction industry.

• New roles for construction stakeholders in the KSA construction industry:

Construction stakeholders such as project clients, managers in construction

organisations and individual construction professionals such as engineers, designers,

cost planners and builders are primarily responsible for carrying out construction

activities from planning, design, actual construction and operation of built products in

the KSA construction industry. However, the findings in this study reveals that these

stakeholders have newer roles to play in the area of the implementation of LC in the

industry. The top managers in the different construction organisations have to

influence their employees and support them to embrace LC practices. The employees

themselves have to be receptive to LC education and training to develop the expertise

and skills necessary for LC implementation. Project clients in the industry need to

emphasise on the application of LC methodologies on their projects.

• Framework for promoting lean construction: This study developed and validated

an ISM model that can be implemented as a framework for promoting lean

construction in the KSA construction industry. This framework is useful to operators

in the KSA construction industry to identify the CSFs for implementing lean

construction, as well as the relationships and the hierarchies between them. While the

list is not exhaustive, the operators who are relevant to applying the CSFs in the ISM

model for the implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry

are government through relevant government agencies such as the Ministry of

Housing, top managers and individual construction professionals in respective

contracting, consulting, supplying and sub-contracting companies, professional

bodies such as the Saudi Council of Engineers (SCE) and construction industry clients.

Furthermore, a nexus exists between LC and other management approaches for

addressing construction industry problems such as VM and BIM. Therefore, the

implementation of the framework serves as a practical means to accentuate these other


management approaches to address construction industry problems in the KSA


8.4 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

This study has carried out an overview of lean construction, identified the barriers to, and the

CSFs for implementing lean construction, as well as developing an ISM model that establishes

the relationship and hierarchy between the CSFs with the aim of promoting lean construction

in the KSA construction industry. Still, there exists some contextual and methodological

limitations that could reduce the outcomes of this study. They are as described below:


construction industry, and thereby only reflecting the socio-cultural and economic

context of the KSA. Therefore, further study might be necessary to apply this

framework in other countries. In addition, as the survey was conducted for a specific

period with professionals working in the KSA construction firms, results may not

represent the whole Saudi Arabian construction industry.

4. The ISM model is based on experts’ opinion, which, sometimes may be biased and

not fully reflecting on industry practice. This limitation is compounded by the non-

validation of the ISM model using statistical analysis, thereby reducing the inferential

generalisation of findings.

5. A scientific sampling approach was not used in this study due to lack of definite

population of the different operators in the KSA construction industry. This may

undermine the generalisation of findings.

8.5 RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE STUDIES

Given the outcomes of the study, and the areas of limitation, the following are recommended

as areas worthy of further investigation.


construction industry. In addition, the framework has been validated based on the

views of experts to correct conceptual inconsistencies. However, there is still a

need for a case study approach to test the effectiveness of the framework towards

promoting lean construction in the KSA construction industry. Additionally, the

191

nexus between lean construction and VM, PM, BIM, SCM and SC should be

tested through the application of this framework.

2. The CSFs identified in the ISM model were theoretically classified as useful for

promoting lean construction at the project, organisational and industry levels in

the KSA construction industry. An empirical investigation should be carried to

verify this classification.

3. The developed framework for promoting lean construction in the KSA

construction industry suggests the influence of socio-cultural and economic

contexts in a country on the implementation of lean construction. More research,

which employs a case study approach, is required to establish this causal

relationship.

4. This study revealed the client related barrier as a new barrier to the implementation

of lean construction in the KSA construction industry, and elsewhere. Elsewhere,

more research is required to investigate the role of clients in the implementation

of lean construction, and as a result, provide recommendations on how they can

contribute to improving the implementation of lean construction.

5. With the findings that the conservative nature of the KSA as an Islamic society

contributes to the high pervasiveness of the traditional practices barrier to

implementing lean construction in the KSA construction industry, this study

provides an insight to the role of socio-cultural issues such as national culture to

the pervasiveness of the barriers to lean construction. Although the national

culture is very influential on the operations in the construction industry in different

countries, studies exploring the role of national culture in the implementation of

lean construction are very limited. More research is therefore necessary to

understand the role of national culture in the implementation of lean construction,

as well as how the national culture in different countries constitute barriers to the


192 Bibliography

Bibliography Abawi, K. (2008). Qualitative and quantitative research. World Health Organization/Geneva

Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Geneva. http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_education_En/Afghanistan.

Abdel-Razek, R., Abd Elshakour, H., & Abdel-Hamid, M. (2006). Labor productivity: Benchmarking and variability in Egyptian projects. International Journal of Project Management, 25(2007), 189-197.

Abdelhamid, T., & Salem, S. (2005). Lean Construction: A New Paradigm for Managing Construction Projects. Paper presented at the The International Workshop on Innovations in Materials and Design of Civil Infrastructure, Cairo Egypt.

Abdul Rasid, S. Z., Wan Ismail, W. K., Mohammad, N. H., & Long, C. S. (2014). Assessing adoption of project management knowledge areas and maturity level: Case study of a public agency in Malaysia. Journal of management in engineering, 30(2), 264-271.

Abdullah, F., & Rajgopal, J. (2003, 2003). Lean Manufacturing in the Process industry. Paper presented at the Industrial Engineers Annual Research Conference, Norcross, GA 2003.

Abdullah, S., Abdul Razak, A., Bakar, A., Hassan, A., & Sarrazin, I. (2009). Towards Producing Best Practice in the Malaysian Construction Industry: The Barriers in Implementing the Lean Construction Approach. Paper presented at the Proceedings of International Conference Of Construction Industry, 30 July-1 August 2009, Padang, Indonesia.

Abdulmalek, F. A., & Rajgopal, J. (2007). Analyzing the Benefits of Lean Manufacturing and Value Stream Mapping via Simulation: A Process Sector Case Study. International Journal of Production Economics, 107, 223-236.

Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R., & Nelder, G. (2006). Critical success factors for lean implementation within SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(4), 460-471.

Adamu, S., & Abdulhamid, R. (2015). Suitability Of Lean Construction Approach In Nigerian Project Delivery. Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology, 2(10), 2676-2679.

Adamu, S., & Adulhamid, R. (2016). Lean Construction Techniques for Transforming Nigeria Project Delivery Process-A Case Study Report. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(48).

Adamu, S., & Hamid, R. A. (2012). Lean Construction Techniques: Implementation In Nigeria Construction Industry. Canadian Journal on Environmental, Construction and Civil Engineering, 3(4), 186-193.

Bibliography 193

Agbulos, A., Mohamed, Y., Al-hussein, M., Abourizk, S., & Roesch, J. (2006). Application of lean concepts and simulation analysis to improve efficiency of drainage operations maintenance crews,. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(3), 291-299.

Ahmed, V., Opoku, A., & Aziz, Z. (2016). Research methodology in the built environment: a selection of case studies: Routledge.

Ahrens, T. (2006). Lean production: Successful implementation of organizational change in operations instead of short term cost reduction efforts. Lean Alliance, 49, p. 08152.

Ahuja, V., Yang, J., & Shankar, R. (2009). Benefits of collaborative ICT adoption for building project management. Construction Innovation, 9(3), 323-340.

Al-Aomar, R. (2012a). Analysis of lean construction practices at Abu Dhabi construction industry. Lean Construction Journal, 2012, pp. 105-121.

Al-Aomar, R. (2012b). A lean construction framework with Six Sigma rating. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 3(4), 299-314. doi:10.1108/20401461211284761

Al-Kharashi, A., & Skitmore, M. (2009). Causes Of Delays In Saudi Arabian Public Sector Construction Projects. Construction Management and Economics, 27(1), 3-23. doi:10.1080/01446190802541457

Al-Nafil, M. (2013). Lean Concept Practices In Saudi Arabian Organization. (Bachelor thesis), Effat University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

AL-Najem, M., Dhakal, H. N., & Bennett, N. (2012). The Role Of Culture And Leadership In Lean Transformation: A Review And Assessment Model. International Journal of Lean Thinking, 3(1), 120- 138.

Al-Otaib, S., Osman, M., & Price, A. D. F. (2013). A Framework for Improving Project Performance of Standard Design Models in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Engineering, 3(2), 85-98.

Al-Sudairi, A. A. (2007). Evaluating the effect of construction process characteristics to the applicability of lean principles. Construction Innovation, 7(1), 99-121.

Alarcon, L. (1997). Training field personnel to identify waste and improvement opportunities in construction. Lean Construction. Rotterdam: Balkema Publishers, 402-413.

Alarcon, L. F. (1997). Tools for the identification and reduction of waste in construction projects. Lean construction, pp. 365-377.

Alarcón, L. F., Diethelm, S., Rojo, O., & Calderon, R. (2011). Assessing the impacts of implementing lean construction. Revista ingeniería de construcción, 23(1), 15-30.

194 Bibliography

Alex, D. P., Fernando, S., Al-Hussein, M., & Kung, D. (2008). Application of lean thinking to improve the productivity of water and sewer service installations. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 35(4), 418-430.

Alfouzan, A. (2013). Analyzing the Factors that Lead to Housing and Construction Cost Escalation: A Case Study Focused on Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Ali, A. S., & Wen, K. H. (2011). Building Defects: Possible Solution For Poor Construction Workmanship. Journal of Building Performance, 2(1), 59-69.

Alinaitwe, H. M. (2009). Prioritizing lean construction barriers in Uganda's construction industry. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 14(1), 15-30.

Almeida, J. C. (2002). Strategic Issues in Lean Construction and the Higher Education Construction Market Sector. (MSc. Thesis), Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA.

Alpenberg, J., & Scarbrough, P. (2009). Culture and the Toyota Production System Archetype: a preliminary assessment. Ontarion: Brock University.

Alrashed, A., Taj, S., Phillips, M., & Kantamaneni, K. (2014). Risk Assessment for Construction Projects in Saudi Arabia. Research Journal of Management Sciences, 3(7), 1-6.

Alsaggaf, A., & Parrish, K. (2016). A proposed lean project delivery process for preservation projects in jeddah city, Saudi Arabia. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, IGLC 2016.

AlSehaimi, A. (2011). Improving Construction Planning Practice In Saudi Arabia By Means Of Lean Construction Principles And Techniques. (PhD thesis), University of Salford, Salford, UK. Retrieved from http://usir.salford.ac.uk/42997/

AlSehaimi, A. O., Tzortzopoulos, P., & Koskela, L. (2009). Last planner system: Experiences from pilot implementation in the Middle East. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.

Alwi, S. (2003). Factors influencing construction productivity in the Indonsesian context. Paper presented at the The 5th EASTS Conference, Fukuoka, Japan, 29 October - 01 November 2003.

Alzara, M., Kashiwagi, J., Kashiwagi, D., & Al-Tassan, A. (2016). Important Causes of Delayed Projects in Saudi Arabia vs. PIPS: A University Campus Case Study. Journal for the Advancement of Performance Information & Value, 8(1), 152-170.

Alzebdeh, K., Bashirb, H. A., & Siyabic, A. (2015). Applying Interpretive Structural Modeling to Cost Overruns in Construction Projects in the Sultanate of Oman The Journal of Engineering Research, 12(1), 53-68.

Bibliography 195

AMEInfor. (2014). Building In Saudi Arabia Good For Up To 50 Years. [online] Available at: http://ameinfo.com/construction-real-estate/other-construction-real-estate/buildings-saudi-arabia-good-50-years-sce/ [Accessed 3 March 2015].

Anigbogu, N. A. (2015). Determinants of successful sustainable building practices in Nigeria. Retrieved from Researchgate: http://www. research gate. net/profile/Natalia_Anigbogu2.

Anthony, V., & Konka, D. (2011). " Process Quality " , Pearson Education, U.S.

Anvari, A., Ismail, Y., & Hojjati, S. (2011). A Study On Total Quality Management And Lean Manufacturing: Through Lean Thinking Approach. World Applied Sciences Journal, 12(9), 1585-1596.

Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N., Yusuff, R. M., Hojjati, S. M. H., & Ismail, Y. (2011). A proposed dynamic model for a lean roadmap. African Journal of Business Management, 5(16), 6727.

Arayici, Y., Coates, P., Koskela, L., Kagioglou, M., Usher, C., & O'reilly, K. (2011). Technology adoption in the BIM implementation for lean architectural practice. Automation in Construction, 20(2), 189-195.

Arayici, Y., Egbu, C., & Coates, S. (2012). Building information modelling (BIM) implementation and remote construction projects: issues, challenges, and critiques. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 17, 75-92.

Arbulu, R., Ballard, G., & Harper, N. (2003). Kanban in construction. Proceedings of IGLC-11, Virginia Tech, Blacksburgh, Virginia, USA, 16-17.

Arleroth, J., & Kristensson, H. (2011). Waste in Lean Construction - A case study of a PEAB construction site and the development of a Lean Construction Tool

. Retrieved from Chalmers University of technology, Göteborg:

Asay, D., & Wisdom, L. (2002). Kanban for the Shopfloor. Productivity Press.

Asefeso, A. (2014). Lean in Construction: Key to Improvements in Time, Cost and Quality. Swindon: A Global Sourcing Ltd.

Assaf, S. A., & Al-Hejji, S. (2006). Causes of Delay in Large Construction Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(4), 349-357. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010

Atkinson, P. (2010). Lean is a cultural issue. Management Services, 54(2), 35-41.

Attri, R., Dev, N., & Sharma, V. (2013). Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) approach: An Overview. Research Journal of Management Sciences, 2(2), 3-8.

196 Bibliography

Ayarkkwa, J., Agyekum, K., & Adinyira, E. (2012). Barriers to Successful Implementation of Lean Construction in the Ghanaian Building Industry. Journal of Construction, 5(1), 3-11.

Azhar, N., Farooqui, R. U., & Ahmed, S. M. (2008). Cost overrun factors in construction industry of Pakistan. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Construction In Developing Countries (ICCIDC–I), Advancing and Integrating Construction Education, Research & Practice.

Aziz, R. F. (2013). Ranking of delay factors in construction projects after Egyptian revolution. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 52(3), 387-406. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2013.03.002

Aziz, R. F., & Hafez, S. M. (2013). Applying lean thinking in construction and performance improvement. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 52(4), 679-695. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2013.04.008

Balasubramanian, S. (2012). A hierarchical framework of barriers to green supply chain management in the construction sector. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(10), 15.

Balfour Beatty. (2011). Balfour Beatty Updates. issue two 2011. Available at: http://www.balfourbeatty.com/files/publications/2011/BB_update_issue2_2011.pdf. [Accessed 27 December, 2012].

Ballard, G. (1997). Lookahead Planning: The Missing Link in Production Control. Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.

Ballard, G. (2007). Roadmap for Lean Implementation at the Project Level. Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX.

Ballard, G. (2008). The lean project delivery system: An update. Lean Construction Journal, 1-19.

Ballard, G., & Howell, G. (1994). Implementing lean construction: stabilizing work flow. Lean construction, 101-110.

Ballard, G., & Howell, G. (1997). Implementing lean construction: improving downstream performance. Lean construction, 111-125.

Ballard, G., & Howell, G. (1998). Implementing Lean Construction: Stabilizing Work Flow. Lean construction, 101-110.

Ballard, G., & Howell, G. (2003). Lean project management. Building Research & Information, 31(2), 119-133.

Bibliography 197

Ballard, G., & Howell, G. A. (2004). Competing construction management paradigms. Lean Construction Journal, 1(1), 38-45.

Ballard, G., Kim, Y., Jang, J., & Liu, M. (2007). Roadmap for lean implementation at the project level. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Glenn_Ballard/publication/232322523_Roadmap_for_Lean_Implementation_at_the_Project_Level/links/00b7d52011d137218e000000.pdf

Ballard, G., & Tommelein, I. (2012). Lean Management Methods for Complex Projects. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 2(1), 85-96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2011.641117

Ballard, G., Tommelein, I., Koskela, L., & Howell, G. (2002). Lean construction tools and techniques. Chapter 15, 227–255.

Ballard, H. G. (2000). The Last Planner System of production control. (Doctorate dissertation), University of Birmingham, UK.

Banawi, A. (2013). Improving construction processes by integrating lean, green, and six-sigma. PhD. ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing.

Banawi, A., & Bilec, M. M. (2014). A framework to improve construction processes: Integrating Lean, Green and Six Sigma. International Journal of Construction Management, 14(1), 45-55.

Banik, G. C. (1999). Construction productivity improvement. Paper presented at the ASC Proc. 35th Annual Conf. April 7.

Bannah, A., Elmualim, A., & Tang, L. (2012). Benchmarking and key performance indicators for the construction industry in Saudi Arabia. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Facilities Management, Procurement Systems, and Public-Private Partnership.

Barlow, J. (1996). Partnering, Lean Production and the High Performance Workplace. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Birmingham, UK.

Bashir, A. M., Suresh, S., Oloke, D. A., Proverbs, D. G., & Gameson, R. (2013). Application of Lean Construction Tools in the UK Contracting Companies- Findings from Qualitative Studies. Paper presented at the Architectural Technology Institute Conference, Pennsylvania University, April 2013.

Bashir, A. M., Suresh, S., Oloke, D. A., Proverbs, D. G., & Gameson, R. (2015). Overcoming the Challenges facing Lean Construction Practice in the UK Contracting Organizations. International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction, 4(1), 10-18.

198 Bibliography

Bashir, A. M., Suresh, S., Proverbs, D. G., & Gameson, R. (2011). Critical, Theoretical, Review Of The Impacts Of Lean Construction Tools In Reducing Accidents On Construction Sites. Paper presented at the 27th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2011, Bristol, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 249-258.

Baviskar, P. (2015). Critical Success Factors For Effective Implementation Of Lean Assessment Tools/ Framework In Manufacturing Industries. Kth Royal Institute Of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

Bayou, M., & Korvin, A. D. (2008). Measuring the Leanness of Manufacturing Systems- A Case Study of Ford Motor Company and General Motors. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 25, 287-304.

Bertelsen, S., & Koskela, L. (2002). Managing the three aspects of production in construction. IGLC-10, Gramado, Brazil.

Besterfield, D. H. (1995). Total Quality Management, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bhattacharya, S., & Momaya, K. (2009). Interpretive structural modeling of growth enablers in construction companies. Singapore Management Review, 31(1), 73.

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: principles, methods, and practices. Tampa: Non-Commercial-ShareAlike.

Bicheno, J. (2000). The lean toolbox, 2nd ed., Buckingham: PICSIE books.

Bicheno, J. (2004). The lean toolbox, 2nd ed., Buckingham: PICSIE books.

Biotto, C., Mota, B., Araújo, L., Barbosa, G., & Andrade, F. (2014). Adapted Use of Andon in a Horizontal Residential Construction Project. Paper presented at the Proceedings IGLC-22, June 2014, Oslo, Norway.

Björnfot, A., & Jongeling, R. (2007). Application of line-of-balance and 4D CAD for lean planning. Construction Innovation, 7(2), 200-211.

Björnfot, A., & Sardén, Y. (2006). Prefabrication: a lean strategy for value generation in construction. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction: 25/07/2006-27/07/2006.

Bolpagni, M., Burdi, L., & Ciribini, A. L. C. (2017). Integration of Lean Construction and Building Information Modeling in a Large Client Organization in Massachusetts. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Heraklion, Greece.

Bossink, B., & Brouwers, H. (1996). Construction Waste: Quantification and Source Evaluation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(1), 55-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1996)122:1(55)

Bibliography 199

Broft, R. (2017). Exploring the Application of Lean Principles to a Construction Supply Chain. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Conference Of International Group For Lean Construction (IGLC), Heraklion, Greece.

Brones, F., de Carvalho, M. M., & de Senzi Zancul, E. (2014). Ecodesign in project management: a missing link for the integration of sustainability in product development? Journal of Cleaner Production, 80, 106-118.

Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on environment and development:" our common future.": United Nations.

Bryde, D., Broquetas, M., & Volm, J. M. (2013). The project benefits of building information modelling (BIM). International Journal of Project Management, 31(7), 971-980.

Bubshait , A. A. (2001). Partnering: An Innovative and Effective Project Organisation Concept. Journal of Cost Engineering, 43(4), 32-37.

Burkett, G. L. (1989). Classifying basic research designs. Family medicine, 22(2), 143-148.

Byrne, B. M. (2005). Factor Analytic Models: Viewing The Structure Of An Assessment Instrument From Three Perspectives. Journal Of Personality Assessment, 85(1), 17-32.

Carter, B., Danford, A., Howcroft, D., Richardson, H., Smith, A., & Taylor, P. (2011). ‘All they lack is a chain’: lean and the new performance management in the British civil service. New Technology, Work and Employment, 26(2), 83-97.

CEC. (2005). Successful Practices of Environmental Management Systems in Small and Medium-Size Enterprises. A North American Perspective. Montreal: Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

Cheah, A., Wong, W., & Deng, Q. (2012). Challenges of Lean Manufacturing Implementation, A Hierarchical Model. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Istanbul, Turkey.

Chen, Y. (2012). Study on the application of lean construction supply chain management in EPC project. Paper presented at the Applied Mechanics and Materials.

Chen, Y., & Xu, Z.-g. (2011). Study on construction supply chain cost management based on lean thinking. Paper presented at the Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IE&EM), 2011 IEEE 18Th International Conference on.

Chew, A., & Student, H. (2013). Investigation Of The Current Status Of Document And Information Management. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 30th CIB W78 International Conference, China.

200 Bibliography

Cho, S., & Ballard, G. (2011). Last planner and integrated project delivery. Lean Construction Journal(2011 issue), 67-78.

Collins, W., Parrish, K., & Gibson, G. E. (2017). Development of a Project Scope Definition and Assessment Tool for Small Industrial Construction Projects. Journal of management in engineering, 33(4), 04017015.

Conner, G. (2009). Lean manufacturing for the small shop: Dearborn, Michigan: Society of Manufacturing Engineers.

Construction Industry Institute (CII). (2007). Road Map for Lean Implementation at the Project Level. Bureau of Engineering Research, University of Texas at Austin, Research Report, Texas, USA.

Conte, A. S. I., & Gransberg, D. (2001). Lean construction: From theory to practice. AACE International Transactions, CS101.

Cooper, R., & Slagmulder, R. (1997). Target costing and value engineering: Productivity Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches: Sage publications.

Crute, V., Ward, Y., Brown, S., & Graves, A. (2003). Implementing Lean in Aerospace—Challenging the Assumptions and Understanding the Challenges. Technovation, 23, 917-928.

Cuperus, Y. (2001). An introduction to open building. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC 2001), Singapore.

Cusumano, M., & Studies, H. (1985). The Japanese automobile industry: Technology and management at Nissan and Toyota: Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA.

Dave, B., Koskela, L., Kiviniemi, A., Owen, R. L., & Tzortzopoulis Fazenda, P. (2013). Implementing lean in construction: Lean construction and BIM. CIRIA, Guide C725. London.

de Souza, L. B., & Pidd, M. (2011). Exploring the barriers to lean health care implementation. Public Money & Management, 31(1), 59-66.

Decker, B. (2016). 8 Wastes of LEAN. McKenney's Building a Higher Standard. Retrieved from http://blog.mckenneys.com/2016/02/8-wastes-of-lean/

Demirkesen, S., & Ozorhon, B. (2017). Impact of integration management on construction project management performance. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1639-1654.

Bibliography 201

Deshmukh, A. (2017). A review on lean construction approach and its application in construction sector. International Journal of Applied Research, 3(8), 348-356.

Devaki, M. P., & Jayanthi, R. (2014). Barriers to Implementation of Lean Principles in the Indian Construction Industry. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 3(5), 1189-1192.

Dhahran International Exhibition Company. (2015). International Exhibition for Building and Construction to be held in Eastern Region. Saudi Press Agency U6 pp. (Newspaper Article) 1-6.

Dickson, E., Singh, S., Cheung, D., & Wyatt, C. (2007). Application of Lean Manufacturing Techniques in the Emergency Department. Journal of Emergency Medicine, 37(2), 177-182.

Dickson, E. W., Anguelov, Z., Vetterick, D., Eller, A., & Singh, S. (2009). Use of Lean in the Emergency Department: A Case Series of 4 Hospitals. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 54(4), 504-510.

Diekmann, J. E., Krewedl, M., Balonick, J., Stewart, T., & Won, S. (2004). Application of Lean Manufacturing Principles to Construction. Boulder, CO: Construction Industry Institute, 191.

Dlouhy, J., Binninger, M., Weichner, L., & Haghsheno, S. (2017). Implementation of Lean Construction in Client Organizations – an Analysis of the Status Quo in Germany. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Heraklion, Greece.

Doolen, T. L., & Hacker, M. E. (2005). A Review of Lean Assessment in Organizations: An Exploratory Study of Lean Practices by Electronics Manufacturers. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 24(1), 55-67.

Downe�Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health care for women international, 13(3), 313-321.

Drysdale, D. (2013). Introducing lean improvement into the UK Highways Agency supply chain. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 21th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC).

Dulaimi, M. F., & Tanamas, C. (2001). The principles and applications of lean construction in Singapore. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC). Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore, , 6–8 Aug 2001.

Durdyev, S., & Mbachu, J. (2017). Key constraints to labour productivity in residential building projects: evidence from Cambodia. International Journal of Construction Management, 1-9. doi:DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2017.1326301

202 Bibliography

Earley, T. (2017). The Waste of Motion; Causes, symptoms, Solutions, Examples. Retrieved from Lean manufacturingtools: http://leanmanufacturingtools.org/96/the-waste-of-motion-causes-symptoms-solutions/.

Eastham, J., Tucker, D. J., Varma, S., & Sutton, S. M. (2014). PLM software selection model for project management using hierarchical decision modeling with criteria from PMBOK® knowledge areas. Engineering Management Journal, 26(3), 13-24.

Egan, J. (1998). Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construction Task Force. Retrieved from Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, on the scope for improving the quality and efficiency of UK construction: http://constructingexcellence.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/rethinking_construction_report.pdf

El-Kourd, R. (2009). A Study of Lean Construction Practices in Gaza Strip. The Islamic University of Gaza.

El-Namrouty, K., & Abushaaban, M. S. (2013). Seven Wastes Elimination Targeted by Lean Manufacturing Case Study, Gaza Strip Manufacturing Firms. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 1(2), 68-80.

Eljazzar, M., Beydoun, A., & Hamzeh, F. (2013). OPTIMIZING WORKFLOW FOR SHELTER REHABILITATION PROJECTS IN REFUGEE CAMPS. Paper presented at the IGLC-21, July 2013, Fortaleza, Brazil.

Ellis, R. C., Wood, G. D., & Keel, D. A. (2005). Value management practices of leading UK cost consultants. Construction Management and Economics, 23(5), 483-493.

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107-115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Emmitt, S., Sander, D., & Christoffersen, A. K. (2004). Implementing Value Through Lean Design Management. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference on Lean Construction, Elsinore, Denmark.

Emmitt, S., Sander, D., & Christoffersen, A. K. (2005). The value universe: defining a value based approach to lean construction. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 13th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, (p.57), Sydney.

Emuze, F., & Smallwood, J. (2013). Lean Supply Chain Decisions Implications for Construction in a Developing Economy. Paper presented at the 21th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil.

Enaghani, M., Arashpour, M., & Karimi, M. (2009). The Relationship between Lean and TPM. (Master thesis), University Of Borås, Borås.

Engineers Australia. (2012). Recommended Practices for the Application of Lean Construction Methods to Building New Australian LNG Capacity. Perth, WA: Engineers Australia.

Bibliography 203

Enshassi, A., & Abu Zaiter, M. (2014). Implementation of Lean Tools on Safety in Construction Projects in Palestine. Paper presented at the IGLC-22, June, 2014, Oslo, Norway.

Erik Eriksson, P. (2010). Improving construction supply chain collaboration and performance: a lean construction pilot project. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15(5), 394-403.

Eriksson, P. E. (2010). Improving Construction Supply Chain Collaboration And Performance: A Lean Construction Pilot Project. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal of Construction Management, 15(5), 394-403.

Fahy, M. (2015). Saudi Arabia’s new approach to avoid construction overruns and delays. The National. Retrieved from https://www.thenational.ae/business/saudi-arabia-s-new-approach-to-avoid-construction-overruns-and-delays-1.101433

Falk, S. (2017). Pull Planning: How Lean Construction Practices Can Improve Project Efficiency.

Fellows, R., & Liu, A. (2015). Research Methods for Construction, 4th Edition: Wiley Blackwell.

Ferguson, E., & Cox, T. (1993). Exploratory factor analysis: A users’ guide. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1(2), 84-94.

Ferng, J., & Price, A. D. (2005). An exploration of the synergies between Six Sigma, total quality management, lean construction and sustainable construction. International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 1(2), 167-187.

Fernie, S., & Thorpe, A. (2007). Exploring change in construction: supply chain management. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(4), 319-333.

Fewings, P. (2013). Construction Project Management: an integrated approach. 2nd ed. London: Spon Press.

Fields, A. (2000). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows. Sage, London.

Fong, P. S.-w., & Shen, Q. (2000). Is the Hong Kong construction industry ready for value management? International Journal of Project Management, 18(5), 317-326.

Fonseca, E. D., Lima, F. P., & Duarte, F. (2014). From construction site to design: The different accident prevention levels in the building industry. Safety Science, 70, 406-418.

Forbes, L., & Ahmed, S. (2010). Modern Construction: Productive and Lean Practices. New York: CRC Press.

204 Bibliography

Forbes, L. H., & Ahmed, S. M. (2011). Modern construction: lean project delivery and integrated practices. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Inc.

Forbes, L. H., Ahmed, S. M., & Barcala, M. (2002). Adapting Lean Construction Theory for Practical Application in Developing Countries. Paper presented at the the first CIB W107 International Conference: Creating a Sustainable Construction Industry in Developing Countries. Stellenbosch, South Africa, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Forman, M. (2013). Inertia and change: lean construction and health and safety work on construction sites. Construction Management and Economics, 31(6), 647-660.

Fujimoto, T. (2012). The Evolution of Production Systems. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 11(0), 25-44.

Fullalove, L. (2013). Examples of lean techniques and methodology applied to UK road schemes. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 21th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC).

Gabriel, E. (1997). The lean approach to project management. International Journal of Project Management, 15(4), 205-209.

Gao, S., & Low, S. P. (2014). The Toyota Way model: an alternative framework for lean construction. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(5-6), 664-682. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.820022

Garas, G. L., Anis, A. R., & El Gammal, A. (2001). Materials Waste in the Egyptian Construction Industry. Paper presented at the Proceedings IGLC-9, Singapore.

Garnett, N., Jones, D. T., & Murray, S. (1998). Strategic Application of Lean Thinking. Paper presented at the In Proceedings of the fifth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Guaruja, Brazil.

Gerber, D. J., Becerik-Gerber, B., & Kunz, A. (2010, 2010). Building information modeling and lean construction: Technology, methodology and advances from practice. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference, International Group for Lean Construction, Haifa, Israel.

Gil, N., Tommelein, I. D., Kirkendall, R. L., & Ballard, G. (2000). Contribution of Specialty Contractor Knowledge to Early Design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-8), 17-19 July, Brighton, UK.

GNSA. (2015). 10 construction workers killed in Saudi building collapse. Gulf News Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/10-construction-workers-killed-in-saudi-building-collapse-1.1500671

Goldsby, T., & Martichenko, R. (2005). Lean six sigma logistics: Strategic development to operational success. Fort Lauderdale: J. Ross Publishing.

Bibliography 205

Green, S. D. (2002). The human resource management implications of lean construction: critical perspectives and conceptual chasms. Journal of Construction Research, 3(1), 147-165.

Green, S. D., & May, S. C. (2005). Lean construction: arenas of enactment, models of diffusion and the meaning of ‘leanness’. Building Research & Information, 33(6), 498-511.

Gresh, J. (2011). Application Of Lean Principles & Practices In Construction Management. Philadelphia: Drexel University.

Grzybowska, K. (2012). Sustainability in the supply chain: Analysing the enablers Environmental issues in supply chain management (pp. 25-40): Springer.

Haarr, K. J., & Drevland, F. (2016). A Mandated Lean Construction Delivery System In A Rehab Project–A Case Study. Paper presented at the 24th Ann. Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean Construction, Boston, MA, USA.

Haleem, A., Sushil, Qadri, M., & Kumar, S. (2012). Analysis of critical success factors of worldclass manufacturing practices: an application of interpretative structural modelling and interpretative ranking process. Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, 23(10), 722-734.

Hallinger, P., & Snidvongs, K. (2008). Educating leaders: is there anything to learn from business management? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(1), 9-31.

Hamzeh, F., Kallassy, J., Lahoud, M., & Azar, R. (2016). THE FIRST EXTENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEAN AND LPS IN LEBANON: RESULTS AND REFLECTIONS. Paper presented at the Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean Construction, Boston, MA, USA.

Hao, J. (2012). Application of Lean Construction to Chinese Construction Industry Based on BIM Technology. Paper presented at the Business Computing and Global Informatization (BCGIN), 2012 Second International Conference on.

Haque, B. (2003). Lean Engineering in the Aerospace Industry. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 217, 1409-1420.

Harris, E. (2014). UAE's construction market to remain strong in 2014, according to EC Harris. Zawya, Thomson Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.zawya.com/story/UAEs_construction_market_to_remain_strong_in_2014_according_to_EC_Harris-ZAWYA20140818053801/

Harris, E. (2015). Construction: KSA ‘third most expensive state in GCC’. Arab News. Retrieved from http://www.arabnews.com/economy/news/690601

206 Bibliography

Hayler, R., & Nichols, M. D. (2007). Six Sigma for Financial Services: How Leading Companies Are Driving Results Using Lean, Six Sigma, and Process Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Heineck, L. F., Rocha, F. E., Pereira, P. E., & Leite, M. O. (2009). Building Lean Collection– building with lean management. Publisher Graphic Expression (in Portuguese), Fortaleza, Brazil.

Hines, P., Francis, M., & Found, P. (2006). Towards lean product lifecycle management: A framework for new product development. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(7), 866-887. doi:10.1108/17410380610688214

Hines, P., & Rich, N. (1997). The seven value stream mapping tools. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(1), 46-64.

Hirota, E. H., Lantelme, E. M. V., & Formoso, C. T. (1999). Learning how to learn lean construction concepts and principles. Paper presented at the Proceedings IGLC-7 26-28th, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.

Holweg, M. (2007). The genealogy of lean production. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 420-437.

Hon, C. K., Chan, A. P., & Yam, M. C. (2012). Determining safety climate factors in the repair, maintenance, minor alteration, and addition sector of Hong Kong. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(5), 519-528.

Hooper, D. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. In H. Chen (Ed.). Approaches to Quantitative Research – Theory and its Practical Application: A Guide to Dissertation Students, Cork, Ireland: Oak Tree Press.

Howell, G. (2000). A guide to the last planner for construction foremen and supervisors. Restricted White Paper, Lean Construction Institute, California.

Howell, G., & Ballard, G. (1998). Implementing lean construction: understanding and action. Paper presented at the Proc. 6 th Ann. Conf. Intl. Group for Lean Constr.

Howell, G. A. (1999). What is Lean Construction-1999. Paper presented at the Proceedings IGLC.

Howell, G. A., & Koskela, L. (2000). Reforming project management: the role of lean construction. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.

Hu, X., Xia, B., Skitmore, M., & Chen, Q. (2016). The application of case-based reasoning in construction management research: An overview. Automation in Construction, 72, 65-74.

Bibliography 207

Hunt, V. D. (1992). Quality in America – How to Implement a Competitive Quality Program. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.

Huovila, P., & Koskela, L. (1998). Contribution of the principles of lean construction to meet the challenges of sustainable development. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.

Husein, A. (2013). Construction and Projects in Saudi Arabia: Overview. Construction and Projects Multi-jurisdictional Guide 2013/14.

Hussain, S. A. M., Nama, A. M., & Fatima, A. (2014). Barriers to implementing lean principles in the Indian construction industry. International Journal of Innovation Research in Advanced Engineering, 3(1), 1-6.

Ikediashi, D. I., Ogunlana, S. O., & Alotaibi, A. (2014). Analysis of Project Failure Factors for Infrastructure Projects in Saudi Arabia: A Multivariate Approach. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 19(1), 35.

IMA. (1999). Tools and Techniques for Implementing Integrated Supply Chain Management: Institute of Management Accountants.

Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen (Ky'zen): the Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, New York: McGraw Hill.

Inokuma, A. (2012). What is Lean Construction? Retrieved on Feb 15, 2015, from http://www.ejcm.or.jp/eng/pdf/Lean_130904last.pdf.

Intergraph. (2012). Lean Construction. White Paper.03/12 PPM-AU-0160A-ENG.

Issa, U. H. (2013). Implementation of lean construction techniques for minimizing the risks effect on project construction time. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 52(4), 697-704.

Iyer, K., & Sagheer, M. (2009). Hierarchical structuring of PPP risks using interpretative structural modeling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(2), 151-159.

Jablanski, J. R. (1992). Implementing TQM. Competing in the Nineties through Total Quality Management, 2nd ed. San Diego: Pfeiffer & Company.

Jacobs, F. R., & Chase, R. B. (2010). Operations and supply management: the Core, 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Jannadi, M. O., & Al�Sudairi, A. (1995). Safety management in the construction industry in Saudi Arabia: Survey shows that level of company practice influences safety performance. Building research and information, 23(1), 60-63.

Javkhedkar, A. (2006). Applying Lean Construction to Concrete Construction Projects. (Master's dissertation), University of Houston, USA.

208 Bibliography

Jensen, P. A., & Jóhannesson, E. I. (2013). Building information modelling in Denmark and Iceland. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 20(1), 99-110.

Jiang, W., & Wong, J. (2016). Key activity areas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the construction industry: a study of China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 850-860. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.093

Johansen, E., & Walter, L. (2007). Lean construction: Prospects for the German construction industry. Lean Construction Journal, 3(1), 19-32.

Johany, A., Berne, M., & Mixon, W. (1986). The Saudi Arabian Economy. Croom Helm, London.

Johns, R. (2010). Survey question bank: Methods Fact Sheet 1, Likert items and scales. University of Strathclyde.

Jørgensen, B. (2006). Integrating Lean Design and lean Construction: Processes and Methods. (PhD Thesis), Technical University of Denmark (DTU).

Kamara, J. (2003). Enablers for concurrent engineering in construction. Paper presented at the In Proceedings of the 11th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Salford, UK: University of Salford.

Kanafani, J. (2015). Barriers To The Implementation Of Lean Thinking In The Construction Industry – The Case Of Uae. (Master thesis), University of Leicester, UK.

Karim, K., Marosszeky, M., & Davis, S. (2006). Managing subcontractor supply chain for quality in construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13(1), 27-42.

Karim, M. A. (2009). A conceptual model for manufacturing performance improvement. Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, 35(1), 87-94.

Karim, M. A., Aljuhani, M., Duplock, R., & Yarlagadda, P. (2011). Implementation of Lean Manufacturing in Saudi Manufacturing Organisations: An Empirical Study. Paper presented at the Advanced Materials Research.

Karim, M. A., & Zaman, K. A. (2013). A methodology for effective implementation of lean strategies and its performance evaluation in manufacturing organizations. Business Process Management Journal, 19(1), 169-196.

Kelly, J., & Male, S. (1993). Value management in design and construction. London: E& FN Spon;.

Kemmer, S. L., Saraiva, M. A., Heineck, L. F., Pacheco, A. V., Novaes, M. V., Mourão, C. A., & Moreira, L. C. (2006). The use of andon in high rise Building. Paper presented at the Proceedings for the 14th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Santiago, Chile, 575-582. .

Bibliography 209

Kenney, M., & Florida, R. (1993). Beyond Mass Production. New York: Oxford University Press.

Khanzode, A., Fischer, M., & Reed, D. (2005). Case Study of the Implementation of the Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS) Using Virtual Building Technologies on a Large Healthcare Project. Paper presented at the 13th International Group for Lean Construction Conference, p. 153.

Kilpatrick, J. (2003). Lean Principles. New York: Utah Manufacturing Extension Partnership.

Kim, C. S., Spahlinger, D. A., & Kin, J. M. (2006). Lean Health Care: What can Hospitals Learn from a World-class Automaker? Journal of Hospital Medicine, 1, 191-199.

King, D., Ben-Tovim, D. I., & Bassham, J. (2006). Redesigning Emergency Department Patient Flows: Application of Lean Thinking to Health Care. Emergency Medicine Australas, 18, 391-397.

Kjartansdóttir, I. (2011). BIM Adoption in Iceland and Its Relation to Lean Construction. (Masters Dissertation), Reykjavík University.

Koranda, C., Chong, W. K., Kim, C., Chou, J.-S., & Kim, C. (2012). An investigation of the applicability of sustainability and lean concepts to small construction projects. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 16(5), 699-707.

Koskela, L. (1992). Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Koskela, L. (1994). Lean Construction. Kensington, N.S.W. Institution of Engineers Australia.

Koskela, L. (2000). An exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction VVT Technical research Centre of Finland.

Koskela, L. (2004a, 3-5th August 2004). Making-do - The Eighth Category Of Waste. Paper presented at the The 12th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Helsingor, Denmark.

Koskela, L. (2004b). Moving On- Beyond Lean Thinking. Lean Construction Journal, 1(1), 24-37.

Koskela, L. (2009). What is lean Construction? . Manchester: University of Salford.

Koskela, L., & Bølviken, T. (2013). Which Are the Wastes of Construction? . Paper presented at the 21th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil.

210 Bibliography

Koskela, L., & Howell, G. (2002). The Underlying Theory of Project Management is Obsolete. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference, 2002.

Koskela, L., Howell, G., Ballard, G., & Tommelein, I. (2002). The foundations of lean construction. Design and construction: Building in value, 211-226.

Koskela, L., Sacks, R., & Rooke, J. (2012). A Brief History of the Concept of Waste in Production. In: I.D.P. Tommelein, C.L. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, San Diego, USA.

Kovvuri, P. R. R., Sawhney, A., Ahuja, R., & Sreekumar, A. (2016). Efficient Project Delivery Using Lean Principles-An Indian Case Study. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A, 97(1), 19-26.

KPMG. (2017). Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030: Life after oil. Retrieved from UK:

Kumar, N., Kumar, S., Haleem, A., & Gahlot, P. (2013). Implementing lean manufacturing system: ISM approach. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 6(4), 996-1012. doi:10.3926/jiem.508

Kumar, R., Agrawal, R., & Sharma, V. (2013). e-Applications in Indian Agri-Food Supply Chain: Relationship among Enablers. Global Business Review, 14(4), 711-727. doi:10.1177/0972150913501610

Kumar, R., & Kumar, V. (2016). Analysis of significant lean manufacturing elements through application of interpretive structural modeling approach in Indian industry. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 4, 1-10. doi:10.5267/j.uscm.2015.7.001

Kumar, S., Luthra, S., & Haleem, A. (2013). Customer involvement in greening the supply chain: an interpretive structural modeling methodology. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 9(6), 1-13.

Lapinski, A., Horman, M., & Riley, D. (2005). Delivering sustainability: Lean principles for green projects. Paper presented at the Construction Research Congress 2005: Broadening Perspectives.

Lapinski, A. R., Horman, M. J., & Riley, D. R. (2006). Lean Processes For Sustainable Project Delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(10), 1083-1091. doi:https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:10(1083)

Lehman, T., & Reiser, P. (2000). Maximizing Value & Minimizing Waste: Value Engineering and Lean Construction. New York: Lean Construction Institute.

Lehman, T., & Reiser, P. (2004). Maximizing Value & Minimizing Waste: Value Engineering and Lean Construction. Paper presented at the SAVE International 44th Annual Conference Proceedings.

Bibliography 211

Leinonen, J., & Huovila, P. (2000). The house of the rising value. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Brighton, England.

Leonard, D. (2006). Building quality at Veridian Homes. Quality Progress, 39(10), 49-54.

Li, M., & Yang, J. (2014). Analysis of interrelationships between critical waste factors in office building retrofit projects using interpretive structural modelling. International Journal of Construction Management, 14(1), 15-27.

Liao, C.-H., & Chiu, A. S. (2011). Evaluate municipal solid waste management problems using hierarchical framework. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 25, 353-362.

Liker, J. K. (1998). Introduction-Lean Returns to the U.S. in: Liker J. K. (ed) Becoming Lean: Inside Stories of U.S. Manufacturers. Portland:Productivity Press.

Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lin, G., & Shen, Q. (2007). Measuring the performance of value management studies in construction: critical review. Journal of management in engineering, 23(1), 2-9.

Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., Zaheer, S., & Choo, A. S. (2003). Six Sigma: a Goal-Theoretic Perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 21(2), 193-203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00087-6

Lindfors, C. (2000). Value chain management in construction: Controlling the housebuilding process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Brighton, England.

Liu, M., Ballard, G., & Ibbs, W. (2011). Work flow variation and labour productivity: case study. Journal of management in engineering, 27(4), 236-242.

Locatelli, G., Mancini, M., Gastaldo, G., & Mazza, F. (2013). Improving Projects Performance With Lean Construction: State Of The Art, Applicability And Impacts. Organization, Technology & Management in Construction: An International Journal, 5(Special), 775-783.

Loubser, C. (2003). Six Sigma Readiness Assessment. http://www.ccint.net/newsroom/ontraccnewsletter/2002vol2/pg2.htm, accessed 10/05/2013.

Love, F., & Li, H. (1998). From BPR to CPR –conceptualising re-engineering in construction. Business Process Management Journal, 4(4), 291-305.

Love, P. E., Irani, Z., & Edwards, D. J. (2004). A seamless supply chain management model for construction. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(1), 43-56.

212 Bibliography

Low, S. P., & Teo, J. A. (2004). Implementing total quality management in construction firms. Journal of management in engineering, 20(1), 8-15.

Lu, N., & Korman, T. (2010). Implementation of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in Modular Construction: Benefits and Challenges. Paper presented at the the Construction Research Congress, Banff, Alberta, Canada.

Lu, W., Yang, H., & Langston, C. (2015). Internationalization of the construction industry. In R. Best, & J. Meikle (Eds.). Measuring Construction: Prices, Output and Productivity, (pp. 131-154). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Luthra, S., Kumar, V., Kumar, S., & Haleem, A. (2011). Barriers to implement green supply chain management in automobile industry using interpretive structural modeling technique: An Indian perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 4(2), 231-257.

Macomber, H., & Howell, G. A. (2004). Two Great Wastes in Organizations–A Typology for Adressing the Concern for the Underutilization of Human Potential. International Group for Lean Construction, 12.

Mandal, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (1994). Vendor selection using interpretive structural modelling (ISM). International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 14(6), 52-59.

Manrodt, K., Vitasek, K., & Thompson, R. (n.d.). Lean Practice in the supply chain. Retrieved from

Mao, X., & Zhang, X. (2008). Construction process reengineering by integrating lean principles and computer simulation techniques. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(5), 371-381.

Marhani, M. A., Jaapar, A., & Bari, N. A. A. (2012). Lean Construction: Towards enhancing sustainable construction in Malaysia. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 68, 87-98.

Marosszeky, M., Thomas, R., Karim, K., Davis, S., & McGeorge, D. (2002). Quality Management Tools For Lean Production: Moving From Enforcement To Empowerment. Paper presented at the Proc., IGLC-10, 10th Conf. of Int. Group for Lean Construction.

Marquit, A., & LiMandri, R. D. (2013). From Sears & Roebuck to Skyscrapers: A History of Prefabricated and Modular Housing (NYC-Buildings, Trans.): City of New York.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research. :Sage.

Marzouk, M., Bakry, I., & El-Said, M. (2011). Application of lean principles to design processes in construction consultancy firms. International Journal of Construction Supply Chain Management, 1(1), 43-55.

Bibliography 213

Maturana, S., Alarcón, L., Gazmuri, P., & Vrsalovic, M. (2007). On-Site subcontractor evaluation method based on lean principles and partnering practices. Journal of management in engineering, 23(2), 67-74.

Maxwell, J. A. (2008). Designing A Qualitative Study. The SAGE Handbook Of Applied Social Research Methods, 2, 214-253.

MBI. (2010). Improving Construction Efficiency & Productivity with Modular Construction. Charlottesville, VA: Modular Building Institute.

McCullough, D. G. (2014). Saudi Arabia green Decree Brings Hopes of Sustainability. The Guardian, [online] Available at :https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/saudi-arabia-green-construction-oil-sustainability-environment [Accessed 13 May 2014].

McElroy, C. (2014). Saudi Haramain Rail Project Delayed until 2016. Construction Week Online. Retrieved on March 3, 2015 from http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-27225-saudis-haramain-rail-project-delayed-until-2016/.

McGraw Hill Construction. (2013). Construction Industry Needs to Make Connection Between Improved Efficiency and Greater Competitiveness. Retrieved from Jacksonville:

Mehany, M. (2015). Lean Construction Principles Past and Present – A Business Model Consistency. Paper presented at the 51st ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings.

Mehta, M., Scarborough, W., & Armpriest, D. (2008). Building Construction: Principles, Materials, and Systems. Ohio: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Miller, C. J. M., Packham, G. A., & Thomas, B. C. (2002). Harmonization between main contractors and subcontractors: a prerequisite for lean construction. Journal of Construction Research, 3(1), 67-82.

Miron, L. I., Kaushik, A., & Koskela, L. (2015). Target Value Design: The Challenge of Value Generation. Paper presented at the In: 23rd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Perth, Australia, July 29-31.

MoC&I. (2001). Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: History, Civilisation, Development. Saudi Ministry of Culture & Information, Saudi Arabia.

Moghadam, M. (2014). Lean-Mod: An Approach To Modular Construction Manufacturing Production Efficiency Improvement. (Doctor of Philosophy), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Mok, K. Y., Shen, G. Q., & Yang, J. (2015). Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: A review and future directions. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 446-457.

214 Bibliography

Monden, Y. (1998). Toyota Production System (3rd Ed.), Norcross, Georgia: Engineering and Management Press.

Moody, D. L. (1997). A Multi-Level Architecture for Representing Enterprise Data Models. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on the Entity Relationship Approach, Los Angeles, November l-3., Los Angeles, November.

MOP. (1997). Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: History, Civilisation, Development. Ministry of Planning, Saudi Arabia.

MOP. (2009a). Eighteenth Development Plan. Ministry of Planning. Available at http://www.mep.gov.sa.

MOP. (2009b). Saudi Economy Indicators. Available at http://www.mep.gov.sa. Accessed 10.09.2009.

Mossman, A. (2005). Last Planner Overview: Collaborative production planning, collaborative program coordination. Lean Construction Institute, UK.

Mossman, A. (2008). Last planner five crucial conversations for reliable flow and project delivery. available at: http://www.thechangebusiness.co.uk/TCB/LPSBenefits_files/Last_Planner_5_crucial_conversations.pdf, accessed 12/11/2013.

Mossman, A. (2009). Creating Value: a Sufficient Way to Eliminate Waste in Lean Design and Lean Production. Lean Construction Journal, 2009(13-23).

Muhlbauer, W. K. (2004). Pipeline risk management manual: ideas, techniques, and resources: Gulf Professional Publishing.

Nahmens, I., & Ikuma, L. H. (2009). An empirical examination of the relationship between lean construction and safety in the industrialized housing industry. Lean Construction Journal, 2009, 1-12.

Nahmens, I., & Ikuma, L. H. (2012). Effects of Lean Construction on Sustainability of Modular Homebuilding. Journal Of Architectural Engineering, 18(2), 155-163.

Nahmens, I., Ikuma, L. H., & Khot, D. (2012). Lean and job satisfaction: a case study in industrialized homebuilding. Lean Construction Journal, 2012, 91-104.

NCB Economist. (2003). Annual Report. National Commercial Bank, Saudi Arabia.

Nesensohn, C. (2017). A Lean Construction Maturity Model For Organizations. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Heraklion, Greece.

Bibliography 215

Ngacho, C., & Das, D. (2014). A performance evaluation framework of development projects: An empirical study of Constituency Development Fund (CDF) construction projects in Kenya. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), 492-507.

NHS. (2009). Institute for Innovation and Improvement: Quality and Safety Improvement Tools [online]. [cited on 21st October 2009].

Nicholas, J. M. (1998). Competitive Manufacturing Management: Continuous Improvement, Lean production, Customer-focused Quality. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Nielsen, Y., & Tezel, A. (2013). Lean Construction Conformance among Construction Contractors in Turkey. Journal of management in engineering, 29(3), 236-250. doi:https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000145

Norusis, M. J. (1992). SPSS for Windows: Professional Statistics User's Guide, Release 5.0: SPSS Incorporated.

NRC. (2009). Advancing the Competitiveness and Efficiency of the U.S. Construction Industry-National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

O'Connor, R., & Swain, B. (2013). Implementing Lean in Construction: Lean Tools and Techniques – an Introduction", CIRIA, London, UK.

O’brien, W. J. (1999). Construction Supply-Chain Management: a vision for advanced coordination, costing, and control. Paper presented at the NSF Berkeley-Stanford Construction Research Workshop.

Ogunbiyi, O., Goulding, J. S., & Oladapo, A. (2014). An empirical study of the impact of lean construction techniques on sustainable construction in the UK. Construction Innovation, 14(1), 88-107.

Ogunbiyi, O., Oladapo, A., & Goulding, J. (2014). An empirical study of the impact of lean construction techniques on sustainable construction in the UK. Construction Innovation, 14(1), 88-107.

Ogunbiyi, O., Oladapo, A. A., & Goulding, J. S. (2011). Construction Innovation: The Implementation of Lean Construction towards Sustainable Innovation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of IBEA Conference, Innovation and the Built Environment Academy, London South Bank University.

Ogunbiyi, O., Oladapo, A. A., & Goulding, J. S. (2012). Lean procurement: the use of lean construction techniques in project value enhancement. Paper presented at the International Conference on Facility Management, Procurement Systems and Public Private Partnership, 22-25 January 2012, Cape Town, South Africa.

Ogunbiyi, O. E. (2014). Implementation of the lean approach in sustainable construction: a conceptual framework. PhD, University of Central Lancashire.

216 Bibliography

Ogunbiyi, O. E., & Goulding, J. S. (2013). A Review of Lean Concept and its Application to Sustainable Construction in the UK. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, 4(2), 82-92.

Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Olamilokun, O. (2015). Investigating Facilitators and Barriers for Adopting Lean Construction Principles in the Nigerian Building Consulting Firms. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 4(12), 237-239.

Olanipekun, A. O. (2012). Effects of Organisational Culture on the Performance of Quantity Surveying Firms in Lagos, Nigeria. (Master Degree), Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria.

Olanipekun, A. O., Abiola-Falemu, J. O., & Aje, I. O. (2014). Dimensions of Organisational Culture in Quantity Surveying Ffirms in Nigeria. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(4), 54-70.

Olanipekun, A. O., Xia, B., Hon, C., & Hu, Y. (2017). Project Owners’ Motivation for Delivering Green Building Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(9), 04017068.

Omran, A., & Abdulrahim, A. (2015). Barriers To Prioritizing Lean Construction In The Libyan Construction Industry. Acta Technica Corviniensis-Bulletin of Engineering, 8(1), 53.

ONSITE, V. (2016). What Saudi Vision 2030 means for the construction industry? . ifpinfo Middle East Business News & Events. Retrieved from http://www.ifpinfo.com/Top-MiddleEast-NewsArticle-7623#.WZ4fTtgUmUm

Packham, G., Thomas, B., & Miller, C. (2003). Partnering in the house building sector: a subcontrator‘s view. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 327-332.

Paez, O., Salem, S., Solomon, J., & Genaidy, A. (2005). Moving from lean manufacturing to lean construction: toward a common sociotechnological framework. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 15(2), 233-245.

Pande, P., Neuman, R. P., & Cavanagh, R. R. (2000). The six sigma way: how Ge, Motora and other top companies are honing their performance 67, 2.

Parihar, S., & Bhar, C. (2015). A study on risk factors involved in electrical transmission line projects: A comparative study of ISM (Interpretative Structural Modelling) and AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) method. NMIMS Management Review, XXVI January-February 2015.

Pearce, A., & Pons, D. (2013). Implementing Lean Practices: Managing The Transformation Risks. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 1, 1-19.

Bibliography 217

Pepper, M. P., & Spedding, T. A. (2010). The evolution of lean Six Sigma. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 27(2), 138-155.

Phellas, C., Bloch, A., & Seale, C. (2011). Structured methods: interviews, questionnaires and observation. Researching Society and Culture. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 181-205.

Pillai, K., Shukla, M., & Magar, R. (2016). Application of Principles of lean management in Construction Industry, A technique in the Indian construction industry. International Journal of Recent Advances in Engineering & Technology, 4(4), 83-85.

Pinch, L. (2005). Lean construction. Construction Executive, 15(11), 8-11.

Pitt, M., Tucker, M., Riley, M., & Longden, J. (2009). Towards sustainable construction: promotion and best practices. Construction Innovation, 9(2), 201-224.

Polat, G., Damci, A., & Tatar, Y. (2011). Barriers and Benefits of Total Quality Management in The Construction Industry: Evidence From Turkish Contractors.

Prasanna, S., & Ramanna, T. R. (2014). Application of ICT Benefits For Building Project Management Using ISM Model. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 3(6).

PRNewswire. (2014). Saudi Arabia Construction Industry: 10.98% CAGR Forecast to 2018(Journal, Electronic). Retrieved from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saudi-arabia-construction-industry-1098-cagr-forecast-to-2018-285917141.html

Pyzdek, T. (2003). The Six Sigma Handbook: The Complete Guide for Greenbelts, Blackbelts, and Managers at All Levels, Revised and Expanded Edition.

Raghavan, N., Delhi, V. S. K., Mahalingam, A., & Varghese, K. (2016). Introducing Lean construction philosophy in E-P-C phases of a large industrial project. Paper presented at the 4th Ann. Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean Construction, Boston, MA, USA.

Rajaprasad, S. V. S., & Chalapathi, P. V. (2015). Factors influencing implementation of OHSAS 18001 in Indian construction organizations: interpretive structural modeling approach. Safety and health at work, 6(3), 200-205.

Rajasekar, S., Philominathan, P., & Chinnathambi, V. (2006). Research methodology. arXiv preprint physics/0601009.

Ren, J. (2012). "Lean Construction Supply Chain: A Literature Review". (Master Thesis), Real Estate Development and Financial Services, Stockholm.

218 Bibliography

Reportlinker. (2016). Construction in Saudi Arabia, key trends, and opportunities to 2010. Available from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/construction-in-saudi-arabia---key-trends-and-opportunities-to-2020-300254130.html.

Riyadh Chamber of Commerce. (2004). Report on construction in the private and public sectors. Hard copy.

Rolstadås, A. (1995). Planning and control of concurrent engineering projects. International Journal of Production Economics, 38, 3-13.

Ross, J. E. (1999). Total quality management: Text, cases, and readings. S. Perry (Ed.). CRC Press.

Rother, M., & Shook, J. (2000). Learning to see. Brookline, Massachusetts, USA, 100pp.

Rother, M., & Shook, J. (2003). Learning to see: value stream mapping to add value and eliminate muda: Lean Enterprise Institute.

Ruan, X., Ochieng, E., Zuofa, T., & Yang, M. (2016). An appraisal of lean construction project delivery application of lean construction. Paper presented at the Logistics, Informatics and Service Sciences (LISS), 2016 International Conference on.

Saad, M., Jones, M., & James, P. (2002). A review of the progress towards the adoption of supply chain management (SCM) relationships in construction. European journal of purchasing & supply management, 8(3), 173-183.

Sacks, R., Dave, B., Koskela, L., & Owen, R. (2009). Analysis framework for the interaction between lean construction and Building Information Modelling.

Sacks, R., Koskela, L., Dave, B. A., & Owen, R. (2010). Interaction Of Lean And Building Information Modeling In Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(9), 968-980.

Sacks, R., Treckmann, M., & Rozenfeld, O. (2009). Visualization of work flow to support lean construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(12), 1307-1315.

Sahney, S., Banwet, D., & Karunes, S. (2010). Quality framework in education through application of interpretive structural modeling: An administrative staff perspective in the Indian context. The TQM Journal, 22(1), 56-71.

Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A., & Luegring, M. (2005). Site implementation and assessment of lean construction techniques. Lean Construction Journal, 2(2), 1-21.

Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A., & Minkarah, I. (2006). Lean Construction: From Theory To Implementation. Journal of management in engineering, 22(4), 168-175.

Bibliography 219

Salvatierra-Garrido, J., & Pasquire, C. (2011). Value theory in lean construction. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 16(1), 8-18.

Samson, D., & Ford, S. (2000). Manufacturing practices and performance: Comparisons between Australia and New Zealand. International Journal of Production Economics, 65(3), 243-255.

Sandbhor, S., & Botre, R. (2014). Applying total interpretive structural modeling to study factors affecting construction labour productivity. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, The, 14(1), 20.

Sarhan, J. (2013). Implementation of Lean Construction Management Practices in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry. (Master thesis submitted to Queensland University of Technology, Unpublished), QUT, Brisbane, Australia.

Sarhan, J., Hu, X., & Xia, B. (2016). An Overview of the Application of Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) in Construction Management Research. Paper presented at the International sustainable built environment conference SBE16, Seoul, South Korea.

Sarhan, J., Olanipekun, A. O., & Xia, B. (2016). Critical Success Factors for the Implementation of Lean Construction in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry. Paper presented at the International sustainable built environment conference SBE16, Seoul, South Korea.

Sarhan, J., Xia, B., Fawzia, F., Karim, A., & Olanipekun, A. (2018). Barriers to implementing lean construction practices in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) construction industry. Construction Innovation, 18(2), 246-272.

Sarhan, J., Xia, B., Fawzia, S., & Karim, A. (2017). Lean construction implementation in the Saudi Arabian construction industry. Construction Economics and Building, 17(1), 46-69.

Sarhan, S., & Fox, A. (2012). Trends and challenges to the development of a lean culture among UK construction organisations. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the IGLC.

Sarhan, S., & Fox, A. (2013). Barriers to implementing lean construction in the UK construction industry. The Built & Human Environment Review, 6(1), 1-17.

Sarhan, S., Pasquire, C. L., & King, A. (2014). Institutional Waste within the Construction Industry: An Outline. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.

Sarkar, D., & Panchal, S. (2015). Integrated Interpretive Structural Modeling And Fuzzy Approach For Project Risk Management Of Ports. International Journal of Construction Project Management, 7(1), 17.

Saudi Arabia Economy. (2009). available at www.looklex.com. Accessed 28-09-2009.

220 Bibliography

Saunders, D. M. (1995). Four Days with Dr. Deming, New York: Addison-Wesley.

Saurin, T. A., Formoso, C. T., & Guimarães, L. B. (2004). Safety and production: an integrated planning and control model. Construction Management and Economics, 22(2), 159-169.

Schwaber, K. (1995). Scrum development process workshop on security for objectoriented systems, 117-134. New York: Springer.

Segerstedt, A., & Olofsson, T. (2010). Supply chains in the construction industry. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15(5), 347-353.

Sev, A. (2009). How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A conceptual framework. Sustainable Development, 17(3), 161-173.

Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2007). Defining and developing measures of lean production. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), 785-805. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.019

Shang, G., & Pheng, L. S. (2014). Barriers to lean implementation in the construction industry in China. Journal of technology management in China, 9(2), 155-173. doi:10.1108/JTMC-12-2013-0043

Shankar, R. (2009). Process Improvement Using Six Sigma: A DMAIC Guide. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press.

Sharma, H. D., Gupta, A. D., & Sushil. (1995). The objectives of waste management in India: a future inquiry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 48(3), 285-309.

Sheela, M. (2017). Saudi Arabia Construction Industry 2017, Growth, Trends And Forecast. Available from https://pitchengine.com/pitches/7696e5ac-b9d5-47ed-8562-1b35902990e7.

Shen, Q., & Chung, J. K. (2002). A group decision support system for value management studies in the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 247-252.

Shen, Q., & Liu, G. (2003). Critical success factors for value management studies in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(5), 485-491.

Shingo, S. (1986). Zero Quality Control: source inspection and the poka-yoke system, Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press, 57-69.

Shook, J. Y. (1997). Bringing the Toyota production system to the United States: a personal perspective. In Becoming Lean: Inside Stories of US Manufacturers, Liker, J. K. (ed), Productivity Press, Portland.

Bibliography 221

Sim, K. L., & Rogers, J. W. (2009). Implementing lean production systems: barriers to change. Management Research News, 32(1), 37-49.

Simonsen, R., & Koch, C. (2004). Shaping Lean Construction in Project Based Organisations. Paper presented at the Proceedings 12th International Conference, IGLC, Helsingør.

Singh, M., & Kant, R. (2008). Knowledge management barriers: An interpretive structural modeling approach. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 3(2), 141-150.

Singh, M. D., Shankar, R., Narain, R., & Agarwal, A. (2003). An interpretive structural modelling of knowledge management in engineering industries. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 1(1), 28-40.

Small, E., Al Hamouri, K., & Al Hamouri, H. (2017). Examination of Opportunities for Integration of Lean Principles in Construction in Dubai. Paper presented at the Creative Construction Conference 2017, CCC 2017, 19-22 June 2017, Primosten, Croatia.

Smith, S. (2016). Saudi Arabia Infrastructure Report Q1 2017. CISION PR Newswire. Retrieved from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saudi-arabia-infrastructure-report-q1-2017-300380631.html

Sniegowski, R. J. (2013). The Lean Construction Revolution: Eliminating Waste, Improving Value. CFMA Building Profits.

Somani, A., & Minde, P. (2017). LEAN WASTE ASSESSMENT AND BLUE PRINT FOR ELIMINATION OF WASTE THROUGH LEAN DIGITAL METHOD. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 4(7), 116-120.

Song, L. G., & Liang, D. A. (2011). Lean construction implementation and its implication on sustainability: a contractors’ case study. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 38(1), 1-10.

Succar, B. (2009). Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction, 18(3), 357-375.

Suermann, P. C., & Issa, R. R. (2009). Evaluating industry perceptions of building information modelling (BIM) impact on construction. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 14(37), 574-594.

Sugimori, Y., Kusunoki, K., Cho, F., & Uchikawa, S. (1977). Toyota Production System and Kanban system materialization of Just-in-time and respect-for-human system. International Journal of Production Research, 15(6), 553-564.

Swefie, M. (2013). Improving Project Performance Using Lean Construction in Egypt: A Proposed Framework. (Master of Science in Construction Engineering Master ), The American University, Cairo.

222 Bibliography

Taffe, J. R., Tonge, B. J., Gray, K. M., & Einfeld, S. L. (2008). Extracting more information from behaviour checklists by using components of mean based scores. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 17(4), 232-240.

Tam, V. W., Tam, C. M., Zeng, S., & Ng, W. C. (2007). Towards adoption of prefabrication in construction. Building and environment, 42(10), 3642-3654.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making Sense Of Cronbach's Alpha. International Journal Of Medical Education, 2, 53.

Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.

Tezel, A., & Nielsen, Y. (2013). Lean Construction Conformance among Construction Contractors in Turkey. Journal of management in engineering, 2013(29), 236-250.

Tezel, B. A. (2007). A Statistical Approach to Lean Construction Implementations of Construction Companies in Turkey. (Master's thesis), Middle East Technical University, Turkey.

Thakkar, J., Kanda, A., & Deshmukh, S. (2008). Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) of IT-enablers for Indian manufacturing SMEs. Information Management & Computer Security, 16(2), 113-136.

The Productivity Press Development Team. (2002). Kanban for the Shopfloor. Productivity Press, Portland, OR, 102 pp.

Tommelein, I. D., & YiLi, A. E. (1999). Just-In-Time Concrete Delivery: Mapping Alternatives for Vertical Supply Chain Integration. Paper presented at the the7th annual conference of the international Group for lean construction, Berkeley, USA.

Toussaint, J., & Berry, L. (2013). The promise of lean in health care. Mayo Clinic proceedings, 88(1), 74-82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.07.025

Trigunarsyah, B., & Parami Dewi, A. A. D. (2015). Using a design–build system: an interpretive structural model. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Municipal Engineer.

Turner Construction Company. (2012). Benefits of lean construction. Available at: http://www.turnerconstruction.com/experience/lean/lean-read-more. [Accessed 27 December, 2012].

Umstot, D. (2013). Introduction to lean Construction: What is lean Construction and How Can it Benefit You? In W. L. A. Webinar (Ed.). [Webinar] London: ABC Webinar.

Valente, C. P., Mourão, C., & Neto, J. (2013). Lean and green: how both philosophies can interact on strategic, tactical and operational levels of a company. Paper presented

Bibliography 223

at the Proceedings of the 21th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.

Valipour, A., Yahaya, N., Md Noor, N., Kildienė, S., Sarvari, H., & Mardani, A. (2015). A fuzzy analytic network process method for risk prioritization in freeway PPP projects: an Iranian case study. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 21(7), 933-947.

Van Seaton, H. (2010). The organizational pultural perceptions of implementing Six Sigma in a Government Enterprise. The Innovation Congress, 3(2), 71-94.

Viana, D. D., Formoso, C. T., & Kalsaas, B. T. (2012). Waste in Construction: a Systematic Literature Review on Empirical Studies. In: I.D. Tommelein & C.L. Pasquire. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, San Diego, USA, 18-20 Jul.

Vieira, A., & Cachadinha, N. (2011). Lean construction and sustainability-complementary paradigms-a case study. Paper presented at the IGLC-19, Lima, Peru.

Voss, C., & Blackmon, K. (1998). Differences in manufacturing strategy decisions between Japanese and Western manufacturing plants: the role of strategic time orientation. Journal of Operations Management, 16(2), 147-158.

Vrijhoef, R., & Koskela, L. (2000). The four roles of supply chain management in construction. European journal of purchasing & supply management, 6(3), 169-178.

Wahyuni, D. (2012). The research design maze: Understanding paradigms, cases, methods and methodologies.

Warfield, J. N. (1979). History and Applications of Interpretive Structural Modeling. Retrieved from http://digilib.gmu.edu/jspui/handle/1920/3244?show=full

Warfield, J. N. (1994). A Science of Generic Design: Managing Complexity Through Systems Design, 2nd ed., Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.

Watson, M. (2003). Lean-Examples in Construction. A Report of Workshop organized by the Construction Productivity Network on the 23rd Sept 2003. Retrieved from http://www.okyanusbilgiambari.com/bilgiambari/Yalin/Yalin.Fabrika/Lean_Construcion.Examples.pdf

Watt, J. H., & Van den Berg, S. A. (1995). Research methods for communication science. Allyn & Bacon.

Wison, C. A. (2000). Policy regimes and policy change. Journal of public policy, 20(3), 247-274.

Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean Thinking. New York: Simon & Schuster.

224 Bibliography

Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (2003). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste And Create Wealth In Your Corporation. New York: Free Press.

Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. : Rawson Associates New York.

Wu, W.-S., Yang, C.-F., Chang, J.-C., Château, P.-A., & Chang, Y.-C. (2015). Risk assessment by integrating interpretive structural modeling and Bayesian network, case of offshore pipeline project. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 142, 515-524.

Xia, B. (2010). The selection of design-build operational variations in the People's Republic of China using Delphi method and fuzzy set theory. (PhD thesis), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.

Xiong, B., Lu, W., Skitmore, M., Chau, K., & Ye, M. (2016). Virtuous nexus between corporate social performance and financial performance: a study of construction enterprises in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129, 223-233.

Xue, X., Li, X., Shen, Q., & Wang, Y. (2005). An agent-based framework for supply chain coordination in construction. Automation in Construction, 14(3), 413-430.

Yahya, M. A., & Mohamad, M. I. (2011). Review On Lean Principles For Rapid Construction. Jurnal Teknologi, 54.

Yan, H., & Demian, P. (2008). Benefits and barriers of building information modelling.

Yang, Z. (2012). A framework of promoting stakeholder mutual benefits for sustainable housing implementation. (PhD Thesis), Queensland University of Technology., Brisbane.

Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 311-325.

Young, B. K., Hosseini, A., & Lædre, O. (2016). Project Alliances and Lean Construction Principles. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean ConstructionBoston.

Yu, H. T., Al-Hussein, M., Al-Jibouri, S., & Telyas, A. (2011). Lean transformation in a modular building company: a case for implementation. Journal of management in engineering(Accepted December 9, 2011), 21.

Yu, N., & Wang, Y. (2011). Risk analysis of EPC project based on ISM. Paper presented at the Emergency Management and Management Sciences (ICEMMS), 2011 2nd IEEE International Conference on.

Bibliography 225

Zainul Abidin, N. (2009). Sustainable Construction in Malaysia–Developers’ Awareness. Paper presented at the WORLD ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY.

Zhang, X., Mao, X., & AbouRizk, S. M. (2009). Developing a knowledge management system for improved value engineering practices in the construction industry. Automation in Construction, 18(6), 777-789.

Appendices 227

Appendices

APPENDIX 1: STAGE ONE SURVEY QUESTION PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FORM

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

-Survey-

Development of a Lean Construction Framework for Saudi Arabian Construction Industry

QUT Ethics Approval Number 1400001019

RESEARCH TEAM

Principal Researcher: Jamil G. Sarhan PhD student

Associate

Researchers:

Dr Bo (Paul) Xia Associate Professor and Principal Supervisor

Dr Sabrina Fawzia Senior Lecturer and Associate Supervisor

Dr Azharul Karim Senior Lecturer and Associate Supervisor

Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

DESCRIPTION

This project is being undertaken as part of PhD study for Jamil Sarhan.

The purpose of this project is to evaluate effects and challenges associated with implementation

of Lean construction in Saudi Arabian construction markets and the extent to which lean

construction concepts and techniques have been penetrated the industry in Saudi Arabia.

You are invited to participate in this project because you are a major stakeholder in the

construction industry in Saudi Arabia.

PARTICIPATION

228 Appendices

Participation will involve completing a 5 item survey with Likert scale answers (strongly agree

– strongly disagree) that will take approximately ten to fifteen minutes of your time. Questions

will include:

1- What are the major types of waste in the construction industry?

2- What is the level of use of lean tools and techniques in the KSA construction

industry?

3- In which stages is lean construction implemented the KSA construction industry?

4- What are the benefits of implementing lean construction in the KSA construction

industry?

5- What are the current barriers and challenges associated with the implementation of

lean construction practices in the Saudi Arabian construction industry?

6- What do you think are the critical success factors (CSFs) that will improve the

implementation of lean construction in the Saudi Arabian construction industry?

Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you agree to participate you do not

have to complete any question(s) you are uncomfortable answering. Your decision to participate

or not participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT. If

you do agree to participate you can withdraw from the project without comment or penalty.

Any identifiable information already obtained from you will be destroyed. Once the survey has

been submitted it will not be possible to withdraw.

EXPECTED BENEFITS

It is expected that this project will not directly benefit you, however, upon request, a copy of

results will be sent to you. The study's findings may also benefit the Saudi Arabian construction

industry to successfully implement lean construction practices.

RISKS

There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this

project.

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

All comments and responses will be treated confidentially unless required by law.

Any data collected as part of this project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of

research data policy.

Appendices 229

Please note that non-identifiable data collected in this project may be used as comparative data

in future projects or stored on an open access database for secondary analysis. Moreover, the

non-identifiable data will be down-loaded from Survey Monkey and then uploaded into files

that will be stored securely on QUT systems as QUTs Management of research data policy.

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

The completed survey is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate in this project.

QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT

If have any questions or require further information please contact one of the research team

members below.

Jamil G. Sarhan Dr Bo (Paul) Xia

+61 451 789 727 +61 7 3138 4373

[email protected] [email protected]

CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT

QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However,

if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may

contact the QUT Research Ethics Unit on +61 7 3138 5123 or email [email protected].

The QUT Research Ethics Unit is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a

resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your

information.

230 Appendices

Advertisement

Dear members

Mr Jamil Sarhan is currently studying his PhD at Queensland University of Technology

(QUT) undertaking a thesis entitled “Development of a Lean Construction Framework for

Saudi Arabian Construction Industry“ . A part of his methodology is an online survey

questionnaire, which will be undertaken for data collection purposes.

This survey has been approved by QUT Ethics Committee (Approval Number 1400001019).

You are invited to assist Mr Sarhan by completing his survey and sharing your experience and

knowledge. This study will help the Saudi Arabian construction industry successfully

implement lean construction practices.

To appreciate your contribution to the survey, you will receive the results of this survey. Please

to contact me by emailing me (details below).

Thank you for supporting this research.

Jamil Sarhan

PhD Student

+61 451 789 727 +966 555 500 772

[email protected]

Dr. Bo (Paul) Xia

Associate Professor and Supervisor

+61 7 3138 4373

[email protected]

School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment



Appendices 231

Sample approach email

Subject Title:

Participate in a research study “Development of a Lean Construction Framework for Saudi

Arabian Construction Industry”

Dear Sir

I'm Jamil Sarhan, a PhD student studying in the Faculty of Science and Engineering at

Queensland University of Technology. My research topic is the Development of an Advanced

Lean Construction Framework for Saudi Arabian Construction Industry. It will help the Saudi

Arabian construction industry to successfully implement lean construction practices.

You are invited to assist Mr Sarhan by completing his survey and sharing your experience and

knowledge. The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the effects and challenges associated with

the implementation of Lean construction in Saudi Arabian construction markets and the extent

to which lean construction concepts and techniques have been penetrated the industry in Saudi

Arabia.

This survey will only take 10-15 minutes. To appreciate your contribution to the survey, you

will receive the results of this survey. Please to contact me by emailing me (details below).

Further details on the study and how to participate can be found by clicking on the following

link:

https://www.ihbi.qut.edu.au/engage/participatei/

Should you have any questions, please contact me via email.

Please note that this study has been approved by the QUT Human Research Ethics Committee

(approval number 1400001019)

Many thanks for your consideration of this request.

232 Appendices

Jamil Sarhan

PhD Student

+61 451 789 727 +966 555 500 772

[email protected]

Dr. Bo (Paul) Xia

Associate Professor and Supervisor

+61 7 3138 4373

[email protected]




Appendices 233

APPENDIX 2: STAGE ONE SURVEY QUESTIONS

Part 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Company name

Person who answered this form (optional)

Position in the company

Contact details, including email (optional)

Working experience in construction industry ( Years)

Educational background �Doctor Degrees� Master Degree

� Bachelor � Diploma

� Other (Please specify)

1. Number of employees

Small (1–200) 1

4. Which of the following best defines the nature of your business?

q Architect

q Client

q General contractor

q Subcontractor

q Specialty contractor

Medium (201–1,000) 1

Large (more than 1,000) 1

Don’t know 1

2. Approximate annual revenue for the last financial year

Less than 15M SAR 1

15M–75M SAR 1

Lean construction is an approach that tries to manage and improve construction processes with minimum cost and maximum value by reducing waste of materials, time and effort.

234 Appendices

More than 75M SAR 1 q Supplier

q Project management

q Academia

q Government

q Other (Please specify)

5. Number of years since business was established

q Don’t know

Don’t know 1

3. Is your company ISO certified? � Yes � No � Don’t know

If yes, please specify the type of certificate:

Appendices 235

Part 2: CONSTRUCTION WASTE

What are the major types of waste in the construction industry?

Please choose the range (1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree)

Types of Waste 1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree

Over-production – Producing over the customer requirement and/or unnecessary materials/products

1 2 3 4 5

Inventory – Holding or purchasing unnecessary raw supplies, work-in-process inventory and/or finishing goods

1 2 3 4 5

Transportation – Having multiple handlers, unnecessary delays in material handling

1 2 3 4 5

Waiting – Time delays and/or idle time (non-value-added time)

1 2 3 4 5

Motion – Actions of people or equipment that do not add value to the work

1 2 3 4 5

Over-processing – Unnecessary processing steps or work elements/procedures

1 2 3 4 5

Corrections – Producing a part that is scrapped or requires rework

1 2 3 4 5

Making do – Starting or continued execution of a task when all or at least one standard input is not available

1 2 3 4

5

Others (please write)…………………..

236 Appendices

Part 3: LEAN TOOLS/ TECHNIQUES

1. What is the level of implementation of the following techniques in your organisation? Please choose the range (1= Never to 5= Always)

Computerised planning system or ERP

(ERP is enterprise resource planning software, which is used by companies to collect and store data from different environments such as product planning, manufacturing, inventory and shipping.)

1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know

Information management system (IMS)

(IMS is used to create an inventory of the very large bill of materials. It provides information required by organisations to manage themselves efficiently and effectively.)


Just-in-time (JIT) techniques

(JIT refers to just-in-time ordering of resources or materials when there is a need. This improves the efficiency and timely execution of projects.)


Total quality management (TQM)

(TQM refers to the organisational efforts to develop a permanent climate in which an organisation continuously improves its ability to deliver high-quality products and services to customers.)


Continuous improvement programs

(incremental improvement of processes over time)


Appendices 237

Use of prefabricated materials

(such as precast concrete)


Kanban

(Kanban is a manufacturing-based system where supplies of key project components are regulated using cards that display sequences of instructions and specifications associated with the production line.)


Computer-aided design (CAD)

(Use of Computer Systems in the Design Process)


Preventive maintenance

(involves tests, measurements, adjustments and parts replacement, performed specifically to prevent faults from occurring)


5S

(includes looking at the basics of a project, fundamental project steps, systematic approach in projects, quality determination and project safety improvements and adjustments)

1 2 3 4 5

Don’t know

Safety improvement program

(reducing fatalities and serious injuries on a construction site)


Concurrent engineering

(parallel execution of development tasks by multi-disciplinary teams to obtain an optimal product in terms of functionality, quality and productivity)


Last planner system

(production planning system designed to produce predictable work flow)


238 Appendices

Daily huddle meetings

(a way to follow up the highly variable events that affect assignments)


Plan of Conditions and Work Environment in the Construction Industry (PCMAT)

(way of introducing health and safety into the project execution)


Visual inspection

(increases speed of operation and reduces the risk of choosing the wrong material through easy material identification)


Target value design

(the final project cost is considered a design parameter and design is made according to the target cost)


Six Sigma

(creating value for customers by reducing variability in the products and services through the use of statistical tools based on a sound cultural shift)


Others (please write)…………………..

2. In which stages are the aforementioned lean construction implemented in the construction industry? Please choose the range (1= No implementation to 5= Complete implementation)

Planning stage 1 2 3 4 5

Design stage 1 2 3 4 5

Construction stage 1 2 3 4 5

Commissioning & handover

1 2 3 4 5

Operation & maintenance 1 2 3 4 5

Appendices 239

Others (please write)…………

Part 4: What are the benefits of implementing lean construction in your organisation? Please choose the range (1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree)

Better inventory control/reduced inventory


Quality improvement 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know

Customer satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know

Process improvement 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know

Employee satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know

Increased market share 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know

Increased productivity 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know

Improved supplier relationship 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know

Reduced construction time 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know

Better health and safety record 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know

Others (please write)…………

240 Appendices

Part 5: What are the current barriers and challenges associated with the implementation of lean construction practices in the Saudi Arabian construction industry?

Please choose the range (1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree)

Barriers to lean construction 1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree

Don’t know

Comments

1. Ineffective communication channels between construction teams


2. Unfavourable organisational culture


3. The influence of traditional management practices


4. Additional cost and high inflation rates


5. Lack of committed leadership of top management


6. Traditional design approach


7. Lack of knowledge of the lean construction approaches


8. Lack of technical skills, training and understanding of lean techniques


Appendices 241

9. Lack of a robust performance measurement system


10. Difficulties in understanding the concepts of lean construction


11. Long implementation period of lean concept in construction processes


12. Improper resource management


13. Lack of support from government for technological advancements


14. Lack of technological adaptations


15. End user preference 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know

16. Lack of client and supplier involvement


17. Lack of provision of benchmark performance


18. Lack of clear job specification from the client


19. Uncertainty in the production process


20. Slow decision making processes due to a complex organisational hierarchy


21. Use of non-standard components


22. Uncertainty in the supply chain


23. Others (please write)…………

242 Appendices

Part 6: According to your experience, what do you think are the critical success factors (CSFs) that will improve the implementation of lean construction in the Saudi Arabian construction industry?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Thank you for your kind participation.

Do you have any particular question that you would like answered?

And are there any important issues not covered in this survey that you would like me to know about?

If so, please let me know in the space provided below.

And if you like copy of final result, please to contact me by emailing me.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Appendices 243

APPENDIX 3: STAGE ONE SURVEY QUESTION PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FORM (INTERVIEW)

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

– Interview –



RESEARCH TEAM

Principal

Researcher:

Jamil G. Sarhan PhD student

Associate

Researchers:

Dr Bo (Paul) Xia Associate Professor and Principal Supervisor

Dr Sabrina Fawzia Senior Lecturer and Associate Supervisor

Dr Azharul Karim Senior Lecturer and Associate Supervisor

Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

DESCRIPTION

This project is being undertaken as part of PhD study for Jamil Sarhan.

This research project will evaluate the effects and challenges associated with the

implementation of Lean construction in Saudi Arabian construction markets and the extent to

which lean construction concepts and techniques have been penetrated the industry in Saudi

Arabia. The interviews as a data collection method have been employed with the purpose to

identify the critical success factors (CSFs) of lean construction implementation in the Saudi

construction industry by conducting face to face discussion or online by using Skype.

You are invited to participate in this project because you are a major stakeholder in the

construction industry in Saudi Arabia.

PARTICIPATION

This research project will primarily conduct survey questionnaire and the participants for this

interview will be selected according to their responses on the survey. Therefore the

participants for this interview will be recruited from the survey.

244 Appendices

Participation will involve answering two questions that will take approximately ten to fifteen

minutes of the participants’ time. The questions will include the following:

1. Background information (Company name and Position, Working experience in

construction industry, Educational background and nature of your business

2. The main question (According to your experience, what do you think are Critical

Success Factors (CSFs) that will improve and implement Lean Construction (Polat,

Damci, & Tatar) in the Saudi Arabian construction industry?

Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you agree to participate you do not

have to complete any question(s) you are uncomfortable answering. Your decision to participate

or not participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT. If

you do agree to participate you can withdraw from the project without comment or penalty.

Any identifiable information already obtained from you will be destroyed. Once the survey has

been submitted it will not be possible to withdraw.

EXPECTED BENEFITS

It is expected that this project will not directly benefit you, however, , a copy of the results will

be sent to you. The study's findings may also benefit the Saudi Arabian construction industry

to successfully implement lean construction practices.

RISKS

There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this

project.

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

All comments and responses will be treated confidentially unless required by law.

Any data collected as part of this project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of

research data policy.

Please note that non-identifiable data collected in this project may be used as comparative data

in future projects or stored on an open access database for secondary analysis.

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

We would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your agreement

to participate.

QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact one of the research team

Appendices 245

members below.


+61 451 789 727 +61 7 3138 4373


CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT

QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However,

if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may

contact the QUT Research Ethics Unit on [+61 7] 3138 5123 or email

[email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Unit is not connected with the research

project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your

information.

246 Appendices

CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

– Interview –



RESEARCH TEAM CONTACTS


+61 451 789 727 +61 7 3138 4373


STATEMENT OF CONSENT

By signing below, you are indicating that you:

• Have read and understood the information document regarding this project.

• Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction.

• Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team.

• Understand that you are free to withdraw at any time without comment or penalty.

• Understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Advisory Team on +61 7 3138

5123 or email [email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct

of the project.

• Agree to participate in the project.

Name

Signature

Date

Appendices 247

Please return this sheet to the investigator.


Subject Title:



Dear Sir


Queensland University of Technology (QUT). The project aim is to understand what are the

critical success factors (CSFs) of lean construction implementation in Saudi construction

industry. It will help the Saudi Arabian construction industry to successfully implement lean

construction practices.

You are invited to assist my research by completing this interview and sharing your

experience and knowledge. The purpose of this interview is to identify the critical success

factors (CSFs) of lean construction to develop a lean construction implementation framework.

This interview will only take 15-20 minutes. Your transcripts or the notes taken during the

interview will be sent to you for justification prior to reporting.In appreciation of your

contribution, you will receive the results of the interviews. Please to contact me by emailing me

(details below).


link:




(approval number 1500000717).


248 Appendices

Jamil Sarhan

PhD Student

+61 451 789 727

+966 555 500 772

[email protected]

Dr Bo (Paul) Xia

Associate Professor and Principal Supervisor

+61 7 3138 4373

[email protected]




Appendices 249

APPENDIX 4: STAGE ONE SURVEY QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEW (CSFs)

Part 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Company name Person who answered this form (optional) Position in the company Contact details, including email (optional) Working experience in construction industry ( Years)

Educational background � Doctor Degrees � Master Degree � Bachelor � Diploma � Other (Please specify)

Which of the following best defines the nature of your business? q Architect

q Client


q Subcontractor


q Supplier




250 Appendices

Part 2: According to your experience, what do you think are Critical Success

Factors (CSFs) that will improve and implement Lean Construction (Polat et al.)

in the Saudi Arabian construction industry? Why?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

No. Critical success factors Comments

1 Top management commitment and leadership for lean

construction

2 Providing education and training for lean construction in the

construction industry (e.g. Staff, contractors, designers, etc.)

3 Adopting alternative procurement methods in project delivery

(e.g. Design-Build, early contractor involvement, etc.)


5 Applying appropriate lean construction tools / techniques (e.g.

Last Planner System, 5S, Value Stream Mapping, etc.)

6 Implementing organisational change (culture, strategy, vision and

performance evaluation system)

7 Promoting the culture of teamwork during construction projects

8 Adoption of continuous improvement

9 Clear definition of client’s requirements

10 Applying the lean methodology at an early stage of building

project delivery (e.g. Planning, design stage, etc.)

11 Coordinating and promoting efforts at national level (e.g.

Establishment of a National Lean Construction Institute)

Appendices 251


252 Appendices

APPENDIX 5: STAGE TWO PAIR-WISE COMPARISON SURVEY

Protocol for experts:

The following table (Section C) is intended to register the perception of professionals from the construction industry and academics to develop pair-wise contextual relationships between Critical Success Factors of Lean Construction in Saudi Arabia:

• If you are a professional, please provide the information in Section A and move to Section C.

• If you are an academic, please provide the information in Section B and move to Section C.

Section A-BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Company name The person who answered this form (optional)

Position in the company Contact details, including email (optional) Working experience in construction industry (Years)

Educational background � Doctor Degrees � Master Degree � Bachelor � Diploma � Other (Please specify)

Which of the following best defines the nature of your business? q Architect

q Client


q Subcontractor


q Supplier




Appendices 253

Section B-Academic Profile B-1. Name ________________________________________

B-2 College name________________________________________

B-2. Research Area ________________________________________

B-4. Year of experience in teaching ___________________________

B-2. Affiliation ____________________________________________


1 Top management commitment and leadership for lean

construction

2 Providing education and training for lean construction in the

construction industry (e.g. Staff, contractors, designers, etc.)

3 Adopting alternative procurement methods in project delivery (e.g.

Design-Build, early contractor involvement, etc.)


5 Applying appropriate lean construction tools / techniques (e.g. Last

Planner System, 5S, Value Stream Mapping, etc.)

6 Implementing organisational change (culture, strategy, vision and

performance evaluation system)

7 Promoting the culture of teamwork during construction projects

8 Adoption of continuous improvement

9 Clear definition of client’s requirements

10 Applying the lean methodology at an early stage of building project

delivery (e.g. Planning, design stage, etc.)

11 Coordinating and promoting efforts at national level (e.g.

Establishment of a National Lean Construction Institute)


254 Appendices

Section C-Critical Success Factors in Lean Construction Industry

Please fill in the white boxes of the Table using anyone of the Following Symbols:

V = CSF i will help achieve CSF j; but not in the opposite direction

A = CSF j will help to achieve CSF i; but the reverse is not possible

X = CSF i and j will facilite to achieve each other

O = CSF i and j have no relationship with each other

The value for i and j are the CSF 1,2….12

Appendices 255

256 Appendices

CSF j → CSF 12

CSF 11

CSF 10

CSF 9

CSF 8

CSF 7

CSF 6

CSF 5

CSF 4

CSF 3

CSF 2

CSF 1 CSF i ↓

CSF1 Top management commitment and leadership

for lean construction

CSF2

Providing education and training for lean

construction in the construction industry (e.g.

Staff, contractors, designers, etc.)

CSF3

Adopting alternative procurement methods in

project delivery (e.g. Design-Build, early

contractor involvement, etc.)

CSF4 Adopting new construction

technologies/methods (e.g. BIM)

CSF5

Applying appropriate lean construction tools /

techniques (e.g. Last Planner System, 5S, Value

Stream Mapping, etc.)

CSF6

Implementing organisational change (culture,

strategy, vision and performance evaluation

system)

CSF7 Promoting the culture of teamwork during

construction projects

CSF8 Adoption of continuous improvement

Appendices 257

CSF9 Clear definition of client’s requirements

CSF10

Applying the lean methodology at an early stage

of building project delivery (e.g. Planning,

design stage, etc.)

CSF11

Coordinating and promoting efforts at national

level (e.g. Establishment of a National Lean

Construction Institute)

CSF12 Establishing long-term relationships within the

supply chain

Appendices 259

APPENDIX 6: STAGE TWO INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (VALIDATION WORK)


Subject Title:



Dear Sir


Queensland University of Technology (QUT). The project aim is to understand what are the

critical success factors (CSFs) of lean construction and develop a framework of lean

construction implementation in Saudi construction industry. It will help the Saudi Arabian

construction industry to successfully implement lean construction practices.

At this stage, a framework containing the CSFs for successful implementation of lean

construction, and which additionally specified the relationship which indicates the step by step

manner in which the CSFs can be implemented has been developed. You are humbly invited

to participate in an interview to reflect on whether the framework can be applied in the KSA

construction industry, and also provide suggestions for any improvements which may help in

the implementation of the framework.

This interview will only take 15-20 minutes. Your transcripts or the notes taken during the

interview will be sent to you for justification prior to reporting. In appreciation of your

contribution, you will receive the results of the interviews. Please to contact me by emailing

me (details below).


link:



260 Appendices


(approval number 1500000717).


Jamil Sarhan PhD Student +61 451 789 727 +966 555 500 772 [email protected] Dr Bo (Paul) Xia Associate Professor and Principal Supervisor +61 7 3138 4373 [email protected] School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment Science and Engineering Faculty Queensland University of Technology

Appendices 261

Validation work

Part 1: lean construction framework

12. Establishing long-term relationships within the supply chain

4. Adopting new construction technologies/methods (e.g. BIM)

5. Applying appropriate lean construction tools / techniques (e.g. Last Planner System, 5S, Value Stream Mapping, etc.)

7. Promoting the culture of teamwork during construction projects

8. Adoption of continuous improvement

3. Adopting alternative procurement methods in project delivery (e.g. Design-Build, early contractor involvement, etc.)

9. Clear definition of client’s requirements

10. Applying the lean methodology at an early stage of building project delivery (e.g. planning, design stage, etc.)

6. Implementing organisational change (culture, strategy, vision and performance evaluation system)

2. Providing education and training for lean construction in the construction industry (e.g. Staff, contractors, designers, etc.)

11. Coordinating and promoting efforts at national level (e.g. Establishment of a National Lean Construction Institute)

1. Top management commitment and leadership for lean construction

262 Appendices

Part 2:

Q1. Lean construction is identified as a principle for enabling collaboration among project

participants, improving construction processes and the overall performance in the construction

industry. In order to implement lean construction and realise these goals in the KSA

construction industry. Do you think it is important to implement a lean construction in the

KSA construction industry?

Q2. The framework above contains the critical success factors (CSFs) which are required for

successful implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. Do you

think the CSFs are comprehensive? Are they appropriate? Do you think more factors

need to be added?

Q3. Furthermore, the framework above specifies the relationship among the CSFs, which

indicate the step by step manner in which they should be implemented by operators in the KSA

construction industry. For instance, the topmost factor is “management’s commitment and

leadership for lean construction”. As specified on the framework, it should be the first factor

to be considered in the implementation of lean construction. The arrow direction indicates

which factor should follow next. In addition, some factors are in parallel, meaning that they

can be considered simultaneously. Do you think the order is logical? If you think the order

needs modification, what are your suggestions?

Q4. As the framework above has identified the CSFs for successful implementation of lean

construction, and additionally specified the relationship which indicate the step by step manner

in which they can be implemented. Do you think it is implementable for operators such as

construction companies in the KSA construction industry? In addition, do you think the

framework can contribute to improving the performance of projects and organisations

in the KSA construction industry?

Appendices 263

Q5. The development of this framework followed the survey of the perception of 282

construction professionals to identify the 18 CSFs which are required for successful

implementation of lean construction in the KSA construction industry. Afterwards, 16 experts,

9 from the construction practice, and 7 from the academia, including PhD holders were

selected who iteratively reviewed the 18 factors. At the end, 6 factors which had similar

descriptions and meanings were removed, leaving 12 CSFs. Furthermore, to specify the

relationship among the factors, these experts were asked to comparatively rank them in the

order in which they should follow for implementation, and the data obtained was analysed

using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM). Do you the above research process employed

to develop the framework above is adequate? Do you have suggestions for improving my

research process?

264 Appendices

APPENDIX 7: CONFERENCE PAPER 2

Sarhan, Jamil, Hu, X., & Xia, B. (2016). An Overview of the Application of Interpretive

Structural Modelling (ISM) in Construction Management Research. Paper presented at the

International sustainable built environment conference SBE16, Seoul, South Korea.

An Overview of the Application of Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) in Construction Management Research

Jamil Sarhan 1, a, Xin Hu1, b, Bo Xia2, c 1 PhD Candidate, School of Civil Engineering, Queensland University of Technology,

Garden Point Campus, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia 2 Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Queensland University of Technology,

Garden Point Campus, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia a [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT

Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) has been adopted to address construction management

issues. ISM is used to identify relationships among specific items which define problems.

Despite extensive applications in various fields, it has not gained popularity in construction

management research. Thus, this paper presents a comprehensive overview of CM-ISM

applications. The research findings indicate that construction management -ISM applications

have gained popularity since 2011. In addition, seven construction management -IMS

application areas were identified, with Risk Management, Construction Management, and

Supply Chain Management being the most popular. This research helps to assemble the

knowledge of ISM application in the construction field. Moreover, it provides construction

management stakeholders with valuable information on the ISM approach and its applications

in construction management.

KEY WORDS: Construction Management, Interpretive structural modelling, Overview

Appendices 265

1. INTRODUCTION

Soft computing techniques have been adopted to address construction management issues

through mimicking the human mind (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, & Chen, 2016). CM involves various

inter-linked enablers and risk factors, and it is crucial to understand their relationships.

Common methodologies (e.g. genetic algorithm) cannot indicate the relationships among

interactive risks and may lead to distorted findings (Yu & Wang, 2011). ISM is used to

recognize relationships among distinct items which define a problem or an issue. An ISM

process transforms unclear and poorly articulated mental models of systems into visible and

well-defined models and is thus ideal for both individual and group learning processes (Attri

et al., 2013). The key steps involved in an ISM process include the development of the

structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) and the reachability matrix, partitioning of the

reachability matrix, and its conversion to a conical matrix. The conical matrix is subsequently

converted into a digraph and the review model is checked for conceptual inconsistencies and

the necessary modifications are made. In spite of the popularity of CM-ISM applications, no

article has summarized these applications. Thus, this paper aims to provide the results of a

review of construction management -ISM applications by conducting a content analysis of

published articles. The study provides CM stakeholders with valuable information about the

ISM approach and its applications in construction management.

2. RESEARCH METHOD

Content analysis was used in this study. It makes valid inferences from collected data (e.g.

documents) to describe and quantify specific phenomena. A comprehensive search was

conducted to gather published papers about ISM via mainstream databases (ASCE Library,

Emerald, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Scopus, Science Direct, and Taylor &Francis

Online) by using the two phrase words ‘ISM’ and ‘ISM application in Construction

Management/Industry’. Overall, 60 papers were reviewed, and 15 articles were used in this

study. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis were used. The quantitative analysis was

mainly adopted to identify construction management application areas, and the qualitative

analysis was used to investigate the number of publications in different years and geographical

areas.

3. CM-ISM APPLICATION TRENDS

266 Appendices

There has been a gradual growth in the number of construction management-ISM applications

since 2011, reaching six applications in 2015. In addition, 27% of the identified articles were

conducted in the Indian context. This is followed by Australia (20%) and the United Arab

Emirates (20%), and China (13%). Fewer than 10% of the articles were published in Indonesia,

Singapore and the USA, respectively.

4. CM-ISM APPLICATION AREAS

Seven specific construction management-ISM fields were identified: Construction Cost

Estimation, Construction Contract Management, Risk Management, Construction

Management, Construction Planning and Scheduling Management, Supply Chain

Management, and Health and Safety at Work (Table 1).

Table 1 CM-ISM Applications Areas

i. Application area ii. Problems addressed iii. References

Construction Cost Estimation Project cost overrun (Alzebdeh, Bashirb, & Siyabic, 2015) Construction Contract Management

Poor design-build delivery system (Trigunarsyah & Parami Dewi, 2015)

Risk Management Lack of systematic risk analysis (Parihar & Bhar, 2015; Sarkar & Panchal, 2015; Wu, Yang, Chang, Château, & Chang, 2015; Yu & Wang, 2011)

Construction Management Poor communication on projects; lack of leadership and human management skills

(Ahuja, Yang, & Shankar, 2009; Bhattacharya & Momaya, 2009; Iyer & Sagheer, 2009; Prasanna & Ramanna, 2014)

Construction Planning and Scheduling Management

Poor labor productivity (Sandbhor & Botre, 2014)

Supply Chain Management Lack of consideration of environmental issues

(Balasubramanian, 2012; Grzybowska, 2012)

Health and Safety at Work Health issues due to construction waste and managerial problems for safety implementation.

(Li & Yang, 2014; Liao & Chiu, 2011; Rajaprasad & Chalapathi, 2015)

Alzebdeh et al. (2015) identified the factors that resulted in cost overrun in construction

projects and investigated the complex interactions among these factors by using ISM. Four

interrelated determinants (the instability of US dollar, changes in governmental regulations,

faulty cost estimation, and poor coordination among project parties) were identified by Azhar,

Farooqui, and Ahmed (2008) as causes of cost overruns. However, the studies analyzed in the

current study provide essential applications of ISM that can be used to minimize the influence

of cost overrun factors. The first application involves construction contract management, as

Appendices 267

proposed by Trigunarsyah and Parami Dewi (2015). Risk management and construction

management were also found to be effective (Bhattacharya & Momaya, 2009; Rajaprasad &

Chalapathi, 2015; Sarkar & Panchal, 2015; Wu et al., 2015; Yu & Wang, 2011). Other essential

applications for ISM involve construction planning and scheduling management, supply chain

management, and health and safety at work (Balasubramanian, 2012; Li & Yang, 2014;

Rajaprasad & Chalapathi, 2015; Sandbhor & Botre, 2014). Notably, risk factors that disrupt

offshore projects have been identified by Wu et al. (2015), and they are primarily based on

human error. The risk factors include inspection, materials, joinery, backfilling, handling, and

coating, and can lead to pipeline project failure (Muhlbauer, 2004).

5. ENHANCING THE USABILITY OF CM-ISM APPLICATIONS WITH

STATISTICAL APPROACHES

It is advisable to limit the number of variables when using ISM as an increasing number of

variables creates complexity (Attri et al., 2013). Furthermore, ISM helps to develop hierarchy

and relationships among the variables based on expert opinions that are mainly subjectively

attained (Alzebdeh et al., 2015). However, the approach does not provide the strength of the

variables (Balasubramanian, 2012) for which there is a need to apply statistics such as

structural equation modelling (Bhattacharya & Momaya, 2009). Other areas are driving and

dependence power analysis (Ahuja et al., 2009; Bhattacharya & Momaya, 2009; Sandbhor &

Botre, 2014), and matrice d’impacts croises-multiplication applique a un classement

(MICMAC) analysis (Iyer & Sagheer, 2009; Prasanna & Ramanna, 2014; Rajaprasad &

Chalapathi, 2015). Moreover, fuzzy analysis (Sarkar & Panchal, 2015), the analytical

hierarchy process (Parihar & Bhar, 2015; Yu & Wang, 2011), the Delphi technique

(Trigunarsyah & Parami Dewi, 2015), and Bayesian networks (Wu et al., 2015) are important

for the validation of both variable relationships and strength. It is important to choose the right

statistical technique, with the aim to not only validate but also evaluate the derived

relationships in ISM applications.

6. CONCLUSION

This paper provides an overview of ISM applications in the CM domain, and its findings

indicate that the popularity of CM-ISM applications is increasing, with the highest number of

articles published in 2015. Seven specific CM-IMS application areas were identified, with Risk

Management, Construction Management, and Supply Chain Management being the most

268 Appendices

popular. The research findings will help CM stakeholders to better understand CM-ISM

applications and will assist in future studies.

REFERENCES

Ahuja, V., Yang, J., and Shankar, R. 2009. “Benefits of Collaborative ICT Adoption for

Building Project Management.” Construction Innovation, 9(3), pp. 323–340.

Alzebdeh, K., Bashirb, H. A., and Siyabic, A. 2015. “Applying Interpretive Structural

Modeling to Cost Overruns in Construction Projects in the Sultanate of Oman.” The

Journal of Engineering Research, 12(1), pp. 53–68.

Attri, R., Dev, N., and Sharma, V. 2013. “Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) approach:

An Overview.” Research Journal of Management Sciences, 2(2), pp. 3–8.

Azhar, N., Farooqui, R. U., and Ahmed, S. M. 2008. “Cost overrun factors in construction

industry of Pakistan.” Proceedings of the First International Conference on

Construction in Developing Countries, Karachi, Pakistan, 2008.

Balasubramanian, S. 2012. “A Hierarchical Framework of Barriers to Green Supply Chain

Management in the Construction Sector.” Journal of Sustainable Development,

5(10).

Balasubramanian, S. 2014. “A structural analysis of green supply chain management

enablers in the UAE construction sector.” International Journal of Logistics Systems

and Management, 19(2), pp. 131–150.

Bhattachary, S., and Momaya, K. 2009. “Interpretive Structural Modeling of Growth

Enablers in Construction Companies.” Technical Report in Singapore Management

Review.

Grzybowska, K. 2012. “Sustainability in the Supply Chain: Analyzing the Enablers.

Environmental Issues in Supply Chain Management,” EcoProduction, Springer-

Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Iyer, K. C., and Sagheer, M. 2010. “Hierarchical Structuring of PPP Risks Using

Interpretative Structural Modeling.” Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 136(2).

Jadhav, J. R., Mantha, S. S., and Rane, S. B. 2013. “Interpretive Structural Modeling for

Implementation of Integrated Green-Lean System.” International Journal of

Computer Applications.

Janes, F. R. 1988. “Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM): a methodology for structuring

complex issues.” Trans Inst MC, 10(3).

Appendices 269

Jitesh, T., Arun, K., and Deshmukh, S. G. 2008. “Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) of

IT enablers for Indian Manufacturing SMEs.” Information Management and

Computer Security, 16(2), pp. 113–136.

Li, M., and Yang, J. 2014. “Analysis of Interrelationships between Critical Waste Factors in

Office Building Retrofit Projects using Interpretive Structural Modeling.”

International Journal of Construction Management, 14(1), pp. 15–27.

Liao, C. H., and Chiu, A. S. 2011. “Evaluate municipal solid waste management problems

using hierarchical framework.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 25, pp.

353–362.

Mahajan, V. B., Jadhav, J. R., Kalamkar, V. R., and Narkhede, B. E. 2013. “Interpretive

Structural Modelling for Challenging Issues in JIT Supply Chain: Product Variety

Perspective.” International Journal of Supply Chain Management (IJSCM), 2(4).

Muhlbauer, W. K. 2004. Pipeline risk management manual. Ideas, Techniques, and

Resources (3rd ed.). Houston, TX, USA: Gulf Professional Publishing.

Parihar, S., and Bhar, C. 2015. “A study on risk factors involved in electrical transmission

line projects: A comparative study of ISM (Interpretative Structural Modelling) and

AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) method.” NMIMS Management Review,

XXVI(January–February).

Prasanna, S. V. S. N. D. L., and Ramanna, T. R. 2014. “Application of ICT Benefits for

Building Project Management using ISM Model.” International Journal of Research

in Engineering and Technology, 3, Special Issue 6.

Raj, T., and Attri, R. 2011. “Identification and modelling of barriers in the implementation of

TQM.” International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 28(2), pp.

153–179.

Rajaprasad, S. V. S., and Chalapathi, P. V. 2015. “Factors Influencing Implementation of

OHSAS 18001 in Indian Construction Organizations: Interpretive Structural

Modeling Approach.” Safety and Health at Work, 6(3).

Sandbhor, S., and Botre, R. 2014. “Applying Total Interpretive Structural Modeling to Study

Factors Affecting Construction Labour Productivity.” Australasian Journal of

Construction Economics and Building, 14(1).

Sarkar, D., and Panchal. 2015. “Integrated Interpretive Structural Modeling and Fuzzy

Approach for Project Risk Management of Ports.” International Journal of

Construction Project Management, 7.

Trigunarsyah, B., and Parami Dewi, A. A. D. 2016. “Using a design–build system: an

interpretive structural model.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,

Municipal Engineer, 169(1), pp. 3–12.

270 Appendices

Wu, W-S., Yang, C-F., Chang, J-C., Chateau, P-A., and Chang, Y-C. 2015. “Risk

assessment by integrating interpretive structural modeling and Bayesian network,

case of offshore pipeline project.” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 142,

pp. 515–524.

Xin, H., Xia, B., Skitmore, M. 2016. “The application of case-based reasoning in

construction management research: An overview,” Automation in Construction.

Available online 26 August 2016.

Yu, N., Wang, Y. 2011. “Risk Analysis of EPC Project Based on ISM.” Emergency

Management and Management Sciences (ICEMMS), 2011 2nd IEEE International

Conference on, Beijing, pp. 151–154.

Documents

D LEAN CONSTRUCTION FRAMEWORK FOR THE SAUDI ARABIAN ... Ghazi I_Sarhan_Thesis.pdf · lean construction such as the barriers and critical success factors (CSFs) for implementing lean