Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Organization, Technology and Management in Construction: an International Journal

Co-published with University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering

1 Issue per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1847-6228
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Comparing three scheduling methods using BIM models in the Last Planner System

Xavier Brioso
  • Corresponding author
  • Construction Management & Technology Reserarch Group (GETEC), Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, Av. Universitaria 1801, Lima 32, Peru
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Danny Murguia / Alonso Urbina
Published Online: 2017-12-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/otmcj-2016-0024

Abstract

This article presents strategies for teaching scheduling methods such as takt-time, flowlines, and point-to-point precedence relations (PTPPRs) using build­ing information modeling (BIM) models in the Last Planner System. This article is the extended version of the article entitled “Teaching Takt-Time, Flowline and Point-to-point Precedence Relations: A Peruvian Case Study,” which has been published in Procedia Engineering (Vol. 196, 2017, pages 666-673). A case study is conducted in final year students of civil engineering at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru. The mock-up project is an educational building that has high repetitive processes in the struc­tural works phase. First, traditional tools such as Excel spreadsheets and 2D drawings were used to teach produc­tion system design with takt-time, flowlines, and PTPPR. Second, 3D and 4D models with Revit 2016 and Navis­works 2016 were used to integrate the previous schedules with a BIM model and to identify its strengths and weak­nesses. Finally, Vico Office was used for the automation of schedules and comparison of the methods in 4D and 5D. This article describes the lectures, workshops, and simu­lations employed, as well as the feedback from students and researchers. The success of the teaching strategy is reflected in the survey responses from students and the final perceptions of the construction management tools presented.

Keywords: Last Planner System; BIM; flowline; point-to-point precedence relations; takt-time; teaching

References

  • Agrama, F. A. E. M. (2011). Linear projects scheduling using spreadsheets features. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 50(2), pp. 179-185. Google Scholar

  • Ballard, G. (2000). The last planner system of production control, Thesis. The University of Birmingham. Google Scholar

  • Ballard, G., & Tommelein, I. (2016). Current process benchmark for the last planner system. Lean Construction Journal, 2016 Issue, pp. 57-89. Google Scholar

  • Bokor, O., & Hajdu, M. (2015). Investigation of critical activities in a network with point-to-point relations. Procedia Engineering, 123, pp. 198-207. Google Scholar

  • Brioso, X. (2011). Applying Lean Construction to Loss Control. School of Civil Engineering, Engineering Department, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, Lima, pp. 1-11. Google Scholar

  • Brioso, X. (2015a). Integrating ISO 21500 guidance on project management, lean construction and PMBOK. Procedia Engineering, 123, pp. 76-84. Google Scholar

  • Brioso, X. (2015b). Teaching lean construction: Pontifical Catholic University of Peru training course in lean project & construction management. Procedia Engineering, 123, pp. 85-93. Google Scholar

  • Brioso, X., Humero, A., & Calampa, S. (2016). Comparing point-to-point precedence relations and location-based management system in last planner system: A housing project of highly repetitive processes case study. Procedia Engineering, 164(June), pp. 12-19. Google Scholar

  • Dave, B., Hämäläinen, J.-P., Kemmer, S., Koskela, L., & Koskenvesa, A. (2015). Suggestions to improve lean construction planning. In: 23rd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Perth, Australia, pp. 193-202. Google Scholar

  • Frandson, A., Berghede, K., & Tommelein, I. D. (2013). Takt time planning for construction of exterior cladding. In: Formoso, C.T., & Tzortzopoulos, P. (eds.), 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil, 31-2 Aug 2013, pp. 527-536. Google Scholar

  • Hajdu, M. (2015). Point-to-point versus traditional precedence relations for modeling activity overlapping. Procedia Engineering, 123, pp. 208-215. Google Scholar

  • Hajdu, M. (2016). PDM time analysis with continuous and point-to-point relations: Calculations using an artificial example. Procedia Engineering, 164(June), pp. 57-67. Google Scholar

  • Kenley, R., & Seppänen, O. (2010). Location-based management system for construction: Planning, scheduling, and control. Spon Press, London and New York, pp. 125-144. Google Scholar

  • Koskela, L. (1992). Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction, CIFE Technical Report #72, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, USA, pp. 30-37. Google Scholar

  • Lean Construction Institute. (2016). Available at http://www.leanconstruction.org/. Google Scholar

  • Levy, F. K., Thompson, G. L., & Wiest, J. D. (1963). Introduction to the critical path method. In: Muth, G. L., & Thompson, J. F. (eds.), Industrial Scheduling. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (20), pp. 193-202. Google Scholar

  • Linnik, M., Berghede, K., & Ballard, G. (2013). An experiment in takt time planning applied to non-repetitive work. In: Formoso, C. T., & Tzortzopoulos, P. (eds.), 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 31-2 Aug 2013, Fortaleza, Brazil, pp. 546-555. Google Scholar

  • Murguía, D., Brioso, X., & Pimentel, A. (2016). Applying lean techniques to improve performance in the finishing phase of a residential building. In: International Group for Lean Construction, Boston, USA, pp. 43-52. Google Scholar

  • Seppänen, O., Ballard, G., & Pesonen, S. (2010). The combination of last planner system and location-based management system. Lean Construction Journal, 2010 Issue, pp. 43-54. Google Scholar

  • Seppänen, O., Evinger, J., & Mouflard, C. (2013). Comparison of LBMS schedule forecasts to actual progress. In: 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2013 Fortaleza, Brazil, pp. 506-515. Google Scholar

  • Tommelein, I. D. (2017). Collaborative takt time planning of non-repetitive work. In: Proceedings of 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, (July), Heraklion, Greece, 9-12 Jul 2017, pp. 745-752.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-09-19

Accepted: 2017-11-24

Published Online: 2017-12-29

Published in Print: 2017-12-20


Citation Information: Organization, Technology and Management in Construction: an International Journal, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages 1604–1614, ISSN (Online) 1847-6228, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/otmcj-2016-0024.

Export Citation

© 2018. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in