Akron Children's Hospital Kay Jewelers Pavilion ILPD Team

Building on the Promise

Akron Children’s HospitalKay Jewelers PavilionILPD Team Retrospective

INTRODUCTION | 2

In February 2015, the Akron Children’s Kay Jeweler’s Pavilion received its Certificate of Occupancy. This marks the beginning of the end of a four-year journey of the Integrated Lean Project Delivery (ILPD) team that worked on the project. In April 2015, team mem-bers gathered to reflect on what they had learned during this process. The results can be found in this docu-ment. The participants included Akron Children’s administration, end users of the facility, architects, engineers, interior designers, medical planning professionals, constructors, trade constructors and basically anyone who participated in the design and con-struction of the tower.

The framework of the retrospective session focused on five topics related to the ILPD team. These topics included:

• Big Room–Mission Control: Activities, function and facilita-tion used in the spaces where the design and construction team worked.

• Partnership: Topics related to the contractual agreement and the handoffs that occurred between phases of the work.

• Target Value Design: The struc-ture, interaction of people and tools used for Target Value Design.

• Education: Topics related to education sessions and activities. Report in-out structure, awards, and team building.

• Communication-Information Transfer: Communication meth-ods used during design and construction, including BIM, BIQ, First Run Studies, CA, Last Planner®System, Production Planning and how we all missed an opportunity not inventing sticky notes.

Bernita Beikmann with HKS facilitated this event. The comments have been condensed and consolidated in a non-biased way. Any reflections perceived as the result of 20 years of architec-tural angst are unintentional.

The method of this retrospective combined an Open Space Technology approach to meetings with an Agile Retrospective Technique called 4Ls. The subject matters for discussion were presented to the group: five subjects, one under each main topic for each session.

Participants were able to travel to each of the five stations to put their responses to the following ques-tions:

1. What did you Like about this sub-ject matter?

2. What did this subject matter Lack?

3. What did you Learn about this subject matter?

4. Looking back on this subject mat-ter, what do you Long for, or wish we would have done?

After 20 to 30 minutes of response time, volunteers facilitated a discussion about each subject, capturing addi-tional information and stimulating fur-ther discussion on important feedback.

BIG ROOM–MISSION CONTROL | 3

1.0 Big Room– Mission Control

This project was fortunate to have several spaces dedicated to the work of the individuals on the project. These spaces allowed collaboration to take place, goals to be created and met, and design to function in a way that focused on the delivery of patient care.

The spaces were not without challenges, but overall, they were a success story. The key successes/challenges as noted by the participants are:

• Location relative to each other made communication and collaboration more difficult.

• The warehouse for full department mockups enabled to team to design in a way that promoted real improvement for the end user and buy-in from staff members.

• Facilitation was a skilled challenge for so large a group; it required constant change, and could have benefited by handing over control.

• Visual Control motivated the team, and allowed transparency.

• Huddles • Focus to complete objectives• Team building–integration• Organized facilitation better

than chaos• Supportive environment• Awards!• Team Weeks being biweekly

LEARNED

Team members learned how to listen, participate, and be heard in a collab-orative environment. Understanding when to make a decision as well as when not to became important.

LACKED

There were difficulties if one could not participate in person with technology

and engagement. Complaints of sound control were also commented in both the Big Room and Mission Control spaces. There was a lack of quiet work space for participants who had detailed tasks to complete.

LONGED FOR

Team members were looking for ways to facilitate the team differently, whether through third party facilitation or changing the roles of team mem-bers. Control of side conversations and control of dominant voices were also reported as wishes on future projects.

LIKED

For this project, a large group of strangers came together for a sin-gle purpose. The facilitation of the activities in the Big Room and Mission Control became important to build this team, organize the chaos and pro-duce a product that met the owners expectations. Key items of note for the facilitation of activities as positive were these things:

• Good mix of activity and discussion

• Good participation• Great communication between

trades

Facilitation


LEARNED

Visual control can help with account-ability of the team and understanding of where the team was with goals. The team learned that graphic tracking could improve morale, that pull plan-ning when done with people doing the work had greater impact on project success, and that dynamic tools pro-vided an easy way to make updates.

LACKED

The biggest issues with Visual control was getting access to it at all times. Remote participants did not bene-fit, so there was a need for access electronically or through other means.

Also, we ran out of walls for all the things we needed to report on, so that will be something to think about on future projects.

LONGED FOR

Looking back, several team members felt that moving some of the design images and guiding principles could have helped with communication during construction. There was a wish for a bigger space for Mission Control and for the information to be elec-tronic so changes could be faster.

LIKED

The team noted the following things to be big wins with regards to visual control during the project.

• Pull plans/last planner• Team week schedule• Breaking project into exterior, inte-

rior, backbone in mission control• Color ups• Colored visuals• Large planning grids• Morning meeting–daily planning• Everything in one place in mission

control

Visual Control

Warehouse Mockups–Trade Partner Oversight Group (TPOG)

LIKED

Mockups: Participants recognized the value in the mockups with regard to testing design, better representation of design, and ability for buy-in and testing. From a cost standpoint, not only were the end users able to make changes to the mockups easily without the cost of changes to construction, but the use of price tags on elements also allowed them to understand what the money was being spent on.

The mockup process was end user- friendly and strengthened the team that worked on it, despite the smell of tires.

LEARNED

Process was the focus, and partici-pants learned more about process in the mockups then they would have looking at drawings. The teams felt they also learned going through this process of design, and the groups that went later had fewer changes. The project had an atmosphere of learning in every aspect from operations to design and construction. The team was there to learn how to do its job better, whatever that job was.

LACKED

The team reported elements missing, including:

• Real mockups during construction

• Support service input• More engagement of trade

partners• More detail in mockups• Operational documentation

(created new operations but don’t remember what it was)

• Explanation of TPOG intent• Name tags• Big room–warehouse

communication

LONGED FOR

Team members wished for more time in the mockups, better integration of entire team, and more accountability and follow-through. Use of technol-ogy to film finished mockups would have been valuable. Better docu-mentation of what happened in the warehouse would have been better for construction and operations.


Design of the Rooms

LIKED

There were many positive aspects of having spaces that allowed team mem-bers to work together. The spaces encouraged collaboration and open communication. The spaces encour-aged problem solving as a group and actually enabled the group to solve problems faster. Key positive com-ments about each space were:

Big Room

• Outdoor views• Proximity to the hospital• Open space (no cubicles)• Flexibility• Movable, lightweight furniture• Openness• Ease of access

Mission Control

• Close to project site• Strong connection to construction

LEARNED

The team learned a lot from each other by being in the same room. Great ideas come from diverse backgrounds and opinions. Participants learned how to communicate with each other in a better way. The collocation of the team facilitated a robust decision-making process, built team spirit, created a common sense of purpose and allowed team members to learn about other aspects of the work.

Floor plan of Big Room space

Some team members felt a strain with manpower because of colloca-tion; they felt they needed to have a larger representation to cover all the meetings.

LACKED

Connection to other spaces was a constant issue. Early participants felt a disconnection to the teams in the warehouse. Later participants felt dis-connected when the space moved to mission control, there was an interrup-tion to the flow of work.

The space could have used better video capabilities. Team members sometimes called or video confer-enced, and it was a struggle when they did.

The space could sometimes be loud and congested, which made formal presentations difficult. Windows into the conference areas could have provided better connection and awareness of what was going on in that space.

LONGED FOR

If we were to create this space today, team members would incorporate these details:

• More conference room/breakout rooms

• Toilets not off work areas• Put it closer to the warehouse• Better video and IT connections• More power• Better phones

Flexibility of the space was important

Furniture could be moved and reconfig-ured by anyone to meet group needs

PARTNERSHIP | 6

2.0 Partnership

Many of the participants in this ILPD project were signing an Integrated Form of Agreement (IFoA) for the first time. This brought with it many questions, concerns and fears. Looking back on the contract, preconstruction process and all the transitions of work, team members valued collaboration most, and needed more learning and onboarding of team members earlier. Activities noted specifically were:

• Speed pulling was a positive collaborative experience• PMCT process was more effective than a traditional RFI• Getting through the contract required education, but as a

success metric, the team was more important than the contract• Operations readiness benefited by hard-working, dedicated

employees and vendors who helped out

• Support of the group• Understanding of project cost• Two-week intervals

LEARNED

Learned better real-time estimat-ing as project progressed. Learned about portions of the job not typically involved in. Learned about the impor-tance of establishing trust.

LACKED

There was a lack of confidence in the working estimate throughout precon. There was a need for some trade partners to be brought on earlier for help in some of the estimating and construction planning. There was not any design participation in the production planning, especially those

in a different building (warehouse). There was a feeling that there was not a strong enough representation of those really doing the work.

LONGED FOR

Interaction between the contractors and trade contractors looking at con-structibility was needed with those designing the facility. They missed out on the ability to gain knowledge from each other and build trust. Designers needed construction par-ticipation for buy-in and understand-ing of design decisions and often did not feel like it was there.

LIKED

Team members liked the partici-pation of the parties early in the project. They felt this helped them understand the project and each other more quickly. Key items to note as being liked were:• Early learning• Speed pulling• Consistency of team• Trust and Innovation• Big Room environment• Trades working together with

designers

Preconstruction Process

PARTNERSHIP | 7

LEARNED

Team members learned that they must distribute detailed design information to end users, so they can remember what they decided a year ago. The huddles should be multidiscipline so they understand what each other needs. Planning for largest equip-ment would be a good idea for future flexibility.

LACKED

The key item to note as lacking was integrated user involvement for input, testing, and finish-out of the spaces. The transition plan needed to be started soon or be integrated with the construction plan. Users needed to connect back with plans as they con-tinued to work on operations.

LONGED FOR

The operations team wished they would have started earlier, identified the team earlier, planned earlier and communicated earlier. There was a wish for better coordination between owner vendors and the construction team to have better access to the operations team to understand where to put things.

LIKED

Team members liked the huddles for FFE; it enabled them to get things done quickly. They appreciated the involve-ment from Armstrong–especially Jason. Sherri was mentioned for all her hard work as well with the transi-tion. Changes were controlled through process using A3s, which was effective. All team members wanted to have the best end product and worked together on solutions.

Transition from Construction to Operations

Transition from Precon to Construction

LIKED

The process used on this project was noted as producing faster results. Decision-making was quicker, huddles resolved issues faster, and the PMCT process made the traditional RFIs not necessary.

LEARNED

Team members learned better ways of communication and collaboration. Constructors had a better understand-ing of what was in the drawings before

construction started. Participants learned about daily huddles and PMCT process.

LACKED

There is a need for change noted in comments from ILPD team members that reaches beyond the conversa-tions of collaboration. As we change how we approach each other for information, all processes have to be altered to flow with that process. Things that lacked as a result of changes to preconstruction process changes:

• Buyout process• Use of prolog• Construction updates to

designers• Specification process should be

modified

• Time for PMCT process• More time for team building as

team changes• Understanding of what complete

documents are• Constructibility reviews not taken

seriously• Seamless onboarding of team

members

LONGED FOR

Things noted as missing in Pre-construction transition:• Owner participation in PMCT

process• Better program than prolog• Final mockups of rooms• Earlier trade partner involvement• Design involvement• Smoother transition to

construction

PARTNERSHIP | 8

Contract/OCIP

LIKED

The multiparty contract and its asso-ciated documents were new to many participants. Things noted positively included:

• Equal buy-in• Clear business terms• Format of negotiating terms in the

beginning• Feeling that everyone is working

toward the best solution• Great owner• All in together• Shared incentives• Open communication• Good relationship of all parties• Collaboration• Planned placed management of

PLT• Creative team• Fee structure• Learning experience

LEARNED

Participants learned about IFOA agree-ments, many for the first time. They learned how the contract and OCIP worked. They learned that success metrics can outweigh actions if not kept in check. They learned that a key factor in the success is owner buy-in for OCIP insurance, which is hard for the industry to grasp. Team members learned about a collaborative process and how to be open and transparent with each other. They learned the value of contractors in solving prob-lems. Most importantly, they learned

that the attitude and actions of the team, are more important than the contract.

LACKED

Things that did not reach the full potential that was expected included:

• Getting trade partners on board in an IPD relationship

• Clear understanding of roles in the beginning

• Complete understanding of the agreement

• Roles and responsibilities of each member

• Accountability• Understanding of the OCIP• Safety as an incentive• More emphasis on production

planning• Confusing paperwork• Total PLT involvement• Struggled with transition from

design to construction

LONGED FOR

Things needed on future projects of this type:

• Earlier contract issue• Clarity of terms• Well-defined OCIP process• More accountability• More training• Better understanding of success

metrics• An insurance market that appreci-

ates the risk.

TARGET VALUE DESIGN | 9

3.0 Target Value Design

Target Value Design was the Lean strategy that enabled the ILPD team to get the project in budget. Key points to learn from TVD were:

• Keep the team diversified, end users, and trade contractors. Make sure the right people are at the table for key discussions and decisions

• Hire team early, even earlier than you might think• Continue collaboration throughout project• Establish level of quality early• Use A3s, but establish an organization and approval structure,

and keep improving it• Educate, educate, educate

The following sections have more detailed comments about the TVD process.

beauty in design and construction is in the eye of the beholder.

LACKED

Despite early trade partner involve-ment, some felt it still was not early enough. Other things to note as lacking:

• More collaboration across teams• Innovation–not VE• Definition of quality• Clear team leadership• Full technology innovation team• Better communication at

transitions

LONGED FOR

The innovation teams for this project had a difficult cost hurdle to over-come. Many team members felt

that true innovation was not always achieved and that their work was more focused on cutting budget regardless of the effect to overall project value.

Other things the team wished would have been handled differently:

• More time for first run studies• More participation in Design

reviews• Value in aesthetics• Better cost estimation in precon• PLT members who could

participate on teams• More understanding of process

LIKED

Most comments positively reflected on the diversity of the team and hiring trade contractors early. The structure of the process was positive, and the collaborative environment created allowed team members to not just think of better solutions, but also understand why the solution was needed.

LEARNED

Participants commented on how they learned in different ways, had empathy for other roles in the process and that

Innovation Teams


• Morning huddle great for communication

• Good to see whole picture

LEARNED

Participants learned pull planning and accountability to the weekly/ daily information. They learned that it is not easy to get pricing information pulled together in a short time.

LACKED

The process lacked transparency at times. There was not complete engagement between the designers and the estimators. There was a need for other interiors trades to be on board early. Not all trades met or were exposed to the end users, so there was a lack of involvement in decisions. It was difficult for the field to report

details, and the reporting could be time intensive.

LONGED FOR

Looking back, many team members felt different trades simply were not hired soon enough. Specifically mentioned were interior trades. Time is also needed to make sure all team members are educated, engaged and fully accountable to the process. Reports would have been better if the end customer of each report was asked what they really needed before they were created. Participation was lacking in vendor trades, and projects like this need a way to engage all par-ticipants to improve the product.

LIKED

Participants saw the value in trade contractor involvement in TVD for cost and constructibility input. Production tracking and the monthly report proce-dures produced these comments:

• Good accountability• Frequently published metrics

Trade Contractor Involvement, Production Tracking, Monthly Report

Key Stakeholder Involvement

LIKED

The environment at the warehouse with regards to the involvement of end users, both staff and families, was overall a positive experience. Door hardware coordination involvement was also mentioned as a success.

LEARNED

Participants learned to trust, communi-cate and keep everyone involved. They learned that the word “done” has differ-ent meaning to different participants.

LACKED

Things missed focused on commu-nication and clarity of issues. Other items noted to be lacking:

• Stakeholders not included in third-party vendor systems designs and contracts

• Clinical input, participation in PLT• Consistent change process

LONGED FOR

Deeper participation from clinical stakeholders would have improved outcomes. Participation, even if not allowed to vote on monetary deci-sions, would have kept them informed. Treatment of partners as equals–stake-holders felt they were given demands– and more coordination with end users during design needed.


Use of A3s

LIKED

Team members recognized the positive impact the use of A3s had in enabling decision making on the project. Reasons that the A3 was liked:• Organized/structured• Effective and efficient• Concise• Consistent• Live document• Easily referenced• Storytelling• Research/problem-solving format• Overall great communication tool

LEARNED

Learned to more creatively arrive at cost-effective design solutions. The A3 became an important tool to docu-ment the problem, distill information, summarize information and arrive at strong decisions. Choosing by advan-tages was also a learned skill on this project that was captured frequently on A3s. Team members learned the importance of having the right team members engaged in decision-making.

LACKED

The most common comments in regards to things lacking for A3s were relative to education on use, commu-nication/ distribution method for the A3s and confusion on the approval process.

Typical A3 Log used during design

Education:

• More in-depth training• Knowing when to do one and

when not to• Not diligent about them in the

beginning

Communication:

• Keep the logs updated• Common billboard for all• Easier documentation/sorting

method• Pricing was confusing• Conversations not ending up in

A3s• Organization fell apart in the end• Didn’t get posted in Big Room

Approval:

• All stakeholders involved• Clear indication of approval

LONGED FOR

• Better organization• More experience• Consistency• Using them in design too• Forgetting e-builder

Comments were focused about the process more than the content and use of the A3. Improvements to the A3 Log, approval process, and future tracking of approved A3s would be worth investing thought in for future projects. A3s posted on Big Room Walls for Comment

TEAM EDUCATION | 12

4.0 Team Education

Education of the ILPD team, end users, and community was a key focus during this project. Several individuals worked on a plan to develop and deliver education programs to every person who touched the project. As a result, many positive comments were received, as well as opportunities to improve on other projects. Items of note for team education include:

• Using education as team building and linking the different groups of people toward a common goal

• Team and individual awards throughout the project were a fun, low-cost way to give a morale boost to team members. This helped with team building as well as keeping people focused

• The report-in and report-out process was successful in keeping the team up to date

• Training needs to occur often and constantly as people are onboarded

LEARNED

Team members learned what a Lean company looked like through the SAT study. They learned choosing by advantages and management skills. They often understood the value of these activities much later and often did not understand why they were doing or learning the things they were learning at that time.

LACKED

Some of the education was not consis-tent with the whole team. The SAT was done once for early design team mem-bers and should have been repeated. Team members wanted more activities to build the team and continue what

was front loaded on the beginning of the project throughout. They needed more options to integrate the design and construction teams.

LONGED FOR

Education activities needed a higher level of engagement. There needed to be stronger connection between the warehouse and the Big Room teams.

LIKED

Team members saw the value in the activities that were scheduled both to educate and increase trust and bond individual team members. Team mem-bers mentioned that they were con-tinuing the events on future projects. Favorite activities mentioned:

• Awards• Study action team• Apollo 13 movie• Truck/car show

Study Action Team–Team- Building Activities

TEAM EDUCATION | 13

Everyone has a different viewpoint and definition of value. They also learned about the TVD process, how it can drive innovation and problem solving, and how the team can save money and still maintain quality.

Phased production is only as good as the effort to maintain it.

LACKED

Team members felt that the process lacked a more integrative design process. Teams did not understand how the targets were set, there was no involvement from owner PMs, and it was confusing. There does need to be a conversation about cheapest versus pediatric best practice for some deci-sions, and transfer of knowledge from design to the field needs to improve.

LONGED FOR

More training was the biggest topic for the group, specifically for these things:

• Vocabulary• General TVD training• Training for owner–did not under-

stand schedule/production• Field and BIQ expectations

Process needs to engage the field more. There needed to be more dialogue about quality expectations before and during, not just after work is performed. Construction and pre-con exercises at the same time did not allow participants to understand and benefit from the process as much as possible.

LIKED

TVD training was a great beginning and a great experience for team members.

Construction phase training focusing on takt planning helped others see the work ahead of them. They liked the train car plan, and training was per-ceived to be well done.

LEARNED

Team members learned about not just the tools, but also lean culture.

Target Value Design– Construction Phase Training

Activities-Awards, Report Ins-Outs, Bambino Award

LIKED

Positive aspects noted of subject matter:

Awards

• Easy–creative–fun• Rapping was great• Built team spirit• Morale building• Must do this• Recognized individuals and

group work

Report-in/-out

• Helped with collective understanding

• Bridged gap from warehouse to big room

• Showed team work• Very informative• Great participation

Bambino

• Recognized rock star contractors• Great constructor reactions• Brought team spirit to the field

LEARNED

The process of reporting in and out on team weeks enabled the teams to understand what each other was doing. The team balanced time together and working time. Recognizing team members with

awards was a low-cost, high-reward activity that team members enjoyed. Even tough construction workers had stickers called Bambinos on their hard hats for recognition of their work.

LACKED

It was hard to hear some of the activ-ities if you were on the phone. Those on the project who joined after design felt like they missed the understanding of what the awards were–like an inside joke for some team members. Report- outs seemed to focus entirely on budget and not innovative ideas.

LONGED FOR

More team-building events and car-rying the cranes beyond 1,000 was noted as being missed.

TEAM EDUCATION | 14

Lean Boot Camp

LIKED

Team members appreciated the time and effort that went into the boot camp created for team members. Specific reasons and examples from Lean boot camp that were mentioned:

• Good intro to lean• Mr. Potato Head• Fun!• Gemba walk• Pull planning• Everyone started the same• Games–learn by doing• Facilitators• Learned team-building skills

Team members felt the days were well organized and it was a good overview that was fun and informative.

LEARNED

Participants came from different backgrounds and had different levels of Lean knowledge before the boot camp. Lean Boot Camp attempted to build consensus with the group, and eliminate the gap of knowledge. Participants learned:

• Lean tools• Toyota way• Lean principles• A3s• IPD• Lean construction

“Through the Eyes” empathy exercise

LACKED

Comments focused on involvement of more people in the boot camp, and links from learning to practicing in real life. Some of the units were rushed, and participants felt a little more time was needed for important topics to fully understand them and be able to practice them in their real life jobs.

And yes, there were comments about needing more bathrooms.

LONGED FOR

Team members wanted an immedi-ate connection to their work and the information refreshed or repeated to enforce the learning. A few comments focused on the need for Lean mentors or outside facilitators to enforce ideas and give different perspectives.

Team members did appreciate the training and wished it had started years ago. Lean boot camp was a knowledge-packed two days, but sev-eral comments expressed the need for more time for some subjects.

And once again, the Howe House needs more bathrooms.

Dot card simulation

Waste walk report out

Mr. Potato Head simulation

COMMUNICATION–INFORMATION TRANSFER | 15

5.0 Communication– Information Transfer

Many systems, technologies, and schedules are part of a healthcare construction project. The processes used in ILPD projects attempt to be proactive about how all those systems and people interact and function. The key points that were noted in this area included:

• There is a lot of potential for improving how we work with BIM; strong leadership and many conversations are needed to push this forward to a better outcome

• People need to work together on the quality programs throughout design and construction

• Production planning can have a positive impact on work during construction; designers need to participate in it to understand and make the flow between design and construction seamless

• The Last Planner® System is a valuable tool throughout design and construction and is something team members are taking back to their companies

LEARNED

Team members learned that a total Revit model is still a future thought. They learned that a true single BIM platform that works for all does not exist. Coordination in BIM does not lead to a perfect field application, and bad information in the model defi-nitely leads to bad installation. The team cannot rely only on the model.

LACKED

Some team members felt that the team gave up on the BIM plan too early – that there was less of a con-nection with the design team and rework created because of it. There was a concern of too many BIM platforms, and there were not enough BIM reviews of design changes and

design reviews of BIM changes. The expected deliverables were not clear in the start, and the team felt they needed better leadership.

LONGED FOR

The team longed for leadership in a BIM coordinator role that had a full understanding of the process. They needed that person to have knowl-edge of design construction and be organized and on schedule with tasks. They wished for a model that was not different between design and construction, that the models were live, and we could build directly from them.

LIKED

The aspects of BIM that were noted as working the most effectively were:

• MEP as-built per model• GPs for spotting hangers• TPs that worked in Revit• Interior architecture model

sharing• Coordination with trades• Model sharing• Coordination meetings with

model• Team collaboration

BIM


LEARNED

Many participants learned about this process for the first time and learned how to use pull planning, takt plans, color plans and weekly work plans together to create flow on the project. Some felt the training was too fast, and they learned to not agree to what they could not produce. They learned that often trade partners do not under-stand the scope and labor needs on a project.

LACKED

The production planning did not have design participants involvement or owner involvement. Some trains in the plan needed more cars, and some areas required more time. Team members felt this was a good plan to

facilitate work that did not get com-pleted in the first pass of the train. Some team members felt that the field concerns were not always listened to.

LONGED FOR

Design team members wished for understanding of the production process. Participants in production planning wanted complete draw-ings to accurately forecast to. Team members wished that all parties were held responsible for scope and time of work in the takt area.

LIKED

Comments about production planning included:• Helped define labor requirements• Daily huddle was productive• Liked the in-house document pull

plan• Monthly design package releases.• Visual references helped people

understand the big picture.• Valuable tool that drove waste out

of the process• Phased production worked• Excellent takt plan–best ever seen• Takt planning worked

Production Planning

Built-in Quality (BiQ), First- Run Studies, Construction Administration, Punch List

LIKED

Team members most appreciated the implementation of plan grid into the project. They liked the integrated process with the design team, and participation in first-run studies. They liked the idea of BiQ studies to estab-lish concept and confirm expectations.

LEARNED

Learned how to use technology to make job easier. Learned the impor-tance of defining BiQ process ahead of time. BiQ process does not replace skilled trades in production. They learned about the importance of BIQ and early signoffs. Team learned that they needed to have team buy-in on CA process before implementing. Team members learned how to navi-gate plan grid and other tools for the first time.

LACKED

Communication issues still existed despite the systems and processes that were implemented. The issues noted were:• Observation reports ignored• Standard work books not followed

through

• First-run studies not carried for-ward to workers

• No results available for first-run studies

• Needed owner participation• More follow through on BiQ• Information not transferred from

design to construction• Trade partners not involved in

punch lists• Needed consistent formats

LONGED FOR

The thing that was most requested was more training on the plan grid. Also needed on future projects would be more involvement of owner with trades, and having CA expertise brought earlier into design. BiQ mockups would have been beneficial to avoid late changes. There should have been more emphasis on quality standards and quality installation.


The Last Planner® System in Design and Construction- Information Transfer

LIKED

Some team participants experienced the Last Planner® System for the first time. Many had never done a pull plan. Aspects of the process that were liked were:• Speed pulling• Pull planning process• Communication • Huddles• Communication structure• Connected decision huddles• Ability to see problems faster• Team participation• Team commitments• Great visual tool• Commitment to schedule • Kept everyone informed.• Great collaborative tool• Organized the project• Team collaboration• Best tool developed with Lean• Excellent design• Promoted accountability

LEARNED

Some team members felt they had missed out on a business opportunity to invest in 3M. Many now use LPS on their new projects; some compa-nies have made it their way of doing business. Team members learned to communicate better, to talk about commitments and constraints in a different way. LPS allowed people to see beyond their own work and how their work affected others. Designers learned how to gauge time better for completion of tasks, and a way to format for long distance. Some even learned that E-builder is not a bad system.

LACKED

Despite having great tools and processes to work with, some team members felt these things were missing:• Connection between design and

construction planning• Presence and participation in

coordination meetings• Communication of PLT decisions• Design staying ahead of con-

struction with regards to IT and Med Eq.

• User changes from design being incorporated

• Consistent design and construc-tion PLT participation

• Follow through of commitments

• Still felt trade partner/ contractor was a top- down approach

• Taking information to the field was difficult on Post-it Notes.

• Expertise in LPS• Not adjusting plan to meet over-

runs and impacts• Too many silos while efforts were

made• Clearer expectations• PLT not being notified of deci-

sions – direction in the field• Trade partner input not taken

when given• Design component did not have

flow logic tied to overall schedule• Tough when you are out of town

LONGED FOR

Team members longed for a better transition from design to construc-tion, to have warehouse teams par-ticipate more in pull planning and to have more efficient meetings. Some wished that cell phones were checked at the door. Team members wished for an easier way to view and com-municate with the team if you were not in the Big Room and electronic visibility of the Mission Board. Some wished for the days that if it was in the Construction documents it was in the job without added cost, and generat-ing an idea did not add money. Many are wanting to start their next project using LPS and ILPD.

Documents

Akron Children's Hospital Kay Jewelers Pavilion ILPD Team