Task planning and control in construction: revealing workers as early and late planners

References

• Abou-Ibrahim, H., et al., 2019. Understanding the planner’s role in lookahead construction planning. Production Planning and Control, 30 (4), 271–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alarcón, L. F., 1997. Lean construction. New York: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Alves, T. d C., et al., 2020. Schedules and schedules: a study in the U.S. construction industry. Engineering Management Journal, 32 (3), 166–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aslesen, S., and Tommelein, I.D., 2016. What “makes” the last planner? A typology of behavioral patterns of last planners. Annual Conference of International Group of Lean Construction, 24, 43–52.
   Google Scholar
• Balderjahn, I., et al., 2018. The many faces of sustainability-conscious consumers: a category-independent typology. Journal of Business Research, 91, 83–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballard, G., and Howell, G., 1998. Shielding production: essential step in production control. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124 (1), 11–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballard, G., Hammond, J., and Nickerson, R., 2008. Production Control Principles. Annual Conference of International Group of Lean Construction, 16, 489–500.
   Google Scholar
• Ballard, H. G., 2000. The last planner system of production control. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, P., Tomkins, C., and Graves, A., 1999. Decentralised site management: a case study. International Journal of Project Management, 17 (2), 113–120.
   Google Scholar
• Beaton, D.E., et al., 2000. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25 (24), 3168–3191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Alon, L., and Sacks, R., 2017. Simulating the behavior of trade crews in construction using agents and building information modeling. Automation in Construction, 74, 12–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Alon, L., Sacks, R., and Grobman, Y.J., 2014. Similarities and differences between humans’ and social Insects’ processes and building behaviors. Construction Research Congress, (May,), 51–60.
   Google Scholar
• Bertelsen, S., et al., 2006. Critical flow - Towards a construction flow theory. Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 14, 31–40.
   Google Scholar
• Caldas, C.H., and Soibelman, L., 2002. Automated classification methods: supporting the implementation of pull techniques for information flow management. Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 10, 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Dave, B., et al., 2014. Addressing information flow in lean production management and control in construction. Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 22, 581–592.
   Google Scholar
• Flores, F., and Ludlow, J. J., 1980. Doing and speaking in the office. Proc., Decision Support Systems: Issues and Challenges, Proc., of an Int. Task Force Meeting, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Laxenburg, Austria.
   Google Scholar
• Formoso, C.T., et al., 2017. The identification and analysis of making-do waste: insights from two Brazilian construction sites. Ambiente Construído, 17, 55–68.
   Google Scholar
• Forza, C., 2002. Survey research in operations management: a process-based perspective. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22 (2), 152–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil, N.A.P., et al., 2000. Contribution of specialty contractor knowledge to early design. Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 8.
   Google Scholar
• Gluch, P., and Raisanen, C., 2009. Interactional perspective on environmental communication in construction projects. Building Research and Information, 37 (2), 164–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gong, J., Borcherding, J.D., and Caldas, C.H., 2011. Effectiveness of craft time utilization in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 29 (7), 737–751.
   Google Scholar
• Görsch, C., et al., 2022. Uncovering and visualizing work process interruptions through quantitative workflow analysis. Lean Construction Journal, 183, 171–183.
   Google Scholar
• Grau, D., Abbaszadegan, A., and Assanair, R., 2020. Process versus operations workflow – making the case for continuous monitoring of construction operations. Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 28, 563–572.
   Google Scholar
• Hamzeh, F., Faek, F., and Al Hussein, H., 2019. Understanding improvisation in construction through antecedents, behaviours and consequences. Construction Management and Economics, 37 (2), 61–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamzeh, F.R., Alhussein, H., and Faek, F., 2018. Investigating the practice of improvisation in construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 34 (6), 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamzeh, F.R., Ballard, G., and Tommelein, I.D., 2008. Improving construction work flow - the connective role of lookahead planning. In : Proceedings of IGLC16: 16th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 635–646.
   Google Scholar
• Hamzeh, F.R., Zankoul, E., and Rouhana, C., 2015. How can ‘tasks made ready’ during lookahead planning impact reliable workflow and project duration? Construction Management and Economics, 33 (4), 243–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harstad, E., et al., 2015. How tablets can improve communication in construction projects. Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, (July), 391–401.
   Google Scholar
• Hickethier, G., Tommelein, I.D., and Lostuvali, B., 2013. Social network analysis of information flow in an IPD project design organization. Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 1 (July), 315–324.
   Google Scholar
• Jang, Y., et al., 2020. Classifying the business model types of international construction contractors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146 (6), 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansen, E., and Wilson, B., 2006. Investigating first planning in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 24 (12), 1305–1314.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, R.B., and Brennan, M., 1996. Planning or organizing: the implications of theories of activity for management of operations. International Journal of Management Sciences, 24 (4), 367–384.
   Google Scholar
• Josephson, P.E., and Bjorkman, L., 2013. Why do work sampling studies in construction? The case of plumbing work in Scandinavia. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 20 (6), 589–603.
   Google Scholar
• Kalsaas, B.T., Gundersen, M., and Berge, T.O., 2014. To measure workflow and waste. A concept for continuous improvement. Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 22, 835–846.
   Google Scholar
• Kania, E., Radziszewska-Zielina, E., and Śladowski, G., 2020. Communication and information flow in Polish construction projects. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12 (21), 1–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskela, L., 1999. Management of Production in Construction: A Theoretical View. 7th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 241–252.
   Google Scholar
• Koskela, L., 2000. An exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction. Espoo: Finland: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Lanaj, K., et al., 2013. The double-edged sword of decentralized planning in multiteam systems. Academy of Management Journal, 56 (3), 735–757.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laufer, A., and Tucker, R.L., 1987. Is construction project planning really doing its job? A critical examination of focus, role and process. Construction Management and Economics, 5 (3), 243–266.
   Google Scholar
• Laufer, A., et al., 1994. The multiplicity concept in construction project planning. Construction Management and Economics, 12 (1), 53–65.
   Google Scholar
• Lehtovaara, J., Seppänen, O., and Peltokorpi, A., 2022. Improving construction management with decentralised production planning and control: exploring the production crew and manager perspectives through a multi-method approach. Construction Management and Economics, 40, 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loosemoore, M., 2014. Improving construction productivity: a subcontractor’s perspective. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 21 (3), 245–260.
   Google Scholar
• Mintzberg, H., 1983. Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations Main message and purpose A review of Organizational Design. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice–Hall International.
   Google Scholar
• Norusis, M., 2011. IBM SPSS statistics 19 advanced statistical procedures (Vol. 19). New York: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Olivieri, H., et al., 2019. Survey comparing critical path method, last planner system, and location-based techniques. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145 (12), 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q., 2014. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Phelps, A.F., 2012. Behavioral factors influencing lean information flow in complex projects. Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 20.
   Google Scholar
• Priven, V., and Sacks, R., 2015. Effects of the last planner system on social networks among construction trade crews. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 141 (6), 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, R., Radosavljevic, M., and Barak, R., 2010. Requirements for building information modeling based lean production management systems for construction. Automation in Construction, 19 (5), 641–655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salovaara, P., and Bathurst, R., 2018. Power-with leadership practices: an unfinished business. Leadership, 14 (2), 179–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarti, S., Darnall, N., and Testa, F., 2018. Market segmentation of consumers based on their actual sustainability and health-related purchases. Journal of Cleaner Production, 192 (August), 270–280.
   Google Scholar
• Seppänen, O., and Görsch, C., 2022. Decreasing waste in mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work. Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 30, 84–94.
   Google Scholar
• Singleton, R. A., Jr., and Straits, B. C., 2018. Approaches to social research. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tang, P., et al., 2014. Workflow stabilization with finegrained work packaging and near real-time progress monitoring. Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 1 (602), 739–750.
   Google Scholar
• Tenah, B.K.A., 1986. Construction personnel role and information needs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 112 (1), 33–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsao, C.C.Y., et al., 2004. Work structuring to achieve integrated product–process design. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130 (6), 780–789.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins, M., et al., 2009. Using agent-based modeling to study construction labor productivity as an emergent property of individual and crew interactions. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135 (7), 657–667.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winch, G.M., and Kelsey, J., 2005. What do construction project planners do? International Journal of Project Management, 23 (2), 141–149.
   Google Scholar