Work structuring and product design for customized repetitive projects

References

• Alizon, F., Shooter, S.B., and Simpson, T.W., 2009. Henry ford and the model T: lessons for product platforming and mass customization. Design studies, 30 (5), 588–605.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AlSehaimi, A., Koskela, L., and Tzortzopoulos, P., 2013. Need for alternative research approaches in construction management: case of delay studies. Journal of management in engineering, 29 (4), 407–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldwin, C.Y., and Clark, K.B., 1997. Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard business review, 75 (5), 84–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballard, G., 1999. Work structuring. Lean construction institute white paper, 5.
   Google Scholar
• Ballard, G., 2001. Cycle time reduction in home building. In: D. Chua and G. Ballard, eds. 9th Int. Group for Lean Construction. Singapore: National University of Singapore, 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Ballard, G., and Howell, G., 1998. Shielding production: essential step in production control. Journal of construction engineering and management, 124, 11–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballard, G., et al., 2001. Production system design: work structuring revisited. White Paper, 11.
   Google Scholar
• Ballard, H.G., 2000. The last planner system of production control. Birmingham, UK: The University of Birmingham.
   Google Scholar
• Baranauskas, G., Raišienė, A.G., and Korsakienė, R., 2020. Mapping the scientific research on mass customization domain: a critical review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of risk and financial management, 13 (9), 220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow, J., et al., 2003. Choice and delivery in housebuilding: lessons from Japan for UK housebuilders. Building research & information, 31 (2), 134–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bask, A., et al., 2010. The concept of modularity: diffusion from manufacturing to service production. Journal of manufacturing technology management, 21 (3), 355–375.
   Google Scholar
• Bertelsen, S. 2005. Modularization — a Third Approach to Making Construction Lean? 13th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Sydney, Australia, 81–88.
   Google Scholar
• Bjornfot, A., and Stehn, L. (2004). Industrialization of construction -a lean modular approach. In: S. Bertelsen and C.T. Formoso, eds.12th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Helsingør, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Blecker, T., and Abdelkafi, N., 2006. Complexity and variety in mass customization systems: analysis and recommendations. Management decision, 44 (7), 908–929.
   Google Scholar
• Brodetskaia, I., and Sacks, R. (2007). Understanding flow and micro-variability in construction: theory and practice. In: C. L. Pasquire C.L. and P. Tzortzopoulos, eds. 15th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, East Lansing, Michigan, USA, 488–497.
   Google Scholar
• Brodetskaia, I., Sacks, R., and Shapira, A., 2011. A workflow model for finishing works in building construction. Construction management and economics, 29, 1209–1227.
   Google Scholar
• Brodetskaia, I., Sacks, R., and Shapira, A., 2013. Stabilizing production flow of finishing works in building construction with re-entrant flow. Journal of construction engineering and management, 139, 665–674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campagnolo, D., and Camuffo, A., 2010. The concept of modularity in management studies: a literature review. International journal of management reviews. 12(3), 259–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choo, H.J., et al., 1999. WorkPlan: constraint-based database for work package scheduling. Journal of construction engineering and management, 125 (3), 151–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Da Silveira, G., Borenstein, D., and Fogliatto, F.S., 2001. Mass customization: literature review and research directions. International journal of production economics, 72 (1), 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan, J., 1998. Rethinking construction: report of the construction task force. London: HMSO, 38.
   Google Scholar
• El-Gafy, M.A., and Abdelhamid, T. (2008). Using system dynamics modeling as a lean construction work structuring tool. In: P. Tzortzopoulos and M. Kagioglou, eds.16th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Manchester, UK, 121–130.
   Google Scholar
• Feitzinger, E., and Lee, H.L., 1997. Mass customization at Hewlett-Packard: the power of postponement. Harvard business review, 75 (1), 116–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fixson, S.K., 2005. Product architecture assessment: a tool to link product, process, and supply chain design decisions. Journal of operations management, 23 (3–4), 345–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fogliatto, F.S., da Silveira, G.J.C., and Borenstein, D., 2012. The mass customization decade: an updated review of the literature. International journal of production economics, 138 (1), 14–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frandson, A., Berghede, K., and Tommelein, I.D. (2013). Takt time planning for construction of exterior cladding. In: C.T. Formoso and P. Tzortzopoulos, eds. 21th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Fortaleza, Brazil, 527–536.
   Google Scholar
• Frandson, A., Berghede, K., and Tommelein, I.D. (2014). Takt-time planning and the last planner. In: B.T. Kalsaas, L. Koskela, and T.A. Saurin, eds. 22nd annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Oslo, Norway, 571–580.
   Google Scholar
• Frutos, J. D., and Borenstein, D. 2003. Object-Oriented Model for Customer-Building Company Interaction in Mass Customization Environment. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(3), 302–313.
   Google Scholar
• Frutos, J. D., and Borenstein, D. 2004. A framework to support customer–company interaction in mass customization environments. Computers in Industry, 54(2), 115–135.
   Google Scholar
• Gosling, J., et al., 2016. Defining and categorizing modules in building projects: an international perspective. Journal of construction engineering and management, 142 (11), 04016062.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• da Rocha, Cecilia Gravina, El Ghoz, H.B.C. Jr., and Guadanhim, S., 2019. A model for implementing product modularity in buildings design. Engineering, construction and architectural management, 27 (03), 658–679.
   Google Scholar
• Halman, J.I.M., Hofer, A.P., and van Vuuren, W., 2003. Platform-driven development of product families: linking theory with practice. Journal of product innovation management, 20 (2), 149–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpin, D.W., 1985. Financial and cost concepts for construction management. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Hevner, A., and Chatterjee, S., 2010. Design science research in information systems. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hoekstra, S., Romme, J., and Argelo, S.M. (Eds.). 1992. Integral logistic structures: developing customer-oriented goods flow. Industrial Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Hofman, E., Voordijk, H., and Halman, J., 2009. Matching supply networks to a modular product architecture in the house-building industry. Building research & information, 37 (1), 31–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M., and Hameri, A.-P., 2009. Bridging practice and theory: a design science approach. Decision sciences, 40 (1), 65–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopp, W.J. and Spearman, M.L., 1996. Factory physics. Chicago, IL: Waveland Press.
   Google Scholar
• Howell, G.A., et al., 2004. Discussion of ‘reducing variability to improve performance as a lean construction principle’ by H. Randolph Thomas, Michael J. Horman, Ubiraci Espinelli Lemes de Souza, and Ivica Zavřski. Journal of construction engineering and management, 130 (2), 299–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, P., Olofsson, T., Smiding, E., and Gerth, R. (2014). Developing products in product platforms in the aec industry. In: Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (2014), American Society of Civil Engineers, Orlando, Florida, United States, 1062–1069.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, D.T., and Womack, J.P., 2000. Seeing the whole: mapping the extended value stream. Brookline, MA: Lean Enterprise Inst.
   Google Scholar
• Kasanen, E., Lukka, K., and Siitonen, A., 1993. The constructive approach in management accounting research. Journal of management accounting research, 5, 243.
   Google Scholar
• Kenley, R., and Seppänen, O., 2010. Location-based management for construction: planning, scheduling and control. London; New York: Spon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kohl, M., Wilberg, J., Tommelein, I., Pikas, E., and Lindemann, U. (2017). Modularization: exploring opportunities for knowledge transfer between the mechanical engineering and construction industry. In: 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), Vol. 6: design information and knowledge, Vancouver, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Korb, S., and Ballard, H.G. (2018). Believing is seeing: paradigms as a focal point in the lean discourse. In: 26th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Chennai, India.
   Google Scholar
• Korb, S., and Sacks, R. (2016). One size does not fit all: rethinking approaches to managing the construction of multi-story apartment buildings. In: 24th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Boston.
   Google Scholar
• Koskela, L., 1992. Application of the new production philosophy to construction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
   Google Scholar
• Koskela, L. (2000). An exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Technology, Helsinki University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Koskela, L., 2004. Making do – the eighth category of waste. In: C.T. Formoso and S. Bertelsen, eds. Lean Construction – DK, Elsinore, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Koskela, L., 2017. Why is management research irrelevant? Construction management and economics, 35 (1–2), 4–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskela, L., and Ballard, G., 2006. Should project management be based on theories of economics or production? Building research & information, 34 (2), 154–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskela, L., and Ballard, G., 2012. Is production outside management? Building research & information, 40 (6), 724–737.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laine, E., Alhava, O., Peltokorpi, A., and Seppänen, O. (2017). Platform ecosystems: unlocking the subcontractors’ business model opportunities. In: 25th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Heraklion, Greece, 177–184.
   Google Scholar
• Lehtovaara, J., et al., 2020. How takt production contributes to construction production flow: a theoretical model. Construction management and economics, 2020, 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Leishman, C., and Warren, F. 2006. Private housing design customization through house type substitution. Construction Management and Economics, 24(2), 149–158.
   Google Scholar
• Lennartsson, M., Bjronfot, A., and Stehn, L. (2009). Production control through modularization. In: Y. Cuperus and E.H. Hirota, eds. 17th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Taipei, Taiwan, 453–464.
   Google Scholar
• Liker, J.K., 2004. The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Little, J.C., and Graves, S.C., 2008. Little’s law. In: D. Chhajed and TimothyJ. Lowe, eds. Building intuition, international series in operations research & management science, New York: Springer US, 81–100.
   Google Scholar
• Lukka, K., 2003. The constructive research approach. In: L. Ojala and O.-P. Hilmola, eds. Case study research in logistics. Turku: Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, 83–101.
   Google Scholar
• March, S.T., and Smith, G.F., 1995. Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision support systems, 15 (4), 251–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitropoulos, P., and Sanchez, R., 2016. Criteria and considerations for project work structuring. Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers – management, procurement and law, 169 (3), 124–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, J., and Liker, J.K., 2006. The toyota product development system: integrating people, process and technology. New York: Productivity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M., and Berry, D., 1999. Leagility: integrating the lean and agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain. International journal of production economics, 62 (1–2), 107–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odrey, N.G., Green, J.D., and Appello, A., 2001. A generalized Petri net modeling approach for the control of re-entrant flow semiconductor wafer fabrication. Robotics and computer-integrated manufacturing, 17 (1–2), 5–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olhager, J., 2003. Strategic positioning of the order penetration point. International journal of production economics, 85 (3), 319–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pektas, S.T., and Pultar, M., 2006. Modelling detailed information flows in building design with the parameter-based design structure matrix. Design studies, 27, 99–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PERT Coordinating Group. 1962. DOD and NASA Guide: PERT COST system design.
   Google Scholar
• Piller, F., and Kumar, A., 2006. For each, their own: the strategic imperative of mass customization. Industrial engineer, 38 (9), 1.
   Google Scholar
• da Rocha, C.G., and Kemmer, S., 2018. Integrating product and process design in construction. Construction management and economics, 36 (9), 535–543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• da Rocha, C.G., and Kemmer, S.L., 2013. Method to implement delayed product differentiation in construction of high-rise apartment building projects. Journal of construction engineering and management, 139 (10), 05013001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• da Rocha, C.G., and Kemmer, S.L., 2015. Closure to ‘method to implement delayed product differentiation in construction of high-rise apartment building projects’ by Cecília Gravina da Rocha and Sergio Luiz Kemmer. Journal of construction engineering and management, 141 (2), 07014004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• da Rocha, C.G., Kemmer, S.L., and Meneses, L., 2016. Managing customization strategies to reduce workflow variations in house building projects. Journal of construction engineering and management, 142 (8), 05016005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• da Rocha, C.G., and Koskela, L. (2020). Why is product modularity underdeveloped in construction? In: Proc. 28th annual conference of the international group for lean construction (IGLC), Berkeley, California, USA, 697–708.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson, D., and Ulrich, K. 1998. Planning for Product Platforms. Sloan Management Review, 39 (4), 19–31.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, R., 2016. What constitutes good production flow in construction? Construction management and economics, 34 (9), 641–656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, R., Esquenazi, A., and Goldin, M., 2007. LEAPCON: simulation of lean construction of high-rise apartment buildings. Journal of construction engineering and management, 133 (7), 529–539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, R., and Goldin, M., 2007. Lean management model for construction of high-rise apartment buildings. Journal of construction engineering and management, 133 (5), 374–384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, R., et al., 2017. Construction flow index: a metric of production flow quality in construction. Construction management and economics, 35 (1–2), 45–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvador, F., 2007. Toward a product system modularity construct: literature review and reconceptualization. IEEE transactions on engineering management, 54 (2), 219–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, R., Deamer, J., and Austin, S. (2011). Understanding adaptability through layer dependencies. In: ICED 11 – 18th international conference on engineering design – Impacting society through engineering design, 10.
   Google Scholar
• Schramm, F. K., and Tillmann, P. A. 2009. Redesigning the Production System to Increase Flexibility in House Building Projects. 17th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Taipei, Taiwan, 347–358.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, T.W. (Ed.). 2006. Product platform and product family design: methods and applications. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Tommelein, I.D., 2020. Design science research in construction management: multi-disciplinary collaboration on the SightPlan system. Construction management and economics, 38 (4), 340–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tommelein, I.D., Riley, D.R., and Howell, G.A., 1999. Parade game: impact of work flow variability on trade performance. Journal of construction engineering and management, 125, 304–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tribelsky, E., and Sacks, R., 2010. Measuring information flow in the detailed design of construction projects. Research in engineering design, 21 (3), 189–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsao, C.C., 2005. Use of work structuring to increase performance of project-based production systems. Berkeley: University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Tsao, C.C.Y., and Tommelein, I.D. (2004). Creating work structuring transparency in curtain wall design. In: S. Bertelsen and C. T. Formoso, eds. 12th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Helsingør, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Tsao, C.C.Y., Tommelein, I. D., Swanlund, E., and Howell, G. A. (2000). Case study for work structuring: installation of metal door frames. In: 8th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Brigthon, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Tsao, C.C.Y., et al., 2004. Work structuring to achieve integrated product–process design. Journal of construction engineering and management, 130, 780–789.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich, K., 1995. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research policy, 24 (3), 419–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaishnavi, V., and Kuechler, W., 2007. Design science research methods and patterns: innovating information and communication technology. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Van Aken, J.E., 2004. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules: paradigm of the design sciences. Journal of management studies, 41 (2), 219–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veenstra, V.S., Halman, J.I.M., and Voordijk, J.T., 2006. A methodology for developing product platforms in the specific setting of the housebuilding industry. Research in engineering design, 17 (3), 157–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wikberg, F., and Ekholm, A. (2011). Design configuration with architectural objects. In: eCAADe conference proceedings, 451–460.
   Google Scholar
• Womack, J.P., and Jones, D.T., 2003. Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, B., and Burns, N., 2003. Implications of postponement for the supply chain. International journal of production research, 41 (9), 2075–2090.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, B., Burns, N.D., and Backhouse, C.J., 2004. Postponement: a review and an integrated framework. International journal of operations & production management, 24 (5), 468–487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar