Lean product development and agile project management in the construction industry.
| Autor | Albuquerque, Felipe |
Introduction
The organizations are constantly under pressure to increase agility and efficiency in product development. Facing this scenario, researchers and professionals started to reinvent the current methods, arguing that existing methodologies were not always aligned with new challenges (Serrador & Pinto, 2015). In this context, several techniques, methodologies and alternative philosophies appeared, two of the most famous are lean product development (LPD) and agile project management (APM) (Salgado & Dekkers, 2018; Serrador & Pinto, 2015).
These methodologies originally came from companies connected to Information and Communication Technology and the automotive industry (Salgado & Dekkers, 2018). Despite new features regarding the subject, is it possible to question if these new methods of product development could be applied in traditional industries, such as civil construction, especially during its design stage.
Several studies analyzed the applications of both methodologies (LPD and APM) in different industries and segments, such as automotive, software development, and even in traditional industries of mass production (Serrador & Pinto, 2015). However, few of these analyses were specifically focused on the construction industry (El. Reifi & Emmitt, 2013; Owen, Koskela, Henrich, & Codinhoto, 2006). Furthermore, these studies were held in different countries and may carry the singularities of these markets.
The aim of this research is to study the potential application of the LPD and APM approaches in the product development of the construction industry. The potential application of LPD and APM concepts was investigated not only in the technical dimension but also in the social dimension of the studied phenomenon. The technical dimension is discussed in the research based on the similarity presented by some situations found in the companies investigated, comparing them with situations and cases in literature already solved with the proposed approach. The social dimension is approached in the identification of the context in which similar problems are found, promoting interviews with managers in order to investigate the current problem solving strategies, degree of knowledge, the agents' perception on the alternative approach and interaction with internal (other employees) and external agents (customers and suppliers).
Therefore, this paper focuses on the design stage of the construction project, because it is the most similar one to product development process (Owen et al., 2006). The results will enable the establishment of a clearer scenario of some Brazilian companies, and will aim to identify the main factors that influence the potential application of LPD and APM tools and techniques in the current design processes in the civil construction industry.
Bibliographic review
Lean product development (LPD)
The lean concept emerged in manufacture as a multidimensional approach that comprised a variety of management practices, such as just in time, quality systems, production cell, etc. (Shah & Ward, 2003). Although lean is a wide concept, it is based on five principles: value, value stream, flow, pull and perfection (Womack & Jones, 1997).
After the success of lean's application in the manufacture stage, companies started to realize that the new productive obstacle became the development of new products (Marodin, Frank, Tortorella, & Netland, 2018). At that moment, there were many attempts to apply the same lean principles to these development stages, the result was the LPD (Salgado & Dekkers, 2018).
In the same way lean concept reached a huge range of practices, LPD also became vague at times, with many practices and principles associated with it (Wang, Conboy, & Cawley, 2012). Thus, many previous studies spent considerable effort in trying to consolidate a list for the LPD description. The Lermen, Echeyeste, Peralta, Sonego, & Marcon (2018) study compiled a list of more than 40 practices and tools that literature associates to LPD. Dal Forno and Forcellini (2012) pointed out, after a bibliometric analysis over the theme, 15 practices and principles also associated to LPD, while Salgado and Dekkers (2018) consolidated a list with more than 18 LPD principles, after a systematic review of literature. In face of several options, mainly for simplification, LPD principles will be considered herein as:
* Value stream mapping: mapping of the main interactions (internal and external) involved inside a process, seeking to separate value-adding activities, required non-value-adding activities, and non-value-adding activities (the latter must be fully eliminated) (Hines & Rich, 1997). This principle, in which the goal is the elimination of waste, is in the lean's foundation, according to the original model proposed by Womack and Jones (1997).
* Set-based concurrent engineering (SBCE): it is a concept originated from manufacture that was highlighted in literature mainly after the publication of Ward, Liker, Cristiano, and Sobek's (1995) article, in which the model of Toyota's SBCE (Salgado & Dekkers, 2018) was presented. SBCE consists of the intentional effect of defining, discussing and exploring a series of possible sub-optimal solutions, instead of trying to modify and adapt one single solution (Ward, Liker, Cristiano, and Sobek, 1995). It is in this vision that multiple tests are encouraged, through creation and development of various prototypes (Ward, Oosterwal, & Sobek, 2018). It is vital that these alternative solutions converge and be tested with the final product, seeking to minimize errors in the production stage (Schafer & Sorensen, 2010). Still, as focal point of this technique, there is a head engineer (called shusa, inspired by Toyota's head engineers who are responsible for the whole project including during its use), who is responsible for the general technical validations and correct allocation of resources and people within the project (Ward et al., 1995). Finally, to ensure a better use at this stage, it is important that records of lessons learned are checked and updated. These records are essential to reuse the knowledge already developed in other projects, besides limiting the creativity within practical periods (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 2009; Ward et al., 1995).
* Visual management: it is the concept of using visual tools to facilitate the team's communication on topics such as project scope, visible problems, quality, time and cost indicators (Pinheiro & Toledo, 2016). These visual tools have many goals, such as representing data and assumptions (always updated), communicating the limits for the creativity of those involved, facilitating the development of relationships among several variables, etc. Visual management is a powerful technique that tends to rationalize resources by reusing knowledge and preventing errors. In addition, an efficient visual management can speed up the development process through optimizations, elimination of "dead ends," decrease of iterations and effective communication between departments (Ward et al., 2018).
* Voice of the customer: the customer involvement, especially during the product development stage, is a key factor to assure the design quality (Kpamma, Adjei-Kumi, Ayarkwa, & Adinyira, 2018). This contribution becomes more valuable in the early stages of development, when it is possible to influence variables such as cost and lead time effectively (Cristiano, Liker, & White, 2000).
It is important to point out that this study did not seek a universal and absolute image of the main LPD practices. Its objective was only to investigate and present important foundations provided by literature, comparing them with the reality of the companies studied herein.
Agile project management (APM)
Another applicable approach to the development of new products is the APM. Agile methodologies are mostly based on the Manifesto for Agile Software Development (Beck et al., 2001) and underpin the belief that initial plans are not effective and that an evolutionary iterative process is more efficient (Dyba & Dingsoyr, 2008). APM differs from traditional projects and products management (known as waterfall model) by emphasizing continuous design, flexible scope, living with uncertainty, and the constant customer interaction, as well as modifications in the project team's structure (Serrador & Pinto, 2015).
APM emerged in the software industry (MacCormack, Verganti, & Iansiti, 2001), however, its application might be extended to other industries in need of more flexible methodologies (Conforto, Salum, Amaral, Da Silva, & De Almeida, 2014). Serrador and Pinto (2015) empirically proved that APM application has significant influence on project success, concerning efficiency, stakeholder's satisfaction, and the perception on the performance of the project in general. Nevertheless, the same study shows that this correlation appeared only in innovative industries. In more traditional sectors (construction, manufacturing and retail), it was not possible to find the same statistical correlation.
Similarly, LPD, APM is also a wide concept, with several associated practices (Wang et al., 2012). Below, we selected some APM principles found in literature on the subject:
* Flexible and constant planning: the struggle to keep the original course of a plan is perceived since the 1950s (Serrador & Pinto, 2015), especially in projects with uncertain goals, open scope, several alternative solutions and high stakeholder involvement (Carvalho & Rabechini, 2011). From this dynamic context, planning loses its rigidity and must be constantly reviewed as the project evolves (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). APM proposes to face this challenge through constant redesign focused on short-term and periodical reviews. This way, the plan becomes more mature as the objectives are defined (Schwaber, 2004).
* Iterative development: while the traditional project management is based on clear scope...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
