Trade “Red Flags” of Poorly Implemented LPS®
Written by Robert Leicht, PhD, a Professor of Architectural Engineering at Penn State and member of the LCI Research Committee
One of the core elements of Lean design and construction being implemented on a project is the use of the Last Planner System®. The name of the system is critical – the foremen, as the Last Planners, are detailing, coordinating, vetting, and identifying barriers to the project schedule becoming a reality. At its best, a schedule should support the field in meeting the project’s overall production needs. To do this, the plan needs to be realistic and use the skills of the experienced craft workforce to fabricate, assemble, and ultimately commission the building and its systems.
One of the key requirements for the Last Planner System to work is for general contractor personnel to recognize an important Lean principle: the field leaders from the trades are their customers in the implementation of LPS®.
The trades are partners and are, in reality, the key enablers of project success. The processes built into LPS are designed to effectively identify problems or roadblocks and allow the GC to recognize and help remove them, supporting a reliable plan for the trades to execute. When that recognition is lost, the GC begins to view the trades as “working for them,” and the value of LPS quickly erodes, along with the reliability of the schedule.
Many trade contractors have worked on projects where GCs or superintendents claimed to be using the Last Planner System, but implemented it poorly or inconsistently. In those cases, the process can do more harm than good. As a result, many trades approach LPS with caution when it is introduced on a new project — and often for good reason.
Below are several common concerns, complaints, and implementation failures that trade foremen have experienced when LPS is not used properly. These issues can quickly undermine both the project schedule and the team dynamics needed to make the system work.
9 Common Mistakes Made During Last Planner System Implementation
-
Lookahead Without Looking Back
Reviewing the past work is critical for everyone in the meeting to have a consistent, shared understanding of where the work is, or is not, ready. It’s critical to spend a few minutes reviewing the past week, capturing the reality on the ground, and making sure everyone in the room is on the same page. This allows any future planning to be realistic. Without this, people waste time arguing about what has already been done and the team is never able to discuss a realistic plan of what should be done next.
-
“No” is not an option
Too often, pull planning sessions become nothing more than converting a critical path (CPM) or Gantt chart schedule into a wall of sticky notes. Instead of developing the plan together, the schedule is simply presented to the trades. The collaborative purpose of pull planning gets lost. One of the fundamental principles of the LPS is that trade partners should be empowered to challenge unrealistic commitments, negotiate sequencing, and propose better alternatives. If foremen don’t feel comfortable saying, “No, that’s not achievable,” then it isn’t truly a shared plan, and the schedule is doomed before you even begin.
-
Only Some Last Planners Are Present
Decisions are made by those who show up. If the full team is not present, either you can’t plan, or it makes it seem as if there are two levels of trades – those who can do what they want and those who can’t. Every contractor lead should be present to share their plan with the team, be held accountable for their work, and make reliable commitments to the other trades. If only part of the team is there to vet the plan, it’s not a plan, it’s a guess.
-
“The Superintendent Show”
The GC’s role is not to present the plan, but to set the conversation and help the trades coordinate their schedule. To do this effectively, the trades should be the ones sharing their progress and plans, asking questions, raising concerns, and talking to each other to develop a well-coordinated strategy. The GC should support that interaction, facilitate a clear, logical conversation, ensure the outcome aligns with the big picture, and troubleshoot for risks or other concerns. Once that process gets flowing, the superintendent’s role gets much easier – they get to focus on the big picture because each of the trades is bringing their plans, sharing them, and negotiating directly.
-
No One is Working “Over There”
One of the least productive things to do is jump around in reaction to a last-minute request. The materials may not be available or ready, the workforce may not have the right skills for those tasks, and the tools and equipment have to be packed up and moved if they are even on-site. Immediately addressing the request will also interrupt other trades’ sequences or access when they get to that space. If the plan addresses the work, then the work should occur when it’s scheduled, not just because it seems to be available now.
-
No Action Since Last Meeting
There is nothing as frustrating as continuously raising the same concern only to see it fall on deaf ears. If the GC is not capturing roadblocks (constraints) before they impact field work, assigning clear deadlines, and identifying a specific person to champion each issue through resolution, then how can the team expect those problems to be fixed? The purpose of the weekly LPS meeting is not simply to share and coordinate the plan, but also to identify problems or roadblocks, and set a plan and deadline for addressing them before they disrupt the work in the field.
-
A Picture is Worth 1,000 Words
Many GCs, and often superintendents, rely only on verbal communication to share information. Use visuals! Have a young engineer pull up the model, find a site picture – or better yet, use one of the many progress capture tools. The point is to make sure everyone is looking at the same problem or work area during the discussion. Contractors, architects, and engineers all tend to be visual learners and communicators. Why are we just talking about it? How will we know we’re talking about the same issue if we are not all looking at the same thing?
-
Obviously, everyone knows the Last Planner System
Another common failure is assuming that trade partners already understand how to participate in LPS. In reality, every GC, and often every superintendent, facilitates planning sessions in a slightly different way. It’s important to establish expectations for each new trade as they are onboarded. For example, what if a trade partner’s previous projects didn’t identify and manage constraints? What if it’s their first project as a foreman? There’s real value in conducting a brief LPS workshop or kickoff session at the start of every project, and in revisiting it during phases or when onboarding new trades. It gives the team an opportunity to explain how planning meetings will be run and how everyone is expected to contribute to collaborative planning, including discussing the GC’s responsibilities to their customers.
-
We don’t need to keep score
One outright failure lies in the lack of tracking and root cause analysis. If we are not tracking planned percent complete (PPC), then we don’t know if our commitments are reliable. PPC is the start of the conversation about improvement. If we aren’t measuring reliability, we have no way of knowing if the planning process is working. PPC, together with root cause analysis of why the team was unable to complete a task (reasons for the variance), provides the feedback loop that drives continuous improvement. The review of these non-completions is critical. Without that variance analysis, the team repeats the same mistakes and the same assumptions, and we are right back at the beginning, planning two different projects – the superintendent’s imaginary project, and the actual problems the foreman knows are waiting to be addressed when they get out of the meeting and back into the field.
Acknowledgements
This content was developed with extensive input from the Trade Partner Committee, notably Henry Nutt, III (Southland Industries), Matt Kitzmiller (Rosendin Electric), Blake Tormey (KHS&S), and Elnaz Asadian (DPR).