The Influence of Different Technical Approaches – A Comparison in Location-Based Management System and Takt Planning

The Influence of Different Technical Approaches - A Comparison in Location-Based Management System and Takt Planning

2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.60164/p8swe1agi

Authors: Paulina Gollee, Olli Seppänen, Janosch Dlouhy

Citation:

Gollee, P., Seppänen, O., and Dlouhy, J.(2026) The influence of different technical approaches – A comparison in Location-based Management System and Takt planning. Lean Construction Journal 2026. pp 322-358 https://doi.org/10.60164/p8swe1agi (submitted 10Sept2025; Accepted 12May2026) www.leanconstructionjournal.org

Abstract:

Abstract

Question: How do the methods LBMS and Takt planning differ in their technical approach? What influence does the different technical approach of the methods have on a project?

Purpose: This paper presents a detailed technical analysis of LBMS and Takt methodologies, extending beyond previous comparisons to examine their specific calculation techniques.

Research Method: Literature review and technical comparison of published formulations, followed by a simplified example and a real-project case study comparing duration and workforce metrics.

Findings: LBMS and Takt calculations are similar if work densities in locations are uniform, and buffers are not considered. LBMS favors time buffers to maintain continuity, while Takt relies on capacity buffers to maintain flow. If work densities vary between locations, the Takt approach shortens project durations but may cause resource fluctuations; whereas LBMS provides consistent resource distribution but typically results in extended project durations. In the case study, the Takt plan shortened the schedule by three weeks (~5%) compared to the optimized LBMS plan, while showing higher average workforce and stronger workforce variability.

Limitations: Empirical results are based on one real-project case study (single project sequence) and were not validated across multiple projects; generalizability is therefore limited. The analysis focuses on planning and does not model execution-phase control or cascading delay effects.

Implications: Scheduling methods should be selected based on project-specific factors such as work densities and available resources. Understanding the technical differences enables more informed decisions – favoring Takt for flow efficiency in time-driven projects, and LBMS for stability in resource-sensitive environments.

Value for authors: This analysis reveals how buffer strategies affect both resource use and project durations. In addition, it provides a practitioner-oriented decision tree to support method selection based on project characteristics.

Keywords:  Lean Construction, Location-based Management System, Takt, Buffering, Buffers, project duration

Paper type: Full Paper