last planner and integrated project delivery

Seongkyuand IntegJournal 2Delivery S

AbstrResearc

2) DIPD

Purposeper

Researcdetred

Findingandpersignimp

Limitatgen

Implicabetthe

Value foto d

KeyworPaper t

LiteraAccordi(IPD) co

1 PhD C

Berke2 Direct

Profes94720

Lean Cohttp://c

un Cho and Glegrated Project2011 pp 67-78 Special issue w

Last P

ract ch QuestionDoes Integr

D projects ue: The firstrformance. ch Method:termine theduction + timgs: 1) Thered project performance fnificantly dplementatioions: Limit

neralizationations: This tween projee other. or practitiodesign projerds: Integratype: Full p

ature Rng to the A

ontract form

Early invoShared ris

Candidate, Civeley, CA 94720tor, Project Pssor, Civil and

0-1712, USA, Ponstruction Jocreativecommons.

enn Ballard (2t Delivery Lea - Lean and Inwww.leancon

lanner Se

ns: 1) Doesated Projecse LP?

t objective i : survey of e correlatiome reductioe is significaerformancefrom that oifferent imon is near toations in sa

ns. exploratoryect structur

oners: The ect deliveryated Projec

paper.

Review American Insm includes:

lvement of k and rewa

vil and Env. En0-1712, USA, Production Sys

d Env. EngineePhone +1 415/

urnal 2011 .org/licenses/by-

2011) Last Plan Constructio

ntegrated Projstructionjourn

and Ineongkyun C

s the use of ct Delivery

is to figure

‘Lean’ projn between on); and a Tant correlate; 2) IPD prof others noplementatio significan

ample size a

y research res and prac

findings froy systems foct Delivery,

stitute of A

Key particiard;

ngineering. DePhone +1 510/tem Laboratoering. Departm/710-5531, ba

nc-nd/3.0/ p

nner on ject nal.org

ntegrateCho1 and G

Last Plann (IPD) show

out the rel

ects known LP implemeT test betwtion betweeojects do not adopting on of LP fro

nce and data qu

revealed inctices on th

om this papor better p Last Plann

Architects (A

ipants;

epartment, 40/725-7929, seoory, http://p2ment, 215-A [email protected]

page 67

ed Prolenn Ballar

er (LP) imp different p

lationship b

n to adopt Lentation an

ween IPD anen the degrot show signIPD; and 3)om that of

uality reduc

nteresting ahe one hand

per can be uerformance

ner, Lean Co

AIA), the In

07-A [email protected]

McLaughlin Hakeley.edu

www.l

ject Derd2

prove projecproject perf

between IPD

LP, includinnd Project pd non-IPD p

ree of implenificantly d IPD projecothers but

ce the credi

and importad and proje

used by inde. onstruction

ntegrated Pr

lin Hall, [email protected]

du, and Adjunall, Univ. of Ca

eanconstructio

elivery

ct performaformance? 3

D, LP, and p

ng IPD projeperformancprojects. ementation different cts do not shtheir

ibility of

ant relationect perform

ustry pract

, survey.

roject Deliv

of Californiau nct Associate alifornia, Berk

njournal.org

y

ance? 3) Do

project

ects, to e (cost

of LP

how

ships ance on

itioners

very

,

keley, CA

SimilarlOwners AssociatIPD as aparties based oAccordiconstrurework,organiza(Thomse

The construprocess

Many reLiu et aAlarconAgain, tflow to value (B

Whiin orderreducinorganizadesired whethethose q

Hypis a welof Variathree diprojectsquestiomultivadifferen

3 Labou

C

Lean Co http://

Multi partyCollaboratLiability wJointly de

ly, the Natio Associationted Generaa project de selected byon team perng to CMAAction indus, frequent dational, comen et al., 2

Last Plannction projees:

Master schPhase scheLook aheaWeekly Pla

esearchers hal (2008) sug et al (1997the LP has b minimize wBallard, 200

le IPD has tr to improveg plan variaation integr outcomes,r the impleuestions, w

othesis testll establisheance) to invifferent cons. More simnnaire, senriate t-test

nces among

ur Productivity

Cho & Ballar

onstruction Jocreativecommons

y contract;tive decisio

waivers amoveloped an

onal Associn of Americ

al Contractoelivery systey qualificatrformance wA, the purpotry such as disputes, exmmercial, a

2009)

er (LP) is a ects to impr

hedule; edule;

ad Plan; andan (Hamzeh

have provedggesting a r7) showing dbeen createwaste in tim00)

tried to intee project oability for trated by us such as co

ementation we did some

ting regardied methodovestigate if ntract type

milar to our t it to 7600

t, chi squareg three proj

y = 0.530 + 1.0

rd: Last Plan

urnal 2011 s.org/licenses/by-

on making aong key pard validated

ation of Staca, Associators in Ameriem using a ion based pwithout GMose of IPD is low rates oxcessive cosand operati

productionrove plannin

d h, 2009).

d reducing regression ldifference ed to maximme/money i

egrate projoutcomes, Lthe same pusing contracst/time red of LP can ae hypothesis

ing project ology. For e there is sigs, selected research de0 projects, ae test, ANOect deliver

095*Weekly P

nner and Inte

-nc-nd/3.0/ p

and control;ticipants; a

d project go

ate Facility tion of Highica, and Am multi partyprocuremen

MP, and opes to solve cof productivst, and exceional proble

n planning ang and prod

plan variabline3 betwein producti

mize reliabin project p

ect participLP has enforurpose. Ourctual alignmduction. If iachieve thos testing in

performanexample, Chgnificant dif from a govesign, Sanvand got 378

OVA, and rery systems.

lan Percent C

egrated Pro

page 68

; and oals (Cohen

Associationher Educatiomerican Insty contract tnt, managedn book acco

currently acvity, high raessive duraems in curre

and control duction perf

bility helps ien plan relivity beforeility of the processes an

pants’ rolesrced systemr question isment, such ait is not enose outcome this resear

ce based ohoi (2008) ufference in vernment daido et al (18 responsesgression to

Completion

ject Deliver

www.l

et al., 201

n (NASFA), on Facilitiestitute of Arcthat has mod/shared riounting (NAcknowledgeates of inef

ation--all caent project

system impformance.

increase priability and and after iwork/matend to maxim

s and relatiomatic produs if having as IPD, is enough, our nes. To find orch.

n a large nuused one wa schedule patabase of 998) made

s on which t identify pe

ry

eanconstructio

0).

Constructios Officers, chitects de

ore than twosk, compen

ASFA et al 2d problemsfficiency anaused by t delivery sy

plemented It has four

roductivity, d productiviimplementi

erial/informmize custom

ons contracction contrproject nough to mext concernout the ans

umber of pray ANOVA (Aperformancemore than a survey they did erformance

njournal.org

on

fined o

nsation 2010). s in the nd

ystems

on main

such as ty, and ing LP.

mation mer

ctually rol

aximize n is swers to

rojects Analysis e among 1,700

Resea

ReseaOur reseimplemIntegratimplemgeneral

If the ficomparredirecthypotheThe sec

A

This papthird hy

ReseaThe firsof varia(2001).

C

Lean Co http://

arch De

arch Hypoearch assumentation. Bted Projectentation an hypothesis

If a propro

rst hypothering IPD projted to a quaesis was supcond hypoth

If a proje

And the thir

If a proje

per is devotypothesis te

arch Measst thing thatables. We co

Cho & Ballar


esign

othesis mption: proBased on thit Delivery (Ind IPD projes testing. Th

oject impleoject perfo

esis had notjects with oalitative expported, mahesis is:

ect adopts Idiff

rd hypothes

ect adopts Idiff

ted to the iesting.

surement we have tonceptualiz

rd: Last Plan


oject perforis assumptioPD) projectects’ perforhus, our fir

ements Lastormance be

t been suppothers in texploration saking it me

ntegrated Pferent from

sis is:

IPD, its degferent from

interpretati

nt to do after zed our vari

nner and Inte

-nc-nd/3.0/ p

rmance varion, we diagts to determrmance. Thst research

t Planner (Ltter than th

ported, it werms of LP aseeking whaaningful to

Project Delm those of o

gree of implm those of o

ion of the r

forming hyiables as sh

egrated Pro

page 69

ies with Lasgnosed the mine the cohis assumpti hypothesis

LP) more, ithose emplo

would be meand our reseat caused LP test the se

ivery (IPD),ther projec

lementationther projec

results from

potheses is hown in Figu

ject Deliver

www.l

st Planner ( degree of Lorrelation bion must bes is:

t achieves boying LP les

eaningless tearch woulP to fail. Hoecond and t

, its performcts.

n of Last Plcts.

m the first, t

to specify ure 1, follow

ry

eanconstructio

(LP) LP implemebetween LP e supported

better ss.

to go furthed have beeowever, thethird hypoth

mance is

lanner is

the second

the measurwing Adcoc

njournal.org

ented in

d by

er n e first hesis.

and the

rement ck et al

Figure

We struparts.

The Last Plabased o

C

Lean Co http://

e 1: Concep

uctured the

independeanner (LP). on the follow

1 Pullinnext w(Tomm

2 Looka(prereinappequipin firstasks (Balla

3 Learnanalyzreocc

Cho & Ballar


ptualizatio

variables i

ent variable To measurewing five el

ng productiworkers (immelein, 199

ahead procequisite wo

propriatenespment, inadst run study are not eligard, 2000)

ning from byzed to rooturrence (Ba

rd: Last Plan


on and mea

n the hypot

e of the firste this abstrlements:

ion: each wmmediate cu98)

cess: each fork, contracss, insuffic

dequate dury, etc) befogible for in

breakdownst causes andallard, 2000

nner and Inte

-nc-nd/3.0/ p

surement:

theses so th

t hypothesiract concep

worker invesustomers) b

front line sctual approient resourration, fundore executionclusion on

s: failures d actions ar0)

egrated Pro

page 70

Levels and

hey could b

s is the degt, we deve

stigates thebefore exec

upervisor rovals, sequerce as well ading probleon of its ta daily or we

to completre taken to

ject Deliver

www.l

d task (Adc

e measured

gree of imploped indic

e readinesscution of ta

removes conential as labour &

em, problemasks. Constreekly work p

te planned t prevent

ry

eanconstructio

ock et al.,

d in the foll

lementatioators to be

s of the asks

nstraints

& ms found rained plans

tasks are

njournal.org

2001)

lowing

n of scored

Th

# Que1 Wha

schewor

2 To wwas plancons

3 To wshouimm

4 Did saidwee100 plan

5 Howweeprev

So far, whypotheperformfinal apapprovegetting

Thvariablethe indesecond the lasthypothewhetheadopts measureto score

C

Lean Co http://

4 Phasecollabhando

5 Districloserwho a

he indicato

estions at percentageduling the pk?

what extent w ready to ben? Bear in mistraints are rwhat extentuld be done

mediate cus

the project d you were goekly work pla tasks on wenned (no parw often wereekly work plavent reoccur

we have spesis. Next, wmance. We dpproved buded schedule good data

he dependee of the firsependent v hypothesis t concept thesis; i.e., tor a project IPD, as the e the extene the degre

Cho & Ballar


e schedulinboration of off is produ

ibuted conr to executare to do th

rs in the bo

Table 2:

ge of specialtproject phas

was the prine performed ind that worremoved. t was the pe in responsstomer, such

measure theoing to do?’ an tasks comekly work pl

rtial credit), e reasons for an) analyzedrrence?

ecified the we addressdecided to dget) + durae) as a meason other pe

ent variablest hypothesariable of t is the samehat we defio what exte adopts IPD type of thint of impleme of adopti

rd: Last Plan


ng: every ha all relevan

uced (Ballar

trol: Work ion, and plahe work. (Ba

ox above ar

Survey que

ty contractoe(s) in which

nciple followcould be plak is ready to

principle folse to a requh as the nex

e extent to w(The measur

mpleted as pllans and 70 w the percent not complet to root caus

measurem the depend use the sumation reducsure of projerformance

e of the secis. The depthe first hype as the indne is the inent a projecD. We decide

s variable bmentation. ng IPD stru

nner and Inte

-nc-nd/3.0/ p

andoff in a nt specialistrd et al., 20

is planned anning is doallard et al

e transform

estions mea

rs participath they were

ed that onlyaced on a weo be perform

llowed thatuest from axt trade?

which you ‘dre is the percanned. If thewere completage would bting plannedses and actio

ent of the ident variabm of cost retion ratio (ject perform

e dimension

ond hypothpendent varpothesis. Andependent vndependentct adopts Ined to take because we In additionctures if we

egrated Pro

page 71

phase shouts in the ph003)

in greater one collabol., 2003)

med into sur

asuring Las

ted in to do their

y work that eekly work ed when all

work n

id what you centage of ere were eted as be 70%) d tasks (on on taken to

independenble of the saeduction rat%) (actual dmance becas.

hesis is the riable of thend the indevariable of variable of

ntegrated Pthe binary

e could not n, it would e had used

ject Deliver

www.l

uld be definhase before

detail as yooratively by

rvey questio

st Planner Answer tyPercentagNone: 1/625-50%:3/75-100%:5

FrequencyNever: 1/SometimeAnd AlwayFrequencyNever: 1/SometimeAnd Alway

Yes/No ⇒Yes: 1; an

FrequencyNever: 1/SometimeAnd Alway

nt variable ame hypothtio (%) (actduration reause of the

same as thee third hypoependent va the third hf the secon

Project Delivvariable, wget enough be difficult continuous

ry

eanconstructio

ned by e the

ou get y those

ons:

ype & Scoringe ⇒ 6; 0-25%:2/6/6; 50-75%:45/6; and All:y ⇒

/5; Rarely: 2es: 3/5; Ofteys: 1 y ⇒

/5; Rarely: 2es: 3/5; Ofteys: 1

⇒ nd No: 1/6

y ⇒ /5; Rarely: 2es: 3/5; Ofteys: 1

in the first hesis, projeual cost unlative to fin low probab

e dependenothesis is saariable of thypothesis. Td and the tvery (IPD),

whether a prh IPD project for respons variables.

njournal.org

g Rule

6; 4/6; 1

/5; en: 4/5;

/5; en: 4/5;

/5; en: 4/5;

ect der nal bility of

nt ame as he Thus, third or roject cts to ndents

HypotThe hypindepenquantitain Tablea real nhypothetwo varof the sproject a T-testdifferenand the

SamplIn commrandomcontrol implemadvantaparticipLaboratrandomPurposivused effthe winsuch as

Resu

RegreThere isproject have suin Table

Figuline. Evapproprwhose i‘cube o

The cost red

4 http:/5 http:/

C

Lean Co http://

thesis tespothesis tesndent variabatively conte 2 is the tonumber. Theesis is a ratiriables is apsecond and adopts IPDt, to determnt influencee degree of

ling Stratmon sense, ized sampli so that we entation in

age of e-mapants in wortory5. The sly from anyve samplingfectively inner in the p one describ

lts

ession mos a significa performanccessfully se 3 in the A

ure 2 is a grven though wriate in desndependenf X’ or X3

result is enduction and

//finance.dir.//p2sl.berkele

Cho & Ballar


sting mesting was peble (degreetinuous ordotal degree e dependenio variable

ppropriate f the third h

D’, for whichmine whethe on depend implement

tegy the most aing. Howev need the v their proje

ail lists in rerkshops sucame applieywhere in tg is widely n identifyingpast, or it ibing gangst

odel fromant correlatce—the sumsupported t

Appendix.

raphical repwe used a scribing beh

nt variables

ncouraging.d time reduc

.groups.yahooey.edu/

rd: Last Plan


thodologerformed die of Last Pladinal variab of Last Plant variable representefor testing typothesis ish regressioner the catedent variabtation of La

ppropriate ver, Last Plavery specificects. Thus, elevant groch as those es to selectihe world, vused in studg communits used in se

ter’s lives (B

m testingtion betweem of cost anthe first hyp

presentationstraight linehaviour of v are ‘square

. The regresction) = 0.7

o.com/group/i

nner and Inte

-nc-nd/3.0/ p

gy ifferently aanner implele because

anner imple(cost reduc

ed as a real the hypothes a binary cn analysis isegorization les: projectst Planner i

form of samanner (LP) ic responde we decidedups such assponsored bion of IPD pvery few, if dying unusuties across telecting keyBernard, 20

g the firsten the implnd schedulepothesis. Th

n including e, the scattariables. The of indepe

ssion mode7371101×X2

iglc/message/

egrated Pro

page 72

according toementation the sum ofementation ction + time number. Thesis. Howevcategorical s not appro(IPD or othet performanin the third

mpling to suis a very spents who cand to use a ps general IGby the Projprojects. If any, IPD pual critical the United y informant000)

t hypothementatione reduction his is repres

scatter ploter plot seehus, we trie

endent varia

l with ‘squa2-3.89088’ w

/677

ject Deliver

www.l

o the type o) of the firs

f scores of t of a projece reduction)hus, regresver, the indvariable, ‘w

opriate. In terwise) hasnce in the s

d hypothesis

upport a hyecific tool fn determinepurposive saGLC group inect Productwe were torojects woucases. For e States thatts for ethno

esis n of Last Pla percentagesented as a

otting and aems to showed several lable (X) in F

are of X’ orwith its P<|

ry

eanconstructio

of variable.st hypothesthe five quect, represen) of the samsion betwee

dependent vwhether or this case, ws a significasecond hypos.

ypothesis is for producte the degreampling takn Yahoo4, otion Systemo select prould be incluexample, itt have votedographic stu

anner (LP) aes. That me

a regression

a linear regrw a curve is linear regreFigure 2’ or

r X2 is ‘Y(Sum|t(2.98)| is

njournal.org

The sis is a estions nted as me en the variable not a

we used antly othesis,

tion ee of LP king r

m ojects uded. t can be d for udies

and eans we model

ression more essions, r X2 and

m of 0.005,

which is(P<|t|) Furtherof t is 0does no

The finaproportrepresecurve’, reductio

C

Lean Co http://

s less than 0 means the

rmore, the r0.004, whichot show mor

Figu

al regressiotionate to thented as blu which showon) = 0.148

-20

-10

010

2030

40

.5

Sum

Cho & Ballar


0.009, the re is greateregression mh is less thare significan

ure 2: Regre

on line with he degree o

ue diamond ws that Proj4254 ×(Imp

1 1.5

m of cost reduct

rd: Last Plan


P<|t(2.71)er significanmodel with an 0.005 in nce than X3

ession of L

X cubed, sof Last Plan type plots ject Performplementatio

5 2Implem

tion and schedu

nner and Inte

-nc-nd/3.0/ p

| in Table 3nce in the c X3 is ‘Y = 0 the regress3.

Last Planne

aying that tnner’s imple in Figure 3mance (sumon of Last P

2.5mentation of Las

ule reduction(Y)

egrated Pro

page 73

3 with merecoefficient o0.1484254×

sion model

r on Projec

the projectementation. We decide

m of cost rePlanner)3-1.

3 3.5st Planner (X)

ject Deliver

www.l

e X. The lesof the regre

×X3-1.61730 with X2. Bu

ct Performa

t performann cubed, is ved to call it

eduction and.617307.

4

Y=4.141356*

ry

eanconstructio

ss p value ofession line.7’ with its

ut, X to the

ance

nce is visually t ‘Cho-Ballad schedule

4.5 5

*X-9.003641

njournal.org

f t p value fourth

ard

SummThe foll

6 For de

-2

-1

1

2

3

4

5Su

m o

f Cost

red

uct

ion a

nd S

ched

ule

red

uct

ion: Y (

%),

"more

red

uct

ion o

f co

st a

nd s

ched

ule

" Bott

om

to T

op

C

Lean Co http://

Figure 3: C

mary of Hlowing box

If a pro

=> Stron(sum

If a proje

If a proje

=> Faimple

etail of hypot

20

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

X: S

Cho & Ballar


Cho-Ballard

Hypothesi summarize

oject implemperforma

ngly supporm of cost red

(Imple

ect adopts Idiff

=> F

ect adopts I

ailed to be smented LP

hesis testing,

1

Score of Last

rd: Last Plan


d Curve b/w

is testings the result

Hy

ments Last ance better

rted by the duction andementation

Hy

ntegrated Pferent from

Failed to b

Hy

IPD, its degfrom thos

supported. to a certai

signific

please see Ap

2

Planner Impl

Cho-

nner and Inte

-nc-nd/3.0/ p

w (Last Plan

g6 ts of hypoth

ypothesis

Planner (Lr than those

regression d schedule of Last Pla

ypothesis 2

Project Delm those of o

e supported

ypothesis 3

gree of implse of other

However, Iin degree evcant statist

ppendix

3

lementation

Ballard C

egrated Pro

page 74

nner)3 and

hesis testing

1

P) more, ite employing

model: Proreduction)

anner)3-1.61

2

ivery (IPD),ther projec

d definitive

3

lementatio projects.

IPD projectven thoughically.

4

(LPI), "more

Curve

Y=0.14

ject Deliver

www.l

Project pe

g so far.

t achieves pg LP less

oject Perfor = 0.14842517307

, its performcts.

ely

n of LP is d

ts in our samh the level i

5

regorous LPI

484254*X^3-1.6

ry

eanconstructio

erformance

project

rmance 54 ×

mance is

different

mple is not

6

I" L->R

617307

njournal.org

e

ConcWe founLast PlaPerform

Thisparticipbetter pcriticiziorganizahow the

Appe

DetailTable 3 projects2’ in TadurationsignificaTable 3model)

Sourc

Mode

Residu

Tota

Y in Figu

X in Figu

Consta

DetailThe secperformthe twoperformshould btest, navarianceprobabialternat

C

Lean Co http://

lusion nd in this reanner. Howemance, and

s research dpants, and Lperformancng forms ofational intee work is ac

endix

l of the f is the resus. Simply, w

able 3. This n reductionance of this). Usually, is significan

ce

el 543

ual 3467al 4010

ure2 Coe

ure2 4.1

ant -9.0

l of the scond hypothmance is difo groups (IPmance becaube performamed as “sde of IPD andility, exprestive hypoth

Cho & Ballar


esearch thaever, we di Integrated

does not preLP, reducingce. Indeed, f IPD that regration, whctually done

first hypoult producedwe need to is the grad

n’ and X is ‘s coefficienif P>|t| is lnt. In our c

Table 3: ReSS D

.294059

7.23372

0.52778

fficient S

141356 1

003641 5

second hyhesis is < If fferent fromD and Non use generaled under th

dtest” in STd that of Nossed as p (F

hesis, locate

rd: Last Plan


at project pid not find a Project De

event us frog project va this is the cely only on hile neglecte. Future re

othesis ted by STATA see the ‘co

dient of the the degree

nt is determless than 0.ase, the re

esult of ReDF M

1

47

48

Std Errors

1.526046

5.279548

ypothesia project a

m those of oIPD) have sl T test is phe unequal TATA v.10. Ton IPD, whiF<f), p (|F|ed right abo

nner and Inte

-nc-nd/3.0/ p

performancea strong rel

elivery (IPD)

om believinariability, aclaim put fo alignment ting the leaesearch is n

esting v.10, a staoefficient’, regression

e of implemmined by P >.05, we cangression mo

egression foMS

543.294059

73.7709302

83.552662

T

2.71

-1.77

is testingadopts Integother projecignificantly

performed b variance coThe f valueich is expre>|f|), and ove the pro

egrated Pro

page 75

e improves lationship a).

ng that if IPare combineorward by L of commeran ‘operatinneeded to v

atistics pack written on line. Y is ‘sentation of

> |t|, 0.009n say this coodel is Y=4.

or the first N

P

Adj

Root

P>|t|

0.009

0.095

g grated Projects>. Beforey different vbased on eqondition. Ta stands for

essed as ‘Rap (F>f) in T

obability, is

ject Deliver

www.l

with the imamong Last

D, aligning ed, any proLean Constrrcial interesng system’,validate this

kage, using n the right ssum of costf Last Plann9 (red-undeoefficient (t.141356×X-

hypothesisNumber of o

F(1, 47)

Probability >

R-squared

justed R-squ

Mean Squar

95% c

1.071

-19.62

ect Deliverye T test, wevariance in qual variancable 4 is th the ratio batio’ in TablTable 4, is l chosen. In

ry

eanconstructio

mplementat Planner, Pr

goals of oject can acruction adhsts and which adds claim.

data from side of ‘Y int reduction ner’. The erlined numthe regress-9.003641

s object = 49

= 7.36

> F = 0.0093

= 0.1355

uared = 0.117

re Error = 8.

confidence In

347 7.

2472 1.

y (IPD), its e needed to project ce. If not, Te variance

between thele 4. When ess than 0.0 this test, t

njournal.org

tion of roject

chieve herents,

resses

the 49 n Figure and

ber in ion

71

859

nterval

211366

.61744

o see if

T test ratio e the 05, the

the

target ahypotheanother

Grou

Non

IPD

Com

RatiIPD)Null

AlteProb

Table 5 ‘the remwhich is(|T|>|tright abDifferensecond is 0.782second

TaGroNon

IPD

Com

Diffe

Diffe(IPDNull

AlteDiffeProb

As we mthat of bigger t

DetailThe thirPlannersignificaimplemalternat

C

Lean Co http://

alternative esis is 0.084r T test with

Table 4: Vup Ob

IPD 40

9

mbined 49

o = standard)/standard dl hypothesis:

ernative Hypobability: p (F

is the resumainder of s expressedt|), and p (Tbove the pronce!= 0, a d hypothesis.28, much bi hypothesis

able 5: T-teup O

n IPD 40 9

mbined 49erence

erence = MeD) l hypothesis:

ernative Hypoerence < 0 bability: p (T

mentioned, equal variathan 0.05.

l of the trd hypothesr (LP) is diffant differenentation bytive hypoth

Cho & Ballar


hypothesis 43, which ish unequal v

Variance Rabs. M

5

4

4

d deviation (eviation (IPD Ratio =1

othesis (Ha):F<f)=0.9578

ult of T-test the Performd as ‘DiffereT>t) in Tabobability, isdifferent ex. p (|T| >|tgger than 0

est with eqbs. M0 5

4

9 4

.

an (Non IPD)

Difference

othesis (Ha):

T<t)=0.6086

we did anoance. Unequ

third hypsis is <If a pferent fromnce betweey showing thhesis (standa

rd: Last Plan


is Ha: ratios bigger thavariance for

atio Test onMean

5.105027

4.160776

4.931593

Non D)

: ratio <1

t with equamance meaence’ in Table 5, is lesss chosen. Inxpression but|) right be0.05 so that

qual variancMean 5.105027

4.160776

4.931593

6551067

)-Mean

= 0

:

other T – tesual T test sa

pothesis tproject ado

m those of oen the variahe probabilard deviatio

nner and Inte

-nc-nd/3.0/ p

o!=1. The pan but near r more assu

n performaStd. Err.

1.55351

1.822258

1.305816

Ha: ratio !=2*p (F>f) =

l variance on of Non IPble 5. Whens than 0.05,n our case, ut one havielow the altt we cannot

ce on perfoStd. Err. 1.55351

1.822258

1.305816

3.15756

Ha: Differep (|T|>|t|)

st with uneays the pro

testing pts IPD, its ther projec

ance of the lity, used inons of the t

egrated Pro

page 76

robability r to 0.05 so urance

nce betweStd. Dev.

9.825258

5.466773

9.140715

=1 0.0843

of STATA v.D after subn a probabi, the altern the target ng the sameternative hyt choose the

ormance beStd. Dev. 9.825258

5.466773

9.140715

nce !=0 ) = 0.7828

equal varianbability p (

degree of icts> The var two groupsn determinitwo groups

ject Deliver

www.l

right under that we cam

en IPD and [95% Con

1.962757

-.041357

2.306073

f = 3.230degrees (=40-1),

Ha: RatiP (F > f)

10. The ‘t’ btracted by lity, expresative hypot alternativee meaning ypothesis, He alternativ

etween IPD [95% Co

1.962757

-.041355

2.306073

-5.90614

t = 0.277degrees

Ha: DiffeP (T > t)

nce, whose |T|>|t|) is

implementariance test s (IPD and Ning whether are differe

ry

eanconstructio

the altername to decid

d otherwisenf. Interval]

7 8.2472

77 8.3629

3 7.5571

02 of freedom 8 (=9-1)

o > 1 = 0.0422

value stan the Mean ossed as p (Tthesis, locae hypothesisas that of oHa: Differenve hypothes

D and Non Ionf. Interval7 8.2472

57 8.3629

3 7.5571

44 7.7946

73 of freedom

erence > 0 ) = 0.3914

result is sims 0.6972, m

ation of Las said there Non IPD) in r to choose

ent), is 0.19

njournal.org

ative de to do

e

297

909

13

= 39

ds for of IPD’, T<t), p ated s is Ha: our nce!=0, sis, our

PD ]

297

909

13

646

= 47

milar to uch

st is no LP the

948,

bigger t

TabSimilar (T<t), plocatedmeans othat of clear fothat theat the bimplemLast Pla

TaGrouNon

IPD

Com

Diffe

DiffeNull

AlterProb

ReferAdcock,

anAlarcon

prArbulu,

inPr

Ballard,Ci20

Ballard,ofCh

Ballard,Ballard,

ToCo

Ballard,11

Ballard,Pa

BernardCA

C

Lean Co http://

than 0.05.

le 6 shows to Table 5,p (|T|>|t|) right aboveof IPD and N our third hyor us whethee probabilitborder. In sentation of

anner to a c

able 6: T-teup IPD

mbined

erence

erence = Mea hypothesis:

rnative Hypobability: p (T

rences , R., and Cond quantita, L. F., androject outco R., Tomme

n Constructiroceedings , G. (2000).ivil Eng., Un010) , G. (2006).f the 16th anhile. , G. (2008)., G., Iris Toools and Teonstruction, G., and Ho1th , BlacKsb, G and Grearadigms”, d, R. (2000)A: Sage pub

Cho & Ballar


the result o if a probab, and p (T>e the probaNon IPD)!=0ypothesis. Eer to discarty, P (T<t), hort, even f Last Planncertain degr

est with eqObs. 40

9

49

an (Non IPD) Difference =

othesis (Ha): <t)=0.0370

ollier, D. (2ative researd Cruz, J. Comes”, Tenelein, I., Waion Supply C of the 2002. “The last niv. of Birm

. “Rethinkinnnual confe

. “LPDS Updommelein, Lechniques”,n building inowell, G. (2burg, VA, Uegory A. How Lean Const. The socia

blication.

rd: Last Plan


of t test witbility right t), is less tability. Our 0’, a differeEven thougrd our third is 0.7828, mthough Inte

ner significaree

qual variancMean

3.266667

3.801471

3.364896

-.5348048

-Mean (IPD) = 0

Difference <

2001). Measch. Americ. (1997). “T

nth World Palsh, K., anChains: Cas2 Winter Simplanner sys

mingham, U

ng project derence, Inte

date”. LeanLauri Koske In Rick Besn Value. Wo2003). “An

USA, July 20well (2004)truction Joual research m

nner and Inte

-nc-nd/3.0/ p

th equal vaunder the ahan 0.05, w alternativeent expressih P (|T| >|

d hypothesismuch biggeegrated Proantly differe

ce on perfoStd. Err.1321312

.1802989

.116053

.2926632

<0 Ha: Diffep (|T|>|

urement vaan PoliticalThe impactProductivitynd Hershauese of Pipe Sumulation Costem of proK. Available

definition inernational G

n constructila, and Grest and Geraoburn, MA: update on

003, pp. 329. “Competiurnal, 1(1)3methods-qu

egrated Pro

page 77

riance in tealternative we can chooe hypothesiion but onet|), 0.074 is. As for secer than 0.05oject Deliveent from ot

ormance be. Std. De2 .835671

9 .540896

.812370

2

erence !=0 |t|) = 0.0740

alidity: A shl Science Re of project

y Congress. er, J. (2002upports useonference. duction cone at www.le

n terms of tGroup for L

ion journal,eg Howel (2ard De Valen Elsevier Sclast planne9-341. ing Construc38-45. ualitative a

ject Deliver

www.l

esting our t hypothesisose the altes is ‘Differe

e having theis bigger thcond hypot5. But, the ery projectstherwise, it

etween IPDev. [95% Co14 2.999406

68 3.385701

07 3.131556

-1.12356

t = -1.82degrees

0 Ha: DiffeP (T > t)

hared standeview, 95(3 planning a Santiago, C

2). “Contribed in power Sandiego, ntrol” PhD. eanconstru

target costiLean Constru

, 2008, pp. 002). “Leannche (Eds),ience. Pp. r.” Proceed

ction Manag

nd quantita

ry

eanconstructio

hird hypoth, representernative hyence (betwee same meahan 0.05, it hesis, it is cthird hypots do not sho seems to e

D and Non Inf. Interval]6 3.53927

1 4.21724

6 3.59823

67 .053957

274 of freedom

erence > 0 = 0.9630

ard for qua3). nd PerformChile, Octo

butors to Ler Plants.” CA, USA, De Diss. Schooction.org (2

ing”. Proceuction, San

1-19. n Construct Design and227-255 dings of the

gement

ative appro

njournal.org

hesis. ted as p pothesis, een

aning as is not clear in thesis is ow employ

PD ] 7

42

36

76

= 47

alitative

mance on ber ad time

ec 8-11 ol of 26 Mar

eedings ntiago,

tion d

e IGLC

aches.

Cho, Sepr

Choi, Kuthan

Chuck TInAv19

Cohen, In

HamzehPlBe

Liebermre

Liu, M.,CoMa

NationaofCoPrhtne

SanvidoBuTe

C

Lean Co http://

eongkyun anroceedings unhee (200hrough a Qund EnvironmThomson, Jontegrated Prvailable at 9-09__2_.pd Jonathan anstitute of Ah, Farook, Rlanning anderkeley, CA

man.E. (200esearch. Am, and Ballarontrol.” Proanchester,

al Associatiof America, Aontractors iroject Delivttp://wwwers.pdf (10 o, Victor, anuild, and Deeam 133, A

Cho & Ballar


nd Ballard, IGLC-18, Ju8). “A new

uantitative Amental Eng.oel Darringtroject Delivhttp://cmadf (9 Jan 20and FAIA (20Architects CR. (2009). “d Control” PA, USA. 5). Nested

merican Polird, G. (2008oc 16th Ann. UK. on of State Associationin America,very for Pub.agc.org/ga Jan 2010) nd Konchar,esign-Bid-Bustin, Texa

rd: Last Plan


G. (2010), buly 2010, Te Decision SuAnalysis on., Univ. of Cton, Dennisvery. Constaanet.org/f011) 010). IntegrCalifornia C“Improving CPhD. Diss. C

analysis as itical Scien8). “Improvi. Conf. Int’

Facility Ass of Higher E, and Ameriblic and Privalleries/pro

, Mark (199Build. Constas, USA.

nner and Inte

-nc-nd/3.0/ p

building anechnion, Haupport Mod Aspects ofCalifornia, Bs Dunne, antruction Manfiles/shared

rated Projeouncil, SacConstructio

Civil and Env

a mixed mce review, ing Labor Pl Group of

sociation (NEducation Fican Instituvate Owner

ojectd/IPD%

8). Project truction Ind

egrated Pro

page 78

nd argumenaifa, Israel el for Innov

f Project PeBerkeley. C

nd Will Lichtnagement Ad/ng_Integr

ect Deliveryramento, C

on Workflowvironmenta

ethod strat 99(3) Productivity Lean Const

NASFA), ConFacilities Oftes of Archirs” Availabl%20for%20Pu

Delivery Syustry Instit

ject Deliver

www.l

t with hypo vative Conterformance”CA, USA. tig (2009). Association rated_Proje

y: Case studCA, USA. w-the role oal Eng. Univ

tegy for com

y Through Ptr., IGLC 16

nstruction Officers, Assoitects (2010le at ublic%20and

ystems: CMute Design

ry

eanconstructio

othesis test

racting Stra” PhD. Diss

Managing of Americaect_Delivery

dies. Americ

of Productiov. of Califor

mparative

roduction 6, 16-18 July

Owners Assoociated Gen0). “Integra

d%20Private

M at Risk, De Build Resea

njournal.org

ting,

ategies . Civil

a. y__11-

can

on rnia,

y,

ociation neral ated

e%20Ow

esign-arch

last planner and integrated project delivery

Documents