value stream mapping in construction: a case study · pdf filevalue stream mapping in...

VALUE STREAM MAPPING IN CONSTRUCTION: ACASE STUDY IN A BRAZILIAN CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY

Fernanda Pasqualini1 and Paulo Antônio Zawislak2

ABSTRACT

Since 1993 the ideas of Lean Production have been introduced in construction, creating Lean Con-struction. Although studies have demonstrated good results from the introduction of Lean Productionin construction, these efforts have turned into a specifically isolated implementation, limiting possibil-ities of improvement along the value flow. A tool that has been widely used in manufacture, as a wayto initiate a systemic implementation of Lean Production, is called Value Stream Mapping (VSM).Because VSM represents the main principles of Lean Production, makes it possible to identifythroughout the value flow the main problems and process wastes, and to consider action forimprovement.

Aiming to introduce the ideas of Lean Production in construction in a more systematic way,identifying its main problems and proposing actions for improvement throughout the value flow, thisarticle describes the modifications and application of the VSM in a Brazilian construction company.Modifications of VSM were necessary due to the difference between manufacture and construction.Through its application it was possible to identify problems and to consider some actions forimprovement, turning it into a more fluid production, with fewer stops and increasing the planned flowversus the accomplished one.

KEY WORDS

Value stream mapping, Systemic implementation

LEAN PRODUCTION: PRINCIPLES ANDIMPLEMENTATION

As the name suggests, Lean Production aims tomake industries’ productive process “leaner”, soas to produce more (quality, variety, and quickly)with less (costs) and qualify them to compete inmarkets increasingly characterized by “varietyand restriction”. To attain this, its main objectiveis waste elimination, which, because it absorbsresources and does not generate value, causes risein costs and hides process problems, making itinefficient (Henderson and Larco 1999). The prin-ciples which guide this production paradigm are:value, value chain, flow, pulled production, andperfection (Womack and Jones 1998).

Value translates the idea of producing onlywhat the client perceives as “value”. So it is

important to pay attention to each action neces-sary to make the product, from the moment oforder until its delivery to the client, challengingeach step as to its being necessary or not, that is, toidentify the product’s value chain (or value flow).In addition to permitting to view the productiveprocess in a systemic way (involving clients, firm,and suppliers), identifying the value chain permitsone to view three types of action which occuralong its extension: actions that create value;actions that do not create value, but at the momentare inevitable, and actions that do not create valueand that should be avoided immediately (wastes).

After value has been specified and a certainproduct’s value chain has been identified, and,obviously, the steps that produce waste werereduced and/or eliminated, the objective is tomake the remaining steps, which generate value,

Lean Supply Chain Management

117

1 Master in Business and Administration at PPGA/EA/UFRGS, Porto Alegre/RS, Brazil,[email protected].

2 Professor at PPGA/EA/UFRGS, Porto Alegre/RS, Brazil, [email protected].

flow. Thus, production will be much faster and thecompany gains flexibility to answer demands andits variations, even allowing the client to “pull”the production, synchronizing production andsales rhythms (Rother and Shook 1998). To LeanProduction there is always a better way to do anyactivity, because just like the market changes, afirm must change to adapt itself to these newmarket demands. The search for perfection, or, inother words, continuous improvement, must besomething constant for those companies who wishto maintain themselves in the market.

The illustration above shows how Lean Produc-tion’s principles and tools interact. To reach value(“top”), it is necessary to have a pulled and fluidprocess (“pillars”) parting from value chain iden-tification and search for perfection (“base”).

LEAN PRODUCTION IMPLEMENTATION ANDVSM

According to Rother and Shook (1998), in spite ofthe fact that the notion of value flow considers allnecessary activities to transform raw materials ina product delivered to the final customer, partingfrom his demand, and thus crosses the company’sorganizational limits, Lean Production implemen-tation should start inside the company, and after-wards expand itself to the whole value chain. Theauthors observed that inside the company the firstimplementation effort must be made at the pro-duction process, since this step is responsible forproducing the “value” customers buy and inter-acts with them as well as with suppliers.

Basically, the Lean Production implementationprocess has three phases: the first phase has a stra-tegic change function, introducing Lean Produc-tion principles and transforming the way of“thinking” and “seeing” the company, preparing itfor a physical change. The tool used for this isValue Stream Mapping (VSM). VSM is consid-

ered one of the gateways for Lean Production pre-cisely because it permits a systemic view of theproduction process (of the value flow), identifica-tion of real problems and wastes and propositionof improvements. Basically, VSM consists of foursteps:

1 Selection of a family of products

In the same way VSM should not be started in allcompany activities (but start in manufacturing),one should not start mapping all industrial plantsneither all products sold by the company, butselect one plant and one product family from thisplant, based on products which pass through simi-lar processing steps and which use equipmentcommon in following processes.

2 Map of the Current State

After selecting the family of products, a Map ofthe Current State drawing can be started, which,as the name suggests, is a drawing of how the pro-ductive process is currently happening. For thisdrawing to reproduce exactly the current valueflow, the information must be obtained directly atshop floor, following the production trail from thecustomer to the supplier. Considering that in man-ufacturing it is generally possible to view produc-tion from the beginning (product ready to bedelivered to customers) to the end (materialssupply) in the same day, data collection can bedone in one day.

The data to be collected for the Map of the Cur-rent State are related to the flow of materials andinformation about customer demand (for exam-ple: amount of products ordered during a certainperiod; work shifts; if the customer is fromanother company; packaging necessities; fre-quency and modes of delivery), productive activi-ties (for example: basic manufacturing processesand key information about each process; numberof employees; work period and rest stops; modeand frequency of manufacture programming), andmaterials supply (for example: main raw materialand supplier; amount bought in a certain period;mode and frequency of raw material delivery)(Rother and Shook 1998).

Data relating to customer demand are veryimportant because, in Lean Production, the clientsare the ones who “trigger” production, and, in thissense, production rhythm must be synchronizedwith sales rhythm. This relation (productionrhythm x sales rhythm), called takt time, is calcu-lated dividing effectively available work time pershift by the amount (of a certain product) orderedby clients per shift. According to Zawislak et al(2004), time is a key element in VSM, because it

Proceedings IGLC-13, July 2005, Sydney, Australia

118 Value stream mapping in construction: a case study in a Brazilian construction company

Figure 1: Principles and Tools of Lean Production

helps to transform the whole value flow in a singletemporal notion (seconds, minutes, hours, days,weeks, etc.), permitting to evaluate the potentialof response to customers’ demands. It is in thissense that the “key information” of each produc-tion process must be collected, thus obtaining thecycle time (T/C—time it takes between one prod-uct and the next to come out of the same process,or, in other words, production rhythm), replacetime (T/R—time it takes to change from the pro-duction of one product to another), and effectiveused time of machine operation.

3 Analysis of the Map of the Current State

The Map of the Current State is useful simply forshowing how production is currently happening.Its analysis, based on the ideas of Lean Produc-tion, is what actually allows to identify wastes andpropose improvement actions for the constructionof a new flow, more regular, without returns,which generates the shortest lead time, highestquality, and the lowest cost. To develop this newflow, Rother and Shook (1998) point out somepropositions to serve as guidelines.

The first proposition is to produce according totakt time. The need to produce according to takttime is related to waste reduction. When produc-tion rhythm is below takt, it means that the firm isproducing more than the customers are buying, or,in other words, there is overproduction. Whenproduction rhythm is above takt, it means that theproductive process cannot readily respond to cus-tomers’ orders, and, for that reason, it must antici-pate itself and produce before customerseffectively purchase.

The second proposition consists in defining ifthe company should produce for expedition or fora supermarket of finished products. The thirdproposition aims to develop a continuous flowwhere possible. Where the continuous flow is notpossible a supermarket should be used to controlproduction (fourth proposition). With this it ispossible to establish the fifth proposition and senda customer’s programming to a production pro-cess only. This point is called pulling process,since it controls production rhythms for all pre-ceding processes. Finally, the sixth propositionconsists in a uniform distribution of the produc-tion of different items in the pulling processperiod, leveling the product mix along manufac-turing.

4 Map of the Future State

The Map of the Future State is the fourth and laststep of VSM. Its drawing is a result of the analysisof the Map of the Current State guided by the

above cited propositions, aiming to introduceLean Production ideas in manufacturing.

It must be emphasized that the Map of theFuture State is a drawing of an “ideal state” ofmanufacturing, the best way it could operate part-ing from the Current State Analysis. The proposedimprovements aim, in this sense, to show the firmwhere the wastes are and how they can be“attacked” and reduced, and, if possible, elimi-nated. Obviously that the implementation of theproposed improvements may not occur integrallyin the first moment, but start by the most problem-atic spots until attaining the “ideal” showed by theMap of the Future State.

After VSM begins the second phase of LeanProduction implementation, which involves phys-ical change, transforming the company’s way ofacting. In this phase, the improvements proposedby the Map of the Future State should be put inpractice (make this drawing “real”), creating thecontinuous and pulled flow in the whole produc-tive process, by way of developing a smooth flowand better coordination. Finally, the third phaseconsists in aiming continuous improvement.

LEAN CONSTRUCTION

Since Koskela’s pioneering work, which in the1990’s started to introduce the ideas of Lean Pro-duction in construction, originating Lean Con-struction, researchers in the area and somecompanies have been trying to implement andadapt Lean Production to construction’s specificcharacteristics, which differ from manufacturefrom the relation with the market, with suppliers,and even in the production process in itself.

In the theoretic field, Lean Constructionevolved significantly in recent years, with studiescontemplating different approaches, from techni-cal aspects—which include the development ofproduction control methods along the wholeenterprise (Ballard and Howell 2003)—to socialand political aspects, such as the identification ofbarriers to the introduction of Lean Construction(Hirota and Formoso 2003) and the identificationof aspects which promote Lean Construction(Alarcon and Seguel 2002). In the practical field,however, its diffusion is still limited. In additionto there being few contractors involved in processimplementation, the efforts are directed mainly tothe application and/or development of productioncontrol tools. Among the most disseminated toolsare Last Planner (Ballard and Howell 2003), theuse of kanbans (Arbulu et al. 2003), Visual Man-aging, and 5 S’s (Salem et al. 2004).

In spite of the application of these tools show-ing good results, Vrijhoef et al (2002) as well asSalem et al (2004) emphasize that the isolated and


Fernanda Pasqualini and Paulo Antônio Zawislak 119

punctual manner with which they are imple-mented, in addition to limiting the possibilities ofimprovements along the value flow, are not neces-sarily “attacking” the main problems and wastesof construction. As a result, the implementation ofLean Production in construction has beenrestricted, as it has invested more in the “pillars”that “sustain” it, rather than at its “base”, jeopar-dizing its reaching the “top”. For Picchi (2003),one way to make possible a systemic implementa-tion of Lean Construction would be through VSMapplication, precisely because this permits to viewthe production process as a whole, and so identifyexisting wastes, showing where improvementsshould really be searched. This way, implementa-tion starts from “bottom to top” and evolves alongthe value flow.

VALUE STREAM MAPPING (VSM) INCONSTRUCTION

With the objective of viewing the productive pro-cess in construction in a systemic way, in order tostart a systemic implementation of Lean Con-struction, VSM was used in this study. In spite ofVSM having been used with success by differentindustrial sectors, its application in the productiveactivities of construction still hasn’t been dissemi-nated. Along with there being few studies aboutVSM in this sector—which refer more to con-struction supplies than to the productive processin itself (Dos Reis and Picchi 2003; Fontanini andPicchi 2003)—this one has been developed in amanufacturing environment, and considers thecharacteristics and necessities of this environ-ment, which differ from those of the productiveenvironment in construction. Because of that,some adaptations were necessary, in each stage,for its application in construction.

1 Selection of a construction stage

Considering that VSM should be started inside anindustrial plant, in the manufacturing process, andthat in construction the manufacturing processoccurs on the building site, a construction wasselected from a Brazilian building company (con-tractor) for VSM application. Moreover, mappingshould not be initiated in all products manufac-tured by the company, but a family of productsshould be selected. In the case of construction,however, because each large stage occurs pro-gressively during a long period of time and hasdifferent processes producing different products(which, in the end, result in the product “build-ing”), each one could be considered a kind of“sub-fabric” (or “sub-construction”) inside theindustrial plant (or construction site). Thus,

instead of selecting a family of products to initiateVSM in construction, one should select a stage ofthe productive process of construction, which inthis case was the masonry stage.

2 Map of the Current State

Considering that the Map of the Current Stateshould reproduce exactly the current value flow, itis necessary to obtain information directly at shopfloor, and that the time of production in construc-tion is much longer than in manufacturing, it ispractically impossible to collect data for the Mapof the Current State of construction in a singleday. Thus, for the Map of the Current State of con-struction to reproduce with more exactness howthe masonry process was happening, it was neces-sary to follow practically the whole process, fromthe first apartment to the last, to obtain, at the endof the process, a global average of this stage foreach pavement of the building.

Moreover, analyzing the data collected forVSM in manufacturing, the necessity to makesome adaptations to the reality of constructionwas identified. As for the customers’ demands, itwas perceived that while in manufacturing thecustomer makes various orders of a certain prod-uct in a period of time, in construction he makes a“single order”, which is the purchase of the apart-ment. From now on, the relation between cus-tomer and constructor are based, normally, on acontract, which establishes the mode of paymentof the property as well as states the period of con-struction. This contract, in turn, generates a gen-eral schedule of the construction, programmingthe period of production of each great stage inorder to fulfill the contracted deadline. In thisdirection, the different stages of the constructioncan be interpreted as different orders of the cus-tomers. This difference implied in a new form ofcalculating takt time for construction, obtained bymeans of the division of the effectively availableworked time for each stage (schedule) by theamount of square meters to be executed for thissame stage. As result, takt of the construction willindicate the time in which a square meter shouldbe executed, or the rhythm of production based oncustomer’s demand, stipulated in the contract.Moreover, it was verified that, when the processesthat are part of each stage possess different areas(in square meters) to be executed, takt time mustbe calculated by process.

Referring to the productive activity, some adap-tations considering key information of each pro-duction process were found necessary. First of all,it was necessary to adapt the cycle time (T/C) toconstruction, which in manufacturing is deter-mined by the time elapsed between one item and



the next leave the same process. In the masonryprocess, the square meter was chosen as a finisheditem, and the T/C of construction would verify theaverage time it takes to finish a square meter. Itshould be emphasized that the choice of thesquare meter as an item of analysis is due to thefact that the value of the apartments is calculatedconsidering its constructed area in square meters.Because there are no changes in product manufac-turing, it was not necessary to collect data aboutreplacement time (T/R) and time used in machineoperation. Nevertheless, other key information inmanufacturing were identified. Between the endof one process and the beginning of another, therewere days of “pause”, considered as a kind ofsupply of finished square meters (from one pro-cess to the next) or wip (work in process).Regarding the raw material supply, it was per-ceived that the data to be collected are basicallythe same for VSM in manufacturing, once that therelation between suppliers and company in theconstruction is practically the same as that of inmanufacturing (the company orders the raw mate-rial, and the supplier should deliver them in therequested time).

3. Analysis of the map of the Current State

For the analysis of the Map of the Current State,aiming to identify wastes and propose improve-ments, the propositions of VSM analysis were

used. The adaptations consisted precisely of theinterpretation of the propositions according to thecharacteristics of construction.

4. Map of the Future State

In the same way that occurs in manufacturing, theMap of the Future State in construction should beelaborated parting from the drawing of the Map ofthe Current State and from the analysis based onthe ideas of Lean Production, translated in theabove exposed propositions.

* * *Parting from the information exposed above, theMap of the current State was elaborated (seeFigure 2).

The drawing of the Map of the Current Statemakes it possible to view the construction processof the masonry in a systemic way, in which itrelates the production process with clients andsuppliers, following the value flow, as is brieflydescribed below.

The client bought the apartment after it hasbeen launched by the contractor in the real estatemarket. As the construction period is long, and thedelivery of the apartment will happen in a longtime, a purchase and sale contract was estab-lished, which should regulate the relation betweenthe client and the constructor. This contract con-tains, among other information, the value whichshould be paid for the apartment and the execution



Figure 2: Map of the Current State—average masonry per pavement

deadline. The buyers of each apartment formed acondominium, which, during the constructionperiod, met with the constructor to make generaldecisions about the building. Nevertheless, eachclient deals individually with the constructorabout personalizing his apartment. From thebuilding execution deadline (stated in the con-tract), the constructor elaborated a schedule (inMS Project) showing the period of execution ofeach main phase of the construction, and formasonry the programmed period was five months(about 100 work days). This schedule, however,served only to generally guide the tasks to be doneon the site. With the delay in the schedule, itbecame overdue and was removed from the site.The masonry started a month after it was pre-dicted and its activities were programmed on aweekly basis in meetings held on Tuesdays, inwhich participated the engineer responsible forthe project, the master builder, the man powercontractor and the trainee. The task programmingdone in this meeting was distributed, weekly anddaily, by the master builder to the masons whichexecuted the masonry and to the helper responsi-ble for operating the concrete mixer. The basicmasonry processes were the marking, elevation ofthe walls, and wall closing, and each of these pro-cesses happened progressively in each pavementof the building.

The marking was done by in average twomasons, always one pavement at a time. The aver-

age T/C of marking was 211,77 min/m² and theaverage T/Pr. was of 5,59 days. Between markingand wall elevation, the average time in which thepavement was in pause (consider work inprocess—wip) was 7,33 days. Elevation was doneby on average one mason and one helper, andoccurred in three pavements almost simulta-neously. Average T/C of elevation was of 89,86min/m² and average T/Pr. was of 25,58 days.Between elevation and wall closing, the averagetime in which the pavement was in pause (wip)was 12,33 days. Nevertheless, this period cannotbe considered supply of square meters or wip,because it is a period necessary for the elevation tobe ready to receive wall closing (the actual neces-sary time is 15 days), Finally, wall closing wasexecuted by an average of one mason, also onepavement at a time. Average T/C for wall closingwas 496,05 min/m² and average T/Pr. was of 9,34days. The average masonry production lead timeper pavement was 60 days. It can be noted that, inthese 60 days, the actual time of value adding wasonly of 52,67 days.

From the average T/C of each process, it is pos-sible to calculate the daily productivity ofmasonry. For marking, average daily productivitywas 4,59 m², for elevation it was 10,82 m², and forwall closing it was 0,98 m². Considering that theelevation was executed in three pavements almostsimultaneously, it can be concluded that the dailyproductivity of the building was of 38,03 m².



Figure 2: Map of the Current State—average masonry per pavement

Comparing the total masonry production of thebuilding per day (38,03 m²) with the daily produc-tion of cement (masonry supply process), whichwith an average T/C of 8,40 min/m² producedenough to make 57,87 m² of masonry (ceramicblock) a day, there is an excess of cement produc-tion enough to make 19,84 m² of masonry(ceramic block). This means that each day wasproduced an average of 0,29 m³ of cement inexcess, which is equivalent to consuming 1,26concrete mixers and 1,26 sacks of cement morethan was necessary. In the same way the produc-tion programming was weekly (done on Tues-days), the purchase of necessary materials wasalso done on a weekly basis (on Thursday),through an Order Form to the main office,depending on the urgency. In spite of the possibil-ity of making weekly orders, the average cementsupply was for 8,35 days.

With the drawing of the Map of the CurrentState and based on the propositions of the VSManalysis, some problems and wastes were identi-fied, as well as improvement proposals, resultingin the Map of the Future State (Figure 3).

In the future state, in the same way it is cur-rently done, the client buys the apartment after itis launched by the constructor in the real estatemarket. The purchase and sale contract continuesto regulate the relation between client and con-structor during the construction period, contain-ing information such as the value of theapartment, the execution deadline, etc. The buyersof each apartment continue to form a condomin-ium, which, during the construction period, metwith the constructor to make general decisionsabout the building. What is proposed to change,however, is the individual relationship of eachclient with the constructor, aiming to narrow com-munication between them, having them meetmore often, mainly before steps that imply in thepersonalization of the apartments. The objectivewith this change is to minimize non-compliancewith pre-established deadlines of definitionsabout the personalization of the apartments, and,consequently, the necessity of certain rework inthe building.

In the same way, in the Map of the Future therelation between constructor and architectureoffice (responsible for the building projects) isnarrower. For project-related doubts to be elimi-nated, which result in waiting periods, it is pro-posed that the architects visit the building sitemore frequently, to get to know which informa-tion are indispensable in the projects, to facilitatethe work on site.

The elaboration of the general building sched-ule (made on MS Project and which contains thetime of execution of each large phase of construc-

tion, starting from the final deadline, stated in thecontract) as well as the weekly program spread-sheets, remain in the Future State. The idea of the“mini-plant”, however, should be added, hung ineach pavement, working as a signalizing kanbanof what, when and by whom should be done in thelong and short term. The main objective of the“mini-plant” is to get all persons involved in theprocess to compromise to what was planned, inorder to make production flow (if possible contin-uously), eliminating stop times between the pro-cesses (“supply”). Another advantage of the“mini-plant” is the reduction of the necessity ofthe master of workmanship to give daily instruc-tions to each employee, since it already showswhat should be done. In this way, the master hasmore time to follow the processes (aiming to have“quality at the source”), analyze where the prob-lems are and think about possible solutions.

In the Future State the day of the weekly pro-duction programming meeting coincides with theday of ordering materials. The idea is to verifywhich materials will be necessary at the same timethe weekly activities are programmed, so as not tohave problems of lack of material on the site.Moreover, the helpers should pay more attentionto the needs of the mason they are helping, inorder to prevent the lack of material at the work-place. They may also change places between themasons working at marking, elevation and wallclosing, eliminating the need of some masons touse their time to get material or to organize andclean their workplace.

The materials supply registered in the CurrentMap would be substituted, in the Future Map, bythe adoption of the supermarket idea, aiming toreduce the supply of raw materials and alsoimprove its control, indicating when it is time tobuy more material. In the case of cement (whichwas the material analyzed in the VSM), the super-market of four workdays (average of 16 sacks)was calculated considering the daily masonry pro-duction average of 59,99 m²/day (which is equalto 0,88 m³ of cement and 3,83 concrete mixers aday and, consequently, 3,83 sacks of cement perday) and the two workdays the supplier may taketo deliver the product. To mark the necessity oforders the idea is to paint on a piece of wood theheight of the minimum of cement needed (8 sacks,which, in average, equal two days of work) andalso to use two pallets, side by side, for when anew load comes, it can be placed on the emptypallet and only be consumed when the otherpallet, with older cement, is finished, so there canbe a kind of control (FIFO—first in first out).

With the objective of synchronizing the cementproduction with the masonry execution and toproduce neither less than more than enough, in the



Future Map a cement supermarket is used, whichtriggers a production kanban. Considering that theaverage daily masonry production, 59,99 m²/day,needs 0,88 m³/day of cement (3,83 daily concretemixers), the cement supermarket reaches thenumber of six carts (one concrete mixer) andwhen the last cart is consumed the production ofthe second concrete mixer is triggered (six morecarts) and thus successively, until the productionof the fourth and last concrete mixer is completed.

The use of a mini-plant, increasing what wasactually done versus what was planned, togetherwith better exploitation of the employees andimproved communication between constructorand clients and between constructor and architec-ture office, and also because of better materialavailability, resulted in an increase of productivityin all masonry processes. Thus, the average T/C ofeach process are 112,24 min/m² for marking,58,91 min/m² for elevation, and 264,71 min/m²for wall closing. With the reduction of the averageT/C of each process, the T/Pr. are reduced to 2,96days in marking, 16,77 days for elevation, and4,98 days for wall closing per pavement. Greaterproductivity, allied to the “mini-plant” and tobetter compliance of what was planned versuswhat was actually done, results in a quicker andmore fluid process, without stops (or with fewstops). This way, the lead time masonry produc-tion per pavement goes from an average of 60workdays to an average of 53,71 workdays, and,consequently, total lead time of masonry execu-tion in the building goes from about 115 workdaysto about 88 workdays. This represents a reductionof approximately 27 workdays, or more than amonth.

This reduction in the lead time of masonry per-mits to reduce the final deadline of the apartmentdelivery. This reduction can already be estab-lished in contract, permitting the company to bemore competitive in terms of cost and deadline.

CONCLUSIONS

Through the adequacy and application of theVSM it was possible to visualize in a systemicway a stage of the productive process of construc-tion. This visualization is systemic in the sensethat it considers the productive activities, the cus-tomers and the suppliers of the process, followingthe value flow. In this sense, more than simply toidentify wastes, the systemic visualization showsthe reasons wastes exist, or its origin. Thus, theimprovements proposed aim to solve the problemat its source and not only “to cover it up”.

Among the results which appeared to be possi-ble are: the production in a continuous (or almostcontinuous) flow, supplies reduction, reduction of

stop times, better exploitation of the workforce,making it possible to reduce lead time in masonryproduction, executing it in a shorter time than wasprogrammed. This way, the production process inapartment building construction would be possi-ble with lower costs, higher quality and speed,responding to demands of its market (in terms ofcosts, deadlines and quality).

REFERENCES

Alarcon, L. F. and Seguel, L. (2002). “Developingincentive strategies for implementation ofLean Construction”. Proceedings of IGLC-10,Gramado.

Arbulu, R., Ballard, G., and Harper, N. (2003).“Kanban in Construction”. Proceedings ofIGLC-11, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Ballard, Glenn, Howell, Gregory A. (2003). “Anupdate on last planner”. Proceedings IGLC-11. Blacksburg, Virginia.

Dos Reis, T. and Picchi, F.A. (2003). “Aplicaçãoda “Mentalidade Enxuta” ao Fluxo deNegócios na construção civil”. Anais do IIISimpósio Brasileiro de Gestão e Economia daConstrução (Sibragec), UFSCar, São Carlos,SP, setembro.

Fontanini, P. S. P. and Picchi, F. A. (2003).“Mentalidade Enxuta na cadeia defornecedores da construção civil—aplicaçãode macro-mapeamento.” Anais do IIISimpósio de Gestão e Economia daConstrução (SIBRAGEC), São Carlos/SP.

Henderson, B. A. and Larco, J. L. (1999). LeanTransformation: How to change your busi-ness into a lean enterprise. Richmond : TheOaklea Press.

Hirota, E. H. and FORMOSO, C. T. (2003).Implementação da Construção Enxuta:contribuições da aprendizagem na ação.Disponível em: <http://www.infohab.org.br>.Acesso em: 07 out.

Picchi, F. A. (2003). “Oportunidades da aplicaçãodo Lean Thinking na construção.” AmbienteConstruído, Porto Alegre, 3(1) 7–23,jan./mar.

Rother, M. and Shook, J. (1998). “Aprendendo aenxergar: mapeando o fluxo de valor paraagregar valor e eliminar o desperdício.” LeanInstitute Brasil.

Salem, O., Genaidy, A., Luegring, M., Paez, O.and Solomon, J. (2004). “The path from LeanManufacturing to Lean Construction: Imple-mentation and Evaluation of Lean Assembly.”Proceedings IGLC-12, Elsinore, Denmark.

Vrijhoef, R., Cuperus, Y. and Voordijk, H.(2002). “Exploring the connection betweenopen building and Lean Construction: defin-



ing a postponement strategy for supply chainmanagment.” Proceedings IGLC-10,Gramado, Brazil.

Womack, J. P. and Jones, D. T. (1998). “Amentalidade enxuta nas empresas—Elimine odesperdício e crie riquezas.” Rio de Janeiro:Campus.

Zawislak, P. A., Silveira, R. and Marodin, G.(2004). “Primeiros passos da implementaçãoda mentalidade enxuta em empresafornecedora no setor automotivo: em busca daredução de desperdícios e ganhos deeficiência.” Anais do VII Simpósio deAdministração da Produção, Logística eOperações Internacionais (SIMPOI), SãoPaulo.



value stream mapping in construction: a case study · pdf filevalue stream mapping in...

Documents