Construction Process Reengineering by Integrating Lean

Principles and Computer Simulation Techniques

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Xiaoming Mao1 and Xueqing Zhang2

Abstract: A construction process reengineering framework and its corresponding methodologies have been developed by integrating lean
principles and computer simulation techniques. Instead of classifying activities into value-adding and non-value-adding activities, or into
conversion and flow activities as is common in lean production practices, this framework classifies activities into main and supportive
activities and/or into normal and interactive activities. This classification makes it more effective in modeling the construction workflow
and reengineering the construction process. It also avoids the confusion of the classification of activities into value-adding and non-valueadding activities encountered in the construction industry. In addition, computer simulation techniques are incorporated into the framework to virtually simulate and assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the reengineered construction process that is achieved based on
lean principles. Simulation makes it easier to quantify and assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the reengineered construction process.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE0733-93642008134:5371
CE Database subject headings: Construction management; Lean construction; Productivity; Simulation; Computer applications.

Introduction
Lean production is a concept that aims to systematically eliminate wastes, simplify production procedures, and speed up production Ballard 1999. This lean concept has been applied in
many other industries as well as the manufacturing industry. Consequently, a wide range of benefits have been obtained, including
1 waste reduction; 2 production cost reduction; 3 decreased
production cycle times; 4 labor reduction; 5 inventory reduction; 6 capacity increase of existing facilities; 7 higher quality;
8 higher profits; 9 higher system flexibility; and 10 improved
cash flows Kotelnikov 2006.
Recently, the lean concept has been introduced into the construction industry with varying levels of success for different
projects. However, currently there are no practical guidelines for
the application of the lean concept in the construction industry. In
many construction projects, the implementation of the lean concept is still in the experimental stage and just applies to the lean
principles as developed in the manufacturing industry without any
changes or modifications. Some changes or modifications have to
be made in order to better apply these principles in the construction industry because some lean production principles as developed and successfully adopted in the manufacturing industry may
not be equally applicable and successful in the construction in1

Project Engineer, North American Construction Group, Zone 3,

Acheson Industrial Area, 2-53016 Highway 60, Acheson AB, Canada
T7X 5A7.
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The Hong Kong
Univ. of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong
Kong corresponding author. E-mail: zhangxq@ust.hk
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2008. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on November 13, 2006; approved on October 18, 2007.
This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134, No. 5, May 1, 2008. ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2008/
5-371381/$25.00.

dustry in view of the uniqueness of the construction industry.

Furthermore, many lean principles involve reengineering the production process. Process reengineering can be carried out analytically and/or conceptually. It is preferable that the reengineered
production process can be tested in someway to examine its expected performance. Physically testing the reengineered process
may not be advisable from an economic perspective and modifying the real construction process once it has been started is expensive and time consuming. Obviously, these problems need to
be solved in order to facilitate the application of lean principles in
the construction industry.
In this paper, the writers have developed a framework for construction process reengineering by integrating lean principles and
computer simulation techniques. This framework, to some extent,
has solved the problems mentioned above. Instead of classifying
activities into value-adding and non-value-adding activities, or
into conversion and flow activities, as is common in the manufacturing industry, this framework classifies activities into main and
supportive activities, and/or into normal and interactive activities.
In addition, computer simulation techniques are incorporated into
the framework to virtually simulate and assess the efficiency and
effectiveness of the reengineered construction process that is
achieved based on lean principles.
This paper is presented as follows. First, the concept of lean
production, the classification of activities, and the heuristic lean
principles are reviewed. Second, lean construction, its characteristics, and lean construction practices are discussed. Third, the
difficulties that have been encountered in the construction industry in the application of some lean production concepts are
discussed. Fourth, a new construction process modeling methodology is proposed, which initiates the concepts of the main, supportive, normal, and interative activities. Fifth, the idea of using
computer simulation to evaluate a reengineered construction process and its feasibility are discussed. Sixth, a framework for construction process reengineering is proposed, which integrates lean
principles and computer simulation techniques. Seventh, the proposed framework is illustrated through a case study of a tunneling
project. Finally, the paper ends with conclusions.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT ASCE / MAY 2008 / 371

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2008.134:371-381.

Lean Production

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Concept of Lean Production

The concept of lean production was developed based on the original Toyota Production System, which aimed to produce what the
customer wanted at the time when they needed it with minimized
waste Womack et al. 1990. Lean production is defined as an
approach to manufacture the right product with the right quantity
through instant material supply while minimizing wastes and
maintaining flexibility to adapt to varying production requirements Ikovenko 2004. Lean production shifts the attention of
production improvement from the workers productivity in craft
production and the machines productivity in mass production to
the entire production system, and consequently, avoids the high
cost in craft production and the rigidity in mass production AlSudairi et al. 1999. The concept of lean production became popular in North America with the publication of the book entitled The
Machine that Changed the World, by Womack et al. 1990. Now
the idea of lean production has been widely accepted and applied
in the manufacturing industry worldwide.
Value-Adding and Non-Value-Adding Activities
According to lean production theory, activities that bring a product from concept to reality are divided into two categories: value
adding and nonvalue adding. Value-adding activities are those
that contribute value to the final product, and the remaining activities are non-value-adding activities, which do not generate
value but generate wastes. In the context of lean production,
seven common types of wastes have been identified Ikovenko
2004: overproduction, producing defective products, inventories,
motion with no value to the product, waiting, extra process, and
transportation.
Conversion and Flow Activities
In lean production, the course of production is treated as a process
in which materials and information flow. In this context, various
production activities can also be classified into two categories:
conversion and flow activities. Conversion activities transform
raw materials or information into a customer-needed final product, and therefore, conversion activities are value-adding activities. Flow activities are bonding agents that link conversion
activities together, but flow activities themselves do not contribute value to the final product. Therefore, flow activities are nonvalue-adding activities.
Heuristic Lean Principles for Productivity Improvement
The classification of value-adding and non-value-adding activities
and the classification of conversion and flow activities provide
different perspectives for the optimal design of the production
process in order to enhance the value of the final product in terms
of time, quality, and cost. In this regard, Koskela 1992 and
Womack and Jones 1996 proposed the following heuristic principles for streamlining the production process to increase productivity and enhance the value of the final product:
1. Reduce the share of non-value-adding activities.
2. Increase outputs through systematic consideration of customer requirements.
3. Reduce variability and irregularity of the production process

so that materials and information can flow through processes

without interruptions.
4. Reduce the cycle time of the production process.
5. Increase transparency and minimize the number of steps,
parts, and linkages in the production process.
6. Increase output flexibility.
7. Focus control on the complete production process.
8. Balance flow improvement with conversion improvement.
9. Pull resources through the value stream when it is desired.
10. Continuously improve value, make flow more reliable, and
pull materials faster in order to lead the product systems
towards perfection.
11. Benchmark with comparable production processes.

Lean Construction
Lean Construction and Its Characteristics
The process of delivering a constructed facility in the construction
industry is similar to that of making a product in the manufacturing industry. The two industries have the same goal of generating
a product that meets the clients requirements within the shortest
time and at the lowest cost. The concept of lean production was
introduced to the construction industry following its success in
the manufacturing industry. Consequently, the terminology of
lean construction was formed.
Lean construction aims to maximize the customers satisfaction through concurrent the design of both the constructed facilities and the construction process that delivers these facilities, and
through the consequent control of each stage in the construction
process. Three features distinguish the lean construction practice
from a conventional construction management practice Howell
1999. First, lean construction focuses on reducing wastes that
may exist in any format in the construction process, such as
inspection, transportation, waiting, and motion. Second, lean construction aims to reduce variability and irregularity so that material and information can flow in the system without interruptions.
Third, construction material is expected to be on site only when it
is needed.
Lean Construction Practices
Lean production principles have been applied to the construction
industry and many positive results have been achieved worldwide
in many areas of the construction industry, with enhanced value,
reduced costs, and increased customer satisfaction. For example,
Ballard and Howell 1994 achieved a 30% productivity increase
by matching labors with the workflow of backlog and by shielding direct production from upstream variation and uncertainty.
Lean principles were also deployed to improve the productivity in
installing metal wall frames and in building ganged forms for
digester tanks Halpin and Kueckmann 2002.

Difficulties of Some Lean Production Concepts

When Applied in the Construction Industry
Different levels of difficulty have been encountered in the application of some lean concepts/principles that were originated from
the manufacturing industry when applied in the construction industry due largely to the unique nature of the construction process

372 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT ASCE / MAY 2008

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2008.134:371-381.

and the many risks and uncertainties involved in this process. In

this regard, two examples are discussed in the following.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Conversion/Value-Adding and Flow/Non-Value-Adding

Activities
The classification of conversion/value-adding and flow/nonvalue-adding activities often causes confusion in the context of a
construction project. In many construction projects, non-valueadding activities could dominate the project development process.
Christian and Hachey 1995 found that labor only contributes
46% of their working time toward value-adding activities from a
survey of 15 construction companies in eastern Canada. Agbulos
and AbouRizk 2003 identified that only 32% of total time being
spent by sewer-line maintenance crews added value to the project.
The time spent on non-value-adding activities could be much
more if there was a substantial variation in the construction workflow. Activities such as motion, transportation, and inspection
belong to flow activities according to the definitions in lean
production. Given that all these activities are necessary in the
construction process toward delivering the final project, it is hard
to justify that only conversion activities contribute value to a
construction project. For example, in an earth-moving project,
earth transportation is considered to be a non-value-adding activity according to its definition in lean production. However, it is an
unavoidable and critical activity to create value to the contractor.
This indicates the inadequacy at least, psychologically of conversion and flow concepts in evaluating the value of construction activities. Furthermore, the classification of value-adding and
non-value-adding activities may give the impression that wastes
only exist in non-value-adding activities. Actually, potential
wastes may exist in value-adding activities.
Concept of Pulling
Pulling is a lean production principle to ensure just-in-time coordination between upstream and downstream tasks. It requires
that the upstream should not produce a product/service until it is
required by the downstream Womack and Jones 1996. In the
construction domain, this principle can be interpreted as supplying materials, labor, and equipment only as they are needed.
While the pulling principle may eliminate inventory in the downstream, it could cause overcapacity of production and consequent
idle of production resources in the upstream if it were required
that all downstream demands must be satisfied no matter when
and no matter what quantity of these uncertain demands are made.
Otherwise, some demands in the downstream would not be met if
the production capacity were kept at an economic level. One
effective way of mitigating the conflict between the supplier and
the contractor is to make accountable schedules so that the supplier can produce according to schedules and the contractor can
get its required materials timely.

Innovative Modeling of the Construction Process

The difficulties encountered in the application of some lean production concepts/principles in the construction industry indicate
that these concepts/principles need to be further examined and
modified for their proper application in the construction industry.
In addition, new lean concepts/principles need to be developed to
better serve the construction industry. For this purpose, this paper
proposes a different system to classify activities in a construction

process. It classifies construction activities into main and supportive activities and/or into normal and interactive activities from
two different perspectives.
Main Activity and Supportive Activity
A main activity is one that directly consumes construction materials and contributes physically to the final project. On the
other hand, a supportive activity is one that supports and facilitates the execution of main activities but may not contribute
physically to the final project. Main activities have to be kept in
the construction process whereas supportive activities may not be
necessary.
Please note that the classification of main and supportive activities are relative depending on the type of project and the methods and technologies deployed to construct the project. For
example, the activity of soil transportation in an earth-moving
project may be classified as a main activity since moving soil
from one location to the other is the purpose of the project. In
contrast, the activity of material transportation in a road surface
construction project may be classified as a supportive activity
because surface pavement is the projects objective. In addition,
the main activity could change in the same project while all supportive activates may remain unchanged if a different construction method is used. For example, the main activity would change
from rolling to spraying if a spray gun is used to substitute a
roller in a wall painting project while the supportive activities
such as wall cleaning and edge taping remain the same.
This classification of activities facilitates the endeavor to reengineer the construction process for minimized wastes by examining both main and supportive activities and making appropriate
changes/modifications to part or the whole of the construction
process. For example, the duration of both main and supportive
activities may be reduced for earlier project completion and potential productivity improvement. In addition, innovative construction technologies may be applied such that, without affecting
the main activities, some supportive activities may be eliminated,
and consequently, wastes associated with these supportive activities may be avoided.
Normal Activity and Interactive Activity
An assembly line in the manufacturing industry is usually built as
a one-way pass, where a large number of parts are installed in a
sequential manner. On the contrary, a construction project is a
unique product that is often delivered through repetitive work
activities either in a chain or circular format. For example, pipe
installation is a typical chain process as pipes are laid down one
after another along a trench while a cast-in-place piling project is
conducted in a circular manner with the repetition of three major
piling activities: drilling a hole, dropping a steel cage, and pouring concrete. Sometimes, a number of circular processes need to
be done concurrently to reduce total project duration. For example, following piling activities, carpenters and labors can rough
pile heads, and form and pour pile caps so that all works related
to pile foundation are finished not too long after piling is done.
It is known that the productivity variation of a production unit
in the production system can significantly increase the productivity variation of other production units in the system that are linked
to this unit, and consequently, the variation of the whole production system. Appropriate measures need to be taken to minimize
the variation of each production unit, particularly those units that
link to other units. Therefore, it is useful to decompose the con-

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT ASCE / MAY 2008 / 373

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2008.134:371-381.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Earth moving operation

Fig. 1. Concrete pouring operation

struction process into a number of workflows according to the

connections between work activities in order to better assess the
productivity variations of individual construction units and workflows, and their interaction and impact on the whole construction
process. For this purpose, this paper initiates the concepts of normal and interactive activities. A normal activity is one that serves
only one workflow. It is the basic element of a workflow that may
link upstream activities to downstream activities. An interactive
activity is one that serves more than one workflow. Interactive
activities join different workflows together so that these workflows can interact with each other. An interactive activity cannot
proceed until all required resources are delivered from relevant
workflows. Thus, an interactive activity has a high likelihood of
causing uncertainty, which may result in wastes and even the
failure of project schedules.
Please note that while an interactive activity links two or more
workflows, it may function as a normal activity when resources
are only needed from one workflow for interactive activities to
happen or when resources required from one workflow take no
extra time to deliver. Please also note that the concepts of normal
activity and interactive activity are not in conflict with the concepts of main and supportive activities. A main or supportive
activity can be either a normal or an interactive activity.
Based on the definitions of main, supportive, normal, and interactive activities, different construction activities can be represented by the legends as illustrated in Fig. 1. Consequently,
different workflows of a construction process can be modeled
using these legends. A concrete pouring operation and an earthmoving operation are symbolized in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.
In the concrete pouring operation, concrete mixing, spreading,
and finishing are considered as main activities while the others as
supportive activities. Activities of emptying trucks, filling buckets, and dumping buckets are treated as interactive activities since
they link truck, mixer, and bucket cycles together, while the others are treated as normal activities. Please note that there is a
mixing activity in the truck during its travel. This mixing activity
takes place concurrently with the truck travel activity. This mixing activity during truck travel is not considered in Fig. 1 as it has
the same time impact as the truck travel. The mixer cycle in Fig.
1 models the scenario in which a large truckload of concrete has
to be filled into multiple buckets over a relatively long time. To
release the concrete truck the premixed concrete needs to be temporarily stored in a mixer on site. The mixer cycle actually models the mixing activity on site after the concrete is dumped into
the mixer from the truck.
In the earth-moving operation, the process includes the soil
loading cycle and a chain of soil processing and compacting.
Truck traveling, truck returning, and soil compacting are treated

as main activities. No interactive activity is identified as there is

only one circular workflow and the truck dumping activity only
needs one resource.

Integrating Computer Simulation and Lean

Principles
Computer Simulation of the Construction Process
Most of the heuristic lean principles as discussed in a previous
section involve reengineering the business/production process.
Hammer and Champy 1993 defined process reengineering as the
fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of processes to
achieve dramatic improvements in performance measures such as
cost, quality, service, and speed. Davenport 1993 used the term
process innovation, which encompasses the envisioning of new
work strategies, the actual process design activity, and the implementation of the change in multiple dimensions of the business.
Process reengineering can be carried out analytically and/or
conceptually, and the performance of a reengineered production
process can be assessed based on known and guessed information. Nonetheless, it is preferable if the reengineered production
process can be physically tested to examine its real performance. As shown in many cases, the actual results can be considerably different from what were expected or predicted to be
in the plan and design stage because of many unknowns and
uncertainties. A physical test may be suitable for small and
repetitive construction projects, such as single houses. For mega
projects, physically testing the reengineered production process is
not realistic from an economic perspective. Furthermore, modifying the real construction process once it has started is expensive
and time consuming.
While physical simulation of a reengineered construction
process for a mega project does not seem realistic, a computerenabled virtual simulation has been proven to be an efficient
and cost-effective way to examine the potential performance of a
proposed process. The advancement of computer technology allows fast computing for a great number of combinations of process arrangements and contingencies. Computer simulation can
be used to create an environment to validate and quantify the
efficiency of a construction process that is reengineered through
lean principles prior to its field implementation. For example,
Agbulos and AbouRizk 2003 used computer simulation to capture current drainage maintenance methods and test different
alternatives. As a result, an improved service procedure was developed. Compared with historical daily throughputs, this procedure was expected to increase the service crews productivity by
416%. Farrar et al. 2004 developed a special purpose simulation template for road surface construction. This simulation

374 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT ASCE / MAY 2008

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2008.134:371-381.

template was able to quantify the impact of reducing some nonvalue-adding activities and using just-in-time delivery for the
whole road construction process.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Construction Process Simulation Systems

Halpin 1973 introduced construction process simulation by the
development of the method called CYCLONE, which stands for
cyclic operations network. It is a modeling technique that allows
the graphical representation and simulation of discrete systems
that involve stochastic variables Halpin 2003.
In the past two decades, researchers and practitioners have
attempted to improve the flexibility and capability of construction
simulation methods. Centeno 1996 classified the discrete simulation into two categories, event driven and process driven. In the
former, the modeler thinks in terms of the events that change the
status of the system to describe the model. In the latter, the modeler thinks in terms of the processes that the dynamic entity will
experience as it moves through the system. Xu and AbouRizk
1999 developed a product-oriented simulation environment, in
which three-dimensional computer-aided design was integrated
with computer simulation.
The complexity of simulation methodologies and the lack of
simulation knowledge among industry personnel are the main
causes of weak utilization of simulation in construction management. To simplify simulation techniques, Zeigler 1987 presented
hierarchical and modular modeling concepts. Atomic model, library, and coupling are the three basic components that enable the
representation of large and complex systems in a relatively simple
way. Furthermore, David and Li 2001 presented the resourceinteracted simulation RISim system, which is a resourceoriented method that takes construction resources as modeling
objects and focuses on the interactions between these resources.
AbouRizk and Hajjar 1998 and Hajjar and AbouRizk 2002
recommended the use of special purpose simulation SPS, and
they developed the construction simulation package called Simphony. Simphony provides a platform for SPS application and
development. The idea of SPS is to specify symbols, model specifications, navigation schemes, and reporting in a publicly recognized format for a given construction domain. Professionals with
limited knowledge and skills of simulation are able to use these
SPS tools in their domains.

Framework for Construction Process Reengineering

Fig. 3. Framework for construction process reengineering

knowledge of how many subprojects or tasks he needs to carry

out in order to achieve the objective of the project.
Step 2: Abstract Project Activities

Based on the discussion and analysis in previous sections, a

framework for reengineering a construction process is developed,
which is shown in Fig. 3. Integrating lean principles and modern
computer simulation techniques, this framework provides guidelines for relevant parties in streamlining the construction process
and creating innovative construction methods, with an objective
to maximize productivity and minimize wastes. Details of the
framework are provided as follows.

The subprojects or tasks of a construction project are normally

carried out by various kinds of construction activities, which refer
to the work elements of the subprojects or tasks that appear in the
construction schedule in a logical order. These construction activities are often repetitive, either in a chain or circular format or
their combined format. In this step, the necessary construction
activities, their durations, and construction sequences needed to
be determined based on the WBS.

Step 1: Develop Work Breakdown Structure

Step 3: Model Construction Process

A work breakdown structure WBS is a hierarchical arrangement

that decomposes all the works of a project in an organized and
manageable way, through which a project can be effectively
planned, executed, controlled, and reported PMI 2000. In addition, by developing the WBS, the contractor can gain better

As demonstrated in Figs. 1 and 2, this step intends to symbolize a

construction process using the legends introduced in Fig. 1. The
presentation of the workflow diagram will provide a better understanding of the relationship between workflow and the functionality of each activity. In addition, all activities in the diagram

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT ASCE / MAY 2008 / 375

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2008.134:371-381.

could be distinguished in one of four categories: 1 main and

normal; 2 main and interactive; 3 supportive and normal; and
4 supportive and interactive.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Step 4: Reduce Supportive Activities

Some supportive activities may be not necessary, and therefore
can be deleted, and some others may be merged with either main
activities or other supportive activities. As discussed in a previous
section, supportive activities are those that take time and cost but
have no direct value contribution to the project. Therefore, some
supportive activities may be eliminated to reduce wastes. The
identification of main and supportive activities gives a clear direction as to which work activities are most possible to be eliminated to reduce wastes.
Step 5: Reduce Interactive Activities and Minimize
their Interactions
One lean principle is to create a continuous smooth production
flow to increase productivity. Reducing the share of supportive
activities is one way to make the construction process simple.
Another way is to decrease the number of interactive activities or
the number of workflows that are engaged in some interactive
activities. It is possible to convert some interactive activities to
normal activities or to reduce the number of workflows that is
engaged by an interactive activity.
To keep the construction process steady, it needs to be simplified with reduced variables and irregular activities. The subprojects or tasks of different construction projects of the same
type can be broken down into standard activities. However, for a
particular project there may be some project-specific activities
due to its unique project conditions. These project-specific activities are referred to as irregular activities.

Step 10: Evaluate the Reengineered Construction

Process through Computer Simulation
Computer simulation is recommended to assess and optimize the
reengineered construction process prior to its real application.
This step will also provide project planners with a means to examine the performance of the planned process with quantitative
results of productivity. Coping with different scenarios originating
from Steps 4 to 8, the simulation analysis will be repeated until
the alternative with the maximum productivity and the least duration is identified.
Step 11: Technologically Evaluate the Reengineered
Construction Process
The reengineered construction process may present a challenge to
existing technologies. A conventional construction process may
be reengineered and streamlined. However, the prerequisite for
this reengineered process to be applied in reality is the availability
of technologies needed to implement this reengineered process.
Therefore, there is a need to evaluate the technical feasibility of
the reengineered process. Hopefully, the reengineered process
may also force project planners to open their minds and invent
new construction methods.

Case Study: A Tunneling Project

The W12 tunnel project is located in the city of Edmonton,
Canada. It is a part of the west Edmonton sanitary sewer trunk
system, which is intended to provide sanitary services to newly
developed areas in the west side of the city. To covey sewer
across the North Saskatchewan River, the W12 tunnel was built
with a tunnel underneath the river and two shafts that connect
with the rest of the sewer system. The tunnel is 1,225 m long with
a 3.2-m diameter. Its two access shafts are about 80 m deep.

Step 7: Determine and Modify Critical Workflows

Typical Tunneling Process
The critical workflow is the workflow that contains main activities. Often, there could be multiple critical workflows in a project
when main activities are embedded in different operational
cycles. Using the concrete pouring operation as an example Fig.
1, two main activities: 1 mixing; and 2 spread and finish, lead
to two separate critical workflows. It may be necessary to reconfigure the existing construction process to arrange all main activities into the same workflow if main activities fall into different
workflows.
Step 8: Reduce Activity Duration
The duration of each activity may be reduced. Compressing
the total construction time will reduce waste and increase
productivity.
Step 9: Reengineer Construction Process
Based on the results in previous steps, the construction process is
reengineered, with different workflows in the delivery of the
project. Then, all changes are presented through a new project
workflow diagram, which will assist project planners in evaluating the newly proposed plan and searching for practical solutions
accordingly.

Tunnels are built in a wide range of infrastructure systems, including sewers, highways, subways, railways, and hydroelectric
structures. Modern tunnel construction methods have been developing for almost two centuries and are still evolving. The basic
tunneling process of the tunnel boring machine TBM is illustrated in Fig. 4. The process starts from shaft excavation. At least
two shafts are needed: one access shaft located at the tunnels
starting point and one TBM retrieving shaft located at the other
end. The diameter of a working shaft varies according to the
tunnels size. An undercut area, a space for locating and assembling TBM, is required at the bottom of the access shaft. A tail
tunnel is optional and primarily used to schedule the train for
sharing a single track. Once the undercut and tail tunnel have
been constructed, the TBM is assembled in the undercut area and
aligned to start excavation. A hoisting system is required on the
top of the access shaft to transport labor, equipment, and materials
into the tunnel. A train is used to remove the spoil from the tunnel
face to the undercut area, where it will be lifted up to the ground
surface.
The tunneling operation is a circular process carrying out dozens of tasks per stroke, including excavation, spoil removal, material transportation, and liner installation. The cycle of the
tunneling process may be repeated for hundreds or even thousands of times depending on the length of the tunnel. Because of

376 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT ASCE / MAY 2008

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2008.134:371-381.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Cross section of tunnel construction

its repetition in nature, tunnel construction has a great potential

for improvement using lean concepts. In other words, the cumulated cost and time saving resulting from each single stroking
cycle will be of significant value to the project.
Fig. 5. Tunneling operation

Modeling the Tunneling Process

According to the direction in which materials are transported, the
tunneling operation can be divided into two general workflows,
the vertical movement cycle VMC and the horizontal movement
cycle HMC. The HMC can be further split into the train travel
cycle TTC and the TBM excavation cycle TEC. The VMC
represents hoisting spoil, materials, and labor from the undercut
area to the ground surface and backwards. The TTC includes train
activities between the undercut area and the tunnel face. The TEC
contains TBM excavation, service and rail track extension, liner
installation, and survey.
The tunneling process is modeled in Fig. 5 by conducting
Steps 13. The VMC, TTC, and TEC are not stand-alone workflows. There are interactions between VMC and TTC and between TTC and TEC throughout the whole tunneling process.
Accordingly, TBM excavation and muck car arrival and release
tasks are considered as interactive activities. TBM excavation is
interactive because TBM cannot progress without having empty
muck cars. Muck car arrival and release are also interactive since
the empty train will not head to the tunnel face until the previous
train travels back to the access shaft after being loaded. The three
connected workflows present a big challenge to improving tunneling productivity. As discussed in previous sections, interactive
work units can significantly enlarge variations in the workflows,
and consequently, increase waste in these workflows.

3.

4.

carried out in parallel with the TBM excavation activity such

that the consecutive surveying data can be used timely to
help adjust the tunneling direction in order to minimize the
error in tunnel alignment.
In the reengineered process, the VMC workflow is eliminated. The continuous dirt removal system is able to transport dirt from the tunnel face all the way up to the ground
surface. Therefore, there is no need for the VMC. Furthermore, lining materials are dropped into the access shaft and
loaded on the muck car directly by the hoister. Because the
duration for material loading and traveling is much smaller
than the TBM excavation cycle, the liner install activity is
treated as a normal activity. The new material handling system will be able to achieve just-in-time delivery if real-time
operation information can be obtained from the loading zone.
Instead of using rib-lag in the typical tunneling process, a
segment liner is proposed in the reengineered process to reduce the liner installation duration.

Technological Evaluation of the Reengineered

Tunneling Process
There are two major changes in the reengineered tunneling process Fig. 6 compared with the conventional tunneling process
Fig. 5: 1 dirt is required to be continuously removed while the

Reengineering the Tunneling Process

By conducting Steps 49, a reengineered tunneling process is
developed as shown in Fig. 6. The differences between this reengineered process and the typical tunneling process as modeled
in Fig. 5 are highlighted in the following:
1. The TBM excavation activity is an interactive activity in Fig.
5, whereas in Fig. 6 this activity is a normal activity that
links to the dirt removal activity. The reason for this change
is that the train travel cycle interrupts the TBM excavation
cycle all the time. The TBM does not have to stop and wait
for an empty muck car if the dirt removal system can work
simultaneously when the TBM is advancing in excavation.
2. In the reengineered process, the survey activity a supportive
activity in Fig. 5 is merged into the TBM excavation activity
a main activity. This actually changes the survey activity
from a supportive activity to a main activity. This change
enables the function of monitoring the tunnel alignment to be

Fig. 6. Streamlined tunneling operation

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT ASCE / MAY 2008 / 377

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2008.134:371-381.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Continuous conveyer belt system

TBM is advancing; and 2 a continuous monitoring system is

needed to guide the positioning of the TBM. For the first change,
two existing technologies may be deployed to satisfy its requirement. One technology is a special conveyer belt system that consists of a horizontal conveyer belt and a pocket-lift vertical belt as
shown in Fig. 7. This system can lift up to 900 ft with a capacity
of 2,000 tons per hour. For details of this technology, please refer
to Frontier-Kemper 2004. The other technology is a slurry spoil
removal system as shown in Fig. 8. This technology was initially
applied in horizontal drilling. The main idea of this technology is
explained as follows: First, spoil is mixed with polymerized fluid
to become slurry. Then, the slurry is pumped up to the ground
surface through a pumping system. Finally, the liquid and spoil
are separated. Most of the liquid is recycled for reuse to form
slurry spoil and the separated spoil is moved to the dumping site
for further sedimentation.
For the second change in the reengineered tunneling process,
an aerial common sensor ACS guidance system as shown in
Fig. 9 may be used to provide real-time survey and monitoring of
the TBM to guide the positing of the TBM and the ring, and to
determine the correction curve and the ring sequence. This ACS
guidance system has been successfully used in some tunnel
projects in Canada TACS-GMBH 2004.

Computer Simulation of the Conventional and

Reengineered Tunneling Processes

Fig. 8. Slurry spoil removal system

Fig. 9. ACS guidance system

The conventional tunneling process as shown in Fig. 5 and the

reengineered tunneling process as shown in Fig. 6 are simulated
using the special construction simulation software, Simphony. For
details on how to obtain and use this software please check
the following website: http://irc.construction.ualberta.ca/html/
research/software/simphony_legacy.html. A SPS template is developed to model the tunneling process, as shown in Fig. 10. The
top layer of the SPS template consists of five elements: hoist,
travel, TBM, train, and shift controller. The cycles of VMC, TTC,
and TEC are enveloped by hoist, travel, and TBM elements,
respectively.
The hoist element simulates the muck cars vertical movement. It is assumed that the material car and the dirt car consume
the same hoisting duration. The hoist element has five input parameters i.e., hooking up, lifting up, dumping, dropping down,
and releasing durations and one output parameter i.e., the total
duration of the VMC cycle. The travel element simulates the
muck cars circular movement from the tunnel face to the under-

Fig. 10. Interface of tunnel construction template

378 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT ASCE / MAY 2008

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2008.134:371-381.

Table 1. Input Parameters of Simulation Elements

Element

Parameter

Value

Number of trains
Empty speed km/h
Loaded speed km/h
Number of dirt cars
Number of material cars
Muck car capacity m3

2
5
5
3
1
4.59

Morning duration h
Afternoon duration h
Mobilization time min
Coffee break min
Lunch break min
Demobilization time min

4
4
Uniform 10,15
Uniform 25,35
Uniform 40,50
Uniform 10,15

TBM

Lining section length m

Excavation diameter m
Resetting time min
Lining timerib and lagging min
Frequency of extending tracks sections
Track installation min
TBM advancing rate
Soil swell factor
Survey frequency sections
Survey duration
Interval of TBM breakdowns min
Time to repair TBM min

1
3.2
Uniform 2,4
Uniform 30,45
10
15
Beta 1.6,1.3,1.2,5.6
1.35
50
Uniform 120,180
Exponential 3,000
Uniform 60,300

Hoist

Hook up min
Lift up min
Release min
Drop down min
Dump min
Shaft depth mOption A

1
depth/40
Uniform 1,2
depth/ 40+ 0.5
Triangular 1,3,5
80

Travel

Length of tunnel m

1,225

Train

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Shift controller

cut area where the muck car is unloaded. The travel element has
one input parameter, that is, the length of the tunnel. It has three
output parameters: the length of the finished tunnel, the total number of shifts in finishing the tunnel, and the average tunneling
production rate. The TBM element commences when a train arrives at the tunnel face, and a tunneling cycle is finished after the
liner installation of a full ring. To properly describe the tunneling
cycle, the following parameters are used as the input of the TBM
element: length of a tunnel unit; boring diameter; TBM resetting
time; liner installation duration; target number of sections before
extending tracks; track installation duration; TBM advance rate;
soil swell factor; duration of survey, and finished tunneling cycles
between surveys. The train element gives the SPS template flexibility to control the trains attributes. The user can decide the
number of trains to be used in tunnel construction, and the trains
empty and load speeds. In addition, the user has options to change
the number of dirt cars, the number of material cars, and the muck
cars capacity. The shift control element calculates the effective
working time. This element has six input parameters: working
duration in the morning, working duration in afternoon, duration
of mobilization, duration of demobilization, coffee break, and
lunch break. The input parameters of the five elements are summerized in Table 1.
The interactions between various resources and activities involved in VMC, TTC, and TEC are modeled in the sublayers of

their corresponding elements. For example, the sublayer of the

hoist element that models the VMC is shown in Fig. 11. The
sublayers of other elements are not shown here to save space. To
understand the functionality of all simulation elements and how
they are assembled together, readers may refer to the General
Purpose Simulation Template Users Guide of Simphony, which
can be downloaded from the previously mentioned website.
In this paper, the following three reengineered tunneling processes are considered:
Option 1: Add a continuous conveyer belt system to the conventional process.
Option 2: Add an automated surveying system and combine it
with the continuous conveyer belt system.
Option 3: Change the tunnel liner from the ribs-and-lagging
liner to the bolted segmental liner, in addition to the arrangement that combines the continuous conveyer belt system and
the automated surveying system as made in Option 2.
The conventional and the three reengineered tunneling processes are computer simulated to compare their productivities. As
listed in Table 2, the productivity of the conventional model is
4.42 m / shift. Consequently, 277 shifts will be required to finish
the construction of the tunnel. In contrast, with the introduction of
the continuous conveyer belt system the productivity will be increased by 29% to 5.72 m / shift. The productivity will be further
increased to 6.31 m / shift when the continuous conveyer belt sys-

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT ASCE / MAY 2008 / 379

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2008.134:371-381.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Simulation of the hoist element

tem is combined with the automated surveying system. By changing from the ribs-and-lagging liner to the bolted segmental liner,
the liner installation duration of one tunnel unit is reduced from
uniform distribution 30 and 45 min to uniform distribution 13
and 18 min. As a result, the productivity will be increased by
79% from 6.31 to 9.8 m / shift. The productivity improvement
achieved by reducing the duration of one of the two main activities of the tunneling process demonstrates the significant impact
of the time share of the main activities on the productivity of the
whole construction process. In terms of the total number of shifts
required to complete this tunnel, Option 3 only takes 125 shifts,
less than half of the total number of shifts required by the conventional process. The substantial reduction of the total construction duration represents a great cost savings and earlier utilization
of this tunnel to better serve the public.

Conclusions
Construction process reengineering may dramatically improve the
performance of the construction industry. Lean principles can be
applied in construction process reengineering. However, changes
or modifications may have to be made to some lean principles as
developed in the manufacturing industry in order to better apply
these principles in the construction industry in view of the
uniqueness of the construction industry. This paper develops a
construction process reengineering framework and corresponding
methodologies that integrate lean principles and computer simulation techniques.
Instead of classifying activities into value-adding and nonvalue-adding activities, or into conversion and flow activities, as
is common in lean production practices, this framework classifies

Table 2. Productivity Comparison between Conventional and Reengineered Tunneling Processes

Option

Lining
duration
min

Conventional
Uniform
1
Uniform
2
Uniform
3
Uniform
Note: N / A = not available.

30,45
30,45
30,45
13,18

Survey

Survey
frequency

Productivity
m/shift

Productivity
increase
%

Total
shifts

Shift
decrease
%

Yes
Yes
Combined
Combined

15
15
N/A
N/A

4.42
5.72
6.31
9.80

29
43
122

277
214
194
125

0
23
30
55

380 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT ASCE / MAY 2008

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2008.134:371-381.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

activities into main and supportive activities and/or into normal

and interactive activities. The classification of activities into main
and supportive activities and into normal and interactive activities
makes it more effective in modeling the construction workflow
and reengineering the construction process. This also avoids the
confusion of the classification of activities into value-adding and
non-value-adding activities.
Computer simulation techniques are incorporated into the
framework to virtually simulate and assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the reengineered construction process that is
achieved based on lean principles. Simulation makes it easier to
quantify and assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the reengineered construction process. The development of a user-friendly
SPS template will enable project managers and engineers who do
not have deep simulation knowledge to utilize simulation techniques. Integrating lean principles and computer simulation techniques, the proposed construction reengineering framework is
useful and workable in streamlining the construction process for
improved productivity, efficiency, and cost effectiveness, which is
confirmed by the case study of a tunnel project.

References
AbouRizk, S. M., and Hajjar, D. 1998. A framework for applying
simulation in the construction industry. Can. J. Civ. Eng., 253,
604617.
Agbulos, A., and AbouRizk, S. M. 2003. An application of lean concepts and simulation for drainage operations maintenance crews.
Proc., Winter Simulation Conf., New Orleans, 15341540.
Al-Sudairi, A. A., Diekman, J. E., Songer, A. D., and Brown, H. M.
1999. Simulation of construction processes: Traditional practices
versus lean construction. Proc., 7th Int. Group for Lean Construction
Conf., Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif., 3950.
Ballard, G. 1999. Improving work flow reliability. Proc. 7th Int.
Group for Lean Construction Conf., Univ. of California at Berkeley,
Berkeley, Calif., 275286.
Ballard, G., and Howell, G. 1994. Implementing lean construction:
Stabilizing work flow. Proc. 2nd Annual Meeting of the Int. Group
for Lean Construction, Santiago, Chile.
Centeno, M. A. 1996. An introduction to simulation modeling. Proc.,
Winter Simulation Conf., Coronado, Calif., 1522.
Christian, J., and Hachey, D. 1995. Effects of delay times on production rates in construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 1211, 2026.

Davenport, T. 1993. Process innovation: Reengineering work through

information technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
David, K. H. C., and Li, G. M. 2001. Modeling construction operations
with RISim. J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 154, 320328.
Farrar, J. M., AbouRizk, S. M., and Mao, X. 2004. Generic implementation of lean concepts in simulation models. Lean Constr. J., 11,
123.
Frontier-Kemper Constructors, Inc. 2004. FKC-Lake Shore vertical
conveying systems. Vertical Belts, http://www.frontier-kemper.
com/verticalbelts.html October 12, 2004.
Hajjar, D., and AbouRizk, S. M. 2002. Unified modeling methodology
for construction simulation. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 1282, 174
185.
Halpin, D. W. 1973. An investigation of the use of simulation networks for modeling construction operations. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Ill.
Halpin, D. W. 2003. Simulation in construction using CYCLONE and
MicroCYCLONE.
https://engineering.purdue.edu/CEM/People/
Personal/Halpin/Sim/index_html April 21, 2003.
Halpin, D. W., and Kueckmann, M. 2002. Lean construction and simulation. Proc. Winter Simulation Conf., December, San Diego, 1697
1703.
Hammer, M., and Champy, J. 1993. Reengineering the corporation,
Harper Collins, New York.
Howell, G. A. 1999. What is lean construction? Proc., 7th Annual
Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Construction, Berkeley, Calif., 110.
Ikovenko, S. 2004. TRIZ as a lean thinking tool. ETRIA TRIZ Future
Conf., Florence, Italy, 157164.
Koskela, L. 1992. Application of the new production philosophy to
construction. Technical Rep. 72, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stanford Univ., Palo Alto, Calif.
Kotelnikov, V. 2006. Lean production: Doing more with less. http://
www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/lean_production_main.html
March 15, 2006.
Project Management Institute PMI 2000. A guide to the project management body of knowledge, PMI, Newtown Square, Pa., 211.
TACS-GMBH. 2004. ACS guidance systemSystem review.
http://www.tacsgmbh.de/en/tacs_prod_acs_overview.htm August 8,
2004.
Womack, J. P., and Jones, D. 1996. Lean thinking: Banish waste and
create wealth in your corporation, Simon & Schuster, New York, 352.
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., and Roos, D. 1990. The machine that
changed the world, Rawson Associates, New York, 323.
Xu, J., and AbouRizk, S. M. 1999. Product-based model representation
for integrating 3D CAD with computer simulation. Proc., Winter
Simulation Conf., Phoenix, 971977.
Zeigler, B. P. 1987. Hierarchical, modular discrete-event modeling in
an object-oriented environment. Simulation, 495, 219230.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT ASCE / MAY 2008 / 381

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2008.134:371-381.