International Journal of Construction Management

ISSN: 1562-3599 (Print) 2331-2327 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

Towards Last Planner System Implementation in

Gaza Strip, Palestine

Osama Abusalem

To cite this article: Osama Abusalem (2018): Towards Last Planner System Implementation
in Gaza Strip, Palestine, International Journal of Construction Management, DOI:
10.1080/15623599.2018.1484861

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1484861

Published online: 01 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1484861

Towards last planner system implementation in Gaza Strip, Palestine

Osama Abusalem
Department of Engineering Management and Enterprise, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The Gaza Strip’s construction industry in Palestine is suffering from the existence of unreliable control; lean construction;
production plans with great variability. One of the innovative solutions to avoid, eliminate or at last planner system;
least reduce plan variation is the adoption of last planner system (LPS). This research highlights planning; workflow
the importance of eliminating plan variation in the production planning and control process in
Gaza Strip as a key improvement in the delivery process of construction projects through the
use of LPS. This research applies a survey strategy that uses two data collection methods,
including questionnaire and interview. The results show that several elements of LPS already
exist in Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, these elements do not follow the same approach of LPS. The
main challenge is the involvement of many subcontractors. The primary variation cause is the
unavailability of materials. The critical success factor is the top management support.

Introduction can be achieved by improving management practices

The construction industry has an extremely complex
and dynamic nature. This nature can be attributed to
the interaction of multiple variables and diverse work-
flows. These two traits resulted in uncertainty as an
inherent feature of construction (Ballard 2000;
Koskela 2000). Linguistically, uncertainty means the
‘presence of doubt, changeability, lack of assurance or
reliability’ (Hornby 1974) . The uncertainty compro-
mises the reliability of planning and control methods
by making the construction projects more susceptible
to variation (Ballard and Howell 1994). Variation is
‘the difference between what was planned and what
actually happened’ (Wambeke et al. 2012). The vari-
ation leads to overdue of project delivery, cost over-
run, less productivity and decreasing the value of the
overall project outputs by increasing the amount of
waste (Howell et al. 1993; Ballard and Howell 1994;
Howell and Ballard 1994a; Hopp and Spearman 1996;
Ballard 2000; Koskela 2000; Vrijhoef and Koskela
2000; London and Kenley 2001; Alves 2005; Green
et al. 2005). Causes of unreliable production plans
cluster around two issues: (1) project environment
factors: are uncontrollable external factors that have
to be taken as given in any construction project and
(2) management factors: are controllable internal fac-
tors and efforts should be directed towards minimiz-
ing their impact. Arguably, controlling such causes
(Ballard 2000; Koskela 2000). One significant initiative
has been the adoption of lean construction (LC).
Since 1992, LC has evolved as a new way to manage
construction projects more efficiently and effectively.
LC was taken from lean production (LP) that can be
traced to Toyota production system (TPS; Ballard
2000). LC is ‘a way to design production systems to
minimize waste of materials, time, and effort in order
to generate the maximum possible amount of value in
construction’ (Koskela 2000). Diverse LC techniques
have been developed and successfully applied to sim-
ple and complex construction projects. The most
remarkable LC technique is last planner system (LPS),
which is a production planning and control system to
improve workflow reliability (Ballard 2000). Many
studies all over the world have been carried out to
study the applications of LC, especially LPS.
Nevertheless, the literature review shows no evidence
of existing research or practical applications regarding
LPS in Gaza Strip, Palestine. Therefore, this is the
first comprehensive academic research that addresses
the implementation of LPS in this territory. This
research highlights the importance of eliminating plan
variation in the production planning and control pro-
cess in Gaza Strip as a key improvement in the deliv-
ery process of construction projects through the use
of LPS. It contributes to help the contracting firms to
establish new strategies and policies to improve their

CONTACT Osama Abusalem o.abusalem@hotmail.com

ß 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 O. ABUSALEM
managerial practices by using the findings of this
research as a reference. Moreover, it forms a basis for
the development of further researches in the area of
LPS. This research has three main objectives: (1) pro-
vides a broader overview of the actual state of LPS
implementation worldwide, (2) investigates the extent
of implementing the LPS in Gaza Strip and (3)
assesses the challenges, variation causes and critical
success factors (CSFs) that may affect the future
implementation of LPS in Gaza Strip.
Literature review
The LPS was originated by Glenn Ballard and
Gregory Howell in 1992, in the discovery that only an
average of 54% of tasks on weekly plans was com-
pleted from over 450 weeks of numerous projects in
both design and construction of seven highly regarded
construction companies (Ballard and Howell 1998).
The LPS has five principles: (1) plans in greater detail
as you get closer to doing the work, (2) produces plans
collaboratively with those who will do the work, (3)
reveals and removes constraints on planned tasks as a
team, (4) makes and secures reliable promises and (5)
learns from breakdowns (Ballard et al. 2009).
The LPS classifies tasks into four categories: (1)
SHOULD: represents tasks that need to be done, (2)
CAN: represents tasks made ready from what
SHOULD be done, (3) WILL: represents tasks com-
mitted to be done from what CAN be done and (4)
DID: represents tasks completed from what WILL be
done (Ballard 2000).
The LPS has two levels of control: (1) production
unit control aims to progressively make better assign-
ments to direct workers through continuous learning
and corrective actions, that is, as in the weekly work
plan (WWP) and (2) workflow control seeks to pro-
actively cause work to flow across production units in
the best achievable sequence and rate, that is, as in
the look-ahead plan (Ballard 2000).
The production control has two primary approaches for
controlling the workflow in the production systems: (1)
push approach releases materials or information into a sys-
tem based on preassigned due dates from the master pro-
duction schedule and (2) pull approach releases materials
or information into a system based on the state of the sys-
tem (the ability to do the work; Hopp and Spearman 1996).
The name of LPS was inspired from the ‘last
planner’, typically the foreman (Ballard 2000). The last
planner is ‘the person or group of people accountable
for production unit control’. This means completion of
individual assignments at the operational level (Ballard
1994). Assignments are ‘a directive or order given to a
worker or workers directly producing or contributing to
the production of design or construction’ (Ballard
2000). The LPS argues that since last planners are famil-
iar with the construction production process and closer
to the site, it is more appropriate that they provide
inputs into WWP through adding details and commit-
ment to what can actually be achieved in the upcoming
week (Ballard 1994). The results indicated that the fre-
quency and severity of uncertainty significantly increase
as one moves from project manager to superintendent
to foreman (Russell et al. 2013).
The LPS learns from past failures and successes by
following the Shewhart plan-do-check-act cycle (made
popular by W. Edwards Deming) for a continuous
improvement process (Ballard 2000).
Kim and Ballard (2010) argued that the LPS
appears to reflect managing-by-means thinking rather
than managing-by-results thinking based on the fol-
lowing: (1) assuming that scheduled tasks include
uncertainty and constraints and highly interdepend-
ent, (2) monitoring focuses on planning reliability,
not on financial metrics and (3) management deci-
sions are based on planning reliability, a prerequisite
to cost and progress measures.
The LPS consists of four levels hierarchy of planning,
including the master plan, phase plan, look-ahead plan
and WWP, not to mention the several tools and metrics
(Ballard 2000). The master plan sets milestones and key
dates. The phase plan specifies handoffs between trades.
The look-ahead plan makes tasks ready. The WWP
specifies individual assignments. The percent plan com-
plete (PPC) tracks progress.
Methodology
This research consists of three stages. The first stage
represents the secondary data collection stage. This
stage conducts an intensive review of the available lit-
erature to determine the benefits, challenges, variation
causes and CSFs associated with LPS implementation
in diverse environments around the world. The
author argues that a single study is extremely valuable
when researching typical studies that serve a demon-
strative purpose. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate
for researchers and construction professionals to build
their conclusions based on the results of a single
study for their projects and their specific implementa-
tion of LPS. Consequently, this stage summarizes the
findings of 34 studies around the world to offer a
broader overview of the actual state of LPS implemen-
tation in construction projects (Table 1). The second
Table 1. List of studies.
Study Reference Methodology Description
S1 Adamu and Howell (2012) Case study Implementing LPS on 50 housing units in Damaturu, Nigeria
S2 Ahiakwo et al. (2013) Action research with different data collection Implementing LPS on one of four prototype hostel buildings
methods (questionnaire, interview, observation and of a federal university in the North Central region of Nigeria
documentary analysis)
S3 AlSehaimi et al. (2014) Action research with different data Implementing LPS on two large state-owned construction projects in Saudi Arabia
collection methods (questionnaire, interview and
observation)
S4 Brady et al. (2011) Literature review Examining the barriers to LPS implementation
S5 Cervero-Romero et al. (2013) Action research with different data collection Implementing LPS on seven case studies in Mexico
methods (questionnaire, interview and observation)
S6 Daniel et al. (2014) Questionnaire and interview Analysing the non-value adding activities by conducting 40 questionnaires and three
interviews with the registered contractors and construction professionals in the aca-
demia in Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria
S7 Enshassi and Abu Zaiter (2014) Questionnaire Investigating the implementation of lean tools in construction projects and its impact
on safety conditions by distributing 31 questionnaires on contractors and clients in Gaza
Strip, Palestine
S8 Fauchier and Alves (2013) Observation Observing 15 teams applied LPS on nine projects in Northern and Southern California
between 2010 and 2013
S9 Fernandez-Solis et al. (2013) Literature review and questionnaire The literature review covers the benefits and challenges of 26 case studies. The ques-
tionnaire assesses the challenges faced by senior and mid-level management during the
implementation of LPS
S10 Fuemana and Puolitaival (2013) Interview Six interviews with three large main contracting companies having an average of 5
years of experience with LPS in Auckland, New Zealand
S11 Gao and Low (2014) Interview Interviews with 27 experienced Chinese building professionals from 16 large Chinese
construction firms between February and May of 2011 to identify the strengths, weak-
nesses, opportunities and threats factors of LPS implementation
S12 Hamzeh (2009) Case study and simulation The case study applies LPS on a hospital rehabilitation project in San Francisco,
California. The analytical simulation model analyses the look-ahead planning process
S13 Hamzeh (2011) Literature review and action research The literature review covers the challenges of LPS implementation. The action research
involves three case studies (a health care project, a research facility and an administra-
tion building) of applying LPS
S14 Hamzeh and Aridi (2013) Modelling Studying the relationship between tasks anticipated (TA), tasks made ready and PPC
by analysing LPS data collected over 2 years from several branches of a construction
company in the United States
S15 Hamzeh and Langerud (2011) Simulation Investigating the impact of improving the TA in look-ahead planning process on the
reliability of WWP expressed as PPC
S16 Hamzeh et al. (2015) Simulation Exploring the relationship between improving the TA in look-ahead planning and overall
project duration
S17 Issa (2013) Case study Implementing LPS on an industrial project in Egypt
S18 Khan and Tzortzopoulos (2014) Action research Implementing the WWP of LPS on two building information modelling-based building
design projects
S19 Koskela et al. (2010) Comparative analysis Comparing LPS and critical chain in construction management
S20 Koskenvesa and Koskela (2012) Literature review Evaluating and summarizing the diffusion of LPS in Finland through analysing pilot
projects, education offerings and company policies from 2003 to 2011
S21 Leigard and Pesonen (2010) Interview Interviewing experts in human behaviour and implementation with an experience in
implementing LPS on over 60 projects in a construction company in Finland between
2008 and 2010
S22 Leino and Elfving (2011) Action research with different data Applying LPS on three construction sites in Finland between 2007 and 2010
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

collection methods (meeting, discussion and personal survey)

(continued)
3
 4
O. ABUSALEM

Table 1. Continued.
Study Reference Methodology Description
S23 McConaughy and Shirkey (2013) Action research with different 250 questionnaires, an interview with LC expert of 40 years of experience in construc-
data collection methods tion and 9 years of experience in LC coaching and consulting and observations of three
(questionnaire, interview and observation) construction projects implementing LPS
S24 Mota et al. (2010) Simulation Simulating LPS with systems dynamic model
S25 Nieto-Morote and Ruz-Vila (2012) Case study Applying LPS on a chemical plant construction project in Spain
S26 Ochoa (2014) Case study Investigate the effectiveness of using LPS method in reducing plan variations in a
sustainable building project consists of two towers in Hong Kong
S27 Porwal et al. (2010) Literature review Identifying the challenges faced by construction professionals during the implementa-
tion and use of LPS at organizational and project levels
S28 Priven and Sacks (2013) Case study Applying LPS on the interior finishing works of eight residential building construc-
tion projects
S29 Rosas (2013) Case study and modelling Integrating the design structure matrix and the LPS into building design for building
over 430 residential houses among other non-residential buildings in the Peruvian
Andes zone
S30 Russell et al. (2013) Questionnaire Distributing 180 questionnaires on 36 different companies, including both general
contractors and subcontractors, throughout the United States to study the application
of time buffers to construction project task durations
S31 Russell et al. (2015) Case study Two case studies (a mechanical contractor, who uses the traditional management and a
general contractor, who uses the LPS) to investigate the allocation and reduction of
time buffer
S32 Seppanen et al. (2010) Literature review, workshop and interview Combining LPS and location-based management system by using Skanska Finland’s
practical experience, a series of workshops conducted at Cathedral Hill hospital project
in San Francisco, interviewing three California general contractors with some expertise
in both systems
S33 Viana et al. (2010) Questionnaire and interview Conducting questionnaire and interview surveys with the site engineers, foremen and
crew leaders from 16 construction companies that implement LPS in the South of Brazil
S34 Wambeke et al. (2012) Case study Using LPS and a risk assessment matrix to reduce variation in mechanical-related con-
struction tasks by comparing two separate but similar projects, one of them uses LPS

and third stages represent the primary data collection
stage. The second stage investigates the extent of imple-
menting the LPS in Gaza Strip. The third stage employs
the findings of the first stage to assess the challenges,
variation causes and CSFs that may affect the future
implementation of LPS in Gaza Strip. This research
applies a survey strategy that uses two data collection
methods, including questionnaire and interview. This is
in line with the recommendations of Saunders et al.
(2016), who suggested that this strategy is best suited to
exploratory research. The survey strategies that utilize
questionnaires are widespread as they facilitate the col-
lection and comparison of standardized data from a
sizeable population in an extremely economical manner
(Saunders et al. 2016). The questionnaire consists of
three main parts: (1) background of respondents, (2)
investigation of the extent of implementing LPS and (3)
assessment of the challenges, variation causes and CSFs
that may affect the future implementation of LPS. The
questionnaire uses a self-administration mode with
closed-ended and open-ended questions. The closed-
ended questions are as follows: (1) Likert-style rating
questions (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and
strongly agree), (2) rating questions (very low, low,
medium, high and very high), (3) dichotomous ques-
tions (yes or no) and (4) multiple-choice questions. The
questionnaire uses the five-point scale because the
respondents find it difficult to distinguish between val-
ues when the rating is more than five points (Saunders
et al. 2016). A pilot study was conducted by distributing
the initial questionnaire to a panel of eight experts. Five
of these experts are academics, whereas three of them
are construction professionals with more than 10 years
of experience. The purpose of the pilot study is to iden-
tify the strength and weakness points in the question-
naire to make the necessary changes and to ensure
valuable feedbacks (Saunders et al. 2016). The investi-
gated population by both the questionnaire and interview
surveys is limited to the classified contracting firms under
all classifications and disciplines that have a valid registra-
tion in the Palestinian Contractors Union in Gaza Strip.
The number of registered and classified contracting firms
is 217 firms. The minimum sample size of the
Table 2. Summary of the benefits of LPS.
No. Benefit
1 Improving planning and control reliability
2 Increasing of PPC
3 Reducing the time of project delivery
4 Improving information flow
5 Reducing project cost
6 Improving productivity
7 Improving health and safety
8 Reducing time buffers
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5
questionnaire survey is 139 contracting firms with a per-
centage of 64% of the population. About 150 question-
naires were distributed randomly with only one copy for
each contracting firm. However, some of the contracting
firms had no interest in contributing to this research.
Therefore, 145 valid questionnaires were received back
from the contracting firms. The contribution of every fac-
tor to each table in the questionnaire was examined and
the ranking of the items regarding their importance as
comprehended by the respondents was done by using the
relative importance index (RII). The use of questionnaire
has some limitations, such as it must contain simple ques-
tions, there is no control over respondents and it forces
respondents to choose from available alternatives that may
not be the true reflection of their opinions (Saunders et al.
2016). Therefore, a personal, semi-structured, and open-
ended interview survey was conducted in order to obtain
further and more in-depth information that cannot easily
be captured by the questionnaire survey. The interview
survey allows to have a comprehensive analysis and to
cross validate the results of the collected quantitative data
(Saunders et al. 2016). The minimum sample size for semi-
structured and in-depth interviews should be within the
range from 5 to 25 (Saunders 2012). Thereby, 25 interviews
were conducted with 5 company directors, 10 project man-
agers and 10 site engineers from different contracting firms
with more than 5 years of experience in construction. The
duration of an interview ranged from 1 to 2 hours. The
topics covered in the interview survey are the same topics
addressed in the questionnaire survey. The author could
not apply an action research strategy. This limitation is due
to the lack of time and resources.
Findings
First stage: review
Via its implementation in many countries and the
rapid development of this decentralized system of
production planning and control, the LPS has proven
to be a powerful system for the management of con-
struction projects and has won recognition from prac-
titioners all over the world (Table 2). Researchers and
construction professionals reported several challenges
Study
S3, S5, S6, S9, S10, S18, S19, S20, S23, S24, S25, S26, S29, S31, S33, S34
S1, S2, S3, S12, S14, S15, S17, S24, S25, S26, S29, S31, S32
S1, S2, S3, S6, S9, S10, S16, S17, S31, S32
S3, S5, S6, S8, S9, S18, S23, S28, S31
S2, S6, S9, S19, S31, S34
S9, S10, S19, S26, S34
S7, S19, S22
S30, S31
6 O. ABUSALEM
faced by them during LPS implementation. These
challenges limited the potential capabilities and bene-
fits that could be gained from the full application of
LPS. Regardless of these challenges, the implementa-
tion of LPS is on the rise. The existence of these chal-
lenges does not indicate a deficiency within LPS.
Most likely, it reflects a failure to follow the same
approach of LPS. This is mainly because of the
attempts to implement LPS within poor environ-
ments, where the necessary conditions for the max-
imum utilization of the inherent potentials of LPS are
missing (Table 3). Understanding and addressing the
causes of variation (reasons for incomplete assign-
ments according to what has been planned during the
project) will help us to avoid, eliminate or at least
reduce their occurrence and associated adverse impact
(Table 4). The successful full implementation of LPS
requires a set of CSFs that can serve as a guiding map
throughout the use of the system (Table 5). Although
there are likely additional benefits, challenges, vari-
ation causes and CSFs regarding the implementation
of LPS, this study addresses only those specifically
reported by previous researchers from the litera-
ture review.
Second stage: investigation
Background of respondents
Table 6 shows the background of 145 respondents,
who returned back valid questionnaires. The numbers
indicate that the size of contracting firms and projects
in Gaza Strip is small compared to other countries.
The following promotes the validity of the obtained
results: (1) the close percentages of the job title since
LPS depends on the decentralization of the produc-
tion planning and control process through involving
parties from different levels of the hierarchy of man-
agement, (2) 91.7% of the respondent contracting
firms have sufficient experience in construction with
over than 5 years and (3) the percentages of classifica-
tion since, arguably, the contracting firms that have a
high likelihood to implement LPS are those with high
Table 3. Summary of the challenges of LPS.
No. Challenge
1 Lack of culture, commitment and attitude
2 Lack of training on LPS and LC
3 Organizational inertia and lengthy approval process
4 Lack of leadership
5 Contractual issues
6 Lack of participation of low-level parties (subcontractors, foreman and works)
7 Lack of improvement analysis
8 Lack of participation of suppliers
9 Involvement of many subcontractors
10 The long time spent on making the plans
classifications, such as the first A, first B and second
in buildings and roads as well as the first, second and
third in water and sewer and electro-mechanical.
Planning system
About 100% of the respondent contracting firms use
only the traditional planning and control systems (i.e.
not the LPS). This result confirms that the LPS is a
new concept to the Gaza Strip’s construction industry
in Palestine.
Levels of planning
Master plan. 100% of the respondent contracting
firms use a similar master plan to the LPS. As discov-
ered from the interviews, planning is mainly based on
a master plan presented on a bar chart. The master
plan is provided as a mandatory requirement for the
bidding documents to the client before the com-
mencement of the project. One interviewee clari-
fied that
Master plan cannot be heavily relied upon alone in
meeting the requirements of planning. It just sets the
milestones and key dates without going into details.
Therefore, at this level of planning, there is a great
likelihood of generating uncertainty that leads to
plan variation.
Phase plan. 63.9% of the respondent contracting
firms use a phase plan. As pointed out by the inter-
viewees, the used phase plan does not follow the same
approach of the phase plan in LPS. Although the used
phase plan generates more detailed and manageable
plan covering each project phase based on targets and
milestones from the master plan, it is not a collabora-
tive planning practice. Specifying handoffs between
specialists, including the rules for releasing work to
move from one activity to the next, is missing. They
do not apply the pull approach from successor mile-
stones by using the reverse phase scheduling.
Moreover, they do not use ‘stickies on a wall’ tech-
nique to develop the network of activities required to
complete the phase.
Study
S2, S3, S4, S6, S13, S21, S27, S33
S4, S9, S13, S20, S27, S33
S3, S4, S5, S13
S9, S13, S27
S9, S20
S4, S11
S4, S23
S4, S31
S3
S33
Table 4. Summary of the variation causes of LPS in a descending order based on the frequency of occurrence.
S2 S3 S6 S26 S31
First project Second project
1 Material 1 Prerequisite work 1 Labour 1 Long approval process 1 Lack of continuity (pre- 1 Over commitment by
requisite work the trade contractors
not completed)
2 Prerequisite work 2 Material 2 Material 2 Design changes 2 Moves to another work 2 Incomplete prerequis-
area (priority change) ite work
3 Labour supply 3 Approval 3 Approval 3 Design errors 3 Waiting for workers, tools 3 Change in work plan
or equipment or priorities
4 Submittal 4 Changed priority 4 Prerequisite work 3 Waiting for other crews to 4 Unavailability
complete their task Others: of materials

4 Rework 5 Labour 5 Late request 3 Delay from suppliers  Waiting for materials from Others:
for inspection the warehouse
4 Incomplete design 5 Equipment 5 Incomplete information 4 Equipment breakdown  Waiting for materials from  Crew inefficiencies and
information the supplier lack of skilled labour
5 Equipment 5 Design 6 Equipment 5 Waiting for inspection  Lack of access  Material concerns (late
materials, incorrect
quantities and receiv-
ing dam-
aged materials)
6 Poor weather 5 Overestimate of 7 Changed priority 6 Disagreement and  Equipment breakdowns  Changes in scope
achievement disputes on site and priority
6 Incomplete information 8 Overestimate of 7 Waiting for instruction  Changes or redoing work  Overcrowded or clut-
achievement (design errors) tered work area
6 Defects require reworking 8 Defects require reworking 8 Construction errors  Changes or redoing work  Design quality
(site errors)
6 Interface with 8 Weather 9 Congestion on site  Waiting for information  Coordination with
other packages other trades, commu-
nication and informa-
tion flow
7 Scheduling/coordination 9 Design 10 Rework  Overcrowded
working areas
8 Space 9 Interface with 11 Excessive transport  Inclement weather
other packages of material
8 Weather 10 Scheduling/coordination 12 Waiting for equipment
8 Other (technical 10 Space 13 Excessive
specification) labour movement
8 Other (rock under floor) 10 Other (technical
specification)
9 Late request 10 Other (rock under floor)
for inspection
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
7
8 O. ABUSALEM

Table 5. Summary of the CSFs of LPS.

No. CSF Study
1 Continuous improvement through training and learning S3, S5, S13, S20, S31
2 Improving information flow S2, S3, S5, S13, S31
3 Involvement of all stakeholders S3, S5, S13, S20, S31
4 Top management support S3, S5, S13, S20, S31
5 Enhancing culture and awareness S2, S3, S5, S13
6 Close relationship with suppliers S3, S31
7 Clear definition of roles and responsibilities S5, S13
8 Motivating people to make change S3, S15
9 Formation of policies to suit LC adoption S2

Table 6. Background of respondents.

No. Item Percentage (%)
1 Job title Site engineer Project manager Company director
40.3 31.9 27.8
2 Years of company’s experience 5 or less 6–10 11–20 Over 20
8.3 37.5 40.3 13.9
3 Permanent employees 5 or less 6–10 11–20 Over 20
20.8 44.4 22.2 12.5
4 Annual average value of projects Less than $250k–less $500k–less $1m and
$250k than $500k than $1m more
11.1 25 25 38.9
5 Classification First A First B Second Third Fourth Fifth
Buildings 32.8 28.4 23.9 10.4 4.5 0.0
Roads 18.0 29.5 26.2 11.5 8.2 6.6
Water and sewer 28.0 32.0 26.0 10.0 4.0
Electromechanical 23.9 32.6 28.3 8.7 6.5

Look-ahead plan. 59.7% of the respondent con-
tracting firms use a look-ahead plan. As learned from
the interviews, the term of look-ahead plan is not
prevalent among the contracting firms. The equivalent
name for the look-ahead plan is the monthly plan.
However, the used monthly plan does not follow the
same approach of the look-ahead plan of LPS. There
is an absence in breaking down tasks into the level of
processes and then to the level of operations, identify-
ing and removing constraints to make tasks ready for
execution and designing operations through first run
studies. They do not use the screening and pulling
approaches to detect and remove constraints. They do
not examine the assignments against the quality crite-
ria of definition, sequence, soundness, size and learn-
ing before inclusion in the WWP. Further, they do
not use any metrics to measure the performance of
the monthly planning process. As the results show,
the monthly plan is the most absent plan among the
other plans used by the contracting firms.
WWP. 68.1% of the respondent contracting firms
use a WWP. As revealed by the interviewees, the used
WWP does not follow the same approach of the
WWP in LPS. The used WWP is not an ‘assignment-
level schedule’ and does not contain high level of
details required to deliver the production process.
They do not shield production units from upstream
uncertainty by selecting only those assignments that
are ready to be done from a workable backlog in the
look-ahead plan after removing all constraints and
providing all prerequisites. There is an absence in
examining the assignments against the quality criteria
of definition, sequence, soundness, size and learning.
They do not stabilize the workflow between the pro-
duction units by making and keeping commitments to
what will be done. Additionally, they do not use the
PPC or other metric tools to track the progress of
projects. They do not specify the root reasons for
incomplete assignments as scheduled by using the five
why’s or any other technique to analyse them in the
meetings and take actions that would prevent them
from recurring. Although the contracting firms usually
consult the last planners and subcontractors about dif-
ferent issues, empowering them to take ownership in
the planning and control process remains limited.
Based on the above discussion, the levels of project
planning adopted by the Gaza Strip’s construction
industry have the same structural hierarchy of the
LPS. However, these levels of project planning do not
follow the same approach of LPS. Furthermore, these
levels of project planning are not adopted by all of
the contracting firms.
Meetings
Table 7 illustrates that 100% of the respondent con-
tracting firms conduct meetings to discuss the pro-
gress of projects with the work team. The percentages
show that there is a wide use of different frequencies

Table 7. Meetings.
No. Item Percentage (%)
1 No meetings
2 Monthly
3 Weekly
4 Daily
5 According to the need
of meetings. According to the need, meeting came in
the first place. This result reflects that the absence of
the prior determination of date and time is the dom-
inant feature of meetings in Gaza Strip. As explained
by the interviewees, the main reason for this is the
complex and dynamic nature of construction process.
Generally, meetings are informal, where there are no
session minutes that contain the date and time of
meetings, list of attendees, issues to be discussed and
decisions to be taken. One interviewee states that
Usually, our meetings are informal in their nature.
We do not always have a fixed schedule to discuss
the work progress. Sometimes, we use the phone as a
way of communication, coordination, ordering
materials, staying continuously informed on the
course of events, and consulting about the problems
facing us at the work site that need to be solved
immediately. All team members can meet at any time
at the work site or office. Furthermore, holding a
huddle meeting whenever summoned the need for it.
Improving plans
Table 8 shows that the vast majority of the respond-
ent contracting firms review, analyse and update
plans. However, this did not improve the planning
and control reliability. The proof of this is the exist-
ence of unreliable production plans that led to a high
level of plan variation. The underlying truth behind
these results was revealed during the interviews. The
majority of the interviewees clarified that reviewing,
analysing and updating plans were done informally.
The systematic review of project plans that were
drawn in a bar chart format was found to be rare or
absent. One interviewee commented that
Usually, we do not heavily rely on the developed
plans in the execution process. Hence, there are no
further attempts to update the produced plans in the
beginning of the project, even if changes occur.
Sometimes, updating plans that have been created are
meaningless, mere ink on papers. They are just for
Table 8. Improving plans.
No. Item Percentage (%)
1 Reviewing plans 93.1
2 Analyzing plans 94.4
3 Updating plans 88.9
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 9
routine procedures requested by the client and
stipulated in the contract.
00.0
44.4
41.7 Parties involved in the planning process
18.0
51.4 Table 9 shows that there is a wide involvement of dif-
ferent parties in the planning process. The project
manager is the most involved party with a high per-
centage of 91.7%. As pointed out by the interviewees,
the project manager is the responsible person for the
successful completion of projects. His primary role is
to ensure achieving the predetermined project objec-
tives of time, cost, quality and safety. The project
manager is the best candidate for this job because of
his rich experience in construction and the solid know-
ledge in management. Additionally, the focus should
be directed towards the foreman since he is typically
considered as the last planner. There is a considerable
percentage of 33.3% from the respondent contracting
firms that involve the foreman in the planning process.
This reflects the awareness of these firms to the signifi-
cant role of foreman’s participation to reduce the pos-
sible plan variation. Even these firms that involve the
foreman in the planning process do not entirely
empower him to develop the weekly plans.
Participation of the foreman
Table 10 shows that there is a considerable percentage
of 68.1% from the respondent contracting firms that
agree that the foreman is qualified to add details and
commitment to the planning and control process. The
majority of the interviewees clarified that consulting
with the foreman about the works that need to be
accomplished in the upcoming week is essential
because he is familiar with the construction produc-
tion process and closer to the site. This result reflects
the extent of accepting one fundamental pillar of LPS
represented in empowering the foreman to take
Table 9. Parties involved in the
planning process.
No. Item Percentage (%)
1 Project manager 91.7
2 General contractor 77.8
3 Site engineer 77.8
4 Subcontractor 19.4
5 Foreman 33.3
Table 10. Participation of the foreman.
No. Item Percentage (%)
1 Strongly disagree 11.1
2 Disagree 00.0
3 Neutral 20.8
4 Agree 52.8
5 Strongly agree 15.3
10 O. ABUSALEM

ownership in the planning and control process.
Nevertheless, 31.9% of the respondent contracting
firms disagree or stand on neutral.
Reasons for lack of participation of the foreman
Table 11 presents the reasons for lack of participation of the
foreman. These reasons are based on the literature review
of LPS. The results indicate that the overall reasons for lack
of participation of the foreman are approximately medium
since the average (2.7) is just less than the hypothesized
value 3, with an RII of 54.9%. As mentioned previously,
33.3% of the respondent contracting firms involve the fore-
man in planning and 68.1% agree that the foreman is quali-
fied to add details and commitment to the planning and
control process. One interviewee expressed that
I think there is no significant reason that could
prevent the contracting firms from participating the
foreman in the planning and control process, just
this is how the things have been.
However, there is a considerable percentage of con-
struction professionals who agree on these reasons.
This is the same conclusion that was obtained from
the interviews. The lack of culture and awareness came
in the first place. The unwillingness of the construction
professionals to involve other low-level parties came in
the second place. These results emphasize that empow-
ering the foreman to take ownership in the planning
and control process needs huge efforts to change the
mentality and culture of all parties in Gaza Strip. The
poor capabilities of foreman came in the third place.
One interviewee mentioned that
The planning and control process needs a scientific
based approach in order to establish schedules,
allocate resources, analyse plans and specify
constraints. This is not available at most of the low-
level parties, such as the foreman.
The lack of trust in the foreman came in the fourth
place. One interviewee explained that
Unfortunately, many foremen work within their own
narrow scope. They do not believe in the unity of the
team and that the project’s success or failure depends
on the combined efforts of the work crews to deliver the
project. All that matter is the accomplishment of their
work as agreed upon in order to claim their wages.
The lack of commitment and attitude from the fore-
man came in the fifth place. One interviewee stated that
Actually, the foreman is not ready to exert additional
efforts to prepare the weekly plan, commit to implement
it and assume all responsibility in case of failure. He
prefers to stay in the safe zone, where he can lay the
blame on the plan produced by the project manager.
Adoption of the LPS
After a brief explanation of LPS, the respondent con-
tracting firms were requested to answer if they would
like to adopt the LPS and explain the reasons in case
of rejection. The results show that 84.7% of the
respondent contracting firms expressed their willing-
ness to adopt the LPS. This encouraging result reflects
the pressing need of the Gaza Strip’s construction
professionals to eliminate the plan variation. This
forms a fertile environment and a solid platform to
launch from it towards the full implementation of
LPS in the future. The reasons for objecting to adopt-
ing the LPS are as follows: (1) the harsh circumstan-
ces of Gaza Strip, such as the lack of materials and
the excessive rise of materials prices due to the Israeli
siege and (2) the size of construction projects in Gaza
Strip does not require this level of detailed plans. One
interviewee commented that
In normal conditions, implementing LPS would be
extraordinary since I experienced such this system when I
was working in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
However, the implementation of LPS would be to some
extent difficult due to the harsh circumstances endured by
Gaza Strip. Furthermore, who use these systems are huge
contracting firms that operate in complex projects and
have an engineering staff specialized only in planning and
control on a daily basis.
Third stage: assessment
Current situation
This section assesses the current situation of the Gaza
Strip’s construction industry by covering only the
aspects improved by the LPS that have been previ-
ously addressed as its benefits in Table 2. All of the
interviewees agreed that increasing the planning and

Table 11. Reasons for lack of participation of the foreman.

No. Item SD (%) D (%) N (%) A (%) SA (%) Avg s RII (%) Rank
1 Lack of culture and awareness 13.9 20.8 31.9 23.6 9.7 2.9 1.2 58.9 1
2 Unwillingness of construction professionals to involve other low-level parties 15.3 23.6 22.2 31.9 6.9 2.9 1.2 58.3 2
3 Poor capabilities of the foreman 13.9 26.4 34.7 25.0 0.0 2.7 1.0 54.2 3
4 Lack of trust in the foreman 16.7 31.9 25.0 25.0 1.4 2.6 1.1 52.5 4
5 Lack of commitment and attitude from the foreman 13.9 41.7 25.0 16.7 2.8 2.5 1.0 50.6 5
Overall reasons 2.7 1.1 54.9

control reliability is extremely difficult within a com-
plex and dynamic environment, such as the construc-
tion industry. The construction projects are usually
planned by specifying the set of activities required to
deliver the projects, estimating their durations, identi-
fying dependencies between them and allocating and
leveling resources for each activity. The schedule is
developed by calculating the earliest and latest start
and finish dates of each activity using the critical path
method. The resulting schedule is typically called
master schedule or master plan (Tommelein and
Ballard 1997). The prevailing practice in the construc-
tion industry is to develop highly detailed plans to
reduce the discretion of those performing the sched-
uled work and to facilitate micro-management
(Ballard and Tommelein 2012). However, all plans are
forecasts, and all forecasts are wrong. Forecasting fur-
ther into the future and forecasting at a high level of
details significantly increase the likelihood of forecast
error (Nahmias 1989). The recommended practice is
to plan in greater details as we approach the execu-
tion date (Ballard et al. 2009). This stems from the
fact that scheduling developed nearer in time to exe-
cution benefits from more reliable information.
Hence, the master schedule must be kept at the level
of phase milestones. This level of details often
referred to in the construction industry as the pro-
posal schedule (Ballard and Tommelein 2012). Upon
project execution, activities are expected to commence
at their earliest possible date in order not to delay the
following activities or the whole project. All stake-
holders must adhere to the resulting schedule to
deliver the project on time. In this type of planning,
it is assumed that all prerequisites required to execute
any activity will be indeed available at that activity’s
early start time, this so-called ‘push’ approach.
Although the push approach is essential at the early
stage of the project to set the major milestones and
key dates for delivery, it is inefficient to be followed
throughout the progress of the project, particularly
during the production stage (Hopp and Spearman
1996; Tommelein 1998). This approach has low flexi-
bility, entail high inventory levels and have the ten-
dency to increase the amount of waste (Tommelein
and Weissenberger 1999). Variation is closely associ-
ated with schedules throughout project progress due
to the uncertainty in durations, dependencies and
prerequisites of activities. During the planning phase,
it may be possible to model this uncertainty.
However, the actual manifestation of uncertainty is
only known upon plan execution. Each activity must
passively wait for its prerequisites to become available,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 11
that is, by being released upon completion of prede-
cessor activities. In case of the unavailability of all
prerequisites on time, those available will wait in a
queue or buffer for the assembly of the rest to be
ready as a single entity, this so-called ‘matching parts’.
Starting the work with an incomplete set of prerequi-
sites compromises the workflow between crews and
thus adversely affects the productivity. When the
missing prerequisites are identified during the on-site
work, it is too late to prevent delays. Therefore, rigor-
ously adhering to the initial schedule may not be the
best approach for successful project completion, as
the status of prerequisites may change from those
were assumed when generating that schedule
(Tommelein 1998).
The traditional approaches to construction project
management are dominated by the flexibility strategy
for managing production in the case of high workflow
uncertainty. Mainly, this is because the traditional
approaches do not provide a conceptual basis or prac-
tical tools for controlling production. The flexibility
strategy is about mobilizing all available resources suf-
ficiently to perform any work which emerges on the
surface. The flexibility strategy sacrifices the product-
ivity and cost for the sake of schedule. This makes
the workflow uncertainty much worse (Howell and
Ballard 1996). A superior alternative is to improve the
reliability of production planning and control systems.
Ballard and Howell (1998) confirmed that 30% less
labour is required when planning reliability reaches
levels higher than 50%. Howell et al. (2001) concluded
that reducing variation by improving planning reli-
ability from 50% to 70% can theoretically increase
productivity to 30%. The managers can improve the
overall performance of a company by utilizing its pro-
duction capacity to the optimum level. This can be
achieved through employing all resources in an effect-
ive and efficient manner to get the best possible out-
puts from the same amount of inputs. The effective
and efficient utilization of company’s resources leads
to lower production cost and increased profits. The
secret behind this extraordinary productivity is the
hard-working attitude and commitment of the work-
force to achieve timely completion. One interviewee
stated that: ‘There is no room for delivering projects
on time without the hard-working attitude and com-
mitment of the workforce to get the slipped schedule
back on the right track as soon as possible’. However,
the employees are often undervalued and treated as
machines, even though they are the most significant
asset in the company. Sometimes, they have to work
overtime for long hours, on weekends, and during the
12 O. ABUSALEM
official holidays to catch up with the schedule. Thus,
achieving timely completion can be a heavy burden
on the shoulders of employees.
As clarified by the interviewees, occupational
health and safety are crucial in improving productiv-
ity and reducing plan variations. Accidents and inci-
dents reduce the efficiency of the production process
through hindering the workflow and wasting the pro-
duction time and costly resources. One interviewee
commented that
The injured worker costs the company lost working
hours, increased insurance rates, compensation
premiums, and possible litigation. The production
time is wasted when other workers have to stop the
work to deal with the injury. Even after the injured
worker has been sent to the home or taken to the
hospital, other workers may be distracted or need to
take time off from work in the aftermath of
the accident.
The production systems must be able to absorb vari-
ation to avoid loss of productivity, wasted capacity,
inflated cycle times, long lead times, larger inventory
levels and poor customer service. Therefore, construc-
tion personnel naturally tend to compensate for the
uncertainty in the construction environment by adding
buffers as cushions that pad or shield activities against
variability and disruptions in production systems
(Howell et al. 1993; Howell and Ballard 1994a, 1996;
Ballard and Howell 1995; Hopp and Spearman 1996;
Tommelein and Weissenberger 1999; Tommelein 2003;
Alves 2005). Nevertheless, these buffers cast a heavy bur-
den on projects concerning extra cost, wasted time and
low productivity. Ohno (1988) and Womack and Jones
(1996) argued that the use of buffers is waste since they
do not directly add value to projects even though they
allow downstream operations to continue. Vrijhoef and
Koskela (2000) emphasized the impracticality of
improving supply chain reliability through buffering.
Russell et al. (2015) concluded that there is an urgent
need to add larger time buffers in complex and intensive
labour trades in construction projects, such as the mech-
anical trade. However, the importance lies in the fact
that buffers only mask the sources of uncertainty.
Increasing time buffer seems to be responsible for
decreasing productivity. Lechler et al. (2005) explained
that the time buffer added to tasks is usually subjected to
either Parkinson’s law or student syndrome. Parkinson’s
law states that people will always use this time buffer
because the task will grow to take as long as the time
allotted for it to be done. For example, the work will
expand to fill the time allotted by working more slowly
or rechecking work multiple times before declaring its
completeness. The student syndrome is based on the
tendency of people to waste time buffer by starting their
tasks later than the planned start or even as late as pos-
sible without impacting the next scheduled task or
their deadline.
Another significant deficiency in the current practi-
ces is the poor communication, coordination, collabor-
ation, commitment and trust. These conventional plans
are developed and pushed by using top–down approach
rather than bottom–up approach without taking any
considerations to the frontline foremen and workers.
The experience and knowledge of those responsible for
doing the work are not incorporated to yield schedules
with higher anticipation and better sequencing of tasks.
These plans are generated by a wishful thinking and in
the absence of reliable promises (Ballard and Howell
1994). As a result, the current managerial practices are
not able to provide a smooth and accurate transmission
of information. As clarified by the interviewees, the con-
tracting firms heavily depend on the cumulative know-
ledge of their employees, suppliers, customers and other
key stakeholders. The accurate knowledge about the
complex aspects that create problems, new ideas and
new approaches is essential for developing innovative
practical solutions. This knowledge is only obtained
by a free flow of information among stakeholders.
Limiting the sharing of information across the com-
pany leads to information gaps. Therefore, the need for
knowledge to become more widely spread is essential.
Delivering the right information to the right people at
the right time requires from the knowledge producers
to overcome many barriers. One interviewee com-
mented that
Each work crew thinks that every task or package is
independent and they just need to complete their job
away from the rest of the teams. The inefficient
communication and poor collaboration lead to late or
incomplete information, misunderstandings or even
disputes among parties, resulting in compromising
the workflow.
Command and control are dominating the current
practices in construction projects so that tasks are
assigned as orders and reinforced by contractual pen-
alties. Commitments from work crews are neither
requested nor given. Accurate information about the
actual performance of planning and progress status
can only be available when those charged with plan-
ning and performing the work can say ‘Won’t Do’.
Having the right to say ‘no’ guarantees reliable com-
mitments to perform the work as scheduled (Howell
and Ballard 1994b).
It is unlikely that we will be perfect planners in a
complex and dynamic environment, such as the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 13

construction industry. We sometimes break our prom- Challenges

ises in everyday life, despite thoughtful consideration of
our capability to perform before committing. Even
though, we can aspire never to make the same mistake
twice. This needs learning from our plan failures, our
broken promises. Most practices that obsessively focus
on objectives fail to track the progress of the project,
identify the root causes of plan failures, learn from these
failures, prevent recurring and update the schedule. The
strong temptation is to clean up the mess and move on,
although doing that virtually ensures a repetition of the
same breakdown in the future (Ballard and Tommelein
2012). Furthermore, there is no distinction between the
plan quality failure and plan execution failure. It is
assumed that all failures are plan execution failures
because the quality characteristics of plans are not expli-
cit. The findings indicate that the majority of failures to
complete the work as scheduled are rooted plan quality
failures (Ballard and Howell 1994).
All of these concerns made plan execution
extremely hard and doomed for failure. Accordingly,
the traditional mentality of planning and control is
inefficient and ineffective to achieve the optimal per-
formance. Given the uncertain and sometimes unpre-
dictable environment of construction projects, the
planning process should be dynamic and iterative
rather than static and deterministic (Smith 2003). The
successful planning must be a continuous adaptive
iterative process in the quest for value. It is expected
to reduce risk, manage and reduce uncertainty, sup-
port sound decision-making, establish trust and share
information (Cohn 2005). This can be achieved
through a holistic approach to production planning
and control system that promotes different levels of
detailed schedules, collaboration between all stake-
holders, removing constraints from planned tasks,
securing reliable commitments, and a continuous
improvement process of eliminating waste, maximiz-
ing value and learning from failures. These results
promote the urgent need for the implementation of
LPS in the Gaza Strip’s construction industry.
The respondent contracting firms were asked to assess
the challenges that may affect the future implementa-
tion of LPS listed in Table 12. The results show that
the overall challenges are medium since the average
(3.1) is slightly higher than the hypothesized value 3,
with an RII of 62.5%. The involvement of many sub-
contractors came in the first place. As revealed from
the interviews, the subcontracting strategy is widely
used by almost all contracting firms in the construc-
tion industry to mitigate the heavy burden placed on
their shoulders. The non-adoption of subcontracting
strategy requires great assets of human resources,
materials and equipment to perform the work.
Consequently, they try to reduce the number of acti-
vates in the construction process and eliminate part
of the costs with welfare taxes by transferring a sig-
nificant part of the work to third parties.
Nevertheless, the involvement of many subcontractors
poses a great challenge to the planning and control
methods. Contracting with multiple parties of differ-
ent and sometimes conflicting goals and scopes to
perform a set of activities required to deliver the pro-
ject can noticeably reduce the efficiency of informa-
tion flow among these parties; subsequently,
increasing the amount of uncertainty, misunderstand-
ings, disputes and workflow instability. Moreover,
adopting the subcontracting strategy minimizes the
profit margin of contracting firms because they will
lose the advantage of securing all profits resulting
from each subgroup of work. The subcontractors,
who are not responsible for supplying the whole
resources, may waste a large amount of them because
they only worry about finishing their work without
taking into consideration the optimal utilization of
these resources. The insecure or temporary relation-
ship between the subcontractors and contracting firms
may reduce the motivation of subcontractors’ crews
to produce a larger amount of work with high quality.
This result is similar to the findings of AlSehaim
et al. (2014), who ranked this challenge in the first

Table 12. Challenges of the future implementation of LPS.

No. Challenges VL (%) L (%) M (%) H (%) VH (%) Avg s RII (%) Rank
1 Involvement of many subcontractors 5.6 13.9 33.3 31.9 15.3 3.4 1.1 67.5 1
2 Organizational inertia and lengthy approval process 4.2 19.4 37.5 27.8 11.1 3.2 1 64.4 2
3 Contractual issues 2.8 16.7 48.6 25 6.9 3.2 0.9 63.3 3
4 Lack of participation of suppliers 4.2 16.7 44.4 27.8 6.9 3.2 0.9 63.3 3
5 Lack of training on the new and innovative management techniques 1.4 25 33.3 37.5 2.8 3.2 0.9 63.1 4
6 Lack of culture, commitment and attitude 13.9 12.5 33.3 34.7 5.6 3.1 1.1 61.1 5
7 Lack of improvement analysis 5.6 12.5 58.3 18.1 5.6 3.1 0.9 61.1 5
8 The long time spent on making the plans 4.2 22.2 44.4 23.6 5.6 3 0.9 60.8 6
9 Lack of participation of low-level parties (subcontractors, foreman or works) 5.6 23.6 40.3 23.6 6.9 3 1 60.6 7
10 Lack of leadership 4.2 29.2 34.7 29.2 2.8 3 0.9 59.4 8
Overall challenges 3.1 1.0 62.5
14 O. ABUSALEM

place. The organizational inertia and lengthy approval
process came in the second place. The majority of the
interviewees explained that the approval process is
time-consuming and causes significant delays in deci-
sion-making and in approval of the purchase of mate-
rials. Furthermore, the roles and assigned
responsibilities are vague, resulting in slowing the
pace of the workflow. This result is consistent with
the findings of AlSehaim et al. (2014), who ranked
this challenge in the second place. The lack of leader-
ship was ranked eighth in the last place. However,
this challenge is medium since the average (3) is equal
to the hypothesized value 3. The leadership is a fun-
damental aspect of the culture of any successful com-
pany. The good leader should be able to influence the
thoughts and actions of others by providing direc-
tions, implementing plans and motivating people to
achieve the predetermined goals. One interviewee
mentioned that
The good leadership can achieve success through
organizing the work and allocating the duties,
responsibilities, and authorities. Furthermore, giving
instructions to ensure that the agreed policies are
carried out, checking the performance of the plan,
taking corrective actions, motivating people to do an
excellent job rather than an adequate job,
encouraging them to share ideas and opinions and
rewarding creativity.
Variation causes
The respondent contracting firms were asked to assess
the variation causes that may affect the future imple-
mentation of LPS listed in Table 13. The results reveal
that the overall variation causes are medium since the
average (3.1) is slightly larger than the hypothesized
value 3, with an RII of 62.1%. One interviewee
said that
Variation largely exists in construction projects. It
leads to reducing the contractor profit margin or
even cost overrun, delay in delivering the projects on
time, less productivity, and poor performance at
all levels.
The unavailability of materials came in the first
place. This result demonstrates that providing the
right materials on time is the most significant factor
in delivering the construction projects. As explained
by all interviewees, this result is attributed to the lack
of materials and excessive rise of materials prices,
especially the cement and steel reinforcement, due to
the Israeli siege on Gaza Strip. This meaning for the
unavailability of materials is an uncontrollable exter-
nal factor that has to be taken as given in any con-
struction project. Nevertheless, there are other
meanings falling under the name of unavailability of
materials that can be controlled. As mentioned by the
interviewees, these meanings include overdue of mate-
rials delivery by suppliers, waiting for materials from
the warehouse, wrong materials and defective materi-
als. This result matches the findings of Ahiakwo et al.
(2013), who ranked the unavailability of materials in
the first place. The incomplete prerequisite works
came in the second place. This result reflects the
absence of identifying and removing constraints from
future assignments to ensure all prerequisites before
being assigned to the work crews. Resulting in creat-
ing an unreliable workflow that prevents the contract-
ing firms from doing the works is as planned. This
result is compatible with the findings of Ahiakwo
et al. (2013) and Russell et al. (2015), who ranked the
incomplete prerequisite works in the second place.
The lack of labour supply or skilled labour was
ranked 11th in the last place. This variation cause
stands between the low and medium levels since the
average (2.6) is roughly in the middle between the
hypothesized values 2 and 3. This result implies the
availability of sufficient workforce with hard-working
attitude and commitment that can meet the project
needs. By contrast, lack of labour supply or skilled

Table 13. Variation causes of the future implementation of LPS.

No. Variation causes VL (%) L (%) M (%) H (%) VH (%) Avg s RII (%) Rank
1 Unavailability of materials 5.6 5.6 22.2 25 41.7 3.9 1.2 78.3 1
2 Incomplete prerequisite works 4.2 15.3 36.1 33.3 11.1 3.3 1 66.4 2
3 Long approval process and waiting for information or instructions 1.4 25 34.7 25 13.9 3.3 1 65 3
4 Late requests 5.6 15.3 40.3 29.2 9.7 3.2 1 64.4 4
5 Changes in scope, priorities or strategies of the project 4.2 23.6 34.7 22.2 15.3 3.2 1.1 64.2 5
6 Over commitment 4.2 18.1 43.1 27.8 6.9 3.2 0.9 63.1 6
7 Unavailability of equipment or equipment breakdowns 4.2 20.8 51.4 16.7 6.9 3 0.9 60.3 7
8 Design-related issues (errors, changes incompleteness) 6.9 30.6 29.2 25 8.3 3 1.1 59.4 8
9 Poor weather 11.1 26.4 30.6 23.6 8.3 2.9 1.1 58.3 9
10 Defects requiring rework 11.1 29.2 31.9 19.4 8.3 2.8 1.1 56.9 10
11 Overcrowded working areas 8.3 29.2 36.1 22.2 4.2 2.8 1 56.9 10
12 Lack of labour supply or skilled labour 20.8 23.6 36.1 15.3 4.2 2.6 1.1 51.7 11
Overall variation causes 3.1 1.1 62.1
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 15

Table 14. CSFs of the future implementation of LPS.

No. CSFs VL (%) L (%) M (%) H (%) VH (%) Avg s RII (%) Rank
1 Top management support 0 9.7 19.4 43.1 27.8 3.9 0.9 77.8 1
2 Enhancing culture and awareness 0 2.8 29.2 51.4 16.7 3.8 0.7 76.4 2
3 Involvement of all stakeholders 0 8.3 25 45.8 20.8 3.8 0.9 75.8 3
4 Clear definition of roles and responsibilities 0 5.6 27.8 48.6 18.1 3.8 0.8 75.8 3
5 Close relationship with suppliers 0 4.2 36.1 44.4 15.3 3.7 0.8 74.2 4
6 Continuous improvement through training and learning 0 6.9 36.1 40.3 16.7 3.7 0.8 73.3 5
7 Motivating people to make change 0 4.2 40.3 47.2 8.3 3.6 0.7 71.9 6
8 Improving information flow 6.9 11.1 19.4 43.1 19.4 3.6 1.1 71.4 7
9 Formation of policies to suit the adoption of the new and innovative management techniques 0 11.1 34.7 41.7 12.5 3.6 0.9 71.1 8
Overall CSFs 3.7 0.9 74.2

labour came in the top variation causes in many stud- management, it is the only one that is able to move the
ies, such as Ahiakwo et al. (2013), AlSehaim et al. wheel of change in the field of construction.
(2014), and Ochoa (2014). The top six variation causes
in Table 13 are consistent with the top variation causes
reached by Ahiakwo et al. (2013), AlSehaim et al. Conclusion
(2014), Daniel et al. (2014), Ochoa (2014), and Russell The Gaza Strip’s construction industry in Palestine
et al. (2015) with a slight disparity in the order. requires creative initiatives to solve the growing problem
of planning and control reliability, such as adopting the
Critical success factors LPS. The results of the questionnaire and interview sur-
veys show that several elements of LPS already exist in
The respondent contracting firms were asked to assess the
Gaza Strip. However, these elements do not follow the
CSFs that may affect the future implementation of LPS
same approach of LPS. About 84.7% of the respondent
listed in Table 14. The results indicate that the overall CSFs
contracting firms expressed their willingness to adopt
are relatively high since the average (3.7) is just below than
the LPS. This forms a fertile environment and a solid
the hypothesized value 4, with an RII of 74.2%. This result
platform to launch from it towards the full implementa-
highlights the extent of the significant influence of these
tion of LPS in the future. Nevertheless, the future imple-
CSFs on the future implementation of LPS. In addition,
mentation of LPS may face several challenges and
this result implies the extent of the absence of these CSFs
variation causes. Therefore, the author recommends the
and the efforts that desperately need to be exerted to pro-
contracting firms to apply the CSFs as a comprehensive
vide them. The top management support came in the first
strategy to better plan and organize their efforts in
place. This result is similar to the findings of Cervero-
implementing LPS, increase the chances of successful
Romero et al. (2013) and AlSehaim et al. (2014), who
implementation and sustain this success. The author rec-
ranked the top management support in the first place. The
ommends the following future research: (1) evaluating
enhancing culture and awareness came in the second place.
the challenges, variation causes and CSFs that may affect
This result is consistent with the findings of AlSehaim et al.
the future implementation of LPS in Gaza Strip to intro-
(2014), who ranked enhancing culture and awareness in
duce the necessary adjustments, (2) conducting case
the second place. These two CSFs emphasize that the
studies to obtain more in-depth feedback about the
future implementation of LPS needs huge efforts to change
implementation of LPS in Gaza Strip and (3) studying
the mentality and culture of all parties in the Gaza Strip’s
other LC techniques to form a comprehensive vision
construction industry. The formation of policies to suit the
about the implementation of LC in Gaza Strip.
adoption of the new and innovative management techni-
ques ranked eighth in the last place. However, this CSF lies
between the medium and high levels since the average Disclosure statement
(3.6) is almost in the middle between the hypothesized val- No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
ues 3 and 4. One interviewee commented that
Formation of policies by the state or authorities to
References
oblige the contracting firms to adopt new management
systems, such as LPS, will be a significate initiative. Adamu I, Howell G. 2012. Applying last planner in the
Nevertheless, the commitment to implement these Nigerian construction industry. In: Tommelein ID,
systems must come from the inside of the companies, Pasquire CL, editors. 20th Annual Conference of the
from the desire for change and to achieve the ideal International Group for Lean Construction; Jul 18–20;
performance. The real change starts from the top San Diego (CA). http://iglc.net/.
16 O. ABUSALEM
Ahiakwo O, Oloke D, Suresh S, Khatib J. 2013. A case
study of last planner system implementation in Nigeria.
In: Formoso CT, Tzortzopoulos P, editors. 21th Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction; Jul 31–Aug 2; Fortaleza (Brazil), p. 699–707.
AlSehaim AO, Fazenda PT, Koskela L. 2014. Improving con-
struction management practice with the last planner system:
a case study. Eng Constr Archit Manage. 21(1):51–64.
Alves TDCL. 2005. Buffering practices in HVAC supply
chains [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Berkeley (CA): Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of California.
Ballard G. 1994. The last planner. Spring Conference of the
Northern California Construction Institute; Apr 22–24;
Monterey, California, USA.
Ballard G. 2000. The last planner system of production con-
trol [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Birmingham, (UK): School of
Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham.
Ballard G, Howell G. 1994. Implementing lean construction:
stabilizing the work flow. 2nd Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction; September;
Santiago (Chile): Pontifical Catholic University of Chile;
p. 101–110.
Ballard G, Howell G. 1995. Toward construction JIT.
Association of Researchers in Construction Management
Conference; Sheffield (UK).
Ballard G, Howell G. 1998. Shielding production: essential
step in production control. J Constr Eng Manage.
124(1):11–17.
Ballard G, Tommelein I. 2012. Lean management methods
for complex projects. Eng Project Organiz J. 2(1–2):
85–96.
Ballard G, Hammond J, Nickerson R. 2009. Production con-
trol principles. In: Cuperus Y, Hirota EH, editors. 17th
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction; Jul 15–17; Taipei (Taiwan). p. 489–500.
Brady D, Tzortopoulos P, Rooke J. 2011. An examination
of the barriers to last planner implementation. In: Rooke
J, Dave B, editors. 19th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction; Jul 13–15;
Lima (Peru).
Cervero-Romero F, Napolitano P, Reyes E, Teran L. 2013.
Last planner system and lean approach process experien-
ces from implementation in Mexico. In: Formoso CT,
Tzortzopoulos P, editors. 21th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction; Jul 31–Aug
2; Fortaleza (Brazil). p. 709–718.
Cohn M. 2005. Agile estimating and planning. Upper
Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall Professional Technical
Reference.
Daniel EI, Pasquire C, Ameh OJ. 2014. The magic of the
last planner system for Nigerian construction. In: Kalsaas
BT, Koskela L, Saurin TA, editors. 22nd Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction; Jun 25–27; Oslo (Norway). p. 605–616.
Enshassi A, Abu Zaiter M. 2014. Implementation of lean
tools on safety in construction projects in Palestine. In:
Kalsaas BT, Koskela L, Saurin TA. editors. 22nd Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction; Jun 25–27; Oslo (Norway). p. 1205–1218.
Fauchier D, Alves TDCL. 2013. Last planner system is the
gateway to lean behaviors. In: Formoso CT,
Tzortzopoulos P, editors. 21th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction; Jul 31–Aug
2; Fortaleza (Brazil). p. 559–568.
Fernandez-Solis J, Porwal V, Lavy S, Shafaat A, Rybkowski
Z, Son K, Lagoo N. 2013. Survey of motivations, benefits,
and implementation challenges of last planner system
users. J Constr Eng Manage. 139(4):354–360.
Fuemana J, Puolitaival T. 2013. Last planner system – a step
towards improving the productivity of New Zealand con-
struction. In: Formoso CT, Tzortzopoulos P, editors. 21th
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction; Jul 31–Aug 2; Fortaleza (Brazil). p. 679–688.
Gao S, Low SP. 2014. The last planner system in China’s
construction industry – a SWOT analysis on implemen-
tation. Int J Project Manage. 32(7):1260–1272.
Green SD, Fernie S, Weller S. 2005. Making sense of supply
chain management: a comparative study of aerospace
and construction. Constr Manage Econ. 23(6):579–593.
Hamzeh FR. 2009. Improving construction workflow – the
role of production planning and control [Ph.D.
Dissertation]. Berkeley (CA): Civil and Environmental
Engineering Department, University of California.
Hamzeh FR. 2011. The lean journey: implementing the last
planner system in construction. In: Rooke J, Dave B, edi-
tors. 19th Annual Conference of the International Group
for Lean Construction; Jul 13–15; Lima (Peru).
Hamzeh FR, Aridi OZ. 2013. Modeling the last planner sys-
tem metrics: a case study of an AEC company. In:
Formoso CT, Tzortzopoulos P, editors. 21st Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction; Jul 31–Aug 2; Fortaleza (Brazil). p. 599–608.
Hamzeh FR, Langerud B. 2011. Using simulation to study
the impact of improving Lookahead planning on the reli-
ability of production planning. Proceedings of the 2011
Winter Simulation Conference; Dec 11–14; Phoenix
(AZ). p. 3431–3442.
Hamzeh FR, Saab I, Tommelein ID, Ballard G. 2015.
Understanding the role of “tasks anticipated” in look-
ahead planning through simulation. Autom Constr.
49(Part A):18–26.
Hopp WJ, Spearman ML. 1996. Factory physics: founda-
tions of manufacturing management. Chicago (IL): Irwin
Professional.
Hornby, A. 1974. Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of
current English. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Howell, G, Ballard G. 1994a. Implementing lean construc-
tion: reducing inflow variation. 2nd Annual Conference
of the international group for Lean Construction.
Santiago (Chile): Catolica Universidad de Chile.
Howell G, Ballard G. 1994b. Lean production theory: mov-
ing beyond “Can-Do”. In: Alarcon L, editor. Lean con-
struction; Leiden (Netherlands): Balkema. p. 17–24.
Howell G, Ballard, G. 1996. Managing uncertainty in the
piping process. Austin (TX): Construction Industry
Institute, University of Texas. Technical Report No. 47.
Howell G, Ballard G, Hall J. 2001. Capacity utilization and
wait time: a primer for construction. In: Ballard G, Chua
D, editors. 9th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction; Aug 6–8; Singapore:
University of Singapore.
Howell GA, Laufer A, Ballard G. 1993. Interaction between
sub cycles: one key to improved methods. J Constr Eng
Manage. 119(4):714–728.

Issa UH. 2013. Implementation of lean construction techni-
ques for minimizing the risks effect on project construc-
tion time. Alexandria Eng J. 52(4):697–704.
Khan S, Tzortzopoulos P. 2014. Effects of the interactions
between LPS and BIM on workflow in two building
design projects. In: Kalsaas BT, Koskela L, Saurin TA,
editors. 22nd Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction; Jun 25–27; Oslo (Norway).
p. 933–944.
Kim Y, Ballard G. 2010. Management thinking in the
earned value method system and the last planner system.
J Manage Eng. 26(4): 223–228.
Koskela L. 2000. An exploration towards a production the-
ory and its application to construction [Ph.D. disserta-
tion]. Helsinki (Finland): Helsinki University of
Technology, VTT Publications. 408.
Koskela L, Stratton R, Koskenvesa A. 2010, Last planner
and critical chain in construction management: compara-
tive analysis. In: Walsh K, Alves T, editors. 18th Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction; Jul 14–16; Haifa, Israel. p. 538–547.
Koskenvesa A, Koskela L. 2012. Ten years of last planner in
Finland – where are we? In: Tommelein ID, Pasquire CL,
editors. 20th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction; Jul 18–20; San Diego (CA).
Lechler T, Ronen B, Stohr E. 2005. Critical chain: a new
project management paradigm or old wine in new bot-
tles? Eng Manage J. 17(4):45–58.
Leigard A, Pesonen S. 2010. Defining the path: a case study
of large scale implementation of last planner. In: Walsh
K, Alves T, editors. 18th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction; Jul 14–16;
Haifa, Israel. p. 396–405.
Leino A, Elfving J. 2011. Last planner and zero accidents
program integration – workforce involvement perspec-
tive. In: Rooke J, Dave B, editors. 19th Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction; Jul 13–15; Lima, Peru.
London KA, Kenley R. 2001. An industrial organization
economic supply chain approach for the construction
industry: a review. Constr Manage Econ. 19(8):777–788.
McConaughy T, Shirkey D. 2013. Subcontractor collaboration
and breakdowns in production: the effects of varied LPS
implementation. In: Formoso CT, Tzortzopoulos P, editors.
21th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction; Jul 31–Aug 2; Fortaleza, Brazil. p. 649–658.
Mota BP, Viana DD, Isatto EL. 2010. Simulating the last
planner with systems dynamic. In: Walsh K, Alves T,
editors. 18th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction; Jul 14–16; Haifa, Israel. p.
487–496.
Nahmias S. 1989. Production and operations analysis.
Chicago (IL): Irwin Professional Publishing.
Nieto-Morote A, Ruz-Vila F. 2012. Last planner control
system applied to a chemical plant construction. J Constr
Eng Manage. 138(2):287–293.
Ochoa JJ. 2014. Reducing plan variations in delivering sus-
tainable building projects. J Cleaner Prod. 85:276–288.
Ohno T. 1988. Toyota production system: beyond large-
scale production. Portland (OR): Productivity Press.
Porwal V, Fernandez-Solıs J, Lavy S, Rybkowski ZK. 2010.
Last planner system implementation challenges. In:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 17
Walsh K, Alves T, editors. 18th Annual Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction; Jul
14–16; Haifa, Israel. p. 548–556.
Priven V, Sacks R. 2013. Social network development in
last planner system implementations. In: Formoso CT,
Tzortzopoulos P, editors. 21th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction; Jul 31–Aug 2;
Fortaleza, Brazil. p. 537–548.
Rosas E. 2013. Integrating the design structure matrix and
the last planner system into building design. In: Formoso
CT, Tzortzopoulos P, editors. 21th Annual Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction; Jul
31–Aug 2; Fortaleza, Brazil. p. 389–398.
Russell M, Howell G, Hsiang S, Liu M. 2013. Application of
time buffers to construction project task durations. J
Constr Eng Manage. 139(10):04013008. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000735.
Russell M, Liu M, Howell G, Hsiang S. 2015. Case studies of the
allocation and reduction of time buffer through use of the
last planner system. J Constr Eng Manage. 141(2):04014068.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000900.
Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A. 2016. Research methods
for business students. London (UK): Pearson Publishing.
Saunders MNK. 2012. Choosing research participants. In:
Symons G, Cassell C, editors, Qualitative organizational
research: core methods and current challenges. London
(UK): Sage Publishing; p. 35–52.
Seppanen O, Ballard G, Pesonen S. 2010. The combination
of last planner system and location-based management
system. In: Walsh K, Alves T, editors. 18th Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction; Jul 14–16; Haifa, Israel. p. 467–476.
Smith SF. 2003. Is scheduling a solved problem? 1st
International Conference on Multidisciplinary
Scheduling: Theory and Applications (MISTA 03); Aug
13–15; Nottingham (UK). p. 3–17.
Tommelein ID. 1998. Pull-driven scheduling for pipe-spool
installation: simulation of lean construction technique. J
Constr Eng Manage. 124(4):279–288.
Tommelein ID. 2003. Acknowledging variability and uncer-
tainty in product and process development. In: Issa RRA,
Flood I, O’Brien WJ, editors. 4D CAD and Visualization
in Construction: Developments and Applications; A.A.
Balkema Publishers. p. 165–193.
Tommelein ID, Ballard G. 1997. Look-ahead planning:
screening and pulling. Berkeley (CA): Construction
Engineering and Management Program, Civil and
Environmental Engineering Department, University of
California. Technical Report No. 97-9.
Tommelein ID, Weissenberger M. 1999. More just-in-time:
location of buffers in structural steel supply and con-
struction processes. 7th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction; Jul 26–28;
Berkeley (CA). p. 109–120.
Viana DD, Mota B, Formoso CT, Echeveste M, Peixoto
M, Rodrigues CL. 2010. A survey on the last planner
system: impacts and difficulties for implementation in
Brazilian companies. In: Walsh K, Alves T, editors.
18th Annual Conference of the International Group
for Lean Construction; Jul 14–16; Haifa, Israel. p.
497–507.
18 O. ABUSALEM
Vrijhoef R, Koskela L. 2000. The four roles of supply chain
management in construction. Eur J Purchasing Supply
Manage. 6(3–4):169–178.
Wambeke B, Liu M, Hsiang S. 2012. Using last planner and
a risk assessment matrix to reduce variation in
mechanical related construction tasks. J Constr Eng
Manage. 138(4):491–498.
Womack J, Jones D. 1996. Lean thinking: banish waste and
create wealth in your corporation. New York (NY):
Simon and Schuster.