Application of Lean To The Bidding Phase in Building Construction: A French Contractor's Experience

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/316317973
Application of lean to the bidding phase in building construction: A French

contractor’s experience
Article in International Journal of Lean Six Sigma · June 2017

DOI: 10.1108/IJLSS-03-2016-0010
CITATIONS READS
19 1,361
3 authors, including:
Zakaria Dakhli Zoubeir Lafhaj

University of Cambridge Centrale Lille
41 PUBLICATIONS 260 CITATIONS 182 PUBLICATIONS 2,084 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Geo-Environmental Engineering View project
Characterization and Valorization of Dredged Marine Sediments in Civil Engineering materials View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Zakaria Dakhli on 29 April 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Lean Six Sigma
In
te
rn
at
io
APPLICATION OF LEAN TO THE BIDDING PHASE IN
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION: A FRENCH CONTRACTOR’S
EXPERIENCE
na
Journal: International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

lJ
Manuscript ID IJLSS-03-2016-0010.R1
Manuscript Type: Research Paper

ou
Lean, Bidding, building construction, performance indicators, change

Keywords:
management
rn
al
of
Le
an
Si
x
Si
gm
a
Page 1 of 39 International Journal of Lean Six Sigma
1
In
2
3
te
4
5
6
rn
7
8
9 APPLICATION OF LEAN TO THE BIDDING PHASE IN BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION: A FRENCH CONTRACTOR’S EXPERIENCE
at
10
11
12 Zakaria DAKHLIa,b, Zoubeir LAFHAJb, Marc BERNARDb
io
13 a
14 Civil Engineering, Ecole Centrale de Lille, Address: Cité Scientifique, CS 20048, 59651, Villeneuve-
d’Ascq, France,
15 b
Rabot Dutilleul, Address: 10 Avenue de Flandre, 59290, Wasquehal, France
na
16
E-mail: zoubeir.lafhaj@ec-lille.fr (corresponding author)
17
18
19
lJ
Purpose – While many procurement systems govern the construction sector, Design/Bid/Build is still prominent
20 among the French building actors. The research applies Lean thinking to the bidding phase of a building construction
21 company in order to improve its bidding outputs.
22
23
ou
Design / Methodology / Approach – The method used in this study is “Action-Research”. The paper is based on a
24 Kaizen event. Two-month preparation phase was needed before the kaizen event. The results were based on an
25 assessment conducted after 6 months of Lean implementation. Performance was measured following selected
26 indicators related to ‘Time”, “Economical Impact”, “Quality” and “Sustainability”
rn
27
28 Findings –The Lean implementation had positive side-effects on the company’s organization and strategy as
29 well.
30 Practical implication – The findings of this action-research project can be used to help researchers and
al
31 practitioners assess the potential application of Lean in the bidding phase. It also provides insights into the
32 importance of the cultural and existing practices for a successful Lean implementation.
33
of
34 Originality / Value –Few research investigates the application of Lean thinking in bidding since it is
35 considered as a wasteful process. However, waste can also be organized. The research proves that bidding can
36 benefit from Lean thinking.
37
Le
38 Keywords – Lean, bidding, building construction, performance indicators, change management

39 Article classification – Research paper.
40
41
an
42
43
44
45
46
Si
47
48
49
x
50
51
Si
52
53
54
gm
55
56
57
58
59
a
60
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma Page 16 of 39
1
In
2
3 APPLICATION OF LEAN TO THE BIDDING PHASE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION:
te
4 A FRENCH CONTRACTOR’S EXPERIENCE
5
6 Purpose – While many procurement systems govern the construction sector, Design/Bid/Build is still prominent among
rn
7 the French building actors. The research applies Lean thinking (via a Kaizen event) to the bidding phase of a building
8 construction company in order to improve its bidding outputs.
9
Design / Methodology / Approach – The method used in this study is “Action-Research”. A two-month preparation
at
10
11 phase was needed to prepare for the kaizen event. The results were based on an assessment conducted after 6 months of
12 the Kaizen event. Performance was measured following selected indicators related to ‘Time”, “Economical Impact”,
“Quality” and “Sustainability”
io
13
14
15 Findings –The Lean implementation had positive side-effects on the company’s organization and strategy as well.
na
16
17 Practical implication – The findings of this action-research project can be used to help researchers and practitioners assess
18 the potential application of Lean in the bidding phase. It also provides insights into the importance of the cultural and existing
19 practices for a successful Lean implementation.
lJ
20
21 Originality / Value –A few research projects investigated the application of Lean thinking in bidding since it is considered as
22 a wasteful process. However, waste can also be organized. The research proves that bidding can benefit from Lean thinking.
23
ou
24
Keywords – Lean, bidding, contractor, buildings, Design/Bid/Build, cost, change management, performance indicators,
25 lean implementation.
26
rn
27 Article classification – Research paper.

28
29
30 1. Introduction
al
31
32 The current economic situation in France is characterized by a fierce competition among companies, especially in the
33 construction sector. Indeed, the investments made during the last five years have stagnated (Fig. 1). The number of residential
projects dropped significantly from 451, 9 thousands in 2005 to 311,7 thousands in 2012. The same decline was noticed in
of
34
non-residential projects (Fig. 2). As a consequence, construction costs increased during the last 5 years.
35
36 The employment was also affected since the decrease in demand. All those factors make the construction industry under
37 pressure in France due to the tight possible margin.
Le
38
39
40
41
an
42
43
44
45
46
Si
47
48
49
x
50
51
Si
52
53
54
gm
55
56
57
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 250
te
4
5 Sum of activities
6
rn
7 200
8
Specialized construction
Investment (Billion euros)
9
at
10
150
11
12
io
13
14 100
15 Buildings
na
16
17
18 50
19
lJ
20 Civil engineering
21 0
22 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
23
ou
24 Year
25
26 Figure 1. Investments made in the construction sector in three different activities (adapted from INSEE1)
rn
27
28 500
29
Number of projects undertaken (thousands)
30
al
31
400
32
33
of
34 Residential projects
35 300
36
37
Le
38 200
39
40
41
an
100 Non residential projects

42
43
44
45 0
46
Si
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

47
48 Year
49
x
50 Figure 2. Residential and non-residential projects undertaken in France (Adapted from INSEE)
51
Since the number of projects undertaken is decreasing (Figure 2), contractors (CM/GC) try to innovate and to rethink their
Si
52
approaches in order to stay competitive. For instance, (Ballesteros-Pérez et al. 2014) address the need to improve contractors’
53 bid by implementing a Smartbid BTFM (Bid Tender Forecasting Models) to estimate future competitor’s behaviours. (Ho &
54 Hsu 2014) Investigated the bid compensation theory and revealed the patterns behind offering a compensation to encourage
gm
55 contractors to make extra-effort in their offering. Other studies explained the interactions between the different stages in a
56
57 1
Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques collects, produces, analyzes and disseminates
58 information on the French economy and society.
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 construction project. (Parvan et al. 2015) pointed out the loss behind inefficient communication between the design and
construction phases. He stated that as much as 20% of variability in overall project costs is due to this design-construction
te
4
5 interphase.
6 The bidding phase operates as a link between the design and construction. If well undertaken, it can provides a significant
rn
7 improvement for project outcomes. However, this phase is generally underestimated in the construction practice. This
8 research focuses on the enhancement of the bidding phase using the Lean theory via a Kaizen event with the purpose of
improving time, economic impact, quality and sustainability. Those indicators are described more in details in the “Research
9
methodology part”.
at
10
11 The next part (section 2 -6) concerns a literature research linked to the main concepts linked to the research project.
12 Afterwards, the next sections introduce the context of the study and the research methodology. Then, the ‘result and
discussions’ section presents the impact of the Kaizen event after 6 months of the Lean implementation in the bidding phase
io
13
of the contractor.
14
15
na
16 2. Lean theory
17
18 Lean management is a system that aims to generate value to the client while eliminating the waste in the value chain. Lean
19 concept emerged from Toyota Production System (TPS) in the 1950’s. TPS, initiated by Taiichi Ōno, was a major shift in
lJ
20 process efficiency following the mass production system established by Henry Ford (Liker & Meier 2005). “TPS” was seen as
21 a more flexible system that allows more control and change along production lifecycle (Marksberry 2011).
22
In 1992, Womack and jones studied the TPS system. They assigned it to the term “Lean” in their book “The machine that
23
ou
changed the world”(Womack et al. 1990) and established a set of principles for Lean thinking (Womack & Jones 1996):
24 - Identify the value for the customer: be clear about what the client wants. Product characteristics should reflects the client
25 needs.
26 - Identify the value chain and eliminate wasteful processes: characterized by non-value added tasks: once the client
rn
27 requirements are clearly identify, all the processes should be directed towards creating the value desired by the client.
28 Waste is associated to any activity that does not creates value for the client or any activity that is not necessary/needed for
29 value creation. Based on this definition, 3 types of activities could be distinguished: value added activity, activity
30 necessary for value creation and non-value adding activities.
al
31 - Create a continuous flow: the creation of a continuous flow is the next step once the process is mapped. The objective is
32 to set the production rhythm and to maintain a steady flow state.
33 - Seek a pull system based on the customer demand: Lean system is a pull mechanism where production is activated by the
client demand. Push systems where the production isn’t triggered by client demand generates waste in different manners
of
34
(inventory, over-processing, etc.)
35
- Set a continuous improvement process to seek perfection: Lean is about enhancing the system permanently. A continuous
36 improvement system should be included.
37
Le
38
39 2.1 Kaizen
40
Kaizen is a Japanese term that stands for “good change” and is one of the techniques used in the LPS system. Kaizen events
41
an
are used to implement a continuous improvement by different companies. Over time, new standards and procedures will be
42
created and resisting the change will become harder (Ortiz 2009). According to (Suárez-Barraza & Rodríguez-González
43 2015), leaders of some business understand continuous improvement more formally as: ‘a continuous, incremental
44 improvement of an activity to eliminate waste, unevenness, and unreasonableness and create more value. Kaizen adds an
45 additional “human element” that all stakeholders, not just management, must be involved in such change (Knechtges &
46
Si
Decker 2014).
47 (Ikuma et al. 2011) for instance presented a case study where a Kaizen event was used in a modular housing manufacturing
48 facility. The changes resulted in a 16% increase in value-added activities and increased the framing crew’s overall output by
49
x
55%.
50 In his article, (Forbes 2001) talks about the challenges of implementing a continuous improvement process in the construction
51 industry. He stated that: “One obstacle to the transformation is perhaps the disconnect between the ultimate customer, the
Si
52 building owner, and the suppliers, that is, the designer and the contractor. In most enterprises the customer can readily
53 evaluate product or service quality through simple points of reference.
54 On the other hand, (Alarcón et al. 2005) presented a set of barriers to implementing a Lean philosophy in the construction
gm
55 sector; lack of time for implementing new practices in the projects, lack of training, challenge to create organizational
56 elements, lack of self-criticism to learn from errors, respond to some deficiencies, low understanding of the concepts, low use
57 of different elements, inadequate administration, weak communication and transparency and lack of integration of the
58 construction chain.
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 The challenge is that there is a lack of experimentations of the effect and outputs of Kaizen events (Suárez‐Barraza et al.
2011). This is more prevalent in the construction industry where Lean management is introduced slowly. In addition to that,
te
4
5 Kaizen events are generally engaged strategically with top management approval in processes identified as bottlenecks. In
construction, however, the stake is to identify those bottleneck in the value chain of construction, which is a difficult task since
6
the many stakeholders involved in the act of construction.
rn
7
8
9 3. Lean Construction
at
10
11 After the noticeable benefits of lean theory in the manufacturing industry ((Khanchanapong et al. 2014; Belekoukias et al.
12 2014), lean was adopted by different sectors, among them: healthcare (Crema & Verbano 2015), I.T (Hicks et al. 2015). For
the construction sector, Koskela wrote about Lean Construction (LC) in 1992. He analysed in his report “Application of new
io
13
14 philosophy to construction”(Lauri Koskela 1992) the potential applicability of lean principles to the construction sector. In
15 1992, Koskela has reported the adaptation of Lean production concepts in the construction industry and presented a
production management paradigm where production was conceptualized in three complementary ways, which is known as
na
16
Transformation; Flow; and Value generation (TFV) theory of production. This tripartite view of production has led to the birth
17 of Lean Construction as a discipline that subsumes the transformation-dominated contemporary construction management (L.
18 Koskela 1992).(Howell & Ballard 1994) also contributed to LC genesis by stressing the crucial lack of collaboration.
19 Lean Construction community is composed of researchers as well as practioners striving to develop the construction sector:
lJ
20 visualization (Daou et al. 2015), pull planning (Kalsaas et al. 2015), prefabrication and modularization (Hermes 2015) are
21 some of the concepts integrated into Lean Construction, adapted and applied to improve the construction sector. The
22 prominent system of Lean Construction is the adapted production planning for construction called “Last Planner System”
23 (LPS®). They noted that only half of the planned actions are performed on site per week (Ballard 2000). The idea behind
ou
24 LPS® is to master collaboratively work plan early in the project by putting together all the involved stakeholders (client,
25 constructors, subcontractors, architects…). Since construction is a “people” business where different construction actors
26 collaborate to design and construct, the LPS is an efficient way to foster communication in project team. LPS® is based on 4
integrated planning elements:
rn
27
- Master schedule: provide an overall overview on project milestones,
28
29 - Phase plan: called revers Phase Scheduling. It is based on a pull planning where stakeholders design the project in a
30 reverse chronology.
al
31 - Look ahead Planning: It’s a six week planning with constraint analysis.
32 - Weekly Work Plan (WWP): preparation of next week work. WWP helps calculate the Planned Percentage
33 Completed (PPC) which describes the percentage of tasks accomplished in a certain week and track its variance
throughout project lifecycle.
of
34
35 The International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC) contains an extensive literature of the Lean Construction field of
36 research. IGLC was founded in 1993 and makes up a network of professionals and researchers in architecture, engineering,
37 and construction (AEC) who feel that the practice, education, and research of AEC have to be radically renewed in order to
Le
38 respond to the challenges ahead (International Group for Lean Construction 1993).
39
40 Lean implementations are well developed in literature mainly in the form of case studies (Castillo et al. 2014; Yu et al. 2013a).
41 Another implementation types concern one aspect of lean management theory. For instance, (Suárez-Barraza & Rodríguez-
an
42 González 2015) focused on the role of kaizen in lean implementation and provided a set of lessons learned and good practices
43 for a successful kaizen approach. (Domingos et al. 2014) presented a Kanban system implementation. (Pheng & Chuan 2001)
44 evaluated the maturity level of contractors to adopt Just-In-Time principle applied to precast concrete components for on-site
45 delivery.
46
Si
47 Finally, Lean implementation is considered as a change, thus, an implementation strategy is to be well developed before
action. People’s perception, involvement and empowerment is also required for a successful implementation ((Losonci et al.
48
2011). The cultural aspect is also well stressed for setting a suitable lean implementation approach (Knapp 2015).
49
x
50
51 4. Performance indicators in the construction industry
Si
52
53 As stated by Peter Drucker: What gets measured gets managed. The concept of “Performance indicators” is key concept in the
54 Lean management philosophy (Al‐Aomar 2012). Indicators like “Inventory rotation”, “Work In Progress”, “Lead time” help
assess the current performance and keep track of what is meaningful to attain a desired objective: setting up lots of indicators
gm
55
56 leads to confusion and difficulties to focus on what matters most. On the other hand, low number of indicators can be
57 challenging to identify a clear image in the current performance of the process.
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 (Beatham et al. 2005) proposed three types of indicators: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Key Performance Outcomes
(KPOs), and perception measures. The first type of indicators provide the opportunity to act thus change the outcome of the
te
4
5 process before the finish. An example of a KPI is the binary indicator “adequacy of client need with the design”; it is possible
to act on the design before the actual construction. For KPOs, those are the outputs of the process and do not provide the
6
chance to change. “Actual delivery time” is an example of a KPO. Finally, Perception measures tell the perception of people
rn
7 on a given process and they are generally carried out by direct question or survey (Horstman & Witteveen 2013) . An example
8 is “client satisfaction”.
9
Despite the large number of searches made in the construction sector is still proclaimed as the least effective and efficient in
at
10
all industries (Alinaitwe et al. 2009; Beatham et al. 2004).
11
12 The reason for the low productivity is the focus on financial rather than performance-based approach (Egan 1998). From this,
several companies began to develop performance measurement tools (1.5 billion £ for UK private companies) (Edwards &
io
13
Thomas 2005). Therefore, the construction should also replace the competitive market system standard based on short-term
14 financial gains, with a system based on transparent measure of the quality and effectiveness (Egan 1998). Indeed, the financial
15 perspective has received much criticism for not providing a true picture of the performance (Beatham et al. 2004; Beatham et
na
16 al. 2005; Kaplan & Norton 2000).
17 (Tam & Zeng 2013) introduced a set of sustainability indicators in the building construction as a response to the construction-
18 related legislations in Australia. They categorized those indicators into: “environment” and “social”. “Environment” related
19 indicators include: “ecological quality of construction area”, “emission of greenhouse gas”, “energy efficiency”, etc.. Social
lJ
20 indicators include but not limited to: “minimize cooling loads: building design, glazing section, lighting design, and
21 landscaping”, “separated regulation of interior temperature”, etc.
22 In the Lean Construction philosophy, the Last Planner System® introduced the Percent Plan Complete (PPC) indicator. It is
23
ou
considered a reliable indicator of the construction performance since the number of research realized to support its relevancy
24 (Kalsaas et al. 2015; Issa 2013). This indicator describes a basic measure of how well the planning system is working. It is
25 calculated as the number of tasks completed on certain period of time (frequently during a week) divided by the total number
26 of tasks made for period. This indicator is generally related to the construction phase while the construction value chain starts
rn
27 from (1) the client appointing the architect for design, (2) to the bid for construction companies and finally (3) the last step is
28 the construction. This research focuses on the bidding phase since no enough literature and knowledge regarding meaningful
29 indicators is explored.
30
al
31 5. Procurement strategies in the construction sector

32
33 Procurement systems describe how the project is going to be managed and executed. Thus, it is a crucial decision that has a
of
34 direct impact on the quality of the delivery.

35 Procurement system (or delivery method) is defined by (Masterman 2002) in the construction industry as “the organizational
36 structure adopted by the client for the management of the design and construction or a building project”. According to
37 (Mossman 2012), the construction sector delivers value based on six procurement systems.
Le
38 - Design / Bid / Build: it’s the traditional delivery method characterized by a sequential process that starts with project
39 design established by an appointed designer (the architect). Once the design is finished, the contractor is selected
40 using some criteria (price, technical feasibility, sustainability). However, the main criteria of selection usually is the
41 price. This phase is called the bidding phase. The selected contractor can begin the construction with a complete
an
42 design and clear schedule.

43 - Design / Build: this type of procurement system is characterized by the signature of one single contract for the client.
44 As a consequence, the owner deals with only one entity for the design and the realisation of the project. The entity is
45 in charge of all aspects of the project.
46
Si
- Construction Management agency: the contractor is selected based on his qualification. He is generally an expert and
47 give consultancy to the owner to manage the project. Indeed, all the contracts are set between the client and the trade
48 contractors. This configuration is the least comfortable for the client because he takes responsibilities for all the
49 aspects of the project including the scheduling, cost overrun, errors...
x
50 - Construction Management at risk: the client secures the services of a construction manager to work with the design
51 team and the trade contractors as well. However, in this configuration, the risk is now taken by the construction
Si
52 manager. The latter is responsible of the project success according to the design fixed with respect to the schedule
53 and the budget.
54 - Public Private Partnership: this type of procurement system concerns offers provided by the public sector designated
gm
55 to the private sector. The contractor is in charge of the construction, maintenance and management of the public
56 work. The contractor can receive direct payment from the public partner or he can use the public installation
57 (example: highway) for a certain period of time as a payment method.
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 - Integrated Project Delivery: IPD is the “lean project delivery” method in construction. It consists of the integration of
all parties involved in the early project phase. IPD is based on close collaboration in order to generate the maximum
te
4
5 added value to the client. Thomsen et al. described the differences between the traditional construction method of
leading a project and IPD system. The traditional construction project is organized into three “camps” with diverse
6
interests that sometimes converge and other times are opposed: owner, designer and contractor. Project participants
rn
7
come into their camps at various times during the project, with designers coming on early, construction managers (if
8 any) coming on in mid-design, and general and trade contractors coming on after design is substantially complete
9 (Thomsen et al. 2009). Thus, IPD tries to minimize “the fragmentation” issued by the traditional methods (Figure 3).
at
10
11
12
io
13
14
15
na
16
17
18
19
lJ
20
21
22
23
ou
24
25
26
rn
27
28
29
30
al
31 Figure 3. Construction procurement systems in the construction sector (Mossman, 2012)

32
33 Finally, procurement systems can also refer to parts of the construction processes. For instance, (Yin et al. 2014) investigated
the relationship between contractors and subcontractors by studying and improving its procurement system.
of
34
35
36 6. The Bid
37
Le
38 D/B/B (Design/Bid/Build) is a common procurement strategy used in construction projects mainly due to: insufficient
39 knowledge of others procurement methods, D/B/B is considered as a “safe solution” for the client since the non-respect of
40 project cost and schedule is generally attributed to the contractor, market nature and readiness, the habit of using D/B/B by the
41 client. Different studies investigated the differences between D/B/B and others procurement methods. (Idoro 2012) compared
an
42 D/B/B with Direct Labour method and concluded that the mean level of planning done at the design stage in projects procured
43 by D/B/B method is higher than that of projects procured by Direct Labour method. (Francom et al. 2015) described
“Alternative Project Delivery Methods” (APDM) to the trenchless pipeline industry. The authors found that the most common
44
delivery method used in the pipeline industry is D/B/B. The latter prevents from a continuous project flow due to the lack of
45 technical knowledge exchange between the design engineers and contractors. (Ling et al. 2004) compared D/B
46
Si
(Design/Build) and D/B/B. Since those two procurement systems are organized differently, they have different benefits and
47 drawbacks. The authors also developed a model to predict D/B/B and D/B project performances.
48
Bidding is the underpinning phase for a sustainable activity for contractors. The first reason is that bidding in construction is
49
x
still not fully controlled and suffers from a great variability, uncertainty and subjectivity (Chua et al. 2001). Indeed, there is no
50 systematic approach to bidding since every construction project is different and requires an engineered approach to solve (thus
51 bid) on the implementation solutions for construction (Laryea & Hughes 2011). The second reason is that winning bid is the
Si
52 tunnel for a continuous activity for the construction company; without enough projects going from a winning bid to the
53 construction phase, contractors’ survival is at risk in the mid-term vision (since workers wait for work). If a bid is won, it
54 means a continuous activity during the construction project duration, which varies from few months to few year depending on
gm
55 the building project size. In contrast, a lack of successful bids translate into (1) construction managers waiting for work and
56 (2) more risk for the company’s mid-term source of revenue. The importance of the bidding phase is thus capital for the
57 company in the context of a buyer’s market.
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 In a D/B/B configuration, the client communicates the selection criteria. In many cases, a large weighting is associated to the
price. For the studied construction company in this research paper, its bidding is generally associated with:
te
4
5 - 60% to the proposed price.
6 - 30% to the technical value of the project: it includes constructability, feasibility and the organization set in place.
rn
7 - 10% to sustainable development, mainly the suggested procedures for protecting the environment (material used, onsite
8 construction noise, etc.).
9 Once the contractor is selected, the client’s expectation is that project would follow the fixed design and schedule proposed in
at
10 the bid. However, literature reveals that the majority of D/B/B projects are run over budget and schedule (Parvan et al. 2015).
11 While some research projects deal with the bidding phase (Gurcanli et al. 2015), less focus is directed towards the bidding
12 phase as a research thematic in the construction research community. In addition, existing literature provides no guidance on
io
13 how to improve this transition phase between design and construction. The aim of this article is therefore to address this gap
14 by experimenting a first Lean implementation via a Kaizen event for a contractor’s bidding phase.
15 The next part of this paper presents the context of the study and the research methodology. Then, the ‘results and discussion’
na
16 part is divided into two sections: the first section presents the current practices and culture embraced by the contractor in order
17 to facilitate the Lean implementation. The second section evaluates the impact of the implementation thanks to a selection of
18 adequate key performance indicators.
19
lJ
20
21 7. Context of the study
22
The study concerns a construction enterprise (1266 employees) specialized in building construction. It is a familial company
23
ou
created in 1920. The construction company acts as a contractor that can undertake mainly three construction activities:
24
- Public facilities.
25
- Rehabilitation.
26 - Private Real estate development.
rn
27
The construction company proceeds using 3 different delivery methods:
28
29 - Design / Bid / Build
- Design / Build
30
al
- Public Private Partnerships PPP (small number of operations).

31
32 Many projects are established following a D/B/B procedure in the company studied. The turnover related to each delivery
33 method is as follow:
of
34 - 70% for D/B/B.

35 - 13% for D/B.
- 17% for PPP.
36
37 This repartition is due to the strategy taken, but mostly, the French market conditions that generate many opportunities related
Le
38 to the D/B/B practice.

39 In the conducted research, the focus is on improving the bid of D/B/B of the three construction activities: Public facilities,
40 rehabilitation and private real estate development using Lean thinking.
41
an
42 7.1. Research question

43
44 This study concerns the investigation of the bidding phase generated from a D/B/B delivery method. In this scenario,
45 contractors can act only during the Bidding and the Building phases. The Building phase is then a consequence of a successful
46 bidding.
Si
47 The current building industry in France is set in a way that D/B /B is the main source of value creation for contractors. Taking
48 into account this information, the research question was formulated as follow:
49
x
How can contractors benefit from Lean thinking to enhance D/B/B project outputs?
50
51
7.2. Research Scope
Si
52
53 The research draws the effect of the Lean implementation on the bidding phase inscribed in the (Design/Bid/Build)
54 configuration. D/B/B is followed by three activities of the construction company (Public facilities, rehabilitation, and private
gm
55 real estate development). According to (Jina et al. 1997), classifying products in three categories : runners, repeaters, and
56 strangers helps identify where the focus should be concentrated for improvement initiatives. “Runners, repeaters, and
57 strangers” is a planning and control classification based on the frequency with which a manufacturing operation is called upon
58 to make a product or deliver a service (Slack 2015). In the case of the conducted research, “Design/Bid/Build” are the runners.
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 The French market is more focused on this type of project delivery system (Dakhli & Lafhaj 2015). “Design/Build are
repeaters. Finally, strangers could be assigned to PPP projects since they are very occasional.
te
4
5 The conducted research draws the performance of the bidding phase of the three activities: “Private Real estate development”
6 “Public facilities” and “rehabilitation”.
rn
7
8
9
8. Research methodology
at
10 In their research, (Pekuri et al. 2014) stated: ‘While there is no cookbook capable of explaining exactly how lean can be
11 applied in a way that maintains the fit among the elements of an existing business model while developing it as a system‘.
12 They also argue that Lean could be considered as a viable business model a company can envision.
io
13 In this research, Lean was applied in the context of a change that aims to improve the bidding performance. The application
14 was in the form of a kaizen event that was prepared following the steps described in Table 1.
15 A Two-month preparation phase was needed before the kaizen event. Four steps were included in the preparation phase.
na
16
The first step is “Current practices and culture identification”. Discussions with bidding managers helped list the current
17 practices that should be taken into account when implementing the Lean change.
18
The second step is “Formulation of the targeted objectives”. Objectives were set in conjunction with the construction
19
lJ
company in the form of performance indicators related to time, economical impact, quality and sustainability. While there is
20
no previous data on the current performance of the bidding department for benchmarking purposes, targets were set based on
21 the senior bid manager’s experience.
22
In the third step, data were gathered (process charts, organization and all the necessary information) to draw the current
23
ou
process followed in to bid. The forth step was to map the current state (the future map will be discussed later in the paper).
24
25 Steps 5 to 7 were realized during the Kaizen event. The latter lasted one week and involved 15 collaborators from different
26 departments (from the bidding department, supply department, Quality service, onsite construction managers, and the
rn
27 researcher) in order to give different insights and point of views for the enhancement of the bidding phase.
28 During the Kaizen event, problems with the current process were discussed and constraints were identified. This led to the
29 next step “Mapping the future state”. (The scope of this paper doesn’t include listing and discussing the Kaizen event in
30
al
details). The last step was to set the improvement actions generated from the kaizen event. According to Table 1, the Lean
31 approach was initiated within the “bidding department” using three features:
32 - Value Stream Mapping (VSM) and process lead time analysis.
33
- A Kaizen approach for a sustainable improvement.
of
34
35 - Problem solving techniques.
36 Performance was measured based on selected indicators from step 2. Those indicators are described in the next section.
37 Performance indicators were monitored and presented after 6 months of the Kaizen event in the “results and discussion”
Le
38 section. The results were based on an assessment conducted after 6 months of Lean implementation with a total of 45 bidding
39 operations.
40
Table 1. Lean implementation steps in the bidding phase.
41
an
42 N° Step Description References to support the step

43
44 1 Current practices and culture How the company proceeds. Its (Bortolotti et al. 2014; Knapp
45 identification values and core beliefs. 2015)
46
Si
47 2 Formulation of the targeted Measured indicators to track. (Nakhai & Neves 2009)
Kaizen
objectives
48 preparation
49
x
3 Data gathering Organisation chart, process sheets. (Bhamu & Singh Sangwan
50 (Before the 2014)
51 kaizen event)
Si
52 4 Mapping the current process The process that leads to creating (Basu & K. Dan 2014;
53 value for the client. Hubbard 2014; Kaplan &
54 Norton 2000)
gm
55
56 5 Problems, constraints and waste Ishikawa diagram, 5why’s (Mao et al. 2009; Khisty &
Kaizen event
identification Khisty 1992)
57
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3
6 Mapping the future state of the New process was drawn (Yu et al. 2013b)
te
4 (During the
kaizen event) process
5
6 7 Setting up improvement actions “Continuous improvement” is one of (Kale & Karaman 2012;
rn
7 the pillar principles of the lean Yeung et al. 2013)
8 theory.
9
at
10 The method used in this study is “Action-Research”. This type of research methodology falls into the applied research
11 category. It is characterized by the integration of the researcher within the working group that aims to change the system.
12
In their book, (Fellows & Liu 2009) quote some requirements related to the methodology given by (Henry 2000) :
io
13
A trust-based relationship…..built up beforehand…accepted by all parties…
14
The researchers will have fully accepted the firm’s or institution’s objectives for innovation or change by having negotiated
15 the extent to which they will be involved and their freedom as regards access to information and interpretation.
na
16 A research and innovation project will be jointly drawn up, which must be open ended with regard to the problems to be
17 explored, but very precise in terms of methodology…’
18 The researcher was involved in the implementation plan and was considered as any other company’s employee. Thus, his
19 inputs were considered equivalent to any other collaborators regarding the three deployed features (designing the future state,
lJ
20 identifying problems with the current process and establishing the adequate measures for improvements).
21
22
23 9. Results and discussions
ou
24
25 The results were based on an assessment conducted after 6 months of Lean implementation with a total of 45 bidding
operations.
26
Those operations are related to 3 bidding departments (operation types):
rn
27
28 - Public facilities.
29 - Rehabilitation.
30 - Private Real estate development.
al
31
32 9.1 Current practices and culture identification as a key enabler of the lean
33 implementation
of
34
35 According to (Gregory A. Howell 1999), human issues play a crucial role in the lean implementation success. While there is a
36 lack of previous lean implementation experiences in the French construction industry, some key aspects were taken into
37 accounts:
Le
38 - Involvement of Top Management

39 - Skills and training provided
40 - Team work and involvement of collaborators.
41 In their study, (Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A. and Swan 2005) focused on change initiatives that involve a disruption in the
an
42 existing processes and knowledge. Most of those initiatives fail due to the high change impact generated among collaborators.
43 Before starting the Lean approach, the company’s history was reviewed and integrated within the implementation process. 5
44 criteria were identified.
45 1. Avoid adding another ‘tool’ (as a solution) to managers.
46
Si
Records show that the company knew dozen of tools, provided as a solution to enhance performance. Thus, the output of the
47 Kaizen implementation shouldn’t be another “tool or software” proposition but a real process change. The lean approach must
48 be directed towards process improvement.
49
x
2. Avoid wheel reinvention.

50 The current context of the French construction market requires actors to think outside the box to make the difference. Every
51 collaborator is aware of this fact. When presenting the lean approach, it shouldn’t be presented as a way of reinventing the
Si
52 existing business but adapting it to the current situation. Generally, people assign negative connotation when obliged to start
53 from scratch and reinvent everything. Lean is about adaptation to the client point of view by enhancing the actual system not
54 reinventing it.
gm
55 3. Simplicity.
56 After few months in the company, one can easily notice the strong presence of a result-oriented mind-set. Simplification is the
57 key word.
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 Lean approach is about eliminating waste. As a consequence, the process becomes simplified and contains only the essentials.
te
4 The fact of knowing this information increases the chances of the Lean approach success by identifying the triggers that
5 challenge the employees to participate actively.
6 4. Translating “Lean” terminology into the company’s jargon.
rn
7 Words are powerful. Using them in the right purpose can make considerable change in the final outcome.
8 Lean terminology should be replaced by the local vocabulary. It allows employees to appropriate the Lean philosophy. For
9 instance, the Lean approach could be translated into “an approach to empower collaborators to give the best value to the
at
10 client”. In addition, every Lean methodology or tool should be backed by a clear goal definition.
11 5. Employees first, then the client.
12 One of the key criteria of Lean implementation success is employee’s involvement and full appropriation of the Lean
io
13 methodology. To guarantee this, focus should be put in explaining the benefits gained by the employees from Lean adoption
14 during the first implementation. Afterwards, focus should be directed slowly towards the final client. By doing so,
15 collaborators will be aware that the Lean methodology is here to empower them to give the best value to the client (the one we
na
16 bid for) (Figure 4).
17
18
Initiation of lean principles Full appropriation by
19
lJ
collaborators of lean principles
20
21
22 Focus directed towards collaborators Focus directed towards the client
23
ou
24 Figure 4. Lean implementation: focus shift

25
26 9.2 Assessing the benefit of the lean approach
rn
27
28 With the purpose of evaluating the benefits of the lean approach, the impacts were defined according to (Ebbesen & Hope
29 2013) findings. The project management triangle (cost, time, quality) isn’t the best representation of the project success.
30 (Ebbesen & Hope 2013) suggested new models where the triangle is guided by sustainability. Many attempts were conducted
al
31 to elaborate the best fit of sustainability within the project management triangle: for instance, the star-model in Fig. 5
32 developed by (Grevelman & Kluiwstra 2010).
33
of
34
35
36
37
Le
38
39
40
41
an
42
43
44
45
46
Si
47
48 Figure 5. Sustainability integration in the project management triangle (Grevelman & Kluiwstra 2010)
49
x
50 9.2.1 Performance indicators selection

51 The impacts were explored according to the established indicators in step 2. Table 2 summarizes the indicators monitored in
Si
52 this study and their subparts. For “time”, we tracked “Lead time of the bid”. “Economical impacts” is composed of three
53 subparts: Earned Value Method, productivity and exploring alternatives. Each one has a performance indicator. For “quality”,
54 it contains two subparts: Kaizen and variability control. Finally, “sustainability” is divided into “People” (how bidding
gm
55 operations are assigned to people?) and “strategy” (choosing the right strategy for the bid: quick or detailed bid).
56
57 Targeted performance values were established according to senior bid managers’ experience since no previous records were
58 available. Those values are supposed greater than the current performance of the existing processes.
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 Table 2. Performance indicators selected to track the Lean implementation.
te
4
Subpart Performance indicator
5
6 Time Lead time of the bid
rn
7
8 Economical Earned Value Method Cost variance between the planned value and actual cost of the bid
9 impact
at
10 Productivity Manpower/operation
11
12 Exploring alternatives Operation Cost reduction using alternative design
io
13
14 Quality Kaizen Number of improvement ideas and actions
15
na
Variability control Cost variability (before/after technical review)
16
17
Sustainability People Operation assigned based on competences “skill matrix”
18
19 Strategy Adding “quick estimation” part in the existing process
lJ
20
21
22 9.2.2 Time
23
ou
24 One of the targeted improvements is bidding lead time reduction (Fig. 6). If a bid takes more time than needed, the bidding
team (structural and secondary trade bid managers, senior bid manager) is mobilized while other bids could be started.
25
26
rn
27
28 Project selection Price
Bidding process for
29
construction (D/B/B) Technical feasibility file
30
al
31
32 Lead time
33 Figure 6. Lead time in the bidding phase, input and outputs.
of
34
35 “The team used a modified Value Stream Mapping (VSM) to draw the biding process. The reason is that a manufacturing
36 process (a production process) is different from a bidding process. The latter requires a specific legend to best describe its
complexity “repetitive tasks, on demand tasks, etc. see Figure 7.a).
37
Le
38 Using the modified Value Stream Mapping (VSM) (step 4 in Table 1), the current bidding process contained more than 150
39 tasks (This was realized thanks to step 3 “Data gathering”). The Kaizen event helped rethink the bid and draw a new mapping
40 (Figure 7.b). The future process is now composed of 72 tasks and was divided into 3 phases as follow:
41 - Phase 1 “Launch of the project”: it is the first phase of the process and its objective is to assess and give the “yes or no” to
an
42 bid on the selected project. The phase is composed of 19 tasks.

43 - Phase 2 “Project study”: once the project is confirmed, it is studied in details. The “Project study” phase of the process
44 contains 44 tasks (from consulting sub-contractors to worksite visit, etc.). This phase ends when the price and technical
45 feasibility (bidding process outputs as showed in figure 6) are validated.
46 - Phase 3 “Finalization”: the last phase of the process is activated if the bidding is successful. The construction company
Si
47 proceeds the administrative work with the client. The process finishes when the bidding team receives feedback about
48 their estimation from onsite construction team at the end of the construction. This phase contains 9 tasks.
49 The application of the modified VSM helped distinguish 3 collaborators responsible for conducting the bid (structural bid
x
50 manager, secondary trades bid manager and senior bid manager). The blank rectangle in figure’s 7.a legend means that other
51 people are responsible for doing the task (commercial sale, technical study manager, etc.). Their respective tasks were clearly
described: task sequencing, time slot if fixed, the necessary tools and support to achieve the task and a comment area (Figure
Si
52
53 8). In addition, interactions with other company’s department were identified. Finally, repetitive task for each project were
(worksite visit for instance) and on-demand task (meeting requested by the responsible of the study) were highlighted.
54
gm
55
56
57
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3
te
4
5
6
rn
7
8
9
at
10
11
12
io
13
14
15
na
16
17
18
19 Repetitive tasks
lJ
Task done by other collaborators
20
Impacts of On demand task (technical studies, subcontracted, etc.
21
22 the change b)
23
ou
Future map state of the bidding service
24
Impact Bénéfices, Efforts Tâches répétitives Tâche à la demande
Structural
25 Bid
Tâc hes Chargé d’études Tâche Chargé de Groupe Autre
26 manager’s L ogement:
Chiffrage rapide par
POLO
Processus à définir
A l’initiative du C.G.
Brainstorming des
rn
27
variantes
task
28 - Arbitrage David
Réunion D.L avec les Vérific ation des pièces,
Réalis ation par le C.E
- Planning des études Réunion de lanc ement
Consultations et choix des Réunion avec les
LECHANTRE au début du Réunion CG et CE Lecture diagonale du - Coût de l’étude CE + CG + Commercial Point avec le commercial L iste des sous-traitants
29
c hargés de Groupes tirage et pris e de Estimation rapide par le Trame Mémoire tec hnique prestataires et métreurs L ecture détaillée + ASAP prestataires et échanges Orientation des c hoix Constitution des dossiers Prise de contact avec les
COCO (Lundi 14h à 14h30) Transmis sion des dossier par le C.G + points - Fiche proces sus -> Validation des coûts Rédaction des questions pour reformuler ensemble (GO+ CES) et prestations Envoi des dossiers
-> C. R. live connaissance du dossier C.G sur la base de ratios fait par l’assistante par le C.G + envoi des (onclusions) sur les variantes à c onstruc tifs de cons ultation ST spécifiques
- Fiche d ’identification informations échangées de surveillance / Critique (hors fiche identification ) -> ASAP fait par étude les questions à envoyer spécifiques
L undi à 17h par le C.E. documents l’initiative du C.E
remplie par le commercial (y compris matrice des commerce
risques)
30 Senior bid
Diminuer les réunions Lec ture en diagonale lors Réunir ensemble le
Suivi des honoraires par le
« Informations » à 2 de la prise de Intégrer besoin planning commercial et le C.E et
al
C.G. validés par le

maximum connaissance du dossier au lancement envoyer les questions sans
directeur de Pôle
intermédiaire
31 manager’s L a fiche d ’identification

réalisée par le commercial
pour présentation à
l’arbitrage
Phase 1 Phase 2
32 task
33 Ajustement du mémoire Mise à jour des D S avec
Point intermédiaire avec
Point intermédiaire à la
Elaboration et rédaction
du mémoire technique Visite du site + établir la
Validation des variantes
par le commercial dans
Variantes (GO + CES)
Etablir liste à transmettre
of
Renseignement DPGF G O Retour consultation et Valoriser les variantes Amortissement et calcul Consultation service Réc eption métrés GO et Point de pilotage avec le Réc eption éléments Méthodes réalisées par le les prestataires basée sur la trame fic he de visite
technique + envoi Saisi FC PROGAP prix unitaires ST GO et Saisie D S GO Recalage suite au point Trame EDP dans PROGAP Préparation du D.Q.E GO demande du CE avec le les 48 h au commercial
+ assemblage C ES analyse ST GO G.O T.U achats traitements C.G Méthodes (PIC + BB A) C.E (A la demande des réalisée par l’assistante
assistante achats c ommerc ial
34
prestataires)
Outil REHA de chiffrage Planification et suivi du Mémoire technique :

GO sur feuille Excel planning d’études gestion d’une base de
35
données par thème
36
37
Le
Recalage doc uments Bouc lage c ommercial Transmission du mémoire

Autocontrôle de l’étude Préparation des Bouclage technique C.E/ Modif ication feuille de Finalisation du mémoire Préparation de l’offre par Relecture de l’offre (CE + Question clients / offre + Relecture des réponses Recherche optimis atio n,
Feuille de vente Recalage étude présentation bouclage avec seulement une DQE GO + CES en vente à l’as sistante pour mis e Signature de l’offre + AE Copie de l’offre Dépôt de l’offre Imputation H ORED RDV client
GO documents de bouc lage C.G sans le c ommerc ial vente sur EXCEL technique et HQE l’assistante Commercial) réponse CE par le commercial + envoi variantes, chiffrage
38
c ommerc ial personne des études en forme
Phase 3
Modification de la feuille
Passage en TSE (liaison de vente sous Exc el au
39
Internet) lieu de PROGAP lo rsque
le prix du débours est fixé
Secondary
40 trade bid
41
Mis e au point dossier
Préparation passation Signature marc hé marché Point commercial / EDP
Retour budget travaux C.R. revue de conc eption Revue de conception Passation travaux Fic he chantier envisagé
travaux (Commercial et CE) (Correction, analyse, Chiffrage variantes
relecture)
manager’s
an
42 task Préparation du DQE CES Réception métrés CES

Envoi des métrés au ST
spécifiques
Chiffrage des CES à partir
des devis traités
Relanc e des ST
spécifiques
Réc eption des offres
spécifiques
Analyse des CES
spécifiques et tableau
c omparatif
Valoriser les variantes
CES choisies avec le
c ommercial
Transmission des
montants des CES pour
remplir la feuille de vente
43
44
45
46
Si
47
48 Figure 7. a) A drawing of the bidding future process b) modeling of the drawn future process
49
x
50
51
Si
52
53
54
gm
55
56
57
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3
te
4
5
6
rn
7
8
9
at
10
11
12
io
13
14
15
na
16
17
18
19
lJ
20
21
22
23 Figure 8. Example of a task identification
ou
24
Figure 9 presents lead times of the bidding process of 45 projects after 6 months of the Lean implementation. Lead times
25 range from 15 to 27 days and the targeted performances from 29 to 36 days. Overall, a clear lead time reduction is noticed in
26 all operation types. This result is expected since the new bid process resulted in a 46% task reduction in the bidding phase.
rn
27
About 24% lead time reduction for public facilities, 49% for rehabilitation and 28% for private real estate development. In
28 rehabilitation projects, the improvement is more effective. Rehabilitation is a relatively new market for the construction
29 company. Thus, its process is under development, which explains its high variability.
30
al
31 40
after 6 months of Lean implementation (days)
32 Targeted performance
33 35
of
34
Lead times of the bidding process
35
36 30
37
Le
38
39
25
40
41 20
an
42
43
44 15
45
46
Si
10
47
48
49 5
x
50
51 0
Si
52 Public facilities Rehabilitation Private real est.

53
54
Type of operation
gm
55
56 Figure 9. Lead times of the bidding process of 45 projects after 6 months of the Lean implementation
57
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 9.2.3 Economical impact
te
4 Not only did Lean philosophy improve the bidding phase productivity but did introduce a new concept that help practioners
5 track project progress and control budget dedicated for each operation.
6
rn
7 Earned Value Method application
8 One major constraint cited many times by collaborators is the difficulty encountered to “act” before “it’s too late”. Many
9 times, collaborators engage in a bidding operation that consumes time, on average one month, before finding out that budget
at
10 was exceeded. For this reason, Earned Value Method was initiated.
11 EVM is a technique of performance measurement focused on the interrelationship between the project physical, financial and
12 time progress, indicating planned and actual performance with the purpose of establishing corrective measures (Ponz-Tienda
io
13 et al. 2012). However, according to the research of (Kim & Ballard 2002), EVM is an effective tool only under the limiting
14 assumption that every activity or cost account is independent. Since the objective of the “economical impact” indicator is to
15 monitor cost provided for bidding, EVM was tested and the results drawn.
na
16 Figure 10 represents cost variance between the planned cost and the actual cost of bidding after 6 months of EVM
17 implementation. The planned value means the established cost of the bid the company managed to provide. It includes: bid
18 manager and senior bid manager costs, technical studies costs, and Building surveying services.
19 A decrease in cost variance between the planned cost and the actual cost of bidding was noticed. The cost variance ranges
lJ
20 between -7% and +0.78% after 6 months of EVM implementation. A negative cost variance means savings in the bidding
21 budget. While there are savings in the private real estate development and public equipment, rehabilitation operations
22 performs better due to the closeness to the targeted performance. The objective is to eliminate cost variance when setting the
23 initial budget for each bidding operations. The reason that cost variance is positive for rehabilitation projects (which means
ou
24 that the initial budget fixed for the bid was exceeded) is that this expertise is relatively relatively new compared to the other
25 two since rehabilitation is a new market.
26 As a conclusion, the lean implementation resulted in substantial budget savings (cost variances are negative except for
rehabilitation projects). However, the process suffers from a certain variability that should be tracked and eliminated over
rn
27
28 time.
29 4
30
Cost variance (%) after 6 months EVM implementation
al
31
32
33 2
of
34
35
36 0
37
Le
38
39
40 -2
41
an
42
43 -4 Targeted performance zone
44
45
[-2:+2%]
46
Si
-6
47
48
49
x
50 -8
Si
52
Figure 10. Cost variance between the planned value and the actual cost of bidding after 6 months of EVM
53 implementation.
54
gm
55 Increase in productivity
56
57 Productivity was assessed using the number of men mobilised per bidding operation as an indicator.
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 Figure 11 expresses the indicator Manpower/operation (how many people are mobilised for the bid) according to operation
types and the targeted performance. For public equipment, an average of 1.33 men were mobilized. The lowest value is
te
4
5 attributed to the rehabilitation operations with an average of 0.78 men/operation. Finally, the private real estate development
required on average 1.28 men/operation.
6
rn
7 The decrease in Manpower/operation is due to process documentation, collaborative rethinking of the bidding phase and lead
8 time reduction.
9
at
11
1,4
12
Manpower/operation after 6 months
io
13 1,2
14
15
na
16 1
17
18
19 0,8
lJ
20
21
0,6
22
23
ou
24 0,4
25
26
0,2
rn
27
28
29
30 0
al

32 Figure 11. Manpower per operation after 6 months of lean implementation.
33
of
34 Exploring alternatives to offer value to the client

35 Applying lean thinking to offer competitive advantage during the bidding phase was also explored through “la culture de la
36 variante”. The latter is in the form of a brainstorming session where bid managers share ideas to modify slightly the operation
37 design in order to reduce cost and to give the client (final client, who will select the construction company) new perspectives.
Le
38 Those brainstorming sessions were added to the new bidding process.

39 Many researchers study the effect of collaboration and information sharing on a construction project success. In their article,
40 (Kang et al. 2012) focused on the obstacles encountered in sharing information knowledge. Many benefits are expected in the
41 construction phase according to (O’Connor 1985) findings : construction time reduction, effective use of manpower…
an
42 The conducted brainstorming sessions led to changes in design through the exploitation of:
43 - Structural alternatives: enhancement in the structure of the building.
44
- Sustainable development alternatives : add sustainable design to the project
45
46 - Contractual alternatives : for instance, proposing special contract to sub-contractors to reduce cost
Si
47 - Architectural alternatives: it involves changes in all the construction architecture including: doors, millwork, wall
48 and soil finishing, etc.
49 - Technical alternatives: Electricity, heating system, plumbing…
x
50 10 operations benefited from brainstorming sessions to generate new design improvements alternatives to propose in the bid
51 for the client. The results are given in Figure 12.
Si
52
53
54
gm
55
56
57
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 6
te
4
5
6
5
rn
7
8
Operation cost reduction (%)

9
at
10 4
11
12
io
13
14 3
15
na
16
17 2
18
19
lJ
20
1
21
22
23
ou
24 0
26 Figure 12. Cost optimization using "brainstorming sessions" to find alternatives.
rn
27
28 As a consequence of this type of collaboration, the bid provided by the contractor decreased by 5,12% in Public equipment
29 tenders. In rehabilitation, alternatives proposition reduced the bid by 4%. Finally, in Private Real Estate Development, the
30 benefits are quantified at 1,56%.
al
31 The application of Lean thinking initiated “une culture de la variante” which could be translated into “a culture of
32 alternatives”.
33
of
34 9.2.4. Quality
35 Kaizen
36 The Lean initiative resulted in 21 change ideas undertaken that aim to eliminate waste throughout the value chain. Those ideas
37 are developed in 48 actions assigned to collaborators (Table 3).
Le
38
39 Table 3. Number of ideas and actions developed via the Kaizen approach.
40
41 After Lean implementation After 6 months of lean implementation
an
42
43 Improvement ideas 21 15
44
Actions 48 17
45
46 A Kaizen system was designed with the purpose of sharing knowledge and best practices among collaborators. The effect of
Si
47 kaizen approach in the bidding phase was previously assessed by (Abdul-Rahman et al. 2012).
48 The system helps generate new project design variants for the final client with the purpose of improving constructability and
49 cost. Every Tuesday morning and for one hour, collaborators of the bidding department gather to share insights and give
x
50 feedbacks on a particular ongoing project by providing improvement ideas. Afterwards, the ideas are collected and
51 capitalized.
Si
52 This model help collaborators launch a continuous improvement approach to the bidding phase. Among the benefits: an
53 increase in pricing accuracy, more realistic estimates and better evaluation of risks associated with tender.
54
Variability decreases in the bidding process
gm
55
56 The process of the bidding phase comprises two essential meetings before submitting the final bid (Figure 13). The first one is
57 the “technical review meeting” followed by the “commercial review meeting”.
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 - Technical review meeting: the objective is to provide final changes in the technical feasibility to reduce the
suggested bidding price.
te
4
5 - Commercial review meeting: it’s the last meeting before the bid validation. It requires the presence of one
6 commercial and the structural bid manager. The aim is to validate the final project bid.
rn
7
8
9
at
10
11
12
io
13
14
15
na
16
17
18
19
lJ
20
21
22
23
ou
24
25
26
rn
27
28
29
30
al
31 Figure 13. Technical - Commercial review meetings process

32
33 A variability indicator was proposed: “bid price variability before/after technical review meeting”. Records of the proposed
of
34 indicator before the Kaizen event weren’t registered. This indicator assesses process variability of the bidding phase. Figure
35 14 presents bid variability of 45 operations undertaken after 6 months of the Kaizen event. The suggested bid before the
36 technical review was reduced by -1,55% in the public equipment department, -2,22% in rehabilitation and -3,34% in private
37 real estate development. The greater absolute value of cost variably, the unstable is the process. Indeed, a great absolute value
Le
38 means many changes occurred between the technical and the commercial review meetings thus the process is inefficient.
39 The reason behind this result is that the new bidding process enables bid managers to fix meetings (whenever it is necessary)
40 with the project sales representatives to get his inputs on the client needs. Those tasks are assigned to “on demand tasks” in the
41 modified VSM (see figure 7.a).
an
42
43
44
45
46
Si
47
48
49
x
50
51
Si
52
53
54
gm
55
56
57
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3
te
3
5
6 2
rn
7
Bid price variability (%)
8 1
9
at
10 0
11
12 -1
io
13
14
-2
15
na
16
-3
17
18
-4
lJ
20
Figure 14. Bid price variability according to operation types.
21
22
23 9.2.5. Sustainability
ou
24 People: Competence management to foster collaboration

25 The previous method of bidding consisted in affecting bid managers to project according to their availability. This method is
26 easy to use and doesn’t require many decision-making factors. However, competencies aren’t well used. As a consequence,
value loss for the final client is inevitable.
rn
27
28 The system was modified. Projects were assigned based on expertise not availability. In addition to that, competencies of each
29 employee were collected in order to generate more collaboration using “skill matrix”. Each collaborator can inform his level
30 of expertise according to several criteria:
al
31 - Operation type.
32 - Previous projects undertaken and experiences.
33 - Tool development and optimization.
of
34
- Technical skills: structure, engineering, construction, etc.
35
36 - Competencies could be soft or hard skills.
37
Strategy: A value-based approach to rethink the bidding phase
Le
38
39 Sustainable business is a direct outcome of a long term operations established by strategic orientations.
40 Lean thinking could be viewed as an operational enabler thanks to its tools and practical methodologies. It also could be
41 viewed as a strategic enabler by considering the only value added the one formulated by the client (internal and external).
an
42 Thus, strategy could be declined based on maximizing added value outputs.

43 The company’s archive revealed that bidding was always done in details. As a consequence, great amount of time is needed to
44 provide a final price.
45 In some cases, detailed tendering leads to a price out of the client’s ball parking zone. Time is lost doing non value added
46
Si
activities for a large amount of time (one month or more). To address this issue, a quick estimation step was added to the
47 bidding process (Figure 15).
48
49
x
50
51
Si
52
53
54
gm
55
56
57
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3
te
4
5
6
rn
7
8
9
at
10
11
12
io
13 Figure 15. Integration of quick estimation in the bidding phase
14
15 Quick estimation was a Lean strategic move. It takes few days to assess project feasibility by using ratios for quick estimation.
na
16 It allowed eliminating waste in time, over-quality and competence waste: by engaging employees in a project that has no
17 value added for the client (the final price isn’t in the ballpark).
18 Implication of the “Sustainability factor” on the bidding process
19 “Time” and “Economical impact” indicators have a direct impact on the short term performance of the bidding process.
lJ
20 “Quality” indicators on the others have a medium term impact on the performance. “Sustainability” indicators set the
21 foundations for a sustainable performance for the bidding process.
22 Selecting the right team for the right project helps empower project team by fostering collaboration. People are less likely to
23
ou
complain about their colleagues due to lack of competencies for instance.
24 Finally, having a clear strategy for bidding (not bidding the same way for all the projects) help reduce risks and enhance
25 greatly the chances of securing a certain amount of activities in the long run.
26
rn
27
28 9.3. Research validity and limitations
29
The validity of the research depends on three criteria: internal validity, external validity and reliability (Johnson 1997; Bashir
30
al
et al. 2008). The first criterion could be translated into the following question: “Is what we're intending to
31 measure actually being measured?”. Our research measured the impact of the Kaizen event based on factual indicators
32 collected that best describe the initial objective set for the Kaizen event.
33
The second criterion is equivalent to the question: “Is what we're actually measuring applicable to the real world?”. The
of
34 conducted research is practical and is experimented in a professional context (real world).

35
The last criterion could be answered through the question: “If we did this study again, would we get the same results?”. The
36
research was conducted with fixed “external variables” which means that during the experimentation process (from the
37
Kaizen event till data collection after 6 months), no important changes happened (hiring/firing) or other external variables that
Le
38 could affect the results.

39
The main limitation of the research is that it does not deals exhaustively with the link between the design and construction
40
phase. The reason is that bidding is a “transitional phase”. The first objective of the bid for construction companies is to secure
41
an
the project. Thus, resources should be well used to attain this objective without compromising the profitability (appointing a
42 construction manager during the bidding phase has a corresponding cost). Thus, our objective was to improve the outputs of
43 this repetitive “transition phase”.
44
45
46 10. Conclusion
Si
47
48 In this research study, A Kaizen event was applied to the bidding phase in a building construction company. Performance
indicators were for monitoring. The selected performance indicators were related to: time, economical impact, quality and
49
x
sustainability factors.
50
51 The results could be resumed as follow:
Si
52 - Bidding can benefit from lean thinking.

53 - Cultural aspects should be assessed before engaging a lean change program.
54 - Lean thinking not only helps improve operational processes but acts as a guide for setting up the new strategies as well.
gm
55 The Lean thinking had also a managerial and social consequences: project team selection in for the bid shifted from “the
56 availability status” to a selection based on competences. In addition, a new bidding strategy was set to maximize the output of
57 this phase.
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 Few research studies concern the contractor’s bidding phase and its improvement using lean thinking. It is mainly due to the
sequential structure of actors’ involvement in the construction project. However, the prominence of this type of procurement
te
4
5 in the French market should be viewed as an opportunity to make it more efficient for all the stakeholders (owner, architect,
contractors). Focus should be directed towards setting up Lean frameworks for contractor’s bidding phase. Finally, the link
6
between the bidding and building phase should be assessed by identifying waste occurrence (information loss, rework…)
rn
7 within the contractor processes.
8
9
at
10 Disclosure statement
11
12 The Authors declare that there are no competing financial, professional, or personal interests from other parties.
io
13
14
15
References
na
16 Abdul-Rahman, H., Wang, C. & Malay, S.B., 2012. Structured project learning model toward improved
17 competitiveness in bidding for large construction firms. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 18(4),
18 pp.546–556. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/13923730.2012.703006#.Vnz_ARUrKUk
19 [Accessed September 16, 2015].
lJ
20
Al‐Aomar, R., 2012. A lean construction framework with Six Sigma rating D. Setijono, ed. International Journal of
21 Lean Six Sigma, 3(4), pp.299–314. Available at:
22 http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.aub.edu.lb/doi/full/10.1108/20401461211284761 [Accessed April 24,
23
ou
2015].
24
25 Alarcón, L.F. et al., 2005. Assessing the impacts of implementing lean construction. 13th International Group for Lean
26 Construction Conference: Proceedings, pp.387–393.
rn
27 Alinaitwe, H., Mwakali, J.A. & Hansson, B., 2009. Organizational effectiveness of Ugandan building firms as viewed
28 by craftsmen. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 15(3), pp.281–288. Available at:
29 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.281-288 [Accessed February 20, 2014].
30
al
Ballard, G., 2000. The Last Planner System of Production Control. Available at:
31
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.107.4520&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
32
33 Ballesteros-Pérez, P. et al., 2014. Estimating future bidding performance of competitor bidders in capped tenders.
of
34 Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(5), pp.702–713. Available at:

35 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/13923730.2014.914096#abstract [Accessed September 16, 2015].
36 Bashir, M. et al., 2008. Reliability and Validity of Qualitative and Operational Research Paradigm. Pakistan Journal of
37 Statistics and Operation Research, 4(1), p.35. Available at: http://www.pjsor.com/index.php/pjsor/article/view/59
Le
38 [Accessed August 6, 2016].

39
40 Basu, P. & K. Dan, P., 2014. Capacity augmentation with VSM methodology for lean manufacturing. International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 5(3), pp.279–292. Available at:
41
an
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/IJLSS-07-2013-0036 [Accessed August 5, 2016].

42
43 Beatham, S. et al., 2005. An integrated business improvement system (IBIS) for construction. Measuring Business
44 Excellence, 9(2), pp.42–55. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1368-
45 3047&volume=9&issue=2&articleid=1502648&show=html [Accessed March 4, 2014].
46
Si
Beatham, S. et al., 2004. KPIs: a critical appraisal of their use in construction. Benchmarking: An International Journal,
47 11(1), pp.93–117. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1463-
48 5771&volume=11&issue=1&articleid=843104&show=html [Accessed February 25, 2014].
49
x
50 Belekoukias, I., Garza-Reyes, J.A. & Kumar, V., 2014. The impact of lean methods and tools on the operational
performance of manufacturing organisations. International Journal of Production Research, 52(18), pp.5346–
51
5366. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207543.2014.903348?src=recsys [Accessed
Si
52
October 22, 2015].
53
54 Bhamu, J. & Singh Sangwan, K., 2014. Lean manufacturing: literature review and research issues. International
gm
55 Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(7), pp.876–940.

56 Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S. & Danese, P., 2014. Successful lean implementation: Organizational culture and soft lean
57 practices. International Journal of Production Economics, 160, pp.182–201. Available at:
58 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925527314003508 [Accessed December 11, 2014].
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A. and Swan, J., 2005. Organizational routines, situated learning and processes of change
in project-based organizations. Project Management Journal, 3(36), pp.27–41. Available at:
te
4
5 https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:62271 [Accessed September 28, 2015].
6 Castillo, G., Alarcón, L.F. & González, V.A., 2014. Implementing Lean Production in Copper Mining Development
rn
7 Projects: Case Study, American Society of Civil Engineers. Available at:
8 http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0000917 [Accessed October 26, 2015].
9
Chua, D.K.H., Li, D.Z. & Chan, W.T., 2001. Case-Based Reasoning Approach in Bid Decision Making. Journal of
at
10 Construction Engineering and Management, 127(1), pp.35–45. Available at:
11 http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9364%282001%29127%3A1%2835%29 [Accessed
12 August 5, 2016].
io
13
14 Crema, M. & Verbano, C., 2015. How to combine lean and safety management in health care processes: A case from
15 Spain. Safety Science, 79, pp.63–71. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753515001289 [Accessed June 15, 2015].
na
16
17 Dakhli, Z. & Lafhaj, Z., 2015. Development strategies for the French construction sector. The Journal of Macro Trends
18 in Technology and Innovation, 3(1), pp.113–129. Available at:
19 http://macrojournals.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/11TI31Fa.34212326.pdf.
lJ
20
Daou, E. et al., 2015. Instantask : Designing a Visual Application for Enabling Agile Planning Response. In 23rd
21 Annual Confernce of the International Group for Lean Construction. Perth, Australia, pp. 23–32. Available at:
22 http://www.iglc.net/Papers/Details/1199.
23
ou
24 Domingos, B.S.M. et al., 2014. Process Improvement and Reorganization of Kanban Inventory in an Industry of
25 Machinery and Equipment: A Case Study. Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, 4(2), pp.49–54.
26 Available at: The purpose of this research is the reduction of losses due to excess inventory and unnecessary
movement in the Kanban inventory in a multinational industry manufacturer of machinery and equipment, located
rn
27
in the State of S�o Paulo, Brazil. The justificat [Accessed August 27, 2015].
28
29 Ebbesen, J.B. & Hope, A., 2013. Re-imagining the Iron Triangle: Embedding Sustainability into Project Constraints.
30 PM World Journal. Available at:
al
31 http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/11311/1/pmwj8%2Dmar2013%2Debbesen%2Dhope%2Dreimagining%2Diron%2Dt
32 riangle%2DFeaturedPaper.pdf [Accessed March 10, 2015].
33 Edwards, D. & Thomas, J.C., 2005. Developing a Municipal Performance-Measurement System: Reflections on the
of
34 Atlanta Dashboard. Public Administration Review, 65(3), pp.369–376. Available at:

35 http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00461.x [Accessed March 5, 2014].
36
37 Egan, J., 1998. Rethinking Construction: Report of the Construction Task Force on the Scope for Improving the Quality
and Efficiency of UK Construction, London.
Le
38
39 Fellows, R.F. & Liu, A.M.M., 2009. Research Methods for Construction 4th ed., Wiley Blackwell.
40
Forbes, L.H., 2001. Continuous Improvement in the Construction Industry. Leadership and Management in
41
an
Engineering, 1(1), pp.54–55. Available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%291532-

42 6748%282001%291%3A1%2854%29 [Accessed August 5, 2016].
43
44 Francom, T., Ariaratnam, S.T. & El Asmar, M., 2015. Industry Perceptions of Alternative Project Delivery Methods
45 Applied to Trenchless Pipeline Projects. Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, p.04015020.
46 Available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29PS.1949-1204.0000220 [Accessed October 26,
Si
47 2015].
48 Gregory A. Howell, 1999. What is Lean Construction. In International Group of Lean Construction. pp. 1–10.
49
x
Available at: http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~tommelein/IGLC-7/PDF/Howell.pdf [Accessed August 7, 2015].

50
Grevelman, L. & Kluiwstra, M., 2010. Sustainability in project management: A case study on enexis. PM World Today.
51
Available at:
Si
52 /citations?view_op=view_citation&continue=/scholar%3Fhl%3Dfr%26as_sdt%3D0,5%26scilib%3D1%26scioq
53 %3Dsustainability%2Bin%2Bproject%2Bmanagement%2Bcase%2Bstudy%2Bon%2BEnexis&citilm=1&citation
54 _for_view=aewZHJMAAAAJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C&hl=fr&oi=p [Accessed March 10, 2015].
gm
55
56 Gurcanli, G.E., Bilir, S. & Sevim, M., 2015. Activity based risk assessment and safety cost estimation for residential
57 building construction projects. Safety Science, 80, pp.1–12. Available at:
58 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753515001666 [Accessed October 26, 2015].
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 Henry, E., 2000. Quality management standardization in the French construction industry: singularities and
internationalization prospects. Construction Management and Economics, 18(6), pp.667–677. Available at:
te
4
5 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/014461900414727 [Accessed March 10, 2015].
6 Hermes, M., 2015. Prefabrication & Modularization As a Part of Lean Construction – Status Quo in Germany.
rn
7 Proceedings for the 23th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, pp.235–245.
8 Available at: http://www.iglc.net/Papers/Details/1215.
9
Hicks, C. et al., 2015. Applying lean principles to the design of healthcare facilities. International Journal of
at
10 Production Economics. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925527315001814
11 [Accessed May 29, 2015].
12
io
13 Ho, S.P. & Hsu, Y., 2014. Bid Compensation Theory and Strategies for Projects with Heterogeneous Bidders: A Game
14 Theoretic Analysis. Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(5), p.04014022. Available at:
15 http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ME.1943-5479.0000212 [Accessed October 2, 2015].
na
16 Horstman, A. & Witteveen, W., 2013. Performance Indicators in the Best Value Approach. Journal for the
17 Advancement of Performance Information & Value, 5(2). Available at:
18 http://cibw117.com/journal/index.php/performance-info-and-value/article/view/125 [Accessed June 11, 2014].
19
lJ
Howell, G. & Ballard, G., 1994. Lean production theory: Moving beyond “Can-Do.” Proceending Conference on Lean
20
Construction, September(2014).
21
22 Hubbard, D.W., 2014. How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business, Available at:
23 http://books.google.com/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=SCPwAgAAQBAJ&pgis=1 [Accessed August 7, 2014].
ou
24 Idoro, G.I., 2012. Comparing the Planning and Performance of Direct Labour and Design-Bid-Build Construction
25 Projects in Nigeria. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 18(2), pp.184–196. Available at:
26 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/13923730.2012.671283#.Vn0AAxUrKUk [Accessed September 16,
rn
27 2015].
28
29 Ikuma, L.H., Nahmens, I. & James, J., 2011. Use of Safety and Lean Integrated Kaizen to Improve Performance in
Modular Homebuilding. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(7), pp.551–560. Available
30
al
at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0000330 [Accessed August 5, 2016].

31
32 International Group for Lean Construction, 1993. International Group for Lean Construction. Available at:
33 http://www.iglc.net/.
of
34 Issa, U.H., 2013. Implementation of lean construction techniques for minimizing the risks effect on project construction
35 time. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 52(4), pp.697–704. Available at:
36 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016813000641 [Accessed May 25, 2014].
37
Le
38 Jina, J., Bhattacharya, A.K. & Walton, A.D., 1997. Applying lean principles for high product variety and low volumes:
39 some issues and propositions. Logistics Information Management, 10(1), pp.5–13. Available at:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/09576059710159655 [Accessed December 23, 2015].
40
41 Johnson, R., 1997. Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education. Available at:
an
42 http://search.proquest.com/openview/3f3af9cbd432a23c7bb1af745cd251f9/1?pq-origsite=gscholar [Accessed
43 August 6, 2016].
44 Kale, S. & Karaman, A.E., 2012. Benchmarking the Knowledge Management Practices of Construction Firms. Journal
45 of Civil Engineering and Management, 18(3), pp.335–344. Available at:
46
Si
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.698910 [Accessed March 5, 2014].

47
48 Kalsaas, B.T., Skaar, J. & Thorstensen, R.T., 2015. Pull vs. Push in Construction Work Informed by Last Planner.
49 Proceedings for the 23th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, pp.103–112.
x
50 Kang, Y., O’Brien, W.J. & O’Connor, J.T., 2012. Analysis of information integration benefit drivers and
51 implementation hindrances. Automation in Construction, 22, pp.277–289. Available at:
Si
52 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580511001646 [Accessed June 10, 2015].

53
Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P., 2000. Harvard Business Review - Having Trouble With Your Strategy Then Map It -
54 Kaplan & Norton - 2000.pdf. Focusing Your Organization on Strategy—with the Balanced Scorecard, 78, p.49.
gm
55 Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11143152.

56
57 Khanchanapong, T. et al., 2014. The unique and complementary effects of manufacturing technologies and lean
58 practices on manufacturing operational performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 153,
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 pp.191–203. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092552731400070X [Accessed May
11, 2015].
te
4
5 Khisty, C.J. & Khisty, L.L., 1992. Reflection in Problem Solving and Design. Journal of Professional Issues in
6 Engineering Education and Practice, 118(3), pp.234–239. Available at:
rn
7 http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%291052-3928%281992%29118%3A3%28234%29 [Accessed
8 August 5, 2016].
9
Kim, Y. & Ballard, G., 2002. Is the Earned-Value Method an Enemy of Work Flow ? In International Group of Lean
at
10 Construction. pp. 1–10.
11
12 Knapp, S., 2015. Lean Six Sigma implementation and organizational culture. International journal of health care
io
13 quality assurance, 28(8), pp.855–63. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/IJHCQA-06-
14 2015-0079 [Accessed October 26, 2015].
15 Knechtges, P. & Decker, M.C., 2014. Application of Kaizen Methodology to Foster Departmental Engagement in
na
16 Quality Improvement. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 11(12), pp.1126–1130.
17
18 Koskela, L., 1992. Application of new production philosophy to construction CIFE, ed., Stanford university. Available
at: http://cife.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/TR072.pdf [Accessed June 11, 2014].
19
lJ
20 Koskela, L., 1992. Application of the new production philosophy to construction. Tech. Report. , pp.37–62.
21
Laryea, S. & Hughes, W., 2011. Risk and price in the bidding process of contractors. Available at:
22
http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/8158/.
23
ou
24 Liker, J.K. & Meier, D., 2005. The Toyota Way, McGraw-Hill Companies. Available at:
25 https://books.google.com/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=gaWCsozQpPIC&pgis=1 [Accessed March 8, 2015].
26 Ling, F.Y.Y. et al., 2004. Predicting Performance of Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build Projects. Journal of
rn

28 http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:1(75) [Accessed October 26, 2015].
29
30 Losonci, D., Demeter, K. & Jenei, I., 2011. Factors influencing employee perceptions in lean transformations.
al
31 International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), pp.30–43. Available at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925527310004913 [Accessed October 22, 2015].
32
33 Mao, X., Zhang, X. & AbouRizk, S.M., 2009. Enhancing Value Engineering Process by Incorporating Inventive
of
34 Problem-Solving Techniques. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(5), pp.416–424.

35 Available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0000001 [Accessed August 5,
36 2016].
37 Marksberry, P., 2011. The Toyota Way – a quantitative approach. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 2(2),
Le
38 pp.132–150. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/20401461111135028 [Accessed

39 August 14, 2016].
40
41 Masterman, J.W.E., 2002. An Introduction to Building Procurement Systems 2nd editio., USA & Canada: Spon Press.
an
42 Available at:
http://books.google.fr/books/about/An_Introduction_to_Building_Procurement.html?id=AbdjiA60ODwC&pgis=
43
1 [Accessed March 8, 2015].
44
45 Mossman, A., 2012. Last Planner®: 5 + 1 crucial & collaborative conversations for predictable design & construction
46 delivery. Available at:
Si
47 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235791767_Last_Planner_5__1_crucial__collaborative_conversations_f
48 or_predictable_design__construction_delivery [Accessed March 8, 2015].
49
x
Nakhai, B. & Neves, J.S., 2009. The challenges of six sigma in improving service quality. International Journal of
50 Quality & Reliability Management, 26(7), pp.663–684. Available at:
51 http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.aub.edu.lb/doi/full/10.1108/02656710910975741 [Accessed February
Si
52 18, 2015].
53
O’Connor, J.T., 1985. Impacts of Constructability Improvement. Journal of Construction Engineering and
54 Management, 111(4), pp.404–410. Available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
gm
55 9364(1985)111%3A4(404) [Accessed August 11, 2015].

56
57 Ortiz, C.A., 2009. Kaizen and kaizen event implementation, Prentice Hall.
58
59
a
60
1
In
2
3 Parvan, K., Rahmandad, H. & Haghani, A., 2015. Inter-phase feedbacks in construction projects. Journal of Operations
Management. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272696315000637 [Accessed
te
4
5 August 24, 2015].
6 Pekuri, A., Pekuri, L. & Haapasalo, H., 2014. Lean as a Business Model. In IGLC. Oslo, pp. 51–60.
rn
7
8 Pheng, L.S. & Chuan, C.J., 2001. Just-in-Time Management of Precast Concrete Components. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 127(6), pp.494–501. Available at:
9
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9364%282001%29127%3A6%28494%29 [Accessed
at
10 October 26, 2015].
11
12 Ponz-Tienda, J.L., Pellicer, E. & Yepes, V., 2012. Complete fuzzy scheduling and fuzzy earned value management in
io
13 construction projects. Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A, 13(1), pp.56–68. Available at:
14 http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1631/jzus.A1100160 [Accessed September 28, 2015].
15 Slack, N., 2015. Runners, Repeaters, and Strangers C. L. Cooper, ed., Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
na
16
17 Suárez‐Barraza, M.F., Ramis‐Pujol, J. & Kerbache, L., 2011. Thoughts on kaizen and its evolution: Three different
18 perspectives and guiding principles. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 2(4), pp.288–308. Available at:
19 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/20401461111189407 [Accessed August 5, 2016].
lJ
20 Suárez-Barraza, M.F. & Rodríguez-González, F.G., 2015. Bringing Kaizen to the classroom: lessons learned in an
21 Operations Management course. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. Available at:
22 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14783363.2015.1068594#.Vi5WP9IveM8 [Accessed October 26,
23 2015].
ou
24 Tam, V.W.Y. & Zeng, S.X., 2013. Sustainable Performance Indicators for Australian Residential Buildings. Journal of
25 Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 5(4), pp.168–179. Available at:
26 http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29LA.1943-4170.0000123 [Accessed August 5, 2016].
rn
27
28 Thomsen, C. et al., 2009. Managing Integrated Project Delivery, McLean. Available at:
29 https://cmaanet.org/files/shared/ng_Integrated_Project_Delivery__11-19-09__2_.pdf [Accessed March 8, 2015].
30
al
Womack, J.P. & Jones, D.T., 1996. Lean thinking: banish waste and create wealth in your corporation, Available at:
31 https://books.google.fr/books/about/Lean_thinking.html?id=DJwoAQAAMAAJ&pgis=1 [Accessed October 6,
32 2015].
33
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. & Roos, D., 1990. The Machine That Changed the World, Simon and Schuster. Available at:
of
34 https://books.google.com/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=dP_c3EZwUusC&pgis=1 [Accessed March 8, 2015].

35
36 Yeung, J.F.Y. et al., 2013. Developing a Benchmarking Model for Construction Projects in Hong Kong. Journal of
Le
38 http://repository.lib.polyu.edu.hk/jspui/handle/10397/5746 [Accessed April 14, 2014].

39 Yin, S.Y.-L. et al., 2014. An improved approach to the subcontracting procurement process in a lean construction
40 setting. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(3), pp.389–403. Available at:
41 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/13923730.2013.801900#.Vnz_xBUrKUk [Accessed September 16,
an
42 2015].
43
Yu, H. et al., 2013a. Lean Transformation in a Modular Building Company: A Case for Implementation. Journal of
44 Management in Engineering, 29(1), pp.103–111. Available at:
45 http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000115 [Accessed March 17, 2015].
46
Si
47 Yu, H. et al., 2013b. Lean Transformation in a Modular Building Company: A Case for Implementation. Journal of
48 Management in Engineering, 29(1), pp.103–111. Available at:
49 http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000115 [Accessed October 11, 2015].
x
50
51
Si
52
53
54
gm
55
56
57
58
59
a
60
View publication stats

Application of Lean To The Bidding Phase in Building Construction: A French Contractor's Experience

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of Lean To The Bidding Phase in Building Construction: A French Contractor's Experience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Application of lean to the bidding phase in building construction: A French

Article in International Journal of Lean Six Sigma · June 2017

Zakaria Dakhli Zoubeir Lafhaj

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Geo-Environmental Engineering View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal: International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

Manuscript Type: Research Paper

Lean, Bidding, building construction, performance indicators, change

38 Keywords – Lean, bidding, building construction, performance indicators, change management

27 Article classification – Research paper.

100 Non residential projects

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

31 5. Procurement strategies in the construction sector

34 direct impact on the quality of the delivery.

42 design and clear schedule.

31 Figure 3. Construction procurement systems in the construction sector (Mossman, 2012)

- Public Private Partnerships PPP (small number of operations).

34 - 70% for D/B/B.

38 to the D/B/B practice.

42 7.1. Research question

42 N° Step Description References to support the step

38 - Involvement of Top Management

2. Avoid wheel reinvention.

24 Figure 4. Lean implementation: focus shift

50 9.2.1 Performance indicators selection

42 bid on the selected project. The phase is composed of 19 tasks.

C.G. validés par le

31 manager’s L a fiche d ’identification

Outil REHA de chiffrage Planification et suivi du Mémoire technique :

Recalage doc uments Bouc lage c ommercial Transmission du mémoire

42 task Préparation du DQE CES Réception métrés CES

52 Public facilities Rehabilitation Private real est.

31 Public facilities Rehabilitation Private real est.

34 Exploring alternatives to offer value to the client

38 Those brainstorming sessions were added to the new bidding process.

Operation cost reduction (%)

31 Figure 13. Technical - Commercial review meetings process

24 People: Competence management to foster collaboration

42 Thus, strategy could be declined based on maximizing added value outputs.

34 conducted research is practical and is experimented in a professional context (real world).

38 could affect the results.

52 - Bidding can benefit from lean thinking.

34 Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(5), pp.702–713. Available at:

38 [Accessed August 6, 2016].

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/IJLSS-07-2013-0036 [Accessed August 5, 2016].

55 Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(7), pp.876–940.

34 Atlanta Dashboard. Public Administration Review, 65(3), pp.369–376. Available at:

Engineering, 1(1), pp.54–55. Available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%291532-

Available at: http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~tommelein/IGLC-7/PDF/Howell.pdf [Accessed August 7, 2015].

at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0000330 [Accessed August 5, 2016].

http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.698910 [Accessed March 5, 2014].

52 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580511001646 [Accessed June 10, 2015].

55 Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11143152.

27 Construction Engineering and Management, 130(1), pp.75–83. Available at:

31 International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), pp.30–43. Available at:

34 Problem-Solving Techniques. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(5), pp.416–424.

38 pp.132–150. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/20401461111135028 [Accessed

55 9364(1985)111%3A4(404) [Accessed August 11, 2015].

34 https://books.google.com/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=dP_c3EZwUusC&pgis=1 [Accessed March 8, 2015].

38 http://repository.lib.polyu.edu.hk/jspui/handle/10397/5746 [Accessed April 14, 2014].

View publication stats