The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Toyota Kata Methodology for Managing the Maturity Level of Last Planner® System
Abstract
The implementation of the Last Planner® System (LPS) generates reliable production flows in construction projects and improves the competitiveness of companies that adopt the system. Research shows a greater number of implementations in construction companies and also recognizes that the effectiveness of LPS in projects is not achieved due to partial, short-term implementations, and without continuous feedback. This paper describes a proposal for managing the LPS maturity level with the objective of implementing all the components of the methodology and developing the project organization. It proposes the use of a method based on the LPS maturity model proposed by the Lean Construction Institute and the Toyota Kata methodology, described by Myke Rother, to help organizations achieve improvement actions. The proposed methodology was evaluated in a case study and the results were compared based on literature regarding the level of adoption of the organizations implementing the LPS components. The results and indicators obtained were compared with studies on the implementation of LPS in projects.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“the constant improvement of processes and risk management methods can significantly reduce the number and impact of problems occurring in projects (Perez-Apaza et al. 2021).”
From Analysis of 105 IT Project Risks (2023) · cites this paper as Perez-Apaza et al. 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I. (2016). "Current Process Benchmark for the Last Planner® System" Lean Construction Journal 2016, 57-89.
- Daniel, E. I. (2017). Exploratory study into the use of Last Planner® System and collaborative planning for construction process improvement, PhD Dissertation, Nottingham Trent University.
- Fauchier, D. and Alves, T.C.L. (2013). "Last Planner® System Is the Gateway to Lean Behaviors" Proc. Of the 21th Ann. Conf. of the Int'l Group for Lean Construction. Fortaleza, Brazil.
- Fernandez-Solis, J., Porwal, V. y Lavy S. (2018). Guidelines to Address Challenges Faced by Last Planner Users and Implementers at Organizational and Project Levels. Construction Science. Accessed March 10, 2021. http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/166276.
- Hamzeh, F. (2009). Improving construction workflow-The role of production planning and control, PhD Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
- Hamzeh, F. R. (2011). "The lean journey: implementing the last planner system in construction" Proc. Of the 19th Ann. Conf. of the Int'l Group for Lean Construction, Lima, Peru.
- Lagos, C. (2017). Desarrollo e implementación de herramientas para el mejoramiento de la gestión de la información de last planner, Master's Thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
- Nesensohn, C. (2014). An innovative framework for assessing lean construction maturity, PhD Dissertation, Liverpool John Moores University.
- Rother, M. (2009). Toyota Kata: Managing People for Improvement, Adaptiveness and Superior Results. McGraw-Hill., United State.
Cited by
Analysis of 105 IT Project Risks
Nikolaenko, V., & Sidorov, A. (2023) · Journal of Risk and Financial Management · doi:10.3390/jrfm16010033 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Perez-Apaza, F., Ramírez-Valenzuela, A., & Perez-Apaza, J. D.
- Venue
- Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
- Published
- 2021-07-14
- Pages
- 514-523
- ISSN
- 2309-0979
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
