The Wastes of Production in Construction A TFV Based Taxonomy
The Wastes of Production in Construction A TFV Based Taxonomy
The Wastes of Production in Construction A TFV Based Taxonomy
Director of Strategy, HR and HSE, Veidekke Entreprenr AS, P.O. Box 506 Skyen, N-0214 Oslo,
[email protected]
Research Fellow, School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, Crescent, Salford,
[email protected].
Professor, School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, Crescent, Salford,
[email protected].
Waste in Construction
811
812
Drevland and Svalestuen (2013) give a review of the use of the value term in literature.
As the wording reveals, value is related to things (coming out of production), whereas
waste can be related both to activities (inside production) and to unwanted things
(coming out of production). In the following value and waste are discussed in some
further detail.
VALUE IS A WANTED OUTPUT
Our topic is production and production theory. In production, value is another word
for the purpose of the production process. Value is about the usefulness of the product,
about functionality, utility and benefit. Something wanted is wanted by somebody.
Value is therefore always value for somebody. We can therefore talk about value for
any actor in the process, f. ex. value for the supplier, for the producer or for the client.
If an actor is to remain contributing to the process, the process must deliver value for
the actor in question, there must be something in it for him/her. A stable and
equitable process must there produce value for all involved.
In the lean tradition value is usually seen as value for the customer / client. The
reason for this is that the lean tradition advocates a holistic view where the entire
process is to be understood and improved and sub-optimization should be avoided.
The intended use of the product by the customer is the final goal of the production
process. This makes value for the customer the dominant value perspective in the
lean tradition. Within this tradition we can therefore specify the definition of value
as an output of production wanted by the customer.
Waste in Construction
813
814
For Ohnoss explanation of the economic/industrial context that led to the Toyota Production System,
see (Ohno 1988 pp. xiii xiv and 1 3).
Waste in Construction
815
816
Now we turn to Ohnos classical list of seven wastes (Ohno, 1988, pp.19-20, re. also
Shingo, 2005, pp. 191-194) and how they relate to the taxonomy presented here.
1. Overproduction: Overproduction is about the output of production.
Overproduction can be interpreted both as producing earlier and more than
needed. In the TFV context, this is part of the value perspective. In the
proposed taxonomy overproduction is part of a waste we call Lack of intended
use under the value perspective. This is therefore described in the section on
the value perspective below. In Koskela, Blviken and Rooke (2013, p. 7) it is
argued that overproduction is not a dominant waste in construction.
2. Time on hand / Waiting (Delay in Shingo, 2005): Waiting refers to workers
waiting for work to be done. In the proposed taxonomy we find waiting by
workers as a waste in the work flow.
3. Transportation: In Ohnos taxonomy transport can be understood both as
transportation of material to the place of production and as transportation of
the intermediate product from work station to work station. The classical list
simply says transportation, but on page 58 Ohno qualifies this to be
transportation to a place other than the destination. In construction the
product is rooted to the ground, making the location of final production
identical to the products final location.
4. Processing: As pointed out by Shingo (2005, p. 191) waste in processing can
be related to the processing speed, to the processing method and to the need
for the processing. Shingos point is that instead of just increasing speed, we
should be asking why we make a given product and use a given method. To
do something in an inefficient way and to do something that is unnecessary as
such, are two very different situations. They are therefore seen as two
different wastes in the proposed taxonomy.
5. Inventory: Inventory can be interpreted both as inventory of materials, as
intermediate products waiting to be further processed and as inventory of
complete products (se overproduction). In our proposed taxonomy inventory
is represented by space not being worked in and materials not being processed.
6. Movement (Wasted motions in Shingo, 2005): Movement is the movement
of the worker and is a waste we also find in the proposed taxonomy. However
the main focus can be somewhat different in manufacturing and in
construction, re. the comment on micro and macro movement above.
7. Making defective products: In the TFV context, lack of quality and defective
products is best analyzed as part of the value perspective. This waste is
therefore discussed in the section below.
Of these seven classical wastes, five are part of the flow perspective (# 2 6) and two
of the value perspective (# 1 and 7). None are part of the transformation perspective.
Waste in Construction
817
In the literature we can find different ways of understanding the term quality. One is to see quality as
compliance with specifications, see e.g. Patton (2013) who also refers to several authors sharing
this view (p. 33). It has however been argued that this is a too narrow perspective. The
specification may not be complete, it may not be correct and it may not reflect what the customer
wants or needs. Should we really regard a product that is not working as being of good quality
simply because it complies with (wrong or incomplete) specifications? And should not quality
instead be seen as compliance with needs? The European standard on quality management systems
(ISO 9000:2005) tries to solve this dilemma by defining quality as the degree to which a set of
inherent characteristics fulfils requirements (3.1.1). Requirement is defined as a need or
expectation that is stated, generally implied or obligatory (3.1.2).
2
Koskela (2004a) gives the following precise definition of making do: Making-do as a waste refers to
a situation where a task is started without all its standard inputs, or the execution of a task is
continued although the availability of at least one standard input has ceased. (p. 5)
818
project standstill, a situation that makes making do a both rational and understandable
option. However, from the perspective of the production system as a whole, making
do can be counterproductive and increase the negative impacts instead of reducing
them. It can result in root causes not being addressed and thereby increase instead of
decrease negative consequences. Referring to Ohnos list of seven wastes, Koskela
(2004a) sees making do as a separate eighth type of waste, typical for construction.
Koskela, Blviken and Rooke (2013) present making do as a likely lead waste in
construction.
In the taxonomy of waste presented in the present paper, making do is not one of
the categories. How should we then regard making do? Here we see the following
alternatives:
1. Making do refers to the execution of tasks. Tasks are part of the work flow
perspective on production. We can therefore simply see making do as a
variant of the waste of inefficient work, as a situation where work is carried
out in an inefficient way due to lacking preconditions
2. Making do can be seen as a strategy to reduce the negative impact of lacking
preconditions on the production process as a whole. Instead of what often
appears as a dramatic choice, to stop production and create wastes as waiting
and materials not being processed, one chooses to do whatever is possible.
The paradox with making do as a strategy is however that it tends to turn out
counterproductive. It can be rational from the local perspective but irrational
from the global perspective of the production system. Instead of reducing the
negative consequences, it can end up increasing them by hiding waste,
hindering root cause analyzes and through this end up triggering a chain of
wastes.
3. Several types of waste can obviously be present in a making do situation.
Making do can therefore be seen as a complex waste, as a situation where
more than one of the wastes in the taxonomy are present and linked together.
Buffering is a strategy where one type of waste is used to reduce others. When
buffering, specific types of waste are deliberatively introduced into the production
system in order to establish a satisfactory level of flow and thereby reduce the total
amount of waste in the system. A production system with continuous flow and no
buffers can be seen as the ultimate lean goal, but only as an ideal. There are buffers in
all real life production systems, and will always be, the point is to reduce these to the
minimum necessary to maintain a level flow. However, similar to what we described
regarding making do, the paradox is that buffering can hide variability and reasons for
variability and can thereby result in root causes not being addressed and high levels of
waste. A central element in many lean improvement strategies is therefore to
reduce buffers to a minimum so as to allow breakdowns, which reveal inefficiencies
in the system.
Task diminishment (Patton, 2013) refers to not executing a task to comply with
specification or not executing it the way it should be done. These diminished tasks are
undiscovered, or if discovered, remain uncorrected. Task diminishment is a value loss
situation where what should have been delivered from production is not delivered.
Waste in Construction
819
With regards to the taxonomy presented in the present paper, task diminishment is
obviously lack of quality. It can however be argued that task diminishment could also
be seen as a separate type of waste in the work flow, namely the waste of not doing
what should have been done.
CONCLUSIONS
The presented taxonomy of waste in production in construction is summarized in
Table 1.
Beneath the concept of waste lie three fundamental features. 1 First, waste is a
practical tool, an intellectual construct designed to make our understanding of the
world practically effective. It is not primarily about understanding of the world but
about acting in it. Second, waste is comparative in the sense that it requires a vision of
how the world could or ought to work, against which it can be compared. Third,
waste functions by eliminating resistance to achieving the vision. It is hard to disagree
that waste is wasteful and should be avoided.
Table 1: Taxonomy of the wastes of production in construction
Transformation
Flow
Production
resource
Materials, machinery,
energy and labour
Time
Type of waste
Material loss
1. Material waste
2. Non-optimal use of
material
3. Non-optimal use of
machinery, energy or
labour
Time loss
In the work flow
1. Unnecessary
movement (of people)
2. Unnecessary work
3. Inefficient work
4. Waiting
Wastes
Value
Value loss
Main product
1. Lack of quality
2. Lack of intended use
By-product
3. Harmful emissions
4. Injuries and work
related sickness
This section is based on (Alexander 2009, pp. 1026 1027). Although Alexander is reasoning about
the term efficiency and not about waste, we find her reasoning equally valid for waste.
820
qualities that can make it persuasive and motivating for action? This remains to be
seen. A next step should therefore be to test the list in empirical studies.
The present paper has examined waste in production through the use of the TFV
theory. In (Koskela, Blviken and Rooke 2013) we argue that in construction, design
is intrinsically present in production (p. 9) and that we can expect tight connections
between waste in design and waste in production. Koskela (2000) sees the TFV
theory as equally valid for design and production. Another next step in our attempt to
understand waste in construction should therefore be to examine whether the TFV
theory can also be a fruitful framework for the understanding of waste in design and
the relationship between waste in design and waste in production.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The inspiring discussions in the Understanding Waste in Construction working group
(http://prosjekt.uia.no/uwc/) meetings are gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Alexander, J. K. (2009). The Concept of Efficiency: An Historical Analysis. In:
Meijers. A. (ed.), Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences. Volume 9
of the Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. Elsevier BV, USA, UK and the
Netherlands. (pp. 1007 1030)
Blviken, T. (2012). On the categorization of production: The organization product
matrix. In Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the International Group
for Lean Construction, San Diego, USA. (pp. 11 20)
Drevland, F., and Svalestuen, F. (2013). Towards a framework for understanding and
describing the product value delivered from construction projects. In Proceedings
of the 21th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
Fortaleza, Brazil. (pp. 103 114)
ISO 9000:2005. Quality management systems. Fundamentals and vocabulary.
European Committee for Standardisation, Bruxelles, Belgium.
Koskela, L. (1999). Management of Production in Construction: A Theoretical View.
In Proceedings of the 7th annual conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Koskela, L. (2000). An exploration towards a production theory and its application to
construction. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.
Koskela, L. (2004a). Making do - the eighth category of waste. In Proceedings of the
12th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
Helsingr, Denmark. (pp. 3 12)
Koskela, L. (2004b). Moving on beyond lean thinking. In The Lean Construction
Journal, Volume 1, October 2004
Koskela, L., Blviken, T. & Rooke, J (2013). Which are the Wastes of Construction?
In Proceedings of the International Group of Lean Construction 21th Annual
Conference, Fortaleza, Brazil. (pp. 3-12)
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota Production System; Beyond large scale production,
Productivity Press, Portland, Oregon.
Patton, J. R. (2013). Task Diminishment: Construction Value Loss due to Suboptimal Task Execution. A Dissertation Presented to The College of Graduate and
Waste in Construction
821
822