Using the Last Planner System to tackle the social aspects of BIM-enabled MEP coordination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research was to expand the current understanding of social aspects related to the successful adoption of Building Information Modeling (BIM) to support mechanical–electrical–plumbing (MEP) coordination and identify contributions of the Last Planner System (LPS) to tackle these aspects. The paper presents an action-research project carried out by a mechanical contractor. This study revealed that successful BIM-enabled MEP coordination depends not only on efforts to coordinate the model itself, but also on how effectively it is used during the installation phase. Social elements that influenced the effectiveness of BIM-enabled MEP coordination were classified in three categories: clarity of roles and responsibilities, individual vs. collective project leadership, and the existence of agreed-upon processes to follow. In such context, the LPS contributed to strengthening teamwork, providing a structure for increased communication and accountability, and helping the project team to focus on problem-solving. Consequently, the model was used more effectively, reducing rework and improving field productivity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".