Last Planner System Framework to Assess Planning Reliability in Architectural Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Last Planner System (LPS) aims to enhance planning reliability by reducing variability in construction processes. While LPS applications have been explored in construction and detailed design, its application in architectural design remains underrepresented due to its abstract nature. This study addresses this gap by proposing an LPS framework tailored for architectural design, utilizing LPS metrics to assess planning reliability. Key issues hindering formal planning methods’ implementation are identified, and relevant LPS principles are aligned with these challenges, culminating in a conceptual LPS model designed for architectural projects. Building upon the conceptual model, an implementation model was developed and put into practice within an architectural design company in the United States, resulting in measured improvements in planning reliability and responsiveness. Additionally, it unveils hidden challenges associated with emerging tasks, guiding future design process enhancements. This study demonstrates how tracking design planning performance with LPS metrics can promote LPS adoption in architectural design, offering a benchmark for necessary interventions to achieve desired performance in architectural design.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".