Enhancing Construction Efficiency through Last Planner System: A Study of Cultural Integration and Team Feedback Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The management of construction site production and the operation of industrialized construction often align with modern production methodologies, promising faster overall delivery.While this holds some truth, it has also ushered in a shift from traditional construction teams to specialized teams, escalating the coordination costs associated with intricate assembly, installation, and construction workflows.This paper aims to present an overview of collaborative coordination, planning, and review tools as a solution to cultural challenges.We evaluate the potential impact of the Last Planner on organizational culture, with a focus on team feedback.The objective is to facilitate shorter delivery times and improved project performance.This becomes particularly significant in the context of adopting new digital technologies for coordination and communication, aligning closely with customer value, meeting reduction targets, addressing sustainability, and enhancing overall performance in the construction sector.The Last Planner System (LPS) emerges as a valuable tool to enhance the interface between management and construction teams, promoting improved performance.By leveraging the Last Planner System, workflow reliability can be heightened, leading to reduced project duration and costs.Effective collaborative planning, high-quality team feedback, and a culture of continuous improvement hinge significantly on the development of trust and a commitment to engaging in constructive team feedback.Establishing such relationships requires proactive involvement from both managers and team members to reinforce the desired learning culture.This paper explores how these elements collectively contribute to optimizing construction processes and fostering a culture of continuous improvement.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".