sustainability

Article
Key Indicators for Linguistic Action Perspective in
the Last Planner® System
Luis A. Salazar 1,2, * , Paz Arroyo 3 and Luis F. Alarcón 1
1 School of Engineering, Department of Construction Engineering and Management, Pontificia Universidad,
Católica de Chile, Avda, Vicuña Mackenna, Macul, Santiago 4860, Chile; [email protected]
2 Faculty of Engineering, Construction Engineering, Universidad Andres Bello, Sazié, Santiago 2119, Chile
3 DPR Construction, San Francisco, CA 94111, USA; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 23 August 2020; Accepted: 19 October 2020; Published: 21 October 2020


Abstract: Since 2001, a link has been established between the Last Planner® System (LPS) and
Linguistic Action Perspective (LAP). However, to date, it has not been studied in sufficient
depth. This research developed a system of indicators to measure and control the management
of commitments, through the Design Science Research (DSR) methodology, and thus contribute to
the development of the social dimension of sustainability that is often neglected in construction
management research. The main contributions of this paper are a proposal of five main activities to
apply the DSR method, a checklist to analyze the engagement of meeting participants, a notebook
for last planners, delve into the variations that can occur to the basic movements of LAP, and the
creation of a system of indicators hence updating the Percent Plan Complete (PPC) with a reliability
indicator. The main limitation of this research is that the system was only validated in two South
American countries that implemented LPS. In future studies, we propose to apply case studies in
weekly planning meetings in other industries worldwide and to determine the recommended values
to improve communication and achieve the proper implementation of LAP with LPS and without LPS.

Keywords: linguistic action indicators; last planner system; linguistic action perspective

1. Introduction

1.1. Context
Traditional construction systems, mostly spread worldwide, are based on the concept of
transforming raw materials (input) into a product result (output), through an established production
process, not distinguishing between activities that add value and those that do not add value to the final
product [1], which has generated a worldwide issue in construction productivity, since it adds costs to
construction projects without really adding value [2]. As a result, in the last 50 years, productivity in
the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry has dropped by almost 20%, while the
productivity in non-farm business enterprises has grown by over 150% [3]. Therefore, according to
González et al. [4], to improve project performance, it is necessary to increase the reliability of the
planning of commitments at the operational level, through a production control and planning system.

1.2. Need and Relevance of Research

In response to the low productivity, starting in the 1950s, a production system called
“Lean Production” was developed and led by engineers Taiichi Ohno and Eiji Toyoda, in the
implementation of concepts, methods, and tools applied in the Toyota car manufacturing company
in Japan [5], this production system later became part of the construction industry with the name of

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728; doi:10.3390/su12208728 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 2 of 29

“Lean Construction” [6]. This system’s main objective is to increase production efficiency by reducing
losses or waste and satisfying customer requirements through the delivery of a product or service with
higher value [5].
Regarding sustainability (“meet present needs without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs” [7]) the United Nations (UN) has defined 12 areas to be developed
around sustainability. Of these, number 12 specifies “Ensure sustainable consumption and production
patterns” [8], thus determining the need to ensure sustainability in industries such as construction.
The high impact that building construction has on the environment has been demonstrated [9].
Therefore, improving the productivity of the construction industry is a fundamental need for a more
sustainable society. Various authors have indicated a useful link between Lean Construction and
Sustainability [10–12], as it is necessary to ensure survival in a constantly evolving business environment,
through a sustainable environment driven by Lean, with significant untapped potential [11].
Furthermore, organizations have recognized the need for an approach that contributes not only
to the production of buildings but primarily to the delivery process and improvement in product
quality as a whole [11]. Thus, Lean Thinking and sustainability serve as complements given that Lean
helps to increase efficient production of construction projects [11].
However, considering the interconnection of the three sustainability components: environmental,
economic and social [9], the latter component should not be neglected. According to the Salem
and al. [13] discoveries, it is necessary to generate changes in behavior through the use of Lean
tools and concepts, mainly because construction structure is different from manufacturing’ due to
its greater complexity and uncertainty [14]. Under those circumstances, the Last Planner® System
(LPS), developed by Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell in the 1990s [15], has led the introduction of Lean
Construction concepts and principles [16]. The LPS is a system of planning and control of commitments,
which is based on the principles of the Lean production philosophy and which directs its efforts to
increase the reliability of planning and levels of performance [17,18]. Moreover, with the appropriate
use of this system a reduction of the uncertainty and variability of the projects is achieved and hereby
the coordination of the work participants is improved. This coordination is regarded as an internal
social aspect of the project.
It is important to note that, according to studies carried out by Goldratt and Cox [19], the reliability
of production is affected by the effectiveness of the control of dependencies and fluctuations between
the different activities of the project; for example, a measure of reliability is variability [20], which is
understood as the possible changes that can be generated in the execution time or the duration of
the processes [21]. On the other hand, the uncertainty is due to the existence of variables that are
not considered, such as availability of labor, administrative problems and availability of suppliers,
among others. [22]. Consequently, it is necessary to achieve an adequate management of commitments
to reduce the uncertainty and variability of the projects by strengthening the commitment management
system in the weekly planning meetings, through coordinated action by a complex network of requests
and promises, as this could be the only viable method of coordination under dynamic conditions [18].
Howell et al. [23] propose Linguistic Action Perspective (LAP) as a suitable framework for
understanding the operation and effectiveness of LPS [24]. This perspective developed by Flores [25]
is basically an application of the Speech Act Theory of Austin [26] and Searle [27] to organizational
management. Flores [25] says that conversations do not simply precede action but constitute actions in
themselves through the commitments that arise. In this way, language can be seen as the main means
to create a common future for the coordination of human action, cooperation [25]. As we mentioned
earlier, this idea builds on Austin’s work [26] and the notion of illocutionary acts (the actions we carry
out when we say certain words). For example, by saying, “I promise to do it,” I am changing my
environment, due to the actions that I take and those that other people take waiting for me to do
what I promised to do [24]. It is important to note that this idea was later developed by Searle [27],
who proposed a taxonomy of speech acts.
SustainabilitySustainability
2020, 12, 87282020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 30 3 of 29

actions we carry out when we say certain words). For example, by saying, “I promise to do it,” I am
Floreschanging my environment,
[25] proposes due to the and
a fundamental actions that I takestructure
universal and those that
forother people take waiting
the coordination for
of actions in his
me to do what I promised to do [24]. It is important to note that this idea was later developed by
book “Conversations for action,” based on the completion of four essential speech acts: (1) request
Searle [27], who proposed a taxonomy of speech acts.
or offer, (2) promise
Flores [25]orproposes
acceptance, (3) declaration
a fundamental and universalof structure
compliancefor theand (4) declaration
coordination of actions inofhis
satisfaction.
These speechbookacts, accordingfortoaction,”
“Conversations Searle’s taxonomy
based [28], correspond
on the completion respectively
of four essential speech acts:to(1)directives
request or (request),
commissives offer, (2) promise
(offer, promise,or acceptance, (3) declaration
and acceptance) of compliance
and declaratives and (4) declaration
(statement of satisfaction.
of compliance and declaration
These speech acts, according to Searle’s taxonomy [28], correspond respectively to directives
of satisfaction), these acts modify the possibilities of action in the future, or in other words, they change
(request), commissives (offer, promise, and acceptance) and declaratives (statement of compliance
the state ofand
affairs through
declaration words [28].
of satisfaction), these acts modify the possibilities of action in the future, or in other
According to Flores [25],
words, they change the statefour stages
of affairs canwords
through be defined
[28]. that generate a network or chain of
According to Flores [25], four stages
commitments: (1) preparation of a request, (2) negotiation can be defined that generate a network or(3)
and agreements, chain of
execution and
commitments: (1) preparation of a request, (2) negotiation and agreements, (3) execution and
declaration ofdeclaration
compliance and (4) acceptance and declaration of satisfaction (for
of compliance and (4) acceptance and declaration of satisfaction (for more details see
more details see
Figure 1, based on Flores
Figure 1, based[24,25]).
on Flores [24,25]).

Figure 1. Network
Figure 1. Networkor
or Chain
Chain ofof Commitments.
Commitments.

In 2001 Ballard
In 2001 Ballard and and Howell
Howell [15] established
[15] established thethefirst first
link between Last Planner
link between LastSystem
®
Planner and® System
Linguistic Action Perspective. However, despite this, a system of quantitative instruments or
and Linguistic Action Perspective. However, despite this, a system of quantitative instruments
methodologies has not been developed to carry out a specific management of the quality of
or methodologies
commitments. hasFurthermore,
not been developed
recent studiestoshow
carryhowout the aapplication
specific of
management of the
Lean Construction hasquality of
commitments.
focusedFurthermore, recent studies
on social responsibility (external)show how the application
and engagement of Lean Construction
of the work environment has focused
(internal), filling
gaps that sustainable
on social responsibility practices
(external) andalone cannot fill [11],
engagement of also demonstrating
the work that the (internal),
environment application offilling
Lean gaps that
tools has a direct positive impact on the sustainability of projects [12].
sustainable practices alone cannot fill [11], also demonstrating that the application of Lean tools has a
direct positive impact
1.3. State on and
of the Art thePractice
sustainability of projects [12].
Regarding state of the art, the authors carried out a thematic search in Web of Science, with the
1.3. State ofkeywords
the Art and Practice
“Language Action” or “Linguistic Action,” obtaining, as a result, 217 documents. We
consider it essential to clarify that in the literature, “Language Action” and “Linguistic Action” are
Regarding state of the art, the authors carried out a thematic search in Web of Science, with the
used interchangeably. However, we respect both terms; we consider “Linguistic Action” more
keywords appropriate
“LanguagebecauseAction” or “Linguistic
“Linguistic,” among Action,” obtaining,
many definitions, is theas a result,
scientific 217ofdocuments.
study language [29].We consider
it essential toThe
clarify that in the literature, “Language Action” and “Linguistic
authors carried out a preliminary analysis of co-occurrences, or joint appearances, Action” to are used
identify the conceptual and thematic structure of the scientific domain, through
interchangeably. However, we respect both terms; we consider “Linguistic Action” more appropriate an analysis of the
term co-occurrence based on text data, regarding the title and abstract fields of the 217 documents,
because “Linguistic,” among many definitions, is the scientific study of language [29].
creating Figure 2 through VOSviewer software. By means of this simple analysis, the co-occurrence
The authors
of the keycarried out a preliminary
terms reported by the existinganalysis ofcan
literature co-occurrences, or jointinappearances,
be visually understood order to obtainto identify
the conceptual anddocuments,
highly cited thematic tostructure
identify theof theactive
most scientific domain,
lines of research through
in this domainan analysis of the term
of knowledge.
co-occurrenceInbased
Figure 2,
oneach rounded
text data,rectangle
regardingrepresents
the atitle
term,and
whileabstract
the size of fields
each figure indicates
of the 217thedocuments,
number of publications in which that term appears in the title or abstract of the document. VOSviewer
creating Figure 2 through VOSviewer software. By means of this simple analysis, the co-occurrence of
locates the terms that have greater coexistence close to each other in the visualization and defines the
the key terms reported by the existing literature can be visually understood in order to obtain highly
cited documents, to identify the most active lines of research in this domain of knowledge.
In Figure 2, each rounded rectangle represents a term, while the size of each figure indicates
the number of publications in which that term appears in the title or abstract of the document.
VOSviewer locates the terms that have greater coexistence close to each other in the visualization and
defines the color according to the year of publication (see Figure 2 symbology, in the lower right corner).
Determining with this, that the most published terms (language, study and system) are related to the
area of linguistics, there is a gap in terms of construction, project, or indicators (our area of interest).
After this initial approach, the authors filtered the search, to find literature regarding construction
projects and found only three publications [30–32]. The first paper, “The Role of Commitments in
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 4 of 29

the Management of Construction Make-to-Order Supply Chains” [30], regards the commitment loop,
network of commitments, and the number of citations for the class of problem (rebar supply chain
and elevator supply chain). The second paper is based on “Understanding the theory behind the Last
Planner System using the Language-Action Perspective: two case studies” [31] where they develop
two case studies demonstrating the explicit representations in the commitment flows, through a
proposal of symbols used for mapping the network of commitments (mapping of materials and
equipment) and also an evaluation of the percentage of each type of activity performed during planning
meetings. Finally, the third paper called “Variability propagation in the production
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
planning and
4 of 30
control mechanism of construction projects” [32] analyzes the variability propagation and planning
color according to the year of publication (see Figure 2 symbology, in the lower right corner).
and control function, structure and behavior of a complex adaptive system and the baseline mechanism
Determining with this, that the most published terms (language, study and system) are related to the
and conversations over thethere
area of linguistics, LPSisstructure.
a gap in terms of construction, project, or indicators (our area of interest).

Figure 2. Term co-occurrence map created with VOSviewer.

Figure 2. Term co-occurrence map created with VOSviewer.
Moreover, the After this initial
authors approach,
review papers the from
authors
thefiltered the search,Group
International to findforliterature regarding
Lean Construction (IGLC)
construction projects and found only three publications [30–32]. The first paper, “The Role of
conference, where LAP has been proposed as a suitable framework to understand the effectiveness of
Commitments in the Management of Construction Make-to-Order Supply Chains” [30], regards the
LPS [23,33], but to date,loop,
commitment thenetwork
implications have not
of commitments, andbeen fully of
the number understood.
citations for theAclass
firstofeffort
problemto understand
the usefulness(rebar supply
of LAP inchain
LPS and elevator
is the worksupply chain).Formoso
of Viana, The secondand paper is based
Isatto on “Understanding
[34], where based the on a case study,
theory behind the Last Planner System using the Language-Action Perspective: two case studies” [31]
they proposewhere
a descriptive model of the engagement networks in LPS, as well as a detailed analysis
they develop two case studies demonstrating the explicit representations in the commitment
of the planning meetings.
flows, Otherwise,
through a proposal Vrijhoef,
of symbols used forKoskela
mapping and Howell
the network [35] studied
of commitments construction
(mapping of supply
materials and equipment) and also an evaluation of the percentage of
chains from a LAP theoretical point of view, analyzing organizations as networks of commitments,each type of activity performed
during planning meetings. Finally, the third paper called “Variability propagation in the production
determiningplanning
that this perspective provides a plausible explanation for many of the root causes of
and control mechanism of construction projects” [32] analyzes the variability propagation
problems in construction
and planning and supply
control chains. Likewise,
function, structure andBallard
behavior and Howelladaptive
of a complex [15] argue
systemthatand LAP
the represents
baseline mechanism and conversations over the LPS structure.
an essential contribution to project management theory [33]. Macomber and Howell [33] pose five key
Moreover, the authors review papers from the International Group for Lean Construction
aspects LAP:(IGLC)
coordination, evaluation, speech (narration), trust, and moods, stating that these aspects
conference, where LAP has been proposed as a suitable framework to understand the
influence how people work together
effectiveness of LPS [23,33], and
but to date,how this affects
the implications have the
notresults
been fullyof the projects.
understood. A first effort
to understand the usefulness of LAP in LPS is the
Nevertheless, the analysis offered by the publications mentioned above work of Viana, Formoso and Isattoand[34],all
where
those that have
based on a case study, they propose a descriptive model of the engagement networks in LPS, as well
been carriedasout to date in the IGLC does not explain the relationship between
a detailed analysis of the planning meetings. Otherwise, Vrijhoef, Koskela and Howell [35] studied
the way in which
commitments are established,
construction and from
supply chains the fulfillment
a LAP theoreticalof those
point commitments,
of view, analyzingexcept for the
organizations as preliminary
networks of carried
proposal of indicators commitments,
out determining
by these authorsthat this perspective
in the years provides
2018aand plausible
2019explanation
[24,36]. for
many of the root causes of problems in construction supply chains. Likewise, Ballard and Howell [15]
At last, argue
the authors reviewed the database of this journal, mainly finding aspects of Social
that LAP represents an essential contribution to project management theory [33]. Macomber
Networks, where the importance
and Howell of understanding
[33] pose five key the relation
aspects LAP: coordination, between
evaluation, project dynamic
speech (narration), trust, and interactions
moods,
of the different stating
project that these aspects
stakeholders andinfluence how people work
its performance hastogether and how this affects
been mentioned [37].the results
Still, it has not been
of the projects.
addressed through LAP.
Nevertheless, the analysis offered by the publications mentioned above and all those that have
been carried out to date in the IGLC does not explain the relationship between the way in which
1.4. Research Purpose and Why It Is New Knowledge
Based on the principles that view management as a process of opening, listening, obtaining,
articulation and activation of the network of commitments produced mainly through promises and
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 5 of 29

requests (allowing the autonomy of the productive unit), [38] and given that there are currently
only three publications on the Web of Science about LAP in construction, and finally because these
demonstrate the importance of this perspective in managing commitments [30–32], a vital element
of the Last Planner® System is that the authors have worked on the development of a system of
indicators to measure and control commitments, requirements, promises, and reliability, generating
an extension and updated and corrected version of their preliminary work published in the IGLC
conferences [24,36], through the Design Science Research (DSR) methodology.
Thus, the purpose of this document is to respond to the need of measuring the main elements of
LAP, to control and improve the management of commitments in the weekly LPS meetings, and thus
contribute to the development of an LPS 2.0 that centers its focus on the social (internal) dimension in
the context of Lean Construction [39], since this dimension of sustainability [40] has been neglected in
construction management approaches [41].

2. Research Method

2.1. Design Science Research

The authors used the Design Science Research (DSR) because this method manages to solve
practical problems and produce artifacts as results [42]. These artifacts can be models, methods,
indicators or any designed object in which a research contribution is incorporated into the design [43],
thus solving problems found in the real world, and in this way also, contribute theoretically to the
discipline in which it is applied [44].
According to Alan Hevner’s proposal [45], DSR bridges the gaps among the contextual environment
of the research project (people, organizational systems, technical systems, problems and opportunities),
design science research (artifacts and processes), and the knowledge base of scientific foundations
(scientific theories, methods, experience and expertise), iterating between the activities of construction
and evaluation of research design artifacts and processes [45].
Figure 3 shows the research approach based on the updated DSR model proposed by Robert
Briggs and Gerhard Schwabe [46] because the purpose of this work is to perform an Applied
Science/Engineering (AS/E) to produce an artifact, faced with a phenomenon that varies according to
time, contexts and application conditions [46]. This figure shows the main elements of the investigation,
highlighting a relevancy cycle between discovery and design activities, and a design cycle between
design and validation activities so that any DSR activity can be extracted or added to the knowledge
base [46]. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 30

3. Design
FigureFigure Science
3. Design Research,
Science Research, Cycles
Cycles Model.Model.

This research consists of 5 main activities that have been adapted from the proposals of Lukka
[44] and Peffers et al. [43], regarding the DSR method:
1. Discovery of problems and opportunities, through exhaustive analysis of the context.
2. Deep understanding of the subject, state of the art and practice.
3. Design and construction of artifact (indicators system), through constant iteration.
4. Evaluation of the solution to find a satisfactory solution (which fulfills its function).
5. Validation of artifact, through practical application and analysis of results.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 6 of 29

This research consists of 5 main activities that have been adapted from the proposals of Lukka [44]
and Peffers et al. [43], regarding the DSR method:

1. Discovery of problems and opportunities, through exhaustive analysis of the context.

2. Deep understanding of the subject, state of the art and practice.
3. Design and construction of artifact (indicators system), through constant iteration.
4. Evaluation of the solution to find a satisfactory solution (which fulfills its function).
5. Validation of artifact, through practical application and analysis of results.

Figure 4 shows how the artifact was developed through 3 cycles of continuous improvement
based on Design Science Research (DSR). The first version of the artifact was developed from the
identification of LAP elements, later it was evaluated by a panel of international experts, and it was
applied in the Villego® Simulation (a game that allows teaching LPS by the construction of a house
with Lego). Then, the second version of the artifact was developed from the elements of LAP applied in
LPS, later it was evaluated through measurement in four construction projects in Chile and validated by
means of comparison and analysis of results concerning artifact 1.0. The final version of the artifact was
developed from the analysis of the LPS implementation in different countries. Later it was evaluated
through measurement in two construction projects in Chile and two construction projects in Colombia,
to be finally validated from the comparison and analysis of results (functionality) with
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 30
respect to
artifact 2.0.

4. Research
Figure Figure Method
4. Research Methodbased onDesign
based on Design Science
Science Research
Research (DSR). (DSR).

2.2. Identification of the Problem

2.2. Identification of the Problem

AlthoughAlthough
the implementation
the implementation of the Last
of the Planner® ®
LastPlanner System
System indeed
indeed increases
increases the reliability
the reliability of of
planning and performance levels through the management of commitments,
planning and performance levels through the management of commitments, the conversations during the conversations
during which commitments are made at weekly planning meetings have not been discussed and
which commitments are made at weekly planning meetings have not been discussed and analyzed
analyzed in sufficient depth [24]. Being a fundamental problem the lack of indicators to control this
in sufficient depth
aspect, there[24]. Being
is only a fundamental
the Percent Plan Complete problem the lackwhich
(PPC) indicator, of indicators to control
is the number of planned this aspect,
activities
there is only completed,
the Percent divided
Plan by the total
Complete number
(PPC) of plannedwhich
indicator, activities
isand
theexpressed
numberasof a percentage
planned activities
completed,[47]; Hence, the authors set the goal of developing a measurement system that allows quantifying the
divided by the total number of planned activities and expressed as a percentage [47]; Hence,
fundamental elements of LAP present in LPS, since by measuring the management of commitments,
the authors set the goal of developing a measurement system that allows quantifying the fundamental
we can enrich LPS and advance in an improved and updated version of it.
elements of LAP present in LPS, since by measuring the management of commitments, we can enrich
2.3. Creation
LPS and advance in ofanIndicators:
improved Version
and1.0updated version of it.
For the creation of the first version of indicators, the researchers carried out five key steps, after
2.3. Creation of Indicators:
having Version
discovered the 1.0and research opportunity, as detailed by Salazar et al. [24]:
problem
1. creation
For the To study the Linguistic
of the first Action
versionPerspective, to generate
of indicators, the aresearchers
knowledge base, based out
carried mainly
fiveon key steps,
Flores [25].
after having discovered the problem and research opportunity, as detailed by Salazar et al. [24]:
2. To identify the elements of this perspective that were potentially quantifiable, creating a list of
concepts and data to be measured. Mainly aspects of the commitments, requests, promises and
foundations of trust.
3. To develop indicators that could measure and control the previously identified elements, to
generate the Design Science Research. For more details, see Table 1, which borrows the
Indicators System found in Salazar et al. 2018 [24].
4. To discuss with a panel of international experts (Linguistic Action in Last Planner System
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 7 of 29

1. To study the Linguistic Action Perspective, to generate a knowledge base, based mainly
on Flores [25].
2. To identify the elements of this perspective that were potentially quantifiable, creating a list of
concepts and data to be measured. Mainly aspects of the commitments, requests, promises and
foundations of trust.
3. To develop indicators that could measure and control the previously identified elements,
to generate the Design Science Research. For more details, see Table 1, which borrows the
Indicators System found in Salazar et al. 2018 [24].
4. To discuss with a panel of international experts (Linguistic Action in Last Planner System Group)
the feasibility of measuring and controlling these indicators, which allows improving the initial
design. This panel consisted of academics from University of California-Berkeley, PhD students,
a Master with a degree in linguistics, and Senior Lean consultants.
5. To validate proposed indicators, verifying the feasibility of observing these indicators utilizing a
Villego® Simulation applied to a group of students as a pilot test to validate them through the
Environment in a controlled situation.

These indicators are divided into three groups according to the study objective: (1) measurement
and control of commitments: the primary data to be evaluated are network or chain of commitments,
roles and responsibilities of the performers, declaration of the importance of the commitment, and the
availability of the performers; (2) measurement and control of petitions and promises: the relevant
data to be evaluated are specification of the deadline, unnecessary requests, and incomplete promises;
and (3) measurement and control of fundamentals of trust: among the data to be evaluated are
competence of the performer, reliability and engaged participants [24].
It is important to emphasize that these indicators are designed to analyze the management of
commitments in weekly planning meetings, so the frequency of measurement should be every seven
days [24]. Notwithstanding the preceding, it necessary to measure at least two weekly meetings to
complete the network or chain of commitments, since the first two movements will be seen in the
first meeting: (1) preparation of a request and (2) negotiation and agreements; and in the second
meeting, the last two: (3) execution and declaration of compliance, and (4) acceptance and declaration
of satisfaction [24]. If the client does not accept and declare satisfaction, it is understood that the
committee did not comply with the agreed terms and therefore, the network or chain of commitments
must be started again with the preparation of the request until the commitment is closed (when the
client accepts and declares satisfaction).

2.4. Pilot Application-Villego® Simulation

To analyze and validate the proposed indicators system, we decided to verify the feasibility of
observing and measuring these indicators employing the Villego® Simulation, which is a hands-on LPS
experience where participants build a house with Lego bricks. For this purpose, 11 volunteer students
of the sixth semester of Civil Engineering, at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, were asked to
perform the simulation. The authors video-recorded the two rounds of the simulation (first round
simulates a traditional planning process and the second round simulates a process with LPS) to be able
to analyze the proposed indicators system [24].

2.4.1. First Round Villego® Simulation

Next explaining the general rules of the simulation, we asked the students to define the roles and
responsibilities that each one would assume in this round, establishing roles in the following areas:
administration, quality, technical inspection, security, warehouse and several subcontractors who were
identified with different colors; gray, blue, white, yellow, green and red [24].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 8 of 29

Table 1. Indicators for observing elements of Linguistic Action Perspective in Last Planner® System.

Aim Measure Name Description Formula Means of Verification

KPI measures the percentage of
(Number of commitments in which
compliance with the chain of That the 4 movements for
% of compliance network or chain of the 4 movements for coordination are
commitments; that is to say, that the 4 coordination (LAP movements
commitments fulfilled)/(Total number of
movements for the coordination are presented in Figure 1) are fulfilled
commitments) × 100
fulfilled
(Number of commitments with Roles (Who): Client and Performer
KPI measures the percentage of
% of definition of roles and defined roles and Responsibilities (What): Definition of
commitments that define roles and
responsibilities of the performers responsibilities)/(Total number of the promise of which the performer
responsibilities of performers
commitments) × 100 takes charge
Measurement and Control of Commitments

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that

That the performer (not another)
% of fulfillment of roles and commitments in which the roles and fulfilled previously defined roles and
fulfills the promise and declares
responsibilities of performers responsibilities of previously defined responsibilities)/(Total number of
compliance to the client
performers are met commitments) × 100
KPI measures the percentage of Declare the importance (priority) of
(Number of commitments declaring
% of declaration of the importance of commitments that declare the commitment in the first 2 movements
importance)/(Total number of
commitment importance (priority) of this, for coordination (LAP movements
commitments) × 100
explicitly presented in Figure 1)
KPI measures the percentage of
(Number of priority commitments
% of compliance with priority commitments that were declared Review of priority commitment
fulfilled)/(Total number of priority
commitments important (priority) and that are agreed previously
commitments) × 100
effectively met
Verification of the availability of
KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that verify
performers in the negotiation stage
% of verification of availability of commitments that verify the availability of performers in
and agreements. The executor’s
performers in agreements availability of performers in the agreements)/(Total number of
(workers) agenda can be requested
negotiation stage and agreements commitments) × 100
from the foreman
KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that verify
Compliance with the verification of
% of verification of availability of commitments that verify the availability of performers in
the availability of performers in the
performers in execution availability of performers in the execution)/(Total number of
execution stage
execution stage commitments) × 100
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 9 of 29

Table 1. Cont.

Aim Measure Name Description Formula Means of Verification

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that

Measurement and Control of Petitions and Promises
Specific deadline: date and time (AM,
% of specified deadlines commitments that specify the specify the deadline)/(Total number
PM)
deadline of commitments) × 100

When the client declares that the

deadline specified in the request does
KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that make
not correspond to the last responsible
% of unnecessary requests commitments that make unnecessary unnecessary requests)/(Total number
moment and/or requested something
requests of commitments) × 100
that was not necessary (does not add
value)

KPI measures the percentage of

(Number of commitments that make
requests and promises that do not Explicit conditions of satisfaction,
% of incomplete requests and requests and incomplete
comply with explicit conditions of background of obviousness and
promises promises)/(Total number of
satisfaction, background of specific deadline
commitments) × 100
obviousness and/or specific term

KPI measures the percentage of Performer is able to perform in the

(Number of commitments where
Measurement and Control of Fundamentals of Trust

% of compliance of the performer’s commitments where the performer is required domain (recurring
performer is competent)/(Total
competence able to perform in the required performance according to accepted
number of commitments) × 100
domain standards)

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments fulfilled +

% of reliability compliance commitments where the performer is number of commitments revoked + Performer keeps his promises on time
(complementary to PPC) able to perform reliably and timely in number of counteroffers)/(Total (PPC), counteroffer or revokes
the required domain number of commitments) × 100

Participant attends the meeting,

arrives at the time and remains in an
KPI measures the percentage of (Number of participants engaged to attitude that suggests concentration
% of engaged participants meeting participants who are the meeting)/(Total number of (does not interact with the cell phone,
engaged to it attendees) × 100 looks at the speaker, takes notes, etc.).
(Failing to comply with any previous
aspect, justify it before or during)

Table 1. borrows the Indicators System found in Salazar et al. 2018 [24]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 10 of 29

2.4.2. Second Round Villego® Simulation

After giving the new rules of the simulation, we asked students to redefine the roles and
responsibilities of each member, according to the lessons learned from the initial round [24].

2.5. Indicators Validation: Version 1.0

Once the simulation ended, we analyzed the videos to determine the feasibility of observing the
proposed indicators system. With this, not only did we manage to validate our indicators system,
but we also analyzed the main differences between the results obtained in the Villego® Simulation
and the expected results (according to preliminary field studies) in a real planning meeting. Given the
nature of this simulation, we could only able to verify the indicators of commitment: compliance
network or chain of commitments, definition of roles and responsibilities of the performers, fulfillment
of the roles and responsibilities of the performers, specification of the deadline, compliance of the
performer’s competence and engaged participants. On the other hand, indicators of declaration of the
importance of the commitment, compliance with priority commitments, verification of the availability
of performers in agreements, verification of the availability of performers in execution, unnecessary
requests, incomplete promises and promises and reliability compliance, were under verification process
in construction projects in Chile. In the end, the authors consider that this first generation of validated
Key Indicators is a useful tool to measure, control and improve the management of commitments in
planning meetings, as they provide fast and specific feedback on these aspects, which undoubtedly
enriches Last Planner® System. More details are provided in Salazar et al. [24].

2.6. Creation of Indicators: Version 2.0

After the publication of the first version of the Indicators System, the authors decided to evaluate
the feasibility of its application, but this time in real construction projects in the field. The purpose of this
was to observe which elements of LAP are intrinsically applied in LPS and which ones need to be taught
and incorporated in order to improve the management of commitments in weekly planning meetings.
Furthermore, we realized that we had to delve into the explanation of the LAP movements,
explaining that variations can occur in the basic movements shown in Figure 1. Specifically, if we
observe the third movement, “Execution and declaration of compliance,” we can renegotiate (generate a
new commitment), revoke (performer suspends), and cancel (client suspends). These do not decrease
reliability; it is increased [24,25]. Due to the fact that it is preferable that the performer or client
suspends the original commitment and then they generate a new agreement in the field instead of
what is currently happening, which is that they wait for the next weekly planning meeting to report
that the initial agreement was not fulfilled. See Figure 5.
For all the above, we decided to carry out the study in Chile, due to the access to projects through
the Collaborative Group of the Center of Excellence in Production Management (GEPUC), and also
because we found previous studies of LPS in which it has been demonstrated that the incorporation
of more actors in the planning process generates less variability, more reliable promises and higher
productivity [48].
For the creation of the second version of Indicators System, we carried out five key steps,
after having asked ourselves how to measure elements of LAP in real projects, as detailed in
Salazar et al. [36]:

1. Deepen the study of Linguistic Action Perspective and Last Planner® System to generate a
Knowledge Base mainly on Flores [25] and Ballard [47].
2. Identify the main elements of this Perspective that could be quantifiable and applied in LPS,
taking the Indicators 1.0 as reference.
3. Develop Indicators System 2.0 from the improvement of version 1.0 through the Design
Science Research.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 11 of 29

4. Measure the proposed indicators in four construction projects in Chile to evaluate them through
the Environment in a typical construction situation. Researchers recorder analyzed videotapes of
weekly meetings
Sustainability andPEER
2020, 12, x FOR interviewed
REVIEW participants when necessary to assess each commitment
12 of 30 for

each proposed indicator.

instead of what is currently happening, which is that they wait for the next weekly planning meeting
5. Validate the proposed Indicators System, comparing with version 1.0, and analyzing the results.
to report that the initial agreement was not fulfilled. See Figure 5.

Figure 5. Network
Figure ororChain
5. Network Chainof
of Commitments withadvanced
Commitments with advanced movements.
movements.

In this second version of the Indicators System, the authors found deficiencies in functionality
For all the above, we decided to carry out the study in Chile, due to the access to projects through
and in
theits inherent qualities
Collaborative Group of(ease of use)ofthat
the Center limited
Excellence inits usefulness
Production in practice
Management [45], given
(GEPUC), and that
also they
proposed
because we found previous studies of LPS in which it has been demonstrated that the incorporation the
a new set of indicators measured in the field according to the LAP to measure and control
fundamental aspects
of more actors in of
thethe commitments,
planning requests,less
process generates promises and foundations
variability, more reliable of trust [36],
promises andby replacing
higher
someproductivity
of the indicators
[48]. and adding new ones based on the analysis of four case studies in construction
projects inFor the creation
Santiago, of the
Chile. Wesecond
quote version of Indicators
the results indicatedSystem, we carried
in Salazar out five key steps, after
et al [36]:
having asked ourselves how to measure elements of LAP in real projects, as detailed in Salazar et al.
1. Proposal to eliminate indicators:
[36]:
1. Deepen the study of Linguistic Action Perspective and Last Planner® System to generate a
• The authors proposed not to measure the percentage of verification of the availability of
Knowledge Base mainly on Flores [25] and Ballard [47].
performers in execution because most of the foremen verify the availability of their workers
2. Identify the main elements of this Perspective that could be quantifiable and applied in LPS,
after the weekly meeting and in the field huddle, and these indicators are designed to be
taking the Indicators 1.0 as reference.
3. measured
Develop exclusively
Indicators System in2.0
weekly planning
from the meetings.
improvement of version 1.0 through the Design Science
• We proposed to eliminate the percentage of incomplete requests and promises because it is
Research.
4. confusing
Measure theto measure
proposed it in theinfield.
indicators four construction projects in Chile to evaluate them through
• the Environment in a typical construction
Finally, we proposed to eliminate the percentagesituation. of
Researchers
compliancerecorder analyzed videotapes
of the performer’s competence
of weekly meetings and interviewed participants when necessary to assess each
because it is associated with the worker’s curriculum vitae, and it is not possible commitment for
to measure in
each proposed indicator.
the weekly meeting. It can only be associated with the correct fulfillment of each commitment
5. Validate the proposed Indicators System, comparing with version 1.0, and analyzing the results.
or PPC (Percent Plan Complete).
In this second version of the Indicators System, the authors found deficiencies in functionality
2. Proposal
and to change
in its inherent the indicators:
qualities (ease of use) that limited its usefulness in practice [45], given that they
proposed a new set of indicators measured in the field according to the LAP to measure and control
• The authors proposed modifying the percentage of declaration of the importance of each
the fundamental aspects of the commitments, requests, promises and foundations of trust [36], by
commitment
replacing because
some of the they
indicators consider
and it more
adding new onesappropriate
based on the to use the
analysis of word “priority,”
four case studies inso the
construction projects in Santiago, Chile. We quote the results indicated in Salazar et al [36]: commitment.
indicator should be renamed as percentage of declaration of the priority of
This change is proposed because it is necessary to deepen the conditions of satisfaction of
1. Proposal to eliminate indicators:
the most relevant commitments. For more details, see Table 2, which borrows the Indicators
• The authors
System foundproposed not et
in Salazar toal.
measure the percentage of verification of the availability of
2019 [36].
performers in execution because most of the foremen verify the availability of their workers after
• Further, we proposed modification of the percentage of reliability compliance because
the weekly meeting and in the field huddle, and these indicators are designed to be measured
we found a point of confusion in the formula of the indicator regarding the concept of
exclusively in weekly planning meetings.
• counteroffers
We proposed tosince counteroffers
eliminate occurofinincomplete
the percentage the same meeting, whereas
requests and the concept
promises after
because it is the
meeting is
confusing to “renegotiation.” Additionally, we add “cancel” a commitment. See Table 2.
measure it in the field.
3. •Measurement
Finally, we of
proposed
originaltoindicators:
eliminate the percentage of compliance of the performer’s competence
because it is associated with the worker’s curriculum vitae, and it is not possible to measure in
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 12 of 29

• Table 2 shows the average results of the indicators in the four projects measured during three
weeks, which incorporate the changes that we mentioned in version 1.0.
4. Newly proposed indicators:

• Finally, we proposed seven new indicators, which complement version 1.0. See Table 3,
which borrows the Indicators System found in Salazar et al. [36].

This new Indicators System seeks to analyze the management of commitments in weekly planning
meetings, so the measurement frequency is always every seven days. However, it is necessary to hold
at least two weekly meetings to analyze the results, as mentioned in the version 1.0.

2.7. Application in Construction Projects

The strategy for selecting the case studies was based on “information-oriented selection”
to establish “extreme cases/deviations” Flyvbjerg [49]. The units of the analysis were three multi-story
building projects and an extension housing project with the LPS implemented with different degrees of
maturity, in the Metropolitan Region of Santiago, Chile. The number of four projects were determined
according to the recommendation of Hernández et al. [50], who recommend a maximum of eight cases
when a multiple in-depth study is carried out [51], since the survey does not represent a “sample,” as if
an experiment does since it is a validation method.
Regarding the work methodology, the researchers used the “information-oriented selection”
selecting four projects, one for each company, according to the preferences of the managers, recording
availability and the degree of implementation maturity of the Last Planner® System due to the
feasibility of research with construction companies and projects that belong to the Collaborative Group
of GEPUC. As a result, projects with a primary degree of maturity (short-term planning system)
up to projects with an advanced level were obtained (systematic use of an Workable Backlog) [52].
Through video recording of three consecutive weekly planning meetings, the researchers carried out
the LAP in LPS practices survey, analyzing the indicators of the second and third meeting, since the
objective was not to modify the “behavior” of the participants in the studio (we observed “strange”
behavior by the team in the first meeting, probably because they knew they were being videotaped).

2.8. Indicators Validation: Version 2.0

To validate this new Indicators System, the authors measured the application of LAP in four
construction projects, comparing and analyzing the results of version 1.0. We proposed improvements
to the Indicators System: Version 1.0, eliminating indicators (percentage of verification of the availability
of performers in execution, percentage of incomplete requests and promises, and % of compliance
of the performer’s competence) changing indicators (percentage of declaration of the importance
of commitment and percentage of reliability compliance) and proposing new indicators for the
measurement and control of the management of commitments in construction projects. Additionally,
the researchers consulted contractors who participated in the weekly planning meetings about
their perceptions. They stated that these measurements improved the ability to provide reliable
promises since they understood the importance of speech acts, satisfaction conditions and trust in
the management of commitments [36]. In this second version, we created new metrics to make the
percentage compliance network or chain of commitments (four movements for coordination) and
percentage reliability compliance (complementary to PPC) clearer, defining the latter as:

Reliability = PPC + Revoke + Renegotiate + Cancel, (1)

Besides, we added Figure 5 and the results of the indicators: % of revoked commitments,
percentage of renegotiated commitments, and percentage of canceled commitments.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 13 of 29

Table 2. Results of indicators from the Linguistic Action Perspective in Last Planner®System.

Aim Measure Name Description Formula Results General Comments

• The preparation of the petition

is observed
KPI measures the percentage of • There is no negotiation process, but
(Number of commitments in which
compliance with the chain of rather an imposition by the client
% of compliance network the 4 movements for coordination
commitments; that is to say, that 0% • The declaration of compliance
or chain of commitments are fulfilled)/(Total number of
the 4 movements for the is verified
commitments) × 100
coordination are fulfilled
• The declaration of satisfaction is
not observed

• In general, roles are defined

(Number of commitments with intrinsically: client requests and
% of definition of roles KPI measures the percentage of performers agree. Regarding
defined roles and
and responsibilities of the commitments that define roles and 83% responsibilities, the scope of the
responsibilities)/(Total number of
performers responsibilities of performers commitment is not always
commitments) × 100
clearly established
Measurement and Control of Commitments

• In general, in the construction works

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that the performer does not commit, the one
% of fulfillment of roles who commits is the head of the
commitments in which the roles fulfilled previously defined roles
and responsibilities of 15% performer (foreman)
and responsibilities of previously and responsibilities)/(Total number
performers • Performer is engaged in administrative
defined performers are met of completed commitments) × 100
aspects (management team)

• In general, the priority of the

KPI measures the percentage of commitments is not declared. This does
(Number of commitments not allow the foremen to carry out an
% of declaration of the commitments that declare the
declaring priority)/(Total number of 10% adequate planning regarding the
priority of commitment priority (importance) of this,
commitments) × 100 execution order of the
explicitly
assumed commitments

• The few commitments that were

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of priority commitments declared a priority were completed.
% of compliance with The foregoing demonstrates the
commitments that were declared fulfilled)/(Total number of priority 100%
priority commitments importance of making the
priority and that are effectively met commitments) × 100
priority statement

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that • There is a low percentage of verification
% of verification of
commitments that verify the verify availability of performers in of the availability of performers in the
availability of performers 18%
availability of performers in the agreements)/(Total number of stage of negotiation and agreements
in agreements
negotiation stage and agreements commitments) × 100
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 14 of 29

Table 2. Cont.

Aim Measure Name Description Formula Results General Comments

• In general, only the date is specified,

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that but it is not scheduled in detail, or if it

+ M. and C. PP
% of specified deadlines commitments that specify the specify the deadline)/(Total number 10% will be completed in the morning or in
deadline of commitments) × 100 the afternoon

• Low percentage in weekly meetings

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that • According to the workers, the foremen
% of unnecessary requests commitments that make make unnecessary requests)/(Total 3% often make unnecessary requests on
unnecessary requests number of commitments) × 100 the field

• It must always be a percentage equal to

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments fulfilled or greater than the PPC
Measurement and Control of Fundamentals of Trust

% of reliability compliance commitments where the performer + number of commitments revoked • Complements the PPC with additional
81%
(complementary to PPC) is able to perform reliably and + number of counteroffers)/(Total movements, which happen after the
timely in the required domain number of commitments) × 100 initial agreement

• High degree of participation (only 10%

left the meeting)
• No meeting started at the agreed time
• A lot of interaction with the cell phone
during the meeting (calls, chat
KPI measures the percentage of (Number of participants engaged and e-mail)
% of engaged participants meeting participants who are to the meeting)/(Total number of 48% • Interruptions by radio
engaged in it attendees) × 100 • In some moments two or more people
spoke at the same time
• 60% of the team takes note (everyone
should take note)
• Non-verbal language indicates fatigue
and lack of attention

Table 2. Borrows the Indicators System 2.0 found in Salazar et al. 2019 [36]. + M. and C. PP: Measurement and Control of Petitions and Promises.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 15 of 29

Table 3. Results of new indicators from the Linguistic Action Perspective in Last Planner®System.

Aim Measure Name Description Formula Results General Comments

KPI measures the compliance • Client is clear about the request (what)
(Number of commitments in which
% of fulfillment of a percentage of the first movement; and to whom it will be entrusted
the petition is prepared)/(Total 100%
request preparation of a request by the (performer)
number of commitments) × 100
client

• In general, there is no negotiation

Measurement and Control of Commitments

KPI measures the compliance (Number of commitments in which before the agreement. The performer
% of compliance assumes the order established by the
percentage of the second a negotiation and agreement is
negotiation and 20% client. Sometimes he does not answer if
movement; negotiation and made)/(Total number of
agreements he can or cannot comply with
agreements commitments) × 100
the agreement

• It is verified by questions to clients and

performers before the weekly meeting
KPI measures the percentage that there is a high percentage of
(Number of commitments in which
% of declaration of compliance of the third movement; declarations of compliance with the
compliance is declared)/(Total
compliance with the execution and declaration of 78% commitments. However, there are
number of commitments
commitment compliance with the commitment performers who do not inform clients
completed) × 100
by the performer that they finished with the
assigned task

• There is a low percentage of

KPI measures the percentage of commitments in which satisfaction is
(Number of commitments in which
compliance of the fourth declared by the client. In general, it is
% of fulfillment satisfaction is accepted and
movement; acceptance and 5% only indicated if the commitment is
declaration of satisfaction declared)/(Total number of
declaration of satisfaction by the fulfilled or not, without giving
commitments completed) × 100
client feedback to the performer

(Number of commitments • Minor percentage of commitments are

% of revoked KPI measures the percentage of
revoked)/(Total number of 4% revoked after the weekly meeting
commitments commitments revoked
commitments) × 100
++ M. and C. FT

(Number of renegotiated • Practically no renegotiation of

% of renegotiated KPI measures the percentage of
commitments)/(Total number of 2% commitments after the weekly meeting
commitments renegotiated commitments
commitments) × 100

(Number of canceled • Practically no cancellation of

% of canceled KPI measures the percentage of
commitments)/(Total number of 1% commitments after the weekly meeting
commitments canceled commitments
commitments) × 100

Table 3. Borrows the Indicators System 2.0 found in Salazar et al. 2019 [36]. ++ M. and C. FT: Measurement and Control of Fundamentals of Trust.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 16 of 29

Finally, we conclude that this second generation of key indicators measured in the field (eliminating,
changing and proposing the Indicators System from the first generation) generate a powerful tool to
measure, control and improve the management of commitments in weekly planning meetings since
they enable quick feedback that undoubtedly enriches the Last Planner® System [36].

2.9. Creation of Indicators: Final Version

After the publication of the Indicators System: Version 2.0, the authors decided to carry out the
last iteration to achieve continuous improvement (Kaizen) and analyze the feasibility of application in
another context, thus determining the scope of this artifact.
Ergo, we measured these indicators in two new projects in Santiago, Chile, thanks to the
Collaborative Group of GEPUC and two projects in Bogotá, Colombia, thanks to the Engineering and
Construction Management Research Group (INGECO).
For the creation of the final version of the Indicators System, we carried out five key steps,
after having asked ourselves: Is it applicable in other countries?

1. Deepen the analysis of the implementation of the Last Planner® System and the Linguistic Action
Perspective to generate a Knowledge Base.
2. Identify the key elements of this Perspective and which ones are redundant, taking the Indicators
of version 2.0 as a reference.
3. Develop Indicators System 3.0 from the improvements of version 2.0 through the Design
Science Research.
4. Measure the proposed indicators in four construction projects, two in Chile (a project of 24 houses
and 22-story building) and two in Colombia (a 21-story building and a 23-story building),
to evaluate them through the different construction Environment. For the above, the authors
recorded and then analyzed videotapes of weekly meetings and interviewed participants when
necessary to evaluate each commitment for each proposed indicator.
5. Validate the proposed Indicators System, comparing with version 2.0, and analyzing the results.

In this version, the authors found limitations in functionality and in its inherent qualities (ease of
use) in practice [45] that must be optimized, so we propose the elimination of some of the indicators
and the expansion of others based on the analysis of the four construction projects in Chile (2) and
Colombia (2), which carry out weekly meetings using LPS.
This field test led to the following changes:

1. Proposal to eliminate indicators:

• The authors propose not to measure the percentage of definition of roles and responsibilities
of the performers because we realized that the roles (Who) are intrinsically established in
the LPS weekly meeting structure. Concerning the responsibilities (What), this should be
part of the correct fulfillment of the request, so it is incorporated into the % of fulfillment of
a request.
• Plus, we propose to eliminate the percentage of fulfillment of roles and responsibilities
of performers, where the performer and not another one fulfills the promise and declares
compliance to the client, because it is not possible to measure it directly. In general,
in construction works, the performer does not commit, the one who commits is the head of
the performer (foreman) [36].
• Finally, we propose to eliminate the percentage of verification of the availability of performers
in agreements because this verification should be carried out in the stage of negotiation and
agreements. The client must request the agenda of the executor (workers) form the foreman.
Therefore, it is incorporated into percentage of compliance negotiations and agreements.
2. Proposal to expand indicators:
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 17 of 29

• The authors propose to clarify the indicator percentage of engaged participants, providing
that in the previous publications it was not defined precisely what would be considered
as “engaged.” Thence, we want to mention the key aspects to consider in this indicator,
participants must:

# Arrive on time (maximum 5 min late);

# Avoid interaction with the cell phone (do not check, speak or ring the cell phone);
# Remain in the room;
# Avoid interacting with a walkie-talkie (not talking, hopefully off or at a volume that
does not interrupt others);
# Intervene in the meeting;
# Take notes;
# Look at the person who is speaking.

To see the final proposal of Indicators System to analyze the management of commitments in
weekly planning meetings, see Table 4, while to measure the percentage of engaged participants,
see checklist in Appendix A.

2.10. Application in Another Country

The units of the analysis were three multi-story building projects and an extension housing
project with the LPS implemented with different degrees of maturity, in different countries, Chile and
Colombia. We determined four projects according to the recommendation of Hernández et al. [36,50].
We used the work methodology based on the “information-oriented selection,” selecting four projects,
one for each company, according to the agreements established with the managers, availability of
recording, and the degree of implementation maturity of Last Planner® System, as in version 2.0.
To measure the proposed indicator system, the principal investigator attended and videotaped three
consecutive weekly planning meetings. In these meetings, the people who participated were the last
planners, whose positions range from construction managers to foremen. We had a variable participation
in each meeting: minimum 13, maximum 43 and an average of 25 participants. The researcher took
notes of the meeting through the checklist (see in Appendix A) to measure the percentage of engaged
participants and note down what was observed during the meeting, such as observations regarding the
implementation of the room, topics discussed, adequate space, visual management, observed moods,
among other comments that allowed feedback to the leaders and thus improve the implementation of
LPS and LAP like a synergy. As well, after the meeting, the researchers analyzed the videos to complete
the system of indicators, based on the means of verification and the proposed formula. For example,
to determine the percentage of specified deadlines, according to the means of verification the number
of commitments that specify the deadline are those in which date and time are set (AM, PM); For that
reason, it is necessary to determine the number of commitments that meet the above, divide it by the
total number of commitments and multiply it by 100, to obtain the result (see Table 4).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 18 of 29

Table 4. Key Indicators for Linguistic Action Perspective in the Last Planner®System.

Aim Measure Name Description Formula Means of Verification

KPI measures the percentage of
(Number of commitments in which the 4
compliance with the chain of
% of compliance network or chain of movements for coordination are
commitments; that is to say, that the 4 That the 4 movements for coordination are fulfilled
commitments fulfilled)/(Total number of commitments)
movements for the coordination are
× 100
fulfilled
To determine that the petition was prepared, it
must be verified that the following are established:
KPI measures the compliance percentage (Number of commitments in which the
% of fulfillment of a request of the first movement; preparation of a petition is prepared)/(Total number of • Roles (Who): Client and Performer
Measurement and Control of Commitments

request by the client commitments) × 100 • Responsibilities (What): Definition of the

promise of which the performer takes charge

- There must be an agreement and not an

(Number of commitments in which a
KPI measures the compliance percentage imposition by the client (Conversations for action
% of compliance negotiation and negotiation and agreement is
of the second movement; negotiation and are generated)
agreements made)/(Total number of commitments) ×
agreements - In addition, the client must consult the executor’s
100
(workers) agenda with the foreman
KPI measures the percentage compliance - Performers execute and inform clients that they
(Number of commitments in which
% of declarations of compliance with the of the third movement; execution and are done with the assigned task (immediately) in
compliance is declared)/(Total number of
commitment declaration of compliance with the the field huddle
commitments completed) × 100
commitment by the performer - Verification is done at the next weekly meeting
KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments in which
- Client verifies compliance and reports if the
compliance of the fourth movement; satisfaction is accepted and
% of fulfillment declaration of satisfaction commitment is satisfactory in the field huddle
acceptance and declaration of satisfaction declared)/(Total number of commitments
- Verification is done at the next weekly meeting
by the client completed) × 100
KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments declaring Declare the priority (importance) of commitment
% of declaration of the priority of
commitments that declare the priority priority)/(Total number of commitments) in the first two movements: Request or
commitment
(importance) of this, explicitly × 100 Negotiation and agreements
KPI measures the percentage of (Number of priority commitments
% of compliance with priority Review of priority commitment agreed at the
commitments that were declared priority fulfilled)/(Total number of priority
commitments previous weekly meeting
and that are effectively met commitments) × 100
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 19 of 29

Table 4. Cont.

Aim Measure Name Description Formula Means of Verification

(Number of commitments that specify
+ M. and C. PP KPI measures the percentage of
% of specified deadlines the deadline)/(Total number of Specific deadline: date and time (AM, PM)
commitments that specify the deadline
commitments) × 100
When the client declares that the deadline specified
KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that make
in the request does not correspond to the last
% of unnecessary requests commitments that make unnecessary unnecessary requests)/(Total number of
responsible moment and/or requested something
requests commitments) × 100
that was not necessary (does not add value)
(Number of commitments fulfilled +
KPI measures the percentage of Indicator is the sum expressed in the formula.
number of commitments revoked +
% of reliability compliance commitments where the performer is It is essential to measure it because it provides a
number of renegotiations + number of
Measurement and Control of Fundamentals of Trust

(complementary to PPC) able to perform reliably and timely in the higher degree of reliability than the current PPC
commitments canceled)/(Total number of
required domain (Percent Plan Complete)
commitments) × 100
(Number of commitments Performer informs the client immediately after the
KPI measures the percentage of
% of revoked commitments revoked)/(Total number of commitments) meeting (ASAP) that he will not be able to fulfill
commitments revoked
× 100 his commitments
Client and/or performer wishes to change the
(Number of renegotiated
KPI measures the percentage of satisfaction conditions immediately after the
% of renegotiated commitments commitments)/(Total number of
renegotiated commitments meeting, a new agreement is generated in the field
commitments) × 100
huddle (between weekly meetings)
(Number of canceled Client informs the performer immediately after the
KPI measures the percentage of canceled
% of canceled commitments commitments)/(Total number of meeting (ASAP) that the commitment made is no
commitments
commitments) × 100 longer necessary
- Participants must arrive on time (max 5 min late)
(Number of participants engaged to the - Avoid interaction with the cell phone and
KPI measures the percentage of meeting
% of engaged participants meeting)/(Total number of attendees) × walkie-talkie
participants who are engaged to it
100 - Remain in the room and intervene in the meeting
- Take notes and look at the person who is speaking
Table 4. Own elaboration, based on Salazar et al [24,36]. + M. and C. PP: Measurement and Control of Petitions and Promises.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 20 of 29

As we did with Version 2.0, the researchers presented the average results of the indicators
measured during the three weeks, this time in a list and not in a table:

• 25% of compliance network or chain of commitments: (1) The preparation of the petition is
observed. (2) Although a negotiation process is observed, it must be improved. (3) There is
a declaration of compliance although it must be measured in the field. (4) The declaration of
satisfaction must be worked out by the team.
• 93% of fulfillment of a request: In general, roles are defined intrinsically: client requests
and performers agree. Regarding responsibilities, the scope of the commitment is not always
clearly established.
• 55% of compliance negotiation and agreements: The generation of agreements must be
strengthened and the imposition by the client avoided. Currently, the performer assumes
the order established by the client. We did not delve into the fact that the client must consult the
executor’s (workers) agenda with the foreman.
• 66% of declarations of compliance with the commitment: Before each weekly meeting,
the investigators verified that there was a considerable percentage of declaration of compliance
with commitments, through several questions to the clients and performers. However, there were
performers who did not inform clients that they had finished with the assigned task.
• 48% of fulfillment declaration of satisfaction: We consider that work should be done on this
indicator, since we observed that in general, it only indicated if the commitment was fulfilled or
not, without giving feedback to the performer.
• 6% of declaration of the priority of commitment: In general, the priority of the commitments
was not declared. This must be worked on to allow the foremen to carry out adequate planning
regarding the order of execution of the assumed commitments.
• 20% of compliance with priority commitments: We consider this result exceptional because it is
very important to comply with the commitments declared as priorities. In this case, what happened
was that a contractor did not comply with the commitments, despite the fact that they had been
informed as priorities (a contractor who presented delays throughout the project and had problems
with the management). It is very important to note that we expect this percentage to always be
close to 100%.
• 66% of specified deadlines: In general, only the date is specified, but not if it will be completed in
the morning or in the afternoon.
• 0% of unnecessary requests: No unnecessary requests on the meetings. According to the workers,
the foremen often make unnecessary requests on the field.
• 68% of reliability compliance: This indicator complements the PPC with additional movements,
which occur after the initial deal. In this case we consider that there is important room
for improvement.
• 0% of revoked commitments: No commitments revoked after the weekly meetings.
• 1% of renegotiated commitments: Practically no renegotiation of commitments after the
weekly meetings.
• 0% of canceled commitments: No commitments cancelled after the weekly meetings.
• 61% of engaged participants: Regarding this indicator, we can detail by the average percentages
obtained with the Check List—Meeting participants (see Appendix A): 75% of the participants
arrived on time, 18% checked the cell phone, 2% of them had their walkie-talkie make sounds,
19% left the meeting room, 22% did not intervene, 50% made notes and 100% looked at the person
who was speaking.

2.11. Indicators Validation: Final Version

This final version of indicators was validated by applying this LAP in LPS Indicator System in
four construction projects, two in Chile and two in Colombia. Comparing and analyzing the results
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 21 of 29

of version 2.0, proposing improvements to this system in order to achieve a refined system of key
indicators of LAP in LPS.
Whence, we eliminated an indicator that could not be measured directly in the weekly meeting,
percentage of fulfillment of roles and responsibilities of performers. We mix two indicators:
(1) percentage of definition of roles and responsibilities of the performers, and (2) % of verification of
the availability of performers in agreements; Because the first can be measured in % of fulfillment of a
request, and the second can be measured in percentage of compliance negotiations and agreements.
As well, we explained in detail the indicator percentage of engaged participants, because we consider
that it was not evident in the previous versions and we consider it fundamental for the improvement of
LAP. Finally, we want to mention that this Indicators System has metrics with the high expected value
and low expected value; In other words, it is desirable that most indicators have high values (close to
100%, for example, percentage of compliance network or chain of commitments). In contrast, only some
indicators like % of declaration of the priority of commitment, percentage of unnecessary requests,
percentage of revoked commitments, percentage of renegotiated commitments, and percentage of
canceled commitments, should have low values (close to 0%).
We decided to incorporate only the average results obtained during the three weeks, because the
objective was to improve the proposed Indicators System through the optimization in the measurement
and means of verification of each indicator. It is relevant to mention that we did not observe differences
in the measurement system, but we did in the organizational culture (sociocultural of both countries),
which will be analyzed in another document.

3. Analysis of Results
According to the parsimony of theory; that is, the number of constructions and statements that it
requires to achieve its explanatory power [53], we have developed this “artifact” (Indicators System)
trying to increase the explanatory power, but with fewer constructions or statements to contribute to
the theoretical investigation (optimization).
The main criterion for this new contribution to Applied Science/Engineering (AS/E) knowledge is
its practical utility. Because this artifact not only contributes theoretically but it is an AS/E contribution
because it is original, generalizable, and validated [46]. Originality can be established by comparing
contributions to state of the art, while a generalization can be established through the demonstration of
the applicability of the artifact to a variety of contexts (different projects in different countries); in the
end, the validity may be justified by the evaluation of the results (comparison of the three versions
of indicators) [54]. Thus, researchers have reinforced efforts to justify these elements, including pilot
tests in natural environments [55] (Villego® Simulation, projects in Chile and projects in Colombia),
expert evaluations (including the creator of LPS) and feedback provided by the scientific community
(two IGLC conferences).
Else, all DSR activities have been carried out to make these findings scientifically rigorous,
meaning that there is no need for a separate Rigor Cycle [46] since all DSR activities have the potential
to contribute to the Knowledge Base (theoretical contribution). Finally, since stakeholders participated
in all DSR activities, we established a constant interaction with the Environment.

4. Discussion

4.1. Comments on the Results Obtained

We consider that our scientific research design was framed in a precise application context that
not only managed to provide the requirements for the research (opportunity and/or problems) but also
defined the acceptance criteria for the final evaluation of the results of the investigation [45].
Furthermore, through the DSR methodology, we demonstrated the usefulness of the proposed
Indicators System, measuring and controlling the management of commitments in different
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 22 of 29

situations: simulation with students, construction projects in a country, different construction projects
(extension and height) and in different countries.
Through the effort made in the indicator design process (42 iterations in total, creation of
two preliminary versions and a final proposal), we were able to meet the initial objective of this
research, in terms of responding to the need to measure the elements of LAP, to control and improve
the management of commitments in the weekly LPS meetings, and thus give the kick-off to the
development of an LPS 2.0 that focuses on the social dimension (people).

4.2. Lessons Learned from the Methodology Used

The authors consider that the Design Science Research (DSR) methodology used was adequate
because it allowed us to solve the problem of measuring and controlling the management of
commitments in different situations, managing to produce an Indicators System (artifact) reliable (tested)
as an outcome. For us, it was essential to use the updated model proposed by Briggs and Schwabe [46],
since our study phenomenon varies according to time, contexts and conditions of application; for the
same reason, we carry out a constant iteration applying Kaizen (continuous improvement) in each of
the versions, based on the relevance cycle between discovery and design activities, and the design
cycle between design and validation activities, always considering the knowledge base as the central
axis of the research.
We believe that the five main activities that we proposed and developed applying the DSR method,
are a contribution to the knowledge and updating of this method in constant evolution and not yet
fully understood by the entire scientific community. Furthermore, we believe it is necessary to mention
that as we implemented each system in new scenarios, we obtained more feedback, achieving an
increasingly optimal result, although not perfect.
At the end of our research, we realized, thanks to the feedback from other researchers, that the
process of having to analyze our indicators through video recording was a very slow and inefficient
process, except for the “% of engaged participants” that we had already resolved with our checklist
proposal. So we decided to propose a first version of a “Notebook for Last Planners” (see Appendix B)
that allows the same last planners to write down their commitments and fill in the necessary data to
directly measure seven of our indicators percentage of compliance network or chain of commitments,
percentage of fulfillment of a request, percentage of compliance negotiation and agreements, percentage
of declaration of compliance with the commitment, percentage of fulfillment declaration of satisfaction,
% percentage of declaration of the priority of commitment and percentage of specified deadlines) and
indirectly 2 of our indicators (percentage of compliance with priority commitments and percentage of
unnecessary requests), leaving only the indicator pending “% of reliability compliance” (and the metrics
that depend on it: percentage of revoked commitments, percentage of renegotiated commitments
and percentage of canceled commitments) since as these actions occur in the third movement of
“Execution and declaration of compliance” in the field huddle. It is recommended that it is discussed
openly in the meeting where the PPC and the Reason for Missed Commitment (RMC) of the previous
week are analyzed.

4.3. Scope of the Research

With respect to the scope of the proposed artifact, we can mention that it has already been
validated in Villego® Simulation, in extension and height construction projects in Chile, and in height
projects in Colombia that used LPS. Therefore, we consider that it could be generalizable to this type of
construction projects all over the world since the culture may be different and the degree of maturity of
LPS as well, but the methodology should be the same unless LPS is not implemented correctly.
Moreover, the research was focused on creating this Indicators System for projects that had LPS
implemented and thus optimizing it. Still, we consider that adapting the indicators, according to
the Linguistic Action Perspective, could measure and control aspects of commitment management
in any construction project, without necessarily having LPS implemented, having as a requirement
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 23 of 29

that the project has a formal meeting structure (ideally weekly) and that this meeting is based on the
management of commitments and planning activities. According to the experience of the researchers,
this system should not be applied in technical meetings, where work problems are solved without a
defined structure, since we tried to measure in these types of meetings and it was very confusing to
know who committed. Since even if solutions were given, the person in charge or the deadline was
not specified.
As a result, the entire community linked to the construction industry is invited to use the proposed
indicators to compare with the “location dimension” (Flyvbjerg 2006). The differences and similarities
among different projects around the world, with the objective of determining the effect of the culture
of the people and organization in the management of commitments and the general performance of
construction projects. Because a theory is more useful if it explains more variations in a phenomenon
in more contexts.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Summary
In 2001, Ballard and Howell, creators of LPS, raised a link between the Last Planner® System and
Linguistic Action Perspective. However, to date, a system of quantitative instruments or methodologies
had not been developed to carry out adequate management of the commitments.
Consequently, the authors wanted to respond to the need of measuring the main elements of LAP,
in order to control and improve the management of commitments in the weekly LPS meetings, and thus
contribute to the development of an LPS 2.0 that focuses its attention on the social dimension (people) in
the context of Lean Construction, creating an Indicators System to measure and control commitments,
requirements, promises, and reliability, through the Design Science Research methodology.
The authors used the Design Science Research (DSR) because this method manages to solve
practical problems and produce artifacts as results, thus solving problems found in the real world,
and in this way it also contributes theoretically in the discipline in which it is applied. Hence closing
the gaps among the contextual environment of the research project (people, organizational systems,
technical systems, problems and opportunities), design science research (artifacts and processes) and
the knowledge base of scientific foundations (scientific theories, methods, experience and expertise),
iterating between the activities of construction and evaluation of research design artifacts and processes.

5.2. Contributions
The main contributions of this document are: on the one hand, the proposal of five main activities
where the DSR method can be applied, which allowed us to carry out an artifact (indicators system),
managing to update this research method, which is continuously evolving, but unfortunately still is
not fully understood by the entire scientific community.
Otherwise, we developed a checklist to analyze the engagement of meeting participants, a proposal
of notebook for last planners, to simplify the measurement of this Indicators System, ergo avoiding
the use of video recordings that require the informed consent of the participants and that can often
be invasive.
Additionally, we delved into the Linguistic Action Perspective by creating a figure that details the
variations that can occur to basic movements, which do not decrease reliability but increase it. It is
important to note that these additional movements in the execution phase (revocation, renegotiation
and cancellation of commitments) must be carried out as soon as possible after the commitment is
established (once the meeting is over) because if the last planner notifies the client that the commitment
will not be fulfilled one day before the meeting, it is no longer considered reliable.
Finally, our main contribution is the creation of an Indicators System that allows to measure and
control the main aspects of Linguistic Action Perspective in Last Planner® System, updating the PPC
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 24 of 29

(Percent Plan Complete) with an updated indicator of Reliability (PPC + Revoke + Renegotiate +
Cancel) and a detail of the indicators of engagement of meeting participants.

5.3. Limitations
The main limitations of this research are in two main aspects. The first aspect is that the Indicators
System was validated only in projects that had the Last Planner® System implemented, which implies
that they are not validated nor are they completely suitable for construction projects that do not have
LPS implemented. However, we believe that they can be adapted. The second aspect is that the
Indicators System was only validated in two South American countries, which could mean that it is
not generalizable to everyone. Still, because LPS has a defined implementation methodology, if it is
correctly implemented, differences in the result of the indicators according to the socio-cultural aspects
of each country will probably be found. Still, the measurement and verification system should be
the same.
At last, this Indicators System seeks to analyze the management of commitments in weekly
planning meetings, so the measurement frequency was always every seven days. Nonetheless, it is
necessary to hold at least two weekly meetings to analyze the results, since the first two movements
will be seen in the first meeting: (1) preparation of a request and (2) negotiation and agreements; and in
the second meeting, the last two: (3) execution and declaration of compliance and (4) acceptance and
declaration of satisfaction.

5.4. Future Research

The authors see an opportunity to carry out case studies in different types of construction projects
and different countries, to carry out a management benchmarking of project commitments with this
new Indicators System, measuring and comparing different indicators of planning, production, term,
cost, productivity, quality and safety of works, among others.
As well, in future studies, the authors propose to apply case studies in weekly planning meetings
in other industries worldwide and to determine the recommended values to improve communication
and achieve the proper implementation of LAP with LPS and without LPS (other planning systems).

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.A.S.; methodology, L.A.S.; validation, L.A.S.; formal analysis,
L.A.S.; investigation, L.A.S.; resources, L.A.S.; data curation, L.A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, L.A.S.;
writing—review and editing, P.A. and L.F.A.; visualization, L.A.S.; supervision, P.A. and L.F.A. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Luis A. Salazar acknowledges the financial support for his PhD studies from the Scholarship Programme
of National Agency for Research and Development of Chile (ANID-PCHA/Doctorado Nacional/2016-21160819).
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank GEPUC and INGECO for their support in this research and all the
organizations that participated in this study, as well as the experts for the insight provided.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding: Luis A. Salazar acknowledges the financial support for his PhD studies from the Scholarship
Programme of National Agency for Research and Development of Chile (ANID-PCHA/Doctorado
Nacional/2016-21160819).

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank GEPUC and INGECO for their support in this research and all
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 25 of 29
the organizations that participated in this study, as well as the experts for the insight provided.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Appendix A

Figure A1.
Figure Checklist to
A1. Checklist to analyze
analyze engagement
engagement of
of meeting
meeting participants.
participants.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 26 of 29
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 30

Appendix B
Appendix B

NOTEBOOK FOR LAST PLANNERS

Name: Measurement start date: ____/____/2020 Measurement end date: ____/____/2020
Position: -- (Very low) - (Low) 0 (Mean) + (High) ++ (Very High)
Symbology
Company: W: Well N: Normal P: Poor
Week 1 Week 2
Clarity in Negotiation Declaration Declaration
Day (AM Task % Comments
Who asks for it Activity and / or Task (%) Sector the Petition and PPC of of
or PM) Priority Completed (CNC)
(request) Agreement compiance satisfaction
Name and / or --, -, 0, +, Does it
W -N-P W -N-P % Yes - No Yes - No
Position ++ comply?
Tuesday
Administrator Floor slab installation -1 80% Quadrant A and B - W N 70% NO YES NO bla bla bla
(AM)

Week 2 Week 3
Clarity in Negotiation Declaration Declaration
Day (AM Task % Comments
Who asks for it Activity and / or Task (%) Sector the Petition and PPC of of
or PM) Priority Completed (CNC)
(request) Agreement compiance satisfaction
Name and / or --, -, 0, +, Does it
W -N-P W -N-P % Yes - No Yes - No
Position ++ comply?

Figure A2. Proposal of Notebook for Last Planners.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 27 of 29

References
1. Koskela, L. An Exploration towards a Production Theory and its Application to Construction; Helsinki University
of Technology: Espoo, Finland, 2000.
2. Kapelko, M.; Abbott, M. Productivity Growth and Business Cycles: Case Study of the Spanish Construction
Industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 05016026. [CrossRef]
3. World Economic Forum Shaping the Future of Construction: A Breakthrough in Mindset and Technology.
Available online: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Shaping_the_Future_of_Construction_full_report__.
pdf (accessed on 16 October 2020).
4. González, V.; Alarcón, L.F.; Maturana, S.; Mundaca, F.; Bustamante, J. Improving planning reliability and
project performance using the reliable commitment model. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 1129–1139.
[CrossRef]
5. Womack, J.P.; Jones, D.T. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in your Corporation; Free Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2003.
6. Koskela, L. Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction; Stanford University:
Stanford, CA, USA, 1992; Volume 72.
7. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future; Oxford University:
Oxford, UK, 1987; ISBN 9780192820808.
8. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations Goal 12. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/
goals/goal12 (accessed on 14 October 2020).
9. Arroyo, P.; Tommelein, I.D.; Ballard, G. Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Select
Sustainable Alternatives in the AEC Industry. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable
Design, Engineering, and Construction 2012, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 7–9 November 2012; pp. 869–876.
10. Tasdemir, C.; Gazo, R. A Systematic Literature Review for Better Understanding of Lean Driven Sustainability.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2544. [CrossRef]
11. de Carvalho, A.; Granja, A.; da Silva, V. A Systematic Literature Review on Integrative Lean and Sustainability
Synergies over a Building’s Lifecycle. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1156. [CrossRef]
12. Zhang, B.; Niu, Z.; Liu, C. Lean Tools, Knowledge Management, and Lean Sustainability: The Moderating
Effects of Study Conventions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 956. [CrossRef]
13. Salem, O.; Solomon, J.; Genaidy, A.; Minkarah, I. Lean construction: From theory to implementation.
J. Manag. Eng. 2006, 22, 168–175. [CrossRef]
14. Ballard, G.; Howell, G.A. Toward construction JIT. In Lean Construction; Alarcón, L., Ed.; Balkema Publishers:
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1997; pp. 291–300. ISBN 9054106484.
15. Ballard, G.; Howell, G.A. An Update on Last Planner. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 22–24 July 2003; pp. 1–13.
16. Daniel, E.I.; Pasquire, C.; Dickens, G. Exploring the implementation of the last planner® system through iglc
community: Twenty one years of experience. In Proceedings of the IGLC 23rd Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, Perth, Australia, 29–31 July 2015; pp. 153–162.
17. Ballard, G. The Last Planner. In Proceedings of the Northern California Construction Institute Spring
Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, 26–28 July 1994.
18. Ballard, G.; Tommelein, I. Current Process Benchmark for the Last Planner(R) System. Lean Constr. J. 2016,
89, 57–89.
19. Goldratt, E.M.; Cox, J. La meta, un Proceso de Mejora Continua; Ediciones Granica, S.A., Ed.; Tercera: Mexico,
2013; ISBN 9789506418069.
20. O’Brien, W.J.; Formoso, C.T.; Vrijhoef, R.; London, K.A. Construction Supply Chain Management Handbook;
CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008.
21. Alves, T.C.L.; Tommelein, I.D. Buffering and batching practices in the HVAC industry. In Proceedings of the
11th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Blacksburg, VA, USA,
22–24 July 2003.
22. Rodríguez, A.D.; Alarcón, L.F.; Pellicer, E. La gestión de la obra desde la perspectiva del último planificador.
Rev. Obras Públicas 2011, 158, 35–44.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 28 of 29

23. Howell, G.A.; Macomber, H.; Koskela, L.; Draper, J. Leadership and Project Management: Time for a Shift
from Fayol to Flores. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Helsingør, Denmark, 3–5 August 2004.
24. Salazar, L.A.; Ballard, G.; Arroyo, P.; Alarcón, L.F. Indicators for Observing Elements of Linguistic Action
Perspective in Last Planner® System. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International.
Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Chennai, India, 18–20 July 2018; pp. 402–411.
25. Flores, F. Conversaciones Para la Acción: Inculcando una Cultura de Compromiso en Nuestras Relaciones de Trabajo
(Conversations for Action and Collected Essays: Instilling a Culture of Commitment in Working Relationships);
Flores, M., Ed.; Primera; Lemoine Editores: Bogotá, Colombia, 2015; ISBN 978-958-98664-9-8.
26. Austin, J.L. How to Do Things with Words, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1975;
ISBN 9780198245537.
27. Searle, J.R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK,
1969; Volume 626.
28. Searle, J.R. A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts; University Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1975;
Volume 7, pp. 344–369.
29. Shahhoseiny, H. Differences between language and linguistic in the ELT classroom. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud.
2013, 3, 2234–2239. [CrossRef]
30. Isatto, E.L.; Azambuja, M.; Formoso, C.T. The Role of Commitments in the Management of Construction
Make-to-Order Supply Chains. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04014053. [CrossRef]
31. Viana, D.D.; Formoso, C.T.; Isatto, E.L. Understanding the theory behind the Last Planner System using the
Language-Action Perspective: Two case studies. Prod. Plan. Control 2017, 28, 177–189. [CrossRef]
32. Zegarra, O.; Alarcon, L.F. Variability propagation in the production planning and control mechanism of
construction projects. Prod. Plan. Control 2017, 28, 707–726. [CrossRef]
33. Macomber, H.; Howell, G.A. Linguistic Action: Contributing to the theory of lean construction. In Proceedings
of the 11th Annual Meeting of the International Group for Lean Construction, Blacksburg, VA, USA,
22–24 July 2003.
34. Viana, D.D.; Formoso, C.T.; Isatto, E.L. Modelling the network of commitments in the last planner
system. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
Lean Construction Institute, Lima, Peru, 13–15 July 2011; Volume 2011.
35. Vrijhoef, R.; Koskela, L.; Howell, G.A. Understanding construction supply chains: An alternative
interpretation. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
Singapore, 6–8 August 2001; pp. 1–15.
36. Salazar, L.A.; Retamal, F.; Ballard, G.; Arroyo, P.; Alarcón, L.F. Results of indicators from the Linguistic Action
Perspective in the Last Planner(r) System. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Dublin, Ireland, 3–5 July 2019; pp. 1241–1250.
37. Nunes, M.; Abreu, A. Applying Social Network Analysis to Identify Project Critical Success Factors.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1503. [CrossRef]
38. Winograd, T.; Flores, F. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design; Intellect Books:
Bristol, UK, 1986.
39. Francis, A.; Thomas, A. Exploring the relationship between lean construction and environmental sustainability:
A review of existing literature to decipher broader dimensions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119913. [CrossRef]
40. Zarta Ávila, P. La sustentabilidad o sostenibilidad: Un concepto poderoso para la humanidad. Tabula Rasa
2018, 28, 409–423. [CrossRef]
41. Arroyo, P.; Gonzalez, V. Rethinking Waste Definition to Account for Environmental and Social Impacts.
In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Boston,
MA, USA, 20–22 July 2016.
42. Holmström, J.; Ketokivi, M.; Hameri, A.-P. Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science Approach.
Decis. Sci. 2009, 40, 65–87. [CrossRef]
43. Peffers, K.; Tuunanen, T.; Rothenberger, M.A.; Chatterjee, S. A Design Science Research Methodology for
Information Systems Research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2007, 24, 45–77. [CrossRef]
44. Lukka, K. The constructive research approach. In Case Study Research in Logistics; Ojala, L., Hilmola, O.-P., Eds.;
Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration: Turku, Finland, 2003; pp. 83–101.
45. Hevner, A. A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 2007, 19, 87–92.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728 29 of 29

46. Briggs, R.O.; Schwabe, G. On Expanding the Scope of Design Science in IS Research. In Proceedings of the
Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 5–6 May 2011; Jain, H., Sinha, A.P.,
Vitharana, P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 92–106.
47. Ballard, H.G. The Last Planner System of Production Control. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Birmingham,
Birmingham, UK, 2000.
48. Alarcón, L.F.; Diethelm, S.; Rojo, Ó. Collaborative implementation of lean planning systems in Chilean
construction companies. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Gramado, Brazil, 6–8 August 2002.
49. Flyvbjerg, B. Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qual. Inq. 2006, 12, 219–245. [CrossRef]
50. Hernandez Sampieri, R.; Fernández, C.; Baptista, P. Capítulo 4. Estudios de caso (Centro de recursos
en línea). In Metodología de la Investigación; 2014; p. 31. ISBN 9781456223960. Available online:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308385754_Robert_K_Yin_2014_Case_Study_Research_Design_
and_Methods_5th_ed_Thousand_Oaks_CA_Sage_282_pages (accessed on 15 October 2020).
51. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. In Applied Social Research Methods, 3rd ed.; SAGE:
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003; Volume 5.
52. Lagos, C.; Salazar, L.A.; Alarcón, L.F. Análisis de la relación entre el nivel de implementación de Last Planner
System(R) y el desempeño de proyectos de construcción. In Proceedings of the 1er Congreso Latinoamericano
de Ingeniería, Entre Ríos, Argentina, 13–15 September 2017.
53. Popper, K.R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery; ISSR library Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2002; ISBN 9780415278447.
54. Frank, U. Die Konstruktion möglicher Welten als Chance und Herausforderung der Wirtschaftsinformatik.
In Wissenschaftstheorie und Gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik; Physica-Verlag HD: Heidleburg,
Germany, 2009; pp. 161–173. [CrossRef]
55. Schwabe, G.; Krcmar, H. Piloting a SocioTechnical Innovation. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference
on Information Systems ECIS, Wienna, Austria, 3–5 July 2000; pp. 132–139.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).