{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":10,"sheets":["Main","Assessment Approach","Assessor Instructions","Summary Graph","Scoring","Characteristics","Assessor Comments","The 4 Graphs (presentation)","FAQ","Credits"],"not_rendered":{"charts":5,"images":9,"macros":1,"external_links":0,"defined_names":5,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Main","index":0,"n_rows":35,"n_cols":18,"rows_kept":35,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,8,1,13],[28,8,28,13],[29,8,29,13],[30,8,30,13],[34,17,34,21]]}
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Project:","Project name placeholder"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Assessors:","Accessor name placeholder"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Accessor name placeholder"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Accessor name placeholder"]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Contact Eric Ahlstrom for questions and support"]

{"sheet":"Assessment Approach","index":1,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[5,1,5,6],[6,1,6,6],[8,1,8,6],[16,1,16,6],[0,1,0,6],[1,1,1,6],[2,1,2,6],[3,1,3,6],[4,1,4,6],[19,9,19,11],[10,1,10,6],[11,1,11,6],[18,1,18,6],[19,1,19,6]]}
[null,"LCI Lean IPD Health and Maturity Assessment Approach"]
[]
[null,"Assessment Objective:"]
[null,"Assessments make what is relatively invisible and subjective, visible and actionable. The objective of conducting an assessment is to provide the project team with a snapshot of progress as a whole in regards to Lean Integrated Project Delivery compared to construction industry best known practices.  One word of caution: the misuse of this tool can hurt project teams. This is not a tool for discovering reasons to place blame on project team members. This is a tool that requires a “Go and See” approach and the practice of discipline, objectivity, healthy debate, friendly competition and horizontal commitments to improve based on factual observations.  "]
[]
[null,"Assessment Method:"]
[null,"This assessment is set up based on the knowledge that Lean Integrated Project Delivery maturity is a progression and not a binary switch that is flipped on or off by inserting some tools. Also, maturity varies from element to element. A project may be called “Lean” and yet only be at the early stages of adoption for any particular method.  An assessment, such as this one, is one of the few ways to quantify with some objectivity how “Lean” a project is on an element by element basis.  The Framework for the elements was developed within the Lean Construction Institute Community of Practice; descriptions of the elements are in the tool framework and are displayed as each element is being assessed."]
[]
[null,"Following is a table that sums up how scoring was determined for each element based on the evidence observed.  Obtaining a high score is not what is important.  Nor is it essential that the level descriptions and evidence be precisely categorized.  However, what is important is the acknowledgement of the progress made, noting what is needed to move each element to the next level of maturity, and the development of a plan of action to move forward."]
[]
[null,"Assessment scoring table"]
[]
[null,"Level 0","Level 1","Level 2","Level 3","Level 4","Level 5"]
[null,"Unaware","Aware","Learning","Competent","Teaching","Innovating"]
[null,"No knowledge or understanding of the Lean element","Knowledge of Lean element is demonstrated but not implemented","Most of the element is not implemented or is implemented on an \nad-hoc basis","Element is mostly implemented at a competent level ","Element is successfully implemented at a robust level of sophistication with key project leaders actively coaching implementation","Element is entirely implemented and the project is contributing Best Known Practices to industry for this element"]
[]
[null,"A corporate wide assessment across multiple projects across multiple sites can be made using an aggregate of individual project assessments. The portfolio approach rolls up results into one report; the intent is not to single out one project. This assessment approach will help the organization develop Lean deployment strategies by identifying areas of relative strength and opportunities for improvement.  The assessment process is intended to provide objective progress measurement within the organization on an annual basis."]
[]
[null,"Assessment Reporting "]
[null,"An assessment includes an executive summary and general observations for each element that supports the assessment scoring. Below is an example of charts illustrating assessment results included in a typical report."]

{"sheet":"Assessor Instructions","index":2,"n_rows":41,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":41,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[38,1,38,2],[40,1,40,2],[2,1,2,2],[3,1,3,2],[39,1,39,2],[22,1,22,2],[23,1,23,2],[29,1,29,2],[30,1,30,2],[31,1,31,2],[32,1,32,2],[33,1,33,2],[34,1,34,2],[35,1,35,2],[36,1,36,2],[37,1,37,2],[21,1,21,2],[9,1,9,2],[10,1,10,2],[11,1,11,2],[13,1,13,2],[12,1,12,2],[15,1,15,2],[16,1,16,2],[17,1,17,2],[18,1,18,2],[19,1,19,2],[20,1,20,2],[8,1,8,2],[0,1,0,2],[1,1,1,2],[5,1,5,2],[6,1,6,2],[7,1,7,2],[4,1,4,2]]}
[null,"Guideline for an Individual Project Assessment"]
[null,"A lead assessor from outside the project team is selected to maintain objectivity and minimize bias. The lead assessor will guide the process using the following recommended steps."]
[null,"Calibration and Qualification of Assessors"]
[null,"The selected assessor(s) must possess a working knowledge of Lean IPD and may come from experienced internal staff or from external consultants.  Assessors must use an evidence based approach to minimize subjectivity.  Assessors must align prior to the assessment on the level of maturity for each element and reference previous assessments to minimize drifting over time. "]
[null,"The role of the assessor is to guide the team through the tool and to facilitate discussions with the project team members.  The assessment teams also conduct workplace visits to observe how individuals incorporate the Lean Project Delivery dimensions in their processes whenever possible.  The assessors then determine the level that best matches what was heard and observed to the criteria for each level.  The assessment team then compiles their observations and discusses the scoring until a consensus on where the project is along each framework element."]
[null,"Step 1 – Identify and assemble resources"]
[null,"·  Identify and invite a diverse group of individuals from the project team for the work session. Plan on work session lasting 2-3 hours depending on size and complexity of project and the number of participants."]
[null,"·  Distribute the Characteristics for pre-reading if possible. "]
[null,"Step 2 – Conduct the assessment"]
[null,"·  For each of the 36 elements, ask the work session participants to read the criteria (level description) from the Characteristics starting at level 1 for each element and to discuss if it applies to this group’s current reality.  If it does, then go to level 2 and repeat.  If not all the descriptors are being significantly observed then apply the previous level score for that element."]
[null,"·  Watch for the following pitfalls – there are two biases to watch for, both leading to waste:  "]
[null,"-  Being overly optimistic: believing the project team is much higher than actual when in reality it is closer to the overall rating.  This will lead the department to take additional steps to achieve a higher level when the department is not yet ready. In addition the department will spend time on this rather than working with the rest of the organization on advancing to the appropriate next level.  This will lead to rework."]
[null,"-  Being too conservative:  believing the project team is lower than the overall organization when in reality it is closer to the overall rating.  This will lead the department to make unnecessary efforts to achieve a level that is already attained.  This will lead to over-processing."]
[null,"·  Be evidence based in assessment not on what the team is thinking of doing.  Observation and reviewing project artifacts will help you determine an accurate assessment for each element."]
[]
[null,"·  Notes on Scoring"]
[null,"The levels are designed to be cumulative in nature. The assessor should start by seeking evidence in support of a Level 1 rating.  Once evidence for level 1 has been established, the subsequent line of information gathering should focus on Level 2 and so on.  Only after all criteria for a given level have been satisfied, can the rating be assigned.  For example, if an assessor finds evidence to support most Level 2 criteria and some Level 3 criteria, the rating should be Level 2 until all criteria are met.  However, do not confuse this with “lowest score is always the result”.  The result has to be the level that is most representative of the organization at large. "]
[null,"·  Assessment tips for the project team"]
[null,"As a general rule:  Public praise, private criticism. Remember, the assessment should uncover both opportunities for improvement as well as best-practices.  Don’t hesitate to publicly acknowledge a job well-done. How you say it is as important as what you say. Remember to..."]
[null,"        - Be friendly, polite and courteous at all times"]
[null,"        - Use body language that encourages openness"]
[null,"        - Be direct and concise"]
[null,"        - Under no circumstances should an assessor become involved in verbal altercations."]
[null,"Always think before you speak - You’ve got one chance to say it. Once the message has been delivered, it’s been received. Open and honest dialogue can be a simple matter of word choice. If the roles were reversed would you rather hear..."]
[null,"This?","Or This?"]
[null,"“Why would you do that?”","“Why does your team feel this is important?”"]
[null,"“What were you thinking?","“Have you considered…?”"]
[null,"“That’s not going to work.”","“What factors played into that decision?”"]
[null,"“At my last company…”","“Have you seen other examples where…?”"]
[null,"Direct and concise conversation will minimize misunderstandings.  The dialogue should be neither social/casual nor inquisition-style questioning.  Achieving the appropriate balance is an important skill to cultivate.  Once a message has been spoken, it has usually been heard. The assessor must be careful to send clear messages, packaged such that they do not offend the recipient."]
[null,"Effective interaction begins with understanding the story from the other side. Defensive behavior is typically a sign of pride in one’s work.  Assessors should make every effort to encourage that sentiment. Take into consideration other factors that may be adding to an individual’s stress level such as..."]
[null,"        - Time away from routine work needing to be accomplished"]
[null,"        - The perception that a project or group is being “judged”"]
[null,"        - Interacting with new people"]
[null,"        - Being the person responsible for revealing an issue the function has been dealing with "]
[null,"        - Saying something “wrong” in front of their boss.  "]
[null,"Active listening can be your greatest asset. Listen carefully and patiently to the members of the project being assessed. Avoid cutting someone off in mid-sentence; it may lead to a missed opportunity to hear an important point. Ask clarifying questions. Replace “You” statements, with “I” statements. “You didn’t answer my question...” becomes “I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear enough with my question.” Restate the response in your own words. “What I think I heard was... Is that accurate?”"]
[null,"Step 3 - Document the results and develop an action plan"]
[null,"·  Capture observations in the comments section of the tool for later use to support assessment scoring if asked."]
[null,"·  Click the Assessor's Report button to view and print the summary of notes and comments. "]
[null,"·  List the elements for which the project team scored low in comparison to other elements."]

{"sheet":"Summary Graph","index":3,"n_rows":6,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":6,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE",{"$f":"Scoring!C12","v":0}]
[null,null,null,"LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY\nMETHODS & MANAGEMENT",{"$f":"Scoring!C215","v":0}]
[null,null,null,"INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY",{"$f":"Scoring!C114","v":0}]
[null,null,null,"LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY\nLAST PLANNER® SYSTEM",{"$f":"Scoring!C312","v":0}]

{"sheet":"Scoring","index":4,"n_rows":312,"n_cols":13,"rows_kept":312,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[1,0,1,2],[100,0,100,2],[200,0,200,2],[300,0,300,2]]}
[]
["TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE"]
["#","Characteristics","Assessment Scores",null,"Element","Characteristic","Description","Scoring","Score","Assessor Comments"]
["A",{"$f":"F4","v":"Lean Construction Knowledge"},null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A2","v":"TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B2","v":"Lean Construction Knowledge"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C2","v":"• Achieves high agreement of both What and How; basically the team is engaged in providing more value (as defined by the customer) while eliminating waste out of the project\n• Standardization: high agreement, no ambiguity, standards are clear and available.\n• Creates a Learning Organization \n       - team members prompt frequent points of reflection \n       - team members have clear access to learning opportunities\n       - leaders are behaving both as learners and as teachers\n       - leaders provide opportunities for other team members to grow both professionally and personally \n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D2","v":"0 = Unaware: not focused on the whole, not aware of waste, satisfied with status quo\n1 = Aware: thinking about improvement, trying to treat others as customers, considering waste elimination processes \n2 = Learning: using reliable promise language, looking for waste in own systems, looking for root cause, discussing work hand off, learning respectful language, researching outside of project/industry for new ideas\n3 = Competent: working to optimize the whole, humble inquiry, constructive conflict, measuring to improve activities, using retrospection to improve, acting on defined improvements \n4 = Teaching: standards are set and measurement occurs with regular frequency, team health is monitored and discussed, waste identification and elimination is celebrated, resource and flow optimization is balanced, focus is on areas to improve\n5 = Innovating: the team behaves as a contiguous unit, everyone's goals are aligned with the project, waste elimination and continuous improvement are an everyday activity\n"},{"$f":"C4","v":0}]
["B",{"$f":"F5","v":"Leadership Behaviors"},null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A3","v":"TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B3","v":"Leadership Behaviors"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C3","v":"• Leaders are visible and actively engaged in the project team environment.\n• Leads by example.  Walks the talk.\n• Fosters enabling environment versus command-and-control structure.\n• Ensures project team members have the necessary training, resources and peer support throughout implementation and into sustaining. \n• Conducts frequent system health/maturity assessments (informal and formal)\n• Determines what is going well, what has the team learned, what needs more attention, what are the remaining challenges, what help do \"you or the team\" need to succeed? \n• Communicates the bright spots and things not going well equally so that the entire production team is aware and learning. \n• Team members talk openly about strengths and weaknesses without fear of reprisal.\n• Builds Plan-Do-Check-Act into how the team functions as a group.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D3","v":"0 = Unaware: Behave as managers (or micromanagers), exhibit command and control behavior, consume reports with no feedback, only focus on outcomes, look to pin blame\n1 = Aware:  Leaders are at minimum aware of their role in supporting implementation not dictating activity\n2 = Learning: Leaders are beginning to share responsibility for various activities, not always one voice, a few individuals are facilitating work sessions outside their expertise. \n3 = Competent: A distributed leadership is obvious. Various individuals lead and facilitate various functions and meetings. No one voice is overpowering.  Leaders have emerged from different organizations. They are inquisitive and actively helping the team address problems, identify improvement opportunities and remove waste. \n4 = Teaching: Leaders are building followers into leaders. They are fostering experimentation with small improvements; they are encouraging followers to take charge of individual tasks and efforts while coaching from the sidelines. It is clear that leadership’s actions are connected to the team’s health, maturity and continuous improvement. Leaders are inquisitive, participative and achieving continuous improvement by having real time conversations toward action. \n5 = Innovating:  Team members now lead the way; leaders have become coaches. Visibility and engagement are now integral behaviors -- still aimed at improving value -- but now operating in a flat, integrated team structure regardless of company affiliation or expertise. Coaches continue to be inquisitive, participative and foster continuous improvement by having real time conversations toward action.\n"},{"$f":"C5","v":0}]
["C",{"$f":"F6","v":"Lean Learning Strategy"},null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A4","v":"TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B4","v":"Lean Learning Strategy"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C4","v":"Provide Lean Learning strategy to support behaviors and practices that add value to the project and the industry\n• Effective, well-coordinated training that maximizes learning for all stages of the lean journey\n• Team enlists external LCI / LEI recognized lean/IPD expert coach to assess individual and team skills, assist in content for team formation, align group on fundamentals, basics, new behaviors, and endorses the team’s Lean & IPD learning strategy.\n• Individuals are assessed on their Lean and IPD skills, knowledge, and abilities \n• Evidence of a growing coalition of practitioners at line-supervisor level of each of the companies\n• Teams quickly connect learning with doing.\n• Team members take ownership for advancing their own learning."},{"$f":"Characteristics!D4","v":"0 = Unaware: Learning/training is not considered part of the project responsibility.  \n1 = Aware: Team recognizes value of learning and provides ad hoc content with no detailed plan or objectives for learning efforts.  Training is delivered by a select few, to limited attendance and may share content outside of project team. Visibility of learning & application is limited.\n2 = Learning: Learning Plan with objectives is developed but not adhered to.  Events are scheduled and well attended by project team. Training is delivered by team experts no matter their role or organization, learning is visible. Teams regularly share learning outside of project team.  \n3 = Competent: Learning plan is highly visible, meets needs of ALL team members and is consistently utilized and referred to.  Team sees positive results and narrowing of variability through applying Lean fundamentals across team members.  Coaches provide correction of improper behavior.\n4 = Consistent: Individuals are assessed for their specific lean and IPD skills, knowledge, and abilities upon assignment to project. Ownership for training and learning opportunities is at the individual level.   Low variability in disciplined practice of the Lean fundamentals.  \n5 = Innovating: Project teams enlist external peer/coach to assess feedback on struggles, failures, successes, and learnings.  \n"},0]
["D",{"$f":"F7","v":"Lean Culture"},null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A5","v":"TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B5","v":"Lean Culture"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C5","v":"Collaboration - Team members are co-located, working out of a Big Room and have one common platform for communication. \nTrust - Team members are extending trust and behaving trustworthily.\nCommitment-Based Management – Leaders are supporting production teams by connecting quality and timeliness of decisions to reliable workflow with visible connection to the work.\nVisual Work Place – Important information and metrics related to the value proposition and productivity are visual, easy to understand, and strategically placed for all on the team to quickly use.  This includes visual work space mapping for construction sites.\nUse of 5S – 5S is evident throughout the project life cycle process from office organization, file management (digital and paper), job site trailers, construction areas, gang boxes, and in supply chain.\nContinuous Improvement - Teams go to see for themselves (go to the genba) for problem solving, use A3 problem solving and data (e.g., Last Planner® Percent Planned Complete, variance analysis, Pareto charts, process maps, fishbone diagrams) along with open, frequent plus/delta discussions to drive decisions, and as a means to improve work flow through better reliability and productivity.  Improvement ideas are elicited from those actually doing the work.  \n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D5","v":"0 = Unaware: Partners are here because owner requested it.  Still behaving in their own best interest.\n1 = Aware: team is aware they are attempting to change how they do business, but not sure how or what to do next, maybe using ‘stickies’ on the wall to \"plan\" \n2 = Learning: through some coaching are attempting to trust, respect and integrate, identify customer value, and seeking to eliminate easy to see waste\n3 = Competent: the team is functioning as an integrated unit and working through many different operational tools, 5S practices are readily apparent, sharing budget management, making and measuring commitments, holding themselves collectively accountable, and assessing and challenging traditional assumptions.\n4 = Teaching: Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) is integrated into the way the team approaches their work.  A3 problem solving is deeply ingrained.  On-boarding of new team members is done seamlessly.  Team members reach outside the project team to assist others.\n5 = Innovating: Team members are empowered to make suggestions and improvements, every voice is heard, innovation often comes from sources that are outside of subject matter expertise.\n"},0]
["E","Developed & Enabled Experts ",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A6","v":"TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B6","v":"Developed & Enabled Experts "},{"$f":"Characteristics!C6","v":"Experienced practitioners in various areas of the project, team, or organization can help the team move past the status quo of success.  The ability of a team to develop expertise in inexperienced and able team participants will further contribute to the success of the team.  \n• Mentors connected to emerging experts, actively engaged to help develop foundational skills through doing.\n• Managers have deliberately enabled expertise to grow by assigning challenging assignments to individuals. \n• Emerging practitioners have access to internal and external sources for learning and participation (local CoP, seminars, workshops, academic and consortia participation).\n• Project Team creates environment for team members to grow (with small failures in addition to successes) and take on new challenges.\nProject vision and boundaries are set for experts to thrive within their area of expertise.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D6","v":"0 = Unaware: No awareness or actual lean expertise on project team.  Unaware of benefit to project team.\n1 = Aware: Experienced practitioners are identified and some try to be inclusive, team members don’t actively seek out guidance from experienced practitioners (especially when not within their organization).\n2 = Learning: open discussion about value and need to mentor, some opportunities provided for inexperienced to step up and facilitate or teach. \n3 = Competent: Specific emphasis is visible on growing inexperienced into leaders. Difficult tasks have been assigned to inexperience with guided autonomy. A mentor identified to guide and coach. \n4 =Teaching: There are multiple dedicated mentoring relationships visible to team, everyone supports the growth of inexperienced individuals.  Growth is visible over time. \n5 = Innovating: individuals are identified for specific long range growth opportunities, may attend classes or seminars, and bring that learning back to the team and home offices.\n"},0]
["F","Utilization of Lean Management Tools ",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A7","v":"TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B7","v":"Utilization of Lean Management Tools "},{"$f":"Characteristics!C7","v":"Lean Tools (i.e. A3s, VSM, Kaizen, 5 Why's, 5 S's, etc.)\nSuggestions to project teams:  \n• Team members should first learn about the different Lean tools available and determine which ones are best suited for their particular project,\n• Then, make a commitment and implementation plan for those specific tools,\n• Seek coaching (if needed) to make sure implementation is successful \n\nNote: Don't start all tools at the same time, get really good at a few first, then move on to others when the team is ready\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D7","v":"0 = Unaware: of the many tools available\n1 = Aware: attempted use of one of two, no consistent effort to learn or use other tools\n2 = Learning: aware of many but only a few tools are being utilized, Champions have been assigned to each tool and improved use is beginning to show; alternatively, many tools are used with limited impact\n3 = Competent: Most of these tools are in use with competent results. There are continuous improvement activities around the use and results of the tools. Regular reflection by full team is used to confirm tool value\n4 = Teaching: many project participants are using tools as primary means to problem solve and communicate. Home offices are aware and adopting some of the tools.\n5 = Innovating; making the tools better and sharing at conferences, with other peers, and other projects and home offices.  Project and Company execs have clear picture of project flow and current challenges through observation\n"},0]
["G","Lean Health & Maturity Measurement",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A8","v":"TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B8","v":"Lean Health & Maturity Measurement"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C8","v":"• Teams conduct retrospectives throughout the process including assessment of team health and team culture measured against mission, vision and values; PDCA is a habit and governs all practices. Lessons learned and “plus/delta” are a regular scheduled team activity.\n• Conducts regular Team Assessment (discrete, safe assessment, shared within team as a means for continuous improvement) anonymously (perhaps online) with composite results and all comments shared.  Metrics are visually displayed for the entire team to see.\n• Pulls project-level assessments from within Org capabilities (project assessment team sharing output w/ senior management as a means to correlate Team Health and Maturity - cultural behaviors - with critical cost and time indices.)\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D8","v":"0 = Unaware: no evidence team health is an issue, only sporadic attention to team behavior is paid.\n1 = Aware: perhaps partnering is discussed and a few events have occurred. People relate to each other mainly through project technical needs.\n2 = Learning: some survey work has been conducted, sporadic use and outcome discussion happens. Little follow-up on survey results or team health discussions.\n3 = Competent: team health is a subject of learning, regular surveys are taken, action is taken on results, measurements are visually displayed for the team to see and show improvement over time.\n4 = Teaching: Health results are posted and shared with those outside the team, definitive results from previous surveys are known by most, and team members are friends and share social time together.\n5 = Innovating: Correlations between team health and project success are known through metrics and investments are devised by core team members and made to improve health with confidence they will pay a return. \n"},0]
[null,"* Double-Click on each characterisic for description and scoring"]
[null,"Average Assessment Value",{"$f":"IF(SUM(C4:C10)=0,0,AVERAGE(C4:C10))","v":0}]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
["INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY"]
["#","Characteristic","Assessment Scores"]
["A",{"$f":"F103","v":"Strategic Supply Chain"},null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A9","v":"INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B9","v":"Strategic Supply Chain"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C9","v":"• Value-based selection of suppliers is used.  The strategic supplier sourcing plan is fully aligned with the organization’s strategic plan and business model. \n• Suppliers are treated as important partners in achieving strategic goals.\n• Consistency in use of strategic supply chain partners results in building trust and collaboration, enhancing the value proposition through productivity improvements.\n• Customer organization is prepared to assist strategic supply chain to continuously improve their own operations to enhance the value proposition for customer and the strategic supplier.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D9","v":"0 = Unaware, use low bid or cost as major decision making process.\n1 = Aware: recognize that the supply chain is a critical part of success and consider potential benefits of long-term relationship opportunities, but continue to use past practices; practices are still transactional in nature\n2 = Learning: creating a community to discuss alternatives and studying how to better integrate supply chain into the value proposition\n3 = Competent:  changing the way supply chain strategic partnership decisions are made by using value-based criteria and reducing cost-based criteria \n4 = Teaching: supply chain partners and customer organization are learning from one another to enhance the value proposition\n5 = Innovating: customer and strategic supply chain partners are committed to long-term relationships and are collaboratively solving problems as an integrated team to address production flow, enhanced quality, better safety and profitability.\n"},{"$f":"C103","v":0}]
["B","IPD Supplier Selection Process",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A10","v":"INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B10","v":"IPD Supplier Selection Process"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C10","v":"A) A pure IPD project delivery approach using a Multi-party Agreement; or \nB) An IPD-like alternative delivery approach using Interlocking single-party Agreements, delivering more value to a project.\n\nSupplier selection approach\n • Choosing by Advantages (CBA) decisionmaking process coached & used aligning required supplier qualifications; collaborative, fact-based decisionmaking selects suppliers, based on the most important advantages for the project.\n• IPD methodology / expectations defined in the request for qualifications and explained in a “pre-proposal meeting”. Key parties are engaged as soon as owner’s business case is approved.\n• Industry recognized integrated Multi-Party agreement is utilized or is the basis for an owner-version applying the same principles.\n• Business interests of all members of team are aligned with agreed shared risk and shared reward strategies\nWaivers limit the liability among Owner, Designers, and Builders\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D10","v":"0 = Unaware: team is not utilizing nor referencing industry recognized principles for an integrated form of agreement (IFOA).\n1 = Aware: team members are enlisted in the selection of future team members\n2 = Learning:  Team used an industry IFOA document; Team member selection is performed prior to schematic design for primary team members.  Self-taught lean, CBA, and IPD behaviors, processes and tools; little or no coaching used.\n3 = Competent: Team members were trained by a CBA Certified Master & used the full Jim Suhr CBA Decisionmaking system for selection of multi-party team suppliers.  IFOA expectations and CBA Factors and Criteria were included in RFQ;  Team formed before standard schematic design stage;  Self-taught development of conditions of satisfaction – visible, referred to, some measurement of indicators;  \n4 = Teaching: Owner/End User team was trained by a CBA Certified Master & used the full Jim Suhr CBA Decisionmaking system for selection of the very first party(ies) selected to the multiparty team, subsequently added team members were engaged in future team member selection;  IFOA expectations included in RFQ and interested partners attend workshop before proposals are due   \n5 = Innovating: One team member is a CBA Certified Master and actively coaches team in CBA for supplier selection; IPD behaviors are role modeled by 3 or more members of each company, owner demonstrates confidence in process using IPD on next job;  Owner becomes peer coach for another owner as they implement CBA selection on to their project.  team benchmarks lessons with industry peers\n"},{"$f":"C104","v":0}]
["C","Optimization of the Whole, Not the Parts",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A11","v":"INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B11","v":"Optimization of the Whole, Not the Parts"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C11","v":"• Project is viewed as an indivisible whole\n • Every action, decision leads to improving the overall project outcome\n • All participants -- owner, designers and builders -- working together to optimize project results rather than benefiting the individual firms.\nTwo useful models are the chain and the 80/20 rule AKA the effectiveness curve.  The chain model is simple – over strengthening any link of the chain does not benefit the strength of the overall chain.\nThe 80/20 rule reflects the reality of effort and effectiveness.  Also known as the Pareto Principal it has repeatedly shown that typically 20% of the effort yields 80% of the results.  An aspect of the rule is that as performance increases it is much harder to increase performance.  This is central to the principal of optimize the whole – distributing performance across a system yields much better results than a sub-optimized (at great expense) component.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D11","v":"0 = Unaware \n1 = Aware: Not Implemented. There is great variability between high and low performers, frequently accompanied by resentment.\n2 = Learning: Most Items Not Implemented (Ad hoc). Team members sense that some of their work is wasted but don’t know what to do about it.  \n3 = Competent: Partially Implemented (Organized). The team understands the principle, conducts retrospectives occasionally to identify weakest areas, creates and prioritizes countermeasures but struggles to follow through.\n4 = Teaching: Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated). The team consistently focuses improvement efforts in the weakest areas through retrospectives, countermeasures and partnering.\n5 = Innovating: Entirely Implemented (Best In Class). The team is focused on bringing all elements up together, selflessly using the tools identified above with strongly positive results.\n"},0]
["D","Trust & Trustworthiness",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A12","v":"INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B12","v":"Trust & Trustworthiness"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C12","v":"Trust is a measure of the quality of a relationship—between two people, between groups of people, or between a person and an organization. In totally predictable situations the question of trust doesn’t arise: When you know exactly what to expect, there’s no need to make a judgment call. \n--Robert Hurley\n\n• Trust is tightly connected to reliability – the belief that a partner has the knowledge will and capacity to complete a task\n• As team stress increases trust is paradoxically more difficult and more critical to success\n• Trust is built on transparency, respect among all partners\n• Accountability and the ability to meet commitments are measured\n• Plans are based on promises\n• Earned trust catalyzes every transaction between parties (promises made are kept)\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D12","v":"0 = Unaware \n1 = Aware: Not Implemented. Team members build hidden elements into costs, schedules and agendas to secure their own success.  Typical results are wasteful backup documentation and numerous RFI’s /claims.\n2 = Learning: Most Items Not Implemented (Ad hoc).  Some team members pad, some run lean.  This is culturally dangerous, can lead to lower team performance than level 1. \n3 = Competent: Partially Implemented (Organized). Trust occurs consistently within elements but variably between elements.\n4 = Teaching: Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated). The team has high individual reliability:  \n- Pull Plan Percent Complete is high while consistently meeting milestone dates.\n- Little energy is spent on backup documentation, RFI’s/claims.\n- One piece flow typically prevails\n- Leaders provide vision and direction and empower team members to determine the path of execution\n5 = Innovating: Entirely Implemented. The team has high group reliability and support:\n- Team driven to innovate, individuals unafraid to fail in front of the group\n- Breakthrough project performance\n- High level of communication\n"},0]
["E","Integration (information, people & systems)",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A13","v":"INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B13","v":"Integration (information, people & systems)"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C13","v":"Information Integration provides a means for efficient information exchanges, improved process support, and the foundation for a common understanding among the project participants.  The integration can be evaluated along the following lines:  \n• There is a single-source-of-truth on the project where everyone is working from one common platform for communication and information exchanges  \n• Integrated process lead to coordinated and efficient action  \n• Integration is increasing capabilities of the \nentire team and creating results that are greater than the sum parts \n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D13","v":"0 = Unaware \n1 = Aware – the team knows that this is important but various team members use various systems and tools to store and share information. Information cannot be reused and has to be recreated once it is passed between team members. \n2 = Learning – There is some evidence of information reuse, but for the most part information has be recreated.  There also confusion regarding source documents. \n3 = Competent – There is good document and information management systems in place, the team knows where to find the source documents, however, each group created their own datasets based on the source documents. \n4 = Teaching – The majority of participants use a shared document store, they know where to find the source documents, and most information can be reused across participants.   \n5 = Innovating (Best In Class) – All participants utilize a shared document store, they know where to find their source documents, and all information is standardized and can be reused process steps.\n"},0]
["F","Continuous Improvement/Learning",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A14","v":"INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B14","v":"Continuous Improvement/Learning"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C14","v":"Learning and problem solving are key attributes to a Lean/IPD approach. Continuous improvement is evidenced by:\n• An entire team continually seeking ways to improve their own performance based on metrics identified\n• Processes are studied and challenged, experiments conducted with the results immediately fed back into the project\n• Improvements are both small and large \n• Ideas generated, implemented, and owned by workers that result in higher morale and durable change\n• Learning is turned into action\n\nLearning practices include:\n   - Project Retrospectives\n   - Plus/Deltas\n   - Start/Stop/Keep Doing discussions\n   - A3 Thinking and Documentation\n   - Video studies on repetitive activities\n   - 5-Why problem solving\n   - Root Cause Analysis (multiple 5 Why)\n   - Value Stream Mapping (VSM)\n   - Process Mapping\n   - Rapid Improvement Events (Kaizen) \n   - Focused groups formed early on the project to conduct book and article reviews to translate ideas into action \n   - External coaching budgeted and employed to improve implementation of Lean methods \n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D14","v":"Learning and problem solving are key attributes to a Lean/IPD approach. Continuous improvement is evidenced by:\n• An entire team continually seeking ways to improve their own performance based on metrics identified\n• Processes are studied and challenged, experiments conducted with the results immediately fed back into the project\n• Improvements are both small and large \n• Ideas generated, implemented, and owned by workers that result in higher morale and durable change\n• Learning is turned into action\n\nLearning practices include:\n   - Project Retrospectives\n   - Plus/Deltas\n   - Start/Stop/Keep Doing discussions\n   - A3 Thinking and Documentation\n   - Video studies on repetitive activities\n   - 5-Why problem solving\n   - Root Cause Analysis (multiple 5 Why)\n   - Value Stream Mapping (VSM)\n   - Process Mapping\n   - Rapid Improvement Events (Kaizen) \n   - Focused groups formed early on the project to conduct book and article reviews to translate ideas into action \n   - External coaching budgeted and employed to improve implementation of Lean methods \n"},0]
["G",{"$f":"F109","v":"Appropriate Technology"},null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A15","v":"INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B15","v":"Appropriate Technology"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C15","v":"Appropriate Technology is used to support the various workflows on the project.  Below are some examples of appropriate use of technology:\n• Systems and procedures optimized before being automated through appropriate use of Value Stream Mapping to identify current and future state.\n• BIM is being used as a vehicle for integrated design, estimating, collaboration, prototyping, simulation\n• Technology is used to create common understanding, avoid potential problems, and as a tool to identify and resolve conflicts before they affect workflow.\n• Team takes advantage of appropriate project websites, simulation and optimization software where appropriate (not technology for technology’s sake). \n• Technology is utilized to improve business processes, to improve the definition of needs, and to improve the configuration of future space.\n• Technology is used to make workflows of key processes visible and to integrate constraints into production activities.\n• Technology enabled the team to analyze data, status, and collaborate more effectively.\n• Step by step screen shots of how to instructions for using any technology are laminated using Training within Industry.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D15","v":"0 = Unaware: No knowledge or understanding of the element.\n1 = Aware: Knowledge of the element is displayed but not implemented.  The team always defaults to conventional representations when they run into problems.  Technology is used after the fact because it is required.\n2 = Learning: A portion of the element is implemented or is implemented on an ad-hoc basis. There are a few people on the project who know how to access the technology and most team members rely on conventional representations.\n3 = Competent: You can see evidence of the use of technology; the team sometimes relies on the model when they run into problems and sometimes uses 2D drawings and sketches. There are more than a few people on the project who can use the technology. The model is kept up to date and reflects the current conditions of the project but the model does not capture all the conditions on the project.\n4 = Teaching: You can see evidence of the use of technology, the team relies on the model when they run into problems, the model is kept up to date and reflects the current conditions of the project, but the team seems to be in constant clash checking mode.  All of the elements are implemented at a robust level of sophistication with key project leaders actively coaching on implementation.\n5 = Innovating: Team is using indicators to show process control and value added. All of the element is successfully implemented and the project is contributing best known practices to industry for this element.\n"},0]
["H","Mutually Agreed Project Controls",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A16","v":"INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B16","v":"Mutually Agreed Project Controls"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C16","v":"Project Controls traditionally measure actual progress of cost and schedule against the agreed targets. The IPD team must have a system of controls measuring all aspects of the IPD enterprise execution to meet the project’s conditions of satisfaction.  The Project team must agree on the development and use of the following project specific deliverables :\n1. Conditions of Satisfaction: Measurable statements that define success of the project supporting the Business Case including: tenant business processes; design area/space program; levels of quality; Schedule target dates ; Budget Target Cost; Team Lean, IPD Training/Behaviors; Monthly Report Dashboard;\n2. Target Value Design Process Flow Chart with  Benchmark Cost Analysis; Target Cost Validation Study; Integrated Design Plan/BIM Implementation & Document Control Plan; quality management plan\n3.  Project Budget, Estimate Trend vs Target Chart, Budget Tracker, Change Management Work Process Flows:  all costs associated with the project including design services, permits, construction, furniture and equipment, inspections, special consultants;\n4.   Baseline Project Schedule: Includes design, permit review/approval, procurement, construction, facility start-up/commissioning, owner move-in with associated milestone; Milestone Matrix of when pull plans meetings will be held; Constraint Log, Last Planner System Performance Indicators.\n5.   Safety / Injury  Free Workplace Management Plan & Performance Indicators\n6.  Management Team Work Register, Team Assessment / Reflection Log, Team Directory \n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D16","v":"0 = Unaware:  systems are in traditional silos by company.\n1 = Aware: 3 of the 6 elements are in place, not comprehensive\n2 = Learning:  5 of the 6 elements are in place – linked  - visual  - improving\n3 = Competent: 6 of 6 elements fully in use, linked – visual – accurate – utilized real time to inform decisions and take action\n4 = Teaching:  All of number 3 in  place,  PLUS team had a 3rd party assessment for their process and accuracy and is working on adjustments to reduce waste and add more value\n5 = Innovating: All of number 4 in place, PLUS team’s process recognized by IPD industry via white paper presentation/publication in LCI journal as best in class process / performance.\n"},{"$f":"C110","v":0}]
["I","Collaboration",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A17","v":"INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B17","v":"Collaboration"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C17","v":"• People are collaborating not just cooperating\n• People are working together to achieve agreed goals by building on and improving each other’s ideas\n• Performance --  The team environment is synergistic and creates results that exceed what can be achieved by coordination alone\n• The project team is co-located at the right level to progress their work together in cross-functional groups of people best suited to draw and build off each other\n• Innovation – team raises bar to encourage people vigorous exchange of ideas and perspectives to develop solutions to problems and achieve uncommon goals\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D17","v":"0 = Unaware\n1 = Aware: Not Implemented Team-members work independently, passing batches of work to each other with delayed or non-existent feedback. Limited to no communication.\n2 = Learning: Most Items Not Implemented (Ad hoc). Team members coordinate work in smaller chunks but work independently with late breaking, limited feedback\n3 = Competent: Partially Implemented (Organized).Teams are organized into cross-functional groups focused on component level performance\n4 = Teaching: Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated). Consistently strong performance across all elements of a project.\n5 = Innovating: Each team member is focused on improving each other’s performance – mutual coaching with outstanding performances driven by innovation.\n"},{"$f":"C111","v":0}]
["J","Reduced Liability Among Risk/Reward Members",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A18","v":"INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B18","v":"Reduced Liability Among Risk/Reward Members"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C18","v":"• Participants take responsibility for optimizing the project as a whole rather than their individual interests\n• Removes silos and focuses the team on correcting problems without assigning blame\n• Removes disincentives to direct and continuous communication among all parties\n• Communication is rapid, direct, and continuous\n• One contract mechanism for reducing liability is to create “Safe Harbor” decisions.  Aside from the obvious question of what the protected decisions are, this option provides no protection for decisions made or actions taken individually, but on behalf of the collaborative process.\n• Some teams agree to waive claims but only up to a certain limit.  Claims in excess of a certain (large) amount are not waived.  This approach undermines the positive steps the general waiver takes toward reducing wasteful conflict.\n• Some teams will waive all claims among team members, subject to certain exceptions.  The concern with this approach is that an increasing number of states are adopting Fairness in Construction Acts that prohibit requiring contractors to waive claims against the owner.\n• A limitation of liability among team members, unlike the general waiver, it does not run afoul of state laws prohibiting contractors from waiving claims against owners.  While it does allow claims among team members in addition to stated exceptions, it limits those claims to a members’ profit at risk, plus accrued savings.  In this respect it aligns with the sums at risk based on overall project performance.\n• Participants take responsibility for optimizing the project as a whole rather than their individual interests\n• Removes silos and focuses the team on correcting problems without assigning blame\n• Removes disincentives to direct and continuous communication among all parties\n• Communication is rapid, direct, and continuous\n• One contract mechanism for reducing liability is to create “Safe Harbor” decisions.  Aside from the obvious question of what the protected decisions are, this option provides no protection for decisions made or actions taken individually, but on behalf of the collaborative process.\n• Some teams agree to waive claims but only up to a certain limit.  Claims in excess of a certain (large) amount are not waived.  This approach undermines the positive steps the general waiver takes toward reducing wasteful conflict.\n• Some teams will waive all claims among team members, subject to certain exceptions.  The concern with this approach is that an increasing number of states are adopting Fairness in Construction Acts that prohibit requiring contractors to waive claims against the owner.\n• A limitation of liability among team members, unlike the general waiver, it does not run afoul of state laws prohibiting contractors from waiving claims against owners.  While it does allow claims among team members in addition to stated exceptions, it limits those claims to a members’ profit at risk, plus accrued savings.  In this respect it aligns with the sums at risk based on overall project performance.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D18","v":"0 = Unaware: Team members operate   under traditional contracts with traditional allocations of risk.\n1 = Aware:  Team members act in collaboration, but do not have a specific contractual mechanism for reducing claims within the team.\n2 = Learning: Team members select the “Safe Harbor” option for limiting claims.  The Safe Harbor protects team members from Project risks arising from collaboratively reached and mutually agreed-upon decisions.  \n3 = Competent: Team members agree to a general waiver of claims against other team members with standard exceptions (fraud, insurance claims, payments owed by owner), but include limitations that undermine its effectiveness.  \n4 = Teaching: Team members accept a general waiver of claims among each other related to the performance of the Project.  Only standard exceptions apply to the waiver.  These exceptions align with common sense to such an extent that the underlying goals of eliminating silos and focusing members on optimizing the whole are achieved.  \n5 = Innovating: This occurs where a team adopts the limitation of liability approach to reducing liability among team members.  Like the general waiver approach, it does have exceptions, though they tend to be more limited.  \n"},0]
[null,"* Double-Click on each characterisic for description and scoring"]
[null,"Average Assessment Value",{"$f":"IF(SUM(C103:C112)=0,0,AVERAGE(C103:C112))","v":0}]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
["LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT"]
["#","Characteristic","Assessment Scores"]
["A",{"$f":"F203","v":"Project Delivery Team Structure"},null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A19","v":"LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B19","v":"Project Delivery Team Structure"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C19","v":"• Clearly define the “value” proposition for the customer (every customer and project are different).\n• Collectively define the conditions of satisfaction that will meet the “value” proposition.\n• Determine who are the right members, their roles & responsibilities and unique value to the team.\n• Define protocol and timing for issue elevation for team members if they cannot resolve it at the lowest working level.\n• Clearly define protocol for removing a team member that is not integrating into the culture. \n• Establish a physical environment to foster collaboration (e.g. Big Room). \n• Align on accepted behaviors for team member interaction. \n• Visually display the aligned behaviors within the team’s physical environment for reinforcement.\n• Adopt a daily huddle routine to share knowledge and issues with the entire team.\n• Develop on-boarding protocol for new team members.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D19","v":"0 = Unaware: traditional meeting and attendance structure exists; no effort to create a collaborative culture \n1 = Aware: Team members may be co-located, but traditional behaviors still prevail.  Team members are aware that collaboration is the goal, but not certain how to achieve it.\n2 = Learning: Some collaborative cluster group work happening.  Collaborative behaviors are displayed.  The team may, or may not be integrated.  Some visual displays are posted.  Team is still learning how to use the Big Room to its advantage. \n3 = Competent: Well-facilitated big rooms, early agenda with desired outcomes of meetings clearly defined, respectful of time and attendance, several facilitators among the team, team members feel safe to speak up, decent cluster structure, work flow is advancing at or ahead of pace, visual work place is evident. \n4 = Teaching: Team member organization affiliation is not obvious from behavior, strong feeling of trust and respect, every voice is heard, crisp report outs, learning environment. Team moving forward with solid decision making/ little elevation.   Team welcomes visitors to learn. \n5 = Innovating: Entire team is dedicated to problem solving and continuous improvement.  Few, if any, issues require elevation for resolution. Team members are empowered to make suggestions and improvements, every voice is heard, and innovation often comes from sources that are outside of subject matter expertise.   Innovative visual controls are in use.\n"},{"$f":"C203","v":0}]
["B",{"$f":"F204","v":"IPD Team Onboarding & Bootcamp     "},null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A20","v":"LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B20","v":"IPD Team Onboarding & Bootcamp     "},{"$f":"Characteristics!C20","v":"The key to successful Integrated Project Delivery is assembling a team and developing at least the 3 most senior individuals of each firm that are committed to applying all the principles of lean and developing a culture of a learning organization, while learning and applying the IPD business processes.                                                                                                \n• Opening Minds for Organizational Change – study action teams (SAT).  – read, discuss, take action\n• Read, discuss, take action: Project Specific Team agreement as an SAT\n• Completed minimums in Lean basic 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 4H\n• Attend and become train –the - trainer for IPD Onboarding work shop (lean & IPD basics )\n• Attend and become train –the - trainer for IPD Bootcamp including exercises: “silent squares”; “Turn the Tarp”; “DBIA Uses for a Paperclip”; \n• Read, discuss, take action: Why IPD? The Owner’s Perspective  - Umstot Whitepaper as SAT\n• Read, discuss, take action: 5 Dysfunctions of a Team book as an SAT\n• Read, discuss, take action: “The Speed of Trust” book as an SAT\n• Mgmt. Group members chair a “community of practice” 2 consecutive months – rotate with other members for full project duration.\nBusiness Processes & work flows for this project - workshop\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D20","v":"0 = Unaware: no onboarding, no bootcamp, no lean basics \n1 = Aware: 10% of items  are Implemented (Aware)\n2 = Learning: 30% of items  are Implemented each company has 1 senior staff as Train the Trainer (Ad hoc)\n3 = Competent: 60 % of items are implemented; each company has 3 senior most staff Train the Trainer + Community of Practice meets weekly . Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: 80 % of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = Innovating: All of #4 plus 3rd party assessed on  60 day cycle with clear action plan and measured  improvement Entirely Implemented (Best In Class)\n"},{"$f":"C204","v":0}]
["C","Project Target Cost Establishment",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A21","v":"LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B21","v":"Project Target Cost Establishment"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C21","v":"Target costing is the practice of setting the cost of a building in a way to inform the design. The Target Cost is based on the owner's requirements and the owner's willingness to pay for such requirements. The IPD team develops a detailed estimate and designs to it – any potential cost overruns are a handled as a team. Benchmarking helps determine whether or not an allowable cost is adequate for the construction of a desired value. The expected cost provided by the project team is compared with the allowable cost. The target cost is broken down into four categories:\n• Owner direct cost not at risk to the team \n• Total project hard and soft costs including home office overheads \n• Contingency based on appropriate risk by project management team \n• Aggregated team profit (see 4E Incentive Compensation)\n\nIndividual targets for components/tasks can be grouped so that individual costs, while not their sum, are allowed to exceed targets. This serves to provide a higher degree of flexibility to increase the scope (value) or cost saving.  Key practices in developing a Target Cost are:\n• Estimate real-time through-out the design to keep the design on “target” \n• Embed estimation with all components/clusters - estimators become part of the design team\n• Design in Clusters/Project Implementation Teams by system\n• Use of co-location for team integration and collaboration\n• Use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) to construct all the quantities and costs of the building components, ideally before the design starts, based on the owner's requirements. \n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D21","v":"0 =Unaware: project design and project budget requires multiple rework and redesign sessions to align prior to or in early construction \n1 = Aware: target cost work sessions are conducted during design with the cost and scope alignment occurring after design completion. Target Cost was used as part of a traditional contract (Lump Sum, CM @ Risk, GMAX, etc.)\n2 = Learning: target cost work sessions are conducted after Basis of Design (BOD) with the cost and scope alignment occurring early in Detail Design (DD).  Owner and builders share estimating ideas, unit costs, assumptions, clarifications to arrive at a shared understanding of expected cost.  Contingency was based on historical experience. Target Cost was used as a basis for contractual incentives.\n3 = Competent: all of #2 with target cost established collaboratively by owner, designers, and builders based on the owner’s budget, program requirements, market benchmarking, and feasibility study during (BOD).  Value decisions are made and shared to progress design. Chargeable Cost and Payment Provisions were understood by all parties and fully implemented.  Contingency was based on risk. Target Cost was used as a basis for the IPD contract incentive.\n4 = Teaching:  all of #3 with a stretch target cost agreed upon to create enough tension to implement best known practices for solutions without crippling the morale of the team. Rapid cost feedback loops during the early stages of design. Real time estimating is constantly performed and no item or alternative goes further than a week without being estimated. \n5 = Innovating: all of #4 with the team tracking multiple set-based design opportunities.  Integration of real time cost estimated and tracked in BIM.  Target cost included operational cost consideration in addition to project construction cost.\n"},0]
["D","Incentive Compensation Parameters Establishment",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A22","v":"LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B22","v":"Incentive Compensation Parameters Establishment"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C22","v":"While the specifics of how to structure incentives can vary substantially, the underlying objective is to financially align and motivate the team to a common successful project outcome. In an IPD contract the Profit/Incentive Pool (for example, a Profit Pool or Incentive Compensation Layer) is co-developed by the IPD team and is aligned with the Conditions of Satisfaction.  \n• The owner/operator typically guarantees that all true costs will be paid, regardless of outcome, to remove the fear of catastrophic failure and to encourage innovation. Only profit is at risk.\n• The incentive pool is shared proportionally by the IPD contract signatories and paid out on agreed upon milestones depending on the length of schedule. \n• All parties on the integrated team receive the incentive payout, or no one does–regardless of where the fault lies. This stipulation is one of the biggest contractual levers to creating an integrated team; hence the “shared risk and reward” part of IPD. \n\nNote: Incentives based on Safety (apart from sponsored celebration lunches, raffles, recognition awards, etc.) are not recommended.  Safety has a higher moral and ethical value that is not to be monetized.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D22","v":"0 = Unaware: no incentive structure implemented \n1 = Aware: incentive structure only in place for Construction Management/General Contractor (CM/GC) \n2 = Learning: incentive structure in place for CM/GC and Architects/Engineers (A/E) with some pass through incentives to trades; typically in a tri-party contract. \n3 = Competent: incentive structure in place for CM/GC, A/E, and trade partners with shared documents to account for monthly costs and overhead; typically in a poly-party or IFOA contract. Risk and opportunity is tracked by project team leadership primarily within areas of expertise.  \n4 = Teaching: all of #3 with cost and savings trade-offs documented to improve the overall team profit as a result of team members acting in the interest of the project not their own organizations. The incentive structure reinforced and aligned the team to meet the Conditions of Satisfaction.  Demonstrated active risk mitigation by IPD partners, regardless of expertise, drove value and identification of opportunities.  \n5 = Innovating: all of #4 with incentives extended to all project participants.  Design phase incentive structure was instituted to capture and reward innovation produced by the team.  Cost saving was considered a bi-product of a team-first culture to improve processes, share staff, and collaborate to deliver the highest value to the client for the right total cost.\n"},0]
["E","Big Room Setup",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A23","v":"LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B23","v":"Big Room Setup"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C23","v":"The Big Room is a shared space which includes at a minimum: the owner, the design team and the constructor to encourage collaboration and communication among all parties.  Co-location of consultants and major trade partners is strongly encouraged.  Characteristics of successful Big Rooms include:\n• Real-time coordination and problem solving in a common location, using a common technology platform that everyone uses to plan and communicate\n• Optimized levels of understanding and transparency of the whole project – and all its interdependencies\n•  Big Room is adjacent to the workface; highly visual; the setup meets the team's needs for both collaborative and private work spaces; optimal use of space and resources; highly visual planning  and metrics (i.e. Conditions of Satisfaction;  L1, L2 Milestone Plans integrated across all areas/phases including commissioning; Phase Pulls, 6 week look-ahead Plan, WWP, PPC - actual and trend; Variance Pareto; Constraint Log, w/ clear removal ownership and identification timing trends\n• Project decisions are made quickly in the Big Room, often documented on A3’s and posted, and the results and quality of those decisions are evident at the workface\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D23","v":"0 = Unaware, typical meeting structure and attendance; work space is not used collaboratively\n1 =  Aware: Large group is in the same room, but there is limited application knowledge, limited value \n2 =  Learning: attempting cluster work groups, reporting to larger group, not sure right people/right work happening, not very visual, question financial value\n3 =  Competent: well facilitated, strong agenda, visual management tools used, work progressing collaboratively, safe to speak up\n4 =  Teaching: 5-6 strong facilitators, Big Room rules adopted, rapid problem Identification and resolution, work progressing at or ahead of schedule, constructive conflicts are obvious, items prioritized or parked efficiently. Feeling of high productivity\n5 =  Innovating: learning environment, everybody speaks up, high commitment level measured and reported, trust, respect, accountability obvious, leadership and decision making closely tied to the ongoing work; activity financial targets are being met or exceeded\n"},0,null,null,null,3]
["F","Co-developed Project Visual Controls",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A24","v":"LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B24","v":"Co-developed Project Visual Controls"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C24","v":"• Apparent that Earned Value Management Fundamentals are being applied in a collaborative and controlled approach, and driven off the following seven industry standard metrics:\n        1. EV  =  Physical % Complete x Budget\n        2. PV  =  Schedule % Complete x Budget\n        3. Cost Variance (CV  =  EV - AC) \n        4. Schedule Variance (SV  =  EV - PV)\n        5. Cost Performance Index (CPI  =  EV/AC)\n        6. Schedule Performance Index (SPI  =  EV/PV)\n        7. Estimated Cost at Completion (EAC)\n• EVM input and output efforts are streamlined and centralized to a single point for output management\n• Output is agreed to by all project participants, and meets the project objectives\n• Output is available and used by the team as a means to understand and proactively adjust project performance.\n*Additionally required project controls have been developed collaborative and put in place\n• Well managed and visible output – in the Big Room and at the Daily Huddle areas:\n            o Percent Plan Complete (PPC) \n            o Variance Pareto\n            o Constraint Log and ID timing\n*All kept up to date, accurate and utilized by the team\n• For teams using target value delivery, visual tracking and posting of estimated cost status by cluster (system) group and overall project during design.  During construction, visual tracking and posting of overall construction cost relative to target cost.\n• If tracking labor productivity by craft, make this visual via graph and track at weekly intervals.  Graphs should include both predicted productivity and actual productivity.\n• If zone work planning is being used on project, this should be color coded and posted visually for all to see who is working when in what sector of the project.\n• If takt time planning is being used, what sections are being used and what trades are in what sections at what time.  These should be visually posted for all on the project (including craft).\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D24","v":"0 = Unaware: No visual project controls are kept or posted\n1 = Aware:  Team has developed suggested project controls but they not visual to the team and/or not kept current\n2 = Learning:  Some Project Controls have been developed and are visual and relatively current, but they are not regularly discussed and do not seem to impact project behaviors\n3 =  Competent: Most Project Controls have been organized, posted visually and are discussed at least weekly in team meetings and Weekly Work Plan sessions\n4 =  Teaching: : All Project Controls have been organized, posted visually and are discussed at least weekly in team meetings and Weekly Work Plan sessions; they impact project behaviors; team incentives or celebrations are held when goals are exceeded\n5 =  Innovative: Entirely Implemented (Best In Class) All Project Controls have been organized, posted visually and are discussed at least weekly in team meetings and Weekly Work Plan sessions; impact project behaviors; team incentives or celebrations are held when goals are exceeded AND the team has developed innovative additional Visual Project Controls \n"},{"$f":"C208","v":0}]
["G","Project Team TVD Training",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A25","v":"LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B25","v":"Project Team TVD Training"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C25","v":"Core Management Team: Visible and actively engages in the project team environment.\n• Ensures project team members have the necessary training, resources and peer support throughout implementation and into sustaining. \n• Conducts frequent system health/maturity assessments and retrospectives.\n• Determines what is going well, what has the team learned, what needs more attention, what are the remaining challenges, what help do \"you or the team\" need to succeed? \n• Communicates the bright spots and things not going well equally so that the entire production team is aware and learning. \n• Team members talk openly about strengths and weaknesses without fear of reprisal.\n• Builds Plan-Do-Study-Act into how the team functions as a group.\n• Effective, well-coordinated training that maximizes learning in the best use of people's time. \nTeam Members:\n• Project team members are training via external class or facilitated by a other experts.\n• Project team members quickly couple training with practice. \n• Growing coalition of practitioners helping each other understand the often times abstract view of waste elimination and providing \"value\" to the customer. \n• The team has a plan for continuous learning throughout design, for instance using Study-Action Teams, Lean coffees, lunch and learns, participating in local Communities of Practice and inviting guests as on-lookers and teachers.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D25","v":"0 = Unaware: not aware of unique challenges of managing a virtual organization, using traditional systems Not implemented\n1 = Aware: Attempting to share estimates, concepts, align assumptions and clarifications. No documented training plan. Leaders & team members are at minimum aware of TVD and their role in supporting implementation.\n2 = Learning: Team is aware of need for deeper understanding of each other’s processes. Attempting to keep estimate current with design, not yet functioning with detailed estimate informing design. Leaders & team members are aware of practices and need to train team but have not prioritized activity. \n3 = Competent: Leaders and team members seeing positive results from target setting and determination of \"value\" in the establishment of Conditions of Satisfaction. Leaders are inquisitive and actively helping the team identify and remove waste. Clusters are multi-dimensional and functioning well.\n4 = Teaching: Practitioners quickly connecting training to practice. Groups have established costs and priority with open collaboration in the Big Room Report out. Leaders are actively engaged in helping team achieve goals and providing quick decision making and roadblock removal. Low variation in cluster/group implementation of TVD fundamentals across teams.\n5 = Innovating:  Cluster/Team members now lead the way; leaders have become coaches. Visibility and engagement are now integral behaviors – still aimed at improving value  – but now operating in a flat, democratic team structure. Coaches remaining inquisitive, participative and achieving continuous improvement by having real time conversations toward action. Team is achieving or exceeding target cost goals, conditions of satisfaction and aspirational goals.\n"},0]
["H","TVD Implementation",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A26","v":"LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B26","v":"TVD Implementation"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C26","v":"• Engage deeply with the client to establish the target-value; express the client value as a collection of “conditions of satisfaction” that are prominent in all decision making.\n• Lead the design effort for learning and innovation; \"What do we want to learn?” and, \"What do we need to learn?\" guides the management of the process.\n• Design to agreed system-by-system budgets.\n• Design in small batches, but estimate continuously; “single-piece flow” works in design even better than in the field. It helps keep the design coordinated while minimizing rework and it makes estimating easier.\n• Collaboratively plan and re-plan the project; use LPS® or the Kanban Method to work reliably to customer requirements while maintaining flow.• Design the product in concurrent design sets; not everything, but do it by plan.• Design in the sequence of the \"customer\" who will use it; pull plan design as a whole and each phase of work.• Work in small and diverse groups; two is better than one, particularly when it comes to the productivity and quality of design details.\n• Work in a Big Room; the big room is a system that brings visual management for maintaining alignment, fostering collaboration, keeping focus and speeding decision making.\n• Engage the client(s) as a key performer throughout design and construction.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D26","v":"0 = Unaware: Participants estimate drawings as published Not Scored\n1 = Aware: Builders work with designers but not sure how to communicate or contribute, designers may not be receptive. Not Implemented (Aware)\n2 = Learning: Designers solicit and builders offer input, options and alternatives. Most Items Not Implemented (Ad hoc)\n3 = Competent: Small groups of diverse experts advance design with cost as a key input. Builders are full members of the design teams. Alternatives are considered before modeling begins. The cost impact of design is fairly well known before documented. Rapid pricing is used to limit detail design time. Design sets are shared with other clusters to verify impact to their work. Schedule, procurement and logistics impact each design decision. Design is scheduled to identify and reduce risk rather than traditional design progression.  Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: cost targets are parsed to individual clusters, each innovates to their target, solution sets are carried to help other clusters with target challenges,  build sequence influences packaging strategy and procurement opportunities may influence design development. Most of the practices are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = Innovating: Unique solutions present themselves to significantly alter cost and value decisions. New standards or alternatives are implemented through life cycle analysis. Entirely implemented (Best In Class)\n"},0]
["I","Team Performance Metrics",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A27","v":"LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B27","v":"Team Performance Metrics"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C27","v":"The team routinely measures its performance based on Goals, Targets, Values and Project Controls metrics, and the team conducts retrospectives throughout the process; PDCA governs all practices. Lessons learned and “plus/delta” are a regular scheduled team activity."},{"$f":"Characteristics!D27","v":"0  =  Unaware: The project’s main focus is cost and schedule only; other team performance metrics are not implemented\n1  =  Aware: The team recognizes that effort will be required to get better at what they do but implementation of metrics and tools is not evident\n2  =  Learning: Team has some performance metrics and attempts sporadic or halfhearted retrospectives, PDCA is a concept not a practice.; some tools are evident and practiced\n3  =  Competent: Team measures its performance using various metrics, Plus Delta is common with limited Deltas repeated, retrospectives are held at least quarterly, PDCA is a focus effort occasionally, Start/stop/keep is at least a bi-monthly effort; most tools are in use & evident (regular check-ins are being managed)\n4  =  Teaching: All tools are evident with good success (PDCA, LPS, Lessons Learned and \"Plus/Delta\"), Plus Deltas are frequent, retrospectives occur monthly and improvements can be pinpointed as an outcome. \n5  =  Innovating: All of #4 above PLUS Critical learning is documented and shared with outsiders in hopes of them not making similar mistakes. Entirely Implemented with exceptional success\n"},0]
["J","BIM Implementation",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A28","v":"LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B28","v":"BIM Implementation"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C28","v":"• Owners information requirements are developed up front and in collaboration with the team. \n• The team has a clear understanding regarding how participants will leverage information through all phases of the program \n• Process and Information Exchange Workflows are co-developed (by the author of the information and recipient of the information) and well documented. \n• The team fully understands where the source documents are stored (i.e. what documents are used to control tolerances and dimensions). \n• The team fully understands what information is fixed and what information is still in progress. \n• The use of the model is the focus of all project integration meetings.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D28","v":"0 = Unaware: BIM not used on the project. \n1 =  Aware: BIM Implementation Plan.   The team knows where to find the BIM Plan document but most team members are unaware of its contents. \n2 =  Learning: partners have common software and platforms, BIM Pilot has been completed on selective scopes and Lessons Learned with improvement plan identified \n3 = Competent: partners are sharing models regularly and developing the design collaboratively, the software translates to manufacture capability, and clash detection is part of design effort. The team can extract some quantities from the model for estimating and cost-modeling. \n4 = Teaching:  BIM Standard Processes defined & implemented and backed with documented best practices. Critical Success Indicators (CSIs) defined & collected to demonstrate ROI. Shop drawings and submittal processes incorporated into model for collaborative review and effort reduction.  The team is able to extract the majority of quantities from the model for estimating and cost modeling. \n5 = Innovate: Full BIM Implementation informing logistics, cost, and schedule. The schedule is informed by the model to optimize equipment, lay-down and other space uses as a function of time. The model is updated to match field installation for future reference, as built scans inform future constructability.\n"},0]
["K","Prefabrication & Modularization",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A29","v":"LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B29","v":"Prefabrication & Modularization"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C29","v":"• Prefabrication plan is co-developed by all parties (owner, designer, and builders) during the design phase. \n• Logistical factors are considered in the co-developed plan to optimize workflows and to unveil opportunities for efficiencies \n• During execution, a significant percentage of value-added work (larger diameter pipe, duct) is constructed in a controlled environment (i.e. prefab shop) away from the workface \n• Standardized assemblies and specific \nsubassemblies are also considered, planned for and built where possible in a controlled environment away from the workface \n\nThe team makes extensive use of the model to coordination fabricated assemblies against other systems, and there is a formal information release and sign off processes.\n\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D29","v":"0 = Unaware: team not interested in Pre-fabrication Not Scored \n1 = Aware (the team, for example, is using some pre-assembly on a limited basis (pre-welding of misc. metal items, toilet in-wall plumbing, some material is on wheels). \n2 = Learning: The team is using limited offsite fabrication of pipe racks of some systems such as racks. \n3 = Competent: The team is implementing off-site fabrication on various sub-systems such as common rack systems). \n4 = Teaching: The team is implementing offsite fabrication of complete sub-assemblies (for example wall systems including all framing, backing, plumbing, electrical, backing). \n5 = Innovating: Full off-site pre-assembly of both sub-assemblies as well as components with a well-executed just-in-time delivery approach.\n"},0]
[null,"* Double-Click on each characterisic for description and scoring"]
[null,"Average Assessment Value",{"$f":"IF(SUM(C203:C213)=0,0,AVERAGE(C203:C213))","v":0}]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
["LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM"]
["#","Characteristic","Assessment Scores"]
["A",{"$f":"F303","v":"Project Team Training "},null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A30","v":"LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B30","v":"Project Team Training "},{"$f":"Characteristics!C30","v":"• Consistent and disciplined implementation of the Last Planner® System. \n• Effective, well-coordinated training that maximizes learning in the best use of people's time. \n• Project team members quickly coupling training with practice. \n• Project teams learn how to see waste on projects and understand how this fundamental viewpoint fuels teams to achieve their workflow reliability goals. \n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D30","v":"0 = Unaware: no specific knowledge or attempt to consider\n1 = Aware No documented training plan - no visible benefits from whatever training efforts consumed.\n2 = Learning: Documented training plan, but not consistently followed. High variability in disciplined practice of the LPS fundamentals based on who is running the meeting.\n3 = Competent: Effective training per plan, seeing positive results and narrowing of variability in disciplined practice of the LPS fundamentals across the team. Behaviors observed show a growing number of early adopters transforming into disciplined LPS practitioners (individuals are making it their own)\n4 = Teaching: Practitioners quickly connecting training to practice. Team reaching out to other teams to offer help and to ask for help. Low variability in disciplined practice of the LPS fundamentals across the team. Confident enough to share with project outsiders.\n5 = Innovating:  Best in class training; exceptional success. Everyone is rowing in the same direction. Results worthy of bragging or publishing to other teams for their growth and learning\n"},{"$f":"C303","v":0}]
["B",{"$f":"F304","v":"Master Planning "},null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A31","v":"LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B31","v":"Master Planning "},{"$f":"Characteristics!C31","v":"• (Master Schedule) This plan is high-level and gives the team the confidence they can deliver the overall project in the appropriate time frame. \n• Consists of major milestones, major events, and long lead items on a project, as well as sets the parameters for the Phases to be pull planned as the work gets closer. It is often the basis for contractual agreements between the owner and other team members.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D31","v":"0 = Unaware: no specific knowledge or attempt to consider\n1 = Aware: Contract schedule exists but not all team members and/or partners are aware or using to influence planning regularly. \n2 = Learning: Creating team alignment around the milestone definitions from the contract schedule. to Level 1 and 2 milestones stable (<50% variability)\n3 = Competent: updating and redefining milestones and logic links regularly as conditions change, publishing and discussing for full team alignment. Level 1 and 2 milestones stable (<25% weekly variability) and visible to First Planners (used to plan and commit logistics, resources, materials and equipment)\n4 = Teaching: logic ties from weekly and look ahead planning to master plan for accurate updating and predicting outcomes. Level 1 and 2 milestones stable (<10% weekly variability) and visible to the Last Planners (used to plan, screen and assign tasks)\n5 = Innovating: All Milestones visible to everyone in the Big Room, functioning as tangible connections to the work, and it is evident that the production teams are directly connecting Pull Planning, Phase Scheduling, and Weekly Work Planning to agreed milestones. Resulting in duration reductions with high predictability.\n"},{"$f":"C304","v":0}]
["C","Phase Planning / Pull Planning",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A32","v":"LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B32","v":"Phase Planning / Pull Planning"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C32","v":"• (Phase) A period of the project where a specific group of activities is scheduled to be accomplished such as building design, completion of foundations, building dry-in, etc. A phase can be either a time period or a group of activities leading to the accomplishment of a defined goal/milestone that releases a series of new work.\n• (Pull Plan) A plan for executing a specific phase of a project. The plan is built collaboratively by the people who are actually responsible for accomplishing the work. It is done using the pull technique of requesting the work from downstream customers and careful definition of the hand-offs between parties. \n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D32","v":"0 = Unaware: team working to a dictated Gannt or other type project schedule Not Scored\n1 = Aware; attempting pull planning, no concise common understanding of milestone or phase, critical people missing, commitment language vague Not Implemented.\n2 = Learning: Common language, defining milestone deliverable, struggle with commitment and negotiation not documenting all handoffs, sessions running long, pull plans not fitting within milestone dates. Most Items Not Implemented (Ad Hoc)\n3 = Competent: defined milestone outcome, all parties participating, measuring PPC around 75% documenting variance reasons, visible production improvement Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: unplanned Pull planning happens for small integrated issues without instruction, in the field, willing to share tool with others Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = Innovating: planning used to remove constraints, implement and assess change, overcome unforeseen setbacks, obvious schedule improvement or recovery due to team planning. Entirely Implemented (Best In Class)\n"},0]
["D","Make Ready Planning ",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A33","v":"LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B33","v":"Make Ready Planning "},{"$f":"Characteristics!C33","v":"• To “make ready” is to take actions needed to remove constraints from assignments to ensure the work \"Can\" be done as planned.\n• Use of a 6 week look-ahead schedule of what work is supposed take place, based on the pull plans.\n• (Constraint Log) A form for capturing all of the constraints that can be identified from the six week look-ahead plan. \n• At minimum, looking at a six week segment view of the overall plans; focusing progressively more on the week directly in front of the team. \n• Common constraints include funding, labor, information, submittals, decisions, materials, equipment.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D33","v":"0 = Unaware: partners responding to dictation from leadership for weekly activity Not Scored\n1 = Aware: partners asked and provide input, little collaborative effort to integrate work regularly Not Implemented (Aware)\n2 = Learning: team is aware of agreed upon master plan, attempting to plan and schedule collaboratively, developing project flow, discussing resource use and availability and shared logistics, leaders solicit input from each partner and attempt to eliminate out of sequence work, discussing each other’s needs Most Items Not Implemented (Ad hoc)\n3 = Competent: regular planning meetings considering all activity collaboratively, picking crew sizes for flow to optimize, workable back log defined. Getting reliable commitments from performers to remove constraints.  Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: very little variance with waiting or material/information not available, PDCA around top 3 variances, engaging inspection authority in planning consistently, responding to constraints and tying information flow to field resources Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = innovating: sharing resources to optimize financial benefit, limiting overtime to strategic use, only confirming RFI use, visible schedule and measurable safety improvement. High craft/designer morale, job satisfaction surveys used and showing improvement, no project chaos, Entirely Implemented (Best In Class)\n"},0]
["E","Weekly Work Planning",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A34","v":"LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B34","v":"Weekly Work Planning"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C34","v":"The process by which the Last Planner establishes the plan for the upcoming week. Output of Weekly Work Planning is the Weekly Work Plan (WWP), which is the commitment-level (“will”) planning step of LPS identifying the promised task completions agreed upon by the Performers. \n• The WWP contains specific commitments by Last Planners as to what will be accomplished, where it will be done, and by when it will be done. \n• Quality commitments include:\nI. Safe – all precautions are taken\nII. Sound – the wherewithal is available – no constraints\nIII. In Sequence – prerequisite work is done, matches the overall plan\nIV. Right-sized – can be done in a week or less\n• Workable backlog is included in the WWP. This is work that can be done if a crew gets ahead or if their planned work isn’t released. \n• The WWP is used to determine the success of the planning effort and to determine what factors limit performance. It is the basis of measuring PPC (Percent Plan Complete). \n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D34","v":"0 = Unaware: foreman take instruction from superintendent. Not Scored\n1 = Aware: foreman participate, focus mainly on their own scope, Not Implemented (Aware)\n2 = Learning: foremen discuss their work needs and learn about others. Learning to make commitments with clearly defined Conditions of Satisfaction and learning to report variance Most Items Not Implemented (Ad =Hoc)\n3 = Competent: foremen come prepared with weekly plan then collaborate with others, can change to accommodate needs of the project. All activities noted finish within the week. Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: WWP is available at work face, everyone uses as the work plan, daily huddles discuss variance and re-plan on the spot, lack of information, tools, equipment or materials never stop the work. Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = innovating: pull planning concepts are used to re-plan on the spot, PPC is trending upward, breakdown are identified quickly, Entirely Implemented (Best In Class)\n"},0]
["F","Daily Commitment Management (Daily Huddle) ",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A35","v":"LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B35","v":"Daily Commitment Management (Daily Huddle) "},{"$f":"Characteristics!C35","v":"Confirmation from the Last Planners (i.e. foremen) that they did accomplish their promises / commitments since the last huddle and that they intend to complete their commitments before the next huddle.  In addition, communicate any new constraints that may prohibit their planned tasks from being achieved. \nThese can be held at the start of the day, the end of the day, or other appropriate time as decided by the team.\n• The intent of this meeting is to recommit to the plan and make mutually agreed commitments when plans change. Limiting it to 15 minutes allows the foremen to be effective with their time and to return to their crews to relay the daily plan.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D35","v":"0 = Unaware: no daily gathering to discuss activities Not Scored\n1 = Aware: have tried a few daily huddles, sporadic adoption Not Implemented (Aware)\n2 = Learning: performing regular daily huddles, assessing frequency and attendance. GC does most of the talking. Most Items Not Implemented (Ad hoc)\n3 = Competent: perform huddles daily, adjusting daily plan to circumstances, proper visual tools available, reporting mechanism for non-participants, foreman reporting out their own work without being asked by the Superintendent.  Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: huddles identify and solve problems, or drive information needs before face of work, visitors attend to gain value. Huddles happen even if GC is out. Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = Innovating: huddles occur impromptu to resolve emerging issues, non-subject matter experts offer input to solve problems, information loop closes to document solutions, success is recognized and shared. Entirely Implemented (Best In Class)\n"},0]
["G","Metrics & Reporting",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A36","v":"LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B36","v":"Metrics & Reporting"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C36","v":"• Percent Plan Complete (PPC) A basic measure of how well the planning system is working – calculated as the “number of assignments completed on the day stated” divided by the “total number of assignments made for the week”.   It measures the percentage of assignments that are 100% complete as planned.\n• Frequency of and Reasons for Variance - Factors that prevented an assignment from being completed as promised, used by the team to promote learning concerning the failure of the planning system to produce predictable workflow.  By assigning a category of variance to each uncompleted task, a team is able to identify those areas of recurring failure that require additional reflection and analysis.\n• Constraint Log Constraint analysis of all activates in the look-ahead schedule – how many constraints get identified 1 week ahead? How many constraints identified 6 weeks ahead?\n• Percent Constraints Removed (PCR) - Number of constraints removed divided by the number of constraints identified.\n• Delivery of promises to remove constraints. \n• Tasks Anticipated (TA) A measurement of the percentage of tasks completed for a week that were anticipated in the weekly work plan for that week.\n• Tasks Made Ready (TMR) The percentage of tasks in an earlier plan for a week that are included in a later plan for the target week.  \n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D36","v":"0 = Unaware: progress is documented and shared traditionally Not Scored\n1 = Aware: new metrics are recorded inconsistently, no real variance assessment or action Characteristics not evident\n2 = Learning: PPC, variance and constraints are identified and posted regularly, some effort to rectify is visible, Inconsistent management -- or over processing -- of the visible output from the production teams (PPC graph; Variance Pareto; Constraint Log) are sometimes present both at the workface and in the Big Room). Much improvement required. Most Items Not Implemented (Ad hoc)\n3 = Competent: Consistent management of the visible output from the production teams (Constraint Log; WWP; PPC Graph; Variance Pareto present both at the workface and in the Big Room). Team is learning and improving visible output management together. PDCA is used to remove variance/constraints Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: variance/constraint removal is identified and celebrated, A3 reporting methodology is strong and collaborative, Simplified management of the visible output from the production teams (Constraint Log; WWP; PPC Graph; Variance Pareto visible both at the workface and in the Big Room). Task made ready tracking % Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = Innovating; Team has evolved to a point where they've chosen to utilize a mobile platform/software, resulting in highly reliable workflow in a paperless environment - while still having all of the conversations for LPS. Regular team health dashboards are visible and useful, and shared with other teams as templates or examples. Tasks Anticipated is consistently in the 90s or above.  Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n"},0]
["H","Assessment & Continuous Improvement",null,null,{"$f":"Characteristics!A37","v":"LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM"},{"$f":"Characteristics!B37","v":"Assessment & Continuous Improvement"},{"$f":"Characteristics!C37","v":"• The ongoing improvement of the team’s capacity to deliver highly reliable workflow, and the achievement of higher levels of performance through waste removal and positive incremental change.\n• Proper use of PPC, Variance Pareto, Constraint Log and Root Cause Analysis to actively assess and integrate improvements as a team.\n• Use of an anonymous, intra-team self-assessment tool (monthly frequency)\n• Use of an anonymous, program level maturity and health assessment tool (quarterly frequency)\n• Participation in continuous cross-team dialogue aimed at optimizing the whole project.\n"},{"$f":"Characteristics!D37","v":"0 = Unaware: team performing at direction of traditional leaders Not Scored\n1 = Aware: introduction and sporadic use of Plus Delta Not Implemented (Aware)\n2 = Learning: Plus Delta is a habit, start/stop/keep attempted, PDCA has been attempted Most Items Not Implemented (Ad Hoc)\n3 = Competent: Deltas are not repeated, Start/Stop/Keep happens bi-monthly, breakdowns have resolved problems, PDCA is used to remove variance, Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: numerous participants can facilitate a big room meeting, big room rules are commonly practiced, team health assessments are employed and show improvement Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = Innovating: project documentation exists to show efforts, failures and successes on experimentation and improvement. Awards and celebrations are given for participation. Entirely Implemented (Best In Class)\n"},0]
[null,"* Double-Click on each characterisic for description and scoring"]
[null,"Average Assessment Value",{"$f":"IF(SUM(C303:C310)=0,0,AVERAGE(C303:C310))","v":0}]

{"sheet":"Characteristics","index":5,"n_rows":37,"n_cols":4,"rows_kept":37,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[]}
["Element","Characteristic","Description","Scoring"]
["TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE","Lean Construction Knowledge","• Achieves high agreement of both What and How; basically the team is engaged in providing more value (as defined by the customer) while eliminating waste out of the project\n• Standardization: high agreement, no ambiguity, standards are clear and available.\n• Creates a Learning Organization \n       - team members prompt frequent points of reflection \n       - team members have clear access to learning opportunities\n       - leaders are behaving both as learners and as teachers\n       - leaders provide opportunities for other team members to grow both professionally and personally \n","0 = Unaware: not focused on the whole, not aware of waste, satisfied with status quo\n1 = Aware: thinking about improvement, trying to treat others as customers, considering waste elimination processes \n2 = Learning: using reliable promise language, looking for waste in own systems, looking for root cause, discussing work hand off, learning respectful language, researching outside of project/industry for new ideas\n3 = Competent: working to optimize the whole, humble inquiry, constructive conflict, measuring to improve activities, using retrospection to improve, acting on defined improvements \n4 = Teaching: standards are set and measurement occurs with regular frequency, team health is monitored and discussed, waste identification and elimination is celebrated, resource and flow optimization is balanced, focus is on areas to improve\n5 = Innovating: the team behaves as a contiguous unit, everyone's goals are aligned with the project, waste elimination and continuous improvement are an everyday activity\n"]
["TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE","Leadership Behaviors","• Leaders are visible and actively engaged in the project team environment.\n• Leads by example.  Walks the talk.\n• Fosters enabling environment versus command-and-control structure.\n• Ensures project team members have the necessary training, resources and peer support throughout implementation and into sustaining. \n• Conducts frequent system health/maturity assessments (informal and formal)\n• Determines what is going well, what has the team learned, what needs more attention, what are the remaining challenges, what help do \"you or the team\" need to succeed? \n• Communicates the bright spots and things not going well equally so that the entire production team is aware and learning. \n• Team members talk openly about strengths and weaknesses without fear of reprisal.\n• Builds Plan-Do-Check-Act into how the team functions as a group.\n","0 = Unaware: Behave as managers (or micromanagers), exhibit command and control behavior, consume reports with no feedback, only focus on outcomes, look to pin blame\n1 = Aware:  Leaders are at minimum aware of their role in supporting implementation not dictating activity\n2 = Learning: Leaders are beginning to share responsibility for various activities, not always one voice, a few individuals are facilitating work sessions outside their expertise. \n3 = Competent: A distributed leadership is obvious. Various individuals lead and facilitate various functions and meetings. No one voice is overpowering.  Leaders have emerged from different organizations. They are inquisitive and actively helping the team address problems, identify improvement opportunities and remove waste. \n4 = Teaching: Leaders are building followers into leaders. They are fostering experimentation with small improvements; they are encouraging followers to take charge of individual tasks and efforts while coaching from the sidelines. It is clear that leadership’s actions are connected to the team’s health, maturity and continuous improvement. Leaders are inquisitive, participative and achieving continuous improvement by having real time conversations toward action. \n5 = Innovating:  Team members now lead the way; leaders have become coaches. Visibility and engagement are now integral behaviors -- still aimed at improving value -- but now operating in a flat, integrated team structure regardless of company affiliation or expertise. Coaches continue to be inquisitive, participative and foster continuous improvement by having real time conversations toward action.\n"]
["TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE","Lean Learning Strategy","Provide Lean Learning strategy to support behaviors and practices that add value to the project and the industry\n• Effective, well-coordinated training that maximizes learning for all stages of the lean journey\n• Team enlists external LCI / LEI recognized lean/IPD expert coach to assess individual and team skills, assist in content for team formation, align group on fundamentals, basics, new behaviors, and endorses the team’s Lean & IPD learning strategy.\n• Individuals are assessed on their Lean and IPD skills, knowledge, and abilities \n• Evidence of a growing coalition of practitioners at line-supervisor level of each of the companies\n• Teams quickly connect learning with doing.\n• Team members take ownership for advancing their own learning.","0 = Unaware: Learning/training is not considered part of the project responsibility.  \n1 = Aware: Team recognizes value of learning and provides ad hoc content with no detailed plan or objectives for learning efforts.  Training is delivered by a select few, to limited attendance and may share content outside of project team. Visibility of learning & application is limited.\n2 = Learning: Learning Plan with objectives is developed but not adhered to.  Events are scheduled and well attended by project team. Training is delivered by team experts no matter their role or organization, learning is visible. Teams regularly share learning outside of project team.  \n3 = Competent: Learning plan is highly visible, meets needs of ALL team members and is consistently utilized and referred to.  Team sees positive results and narrowing of variability through applying Lean fundamentals across team members.  Coaches provide correction of improper behavior.\n4 = Consistent: Individuals are assessed for their specific lean and IPD skills, knowledge, and abilities upon assignment to project. Ownership for training and learning opportunities is at the individual level.   Low variability in disciplined practice of the Lean fundamentals.  \n5 = Innovating: Project teams enlist external peer/coach to assess feedback on struggles, failures, successes, and learnings.  \n"]
["TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE","Lean Culture","Collaboration - Team members are co-located, working out of a Big Room and have one common platform for communication. \nTrust - Team members are extending trust and behaving trustworthily.\nCommitment-Based Management – Leaders are supporting production teams by connecting quality and timeliness of decisions to reliable workflow with visible connection to the work.\nVisual Work Place – Important information and metrics related to the value proposition and productivity are visual, easy to understand, and strategically placed for all on the team to quickly use.  This includes visual work space mapping for construction sites.\nUse of 5S – 5S is evident throughout the project life cycle process from office organization, file management (digital and paper), job site trailers, construction areas, gang boxes, and in supply chain.\nContinuous Improvement - Teams go to see for themselves (go to the genba) for problem solving, use A3 problem solving and data (e.g., Last Planner® Percent Planned Complete, variance analysis, Pareto charts, process maps, fishbone diagrams) along with open, frequent plus/delta discussions to drive decisions, and as a means to improve work flow through better reliability and productivity.  Improvement ideas are elicited from those actually doing the work.  \n","0 = Unaware: Partners are here because owner requested it.  Still behaving in their own best interest.\n1 = Aware: team is aware they are attempting to change how they do business, but not sure how or what to do next, maybe using ‘stickies’ on the wall to \"plan\" \n2 = Learning: through some coaching are attempting to trust, respect and integrate, identify customer value, and seeking to eliminate easy to see waste\n3 = Competent: the team is functioning as an integrated unit and working through many different operational tools, 5S practices are readily apparent, sharing budget management, making and measuring commitments, holding themselves collectively accountable, and assessing and challenging traditional assumptions.\n4 = Teaching: Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) is integrated into the way the team approaches their work.  A3 problem solving is deeply ingrained.  On-boarding of new team members is done seamlessly.  Team members reach outside the project team to assist others.\n5 = Innovating: Team members are empowered to make suggestions and improvements, every voice is heard, innovation often comes from sources that are outside of subject matter expertise.\n"]
["TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE","Developed & Enabled Experts ","Experienced practitioners in various areas of the project, team, or organization can help the team move past the status quo of success.  The ability of a team to develop expertise in inexperienced and able team participants will further contribute to the success of the team.  \n• Mentors connected to emerging experts, actively engaged to help develop foundational skills through doing.\n• Managers have deliberately enabled expertise to grow by assigning challenging assignments to individuals. \n• Emerging practitioners have access to internal and external sources for learning and participation (local CoP, seminars, workshops, academic and consortia participation).\n• Project Team creates environment for team members to grow (with small failures in addition to successes) and take on new challenges.\nProject vision and boundaries are set for experts to thrive within their area of expertise.\n","0 = Unaware: No awareness or actual lean expertise on project team.  Unaware of benefit to project team.\n1 = Aware: Experienced practitioners are identified and some try to be inclusive, team members don’t actively seek out guidance from experienced practitioners (especially when not within their organization).\n2 = Learning: open discussion about value and need to mentor, some opportunities provided for inexperienced to step up and facilitate or teach. \n3 = Competent: Specific emphasis is visible on growing inexperienced into leaders. Difficult tasks have been assigned to inexperience with guided autonomy. A mentor identified to guide and coach. \n4 =Teaching: There are multiple dedicated mentoring relationships visible to team, everyone supports the growth of inexperienced individuals.  Growth is visible over time. \n5 = Innovating: individuals are identified for specific long range growth opportunities, may attend classes or seminars, and bring that learning back to the team and home offices.\n"]
["TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE","Utilization of Lean Management Tools ","Lean Tools (i.e. A3s, VSM, Kaizen, 5 Why's, 5 S's, etc.)\nSuggestions to project teams:  \n• Team members should first learn about the different Lean tools available and determine which ones are best suited for their particular project,\n• Then, make a commitment and implementation plan for those specific tools,\n• Seek coaching (if needed) to make sure implementation is successful \n\nNote: Don't start all tools at the same time, get really good at a few first, then move on to others when the team is ready\n","0 = Unaware: of the many tools available\n1 = Aware: attempted use of one of two, no consistent effort to learn or use other tools\n2 = Learning: aware of many but only a few tools are being utilized, Champions have been assigned to each tool and improved use is beginning to show; alternatively, many tools are used with limited impact\n3 = Competent: Most of these tools are in use with competent results. There are continuous improvement activities around the use and results of the tools. Regular reflection by full team is used to confirm tool value\n4 = Teaching: many project participants are using tools as primary means to problem solve and communicate. Home offices are aware and adopting some of the tools.\n5 = Innovating; making the tools better and sharing at conferences, with other peers, and other projects and home offices.  Project and Company execs have clear picture of project flow and current challenges through observation\n"]
["TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE","Lean Health & Maturity Measurement","• Teams conduct retrospectives throughout the process including assessment of team health and team culture measured against mission, vision and values; PDCA is a habit and governs all practices. Lessons learned and “plus/delta” are a regular scheduled team activity.\n• Conducts regular Team Assessment (discrete, safe assessment, shared within team as a means for continuous improvement) anonymously (perhaps online) with composite results and all comments shared.  Metrics are visually displayed for the entire team to see.\n• Pulls project-level assessments from within Org capabilities (project assessment team sharing output w/ senior management as a means to correlate Team Health and Maturity - cultural behaviors - with critical cost and time indices.)\n","0 = Unaware: no evidence team health is an issue, only sporadic attention to team behavior is paid.\n1 = Aware: perhaps partnering is discussed and a few events have occurred. People relate to each other mainly through project technical needs.\n2 = Learning: some survey work has been conducted, sporadic use and outcome discussion happens. Little follow-up on survey results or team health discussions.\n3 = Competent: team health is a subject of learning, regular surveys are taken, action is taken on results, measurements are visually displayed for the team to see and show improvement over time.\n4 = Teaching: Health results are posted and shared with those outside the team, definitive results from previous surveys are known by most, and team members are friends and share social time together.\n5 = Innovating: Correlations between team health and project success are known through metrics and investments are devised by core team members and made to improve health with confidence they will pay a return. \n"]
["INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY","Strategic Supply Chain","• Value-based selection of suppliers is used.  The strategic supplier sourcing plan is fully aligned with the organization’s strategic plan and business model. \n• Suppliers are treated as important partners in achieving strategic goals.\n• Consistency in use of strategic supply chain partners results in building trust and collaboration, enhancing the value proposition through productivity improvements.\n• Customer organization is prepared to assist strategic supply chain to continuously improve their own operations to enhance the value proposition for customer and the strategic supplier.\n","0 = Unaware, use low bid or cost as major decision making process.\n1 = Aware: recognize that the supply chain is a critical part of success and consider potential benefits of long-term relationship opportunities, but continue to use past practices; practices are still transactional in nature\n2 = Learning: creating a community to discuss alternatives and studying how to better integrate supply chain into the value proposition\n3 = Competent:  changing the way supply chain strategic partnership decisions are made by using value-based criteria and reducing cost-based criteria \n4 = Teaching: supply chain partners and customer organization are learning from one another to enhance the value proposition\n5 = Innovating: customer and strategic supply chain partners are committed to long-term relationships and are collaboratively solving problems as an integrated team to address production flow, enhanced quality, better safety and profitability.\n"]
["INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY","IPD Supplier Selection Process","A) A pure IPD project delivery approach using a Multi-party Agreement; or \nB) An IPD-like alternative delivery approach using Interlocking single-party Agreements, delivering more value to a project.\n\nSupplier selection approach\n • Choosing by Advantages (CBA) decisionmaking process coached & used aligning required supplier qualifications; collaborative, fact-based decisionmaking selects suppliers, based on the most important advantages for the project.\n• IPD methodology / expectations defined in the request for qualifications and explained in a “pre-proposal meeting”. Key parties are engaged as soon as owner’s business case is approved.\n• Industry recognized integrated Multi-Party agreement is utilized or is the basis for an owner-version applying the same principles.\n• Business interests of all members of team are aligned with agreed shared risk and shared reward strategies\nWaivers limit the liability among Owner, Designers, and Builders\n","0 = Unaware: team is not utilizing nor referencing industry recognized principles for an integrated form of agreement (IFOA).\n1 = Aware: team members are enlisted in the selection of future team members\n2 = Learning:  Team used an industry IFOA document; Team member selection is performed prior to schematic design for primary team members.  Self-taught lean, CBA, and IPD behaviors, processes and tools; little or no coaching used.\n3 = Competent: Team members were trained by a CBA Certified Master & used the full Jim Suhr CBA Decisionmaking system for selection of multi-party team suppliers.  IFOA expectations and CBA Factors and Criteria were included in RFQ;  Team formed before standard schematic design stage;  Self-taught development of conditions of satisfaction – visible, referred to, some measurement of indicators;  \n4 = Teaching: Owner/End User team was trained by a CBA Certified Master & used the full Jim Suhr CBA Decisionmaking system for selection of the very first party(ies) selected to the multiparty team, subsequently added team members were engaged in future team member selection;  IFOA expectations included in RFQ and interested partners attend workshop before proposals are due   \n5 = Innovating: One team member is a CBA Certified Master and actively coaches team in CBA for supplier selection; IPD behaviors are role modeled by 3 or more members of each company, owner demonstrates confidence in process using IPD on next job;  Owner becomes peer coach for another owner as they implement CBA selection on to their project.  team benchmarks lessons with industry peers\n"]
["INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY","Optimization of the Whole, Not the Parts","• Project is viewed as an indivisible whole\n • Every action, decision leads to improving the overall project outcome\n • All participants -- owner, designers and builders -- working together to optimize project results rather than benefiting the individual firms.\nTwo useful models are the chain and the 80/20 rule AKA the effectiveness curve.  The chain model is simple – over strengthening any link of the chain does not benefit the strength of the overall chain.\nThe 80/20 rule reflects the reality of effort and effectiveness.  Also known as the Pareto Principal it has repeatedly shown that typically 20% of the effort yields 80% of the results.  An aspect of the rule is that as performance increases it is much harder to increase performance.  This is central to the principal of optimize the whole – distributing performance across a system yields much better results than a sub-optimized (at great expense) component.\n","0 = Unaware \n1 = Aware: Not Implemented. There is great variability between high and low performers, frequently accompanied by resentment.\n2 = Learning: Most Items Not Implemented (Ad hoc). Team members sense that some of their work is wasted but don’t know what to do about it.  \n3 = Competent: Partially Implemented (Organized). The team understands the principle, conducts retrospectives occasionally to identify weakest areas, creates and prioritizes countermeasures but struggles to follow through.\n4 = Teaching: Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated). The team consistently focuses improvement efforts in the weakest areas through retrospectives, countermeasures and partnering.\n5 = Innovating: Entirely Implemented (Best In Class). The team is focused on bringing all elements up together, selflessly using the tools identified above with strongly positive results.\n"]
["INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY","Trust & Trustworthiness","Trust is a measure of the quality of a relationship—between two people, between groups of people, or between a person and an organization. In totally predictable situations the question of trust doesn’t arise: When you know exactly what to expect, there’s no need to make a judgment call. \n--Robert Hurley\n\n• Trust is tightly connected to reliability – the belief that a partner has the knowledge will and capacity to complete a task\n• As team stress increases trust is paradoxically more difficult and more critical to success\n• Trust is built on transparency, respect among all partners\n• Accountability and the ability to meet commitments are measured\n• Plans are based on promises\n• Earned trust catalyzes every transaction between parties (promises made are kept)\n","0 = Unaware \n1 = Aware: Not Implemented. Team members build hidden elements into costs, schedules and agendas to secure their own success.  Typical results are wasteful backup documentation and numerous RFI’s /claims.\n2 = Learning: Most Items Not Implemented (Ad hoc).  Some team members pad, some run lean.  This is culturally dangerous, can lead to lower team performance than level 1. \n3 = Competent: Partially Implemented (Organized). Trust occurs consistently within elements but variably between elements.\n4 = Teaching: Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated). The team has high individual reliability:  \n- Pull Plan Percent Complete is high while consistently meeting milestone dates.\n- Little energy is spent on backup documentation, RFI’s/claims.\n- One piece flow typically prevails\n- Leaders provide vision and direction and empower team members to determine the path of execution\n5 = Innovating: Entirely Implemented. The team has high group reliability and support:\n- Team driven to innovate, individuals unafraid to fail in front of the group\n- Breakthrough project performance\n- High level of communication\n"]
["INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY","Integration (information, people & systems)","Information Integration provides a means for efficient information exchanges, improved process support, and the foundation for a common understanding among the project participants.  The integration can be evaluated along the following lines:  \n• There is a single-source-of-truth on the project where everyone is working from one common platform for communication and information exchanges  \n• Integrated process lead to coordinated and efficient action  \n• Integration is increasing capabilities of the \nentire team and creating results that are greater than the sum parts \n","0 = Unaware \n1 = Aware – the team knows that this is important but various team members use various systems and tools to store and share information. Information cannot be reused and has to be recreated once it is passed between team members. \n2 = Learning – There is some evidence of information reuse, but for the most part information has be recreated.  There also confusion regarding source documents. \n3 = Competent – There is good document and information management systems in place, the team knows where to find the source documents, however, each group created their own datasets based on the source documents. \n4 = Teaching – The majority of participants use a shared document store, they know where to find the source documents, and most information can be reused across participants.   \n5 = Innovating (Best In Class) – All participants utilize a shared document store, they know where to find their source documents, and all information is standardized and can be reused process steps.\n"]
["INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY","Continuous Improvement/Learning","Learning and problem solving are key attributes to a Lean/IPD approach. Continuous improvement is evidenced by:\n• An entire team continually seeking ways to improve their own performance based on metrics identified\n• Processes are studied and challenged, experiments conducted with the results immediately fed back into the project\n• Improvements are both small and large \n• Ideas generated, implemented, and owned by workers that result in higher morale and durable change\n• Learning is turned into action\n\nLearning practices include:\n   - Project Retrospectives\n   - Plus/Deltas\n   - Start/Stop/Keep Doing discussions\n   - A3 Thinking and Documentation\n   - Video studies on repetitive activities\n   - 5-Why problem solving\n   - Root Cause Analysis (multiple 5 Why)\n   - Value Stream Mapping (VSM)\n   - Process Mapping\n   - Rapid Improvement Events (Kaizen) \n   - Focused groups formed early on the project to conduct book and article reviews to translate ideas into action \n   - External coaching budgeted and employed to improve implementation of Lean methods \n","Learning and problem solving are key attributes to a Lean/IPD approach. Continuous improvement is evidenced by:\n• An entire team continually seeking ways to improve their own performance based on metrics identified\n• Processes are studied and challenged, experiments conducted with the results immediately fed back into the project\n• Improvements are both small and large \n• Ideas generated, implemented, and owned by workers that result in higher morale and durable change\n• Learning is turned into action\n\nLearning practices include:\n   - Project Retrospectives\n   - Plus/Deltas\n   - Start/Stop/Keep Doing discussions\n   - A3 Thinking and Documentation\n   - Video studies on repetitive activities\n   - 5-Why problem solving\n   - Root Cause Analysis (multiple 5 Why)\n   - Value Stream Mapping (VSM)\n   - Process Mapping\n   - Rapid Improvement Events (Kaizen) \n   - Focused groups formed early on the project to conduct book and article reviews to translate ideas into action \n   - External coaching budgeted and employed to improve implementation of Lean methods \n"]
["INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY","Appropriate Technology","Appropriate Technology is used to support the various workflows on the project.  Below are some examples of appropriate use of technology:\n• Systems and procedures optimized before being automated through appropriate use of Value Stream Mapping to identify current and future state.\n• BIM is being used as a vehicle for integrated design, estimating, collaboration, prototyping, simulation\n• Technology is used to create common understanding, avoid potential problems, and as a tool to identify and resolve conflicts before they affect workflow.\n• Team takes advantage of appropriate project websites, simulation and optimization software where appropriate (not technology for technology’s sake). \n• Technology is utilized to improve business processes, to improve the definition of needs, and to improve the configuration of future space.\n• Technology is used to make workflows of key processes visible and to integrate constraints into production activities.\n• Technology enabled the team to analyze data, status, and collaborate more effectively.\n• Step by step screen shots of how to instructions for using any technology are laminated using Training within Industry.\n","0 = Unaware: No knowledge or understanding of the element.\n1 = Aware: Knowledge of the element is displayed but not implemented.  The team always defaults to conventional representations when they run into problems.  Technology is used after the fact because it is required.\n2 = Learning: A portion of the element is implemented or is implemented on an ad-hoc basis. There are a few people on the project who know how to access the technology and most team members rely on conventional representations.\n3 = Competent: You can see evidence of the use of technology; the team sometimes relies on the model when they run into problems and sometimes uses 2D drawings and sketches. There are more than a few people on the project who can use the technology. The model is kept up to date and reflects the current conditions of the project but the model does not capture all the conditions on the project.\n4 = Teaching: You can see evidence of the use of technology, the team relies on the model when they run into problems, the model is kept up to date and reflects the current conditions of the project, but the team seems to be in constant clash checking mode.  All of the elements are implemented at a robust level of sophistication with key project leaders actively coaching on implementation.\n5 = Innovating: Team is using indicators to show process control and value added. All of the element is successfully implemented and the project is contributing best known practices to industry for this element.\n"]
["INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY","Mutually Agreed Project Controls","Project Controls traditionally measure actual progress of cost and schedule against the agreed targets. The IPD team must have a system of controls measuring all aspects of the IPD enterprise execution to meet the project’s conditions of satisfaction.  The Project team must agree on the development and use of the following project specific deliverables :\n1. Conditions of Satisfaction: Measurable statements that define success of the project supporting the Business Case including: tenant business processes; design area/space program; levels of quality; Schedule target dates ; Budget Target Cost; Team Lean, IPD Training/Behaviors; Monthly Report Dashboard;\n2. Target Value Design Process Flow Chart with  Benchmark Cost Analysis; Target Cost Validation Study; Integrated Design Plan/BIM Implementation & Document Control Plan; quality management plan\n3.  Project Budget, Estimate Trend vs Target Chart, Budget Tracker, Change Management Work Process Flows:  all costs associated with the project including design services, permits, construction, furniture and equipment, inspections, special consultants;\n4.   Baseline Project Schedule: Includes design, permit review/approval, procurement, construction, facility start-up/commissioning, owner move-in with associated milestone; Milestone Matrix of when pull plans meetings will be held; Constraint Log, Last Planner System Performance Indicators.\n5.   Safety / Injury  Free Workplace Management Plan & Performance Indicators\n6.  Management Team Work Register, Team Assessment / Reflection Log, Team Directory \n","0 = Unaware:  systems are in traditional silos by company.\n1 = Aware: 3 of the 6 elements are in place, not comprehensive\n2 = Learning:  5 of the 6 elements are in place – linked  - visual  - improving\n3 = Competent: 6 of 6 elements fully in use, linked – visual – accurate – utilized real time to inform decisions and take action\n4 = Teaching:  All of number 3 in  place,  PLUS team had a 3rd party assessment for their process and accuracy and is working on adjustments to reduce waste and add more value\n5 = Innovating: All of number 4 in place, PLUS team’s process recognized by IPD industry via white paper presentation/publication in LCI journal as best in class process / performance.\n"]
["INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY","Collaboration","• People are collaborating not just cooperating\n• People are working together to achieve agreed goals by building on and improving each other’s ideas\n• Performance --  The team environment is synergistic and creates results that exceed what can be achieved by coordination alone\n• The project team is co-located at the right level to progress their work together in cross-functional groups of people best suited to draw and build off each other\n• Innovation – team raises bar to encourage people vigorous exchange of ideas and perspectives to develop solutions to problems and achieve uncommon goals\n","0 = Unaware\n1 = Aware: Not Implemented Team-members work independently, passing batches of work to each other with delayed or non-existent feedback. Limited to no communication.\n2 = Learning: Most Items Not Implemented (Ad hoc). Team members coordinate work in smaller chunks but work independently with late breaking, limited feedback\n3 = Competent: Partially Implemented (Organized).Teams are organized into cross-functional groups focused on component level performance\n4 = Teaching: Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated). Consistently strong performance across all elements of a project.\n5 = Innovating: Each team member is focused on improving each other’s performance – mutual coaching with outstanding performances driven by innovation.\n"]
["INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY","Reduced Liability Among Risk/Reward Members","• Participants take responsibility for optimizing the project as a whole rather than their individual interests\n• Removes silos and focuses the team on correcting problems without assigning blame\n• Removes disincentives to direct and continuous communication among all parties\n• Communication is rapid, direct, and continuous\n• One contract mechanism for reducing liability is to create “Safe Harbor” decisions.  Aside from the obvious question of what the protected decisions are, this option provides no protection for decisions made or actions taken individually, but on behalf of the collaborative process.\n• Some teams agree to waive claims but only up to a certain limit.  Claims in excess of a certain (large) amount are not waived.  This approach undermines the positive steps the general waiver takes toward reducing wasteful conflict.\n• Some teams will waive all claims among team members, subject to certain exceptions.  The concern with this approach is that an increasing number of states are adopting Fairness in Construction Acts that prohibit requiring contractors to waive claims against the owner.\n• A limitation of liability among team members, unlike the general waiver, it does not run afoul of state laws prohibiting contractors from waiving claims against owners.  While it does allow claims among team members in addition to stated exceptions, it limits those claims to a members’ profit at risk, plus accrued savings.  In this respect it aligns with the sums at risk based on overall project performance.\n• Participants take responsibility for optimizing the project as a whole rather than their individual interests\n• Removes silos and focuses the team on correcting problems without assigning blame\n• Removes disincentives to direct and continuous communication among all parties\n• Communication is rapid, direct, and continuous\n• One contract mechanism for reducing liability is to create “Safe Harbor” decisions.  Aside from the obvious question of what the protected decisions are, this option provides no protection for decisions made or actions taken individually, but on behalf of the collaborative process.\n• Some teams agree to waive claims but only up to a certain limit.  Claims in excess of a certain (large) amount are not waived.  This approach undermines the positive steps the general waiver takes toward reducing wasteful conflict.\n• Some teams will waive all claims among team members, subject to certain exceptions.  The concern with this approach is that an increasing number of states are adopting Fairness in Construction Acts that prohibit requiring contractors to waive claims against the owner.\n• A limitation of liability among team members, unlike the general waiver, it does not run afoul of state laws prohibiting contractors from waiving claims against owners.  While it does allow claims among team members in addition to stated exceptions, it limits those claims to a members’ profit at risk, plus accrued savings.  In this respect it aligns with the sums at risk based on overall project performance.\n","0 = Unaware: Team members operate   under traditional contracts with traditional allocations of risk.\n1 = Aware:  Team members act in collaboration, but do not have a specific contractual mechanism for reducing claims within the team.\n2 = Learning: Team members select the “Safe Harbor” option for limiting claims.  The Safe Harbor protects team members from Project risks arising from collaboratively reached and mutually agreed-upon decisions.  \n3 = Competent: Team members agree to a general waiver of claims against other team members with standard exceptions (fraud, insurance claims, payments owed by owner), but include limitations that undermine its effectiveness.  \n4 = Teaching: Team members accept a general waiver of claims among each other related to the performance of the Project.  Only standard exceptions apply to the waiver.  These exceptions align with common sense to such an extent that the underlying goals of eliminating silos and focusing members on optimizing the whole are achieved.  \n5 = Innovating: This occurs where a team adopts the limitation of liability approach to reducing liability among team members.  Like the general waiver approach, it does have exceptions, though they tend to be more limited.  \n"]
["LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT","Project Delivery Team Structure","• Clearly define the “value” proposition for the customer (every customer and project are different).\n• Collectively define the conditions of satisfaction that will meet the “value” proposition.\n• Determine who are the right members, their roles & responsibilities and unique value to the team.\n• Define protocol and timing for issue elevation for team members if they cannot resolve it at the lowest working level.\n• Clearly define protocol for removing a team member that is not integrating into the culture. \n• Establish a physical environment to foster collaboration (e.g. Big Room). \n• Align on accepted behaviors for team member interaction. \n• Visually display the aligned behaviors within the team’s physical environment for reinforcement.\n• Adopt a daily huddle routine to share knowledge and issues with the entire team.\n• Develop on-boarding protocol for new team members.\n","0 = Unaware: traditional meeting and attendance structure exists; no effort to create a collaborative culture \n1 = Aware: Team members may be co-located, but traditional behaviors still prevail.  Team members are aware that collaboration is the goal, but not certain how to achieve it.\n2 = Learning: Some collaborative cluster group work happening.  Collaborative behaviors are displayed.  The team may, or may not be integrated.  Some visual displays are posted.  Team is still learning how to use the Big Room to its advantage. \n3 = Competent: Well-facilitated big rooms, early agenda with desired outcomes of meetings clearly defined, respectful of time and attendance, several facilitators among the team, team members feel safe to speak up, decent cluster structure, work flow is advancing at or ahead of pace, visual work place is evident. \n4 = Teaching: Team member organization affiliation is not obvious from behavior, strong feeling of trust and respect, every voice is heard, crisp report outs, learning environment. Team moving forward with solid decision making/ little elevation.   Team welcomes visitors to learn. \n5 = Innovating: Entire team is dedicated to problem solving and continuous improvement.  Few, if any, issues require elevation for resolution. Team members are empowered to make suggestions and improvements, every voice is heard, and innovation often comes from sources that are outside of subject matter expertise.   Innovative visual controls are in use.\n"]
["LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT","IPD Team Onboarding & Bootcamp     ","The key to successful Integrated Project Delivery is assembling a team and developing at least the 3 most senior individuals of each firm that are committed to applying all the principles of lean and developing a culture of a learning organization, while learning and applying the IPD business processes.                                                                                                \n• Opening Minds for Organizational Change – study action teams (SAT).  – read, discuss, take action\n• Read, discuss, take action: Project Specific Team agreement as an SAT\n• Completed minimums in Lean basic 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 4H\n• Attend and become train –the - trainer for IPD Onboarding work shop (lean & IPD basics )\n• Attend and become train –the - trainer for IPD Bootcamp including exercises: “silent squares”; “Turn the Tarp”; “DBIA Uses for a Paperclip”; \n• Read, discuss, take action: Why IPD? The Owner’s Perspective  - Umstot Whitepaper as SAT\n• Read, discuss, take action: 5 Dysfunctions of a Team book as an SAT\n• Read, discuss, take action: “The Speed of Trust” book as an SAT\n• Mgmt. Group members chair a “community of practice” 2 consecutive months – rotate with other members for full project duration.\nBusiness Processes & work flows for this project - workshop\n","0 = Unaware: no onboarding, no bootcamp, no lean basics \n1 = Aware: 10% of items  are Implemented (Aware)\n2 = Learning: 30% of items  are Implemented each company has 1 senior staff as Train the Trainer (Ad hoc)\n3 = Competent: 60 % of items are implemented; each company has 3 senior most staff Train the Trainer + Community of Practice meets weekly . Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: 80 % of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = Innovating: All of #4 plus 3rd party assessed on  60 day cycle with clear action plan and measured  improvement Entirely Implemented (Best In Class)\n"]
["LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT","Project Target Cost Establishment","Target costing is the practice of setting the cost of a building in a way to inform the design. The Target Cost is based on the owner's requirements and the owner's willingness to pay for such requirements. The IPD team develops a detailed estimate and designs to it – any potential cost overruns are a handled as a team. Benchmarking helps determine whether or not an allowable cost is adequate for the construction of a desired value. The expected cost provided by the project team is compared with the allowable cost. The target cost is broken down into four categories:\n• Owner direct cost not at risk to the team \n• Total project hard and soft costs including home office overheads \n• Contingency based on appropriate risk by project management team \n• Aggregated team profit (see 4E Incentive Compensation)\n\nIndividual targets for components/tasks can be grouped so that individual costs, while not their sum, are allowed to exceed targets. This serves to provide a higher degree of flexibility to increase the scope (value) or cost saving.  Key practices in developing a Target Cost are:\n• Estimate real-time through-out the design to keep the design on “target” \n• Embed estimation with all components/clusters - estimators become part of the design team\n• Design in Clusters/Project Implementation Teams by system\n• Use of co-location for team integration and collaboration\n• Use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) to construct all the quantities and costs of the building components, ideally before the design starts, based on the owner's requirements. \n","0 =Unaware: project design and project budget requires multiple rework and redesign sessions to align prior to or in early construction \n1 = Aware: target cost work sessions are conducted during design with the cost and scope alignment occurring after design completion. Target Cost was used as part of a traditional contract (Lump Sum, CM @ Risk, GMAX, etc.)\n2 = Learning: target cost work sessions are conducted after Basis of Design (BOD) with the cost and scope alignment occurring early in Detail Design (DD).  Owner and builders share estimating ideas, unit costs, assumptions, clarifications to arrive at a shared understanding of expected cost.  Contingency was based on historical experience. Target Cost was used as a basis for contractual incentives.\n3 = Competent: all of #2 with target cost established collaboratively by owner, designers, and builders based on the owner’s budget, program requirements, market benchmarking, and feasibility study during (BOD).  Value decisions are made and shared to progress design. Chargeable Cost and Payment Provisions were understood by all parties and fully implemented.  Contingency was based on risk. Target Cost was used as a basis for the IPD contract incentive.\n4 = Teaching:  all of #3 with a stretch target cost agreed upon to create enough tension to implement best known practices for solutions without crippling the morale of the team. Rapid cost feedback loops during the early stages of design. Real time estimating is constantly performed and no item or alternative goes further than a week without being estimated. \n5 = Innovating: all of #4 with the team tracking multiple set-based design opportunities.  Integration of real time cost estimated and tracked in BIM.  Target cost included operational cost consideration in addition to project construction cost.\n"]
["LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT","Incentive Compensation Parameters Establishment","While the specifics of how to structure incentives can vary substantially, the underlying objective is to financially align and motivate the team to a common successful project outcome. In an IPD contract the Profit/Incentive Pool (for example, a Profit Pool or Incentive Compensation Layer) is co-developed by the IPD team and is aligned with the Conditions of Satisfaction.  \n• The owner/operator typically guarantees that all true costs will be paid, regardless of outcome, to remove the fear of catastrophic failure and to encourage innovation. Only profit is at risk.\n• The incentive pool is shared proportionally by the IPD contract signatories and paid out on agreed upon milestones depending on the length of schedule. \n• All parties on the integrated team receive the incentive payout, or no one does–regardless of where the fault lies. This stipulation is one of the biggest contractual levers to creating an integrated team; hence the “shared risk and reward” part of IPD. \n\nNote: Incentives based on Safety (apart from sponsored celebration lunches, raffles, recognition awards, etc.) are not recommended.  Safety has a higher moral and ethical value that is not to be monetized.\n","0 = Unaware: no incentive structure implemented \n1 = Aware: incentive structure only in place for Construction Management/General Contractor (CM/GC) \n2 = Learning: incentive structure in place for CM/GC and Architects/Engineers (A/E) with some pass through incentives to trades; typically in a tri-party contract. \n3 = Competent: incentive structure in place for CM/GC, A/E, and trade partners with shared documents to account for monthly costs and overhead; typically in a poly-party or IFOA contract. Risk and opportunity is tracked by project team leadership primarily within areas of expertise.  \n4 = Teaching: all of #3 with cost and savings trade-offs documented to improve the overall team profit as a result of team members acting in the interest of the project not their own organizations. The incentive structure reinforced and aligned the team to meet the Conditions of Satisfaction.  Demonstrated active risk mitigation by IPD partners, regardless of expertise, drove value and identification of opportunities.  \n5 = Innovating: all of #4 with incentives extended to all project participants.  Design phase incentive structure was instituted to capture and reward innovation produced by the team.  Cost saving was considered a bi-product of a team-first culture to improve processes, share staff, and collaborate to deliver the highest value to the client for the right total cost.\n"]
["LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT","Big Room Setup","The Big Room is a shared space which includes at a minimum: the owner, the design team and the constructor to encourage collaboration and communication among all parties.  Co-location of consultants and major trade partners is strongly encouraged.  Characteristics of successful Big Rooms include:\n• Real-time coordination and problem solving in a common location, using a common technology platform that everyone uses to plan and communicate\n• Optimized levels of understanding and transparency of the whole project – and all its interdependencies\n•  Big Room is adjacent to the workface; highly visual; the setup meets the team's needs for both collaborative and private work spaces; optimal use of space and resources; highly visual planning  and metrics (i.e. Conditions of Satisfaction;  L1, L2 Milestone Plans integrated across all areas/phases including commissioning; Phase Pulls, 6 week look-ahead Plan, WWP, PPC - actual and trend; Variance Pareto; Constraint Log, w/ clear removal ownership and identification timing trends\n• Project decisions are made quickly in the Big Room, often documented on A3’s and posted, and the results and quality of those decisions are evident at the workface\n","0 = Unaware, typical meeting structure and attendance; work space is not used collaboratively\n1 =  Aware: Large group is in the same room, but there is limited application knowledge, limited value \n2 =  Learning: attempting cluster work groups, reporting to larger group, not sure right people/right work happening, not very visual, question financial value\n3 =  Competent: well facilitated, strong agenda, visual management tools used, work progressing collaboratively, safe to speak up\n4 =  Teaching: 5-6 strong facilitators, Big Room rules adopted, rapid problem Identification and resolution, work progressing at or ahead of schedule, constructive conflicts are obvious, items prioritized or parked efficiently. Feeling of high productivity\n5 =  Innovating: learning environment, everybody speaks up, high commitment level measured and reported, trust, respect, accountability obvious, leadership and decision making closely tied to the ongoing work; activity financial targets are being met or exceeded\n"]
["LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT","Co-developed Project Visual Controls","• Apparent that Earned Value Management Fundamentals are being applied in a collaborative and controlled approach, and driven off the following seven industry standard metrics:\n        1. EV  =  Physical % Complete x Budget\n        2. PV  =  Schedule % Complete x Budget\n        3. Cost Variance (CV  =  EV - AC) \n        4. Schedule Variance (SV  =  EV - PV)\n        5. Cost Performance Index (CPI  =  EV/AC)\n        6. Schedule Performance Index (SPI  =  EV/PV)\n        7. Estimated Cost at Completion (EAC)\n• EVM input and output efforts are streamlined and centralized to a single point for output management\n• Output is agreed to by all project participants, and meets the project objectives\n• Output is available and used by the team as a means to understand and proactively adjust project performance.\n*Additionally required project controls have been developed collaborative and put in place\n• Well managed and visible output – in the Big Room and at the Daily Huddle areas:\n            o Percent Plan Complete (PPC) \n            o Variance Pareto\n            o Constraint Log and ID timing\n*All kept up to date, accurate and utilized by the team\n• For teams using target value delivery, visual tracking and posting of estimated cost status by cluster (system) group and overall project during design.  During construction, visual tracking and posting of overall construction cost relative to target cost.\n• If tracking labor productivity by craft, make this visual via graph and track at weekly intervals.  Graphs should include both predicted productivity and actual productivity.\n• If zone work planning is being used on project, this should be color coded and posted visually for all to see who is working when in what sector of the project.\n• If takt time planning is being used, what sections are being used and what trades are in what sections at what time.  These should be visually posted for all on the project (including craft).\n","0 = Unaware: No visual project controls are kept or posted\n1 = Aware:  Team has developed suggested project controls but they not visual to the team and/or not kept current\n2 = Learning:  Some Project Controls have been developed and are visual and relatively current, but they are not regularly discussed and do not seem to impact project behaviors\n3 =  Competent: Most Project Controls have been organized, posted visually and are discussed at least weekly in team meetings and Weekly Work Plan sessions\n4 =  Teaching: : All Project Controls have been organized, posted visually and are discussed at least weekly in team meetings and Weekly Work Plan sessions; they impact project behaviors; team incentives or celebrations are held when goals are exceeded\n5 =  Innovative: Entirely Implemented (Best In Class) All Project Controls have been organized, posted visually and are discussed at least weekly in team meetings and Weekly Work Plan sessions; impact project behaviors; team incentives or celebrations are held when goals are exceeded AND the team has developed innovative additional Visual Project Controls \n"]
["LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT","Project Team TVD Training","Core Management Team: Visible and actively engages in the project team environment.\n• Ensures project team members have the necessary training, resources and peer support throughout implementation and into sustaining. \n• Conducts frequent system health/maturity assessments and retrospectives.\n• Determines what is going well, what has the team learned, what needs more attention, what are the remaining challenges, what help do \"you or the team\" need to succeed? \n• Communicates the bright spots and things not going well equally so that the entire production team is aware and learning. \n• Team members talk openly about strengths and weaknesses without fear of reprisal.\n• Builds Plan-Do-Study-Act into how the team functions as a group.\n• Effective, well-coordinated training that maximizes learning in the best use of people's time. \nTeam Members:\n• Project team members are training via external class or facilitated by a other experts.\n• Project team members quickly couple training with practice. \n• Growing coalition of practitioners helping each other understand the often times abstract view of waste elimination and providing \"value\" to the customer. \n• The team has a plan for continuous learning throughout design, for instance using Study-Action Teams, Lean coffees, lunch and learns, participating in local Communities of Practice and inviting guests as on-lookers and teachers.\n","0 = Unaware: not aware of unique challenges of managing a virtual organization, using traditional systems Not implemented\n1 = Aware: Attempting to share estimates, concepts, align assumptions and clarifications. No documented training plan. Leaders & team members are at minimum aware of TVD and their role in supporting implementation.\n2 = Learning: Team is aware of need for deeper understanding of each other’s processes. Attempting to keep estimate current with design, not yet functioning with detailed estimate informing design. Leaders & team members are aware of practices and need to train team but have not prioritized activity. \n3 = Competent: Leaders and team members seeing positive results from target setting and determination of \"value\" in the establishment of Conditions of Satisfaction. Leaders are inquisitive and actively helping the team identify and remove waste. Clusters are multi-dimensional and functioning well.\n4 = Teaching: Practitioners quickly connecting training to practice. Groups have established costs and priority with open collaboration in the Big Room Report out. Leaders are actively engaged in helping team achieve goals and providing quick decision making and roadblock removal. Low variation in cluster/group implementation of TVD fundamentals across teams.\n5 = Innovating:  Cluster/Team members now lead the way; leaders have become coaches. Visibility and engagement are now integral behaviors – still aimed at improving value  – but now operating in a flat, democratic team structure. Coaches remaining inquisitive, participative and achieving continuous improvement by having real time conversations toward action. Team is achieving or exceeding target cost goals, conditions of satisfaction and aspirational goals.\n"]
["LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT","TVD Implementation","• Engage deeply with the client to establish the target-value; express the client value as a collection of “conditions of satisfaction” that are prominent in all decision making.\n• Lead the design effort for learning and innovation; \"What do we want to learn?” and, \"What do we need to learn?\" guides the management of the process.\n• Design to agreed system-by-system budgets.\n• Design in small batches, but estimate continuously; “single-piece flow” works in design even better than in the field. It helps keep the design coordinated while minimizing rework and it makes estimating easier.\n• Collaboratively plan and re-plan the project; use LPS® or the Kanban Method to work reliably to customer requirements while maintaining flow.• Design the product in concurrent design sets; not everything, but do it by plan.• Design in the sequence of the \"customer\" who will use it; pull plan design as a whole and each phase of work.• Work in small and diverse groups; two is better than one, particularly when it comes to the productivity and quality of design details.\n• Work in a Big Room; the big room is a system that brings visual management for maintaining alignment, fostering collaboration, keeping focus and speeding decision making.\n• Engage the client(s) as a key performer throughout design and construction.\n","0 = Unaware: Participants estimate drawings as published Not Scored\n1 = Aware: Builders work with designers but not sure how to communicate or contribute, designers may not be receptive. Not Implemented (Aware)\n2 = Learning: Designers solicit and builders offer input, options and alternatives. Most Items Not Implemented (Ad hoc)\n3 = Competent: Small groups of diverse experts advance design with cost as a key input. Builders are full members of the design teams. Alternatives are considered before modeling begins. The cost impact of design is fairly well known before documented. Rapid pricing is used to limit detail design time. Design sets are shared with other clusters to verify impact to their work. Schedule, procurement and logistics impact each design decision. Design is scheduled to identify and reduce risk rather than traditional design progression.  Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: cost targets are parsed to individual clusters, each innovates to their target, solution sets are carried to help other clusters with target challenges,  build sequence influences packaging strategy and procurement opportunities may influence design development. Most of the practices are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = Innovating: Unique solutions present themselves to significantly alter cost and value decisions. New standards or alternatives are implemented through life cycle analysis. Entirely implemented (Best In Class)\n"]
["LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT","Team Performance Metrics","The team routinely measures its performance based on Goals, Targets, Values and Project Controls metrics, and the team conducts retrospectives throughout the process; PDCA governs all practices. Lessons learned and “plus/delta” are a regular scheduled team activity.","0  =  Unaware: The project’s main focus is cost and schedule only; other team performance metrics are not implemented\n1  =  Aware: The team recognizes that effort will be required to get better at what they do but implementation of metrics and tools is not evident\n2  =  Learning: Team has some performance metrics and attempts sporadic or halfhearted retrospectives, PDCA is a concept not a practice.; some tools are evident and practiced\n3  =  Competent: Team measures its performance using various metrics, Plus Delta is common with limited Deltas repeated, retrospectives are held at least quarterly, PDCA is a focus effort occasionally, Start/stop/keep is at least a bi-monthly effort; most tools are in use & evident (regular check-ins are being managed)\n4  =  Teaching: All tools are evident with good success (PDCA, LPS, Lessons Learned and \"Plus/Delta\"), Plus Deltas are frequent, retrospectives occur monthly and improvements can be pinpointed as an outcome. \n5  =  Innovating: All of #4 above PLUS Critical learning is documented and shared with outsiders in hopes of them not making similar mistakes. Entirely Implemented with exceptional success\n"]
["LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT","BIM Implementation","• Owners information requirements are developed up front and in collaboration with the team. \n• The team has a clear understanding regarding how participants will leverage information through all phases of the program \n• Process and Information Exchange Workflows are co-developed (by the author of the information and recipient of the information) and well documented. \n• The team fully understands where the source documents are stored (i.e. what documents are used to control tolerances and dimensions). \n• The team fully understands what information is fixed and what information is still in progress. \n• The use of the model is the focus of all project integration meetings.\n","0 = Unaware: BIM not used on the project. \n1 =  Aware: BIM Implementation Plan.   The team knows where to find the BIM Plan document but most team members are unaware of its contents. \n2 =  Learning: partners have common software and platforms, BIM Pilot has been completed on selective scopes and Lessons Learned with improvement plan identified \n3 = Competent: partners are sharing models regularly and developing the design collaboratively, the software translates to manufacture capability, and clash detection is part of design effort. The team can extract some quantities from the model for estimating and cost-modeling. \n4 = Teaching:  BIM Standard Processes defined & implemented and backed with documented best practices. Critical Success Indicators (CSIs) defined & collected to demonstrate ROI. Shop drawings and submittal processes incorporated into model for collaborative review and effort reduction.  The team is able to extract the majority of quantities from the model for estimating and cost modeling. \n5 = Innovate: Full BIM Implementation informing logistics, cost, and schedule. The schedule is informed by the model to optimize equipment, lay-down and other space uses as a function of time. The model is updated to match field installation for future reference, as built scans inform future constructability.\n"]
["LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT","Prefabrication & Modularization","• Prefabrication plan is co-developed by all parties (owner, designer, and builders) during the design phase. \n• Logistical factors are considered in the co-developed plan to optimize workflows and to unveil opportunities for efficiencies \n• During execution, a significant percentage of value-added work (larger diameter pipe, duct) is constructed in a controlled environment (i.e. prefab shop) away from the workface \n• Standardized assemblies and specific \nsubassemblies are also considered, planned for and built where possible in a controlled environment away from the workface \n\nThe team makes extensive use of the model to coordination fabricated assemblies against other systems, and there is a formal information release and sign off processes.\n\n","0 = Unaware: team not interested in Pre-fabrication Not Scored \n1 = Aware (the team, for example, is using some pre-assembly on a limited basis (pre-welding of misc. metal items, toilet in-wall plumbing, some material is on wheels). \n2 = Learning: The team is using limited offsite fabrication of pipe racks of some systems such as racks. \n3 = Competent: The team is implementing off-site fabrication on various sub-systems such as common rack systems). \n4 = Teaching: The team is implementing offsite fabrication of complete sub-assemblies (for example wall systems including all framing, backing, plumbing, electrical, backing). \n5 = Innovating: Full off-site pre-assembly of both sub-assemblies as well as components with a well-executed just-in-time delivery approach.\n"]
["LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM","Project Team Training ","• Consistent and disciplined implementation of the Last Planner® System. \n• Effective, well-coordinated training that maximizes learning in the best use of people's time. \n• Project team members quickly coupling training with practice. \n• Project teams learn how to see waste on projects and understand how this fundamental viewpoint fuels teams to achieve their workflow reliability goals. \n","0 = Unaware: no specific knowledge or attempt to consider\n1 = Aware No documented training plan - no visible benefits from whatever training efforts consumed.\n2 = Learning: Documented training plan, but not consistently followed. High variability in disciplined practice of the LPS fundamentals based on who is running the meeting.\n3 = Competent: Effective training per plan, seeing positive results and narrowing of variability in disciplined practice of the LPS fundamentals across the team. Behaviors observed show a growing number of early adopters transforming into disciplined LPS practitioners (individuals are making it their own)\n4 = Teaching: Practitioners quickly connecting training to practice. Team reaching out to other teams to offer help and to ask for help. Low variability in disciplined practice of the LPS fundamentals across the team. Confident enough to share with project outsiders.\n5 = Innovating:  Best in class training; exceptional success. Everyone is rowing in the same direction. Results worthy of bragging or publishing to other teams for their growth and learning\n"]
["LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM","Master Planning ","• (Master Schedule) This plan is high-level and gives the team the confidence they can deliver the overall project in the appropriate time frame. \n• Consists of major milestones, major events, and long lead items on a project, as well as sets the parameters for the Phases to be pull planned as the work gets closer. It is often the basis for contractual agreements between the owner and other team members.\n","0 = Unaware: no specific knowledge or attempt to consider\n1 = Aware: Contract schedule exists but not all team members and/or partners are aware or using to influence planning regularly. \n2 = Learning: Creating team alignment around the milestone definitions from the contract schedule. to Level 1 and 2 milestones stable (<50% variability)\n3 = Competent: updating and redefining milestones and logic links regularly as conditions change, publishing and discussing for full team alignment. Level 1 and 2 milestones stable (<25% weekly variability) and visible to First Planners (used to plan and commit logistics, resources, materials and equipment)\n4 = Teaching: logic ties from weekly and look ahead planning to master plan for accurate updating and predicting outcomes. Level 1 and 2 milestones stable (<10% weekly variability) and visible to the Last Planners (used to plan, screen and assign tasks)\n5 = Innovating: All Milestones visible to everyone in the Big Room, functioning as tangible connections to the work, and it is evident that the production teams are directly connecting Pull Planning, Phase Scheduling, and Weekly Work Planning to agreed milestones. Resulting in duration reductions with high predictability.\n"]
["LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM","Phase Planning / Pull Planning","• (Phase) A period of the project where a specific group of activities is scheduled to be accomplished such as building design, completion of foundations, building dry-in, etc. A phase can be either a time period or a group of activities leading to the accomplishment of a defined goal/milestone that releases a series of new work.\n• (Pull Plan) A plan for executing a specific phase of a project. The plan is built collaboratively by the people who are actually responsible for accomplishing the work. It is done using the pull technique of requesting the work from downstream customers and careful definition of the hand-offs between parties. \n","0 = Unaware: team working to a dictated Gannt or other type project schedule Not Scored\n1 = Aware; attempting pull planning, no concise common understanding of milestone or phase, critical people missing, commitment language vague Not Implemented.\n2 = Learning: Common language, defining milestone deliverable, struggle with commitment and negotiation not documenting all handoffs, sessions running long, pull plans not fitting within milestone dates. Most Items Not Implemented (Ad Hoc)\n3 = Competent: defined milestone outcome, all parties participating, measuring PPC around 75% documenting variance reasons, visible production improvement Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: unplanned Pull planning happens for small integrated issues without instruction, in the field, willing to share tool with others Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = Innovating: planning used to remove constraints, implement and assess change, overcome unforeseen setbacks, obvious schedule improvement or recovery due to team planning. Entirely Implemented (Best In Class)\n"]
["LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM","Make Ready Planning ","• To “make ready” is to take actions needed to remove constraints from assignments to ensure the work \"Can\" be done as planned.\n• Use of a 6 week look-ahead schedule of what work is supposed take place, based on the pull plans.\n• (Constraint Log) A form for capturing all of the constraints that can be identified from the six week look-ahead plan. \n• At minimum, looking at a six week segment view of the overall plans; focusing progressively more on the week directly in front of the team. \n• Common constraints include funding, labor, information, submittals, decisions, materials, equipment.\n","0 = Unaware: partners responding to dictation from leadership for weekly activity Not Scored\n1 = Aware: partners asked and provide input, little collaborative effort to integrate work regularly Not Implemented (Aware)\n2 = Learning: team is aware of agreed upon master plan, attempting to plan and schedule collaboratively, developing project flow, discussing resource use and availability and shared logistics, leaders solicit input from each partner and attempt to eliminate out of sequence work, discussing each other’s needs Most Items Not Implemented (Ad hoc)\n3 = Competent: regular planning meetings considering all activity collaboratively, picking crew sizes for flow to optimize, workable back log defined. Getting reliable commitments from performers to remove constraints.  Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: very little variance with waiting or material/information not available, PDCA around top 3 variances, engaging inspection authority in planning consistently, responding to constraints and tying information flow to field resources Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = innovating: sharing resources to optimize financial benefit, limiting overtime to strategic use, only confirming RFI use, visible schedule and measurable safety improvement. High craft/designer morale, job satisfaction surveys used and showing improvement, no project chaos, Entirely Implemented (Best In Class)\n"]
["LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM","Weekly Work Planning","The process by which the Last Planner establishes the plan for the upcoming week. Output of Weekly Work Planning is the Weekly Work Plan (WWP), which is the commitment-level (“will”) planning step of LPS identifying the promised task completions agreed upon by the Performers. \n• The WWP contains specific commitments by Last Planners as to what will be accomplished, where it will be done, and by when it will be done. \n• Quality commitments include:\nI. Safe – all precautions are taken\nII. Sound – the wherewithal is available – no constraints\nIII. In Sequence – prerequisite work is done, matches the overall plan\nIV. Right-sized – can be done in a week or less\n• Workable backlog is included in the WWP. This is work that can be done if a crew gets ahead or if their planned work isn’t released. \n• The WWP is used to determine the success of the planning effort and to determine what factors limit performance. It is the basis of measuring PPC (Percent Plan Complete). \n","0 = Unaware: foreman take instruction from superintendent. Not Scored\n1 = Aware: foreman participate, focus mainly on their own scope, Not Implemented (Aware)\n2 = Learning: foremen discuss their work needs and learn about others. Learning to make commitments with clearly defined Conditions of Satisfaction and learning to report variance Most Items Not Implemented (Ad =Hoc)\n3 = Competent: foremen come prepared with weekly plan then collaborate with others, can change to accommodate needs of the project. All activities noted finish within the week. Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: WWP is available at work face, everyone uses as the work plan, daily huddles discuss variance and re-plan on the spot, lack of information, tools, equipment or materials never stop the work. Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = innovating: pull planning concepts are used to re-plan on the spot, PPC is trending upward, breakdown are identified quickly, Entirely Implemented (Best In Class)\n"]
["LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM","Daily Commitment Management (Daily Huddle) ","Confirmation from the Last Planners (i.e. foremen) that they did accomplish their promises / commitments since the last huddle and that they intend to complete their commitments before the next huddle.  In addition, communicate any new constraints that may prohibit their planned tasks from being achieved. \nThese can be held at the start of the day, the end of the day, or other appropriate time as decided by the team.\n• The intent of this meeting is to recommit to the plan and make mutually agreed commitments when plans change. Limiting it to 15 minutes allows the foremen to be effective with their time and to return to their crews to relay the daily plan.\n","0 = Unaware: no daily gathering to discuss activities Not Scored\n1 = Aware: have tried a few daily huddles, sporadic adoption Not Implemented (Aware)\n2 = Learning: performing regular daily huddles, assessing frequency and attendance. GC does most of the talking. Most Items Not Implemented (Ad hoc)\n3 = Competent: perform huddles daily, adjusting daily plan to circumstances, proper visual tools available, reporting mechanism for non-participants, foreman reporting out their own work without being asked by the Superintendent.  Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: huddles identify and solve problems, or drive information needs before face of work, visitors attend to gain value. Huddles happen even if GC is out. Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = Innovating: huddles occur impromptu to resolve emerging issues, non-subject matter experts offer input to solve problems, information loop closes to document solutions, success is recognized and shared. Entirely Implemented (Best In Class)\n"]
["LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM","Metrics & Reporting","• Percent Plan Complete (PPC) A basic measure of how well the planning system is working – calculated as the “number of assignments completed on the day stated” divided by the “total number of assignments made for the week”.   It measures the percentage of assignments that are 100% complete as planned.\n• Frequency of and Reasons for Variance - Factors that prevented an assignment from being completed as promised, used by the team to promote learning concerning the failure of the planning system to produce predictable workflow.  By assigning a category of variance to each uncompleted task, a team is able to identify those areas of recurring failure that require additional reflection and analysis.\n• Constraint Log Constraint analysis of all activates in the look-ahead schedule – how many constraints get identified 1 week ahead? How many constraints identified 6 weeks ahead?\n• Percent Constraints Removed (PCR) - Number of constraints removed divided by the number of constraints identified.\n• Delivery of promises to remove constraints. \n• Tasks Anticipated (TA) A measurement of the percentage of tasks completed for a week that were anticipated in the weekly work plan for that week.\n• Tasks Made Ready (TMR) The percentage of tasks in an earlier plan for a week that are included in a later plan for the target week.  \n","0 = Unaware: progress is documented and shared traditionally Not Scored\n1 = Aware: new metrics are recorded inconsistently, no real variance assessment or action Characteristics not evident\n2 = Learning: PPC, variance and constraints are identified and posted regularly, some effort to rectify is visible, Inconsistent management -- or over processing -- of the visible output from the production teams (PPC graph; Variance Pareto; Constraint Log) are sometimes present both at the workface and in the Big Room). Much improvement required. Most Items Not Implemented (Ad hoc)\n3 = Competent: Consistent management of the visible output from the production teams (Constraint Log; WWP; PPC Graph; Variance Pareto present both at the workface and in the Big Room). Team is learning and improving visible output management together. PDCA is used to remove variance/constraints Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: variance/constraint removal is identified and celebrated, A3 reporting methodology is strong and collaborative, Simplified management of the visible output from the production teams (Constraint Log; WWP; PPC Graph; Variance Pareto visible both at the workface and in the Big Room). Task made ready tracking % Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = Innovating; Team has evolved to a point where they've chosen to utilize a mobile platform/software, resulting in highly reliable workflow in a paperless environment - while still having all of the conversations for LPS. Regular team health dashboards are visible and useful, and shared with other teams as templates or examples. Tasks Anticipated is consistently in the 90s or above.  Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n"]
["LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM","Assessment & Continuous Improvement","• The ongoing improvement of the team’s capacity to deliver highly reliable workflow, and the achievement of higher levels of performance through waste removal and positive incremental change.\n• Proper use of PPC, Variance Pareto, Constraint Log and Root Cause Analysis to actively assess and integrate improvements as a team.\n• Use of an anonymous, intra-team self-assessment tool (monthly frequency)\n• Use of an anonymous, program level maturity and health assessment tool (quarterly frequency)\n• Participation in continuous cross-team dialogue aimed at optimizing the whole project.\n","0 = Unaware: team performing at direction of traditional leaders Not Scored\n1 = Aware: introduction and sporadic use of Plus Delta Not Implemented (Aware)\n2 = Learning: Plus Delta is a habit, start/stop/keep attempted, PDCA has been attempted Most Items Not Implemented (Ad Hoc)\n3 = Competent: Deltas are not repeated, Start/Stop/Keep happens bi-monthly, breakdowns have resolved problems, PDCA is used to remove variance, Partially Implemented (Organized)\n4 = Teaching: numerous participants can facilitate a big room meeting, big room rules are commonly practiced, team health assessments are employed and show improvement Most of the Items Are Implemented (Integrated)\n5 = Innovating: project documentation exists to show efforts, failures and successes on experimentation and improvement. Awards and celebrations are given for participation. Entirely Implemented (Best In Class)\n"]

{"sheet":"Assessor Comments","index":6,"n_rows":86,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":86,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[]}
[null,"Assessor Observation Report",null,null,null,null,null,"Assessor Observation Report"]
[null,{"$f":"H2","v":"Project name placeholder"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Main!I2","v":"Project name placeholder"}]
[null,"Assessors:",null,null,null,null,null,"Assessors:"]
[null,{"$f":"H4","v":"Accessor name placeholder"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Main!I29","v":"Accessor name placeholder"}]
[null,"Accessor name placeholder",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Main!I30","v":"Accessor name placeholder"}]
[null,"Accessor name placeholder",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Main!I31","v":"Accessor name placeholder"}]
[]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!E4","v":"TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE"}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H9,\" \",\"(Score = \",J9,\")\")","v":"Lean Construction Knowledge (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F4","v":"Lean Construction Knowledge"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I4","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J4","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H11,\" \",\"(Score = \",J11,\")\")","v":"Leadership Behaviors (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F5","v":"Leadership Behaviors"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I5","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J5","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H13,\" \",\"(Score = \",J13,\")\")","v":"Lean Learning Strategy (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F6","v":"Lean Learning Strategy"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I6","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J6","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H15,\" \",\"(Score = \",J15,\")\")","v":"Lean Culture (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F7","v":"Lean Culture"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I7","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J7","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H17,\" \",\"(Score = \",J17,\")\")","v":"Developed & Enabled Experts  (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F8","v":"Developed & Enabled Experts "},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I8","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J8","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H19,\" \",\"(Score = \",J19,\")\")","v":"Utilization of Lean Management Tools  (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F9","v":"Utilization of Lean Management Tools "},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I9","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J9","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H21,\" \",\"(Score = \",J21,\")\")","v":"Lean Health & Maturity Measurement (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F10","v":"Lean Health & Maturity Measurement"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I10","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J10","v":0}]
[]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!E103","v":"INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY"}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H25,\" \",\"(Score = \",J25,\")\")","v":"Strategic Supply Chain (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F103","v":"Strategic Supply Chain"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I103","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J103","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H27,\" \",\"(Score = \",J27,\")\")","v":"IPD Supplier Selection Process (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F104","v":"IPD Supplier Selection Process"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I104","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J104","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H29,\" \",\"(Score = \",J29,\")\")","v":"Optimization of the Whole, Not the Parts (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F105","v":"Optimization of the Whole, Not the Parts"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I105","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J105","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H31,\" \",\"(Score = \",J31,\")\")","v":"Trust & Trustworthiness (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F106","v":"Trust & Trustworthiness"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I106","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J106","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H33,\" \",\"(Score = \",J33,\")\")","v":"Integration (information, people & systems) (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F107","v":"Integration (information, people & systems)"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I107","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J107","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H35,\" \",\"(Score = \",J35,\")\")","v":"Continuous Improvement/Learning (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F108","v":"Continuous Improvement/Learning"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I108","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J108","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H37,\" \",\"(Score = \",J37,\")\")","v":"Appropriate Technology (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F109","v":"Appropriate Technology"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I109","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J109","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H39,\" \",\"(Score = \",J39,\")\")","v":"Mutually Agreed Project Controls (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F110","v":"Mutually Agreed Project Controls"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I110","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J110","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H41,\" \",\"(Score = \",J41,\")\")","v":"Collaboration (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F111","v":"Collaboration"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I111","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J111","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H43,\" \",\"(Score = \",J43,\")\")","v":"Reduced Liability Among Risk/Reward Members (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F112","v":"Reduced Liability Among Risk/Reward Members"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I112","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J112","v":0}]
[]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!E203","v":"LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY - METHODS & MANAGEMENT"}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H47,\" \",\"(Score = \",J47,\")\")","v":"Project Delivery Team Structure (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F203","v":"Project Delivery Team Structure"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I203","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J203","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H49,\" \",\"(Score = \",J49,\")\")","v":"IPD Team Onboarding & Bootcamp      (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F204","v":"IPD Team Onboarding & Bootcamp     "},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I204","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J204","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H51,\" \",\"(Score = \",J51,\")\")","v":"Project Target Cost Establishment (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F205","v":"Project Target Cost Establishment"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I205","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J205","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H53,\" \",\"(Score = \",J53,\")\")","v":"Incentive Compensation Parameters Establishment (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F206","v":"Incentive Compensation Parameters Establishment"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I206","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J206","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H55,\" \",\"(Score = \",J55,\")\")","v":"Big Room Setup (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F207","v":"Big Room Setup"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I207","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J207","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H57,\" \",\"(Score = \",J57,\")\")","v":"Co-developed Project Visual Controls (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F208","v":"Co-developed Project Visual Controls"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I208","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J208","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H59,\" \",\"(Score = \",J59,\")\")","v":"Project Team TVD Training (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F209","v":"Project Team TVD Training"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I209","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J209","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H61,\" \",\"(Score = \",J61,\")\")","v":"TVD Implementation (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F210","v":"TVD Implementation"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I210","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J210","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H63,\" \",\"(Score = \",J63,\")\")","v":"Team Performance Metrics (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F211","v":"Team Performance Metrics"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I211","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J211","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H65,\" \",\"(Score = \",J65,\")\")","v":"BIM Implementation (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F212","v":"BIM Implementation"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I212","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J212","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H67,\" \",\"(Score = \",J67,\")\")","v":"Prefabrication & Modularization (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F213","v":"Prefabrication & Modularization"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I213","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J213","v":0}]
[]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!E303","v":"LAST PLANNER® SYSTEM"}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H71,\" \",\"(Score = \",J71,\")\")","v":"Project Team Training  (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F303","v":"Project Team Training "},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I303","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J303","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H73,\" \",\"(Score = \",J73,\")\")","v":"Master Planning  (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F304","v":"Master Planning "},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I304","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J304","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H75,\" \",\"(Score = \",J75,\")\")","v":"Phase Planning / Pull Planning (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F305","v":"Phase Planning / Pull Planning"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I305","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J305","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H77,\" \",\"(Score = \",J77,\")\")","v":"Make Ready Planning  (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F306","v":"Make Ready Planning "},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I306","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J306","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H79,\" \",\"(Score = \",J79,\")\")","v":"Weekly Work Planning (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F307","v":"Weekly Work Planning"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I307","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J307","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H81,\" \",\"(Score = \",J81,\")\")","v":"Daily Commitment Management (Daily Huddle)  (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F308","v":"Daily Commitment Management (Daily Huddle) "},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I308","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J308","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H83,\" \",\"(Score = \",J83,\")\")","v":"Metrics & Reporting (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F309","v":"Metrics & Reporting"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I309","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J309","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"CONCATENATE(H85,\" \",\"(Score = \",J85,\")\")","v":"Assessment & Continuous Improvement (Score = 0)"},null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"Scoring!F310","v":"Assessment & Continuous Improvement"},"Score:",{"$f":"Scoring!I310","v":0}]
[null,{"$f":"Scoring!J310","v":0}]

{"sheet":"The 4 Graphs (presentation)","index":7,"n_rows":0,"n_cols":0,"rows_kept":0,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[]}

{"sheet":"FAQ","index":8,"n_rows":8,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":8,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,1,5,1]]}
[null,"Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)"]
[]
[null,"Question","Recommended Answer"]
[null,"What do I need to do if the macros are not working?","Ensure macros are enabled in the security settings in the Trust Center"]
[null,"What do I need to do if the macros are still not working?","If you experience errors related to macro functions / code, please run the MS14-082 fixit patch first (click on link below to download).  Close all MS Office applications including Excel before running this patch."]
[null,null,"MS14-082 Fixit"]
[null,"What do I do if the Pop Up Form no longer works (usually after PC upgrade and sometimes after the MS14-082 fix)?","If you are adept with MS Office software you can do the following, otherwise work with your I.T. staff to fix this known VBA issue.\n\nClose all MS Office applications. \nOpen My Computer in the search bar and type C:\\Users\\<username>\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\Excel8.0\nMake sure to include hidden and system files and folders – for *.exd files (note: that’s not *.exe !!) and delete any you find.\nMake sure you get these (they may normally be hidden):\n   C:\\users\\username\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\Excel8.0\\MSForms.exd\n   C:\\users\\username\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\VBE\\MSForms.exd\nCopy and replace the file MSForms.exd with the MSForms.exd file from Microsoft\nReboot the computer (this is not always necessary, but probably better safe than sorry)\nRestart your Office apps and test the controls again."]
[null,"What are the \"rules\" for using this spreadsheet tool?","1. DO NOT INSERT ANY NEW COLUMNS\n2. DO NOT INSERT ANY NEW ROWS\n3. DO NOT OVER-WRITE OR CHANGE  FORMULA CELLS\n4. DO NOT REMOVE DATA VALIDATION  FROM CELLS.\n5. DO NOT CHANGE THE NAME OF WORKSHEET TABS\n"]

{"sheet":"Credits","index":9,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":15,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[12,1,12,5],[13,1,13,5]]}
[]
[null,"Contributors"]
[null,"Eric Ahlstrom","Stan Chui","Joe Cleves","Chris Dierks","Samir Emdanat",null,null,"Eric Ahlstrom","Michael Bade","Stan Chui","Joe Cleves","Chris Dierks","Samir Emdanat","Dan Fauchier"]
[null,"Dan Fauchier","Dave Hagan","Jessica Kelley","Hal Macomber","Christian Pikel",null,null,"Dave Hagan","Kristin Hill","Greg Howell","Jessica Kelley","Dave MacNeel","Hal Macomber","Scott Muxen"]
[null,"Rebecca Snelling","Dave Umstot","George Zettle",null,null,null,null,"Christian Pikel","Lisa Reynolds","Bill Seed","Rebecca Snelling","Dave Umstot","George Zettle"]
[]
[null,"Review Team"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Special thanks go to Ron Davidson and the Intel Corporation team who started this project and graciously handed it over to LCI to refine."]
[null,"We acknowledge that this tool will always be a work in progress.  In the spirit of PDCA we welcome comments and suggestions for improvement, which should be sent to:  ahlstrom@amgen.com"]