Case Study

Visual Management in Brazilian Construction Companies:Taxonomy and Guidelines for Implementation

Algan Tezel, Ph.D.1; Lauri Koskela2; Patricia Tzortzopoulos3; Carlos Torres Formoso4; and Thais Alves5

Abstract: Visual management (VM) is the managerial strategy of consciously integrating visual tools in workspaces with the aim ofincreasing transparency on construction sites. Several VM tools and approaches that had been originally developed in the manufacturingcontext were implemented in construction. However, research on the application of VM in construction as a managerial strategy is scarce.This paper aims to investigate and classify the types of visual devices that can be used in construction sites through multiple case studiescarried out in nine construction companies actively implementing VM. It also discusses strategies for the implementation of VM in con-struction. The main contributions of this investigation are: (1) a VM tools taxonomy that can be used to identify VM application opportunities,providing a basis for evaluating the level of VM implementation in construction; and (2) identification of critical factors for the implemen-tation and various features of the VM strategy in construction. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000354. © 2015 American Society ofCivil Engineers.

Introduction

Visual management (VM) is widely used in advanced manufactur-ing plants and has been pointed out as one of the fundamentalblocks of the lean production philosophy (Liker and Morgan2006). According to Galsworth (1997), VM forms a base uponwhich other improvement approaches are built and, for this reason,can be adopted as one of the key steps at the beginning of improve-ment programs. A wide range of tools and approaches have beenused in visual management, including visual signs, fool-proof de-vices, removal of visual barriers, and programs for maintaining aclean and orderly workplace (Galsworth 1997; Kattman et al.2012). As it has happened to other production management coreideas, VM has largely been developed on advances achieved byindustrial engineers and managers in a process of trial and error(Koskela 1992).

Although a growing number VM applications in constructionhas been reported in the literature, research on the implementationof this managerial strategy is relatively scarce. Moreover, imple-menting VM in construction sites poses additional challenges incomparison to manufacturing: (1) construction sites are changingenvironments where a large number of crews move continuously;(2) the site layout suffers several modifications throughout theproject, demanding an intense effort to update and relocate the

necessary set of visual devices; (3) construction sites are relativelylarge places where different crews spread out; and (4) nonremovablevisual barriers are incorporated into the working environment as thefacility is being constructed (Formoso et al. 2002).

This investigation was based on multiple case studies carried outby Brazilian construction companies that had successfully adoptedlean production concepts and tools in their projects. The main con-tributions of the paper are: (1) a VM taxonomy that can be used toidentify application opportunities, providing a basis for evaluatingthe level of implementation of VM in construction; and (2) identi-fication of critical factors for the successful implementation of VM.

Visual Management and Process Transparency

There are different definitions of VM in the literature, highlightingdistinct perspectives that have been adopted in its conceptualiza-tion. Ho (1993) describes VM as a simple and attractive commu-nication approach, realized by using various devices such as noticeboards, slogans, indication lights, cards (e.g., kanban), and visualdisplay units. Tomkins and Smith (1998) emphasize the role of VMas a part of performance measurement systems, manifested in theform of a communication and information center for all employeesto understand the organization’s strategic directions, performance,and results of improvement initiatives.

According to Imai (1997), VM is about making abnormalitiesvisible, stabilizing and improving processes, along with keepingpeople in contact with the realities of the workplace. Fillingham(2007) suggests designing VM aids so that managers can simplygo-and-see what is happening and anticipate future problems.According to Maskell and Kennedy (2007), VM provides informa-tion when it is needed in a simple and easy to understand fashion,which in return creates transparency, meaning everyone is workingwith the same information.

Therefore, process transparency is a major outcome of VM.Formoso et al. (2002) defines process transparency as “the abilityof a production process (or its parts) to communicate with people.”Thegoal of process transparency is to replace traditional controlwithself-control (Greif 1991). Transparency can be increased through theremoval of waste, reduction of cycle time, using visual signage, dis-playing process information, appropriate layout, and maintaining

1Planning Engineer, Univ. of Salford, Esat Caddesi 147/3 K.Esat,Ankara 06660, Turkey (corresponding author). E-mail: algantezel@gmail.com

2Professor, School of the Built Environment, Univ. of Salford, Univer-sity of Salford 4th Floor, Maxwell Building, The Crescent, Salford, GreaterManchester M5 4WT, U.K.

3Professor, Univ. of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH,U.K.

4Professor, Federal Univ. of Rio Grande do Sul, NORIE, Av. OsvaldoAranha 99, 3” andar, CEP 90035-190, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

5Assistant Professor, San Diego State Univ., 5500 Campanile Dr.,San Diego, CA 92182.

Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 6, 2014; approved onDecember 11, 2014; published online on January 28, 2015. Discussion per-iod open until June 28, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted forindividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Management inEngineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X/05015001(14)/$25.00.

© ASCE 05015001-1 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

Uni

vers

ity O

f Sa

lfor

d C

liffo

rd W

hitw

orth

on

05/1

4/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

visual order (Koskela 2000). However, rendering a work settingcompletely transparent to the extent of eliminating all privacy areasmay have counterproductive effects (Bernstein 2012).

In this research work, VM has been defined as a managerial strat-egy that attempts to improve organizational performance throughconnecting and aligning organizational vision, core values, goalsand culture with other management systems, work processes, work-place elements, and stakeholders, by means of sensory stimuli (in-formation), which directly address one ormore of the human sensorymodalities (visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory and gustatory).

Simplicity and attractiveness in sensory communication are thefundamental ideas behind VM (Ohno 1988). These form what hasbeen defined by Greif (1991) as an information field from whichpeople can freely draw information in a self-service fashion, pro-moting the idea of workplace autonomy and self-management.Such information fields require visual tools to be pervasive innature and make information readily-available in a quick glanceas the integrated elements of a workspace. Therefore, VM is con-cerned with close-range communication by nature.

In the communication process, the source of informationrendered by VM is the space or environment, namely the space(source) to people (recipient) mode of communication (Greif1991). In fact, space can communicate with people through:(1) architectural design (Lawson 2001), (2) physical artifacts em-bedded into the environment (e.g., a colored line on the wall)(Arthur and Passini 1992), and (3) digitally augmented artifacts,such as an electronic poster on the wall (Beigl et al. 2001). Theproblem of long-distance communication of information has beenlargely overcome by information and communication technologies.However, these often create torrents of data, and making availablethe necessary information at close range still remains an importantissue (Bilalis et al. 2002).

Two characteristics distinguish information displayed in visualsystems from other forms of communication, such as verbal andwritten: (1) the information is entirely determined ahead of time;and (2) it relies little or none on spoken words (Galsworth 1997).Another distinctive aspect of visual communication is that it isintended for the group, and not just for the individual. In a conven-tional workplace, most messages are transmitted by specific infor-mation channels, such as meetings and memos, whereas in visualfactories, an information field is created, extending access to infor-mation to a large number of people (Greif 1991).

VM leads to the realization of a visual workplace (Koskela et al.2007), in which different visual tools and systems can be used tosupport different managerial efforts, such as performance manage-ment (Tomkins and Smith 1998), quality management (Imai 1997),production management (Ohno 1988; Shingo 1989), human resour-ces management (Greif 1991; Suzaki 1993), and workplace man-agement (Hirano 1995). Galsworth (1997) further groups visualtools into four categories, according to the degree of control exertedby each of them:• Visual indicators: information is simply displayed, and compli-

ance or adherence to its content is voluntary (e.g., safety advi-sory boards);

• Visual signals: this kind of visual device first catches theattention and then delivers its message (e.g., sirens of trucks inmovement on site);

• Visual control: attempts to impact behavior by structuring orbuilding a message directly into the physical environment whileputting physical limits in place (e.g., speed bumps); and

• Visual guarantee: being also known as mistake-proofing orpoka-yoke device, it is designed to make sure that only the rightthing happens (e.g., electronic circuits that prevent the move-ment of lifts when the door is open).

The design of visual tools frequently exploits different conceptsfrom cognitive ergonomics and human psychology, such as colorcoding, shape coding, and the gestalt law (Hirano 1995; Galsworth1997; Monden 1998).

Visual Management in Construction

Koskela (1992) proposed six practical approaches for the implemen-tation of process transparency in construction sites: (1) reducing theinterdependence between production units; (2) using visual devicesto enable immediate recognition of process status; (3) making theprocess directly observable; (4) incorporating information into theprocess; (5) keeping a clean and orderly workplace; and (6) renderinginvisible attributes visible through measurements. Using these ap-proaches as a reference, Formoso et al. (2002) carried out an explor-atory study to identify existing barriers for the implementation ofprocess transparency on construction sites. Those authors suggestedthat the effectiveness of visual systems greatly depends on whetherother core production management principles, such as reducing theshare of nonvalue adding activities, reducing variability, and reduc-ing the cycle time, have been at least minimally applied.

Bust et al. (2008) pointed out the importance of VM on sites thatemploy immigrant workers, or a workforce that has a low literacyrate. Those authors emphasize the value of using culturally suitableaudio or visual displays on sites that do not require full competenceof a language, especially for the communication related to healthand safety. Heineck et al. (2002) presented a case study which in-dicated that process transparency can be substantially increased onconstruction sites by making relatively simple, low-cost changes inthe site layout and the product design, along with the improvementsin working drawings, activity sequencing, and labor relations.

In recent years, a growing number of applications of VM inconstruction have been reported in the literature, most of whichrepresent attempts to adapt visual tools that were originally devisedfor manufacturing plants. For instance, some papers describe suc-cessful applications of the kanban concept for material supply.Arbulu (2009) described the benefits of using kanban for managingthe supply of a large number of nontask specific materials in a largeairport project. Khalfan et al. (2008) reported the use of a kanbansystem to deliver selected products from suppliers and off-site man-ufacturers on a just-in-time basis. Furthermore, several applicationsof kanban for managing material handling and delivery on site inBrazilian house-building companies have been reported in the lit-erature (Kemmer et al. 2006; Burgos and Costa 2012; Barbosaet al. 2013).

Another VM practice that has been widely disseminated in con-struction is the 5S housekeeping programs, mostly attributable tothe implementation of quality management programs in this sectorsince the 1990s (Yang et al. 2004).

Strongly connected to the aim of reducing variability, virtualprototyping, physical prototyping (Saffaro et al. 2006), and firstrun studies (Ballard and Howell 2003) are VM tools that have con-tributed to improving project performance in terms of eliminationof waste, validation of products by the client, and identificationof safety risks.

Another important application area for VM is production plan-ning and control, mostly connected to the Last Planner System(Ballard and Howell 1994). These include the use of kanbancards (Jang and Kim 2007), control panels (Viana et al. 2013),performance charts (Bryde and Schulmeister 2012), and collabora-tive process mapping (Ballard and Howell 2003). More recently,Brady et al. (2012) proposed a collaborative construction planningand control model, which is firmly based on the use of VM.

© ASCE 05015001-2 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

Uni

vers

ity O

f Sa

lfor

d C

liffo

rd W

hitw

orth

on

05/1

4/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Visual systems have also been used to support safety manage-ment. Construction sites often have safety advisory boards, and inmany countries safety regulations require mandatory safety devi-ces, such as guardrails or fool-proof devices for lift doors. Saurinet al. (2008) proposed an innovative role for visual controls, whichis to make the boundaries of acceptable behavior explicit, by usinga set of visual devices, such as physical barriers, color-coding, andsirens. Hence, there are opportunities for the development of furtherfool-proof visual systems, because the availability of this type ofdevice is very low, compared with the manufacturing industry(Tommelein 2008; Saurin et al. 2008).

Regarding the use of information and communication technol-ogies, despite the recent advances such as Building InformationModelling (BIM) and mobile computing (Sacks et al. 2009,2010a, b), augmented construction field visualization (Kamatet al. 2011) and virtual prototyping (Guo et al. 2010), very littlehas been reported on the use of advanced information technologyfor supporting VM in construction. In fact, some very effectiveapplications of the andon system for construction sites have beendevised with the use of relatively unsophisticated technology(Kemmer et al. 2006; Alves et al. 2009).

The discussion presented above indicates that, despite the grow-ing number of papers on VM in construction, none of them hasinvestigated VM as an overarching managerial strategy. Some ofthe existing studies have a narrow focus, most frequently investi-gating the applicability of a specific VM tool, such as kanban,andon, prototyping, and poka-yoke. Other studies discuss howto increase process transparency in construction. However, trans-parency is one of the main outcomes the VM strategy, not the strat-egy itself. There is little discussion on VM systems that combinedifferent visual tools functioning together for different purposes.Moreover, not much has been reported on the difficulties relatedto the implementation of VM in construction sites.

According to the literature reviewed and discussed in this sec-tion, papers published with examples of VM usually focus on somespecific tool (e.g., use of andons, use of kanbans, use of indicators)but fail to address the topic from a broader and systemic perspectiveas discussed throughout this paper.

Research Method

VM is very much shaped by the context in which it takes place, andthe perspectives and motivations of the individuals involved. Thefact that construction sites are constantly changing environmentswith a large number of interdependent crews adds complexity tothe phenomenon under study. Thus, the research method shouldbe appropriate to help understanding the complexity of productionsystems within the context of specific settings. It should also providethe appropriate level of questioning needed to aid understanding.Therefore, the epistemological option for the research is based onthe interpretative school of thought and constructive subjectivism(Gray 2004; Saunders et al. 2007). The researchers investigated VMwith an emphasis on facts and different approaches in diverse envi-ronments to reach a broader understanding of how VM is imple-mented and how it supports the achievement of project results.

The research strategy adopted was exploratory and relied onmultiple case studies (Yin 2003), because of the need to investigatethe application of VM in real life contexts. In management re-search, case studies have often been used to study events that areunusual, noteworthy, unfamiliar, or involve change. Furthermore,case studies are frequently employed to explain the implementationof new methods and techniques in organizations (McCutcheon andMeredith 1993). The unit of analysis in this investigation was the

VM implementation strategy and its practical means (visual tools)adopted by different companies.

Nine construction companies (general contractors) located inBrazil (three from the city of Porto Alegre and six from the cityof Fortaleza) were involved in this research work. The companieswere chosen attributable to the fact that they all had a strong rep-utation for being advanced in the implementation of lean produc-tion concepts and tools, including VM. Companies 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8were chosen because they had actively engaged in past researchinitiatives, and had achieved substantial benefits from their leanproduction implementation efforts. They had also implementedVM successfully on all of their sites, and were generally recognizedas benchmarks in their regions by local academics and practi-tioners. The remaining companies (3, 4, 5, and 9) had implementedsome visual devices but not in a comprehensive way, and were de-fined as followers by local academics and practitioners in relationto the first group of companies.

Companies categorized as innovators were the ones that had pio-neered the use of visual management tools present in different cat-egories of the taxonomy, and also used the tools in larger numbers.These companies were perceived by local practitioners and academ-ics (who had long-standing relationships with the companies andthus were well-informed) as innovators because of their willingnessto try these tools, and serving as case studies that analyzed how thetools worked in a construction environment. The followers werecompanies that waited to see the results obtained from the imple-mentation of VM tools on innovators’ sites before they wouldtry on their own sites. Additionally, the companies categorized asfollowers tended to adopt fewer practices to their sites. As discussedin the “VM Taxonomy” section, the study validated the local practi-tioners and academics perception in terms of the adoption of VM byboth groups.

Regarding the scope of academic involvement with the compa-nies investigated, some companies simply took part in VM relatedresearch projects, and training programs, whereas others hired aca-demics as consultants to support the implementation of their leanpractices. An overview of the companies involved in the case stud-ies is presented in Table 1.

One construction site was visited per company owing to finan-cial and time constraints. Multiple sources of evidence were used ineach case study, as shown in Table 2 Altogether, five companymanagers, seven site managers and seven foremen were inter-viewed. Site observation, and analysis of documents and archiveswere carried out in all companies. Furthermore, documents relatedto the past VM efforts carried out in some of those companies, in-cluding papers, reports, photos, and presentation slides, were alsoanalyzed. For instance, Fig. 1 shows a photo taken from Company8’s archives, showing the application of the on-site concrete pro-duction leveling through a heijunka board. In Companies 3, 7, 8,and 9, the data collection protocol was only partially applied be-cause of limitations in the sources of evidence available.

Data analysis included: (1) the purpose of VM; (2) VM toolsand their features; (3) how companies capture VM practicesfor future use; (4) suggestions for implementation at othercompanies; (5) issues faced by the companies in the implementa-tion of VM; and (6) measurement of VM performance.

Based on the existing data, a taxonomy, which systematicallydemonstrates the wide range of practices that can be used forVM in construction, was produced. Creating taxonomies is the ef-fort of classifying the studied phenomenon into meaningful groups(Godfray 2002). In operations management, taxonomies have thepotential of creating knowledge as the result of a posterior dataanalysis to obtain stable groups through classification (Bozarthand McDermott 1998; Martin-Pena and Diaz-Garrido 2008).

© ASCE 05015001-3 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

Uni

vers

ity O

f Sa

lfor

d C

liffo

rd W

hitw

orth

on

05/1

4/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

VM Taxonomy

Awide range of VM practices was observed in the case studies. Adetailed description of the taxonomy elements was published as anindustry report (Tezel et al. 2010) and they are briefly summarizedin this section. Fourteen taxonomy elements were proposed, basedon: (1) their purpose, (2) application methods (i.e., removing visual

barriers and standardization), and (3) managerial goals (i.e., produc-tion leveling and production control).

Table 3 shows the purpose of each taxonomy element based onthe six practical approaches that were proposed by Koskela (1992)for the implementation of process transparency on construction sites.Table 4 presents the application details involved in those elements.

Table 1. Brief Description of the Companies Involved in the Case Studies

Case studies Location The company The projectClassified by local academics

and practitioners as

Company 1 Porto Alegre Employs 300 people. Has operatedin residential and commercialbuilding construction for 27 years.In 1998 started implementing theLast Planner System, and in 2002visual management

20.000 m2—High rise commercialbuilding for IT companies(US$13 million)

Innovative company in VM

Company 2 Porto Alegre Employs 1200 people. Hasoperated in residential andcommercial building constructionfor 35 years

27.000 m2—Two high riseresidential buildings(US$18 million)

Innovative company in VM

Company 3 Porto Alegre Has operated in residential andcommercial building constructionfor 30 years

High rise residential building Follower company in VM

Company 4 Fortaleza Employs 57 people. Has operatedin residential and commercialbuilding construction for 21 years.The lean initiative startedapproximately 2002 and gainedmomentum in 2008.

7.000 m2—High rise residentialbuilding (US$5 million)

Follower company in VM

Company 5 Fortaleza Employs 150 people. Has operatedin residential and commercialbuilding construction for 28 years.The lean initiative startedapproximately 2006

6.000 m2—High rise residentialbuilding (US$4 million)

Follower company in VM

Company 6 Fortaleza Employs 500 people. Has operatedin residential and commercialbuilding construction for 25 years.The lean initiative startedapproximately 2002

35.000 m2—Four high riseresidential buildings(US$16 million)

Innovative company in VM

Company 7 Fortaleza Has operated in residential andcommercial building constructionfor 16 years. The lean initiativestarted approximately 2002

7.750 m2—High rise residentialbuilding (US$4 million)

Innovative company in VM

Company 8 Fortaleza Has operated in residential andcommercial building constructionfor 22 years. The lean initiativegained momentum in 2004

19.00 m2—High rise residentialbuilding (US$9 million)

Innovative company in VM

Company 9 Fortaleza Has operated in residential andcommercial building constructionfor 28 years. The lean initiativestarted approximately 2006

13 two-storey residential villas Follower company in VM

Table 2. Data Collection Methods Adopted in Each Case-Study Company

Case number

Interview withthe companymanager

Interviewwith the sitemanager

Interviewwith the siteforeman

Documentanalysis (photosand field notes)

Directobservation in

construction sites

Archiveanalysis (company

and site)

Informaldiscussions (managers

and academics)

1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes3 No No No Yes Yes Partially (site archives) Yes4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes7 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes8 No Yes Yes Partially (no photos) Yes Yes Yes9 No No No Yes Yes Partially (site archives) Yes

© ASCE 05015001-4 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

Uni

vers

ity O

f Sa

lfor

d C

liffo

rd W

hitw

orth

on

05/1

4/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Data analysis indicated that the more innovative companiesadopted a larger number and wider variety of VM tools incomparison with the companies classified as followers (Table 4),confirming their classification suggested by local academics andpractitioners. This indicates that the proposed taxonomy can beused as a means to evaluate the degree of VM implementation.

Furthermore, a number of connections between different VMpractices were identified in the case studies. For example, aconcrete-mix kanban card is used on a concrete mixer heijunkaboard; or workers pick up materials from the site inventory, ac-cording to the kanban cards in their hands, identifying the correctlocation by looking at the inventory identification sign (visualorder).

VM by Removing Visual BarriersThe main principle behind removing visual barriers is to provideextended transparency to people by enabling observability on site(Koskela 1992). On the observed sites, most elements requiringenclosure (e.g., dining areas, lift control rooms, workstations,and material storage zones) were deliberately enclosed by amaterial that permits transparency (i.e., glass, chain link or weldedwires).

VM for Standardized Identification and LocalizationThe physical site elements (e.g., site inventories or pathways) werestandardized in terms of their identification and location by usingvisual clues, signs, tags, site maps, shadows, and colors. Thesestandardization efforts often included the warehouses throughmaterial grouping, ordering and visual material tagging/identifying,as exemplified in Fig. 2.

VM in Systematic Site Order (5S)Systematic housekeeping efforts, widely known as the 5S pro-grams, existed at the companies in the form of site cleaning, order,and standardization. The 5S efforts were sustained by usingvisually attractive communication means (e.g., mascots, signs,5S boards).

VM in Production ControlPull production (Ohno 1988) was applied in the production anddelivery of various consumables on the construction sites throughvisual cards. In this system, the necessary amount of material ispulled by the next workstation from the previous workstation(or site warehouse) by exchanging visual cards, often calledkanban. Along with production, the site stock replenishment(generally for frequently used materials, such as bricks and ce-ment) was also managed by using those cards, as exemplified inFig. 3(a).

VM in Production LevelingProduction leveling using visual boards (heijunka boards) wasidentified in the on-site concrete and mortar production. The level-ing was achieved by producing the concrete according to the de-mands of different crews. The demands were managed byexchanging demand or pull cards [Fig. 3(a)] on a heijunka board[Fig. 3(b)], which was managed by a trained operator.

Fig. 1. Visual concrete production leveling example

Table 3. Main Purpose of the VM Taxonomy Elements

VM element(after Koskela 1992)

Reducing theinterdependencies

betweenproduction units

Using visual devicesto enable

immediate recognitionof process status

Making the processdirectly observablethrough layoutand signage

Incorporatinginformation

into the process

Maintaining aclean and orderly

workplace

Renderinginvisible attributesvisible throughmeasurements

A. Removing visual barriers — — X — — —B. Standardization — — X — — —C. The 5S program — — — — X —D. Production control — X — — — —E. Production leveling — X — — — —F. In-station quality — X — — — —G. Prototyping and sampling — — — X — —H. Visual signs — — — X — —I. Work facilitators — — — X — —J. Improvisational VM — — — X — —K. Performance managementthrough VM

— — — — — X

L. Distributing system wideinformation through VM

— — — X — —

M. Mistake proofing systems — X — — — —N. On-site prefabrication X — — — — —

© ASCE 05015001-5 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

Uni

vers

ity O

f Sa

lfor

d C

liffo

rd W

hitw

orth

on

05/1

4/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Tab

le4.

Adoptionof

VM

TaxonomyElements

byDifferent

Com

panies

Casestudynumber

12

34

5

Rem

ovingvisual

barriers

•Site

layout

organizatio

n•Site

layout

organizatio

n•Site

layout

organizatio

n•Site

layout

organizatio

n•Site

layout

organizatio

n

•Using

chain-lin

kfences

•Using

chain-lin

kfences

•Using

chain-lin

kfences

•Using

chain-lin

kfences

•Using

chain-lin

kfences

•Using

glasswhere

appropriate

•Markedpathways

Standardization

•Markedpathways

•Color

codedhelm

ets,

materialandworkstatio

ns•Markedpathways

•Markedpathways

•Color

codedhelm

ets,

material,toolsand

workstatio

n•Color

codedhelm

ets,

materialandworkstatio

ns•ID

cardsandnametags

•Color

codedhelm

ets,

materialandworkstatio

n•Color

codedhelm

ets,

material,toolsand

workstatio

n

•ID

cardsandnametags

•ID

cardsandnametags

•Materialgrouping

•ID

cardsandnametags

•ID

cardsandnametags

•Materialgrouping

•Materialgrouping

•Site

stockarea

IDs

•Materialgrouping

•Materialgrouping

•Site

stockarea

IDs

•Site

stockarea

IDs

•LocationID

s•Site

stockarea

IDs

•Site

stockarea

IDs

•LocationID

s•Site

maps

•Site

maps

•LocationID

s•LocationID

s•Site

maps

•Arearesponsiblepersonnel

photos/contact

•Site

maps

•Site

maps

•Arearesponsible

personnelphotos/contact

The

5Sprogram

5Sexists

5Sexists

——

—Productio

ncontrol

Visualcontrolin

cement

bags

andbricks

Visualcontrolin

cement

bags

andbricks

—•Cardbased(kanban)

productio

ncontrolsystem

forbrick,

cement,and

electrical

fixtures

—

•A

simplematerialtag

basedsteelcontrolsystem

Productio

nlevelin

g—

——

—Concreteproductio

nLevelingby

usingsimple,

coloredbeads

In-statio

nquality

——

—Preparations

foran

andonsystem

—

Prototypingand

sampling

—Prototypes

ofcertain

piping

system

s—

—Prototypes

ofcertain

piping

system

sVisualsigns

•Com

pany

policies

visually

presented

•Slogans

•Safety

signs

•Safety

signs

•Safety

inform

ation

•Warnings

•Com

pany

policies

•Com

pany

policies

•Desired

practices

reminders

byusingthecompany

mascot

•VisualID

ofsafety

equipm

enton

site

•Slogans

•Slogans

•Bestpractices

Workfacilitators

Visualworkinstructions

•Processcharts

•Processcharts

•Processcharts

•Color

codedworkaids

•Color

codedworkaids

•Visualworkinstructions

•Visualworkinstructions

•Visualworkinstructions

•Color

codedmagnetic

board

summarizingtheim

portant

datesof

theprojectplanning

•Color

codedproject

draw

ings—

Various

visual

aids

© ASCE 05015001-6 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

Uni

vers

ity O

f Sa

lfor

d C

liffo

rd W

hitw

orth

on

05/1

4/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Tab

le4.

(Contin

ued.)

Casestudynumber

12

34

5

ImprovisationalVM

On-site

constructio

nquality

controlandassurance

On-site

constructio

nquality

controlandassurance

On-site

constructio

nquality

controlandassurance

On-site

constructio

nquality

controlandassurance

On-site

constructio

nquality

controlandassurance

Performance

managem

ent

throughvisual

managem

ent

•Productiv

itymetrics

•Color

codedworkergroup

andprojectperformance

boards

•Su

pplierperformance

boards

•Productiv

itymetrics

—

•Qualitymetrics

•Overallconstructio

nprogress

boards

•Safety

metrics

•Safety

metrics

•Qualitymetrics

•Financialmetrics

•Safety

metrics

Distributingsystem

wideinform

ation

throughVM

Visualinform

ationon

theprojectenvironm

ent

fortheworkforce

Visualinform

ationon

the

projectenvironm

entfor

theworkforce

—Calendarsummarizing

importantprojectevents

inthenear

future

—

Mistake

proofing

system

s—

Simplemistake

proofing

device

forpipe

fitting

——

—

On-site

prefabricatio

n•Electricalfixtures

fitted

onbricks

before

bricklaying

•Electricalfixtures

fitted

onbricks

before

bricklaying

——

—

Casestudynumber

67

89

Rem

oving

visual

barriers

•Site

layout

organizatio

n•Site

layout

organizatio

n•Site

layout

organizatio

n•Site

layout

organizatio

n

•Using

chain-lin

kfences

•Using

chain-lin

kfences

•Using

chain-lin

kfences

•Using

chain-lin

kfences

•Using

glasswhere

appropriate

•Using

glasswhere

appropriate

•Using

glasswhere

appropriate

Standardization

•Markedpathways

•Markedpathways

•Markedpathways

•Markedpathways

•Color

codedhelm

ets,

material,toolsandworkstatio

n•Color

codedhelm

ets,

material,toolsand

workstatio

n

•Color

codedhelm

ets,material,

toolsandworkstatio

n•Color

codedhelm

ets,

material,toolsand

workstatio

n•ID

cardsandnametags

•ID

cardsandnametags

•ID

cardsandnametags

•ID

cardsandnametags

•Materialgrouping

•Materialgrouping

•Materialgrouping

•Materialgrouping

•Site

stockarea

IDs

•Site

stockarea

IDs

•Site

stockarea

IDs

•Site

stockarea

IDs

•LocationID

s•LocationID

s•LocationID

s•LocationID

s•Site

maps

•Site

maps

•Site

maps

•Arearesponsiblepersonnel

photos/contact

•Arearesponsiblepersonnel

photos/contact

•Arearesponsiblepersonnel

photos/contact

The

5Sprogram

5Sexists

5Sexists

5Sexists

—Productio

ncontrol

•Handtoolscontrolboards

•Handtoolscontrolboards

•Handtoolscontrolboards

—•Cardbased(kanban)

productio

ncontrolsystem

forvariousmaterials

•Scaffoldingcontrol

•Cardbased(kanban)

productio

ncontrolsystem

forvariousmaterials

•Cardbased(kanban)

productio

ncontrolsystem

forvariousmaterials

Productio

nlevelin

gA

heiju

nkaboardforon-site

concrete

productio

nA

heiju

nkaboardforon-site

concrete

productio

nA

heiju

nkaboardforon-site

concrete

productio

n—

In-statio

nquality

Andon

boardsystem

Andon

boardsystem

Andon

boardsystem

Asimplein

station

quality

system

byusing

coloredcards

© ASCE 05015001-7 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

Uni

vers

ity O

f Sa

lfor

d C

liffo

rd W

hitw

orth

on

05/1

4/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Tab

le4.

(Contin

ued.)

Casestudynumber

67

89

Prototypingand

sampling

•Samplingforsafety

gears,

personnelandmaterial

locatio

nmatching

•Samplingforsafety

gears,

personnelandmaterial

locatio

nmatching

•Samplingforsafety

gears,

personnelandmaterial

locatio

nmatching

•Prototypes

ofcertainpiping

system

s•Prototypes

ofcertain

piping

system

s•Prototypes

ofcertain

piping

system

sVisualsigns

Safety

signs,worker

emotions’boards,slogans,

best

practice,

inform

ationon

theproductio

nsystem

Safety

inform

ation,

slogans,

desiredpractices,reminders

byusingthecompany

mascot

Safety

inform

ation,

slogans,

desiredpractices,reminders.

•Safety

inform

ation

•Slogans

•Desired

practices

•Rem

inders

Workfacilitators

•Processcharts

•Processcharts

•Processcharts

•Visualworkinstructions

•Visualworkinstructions

•Visualworkinstructions

•Visualworkinstructions

•Color

codedmagnetic

projectdraw

ings

•Color

codedmagnetic

projectdraw

ings

•Color

codedmagnetic

projectdraw

ings

•Various

visual

aids

•Various

visual

aids

•Various

visual

aids

ImprovisationalVM

On-site

constructio

nquality

controlandassurance

On-site

constructio

nquality

controlandassurance

On-site

constructio

nquality

controlandassurance

On-site

constructio

nquality

controlandassurance

Performance

managem

ent

throughvisual

managem

ent

•Productiv

itymetrics

•Productiv

itymetrics

•Productiv

itymetrics

•Productiv

itymetrics

•Safety

metrics

•Safety

metrics

•Safety

metrics

•Safety

metrics

•Qualitymetrics

•Qualitymetrics

•Qualitymetrics

•Qualitymetrics

•Financialmetrics

•Financialmetrics

•Financialmetrics

•Visualworkers’

moodboard

•Visualsupplierperformance

boards

•Visualworkers’moodboard

Distributingsystem

wideinform

ation

throughVM

Visualinform

ationon

the

projectenvironm

ent

fortheworkforce

Visualinform

ationon

theprojectenvironm

ent

fortheworkforce

Visualinform

ationon

the

projectenvironm

entfor

theworkforce

—

Mistake

proofing

system

s—

Simplemistake

proofing

fortheinstallatio

nof

sinks

——

On-site

prefabricatio

n•Electricalfixtures

are

fittedon

bricks

before

bricklaying

•Electricalfixtures

are

fittedon

bricks

before

bricklaying

•Electricalfixtures

arefitted

onbricks

before

bricklaying

—

•Electricalandmechanical

(piping,

fixtures)

prefabricatio

nwith

visual

inform

ation

•Electricalandmechanical

(piping,

fixtures)

prefabricatio

nwith

visual

inform

ation

•Electricalandmechanical

(piping,

fixtures)prefabricatio

nwith

visual

inform

ation

© ASCE 05015001-8 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

Uni

vers

ity O

f Sa

lfor

d C

liffo

rd W

hitw

orth

on

05/1

4/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

VM in In-Station QualitySome companies used a mobile or static type of alarming systemscalled andon with the aim of identifying the deviations from stand-ardized construction processes. The green, yellow and red lights onthe systems (Fig. 4) indicate, respectively, that the work proceedssmoothly, help is required from the site manager, or the productionstops on a building floor.

VM in Prototyping and SamplingPrototyping was used in the form of displaying an example of a partor the whole of the end-product (e.g., a piping system or a completeroom), enabling the workforce to visualize the end-product itself.Sampling, the practice of pairing different production elements

(material/space or equipment/personnel) by using a real sampleof the material and/or equipment in question, was also employed.

VM in Site SignageVisually attractive and eye-catching signs, posters, sketches, mas-cots, and caricatures were commonly used to support the changemanagement initiatives, internal marketing efforts, to underline bestpractices, to raise awareness on waste, to emphasize hygiene, healthand safety, and to prevent ergonomic problems.

VM in Work FacilitatorsThis category covers visual aids that were consciously createdby management to help the workforce perform their tasks. Thesedevices often serve as a reminder of the standard practices (oftentechnical), providing additional knowledge in the work environ-ment. They should be eye-catching and easy to follow. These visualaids could be designed for anyone on the site, a crew, or a specificworker.

Improvisational VMSeveral improvisational visual aids had been integrated spontane-ously by the workforce into their work environments, particularlyfor quality control purposes. Those visual signs were devised by theworkforce and understood by people on the site as a mean of com-munication. A spontaneous marking on a gypsum wall surfaceindicating the orientation of equipment to be installed was acommonplace example.

VM in Performance ManagementDifferent performance metrics to be used by different parties, suchas subcontractors, suppliers, and crews, were openly displayed onsome sites. However, the degree of adoption of this practice variesdepending on the managerial perception about the sensitivity of theinformation. Some managers find that displaying too much infor-mation on performance metrics openly can have detrimental effectson the company-worker or company-subcontractor relationships.

Fig. 2. Site stock material identification

Fig. 3. (a) Different kanban cards; (b) heijunka production leveling board

© ASCE 05015001-9 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

Uni

vers

ity O

f Sa

lfor

d C

liffo

rd W

hitw

orth

on

05/1

4/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

VM in Distributing System Wide InformationSystem wide information, whether directly related to the produc-tion or not, was put on display to enhance transparency, and to raiseawareness on the elements of the project system, such as regula-tions, evaluation of suppliers, company policies, and surveys withthe customers.

VM in Mistake Proofing SystemsMistake proofing efforts were found only in Companies 2 and 7.These were mechanical and electrical devices aiming at standard-izing outcomes. The systems consisted of basic mechanical mod-ifications on the material by the site management to guarantee ahigher quality production consistently. The small number of fool-proof devices found in the case studies indicates that there is stillneed for further research and innovation on this practice.

VM in On-Site PrefabricationThere were some site prefabrication efforts carried out with the aimof achieving a higher level of end-product quality, eliminating in-terdependencies, and expediting a particular construction process.The observed examples include prefabricated electrical junctionboxes and mortar preparation units.

Discussion on the Implementation of VM

Table 5 presents a cross-case comparison of the VM implementa-tion. Data indicated that VM has been used in those constructionsites on a wider scale than generally understood. The interviewsdemonstrated that in some of the companies there was little aware-ness on the wide range of VM implementation possibilities. Forinstance, a manager from Company 8 understood VM solely as dis-playing performance information and pictures on boards (visualdisplays).

There was a clear difference in the way visual indicators andvisual controls were used. Visual indicators, e.g., performance fig-ures, were mostly used for increasing process transparency on the

construction sites, as suggested by Koskela (1992). By contrast,visual controls (e.g., kanban cards, andon boards) were introducedas an element of a specific system, such as a pull production systemfor the mortar production, or the in-station quality approach, andwere not always perceived by the managers as the outcomes of aconscious VM strategy. This kind of perception may hamper theestablishment of a holistic VM strategy and devising original visualtools to support other managerial efforts. In fact, an important dis-tinction between the innovative and follower companies in the ap-plication of VM is that in the former the visual practices supportedeach other as the parts of an integrated system.

Moreover, the implementation effort varied by the type of VMpractices. For instance, implementing pull production controlthrough kanban, leveling by using heijunka boards, the 5S pro-grams, the in-station quality, and the andon systems requiredextensive planning, a certain level of readiness, and stability withinthe production system. Without sufficient operator training, logisticpreparations, and site arrangements, those more complex VM prac-tices tend to have no or negative effects in the production system.The 5S for instance, seems easier to implement and is regarded asan initial step to a visual workplace in a manufacturing context(Hirano 1995). However, the interviews revealed that sustainingthe 5S on a construction site requires much control and commit-ment from the workforce. Further, for an andon system to function,a support team should be available to go and see where the problemsoccurred and to make improvements on the causes of stoppages (ornear stoppages). Finally, the kanban system effectiveness requires areduction on variability in the consumption of materials by reducingprocess variability and improving planning reliability.

Visual signs, aids, site standardization efforts, performancemanagement, site layout efforts, and improvisational VM existedin all of the companies. It seems that those application techniquesare relatively easier to implement, and can be adopted as the initialsteps to VM.

Therefore, it is clear that there are different levels of implemen-tation which can be planned by companies in an orderly sequence.Those levels build upon each other, starting from the more basicsite standardization and order to the rather complex visual produc-tion leveling and control systems. The mistake-proofing systemswere the least used type of the visual tools by the group ofcompanies—only a few basic working examples were found in thecase studies. Fig. 5 presents the three proposed levels of VMimplementation.

Simplicity for both management and workforce was the mostfrequently mentioned characteristic of visual tools, as seen inTable 5. The other common features were the visual tools beingdirect, low cost, giving timely information, attractive to the oftenpoorly educated workforce, concise (answering an informationneed), direct, and durable.

In all of the case studies, the implementation of VM adopted atop-to-bottom approach, under the leadership of the technical staff.The foremen had an important role to play as they worked close tothe workers. Their active participation and consent were essentialfor the VM implementation success, because they were usuallyresponsible for the VM tools on the sites. Some site managers alsotook an active role in the implementation process by capturing andanalyzing some improvisational visual communication tools de-vised by workers, and making them systematic on the whole site.Indeed, one of the essences of VM is actively encouraging workersto design visual tools for their own information needs and to vis-ually share information with other people (Suzaki 1993; Liff andPosey 2004; Galsworth 2005).

Most managers highlighted that training workers is essentialfor VM implementation (Table 5). However, the time needed for

Fig. 4. Static andon board for in-station quality

© ASCE 05015001-10 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

Uni

vers

ity O

f Sa

lfor

d C

liffo

rd W

hitw

orth

on

05/1

4/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Tab

le5.

Cross-CaseCom

parisonof

theIm

plem

entatio

nProcess

Casestudy

number

Purposeof

VM

VM

toolsfeatures

Capturing

VM

practices

forfuture

use

Suggestio

nsforVM

implem

entatio

nVM

implem

entatio

nissues

Measuring

VM

performance?

1Transparency;

simplification;

better

communications

betweenmanagem

ent

and(poorlyeducated)workforce;

efficiency

anddisciplin

eon

sites;positiv

eim

pacton

thecompany’sim

age;easiersite

control;increase

productiv

ity

Direct,simple,

low-

cost

andcolorful

(attractiv

e)

Inform

ally,keepingVM

records

Awarenessaboutproductio

nmanagem

entandlean

constructio

nis

essential;concentratingnotonly

inproductio

n

Trainingworkforce

canbe

timeconsum

ing;

trained

workerturnover;somelack

ofconsistencyin

usingthe

tools;

somevisual

toolsare

costly

No

2Givingtim

elyinform

ation;

raising

consciousnessabouttheconstructio

nenvironm

ent;demonstratin

ggood

practices;enablin

geasier

tocontroland

morestandardized

constructio

nsites;

reducing

waste

—Fo

rmally

capturingand

documentin

gdifferent

VM

implem

entatio

ns(e.g.,on

CDs,catalogs).

Sharepractices

over

the

company

intranet

Acomprehensive

training

plan;close

supervisionof

new

workers;regularly

updatin

gandsustaining

differentvisual

tools

Trainingworkforce

canbe

timeconsum

ing

No

4Simplification;

reducing

complexity

onsites;bo

ndingmanagem

entand

workforce

throughvisual

communication;

giving

inform

ationaboutthesite

tothe(poorly

educated)w

orkforce;answeringworkforce

questio

ns;guidingtheworkforce;

coordinatio

nof

theworkforce;enablin

ginteractionbetweenthemanagem

entand

theworkforce;enablin

gorderlyandmore

standardized

constructio

nsites;

contributin

gto

thepositiv

eim

ageof

the

company

Simple,

concise,

direct

andlow-cost

Form

ally

capturingand

documentin

gdifferent

VM

implem

entatio

ns(e.g.,on

CDs,catalogs)

Understanding

theconceptof

transparency

before

application;

top

managem

ents’supportof

VM;patience

andpersistencein

training;close

supervisionof

theworkforce;

demonstratin

gthepractical

benefitsof

differentvisual

toolsto

theworkforce;

paying

closeattentionto

the

suggestio

nsof

theworkforce;

maintaining

thekeypersonnel;

standardizingtheproductio

nsystem

;experimentatio

nwith

differenttools

Trainingworkforce

canbe

timeconsum

ing;

trained

workerturnover

—

5Bettersite

organizatio

n;cleanness;

reducing

waste;fewer

mistakes;

maintaining

disciplin

eon

site;easier,

simplifiedandattractiv

ecommunication

fortheworkforce;easiercontrolo

fthesite

bythemanagem

ent;stabilizing

worker

performance

bydisplaying

theinform

ation

theworkerneeds;

creatin

gabetterim

age

ofthecompany

inclients’

andvisitors’

perceptio

n

—Fo

rmally

capturingand

documentin

gdifferent

VM

implem

entatio

ns(e.g.,on

CDs,catalogs)

Patienceandpersistencein

training;

demonstratin

gpractical

benefits

ofdifferentvisual

toolsto

theworkforce;

receivingfeedback

from

theworkforce;

getting

theforeman’s

consent

Trainingworkforce

canbe

timeconsum

ing;

resistance

tochange

No

6A

tool

forpeople

toseetheifthe

constructio

nsiteworks

asintended

andthe

deviations

from

theexpected;worker

empowerment;answ

eringworkforce

questio

ns;guidingtheworkforce;creatin

gabetterim

ageof

thecompany

inclients’

andvisitors’perceptio

n;reducing

waste

Simpleconcise,

direct;d

onotn

eedto

below-cost

Form

ally

capturingand

documentin

gdifferent

VM

implem

entatio

ns(e.g.,on

CDs,catalogs)

Providesuitablechannels

forthe

workforce

tosuggestnew

ideasandto

expressthem

selves

(experim

entatio

n);

topmanagem

ents’supportof

VM;

importance

ofcommunicatingthe

vision

ofthecompany;training

byshow

ing;

understatin

gthetheory

behind

VM

Trainingworkforce

canbe

timeconsum

ing;

resistance

tochange

atinitial

implem

entatio

n;creatin

gthe

ownershipof

theworkforce

forVM

No

7Facilitatingconstructio

ntasksforworkers

andsite

controlformanagem

ent;

answ

eringworkforce

questio

ns;guiding

theworkforce;creatin

gabetterim

ageof

thecompany

inclients’

andvisitors’

perceptio

n

Direct,simple,

low-

cost

andcolorful

(attractiv

e)durable

Form

ally

capturingand

documentin

gdifferent

VM

implem

entatio

ns(e.g.,on

CDs,catalogs)

Trainingby

show

ing(using

videos)

isim

portant

Trainingworkforce

canbe

timeconsum

ing;

resistance

tochange

atinitial

implem

entatio

n;workers

may

beafraid

ofmaking

mistakes

No

© ASCE 05015001-11 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

Uni

vers

ity O

f Sa

lfor

d C

liffo

rd W

hitw

orth

on

05/1

4/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

training and difficulties in achieving changes in working habitswere also pointed out as potential barriers. For instance, a managerfrom Company 7 stated that workers were afraid of making mis-takes when using visual tools at the beginning of the implementa-tion. This clearly indicates the need for appropriate training, ano-blame culture, and workers’ engagement to help avoiding theresistance to change.

None of the companies measured the effectiveness of differentvisual tools or systems. Rather, they measured their productivity,monetary gains or other key performance indicators. The managerof Company 4 explained: “We simply save money with lean con-struction and different visual tools.” This comment suggests a prac-tical reasoning behind the implementation.

Some of the companies (primarily the followers) borrowed prac-tices from other companies, whereas the others (the innovativeones) developed many of the practices themselves. This was partlythe result of a close collaboration between the companies, espe-cially the ones from Fortaleza—they shared their lean constructionpractices with each other openly. Therefore, a sharing culture isimportant for rapidly disseminating VM. There was also academicinvolvement in the implementation of VM, which has contributedto creating a higher level of awareness of VM possibilities, andencouraging the companies to establish broader application plansfor the future.

No specific computer software was used to support VM. Themanagers stated that any IT systems to replace the current VM toolsshould be financially affordable, easy to use, and resistant to theharsh conditions of construction sites. A manager from Company7, for instance, emphasized that they had been using the same, sim-ple, and economically affordable, vinyl covered kanban cards forfive years. By contrast, developing IT technologies, particularly theubiquitous computing concept (Weiser 1991), may lead to wide-spread, ambient-integrated implementation of innovative visualcommunication systems. Thus, the Formoso et al. (2002) sugges-tion of testing new IT systems for increased transparency is stillrelevant.

The implementation barriers pointed out in the interviews were,in essence, relatively simple to address. The most frequently citedbarrier was that training the workforce could take time. Worker re-sistance to change, high workforce turnover, workers being afraidof making mistakes when using VM tools, and not properly defin-ing the responsibilities in implementation were other issues pointedout by the interviewees (Table 5).

The evaluation of the readiness of the construction system fora particular visual tool was also highlighted as critical. The impor-tance of this evaluation was underlined by a manager from

Tab

le5.

(Contin

ued.)

Casestudy

number

Purposeof

VM

VM

toolsfeatures

Capturing

VM

practices

forfuture

use

Suggestio

nsforVM

implem

entatio

nVM

implem

entatio

nissues

Measuring

VM

performance?

8Givingtim

elyinform

ation;

facilitating

constructio

ntasksforworkers

andsite

controlformanagem

ent;increasing

the

typesof

worktheworkers

cando

ontheir

own;

creatin

gabetterim

ageof

the

company

inclients’

andvisitors’

perceptio

n

Direct,simple,

low-

cost

andcolorful

(attractiv

e)

Form

ally

capturingand

documentin

gdifferent

VM

implem

entatio

ns(e.g.,on

CDs,catalogs)

Com

prehensive

training

plan;

persistenceandregularity

intraining;

care

isneeded

notto

create

visual

pollu

tion(excessinform

ation)

Trainingworkforce

canbe

timeconsum

ing;

defining

responsibilitiesfor

managingdifferentVM

tools/system

s

No

Initial Steps

- Visual Signs- Improvisational

VM- Performance

Mgt.- Systemwide Info.- VM in

Standardization- Remove Visual

Barriers

Second Level

- VM in Site Layout- VM in Production

Control- VM in Station

Quality

Advanced Approaches

- VM in Production Levelling

- Prototyping and Sampling

- Mistake Proofing- On-site

Prefabrication- 5S

Fig. 5. Levels of VM implementation

© ASCE 05015001-12 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

Uni

vers

ity O

f Sa

lfor

d C

liffo

rd W

hitw

orth

on

05/1

4/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Company 5, while explaining their previously failed kanban andandon system initiatives at the company, which happened becauseof the ineffectiveness of their production planning and insufficientstandardization of material flows.

Conclusions

The VM taxonomy (Table 4) proposed in this paper can be used toincrease awareness on the range of VM practices on constructionsites. It also indicates where VM tools can be implemented. More-over, the taxonomy enables the evaluation of the degree of VMimplementation on construction sites. Starting from the basic ap-proaches to the more advanced VM concepts, different levels ofthe VM elements identified at the companies (Fig. 5) were alsopresented as a VM implementation guide. Those findings addressa gap in the existing literature, and represent a practical contribu-tion, because the proposed taxonomy may help companies tounderstand the scope of VM, and to assess the existing degreeof implementation.

The VM taxonomy, the comparison of the taxonomy elements,and the levels of VM implementation were proposed based on theBrazilian building construction context. It indicates that these re-sults are context related, which renders them open for modificationsand additions through future research. New visual tools can be de-vised to address one or more of the process transparency increasingprinciples outlined in Table 3. There is also room for developmentand research in the scarcely applied VM tools, such as mistakeproofing and on-site prefabrication (Table 4).

A number of important VM application features were identified(Table 5) from a managerial perspective. Those features are impor-tant for both VM research and application as they provide interest-ing information on the VM strategy for construction in general andcritical points to pay attention to while implementing VM. A sim-ilar kind of study could be executed from workers’ point of view tocompare the findings.

A synthesis of the critical factors for a successful VM imple-mentation is presented below:• Realizing that there is a wide-range of VM tools and that VM is

more than visual signs or production control (e.g., kanban);• Understanding the theoretical background and interconnection

between different VM tools;• Evaluating the current readiness of the company for an intended

VM tool, and preparing the production system if necessary;• Starting from the initial efforts and moving towards the more

advanced applications (Fig. 5);• Obtaining academic support for implementing, maintaining, and

developing VM;• Employing a structured benchmarking process for to properly

develop and implement VM tools, instead of simply copyingother companies’ initiatives (Knuf 2000);

• Avoiding a fully top-down (from the technical staff to theworkforce) VM application and making an effort to involve theworkforce in the development and implementation of VM;

• Paying attention to the design of a VM tool with respect toergonomics, human factors engineering, cognitive sciences,and IT opportunities;

• Executing a comprehensive VM training plan that involveshighly visual training elements and training by showing. If pos-sible, the workforce turnover should be reduced;

• Gaining the consent of the technical staff by truly convincingthem about the benefits of VM;

• Defining clearly the execution methods and responsibilities fordifferent VM tools;

• Monitoring the practical execution of VM, and measuring theVM outcomes;

• Extending the VM effort to other stakeholders (e.g., clients, sup-pliers, community); and

• Creating mechanisms for improving the VM system.Several opportunities for further research have also been

identified:• Investigating and actively monitoring a VM implementation

process in a construction setting, based on the above mentionedcritical points of implementation;

• Comparing the VM taxonomy elements over different para-meters (e.g., cost, impact, difficulty);

• Studying the proposed taxonomy (Table 4) and levels of VMimplementation (Fig. 5) in different construction contexts;

• Exploring VM in the whole building lifecycle, including designmanagement and facilities management; and

• Investigating the implementation of VM in other types of con-struction projects, including industrial, highway, and powerplant constructions.

References

Alves, T. C. L., Barros, N. J. P., Heineck, L. F. M., Kemmer, S. L., andPereira, P. E. (2009). “Incentives and innovations to sustain leanconstruction implementation.” Proc., 17th Annual Conf. of the Int.Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Taipei, Taiwan.

Arbulu, R. (2009). “Application of integrated materials managementstrategies.” Construction supply chain handbook, W. J. O’Brien,C. T. Formoso, R. Vrijhoef, and K. A. London, eds., CRC Press, BocaRaton, FL.

Arthur, P., and Passini, R. (1992). Wayfinding: People, signs, and archi-tecture, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Ballard, G., and Howell, G. A. (1994). “Implementing lean construction:Improving downstream performance.” Proc., 2nd Annual Conf. of theInt. Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Santiago, Chile.

Ballard, G., and Howell, G. A. (2003). “Lean project management.”J. Build. Res. Inf., 31(2), 119–133.

Barbosa, G., Andrade, F., Biotto, C., and Mota, B. (2013). “Implementinglean construction effectively in a year in a construction project.” Proc.,21st Annual Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Construction (IGLC),Fortaleza, Brazil.

Beigl, M., Gellersen, H. W., and Schmidt, A. (2001). “Mediacups: Expe-rience with design and use of computer-augmented everyday objects.”Comput. Networks, 35(4), 401–409.

Bernstein, E. S. (2012). “The transparency paradox: A role for privacy inorganizational learning and operational control.” Administrative Sci. Q.,57(2), 181–216.

Bilalis, N., Scroubelos, G., Antoniadis, A., Emiris, D., and Koulouriotis, D.(2002). “Visual factory: Basic principles and the ‘Zoning’ approach.”Int. J. Prod. Res., 40(15), 3575–3588.

Bozarth, C., and Mcdermott, C. (1998). “Configurations in manufacturingstrategy: A review and directions for future research.” J. Oper. Manage.,16(4), 427–439.

Brady, D. A., Tzortzopoulos, P., and Rooke, J. (2012). “Using design sci-ence to further develop visual management application in construction.”Proc., 20th Annual Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Construction(IGLC), San Diego.

Bryde, D., and Schulmeister, R. (2012). “Applying lean principles to abuilding refurbishment project: Experiences of key stakeholders.”Constr. Manage. Econ., 30(9), 777–794.

Burgos, A. P., and Costa, D. B. (2012). “Assessment of Kanban use onconstruction sites.” Proc., 20th Annual Conf. of the Int. Group for LeanConstruction (IGLC), San Diego.

Bust, P. D., Gibb, A. G. F., and Pink, S. (2008). “Managing constructionhealth and safety: Migrant workers and communicating safety messages.”Saf. Sci., 46(4), 585–602.

Fillingham, D. (2007). “Can lean save lives?” Leadersh. Health Serv.,20(4), 231–241.

© ASCE 05015001-13 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

Uni

vers

ity O

f Sa

lfor

d C

liffo

rd W

hitw

orth

on

05/1

4/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Formoso, C. T., Santos, A. D., and Powell, J. (2002). “An exploratory studyon the applicability of process transparency in construction sites.”J. Constr. Res., 3(1), 35–54.

Galsworth, G. D. (1997). Visual systems: Harnessing the power of visualworkplace, AMACOM, New York.

Galsworth, G. D. (2005). Visual workplace: Visual thinking, Visual-LeanEnterprise Press, Portland, OR.

Godfray, H. C. J. (2002). “Challenges for taxonomy.” Nature, 417(6884),17–19.

Gray, D. E. (2004). Doing research in the real world, Sage Publications,London.

Greif, M. (1991). The visual factory: Building participation through sharedinformation, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.

Guo, H. L., Heng, L., and Martin, S. (2010). “Life-cycle managementof construction projects based on virtual prototyping technology.”J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2010)26:1(41), 41–47.

Heineck, L. F. M., Pereira, P. E., Leite, M. O., Neto, J. P. B., and Pinho, I. B.(2002). “Transparency in building construction: A case study.” Proc.,10th Annual Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Construction (IGLC),Gramado, Brazil.

Hirano, H. (1995). 5 pillars of the visual workplace: The sourcebook for 5Simplementation, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.

Ho, S. (1993). “Transplanting Japanese management techniques.” LongRange Plann., 26(4), 81–89.

Imai, M. (1997). Gemba Kaizen: A commonsense, low-cost approach tomanagement, McGraw-Hill, London.

Jang, J., and Kim, Y. (2007). “Using kanban for construction productionand safety control.” Proc., 15th Annual Conf. of the Int. Group for LeanConstruction (IGLC), East Lansing, MI.

Kamat, V. R., Martinez, J. C., Fischer, M., Golparvar-Fard, M., Pena-Mora,F., and Savarese, S. (2011). “Research in visualization techniques forfield construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000262, 853–862.

Kattman, B., Corbin, T. P., Walsh, L., and Moore, L. E. (2012). “Visualworkplace practices positively impact business processes.” Benchmarking:Int. J., 19(3), 412–430.

Kemmer, S. L., et al. (2006). “The use of andon in high rise building.”Proc., 14th Annual Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Construction(IGLC), Santiago, Chile.

Khalfan, M. A. A., Mcdermott, P., Oyegoke, A. S., Dickinson, M. T., Li, X.,and Neilson, D. (2008). “Application of Kanban in the UK constructionindustry by public sector clients.” Proc., 16th Annual Conf. of the Int.Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Manchester, U.K.

Knuf, J. (2000). “Benchmarking the lean enterprise: Organizational learningat work.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2000)16:4(58),58–71.

Koskela, L. (1992). “Application of the new production philosophy toconstruction.” Technical Rep., Dept. of Civil Engineering, StanfordUniv., Stanford, CA.

Koskela, L. (2000). “An exploration towards a production theory and itsapplication to construction.” Ph.D. thesis, VTT Building Technology,Espoo, Finland.

Koskela, L., Rooke, J., Bertelsen, S., and Henrich, G. (2007). “The TFVtheory of production: New developments.” Proc., 15th Annual Conf. ofthe Int. Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), East Lansing, MI.

Lawson, B. (2001). The language of space, Architectural Press, Oxford, U.K.Liff, S., and Posey, P. A. (2004). Seeing is believing: How the new art of

visual management can boost performance throughout your organiza-tion, AMACOM, New York.

Liker, J. K., and Morgan, J. M. (2006). “The Toyota way in services: Thecase of lean product development.” Acad. Manage. Perspect., 20(2),5–20.

Martin-Pena, M. L., and Diaz-Garrido, E. (2008). “Typologies and taxono-mies of operations strategy: A literature review.” Manage. Res. News,31(3), 200–218.

Maskell, B. H., and Kennedy, F. A. (2007). “Why do we need lean account-ing and how does it work?” J. Corporate Acc. Finance, 18(3), 59–73.

McCutcheon, D. M., and Meredith, J. R. (1993). “Conducting case studyresearch in operations management.” J. Oper. Manage., 11(3), 239–256.

Monden, Y. (1998). Toyota production system: An integrated approach tojust-in-time, Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA.

Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale produc-tion, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.

Sacks, R., Koskela, L., Dave, B. A., and Owen, R. (2010a). “Interaction oflean and building information modeling in construction.” J. Constr.Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000203, 968–980.

Sacks, R., Radosavljevic, M., and Barak, R. (2010b). “Requirements forbuilding information modeling based lean production managementsystems for construction.” Autom. Constr., 19(5), 641–655.

Sacks, R., Treckmann, M., and Rozenfeld, O. (2009). “Visualization ofwork flow to support lean construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000102, 1307–1315.

Saffaro, F., Trescastro, M., Rodriguez, A., Schramm, F., Formoso, C., andHeineck, L. (2006). “Prototyping contributions for production manage-ment in construction.” Proc., 14th Annual Conf. of the Int. Group forLean Construction (IGLC), Santiago, Chile.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods forbusiness students, Financial Times-Prentice Hall, Harlow, U.K.

Saurin, T. A., Formoso, C. T., and Cambraia, F. B. (2008). “An analysis ofconstruction safety best practices from a cognitive systems engineeringperspective.” Saf. Sci., 46(8), 1169–1183.

Shingo, S. (1989). A study of the Toyota production system from anindustrial engineering viewpoint, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.

Suzaki, K. (1993). The new shop floor management: Empowering peoplefor continuous improvement, The Free Press, New York.

Tezel, A., Koskela, L., and Tzortzopoulos, P. (2010). Visual management inconstruction: Study report on Brazilian cases, Salford Centre forResearch and Innovation in the Built and Human Environment (SCRI),Univ. of Salford, U.K.

Tommelein, I. D. (2008). “Poka-Yoke or quality by mistake proofing designand construction systems.” Proc., 16th Annual Conf. of the Int. Groupfor Lean Construction (IGLC), Manchester, U.K.

Tompkins, J. A., and Smith, J. D. (1998). Warehouse management hand-book, Tomkins Press, Raleigh, NC.

Viana, D., Bulhoes, I., and Formoso, C. T. (2013). “Guidelines for integratedplanning and control of engineer-to-order prefabrication systems.” Proc.,21st Annual Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Construction (IGLC),Fortaleza, Brazil.

Weiser, M. (1991). “The computer for the 21st century.” Sci. Am., 265(3),94–104.

Yang, X., Zhang, L., and Zhang, J. (2004). “Management of constructionsite safety during projects: The use of 5S system.” Construction safetymanagement systems, S. Rowlinson, ed., Taylor and Francis, London.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods, SagePublications, London.

© ASCE 05015001-14 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

Uni

vers

ity O

f Sa

lfor

d C

liffo

rd W

hitw

orth

on

05/1

4/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.