3 The Last Planner System

Glenn Ballard

3.1 Introduction
The Last Planner System (LPS) can usefully be understood as a specification of the social
component in a socio-technical system. Technical systems involving different work structures
(activity based, location based, takt based) are presented elsewhere in the book containing
this chapter (see Chapters 14 and 15). All work with LPS as the social planning system.
Project planning has traditionally been understood as though the plans alone were suf-
ficient to achieve desired outcomes, with no discretion for adjustment in execution. Thus,
perfect plans exactly describe how to act in order to achieve the desired outcomes, and
a deviation of actions from plans indicates either imperfect plans or incompetence in
plan execution.
This perspective was neatly captured in Laufer and Howell (1993), which critiques
Critical Path Method (CPM), the dominant approach to construction project planning.
The second of the 10 ‘ground rules’ for that approach is: A plan’s time horizon should be
maximal and a plan should be comprehensive, detailed and complete.
This assertion is contradicted by the widely held belief that ‘All plans are forecasts,
and all forecasts are wrong. Forecast error increases with forecast length and level of
detail’ (Nahmias, 1997). If what Nahmias says is true, perfect plans are impossible, hence
the traditional understanding is incorrect. What, then, is the relationship between plan-
ning, plans, and plan execution?
Suchman (1987) offers an answer with the example of manoeuvring a canoe through
river rapids:

The purpose of the plan in this case is not to get your canoe through the rapids, but
rather to orient you in such a way that you can obtain the best possible position from
which to use those embodied skills on which, in the final analysis, your success depends.

Suchman’s description suggests that plans are produced as a preparation for a future
action in a situation that cannot be fully described in advance. This virtually erases the
distinction between planning and preparation. Planning is a type of preparation similar
to arranging for materials to be delivered to a job site, or practising ahead of playing
a football match. This understanding resonates with a quote attributed to General
Dwight D. Eisenhower: ‘Plans are nothing. Planning is everything’.
Suchman (1987) also suggests that planning should be considered as something in
which a number of different people participate, and thus is incorrectly conceived as the
job only of that person with the title ‘planner’ or ‘manager’.
46 Glenn Ballard
Here are some of the important implications from the works of Laufer and Howell
(1993), Nahmias (1997) and Suchman (1987):

• The circumstances in which tasks are executed cannot be fully captured in plans cre-
ated prior to the action being planned;
• Skills are needed to accomplish planned tasks, no matter how ‘perfect’ the task plan,
and those skills include adapting to situations as found during plan execution;
• Planning is done at different levels of detail and forecast by different people in
a project organisation;
• Planning extends through task completion, with the circle being completed back to
the original plan, revising it in response to new information relevant to either or
both project objectives and the path to follow in order to achieve them.

The LPS was created as a reaction to the Critical Path Method (CPM) approach and
can be understood as a response to Laufer and Howell’s (1993) call for a new project
planning paradigm. The strategy was to shield project production from the baneful influ-
ence of CPM by limiting project master schedules to the milestone level of detail, and by
having those directly responsible for doing the work to also decide how to do the same
within each phase. As such, it anticipated Koskela and Howell’s later critique of project
management theory (Koskela and Howell, 2002).
The defensive strategy was founded on these presuppositions (Ballard and Tommelein,
2016):

A. All plans are forecasts and all forecasts are wrong. Forecast error varies with forecast
length and level of detail;
B. Planning is dynamic and does not end until the project is completed;
C. Involving those who will directly supervise or perform the work being planned
results in better plans and greater ability to adapt plans when needed;
D. Actors within a project production system can make choices that help or hinder
achieving project objectives, i.e. actors have discretion;
E. Understanding project objectives and the current and future state of the project
helps actors make better choices. [In other words, in order for project team mem-
bers to help, they must know what we’re trying to do, the current state of the pro-
ject, and possible future states.]

The LPS itself has changed over time, through extension of functions and through
improvement of methods for performing functions. The intent is to deliberately improve
it continuously into the future. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to the following
topics: (a) A brief history of the LPS; (b) LPS functions; (c) LPS principles; and (d) Fur-
ther development of the LPS.

3.2 A brief history of the Last Planner System

In 1990, while working as a consultant to Brown and Root on a paper machine project
during the engineering phase, this author stumbled upon the phenomenon of low workflow
reliability. The first indication was the low overlap between what tasks should have been
started in a given week and the tasks actually started. A meeting was held with the discip-
line leads (e.g. structural, mechanical, electrical engineering) for that project in order to
 The Last Planner System 47
1
better understand this mismatch between SHOULD and DID . The conversation revealed
a connected anomaly. When asked, the discipline leads estimated that they were able to
complete between 50% and 70% of planned tasks each week. This anecdotal evidence was
subsequently strengthened by measuring the percentage of planned tasks completed on
seven industrial projects by seven different construction companies. The average percent-
age of weekly work plan tasks completed each week (PPC) ranged between 33% and 70%,
with the grand average = 54% (Howell and Ballard, 1995).

3.2.1 Matching DID and WILL

The current functions of the LPS are shown in Figure 3.1, and these evolved over time.
In Figure 3.1, Tasks Made Ready (TMR) is the same measurement as Percent Plan
Complete (PPC), but compares the weekly work plan in the last week of the lookahead to
the weekly work plan actually committed, looking for tasks that were not made ready.
TMR measures the extent to which scheduled tasks are being made ready, i.e. the effect-
iveness of constraints analysis and removal. Tasks Anticipated (TA) also compares the
weekly work plan in the last week of the lookahead to the weekly work plan actually com-
mitted, but looking for tasks in the latter that were not in the former. TA measures the
extent to which tasks that should be done are anticipated, i.e. the task breakdown process.
At this early stage, the focus was on increasing the match between WILL and DID,
i.e. getting better at doing what we say we’re going to do. The key concept was quality,
specifically the quality of assignments. This quality checklist was developed for tasks in
weekly work plans:

• Definition;
• Soundness;
• Sequence;

Set milestones, phase durations &

Master Scheduling overlaps
SHOULD Specify handoffs & conditions of
Phase Scheduling (pull) satisfaction between processes within
phases

*Identify & remove constraints

CAN Lookahead Planning *Breakdown tasks from processes into
operations *Design operations

Daily/Weekly Work
WILL Planning
Make reliable promises

*Measure PPC, TMR & TA *Use 5

DID Learning Whys to identify actionable
causes *Act to prevent
reoccurrence

Figure 3.1 The Last Planner System,

adapted from Ballard et al. (2007)
48 Glenn Ballard
• Size;
• Learning – perfect planning may be impossible, but we can aspire to never making
the same mistakes twice.

A definition was considered adequate if the workers performing the task could under-
stand what was to be done, where it was to be done, and could determine what mater-
ials, information and resources were needed.
A task was considered to be sound if all constraints had been removed, materials were in
hand, and work space was available, etc. A task was considered to be in the proper
sequence if it could be done now without paying a penalty later in the project. A task was
considered properly sized when the target task duration/subcrew productivity was adjusted
for the capabilities of performers. All tasks assigned to a work group (design squad or con-
struction crew) were considered properly sized when they matched the available capacity
at budget unit rates ‘adjusted for work mix and conditions’ (Ballard and Howell, 1994b).
Although a characteristic of the planning and control process rather than the task
itself, learning was also a requirement for increasing the match of DID with WILL. Fail-
ures to complete planned tasks had to be identified so that actionable causes could be
found and countermeasures taken.
The quality checklist was tested and refined on the Koch Mid-Plants Project in Corpus
Christi, Texas during 1993–4. Piping foremen were divided into two groups, those with
PPP <50% and those with PPC>50%. ‘The productivity of the 2nd group was 30 points
higher than the 1st group … if the first group was performing at 15% over budget,
the second group was performing at 15% under budget’ (Ballard and Howell, 1994b).

3.2.2 Matching WILL and CAN

In four papers authored by Howell and Ballard in the 1994 Lean Construction conference in
Santiago, Chile (Ballard and Howell, 1994a, 1994b; Howell and Ballard, 1994a, 1994b), we
introduced the idea of creating a buffer of ready work from which front line supervisors could
select tasks and place them on weekly work plans as commitments. We also shared what had
been done on the Koch MidPlants project to ensure that materials were available. What we
did not do was provide a more detailed description of how to create the buffer of ready work.
At the end of the Koch Mid-Plants Project, the refinery manager asked this author to
review what they were doing to improve planning and control of refinery maintenance. One
of the key concepts found when doing that review was ‘make ready’, emphasised by the con-
sultants as a necessity prior to releasing maintenance tasks for commitment each day.
Reflecting on the concept, it became apparent that PPC could be 100%, but a project
could fall behind schedule if tasks were not being made ready in the right sequence and
rate (see Rother, 2009, who describes this is a natural progression in learning). To avoid
that possibility, a process was needed to make scheduled tasks ready, i.e. to make them
sound, to express them at the level of granularity appropriate to weekly work plans,2 and
to develop operations designs (work methods) to be tested in the first run of each type of
operation (for a description of methods used to perform LPS functions, see Ballard and
Tommelein, 2016, pp. 12–21). The primary output of such a lookahead planning process
is a buffer of ready work available for commitment on weekly work plans. This differenti-
ates the lookahead planning within the LPS from the commonly practised lookahead
planning, which is devoted to focusing attention on what SHOULD happen in the near
 The Last Planner System 49
term – an early warning of mobilisation. The first publication specifically on LPS looka-
head planning was Lookahead Planning: The Missing Link in Production Control (Ballard, 1997).

3.2.3 Phase schedules: improving specification of SHOULD

The next development in the LPS was a partial extension to specification of SHOULD.
No guidance on planning (as distinct from control) had been provided apart from the
advice to keep project master schedules at milestone level. In 1997, the Next Stage pro-
ject was initiated by Linbeck Construction, with the objective of constructing a series of
7000-seat enclosed amphitheatres around the United States. The first of those was to be
located between Dallas and Fort Worth, and a team was selected to design and build it.
In the planning of that project, Neenan’s Mike Daley introduced a process for collabora-
tively producing a schedule, using sticky notes on a wall, working backward from the
target milestone. This was designed to encourage the reliable promising conversation
between the people playing different, interdependent roles.
The collaborative planning of work to be done in project phases was developed to fill
the need for planning across work scopes, as distinct from planning only or primarily
within individual work scopes. Documentation of the pull planning method was first pub-
lished in a Lean Construction Institute white paper (Ballard, 2000), and further devel-
oped in Ballard and Howell (2003).

3.3 Last Planner System functions

An explicit description of LPS functions first appeared in Ballard, Hammond, and Nick-
erson (2009). The following list is taken from Ballard and Tommelein (2016):

1. Specifying what tasks should be done when and by whom, from milestones to
phases between milestones, to processes within phases, to operations within pro-
cesses, to steps within operations;
2. Making scheduled tasks ready to be performed;
3. Replanning/planning to complete, to achieve project objectives;
4. Selecting tasks for daily and weekly work plans – deciding what work to do next;
5. Making release of work between specialists reliable;
6. Making visible the current and future state of the project;
7. Measuring planning system performance;
8. Learning from plan failures.

The innovations LPS brought in comparison to traditional practice were primarily in

numbers 2, 5, 7 and 8 above. An explicit process was prescribed for making scheduled
tasks ready to be performed, workflow reliability was an explicit objective, planning
system performance was measured versus exclusive focus on project progress and cost,
and learning was integrated into practice. These are new components, but arguably the
more radical innovations concerned the social dimension; deployment of planning and
control responsibilities from top to bottom of the project organisation, and focus on reli-
able promising between interdependent players as the key to successful execution.
50 Glenn Ballard
3.4 Last Planner System principles
Principles are guides to action and are central in the LPS, which is properly understood,
consistent with its orientation toward the social system of planning, as the complex of
functions to be performed and principles to follow in their performance. Principles are
derived from presuppositions about the nature of the relevant reality, and methods are
invented to implement the principles. Methods are improved systematically, including by
borrowing and adapting from other applications, e.g. agile methods. A method is ‘Lean’
and belongs to the LPS if it is fit for purpose in performing LPS functions, regardless
where the method originated.
LPS principles were first articulated in Ballard, Hammond, and Nickerson (2009). The
list here is taken from Ballard and Tommelein (2016):

1. Keep all plans, at every level of detail, in public view at all times within the project;
2. Keep master schedules at milestone level of detail;
3. Plan in greater detail as the start date for planned tasks approaches;
4. Produce plans collaboratively with those who are to do the work being planned;
5. Re-plan as necessary to adjust plans to the realities of the unfolding future;
6. Reveal and remove constraints on planned tasks as a team;
7. Improve workflow reliability in order to improve operational performance;
8. Don’t start tasks that you should not or cannot complete. Commit to perform only
those tasks that are properly defined, sound, sequenced and sized;
9. Make and secure reliable promises, and speak up immediately should you lose confi-
dence, so that you can keep your promises (as opposed to waiting as long as possible
and hoping someone else speaks up first);
10. Learn from breakdowns (unintended consequences of actions taken);
11. Underload resources to increase reliability of work release;
12. Maintain workable backlog; a backlog of ready work (tasks ready to be executed) to
buffer against capacity and time loss.

Only #3 can reasonably be said to be shared with traditional project planning, and
even then the more detailed levels of planning tend to be left to performers and to be
invisible to traditional planning and control systems. A contract management perspec-
tive naturally includes shifting responsibility for detailed planning along with the per-
formance risk.

3.5 Industrial and academic reception of the Last

Planner System
There has been considerable international effort to pilot the LPS, evaluate it through
research, and to understand it conceptually and theoretically. Some 241 out of 1,433
papers from annual conferences of the International Group for Lean Construction
have ‘Last Planner’ in their titles, and more papers concern the LPS or some facets of
it. Three particularly important streams of research and development relevant to the
LPS are those on visual controls (e.g. Tezel, 2011), work structuring (e.g. Seppänen,
Ballard, and Pesonen, 2010; Tsao et al., 2000) and simulation (e.g. Tommelein, 1997).
With regard to industry practitioners, one indicator of take-up is the number of affiliates
(formal and informal) of the United States’ Lean Construction Institute, which have tended to
 The Last Planner System 51
start their Lean journeys with the LPS: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile,
Denmark, Finland, France, India, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Russia, Spain, Switzerland,
and the UK.

3.6 Conclusions and further development of the Last

Planner System
Invented to fill a hole in the project management tool kit (Ballard, 2000), LPS has grown
over time with the recognition that traditional project management is fundamentally
broken and needs a complete overhaul. That is happening now on multiple fronts. Clas-
sical theories of contracts as transactions are being confronted with the theory of con-
tracts as blends of transactional and relational. Commercial terms that tie compensation
to fixed scopes of work are being confronted by shared risk and reward, which promotes
working together as a team to produce value for the project’s customers. Technological
developments in information management are facilitating collaboration across distance
and across organisational boundaries. 3D printing looms as a near-future threat to seg-
ments of the construction supply system; many components that are now purchased fully
formed can be designed and fabricated where and when needed. Global warming has
prompted application of Lean thinking to both environmental and social sustainability.
The true nature of projects as complex adaptive systems is confronting and replacing
traditional notions of management.
As stated at the beginning of this chapter, the LPS is by no means exempt from
change. The author of this chapter is currently working with a group of construction
industry practitioners (owners, architects, engineers, general contractors, specialty con-
tractors, management consultants) to further develop and improve the LPS. Teams are
working on five tasks, with results scheduled for publication in the first quarter of 2019:

1. Extending LPS to the planning and control of the entire project;

2. Specifying the chunks in which work is to be done and released between trades in
each construction phase;
3. Learning from breakdowns;
4. Metrics;
5. Alternative methods for design.

In the 2016 Current Process Benchmark for the LPS (Ballard and Tommelein, 2016), the
only recommendation regarding business case validation and project execution strategies
was to limit project master schedules to milestones, and subsequently to collaboratively
plan how to do the work in the phases between milestones with those who are to execute
the plans. Task Team #1 is developing process guidelines for business case validation and
for development and assessment of project execution strategies, including the incorporation
of stochastic planning methods in project master scheduling – principally, postponement
and hedging. Postponement involves deferring a decision or action until better information
is available for deciding or acting. Hedging is creating opportunities for future action. For
example, when a decision to use a specific component has not yet been made or may
change, alternative pathways can be built into project schedules, enabling the facility
design to move forward regardless of which machine is ultimately selected.
Previously, LPS was unbiased as to what work structures were applied, but over time
it has become evident that having some form of work structure other than the CPM
52 Glenn Ballard
‘activity’ approach is much needed, and that some forms are more appropriate than
others. Task Team #2 is developing the guidelines for creating those work structures.
Learning from breakdowns has been among the LPS functions that is least well imple-
mented. Task Team #3 is seeking reasons and countermeasures to remedy that situation.
LPS is designed to be a learning system, and is not achieving its full potential without
systematic learning from experience.
Extension to the entire project brings with it the responsibility to provide metrics that
not only inform planning and control system improvement, as has been the case with
LPS until now, but also to provide metrics that inform how to improve project perform-
ance. Task Team #3 is developing guidelines for those metrics.
Designing and making are essentially connected, but very different types of work. It is
no surprise that different methods might be more effective. Task Team #5 is looking for
instances of those methods that have been successfully implemented in practice, and for
methods from other domains that can be adapted to built environment design.

Notes
1 Should, Can, Will and Did were proposed as functions of project planning and control in Bal-
lard and Howell (1994a). Traditional project control relies on an after-the-fact comparison of
what DID happen with what SHOULD have happened, neglecting the need and opportunity
for proactively steering toward SHOULD, which includes lookahead planning to make ready
what SHOULD be done so it CAN be done when needed.
2 Terminology for task breakdown was developed later: projects are composed of phases, phases
are composed of processes, processes are composed of operations, operations are composed of
steps, and steps are composed of elemental motions (Ballard and Tommelein, 2016, p. 9).

References
Ballard, G. (1997) ‘Lookahead planning: the missing link in production control’, Proc. 5th Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Gold Coast, Australia, Available at:
www.iglc.net.
Ballard, G. (2000) The Last Planner System of Production Control. PhD Thesis, The University of
Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. Available at: http://leanconstruction.org.uk/media/
docs/ballard2000-dissertation.pdf.
Ballard, G., Hammond, J. and Nickerson, R. (2009) ‘Production control principles’, Proc. 17th Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Taipei, Taiwan, Available at: www.iglc.net.
Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (1994a) ‘Implementing lean construction: stabilizing work flow’, Presented
at the 2nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Santiago, Chile. Available in
Alarcon, L. (ed.) (1997), Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Lean Construction, A.A. Balkema.
Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (1994b) ‘Implementing lean construction: improving downstream
performance’, Presented at the 2nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, San-
tiago, Chile. Available in Alarcon, L. (ed.) (1997), Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Lean Construc-
tion, A.A. Balkema.
Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (2003) ‘An update on last planner’, Proc. 11th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, Blacksburg, VA. Available at: www.iglc.net.
Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I. (2016) ‘Current process benchmark for the Last Planner® System’,
Lean Construction Journal, pp. 57–89.
Ballard, G., Tommelein, I., Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2007). ‘Lean construction tools and tech-
niques’, pp 251–279 in Best, R. and de Valence, G. (eds.) Design and Construction: Building in Value,
London and New York: Routledge.
 The Last Planner System 53
Howell, G. and Ballard, G. (1994a) ‘Beyond can-do’, Presented at the 2nd Annual Conference of the Inter-
national Group for Lean Construction, Santiago, Chile. Available in Alarcon, L. (ed.) (1997), Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, Lean Construction, A.A. Balkema.
Howell, G. and Ballard, G. (1994b) ‘Reducing inflow variation’, Presented at the 2nd annual conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction, Santiago, Chile. Available in Alarcon, L. (ed.) (1997),
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Lean Construction, A.A. Balkema.
Howell, G. and Ballard, G. (1995) ‘Factors affecting project success in the piping function’, Proc. 2nd
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Available
at: www.iglc.net.
Koskela, L.J. and Howell, G. (2002) ‘The underlying theory of project management is obsolete’, Proc.
PMI Research Conference, pp. 293–302.
Laufer, A. and Howell, G.A. (1993) ‘Construction planning: revising the paradigm’, Project Management
Journal, 24(3), pp. 23–33.
Nahmias, S. (1997) Production and Operations Management. Chicago, IL, USA: Irwin.
Rother, M. (2009) Toyota Kata. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.
Seppänen, O., Ballard, G. and Pesonen, S. (2010) ‘The combination of last planner system and
location-based management system’, Proc. 18th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Haifa, Israel. Available at: www.iglc.net.
Suchman, L. (1987) Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Tezel, B.A. (2011) Visual Management: An Exploration of the Concept and Its Implementation in Construction.
PhD Thesis, University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Tommelein, I.D. (1997) ‘Discrete-event simulation of lean construction processes’, Proc. 5th Annual Con-
ference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Gold Coast, Australia. Available at: www.iglc.net.
Tsao, C.C., Tommelein, I.D., Swanlund, E. and Howell, G.A. (2000) ‘Case study for work structur-
ing: installation of metal door frames’, Proc. 8th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Brighton, UK. Available at: www.iglc.net.