Elevate Construction official logo
Contact us

Month: April 2026

Using Study-Adjust-Plan-Do for Experimental Learning

Posted on by Jason Schroeder
Read 10 min

Lean as a Human Development Strategy: The Leadership Shift That Changes Everything

There is a framing of Lean that has been gaining ground among the practitioners who have been at it the longest and seen the most implementations succeed and fail. Lean is a human resources development strategy that masquerades as an operations strategy. The operations improvements, better flow, less waste, more reliable commitments, faster handoffs are real and important. But they are the output of something more fundamental: a culture in which people are engaged in making their work better for themselves, for each other, for the customer, and for the organization. When leaders put people at the center of their attention, the operations improvements follow naturally. When leaders pursue the operations improvements without putting people at the center, the improvements are temporary.

This blog is about what Lean leadership looks like when it starts from that premise.

The Learning Cycle Starts with Study

The standard framing of PDCA places Plan at the beginning of the cycle. The premise is that the practitioner knows enough at the outset to choose a good experiment. In most real situations, that premise does not hold. Beginning with Study SAPD rather than PDCA is more honest about the actual conditions at the start of any improvement effort.

Study starts by examining the gap between the current condition and the next target condition. What is the standard work? How well is the current approach performing? What difficulties appear? What variation is being encountered? This examination grounds the improvement effort in reality rather than in assumption, and it makes the subsequent Plan more honest about what an experiment can actually test.

From that study, a target condition is set not the final destination, but the next step. An ambitious long-term goal is useful for direction. The experiment needs a target that is achievable enough to be tested in a reasonable time frame. Between where the team is now and where it ultimately wants to be, there is a next step. That next step is the target condition for the current experiment.

The Plan phase then establishes a hypothesis: where are we now, what specific change will we take, why do we think that action will be a step forward, and what do we expect to learn? These four questions turn the plan into a genuine scientific experiment rather than a confident guess. And because the hypothesis makes the expectation explicit, the Study phase after the experiment can compare what was expected against what actually happened and extract genuine learning from the gap.

One common trap in the Plan phase is trying to plan a series of actions rather than a single next experiment. The attempt to figure out in advance which sequence of actions will work most efficiently is usually a form of avoidance staying in the planning space rather than entering the learning space. The learning happens in the Do phase. The most productive thing a team can do is get into action quickly rather than trying to think their way to a solution.

Listening as a Leadership Skill

The Lean leader’s contribution to an experimental learning culture is not primarily methodological. It is relational. Three skills matter most: listening, engaging others’ thinking and action, and coaching.

Listening is the master skill. It requires deliberate, concerted practice not because listening is technically complex, but because the instinctive mode of leadership is to advocate for positions, provide direction, and give advice. Listening requires temporarily setting that instinct aside. The listening leader uses inquiry rather than advocacy, asking questions that help people express their concerns and articulate the possibilities they see. The leader’s advocacy, when it comes, encourages advocacy from the people being supported, it creates space for honest input rather than filling that space with the leader’s own conclusions.

What leaders listen for matters. Information is often the least useful thing in a conversation. More important is the mood of the people whether what they are expressing sounds like aspiration or resignation, confidence or fear, energy or depletion. A person who is exhausted or discouraged will not experiment effectively regardless of how good the methodology is. A leader who attends to mood has early information about what the team needs that a leader listening only for content will miss entirely.

Engaging people requires patience and persistence, especially with those who hold back. Some people are introverted. Some are carrying something outside of work that is consuming their attention. Some have been in environments where speaking up led to bad outcomes, and they need time to trust that this environment is different. The Lean leader who shows up as help rather than as authority who focuses on what is already important to the person, not on what the leader needs from them creates the conditions under which engagement eventually develops.

Coaching Over Advising

Coaching has become increasingly recognized as a critical leadership skill, but the most common misunderstanding of coaching is that it is sophisticated advice-giving. It is not. Coaching is the practice of asking questions that help the person being coached think through their own situation, identify their own next step, and commit to their own action rather than receiving the leader’s solution to their problem.

Michael Bungay Stanier’s seven questions from The Coaching Habit provide an accessible and immediately practical framework:

What’s on your mind? And what else? What’s the real challenge here for you? What do you want? How can I help? If you’re saying yes to this, what are you saying no to? What was most useful for you?

These questions work because they move the conversation from the leader’s analysis of the situation to the person’s own. They surface what is actually on the person’s mind rather than what the leader assumes is there. They get to the real challenge rather than the presenting symptom. And they make the help the leader can provide responsive to what the person actually needs rather than to what the leader would do in their position.

One important note: coaching is not giving advice. That misunderstanding is common enough that Stanier wrote an entire follow-up book, The Advice Trap specifically to address it. The impulse to give advice feels helpful. It often prevents the person being coached from developing the capacity to solve the problem themselves which is the actual point of the coaching relationship.

Here are the signals that a leader is coaching effectively rather than advising:

  • The person being coached leaves the conversation with their own next step, not the leader’s recommendation.
  • The leader asks more questions than they make statements during the conversation.
  • The person being coached does most of the talking.
  • The conversation ends with the person more clear about their situation than when it started.
  • The leader resists the urge to share what they would do even when asked directly, instead turning the question back.

What Lean Leadership Actually Produces

When leaders practice experimental learning, deep listening, and genuine coaching rather than directing, something shifts in the people around them. They start engaging with their work differently. They surface problems rather than hiding them. They generate improvement ideas rather than waiting to be told what to change. They develop the skills of problem-finding, problem-solving, and making effective change skills that the organization accumulates as they develop.

This is the leverage point of Lean leadership. Individual productivity improvements are important. They are also finite and temporary if they exist only in the system design. But people who have learned to find problems, solve them, and make change that holds those people improve every system they encounter, project after project, year after year. The investment in their development compounds in a way that no single process improvement ever could.

This is why Lean, properly understood, is a human development strategy. The operations improvements are real. They are the evidence that the human development is working. When leaders put people at the center of their attention, firms resolve their engagement problem, their inclusivity problem, and create a workplace that is genuinely more worthwhile for the people doing the work, not as a side effect, but as the primary purpose.

At Elevate Construction, everything, the boot camps, the field implementation support, the free content, the coaching engagements exists in service of that purpose. Build remarkable people. The remarkable things follow. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

Embrace Lean as what it actually is: a people development strategy that, as a natural consequence, produces better operations.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why start the improvement cycle with Study rather than Plan?

Because it is naive to assume we know enough at the outset to choose a good experiment. Starting with Study grounds the improvement effort in the actual current conditions rather than in assumptions, which makes the subsequent Plan more honest and the experiment more likely to generate genuine learning.

What is the difference between listening for information and listening for mood?

Information is what is said. Mood is how the person is oriented whether they are expressing aspiration or resignation, confidence or fear, energy or depletion. Mood tells the leader what the person needs from the environment to be able to engage effectively with the work, which is often more important than the content of what is being communicated.

Why is giving advice the wrong response in a coaching conversation?

Because advice substitutes the leader’s solution for the person’s own thinking. It may solve the immediate problem while preventing the person from developing the capacity to solve similar problems themselves. Coaching builds that capacity. Advice bypasses it.

What does “Lean is a human development strategy” mean in practice?

It means that the primary investment of Lean leadership is in developing people’s capacity to find problems, solve them, and make effective change and that the operations improvements follow from that investment rather than being pursued directly. When people develop those capacities, every system they touch improves continuously.

How does coaching differ from mentoring or managing?

Managing directs performance against defined expectations. Mentoring shares the mentor’s experience and knowledge. Coaching asks questions that help the person being coached think through their own situation and identify their own next step. All three have value coaching is specifically designed to develop the person’s own thinking and problem-solving capacity rather than transferring the leader’s.

If you want to learn more we have:

-Takt Virtual Training: (Click here)
-Check out our Youtube channel for more info: (Click here) 
-Listen to the Elevate Construction podcast: (Click here) 
-Check out our training programs and certifications: (Click here)
-The Takt Book: (Click here)

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Meet Jason Schroeder, the driving force behind Elevate Construction IST. As the company’s owner and principal consultant, he’s dedicated to taking construction to new heights. With a wealth of industry experience, he’s crafted the Field Engineer Boot Camp and Superintendent Boot Camp – intensive training programs engineered to cultivate top-tier leaders capable of steering their teams towards success. Jason’s vision? To expand his training initiatives across the nation, empowering construction firms to soar to unprecedented levels of excellence.

On we go

Posted in All

Leaders Take a Systems Thinking Perspective for Making Change

Posted on by Jason Schroeder
Read 10 min

Systems Thinking in Lean Construction: The Missing Piece That Explains Why Lean Stalls

In 2020, Jeffrey Liker revised the first of Toyota’s fourteen management principles for the second edition of The Toyota Way. The revision was small in word count and significant in implication. The principle now reads: base your management decisions on long-term systems thinking. That addition was not a minor update. It was Liker’s acknowledgment of something that had been embedded in Toyota’s practice since the 1950s but had never been made fully explicit: the entire Toyota Production System is built on a view of organizations as open systems, and you cannot successfully implement any part of it without understanding the system in which the implementation is happening.

This is the missing piece that explains why so many Lean construction implementations stall. The tools are not the problem. The tools are straightforward. The problem is that the tools are being added to a system that was not designed to accommodate them, and the system left unchanged pushes back until the new practice is abandoned and the old one resumes.

What a System Actually Is

When the word system is used in this context, it does not mean software, mechanical systems, or continuous industrial processes. It means an open system, one where people are actors affecting the behavior and performance of the system through their decisions, habits, policies, expectations, and mental models. Economies are open systems. Workgroups are open systems. Construction projects are open systems. Companies are open systems. The actors inside the system both shape the system and are shaped by it.

Two insights from the study of systems are particularly important for anyone trying to change how a construction organization or project team operates.

The first is the iceberg effect. The events visible above the waterline, the missed milestone, the failed pull plan session, the superintendent reverting to directive scheduling are produced by what lies below: patterns of behavior that repeat, structural conditions that reinforce those patterns, and the mental models that make those structures feel normal and inevitable. Responding only to the visible events without examining the patterns, structures, and mental models underneath them is what produces the feeling of addressing the same problems over and over without making progress. The root cause is always below the waterline.

The second is that seemingly unrelated acts are connected through flows of resources and reinforcing loops. Learning the basics of a subject creates the capacity for learning more advanced aspects, a reinforcing loop. But the time available for learning competes with the demands of ongoing work, a counteracting flow. When the competing demands win, the stock of learning capacity decreases and the reinforcing loop weakens. Understanding these dynamics explains why Lean learning in organizations so often loses to the urgency of daily project work, and it points toward the intervention needed: reducing the competing demands rather than simply asking people to do more.

Why Lean Practices Stall After Implementation

The existing practices on any project or in any organization are not random. They are coherent with each other. The prescriptive scheduling practices are matched to the performance metrics. The performance metrics are matched to the expectations of stakeholders. The expectations are matched to the mental models of what good project management looks like. This coherence is what makes the system stable and what makes it resistant to introducing new practices without adjusting the system as a whole.

When collaborative pull planning is introduced alongside prescriptive CPM scheduling, the two practices are in conflict. One requires trade partners to declare their own activities and commitments collaboratively. The other requires compliance with a sequence determined upstream. Trying to run both simultaneously does not produce a hybrid benefit, it produces a destabilized system where neither practice works well and the team eventually defaults to whichever practice has stronger institutional support, which is almost always the familiar one.

The Lean leaders who succeed at implementing Lean practices understand this dynamic and work with it rather than against it. They recognize that adding a new practice requires adjusting the surrounding system stopping some things, starting others, continuing what remains consistent. Three questions make this systematic:

What will we start doing? What will we stop doing? What will we continue doing?

These questions apply to processes and to leadership style simultaneously. The superintendent who wants collaborative pull planning to succeed must also shift from directive leadership to facilitative leadership not as a personality change, but as a deliberate adjustment to the role the superintendent plays in the planning meeting. The pull plan session facilitated by a superintendent who is used to giving direction will not produce the same result as one facilitated by a superintendent who brings questions rather than answers and creates the conditions for the foremen to think through the sequence together. The practice and the leadership style must adjust together for either one to work.

Delay as an Enemy of System Stability

One of the most direct applications of systems thinking to Last Planner practice is the timing of the daily stand-up or huddle. The purpose of the daily commitment management meeting is to manage promises among project participants to give each trade partner’s foreman the opportunity to report on the completeness of their commitments, make new ones, ask for help, and offer help, all in service of the team’s larger commitment to the phase milestone.

The systems thinking argument for holding that meeting at the end of the day rather than the beginning is straightforward: the more delay you have in a feedback loop, the less able you are to steer the system. If a commitment from yesterday was not met, waiting until tomorrow morning to communicate that variation creates an entire night of unnecessary urgency accumulation. Trades who need to adjust their plan, materials that need to be restaged, sequences that need to be reorganized, all of those adjustments can happen more smoothly and at lower cost if the information travels at end of day rather than at the start of the next morning.

This is not a minor scheduling preference. It is a systems principle: timely feedback enables steering. Delayed feedback undermines it. Making feedback timely, prompt notice of variation to plans, deliveries, quality outcomes, and staff availability is one of the highest-leverage adjustments a project team can make to the system of how it manages its commitments.

If a morning huddle is also needed to address site safety, crane time limitations, or material deliveries, there is nothing preventing one. And the morning huddle should communicate what actions are being taken in response to the variation that occurred yesterday which the end-of-day commitment review has already surfaced and processed.

Here are the warning signs that a project team is adding Lean practices without adjusting the surrounding system:

  • CPM scheduling and pull planning are running simultaneously with no deliberate decision about which governs production planning.
  • Leadership style in planning meetings has not changed, so collaborative tools are producing directive outcomes.
  • New Lean practices are added to an already full agenda without stopping anything that the new practices are designed to replace.
  • Variation in commitments is communicated at the next morning’s meeting rather than at end of day when the variation occurred.
  • The team reports that Lean is adding work rather than reducing it, a sign that the system has not been adjusted to accommodate the new practices.

Connecting to the Mission

At Elevate Construction, the integrated production control system, First Planner, Takt, Last Planner is designed as a coherent whole precisely because individual tools added to a non-Lean system produce the stalling described above. The system is designed together so that each component reinforces rather than conflicts with the others. The Takt plan informs the pull plan. The pull plan informs the look-ahead. The look-ahead informs the weekly work plan. The weekly work plan informs the day plan. The day plan is communicated in the morning huddle. And the end-of-day commitment review provides the feedback that steers the next day’s execution. Nothing in that chain is optional because removing any link destabilizes the whole. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

Systems thinking is not an academic exercise. It is the lens that explains why the tools work when the system is right and fail when it is not and it is the lens that guides the adjustments that make the system right.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an open system and why does it matter for Lean construction?

An open system is one where people are actors who affect the system’s behavior through their decisions, habits, policies, and mental models. Construction projects and organizations are open systems which means Lean practices must be implemented with attention to the system conditions they are entering, not just to the practices themselves.

Why does adding a new Lean practice without stopping old practices create conflict?

Because existing practices are coherent with existing policies, metrics, and expectations. Adding a new practice destabilizes that coherence without creating a new equilibrium. The system pushes back until the new practice is abandoned unless the surrounding system is deliberately adjusted at the same time.

What are the three questions for adjusting a system when introducing new Lean practices?

What will we start doing? What will we stop doing? What will we continue doing? These questions ensure that new practices replace rather than add to the existing system, which is what prevents Lean from becoming an additional burden.

Why should commitment management stand-ups happen at end of day rather than the start of the next day?

Because the more delay in a feedback loop, the less able the team is to steer the system. End-of-day reporting of variation gives the team time to adjust before the next day’s work begins, rather than discovering the variation at the moment it affects the next crew’s ability to start.

What is the iceberg effect in systems thinking?

The visible events above the waterline, the missed commitment, the failed implementation are produced by patterns, structural conditions, and mental models that lie below. Addressing only the visible event without examining what produced it is what generates recurring problems.

If you want to learn more we have:

-Takt Virtual Training: (Click here)
-Check out our Youtube channel for more info: (Click here) 
-Listen to the Elevate Construction podcast: (Click here) 
-Check out our training programs and certifications: (Click here)
-The Takt Book: (Click here)

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Meet Jason Schroeder, the driving force behind Elevate Construction IST. As the company’s owner and principal consultant, he’s dedicated to taking construction to new heights. With a wealth of industry experience, he’s crafted the Field Engineer Boot Camp and Superintendent Boot Camp – intensive training programs engineered to cultivate top-tier leaders capable of steering their teams towards success. Jason’s vision? To expand his training initiatives across the nation, empowering construction firms to soar to unprecedented levels of excellence.

On we go

Posted in All

How to Onboard New Team Members in Construction (Lean Method)

Posted on by Jason Schroeder
Read 10 min

Lean Leadership: Learning to Lead, Leading to Learn

Katie Anderson describes the Lean leader’s journey as “Learning to Lead, Leading to Learn.” That framing is more precise than it might appear at first. It is not just that Lean leaders happen to learn while they lead. It is that the act of leading genuinely, in the field, with real people and real problems is one of the most effective mechanisms for learning available to any practitioner. The two activities are not sequential. They are mutually reinforcing, and when a leader understands that relationship, the entire orientation of their leadership shifts from directing to developing.

What It Actually Takes to Learn

Before the question of how to lead for learning, there is the more foundational question of what learning requires. Formal education’s answer that learning happens through instruction, is demonstrated through examination, and eliminates those who cannot keep pace is a failure model. Construction’s equivalent that experience accumulates through proximity to work and eventually produces competence is better, but still insufficient. Both models treat learning as something that happens to people rather than something people actively do.

Erika Andersen, writing in the Harvard Business Review, identifies four attributes that genuinely skilled learners develop and sustain: aspiration, self-awareness, curiosity, and vulnerability.

Aspiration is about where the attention goes. When a new skill or subject initially feels challenging or unappealing, learners who sustain engagement shift their focus from the difficulty to the benefit. They ask not “why is this hard?” but “what becomes possible when I understand this?” In construction, this is the difference between the leader who views Lean as an additional burden on an already demanding schedule and the one who asks what the project could look like if flow were working correctly.

Self-awareness is about honest perception of one’s own performance. The inner voice of an effective learner functions as what Andersen calls a “fair witness” reporting what is actually happening without either harsh self-criticism that shuts down engagement or protective rationalization that prevents clear seeing. Leaders who cannot see their own contribution to the problems around them cannot improve the systems that produce those problems.

Curiosity is the instinct that great learners retain from childhood or consciously rebuild. Instead of reinforcing initial disinterest in an unfamiliar subject, they learn to ask genuine questions about it and follow those questions with action. The curiosity is not passive it generates investigation, experimentation, and engagement with people who know what the curious learner does not yet know.

Vulnerability is the willingness to be a beginner to be at the start of a learning curve, to make mistakes in front of others, to not know things that the role might be expected to know. Andersen describes this as getting good at being bad. It is the attribute that determines whether a leader will actually try something new or whether their need to appear competent will prevent them from ever developing the next level of capability.

Reflection as a Planned Practice

Learning does not happen automatically from experience. It happens through reflection on experience the deliberate examination of what was set out to do, what was actually done, and what specifically was learned along the way. The Study or Adjust step in the PDCA cycle is where this reflection is formally built into an improvement process. The Plus/Delta at the end of a meeting is a lightweight version of the same practice. Retrospectives, journaling, and reflection in action are all expressions of the same underlying discipline: pausing to examine what just happened in order to extract durable learning rather than just moving to the next thing.

Kaizen at Toyota includes two components that are rarely taught together: hansei reflection on what happened and yokoten sharing what was learned broadly. Without hansei, the learning is lost. Without yokoten, the learning stays with the individual rather than becoming organizational knowledge. The pattern requires both, and it requires leadership to model them. When leaders reflect visibly, when they share their own learning openly, when they create structured time for the team to reflect rather than immediately pivoting to the next task, they communicate that learning is a legitimate and valued use of time on this project.

Bringing Out the Best in Others

The traditional view of leadership is that the senior person knows the most and therefore provides direction. This view is understandable in contexts where expertise is genuinely concentrated at the top. It is not the right view for construction, where the person who performs a specific job knows the most about that specific job, and where the challenges that matter require coordination across multiple people, roles, disciplines, organizations, and companies.

Lean leadership begins from a different premise: the person closest to the work has the most relevant knowledge about that work. The leader’s role is to create the conditions under which that knowledge can be applied to remove obstacles, to surface problems that individuals cannot solve alone, to facilitate collaboration across organizational boundaries, and to connect people who have solved a problem with people who are encountering it for the first time.

This reframe changes the fundamental question a leader asks in any situation. The traditional question is “what should I tell them to do?” The Lean leader’s question is “what do they need from me so they can do what they already know how to do?” Those are very different questions, and they produce very different leadership behavior.

Here are the ways Lean leaders expand learning rather than contain it:

  • They ask what can be learned from the mistakes others have already made, so those lessons do not have to be re-experienced by every person on every project
  • They bring additional expertise or perspectives into experiments rather than running them in isolation
  • They identify who else could benefit from what was learned and share it proactively
  • They find out who has already solved the problem they are facing before beginning their own analysis from scratch
  • They partner with other people who are also on a Lean leadership journey, because growth accelerates in relationship

The Systems Thinking Dimension

Lean leadership also requires taking a long-term, systems-thinking perspective seeing individual problems in the context of the systems that produce them rather than as isolated events. A worker making a repeated error is a systems problem until the system has been examined and adjusted. A trade partner who consistently delivers late materials is a supply chain design problem until the procurement and production plan alignment has been examined. A superintendent who is perpetually in firefighting mode is a project design problem until the planning, staffing, and production control systems have been examined.

This perspective is difficult for leaders who are rewarded primarily for short-term results. The system-thinking orientation asks: what produced this outcome, and what would need to change so that the system produces a different outcome reliably? The answer to that question often requires investment in the present in planning, in people development, in process improvement before the benefit is visible. Leaders who can hold that longer view are the ones who produce genuinely better projects rather than just better-looking ones in the short term.

The Learning Partnership

One of the most underrated practices for Lean leadership development is the learning partnership finding another leader who is also on the Lean journey and committing to learning together rather than separately. The value of a partner is not that they have the answers. It is that they ask different questions, surface different blind spots, and provide the accountability that keeps the learning continuous rather than episodic. The partnership does not require proximity. In an era of video communication, a Lean leadership partner can be on the other side of the country or the world.

The Toyota Way’s principles nine and ten grow leaders and develop people and teams are stated as organizational responsibilities. But they begin with individuals who decide to develop themselves, who model the learning behaviors they want to see in their teams, and who treat leadership not as a position they have arrived at but as a practice they are continuously developing.

At Elevate Construction, the mission to build remarkable people who build remarkable things is a learning mission. The boot camps, the training programs, the free content all of it is designed to accelerate the learning journey of people who want to lead differently. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

Learning to lead. Leading to learn. Both at the same time, in service of the people and projects that deserve better than the industry has typically given them.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does “learning to lead, leading to learn” actually mean in practice?

It means that the act of leading taking on real challenges with real people is itself one of the most effective learning mechanisms available. Leadership and learning are not sequential stages. They are mutually reinforcing practices that accelerate each other.

Why is vulnerability important for a construction leader?

Because developing new capabilities requires being at the start of a learning curve, making mistakes in front of others, and not yet knowing things the role might be expected to know. Leaders who cannot tolerate that state will avoid new learning rather than pursue it.

What is hansei and why does it matter for continuous improvement?

Hansei is the Japanese practice of honest reflection on what happened examining what was set out to do, what was actually done, and what was learned. It is the reflection component of Kaizen that generates the learning yokoten then spreads broadly. Without hansei, experience produces neither learning nor improvement.

How does the Lean view of leadership differ from the traditional view?

The traditional view concentrates direction at the top the senior person knows the most and tells others what to do. The Lean view recognizes that the person closest to specific work knows the most about that work, and the leader’s role is to create conditions that allow that knowledge to be applied effectively.

Why does Lean leadership require systems thinking?

Because individual problems are almost always produced by system conditions. Addressing the symptom without examining the system produces recurring problems. Systems thinking asks what would need to change in the design, staffing, planning, or process for the system to produce a different outcome reliably.

If you want to learn more we have:

-Takt Virtual Training: (Click here)
-Check out our Youtube channel for more info: (Click here) 
-Listen to the Elevate Construction podcast: (Click here) 
-Check out our training programs and certifications: (Click here)
-The Takt Book: (Click here)

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Meet Jason Schroeder, the driving force behind Elevate Construction IST. As the company’s owner and principal consultant, he’s dedicated to taking construction to new heights. With a wealth of industry experience, he’s crafted the Field Engineer Boot Camp and Superintendent Boot Camp – intensive training programs engineered to cultivate top-tier leaders capable of steering their teams towards success. Jason’s vision? To expand his training initiatives across the nation, empowering construction firms to soar to unprecedented levels of excellence.

On we go

Posted in All

Leaders Make Learning the Ongoing Payoff for the Team and Themselves

Posted on by Jason Schroeder
Read 10 min

Lean Leadership: Learning to Lead, Leading to Learn

Katie Anderson describes the Lean leader’s journey as “Learning to Lead, Leading to Learn.” That framing is more precise than it might appear at first. It is not just that Lean leaders happen to learn while they lead. It is that the act of leading genuinely, in the field, with real people and real problems is one of the most effective mechanisms for learning available to any practitioner. The two activities are not sequential. They are mutually reinforcing, and when a leader understands that relationship, the entire orientation of their leadership shifts from directing to developing.

What It Actually Takes to Learn

Before the question of how to lead for learning, there is the more foundational question of what learning requires. Formal education’s answer that learning happens through instruction, is demonstrated through examination, and eliminates those who cannot keep pace is a failure model. Construction’s equivalent that experience accumulates through proximity to work and eventually produces competence is better, but still insufficient. Both models treat learning as something that happens to people rather than something people actively do.

Erika Andersen, writing in the Harvard Business Review, identifies four attributes that genuinely skilled learners develop and sustain: aspiration, self-awareness, curiosity, and vulnerability.

Aspiration is about where the attention goes. When a new skill or subject initially feels challenging or unappealing, learners who sustain engagement shift their focus from the difficulty to the benefit. They ask not “why is this hard?” but “what becomes possible when I understand this?” In construction, this is the difference between the leader who views Lean as an additional burden on an already demanding schedule and the one who asks what the project could look like if flow were working correctly.

Self-awareness is about honest perception of one’s own performance. The inner voice of an effective learner functions as what Andersen calls a “fair witness” reporting what is actually happening without either harsh self-criticism that shuts down engagement or protective rationalization that prevents clear seeing. Leaders who cannot see their own contribution to the problems around them cannot improve the systems that produce those problems.

Curiosity is the instinct that great learners retain from childhood or consciously rebuild. Instead of reinforcing initial disinterest in an unfamiliar subject, they learn to ask genuine questions about it and follow those questions with action. The curiosity is not passive, it generates investigation, experimentation, and engagement with people who know what the curious learner does not yet know.

Vulnerability is the willingness to be a beginner to be at the start of a learning curve, to make mistakes in front of others, to not know things that the role might be expected to know. Andersen describes this as getting good at being bad. It is the attribute that determines whether a leader will actually try something new or whether their need to appear competent will prevent them from ever developing the next level of capability.

Reflection as a Planned Practice

Learning does not happen automatically from experience. It happens through reflection on experience, the deliberate examination of what was set out to do, what was actually done, and what specifically was learned along the way. The Study or Adjust step in the PDCA cycle is where this reflection is formally built into an improvement process. The Plus/Delta at the end of a meeting is a lightweight version of the same practice. Retrospectives, journaling, and reflection in action are all expressions of the same underlying discipline: pausing to examine what just happened in order to extract durable learning rather than just moving to the next thing.

Kaizen at Toyota includes two components that are rarely taught together: hansei: reflection on what happened and yokoten sharing what was learned broadly. Without hansei, the learning is lost. Without yokoten, the learning stays with the individual rather than becoming organizational knowledge. The pattern requires both, and it requires leadership to model them. When leaders reflect visibly, when they share their own learning openly, when they create structured time for the team to reflect rather than immediately pivoting to the next task, they communicate that learning is a legitimate and valued use of time on this project.

Bringing Out the Best in Others

The traditional view of leadership is that the senior person knows the most and therefore provides direction. This view is understandable in contexts where expertise is genuinely concentrated at the top. It is not the right view for construction, where the person who performs a specific job knows the most about that specific job, and where the challenges that matter require coordination across multiple people, roles, disciplines, organizations, and companies.

Lean leadership begins from a different premise: the person closest to the work has the most relevant knowledge about that work. The leader’s role is to create the conditions under which that knowledge can be applied to remove obstacles, to surface problems that individuals cannot solve alone, to facilitate collaboration across organizational boundaries, and to connect people who have solved a problem with people who are encountering it for the first time.

This reframe changes the fundamental question a leader asks in any situation. The traditional question is “what should I tell them to do?” The Lean leader’s question is “what do they need from me so they can do what they already know how to do?” Those are very different questions, and they produce very different leadership behavior.

Here are the ways Lean leaders expand learning rather than contain it:

  • They ask what can be learned from the mistakes others have already made, so those lessons do not have to be re-experienced by every person on every project.
  • They bring additional expertise or perspectives into experiments rather than running them in isolation.
  • They identify who else could benefit from what was learned and share it proactively.
  • They find out who has already solved the problem they are facing before beginning their own analysis from scratch.
  • They partner with other people who are also on a Lean leadership journey, because growth accelerates in relationship.

The Systems Thinking Dimension

Lean leadership also requires taking a long-term, systems-thinking perspective seeing individual problems in the context of the systems that produce them rather than as isolated events. A worker making a repeated error is a systems problem until the system has been examined and adjusted. A trade partner who consistently delivers late materials is a supply chain design problem until the procurement and production plan alignment has been examined. A superintendent who is perpetually in firefighting mode is a project design problem until the planning, staffing, and production control systems have been examined.

This perspective is difficult for leaders who are rewarded primarily for short-term results. The system-thinking orientation asks: what produced this outcome, and what would need to change so that the system produces a different outcome reliably? The answer to that question often requires investment in the present in planning, in people development, in process improvement before the benefit is visible. Leaders who can hold that longer view are the ones who produce genuinely better projects rather than just better-looking ones in the short term.

The Learning Partnership

One of the most underrated practices for Lean leadership development is the learning partnership finding another leader who is also on the Lean journey and committing to learning together rather than separately. The value of a partner is not that they have the answers. It is that they ask different questions, surface different blind spots, and provide the accountability that keeps the learning continuous rather than episodic. The partnership does not require proximity. In an era of video communication, a Lean leadership partner can be on the other side of the country or the world.

The Toyota Way’s principles nine and ten, grow leaders and develop people and teams are stated as organizational responsibilities. But they begin with individuals who decide to develop themselves, who model the learning behaviors they want to see in their teams, and who treat leadership not as a position they have arrived at but as a practice they are continuously developing.

At Elevate Construction, the mission to build remarkable people who build remarkable things is a learning mission. The boot camps, the training programs, the free content, all of it is designed to accelerate the learning journey of people who want to lead differently. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow. Learning to lead. Leading to learn. Both at the same time, in service of the people and projects that deserve better than the industry has typically given them.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does “learning to lead, leading to learn” actually mean in practice?

It means that the act of leading taking on real challenges with real people is itself one of the most effective learning mechanisms available. Leadership and learning are not sequential stages. They are mutually reinforcing practices that accelerate each other.

Why is vulnerability important for a construction leader?

Because developing new capabilities requires being at the start of a learning curve, making mistakes in front of others, and not yet knowing things the role might be expected to know. Leaders who cannot tolerate that state will avoid new learning rather than pursue it.

What is hansei and why does it matter for continuous improvement?

Hansei is the Japanese practice of honest reflection on what happened examining what was set out to do, what was actually done, and what was learned. It is the reflection component of Kaizen that generates the learning yokoten then spreads broadly. Without hansei, experience produces neither learning nor improvement.

How does the Lean view of leadership differ from the traditional view?

The traditional view concentrates direction at the top, the senior person knows the most and tells others what to do. The Lean view recognizes that the person closest to specific work knows the most about that work, and the leader’s role is to create conditions that allow that knowledge to be applied effectively.

Why does Lean leadership require systems thinking?

Because individual problems are almost always produced by system conditions. Addressing the symptom without examining the system produces recurring problems. Systems thinking asks what would need to change in the design, staffing, planning, or process for the system to produce a different outcome reliably.

If you want to learn more we have:

-Takt Virtual Training: (Click here)
-Check out our Youtube channel for more info: (Click here) 
-Listen to the Elevate Construction podcast: (Click here) 
-Check out our training programs and certifications: (Click here)
-The Takt Book: (Click here)

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Meet Jason Schroeder, the driving force behind Elevate Construction IST. As the company’s owner and principal consultant, he’s dedicated to taking construction to new heights. With a wealth of industry experience, he’s crafted the Field Engineer Boot Camp and Superintendent Boot Camp – intensive training programs engineered to cultivate top-tier leaders capable of steering their teams towards success. Jason’s vision? To expand his training initiatives across the nation, empowering construction firms to soar to unprecedented levels of excellence.

On we go

Posted in All

First Run Video Studies: Plan-Do-Check-Adjust

Posted on by Jason Schroeder
Read 10 min

First Run Studies: How to Eliminate Waste Before It Becomes the Standard

There is a principle embedded in the way Taiichi Ohno taught that never loses its relevance. He would walk onto the shop floor, draw a circle on the ground, stand in it, and observe. Not to manage. Not to direct. To see what was actually happening, to study it with enough patience and depth to understand what the real process was, where the waste lived, and what could be improved. From that observation, he would develop enough knowledge to change the system rather than just the people.

Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell applied the same spirit to construction in 1997 through what they called First Run Studies, a method of observing work methods in the field, identifying waste, designing better methods, and establishing the improved approach as the new standard before the work pattern becomes entrenched. The name captures the intent: study the work on the first run, before the method hardens into habit, and use what you learn to set a better standard from the beginning.

The Opportunity Most Projects Miss

Every scope of work on a construction project is performed for the first time, then repeated, sometimes hundreds or thousands of times. The method used in the first few cycles tends to become the de facto standard for every cycle that follows. If the method contains waste, unnecessary motion, waiting, over-processing, material handling that could be eliminated, that waste is replicated every time the scope repeats. A crew that installs drywall inefficiently in week one will install it the same way in week eight unless something deliberately interrupts and improves the method.

Most projects never deliberately interrupt the method. The work gets done. The schedule advances. And the waste is embedded in every unit of work from start to finish not because the crew does not want to work better, but because nobody has created the time and structure to examine the method and improve it.

First Run Studies create that time and structure. They apply the PDCA cycle specifically to work method improvement, using video as the observation tool and craft worker expertise as the primary input to the improvement design.

Step One: Plan

The planning phase determines which activity to study, assembles the right people, and designs the most effective possible work method before the first run begins. Activities that are either highly repetitive where a small improvement multiplies across many cycles or that carry high risk for the project in terms of safety, quality, or schedule are the highest-leverage candidates.

The people assembled in the planning phase must include the craft who will perform the work. This is non-negotiable. The craft know the activity in ways that the superintendent and project manager do not. They know where the friction is, where the waiting happens, what the right tool for each motion is, and where the setup creates unnecessary walking. Brainstorming the most effective work method without the people who will execute it is not planning, it is guessing. Planning also covers safety, quality, productivity, and the assignment of the labor, tools, equipment, and resources the first run will require.

Step Two: Do

The first run is performed, and it is recorded on video. Not eight hours of footage, ten to twenty minutes of recording that captures several complete cycles of the activity. A drywall installation study, for example, captures planning, measuring, cutting, material handling, and installation of complete sheets. The video is not a surveillance tool. It is a learning tool. That distinction must be communicated clearly to the craft before filming begins, and it must be honored in how the footage is used.

The common pushback from craft workers is understandable: being filmed at work raises concerns about evaluation, job security, and management using the footage for purposes other than what is stated. The response to that concern is genuine and specific: the video exists to help the workers improve their method, make the work easier, reduce the physical burden of unnecessary motion, and make the company more competitive. It will not be used for monitoring, for performance evaluation, or as grounds for any employment decision. That commitment must be real, not just stated.

Step Three: Check

The most valuable step, and the one that most improvement efforts skip. The Check phase in a First Run Study involves reviewing the video with the craft who performed the work breaking the recording down into three categories: value-added work, necessary non-value-added work, and waste.

Value-added work is any activity that transforms the product in a way the customer would pay for, the installation itself, the cut that makes a piece fit, the measurement that ensures quality. Necessary non-value-added work is activity that does not directly transform the product but is required given current conditions, material staging, tool retrieval, workspace preparation. Waste is everything else: motion that produced nothing, waiting caused by sequence or material delivery problems, double-handling of materials, over-processing that created extra work without adding value.

The craft who performed the work can classify every segment of the video. They know what each motion was for. They know which parts of the sequence felt efficient and which felt forced. They are much closer to the waste in the process than any observer watching from a distance could ever be. The Check phase exists to extract that knowledge rather than leaving it unutilized.

Here are the categories of improvement that First Run Studies consistently reveal:

  • Motion waste from tools or materials stored at distances greater than the ten-foot rule allows.
  • Waiting waste from material delivery timing that does not align with the installation sequence.
  • Over-processing from assembly sequences that could be reorganized to eliminate steps.
  • Material handling waste from delivery in batch sizes that require additional sorting, staging, and repositioning at the work face.
  • Safety exposure from setup conditions or sequencing that creates unnecessary risk.

Step Four: Adjust

The improvement phase synthesizes everything the craft identified in the Check phase into a new, better work method that becomes the standard. This is where the craft’s ownership of the improvement is most clearly expressed. They identified the waste. They proposed the improvements. The method they helped design is theirs in a meaningful way which is why they implement it with more fidelity and more care than a method that was designed for them by someone who never performed the work.

The new standard is documented, practiced, and then subjected to the next First Run Study cycle. The improvement does not stop at one cycle. The adjusted method becomes the new starting point, and the next observation cycle looks for waste in the improved version. Continuous improvement means continuously cycling, each time from a higher floor.

The Outcomes Are Measurable

The benefits that First Run Studies produce are real and documented. Labor productivity improves when waste is eliminated from repetitive operations. Safety hazard identification improves when the observation process examines the work method with safety explicitly in the frame. Material inventory batching and stocking locations improve when the video reveals how material delivery timing creates or eliminates waiting. Crew size is optimized when the observation makes visible where crew members are waiting or redundantly performing the same motion. And craft morale and work satisfaction improve when workers experience that their expertise is valued and their input produces real changes in how the work is done.

That last outcome deserves emphasis. Craft worker salaries represent the single largest expense on most construction projects. And yet the knowledge, expertise, and improvement potential of craft workers is one of the most consistently underutilized resources in the industry. The First Run Study gives those workers a genuine mechanism for contributing to the work method design, not as a token gesture, but as the primary source of improvement insight. When workers realize they play a significant role in designing the method, solving the problems, and making the project better, they share ideas more openly and implement the improved method more fully.

At Elevate Construction, respect for people is not a poster on the wall, it is the reason the worker huddle communicates the plan before the shift begins, the reason pre-task plans are built with the crew rather than handed to them, and the reason improvement processes like First Run Studies treat craft expertise as the primary input rather than a secondary consideration. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow. Go and see. Ask why. Show respect. Involve the craft. See the waste. Make the improvement. Create the standard. Repeat.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a First Run Study and why does it matter?

A First Run Study is a structured method for observing a work activity on its first cycle, identifying waste through video review with the craft performing the work, and designing a better method before the current method becomes the entrenched standard.

Why must the craft who performed the work participate in the Check phase?

Because they are closest to the waste and know the work in ways that outside observers cannot replicate. Their knowledge of where the friction, waiting, and unnecessary motion occur is the primary input to the improvement design.

Why is video recording used rather than direct observation?

Video captures complete cycles with more accuracy than memory and allows the full team including the craft to review the same footage multiple times, classify each segment, and build a shared understanding of where the waste is.

How do you address craft worker resistance to being filmed?

By being specific and genuine about the purpose, the video is a learning tool for improving the work method, not a surveillance or performance evaluation tool and by honoring that commitment consistently in how the footage is actually used.

How does the First Run Study cycle connect to PDCA?

The First Run Study is PDCA applied specifically to work method improvement: Plan the first run with the craft, Do the run and record it, Check the recording by classifying activities as value, necessary non-value, or waste, and adjust by designing and standardizing the improved method.

If you want to learn more we have:

-Takt Virtual Training: (Click here)
-Check out our Youtube channel for more info: (Click here) 
-Listen to the Elevate Construction podcast: (Click here) 
-Check out our training programs and certifications: (Click here)
-The Takt Book: (Click here)

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Meet Jason Schroeder, the driving force behind Elevate Construction IST. As the company’s owner and principal consultant, he’s dedicated to taking construction to new heights. With a wealth of industry experience, he’s crafted the Field Engineer Boot Camp and Superintendent Boot Camp – intensive training programs engineered to cultivate top-tier leaders capable of steering their teams towards success. Jason’s vision? To expand his training initiatives across the nation, empowering construction firms to soar to unprecedented levels of excellence.

On we go

Posted in All

PDCA is How We Improve the Industry

Posted on by Jason Schroeder
Read 10 min

PDCA: The Improvement Engine That Can Transform Construction If You Complete All Four Steps

The construction industry is genuinely hard. Confrontational, personally draining, riddled with waste. Rising material and labor costs. Shrinking margins. A waning supply of skilled people. These challenges are not accidents; they are symptoms of an industry that has not yet made continuous improvement a cultural norm. And the most direct path from those symptoms to something better is a practice most people have heard of and most organizations only partially do.

Plan, Do, Check, Act. PDCA. The iterative improvement cycle that sits at the heart of Lean thinking and that, when practiced in full, gives any organization a mechanism for making tomorrow better than today. When practiced in part which is how most teams use it, it generates activity without compounding learning.

Where PDCA Comes From

The concept of PDCA emerged from scientific methodology: develop an idea through observation, test it through experimentation, and refine or abandon the idea based on results. Dr. Walter Shewhart transformed that linear sequence into an iterative cycle. Edward Deming Shewhart’s student developed and popularized it in the 1960s, and was specific about the intention: it is not about completing one cycle and moving on. It is about cycling continuously until the intended result is achieved, with each cycle generating learning that makes the next cycle more effective.

Deming’s preferred framing was Plan-Do-Study-Act, with Study emphasizing that the Check phase is not just a verification step but a genuine learning exercise. Some practitioners use Adjust rather than Act, which better captures the intent: the fourth step is not just action, it is intentional adjustment based on what was learned, either standardizing what worked or returning to the Plan phase with better understanding.

The Four Steps in Full

Plan is where most of the work should happen, even though it is consistently where the least time is invested. The planning phase has five specific components: defining value from the customer’s perspective or the goal to be achieved, understanding existing standards and best practices that serve as the baseline, clarifying the gap between current performance and the target using measurable data, getting to the root cause of the gap rather than the symptom, and identifying the specific countermeasures not solutions, but countermeasures that address the root cause.

The word countermeasures rather than solutions is deliberate and important. A solution implies the problem is finished. A countermeasure implies the improvement is tested, verified, and then either standardized or adjusted. That framing keeps the continuous improvement flywheel spinning rather than treating each fix as a final answer. Intentionally developing countermeasures is what makes the cycle iterative rather than episodic.

The tools that support the Plan phase are numerous and worth knowing. Conditions of satisfaction ensure the problem being solved actually addresses what customers value. Gemba walks going to see the problem firsthand, talking to the people closest to it, ground the analysis in reality rather than in assumptions. Process mapping makes the actual flow of work visible to everyone simultaneously. The 5 Whys drives from symptom to root cause through repeated inquiry. Cause and effect diagrams structure the identification of potential root causes. And the A3 is the one-page format that holds the entire PDCA cycle in a single visible document, forcing all phases to be completed rather than allowing the cycle to stop after Do.

Do is where countermeasures are implemented but on a test basis. Not a full rollout. A controlled experiment with limited scope so that the cost of learning from an ineffective countermeasure is minimized. The implementation plan identifies who does what by when. The data to be collected during the test is specified in advance so the Check phase has something to measure against. The scientific method is followed: execute the plan, observe the results, record the data.

Check is the most overlooked phase and the one that makes PDCA genuinely continuous rather than cyclical only in theory. The Check phase asks three questions: what did you expect to happen, what actually happened, and what did you learn? The gap between expectation and outcome is the information, it tells the team whether the countermeasure addressed the root cause effectively, whether there were unintended consequences, and what needs to be different in the next cycle.

Most teams skip Check because they assume the countermeasure worked. They move on. And then six months later the same problem surfaces again because the countermeasure was never verified, the root cause was never confirmed as addressed, and no learning was institutionalized. Only performing Plan and Do wastes most of the value of the effort already invested.

Act or Adjust is the decision step that closes one cycle and either opens the next or locks in the improvement. If the Check phase reveals that the countermeasure did not produce the intended result, the team goes back to Plan with better information: the original root cause analysis was incomplete, or the countermeasure addressed the wrong cause, or unintended consequences need to be accounted for. If the Check phase confirms the countermeasure worked, the team standardizes, updates the process documentation, trains people to the new standard, and ensures the improvement is accessible to everyone who needs it rather than living in the memory of the team that ran the cycle.

An Example from Design and Construction

The PDCA cycle is operating every time a design team produces and refines a model. The architect interprets what the customer wants and develops a design intent, this is Plan. The team uses that design to create a working model, this is Do. The team runs clash detection and coordinates with trade partners to confirm the design works as intended, this is Check. And the model is updated to resolve the issues discovered until it is ready for fabrication, this is Act. The cycle repeats until the design is resolved. When teams do this well, each iteration is faster and more productive because the Check phase genuinely informs what changes the next iteration needs to make.

Here are the warning signs that a team’s PDCA practice is incomplete:

  • Countermeasures are implemented and never followed up on to verify whether they worked.
  • The same problems surface repeatedly on different projects or in different phases of the same project.
  • Improvements are documented in lessons-learned logs but never make it into the standard work that governs how the next project begins.
  • The Check phase is replaced with an assumption that the change worked because nothing visibly went wrong immediately.
  • Learning stays with the individual who ran the improvement cycle rather than becoming organizational knowledge.

The Specific Challenge in Construction

The AEC industry has historically been good at planning and doing. The improvement opportunity is concentrated in Check and Act. One reason is organizational: projects end and teams disperse before the Check phase can fully assess whether the changes made during the project actually held and produced lasting results. Another reason is cultural: the industry’s orientation toward immediate results makes the time investment of a genuine Check phase feel like overhead rather than production.

Both of these are system problems, not people problems. Organizations that create the structural conditions for Check and Act, project retrospectives, communities of practice, shared A3 libraries, standing monthly improvement reviews build the mechanisms that make PDCA work as a continuous cycle rather than as a two-step process. The team that checks whether its countermeasures worked and adjusts accordingly is the team that compounds its improvement over time. Every cycle generates learning that makes the next cycle more effective. The value is not in any single cycle; it is in the accumulation.

At Elevate Construction, the PDCA cycle is embedded in the weekly work planning process, in the retrospective practice at the end of every training event, and in the A3 problem-solving framework that runs through project consulting engagements. Percent plan complete is not tracked to assign blame, it is tracked to generate the Check that informs the Adjust. Root cause analysis of missed commitments is not a bureaucratic exercise; it is the system design update that prevents the same miss from recurring. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

To survive and improve, we must practice all four steps. Plan with genuine depth. Do on a test basis. Check with honest measurement. Act by standardizing what works or returning to Plan with better information.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a countermeasure and a solution in PDCA thinking?

A solution implies the problem is finished and the work is done. A countermeasure implies the improvement is a tested response to a root cause, one that will be verified in the Check phase and either standardized if effective or adjusted if not. The framing keeps the improvement cycle continuous.

Why is Check the most overlooked phase?

Because most teams assume their countermeasure worked and move on once it is implemented. Without a deliberate Check, the gap between what was expected and what actually happened is never examined which means the learning that would make the next cycle more effective never happens.

What is the role of standardization in the Act phase?

When the Check phase confirms a countermeasure worked, standardizing means updating the process documentation, training people to the new standard, and ensuring the improvement is accessible to everyone who needs it, not just to the team that ran the cycle. Without standardization, the improvement lives in memory and disappears when the team moves on.

How does PDCA connect to A3 problem solving?

The A3 format is structured around the PDCA cycle, the sections of an A3 correspond to Plan, Do, Check, and Act. Using the A3 forces all four steps to be completed rather than allowing the cycle to stop after Do, which is what happens when there is no structured framework requiring follow-up.

Why does PDCA need to be iterative rather than a single cycle?

Because complex problems rarely yield their full root cause in one cycle. The learning from the first cycle especially from the Check phase reveals aspects of the problem that were not visible before the first countermeasure was tested. Each cycle generates better understanding that makes the next cycle more effective.

If you want to learn more we have:

-Takt Virtual Training: (Click here)
-Check out our Youtube channel for more info: (Click here) 
-Listen to the Elevate Construction podcast: (Click here) 
-Check out our training programs and certifications: (Click here)
-The Takt Book: (Click here)

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Meet Jason Schroeder, the driving force behind Elevate Construction IST. As the company’s owner and principal consultant, he’s dedicated to taking construction to new heights. With a wealth of industry experience, he’s crafted the Field Engineer Boot Camp and Superintendent Boot Camp – intensive training programs engineered to cultivate top-tier leaders capable of steering their teams towards success. Jason’s vision? To expand his training initiatives across the nation, empowering construction firms to soar to unprecedented levels of excellence.

On we go

Posted in All

PDCA Lessons Learned

Posted on by Jason Schroeder
Read 9 min

PDCA Done Right: Four Lessons That Make Problem-Solving Actually Work in Construction

Most people in construction have heard of PDCA. Plan, do, check, adjust. The Deming cycle. The scientific method applied to improvement. It shows up in Lean training, in retrospective discussions, in the documentation of continuous improvement initiatives. And on most projects, it never actually completes. The planning happens. Some version of the doing happens. And then the project moves on without the checking or the adjusting, because those steps feel like overhead when the next problem is already demanding attention.

The result is an industry that repeats the same problems, project after project, because the mechanism that would convert experience into learning is consistently left incomplete. This blog is about four lessons that make the difference between PDCA as a concept and PDCA as a practice.

The Problem Underneath the Problem

Before the four lessons, it is worth naming what makes PDCA difficult to practice consistently. Two specific tendencies undermine it on most project teams. The first is the organizational pressure for immediate results, the instinct to jump to a solution as quickly as possible, demonstrate action, and move on. This tendency makes the Plan phase feel like delay rather than investment. The second is the bias toward solution implementation over problem understanding, addressing what the problem looks like rather than what caused it, which produces countermeasures that address symptoms and leave the root cause untouched.

Both tendencies are understandable. Both produce the same outcome: partial PDCA cycles that invest effort without generating durable learning. Having a problem well stated is a problem half solved. The investment that looks like delay in the Plan phase is what makes the Do phase count.

Lesson One: Early Investment in Understanding Pays Back in Full

The most counterintuitive truth in PDCA is that spending more time in the Plan phase genuinely understanding the problem and its root causes before implementing any countermeasure consistently reduces the total time and effort required to close the gap between the current state and the target condition.

The math is not complicated. A countermeasure implemented without genuine root cause understanding has a high probability of addressing the symptom rather than the cause. When the symptom is addressed, the cause continues to produce new instances of the same problem. The team addresses the next instance, and the next, and the next. Each cycle consumes time and attention. The original investment in the Do phase was multiplied by repetition, and the problem was never resolved.

A countermeasure that addresses the actual root cause eliminates the recurring problem. The upfront investment in the Plan phase is larger. The total cost across the full cycle is dramatically lower. People in construction are generally skilled at planning and doing. The improvement opportunity is in how thoroughly they check and how deliberately they adjust. The checking is where the learning happens. The adjusting is where the learning becomes durable. Only performing the first two steps of PDCA which is what most teams do wastes most of the value of the effort that was already invested.

Lesson Two: People Are a Force Multiplier

Construction does not happen in isolation. It happens through teams of multi-disciplinary participants, multiple organizations, multiple layers of expertise and experience. Solving problems alone without utilizing the perspectives, knowledge, and ideas of the people closest to the work is what limits improvement to single-digit results. Involving the right people produces outcomes that are faster, more accurate, and more durable.

Toyota, which sustains industry-leading performance consistently and over decades, makes continuous improvement a cultural norm that begins with leadership and includes every stakeholder in the process. Cross-functional teams that represent every stakeholder in the problem produce solutions that account for perspectives no single expert could see alone. The person who designed the process has different visibility than the person who executes it. The foreman who runs the daily work has different visibility than the superintendent who coordinates across trades. Both perspectives are necessary to understand the problem fully and to design a countermeasure that will actually hold in the real conditions of the field.

Beyond the quality of the solution, inclusive problem-solving builds the team. When people are brought into the improvement process rather than having solutions handed down to them, they understand the reasoning behind the change, they have ownership of the outcome, and they have developed capability that carries forward to the next problem. The improvement and the team development happen simultaneously.

Lesson Three: Practice PDCA to Develop People

PDCA is not just a problem-solving method. It is a people development method. And one of the most powerful mechanisms for combining both is A3 problem-solving run through a coach-student model.

In the coach-student model, the person working through the A3 is guided by a more experienced practitioner who does not give answers but instead asks questions, questions that guide the student to discover the root cause, develop the countermeasure, and design the implementation themselves. The student learns through discovery rather than instruction, which produces a fundamentally different kind of understanding. The knowledge is not received, it is developed through the student’s own thinking, tested against reality, and validated through the check and adjust steps of PDCA.

John Shook’s Managing to Learn is the definitive resource on this model, a detailed exploration of how A3 thinking combined with the coach-student relationship develops Lean thinkers throughout an organization. The A3 is the tool that forces all four steps of PDCA to be completed rather than allowing the cycle to stop after the Do phase. By requiring a Follow Up section that verifies whether the countermeasure produced the expected results, the A3 makes the Check and Adjust steps non-optional rather than aspirational.

Lesson Four: Think Lean to Prevent Recurrence

PDCA that produces a lesson learned filed in a shared drive is not PDCA. PDCA that produces a change to the standard work, a change to the system that makes it structurally harder for the same problem to recur is the real objective.

Several Lean thinking drivers should shape every PDCA cycle. The customer’s perspective of value should come first: is the improvement being proposed actually in service of what the customer values, or is it optimizing something that matters primarily to the producer? Fact-based data should drive the analysis: not impressions, not assumptions, not the loudest voice in the retrospective conversation, but the actual evidence of what is happening and why. A cross-functional team should be involved from problem definition through countermeasure development: the right expertise in the room is what prevents the analysis from being shaped by a single perspective’s blind spots.

When practicing PDCA on an existing process, the goal is not random brainstorming about what could be better. It is looking at the standard work with specific attention to where the flow breaks down, the places where the process produces abnormal results and implementing changes that restore reliable flow while building in mechanisms to see when the flow breaks down again in the future. Stop, call, wait, the Andon principle is the field-level expression of this. Build the system so that abnormalities are visible and addressed immediately rather than absorbed and repeated.

Here are the signals that PDCA is being practiced correctly rather than performed superficially:

  • The Plan phase produces a clear root cause before any countermeasure is designed.
  • The team that implemented the change is the same team that checks whether it worked.
  • The check produces either confirmation of the standard or a new problem statement, never a shrug and an assumption that it probably worked.
  • The adjust step produces a change to the standard work rather than a note in a lessons-learned log.
  • New team members are trained to the updated standard before they encounter the problem the change was designed to prevent.

Connecting to the Mission

At Elevate Construction, PDCA is embedded in the meeting system, in the retrospective practice, and in the daily way the team reflects on commitments and misses. Percent plan complete is not tracked for accountability, it is tracked for learning. The root cause of every missed commitment is examined not to assign blame but to identify what in the system needs to change. And the improvements that result are captured in the standard work so the next iteration of the process starts from a higher floor. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow. PDCA done right is how the industry gets better. Not project by project, starting from the same place every time but cumulatively, with each cycle producing a durable improvement that compounds into organizational capability.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do most PDCA cycles in construction stop after the Do phase?

Because the Check and Adjust steps feel like overhead when the next problem is already demanding attention. But stopping at Do wastes most of the value of the effort already invested without checking, the countermeasure is never validated, and the learning never happens.

What makes a root cause analysis genuinely effective?

It requires enough time and enough cross-functional perspective to get past the symptom to the actual cause. The most common failure is confusing what the problem looks like with what produced it. A problem well stated is a problem half solved.

How does A3 problem-solving support people development?

Through the coach-student model, where the A3 practitioner develops their understanding by working through the problem themselves under guidance rather than receiving a solution. The discovery process produces durable understanding that instruction alone cannot create.

What is the goal of PDCA — a lesson learned or a change to the standard?

A change to the standard. A lessons-learned document filed somewhere is not improvement. A change to the standard work that makes it structurally harder for the same problem to recur is improvement.

What does “Lean thinking” add to a PDCA cycle?

It grounds the analysis in the customer’s perspective of value, requires fact-based data rather than impressions, insists on cross-functional involvement, and focuses improvement efforts on the places where the flow breaks down rather than on random optimization.

If you want to learn more we have:

-Takt Virtual Training: (Click here)
-Check out our Youtube channel for more info: (Click here) 
-Listen to the Elevate Construction podcast: (Click here) 
-Check out our training programs and certifications: (Click here)
-The Takt Book: (Click here)

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Meet Jason Schroeder, the driving force behind Elevate Construction IST. As the company’s owner and principal consultant, he’s dedicated to taking construction to new heights. With a wealth of industry experience, he’s crafted the Field Engineer Boot Camp and Superintendent Boot Camp – intensive training programs engineered to cultivate top-tier leaders capable of steering their teams towards success. Jason’s vision? To expand his training initiatives across the nation, empowering construction firms to soar to unprecedented levels of excellence.

On we go

Posted in All

How to Realize Value from Conducting a Plus/Delta Evaluation

Posted on by Jason Schroeder
Read 9 min

Plus/Delta: The Tool That Gets Meetings Better — When It Is Used Correctly

No competent builder would choose a hammer to drive a screw. Everyone in construction understands that choosing the right tool matters. And using it correctly with actual understanding of its purpose and capability is what separates a result from a damaged surface. This principle is as true of facilitation tools as it is of construction tools. And Plus/Delta is a facilitation tool that the Lean construction community uses constantly and understands incompletely.

Most teams run a Plus/Delta at the end of a meeting by asking “any plusses?” and “any deltas?” collecting a few answers, and moving on. They think they are doing continuous improvement. They are actually going through the motions of it while producing almost none of the value the tool was designed to deliver. This blog is about what Plus/Delta was actually designed to do and how to use it in a way that produces genuine meeting improvement.

Where Plus/Delta Came from and Why It Matters

In the 1970s, Michael Doyle and David Straus published a book called How to Make Meetings Work. As architects, they had spent years in design and construction projects, watching the conflicts and inefficiencies that characterized most professional meetings. They decided to find out what was actually going wrong. Their method was simple: they asked people across many different contexts what went wrong in their meetings.

The answers were remarkably consistent. People did not know why they were meeting or what the meeting was supposed to accomplish. There was no agenda or time allocation. Roles and decision-making authority were unclear. Someone dominated or went off track. Ideas were captured inconsistently or not at all. Action items were not assigned or followed through. The level of detail was wrong either too granular or too high-level, moving too fast or stuck.

Here is the insight Doyle and Straus drew from that pattern: none of those problems were about what the meeting was about. All of them were about how the meeting was planned and run. They called this condition process blindness, the failure to see that meetings have a process dimension that is separate from their content dimension, and that the process dimension is what determines whether the content accomplishes anything. The cure was process awareness, supported by a designated neutral facilitator whose job was to manage the meeting process rather than the meeting content.

The Plus/Delta emerged from this work as the Check step in the PDCA cycle applied to meeting process improvement. W. Edwards Deming, whose work on Total Quality Management was influencing organizations everywhere at the same time, had established that you cannot improve a process you cannot measure. Doyle and Straus applied that principle to the meeting process itself: plan the meeting, run the meeting, check how the process worked, act on what could be improved. Plus/Delta is the Check. The improvement at the beginning of the next meeting is the Act.

LCI founders Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell attended facilitation skills training at the firm Doyle and Straus founded and brought Plus/Delta along with many other best practices into the Lean construction community. That is where the tool came from. And it is what gets lost when teams use it as a routine sign-off question rather than as a genuine process improvement mechanism.

The Problem with How Most Teams Use It

“Any plusses? Any deltas?” asked to a tired group at the end of a long pull planning session or weekly work plan meeting produces generic feedback about the content of the discussion “that was a good meeting,” “we covered a lot of ground,” “we ran long on item three.” This is not process improvement. It is an opinion poll about how people felt.

The original intent of Plus/Delta is to evaluate the meeting process, specifically, whether the process design served the meeting’s purpose and what could be done differently in the next meeting to make the process work better. Plusses about what worked in the process. Deltas about what in the process could be improved. Not what the content was, but how the meeting was planned and run.

When Plus/Delta is disconnected from the meeting process, teams lose the feedback loop that would make their meetings progressively better. They run the same kind of meeting the same way, encounter the same friction, collect the same vague responses, and file them nowhere. The tool is present. The improvement is absent.

How to Use Plus/Delta Effectively

The quality of a Plus/Delta is determined by the quality of the questions. Generic questions produce generic answers. Specific questions about the meeting process produce specific, actionable feedback.

Start by identifying the critical success factors for the kind of meeting you just ran. What would have made this meeting great? For a weekly work plan meeting, critical success factors might include: clarity of commitment from each trade, productive use of the time allocated to each zone or phase, honest identification of roadblocks rather than optimistic assumptions, and clear ownership of each action item. For a pull planning session, they might include: genuine trade partner engagement throughout the backward pass, confirmation of handoff logic from zone to zone, and the team leaving with a shared understanding of the sequence they committed to.

Then design the Plus/Delta questions around those specific success factors. Not “what worked?” but “how did we do at making sure every trade partner declared their handoffs honestly?” Not “what could be better?” but “where did we lose time in the sequence, and what in the process produced that?” Specific questions produce answers that lead somewhere.

Vary the format. Ask for feedback on sticky notes rather than through open verbal response. Suggest a two-minute paired discussion to generate one improvement suggestion per pair before the whole group shares. Create and use a Great Meetings Checklist that holds the success factors visible and audits against them at the end of each session. If feedback from the previous meeting’s Plus/Delta produced a change, put that change on a flipchart at the start of the next meeting and check back at the end: did the change produce the improvement we expected?

Here are the signals that Plus/Delta is being used as a genuine improvement tool rather than a ritual:

  • The questions asked are specific to the meeting’s process design, not about the content of the discussion.
  • Feedback from previous Plus/Deltas visibly influences how the next meeting is structured.
  • The facilitator tracks changes over time and the meeting format improves measurably from session to session.
  • Trade partners and team members give honest feedback rather than polite agreement because they have seen the feedback used.
  • The meeting’s critical success factors are visible and shared before the meeting begins, so the Plus/Delta at the end can measure against them.

The Most Important Commitment

All of this only works if the meeting leader is genuinely committed to using the feedback. A Plus/Delta run without follow-through is worse than no Plus/Delta at all, it signals to participants that their input is collected but not valued, which is more demoralizing than not being asked in the first place. If the team gives the same feedback three meetings in a row and nothing changes, they will stop giving feedback. The ritual will continue and the improvement will stop.

The actions of the meeting leader demonstrate either commitment to excellent meetings or the absence of that commitment. The tool will not do the work on its own. The leader’s decision to actually read the feedback, adjust the process, and track whether the adjustment produced improvement is what turns Plus/Delta from a meeting habit into a genuine continuous improvement cycle.

At Elevate Construction, every meeting from the strategic planning session to the foreman huddle to the training event has a process design that can be evaluated and improved. The retrospective at the end of the Super PM Boot Camp runs a structured Plus/Delta with specific questions about what served the learning objectives and what should be adjusted for the next cohort. The feedback is read, the improvements are made, and the next iteration is better because of it. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

Plus/Delta done right makes every meeting better than the last. Done wrong, it is a question asked into the air at the end of a long day, producing nothing durable and consuming everyone’s time. Be purposeful. Ask the right questions. Use the feedback.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Plus/Delta and what was it originally designed to do?

Plus/Delta is a meeting process improvement tool developed by Doyle and Straus in the 1970s. It was designed as the Check step of the PDCA cycle applied to meeting process, evaluating whether the meeting’s process design served its purpose and identifying specific improvements for the next session.

Why is the standard “any plusses, any deltas?” approach insufficient?

Because generic questions produce generic answers about how people felt, not about what in the meeting process worked or failed. Process improvement requires process-specific feedback, which requires process-specific questions.

What is process blindness and how does Plus/Delta address it?

Process blindness is the failure to see that meetings have a process dimension, how they are planned and run that is separate from their content. Plus/Delta creates process awareness by explicitly evaluating the process at the end of each session and generating improvements for the next one.

What makes a Plus/Delta question effective?

Specificity. Questions tied to the meeting’s identified critical success factors produce answers that lead to specific, actionable changes. “How did we make sure every trade partner declared their handoffs honestly?” produces useful feedback. “What worked?” almost never does.

What happens when Plus/Delta feedback is not acted on?

Participants stop giving honest feedback because they have learned it is not used. The ritual continues and the improvement stops. The tool becomes theater rather than a genuine improvement mechanism.

If you want to learn more we have:

-Takt Virtual Training: (Click here)
-Check out our Youtube channel for more info: (Click here) 
-Listen to the Elevate Construction podcast: (Click here) 
-Check out our training programs and certifications: (Click here)
-The Takt Book: (Click here)

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Meet Jason Schroeder, the driving force behind Elevate Construction IST. As the company’s owner and principal consultant, he’s dedicated to taking construction to new heights. With a wealth of industry experience, he’s crafted the Field Engineer Boot Camp and Superintendent Boot Camp – intensive training programs engineered to cultivate top-tier leaders capable of steering their teams towards success. Jason’s vision? To expand his training initiatives across the nation, empowering construction firms to soar to unprecedented levels of excellence.

On we go

Posted in All

Teaching Lean Construction I: Pull & Flow

Posted on by Jason Schroeder
Read 9 min

Teaching Pull and Flow in Construction: The Simulation That Makes It Real

One of the most persistent challenges in Lean construction education is that most of the foundational tools for teaching Lean principles were developed in manufacturing. Pull planning. Kanban. Flow balance. Takt time. These concepts emerged from factory floors where partially assembled products move from one stationary machine to the next. When a new Lean learner from construction is put through a manufacturing-based simulation, something is always slightly off, the analogy requires translation, and the translation creates a gap between the principle and the construction context where it needs to apply.

Construction works differently. The product is stationary, the building stays in place while the crews move through it. Trades flow from zone to zone, completing work that is prerequisite to the next trade’s entry. The flow is not the material; it is the crews. And understanding pull and flow in construction means understanding how a parade of trades can be organized into a train that moves through a sequence of zones in a rhythm that protects handoffs and eliminates waiting.

The Flow Building Lean Game was developed specifically to teach pull and flow to construction practitioners in a context that matches their actual work simulating the construction of apartment buildings with LEGO bricks, using crews as the moving element and zones as the stationary element.

Round One: The Push System and Its Costs

The first round of the game simulates a traditional push production system. The logic of a push system is intuitive and familiar: produce as much as you can as fast as you can, move the output downstream regardless of whether the downstream process is ready to receive it, and rework whatever does not meet the standard after the fact. The assumptions baked into this logic are the same assumptions that most traditional construction management is built on. The faster I produce, the better for the project. Do not stop to check quality, we will fix it if necessary. The company does not pay me to think.

These assumptions produce predictable outcomes when simulated. Overproduction creates inventory that piles up between stations because the downstream process is not ready for it. Waiting appears when upstream work was produced too slowly or in the wrong sequence. Rework appears because quality was not checked at the source. Transportation and motion waste appear as materials are moved unnecessarily or workers travel to find what they need. And because each operator is focused on their own speed rather than on the flow of the whole, the system produces fragmentation rather than coordination.

Participants in Round One experience this directly. The wastes are not described to them, they live them. The frustration of producing work that the next trade cannot use yet, of waiting for upstream work that was not ready, of discovering quality problems that require disassembly and reassembly of work that was already counted as complete, these are felt rather than observed. That felt experience is what makes the contrast with Round Two meaningful.

Round Two: Pull, Flow, and Takt

The second round implements a set of Lean principles that address the specific failures the first round produced.

The first principle is pull. In a pull production system, downstream activities signal their needs to upstream activities rather than upstream processes pushing output forward regardless of downstream readiness. Kanban is the mechanism, a visual signal that authorizes the upstream process to produce the next unit when the downstream process is ready to receive it. Pull eliminates overproduction by making demand visible and making production response to actual demand rather than to forecast. In the construction apartment simulation, this means each trade produces what the next trade is ready to receive, not more, not faster, not in the wrong sequence.

The second principle is continuous flow. Pull alone is not sufficient to achieve flow if the pace of each trade is significantly different from the others. When one trade is significantly faster than the next, the faster trade produces inventory that waits and the slower trade becomes the bottleneck that everyone else is waiting behind. Continuous flow requires that the pace of each operator or each trade be balanced to the Takt time. The game uses an Operator Balance Chart to make this balance visible.

The Operator Balance Chart is a graphical tool that shows the total cycle time for each trade as a stacked bar, with individual work elements shown as proportional segments within the bar. All bars are compared against the Takt time, the available production time divided by customer demand. In the game’s scenario, the customer wants ten buildings per day in ten-minute shifts, producing a Takt time of one minute per building. The OBC immediately reveals which trades have cycle times above the Takt time, these are bottlenecks and which are below it, these have capacity that can absorb additional work elements to bring slower trades closer to the rhythm. The process of redistributing work elements to balance all trades to the Takt time is not a theoretical exercise in the simulation. It is a visible, collaborative design problem that participants solve together.

The third set of principles is 5S, standardization, and poka-yokes applied to the construction process itself. The workspace is organized for the current scope. Standard work is established for each trade’s activities so that consistency and therefore reliability is possible. Error-proofing mechanisms prevent the most common quality failures from occurring in the first place rather than being caught in rework. Visual management makes the plan and the performance visible to everyone so the team can see as a group, know as a group, and act as a group. And a set of KPIs including percent plan complete and Takt health indicators enables PDCA cycles at the end of each simulated period so the team continuously improves the system rather than accepting its current performance.

Here are the core insights that Round Two consistently produces for participants:

  • Pull is not just a scheduling technique; it is a signal system that aligns production to actual demand and eliminates the inventory accumulation that push systems produce.
  • Flow is only achievable when cycle times are balanced to the Takt time, one fast operator upstream of a slower one creates the same waiting and stacking that poor planning does.
  • Takt time is not a target imposed on the team, it is the translation of customer demand into production rhythm, a number derived from reality that the team designs its system around.
  • Visual management is not an add-on; it is the mechanism that allows the team to see problems when they are still small rather than when they have compounded into schedule crises.
  • Continuous improvement is not a quarterly initiative, it is what happens at the end of every week when the team asks what they committed to, what they actually did, and what in the system needs to change.

The Connection to Pull Planning

The Flow Building game addresses the production system principles that underlie the Last Planner System: pull and flow. The next step, as participants move from the one-day simulation to the full LPS implementation, is collaborative planning: the pull planning session, the six-week look-ahead, the weekly work plan, and the daily worker huddle that communicates the plan to the people executing it. The production system principles learned in the simulation are the foundation. The collaborative planning practices of the LPS are how those principles become operational in the field, across multiple trades, across multiple zones, across the full life of a construction phase.

What the simulation proves consistently and across different participant groups is that the Lean approach produces dramatically better results than the push approach when everyone is working from the same system. The apartments get built in less time, with fewer defects, with less waste, and with more genuine collaboration between the simulated trades. That experience is what makes the subsequent investment in pull planning, look-ahead planning, and weekly work planning feel worthwhile rather than burdensome.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow. Experience the difference between push and pull. Then design your project to deliver the pull.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was the Flow Building game designed for construction rather than adapted from manufacturing?

Because in construction the product is stationary and the crews move which is the inverse of manufacturing where products move between stationary machines. A construction-specific simulation makes the pull and flow principles directly applicable without requiring translation.

What is the Operator Balance Chart and why is it used in the simulation?

The OBC is a graphical tool that shows each trade’s cycle time as a stacked bar compared to the Takt time. It makes bottlenecks immediately visible and provides a collaborative framework for redistributing work elements to balance all trades to the production rhythm.

What is Takt time in the context of this simulation?

Takt time is the available production time divided by customer demand in the game’s scenario, one minute per building. It synchronizes the pace of production to match the pace of customer demand and provides the rhythm that all trades must design their cycle times around.

What does the simulation demonstrate that lecture cannot?

It creates the felt experience of the difference between push and pull production, the frustration of overproduction and waiting in Round One, and the stability and collaboration of balanced flow in Round Two. That contrast produces behavioral understanding rather than conceptual familiarity.

How does this simulation connect to the Last Planner System?

The Flow Building game teaches the production system principles: pull, flow, Takt, balance that are the foundation of LPS. Collaborative planning through pull planning, the six-week look-ahead, and the weekly work plan are the next layer that makes those principles operational in real construction projects.

If you want to learn more we have:

-Takt Virtual Training: (Click here)
-Check out our Youtube channel for more info: (Click here) 
-Listen to the Elevate Construction podcast: (Click here) 
-Check out our training programs and certifications: (Click here)
-The Takt Book: (Click here)

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Meet Jason Schroeder, the driving force behind Elevate Construction IST. As the company’s owner and principal consultant, he’s dedicated to taking construction to new heights. With a wealth of industry experience, he’s crafted the Field Engineer Boot Camp and Superintendent Boot Camp – intensive training programs engineered to cultivate top-tier leaders capable of steering their teams towards success. Jason’s vision? To expand his training initiatives across the nation, empowering construction firms to soar to unprecedented levels of excellence.

On we go

Posted in All