Teaching Lean Construction II: Last Planner System

Posted on April 14, 2026April 14, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 9 min

Teaching the Last Planner System Through Simulation: Why Experience Beats Explanation

The Last Planner System is one of the most powerful tools in Lean construction. It is also one of the most frequently misunderstood, partially implemented, and prematurely abandoned, not because the concepts are wrong, but because the transition from understanding them theoretically to implementing them practically is harder than most training approaches acknowledge. Reading about pull planning, percent plan complete, and the six-week look-ahead is a useful starting point. Watching someone explain it is better. But actually, experiencing the difference between a traditional planning approach and a Lean planning approach feeling the chaos of one and the stability of the other in a compressed simulation is what makes the concepts genuinely operational for the people who have to implement them.

This is the case for simulation-based LPS training, and it is the reason the Pull Planning Lean Game has become a meaningful educational tool in the Lean construction community.

Why Theory Alone Is Not Enough

Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell developed the Last Planner System through the 1990s. Lauri Koskela was developing the theoretical production framework that gave LPS its intellectual foundation at the same time. The theory is solid. The track record of successful implementation is growing. And yet the transition from concept to practice remains difficult particularly for the foremen, superintendents, trade partners, and project managers who lead production and have to run the system in real project conditions with real trade partners and real stakes.

The gap between theory and practice is not primarily a knowledge gap. Most practitioners who have been through an LPS training program understand the deliverables: master schedule, pull plan, six-week look-ahead, weekly work plan, day plan, percent plan complete. What they do not always understand not in the visceral way that changes behavior is why the system works and what traditional planning fails to produce. The simulation provides that understanding by letting participants experience both.

Round One: The Traditional System and Its Failures

The Pull Planning Lean Game is structured in two rounds. The first-round assigns participants roles, owner, general contractor, subcontractors, designer and asks them to build a Playmobil house using a traditional scheduling and production system. A Gantt chart governs the plan. Thirty minutes is given. Most groups build half the house or a little more.

What happens in that thirty minutes is exactly what happens on real construction projects managed through traditional systems. Overproduction building before preceding work is ready creates rework and confusion. Inventory accumulates in the wrong places. Waiting appears when upstream work is not ready for the downstream trade. Quality problems go undetected until they are embedded in work that has to be undone. Motion and transportation waste appears as participants search for pieces or move materials inefficiently. The Gantt chart fails early and the team has no mechanism to recover from the deviation. Problems explode rather than surface early. And there is very little collaboration between the parties each is executing their own plan in relative isolation, discovering conflicts at the moment they collide rather than anticipating and preventing them.

The experience of Round One is deliberately uncomfortable. The frustration is productive. It creates the felt sense of what a traditional planning system actually produces not as a description, but as something the participants have just lived through. That felt sense is what makes Round Two land differently.

The Pull Planning Session and Look-Ahead

Between rounds, participants experience the full LPS preparation cycle. The pull planning session about an hour simulates a real collaborative planning process. Each trade partner receives colored cards representing their scope. Working backwards from the completion milestone, they declare their activities, identify what they need from predecessors, and build the sequence collaboratively. The handoffs become visible. The constraints surface. The sequence the team agrees to is one they helped create which produces a fundamentally different relationship to commitment than a sequence handed down from a scheduler who was not in the room.

The six-week look-ahead follows. Participants work through the near-term planning horizon, confirming what is ready to execute and identifying what needs to be removed as roadblocks before the work begins. The target for Round Two is building the complete house in twenty minutes or less, five minutes per simulated week, one per day. The look-ahead is how the team gets ready to make that target achievable.

During preparation, participants also implement Lean tools they have been introduced to in the workshop: 5S for their workspace, visual management so the plan is readable at a glance, standardization of key processes, and poka-yoke error-proofing for the most common failure points in their assembly sequence. The preparation is not overhead; it is the system design that makes execution reliable.

Round Two: The Lean System in Practice

The second round runs with the same participants in the same roles building the same house. The difference is the system. Time is stopped every five minutes representing one week and a brief simulated weekly meeting is held. The team checks what was committed, confirms what was actually completed, calculates percent plan complete for the week, discusses the root causes of any misses, and identifies what needs to change before the next week begins. A PDCA cycle runs at the end of every simulated week.

The outcome is almost always dramatically better. Teams regularly complete the house in twenty minutes or less, the full scope in two-thirds of the time that traditional management produced half the scope. More importantly, the participants feel the difference. The collaboration is real. The handoffs are anticipated rather than discovered. Problems surface early enough to be solved rather than late enough to cause damage. And the plan because everyone helped build it is treated as a shared commitment rather than an external constraint.

Here are the most important things simulation reveals that lecture cannot:

The waste of a traditional system is not a description; it is an experience that produces genuine frustration and recognition.
The stability of a Lean system is not a promise; it is a felt contrast that the participant carries forward into their actual work.
Collaborative planning produces a different kind of commitment than top-down planning, and that difference is visible in behavior.
Percent plan complete is not just a metric, it is a learning mechanism, and the debrief after each missed commitment is where the improvement happens.
The PDCA cycle is not a framework to memorize, it is a rhythm that becomes natural through practice.

Why This Matters for Lean Adoption

The challenge of Lean construction adoption is not primarily that the tools are unknown. It is that knowing about the tools and being able to run them reliably in real project conditions are different skills, developed through different kinds of learning. Reading about pull planning produces familiarity. Running a pull planning simulation in which you have experienced the failure mode it corrects produces understanding that changes behavior.

Simulation-based learning accelerates the translation from theory to practice because it compresses the full experience, the failure, the reflection, the collaborative redesign, the improved execution, and the measurable result into a time frame short enough to experience in a training context. The participants leave with more than knowledge. They leave with a reference experience they can return to when they encounter resistance or confusion in real implementation.

At Elevate Construction and LeanTakt, the Takt simulation uses the same principle: a 3D printed building model, real zone-by-zone production planning, real Takt time calculations, and the felt experience of flow versus chaos. The simulation makes the concept of a train of trades moving through zones more than an analogy, it makes it something you have done with your hands and felt in real time. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

Experience beats explanation. Simulation bridges the gap between them. If you have a team that needs to understand the Last Planner System, do not just explain it, let them live the difference.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is simulation more effective than lecture for teaching the Last Planner System?

Because simulation creates a felt experience of both the traditional planning failure and the Lean planning improvement. The contrast lived rather than described produces the behavioral understanding that lecture alone cannot create.

What happens in Round One of the Pull Planning Lean Game?

Participants build a house using a traditional Gantt-based planning system and experience the seven wastes firsthand: overproduction, waiting, rework, motion waste, transportation waste, and the cascade of problems that occur when collaboration is absent and the plan fails early.

What is the purpose of stopping the simulation every five minutes in Round Two?

Each five-minute stop represents one week and triggers a weekly meeting reviewing what was committed, calculating percent plan complete, identifying root causes of misses, and running a PDCA cycle. It teaches the improvement rhythm that the Last Planner System depends on.

Why does collaborative pull planning produce better outcomes than top-down scheduling?

Because the people who built the plan commit to it differently than the people who received it. Ownership of the plan produces accountability that compliance never does and the handoffs are anticipated rather than discovered because everyone understands the sequence they helped create.

Can this simulation approach be adapted for Takt planning as well?

Yes. The Takt simulation uses a 3D printed building model and real zone-by-zone production planning to create the same kind of experiential learning, the felt difference between chaotic batch scheduling and Takt flow that the LPS game creates for Last Planner principles.

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

Applying Lean Thinking to Improve Safety Performance in Construction

Posted on April 14, 2026April 14, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 9 min

Lean Design and Construction Safety: How Prevention Through Design Changes the Risk Equation

Construction remains one of the most hazardous industries in the United States. Workers who account for roughly five percent of the total workforce absorb approximately twenty percent of all occupational fatal and non-fatal injuries. In 2014 alone, 874 fatal work-related injuries were reported in the construction industry. These numbers are not random. They are patterned. And one of the clearest patterns in the research is that a significant portion of construction fatalities 42 percent of 224 fatalities studied between 1990 and 2003 can be traced back to decisions made during design, before a single worker set foot on site.

That finding changes the conversation about construction safety fundamentally. If nearly half of fatalities are connected to decisions made in the design phase, then safety management that focuses only on the field is addressing the symptom while leaving the cause untouched. The most effective intervention is upstream. And Lean design practices, it turns out, are well-positioned to enable exactly that intervention.

Waste and Injury Are Connected

The alignment between Lean thinking and safety management is not coincidental. Both are oriented toward identifying and eliminating conditions that produce bad outcomes before those conditions cause harm. Lean asks: where is the waste in this process, and how do we design it out? Safety management asks: where are the hazards in this environment, and how do we eliminate them before they injure someone?

The hierarchy of controls, a widely used framework in occupational safety establishes that eliminating a hazard at the source is the most effective control measure available. Engineering controls that reduce or isolate exposure come next. Administrative controls that change the way work is done follow. Personal protective equipment is the last line of defense. The further down the hierarchy, the more a safety measure depends on human behavior being consistently correct which, under real field conditions with variable crew experience, fatigue, and time pressure, is an unreliable foundation.

Eliminating the hazard entirely is the gold standard. And eliminating a hazard often means changing the design of the facility rather than changing the behavior of the worker who would otherwise face the hazard. This is Prevention through Design, the concept of protecting construction workers by addressing their safety during the design process, before construction begins.

Where Lean Design Practices Support Prevention Through Design

Several Lean design practices align directly with the PtD concept in ways that make early safety hazard elimination more practical and more systematic.

Set-based design generates different design alternatives upfront and defers narrowing to a single solution until the last responsible moment when the most information is available to make the right choice. In a safety context, this means that instead of committing early to one design approach and then discovering its safety implications when it is expensive to change, the team maintains a set of alternatives that includes options specifically developed to eliminate construction and maintenance hazards. The parapet versus guardrail example is a direct illustration: if the set of alternatives had been narrowed early to temporary engineering controls, the option to eliminate the hazard through a permanent design modification might never have been fully evaluated.

Cross-functional teams bring different perspectives into the design process simultaneously rather than in sequence. When specialty contractors, safety professionals, facilities managers, and maintenance personnel contribute to design decisions alongside architects and engineers, the knowledge required to see construction and maintenance hazards clearly is in the room when the decisions are being made. Without that cross-functional involvement, design teams may not recognize the hazards that workers will face during construction and throughout the building’s maintenance lifecycle. The hazard does not appear until someone is on the roof with fall protection that was specified by someone who never worked on a roof.

Early involvement of specialty contractors is one of the most direct mechanisms for surfacing constructability and safety issues while the design is still flexible. A structural steel contractor who participates in the design phase can identify connection details that create fall hazard exposure during erection and propose modifications that eliminate the hazard before it is built into the documents. That conversation, happening at the design phase, costs a fraction of what a field modification costs and the safety outcome is incomparably better.

Choosing by Advantages: Making Safety Decisions Transparently

When multiple design alternatives have been developed, the team faces the challenge of selecting one. This is where Choosing by Advantages, a collaborative, transparent decision-making system that evaluates options based on the importance of their advantages over each other rather than on cost alone provides a structured framework for making safety-integrated design decisions.

The rooftop fall protection case study from a medical facilities campus in Portland, Oregon illustrates this directly. Three alternatives were evaluated: a temporary guardrail system meeting code requirement, a permanent roof anchor system providing tie-off points, and a design modification incorporating a tall parapet around the entire rooftop perimeter. The CBA process evaluated each alternative based on the importance of its advantages to construction stakeholders — not just cost, not just code compliance, but value generated across the full lifecycle of the facility.

The parapet solution was selected because its primary advantage eliminating the risk of falling over the sides of the roof during both construction and maintenance operations, permanently and without ongoing behavioral compliance requirements was evaluated as the most important advantage available. No temporary system. No tie-off dependency. No behavioral compliance condition. The hazard is eliminated by the design itself, for every worker who will ever access that roof for the life of the building.

That outcome, a safer building, a safer construction site, and a safer maintenance environment is the product of a design process that included the right stakeholders, maintained the right set of alternatives, and made the final decision through a transparent framework that valued long-term safety benefits appropriately.

Here are the signals that a project is incorporating Prevention through Design principles effectively:

Specialty contractors and safety professionals are involved in design decisions, not just construction execution.
Design alternatives are evaluated for their safety implications during construction and throughout the building’s maintenance lifecycle.
Hazard elimination is explicitly considered alongside cost and aesthetic alternatives, not treated as secondary.
Decisions between design alternatives are made through a transparent, collaborative process that documents the reasoning.
The final design reflects permanent hazard elimination wherever possible rather than relying on personal protective equipment as the primary control.

Why This Belongs in Every Lean Conversation

Lean is fundamentally about respect for people and resources. The worker who faces a preventable fall hazard because a design decision was made without safety input is in exactly the same position as the trade partner whose production system was not designed to support their flow: the system failed them. The hazard was built into the environment by decisions made before they arrived. And the most respectful thing a design and construction team can do for the people who will build and maintain the facility is to eliminate those hazards before the workers ever encounter them.

Improving workplace safety is waste reduction and value generation in the fullest sense. Workplace accidents impose costs, on schedules, on quality, on the project budget, on the workers and families affected, and on the organizations responsible. Eliminating the conditions that produce accidents through intentional design is Lean thinking applied to the most important outcome of all: the health and lives of the people doing the work.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow. Lean design is not separate from safety management. It is one of the most powerful tools safety management has.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Prevention through Design and how does it connect to Lean?

Prevention through Design is the practice of protecting construction and maintenance workers by addressing safety hazards during the design process before construction begins. It connects to Lean because both prioritize eliminating problems at their source rather than managing them after they occur.

Why does the hierarchy of controls favor design-based hazard elimination over personal protective equipment?

Because PPE depends on human behavior being consistently correct under variable field conditions, which is inherently unreliable. Design-based elimination removes the hazard entirely, regardless of worker behavior or experience level.

What is Choosing by Advantages and how is it used for safety decisions?

CBA is a collaborative decision-making system that evaluates alternatives based on the importance of their advantages to stakeholders rather than on cost alone. In safety contexts, it ensures that long-term hazard elimination benefits are evaluated appropriately against shorter-term cost considerations.

Why does early specialty contractor involvement improve construction site safety?

Because specialty contractors can identify construction sequence hazards that architects and engineers may not recognize, and can propose design modifications that eliminate those hazards while the design is still flexible enough to change.

How does set-based design support safety integration in the design process?

By maintaining multiple design alternatives until the last responsible moment, set-based design ensures that options specifically developed to eliminate construction and maintenance hazards remain on the table long enough for their safety advantages to be fully evaluated before a final design decision is made.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

The Path to Mastery

Posted on April 14, 2026April 14, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 9 min

They All Were Trainers: The Pattern Behind Every Master You Have Ever Admired

Think about the people in any field who have reached genuine mastery. The ones whose work you study, whose books you read, whose careers you hold up as the standard. Look closely at the pattern and you will find the same thing almost every time. They were trainers. Not just practitioners trainers. People who took what they had learned and implemented, and then taught it to others, and then went back to learning and implementing again.

Jocko Willink and the leadership work he did in Ramadi he was a trainer. Mark Divine, building the mental toughness systems that have developed thousands of operators trainer. Chuck Norris, who spent decades training martial artists alongside his own continued practice trainer. Tony Robbins trainer. General Patton, who developed his approach to armored warfare through the Desert Training Center before commanding in the field trainer. The pattern is consistent enough that it becomes a principle rather than a coincidence.

The Pattern Is Not Coincidence

It would be easy to say that these people taught because they were already great. But that gets the sequence backwards. The teaching is part of what made them great. Training others forced a clarity about the work that self-practice alone cannot produce. When you have to explain something to someone who does not yet understand it, you discover every assumption you had not examined, every gap in your own understanding that competent performance had allowed you to avoid, and every place where what you thought you knew does not hold up under scrutiny.

Teaching is the pressure that reveals whether understanding is genuine or just practiced. It is one of the most reliable diagnostics of mastery that exists.

Learn, Implement, Teach Not in Any Other Order

The sequence matters. It is not learn, learn, teach. It is not learn, learn, learn until you feel ready to teach. The sequence that produces mastery is learn, implement, teach and then repeat all three. Not as three separate phases but as an interlocking cycle where each one feeds the others.

Learning without implementation produces theory. It gives the learner a vocabulary and a framework, but without the friction of real application those frameworks are not tested against reality. The practitioner who has never implemented what they teach cannot bring the human dimension of the work into the teaching the moments where the theory collides with the actual conditions of a project, a crew, a supply chain problem, or a leadership failure. That collision is where the most important learning happens. Without it, the teaching is incomplete.

Implementation without teaching produces competence that stays contained. The practitioner gets better and better at what they do, but the learning does not spread. The insights gained through doing accumulate privately and then retire or depart with the person when they move on. The organization does not get smarter. The next practitioner starts close to the same place the previous one did.

Teaching without ongoing learning and implementation produces something worse the practitioner who has stopped growing but continues to teach from what was learned years ago as if the field has not advanced. There is a version of this in construction that is recognizable: the Takt planning teacher who has never implemented Takt on an actual project, or the superintendent course instructor who has never been a superintendent. Knowledge without implementation is not power. Knowledge and action together are power.

What Teaching Actually Develops

When you explain something you understand to someone who does not yet understand it, several things happen that do not happen in solo practice.

You encounter questions you had not considered. A learner’s question about why something works the way it does a question that would not have occurred to you because you have been doing it long enough that it feels obvious forces you to articulate an answer you have never had to articulate before. Sometimes the answer reveals something you did not fully understand. Sometimes it reveals a better explanation that improves your own mental model. Either way, the question moved you forward.

You see the difficulty from the outside. When you watch someone implement what you have taught them and struggle with the specific places where the theory does not immediately translate into practice, you learn something about the gap between explanation and application. That information makes your teaching better. It also reveals assumptions in your own practice that you had never examined.

You create something that outlasts you. Gino Wickman stated that you are not truly a leader until a leader you have trained has trained another leader. That chain is the measure of genuine leadership impact not the direct reports you developed, but whether those direct reports developed the next generation. If you trained an assistant superintendent who became a project superintendent, and that project superintendent is now training the next assistant superintendent who will become a project superintendent, the chain extends beyond you. That is mastery that compounds.

Here are the signals that someone is genuinely on the learn-implement-teach cycle rather than just one of the three:

They can describe the specific places where the theoretical framework did not match their field experience and explain how they adapted
They regularly host training sessions, boot camps, or structured learning moments with their team
When a mentee struggles with something they once struggled with, they recognize it and have a field-tested answer
Their teaching gets better over time because implementation keeps revealing new things to teach
They credit sources and experiences rather than presenting their expertise as self-generated

The Obligation at Every Level

Here is the implication that most leaders resist: if you are a project superintendent, a general superintendent, a project executive, or a project director, you have automatically signed up to be a trainer. Not occasionally. Continuously. Not delegated to HR or people development. Done by you, directly, through boot camps, field walks, shoulder-to-shoulder mentorship, and the daily practice of explaining what you are doing and why.

A project executive should know how to do every function in the project delivery office. A general superintendent should be able to run a total station, fill out a pre-task plan, execute a safety walk, as-built a gravity line, and build a production plan not because they will do those things daily at that career stage, but because you cannot effectively lead work you cannot do. And because the moment you stop being able to demonstrate, you stop being a credible trainer for the people who report to you.

None of this is “I don’t do computers” or “I don’t use technology.” Those phrases are learned ignorance presented as a personality trait. They are excuses that disconnect leaders from the tools their teams use daily and eliminate the credibility that comes from genuine mastery. The leader who cannot demonstrate has to depend on compliance. The leader who can demonstrate earns genuine respect.

Connecting to the Mission

At Elevate Construction, every boot camp, every YouTube shoot, every podcast, every free resource exists because the learn-implement-teach cycle is how the industry gets better. Not just individual practitioners the whole industry. When someone learns Takt planning in a simulation, goes back to their project and implements it, and then teaches their foremen and trade partners what they learned from that implementation, the knowledge compounds in a way that a lecture or a book alone cannot produce. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

The path to mastery runs through teaching. If you ever have the opportunity to be a trainer take it. If your role requires you to be a trainer own it. And if the people you have trained are now training others, you are doing the work that the pattern of every great practitioner confirms: this is what mastery actually looks like.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is teaching considered part of the path to mastery rather than a byproduct of it?

Because teaching forces a clarity about the work that self-practice alone cannot produce. Explaining something to someone who does not understand it reveals every assumption that competent performance had allowed you to avoid examining.

Why must implementation come before teaching in the learn-implement-teach cycle?

Because knowledge without implementation produces theory that has not been tested against real conditions. A teacher who has never implemented what they teach cannot bring the human dimension of the work into the teaching which is where the most important learning lives.

What does it mean that you are not a leader until a leader you have trained has trained another leader?

It means that genuine leadership impact is measured not by the direct reports you developed but by whether those direct reports developed the next generation. The chain that extends beyond you is the measure.

Why should senior leaders remain capable of doing every function their teams perform?

Because you cannot credibly train work you cannot demonstrate. Leaders who are detached from the technical reality of their teams’ daily work lose the credibility that comes from genuine mastery and must depend on compliance rather than respect.

Is “I don’t use technology” an acceptable position for a construction leader?

No. It is learned ignorance presented as a personality trait. Construction leaders at every level should be capable of using the tools their teams use daily both to train effectively and to maintain the credibility that genuine mastery requires.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

The Missing Piece! The Production Laws!

Posted on April 14, 2026April 14, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 13 min

Are You Disobeying the Production Laws?

You push more manpower onto the project. You push more materials into the area. You push information before it’s ready. You push variation on people changing their daily routines to start two days earlier affecting thirty-five different people. And every push makes the project slower, not faster. Duration extends. Coordination chaos multiplies. Crews stumble over each other. Productivity crashes. And you wonder why harder work creates worse results when the answer is you’re violating production laws that govern how work flows through systems. Nicholas Modig explains these laws in his book “This is Lean.” Hal Macomber and Adam Hoots teach them. They’re proven in Toyota manufacturing plants and German factories. They’re physics, not preferences. And when you obey them through Takt planning, projects accelerate with less cost, better work-life balance, and superior performance. When you violate them through CPM and push-based approaches, you fight laws you can’t win against.

Here’s what most teams miss. There are four production laws governing construction projects: Little’s Law, the Law of Variation, the Bottleneck Law, and Kingman’s Formula. CPM violates every single one. Takt planning obeys and encourages all of them. Little’s Law proves throughput time increases when work in progress increases or cycle time extends. CPM spreads work across the entire project simultaneously, maximizing work in progress and extending cycle time. Takt limits work in progress through small batch sizes enabling faster throughput. The Law of Variation shows variation is the enemy creating chaos and unpredictability. CPM creates variation through constantly changing critical paths that shift seventeen times as projections get adjusted. Takt creates rhythm, consistency, and continuity absorbing variation predictably instead of reactively. The Bottleneck Law proves systems move at the speed of their slowest process. CPM focuses on critical path, not bottlenecks. Takt makes bottlenecks visible through workflow, trade flow, and logistical flow enabling optimization. Kingman’s Formula requires realistic buffering for variation. CPM packages work assuming perfect conditions. Takt packages work with realistic buffers for variation and productivity dips.

The challenge is the entire industry has been saying “production” for decades without understanding what production means. When projects fall behind, everyone defaults to throwing more manpower and materials at problems. This is literally the worst thing you can do. It violates every production law simultaneously. But nobody teaches this. So teams keep pushing wondering why harder work creates worse results when the answer is they’re fighting physics governing how work flows. Companies in Illinois are cutting twenty percent off project schedules simply by following production laws through Takt planning instead of violating them through traditional approaches.

The Four Production Laws You Must Obey

These laws govern construction production. Violate them and your project slows. Obey them and your project accelerates:

Little’s Law: Throughput Time = Work in Progress × Cycle Time.
Smaller batches move faster than large batches.
Limit work in progress to reduce throughput time.
Don’t spread crews across entire project simultaneously.
Complete one zone before starting the next.
Finish as you go instead of coming back later.
Law of Variation: Variation is the enemy of predictability.
Every random plan change multiplies through the system creating chaos.
Absorbing owner changes without structure spreads disruption.
Reacting emotionally to pressure instead of systematically compounds problems.
Stable rhythm blocks variation waves protecting trades from unnecessary starts and stops.
Takt absorbs delays predictably instead of reactively maintaining stability.
Bottleneck Law: Systems move at the speed of their slowest process.
Every project has a bottleneck; relieving one reveals another.
Optimizing non-bottleneck resources doesn’t improve system performance.
Only optimizing the bottleneck increases throughput.
Pushing harder doesn’t help; bottlenecks respond to increased capacity, not pressure.
Takt makes bottlenecks visible in the train of trades enabling targeted optimization.
Kingman’s Formula: Waiting Time = Cycle Time × Utilization × Variation.
Crews need buffers for variation and productivity dips during onboarding.
Four-day Takt time doesn’t mean crews can fit four days of perfect-condition work.
Package work realistically accounting for capacity utilization and variation.
Unrealistic packaging creates constant system breakdowns and frustration.

Why CPM Violates Every Production Law

Picture how CPM operates. It spreads activities across the entire project timeline. Work happens everywhere simultaneously. The critical path identifies longest dependency chain. When the project falls behind, the critical path shifts. It changes seventeen times because it’s projection and guess, not based on consistency, continuity, and rhythm. This approach violates every production law.

CPM violates Little’s Law by maximizing work in progress. When you’re working everywhere simultaneously across the entire project, you’ve maximized the number of flow units in the process. Little’s Law proves this extends throughput time. Smaller batches would move faster. But CPM doesn’t batch work into zones completed sequentially. It spreads work across the entire project creating maximum work in progress and maximum cycle time.

CPM violates the Law of Variation by creating constantly changing critical paths. The projection shifts. Dependencies change. Activities move. This creates variation instead of absorbing it. Teams react to yesterday’s critical path instead of following stable rhythm. Foremen make field decisions reactively instead of planning systematically. The system becomes unpredictable exactly when stability would enable flow.

CPM violates the Bottleneck Law by focusing on critical path instead of bottlenecks. Critical path shows longest dependency chain. But that’s not the same as identifying bottlenecks constraining system capacity. You’re looking at random squirrels across the project instead of the actual constraints limiting throughput. Optimizing critical path activities doesn’t necessarily optimize bottlenecks. So the system still moves at bottleneck speed while you waste effort elsewhere.

CPM violates Kingman’s Formula by packaging work without realistic buffers. Activities show durations assuming perfect conditions. No buffer for variation. No allowance for productivity dips during crew onboarding. When reality introduces variation, the system breaks. Then teams push harder creating more variation compounding the problem. The packaging was unrealistic from the start.

This is why Jason says if you’re still defending CPM, please stop. You sound stupid. It’s really not ever going to work. You can do some of those things in CPM, but it takes twelve times as long. Meanwhile, teams using Takt beat you with shorter schedules, less cost, better employee treatment, better work-life balance, and superior performance.

How Takt Planning Obeys Production Laws

Takt planning works because it obeys production laws instead of violating them. It creates rhythm, consistency, and continuity. It makes bottlenecks visible. It limits work in progress. It packages work realistically. It absorbs variation predictably. This isn’t magic. It’s law. It’s eternal truth. It’s physics.

Takt obeys Little’s Law through small batch sizes. You divide the project into zones. Work moves through one zone at a time completing it fully before moving to the next. This limits work in progress dramatically. Little’s Law proves this reduces throughput time. Instead of spreading crews across the entire project, you concentrate them in sequential zones. Smaller batches. Faster movement. Shorter overall duration.

Takt obeys the Law of Variation by creating stable rhythm. The Takt time establishes consistent cycle. Trades move through zones in predictable sequence. When delays occur, they’re absorbed through planned buffers instead of reactive chaos. The system maintains rhythm instead of breaking into variation. This stability protects trades from unnecessary starts and stops enabling them to work productively instead of reacting constantly.

Takt obeys the Bottleneck Law by making bottlenecks visible. You can see workflow, trade flow, and logistical flow. You can see histograms with manpower and cost. You can see crew counts. You can analyze which trades are slowest, which processes take longest, which Takt areas have the most complex work. The bottlenecks become obvious. Then you optimize them. When you optimize one bottleneck, the next appears. You optimize that too. The system continuously improves instead of randomly pushing everywhere.

Takt obeys Kingman’s Formula by packaging work realistically. You identify work steps within each Takt wagon. You execute first-in-place runs identifying cycle time, capacity utilization, and variation. Then you package subsequent zones accounting for these realities. Crews see packages that match reality instead of fantasy. The system stays stable instead of constantly breaking because expectations were unrealistic.

What You Must Do to Follow Production Laws

Stop pushing. Everyone stop pushing. Superintendents, stop pushing manpower into areas. Stop pushing materials before they’re needed. Stop pushing information before it’s ready. Stop pushing variation on people. You need rhythm. You need consistency. You need continuity. You need to plan a schedule with flow and hold to that flow.

Here’s what following production laws requires:

Small batch sizes instead of working everywhere simultaneously.
Limit work in progress by completing zones sequentially.
Finish as you go instead of coming back later.
See and prevent roadblocks before they disrupt flow.
Create standards and consistency enabling predictability.
Optimize bottlenecks instead of pushing everywhere randomly.
Reduce queuing and waiting times through proper sequencing.
Package work realistically with buffers for variation.
Take more time preparing work and finishing it right.
Hold to flow instead of reacting to daily pressures.

Why This is the Most Important Information Jason’s Ever Shared

Jason calls this the single most important bit of information he’s ever shared. The most important thing we need to understand in construction right now. And he’s not exaggerating. For his entire career, he’s never heard anybody talk about or seen anybody talk about or had anybody get close to knowing how to pick up time on projects until he learned production laws. Everyone just says throw more manpower and materials at it. That is not the answer.

Jason has been using Takt planning for ten to fifteen years. It’s been working great. It shaped his mind creating phrases like “plan it first, build it right, finish as you go” and “hold start dates” and “hold the line.” He came up with those for himself without knowing production laws. Takt shapes you. It forces you to think correctly about production even if you don’t understand the underlying physics.

But now Jason understands why Takt works. And it’s not magic. It’s law. It’s eternal truth. It’s physics proven in manufacturing and validated by companies cutting twenty percent off schedules simply by following production laws. The industry needs full-scale shift right now into this. We cannot keep defending CPM. We have to follow production laws through Takt planning creating rhythm, consistency, and continuity instead of violating laws through push-based chaos.

The System Failed You

Let’s be clear. When teams don’t know production laws, it’s not entirely their fault. The system failed by teaching “production” without teaching what production means. Teams used the word for decades without understanding the physics governing how work flows. Nobody taught Little’s Law. Nobody explained the Law of Variation. Nobody showed the Bottleneck Law. Nobody demonstrated Kingman’s Formula. The system assumed people would figure it out. But they didn’t. So teams keep pushing manpower and materials wondering why it makes things worse when the answer is they’re fighting physics nobody taught them existed.

The system also failed by creating CPM as standard scheduling approach. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow. But CPM violates every production law. It maximizes work in progress. It creates variation through constantly changing critical paths. It focuses on dependencies instead of bottlenecks. It packages work without realistic buffers. Yet everyone uses it because the system taught this approach as standard when it was wrong from the start.

The system fails by not teaching that pushing is the enemy. When projects fall behind, everyone pushes. More manpower. More materials. Faster pace. Start earlier. Work in more areas. This violates every production law simultaneously. But nobody teaches that pushing extends duration instead of reducing it. So teams keep pushing wondering why harder work creates worse results when the answer is they’re fighting laws they can’t win against.

The Challenge

Here’s your assignment. Stop disobeying production laws. Start following them through Takt planning creating rhythm, consistency, and continuity.

Learn the four production laws. Little’s Law shows work in progress times cycle time equals throughput time. The Law of Variation shows variation is the enemy. The Bottleneck Law shows systems move at bottleneck speed. Kingman’s Formula requires realistic buffering. These are physics, not preferences.

Stop pushing. Stop pushing manpower into areas. Stop pushing materials before needed. Stop pushing information before ready. Stop pushing variation on people. You need rhythm, consistency, and continuity instead.

Use small batch sizes. Divide projects into zones. Complete one zone before starting the next. Limit work in progress. Little’s Law proves this reduces throughput time even though it feels slower because less apparent activity exists.

Make bottlenecks visible. Use Takt planning showing workflow, trade flow, and logistical flow. Identify which processes constrain system capacity. Optimize those. When you relieve one bottleneck, the next appears. Optimize that too.

Package work realistically. Account for variation. Account for productivity dips during onboarding. Don’t assume perfect conditions. Kingman’s Formula proves you need buffers. Package realistically. The system stays stable instead of constantly breaking.

Create rhythm and hold to it. Plan a schedule with flow. Protect that flow. Take time preparing work. Build it right. Finish as you go. This is how we make a difference in this industry. One hundred percent.

We now know what we have to do. This is probably the single most impactful information you will hear this year. Let’s find ways to implement it.

On we go.

FAQ

What are the four production laws?

Little’s Law (throughput time = work in progress × cycle time), Law of Variation (variation is the enemy creating chaos), Bottleneck Law (systems move at speed of slowest process), and Kingman’s Formula (waiting time = cycle time × utilization × variation requiring realistic buffers). These are physics governing how work flows through systems.

Why does CPM violate production laws?

CPM maximizes work in progress violating Little’s Law. Creates variation through constantly changing critical paths violating Law of Variation. Focuses on dependencies instead of bottlenecks violating Bottleneck Law. Packages work without realistic buffers violating Kingman’s Formula. It violates every production law simultaneously.

How does Takt planning obey production laws?

Limits work in progress through small batch zones obeying Little’s Law. Creates stable rhythm absorbing variation predictably obeying Law of Variation. Makes bottlenecks visible enabling optimization obeying Bottleneck Law. Packages work realistically with buffers obeying Kingman’s Formula. It follows physics instead of fighting it.

Why does pushing make projects slower?

Pushing manpower increases work in progress extending cycle time per Little’s Law. Pushing creates variation destroying predictability per Law of Variation. Pushing doesn’t address bottlenecks per Bottleneck Law. Pushing assumes perfect conditions without buffers violating Kingman’s Formula. It violates every production law simultaneously extending duration despite increased effort.

How are companies cutting 20% off schedules?

By following production laws through Takt planning. Limiting work in progress. Creating stable rhythm. Making bottlenecks visible and optimizing them. Packaging work realistically with buffers. Not working harder but working with physics instead of fighting it. Better results with less cost and better work-life balance.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

Making Mistakes

Posted on April 14, 2026April 14, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 13 min

Are You Making Mistakes? Are You Okay with That?

You need to be perfect now. No mistakes allowed. Every error proves incompetence. Every failure reveals inadequacy. So you hide your struggles. You don’t ask for help. You deal with problems alone hoping nobody discovers your weaknesses. And this mindset destroys you. It makes you less human. It prevents growth. It blocks transparency. It eliminates the courage to take risks, lead boldly, and fulfill your potential. Meanwhile, the belief that perfection is required right now keeps you stuck in patterns preventing the very excellence you’re pursuing. Because striving for perfection is beautiful. Striving for excellence is beautiful. Striving for outstanding is beautiful. But thinking we need to be perfect now puts us in a bad mindset taking us in a bad direction. It makes us hide who we really are. It prevents us from reaching out for help when we need it most.

Here’s what most people miss. Everyone makes mistakes. The question isn’t whether you’ll make them. The question is whether you’re okay with that reality. Whether you’ll be transparent when mistakes happen. Whether you’ll widen your circle getting help instead of hiding. Whether you’ll confess, repent, rally your team, and get through it with courage. Or whether you’ll hide your feelings, keep silent, and attempt to deal with it alone. Jason made massive mistakes throughout his career. He mislocated a two-million-dollar guard station requiring demolition and rebuild. He helped put his wife’s father’s company out of business through unfair treatment. He almost got fired as lead field engineer for having fixed mindset offending people and getting layout wrong all over the building. He got suspended for not speaking up and defending someone who needed defending. He supervised installation of a duct bank right where a sewer line should go costing $350,000. He flooded a basement with four inches of water. And every mistake taught him that transparency works better than hiding. The more open he was, the less painful mistakes became as teams rallied helping him through them.

The challenge is most people have fixed mindsets instead of growth mindsets. Fixed mindset says mistakes prove inadequacy. Growth mindset says mistakes create learning opportunities. Fixed mindset hides problems. Growth mindset exposes them systematically looking for, finding, elevating, and removing roadblocks creating flow. Fixed mindset isolates. Growth mindset widens circles rallying teams. And the transformation from fixed to growth mindset changes everything. Jason went from almost getting fired to training throughout the United States within six months. From being demoted with people not wanting to work with him to being asked to teach at 24 or 25 years old. The change came from reducing pride, increasing humility, learning from lessons of history through the Field Engineering Methods Manual, and implementing everything he learned. That’s the power of accepting mistakes and choosing growth over perfection.

Why Needing to Be Perfect Now Hurts You

Picture the person who needs to be perfect now. They hide their struggles. When they make mistakes, they cover them up hoping nobody notices. They don’t ask for help because asking reveals they don’t know everything. They deal with problems alone because admitting challenges proves inadequacy. They present a facade of competence while internally drowning in issues they can’t solve alone.

This approach destroys people. It makes them less human. Humans are designed to work together, not alone. COVID-19 showed us that isolation destroys wellbeing. Yet the perfection mindset creates voluntary isolation preventing the very help that would enable success. You won’t take risks because risks might create visible failures. You won’t lead boldly because bold leadership exposes you to criticism. You won’t fulfill the measure of your creation because attempting something remarkable risks remarkable failure.

The perfection mindset also prevents systematic improvement. If you can’t admit mistakes exist, you can’t systematically find, elevate, and remove roadblocks. You can’t create flow because creating flow requires exposing problems blocking it. The belief that you should be perfect now prevents the very growth creating excellence later.

Striving for perfection is beautiful. That’s different from needing to be perfect now. Striving means moving toward excellence acknowledging you’re not there yet. Needing to be perfect now means pretending you’ve already arrived creating pressure to hide the gap between current reality and claimed perfection. That gap destroys people.

The Science of Momentum and Growth Mindset

Tony Robbins teaches the science of momentum explaining why most people fail to achieve their goals. They never take the first steps. Here’s the proven model for creating momentum:

Put yourself in peak state through performance, physiology, focus, and language.
Find your passion: what fuels your drive, what you love, what you hate, what you really want.
Commit, decide, and resolve – that’s when your power is unleashed.
Take immediate, intelligent, and massive action with a proven plan.
Reflect on your goal, see if it’s working, adjust and take massive action again.
Keep going with massive action until you find lasting happiness.

The challenge is we often lack leverage. Until we’re told we’re dying of cancer, we don’t quit smoking. Until our spouse threatens to leave, we don’t improve our marriage. We need leverage. Every time we start doing something wrong, we must break that pattern and reframe. Associate pain with what you want to stop. Connect pleasure with what you want to do. Then enter the momentum cycle.

Another key concept: reduce your friction and increase your addiction with things you want to start. If you want to exercise but find it too hard, reduce friction by getting equipment in your bedroom instead of driving to the gym. Increase addiction by watching your favorite show only while exercising. Connect the habit you’re building with things that release hormones and chemicals reinforcing that habit. Reduce friction. Increase addiction. Get leverage against bad habits. Break patterns. Reframe. Associate pain with what you want to stop. Associate pleasure with what you want to start.

Jason’s Major Mistakes and What They Taught

Jason shares stories proving he’s okay with making mistakes because transparency works better than hiding:

Mislocated two-million-dollar guard station requiring demolition and rebuild.
Helped put his wife’s father’s company out of business through unfair treatment and documentation.
Almost got fired as lead field engineer for fixed mindset, offending people, getting layout wrong everywhere.
Got suspended for not speaking up and defending someone who needed defending.
Supervised installation of duct bank in the middle of where sewer line should go (cost $350,000 from contingency).
Flooded basement with four inches of water requiring midnight response and restoration companies.

Every mistake taught lessons. The guard station taught the importance of systems preventing errors. His wife’s father’s company taught him to take care of trade partners instead of unfairly breaking them. Almost getting fired transformed him from fixed to growth mindset through reading scriptures and the Field Engineering Methods Manual. Getting suspended made him sensitive and appropriate with social equality and opportunity. The duct bank taught him to check coordination thoroughly. Flooding the basement taught him that transparency and openness with the owner made problems less painful.

The pattern Jason noticed: the more transparent and open he was about mistakes, the less painful they became. The more he widened his circle getting help, the more teams rallied helping him through problems. The more he confessed and addressed issues directly, the more people respected him. Hiding creates isolation and pain. Transparency creates support and solutions.

Fixed Mindset to Growth Mindset Transformation

Jason was a lead field engineer with fixed mindset. He was offending people. Getting layout wrong all over the building. Not listening. Not doing a good job. People didn’t want to work with him. He was stubborn. So siloed that management had to remove the door to his office. He was about to get fired.

Then two books entered his life: the scriptures from a religious standpoint and the Field Engineering Methods Manual. That began his journey of attempting to read a book a week. That changed his entire life turning him into a growth mindset person. He started being more open. More humble. More willing to learn.

What helped him? A reduction in pride. A desire to be more humble and open. That’s what he got from the scriptures. From the Field Engineering Methods Manual, he learned we don’t belong recreating the wheel. A lot of this knowledge already exists. We need to learn from lessons of history.

Jason started implementing everything from religious texts and the field engineering manual. Everything changed within a couple months. He turned to growth mindset. He started winning so much they asked him to start training throughout the United States at 24 or 25 years old. How often do we have a 25-year-old asked to teach concepts throughout the United States for a company? It doesn’t happen very often. That was the change from fixed to growth mindset in six months.

Why We Succeed as Teams, Not Individuals

General Patton said something Jason loves despite rough language. All this individuality stuff is garbage. The people who say you deal with problems by yourself or you’re an individual or you can handle this on your own don’t understand reality. Humans aren’t designed to do things by themselves. COVID-19 showed us that. We are not designed to do things alone.

You’ve got to become really good at understanding you’re going to make mistakes. You’ve got to become okay with that and realize you’re human. If not, you won’t take risks. You won’t fulfill the measure of your creation. You won’t be out there leading. You won’t have the confidence you need. And you won’t be able to respond well when mistakes happen.

The other consequence: you won’t start looking for, finding, elevating, and removing roadblocks and mistakes and problems as a systematic approach to creating flow. If you can’t admit mistakes exist, you can’t systematically fix them. If you need to be perfect now, you can’t expose problems. If you can’t expose problems, you can’t create flow. The entire system depends on accepting that mistakes happen and addressing them transparently as a team.

When mistakes happen, it’s a decision right then. Be transparent. Widen your circle. Tell everybody who needs to be told. Confess. Repent, whatever the situation requires. If you’re struggling in darkness, get help. If you’re dealing with challenges, speak up. Rally as a team. Get through it with courage. When you do that, people will respect you more than if you attempted to hide it or hid your feelings or kept silent or tried dealing with it alone.

The System Failed You

Let’s be clear. When people think they need to be perfect now, it’s not entirely their fault. The system failed by teaching that mistakes prove inadequacy instead of teaching that mistakes create learning opportunities. Nobody showed that transparency works better than hiding. Nobody explained that the more open you are about mistakes, the less painful they become as teams rally helping you through them. Nobody demonstrated that growth mindset transforms careers while fixed mindset destroys them. The system created perfection expectations preventing the very growth creating excellence.

The system also failed by not teaching that humans are designed to work together, not alone. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow. But cultural messages say “be an individual,” “handle it yourself,” “don’t ask for help.” This isolates people exactly when team support would enable success. The system taught self-sufficiency as virtue when actually humans thrive through collaboration and struggle through isolation.

The system fails by not teaching the science of momentum. Most people fail to achieve their goals because they never take first steps. Peak state, passion, commitment, massive action, reflection, and adjustment create momentum. Reducing friction and increasing addiction with desired habits enables change. Getting leverage, breaking patterns, and reframing associations drives transformation. But the system doesn’t teach this. So people stay stuck wondering why they can’t change when the answer is they don’t know the proven model for creating momentum.

The Challenge

Here’s your assignment. Accept that you’re going to make mistakes. Get okay with that reality. Realize you’re human.

Shift from fixed to growth mindset. Fixed mindset says mistakes prove inadequacy. Growth mindset says mistakes create learning opportunities. Fixed mindset hides problems. Growth mindset exposes them systematically.

Be transparent when mistakes happen. Widen your circle. Tell everybody who needs to be told. Confess. Get help. Rally as a team. Get through it with courage. People will respect you more for transparency than for hiding.

Use the science of momentum. Put yourself in peak state. Find your passion. Commit and decide. Take immediate, intelligent, and massive action. Reflect and adjust. Keep going.

Reduce friction and increase addiction with habits you want to build. Make them easier to start. Connect them with things you love. Get leverage against bad habits. Break patterns. Reframe associations.

Systematically look for, find, elevate, and remove roadblocks and mistakes as approach to creating flow. You can’t improve what you won’t acknowledge. Accept mistakes exist. Address them transparently. Create flow through honest problem-solving.

Take risks. Lead boldly. Fulfill the measure of your creation. You won’t do this if you need to be perfect now. But you will if you accept mistakes happen and choose growth over perfection.

Remember you succeed as a team, not as individual. Humans aren’t designed to handle everything alone. Widen your circle. Get help. Rally together. That’s how you win.

On we go.

FAQ

Why is needing to be perfect now harmful?

It makes you hide who you really are, prevents asking for help, and makes you less human. You won’t take risks or lead boldly because mistakes might expose inadequacy. It blocks the very growth creating excellence. Striving for perfection is beautiful, but needing to be perfect now destroys people.

What’s the difference between fixed and growth mindset?

Fixed mindset says mistakes prove inadequacy, so hide them. Growth mindset says mistakes create learning opportunities, so expose them. Jason went from almost getting fired with fixed mindset to training throughout the United States at 25 with growth mindset in six months through reducing pride and increasing humility.

How do you create momentum?

Put yourself in peak state through performance, physiology, focus, and language. Find your passion. Commit, decide, and resolve. Take immediate, intelligent, and massive action. Reflect, adjust, and keep going with massive action. Reduce friction and increase addiction with habits you’re building.

Why does transparency about mistakes work better than hiding?

The more transparent and open Jason was about mistakes, the less painful they became. Teams rallied helping him through problems when he widened his circle. People respected him more for confessing and addressing issues directly than for hiding. Transparency creates support and solutions; hiding creates isolation and pain.

What should you do when mistakes happen?

Be transparent immediately. Widen your circle. Tell everybody who needs to be told. Confess. Get help. Rally as a team. Get through it with courage. Systematically look for, find, elevate, and remove roadblocks. You can’t improve what you won’t acknowledge. Accept mistakes exist and address them honestly.

Word Count: 1,996 words

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

Being Curious, Feat Joe Donarumo

Posted on April 14, 2026April 14, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 12 min

Are You Teaching People to Be Curious About Lean?

You overwhelm people with complete lean systems. Pull planning. Last Planner. Daily huddles. Percent plan complete. Visual management. 5S. Standard work. Continuous improvement. All at once. Presented as comprehensive methodology requiring total commitment. And people shut down. They feel intimidated. They see massive change requiring enormous effort. They resist because you’re asking them to abandon thirty years of experience for something unfamiliar and complex. Meanwhile, they’re working eighty-hour weeks dragging projects barely across the finish line at the expense of families, health, and quality of life. They know something’s wrong. But your approach asking them to embrace complete systems makes lean feel like additional burden instead of solution. And they walk away unconvinced because you tried teaching complete methodology when you should have created curiosity about small improvements solving immediate pain.

Here’s what most lean advocates miss. People don’t need complete systems immediately. They need curiosity about whether better approaches exist. Joe Donnarummo from Linbeck Group encounters skeptical thirty-year superintendents saying “Why should I change? I’ve been with my firm thirty years. Never missed a CO. Made lots of money. Clients ask for me by name. Nothing’s wrong with how I run work.” Joe doesn’t argue. He shifts spotlight from their experience to industry’s current state. The industry today isn’t the same as thirty years ago. Tools that worked then don’t work for today’s challenges. And he asks simple question: “Aren’t you tired of working eighty hours a week? Aren’t you tired of push-pulling-dragging projects barely across the finish line at the expense of family, health, quality of life? There’s a better way. I’m not saying lean’s a silver bullet. But start with one small thing. See if it creates value. If it does, come back and we’ll talk more.”

The challenge is most lean advocates focus on teaching complete systems instead of creating curiosity about specific improvements. They present comprehensive methodology overwhelming people with complexity. But curiosity starts small. Fix something that bugs you. Let the job speak to you. Look for waste. Find pinch points. Try one thing creating value. Then try another. Build incrementally instead of demanding total transformation immediately. Success isn’t just finishing projects on time and budget. It’s finishing well—safely, with quality, team health intact, careers advanced, families preserved, and owners becoming raving fans. Create curiosity about that vision. Then provide small starting points enabling people to experience value instead of drowning in comprehensive systems they can’t implement.

Why Current State Creates Curiosity

Joe Donnarummo’s approach works because it focuses on pain people already feel. Skeptical superintendents resist when you tell them their methods are wrong. But they engage when you acknowledge what they’re experiencing:

Working eighty-hour weeks destroying health and family relationships.
Push-pulling-dragging projects barely across finish lines.
Achieving schedule and budget but at terrible personal cost.
Sacrificing quality of life for project completion.
Feeling exhausted despite decades of experience.
Wondering if there’s better way but not knowing where to start.
Resisting change because additional complexity feels overwhelming.
Knowing something’s wrong but seeing no clear path to improvement.

The Industry Changed—Old Tools Don’t Work Anymore

The construction industry thirty years ago was different. Tools in superintendents’ toolboxes then were sufficient for challenges they faced. But today’s industry isn’t the same. Complexity increased. Owner expectations escalated. Technology transformed coordination requirements. Collaboration became essential. Culture and soft skills matter now in ways they didn’t before. And superintendents using thirty-year-old tools for today’s challenges struggle because the tools don’t match the problems.

This isn’t about disrespecting experience. It’s about recognizing context changed. A superintendent who succeeded thirty years ago using certain approaches might struggle today not because they’re incompetent but because the industry evolved requiring different capabilities. The lean tools and processes address today’s challenges in ways traditional approaches don’t. But presenting this as “your way is wrong, my way is right” creates resistance. Presenting it as “the industry changed, let’s explore whether different tools help you succeed in new context” creates curiosity.

Joe never tells skeptical superintendents they’re doing it wrong. He asks if they’re tired of working eighty hours a week at the expense of family and health. Most are. That acknowledgment creates opening. Then he offers: there’s better way. Not claiming it’s easy. Not promising silver bullets. Just suggesting one small experiment seeing if it creates value. If it does, explore more. If it doesn’t, no harm trying. This low-pressure approach invites curiosity instead of demanding compliance.

Start Small: Fix Something That Bugs You

Paul Akers teaches this perfectly. Fix something small that bugs you. Don’t try transforming complete systems immediately. Just look around. What’s bugging you? What creates frustration daily? What wastes time, energy, or resources? Pick one thing. Fix it. See if it creates value. Then pick another. This incremental approach builds momentum through small wins instead of overwhelming people with comprehensive transformation.

For example: Information arrives late to the field creating delays. Instead of implementing complete visual management system, start with daily huddles. Fifteen minutes. Stand-up meeting. What’s happening today? What do you need? What’s blocking you? That’s it. See if communication improves. If it does, people experience value. They become curious about what else might work. Then you can introduce next small improvement. But if you start by demanding complete Last Planner System implementation, people feel overwhelmed and resist.

Or: Materials arrive wrong creating rework. Instead of redesigning complete procurement system, implement just-in-time delivery for one trade package. Get materials arriving exactly when needed in exactly right quantities. See if it reduces waste. If it does, expand to another package. Small wins create believers. Comprehensive system changes create skeptics. Start small. Build from there.

What “Finishing Well” Actually Means

Traditional project success measures are insufficient. Did you finish on time? On budget? Make profit? Owner happy? These matter. But they’re incomplete. Joe and Jason both advocate broader definition of success:

On time. Project completed per schedule commitments.
On budget. Financial targets met with healthy profit.
Safely. No injuries, near-misses minimized, culture of safety maintained.
Quality. Work meets or exceeds standards, minimal defects, pride in craftsmanship.
Team health. People aren’t burned out, working reasonable hours, families preserved.
Career advancement. Foremen and team members grew capabilities, advanced professionally.
Raving fans. Owner so delighted they request your team for next project.

If you finished on time and budget but destroyed your team’s health, sacrificed families, and barely dragged project across finish line, you didn’t succeed. You survived. Success means finishing well—achieving all measures simultaneously. This broader definition creates curiosity because most people have finished projects while sacrificing some of these measures. They want to know if achieving all of them is actually possible. When you show them it is through small improvements creating value, curiosity grows.

How to Create Curiosity Instead of Overwhelm

Stop presenting complete lean systems. Start creating curiosity about specific improvements:

Ask questions revealing current state pain people already feel.
Acknowledge their experience while noting industry changed requiring different tools.
Share your own struggles instead of positioning yourself as expert with all answers.
Offer one small starting point instead of comprehensive transformation.
Invite experimentation with low commitment: “Try this one thing, see if it helps.”
Focus on their problems, not your solutions or methodology.
Let them discover value through experience instead of convincing them through explanation.
Build from small wins instead of demanding complete system adoption.
Create safe environment where trying and failing is learning, not career risk.
Celebrate improvements regardless of size instead of waiting for perfect implementation.

Joe’s Challenge: Fix Something Small That Bugs You

Here’s Joe Donnarummo’s challenge to the industry. After listening to this, walk onto your jobsite. Let the job speak to you. Think about what’s happening. Find things bugging you. Find areas of waste. Then use resources from The Lean Builder blog exploring how to address them. If information arrives late creating delays, consider daily huddles. If you’re tired of weekly subcontractor meetings that don’t create value, try different approach. Start small. See if it works. If it creates value, do it again. Find another area bugging you. Fix that. Build incrementally.

Don’t try transforming complete systems immediately. Fix something small that bugs you. Then fix another. Then another. This approach builds culture and collaboration through incremental value creation instead of overwhelming people with comprehensive change they can’t implement. Every small improvement creates believers. Every small win generates curiosity about what else might work. Build from there.

Jason’s Challenge: Master Scheduling Creating Flow

Jason’s challenge focuses on master scheduling techniques serving collaborative processes. Takt planning creates three types of flow—workflow, trade flow, and logistical flow—visible to everyone. When foremen enter weekly work planning meetings or sprint planning sessions, they can commit because materials are there, RFIs are answered, and work is actually ready. The system planned far enough ahead that supply chains delivered. This prevents frustration where foremen say “I could commit to Wednesday but I don’t have materials.”

Consider whether your master scheduling techniques serve collaborative processes well. Pull planning creates collaboration. Last Planner creates commitment. But what upstream planning system ensures work is actually ready when trades commit? Takt planning with proper make-ready provides that foundation. The weekly work planning becomes more effective because the master schedule created flow enabling commitments instead of forcing hedges.

The System Failed You

Let’s be clear. When people feel overwhelmed by lean instead of curious about it, it’s not entirely their fault. The system failed by teaching lean as complete methodology requiring total commitment instead of teaching it as incremental improvement building from small wins. Nobody showed that curiosity starts with acknowledging current state pain and offering small experiments, not demanding comprehensive transformation. Nobody explained that skeptical superintendents resist being told they’re wrong but engage when asked if they’re tired of eighty-hour weeks destroying families. Nobody demonstrated that small wins create believers while complete systems create resistance.

The system also failed by not teaching that finishing well means more than schedule and budget. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow. Success includes team health, career advancement, family preservation, and owner delight—not just time and money. But teams never taught this keep measuring only traditional metrics wondering why people feel empty despite hitting targets when the problem is they’re sacrificing everything else to achieve narrow definition of success.

The system fails by overwhelming people with comprehensive lean systems instead of creating curiosity through small improvements. Paul Akers teaches fix something small that bugs you. But most lean advocates present complete methodologies. This overwhelms people who already work eighty hours weekly. They can’t add comprehensive system implementation on top of existing burden. But they can fix one thing bugging them. Then another. Then another. That approach builds capability through incremental wins instead of creating resistance through overwhelming demands.

The Challenge

Here’s your assignment. Stop overwhelming people with complete lean systems. Start creating curiosity about small improvements solving immediate pain.

Ask skeptical people about their current state. Aren’t you tired of working eighty hours a week? Aren’t you tired of dragging projects across finish lines at expense of family, health, quality of life? Don’t argue about methodology. Acknowledge their pain. Offer one small experiment.

Fix something small that bugs you. Walk your jobsite. Let the job speak to you. Find areas of waste. Pick one thing. Fix it. See if it creates value. Then do it again. Build incrementally instead of transforming comprehensively.

Expand your definition of success beyond time and budget. Include safety, quality, team health, career advancement, family preservation, and owner delight. Finishing well means achieving all these simultaneously, not sacrificing some to achieve others.

Consider whether your master scheduling techniques create flow enabling collaborative processes. When foremen commit in weekly work planning meetings, is work actually ready? Or are they hedging because materials aren’t there and RFIs aren’t answered? Plan far enough ahead that commitments become real instead of hopeful.

Create curiosity through small wins. Don’t demand comprehensive transformation. Invite experimentation. Let people discover value through experience. Build from there.

On we go.

FAQ

How do you create curiosity in skeptical superintendents?

Acknowledge their experience while noting the industry changed. Ask if they’re tired of working eighty hours weekly dragging projects across finish lines at expense of family and health. Don’t argue their methods are wrong. Offer one small experiment seeing if it creates value. Low-pressure invitation creates curiosity; demanding compliance creates resistance.

What does “finishing well” actually mean?

On time, on budget, safely, with quality, team health intact, careers advanced, families preserved, and owner becoming raving fan. Traditional measures focus only on time and budget. But if you achieved those by destroying team health and sacrificing families, you survived rather than succeeded. Finishing well means achieving all measures simultaneously.

Why start small instead of implementing complete lean systems?

Small improvements create believers through immediate value. Comprehensive systems overwhelm people already working eighty hours weekly. Fixing one thing that bugs you builds momentum through quick wins. Then fix another. Then another. Incremental approach builds capability. Comprehensive transformation creates resistance.

How do you “let the job speak to you”?

Walk your jobsite. Observe what’s happening. Notice what bugs you. Find areas of waste or pinch points creating frustration. Don’t impose solutions from books or training. Let problems reveal themselves through observation. Then experiment with small improvements addressing what you discovered.

Why does Joe Donnarummo focus on current state pain?

People resist being told their methods are wrong. But they engage when you acknowledge pain they already feel—eighty-hour weeks, destroyed families, exhausted health. Acknowledging current state creates opening. Then offering small experiment feels like invitation rather than criticism. This approach creates curiosity instead of resistance.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

The Production Laws, Feat. Hoots & Montero

Posted on April 14, 2026April 14, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 12 min

Can You Stop Fighting Production Laws You Can’t Win Against?

Your project is behind schedule. So you throw more manpower at it. Double the crews. Add overtime. Push workers harder. Work in more areas simultaneously. And the project gets worse. Duration extends. Productivity crashes. Coordination chaos multiplies. Costs explode. And you wonder why more effort created worse results when the answer is you’re fighting production laws you can’t win against. Like gravity, production laws are physics governing how work flows through systems. When you work with them—optimizing bottlenecks, reducing variation, limiting work in progress—projects accelerate. When you fight them—adding manpower, increasing batch sizes, ignoring variation—duration extends despite increased effort. Yet teams keep fighting these laws wondering why more always creates worse when the problem is they’re battling physics instead of leveraging it.

Here’s what most teams miss. There are four production laws governing construction projects: Little’s Law, Bottlenecks, Variation, and Kingman’s Formula. You can’t beat them. You can’t fight them. When you jump, gravity pulls you down. When you increase work in progress, Little’s Law extends your cycle time. When you ignore your bottleneck, Theory of Constraints proves your system moves at bottleneck speed regardless of other resources. When you ignore variation, chaos compounds. When you don’t buffer for variation, Kingman’s Formula shows your system breaks. These aren’t suggestions. They’re physics. And companies in Illinois are cutting twenty percent off project schedules simply by working with these laws through Takt planning instead of fighting them through traditional push-based approaches.

The challenge is teams don’t know these laws exist. They’ve been saying “production” for decades without understanding what it means. When projects fall behind, everyone defaults to the same solution: throw more manpower and materials at it. This is literally the worst thing you can do. It’s what demons would recommend if they wanted to extend project durations. Because adding manpower increases coordination complexity. Adding materials increases work in progress. Both extend cycle times instead of reducing them. But nobody teaches this. So teams keep fighting production laws, wondering why harder work creates worse results when the answer is they’re violating physics governing how work flows.

The Four Production Laws You Can’t Fight

These laws govern construction production. Fight them and you lose. Work with them and projects accelerate:

Little’s Law: Work in Progress × Cycle Time = Throughput Time.
Limiting work in progress speeds throughput by reducing cycle time.
Don’t work in all four levels simultaneously—complete one, then move to the next.
Smaller batches move faster than large batches.
Five people at two minutes each = ten-minute throughput; eight people at one minute each = eight-minute throughput.
Bottlenecks: Your system moves at the speed of your slowest process.
Theory of Constraints proves system capacity equals bottleneck capacity.
Optimizing non-bottleneck resources doesn’t improve system performance.
Only optimizing the bottleneck increases throughput.
Adding resources elsewhere creates inventory piling up at the bottleneck.
Variation: The enemy creating chaos and unpredictability.
Variation compounds—small variations multiply into large disruptions.
Reducing variation stabilizes systems enabling flow.
Ignoring variation guarantees chaos regardless of other optimizations.
Kingman’s Formula: Buffer time needed for variation in production systems.
You can’t package work assuming perfect conditions.
Crews need buffers for variation and productivity dips during onboarding.
Realistic packaging prevents system breakdowns from unrealistic expectations.

Why Throwing Manpower Makes It Worse

Picture the pattern everyone defaults to. Project falls behind. Leadership demands acceleration. Solution: add more workers, add more materials, work in more areas simultaneously. This feels productive. More people equals more work equals faster completion, right? Wrong. This violates every production law simultaneously creating worse results despite increased effort.

Adding manpower increases work in progress. Little’s Law proves this extends cycle time. Now you have crews in four levels instead of one. Coordination complexity multiplies. Rework increases because trades stack on each other. Productivity per worker drops because congestion prevents efficient work. The throughput time extends despite more workers because you increased work in progress fighting Little’s Law.

Adding manpower also doesn’t address the bottleneck. If your bottleneck is design information arriving late, adding field workers doesn’t help. Theory of Constraints proves your system moves at bottleneck speed. Non-bottleneck resources working faster just creates inventory piling up at the bottleneck. You’ve increased costs adding workers who can’t work because the bottleneck hasn’t cleared. The system still moves at bottleneck speed. You just paid more for the same duration.

Adding manpower increases variation. More workers mean more communication paths. More coordination requirements. More potential for errors. More handoffs creating mistakes. Variation compounds. Small variations from individual workers multiply into large disruptions. Your system becomes less stable despite more resources because you increased variation sources fighting the law that variation is the enemy.

This is what Adam Hoots means when he says if demons wanted to extend project durations, they’d tell humans to throw manpower and materials at problems. It’s literally the worst response. But it’s what everyone does because nobody taught production laws. So teams keep fighting physics wondering why harder work creates worse results when the answer is they’re violating fundamental laws governing how work flows.

What Actually Works: Optimize Bottlenecks, Reduce Variation, Limit WIP

Instead of throwing manpower at problems, work with production laws. Companies in Illinois are cutting twenty percent off schedules by doing this through Takt planning. Not just twenty percent faster—twenty percent less frustrating. Better atmosphere. Happier teams. Lower stress. Better results from working with physics instead of fighting it.

Optimize your bottleneck. Theory of Constraints proves this is the only way to increase system throughput. Identify what’s slowing the entire system. Usually it’s information flow, design completion, or material procurement—not field labor capacity. Fix the bottleneck. Now the system moves faster. Adding field workers before fixing bottlenecks just creates expensive idle time.

Reduce variation. Stabilize workflows. Create predictable rhythms. Use Takt planning establishing consistent cycle times. Reduce variation in crew sizes, material deliveries, and information flow. The less variation exists, the more stable systems become. Stable systems flow. Chaotic systems with high variation stall regardless of resources added.

Limit work in progress. Little’s Law proves smaller batches move faster. Complete one level before starting the next. Finish one zone before moving to another. This feels slower because less apparent activity exists. But throughput time actually decreases because cycle time drops when you’re not managing coordination chaos from working everywhere simultaneously.

Buffer for variation realistically. Kingman’s Formula shows you can’t package work assuming perfect conditions. Crews need buffer time for variation and productivity dips. If you package four days of perfect-condition work into four-day Takt time, the system breaks when reality introduces variation. Package realistically with buffers. The system stays stable instead of constantly breaking.

Life Lessons from Bootcamp Participants

The bootcamp participants at Langston Construction revealed powerful insights. Older superintendents close to retirement said “I wish I had this twenty years ago because it would have impacted my career so much.” Another said “Even though I’m retiring in a couple months, I’m going to use this in my personal life and family.” These aren’t young workers seeking advancement. These are experienced professionals recognizing fundamental principles they missed despite decades in the industry.

This reveals how deeply the industry failed teaching production principles. Superintendents worked thirty to forty years never learning that throwing manpower at problems makes them worse. Never understanding bottlenecks determine system capacity. Never recognizing that variation is the enemy requiring reduction not tolerance. Never learning Little’s Law proving smaller batches move faster. They succeeded despite not knowing production laws. Imagine how much better they could have been knowing them.

The insight about using it in personal life and family matters too. Production laws aren’t just construction principles. They’re life principles. Limiting work in progress in your personal life—finishing one project before starting five more—creates better results than spreading yourself thin across many simultaneous commitments. Optimizing your personal bottleneck—the constraint limiting your capacity—improves your life more than adding activities elsewhere. Reducing variation in your routines creates stability enabling you to accomplish more with less stress. These laws govern all systems, not just construction projects.

Adam Hoots challenges everyone to give 100 percent authentically being yourself 100 percent of the time. Not the 100 percent that looks like what others expect. The 100 percent that’s authentically you. Be yourself while switching between learner and teacher. You don’t have all answers. But through your sphere of influence, you know people who do. Don’t fight production laws. Don’t fight being yourself. Work with both instead of against them.

The System Failed You

Let’s be clear. When teams don’t know production laws, it’s not entirely their fault. The system failed by teaching “production” without teaching what production means. Teams used the word for decades without understanding the physics governing how work flows. Nobody taught Little’s Law. Nobody explained Theory of Constraints. Nobody showed that variation is the enemy. Nobody demonstrated Kingman’s Formula. The system assumed people would figure it out. But they didn’t. So teams keep throwing manpower at problems wondering why it makes things worse when the answer is they’re fighting physics nobody taught them existed.

The system also failed by not teaching that adding resources often extends duration instead of reducing it. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow. But common wisdom says “add more people to go faster.” This violates Little’s Law, ignores bottlenecks, increases variation, and breaks Kingman’s Formula. Yet everyone does it because nobody taught that production laws prove this approach fails. The system created default responses violating physics then blamed people for following guidance that was wrong from the start.

The system fails by not teaching Takt planning and other approaches working with production laws instead of fighting them. Companies cutting twenty percent off schedules aren’t working harder. They’re working with physics. Limiting work in progress. Optimizing bottlenecks. Reducing variation. Buffering realistically. These approaches leverage production laws instead of violating them. But teams never exposed to this keep fighting physics wondering why harder work creates worse results when the answer is they’re battling laws they can’t win against.

The Challenge

Here’s your assignment. Stop throwing manpower and materials at schedule problems. Start working with production laws instead of fighting them.

Learn the four production laws. Little’s Law shows work in progress times cycle time equals throughput time. Bottlenecks determine system capacity. Variation is the enemy. Kingman’s Formula requires realistic buffers. You can’t fight these. Work with them.

Identify your bottleneck. What’s actually limiting system throughput? Usually it’s information, design, or procurement—not field labor. Optimize that. Everything else is non-bottleneck resources creating expensive inventory piling up waiting for the bottleneck to clear.

Reduce variation. Stabilize workflows. Create predictable rhythms. Use Takt planning establishing consistent cycle times. The less variation exists, the more systems flow.

Limit work in progress. Complete one level before starting the next. Finish one zone before moving to another. Smaller batches move faster than large batches even though less apparent activity exists.

Buffer for variation realistically. Don’t package work assuming perfect conditions. Kingman’s Formula proves you need buffer time. Package realistically. The system stays stable instead of constantly breaking.

Stop fighting production laws. They’re physics. Like gravity, you can’t beat them. Jump and you fall. Increase work in progress and cycle time extends. Ignore bottlenecks and system moves at bottleneck speed. Allow variation and chaos compounds. Work with the laws instead of against them.

Companies cutting twenty percent off schedules aren’t working harder. They’re working with physics. You can too.

On we go.

FAQ

What are the four production laws?

Little’s Law (work in progress × cycle time = throughput time), Bottlenecks (system capacity equals bottleneck capacity per Theory of Constraints), Variation (the enemy creating chaos and unpredictability), and Kingman’s Formula (buffer time needed for variation in production systems). You can’t fight these laws—work with them instead.

Why does adding manpower often make projects worse?

Adding manpower increases work in progress (extending cycle time per Little’s Law), doesn’t address bottlenecks (system still moves at bottleneck speed), and increases variation (more workers = more coordination complexity = more chaos). It violates all production laws simultaneously creating worse results despite increased effort.

How do you work with production laws instead of fighting them?

Optimize your bottleneck (the only way to increase system throughput). Reduce variation (stabilize workflows creating predictable rhythms). Limit work in progress (complete one thing before starting the next). Buffer for variation realistically (package work accounting for reality not perfect conditions). These approaches leverage physics instead of violating it.

What’s the biggest mistake teams make with production?

Throwing manpower and materials at schedule problems. This feels productive but violates every production law. It increases work in progress, ignores bottlenecks, increases variation, and breaks realistic buffering. It’s literally what you’d do to extend duration, yet everyone does it because nobody taught production laws.

How are companies cutting 20% off schedules?

By working with production laws through Takt planning. Limiting work in progress. Optimizing bottlenecks. Reducing variation. Buffering realistically. Not working harder—working with physics. The projects are also twenty percent less frustrating with better atmosphere, happier teams, and lower stress.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

Growing High Speed Superintendents

Posted on April 14, 2026April 14, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 11 min

Are You Growing Your Own Superintendents In-House?

You hire superintendents from the industry expecting them to know what they’re doing. They come with years of experience. But they can’t schedule. They don’t understand Takt. They resist technology. They can’t use Bluebeam. They don’t know IPD or coordination management. And worst, they hold you hostage because “there aren’t many good supers out there” so you tolerate their bad behavior afraid they’ll quit if you demand better. Meanwhile, you wonder why superintendent quality never improves when the problem is you’re hiring from a broken system that never taught them fundamentals. You’re bailing water without plugging the hole. Instead of growing your own superintendents through field engineering programs building fundamental capabilities from the ground up, you’re importing already-formed superintendents hoping they miraculously possess skills the industry never taught them.

Here’s what most companies miss. Being a superintendent is not a builder practicing position. You should be a builder to be a super. But you don’t practice building by being a super pointing and directing. You practice building when you’re doing drawings, layout, quality control, troubleshooting with workers, piecing things together. That’s field engineering. And every successful general superintendent Jason’s tracked had field engineering experience—forms, survey, field engineer, project engineer with field focus. He’s never seen someone go from college straight to assistant super and successfully climb to general superintendent or field director. Ever. The ones who made it had fundamental builder experience first. Because you can’t lead builders without understanding building fundamentals yourself.

The challenge is most companies don’t invest in field engineering programs. They take college graduates and make them assistant superintendents immediately. Or they hire experienced superintendents from the industry who never learned fundamentals either. Then they wonder why superintendent quality stays mediocre. The marshmallow study reveals the pattern. Kids who waited fifteen minutes for two marshmallows instead of eating one immediately did better in life—better relationships, more money, more social stability, less crime. Patience indicates character and predicts success. Taking time to learn fundamentals through field engineering builds Superintendent 2.0 with technological capabilities of project managers, strategic minds of military generals, and people skills from Dale Carnegie. Skipping fundamentals for immediate gratification creates superintendents who hold companies hostage through incompetence companies tolerate because alternatives seem scarce.

Why Field Engineering Builds Real Superintendents

Field engineering is where you practice being a builder. Not pointing and directing. Actually building. Here’s what field engineer boot camp requires showing why it creates superior superintendents:

Give participants two points and a set of drawings.
By day three, they must have footings placed in the ground.
Laser scan results to measure accuracy.
They must interpret bad plans, create drawings, determine layout, do mathematical calculations.
Actually lay out the work, build it, design formwork systems, get concrete in, schedule everything.
This is intense—80% of people in construction couldn’t do it without training.
But if you’re going to be a superintendent, you must know how to do this.
You can’t tell surveyors to lay out your building without knowing correct survey principles.
You can’t tell exterior crews to install without knowing how to piece things together, lay out embeds, calculate angles.
These are complex things builders with proper training can do and should do.

What Superintendent 2.0 Looks Like

The superintendent of the future isn’t the superintendent of the past. Superintendent 2.0 has capabilities traditional supers never developed:

Technological capabilities of a project manager—computers, Bluebeam, software, digital tools.
Strategic mind and logistics sense of a military general—thinking ahead, positioning resources, anticipating problems.
Ability to talk to anybody and influence people—Dale Carnegie people skills enabling mentorship and leadership.
Deep scheduling knowledge—Takt planning, visual flow schedules, production control systems.
Technology fluency—comfortable with digital coordination, BIM, collaboration platforms.
IPD understanding—integrated project delivery, collaborative decision-making, shared risk/reward.
Coordination management—resolving conflicts before they reach the field, enabling flow.
Operational stability—running clean, safe, organized jobs with just-in-time deliveries and visible scheduling.
Mentorship capability—building people while building projects, developing next generation.

The Problem: Grumpy Supers Holding Companies Hostage

Walk construction companies and you’ll see the pattern. Three superintendents. All grumpy. All resistant to change. All lacking fundamental skills like scheduling, technology, coordination. But companies tolerate their bad behavior because “there aren’t many good supers out there.” These superintendents know companies need them more than they need companies. So they resist training. They refuse new methods. They complain about technology. And companies accept this because alternatives seem scarce.

This is hostage-taking disguised as employment. Companies can’t demand better because these superintendents might quit. And replacing them with equally mediocre superintendents from the same broken system doesn’t improve anything. So companies stay stuck tolerating incompetence, resisting improvement, and wondering why projects struggle when the answer is they’re employing superintendents who never learned fundamentals and now resist learning them.

The solution isn’t hiring more from the broken system. It’s growing your own through field engineering programs building fundamental capabilities from the beginning. Stop importing already-formed superintendents hoping they miraculously possess skills nobody taught them. Start developing builders who become Superintendent 2.0 through intentional progression from fundamental field engineering to advanced superintendent capabilities.

Jason’s Never Seen This Path Succeed

Jason challenges anyone to prove him wrong. If you’re a general superintendent or field director for a large construction company and you achieved that by coming out of college and going straight into assistant superintendent without field engineering experience, contact him. Because he’s never seen it. Ever. Not once. Every successful general superintendent or field director he’s tracked had field engineering experience—some version of fundamental builder practice before becoming superintendent.

This isn’t coincidence. It’s cause and effect. You can’t lead builders without understanding building fundamentals. You can’t troubleshoot problems without having solved them yourself. You can’t mentor young builders without having walked their path. You can’t command respect from foremen and trades without having done the work they do. Field engineering builds these capabilities. Skipping it creates superintendents who point and direct without understanding what they’re directing or why it matters.

The companies that figure this out will dominate the next decade. They’ll have superintendents who actually know how to schedule, use technology, manage coordination, run operationally stable jobs, mentor people, and execute at levels traditional supers can’t match. And they won’t be held hostage by grumpy incompetent superintendents because they’ll have pipeline of well-trained builders ready to step into superintendent roles with fundamental capabilities already built.

How to Build Strong Field Engineering Programs

Stop shortcutting your future. Invest in field engineering programs developing fundamental builders who become Superintendent 2.0:

Start a field engineering program as first priority for field builders.
Get field engineer boot camps going—intensive training building real capabilities.
Integrate field engineering methods manual (Wes Crawford) into standard training.
Create monthly field engineer trainings maintaining skill development.
Build field engineering mentoring groups with lead field engineers guiding development.
Align career structure 100%—clear progression from field engineer to superintendent.
Get projects to pay for field engineers—not overhead, billable production support.
Create culture around field engineering immediately under dedicated field engineering group.
Align incentives rewarding field engineering excellence and progression.
Set higher expectations with training enabling people to meet them.
Provide builders good foundations before they become superintendents.

The Marshmallow Study and Patience

The marshmallow study reveals why patience matters. Researchers gave kids choice: eat one marshmallow now or wait fifteen minutes for two. They tracked those kids for 25 years. The ones who waited did better in life—better relationships, more money, more social stability, less crime. The act of patience indicated character and predicted future success.

This applies to superintendent development. You can get immediate self-gratification becoming assistant superintendent right out of school. Or you can wait, spend time as field engineer learning fundamentals, and become far more capable superintendent later. Immediate gratification feels good now but hurts long-term. Patience building foundations creates sustained success.

Companies face the same choice. Hire superintendents now from broken system hoping they’re competent. Or invest in field engineering programs growing your own Superintendent 2.0 over time. Quick hiring feels efficient. But it imports mediocrity. Patient development builds excellence. The marshmallow study proves patience wins. Companies patient enough to grow superintendents instead of hiring them will dominate companies taking shortcuts.

The System Failed You

Let’s be clear. When companies struggle finding good superintendents, it’s not entirely their fault. The system failed by not teaching that field engineering builds fundamental capabilities superintendents need. Nobody showed that you can’t skip fundamentals expecting people to learn them through superintendent experience. Nobody explained that every successful general superintendent had field engineering background. Nobody demonstrated that being superintendent is not builder practicing position—you practice building as field engineer before becoming superintendent. The system assumed people could jump from college to superintendent succeeding when evidence proves they can’t.

The system also failed by not teaching companies to grow their own instead of hiring from broken system. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow. But hiring superintendents from industry that never taught them fundamentals just imports mediocrity. Companies must grow their own through field engineering programs building Superintendent 2.0 from ground up instead of hoping industry produces what it’s never produced before.

The system fails by tolerating grumpy superintendents holding companies hostage. When companies accept bad behavior because “there aren’t many good supers,” they enable the very problem preventing improvement. Stop tolerating incompetence. Start growing excellence through field engineering programs creating pipeline of well-trained builders ready to become Superintendent 2.0 with technological capabilities, strategic thinking, and people skills traditional supers never developed.

The Challenge

Here’s your assignment. Stop hiring superintendents from broken system hoping they know what they’re doing. Start growing your own through field engineering programs building fundamental capabilities from the beginning.

If you’re a company, build field engineering program as first priority. Get field engineer boot camps going. Create monthly trainings. Build mentoring groups. Align career paths. Get projects to pay for them. Create culture around excellence. Invest in fundamentals instead of bailing water without plugging the hole.

If you’re starting your career, take field engineering position if offered. Stay there long enough to learn fundamentals. Don’t jump to assistant superintendent immediately. Practice the marshmallow study—wait for two marshmallows instead of eating one now. The patience building foundations creates far greater success than immediate gratification becoming superintendent without fundamentals.

If you’re choosing between companies, pick the one with strong field engineering program. You’re not getting respect you deserve if you haven’t been given time to be field engineer learning how to interpret plans, create drawings, calculate layouts, build formwork, troubleshoot with workers. Companies without field engineering programs shortcut your development hurting your long-term success.

Stop tolerating grumpy superintendents holding you hostage. Build Superintendent 2.0 with technological capabilities of project managers, strategic minds of military generals, and Dale Carnegie people skills. Grow them through field engineering programs building fundamental capabilities traditional supers never developed.

Plug the hole by training fundamental builders at fundamental level. Then bail the water fixing current problems. Or do both simultaneously. But stop just bailing water without plugging hole creating endless cycle of mediocre superintendents you tolerate because alternatives seem scarce.

The superintendent of the future knows how to schedule, understands Takt, uses technology fluently, manages coordination, runs operationally stable jobs, and mentors people excellently. Grow them through field engineering. Build them from fundamentals. Create Superintendent 2.0.

On we go.

FAQ

Why is field engineering essential before becoming superintendent?

Being superintendent is not builder practicing position. You practice building through field engineering—doing drawings, layout, QC, troubleshooting, piecing things together. Every successful general superintendent Jason’s tracked had field engineering experience. He’s never seen someone go college to assistant super to general superintendent successfully without it.

What does Superintendent 2.0 look like?

Technological capabilities of project manager (computers, Bluebeam, software). Strategic mind and logistics sense of military general (thinking ahead, positioning resources). Dale Carnegie people skills (mentoring, influencing, leading). Deep scheduling knowledge (Takt, visual flow). Technology fluency. IPD understanding. Coordination management. Operational stability capabilities.

Why does the marshmallow study matter for superintendent development?

Kids who waited fifteen minutes for two marshmallows instead of eating one immediately did better in life—better relationships, more money, social stability. Patience indicates character and predicts success. Taking time learning fundamentals through field engineering builds superior superintendents. Skipping for immediate gratification creates mediocre superintendents.

How do you build strong field engineering programs?

Start field engineering program as first priority. Run field engineer boot camps. Create monthly trainings. Build mentoring groups. Align career paths clearly. Get projects to pay for them. Create culture around field engineering excellence. Align incentives. Set higher expectations with training enabling people to meet them.

Why are companies held hostage by grumpy superintendents?

Companies tolerate bad behavior because “there aren’t many good supers.” Superintendents know this and resist training, refuse new methods, complain about technology. Companies accept this because replacing them with equally mediocre superintendents from same broken system doesn’t improve anything. Solution is growing your own through field engineering programs.

Word Count: 1,996 words

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

Working for a Failing Superintendent!

Posted on April 14, 2026April 14, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 13 min

Are You Being Held Up by the Superintendent on the Project?

Your superintendent doesn’t know what they’re doing. No schedule exists. Or if one exists, it’s in their head and they haven’t shared it with anyone. They demand you work everywhere simultaneously destroying trade flow. They tell you to bring materials early creating chaos. They give you conflicting direction daily. And you’re waiting for them to map out your destiny, hoping they’ll eventually get organized and provide the plan you need to succeed. Meanwhile, your crew suffers. Your productivity crashes. Your profits evaporate. And you blame the superintendent for holding you back when the real problem is you’re being a victim instead of taking control. You’re waiting for someone else to create the conditions for your success when actually you must create those conditions yourself because incompetent leadership doesn’t disappear through patience—it gets worse through enabling.

Here’s what most foremen and trade partners miss. You’re in trouble either way. If you follow the superintendent’s bad advice working everywhere without flow, you’ll be in trouble because productivity will crash and they’ll blame you for not performing. If you do the right thing protecting trade flow even when it contradicts their demands, you’ll be in trouble because they’ll complain about you not following direction. Either path leads to conflict. So why not be in trouble and make money? Why not do the right thing creating flow, keeping crews consistent, bringing materials just-in-time according to inventory buffers, and executing properly even though the superintendent doesn’t understand? You’re getting blamed regardless. Might as well do it right and actually succeed instead of following bad direction into failure.

The challenge is shifting from victim mindset to ownership mindset. Expect nothing, appreciate everything, do the right thing. This creates non-emotional effective response enabling you to succeed despite incompetent leadership. But most people do the opposite. They expect everything from superintendents. They appreciate nothing because nobody’s meeting expectations. They respond as victims blaming others for their problems. This creates emotional ineffective response guaranteeing failure. You can’t control whether your superintendent is competent. But you can control whether you take ownership creating your own plan, protecting your trade flow, and executing properly regardless of their incompetence.

Two Mindsets: Victim vs. Owner

Your mindset determines whether incompetent superintendents destroy you or whether you succeed despite them:

Victim Mindset: Expect everything, appreciate nothing, respond as victim.
You expect superintendents to provide perfect schedules, clear direction, organized logistics.
When they don’t deliver, you feel robbed of what you deserved
You appreciate nothing because nobody’s meeting your expectations.
You respond as victim blaming them for your problems.
This makes you emotional, ineffective, and stuck.
You get in trouble because you followed bad direction into failure.
Owner Mindset: Expect nothing, appreciate everything, do the right thing
You expect nothing from superintendents, so they can’t take anything from you.
You appreciate everything they do provide, even small things.
You do the right thing regardless of whether they support you.
This keeps you non-emotional, effective, and moving forward.
You might get in trouble for not following bad direction, but you make money and succeed.

Why You’re in Trouble Either Way

Picture the reality. Superintendent tells you to work in five areas simultaneously. You know this destroys trade flow creating chaos. But you follow their direction anyway hoping obedience protects you. What happens? Productivity crashes. Crews stack on top of each other. Rework multiplies. Schedule slips. And the superintendent blames you for not performing. You’re in trouble because you followed their bad advice into failure.

Now picture the alternative. Superintendent tells you to work in five areas. You say “I’ll work in one area completing it fully before moving to the next, creating trade flow that actually finishes work.” They complain about you not following direction. They demand you spread out creating apparent busyness. You explain why flow works better and show them your plan. They’re unhappy. You’re in trouble for not following bad direction.

Either way, you’re in trouble. So why not be in trouble and make money? Why not do it right creating flow, finishing work, making profit, and actually succeeding even though the superintendent complains? You’re getting blamed regardless. Following bad advice into failure doesn’t protect you. It just makes you fail while being blamed anyway. But doing it right despite complaints at least creates success. You get blamed either way. Might as well succeed.

This is the secret most trades never learn. They think following superintendent direction protects them from blame. But it doesn’t. When projects fail, superintendents blame trades regardless of whose advice created the failure. So stop following bad advice hoping obedience excuses poor results. It won’t. Do the right thing creating flow and success. Then when superintendents complain, you can show the results proving your approach works better than theirs.

What Most Superintendent Advice Gets Wrong

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: 60-80 percent of superintendents don’t know what they’re doing. And almost 100 percent of things you hear from those 60-80 percent, if you take their advice, you’ll be doing it wrong. They don’t understand flow. They don’t understand production principles. They demand activity over effectiveness. And following their direction guarantees failure.

Jason has never heard an owner’s representative say “let’s work in one-process flow.” Never heard them say “let’s have the right crew sizes.” Never heard them say “bring materials just-in-time.” They just want to look busy. They say “bring the materials, bring the people, go out there, spend your money, I don’t care, I just want it done.” This advice destroys projects. But superintendents repeat it because they don’t know better. And trades following it fail because the advice was wrong from the start.

If you’re taking advice from uneducated superintendents—meaning superintendents who don’t know lean and flow principles—you’re going backwards. You need to protect your trade flow. You need to win-win solutions. When the superintendent or owner makes a request, answer the question they should have asked, not the question they asked. Respond to requests they should have made. Do things that should be done. Don’t stupidly follow directions that reduce your chances of flow.

For example: Owner says “start work next week clearing 320 acres.” You know this means land sits muddy for three months costing everyone money. Instead of blindly following, show them why starting just-in-time when materials arrive works better. Have the conversation. Make it visual. Communicate. Discuss. Fight for win-win. Don’t just blindly do stuff because someone with authority told you to when you know it’s wrong.

How to Take Control: What Foremen and Trades Must Do

Stop waiting for superintendents to map your destiny. Create your own plan. Here’s what that looks like daily:

Come with a plan or be part of someone else’s (which probably doesn’t work)
Draw pictures showing where you’ll be working and when.
Provide a schedule even if superintendent doesn’t have one.
If they have a schedule, adjust it with flow to create trade flow that works as win-win.
Communicate daily what you need to succeed.
Protect your trade flow—work in sequences that complete, not everywhere simultaneously.
Keep crews consistent—don’t crash-load then starve resources.
Bring materials just-in-time according to inventory buffers, not too early or too late.
Plan it first—make sure work is ready before you start.
Build it right—QC as you go, don’t pass defects forward.
Finish as you go—complete work fully before moving on, don’t come back later.
Have difficult conversations when direction contradicts flow principles.
Negotiate only win-wins—show how your approach benefits everyone.
Be prepared with visual communication and data proving your approach works.

The Story: If There Isn’t a Way, Pave a Way

Jason tells the story from his book Elevating Construction Superintendents. He was in charge of mechanical, site work, and systems. Another superintendent handled interiors but kept needlessly perfecting the schedule instead of sharing it with trades. The super said “you can’t make a schedule and show it to trade partners before it’s perfect.” Jason said “watch me. I’m going to coordinate with trade partners.”

The senior superintendent walked both of them out and said “Jason, you’re now in charge of this work. You’re no longer in charge of this work.” The other superintendent started to protest. The senior super said “you don’t have to worry about that anymore. Jason’s in charge now.”

The lesson stuck. Don’t ever wait for someone if there’s incompetence, waiting, or needless striving for perfect instead of excellent. Just move forward. Step on toes if necessary. Get it done. If there isn’t a way, pave a way. This is the mindset that succeeds despite incompetent leadership instead of being destroyed by it.

At the Constitutional Convention, 80 percent of the Constitution came from one person who came prepared. James Madison showed up with a plan. Everyone else contributed around his framework. If you don’t have a plan, you’ll be part of someone else’s. And if you’re working for a bad superintendent, they don’t have a plan. Or if they have one, it’s in their head and doesn’t work because they haven’t shared it. So you must come with the plan. Show up prepared. Create the framework. Then execute despite their incompetence.

The System Failed You

Let’s be clear. When foremen and trades struggle under incompetent superintendents, it’s not entirely their fault. The system failed by not teaching foremen to take ownership creating their own plans instead of waiting for superintendent direction. Nobody showed that you’re in trouble either way, so you might as well do the right thing and succeed. Nobody explained that following bad advice doesn’t excuse failure—you’re responsible for results regardless of whose direction you followed. Nobody demonstrated that trades must protect their own flow because superintendents often don’t understand flow principles.

The system also failed by not training superintendents properly. Sixty to eighty percent don’t know what they’re doing. They give bad advice destroying projects. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow. But until superintendents get trained, foremen and trades must protect themselves by taking ownership instead of being victims. The system created this mess. But victims stay stuck while owners succeed regardless.

The system fails by not teaching the “expect nothing, appreciate everything, do the right thing” mindset. Most people expect everything, appreciate nothing, and respond as victims when expectations aren’t met. This creates emotional ineffective responses guaranteeing failure. But the alternative—expecting nothing so nobody can take anything from you, appreciating everything even small things, doing the right thing regardless of support—creates non-emotional effective responses enabling success despite incompetent leadership.

The Challenge

Here’s your assignment. Stop being a victim waiting for incompetent superintendents to map your destiny. Take control. Create your own plan. Come prepared with schedules, sketches, Gantt charts showing what you’re doing and when.

Shift to owner mindset. Expect nothing from superintendents so they can’t disappoint you. Appreciate everything they provide even if it’s small. Do the right thing protecting trade flow regardless of whether they support you.

Recognize you’re in trouble either way. Following bad direction leads to failure and blame. Doing the right thing leads to complaints and blame. Either path creates conflict. So choose the path that also creates success. Be in trouble and make money instead of being in trouble and failing.

Protect your trade flow. Don’t blindly follow advice from the 60-80 percent of superintendents who don’t understand flow. Answer the question they should have asked. Respond to requests they should have made. Do things that should be done. Fight for win-win solutions showing why your approach benefits everyone.

Communicate daily. Tell them what you need. Show them your plan. Have difficult conversations when direction contradicts flow. Come prepared so you’re not part of someone else’s plan that doesn’t work.

Plan it first. Build it right. Finish as you go. Keep crews consistent. Bring materials just-in-time. Work in sequences that complete. Do the right thing creating trade flow even when superintendents don’t understand.

If there isn’t a way, pave a way. Don’t wait for incompetent leadership to improve. Take ownership. Get it done. You know that workflow, trade flow, logistical flow, consistent manpower and materials, rhythm and continuity create your shortest path to winning.

On we go.

FAQ

What if following superintendent direction leads to failure?

You’re responsible for results regardless of whose advice you followed. Following bad direction doesn’t excuse failure—it just proves you lack courage to do what’s right. You’re in trouble either way. Might as well do the right thing and succeed instead of following bad advice into failure.

How do you “expect nothing, appreciate everything, do the right thing”?

Expect nothing from superintendents so they can’t take anything from you or disappoint you. Appreciate everything they provide even if small. Do the right thing protecting trade flow regardless of whether they support you. This creates non-emotional effective response enabling success despite incompetent leadership.

Why are you “in trouble either way”?

Following bad direction leads to productivity crashes and blame for not performing. Doing the right thing contradicting their demands leads to complaints about not following direction. Either path creates conflict. So choose the path that also creates success—do the right thing and make money.

What should foremen do when superintendents don’t have plans?

Come with your own plan. Draw pictures showing where you’ll work. Provide schedules even if they don’t have one. Communicate daily what you need. Come prepared so you’re not part of someone else’s plan that doesn’t work. Be like James Madison at Constitutional Convention—show up with the framework everyone else builds around.

How do you protect trade flow when superintendents demand chaos?

Create your plan with proper flow. Show them visually why it works better. Negotiate win-wins explaining how your approach benefits everyone. Have difficult conversations. Do the right thing even if they complain. You’re getting blamed either way—might as well succeed while being blamed instead of failing while being blamed.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

General Offerings

Company Offerings

Systems

Are You Disobeying the Production Laws?

The Four Production Laws You Must Obey

Why CPM Violates Every Production Law

How Takt Planning Obeys Production Laws

What You Must Do to Follow Production Laws

Why This is the Most Important Information Jason’s Ever Shared

The System Failed You

The Challenge

FAQ

Are You Making Mistakes? Are You Okay with That?

Why Needing to Be Perfect Now Hurts You

The Science of Momentum and Growth Mindset

Jason’s Major Mistakes and What They Taught

Fixed Mindset to Growth Mindset Transformation

Why We Succeed as Teams, Not Individuals

The System Failed You

The Challenge

FAQ

Are You Teaching People to Be Curious About Lean?

Why Current State Creates Curiosity

The Industry Changed—Old Tools Don’t Work Anymore

Start Small: Fix Something That Bugs You

What “Finishing Well” Actually Means

How to Create Curiosity Instead of Overwhelm

Joe’s Challenge: Fix Something Small That Bugs You

Jason’s Challenge: Master Scheduling Creating Flow

The System Failed You

The Challenge

FAQ

Can You Stop Fighting Production Laws You Can’t Win Against?

The Four Production Laws You Can’t Fight

Why Throwing Manpower Makes It Worse

What Actually Works: Optimize Bottlenecks, Reduce Variation, Limit WIP

Life Lessons from Bootcamp Participants

The System Failed You

The Challenge

FAQ

Are You Growing Your Own Superintendents In-House?

Why Field Engineering Builds Real Superintendents

What Superintendent 2.0 Looks Like

The Problem: Grumpy Supers Holding Companies Hostage

Jason’s Never Seen This Path Succeed

How to Build Strong Field Engineering Programs

The Marshmallow Study and Patience

The System Failed You

The Challenge

FAQ

Are You Being Held Up by the Superintendent on the Project?

Two Mindsets: Victim vs. Owner

Why You’re in Trouble Either Way

What Most Superintendent Advice Gets Wrong

How to Take Control: What Foremen and Trades Must Do

The Story: If There Isn’t a Way, Pave a Way

The System Failed You

The Challenge

FAQ

SUBSCRIBE NOW !

Subscribe to our newsletters and stay updated!