The Real Enemy in Construction Is Not Command and Control

Every lean construction presentation seems to open the same way. Here is the problem: command and control. Here is what has always been wrong with the industry. Here is why we needed Last Planner and collaborative planning to rescue the field from the tyranny of authoritarian superintendents.

Jason Schroeder is not convinced. And after spending years coaching companies, touring projects, and watching what actually fails, he has a different diagnosis.

What the Data Actually Shows

There is something in the historical record of construction performance that does not get mentioned in the command and control narrative. Projects used to finish. Not all of them, but the failure rate was dramatically different from what it is today.

Jason recalls a stretch at a large construction company with 1.5 billion dollars in annual revenue. Dozens of major projects across the country. One project became infamous. One. People would hear about it wherever Jason traveled. The rest were finishing on time with full fee. One project struggling against a field full of performing jobs is a very different industry than the one that exists today.

Now the ratio has inverted. Companies have one or two projects that are performing and a field of others that are mediocre, late, or in financial trouble. The crash landing has become the norm rather than the exception. And this shift happened roughly seven to ten years ago.

What changed? Jason’s best assessment: the economic crash of 2007 to 2010 stopped training across the industry. Hiring dried up. Development programs shut down. And a generation of experienced general superintendents retired without the transfer of knowledge that would have prepared the people behind them. The generals left and the replacements were not ready.

The Right and Wrong Answer to That Problem

If the problem is lack of trained builders, the solution is trained builders. Not specifically a different leadership philosophy.

Jason does not want to fight against Last Planner or collaborative planning. He believes in them. He uses them. He teaches them. The question is not whether collaborative planning is better than authoritarian command. Of course it is. That is not the argument.

The argument is that the lean community is spending significant energy criticizing the good and the better while failing to name and demonize the actual bad. The actual bad is an untrained superintendent without a plan who does not collaborate with trade partners. That person is the problem. Not the general superintendent of 20 years ago who had complete control of their project, ran it to completion on time with full fee, and happened to use a more directive leadership style because that was the model available to them.

Would you rather have a team with a great builder, team input, and integrated control? Yes. That is the best. Would you rather have a decent builder with trade partner input and the Last Planner system? Yes. That is better. Would you rather have a decent builder with a solid plan, even if they use a more directive approach? Yes. That is good. All three are acceptable. The problem is the fourth option: an undertrained superintendent without a plan and without any team coordination. That is what the industry is producing and living with, and it is not being addressed by the lean community with nearly enough force.

What Collaborative Planning Still Requires

Here is the point Jason makes with the most urgency. The Last Planner system, Takt planning, collaborative pullplanning, and every other lean scheduling methodology requires a stable, clean, organized, and respectful project environment to function. None of these tools work in chaos. None of them replace the need for a superintendent who has control of the site.

If you implement Last Planner on a job where materials are not managed, where the site is disorganized, where trade partners do not feel respected, where there is no clear expectation of safety or quality, the stickies on the wall will not produce flow. The collaborative planning process will become a performance rather than a system.

A superintendent who does not have control of their project will not gain control by adding a collaborative planning layer on top of the disorder. The control has to come first. Then the collaboration amplifies it.

What the industry needs is not less control. It needs more control exercised by better trained leaders who also know how to integrate the wisdom of their trade partners into the project. That is the best. And the gap between where most projects are and where best looks like is not being closed by criticizing command and control. It is being closed by training builders.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow. The best construction environments combine strong project control with collaborative planning, and the path to getting there starts with developing the leader, not replacing the leadership philosophy.

The Good, Better, Best Framework

Jason is clear about where he lands. He is not advocating a return to pure directive leadership. He is advocating for an honest assessment of what the industry’s actual problem is.

Good: a superintendent with a solid plan and control of the project, even if they operate in a more directive mode. Better: a superintendent with a plan, collaborative trade partner input, and the Last Planner system supporting the work. Best: a master builder with integrated control, trade partner wisdom baked into every planning conversation, and a project environment that is stable, clean, and respectful at every level.

What the industry currently has too much of: undertrained superintendents without plans, without collaboration, and without control of anything. That is not a command and control problem. That is a training and development problem. And until the industry names that problem directly and addresses it with the same energy it spends on methodology debates, the ratio of crash landings to successful completions will not improve.

As Jason puts it: not an ounce of the Last Planner system deployed on a project without a stable environment and a superintendent with control is going to do anybody good beyond showing off stickies and software.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Jason saying collaborative planning is overrated?

No. He is saying it is being sold as the solution to a problem it cannot fix by itself. Collaborative planning requires trained leaders, stable environments, and project control to function properly. It amplifies good leadership. It cannot replace the absence of it.

What does a superintendent who has control of their project actually look like?

They know their Takt plan and reference it multiple times a day. Their site is clean and organized. Safety and quality expectations are clear and enforced. Trade partners know what is expected of them and when. The plan is visible, understood, and being executed. Control does not mean domineering. It means the project has direction and the superintendent is driving it.

Why did the crash landing rate increase so dramatically in the past decade?

Jason’s best assessment is the combination of a training gap caused by the 2008 economic crash and the retirement of a generation of experienced builders. The development programs that would have prepared replacements were suspended during the downturn and never fully restored. The industry is still working through the consequences.

How does the Last Planner system work best in practice?

When the superintendent has already established a stable project environment, the production sequence is clear, trade partners are engaged and prepared, and the collaborative planning process adds the ground level knowledge that makes the week by week execution more accurate. The system works best as an enhancement of strong leadership, not a substitute for it.

What is the first thing a company should do if its projects are consistently underperforming?

Invest in the development of its field leaders. Not in software, not in methodology training, not in consultants who reorganize the planning board. In the sustained, intensive development of the superintendents and project managers who are running the projects. Everything else follows from having people in the field who know what they are doin