Lean Instant Pudding

Posted on February 12, 2026February 12, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 22 min

The Levels of Lean Implementation (It Takes Five to Ten Years, Not Instant Pudding)

Here’s something that’s going to disappoint people who want quick fixes: Lean implementation takes five to ten years. Not five to ten months. Not five to ten quarters. Five to ten years. And if you’re not willing to put in that time, you’re not implementing Lean. You’re pretending. You’re selling instant pudding to clients and giving Lean a bad name.

This is about the actual phases of Lean development and why most companies fail before they even start.

The Pain of Instant Pudding Thinking

W.Edwards Deming said that it’s going to take five to ten years to implement Lean in a company. I found that nowadays we can do it much faster. You know, like for instance, Pepper Construction with Coach Schmidt did it in two years. High Street Ventures did it in two years. It’s pretty fast. But in the book Toyota by Toyota, W. Edwards Deming says that all leaders, or not all leaders, but most leaders want instant pudding. Just add water and it’s done. Well, you can’t do that. You can’t do that. You have to put in the time.

And so, one of the things they said is when you’re introducing and trying to get people to participate, you’re talking about a minimum one to three years. And the first phase is introducing Lean and getting people to participate. And the timeline in here can kind of vary, but the participation phase where you’re getting people to participate can be one to three years.

Phase two, this is a transition where participants go to Lean implementers and developers. Meaning they’re actually helping to develop and implement the system and they’re part of the Lean system. And that can take one to two years.

And then phase three, that’s after that. That’s after two to five years, you have process maturation where the system evolves as a Lean culture grows and matures. And it is self-sustaining.

Here’s the problem. Most companies think they can skip the phases. They want instant pudding. They want to announce they’re Lean on Monday, do a kaizen event on Tuesday, and have a transformed culture by Friday. And when it doesn’t work, they blame Lean. They say, “We tried it. It didn’t stick.” But they didn’t try Lean. They tried instant pudding. And instant pudding isn’t Lean.

The Three Phases of Lean Implementation

Let me break down the three phases clearly so you understand what it actually takes.

Phase One: Introduction and Participation (One to Three Years)

This is where you introduce Lean and get people to participate. Not just comply. Participate. You’re training. You’re modeling. You’re doing gemba walks. You’re holding standards. You’re showing the team that Lean is real, not a flavor of the month. And this takes one to three years because people need to see that leadership is serious. They need to see that the standard won’t slip. They need to see that you’re willing to invest in training, send people to Japan, work shoulder to shoulder, and protect them when pressure comes.

Most companies fail in phase one because leadership delegates it to middle management, the standard slips, and people learn it’s optional. You can’t skip phase one. You can’t rush it. And you can’t fake it.

Phase Two: Implementation and Development (One to Two Years)

This is the transition where participants become implementers and developers. They’re not just following the system. They’re helping to build it, refine it, and improve it. They’re running kaizen events. They’re training others. They’re identifying waste and solving problems. They’re part of the Lean system, not just recipients of it.

This phase takes one to two years because transformation doesn’t happen overnight. People need time to develop the skills, the mindset, and the habits. And leadership needs to support them every step of the way. You can’t rush this phase either. And you can’t skip the development work.

Phase Three: Maturation and Self-Sustaining Culture (Two to Five Years and Beyond)

This is where the system evolves as the Lean culture grows and matures. The system becomes self-sustaining. People improve without being told. Standards hold without constant enforcement. The culture reinforces itself. And Lean becomes the way we work, not a program we run.

But you only get here after two to five years of sustained effort. And most companies never make it because they gave up in phase one or two when they didn’t see instant results.

The Two Non-Negotiables: Caring About People and Being Fanatical About Improvement

So, the only people that I’ve ever known to implement Lean well, they have to have two things. And I’ve checked all of our clients. If they don’t have these two things, it will fail.

Number one is they have a genuine desire to bless the lives of people. Number two, they are interested, highly interested, I would say, or addicted to improvement.

And that seems simple. And you’re like, “Yeah, we have that.” But do you? Do you? Like, this is not bragging, but here are a couple of things:

We shut down our company and force our people to take six weeks PTO every year
We shut down two weeks over the holidays even when we were super busy with client work
When it came time to send multiple people to Japan for training, we spent the money that Kate and I probably could have used to buy a bigger house instead, we sent people to training
When it comes down to protecting our people or following the crazy whims of a specific client, we take care of our people

Do you really care about people? Are you willing to put in the time? Are you willing to put in the training? Are you willing to work with them shoulder to shoulder?

And then when it comes to improvement, do you just say you want improvement? Do you want to look good? Or do you really care about improving things? Are you doing improvements yourself? Are you, as the CEO, as the leader, as the department head, doing the improvements yourself? Are you utilizing the systems yourself? Are you avoiding email yourself? Are you doing the right things yourself?

The companies that take Lean and run with it care about people and are fanatical about improvement. And they understand that nothing happens fast.

Why Instant Pudding Thinking Destroys Lean

Like if anybody actually thinks about it, how long do you think it took that company to start the company? How long do you think it took them to implement a leadership team? How long do you think it took them to stabilize their marketing and their branding? How long do you think it took them to get through their first couple jobs? You’re talking about five, ten, fifteen, twenty years. And then all of a sudden Lean, a new operating and business system, is supposed to just come in like instant pudding. It’s ridiculous.

When people want to implement Lean as instant pudding, it means they actually aren’t focused currently on improving people and improving things. It means that it’s just something that they can do for show or it’s on the next proposal.

And I do want to say, shame on you, general contractors that are pretending and lying about being Lean and telling clients that you’re Lean and you’re not. That’s so disgusting. In fact, it’s not just dishonest, but you’re taking the industry backwards because now you’re selling something that isn’t real and you’re giving Lean a bad name. Shame on you.

If I go up into Michigan and you say the word Lean, you’ll almost get attacked. It’s like you walking into a bar saying, “God save the king.” You’re going to get attacked. It’s like that scene from The Patriot when Mel Gibson walks into a tavern and does that. People are going to start throwing tomatoes at you. If you say Lean in Michigan to somebody, they’re going to think you’re dumb. Why? Because these car companies tried to steal concepts from Japan and Toyota and implement them for the purpose of improving costs and more productivity without the promise of respect for people.

Respect for People First, Everything Else Second

And I got to be careful because I don’t want to be too critical. There’s a new CEO for a new Lean organization that went on and did a video. And if you listen to him talk, he said that they were going to try and scale Lean for the purpose of cutting costs and being more productive. And if you actually go dig into that organization, they’re one of the most un-Lean organizations in the world. It’s just classical management trying to capitalize on Lean thought. Shame on them.

Lean is about respect for people first. Other things can come in. You can make money later, but it’s respect for people. And it’s a commitment to improvement first.

So, I didn’t mean for this to be a lecture, but it’s definitely a point that has to be made. And it takes time. We’ve got to stop having classical management people in classical management wolves in Lean sheep’s clothing. And we have got to stop thinking that you can get instant pudding. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

A Challenge for Leaders

Here’s what I want you to do this week. If you’re thinking about implementing Lean or if you’re in the middle of it, ask yourself these two questions: Do I genuinely care about blessing the lives of people? And am I fanatical about improvement?

If the answer is yes, commit to the five to ten years. Don’t look for instant pudding. Invest in phase one: get people to participate. Then invest in phase two: help them become implementers and developers. Then invest in phase three: let the culture mature and become self-sustaining. Don’t skip phases. Don’t rush. Don’t delegate it to middle management and hope it works.

And if you’re selling Lean to clients when you’re not actually Lean, stop. You’re taking the industry backwards. You’re giving Lean a bad name. And you’re lying. Do the work. Put in the time. Respect people first. Improve fanatically. And understand that nothing worth doing happens fast. As we say at Elevate, Lean takes five to ten years, not instant pudding. Commit to the journey. Protect your people. Improve every day. And let the culture mature.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does it actually take to implement Lean?

Five to ten years for full maturation. Some companies can do it faster Pepper Construction and High Street Ventures did it in two years but you’re still looking at a minimum of one to three years just to get people to participate, another one to two years to develop implementers, and two to five years for the culture to mature and become self-sustaining.

What are the three phases of Lean implementation?

Phase one: Introduction and participation (one to three years). Phase two: Implementation and development (one to two years). Phase three: Maturation and self-sustaining culture (two to five years and beyond). You can’t skip phases or rush the timeline.

What are the two non-negotiables for successful Lean implementation?

One: A genuine desire to bless the lives of people. Two: Being fanatical about improvement. If you don’t have both, Lean will fail. You can’t fake caring about people. And you can’t fake being addicted to improvement.

Why do most companies fail at Lean implementation?

Because they want instant pudding. They delegate it to middle management. They don’t invest in training. They don’t protect people. They don’t model improvement. And they give up when they don’t see instant results. Lean takes time. Most companies aren’t willing to put in the work.

What’s wrong with implementing Lean to cut costs and increase productivity?

Because that’s classical management disguised as Lean. Lean is respect for people first. Other benefits come later. If you implement Lean to cut costs without respecting people, you’re not doing Lean. You’re exploiting people and giving Lean a bad name. Michigan hates Lean because car companies did exactly this.

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

10X

Posted on February 12, 2026February 12, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 21 min

10 Times Greater: We’ve Barely Scratched the Surface of Lean

Here’s something that might sound like bragging, but I promise you it’s not. It’s meant to be connecting and hopeful. Whatever you think Lean implementation looks like, it’s probably ten times greater than what you’re picturing right now. And I’m not saying this to discourage you. I’m saying this because you’re just as good, if not better than me. And if we can go further, you can too.

Don’t settle for good when great is possible. We’ve barely scratched the surface of what Lean can do in construction.

The Pain of Settling for Good Enough

Clients, people that we’re working with, companies that use our work, companies that are already Lean, they’re clean, safe, and organized. They have a stable environment. They have a happy team. They have visual workplaces. They’re doing some great things and that’s great.

But what we were doing at the Bioscience Research Laboratory with pre-construction scheduling, Takt planning, pre-fabrication, advanced training, morning worker huddles, visual systems, designing for the end user, enabling logistics it’s three times what I’m seeing anybody else do right now. It’s not bragging. I’m just telling you we can’t settle and have good be the enemy of great. We can’t do that.

And the reason I’m saying this is we’ve got to keep going. For instance, I tease LCI a lot, but LCI has done a great job of getting people to come showcase the awesome things that they’re doing. So, I love what they’re doing. But it kind of always stays at one point zero. It’s always at beginner level, which annoys me a bit. I’m not that way. I think we can go farther.

Here’s what I mean. Companies think they’ve implemented Lean because they have five S in the trailer. They have visual boards in the conference room. They do daily huddles. And those are great. Those are foundational. But that’s one point zero. That’s beginner level. And if we stop there, we’re settling for good when great is ten times further down the road.

We Didn’t Say Good Enough in World War II

For instance, I was thinking about it. If people are like, “Yeah, Jason is good enough,” we didn’t say it was good enough in World War II. We didn’t say it was good enough when we were producing Liberty ships. We didn’t say it was good enough when we were sending convoys to Europe. We didn’t say it was good enough when we dispatched Patton after the Battle of Kasserine Pass. We didn’t say it was good enough when it came to doing all these excellent things.

It was only when the lawyers and the diplomats got involved that we stopped. It’s time to stop being mediocre. We’re better than this. We can take it to the next level.

Here’s the truth. When the stakes are high, we don’t settle. When we’re building Liberty ships, we don’t stop at one ship a day and say, “That’s good enough.” We figure out how to build one ship every day, then one every twelve hours, then faster. When we’re sending convoys to Europe, we don’t stop at safe delivery. We figure out how to deliver faster, with less loss, with more efficiency. When Patton is dispatched after Kasserine Pass, he doesn’t accept the status quo. He transforms the entire operation.

Construction has high stakes too. We’re building hospitals, data centers, schools, homes. Lives depend on it. Families depend on it. And yet we settle for good enough. We implement Lean at one point zero and stop. That’s not acceptable. We’re better than this.

What Ten Times Greater Actually Looks Like

If I was doing a project today, we would have advanced dojos. We would have example areas. We would have three-D models in the middle of the conference room, just like you see in World War II movies where it’s three-D printed and we’re moving pieces around. We would have advanced boards and projectors that projected down the wall. We would have queuing areas for logistics, packaging, and getting rid of waste right there. We would have ID tracking for materials. We would have sensors that sense where crews are. We would have drone deployment to help us have visuals every day in our huddles. We would have three-sixty cameras. We’d have the whole thing, all of it.

Then times ten, whatever you think I’m talking about when it comes to Lean implementation, I’m talking times ten. So, if you think, “Oh my gosh, we’ve implemented what Jason’s talking about, we’re done,” we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of Lean.

Here’s what I mean practically:

Until every truck is three-S’d like Paul Akers’ shop, we’re not done
Until every Connex box and gang box is three-S’d like Paul Akers would want us to have it, we’re not done
Until we have visual systems that look like an advanced manufacturing facility, we’re not done
Until we have tools that reduce the motion and friction on human bodies, we’re not done
Until we have queuing areas and advanced logistics systems, we’re not done

We’ve got so far to go. The reason we don’t go there is because it takes training and working through humans to do it. And so, I’m telling you, I’m not trying to demotivate anybody and I’m not trying to have people give up and say, “I can’t do it.” I’m telling you, get started now. In the next twenty years, you’ll get there. Do training. Go to Super PM Bootcamp. Go to Japan with Paul Akers. Read books. Implement. Grind. There’s no reason to not live a remarkable life.

The Mass Production Challenge: Humans and Data Centers

You know, I had an idea for you. We get contacted a lot, like I’m sure everybody does, for massive data centers. And whenever I talk to these folks and we help them with scheduling and stuff, the problem is they either need electricity, water, or people. Electricity, water, or people. And it depends on which one’s at the lowest availability, which one’s the biggest constraint. But these massive data centers that we’re building, this is what I’m talking about when it comes to building a desert training center.

If, and I’m just going to say this right now to Google, to Facebook, to ChatGPT, to SpaceX, to Microsoft, all of them: You put me in, put me in coach. I’ll mass produce. I’ll mass produce a thousand. I’ll mass produce a thousand humans, construction professionals, a year for your programs. They’ll be completely trained in the system. They’ll know everything in and out. It will all be muscle memory. We will mass produce humans. We’ll start a desert training camp with wonderful accommodations. Give me the funding. We’ll get out there on the property. We’ll have really nice pods for housing. We’ll supplement with hotels in the meantime, or like something like an extended stay. And then we’ll just start mass producing humans. And I’ll take them through field engineering, project engineering, project management, and superintendent courses. And they will know how to do everything, muscle memory.

Come on, people. We can’t mass produce at the scale we’re mass producing in the United States with these data centers without mass producing humans as well. So we’ve got to get going. Let’s go. Let’s go.

Here’s why this matters. The industry is building faster than we’re training people. Data centers are going up at record pace. And the constraint isn’t electricity. It isn’t water. It’s people. Trained people. People who know how to plan, schedule, coordinate, and lead. And if we don’t mass produce training at the same scale, we’re mass-producing buildings, we’re going to bottleneck the entire industry.

The Second Half Will Be Better Than the First

I’ll admit freely, and I’m not proud of it, that as I started to get, I’ve lost twenty pounds and feeling really good, feeling really good with my health. I’m trying to get to two hundred five. At my heaviest, I was at two forty-eight. And I was starting to feel like a decline and like loss of some mental cognition and some things like that. And I was like, “I’m forty-four. I guess I’ll spend the next forty years dying.”

And I was kind of just not feeling at my top. And going to Paul Akers’ facility in Japan, I feel like the second part of my life, I’m going to be so much better than I was in the first. I’m not giving up. I’m going to do even better on this second half. And I hope you feel that way too.

In five years, people think I’m crazy. People think I’m crazy, man. I am so freaking excited about all this. So, I just wanted to share that with you. I cannot express how excited I am.

Here’s the message. Don’t settle. Don’t look at where you are and say, “This is good enough.” Look at where you could be and say, “I’m going to get there.” The second half of your career can be better than the first. The next twenty years of your company can be greater than the last twenty. The next project can be ten times more Lean than the last. But only if you keep going. Only if you refuse to settle. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

A Challenge for Builders

Here’s what I want you to do this week. Look at your project or your company and ask yourself: Am I at one point zero, or am I pushing toward ten times greater? Do I have clean trailers, or do I have three-S’d gang boxes, queuing areas, drone visuals, advanced dojos, and logistics systems that rival manufacturing?

If you’re at one point zero, that’s great. You’ve started. Now keep going. Read books. Go to training. Visit Paul Akers in Japan. Implement. Grind. Don’t settle for good when great is possible. Don’t stop at beginner level when advanced is ten times further down the road.

As we say at Elevate, whatever you think Lean looks like, multiply it by ten. That’s where we’re going. And you’re coming with us.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does ten times greater actually mean?

It means whatever you think Lean implementation looks like five S, visual boards, daily huddle multiply it by ten. Advanced dojos, three-D printed models, drone visuals, sensor tracking, queuing areas, three-S’d gang boxes, logistics systems that rival manufacturing. That’s ten times greater.

How do I know if I’m at one point zero or pushing toward ten times greater?

If you have clean trailers and visual boards but nothing else, you’re at one point zero. If you have advanced training, queuing areas, three-S’d equipment, drone deployment, sensor tracking, and logistics systems, you’re pushing toward ten times greater.

Why does it take twenty years to get there?

Because it takes training and working through humans. You can’t skip the grind. You read books, go to training, visit advanced facilities, implement, learn, iterate, and improve year after year. That’s how you get to ten times greater.

What’s the biggest constraint for mass-producing data centers?

People. Trained people. The industry is building faster than it’s training field engineers, project managers, and superintendents. We need to mass-produce training at the same scale we’re mass-producing buildings or we’ll bottleneck the entire industry.

How do I avoid settling for good enough?

Refuse to stop at beginner level. When you implement five S, push for three-S’d gang boxes. When you have visual boards, push for advanced dojos. When you have daily huddles, push for drone visuals and sensor tracking. Keep going. Don’t settle.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

The Leader Drives Lean

Posted on February 12, 2026February 12, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 18 min

Lean Has to Start With the Leader (You Can’t Delegate It)

Here’s a destructive business concept we need to debunk: the idea that a CEO or chairman should delegate Lean to other people on the leadership team and be hands-off. That’s a four-hour work week concept. And it’s garbage. If you’re the leader of a company, you can’t delegate Lean. It’s not a side project. It’s not something you hand to a VP or a Lean director or a consultant. The leader has to drive it. Period.

And if you don’t, Lean becomes flavor of the month. Decision by committee. Chaos. And nothing gets done.

The Pain of Delegated Lean Efforts

I’m reading a book called The Lean Turnaround and I just finished reading Everybody Matters and they’re both Lean books. And one of the things about The Lean Turnaround is the author says: Lean has to be your main operating system. It can’t be a side job. Number two, the CEO, the leader, the top, top, top, top human has to be the person who leads the Lean effort and is showing the example. And three, we have to transform the people.

And it just hit me. There’s this destructive business concept and I don’t know where it comes from, but we really need to debunk it. It’s this concept that a CEO or a chairman should delegate to other people on the leadership team and kind of be hands-off. I think that’s probably a four-hour work week concept. And I’m just like, I’m not that good, but I’m just like Keith Cunningham, the guy who wrote The Road Less Stupid. That’s so dumb.

I mean, you can learn some things from The Four-Hour Work Week book, but that is no way to lead an organization. We cannot delegate Lean to vice presidents. We cannot delegate Lean to a Lean director. We cannot delegate Lean to directors. We cannot delegate Lean to somebody else. We can’t even say, “Here, the consultant will do it.” The leader has to do it.

Here’s what happens when Lean gets delegated. The VP tries to drive it. The directors create initiatives. The Lean coordinator schedules kaizen events. And nothing sticks. Because the CEO isn’t modeling it. The top leader isn’t showing the example. And the organization learns that Lean is optional. It’s a program. It’s something middle management does while leadership watches from the corner office.

That’s not Lean. That’s theater.

Why Authority Matters (Influence Alone Won’t Cut It)

And I know this for a fact. When I was an area superintendent, I did as best I could. But when I was a project superintendent, when I was the head person, I did anything that I needed to do and that project was Lean. And when I was a general superintendent and a field director and a project director, and I was only a project director for two jobs, but I was in charge and I had authority and we were Lean.

Somebody who says you have to have influence and no authority has never tried to implement anything ever. They don’t know what they’re talking about. You have to have a gallon of influence and a teaspoon of authority. You have to have that authority. You have to be in charge.

I’ve never, even the companies that say that garbage about influence, they’re just chaos and everything is decision by committee. It’s garbage. And in our company right now, I do Lean improvements every day. I send videos every day. I do what I’m asking people to do. I Lean out the office. I Lean out my car. I Lean out the house. I Lean out my backpack. I am driving the effort. I am putting the effort behind it. And if it wasn’t that way, it would be sheer chaos.

It’d be like going to a United Nations gathering, which I’m not making fun of the UN, I’m just saying nothing gets done. In the United Nations, Russia can just veto something and it’s garbage. Everybody’s wasting their time. They’re just drafting resolutions to get nothing done. It’s absolutely garbage. So the leader has to do it.

Here’s why authority matters. When the top leader drives Lean, the organization knows it’s non-negotiable. When the top leader models improvements, the team knows it’s real. When the top leader holds the standard, middle management can’t let it slip. Authority creates the boundary. Influence creates the buy-in. But you need both. And if the top leader delegates Lean, they’re delegating the authority. And without authority, Lean becomes optional.

What Driving Lean Actually Looks Like

And I’m telling you, do we think that Warren Buffett would delegate something to somebody else if it was important? Do we think these top leaders would delegate? Do you think Gary Vee would delegate something like that? It’s not a business concept. It’s not a true concept. Saying I’m in charge and I’m going to delegate that to other people is not a thing.

That’s why Paul Akers will require you to have one hundred improvement videos, the entire leadership team on board, and the senior leader has to be driving the effort themselves or else you can’t come tour his facility. That’s how it is. Why? Because Lean will not work if that’s the case. It’s not a flavor of the month. It’s not something you can delegate.

Here’s what driving Lean looks like in practice:

The CEO does daily improvements and records videos to share with the team
The top leader shows up to kaizen events and participates, not just observes
Leadership Leans out their own workspace office, car, backpack and models the behavior
The senior team asks questions on gemba walks and holds the standard without delegating it

Paul Akers doesn’t delegate Lean. He lives it. He models it. He films his two-second improvements every day. And his organization follows because the leader is showing the way. That’s what driving Lean looks like. Not delegating. Leading.

You Can’t Delegate Safety, Culture, or Lean

If you’re the leader of a company, you can’t delegate safety. You can’t delegate culture. You can’t delegate Lean. It’s never going to work.

Here’s why. Safety, culture, and Lean are foundational. They’re not programs you hand off to middle management. They’re the operating system. And if the leader doesn’t drive the operating system, the organization learns that it’s optional. Safety becomes compliance. Culture becomes HR slogans. Lean becomes flavor of the month. And none of it sticks.

But when the leader drives it, everything changes. When the CEO shows up to safety stand-downs, safety becomes real. When the CEO models the culture, the team follows. When the CEO does daily Lean improvements, the organization knows it’s the way we work. Not a side project. Not a consultant initiative. The way we work.

That’s the difference. Delegation creates programs. Leadership creates transformation. And Lean is transformation. It’s not a program you hand off. It’s a system you lead. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

A Challenge for CEOs and Top Leaders

Here’s what I want you to do this week. If you’re the top leader in your organization and you’ve delegated Lean to someone else, stop. Take it back. Start doing daily improvements yourself. Film them. Share them. Model the behavior. Show up to kaizen events. Hold the standard. Lead from the front.

And if you’re not willing to do that, don’t implement Lean. Because it won’t work. It’ll become flavor of the month. Your team will go through the motions. And nothing will change. But if you’re willing to drive it, if you’re willing to lead it, if you’re willing to model it every single day, Lean will transform your organization. Not because of a consultant. Not because of a VP. Because the leader showed the way. As we say at Elevate, Lean starts with the leader. Not the Lean director. Not the VP. The CEO. The top leader. The person who sets the standard and holds the line. That’s who drives Lean. And if it’s not you, it’s not going to work.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why can’t Lean be delegated to a VP or Lean director?

Because Lean is the operating system, not a side project. When the top leader delegates it, the organization learns it’s optional. The standard slips. Middle management can’t hold the line without the CEO modeling it. Delegation creates programs. Leadership creates transformation.

What does it mean for the CEO to drive Lean?

It means the CEO does daily improvements, records videos, participates in kaizen events, shows up to gemba walks, models the behavior, and holds the standard. They don’t hand it off and watch from the corner office. They lead from the front.

Can a company implement Lean if the CEO isn’t on board?

No. Without the top leader driving it, Lean becomes flavor of the month. Middle management tries to hold the standard, but without the CEO modeling it, the organization learns it’s optional. You need authority and influence. The CEO has both.

Why does Paul Akers require one hundred improvement videos before touring his facility?

Because he knows Lean doesn’t work if the leadership team isn’t driving it. If the CEO hasn’t done one hundred improvements, they’re not leading Lean. They’re delegating it. And delegated Lean doesn’t stick.

What if the CEO doesn’t have time to do daily improvements?

Then they don’t have time to implement Lean. Lean isn’t a side project you hand to middle management. It’s the operating system. And if the top leader doesn’t have time to model it, the organization won’t have time to follow it. Leadership creates the culture. Delegation creates programs.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

A Reply to Nat M. Zorach

Posted on February 12, 2026February 12, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 21 min

Why Thoughtless Book Reviews Hurt Your Industry More Than Authors (And What Your Criticism Actually Reveals About You)

Here’s what I need to get out of my head today and this is more therapy for me than teaching, so if you’re not interested in why thoughtless online criticism destroys information sharing in our industry, skip to something else. But if you’ve ever poured your heart into creating content to help people only to have someone casually trash it without thinking, stay with me. Because what I’m about to respond to isn’t really about one bad review. It’s about a pattern of thoughtless behavior destroying our industry’s ability to share information and help each other improve.

I’m loving all of you humans out there. Did you know we’re almost to 60,000 subscribers on YouTube? That’s so freaking cool. But today I’ve got to respond to something that represents everything wrong with how we treat people who create content trying to help our industry. This was a review for The 10 Myths of CPM 2.0 out of five stars from someone named Nat M. Zorach. And you’re probably thinking “why mention this person’s name publicly?” I’m mentioning it because this person thought it was okay to give a two-star rating without any thought behind it. He’s totally at liberty to do that because that’s how Amazon works. But I want to paint a picture about what this kind of thoughtless criticism actually does.

This isn’t about defending my book the book stands on its own and hundreds of positive reviews prove it helps people. This is about cheap-seat criticism where people can trash others’ work without looking them in the face, without understanding the effort involved, without offering anything better themselves, and without realizing they’re hurting their own industry’s ability to improve. LinkedIn is safer you can block somebody. YouTube is the same you can mute them. Amazon is the best way to get written information out to people. But unfortunately, we have unthinking, ill-behaving people doing these things to hurt folks or just to be sloppy. This is sloppy classical management nonsense.

The Review’s Claims and Why Each Reveals Carelessness

Here’s the full review: “So I teach CPM and I have feelings about it. Overall this is a good read, but by the author’s own admission disappointingly late in the book, he’s not actually providing much by way of solutions, just critiques. The critiques are good which is why this gets three out of five stars [although he clicked two]. This is a self-published and apparently self-edited book that appears to have zero citations and few if any actual resolutions to the problems identified. There’s a major structural failure in that the author assumes that someone using CPM uses some sort of pure CPM. No one uses pure CPM. It is always hybridized with other methodologies because of its shortcomings. Also bummed that the voice reading is AI. What a world.”

Let me address these claims so you can see what careless criticism looks like.

Claim 1: “Not Providing Much by Way of Solutions, Just Critiques”

This is categorically untrue and reveals the reviewer didn’t do five seconds of research. We’ve written Takt Planning and Takt Time, Takt Steering and Control, and Elevating Pre-Construction Planning. Those are all the solutions. In addition to a full library of books, we have complete YouTube video series, Miro boards documenting systems, a free Takt Production System course online, and consulting services. There is no solution better documented than what we’ve provided. There’s never been anyone in construction with more comprehensive solutions better documented visually than what we offer much of it for free.

When this person says “he’s not providing solutions, just critiques”—that’s lazy criticism from someone who didn’t bother looking before claiming solutions don’t exist. The CPM critique book identifies the problems. The other books, videos, courses, and consulting provide the solutions. That’s intentional structure, not missing solutions.

Claim 2: “Self-Published and Apparently Self-Edited”

First: what’s wrong with self-published? We’re getting information out as a gift and the book is priced just to cover printing costs Amazon’s minimum. We’re not trying to make money; we’re trying to help the industry improve.

Second: “apparently self-edited” is interesting given the edit cost us $15,000 and we’ll see none of that back. I worked with multiple professional editors. It took many months and this book was condensed so beautifully it’s an art form. This is apparently hitting a nerve because this person teaches CPM and his job security is wrapped into defending it.

Claim 3: “Zero Citations”

Let me debunk the citations argument. When universities cite research papers, they’re often citing garbage. I’ve never read a construction research paper worth citing as superior to field reality. Even lean research papers studying Toyota are so confusing I have to get clarifications from the actual practitioners. Citations have nothing to do with whether content is valuable. Practical solutions from field implementation matter more than academic citations.

Claim 4: “Assumes Pure CPM”

This critique reveals the reviewer missed the point entirely. He says “no one uses pure CPM, it’s always hybridized because of its shortcomings.” When you modify CPM to avoid problems, you’re admitting the core system is broken. That’s exactly my argument. And when he admits “it’s always hybridized because of its shortcomings” he’s literally proving my point that CPM has fundamental problems.

Also: that’s not how owners, third-party consultants, arbitration experts, or lawyers use CPM. They take you exactly to the letter of the methodology in disputes. Claiming “nobody uses pure CPM” ignores contractual reality where pure CPM absolutely gets enforced when projects go wrong.

Claim 5: “AI Voice Reading”

Let me explain reality: Recording myself would cost $15,000 minimum, take six months to submit to Audible, three more months to publish, and wouldn’t stay current with updates. The book is read in a beautiful AI voice I love listening to better than I could record, and it’s constantly updated. This person would rather create bottlenecks preventing people from accessing information on their commute. Doesn’t care about accessibility. Would rather I waste time and money on something that can’t be updated.

What This Review Actually Reveals

I think this review is the epitome of what’s wrong with our culture: thoughtless arrogance that doesn’t appreciate people creating content to help. This person teaches CPM, so he’s financially incentivized to defend it. His significance is wrapped up in CPM being valid. When someone comprehensively critiques CPM and offers better alternatives, the defensive reaction is to trash the critique without engaging arguments.

I would love for this person to start publishing and see what it’s like to give something to the world at minimal cost, then have this response from somebody sloppy and selfish. I’ve never given a bad rating on anybody’s work ever. It doesn’t help. It’s not kind. And if you are going to rate somebody, do it with logical thinking, not defensive protection of your professional identity.

Two Types of Critics Worth Understanding

Thoughtful critics who engage: Read completely, understand arguments, identify specific weaknesses with reasoning, offer better alternatives, acknowledge what works while critiquing what doesn’t. These critics are valuable because they improve understanding.
Thoughtless critics defending identity: Have professional incentives to defend what’s being critiqued, skim content looking for attacks, ignore comprehensive solutions documented elsewhere, rate poorly to hurt information spread. These critics are noise defending significance.

This review falls clearly into the second category. Someone threatened by CPM critique, responding defensively without engaging arguments, making factually wrong claims that five seconds of research would disprove.

Why Cheap-Seat Criticism Hurts Your Industry

Here’s what people don’t understand: you’re not hurting the author as much as your industry’s ability to share information. When someone spends $15,000 on editing, prices books at minimum cost, creates comprehensive free resources, and offers solutions documented better than anyone and you trash that work thoughtlessly you’re discouraging others from creating content.

Why would anyone invest time and money helping the industry if the response is careless criticism from people defending outdated systems? The answer is: they won’t. And the industry stays stuck with expensive academic books nobody reads, outdated systems nobody improves, and scarcity of practical guidance. Your thoughtless two-star review doesn’t just hurt one book’s rating. It hurts the entire ecosystem of knowledge sharing in construction.

A Challenge for Content Consumers

If you consume books, videos, courses, or content people create to help the industry: appreciate the effort even when you disagree. Recognize self-published affordable content is a gift. Understand comprehensive solutions across multiple formats show commitment. Acknowledge AI narration enables accessibility rather than complaining it’s not traditionally recorded.

And if you’re going to criticize, do it thoughtfully: engage with actual arguments, research whether solutions exist before claiming they don’t, acknowledge strengths while identifying weaknesses, rate based on content quality not identity protection. Good faith criticism improves content. Bad faith criticism reveals insecurity defending outdated systems.

Resources for Implementation

The solutions this reviewer claimed don’t exist are documented comprehensively: Takt Planning and Takt Time book, Takt Steering and Control book, Elevating Pre-Construction Planning book, free Takt Production System course online, complete YouTube video series, Miro board documentation, and consulting services. All created at significant cost, offered at minimal or no price, trying to help the industry. Judge for yourself.

Building Industries That Appreciate Helpful Content

This connects to everything we teach at Elevate Construction about respect for people. When someone invests $15,000 in editing, prices books at printing cost, creates free resources, and documents solutions better than anyone and you trash that work to defend your professional identity you’re revealing classical management thinking where protecting significance matters more than helping the industry improve.

The reviewer is right about one thing: what a world. What a world where people creating helpful content get punished by cheap-seat critics contributing nothing better themselves. But here’s what gives me hope: 60,000 YouTube subscribers who appreciate the content. Hundreds of positive book reviews from people the content helped. Companies implementing successfully. The thoughtless critics are noise. The grateful learners are signal. Focus on signal. Keep creating content helping people. Ignore noise defending outdated systems.

Like I said, this is therapy more than teaching. We’ve got to move away from thoughtless criticism that hurts people creating content to help. But if that’s how you want to interact with the universe, by all means continue. If you ever want to debate substantively, I’m ready. And if you want to provide solutions yourself instead of criticizing everyone else’s, why don’t you publish something? Until then, the solutions are documented for anyone who actually wants to learn instead of defend their professional identity.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why respond to one negative review publicly?

Because it represents a pattern hurting information sharing across the industry. Addressing specific claims shows what careless criticism looks like and why it damages knowledge ecosystems more than individual authors.

Don’t negative reviews help improve content?

Thoughtful criticism helps. This review made factually wrong claims about missing solutions, ignored comprehensive documentation, and rated poorly to defend professional identity teaching CPM, not to improve the book.

What’s wrong with requiring academic citations?

Nothing when they add value. But construction research papers are often disconnected from field reality. Practical solutions from implementation matter more than citations to other academic papers.

Why use AI narration instead of recording yourself?

AI costs a fraction, enables constant updates, makes content accessible faster, and sounds better. Bottlenecking accessibility to satisfy traditional preferences hurts people more than helps.

How should people provide helpful criticism?

Engage with actual arguments, research comprehensively before claiming things don’t exist, acknowledge strengths while identifying weaknesses, rate based on content quality not identity protection, offer better alternatives if claiming current ones are insufficient.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

Need Data when Opinions Gridlock

Posted on February 12, 2026February 12, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 22 min

Data When Opinions Hold

Here’s a problem that kills projects: the team is gridlocked. The superintendent wants to add labor to recover from a delay. The PM wants to work overtime. The foreman wants to shorten durations and tell the crew to figure it out. And the Lean consultant is suggesting intelligent alternatives like rezoning, changing sequence, or isolating the problem. But nobody has data. So, the senior-most person says, “If all we have are opinions, let’s go with mine.” And the project crashes because the wrong decision won.

This is about what to do when opinions hold and data is missing.

The Pain of Crashing Activities the Old Way

I was prompted to do this podcast because of a situation. One of the most limiting factors that we have at LeanTakt, which is not a problem, we’re not upset, I’m not being negative, but is working through untrained people a lot of times that don’t know production systems, they don’t know Lean thinking, they’ve not been taught project management 101 principles. And a lot of times our folks, it’s never technical, it’s never, “Oh, let me solve this technical problem.” It’s always working through somebody’s prompting in their brains, which is fine, super love it, we build people before we build things.

And there’s times, one of the biggest problems that we have is that your construction projects get delayed. That’s just how life is. Construction projects sustain impacts and delays. No matter how much you’re trying to prevent it, they will still happen. And the worst thing that a person can do is to throw more untrained, non-onboarded labor last minute, work overtime, rush, push, and panic, add materials, and you know, stock too many materials, and start adding excess crews. It’s just a toxic environment. Or throw money at the problem. Those are all the typical CPM crashing activities answers, and none of them work.

Here’s what happens. The project falls behind. The superintendent panics. The PM says, “We need to make up time.” And the knee-jerk reaction is to add labor, work weekends, shorten durations, and push harder. Nobody maps out the options. Nobody simulates the scenarios. Nobody looks at the data. They just react with the old CPM playbook that has never worked. And the project spirals deeper because adding untrained labor, working overtime without planning, and rushing the crew creates more chaos, not less.

The Intelligent Alternatives Nobody Considers

There are some really smart ways to make up for delays: utilizing a buffer, changing the sequence as long as you have prerequisite work and it works and you have the materials, or isolating the problem, or rezoning after the problem. Or there’s twelve, to my knowledge, documented ways to accelerate and fix these problems. And we have posters that are available for free. They’re actually, I don’t know if everybody knows this, but there’s a toolbox tab on the Elevate Construction website now where you can go get any of these tools for free and just download them. You don’t even have to mess with me. They’re just right there in the Canva files.

So, this is all ready to go. And there’s a proper way to recover from delays, and there’s a proper way not to. And there are some times where our folks will be working with a project team, and the project manager or the superintendent will want to go do one of those old-timey crashing the activities type things. “Well, let’s just add a last-minute crew. Let’s just start working overtime. Let’s just shorten the duration and tell them to figure it out. Let’s just add eighteen people.”

Okay, okay, hold on, hold on. And when we offer suggestions, it’s turned down. And we do gate meetings in the process, and we do builder reviews, and we have what’s called a wolf meeting. When things go bad on a project, we do the Pulp Fiction. You’re sending in the wolf, right? So we send some of our top builders to help them before it becomes a problem. It’s not reactionary, it’s preventative.

And this team that I was working with had suggested the project team do some really intelligent things to recover from this impact and this delay. And they were like, “No.”

And so, it was opinions, opinions, opinions.

The Famous Quote: Data Versus Opinions

And I finally got to the point where I was like, “Hey, the only way you can do this is to simulate what all of the different what-if scenarios look like.” And I told the person that famous quote: “If we have data, let’s go with data. If all we have are opinions, let’s go with mine.”

That’s the way the famous quote goes. And so, a superintendent is going to pull that, or the PM is going to pull that trump card. They’re going to say, “If we have data, let’s go with data. But if all we have are opinions, let’s go with mine.”

Here’s the problem with that quote. It sounds reasonable. It sounds like leadership. But it’s a power play disguised as decision-making. And when the senior-most person pulls rank and overrides intelligent alternatives with their opinion, the project suffers. Not because they’re bad people. But because opinions without data are just guesses. And guesses don’t recover schedules.

The only way we are able to get past some of these sticky situations is to say, “Okay, well, if you add labor, this is what it’s going to look like. And this is how it’s going to extend the schedule or the production plan. It could be a schedule. But if you actually rezone it, this is what it looks like. If you change the sequence, this is what it looks like. If you isolate the delay and handle it with a change order and a separate paid crew, this is what it looks like.”

And so, we just need to get to a point where we have data.

Why Opinions Without Data Fail

And my point is, if you don’t have data and it’s just opinions, the senior-most person is just going to say, “Let’s just go with my opinion.” And so it’s time in those situations to just pivot to, “Let’s map it out on paper. Let’s get some data. Let’s go ahead and simulate some what-if scenarios and let’s map it out so we can see it visually and put it on the table.” That’s what we have to do when we’re gridlocked in a team.

Here’s why opinions fail. Opinions are based on past experience. And past experience might not apply to the current situation. The superintendent’s experience with adding labor on a previous project might have worked because the conditions were different. The crew was already onboarded. The zone was ready. The sequence aligned. But on this project, adding labor might create coordination chaos, extend durations, and burn out the existing crew.

Without data, you can’t know. You’re just guessing based on what worked before. And when multiple people are guessing based on different experiences, the loudest voice wins. Or the senior voice wins. And the project pays the price.

How to Get Data When Opinions Are Holding

Here’s the solution. When the team is gridlocked and opinions are flying, stop talking and start mapping. Take the Takt plan. Simulate the scenarios. Map out what happens if you add labor. Map out what happens if you rezone. Map out what happens if you change the sequence. Map out what happens if you isolate the delay and handle it separately. Put all the options on paper. Show the team the visual. Let them see the consequences of each decision before they commit.

This is what we do in wolf meetings. We don’t argue. We don’t debate. We don’t let opinions hold. We map scenarios. We show data. And we let the data drive the decision.

Here’s what that looks like practically:

Option one: Add untrained labor. Result: coordination chaos, extended durations, crew burnout. Visual: show the train stacking, the zones extending, the timeline slipping further.
Option two: Rezone after the problem. Result: smaller zones, maintained rhythm, buffers preserved. Visual: show the train flowing, the buffers intact, the timeline recovering.
Option three: Change the sequence. Result: prerequisite work ready, trades flow in new order, delay isolated. Visual: show the adjusted sequence, the handoffs realigning, the timeline stabilizing.
Option four: Isolate the delay and handle it separately with a change order crew. Result: train continues flowing, delay handled independently, schedule protected. Visual: show the main train moving, the separate crew handling the delay, the timeline unaffected.

Now the team isn’t arguing opinions. They’re looking at data. And the senior person can’t pull rank because the data is right there. The best option is visible. The consequences are clear. And the decision becomes obvious.

Connecting This to Respect for People

This is a respect-for-people issue. When you override intelligent alternatives with your opinion just because you’re senior, you disrespect the people who offered those alternatives. You disrespect the data. You disrespect the process. And you disrespect the crew who will suffer the consequences of the wrong decision.

Respect for people means you listen to alternatives. You simulate scenarios. You look at the data. And you make decisions based on what the data shows, not on who has the loudest voice or the highest title. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

And here’s the truth: the senior person’s opinion might be right. But you don’t know until you test it against the alternatives. Data reveals the truth. Opinions hide it. And when the project is on the line, you owe it to the team to get the data before you decide.

A Challenge for Project Teams

Here’s what I want you to do this week. The next time your team is gridlocked and opinions are holding, stop. Don’t let the senior person pull rank. Don’t let the loudest voice win. Map the scenarios. Simulate the options. Put them on paper. Show the team the visual. Let the data drive the decision.

And if you’re the senior person, resist the urge to say, “If all we have are opinions, let’s go with mine.” Instead, say this: “Let’s map out the options. Let’s simulate the scenarios. Let’s look at the data and make the best decision for the project.” That’s leadership. That’s respect. That’s how you protect the team from the consequences of uninformed decisions. As we say at Elevate, data beats opinions every time. When the team is gridlocked, map the scenarios, show the visual, and let the data decide.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does “if we have data, let’s go with data, but if all we have are opinions, let’s go with mine” mean?

It’s a famous quote that sounds reasonable but often becomes a power play. The senior person pulls rank and overrides alternatives with their opinion when data is missing. The solution is to get data by mapping scenarios so decisions are based on evidence, not hierarchy.

What are the intelligent alternatives to adding labor when projects fall behind?

Utilize buffers, change the sequence (if prerequisite work is ready), rezone after the problem, isolate the delay and handle it separately with a change order crew. There are twelve documented ways to recover from delays without crashing activities the old CPM way.

How do you simulate what-if scenarios when the team is gridlocked?

Take the Takt plan and map out each option visually. Show what happens if you add labor, rezone, change sequence, or isolate the delay. Put the scenarios on paper so the team can see the consequences before committing. Let the data drive the decision.

Why does adding untrained labor last minute usually fail?

Because it creates coordination chaos, extends durations, and burns out the existing crew. Untrained labor needs onboarding. They slow down the experienced crew. They don’t know the plan. And they create variation instead of reducing it. Data shows this. Opinions ignore it.

Where can I find the recovery tools and posters mentioned?

On the Elevate Construction website under the toolbox tab. The tools are free to download in Canva files. You don’t have to contact anyone. Just download them and use them to map scenarios and recover from delays intelligently.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

How Takt Complies with Lean Core 3

Posted on February 12, 2026February 12, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 25 min

How Takt Complies With Lean Core 3: One Piece Process and Progress Flow

Here’s something most construction leaders don’t realize: the Takt Production System isn’t just compatible with Lean principles. It’s the construction method that actually enables Lean Core 3 One Piece Process and Progress Flow to function in the field. And if you understand how Takt supports this core principle, you’ll see why CPM scheduling and large batch planning can never deliver true flow.

This is about how Takt and Lean Core 3 support each other in a virtuous feedback loop.

What Lean Core 3 Actually Means

Lean Core 1 is Respect for People, Nature, and Resources. Lean Core 2 is Stability and Standardization. Lean Core 3 is One Piece Process and Progress Flow. And I want to cover some topics of how the Takt Production System ties into Lean Core 3 and have a conversation here that accentuates how they support each other in a virtuous cycle, a virtuous feedback loop.

One Piece Flow means you work on one piece at a time instead of batching multiple pieces together. In manufacturing, that means one product moves through the line instead of building inventory in batches. In construction, that means one zone flows through the train of trades instead of scattering work across the entire floor.

Progress Flow means work moves predictably without interruption. The train of trades flows zone to zone at the same speed, the same distance apart, finishing as they go. No stacking. No waiting. No rework. Just rhythm.

Takt enables both. And here’s how.

Picking the Piece: The Right Batch Size

One of the concepts of One-Piece Flow or Progress Flow is picking the piece, having the right batch size. Well, Takt does this beautifully because it uses the Takt Calculator to help the builder select the right zone size based on work density. It literally is exactly the method in construction to pick the piece.

Here’s why this matters. In manufacturing, the piece is obvious. It’s the product. But in construction, the product is stationary and the workers move. So, the piece is the zone. And if you pick the wrong zone size, you destroy flow before you even start.

Too large, and you’re back to large batch planning. Trades stack. Buffers disappear. Flow breaks down. Too small, and you’re moving zones so fast the crew can’t complete their work package. Coordination collapses. Variation increases. The sweet spot is picking the zone size that balances work density, Takt time, and crew capacity. And that’s exactly what the Takt Calculator does.

It analyzes multiple zoning scenarios, shows you the impact of each option on duration and trade time, and helps you pick the right batch size for flow. That’s picking the piece. That’s Lean Core 3 applied to construction.

Don’t Take One Piece Flow Too Far

Because the second concept I want to talk about is don’t take One Piece Flow too far. What that means is this: like let’s say for instance, and this is a real example, there’s a project in northern Canada where they can only get shipments to the project site and workers twice a year. So, if we were like, “Do the deliveries multiple times a day, One Piece Flow,” you wouldn’t build that. It would take you seventy-five years to build the project.

You’ve got to grab two large shipment batches batches of people and batches of materials to get through your most limiting factor, which is your access to the job site. So, your piece that you’re going to select is a large batch. So, you can’t take One Piece Flow too far when it doesn’t apply. One Piece Flow will hurt you when it is your most limiting factor.

This is the constraint thinking that Lean requires. One Piece Flow is a principle, not a commandment. You apply it where it creates value. You don’t apply it blindly where it destroys value. In northern Canada, the constraint is site access. So, you batch shipments to overcome the constraint. But once materials are on site, you flow them zone to zone in small batches. You apply One Piece Flow where it works and adjust where it doesn’t.

Takt supports this because it separates constraints from roadblocks. Constraints are systemic limits you optimize around. Site access is a constraint. You batch materials to overcome it. Roadblocks are temporary blockers you remove. Missing layout is a roadblock. You clear it ahead of the train. Takt helps you see the difference so you apply the right principle to the right problem.

Little’s Law: Smaller Batch Size, Faster Duration

Now let’s talk about Little’s Law, where the law basically states, translated into construction, that the smaller the batch size, the faster you go. This is all calculated because of the work that Dr. Marco Binninger and Dr. Iris Tommelein did with the Takt formula and that Kevin Rice put into the calculator, where literally we’re able to use that calculator and the Takt time formula to figure out what our batch sizes should be.

Little’s Law is math. It’s not opinion. It’s not preference. It’s a production law that governs every system where work flows through zones. And it says this: reduce the batch size, and the overall duration shortens even though the trade time stays the same. That’s the magic of Takt.

When you zone a forty-thousand-square-foot floor into ten zones instead of five, each zone is smaller. The trade spends the same amount of time installing their scope because the total square footage didn’t change. But the overall phase duration pulls in because the train moves through smaller zones faster. And you gain buffers at the end because the throughput time decreased.

This is why large batch pull planning fails. You pull plan the entire floor, and Little’s Law works against you. The batch is too large. The duration extends. Buffers disappear. And flow breaks down. Takt fixes this by picking the right batch size using the calculator, then flowing the train through those zones in rhythm.

Kingman’s Formula: Analyzing In-Zone Cycle Time

The other thing is Kingman’s Formula is a really interesting concept in manufacturing, and it deals with variability and queues. But in a very stretched and almost distorted way, it also leads to the concept in construction of in-zone cycle times being able to analyze how much time is spent on the activity, how much time is spent on low crew productivity, and how much time does the crew spend on variation and how much variation is in the queuing time either for the customer or to start the work itself.

So loosely translated, Takt allows you to have Takt wagons, which allows you to analyze your in-zone cycle time and focus on identifying and reducing variation inside your cycle time.

Here’s what this means practically. Every activity has a cycle time. Cycle time is the total time the crew spends in the zone. And that time breaks down into three parts: the actual activity time (installing the work), production loss (crew onboarding, coordination, setup), and variation (waiting, rework, interruptions).

Kingman’s Formula says you need buffers to absorb variation. And Takt planning builds those buffers by packaging work realistically. When you analyze cycle time, you see where variation comes from. And when you see it, you can reduce it. That’s continuous improvement. That’s PDCA. That’s Lean Core 3 in action.

Plan, Build, Finish: One Zone at a Time

The other thing is when you’re doing One Piece Flow, one process, one progress flow, you work in plan, build, finish, plan, build, finish, plan, build, finish. Well, because you’re working in zones, the system itself allows the crew to plan their work in the zone, do the work in the zone, and then finish and reflect before they move on, which limits WIP. It doesn’t allow work in progress to exceed the capacity of resources because you’re planning within zones.

This is the rhythm that creates flow. Plan the zone. Build the zone. Finish the zone. Move to the next zone. Repeat. No partial completions. No scattering across multiple areas. No leaving work unfinished to chase fires. Just clean handoffs zone to zone.

And because Takt defines the zone boundaries and the Takt time, the crew knows when they’re done. The zone is complete when the work package is installed, inspected, cleaned, and ready for handoff. That’s finishing as you go. That’s One-Piece Flow applied to construction.

Pull Systems and Just-In-Time Material Delivery

And the other thing that it does is when you’re using pull systems with One Piece Flow, where you’re working in a zone with a work package at a time, you can feed that system with materials and labor and other resources and information. And you can actually work in One Piece Flow using pull systems, which also means you can finish as you go because you have your Takt time and your zone boundaries.

So, this is a really neat concept. And if we get the sequences right in the Takt Production System and we track our supply chain and resources to these zones with their work packages in One Piece Flow, we can literally bring materials out just in time. And we can focus with enough quality to where we bring in the Jidoka system, where we literally can stop the line if we see problems and fix them before moving on with quality at the source. It’s absolutely fantastic.

Here’s why this works. Takt creates predictability. You know which zone the train will be in on which day. So, you can stage materials just in time for that zone. You’re not flooding the floor with materials for the entire phase. You’re delivering the right materials to the right zone at the right time. That’s pull. That’s just-in-time. That’s Lean Core 3.

And because the crew is finishing as they go, quality problems surface immediately. If something is wrong, you see it in the zone before you move on. You can pull the Andon. You can stop the line. You can fix the problem before it ripples through the project. That’s Jidoka. That’s quality at the source. That’s respect for people because you’re not asking the crew to redo work three weeks later.

Bottlenecks and the Theory of Constraints

The other thing that it allows you to do is the Takt Production System allows you to see your bottlenecks and it allows you to apply the theory of constraints. So, the Takt Production System amazingly allows you to work in One Piece, one process, one progress flow, and then PDCA plan, do, check, adjust plan, do, check, act, and get better every cycle.

Takt makes bottlenecks visible. The train shows you which trade is slowing down the rhythm. The zones show you where work density is uneven. The Takt time shows you where crew capacity is limiting. And once you see the bottleneck, you can apply the theory of constraints. You don’t push harder. You optimize the bottleneck. You add capacity. You prefabricate. You adjust packaging. You relieve the constraint.

And then you do it again. Because once you relieve one bottleneck, another appears. That’s the nature of production systems. But Takt helps you see it, measure it, and improve it cycle after cycle. That’s PDCA. That’s continuous improvement. That’s Lean Core 3. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

A Challenge for Builders

Here’s what I want you to do this week. Look at your project through the lens of Lean Core 3. Are you picking the right batch size, or are you pull planning large areas? Are you flowing zone to zone, or are you scattering work across the floor? Are you finishing as you go, or are you leaving partial completions everywhere? Are you delivering materials just in time, or are you flooding the site with inventory?

If you’re not applying One Piece Flow, you’re not enabling Lean. And Takt is the construction method that makes it possible. Use the Takt Calculator to pick the right zone size. Flow the train zone to zone in rhythm. Plan, build, finish before you move on. Deliver materials just in time. Stop the line when quality problems appear. And apply PDCA to get better every cycle. As we say at Elevate, Takt is Lean applied to construction. Lean Core 3 is flow. And Takt is how you create it.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does One Piece Flow mean in construction?

One Piece Flow means you work on one zone at a time instead of batching work across multiple areas. The train of trades flows zone to zone, finishing as they go, instead of scattering across the entire floor. The zone is the piece.

How does Takt help you pick the right batch size?

The Takt Calculator analyzes multiple zoning scenarios and shows you the impact on duration, trade time, and flow potential. It helps you pick the zone size that balances work density, Takt time, and crew capacity. That’s picking the piece based on data, not gut feel.

What is Little’s Law and why does it matter?

Little’s Law says smaller batch sizes shorten overall duration even though trade time stays the same. In construction, that means smaller zones pull in the phase duration and gain buffers. Takt applies Little’s Law by zoning intentionally instead of pull planning large batches.

How does Takt enable just-in-time material delivery?

Takt creates predictability. You know which zone the train will be in on which day. So, you can stage materials just in time for that zone instead of flooding the floor with inventory. That’s pull. That’s just-in-time. That’s Lean Core 3.

What is Jidoka and how does Takt support it?

Jidoka means you can stop the line when quality problems appear and fix them before moving on. Takt supports this by having crews finish as they go zone to zone. Quality problems surface immediately in the zone, so you can correct them at the source instead of discovering them weeks later.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

Same Thing Helping More People, Not Higher

Posted on February 12, 2026February 12, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 22 min

Helping More, Not Helping Higher: The Proper Role of Leadership

Here’s a concept that might ruffle some feathers: leaders who rise higher shouldn’t do less work. They should help more people. The reward for climbing to the top isn’t escaping the work. It’s gaining the authority and position to serve, train, and elevate more people than you could before. And if you think leadership means delegating everything, taking the corner office, and working a four-hour work week while everyone else grinds, you’re not leading. You’re abandoning ship.

This is about what leadership actually means when you strip away the reward-based mindset that the industry sold us.

The Pain of Leaders Who Escape the Work

There’s a prevailing concept I think that’s how you say it, prevailing anyway, whatever, a concept that leaders as they go higher have kind of a reward-based mindset or perspective where their goal is to get farther away from the work and spend less time doing it. This is kind of a Four-Hour Work Week kind of book, kind of a mindset.

And I remember being in one of Tony Robbins’ Business Mastery courses where Keith Cunningham said, well, basically, well, earmuffs for anybody who has kids in the car, but Keith Cunningham said whoever wrote The Four-Hour Work Week was a complete dumbass because you can’t work four hours in a week and lead a business properly. It’s just not how life works.

Basically, the four-hour work week concept is where you want to exploit people and make money and then f off somewhere and drink mai tais in the sand. Now there’s nothing wrong with drinking mai tais on the beach. But not at the expense of other people. Anybody knows that if you’re going to lead a business, you’ve got to lead it.

And leaders will do a good job and then get to the point where they’re like, and even I do it, where they’re like, “I want to be less involved. I want to do less. I want to distance myself.” And that’s just not life. That’s not how life works. That’s not what a proper leader does. And that sounds super judgy, but this whole escape from the work and do less and be available less and turn it over to other people when it’s your business or you’re the leader or you have the vision or you have the drive, it’s just classical business management. It’s not appropriate.

The Distinction: You’re Not Doing Less, You’re Helping More

And I want to make the distinction that when you get in higher leadership roles, you’re not doing less and moving away from the work. You are in the work supporting. So, you’re doing the same things as you were before from a hierarchy standpoint, but you’re spending more time helping.

So don’t look at your role as you’re higher and you get to do less and delegate more and you have this big corner office and lots of rewards and perks and you’re going to take the favorite parking spot. It’s really that it’s your job to serve and help and improve more people’s lives. So you’re really doing the same thing at the same level, helping more people with more authority of course. But you don’t look at it as higher and farther away. That’s classical business management.

Here’s the truth: when you rise in leadership, your scope expands. You’re not escaping the trenches. You’re expanding your ability to serve more people in the trenches. The superintendent becomes a general superintendent and now serves multiple projects instead of one. The foreman becomes a superintendent and now trains multiple foremen instead of leading one crew. The project executive oversees multiple divisions and now develops multiple project teams instead of running one project.

At every level, the work changes. But the service doesn’t. You’re still in it. You’re still supporting. You’re still training. You’re just doing it for more people.

What Happens When Leaders Escape: The Consequences

What happens when you go into the higher and farther away reward center leadership? Your standards start to drift. The vision gets lost. Your mid-level leaders who count on you for leadership, drive, and vision are lost and failing to a certain extent because they were there to patch up and fill in the gaps for your leadership, not to replace you. They can’t replace you. It’s not their business.

And progress stalls. Division of the company gets lost. And people lose their way. And as you get more disconnected, everything slows down. And then less people are trained, less people are helped. It’s almost like, “Oh, I made it. Now I’m going to f off.”

Here’s what I’ve seen happen on projects when leadership escapes. The owner or the executive shows up less. The mid-level leaders superintendents, project managers, foremen start making decisions without guidance. They patch the gaps. They try to hold the vision. But they can’t replace the leader because it’s not their vision. They don’t have the authority. They don’t have the access to resources. They were there to execute the vision, not create it.

And slowly, the standards drift. The culture weakens. The training stops. The mentorship disappears. And the team starts operating in survival mode instead of growth mode. People stop asking questions because leadership isn’t around to answer them. People stop innovating because leadership isn’t there to support them. And the business plateaus or declines because the leader climbed to the top and then wandered off.

The Mountain Analogy: Send the Rope Back Down

Here’s an analogy. Let’s say that you’ve climbed this massive mountain. And there’s two ways to look at it. Let’s do both ways. Let’s say you’re the husband in a traditional marriage, which is super great, super fun with all that. And you’ve climbed this mountain, but the whole time your wife was taking care of kids and helping you and supporting you while you were in college and keeping everything down. And then you literally get successful and you’re like, “Effing, I’m out.” And she’s like, “Wait, what? What happened?”

I remember I saw this little video that was like the husband is climbing up this mountain and the wife is the belayer, the person down at the bottom holding the rope. And then when the husband gets to the top, he then pulls the wife up so that she can experience her dreams. Once you get to the top, you send the rope down. You don’t wander off and f off and then go marry a twenty-four-year-old. Okay? So that’s not a lecture, that’s just data. Or that’s my opinion rather, it’s not data.

The other thing with business is like you climb this business, you build this business, you get to the top, you’ve made it this far. And then you get to the top and you’re like, “Effing, I’m out. I’m going to go work a four-hour work week and everybody can figure it out.” You’re not sending the rope back down.

Why not work with your employees? Why not create an ESOP? Why not continue the training? Why not go work shoulder-to-shoulder? Why not help people with kaizen events? Why not help drive the progress? Why not help do training? Why not, like Ryan Schmidt does at Pepper Construction, Coach Schmidt keep doing orientations? Why not? Ryan Schmidt goes out and does barbecues for crews with Lauren Atwell. Lauren Atwell and Ryan Schmidt are some of my favorite human beings. They are such good mentors and examples to me.

When you reach the top, you don’t f off and work a four-hour work week. You help more people and you send the rope back down.

What Sending the Rope Down Looks Like

Here’s what this looks like practically. Ryan Schmidt is a senior leader at Pepper Construction. He still does new hire orientations. He still shows up to job sites. He still does barbecues for crews. He’s not in the corner office delegating everything. He’s on the ground helping more people because his position gives him the authority to do it at scale.

Lauren Atwell does the same. She’s in leadership, but she’s not distant. She’s present. She’s training. She’s mentoring. She’s working shoulder-to-shoulder with the people who need her most. That’s what helping more looks like. That’s what sending the rope down looks like.

And I’ve seen the opposite. I’ve seen leaders who climbed to the top and then disappeared. They stopped showing up to job sites. They stopped doing training. They stopped mentoring. They delegated everything and called it leadership. And their companies suffered. Standards drifted. Culture weakened. People left. Progress stalled. Because the leader wasn’t leading. They were managing from a distance and calling it success.

Connecting This to Respect for People

This is a respect-for-people issue. When you escape the work, you disrespect the people who helped you get to the top. You disrespect the team that’s still grinding while you’re in the corner office. You disrespect the craft by treating it as something to escape from instead of something to serve.

Respect for people means you keep helping as you rise. You don’t do less. You help more. You train more. You mentor more. You work shoulder-to-shoulder more. You elevate more people because your position gives you the authority and access to do it. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

And here’s the truth: the people at the top of great companies are the busiest people in the company. Not because they’re micromanaging. But because they’re serving more people, training more teams, and driving more progress than anyone else. That’s what leadership is. That’s what it means to send the rope down.

A Challenge for Leaders

Here’s what I want you to do this week. If you’re in a leadership role, ask yourself: Am I escaping the work or am I helping more people? Am I delegating to distance myself, or am I delegating to free up time to serve at a higher level? Am I less available than I was before, or am I more available to more people?

If you’re escaping, stop. Get back in the work. Not to micromanage. But to serve. Go do orientations. Go do job walks. Go train foremen. Go work shoulder-to-shoulder with the crew. Go help more people because you’re in a position to do it. That’s the reward for climbing the mountain. Not escaping. Helping more.

And if you’re climbing the mountain right now, remember this: when you get to the top, send the rope back down. Don’t wander off. Don’t escape. Help more people. Train more teams. Serve more crews. That’s what great leaders do. That’s what leadership actually means. As we say at Elevate, leadership is service at scale. The higher you climb, the more people you help. Don’t escape the work. Help more people.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does it mean to help more, not help higher?

It means as you rise in leadership, you don’t do less work or escape the trenches. You expand your ability to serve more people. You’re still in the work, still training, still mentoring. You’re just doing it for more people because your position gives you the authority and access.

Isn’t delegation part of good leadership?

Yes, but delegation isn’t escape. You delegate to free up time to serve at a higher level, not to distance yourself from the work. Great leaders delegate tasks so they can train more people, work shoulder-to-shoulder more often, and drive progress at scale.

What happens when leaders escape the work?

Standards drift. Vision gets lost. Mid-level leaders struggle because they were there to execute, not replace you. Progress stalls. Training stops. Culture weakens. And the business plateaus or declines because leadership isn’t present to guide, serve, and elevate the team.

How do I balance leadership responsibilities with being present on the ground?

You don’t balance by doing less. You balance by serving more people at the level you’re at. Senior leaders do orientations, job walks, kaizen events, and training at scale. You’re not in the weeds managing tasks. You’re on the ground helping more people.

What does sending the rope back down look like practically?

It means you keep training, mentoring, and serving as you rise. You do orientations like Ryan Schmidt. You work shoulder-to-shoulder with crews like Lauren Atwell. You stay present, accessible, and invested in elevating the people who are still climbing.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

Standards Must not Slip

Posted on February 12, 2026February 12, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 24 min

Standards Must Not Slip

Here’s one of the biggest failures in construction: companies implement Lean, create standards, see progress, and then let the standards slip. Not all at once. Not intentionally. But slowly. A meeting gets skipped. A checklist gets ignored. A foreman does it their own way. And before long, the system is gone. The standards vanished. And the team is back to chaos.

This is the line. Standards must not slip. Not because we’re being rigid. Not because we don’t trust people. But because stability and standardization are the foundation of every other benefit Lean provides. And you cannot have stability if standards slip.

The Pain of Letting Standards Slip

Let me describe what happens on most projects. The team implements Lean. They create leader standard work. They build visual management systems. They run daily huddles. They establish quality checks. And it works. The project stabilizes. Flow improves. The team gains confidence. And then someone says, “Hey, we’re doing well in our Lean journey. I think we’re good now. I think we got it now. I think we need to let them do that. I think it’s fine if that slips a little bit. Oh, I don’t think we need that meeting.”

It’s like we’re picking and choosing what parts of the system we want to implement. It would be like, “Oh yeah, make me a human, but you know what? I don’t need the right arm. You know what? We don’t really need both kidneys. Lungs? No, we have a circulatory system. That’s fine.”

As soon as you start reducing in that way, there’s reducing where you say, “Hey, that person, that human over there doesn’t need to be carrying that backpack.” But as soon as you’re like, “I don’t need that right arm,” that’s where we start lopping things off and we’re in big trouble. We cannot let standards slip.

Three months later, the project is slipping again. The meetings aren’t happening. The visual boards aren’t updated. The quality checks are skipped. And leadership wonders what happened. What happened is they let the standard slip. They thought they could maintain the benefits without maintaining the discipline. And Lean doesn’t work that way.

The Misconception: People Do It Their Own Way

One of the biggest points of stability and standardization in Lean systems is to not let standards slip. We must have standards. We must have non-negotiables. And we must have leader standard work and standard work at the Gemba. See, this is a big misconception in construction.

People think, “Oh, I’m going to go hire a super, they do it their own way. Hey, I’m going to hire a worker, they do it their own way. I’m going to hire a foreman, they do it their own way.”

No, they don’t. I cannot yell that loud enough. An employee follows the standards of the company, period.

If the company doesn’t have standards, shame on them. We must not let standards slip. We need to be warm-hearted, strict, but fair. The only thing we can’t do is let standards slip.

Here’s the truth that makes people uncomfortable: autonomy doesn’t mean doing whatever you want. Autonomy means solving problems creatively within a structured system. The foreman has autonomy to figure out how to make ready for the zone. But they don’t have autonomy to skip make ready. The superintendent has autonomy to adjust the plan when delays happen. But they don’t have autonomy to abandon Takt planning and go back to chaos. The worker has autonomy to improve their process. But they don’t have autonomy to ignore safety standards.

Standards define the boundaries. Autonomy operates within them. And if you let standards slip, you don’t have autonomy. You have chaos.

Why Standards Must Not Slip: The Foundation of Everything

The only thing we can’t do is let standards slip. I hear all the time, “Hey, we’re doing well in our Lean journey. I think we’re good now. I think we got it now. I think we need to let them do that. I think that’s fine if that slips a little bit. Oh, I don’t think we need that meeting.”

Here’s why this kills Lean. Every benefit that Lean provides flow, stability, predictability, respect for people depends on standardization. You cannot have flow if the train of trades doesn’t follow the Takt rhythm. You cannot have stability if foremen skip the make-ready process. You cannot have predictability if the weekly work plan isn’t followed. You cannot have respect for people if the safety standard slips and someone gets hurt.

Standards create the foundation. When the foundation cracks, everything built on top of it collapses. And the crack starts small. One skipped meeting. One ignored checklist. One foreman who says, “I don’t need to do it that way.” And leadership lets it slide because they don’t want to seem controlling or because the project is going well or because they’re tired of enforcing it.

But Lean doesn’t care about your intentions. It cares about the discipline. And when the discipline slips, the system fails.

My Line: I Will Never Let the Standard Slip

One of the things that I’ve struggled with is that as a supposed leader, there’s one thing Jason will not do: let the standard slip. If the decision, and this is where I have a fault, if it comes down to Jason might not know how to get this thing done properly in a way that everyone’s happy with or let the standard slip, I’m going to choose messing up, not letting the standard slip every time.

There’s only one thing with me that’s not going to happen: let the standard slip. That’s the one thing that’s not going to happen. It will not happen with me. We will follow the standards.

Now, I’m working on making sure that it’s all people-centered, that we’re doing the right thing, that we’re jamming out, that we’ve got lots of love and psychological safety. But I will never let the standard slip.

Here’s why I draw this line so hard. I’ve seen what happens when standards slip. I’ve seen projects that had flow lose it because someone decided the afternoon foreman huddle wasn’t necessary anymore. I’ve seen safety cultures collapse because one foreman ignored the rule and leadership didn’t correct it. I’ve seen Takt plans fail because trades stopped finishing as they go and leadership said, “It’s fine, we’ll catch up later.”

And I’ve learned that if I let the standard slip once, it’s gone. Because once you allow the exception, the exception becomes the new standard. And the team learns that the standard wasn’t really a standard. It was a suggestion. And suggestions don’t create stability.

How to Maintain Standards Without Being a Jerk

If we’re going to implement Lean or if somebody has implemented Lean and wants to maintain it, if we’re going to have any semblance of success whatsoever, we have to make sure that once the standards are set, they don’t slip.

Now, work shoulder-to-shoulder, be kind, provide training, dig deep, one hundred percent all of those things, one hundred percent. But we’re not going to let the standard slip.

Here’s how you do this without being a jerk. You be warm-hearted, strict, and fair. Warm-hearted means you care about people. You coach them. You train them. You explain why the standard matters. You work alongside them to help them succeed. Strict means the standard is non-negotiable. It’s not optional. It’s not flexible based on mood or workload or whether someone feels like it today. Fair means the standard applies to everyone equally. No favorites. No exceptions. No double standards.

Some of the ways that we can make sure that standards don’t slip:

Create leader standard work and follow it
Create standard work for the Gemba and follow it
Make sure that we have gates, phase gates to check the process
Make sure that we’re testing the abilities of our people
Make sure that we are verifying before we’re moving forward
Make sure that the culture is clearly communicated
Make sure that small little acts of treasonous behavior are not allowed to happen
Make sure that whatever the standard is, somebody doesn’t let it slip just for the sake of free speech

Free speech is a thing. But when it comes to dissension with standards, it’s not a thing. You can disagree. You can question. You can propose improvements. But you cannot ignore the standard while it’s in effect. If the standard needs to change, we change it formally. We don’t let individuals decide to stop following it.

Different Methods, Same Non-Negotiable

The bottom line is we cannot let standards slip if we want any semblance of standardization and stability. And we cannot have any of the other benefits of Lean unless we have stability and standardization like I’ve already talked about. So, we have to make sure that this is a focus, and we’ve got to find a way.

I do it the Jason way. You’ve got to find your way. Like I’ll send somebody home on a job site. Other people will just do job walks with the foreman to keep the job site safe, clean, and organized. Other people do it with kindness. But I don’t care how they do it, but the standards have to be maintained. We can’t let them slip.

Here’s what this means practically. Different leaders enforce standards differently. Some are direct. Some are collaborative. Some are gentle. Some are firm. And that’s fine. Your personality doesn’t have to match mine. Your approach doesn’t have to match mine. But the non-negotiable is the same: the standard must be followed.

If the standard is that the afternoon foreman huddle happens every day, it happens every day. You can run it warmly or firmly. You can make it collaborative or directive. But it happens. If the standard is that zones are finished before the crew moves on, zones are finished before the crew moves on. You can coach kindly or correct directly. But the standard is followed. If the standard is that the job site is clean and organized, the job site is clean and organized. You can enforce it through job walks or through immediate correction. But the standard is maintained. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

Connecting This to Respect for People

This is a respect-for-people issue. When you let standards slip, you disrespect the people who follow them. You tell the foreman who shows up to the afternoon huddle every day that their discipline doesn’t matter because the foreman who skips it faces no consequence. You tell the crew who finishes their zone cleanly that their effort is optional because the crew who leaves mess behind isn’t corrected. You tell the workers who follow safety rules that their protection is negotiable because the workers who violate standards aren’t held accountable.

That’s not respect. That’s chaos disguised as flexibility. And it destroys trust, morale, and culture faster than almost anything else. Respect for people means holding the standard so everyone operates in a stable, predictable system where discipline is honored and followed equally.

A Challenge for Leaders

Here’s what I want you to do this week. Walk your project and look for where standards are slipping. Is the daily huddle happening consistently? Are the visual boards updated? Are the make-ready checks being done? Are zones being finished before crews move on? Are safety standards being followed?

If you find a place where the standard is slipping, correct it immediately. Don’t let it go. Don’t say, “It’s fine this time.” Don’t make excuses. Coach the person. Explain why it matters. Work alongside them to help them succeed. But do not let the standard slip.

And if you’re the one tempted to let it slide because you’re tired or because things are going well or because you don’t want to seem controlling, remember this: the standard is the foundation. Once it cracks, everything collapses. Protect the standard. Be warm-hearted, strict, and fair. And never let it slip. As we say at Elevate, stability requires discipline. Discipline requires standards. And standards require leaders who won’t let them slip.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does it mean to be warm-hearted, strict, and fair?

Warm-hearted means you care about people, coach them, and help them succeed. Strict means the standard is non-negotiable and must be followed. Fair means the standard applies to everyone equally with no favorites or exceptions.

How do I enforce standards without being controlling or rigid?

Explain why the standard matters. Train people to follow it. Work alongside them to help them succeed. But hold the line. The standard is the boundary within which autonomy operates. Enforcing it isn’t controlling. It’s protecting stability.

What if someone disagrees with the standard?

They can question it. They can propose improvements. But they cannot ignore it while it’s in effect. If the standard needs to change, we change it formally through the proper process. Individuals don’t get to decide to stop following it.

Why can’t I let the standard slip just once if the project is going well?

Because once you allow the exception, the exception becomes the new standard. The team learns the standard was optional. And the discipline that created the success disappears. Standards don’t create success only when enforced occasionally. They create success when followed consistently.

What happens if I let standards slip?

The foundation cracks. Stability disappears. Flow breaks down. The team stops trusting the system. And all the benefits Lean provided predictability, rhythm, respect for people collapse. You cannot have Lean without standardization. And you cannot have standardization if standards slip.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

The Person Solving the Problem

Posted on February 12, 2026February 12, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 23 min

The Person Solving the Problem Gets to Lead the Mental Process

Here’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately: when you ask someone for advice, you need to let them lead the conversation. Not because they’re being difficult. Not because they’re trying to assert authority. But because the person solving the problem needs to follow their own mental process to give you the answer you actually need.

And most of us get this backwards. We ask for help, then we box the person in. We ask questions, then we interrupt. We request advice, then we steer the conversation. And we wonder why the advice doesn’t land or why the conversation feels frustrating.

The Pain of Being Asked for Advice, Then Controlled

Let me tell you what happens when someone calls me for advice. They set up the conversation. They explain the problem. And then, right when I’m about to dig in and help them think through it, they start controlling the process. They ask a question, then interrupt the answer. They want me to follow their order. They box me into their framework. And I end up giving advice that doesn’t actually help because I couldn’t follow my own thinking.

This happens all the time. People call and say, “Jason, I need your help on this Takt plan.” And I say, “Okay, tell me about the project.” And they say, “Well, first let me ask you this specific thing.” And I say, “Hold on, I need context first.” And they say, “No, just answer this part.” And now I’m stuck. I’m trying to help, but I can’t think the way I need to think to actually solve the problem.

The podcast for me is something that’s near and dear to my heart because there have been times in my past where I’ve sounded like an a-hole. Honestly, back in the day, I was an a-hole. So, I’m a recovering a-hole. It’s kind of like Miranda Priestley from The Devil Wears Prada, where she’s just really snippy. I kind of used to sound like that. But as I’ve become a more people-centered leader and really worked hard to work on how I come across and my impact and my vibes, there have still been some times where I just need the answer, but I don’t want to come off wrong.

I’ve been really thinking, what is going on here? It hit me the other day. And by the way, I’m not talking about being jerk monkeys and being rude, and I’m not advocating for poor behavior. But when I’m trying to be kind, there are some times where I need some help.

A Field Story: The Advice Call That Changed My Thinking

Here’s what I mean. If somebody has asked me to solve a problem, it’s easier for them to follow my mental process. I’m not talking about just, “Hey, just answer the question and just follow me.” But there are some times where somebody needs to let me think.

Let me give you a story. I don’t remember if the person was nice to me or whatever. I’m not even sure it matters. But there was this really powerful general superintendent that worked at Hensel Phelps, and he was a genius. He was running a three-hundred-fifty-million-dollar project, back then it was probably like a seven-hundred-million-dollar project now, but it was a Kaiser hospital. And he did a lot of the priority walls before MEP. He was very advanced when it came to building information modeling. I mean, this guy was just the real deal.

And so, I was about to go into helping to build a cancer center, and I called him for some advice. And I queued up the conversation, and then I started trying to box him in and lead the conversation. And he was like, “Jason, if you’re calling me for advice, please let me talk.”

I think that’s what he said. And immediately, I was quiet. And he gave me the advice. And I was taken aback because I wanted his advice, but it came off kind of abrupt. I didn’t understand it until years later.

People call me for advice a lot. And what they’ll do is they’ll ask me for advice, then they’ll box me in, then they’ll make me follow their mental process. And it’s not that I’m unwilling to do it because I actually probably am, especially with trying to be a nice guy and be liked and better lead people. But I’ve found that if I’m the one solving the problem, I’ve got to let my brain run. And we’ve got to follow probably my brain’s process.

Why This Matters: The Limiting Factor Is the Solver’s Brain

This is the theory of constraints applied to problem-solving. The limiting factor is the person solving the problem. They have to follow their mental process. And we should subordinate to it. Not because they’re being rude. Not because they’re asserting dominance. But because their brain is doing the work, and if you interrupt that process, the answer won’t be as good.

And so, I’ve gotten to a point where I’m like, “Hey, would you mind just letting me ask questions and follow my brain’s process here, and you subordinate just a little bit? Not to me from an authority standpoint, but just like help me out a bit.” And it works so, so well because my brain’s the one solving the process.

Here’s why this principle matters. When you ask someone for advice, you’re asking them to apply their experience, their frameworks, and their thinking to your problem. But their thinking doesn’t work the same way as yours. They need to ask the questions that reveal the right information. They need to follow the order that makes sense to them. They need to think in the structure that works for their brain. And if you force them to follow your order, you interrupt their process. And the advice suffers.

When the Client Is Solving the Problem (and We’re Interrupting)

Sometimes we at LeanTakt have a problem in a client meeting where the client is the one solving the problem because they’re looking at the Takt plan. But we’re trying to be controlling and follow our mental process, and it’s not going well. And so, this advice has helped a lot of people that say, “Hey, find whoever’s solving the problem and follow their mental process. And if they’re asking questions, answer them. If they’re going in a certain order, go in that order.”

This happens in reverse too. The client is trying to understand the Takt plan. They’re thinking through the zones. They’re asking questions in the order that makes sense to them. And we, the consultants, start jumping ahead. We start controlling the flow. We start steering them to our conclusion. And they get frustrated because we’re not letting them solve it in their own head.

The same principle applies. Whoever’s doing the thinking needs to lead the process. If the client is figuring out the plan, let them ask questions in their order. If the consultant is diagnosing the problem, let them follow their framework. Don’t interrupt. Don’t steer. Don’t box them in. Just follow their mental process and answer what they need when they need it.

This Isn’t About Being a Jerk

I found this to be very helpful because you’re not being a jerk. It’s not about being a jerk. It’s that we’ve got to understand what the most limiting factor is. This is the theory of constraints. The limiting factor is the person solving the problem. They have to follow their mental process, and we should subordinate to it.

So, if you ever see this, you don’t have to be a jerk. And we don’t have to be like Miranda Priestley in The Devil Wears Prada and be rude. It’s just like, “Hey, would you mind letting me solve this in my brain’s order right now? I need help because I’ve got to think through this.”

Here’s how you say it without sounding like a jerk: “Hey, I want to give you the best answer I can. To do that, I need to ask a few questions in my own order. Would that be okay?” Or: “I know you have a specific question, but let me get some context first so I can help you properly.” Or: “I’m trying to think through this with you, and my brain works best when I can follow my own process. Can you just answer my questions as I ask them?”

That’s respectful. That’s clear. That’s not being rude. That’s protecting the quality of the advice by letting the solver’s brain do what it does best.

Connecting This to Leadership and Respect for People

This is a respect-for-people issue. When you ask someone for help, you’re asking them to contribute their expertise. And the most respectful thing you can do is let them contribute in the way that works best for them. Interrupting their process, steering their thinking, or boxing them into your framework isn’t collaborative. It’s controlling. And it prevents them from giving you their best work.

The same principle applies to superintendents and foremen. When a foreman is solving a zone coordination problem, let them think through it in their order. Don’t interrupt with your solution. When a trade is diagnosing why an activity fell behind, let them explain in their sequence. Don’t steer them to your conclusion. The person closest to the problem usually has the best insight, but only if you let their brain run without interference. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

This is also why Takt Planning works. The Last Planner System gives the foremen the space to think through the plan in their own order. Pull planning lets the trades sequence the work in the way that makes sense to them. We’re not boxing them in. We’re not controlling their thinking. We’re letting them solve the problem in their mental framework, and the plan is better because of it.

A Challenge for Leaders and Problem Solvers

Here’s what I want you to do this week. The next time someone asks you for advice, notice whether they let you think or whether they steer you. And if they’re steering, say this: “Hey, I want to help you. To do that, I need to ask a few questions in my own order. Can you just answer them and let me think through this?” And then watch what happens. The advice gets better. The conversation flows. And the problem gets solved faster.

And if you’re the one asking for advice, do this: State the problem. Answer the questions the person asks in the order they ask them. Don’t interrupt. Don’t steer. Don’t box them in. Just let them think. You asked for help. Let them help in the way that works for their brain.

Find whoever’s solving the problem and follow their mental process. If they’re asking questions, answer them. If they’re going in a certain order, go in that order. That’s not being controlling. That’s respecting the way thinking actually works. As we say at Elevate, respect for people starts with respecting how they solve problems. Let the solver lead. Follow their mental process. And get better advice because of it.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does the person solving the problem need to lead the conversation?

Because their brain is doing the work. They need to ask questions in the order that reveals the right information. They need to think in the structure that makes sense to them. If you force them to follow your order, you interrupt their process and the advice suffers.

How do I ask someone to let me lead the process without sounding rude?

Say it clearly and respectfully: “Hey, I want to give you the best answer I can. To do that, I need to ask a few questions in my own order. Would that be okay?” That’s not rude. That’s protecting the quality of the advice.

What if I have a specific question and they want to ask context first?

Let them ask for context. They need it to give you a good answer. If you skip the context and force them to answer your specific question, you’ll get a narrow answer that doesn’t solve the real problem.

Does this mean I should never guide the conversation when I ask for help?

You can frame the problem. You can give context. But once they start solving, let them lead. Don’t interrupt their thinking. Don’t box them into your framework. Let them follow their mental process to give you the best answer.

How does this connect to Lean and respect for people?

Respect for people means respecting how they think and solve problems. When you interrupt someone’s mental process, you’re not collaborating. You’re controlling. Letting the solver lead is a form of respect that produces better outcomes.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

Last Planner in Construction | Work Structuring for Flow (Not Convenience)

Posted on February 12, 2026February 12, 2026 by Jason Schroeder

Read 24 min

Work Structuring for Flow (Not Convenience)

Here’s where most projects go wrong before they even start building: they structure work for convenience instead of flow. They pull plan one big area because it’s easy to draw on the plans. They let the GC pick zone sizes arbitrarily. They accept whatever duration the trade says without understanding cycle time or crew composition. And then they wonder why the project doesn’t flow, why bottlenecks appear, and why the schedule slips.

This isn’t about effort. It’s about structure. And if you structure work wrong, no amount of coordination will save you.

The Pain of Large Batch Pull Planning

Let me explain where we do this wrong in the industry. Number one: when we’re doing pull planning in the Last Planner System, we use big old large batch areas and it does not optimize the production plan and it gets us in a lot of trouble.

Here’s what happens. The team gathers for pull planning. They look at the floor plan. Someone says, “Let’s pull plan the entire floor.” So they do. They sequence the work. They coordinate the trades. They create commitments. And they walk away thinking they’ve done good work.

But they haven’t optimized anything. They’ve created a large batch plan that will cause trade stacking, eliminate buffers, and destroy flow. And they won’t realize it until they’re three weeks into execution and the project is already behind.

The Math of Zoning: Why Smaller Zones Pull In Duration

Let me show you something visually. And I was taught this by Dr. Iris Tommelein on a Zoom meeting, and I appreciate her very much. She changed my life and I appreciate this, along with Dr. Marco Binninger. If you say, “Hey, here’s the floor plan and you have two zones,” and you say, “What if we split that into four zones? Now you have zone one, two, three, four.”

Then you can say, “Well, if I split these in half, that’s going to be half the duration.” So let me just show that. For zone one, zone two, this takes a minute, but I do have to draw this. And then this other activity will be half the duration as well. And I just want you to know this works out mathematically. This works out in real life. You can visually see that a couple of cool things happen.

Number one: the end duration has moved forward. But I keep saying in this video series that we’re not taking time from the trade partners. And so what happens here is this first activity which was moving from zone to zone, that has the same amount of time. And in many cases, because of rounding, working around a standard time unit, it’s more a lot of times. And you can see that the actual duration for the trade is exactly the same. But we’ve pulled in the overall throughput time for the phase and we’ve been able to gain buffers.

This is Little’s Law applied to construction. Smaller zones, same trade time, shorter overall duration, and gained buffers. That’s the math. That’s why zoning matters.

What We Do Wrong: Pull Planning Large Batches

So one of the things that we do wrong in the industry is we go pull plan one big old honking area and just do the entire floor. We shouldn’t do that. We should break up the floors into zones by work density, not by area, not by equal area. And then I’m just going to draw it with a line, like a pull plan as a line. We should pull plan once for that first zone. And then we compare that same sequence from zone to zone and make sure we have diagonal trade flow. We compare it to the milestone, and if we’ve done it right, we will have gained buffers at the end.

Unless you’re doing a single renovation, like in a small six-thousand-square-foot or less area, you shouldn’t see a pull plan by itself. You should see it structured like this. And that’s one of the first things that we do when we’re talking about work structuring.

Here’s why this matters. When you pull plan a large batch, you’re planning for convenience. It’s easier to draw. It’s faster to coordinate. It feels productive. But you’re sacrificing flow. You’re creating conditions where trades will stack, where buffers disappear, and where the train can’t maintain rhythm. Work structuring for flow means zoning intentionally, pulling once, then replicating the sequence zone to zone with diagonal trade flow.

The Bottleneck Problem: Duration Without Crew Composition

The other thing that we do is we have to make sure that when we’re doing our durations, we understand that if we have multiple zones, it’s not okay to just blindly say short duration, long, short. Because if you have multiple zones, this is what’s going to happen if you don’t have multiple resources.

If this trade bottleneck or bottleneck activity is not split into two crews, or we don’t optimize it, or we don’t prefabricate to it, or we don’t speed up the work without hurting workers in some way, you’ve now bottlenecked this entire phase when every other activity has a different line of balance. So work structuring has got to consider trade bottlenecks.

Here’s the mistake. A trade says, “This activity takes four days.” And the team accepts it. They don’t ask about crew composition. They don’t ask if the trade can split into two crews for multiple zones. They don’t ask about prefabrication or tooling or equipment. They just write “four days” on the pull plan and move on. And then the bottleneck appears when the train hits that zone and realizes the trade can’t keep pace.

Work structuring means understanding that every activity has variation and production loss from crew composition in addition to the activity time. You can’t just accept what a trade says. You have to understand the work package, the cycle time, and whether the crew can maintain the rhythm across zones.

Design to the Work Package (Not the Other Way Around)

Here’s the really important point. We can’t just try and go build what’s on the design. When we’re doing schematic design, design development, and then our construction documents, our construction drawings, we have got to right at this point do planning that tells the designers how we want to build this activity. I learned this from Hal Macomber.

What kind of equipment do we have? Do we need to prefabricate it? How are we going to install it? Because in design development, you select the systems. And so, we need to make sure that we’re designing to this work package for our supply chains and our design. And we understand the difference between the activity time and any production loss or variation loss inside that cycle time. And we need to start mapping out cycle times and understanding them in relation to the Takt time so that we know we have a predictable schedule or production plan that we can actually hit.

This is the shift. Most projects let design drive buildability. The designer picks the system. The builder figures out how to install it. And if the work package doesn’t align with flow, the builder just deals with it. That’s backwards. Work structuring for flow means the builder influences design so the system can be installed in rhythm. The tail stops wagging the dog. The builder owner guides everything to elevate and enable the build.

Three Rules for Work Structuring

The bottom line is we’ve got to start work packaging right with space. We’ve got to start work packaging right when it comes to duration and crew composition. And we’ve got to start work packaging properly when it comes to design and how we’re going to build something. We can’t just willy-nilly say, “Well, it’s a six-person crew and the GC picked a ten-thousand-square-foot zone size and this is the duration that we said it was,” and just go hope that it does well.

We’ve got to work from the end to the front. Work with the end in mind and say: What is the Takt time? What does the zone size need to be? Does it align with the rhythm of the overall scope of work? And have we designed to that work package?

Here are the three critical questions for work structuring:

Can a crew work in a zone for their work package in a day, full kit?
Does the zone size align with work density, not just area?
Have we designed the system so it can be installed in rhythm across zones?

If the answer to any of these is no, you haven’t structured work for flow. You’ve structured it for convenience. And convenience kills rhythm.

What Really Matters: The Slowest Trade and the Hardest Zone

Here’s my last point, and this is beautiful. It doesn’t matter how fast your fastest trades are going. It matters how fast your slowest trades are going. It matters what your hardest zones are. And it matters how many zones you have. And it matters how you package work.

This is the production reality. The project moves at the pace of the bottleneck. The hardest zone sets the Takt time for all zones. The number of zones determines the overall duration. And the work package determines whether the crew can execute in rhythm. If you optimize for the fast trades and ignore the slow ones, you’re designing chaos. If you zone by equal area instead of work density, you’re creating bottlenecks. If you let design dictate buildability without builder input, you’re forcing the crew to fight the system.

Work structuring for flow means you optimize for the slowest trade, you zone by the hardest density, and you design to the work package so the entire train can maintain rhythm. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

Connecting This to the Last Planner System

This has got to be more of a fixture and a focus for us inside the Last Planner System. You can check out the book The 10 Improvements to the Last Planner System. It’s described very well. You’ll also see how to do this work structuring very clearly in the books Elevating Pre-Construction Planning and especially Takt Steering and Control.

Work structuring is one of the ten improvements to Last Planner because Last Planner alone doesn’t force proper zoning, cycle time analysis, or work package design. Without Takt, teams default to large batch pull planning. Without cycle time thinking, they accept durations without understanding crew composition or bottlenecks. Without design influence, they build what’s drawn instead of what flows.

When you combine Last Planner with Takt and proper work structuring, the system transforms. Pull planning becomes optimized. Zones align with work density. Durations reflect cycle time and crew composition. And design supports buildability instead of fighting it.

A Challenge for Planners and Pre-Construction Teams

Here’s what I want you to do this week. Look at your next pull plan. Are you planning one large batch area, or are you zoning by work density and replicating the sequence across zones? Are you accepting trade durations without understanding cycle time and crew composition? Are you designing systems without builder input on how they’ll be installed in rhythm?

If you’re doing any of these things, you’re structuring work for convenience, not flow. Change the approach. Zone by work density. Pull plan once for the first zone, then replicate. Ask trades about crew composition and bottlenecks. Influence design so the system can be installed in rhythm. And map cycle times against Takt time to ensure the plan is executable.

Work structuring isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s the foundation of flow. Get it right and the project flies. Get it wrong and no amount of coordination will save you. As we say at Elevate, the tail stops wagging the dog. Design to what you need to build. Structure work for flow, not convenience.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does it mean to zone by work density instead of area?

Zoning by area divides the floor into equal square footage. Zoning by work density divides the floor by the amount of work required, which may not be equal. Dense areas with more trades, more scope, or more complexity get smaller zones. Light areas get larger zones. This levels the work so every zone takes the same Takt time.

Why can’t I just pull plan the entire floor at once?

Large batch pull planning doesn’t optimize flow. It creates conditions where trades stack, buffers disappear, and rhythm breaks. Proper work structuring means you zone intentionally, pull plan once for the first zone, then replicate the sequence zone to zone with diagonal trade flow.

How do I know if a trade duration accounts for crew composition and cycle time?

Ask. Don’t accept “four days” without understanding crew size, equipment, prefabrication, and whether they can maintain that pace across multiple zones. Cycle time includes activity time plus production loss from crew composition. If the trade can’t split crews or maintain rhythm, you have a bottleneck.

What does it mean to design to the work package?

It means builder input influences design decisions during schematic design and design development. Instead of the designer picking systems and the builder figuring out installation, the builder tells the designer how the work needs to be packaged, what equipment is available, and how the system will be installed in rhythm.

Why does the slowest trade matter more than the fastest trade?

Because the project moves at the pace of the bottleneck. The slowest trade sets the Takt time. The hardest zone determines the rhythm. Optimizing for fast trades while ignoring slow ones creates chaos because the train can only move as fast as its slowest car.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

On we go

General Offerings

Company Offerings

Systems

SUBSCRIBE NOW !

Subscribe to our newsletters and stay updated!

Important Scam Alert: Fake Elevate Construction Job Emails

Related Books

The First Planner System: The Project Planning System for Executives, Project Managers, and Superintendents in Pre-construction - Book 2

Pull Planning For Builders: How to Pull Plan Right, Respect People, and Gain Time (The Art of the Builder)

The Ten Improvements to Production Planning: What Lean Builders Can Do To Improve Short Interval Planning (The Art of the Builder)

Related Books

The First Planner System: The Project Planning System for Executives, Project Managers, and Superintendents in Pre-construction - Book 2

Built to Fail: Why Construction Projects Take So Long, Cost Too Much, And How to Fix It

Related Books

The First Planner System: The Project Planning System for Executives, Project Managers, and Superintendents in Pre-construction - Book 2

The 10 Myths of CPM: How The Critical Path Method Systematizes Disrespect for People

Calumet "K"

faq

General Training Overview

Superintendent / PM Boot Camp

Takt Production System® Virtual Training

Onsite Takt Simulation

Foreman & Field Engineer Training

Testimonials

Testimonials

agenda

Day 1

Foundations & Macro Planning

day2

Norm Planning & Flow Optimization

day3

Advanced Tools & Comparisons

day4

Buffers, Controls & Finalization

day5

Control Systems & Presentations

faq

UNDERSTANDING THE TRAINING

VALUE AND RESULTS

PLANNING AND SCHEDULING TOPICS

APPLICATION & TEAM ADOPTION

VIRTUAL FORMAT & ACCESSIBILITY

faq

GENERAL FAQS

CURRICULUM & OUTCOMES

LOGISTICS & FORMAT

PRICING & VALUE

SEO-BASED / HIGH-INTENT SEARCH QUESTIONS