Before Phase Planning: Stress-Test the Plan Before Crews Mobilize.

Posted on October 2, 2026October 2, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

What Actually Makes a Train a Train, Versus Multiple Trains

Here’s the deal. A phase of work, a train of trades moving through zones between a start and an end milestone, sits at the actual core of advanced work packaging, the Last Planner System, the First Planner System, and the entire Takt production system. Understanding exactly what that train concept really means matters more than most people realize.

Clearing Up a Genuine Point of Confusion

A real train has an engine and a set of wagons or boxcars, all linked together, moving at the exact same speed, maintaining the exact same distance from each other. If you ever see wagons moving at genuinely different speeds, that is not one single train anymore. Each one effectively has its own engine, which means you are genuinely looking at multiple separate trains, what we call a multi-train plan.

This distinction matters because forcing an entire phase into one single, uniform Takt time, regardless of what the real work actually requires, forces crews to unnaturally stretch or compress their genuine sequences and durations to fit a rhythm that was never actually true to the work itself. Recognizing when a phase genuinely contains multiple distinct trains, rather than forcing everything into one artificial pace, respects what the actual work requires instead of bending the work to fit a borrowed assumption about how Takt planning is supposed to look.

Fresh Eyes at the Phase Level, Not Just the Whole Project

You can run a genuine fresh eyes meeting not only for an entire project, but specifically for one individual phase as well. Bring in experienced outsiders who are genuinely unattached to that specific plan, and stress test the phase on paper directly. Even if you have already done this exercise for the whole project, running it again specifically for one phase can surface real issues that a broader review would have missed entirely.

Why a Pre-Mortem Breaks You Out of Wishful Thinking

Run a real pre-mortem alongside a genuine risk register with mitigations assigned in advance. Assume the phase has already failed, then work backward to understand exactly why. That exercise genuinely pulls people out of wishful thinking and rose colored assumptions about how smoothly things will actually go.

Once that mindset shift happens, log every real risk and pre-assign its mitigation strategy and a genuine owner right then, rather than waiting to figure out a response once the risk actually materializes. Think of it the way a well prepared military command structure operates, where a single, simple signal is enough to set a pre-planned response into motion immediately, because everyone already knows exactly what to do.

Visual and Physical Sequencing Methods Worth Using

Four dimensional sequencing, tying your actual schedule directly to a model so the phase visually builds itself over time, reveals clashes, access conflicts, and crane or lay down collisions well before they ever become real problems in the field. I genuinely love this technology conceptually, even though I think the tools themselves still need to move faster to keep up with how quickly a real team needs to work.

Here are a few of the physical and visual methods worth using to actually sequence a phase before it begins.

Styrofoam, kinetic sand, or building blocks, physically laid out to represent the real sequence of work.
Printed simulations or full scale physical mockups that a team can genuinely walk through together.
Actual four dimensional software, linking the schedule directly to a model so the sequence visually plays out over time.

The biggest benefit across every one of these methods is genuine human intelligence. People actually seeing the sequence play out, and coaching the plan along the way based on what they are actually observing, catches far more than a document review ever could.

Why Advanced Sequencing on Paper Still Works

If four dimensional sequencing is not available, advanced sequencing on paper works remarkably well too. Go through the drawings sheet by sheet, and physically walk through the proposed path of construction, the path of flow, and the path of critical flow. Doing this by hand often reveals something a schedule alone simply cannot show you.

I genuinely like doing this with printed logistics plans, printed zone maps, and blank sheets of paper, drawing out the proposed sequence directly and watching for gaps, overlaps, or genuine dependency problems as they emerge. I once caught a real planning error this way, reviewing a jobsite’s plan to install a tower crane foundation at a specific point in the schedule, only to discover through a direct overlay that the planned basement layback actually cut straight into that same foundation area, meaning the crane foundation genuinely could not be installed for another six weeks. That meant going back to the drawing board entirely, a correction that would have been far more costly to discover once the crew was already standing there ready to pour.

Here is what that kind of hands on, physical overlay tends to reveal that a digital schedule alone often misses entirely.

A genuine physical conflict between two activities planned for the exact same space at overlapping times.
A dependency that looks fine on a schedule’s logic lines but genuinely does not work once the physical sequence is actually drawn out.
A gap or an overlap in timing that only becomes obvious once you can actually see the whole sequence laid out together.

A Real Example of Sequencing an Entire Project in Advance

I know of a field engineering team in Southern California that once built a complete physical model of an entire project, somewhere in the range of five hundred million dollars, before the project ever actually started, planning the whole thing in Takt using a short interval production schedule approach. That project involved demolishing most of a historic hotel site and replacing it with a new high school. The entire sequence was fully planned out physically in advance, and it worked out beautifully.

Why Simpler Work Packages Actually Make the Plan Truer

Build more detailed installation work packages, though detailed here does not mean more complex. It means genuinely simpler. Break work down into packages a crew can finish within a known, short window, their actual Takt time, with everything they need already attached. The simpler that package genuinely is, the truer the overall plan becomes, and the earlier any real roadblock reveals itself.

Building These Practices Into Your Own Before-Phase Planning

None of this requires adopting every single method at once. It requires genuinely choosing the tools that fit your specific phase, whether that is a fresh eyes review, a real pre-mortem, physical modeling, or advanced sequencing on paper, and actually doing the work before the phase begins rather than discovering these same gaps once crews are already standing in the field.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams build genuine before-phase planning using these exact methods, catching real sequencing problems on paper or in a physical model, long before they ever become expensive field problems.

So here is the challenge. Pick your next upcoming phase and physically walk through its proposed sequence on paper, sheet by sheet, before relying purely on a digital schedule to tell you it works. See what you notice once you actually draw it out by hand.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “The simpler the package, the truer the plan.” Build your installation work packages around that principle, and real roadblocks will surface far earlier than they otherwise would.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article insist that wagons moving at different speeds actually represent multiple trains rather than one train?

Because a genuine single train, by definition, moves as one connected unit at a consistent speed and spacing. Once different parts of a sequence move at genuinely different paces, each effectively operates under its own independent pace setter, which is precisely what defines a multi-train plan rather than a single train artificially forced into one uniform rhythm.

Why does a pre-mortem work better than simply asking a team to identify potential risks directly?

Because assuming the phase has already failed and working backward removes the natural optimism bias that leads teams to underestimate real risks when asked prospectively. Starting from an assumed failure forces genuinely honest thinking about what could actually go wrong, rather than the more hopeful, rose colored assumptions a direct risk discussion often produces.

Why does the article recommend assigning risk mitigations and owners in advance, rather than figuring out a response once a risk actually occurs?

Because a pre-assigned mitigation and owner lets a team respond immediately the moment a risk materializes, rather than losing valuable time figuring out who should act and what they should actually do. That advance preparation is what allows a genuinely fast, coordinated response instead of a scramble once the problem has already started affecting real work.

Why does the article argue that “detailed” installation work packages should actually mean simpler, not more complex?

Because a genuinely simple package, sized to what a crew can finish within one known Takt time with everything attached, surfaces real roadblocks much earlier than a larger, more complex package would. Complexity within a single package tends to hide problems until much later in that package’s execution, while simplicity reveals issues almost immediately, giving a team genuine time to respond.

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.

Before Phase Planning: The Work That Makes Every Construction Phase Succeed.

Posted on October 2, 2026October 2, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 16 min

That’s the Real Work, That’s Where You Make the Phase Happen

Here’s the deal. I was recently brought in to analyze a mega project in downtown San Francisco, somewhere around five hundred twenty million dollars, with a genuinely great team and a strong project leader already in place. Running an analysis on the path of critical flow using the macro level Takt plan, I found that even a genuinely well planned project like this one still carried a real twelve week risk profile, with specific, predictable problem points showing up throughout. That analysis led directly to a realization worth sharing.

Why the Phase Itself Is Not Where the Real Work Happens

This specific team already had the real basics covered well. Genuine supply chain leadership. Real pull plans. Actual pre-construction meetings. Honest look-ahead planning. All of that was already happening. What I pointed out to them was that the real difference-making work for this specific project lived somewhere else entirely, in the detailed preparation that happens before the phase itself ever begins.

For this particular concrete phase, that meant advanced field engineering work, genuinely producing detailed lift plans, mapping out logistics day by day rather than broadly, and analyzing exactly how concrete crews would actually get access into the basement. That is the real work. That is where you genuinely make a phase actually happen.

Here are a few examples of the kind of detailed preparation that actually determines whether a phase succeeds, beyond the standard planning basics.

Advanced field engineering specific to the actual phase, like detailed lift planning for a concrete pour sequence.
Day by day logistics mapping, rather than a general logistics plan covering the phase only at a high level.
A genuine, detailed analysis of exactly how crews will physically access and move through the actual workspace.

We spend a lot of time in construction focused on the phase itself, when the actual before-phase planning is genuinely what determines whether that phase succeeds or struggles. The phase is simply where the results of that earlier work finally become visible to everyone else.

Why Constraints and Roadblocks Are Two Genuinely Different Things

This is a distinction our entire industry needs to understand clearly if we are ever going to make real progress. A constraint is a genuine limiting factor built into the system itself, something you cannot actually eliminate, only improve. Think of it like a specific piece of machinery on a manufacturing line. You cannot remove that machine entirely, but you can genuinely help it run faster. A roadblock, by contrast, is something that can actually be removed entirely. Confusing the two leads teams to waste real effort trying to eliminate something that was never actually removable in the first place, rather than focusing on genuinely improving it.

This distinction also changes how a team should actually prioritize its energy. A genuine roadblock deserves direct removal, full stop. A genuine constraint deserves ongoing investment aimed at improving its capacity over time, accepting that it will remain part of the system while becoming progressively less limiting with each real improvement made around it.

Why a Macro Level Takt Plan Reveals What a CPM Schedule Cannot

Running this kind of analysis against a macro level Takt plan is genuinely one of the advantages that approach has over a traditional CPM schedule. A CPM schedule simply cannot reveal the same kind of risk profile across an entire project this clearly, which is exactly why relying on it alone leaves so many predictable problems genuinely invisible until they actually happen.

On this particular project, that visibility is exactly what allowed a real risk window to be identified weeks before it would have otherwise surfaced as an actual problem in the field, giving the team genuine time to prepare for it rather than reacting once it had already arrived.

The Three Basics, With the Timing That Actually Matters

A genuine pull plan happens three to four months before a phase, confirming the real sequence and enabling the team to optimize every actual system constraint. That pull plan is how target production plans genuinely get formed and real buffers actually get established.

Pre-construction meetings are not one single large meeting held before an entire project begins. They happen specifically three weeks before a trade starts in their very first zone, built entirely around helping that specific trade succeed. That timing is exactly what prevents a trade from starting like an accident, forced into a genuine treasure hunt for information nobody prepared for them in advance. Done well, this is one of the most genuinely respectful things you can do for a trade partner, letting them show up ready and on time, exactly the way everyone actually wants.

Look-ahead planning means keeping your eyes genuinely focused six weeks out, asking what will actually need to be true at that point for the work to happen completely roadblock free. Between week six and week one, you have a real four week window to actually remove whatever roadblocks you identified and make the work genuinely ready. From there, your weekly work plan is where real handoffs get coordinated and actual promises get made, with buffers built into your supply chain management tied directly to these same dates.

Watch for these signs your own organization is genuinely executing these three basics with the real precision they actually require.

Pull plans completed a full three to four months ahead, genuinely confirming sequence and optimizing constraints, rather than rushed closer to the phase start.
Pre-construction meetings held specifically three weeks before each trade’s first zone, rather than compressed into one generic meeting covering the entire project.
A real, active four week window between the six week look-ahead mark and the one week mark, genuinely used to remove identified roadblocks rather than left unaddressed.

Why This Deserves Its Own Deeper Series

This topic genuinely deserves more depth than a single conversation can cover, which is exactly why I plan to keep building on it across several more episodes, working through the specific, detailed practices that go well beyond these three basics, one phase type at a time.

Building This Into Your Own Project

None of this requires abandoning the fundamentals you already have in place. It requires recognizing that those fundamentals are genuinely just the floor, and that the real, phase-specific preparation happening underneath them is what actually determines whether a phase succeeds or struggles once it finally begins.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams build this deeper level of before-phase planning directly into your process, identifying genuine risk well before it ever reaches the field.

So here is the challenge. Pick your next upcoming phase and ask honestly whether your team has gone beyond the basic pull plan, pre-construction meeting, and look-ahead planning, into the specific, detailed preparation that phase genuinely requires. If the honest answer is no, that gap is exactly where your next real risk is quietly sitting.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “That’s the real work. That’s where you’re really going to make this phase happen.” Go find that specific work for your own upcoming phase, and do it well before the phase ever actually starts.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article distinguish so carefully between a constraint and a roadblock?

Because treating a genuine constraint as something that can simply be removed wastes real effort chasing an impossible goal, while a true roadblock genuinely can and should be eliminated entirely. Understanding which category a specific problem actually falls into determines whether the right response is improving capacity around it or removing it completely.

Why might a project that already has pull plans, pre-construction meetings, and look-ahead planning in place still carry significant risk?

Because those three practices represent genuine basics, not the complete picture. The article argues that phase specific detailed work, like advanced field engineering or precise logistics mapping, is what actually determines success once those basics are already in place, meaning a project can do all three well and still face real risk if that deeper preparation is missing.

Why does the article specifically recommend holding pre-construction meetings three weeks before each trade’s first zone, rather than one meeting for the whole project?

Because a single large meeting covering an entire project cannot address the specific, detailed readiness each individual trade genuinely needs right before their own work actually begins. Timing the meeting specifically to each trade’s first zone ensures the information is fresh, relevant, and genuinely actionable at the exact moment that trade needs it most.

Why does a macro level Takt plan reveal project risk more clearly than a traditional CPM schedule?

Because a Takt based approach organizes work by genuine zones and sequences in a way that makes bottlenecks and risk points visible across the entire project timeline, rather than burying them inside a complex web of interdependent activities the way a CPM schedule often does. That visibility is what allowed a twelve week risk profile to be identified clearly on a project that already appeared well planned on paper.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Scaling Like the Human Body & The Nemawashi Effect.

Posted on October 2, 2026October 2, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

The Nemawashi Effect: Why “Slow” Japanese Decisions Are Actually the Fastest Way to Change Anything

Here’s the deal. There is a genuine misconception about Japanese decision making that deserves a direct correction, because getting this wrong leads organizations to copy the exact wrong lesson from an otherwise excellent system.

A Quick Thought on Why Scaling Resembles the Human Body

Before getting into that correction, here is a small observation I genuinely enjoyed making recently. The five levers behind real, lasting change, standards, training, reinforcement, habit, and incentives, map surprisingly well onto how the human body itself actually scales. DNA functions as a genuine standard. Gene expression functions as training, replicating the right structures correctly. Real cellular energy functions as reinforcement, powering growth and repair. Cellular memory functions as habit, letting the body do the right thing automatically. And basic survival instinct functions as the incentive driving the whole system forward. I find that analogy genuinely useful, even though the real subject I want to cover today is something else entirely.

Why People Misunderstand Japanese Decision Making Completely

There is a persistent misconception that Japanese organizations make decisions slowly, relying on lengthy committee based consensus before anything genuinely moves forward. That is simply not true, and misunderstanding this leads organizations to copy exactly the wrong behavior.

Some organizations genuinely do get stuck in committee based gridlock, where people are technically told they have real decision making authority, but group thinking and endless committee review mean they never actually exercise it in practice. Other organizations simply never grant that authority to begin with. Either way, that genuine dysfunction has nothing to do with the real Japanese practice people are actually trying to imitate.

I sometimes wonder whether this kind of gridlock is entirely accidental in some organizations. Requiring every meaningful decision to pass through a large committee can quietly function as a way to let lower level people feel like they are participating in real decisions, without ever actually exercising genuine authority over anything that matters.

What Classical Business Management Actually Gets Wrong

The classical business management approach decides something quickly, often in a single meeting, and then spends months afterward fighting through resistance, rework, and quiet sabotage as the rest of the organization either accepts the change, fully or partially, or rejects it outright. That rejection often looks remarkably like a genuine autoimmune response, the organization treating the new idea the way a body treats a virus, or even the way a body sometimes rejects its own transplanted kidney. The decision came fast. The actual implementation drags on forever.

That autoimmune comparison genuinely captures something important. A body rejecting a transplanted organ is not being irrational, it is simply responding to something it never had the chance to recognize as genuinely its own. An organization reacts the same way to a change it was never actually given the chance to understand or genuinely accept before being told to adopt it.

What Nemawashi Genuinely Means Instead

The real practice, nemawashi, aligning first, was never about deciding slowly. It is about genuinely laying the groundwork before a decision ever gets made. That means real weeks of quiet alignment, gathering honest input, and clearing objections directly, before the formal decision itself.

Here is what that groundwork genuinely involves in practice.

Talking directly with the people who will actually be affected, getting their honest thoughts and genuine input before anything is decided.
Answering real objections directly in conversation, rather than waiting for them to surface as resistance after the decision has already been made.
Specifically engaging key influencers and known dissenters, getting a genuinely accurate feel for how the broader rollout will actually go.

Only once that real groundwork is done, with people genuinely respected and given real room to weigh in and buy in first, does the actual decision get made. That might look slightly slower at the decision stage itself. It is dramatically faster at the implementation stage, since the resistance a classical approach fights for months afterward has already been genuinely addressed beforehand.

Measured honestly from first conversation to full adoption, nemawashi tends to finish faster overall, even though the visible decision itself takes longer to announce. The classical approach simply moves that same time cost later in the process, disguised as resistance and rework rather than counted as part of the genuine decision timeline.

Why This Distinction Matters So Much

This was never about a committee shutting an idea down or deliberately slowing things to a crawl. The actual concept, laid out within Toyota’s own well known principles, should genuinely be understood as laying the groundwork before the decision, not deciding slowly by consensus. Confusing the two leads organizations to copy exactly the wrong half of the lesson.

That confusion is genuinely costly, since an organization that copies only the surface behavior, slow meetings and extended committee review, without ever doing the real groundwork of honest conversation and addressing real objections, ends up with the exact downside people assumed Japanese decision making carried, slowness, without any of the actual benefit, genuine fast implementation once the decision is finally made.

Watch for these signs an organization is practicing classical business management rather than genuine nemawashi, even if it believes otherwise.

A decision announced quickly, with implementation struggling against real resistance for months afterward.
Objections and resistance surfacing only after the decision has already been finalized and announced publicly.
Key influencers or known skeptics never consulted directly before the decision was made, learning about it the same way everyone else did.

Why Coming Back “Slow” Misses the Entire Point

Do not ever come back from studying this practice believing the goal is being slow in any sense. That misunderstanding is genuinely one of the most frustrating outcomes of studying this subject. The actual goal is coming back with real influence among the people you work with, having genuinely laid the groundwork so the organization can actually move fast once a real decision finally gets made.

Influence, in this sense, is not about personal authority or title. It is about having already earned the trust and understanding needed so that people genuinely move with you the moment a decision is announced, rather than needing to be convinced from scratch after the fact.

Building This Practice Into Your Own Organization

None of this requires abandoning quick decision making entirely. It requires recognizing that genuine speed at implementation comes from real groundwork done beforehand, not from skipping that groundwork in favor of a faster initial decision.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams build genuine nemawashi practices into how you roll out real change, laying groundwork with the people actually affected before a decision is finalized, rather than fighting resistance for months after the fact.

So here is the challenge. Before your next significant change, identify the specific people most likely to resist it, and have a real, honest conversation with them before you ever announce the decision. Notice how differently that rollout goes compared to a change you simply announced and then had to defend afterward.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “You didn’t go to Japan to come back and be slow. You went to Japan to come back and lay the groundwork so you can move fast.” Lay that groundwork genuinely, and real speed follows naturally once the decision is finally made.

On we go.

FAQ

Why do people commonly misunderstand nemawashi as a slow, consensus driven decision making process?

Because the groundwork phase genuinely takes real time, weeks of conversations, gathering input, and addressing objections directly, which can look similar to slow deliberation from the outside. The actual decision itself often happens relatively quickly once that groundwork is complete, but the visible time invested beforehand creates the mistaken impression that the entire process is simply slow.

Why does the classical business management approach actually take longer overall, despite deciding faster at the start?

Because deciding quickly without first addressing genuine resistance simply pushes that resistance into the implementation phase instead, where it shows up as rework, sabotage, and months of struggle to actually get the change adopted. The time saved at the decision stage gets spent many times over fighting resistance that genuine groundwork would have addressed beforehand.

Why does the article specifically mention engaging known dissenters during the groundwork phase, rather than only talking to supporters?

Because dissenters and skeptics are exactly the people most likely to resist a change after it has been announced, and addressing their genuine objections directly, before the decision is finalized, prevents that resistance from surfacing later as active sabotage. Skipping those conversations simply postpones the same objections to a point where they are far harder and more costly to resolve.

What is the actual lesson an organization should take from studying genuine Japanese decision making practices?

That real speed in implementing a change comes from investing real time in groundwork and alignment beforehand, not from skipping that groundwork to decide faster. The goal is building genuine influence and buy-in with the people affected by a decision, so that once the decision is actually made, the organization can move forward quickly without months of resistance to overcome first.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

The Five Levers for Motivation on the Job Site.

Posted on October 2, 2026October 2, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 16 min

Why Plain English Will Not Save Your Lean Vocabulary Problem

Here’s the deal. I recently saw an argument online suggesting that genuine Lean terminology, words like Gemba, Kaizen, Muda, Heijunka, Poka-yoke, Andon, Hoshin, Jidoka, Kanban, 5S, Nemawashi, and value stream mapping, should simply be replaced with plain English, since a superintendent is unlikely to embrace a word their own spell checker does not recognize. The suggested fix was swapping Gemba walk for go see the work, swapping Kaizen for improve it together, swapping Muda for get rid of waste, and so on. The argument was, same principles, better adoption. I think that argument genuinely misses what is actually happening.

Why Plain English Phrases Get Filtered Out Just as Easily

Here is the problem. Phrases like go see the work, improve it together, get rid of waste, visualize the workspace, and stop and fix the problem are not actually culturally ingrained in American business practice either, and more importantly, they do not register to our brains as anything genuinely novel. They sound like generic corporate language people have already heard a thousand times, which means the brain auto-filters them out as nothing new worth paying real attention to.

Here are a few of these translated phrases that sound simple on the surface but still fail to actually register as anything genuinely novel.

Go see the work, which sounds like ordinary advice rather than a genuinely different way of operating.
Improve it together, which blends seamlessly into generic workplace language everyone has already tuned out.
Get rid of waste, a phrase so common it carries essentially no weight or specificity anymore.

Our brains function somewhat like an old computer running whatever command prompt we actually give it, or like an AI responding to whatever prompt it receives. We either run that brain deliberately, or it runs us by default, filtering based on whatever already feels familiar. And here is the uncomfortable truth. Going to see real work directly, genuinely improving something together, actually eliminating real waste, visualizing a workspace honestly, and stopping immediately to fix a problem are all genuinely novel practices in American business culture, whether we use a Japanese term or a plain English one to describe them. The words were never actually the obstacle.

Why This Is Not Really About Vocabulary at All

If someone struggles to respect where these concepts actually came from, or resists learning a handful of specific terms, that resistance says far more about their own willingness to adopt genuine new habits and real mental discipline than it says about whether foreign vocabulary is somehow uniquely confusing. There is genuinely nothing wrong with learning new words. Treating that as a real obstacle reflects a deeper resistance to doing something unfamiliar, dressed up as a complaint about language.

The Real Question: How Do You Actually Move Work Forward

Here is something separate I have been thinking through. If you genuinely want to get things done on a project, you cannot be weak, hesitant, or overly concerned with being universally liked. My own style leans fairly direct, somewhat in the spirit of General Patton, and you do not have to lead exactly that way, but work genuinely has to be driven forward by someone. My grandfather used to say it simply. Nothing happens unless somebody’s behind it, meaning somebody is genuinely putting real energy into making it happen.

There is a specific, genuinely useful order to how that actually works.

Lever One: Visible Standards

If you want to move real work forward, standards have to be genuinely visible. This is an underappreciated concept in Lean thinking, and it matters enormously. Every single thing you are asking people to do needs a real, visual standard behind it, something people can actually see and reference, not simply something assumed or discussed once.

Lever Two: Genuine Training

People need to be trained directly to that standard, or the standard itself means nothing at all. Human beings do genuinely remarkable things once properly trained. We cannot simply throw a standard over the wall and assume people will figure it out on their own. That sink or swim approach is common in American workplace culture, and it is genuinely not the way to actually get this done.

Lever Three: Real Reinforcement

This is the step that deserves the most attention, and the one most often skipped. Reinforcement means real gates, genuine audits, actual field walks. Someone has to keep working it, actively reminding people that this is genuinely the direction things are headed, talking about it, recognizing it publicly, shouting out good examples consistently, until it genuinely sticks.

Watch for these signs reinforcement is being skipped or treated as optional, undermining everything built in the first two steps.

A standard that exists only on a poster or in a document, with nobody actively walking the site and checking whether it is genuinely being followed.
No real gates or audits built into the actual process, leaving adherence entirely up to individual memory or goodwill.
Recognition and reminders happening once, during initial rollout, rather than consistently over time until the standard genuinely sticks.

Lever Four: Genuine Habit

Only after real, sustained reinforcement does a standard finally become a genuine habit for people, something they do automatically without needing to be reminded constantly.

Lever Five: Incentives, Only Once It Is Already a Habit

Once something has genuinely become a habit, you can finally consider incentives, sharing recognition, recording a genuine success on video, or whatever else fits your specific team. I would not introduce incentives any earlier than this. Some people would argue incentives should never be used at all. Either way, incentives introduced before genuine habit formation tend to reward something that has not actually taken root yet.

Why Reinforcement Is the Lever That Actually Matters Most

Leaders cannot genuinely lead if they cannot actually move things forward in the field, regardless of whether that project is worth a few million dollars or several billion. If someone is genuinely behind an initiative with real reinforcement, alongside visible standards, genuine training, real habits, and appropriately timed incentives, it will actually get done. That is genuinely what real leadership comes down to.

Building This Framework Into Your Own Leadership

None of this requires choosing between Lean terminology and plain English, or between being liked and being effective. It requires building visible standards, training people genuinely to meet them, reinforcing that standard consistently and energetically, letting it become a real habit, and only then considering incentives as a finishing touch.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams build genuine standards, training, and reinforcement into your daily practice, rather than assuming a poster or a single training session will make any new standard genuinely stick.

So here is the challenge. Pick one standard your team currently has on paper but rarely sees actively reinforced in the field. Walk the site this week specifically looking for it, and genuinely recognize anyone following it well. That single habit, repeated consistently, is exactly how a standard finally becomes real.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “Nothing happens unless somebody’s putting energy behind it.” Be that energy, consistently, and watch how much more actually gets done.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article argue that translating Lean terms into plain English does not actually solve the adoption problem?

Because the plain English versions, phrases like go see the work or get rid of waste, sound just as generic and familiar to the brain as any other common workplace language, which means they get filtered out just as easily as the original terminology. The real obstacle was never the specific words used, it was the genuine unfamiliarity of actually practicing these concepts consistently in American business culture.

Why does the article treat reinforcement as the most important of the five levers for motivation?

Because visible standards and genuine training alone do not guarantee a new behavior actually sticks without someone actively, consistently reinforcing it through gates, audits, and field walks. Without that ongoing energy behind it, a standard tends to fade quickly, which is why reinforcement functions as the bridge between simply announcing an expectation and that expectation actually becoming a genuine, lasting habit.

Why does the article warn against introducing incentives before a behavior has genuinely become a habit?

Because incentives offered too early risk rewarding a behavior that has not actually taken root yet, potentially reinforcing inconsistent or superficial compliance rather than a genuine, internalized habit. Waiting until a behavior is already a real habit ensures incentives genuinely celebrate something solid, rather than propping up something still fragile.

What does the article mean by saying our brains auto-filter familiar sounding phrases regardless of the specific words used?

It means the brain tends to treat language that sounds routine or generic as unremarkable, regardless of whether that language originated in Japanese Lean terminology or everyday English business speak. Genuine novelty in actual practice, not the specific vocabulary describing it, is what determines whether a concept registers as something worth real attention and change.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Buffers, Before-Phase Planning, and the In-N-Out Analogy.

Posted on October 2, 2026October 2, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

Buffers Protect the Person Doing the Work, Not Just the Work That Comes Next

Here’s the deal. A recent trip through a genuinely chaotic drive-thru line taught me something about buffers I had never quite articulated before, and it connects directly to a second, related habit worth building into every project long before a phase ever actually starts.

What a Crowded Drive-Thru Taught Me About Buffers

The In-N-Out near our house gets so busy that the line has to be barricaded and routed almost into actual traffic. Coming around the tight corner in my crew cab truck, I genuinely have to do a small three-point turn just to line up correctly. I try to pull forward and quickly reverse before the person behind me closes that gap, and almost without fail, someone pulls right up on my bumper anyway, leaving me no room to back up at all. Then it becomes a whole tense moment, because that person genuinely does not understand that my truck simply does not fit without a little room to maneuver.

This is not In-N-Out’s fault. It is a broader cultural habit of tailgating, crowding right up behind whoever is directly in front of us, assuming a couple of feet genuinely will not make a difference. It absolutely does.

That same habit shows up constantly on a real jobsite, crews stacked right up against each other with no genuine room to adjust, assuming tight sequencing automatically means efficient sequencing. The two are not actually the same thing.

Here is the real insight underneath all of this. Buffers do not only protect the work that comes next in a sequence. They protect the actual person currently trying to finish their own task. If there is no room for someone to make an honest adjustment or correct a small mistake, that effectively means nobody on the project is allowed to make any mistake at all. Nobody is perfect. Expecting flawless execution from every single person, every single time, by removing all breathing room, is genuinely disrespectful to the actual human beings doing the work.

We will know construction is genuinely ready to flow the moment we, on our own freeways, finally stop tailgating each other. It really is a mindset issue as much as it is a technical one.

Watch for these signs a lack of genuine buffer is quietly disrespecting the people actually doing the work, not just risking the schedule.

Workers who feel they cannot pause to correct a small mistake without immediately falling behind an unforgiving sequence.
A crew pressured to move forward the instant the person ahead of them clears out, with zero room to adjust or recover.
A general sense among the team that any hesitation or human error will immediately cascade into a visible, blamed delay.

Why Limited Buffers Mean You Need Much Deeper Planning

If you genuinely cannot build in much buffer, the real alternative is increasing your level of planning well before the work ever begins. I call this before-phase planning, specifically avoiding the word pre so it does not get confused with pre-construction meetings. The four to six months before a phase like structure, foundations, interiors, or exterior work actually begins matters more than the moment that phase officially starts.

Before-phase planning includes your full plan, your pre-con meetings, and your look-ahead planning as the baseline. Beyond that, there is a genuinely enormous list of additional steps worth considering.

Engaging four dimensional sequencing, advanced drawings, and detailed models to work through the sequence before it ever reaches the field.
Running first run studies and physical mock-ups, and genuinely visiting other trade crews or project sites to see real examples firsthand.
Holding fresh eyes meetings and pre-mortems, imagining the phase has already failed and working backward to understand exactly why.
Breaking construction work packages all the way down into installation work packages, running an advanced density analysis across your zones, and placing buffers strategically wherever they genuinely belong.

The list genuinely keeps going from there. Building physical models using foam, kinetic sand, or detailed three dimensional mockups. Switching to a multi-train design where it genuinely makes sense. Building out detailed planning sheets and running a genuinely thorough pull plan. Onboarding, orienting, and even training a trade partner in a real dojo setting before they ever show up to the actual site. Identifying any non-participating trades early and correcting that situation directly. Verifying production rates and securing real labor commitments. Finalizing commissioning plans, pre-test safety planning, and advanced kitting for logistics completely in advance.

A more complete version of this list lives on our website under a quick read specifically about before-phase planning, since it genuinely goes on far longer than I can cover in one conversation.

The Three Things I Would Prioritize Above Everything Else

If I had to choose just a few of these to prioritize absolutely, I would pick advanced sequencing, a genuine first run study or mock-up, and actually visiting the trade directly to confirm they are completely ready to go. All of that sits alongside the pull plan, pre-con meetings, look-ahead planning, and supply chain management that should already be happening well before work begins.

Why Experts Genuinely Live in the Before-Phase Planning

For project superintendents and project managers specifically, most of your real, valuable work should be happening during this before-phase planning window. Once a phase is genuinely ready and underway, hand that execution off to assistant superintendents and assistant project managers at the appropriate point, rather than staying behind to micromanage the actual work. Move on instead to the next phase’s before-phase planning effort. That is genuinely where the most senior, most experienced people should be spending their actual time.

Why Buffers and Planning Are Two Sides of the Same Coin

If you are not doing this level of deep, deliberate planning before a phase begins, you genuinely need real buffers to absorb the gaps that planning would have otherwise closed. And if you do not have real buffers, you genuinely need to be doing this level of planning instead. Honestly, you should probably be doing both regardless, since neither one fully substitutes for the other.

Building Both Habits Into Your Own Project

None of this requires choosing between buffers and deep planning as competing strategies. It requires recognizing that both protect your project, and your people, from the exact same underlying risk, the inevitable reality that something will not go exactly as planned.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams build genuine buffers into your schedule and genuine depth into your before-phase planning, protecting both the sequence of work and the actual people responsible for carrying it out.

So here is the challenge. Pick your next upcoming phase and ask honestly how much of your senior leadership’s time has genuinely gone into before-phase planning for it so far. If the honest answer is not much, that gap is exactly where your next stops and restarts are most likely to come from.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “We will know in construction that we’re ready to flow once we, on our freeways, stop tailgating people.” Give your people real room to be human, and plan deeply enough ahead of time that they rarely need much room at all.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article argue that buffers protect the person doing the work, not just the work that comes afterward?

Because a schedule with no genuine buffer effectively demands flawless execution from every single person, every single time, leaving no room for an honest mistake or a small necessary adjustment. That standard is genuinely unrealistic for actual human beings, which is why removing all buffer is described as disrespectful to the workforce, not simply risky for the project timeline.

What is the actual difference between before-phase planning and standard pre-construction planning?

Before-phase planning specifically refers to the four to six month window leading up to a particular phase, like structure or interior finishes, rather than the broader pre-construction period covering the entire project. It involves a much deeper, more specific set of activities, advanced sequencing, mock-ups, trade visits, aimed at making sure that one particular phase is genuinely ready to start and finish smoothly.

Why does the article recommend senior superintendents and project managers hand off execution to assistants once a phase begins?

Because the article argues that the most valuable use of a senior leader’s time is deep planning for the next upcoming phase, not managing the day to day execution of work that has already been thoroughly prepared. Staying behind to micromanage ongoing execution pulls that senior attention away from the next phase’s before-phase planning, which is where their experience actually adds the most genuine value.

Why does the article treat buffers and before-phase planning as substitutes for each other rather than entirely separate strategies?

Because both ultimately exist to absorb the same underlying risk, the inevitable gap between a plan and real world execution. Deep planning closes many of those gaps before they ever happen, while genuine buffers absorb whatever gaps remain despite that planning, which is why the article suggests doing both rather than relying on just one at the expense of the other.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Improvement and Standards: Lessons from Japan.

Posted on October 2, 2026October 2, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 16 min

Nothing Ever Stops Needing Improvement, Not Even the Spoon

Here’s the deal. I keep seeing posts online claiming that some designs are simply too perfect to ever need changing, showing things like a safety pin from 1849, a clothesline clip from 1853, a bobby pin from 1920, a pen from 1950, a clothes hanger from 1903, a spoon that traces back a thousand years, a hammer from the 1500s, and a basic bar of soap, all presented as proof that certain functional designs have simply never changed. I understand the appeal of that idea. I genuinely think it is wrong, and it reveals something important about whoever actually believes it.

The appeal makes sense on the surface. These items genuinely do look nearly identical to their ancestors from decades or centuries ago, at least from a casual glance across the kitchen drawer or the toolbox most of us happen to own.

Why This Idea Falls Apart the Moment You Visit Japan

Every single item on that list, the safety pin, the clothesline clip, the bobby pin, the pen, the clothes hanger, the spoon, the hammer, the bar of soap, has actually been continuously improved in Japan. Walk into a real Japanese hardware store and you could find fifteen genuinely different, highly specialized versions of some of these same tools, each one refined for a specific, distinct use case. Anyone posting that these designs have stayed frozen for a century has simply never looked past their own local hardware store.

A colleague of mine, Kevin Rice, experienced this firsthand on a Lean trip to Japan with Paul Akers. Kevin is genuinely one of the most frugal people I have ever met, someone who would rather build a tool himself on a basic lathe than buy one he could easily afford. He spent years guiding wilderness hunting trips, hiking clients deep into the backcountry, living off the land, and setting up an entire hunt overnight with nothing but what he could carry and build himself. This is a person who simply does not buy things he does not genuinely need.

Walking through a Japanese hardware store, Kevin was completely blown away. He told me directly that he was going to rent a shipping container on his next trip, specifically to bring back tools he could not find anywhere in the United States. If a design has genuinely stopped needing improvement, it does not produce that kind of reaction in someone who almost never buys anything new.

That reaction matters precisely because of who it came from. A person who regularly treats himself to new gadgets being impressed by foreign tools tells you relatively little. A person who builds his own equipment from scratch rather than buy something he could easily afford, suddenly planning to ship home a container full of tools, tells you the improvement is genuinely real.

Here are just a few of the everyday items that have actually continued evolving well past the point most people assume they stopped changing.

Pens refined into dozens of specialized variants, each genuinely suited to a different grip, ink type, or specific writing task.
Clothesline hangers reworked into multiple specialized designs, each genuinely built for a specific fabric or drying need.
Spoons and basic hand tools continuously refined in small but genuinely meaningful ways most people would never think to question.

Why Americans Misread What Is Actually Happening

Americans often assume the Japanese are nauseatingly fixated on squeezing out the very last one percent of improvement from something already essentially finished, and that doing so is not genuinely worth the effort. That is not actually what is happening. They have improved these items so thoroughly that an entirely new two hundred percent of possibility opens up beyond the original hundred, and once that two hundred percent is reached, a whole new three hundred percent opens up right behind it. Nobody is obsessing over a final sliver of a fixed one hundred percent. The ceiling itself keeps moving.

That distinction matters enormously for how a team should actually think about its own work. Treating one hundred percent as a fixed, final target leads naturally to the belief that further effort beyond it is wasted. Treating one hundred percent as simply the first visible ceiling, with another one waiting just beyond it, leads to genuinely continuous progress instead.

Never let anyone convince you that certain things simply do not need to be improved anymore. That belief is genuinely mistaken, and I do not want anyone carrying it forward uncritically, whether it shows up as a casual social media post or as a genuine assumption guiding real decisions on a project.

A Real Methodology for Continuing to Improve Anything

The five G methodology gives a genuinely practical, hands on approach to exactly this kind of continuous improvement.

Gemba, the real place. Go directly to where the actual work is genuinely happening, rather than evaluating it secondhand.
Gembutsu, the real thing. Engage directly with the actual physical item itself to identify real issues worth addressing.
Genjitsu, the actual facts. Gather and analyze genuinely concrete data before making any real decision about what to change.

From there, Genri, the principles, means genuinely understanding the fundamental logic governing how the process actually works. Gensoku, the standard, means establishing a new, genuine standard based on exactly what you found. Follow this sequence consistently, and you will always find another genuine way to improve, without exception. There is no point along the way where this process genuinely runs out of something real to uncover.

Why This Matters Far Beyond Hardware Stores

This same mindset applies directly to construction. Whatever process, tool, or standard your team currently treats as finished likely still has real room to improve, the same way a simple spoon or hammer somehow kept evolving well past the point most people assumed was its natural ceiling.

A standard work sheet your team finalized years ago, a jig you built for a repeated task, a checklist everyone treats as settled, each of these is exactly the kind of thing most teams stop questioning the moment it starts working reasonably well. That is precisely the moment worth questioning it again.

Building This Mindset Into Your Own Work

None of this requires chasing improvement obsessively or treating every small detail as urgent. It requires genuinely refusing to believe that anything, no matter how simple or long established, has truly reached a permanent final form.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams build this same relentless, genuinely practical approach to continuous improvement, using the five G methodology to keep finding real ways forward long after most people would have assumed the work was already done.

So here is the challenge. Pick one tool, process, or standard on your own project that everyone assumes is already as good as it needs to be. Walk through the five Gs directly, visiting the real place, engaging the real item, gathering real facts, understanding the real principles, and establishing a genuinely new standard. See what opens up once you actually look.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “Once you get past your 100%, you have a whole new 200% opened up to you.” Nothing is ever truly finished. Keep looking, and you will keep finding more.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article use everyday objects like spoons and hammers to make a point about construction improvement?

Because these objects represent the clearest possible examples of something most people assume reached a final, perfect design long ago, which makes it easy to see how wrong that assumption actually is once genuine continued improvement in Japan is considered. If something as simple as a spoon still has real room to improve, the article argues, nearly any construction process almost certainly does too.

Why does the article reject the idea that Japanese manufacturers are simply obsessing over tiny, insignificant improvements?

Because the article argues this framing misunderstands what is actually happening. Rather than squeezing out a final, diminishing improvement from something already complete, continued refinement reveals an entirely new range of possibility beyond the original design, which keeps expanding rather than shrinking the more something gets improved.

What is the actual purpose of visiting the “real place” and engaging the “real thing” in the five G methodology?

Because genuine understanding of a process or tool’s actual limitations requires direct, firsthand observation rather than secondhand assumptions or theoretical analysis. Going to where the work genuinely happens and engaging the actual item directly surfaces real issues that would otherwise stay hidden if the evaluation happened only through reports or general impressions.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Promotions and the Gates of Leadership.

Posted on October 2, 2026October 2, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

There Is No Such Thing as Tenure

Here’s the deal. I have gotten increasingly firm on something over time. I would not promote, or even hire, anyone who is not genuinely both a trainer and someone who keeps a clean, safe, organized jobsite. Those two things are not nice extras sitting on top of real leadership qualifications. They are the actual foundation everything else rests on.

Why Problems Belong to the Team, Not Just One Person

Before getting into promotion criteria directly, it is worth naming something that quietly connects to all of it. Most of us were taught to carry problems alone, fix our own mistakes privately, shoulder the weight, and simply toughen up. That mindset genuinely does not work. We are not isolated individuals working in a vacuum. When a real problem shows up, the right move is bringing it to the team immediately, because more brains genuinely produce better decisions, and the weight gets spread across more shoulders than any single person could carry alone. A leader unwilling to do this themselves is already showing the first sign of a deeper problem worth examining closely.

Why Clean, Safe, and Organized Is Not Optional for a Leader

Everything we do rests on a leader’s genuine ability to run a clean, safe, and organized jobsite. Everything else comes down to actually being able to train people and genuinely control a site. I expect a superintendent to never let garbage materials, dirty or disorganized trucks, or genuinely misaligned behavior onto the jobsite at all. Workers queued. Materials queued. Equipment queued. Nothing gets past that second gate unless this standard is genuinely met.

Watch for these specific standards that should genuinely be non-negotiable before anything is allowed onto a project site.

Workers genuinely queued and aligned before being allowed onto the site, rather than arriving unprepared and figured out later.
Materials and equipment genuinely inspected and queued before entering, rather than accepted as they arrive and sorted out afterward.
Trucks and deliveries that are genuinely clean and organized, rather than treated as acceptable simply because the materials inside them eventually get used.

Why the Alternative Becomes a Genuine Chaos Catcher

Without this standard in place, you end up with what I genuinely call a chaos catcher, someone running around all day essentially babysitting everyone else, either because they genuinely do not know a better way, or because they actually enjoy the feeling of significance that comes from being constantly needed to fix everything personally. I do not want that pattern on my project sites, and I do not want people operating that way in leadership roles at all.

The second motivation is genuinely the harder one to catch, since it can look identical to hard work from a distance. Someone who thrives on being needed constantly has little real incentive to build systems that would make their own involvement less necessary, which quietly works against the entire point of genuine leadership.

When you attempt to implement genuine Lean practices with a superintendent or project manager who is not clean, safe, and organized, and who does not genuinely know how to train people, you are completely roadblocked before you even begin. I genuinely like these people as individuals. I simply do not understand how they got promoted into these positions in the first place without these core skills already in place.

A listener who has worked construction for roughly twenty years recently wrote in describing exactly this pattern at their own company, supervisors rewarded for looking busy with low value tasks during downtime, overly complex schedules forced onto the field, and genuine resistance to adopting real collaborative planning. That kind of feedback confirms this is not an isolated problem. It is a pattern worth actively watching for in your own organization too.

Why There Is No Such Thing as Tenure

There is no such thing as having earned your stripes. There is no such thing as being done growing, having done your time, or having earned your place permanently. You are earning your place every single day, inventing, growing, driving forward, and learning new skills constantly. I never want to hear that someone has tenure in the sense of being exempt from continued growth. It simply does not make sense to me, and I will never extend that exemption to anyone, including myself. Everyone earns their way, all the way through, for as long as they are doing this work.

Do not promote the wrong people into leadership, and do not let people you have already promoted settle into genuine stagnation. Both problems actually come from the exact same root cause. Someone unwilling to train others, and unable to maintain a clean, safe, organized site, has genuinely stagnated. They are unwilling to learn the real skills this trade requires, and claiming unfamiliarity with these specific concepts is no longer a valid excuse once someone has genuinely been exposed to them.

That last point deserves real emphasis. Ignorance of a better way genuinely stops being a valid excuse the moment someone has been shown that better way directly. At that point, continued resistance is a choice, not a gap in knowledge, and leaders need to be honest with themselves about which one they are actually looking at.

Watch for these signs someone has settled into real stagnation rather than continuing to genuinely earn their position.

Resistance to training others directly, treating that responsibility as optional rather than core to their actual role.
An inability or unwillingness to maintain a genuinely clean, safe, organized site, treating that standard as someone else’s job.
A mindset built around having already earned their place, rather than genuinely continuing to grow and develop new skills.

Why Real Gates Matter More Than Good Intentions

The only way to genuinely get ahead of this is building real gates, specific standards that someone must actually pass before being promoted into a leadership position, and specific standards that prevent someone from quietly settling into stagnation once they are already there. Good intentions alone do not reliably catch this. A genuine gate does.

Building This Standard Into Your Own Organization

None of this requires a complicated new evaluation system. It requires genuine honesty about whether someone can actually train others, maintain a clean and organized site, and continue growing every single day, before that person is ever promoted or allowed to remain comfortably in a leadership role without continuing to meet that same bar.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your organization build genuine gates around promotion and ongoing growth, so leadership roles go to people who can actually train others and maintain real standards, rather than people who simply accumulated enough time in a role to expect it.

So here is the challenge. Look honestly at your own organization’s current leadership and ask whether each person is still genuinely earning their position daily, or whether some have quietly settled into believing they have already earned it permanently. That distinction alone will tell you exactly where real stagnation is currently hiding.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “You are earning your place every single day.” Build that standard into how you promote and develop leaders, and genuine stagnation stops finding anywhere comfortable to settle.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article treat the ability to maintain a clean, safe, organized jobsite as a genuine leadership qualification rather than a basic expectation?

Because the article argues that genuine Lean implementation becomes completely blocked without this foundation in place, regardless of how skilled a leader might otherwise be in other areas. A superintendent who cannot maintain this standard personally cannot credibly expect a crew to maintain it either, which is exactly why it functions as a real prerequisite rather than a secondary consideration.

What does the article mean by calling someone a “chaos catcher,” and why is that framed as a problem rather than a strength?

A chaos catcher is someone who spends their time reactively fixing problems and babysitting a disorganized site, rather than building systems that prevent those problems from happening in the first place. The article treats this as a problem because it can stem from either a genuine skill gap or, more concerning, a personal need to feel significant by being constantly needed, neither of which reflects genuine, sustainable leadership.

Why does the article reject the idea of “tenure” even for genuinely experienced, long serving leaders?

Because the article argues that genuine competence requires continuous growth, and treating years of experience as a reason to stop learning new skills creates exactly the kind of stagnation that eventually shows up as an inability to train others or maintain real standards. Experience alone does not guarantee someone is still actively earning their position, which is why the article insists on continued growth regardless of tenure.

Why does the article recommend building actual “gates” rather than relying on good judgment when deciding who to promote?

Because good intentions alone have already allowed people without these core skills to be promoted into leadership roles, according to the article’s own observation. A genuine gate, a specific, consistently applied standard someone must actually meet, catches this gap more reliably than relying on judgment calls that can be influenced by tenure, likability, or simply not knowing what else to look for.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

When the Tables Have Turned.

Posted on October 2, 2026October 2, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 15 min

If You Want No Schedule Buffers, Take the Financial Contingency to Zero

Here’s the deal. As Takt production systems continue scaling across this industry, more large owners are now actively trying to remove buffers from genuine schedules. I tell contractors directly, you cannot let that happen. Tell them no.

Why Buffers Are Not Optional, Even When an Owner Pushes Back

Buffers are genuine system stabilization time, nothing more exotic than that. Removing them does not make a schedule more efficient. It simply removes the one thing protecting the entire system from normal, expected variation.

I understand why an owner would want them gone. A schedule with no buffer anywhere in it looks tighter and more impressive on paper, the same way a budget with no contingency looks leaner at first glance. Neither version actually survives contact with a real, ongoing project, and both eventually cost far more than whatever was saved by removing the protection in the first place, usually at the worst possible moment to discover it.

Here is the comparison that genuinely clarifies why this matters so much. If an owner refuses to allow schedule buffers, the equivalent ask would be taking the financial contingency on that same project down to zero. These are genuinely the same concept, just expressed in two different domains, and treating one as reasonable while rejecting the other outright is exactly where the real inconsistency lives.

Nobody would actually accept that financial version of the deal. Contractors would immediately recognize zero contingency and zero allowances as an unreasonable, unworkable ask, and they would simply decline to sign that contract. Yet somehow, the equivalent demand applied to a schedule, removing every buffer entirely, gets treated as a reasonable request rather than something just as unworkable.

Watch for these genuine parallels between schedule buffers and financial contingency that reveal why removing either one creates the same real risk.

Both exist specifically to absorb normal, expected variation rather than representing waste or inefficiency hiding somewhere inside the plan.
Both get targeted by people looking to tighten a deal, without genuinely understanding what function they actually serve underneath.
Removing either one does not actually make the underlying work more efficient, it simply removes protection against problems that were always going to occur eventually.

We isolate these concepts constantly, treating the schedule and the budget as if they operate under entirely different rules, when in reality the same underlying logic applies to both. A contractor asked to work with zero financial contingency would simply walk away from the deal entirely. The same response is genuinely appropriate when an owner asks for zero schedule buffer.

Several contractors I work with have already started doing exactly this, telling owners directly that removing schedule buffers is simply not something they will agree to. That willingness to say no, clearly and without apology, is exactly what protects the rest of the project from a demand that was never actually reasonable in the first place, and it deserves genuine credit as good, confident practice rather than stubbornness.

What Would Happen if the Office Got the Same Treatment the Field Does

Here is a related thought experiment worth sitting with. Office based teams routinely tell field crews things like just work the weekend, push the crew harder, or figure out a way to compress the schedule further, usually without much thought about what that actually requires on the receiving end. Picture the exact same demands applied directly to an office instead.

Imagine walking into a design or project management office and announcing a few new requirements.

Mandatory overtime for every single office employee, starting immediately, with no real discussion about why.
Multiple people now expected to share a single desk and workstation, simply to save space and look more efficient on paper.
One office engineer suddenly assigned to manage seven full projects simultaneously, with someone standing over their shoulder yelling about deadlines the entire time.

Nobody would genuinely accept any of that in an office setting. People would push back immediately, point out how unreasonable it genuinely is, and refuse to work under those conditions. Yet versions of this exact treatment sometimes get applied to field crews without anywhere near the same pushback, simply because the double standard has never been reframed clearly enough for people to actually notice it.

I genuinely believe most people issuing these demands toward the field are not acting out of malice. They simply have not stopped to picture themselves on the receiving end of the exact same request, phrased in terms that would hit much closer to home.

Why Reframing the Concept Changes Everything

All it takes to expose this double standard is genuinely putting it in the right frame of mind. Once you translate a demand from the field into its exact equivalent in the office, or from the schedule into its exact equivalent in the budget, the unreasonableness becomes immediately obvious to almost anyone. The concepts were never actually different. We had simply never stopped to notice they were the same thing wearing different clothes.

This reframing technique works precisely because it removes the familiarity that lets an unreasonable demand hide in plain sight. A request that sounds routine when aimed at a field crew sounds genuinely alarming the moment it gets aimed instead at the person making the request, which is exactly why this exercise is worth doing deliberately rather than only noticing the double standard by accident.

Building This Awareness Into Your Own Negotiations

None of this requires a complicated argument to make the point clearly. It requires a direct, simple reframe, translating whatever is being asked of the field into its exact equivalent somewhere in the office, and watching how quickly the unreasonableness of that request becomes obvious to everyone involved. Practice this reframe enough times, and it becomes a genuine habit you can reach for immediately, rather than something you only think of well after an unreasonable request has already been accepted.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams hold the line on genuine schedule buffers and other protective system elements, using exactly this kind of reframing to help owners and stakeholders actually understand what they are asking for, before that request ever gets accepted into a real contract.

So here is the challenge. The next time someone asks you to remove a genuine buffer, whether that is time, budget, or capacity, translate that exact request into its equivalent somewhere else in the organization, the office, the budget, a different department entirely. If that equivalent sounds genuinely absurd once reframed, the original request was never actually reasonable to begin with, no matter how normal it initially sounded.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “If you don’t want to give me buffers in the schedule, then let’s take the financial contingency to zero.” Use that same reframe whenever a genuine protection gets targeted for removal, and watch the demand lose its footing almost instantly.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article compare removing schedule buffers to eliminating financial contingency specifically?

Because both serve the exact same underlying function, protecting a plan against normal, expected variation that will inevitably occur during a real project. Framing a schedule buffer request as equivalent to eliminating financial contingency makes the unreasonableness of the original demand immediately obvious, since almost nobody would accept a contract with zero financial protection built in.

Why do people treat schedule buffers and financial contingency so differently, even though they serve a similar purpose?

Because these concepts typically get discussed in completely separate conversations, with different people involved, using different vocabulary, which makes the underlying similarity easy to miss entirely. Isolating concepts by department or domain, rather than recognizing their shared function, is exactly what allows an unreasonable demand in one area to pass unnoticed while the equivalent demand elsewhere would be rejected immediately.

What is the actual lesson the article wants readers to apply beyond this specific buffer example?

That reframing a demand into an equivalent scenario in a different context is a genuinely powerful tool for exposing unreasonable requests that might otherwise go unquestioned. Whenever a protective element, whether time, money, or staffing capacity, comes under pressure to be removed entirely, translating that request into its exact equivalent somewhere else often reveals whether the original ask was ever genuinely reasonable in the first place, long before any contract gets signed around it.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Massive and Small Problems on the Job Site.

Posted on October 2, 2026October 2, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 16 min

Massive and Small Problems, and Why the Order You Solve Them In Matters

Here’s the deal. During a recent field walk, I watched a genuinely strong team handle big, massive roadblocks really well, while quietly letting the small ones slip through unaddressed. That observation, paired with a deeper conversation I had afterward about how waste actually gets eliminated, revealed something worth sharing directly.

Why Small Problems Get Left Behind

I generally recommend visual boards on the wall showing zone maps and logistics plans, where trade partners place red magnets directly on the board to flag real problems. Those magnets go up before the meeting even starts, specifically so the meeting itself is not wasted on the motion of physically posting each issue. Once the meeting begins, the team works through the board magnet by magnet, spending real time actually removing roadblocks rather than just discussing them.

Some magnets represent genuinely small issues, a stack of plywood sitting in someone’s way, for example. A foreman can simply agree to handle it on the spot, and the magnet comes right off. Other magnets represent something far more serious, an RFI with a hard deadline that could genuinely stop work in two days if left unresolved. That kind of issue needs real escalation, reaching the project engineer, the project manager, and the designers directly, and it either stays on the board or gets transferred into a dedicated roadblock log for ongoing tracking.

What I noticed on this particular project was a team focused almost entirely on that roadblock log, the bigger items. I had to ask directly, how are the smaller issues actually being coordinated? The honest answer was that they were not being coordinated at all. Small problems were simply left out in the field for individual workers to notice, walk around, and figure out on their own time, wasting real effort simply because nobody addressed them in the meeting itself.

We genuinely need three distinct levels of roadblock tracking working together.

Magnet level roadblocks, small enough to resolve on the spot during the meeting itself, with the magnet coming down immediately once handled.
Roadblock log level items, serious enough to need ongoing tracking across multiple meetings until fully resolved.
Escalated items significant enough to require attention at a genuine owner, architect, and contractor meeting, reaching well beyond the immediate project team.

We cannot ever only cover the big items, and we cannot ever only cover the small ones either. Everything needs a real place on the board, attacked visually every single day. Done consistently, that list should never grow large enough to become genuinely unmanageable.

Why a Narrow Focus on Waste Alone Can Backfire

I was talking recently with someone from a production department who described their entire focus as eliminating waste. That reminded me of a pit crew analogy I use constantly. If a pit crew looks idle while a car is out on the track, someone focused purely on spotting waste might conclude that crew is doing nothing and should be eliminated, or kept busy with something else in the meantime. Then the car actually pulls in for service, and if that same crew is now distracted doing something else entirely, it takes too long to get the car back out, and the race gets lost because of it.

This is exactly the trap of looking at any single concept in isolation. You cannot build your entire approach around waste alone, or around theory of constraints alone, or around work in progress alone, or around big problems versus small ones. Everything genuinely connects as one single system, and how you categorize a problem should never get in the way of your actual ability to solve it.

Why Overburden, Unevenness, and Waste Form a Genuine Sequence

Here is something genuinely remarkable I want to share. Removing overburden first, unevenness second, and waste third is not simply a priority ranking. It is an actual procedural sequence, where each step genuinely enables the next one to happen.

Addressing overburden means reducing work in progress until the actual workload sits genuinely within people’s real capacity. This also does something else important, it lets real problems finally become visible that excess work in progress was previously hiding.
Once that visibility exists, unevenness becomes genuinely identifiable, specifically the stops and restarts that typically happen right at a real bottleneck. This is exactly where Eliyahu Goldratt’s theory of constraints thinking becomes useful, helping pinpoint precisely where that bottleneck actually sits.
Once the actual bottleneck location is clear, you can finally go to work eliminating waste specifically at that bottleneck, using the eight, or sometimes nine, wastes framework to guide exactly where to focus.

Notice how beautifully these three steps build on each other rather than functioning as three separate, unrelated priorities. Reducing work in progress reveals the bottleneck. Identifying the bottleneck tells you precisely where to eliminate waste. None of these steps makes full sense without the one that came before it.

Skipping straight to waste elimination without doing this groundwork first tends to scatter effort across the entire project, removing small inefficiencies everywhere while the one constraint actually limiting overall output stays completely untouched. The sequence exists precisely to prevent that kind of unfocused, well intentioned effort.

What I Would Actually Do Running a Project

If I were running a project with this in mind, I would write down every problem touching overburden, unevenness, or waste as it surfaces. I would align work in progress first, until it is genuinely manageable. Only then would I map out where the bottlenecks causing unevenness actually sit. From there, I would subordinate everything else to that bottleneck specifically, working to increase its capacity or remove waste directly at that one critical point.

Why Both Lessons Point to the Same Underlying Truth

Covering only big roadblocks while ignoring small ones is a form of the exact same myopia as chasing waste without first understanding capacity and bottlenecks. In both cases, a narrow focus on one category, scale, or concept quietly hides real problems sitting just outside that narrow view.

Building This Integrated Thinking Into Your Own Project

None of this requires choosing between tracking big problems and small ones, or between eliminating waste and understanding theory of constraints. It requires holding all of it together as one connected system, addressing capacity first, locating the real bottleneck second, and eliminating waste specifically where it actually matters third.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams build genuinely integrated problem solving, covering every scale of roadblock and following the real sequence that actually makes waste elimination effective, rather than tackling each concept in isolation.

So here is the challenge. Look at your own current roadblock board and ask honestly whether small problems are genuinely being addressed alongside the big ones, or quietly left for individual workers to sort out on their own. Then ask whether your team is reducing work in progress before hunting for waste, or jumping straight to waste elimination without first locating the real bottleneck underneath it.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “Remove overburden first, unevenness second, and then waste third.” Follow that real sequence, and cover every scale of problem at once, and watch how much more effectively your team actually solves what is genuinely in front of it.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article warn against a project team focusing only on the roadblock log and ignoring smaller, magnet level problems?

Because smaller problems, left unaddressed in a formal meeting, do not disappear, they simply get pushed onto individual workers who have to notice, navigate around, and resolve them on their own time instead. Tracking only the bigger items creates a false sense of thorough problem solving while real, smaller inefficiencies continue accumulating unaddressed in the field.

Why might someone mistakenly identify an idle pit crew as waste worth eliminating?

Because a narrow focus on visible busyness, without understanding the crew’s actual purpose, makes genuine readiness look identical to unnecessary idleness from the outside. The crew’s real value only becomes visible the moment a car actually needs service, which a surface level search for waste completely misses if it judges activity only by what is happening right now rather than what the role is actually there to provide.

Why does reducing work in progress specifically help reveal where a real bottleneck is located?

Because excess work in progress tends to mask genuine capacity problems, spreading effort so thin across many tasks that no single constraint stands out clearly. Once work in progress is reduced to a genuinely manageable level, stops and restarts become visible exactly where they are actually happening, typically right at the real bottleneck limiting the entire system.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

The Waiting You Pay For and the Waiting You Don’t.

Posted on October 2, 2026October 2, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

The Waiting You Pay For, and the Waiting You Do Not

Here’s the deal. There are two kinds of waiting on a construction project that look remarkably similar from a distance and carry completely different real costs. Learning to tell them apart changes how you should actually respond when you see a zone sitting idle or a worker not fully occupied.

What Triggers the Expensive Kind of Waiting

The waiting you pay for usually starts with someone in authority insisting on something that sounds reasonable on the surface. I want every worker busy. I want extra crews. I want overtime. I want every single zone being worked on at all times. That demand is exactly what creates the expensive version of waiting.

Waiting, in this context, means people standing around for information, for a roadblock to clear, for materials that have not arrived. It means genuine treasure hunts, searching for something that should have been staged properly. It means busywork invented simply to look occupied, or someone doing planning work that genuinely belonged to a project engineer instead.

A colleague once came back from a real Last Planner training with a useful way to frame this. It is either workers waiting on work, or work waiting on workers. Workers tend to wait constantly in construction, which is genuinely different from manufacturing, and one of those two situations is considerably worse than the other.

Why Niklas Modig’s Framework Is Missing a Third Category

Niklas Modig writes about resource efficiency and flow efficiency, and his work is genuinely excellent. Because he is not writing specifically about construction, he never fully pulls apart both extremes and explains the real middle ground between them. There is actually a third concept worth naming directly, work efficiency, sitting as its own distinct failure mode alongside resource efficiency.

Here is how these three genuinely differ from each other.

Resource efficiency optimizes each individual piece of equipment or each individual trade on its own, which can quietly sub-optimize the overall project and hurt genuine flow.
Work efficiency means keeping every single zone worked on constantly, so each area looks efficient within itself, which also ends up hurting overall workflow.
Flow efficiency sits genuinely in the middle, matching the actual pace and capability of your resources with the genuine demand of the client, balancing supply and demand rather than optimizing either extreme in isolation.

A trade that wants the entire building to themselves, free to stage however they like because it feels maximally efficient for them individually, is actually detrimental to overall production. Insisting that every single zone must be worked on and every person must stay busy at all times is just as false, and it genuinely hurts people in the process.

Why Adding More Workers Does Not Automatically Create More Speed

When everyone tries to work at full efficiency inside every zone simultaneously, aggregated across an entire project, you get real trade stacking and genuine trade burdening. You end up throwing large numbers of people at work that may not even be ready for them yet.

Here is something I say constantly in trainings and conferences. You could add ten additional trained people to every single crew on a site and genuinely not go any faster, if the areas are not ready, if the overall system is not in rhythm, and if the materials or information required simply are not there yet. More labor thrown at an unready system does not create speed. It mostly creates cost.

If you are genuinely operating inside a real Takt production system, some zones will always, at any given moment, not be actively worked on. Some people will not be at one hundred percent capacity at every moment either. That is completely normal. The moment an owner notices this and demands that something be done about it without understanding why, that is exactly the moment a project tips into the expensive version of waiting.

Telling the Two Kinds of Waiting Apart

The waiting you pay for looks like this. Work is not genuinely made ready, and in response, additional crews get brought in, trades get stacked or burdened, extra workers show up, overtime gets authorized, and the whole team shifts into rushing, pushing, and panicking. That version of waiting is genuinely expensive.

The waiting you do not pay for looks completely different. A zone might sit waiting briefly for a crew because of a small natural gap, or because trades are genuinely moving at slightly different paces. A crew might even get intentionally reduced in size to match the pace of everyone else around them. Nobody is working at full individual efficiency in this scenario, and nobody is actually paying for it either, because the overall production plan still finishes at the soonest reasonable point, without panic, without additional overtime costs, without wasted treasure hunts, and without idle labor nobody can genuinely put to use.

Watch for these specific signs you are experiencing the expensive version of waiting rather than the genuinely harmless kind.

Extra crews or additional labor brought in specifically because a zone sat briefly idle, rather than because the actual schedule genuinely required it.
Overtime, time and a half, or double time costs appearing directly in response to pressure to keep every zone constantly occupied.
A visible shift into rushing, pushing, or panicking triggered by an owner or executive noticing an empty zone without understanding why it is temporarily empty.

What I Am Not Actually Saying Here

I want to be genuinely clear about something. I am not saying work everyone at full resource efficiency, since that creates real gaps elsewhere in the schedule. I am also not saying focus purely on work efficiency, keeping every zone occupied at all times. What I am actually recommending is a genuinely balanced plan between those two extremes, landing on real flow efficiency.

If every trade simply does whatever is best for itself individually, that is sub-optimization, and it is genuinely harmful. If an owner insists there should never be an empty zone, demands overtime, and does not care about trade stacking or trade burdening, that is equally harmful. The genuinely intelligent, educated approach keeps everyone moving in real flow, optimized for the shortest overall throughput time and the highest quality, while still genuinely respecting the people doing the work. That balance is the only way to actually win.

Building This Understanding Into Your Own Project

None of this requires choosing one extreme over the other. It requires understanding that some amount of idle time, in a zone or in an individual worker, is genuinely normal and healthy inside a well run Takt system, and resisting the instinct to throw expensive resources at something that does not actually need fixing.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams genuinely distinguish between the waiting worth paying to eliminate and the waiting that simply reflects a healthy, well balanced production system.

So here is the challenge. The next time you notice an idle zone or an underutilized worker, pause before reacting. Ask honestly whether that gap reflects a real roadblock genuinely worth addressing, or a normal, healthy rhythm you would actually be paying real money to eliminate unnecessarily.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “Lean is about finishing a project or a phase at the shortest duration, highest level of quality, that takes care of our people, at the lowest overall total project cost.” Learn to tell these two kinds of waiting apart, and you protect every single part of that definition at once.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article argue that Niklas Modig’s resource efficiency and flow efficiency framework is missing something important for construction?

Because Modig’s work was not written specifically about construction, and it only fully explains one extreme, resource efficiency, alongside the balanced middle ground of flow efficiency. The article argues construction genuinely needs a third category named directly, work efficiency, to describe the opposite extreme of insisting every zone stay constantly occupied, which causes its own distinct set of problems.

Why would adding ten extra trained workers to every crew on a site not necessarily make the project move faster?

Because speed in a Takt system depends on zones being genuinely ready, the overall system being in rhythm, and materials and information actually being available when needed, not simply on how many people are physically present. Extra labor thrown at an unready system adds real cost without addressing the actual constraint slowing the project down.

What is the practical difference between a zone sitting idle due to “waiting you pay for” versus “waiting you don’t pay for”?

The expensive version involves a reactive response, extra crews, overtime, trade stacking, rushing and panicking, triggered by the idle zone itself. The non-expensive version involves a zone or worker genuinely not at full utilization simply because trades move at slightly different paces, with the overall schedule still finishing at the soonest reasonable point without any of those extra costs being incurred.

Why does the article warn against an owner reacting negatively to seeing an empty zone or an idle worker?

Because some amount of idle time is a completely normal, expected feature of a well functioning Takt production system, not necessarily a sign of inefficiency worth correcting. An owner who pushes a team to eliminate all idle time without understanding this risks triggering the expensive form of waiting, since that pressure typically gets answered with extra crews, overtime, and rushed decision making rather than genuine improvement.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

General Offerings

Company Offerings

Systems

SUBSCRIBE NOW !

Subscribe to our newsletters and stay updated!

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