Don’t Get a Sense of Security

The False Sense of Security: A Checked Box Is Not a Working System

Here’s the deal. Today I want to talk about getting a false sense of security, and how it can hide inside almost any system we use. A colleague named Kevin raised this with me on a recent trip, and I really appreciated it. He said there is a similarity across some of these systems. When they are sub-optimized, and not implemented right, they give you a false sense of security. I really like that thought, so let’s anchor it.

The False Sense of Security in CPM

If you use the critical path method, CPM scheduling, on an activity level and not a phase level, meaning it is too detailed, almost every part of that scheduling system will work against your production system. The reason it is so widely scaled is that it gives the project manager and the project team a false sense of security. Here is what that sounds like.

• It is in the schedule.
• My senior scheduler knows what is going on.
• It is in the contract, so it must be right.
• We have a legal precedent to protect us.
• My trade partner signed on to it.

None of those protect us if the project is late. We are still on the hook.

When the Schedule Is Lying

Those schedules also hide trade stacking, and in that way they end up lying to you. A third of the way through the project, you say, we are good. Halfway through, you say, I think we are good. Nearing two thirds of the project, you say, I do not know, it is a little sketchy, let me check in with the team. And then, after that, you are in a full blown crash landing.

This happens all the time, and everybody listening to this podcast knows what I am talking about. How in the world did this project take a turn so fast? It is because the schedule was lying. It is non-transparent, and it gives people a false sense of security.

It Can Happen With Last Planner

The same thing can happen with other systems. Say you have implemented the Last Planner system, and people tell you, this is the cat’s meow. You did a pull plan, and now you are implementing from a weekly work plan. Check whether the following are true.

• The material procurement is aligned.
• The work has been broken out into the right number of zones.
• The plan has been looped into your master schedule.
• You have confirmed that the plan is realistic with the supply chain.
• Your weekly work plans are based on an overall flow, broken out by zone.

If they are not, then you have a false sense of security that is not real. You think, we pull planned it, we should be good. No, no, no. There is so much more to it.

It Can Happen With Takt Too

I will throw Takt in there as well. Someone says, Jason said Takt planning is the cat’s meow, we have Takt, we are good. You are good if you are compliant with the Takt guide on the Takt website, meaning the following.

• You have buffers.
• You have leveled your wagons.
• You have leveled your zones.
• You have analyzed zone density.
• You have all of the key components specified on the website.

If you have not, a beautiful looking Takt plan can still give you a false sense of security. Dig in.

A Lesson From Surveying

Here is an analogy from a different scope of work, surveying. I used to teach quite a bit about how to do traversing using the compass rule. There is software that will do it with least squares, and that is fine. We would traverse through a network of points and close the traverse. At the end, it would give you a linear error of closure, and then it would give you your accuracy. If you were one in 100,000, that meant it would take 100,000 linear feet of surveying to be off by a foot. First order accuracy was what we were always targeting.

When teams closed their traverse, they would say, we were one in 85,000, we are good to go, done. Now they had a false sense of security. All a closed traverse tells you is whether you surveyed consistently. To know whether you have the points in the right place, you have to take the traverse coordinates and overlay them with the given coordinates, and see if there is a mistake. We would take an accurate traverse of five points, overlay it with the actual site plan the surveying company gave us, and in some cases a point was off by 0.08, 0.20, 0.80, and in some cases as much as six feet in the wrong location.

So you did not find out there was a problem when you did the traverse and checked the accuracy. You found the problem when you overlaid the traverse with the given information.

Apply It to Your Schedule

You can create a CPM schedule, hit F9, have it be inside the box, say I trust my scheduler, and have a false sense of security until you check it. You do not know that it is right. In fact, I would ask you to look at it like a liability.

You can implement Last Planner, say we have a pull plan, thank goodness, and check the box. You have a false sense of security until you dig into it and make sure all trades were represented, the durations are confirmed, you have the right number of zones and the right batching, and you have a plan to loop the pull plan into your master schedule and filter it onto the weekly work plan. You then collaborate and implement in a strategic way with buffers. If not, you may have a massive problem.

Do not go to sleep on me. Your team created a Takt plan, and it looks beautiful. Dig in. Does it have buffers? Did it level the wagons? Did it level the zones? Did you analyze zone density? Do you have the key components?

Ask What Happened After “I Did It”

When somebody tells you they did it, the answer is the question that comes next. You created a Takt plan, great, what did the review look like? You did a pull plan and you are implementing Last Planner, great, what does that look like from a production and scaling standpoint? You have a CPM schedule, okay, how are we going to analyze the flow within it? You have to take it all the way to the end.

It is like the episode I did on conversations and consequences. I talked to them, I am good. No. If you stop there, you have a false sense of security. You communicate, and then, when you communicate again and you are not getting what you want, you implement consequences.

Other Resources I Recommend

In the beginning of this episode, I responded to a post about how to learn Lean construction properly. I would like to stay positive, so here are the resources I really love and encourage you to dig into.

• This Is Lean, by Niklas Modig, which is a must read.
• Two Second Lean, by Paul Akers.
• The 14 principles of the Toyota Way, and the book, The Toyota Way.
• The Lean community on social media, where there is so much more to learn from and you can really make progress.

You can absolutely analyze and compare Lean manufacturing and Lean construction. That is a fantastic resource.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

So here is the challenge. Pick one system you believe is working, and dig down until you have a firm knowledge of whether it is actually right.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “I’m asking everybody to finish the last 5% of everything that they do.”

On we go.

FAQ

What is a false sense of security?

It is the feeling that a system is working because a box has been checked, such as having a CPM schedule, a pull plan, or a Takt plan, when it has not been checked all the way down to whether it is actually right.

Why does Jason say CPM schedules give a false sense of security?

Because they hide trade stacking and are non-transparent. The team feels protected by the schedule, the contract, and a senior scheduler, but none of those protect the project if it is late, and a project can look fine until it suddenly crashes.

What does the surveying story show?

That a closed traverse only tells you the survey was consistent. You find a problem when you overlay the traverse with the given coordinates, where points can turn out to be feet away. In the same way, a system is only verified when you check it against what is real.

What should you ask when someone says they implemented Last Planner or Takt?

Ask what the review looked like and how it works from a production and scaling standpoint, and whether the key components, such as buffers, leveled wagons and zones, and zone density analysis, are actually in place.