It’s Time to Get on with It! Feat. Hal Macomber

It Is Time to Do What We Know: Hal Macomber on the Four Things Construction Must Fix Right Now

In 1997 and 1998, the founders of the Lean Construction Institute were writing white papers. Papers on continuous process flow. Papers on work structuring. Papers describing the Last Planner System. The science was there. The framework was there. The path was there. Twenty-five years later, Hal Macomber, one of the most respected voices in lean construction and a founding figure in the LCI movement, sits down with Jason Schroeder and says something that should stop every construction leader cold: what we knew back then still applies, and people are still not doing it. That is not a research problem. That is a leadership problem. And the time for debating whether to change is over.

The Problem That Has Not Moved

The construction industry has one of the most consistent and well-documented productivity problems of any major sector of the economy. Buildings cost too much and take too long. And people get killed building them. Those three facts were true in 1997 and they are true today. The knowledge required to address them has existed for a generation. The four production laws, Little’s Law, the Law of Variation, the Law of Bottlenecks, and Kingman’s Formula, are not new insights. They are not theories waiting to be validated. Hal describes them the way he describes gravity: they are laws in the same sense that the theory of gravity is a law. If you drop something, it falls. If you violate these laws in your production system, you will pay the price in waste, delay, and cost overrun. Every time.

The scheduling approach that most of the industry relies on, CPM as the endpoint rather than the starting point, treats a guess about sequencing and duration as a sufficient production plan. It is not. A schedule gets a project started. A production system is what gets it finished well. The industry has known this for twenty-five years, and the industry keeps building schedules and calling them production plans. That is malpractice, and Hal says so directly.

Four Things the Industry Must Fix

Hal brings four specific issues to the conversation, each one grounded in decades of observation and research. Together they constitute a challenge not just to how construction manages its work but to how it treats the people who build everything.

The first is the production laws. Learn them. Apply them. Stop building schedules that ignore the science of how work actually flows through a production system. This Is Lean by Nicholas Modig and Par Alstrom covers the foundational framework clearly and accessibly. There is no excuse in 2022 for building Takt plans without standby capacity, which Iris Tommelein was already writing about when LCI was six people in a room.

The second is respect for people. The construction industry is losing five workers for every one it gains. People are leaving because working in the industry is genuinely difficult in ways that go beyond the physical demands. Warm water at portable restrooms should not require a labor secretary to shut down an entire city’s construction before it happens. When that is what it takes to provide a basic human necessity, the industry has not just failed its workers. It has communicated to them, loudly and clearly, that they are not the priority. They hear that message. They respond to it by leaving.

The third is the disconnection between workers and their work. The people who are most expert about how construction work is done are the people doing it with tools in their hands. They are not being asked to improve the work. They are being managed by systems that assume improvement belongs to management and execution belongs to labor. Healthcare has figured out how to engage frontline workers in improving the processes they operate. Construction has not. Two improvements per person per month, two dozen per year, is achievable. It has been demonstrated repeatedly in controlled settings. It does not stick and it does not expand because the system is not designed to capture it.

The fourth is systems thinking. Command and control does not work because positional power is not the same as knowledge or capability. The experts in a construction system are the people using the tools. Until the industry moves beyond the paradigm of command and control and starts designing systems that engage the intelligence of the people doing the work, it will keep producing the results it has always produced.

Why the Industry Keeps Resisting What It Needs

Jason asks the question that everyone in lean construction eventually confronts: if the research is clear and the results are documented, why does the industry keep not doing it? Hal points to the work of Bob Emiliani, whose research identified a condition he calls political economy: the management class of most firms has built a system of incentives, compensation, status, and comfort that is well served by the current system. Change threatens the system. So the system protects itself. Lean experts who produce results get cold-shouldered, reassigned, or terminated. The people who lose money on projects repeatedly get promoted because they operate within the existing framework. The crabs pull down the ones climbing out of the barrel.

This is not pessimism. It is an accurate description of why change that is technically obvious is socially difficult. And the implication, drawn from Donella Meadows’ work on system leverage points, is that the highest-leverage place to intervene is at the level of the system’s goals, not its parameters. Change what the system is optimizing for and the behaviors that serve the old goal will have less structural support.

The Swing Capacity That Takt Construction Requires

One of the most practically urgent points in this conversation is the problem of swing capacity, Hal’s term for cross-trained workers who can step in across trade boundaries when production rhythm requires it. Takt construction requires the ability to flex workforce capacity when a zone falls behind or when a trade’s work volume does not perfectly fill its allotted time window. Without workers who can perform multiple roles, that flexibility does not exist. The buffer in the system is either time, which costs schedule, or swing capacity, which requires investment in cross-training.

Toyota does not assign workers to a single job. Before a Toyota employee performs their primary role on the production line, they have been trained to proficiency on twelve different jobs. During a shift, they rotate through four of them in two-hour increments. They understand the work upstream of them and downstream of them. They can step in for a colleague. They are not bored and they are not siloed. The result is a production system with genuine flexibility built into the workforce rather than into the schedule.

Construction in the United States operates at the opposite extreme. Carpenters do what carpenters do. Electricians do what electricians do. The foreman who could in theory cover three different scopes is assigned to one. When a Takt zone falls behind and the trade that needs to catch up does not have the people to do it, the options are limited to overtime, acceleration, or delay. All three are expensive. Swing capacity is the alternative, and it requires a deliberate, sustained investment in cross-training that the industry has not yet made at scale. Companies like Cianbro in Maine, which employs carpenters who are also licensed electricians and can perform acoustic tile, flooring, and insulation work, demonstrate what this looks like when it is done intentionally. It is not a theoretical possibility. It is a competitive advantage.

The Role of Delay in the System

Hal makes one final point that deserves its own attention: delay is one of the most damaging and least managed elements of production systems in construction. When a foreman discovers a problem at three in the afternoon and the response does not happen until the following morning, the Takt window has already closed. The opportunity to take corrective action that would have kept the zone in flow has passed. The cascade begins. Delay is not just a schedule problem. It is a systems problem, and the feedback loops that allow delays to compound are structural features of how information moves through most construction organizations.

The solution is daily, sometimes hourly, communication about the status of critical path activities. It is technology that surfaces deviations in real time rather than in the next morning’s report. It is a meeting structure that brings the right people together at the moment when corrective action is still possible rather than after the damage has been absorbed. The tools to address delay exist. The discipline to use them is what the industry still needs to develop. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

The Charter the Industry Needs to Sign

Jason asks whether there is a set of commitments, simple enough to be stated plainly and specific enough to be actionable, that the industry could collectively make. Not a detailed implementation plan. A charter. A declaration of what the industry is going to do differently. Hal’s response, drawing on Meadows’ leverage point framework, points toward changing the goals of the system as the place where sustained change begins. The current goals of most construction systems are schedule compression, cost minimization, and risk transfer. Production excellence, worker dignity, and continuous improvement are aspirations, not embedded goals. Until they are embedded, they will remain aspirations.

The path forward is not complicated, even if it is difficult. Learn the production laws and build schedules accordingly. Treat workers with the respect that basic human dignity requires, not as a strategy but as an obligation. Engage the people doing the work in improving the work. Move beyond command and control toward systems that leverage the intelligence distributed throughout the project team. Develop swing capacity so that production systems have the flexibility they need to flow. Address delays in real time rather than in the next morning’s meeting. The industry knew all of this in 1997. The time to do it was then. The next best time is now.

On we go.

FAQ

What are the four production laws Hal Macomber references and why do they matter?

Little’s Law, the Law of Variation, the Law of Bottlenecks, and Kingman’s Formula govern how work flows through any production system. They are not guidelines but structural laws, like gravity, and violating them produces predictable waste, delay, and cost overrun regardless of effort or intent.

Why does the lean construction industry struggle to gain traction despite decades of evidence?

Bob Emiliani’s research on political economy suggests that management systems create incentives that reward maintaining the status quo, and that people who produce results through lean methods are frequently expelled by the system they are trying to change. The feedback loops that sustain the current system are more powerful than the technical case for improvement.

What is swing capacity and why is it essential for Takt construction?

Swing capacity means cross-trained workers who can perform multiple roles, providing the workforce flexibility that Takt production requires when zone volumes fluctuate or a trade falls behind. Without it, the only buffers available are time, overtime, or delay, all of which are expensive.

What does Donella Meadows’ systems thinking framework suggest about where to intervene in construction?

Meadows identifies changing the goal of a system as one of the highest-leverage intervention points. Changing construction’s embedded goals from schedule compression and risk transfer to production excellence and worker dignity would shift the structural incentives that currently sustain mediocre outcomes.

What is the connection between delay and Takt construction performance?

When deviations from the Takt plan are not surfaced and addressed the same day they occur, the corrective action window closes and the cascade begins. Real-time information flow is not a nice-to-have in a Takt system. It is the mechanism that allows the production plan to be defended.