Are You Crash Landing or Control Landing?

Scheduled compression happens. Project falls behind. Now you have choice. Crash landing or controlled landing. Crash landing: scheduled compression not recognized early enough or ignored for so long that significant damage already incurred and unavoidable. Does not create learning environment. Rather creates caustic environment where flow ceases to exist and trust erodes as team members stop holding themselves and others accountable. Previously protected resources now spent in state of panic without consideration for value being purchased. Ultimately all those involved pay price personally and professionally without learning from expensive experience. Project completed but ends in Pyrrhic victory meaning it takes such heavy toll on victor that positive is outweighed by negative experience. Minimizes any true sense of achievement and damages long-term progress. Causes: project team starts to push, material inventory worker counts and costs are increased, project taken out of flow, team doesn’t reach out for help, project slides into firefighting and damage control mode, short-sighted decisions made causing more long-term problems, personal lives regarded as expendable or “this is how it has always been” is presented. Conversely, controlled landing: scheduled compression recognized early enough to engage and harness full company resources. Although still difficult, controlled approach creates learning environment that builds trust, accountability, preserves work-life balance while strategically planning financial expenditures to achieve best possible outcomes. Intentional realistic end date. Flow maintained as top priority even though some stakeholders may want to rush and push. Worker counts, material inventory levels, throughput of information kept consistent and steady. Coordinated path to finish with full cleanliness. Safety and quality awareness are priority. Planned resource expenditures for best possible outcomes. Thoughtful workflow based on rhythm.

Here’s what most teams miss. They think pushing harder recovers projects. Increase material inventory. Increase worker counts. Increase costs. Push activities through as fast as possible. Start working weekends. Extend hours. Add more crews. But that’s crash landing. Project team starts pushing taking project out of flow. Team doesn’t reach out for help sliding into firefighting and damage control mode. Short-sighted decisions made causing more long-term problems. Personal lives regarded as expendable. Caustic environment where flow ceases and trust erodes. Resources spent in panic without consideration for value purchased. Everyone pays price personally and professionally without learning. Pyrrhic victory where toll outweighs positive. But controlled landing recognizes compression early enough to engage full company resources. Hold to Takt system and philosophy. Pushing only extends end date. To recover project, must first focus on cleanliness, organization, safety, and flow. Make decisions in harmony with production laws. Focus on increasing system capacity, not pushing work through limited capacity system. Different approach. Different outcome.

The challenge is most teams never learned recovery options beyond pushing. They know add more people. Add more materials. Work longer hours. But they don’t know optimize sequences, shorten batch sizes, limit work in process, create Takt time buffer to better prepare work, separate and segment phases, adjust phase interdependence logic, increase system capacity, increase process capacity, remove bottlenecks, reduce variation. These options increase system capacity enabling recovery. Pushing decreases system capacity extending duration. KPIs that naturally obey production laws show this. Work in Process tracks work packages in progress. Percent Plan Complete tracks activities completed on time. Finish or Flow Ratio tracks work packages finished divided by Takt zones. Time Remaining Buffer Ratio shows if burning buffers slower rate than finishing actual value of work. Elementary Classroom Clarity measures whether third grade class can understand what’s happening on project. These KPIs work with production laws, not against them. But teams taught to push wonder why pushing makes things worse when the answer is pushing violates production laws destroying capacity.

Scrum: Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time

Scrum is a fantastic book that is eye-opening about the failures of waterfall scheduling in construction, and also provides the solution for accomplishing projects in half the time. Imagine a 4×4 board in an office with four columns that are each one foot wide. The first column’s name is Backlog, the second is Sprint Backlog, the third is titled In Progress, and the fourth is Complete.

A product owner identifies the activities that have to be completed. These activities are defined clearly according to the project conditions of satisfaction, and each activity has a number score indicating how many points are issued for that activity according to its impact and level of effort.

A Scrum team with a Scrum Master then pulls over activities from the Backlog, which with Takt is mostly populated with weekly work steps from the micro level of Takt planning, into the second column titled Sprint Backlog, in a planning meeting.

The Sprint is the week-long time duration in which these activities need to be completed. The Scrum team then autonomously meets every day to move the Sprint Backlog activities from left to right in the given time, in a fun, autonomous, and quick way. The goal is to move as many points to the right as possible, as the team works on activities in the Progress column and completes them in the Complete column.

After the Sprint, there is a Review and Retrospective to reflect and make improvements for the next Sprint. We have found this system to work well with Takt to either detail out a Backlog of items to be completed within the Takt wagon or for non-typical or complex areas.

Examples of this might be a complex lobby, the erection of a man and material hoist, the installation of medical equipment, MEP renovations and upgrades, or anything that is so complex it is best not forced into a timeline.

The Last Planner System: Integrates Perfectly Under Takt

Last Planner System is a planning, monitoring, and control system that follows lean construction principles, such as just-in-time delivery, value stream mapping, and pull planning. Specifically, the Last Planner System is a production planning and management system designed to produce predictable workflow and rapid learning in construction projects.

The Last Planner System brings together those who will execute the work, the project team, to collaboratively plan when and how work will be done through a series of conversational processes. It requires the team to collaboratively identify and remove constraints as a team and to promise delivery of each task.

The Last Planner System enables more reliable and predictable production in projects by doing the following:

• Improving communication and reliability.
• Fostering an environment of respect, trust, and collaboration.
• Promoting early stakeholder engagement.
• Improving visibility of the project plan.
• Creating team buy-in.

KPIs for Takt: Naturally Obey Production Laws

These KPIs can be tracked throughout the project. As you track them, they also inherently drive project success by following Little’s Law, the Law of Bottlenecks, the Law of the Effective Variation, and Kingman’s Formula. We would rather you have KPIs that work with production laws than metrics that fight against them.

Work in Process (WIP): Total work packages in progress.

Percent Plan Complete (PPC): Percentage of planned activities completed on time.

Number of Handoffs Completed (NHC): Tracking handoffs between trades.

Finish or Flow Ratio (FFR): Work packages finished divided by Takt zones. Target: between 85% and 95%.

Materials Remaining Buffer Ratio (MRBR): Total number of work packages divided by Takt zones. Target: between 85% and 95%.

Time Remaining Buffer Ratio (TRBR): Current end buffer divided by original end buffer divided by remaining duration divided by original duration. Target: greater than 1.0. The percentage of remaining buffer should be greater than the percentage of remaining days. This shows if you are burning buffers at a slower rate than finishing the actual value of work.

Elementary Classroom Clarity (ECC): This is a measurement of whether a local third grade class can understand what is happening on your project site. The ideal target is over 80%.

We find Takt to be the only system and way to track and drive production based on these laws and theories studied in all industries and sectors.

True Resource Loading: Consistency Creates Flow

Each work package of your Takt plan should account for a number of resources that can be easily shown over time in a traditional histogram in Excel or other application. The histogram can coincide with the Takt time for ease and understanding.

During our Takt work package development, we plan and level the resources for the work package to eliminate variation between Takt trains or geographical locations within a phase of work. This limits variation and potential for defects and rework. When achieved, the outcome is a clean and steady flow of production on site.

The ideal state is that we have consistency in the number of workers, crews, materials, and information. If we experience interruptions or variation, we may need to look at recovery options.

Crash Landing vs. Controlled Landing

When a recovery plan is needed, there is always one decision to make: crash landing or control landing the project.

Crash Landing

When we choose crash landing, scheduled compression is not recognized early enough or is ignored for so long that significant damage has already been incurred and is unavoidable. The crash landing approach does not create a learning environment, but rather creates a caustic environment where flow ceases to exist and trust erodes as team members stop holding themselves and others accountable.

Previously protected resources are now spent in a state of panic without consideration for value being purchased. Ultimately, all those involved pay the price personally and professionally without learning from this expensive experience.

The project is completed but ends in a Pyrrhic victory, meaning that it takes such a heavy toll on the victor that the positive is outweighed by the negative experience. This minimizes any true sense of achievement and can damage long-term progress.

Causes for defeat include:

• The project team starts to push.
• Material inventory, worker counts and costs are increased.
• The project is taken out of flow.
• The team does not reach out for help.
• The project slides into firefighting and damage control mode.
• Short-sighted decisions are made causing more long-term problems.
• Personal lives are regarded as expendable or the term “this is how it has always been” is presented.
• Crash landing is a non-learning environment.
• A lack of trust exists.

Controlled Landing

Controlled landing means that scheduled compression is recognized early enough to engage and harness full company resources. Although still difficult, the controlled approach creates a learning environment that builds trust, accountability, and preserves the work-life balance while strategically planning financial expenditures to achieve the best possible outcomes.

This ensures the plan has the following:

• The project has an intentional, realistic end date.
• Flow is maintained as the top priority even though some project stakeholders may want to rush and push.
• Worker counts, material inventory levels, and the throughput of information is kept consistent and steady.
• There is a coordinated path to the finish with full cleanliness.
• Safety and quality awareness are a priority.
• There exists planned resource expenditures for the best possible outcomes.
• There is a thoughtful workflow based on a rhythm.

If you want to enter a controlled landing on a project, you will hold to your Takt system and philosophy. Pushing only extends the end date. To recover a project, you must first focus on cleanliness, organization, safety, and flow, and make decisions in harmony with the production laws.

In short, you must focus on increasing system capacity, not in pushing work through a limited capacity system.

Recovery Options: Increase System Capacity

You have the following options:

• Optimize the sequences.
• Shorten batch sizes.
• Limit work in process.
• Create a Takt time buffer to better prepare work.
• Separate and segment phases.
• Adjust phase interdependence logic.
• Increase system capacity.
• Increase process capacity.
• Remove bottlenecks.
• Reduce variation.

The System Failed You

Let’s be clear. When teams crash land instead of control land, it’s not entirely their fault. The system failed by teaching that pushing recovers projects when actually pushing violates production laws destroying capacity. Nobody showed recovery options beyond add more people, add more materials, work longer hours. Nobody explained optimize sequences, shorten batch sizes, limit work in process, create Takt time buffer, separate and segment phases, adjust phase interdependence logic, increase system capacity, increase process capacity, remove bottlenecks, reduce variation. These options increase system capacity enabling recovery. The system taught push when actually increasing system capacity recovers.

The system also failed by not teaching crash landing destroys while controlled landing recovers. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow. Crash landing: compression not recognized early or ignored, caustic environment where flow ceases and trust erodes, resources spent in panic without consideration for value, everyone pays price personally and professionally without learning, Pyrrhic victory where toll outweighs positive. Controlled landing: compression recognized early to engage full company resources, learning environment building trust and accountability, flow maintained as top priority, worker counts and materials kept consistent, coordinated path to finish with cleanliness and safety. The system taught both approaches equal when actually one destroys and one recovers.

The system fails by not teaching KPIs should naturally obey production laws. Work in Process, Percent Plan Complete, Finish or Flow Ratio, Time Remaining Buffer Ratio, Elementary Classroom Clarity. These KPIs work with Little’s Law, Law of Bottlenecks, Law of Effective Variation, Kingman’s Formula. They inherently drive project success by following production laws. But teams using metrics fighting against production laws wonder why metrics don’t help when the answer is metrics must work with laws not against them.

The Challenge

Here’s your assignment. Stop crash landing. Start control landing.

Recognize scheduled compression early enough to engage and harness full company resources. Don’t ignore until significant damage already incurred. Create learning environment building trust, accountability, preserving work-life balance. Strategic financial expenditures for best possible outcomes. Not panic spending without consideration for value.

Maintain flow as top priority. Even though some stakeholders may want to rush and push, keep worker counts, material inventory levels, throughput of information consistent and steady. Don’t start pushing taking project out of flow. Don’t slide into firefighting and damage control mode. Coordinated path to finish with full cleanliness. Safety and quality awareness as priority. Thoughtful workflow based on rhythm.

Hold to Takt system and philosophy. Pushing only extends end date. To recover project, first focus on cleanliness, organization, safety, flow. Make decisions in harmony with production laws. Focus on increasing system capacity, not pushing work through limited capacity system.

Use recovery options increasing system capacity. Optimize sequences, shorten batch sizes, limit work in process, create Takt time buffer to better prepare work, separate and segment phases, adjust phase interdependence logic, increase system capacity, increase process capacity, remove bottlenecks, reduce variation. These increase capacity enabling recovery. Pushing decreases capacity extending duration.

Track KPIs naturally obeying production laws. Work in Process, Percent Plan Complete, Finish or Flow Ratio, Time Remaining Buffer Ratio (target >1.0 meaning burning buffers slower than finishing work), Elementary Classroom Clarity (target >80% meaning third grader understands plan). These work with Little’s Law, Law of Bottlenecks, Law of Effective Variation, Kingman’s Formula. Inherently drive project success by following production laws.

Level resources for work packages eliminating variation between Takt trains or geographical locations. Limits variation and potential for defects and rework. Outcome: clean and steady flow of production on site. Ideal state: consistency in number of workers, crews, materials, information.

Controlled landing creates learning environment. Crash landing creates caustic environment. One builds trust. Other erodes trust. One preserves work-life balance. Other regards personal lives as expendable. One plans resource expenditures for best outcomes. Other spends resources in panic. One ends in achievement. Other ends in Pyrrhic victory where toll outweighs positive.

Choose controlled landing. Increase system capacity. Follow production laws.

On we go.

FAQ

What’s the difference between crash landing and controlled landing?

Crash landing: compression not recognized early or ignored, caustic environment where flow ceases and trust erodes, resources spent in panic without consideration for value, everyone pays price personally and professionally without learning, Pyrrhic victory where toll outweighs positive. Controlled landing: compression recognized early to engage full company resources, learning environment building trust and accountability, flow maintained as top priority, coordinated path to finish, strategic financial expenditures.

How do you recover a project without crash landing?

Hold to Takt system and philosophy. Pushing only extends end date. First focus on cleanliness, organization, safety, flow. Make decisions in harmony with production laws. Focus on increasing system capacity, not pushing work through limited capacity system. Recovery options: optimize sequences, shorten batch sizes, limit work in process, create Takt time buffer, separate and segment phases, adjust interdependence logic, increase system/process capacity, remove bottlenecks, reduce variation.

What KPIs naturally obey production laws?

Work in Process, Percent Plan Complete, Finish or Flow Ratio (85-95% target), Time Remaining Buffer Ratio (>1.0 target meaning burning buffers slower than finishing work), Elementary Classroom Clarity (>80% target meaning third grader understands plan). These work with Little’s Law, Law of Bottlenecks, Law of Effective Variation, Kingman’s Formula. Inherently drive project success by following production laws.

How does Scrum integrate with Takt?

Scrum team pulls activities from Backlog (populated with weekly work steps from micro level Takt planning) into Sprint Backlog. Sprint is week-long duration. Team meets daily moving activities from In Progress to Complete. Goal: move as many points to Complete as possible. After Sprint: Review and Retrospective. Works well for complex areas: lobby, man and material hoist, medical equipment, MEP renovations, anything too complex to force into timeline.

What is Elementary Classroom Clarity?

Measurement of whether local third grade class can understand what’s happening on project site. Take third graders and ask how much of plan they understand or ask team to grade plan on percentage basis using same parameters. Ideal target: over 80%. Tests whether plan is simple and visual enough that anyone can understand it.