Syntax Literate: Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia p�ISSN:
2541-0849 e-ISSN: 2548-1398
Vol. 7, No. 09, September 2022�����������������������
PROCESS IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS IN TOLL
CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT WITH LEAN SIX SIGMA APPROACH
David Batubara1*, Juliana
Rouli2
1,2Magister Management, Universitas Indonesia, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia
Email: 1*[email protected], 2[email protected]
Abstract
Toll
Corridor Development (TCD) is one of the businesses conducted by PT Jasamarga
Related Business as a follow-up to the issuance of Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan
Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat (PUPR) No. 28 of 2021. In the development of its
first TCD project, Jasamarga Related Business (JMRB) encountered issues that
resulted in the delay of the project's completion. The
purpose of this research is to analyze and make improvements to the causes of
delays in the Taman Mini Toll Corridor Development (TCD) project. In this
research, the lean six sigma approach is used to analyze process improvements
that can be carried out so that these problems can be minimized in the further
development of TCD. To identify activities that cause delays in the
implementation of this project, the Critical Path Method (CPM) concept was used
and further analyzed based on the results of interviews with those directly
involved in the development of TCD Taman Mini. From the activities that cause
the delay, a causal analysis is carried out using a fishbone diagram, and then
an analysis of possible improvements is carried out using a lean concept
approach. Based on the analysis results, three main issues are identified,
namely inadequate planning process, ineffective partner or consultant selection process and delays in construction completion. From the
cause-and-effect analysis, it can be concluded that potential improvements can
be made by implementing the concept of pull planning, improving the business
process by reducing waste and enhancing value-added activities, establishing
effective stakeholder management, and maximizing the use of technology-based
applications to aid project control.
Keywords: Project
Management, Process Improvement, Lean, Six Sigma.
Introduction
To
be able to survive in today's competitive market, it has become imperative for
construction companies to improve the quality of work, increase work
effectiveness, reduce waste and costs, and increase profits (Al-Aomar, 2012).
Furthermore, in the construction industry there are several important factors
that are of concern to reduce or eliminate waste, such as scope of work, time,
cost, quality and also the environment (Demirkesen & Bayhan, 2022). Hence, it is essential to
implement effective strategies in the construction industry to reduce the
amount of waste and increase the level of competitiveness (Porter, 1985).
Furthermore,
according to Al-Aomar (2012), the construction sector is prone to waste,
delays, errors, and also inefficiency in carrying out work. According to Van
der Aalst et al., (2003) the field of construction is known for its complexity
and changes during the construction process, which results in a large number of
resources, both human resources and materials being wasted every year as a
result of inefficient or even ineffective quality management procedures. There
is (Arditi & Gunaydin,
1997). Therefore, efforts are needed to improve the management of a project.
One
improvement method that can be used is Six Sigma. According to Stewart &
Spencer (2006), a structured but flexible six sigma framework provides a solid
procedure for gathering information about the sequence of construction
processes that allows process and quality improvement, where the main goal of
six sigma is to reduce variations and defects in the process. Furthermore,
according to Sawant & Pataskar (2014) Six Sigma is easier to use because it
can identify the necessary changes and the tools or techniques required to
implement those changes. Six Sigma, as defined by Antony & Banuelas (2002),
is a philosophy that applies a well-structured methodology for continuous
improvement to reduce process variability and eliminate waste in business
processes using statistical tools and techniques. The use of statistical
analysis and data-driven decision-making in Six Sigma also contributes to its
effectiveness and ease of implementation. In the construction industry, Six
Sigma can be implemented to reduce defects, minimize variation, and assess
existing performance, as stated by (Ullah et al., 2017) Based on the definition
provided above, it can be concluded that this methodology provides a structured
approach to problem-solving and process improvement, making it easier for
organizations to identify areas for improvement, define specific goals, and
apply the appropriate tools and techniques to achieve those goals
Another
alternative for making improvements is to use the concept of lean construction,
which is a system designed to minimize the wastage of materials, time, and
effort to obtain maximum results (Koskela et al., 2002). However, according to Demirkesen
& Bayhan (2022), currently not many companies have implemented the lean
concept in their business. This is because many companies do not have
sufficient information about the concept of lean and many people think that
applying lean is expensive.
According
to (Al-Aomar, 2012), these two improvement methods can be integrated into lean
six sigma, to reduce various types of waste in construction projects.
Furthermore, according to (Galli, 2018), Lean Six Sigma is a structured
methodology that primarily focuses on problem-solving and minimizing defects in
overall processes. It combines the principles of Lean, which aim to eliminate
waste and increase efficiency, with the statistical analysis and data-driven approach
of Six Sigma. Especially for projects that have a time limit, such as a
Pengembangan Tempat Istirahat dan Pelayanan (TIP) project that has a limited
concession period in its operations. With the existence of limitations in the
operational period, the company needs to carry out the planning and
construction processes effectively and efficiently.
The
first Tempat Istirahat dan Pelayanan (TIP) project development undertaken by
Jasamarga Related Business (JMRB) also called Toll Corridor Developement (TCD)
was the TCD Taman Mini. TCD Taman Mini development is divided into three
phases. Phase 1 is in the form of retail development that is directly connected
to the LRT station and also the rest area. The planning process for Phase 1
will begin in mid-2020 in parallel with the permit process, and the
construction process will begin in August 2021. For phases 2 and 3, the concept
planned is retail and hospital development. The planning process for phases 2
and 3 begins at the same time as phase 1, while the construction process was
originally planned for mid-2022 but until now it has not started because it is
still awaiting the design and permit process.
Currently,
the construction of phase 1 is experiencing delays, namely the initial plan for
the completion of phase 1 construction in July 2022 which is targeted to be
operational in August 2022. However, until now, phase 1 construction has not
been completed, with construction progress of 92% (as of 31 January 2023) and
is targeted to be able to operate in March � April 2023.
Therefore,
the main contribution of this article is to guide researchers and companies for
the application of lean concepts to improve project performance by knowing the
activities in similar construction projects that have the potential to cause
project delays. More specifically, for the development of TCD, the results of
this study can be used so that the next TCD development does not occur the same
problem.
Research Method
This
research began by identifying the problems that occurred, in this case related
to the late completion of the Taman Mini TCD Project. Then determine the
purpose of this research and what limitations will be used, so that the
research process can be more focused and directed. Then carry out a literature
study related to theories related to operations management, project management,
lean concept, six sigma in construction work and fishbone diagrams. The purpose
of compiling this literature study is as a theoretical basis in conducting
research. This research method uses the concept of lean six sigma, where an
analysis is carried out using the DMAIC approach first and then an improvement
process is carried out using the lean concept approach.
In
the analysis with Six Sigma, there are five steps known as Define, Measure, Analyze,
Improve, and Control (DMAIC) (Slack & Lewis, 2017). For the Define phase,
based on the previous problem formulation that there is an issue of delayed
completion of Taman Mini phase 1 TCD, an analysis will be conducted to
determine what process improvements can be implemented to prevent this issue
from recurring in future TCD developments. In the Measure phase, a Critical
Path Method (CPM) analysis is conducted using Microsoft Project. The CPM is
developed based on secondary data obtained from the project. In addition to the
CPM analysis, this phase also involves analyzing the actual duration of work
completion and comparing it with the planned duration. This helps identify
which activities are experiencing delays in their completion. In the Analyze phase,
the processed secondary data is analyzed. To validate the results obtained from
the secondary data analysis, primary data collection is also conducted through
interviews with key stakeholders directly involved in the development of Taman
Mini TCD. The analysis is performed using a fishbone diagram to identify the
root causes of the issues that have occurred. Next, in the Improve phase, an
analysis is conducted to identify potential improvements that can be made to
address the identified issues. The improvement analysis in this phase utilizes
a lean construction approach. As for the Control phase, due to the time
limitations of this research, it cannot be carried out at this stage. The
analysis for the Control phase can be included as part of future research.
This
study used secondary data and primary data. Secondary Data related to the
technical development of Taman Mini TCD, while Primary Data was in the form of
interviews with the team involved in the development of Taman Mini TCD. The
secondary data used in this study is technical data related to the TCD Taman
Mini Project, both data related to planning, licensing, procurement, and
construction. Data related to permits is in the form of a list of required
permits related to the TCD Taman Mini project, both permits to JMRB
Shareholders, area and building permits to the Government of DKI Jakarta, and
other permits needed. Data related to planning, such as the master schedule for
TCD Taman Mini completion, both the initial plan and current realization, and a
list of drawing requirements needed for TCD Taman Mini. For data related to
procurement in the form of the procurement process carried out in the TCD Taman
Mini development for both the procurement of consultants and contractors. Data
related to construction relates to implementation reports and TCD Taman Mini
construction progress data. Apart from the internal data, there is also
external data from various related literature and regulations.
To
be able to answer the problems that occur, secondary data is needed in the form
of the Taman Mini TCD project schedule to be processed using Microsoft Project
assistance to find out which activities in this project are included in the
critical path so that they have the potential to cause delays in the overall construction
process.
The
primary data in this study were obtained by conducting observations and
interviews with the team directly involved in the development of TCD Taman
Mini. The purpose of collecting primary data is to analyze and validate the
results of secondary data processing. The profile of the respondents in this
interview is as follows (Table 1):
Table 1
Respondents Profile
|
Position |
Company |
Experience |
Objective |
|
Direktur Utama JMRB |
JMRB (Internal) |
3 Years in TCD Taman Mini Development |
Find out management's expectations for the development of
TCD |
|
Direktur
Pengembangan Kawasan JMRB |
JMRB (Internal) |
1 Year in TCD Taman Mini Development |
Find out management's expectations for the development of
TCD |
|
GM Pengembangan
Bisnis Properti |
JMRB (Internal) |
1 Year in TCD Taman Mini Development |
Find out how the current process is and potential
improvements that might be made, especially related to TCD business planning. |
|
GM Teknik dan
Pengendalian Proyek |
JMRB (Internal) |
6 Months in TCD Taman Mini Development |
Find out how the current process is and potential
improvements that might be made, especially related to technical planning and
control of TCD projects |
|
GM Pemasaran |
JMRB (Internal) |
1 Year in TCD Taman Mini Development |
Find out how the current process is and potential
improvements that might be made, especially related to TCD marketing strategy |
|
Pimpinan Proyek TCD
Taman Mini |
JMRB (Internal) |
2 Years in TCD Taman Mini Development |
Find out how the current process is and potential
improvements that might be made, especially related to the implementation and
controlling of the TCD project |
|
Site Engineer Manager (Contractor) |
Adhi Karya (External) |
2 Years in TCD Taman Mini Development |
To identify the issues that have occurred and potential
solutions that can be implemented. |
Results and Discussion
In this research, secondary data is collected from the
relevant teams involved in the Taman Mini TCD project, including the business,
technical, construction, and marketing aspects. The data processing is carried
out on both the phase 1 plan and its actual implementation.
For business-related data, the collected data includes the
timeline for the analysis of the Highest and Best Use (HBU), business plan
development, as well as permits and coordination required from the
Shareholders. Technical data includes the timeline for permits, consultant
procurement, and planning and construction implementation. Marketing team data
includes the timeline for developing marketing strategies and operational
targets for Taman Mini TCD.
Based on the obtained secondary data, the next step is to
analyze the Critical Path Method (CPM) using the Microsoft Project application,
in the context of Six Sigma, this process is the measurement phase. CPM is one
of the methods used to analyze activities that fall within the critical path
that determines the duration of the project completion.
(Heizer, Render & Munson, 2020).
CPM is chosen because the time data used consists of a single value, without
separate pessimistic or optimistic times. In CPM, the interdependencies between
activities are established, ultimately determining the total completion time,
and identifying the activities that are part of the critical path.
The data used in the Critical Path Method (CPM) is the
planned data of the development of Taman Mini TCD Phase 1. This data is used to
determine the sequence of activities, their durations, and dependencies in the
project schedule. The planned data represents the initial project plan,
including the estimated durations for each activity and the planned start and
finish dates. Meanwhile, actual data is used as a comparison to determine which
activities experience delays in their execution and how long the duration of
those delays is.
The result of processing the secondary data, which includes
a network diagram of activities that are part of the critical path, can be seen
in Appendix 1 below. The results of the CPM analysis, both for the planned and
actual data, are as follows:
Table 2
Critical Path based on CPM Analysis
|
Planned Data |
Actual Data |
|
Business Planning |
Business Planning |
|
HBU Planning |
HBU Planning |
|
Preliminary Business Planning |
Preliminary Business Planning |
|
Procurement: Planning and
Supervisory Consultant |
Selection of Phase 1 Parking
Building Strategic Partner |
|
Architect Consultant |
Technical Planning of Phase 1
Parking Building |
|
MEP Consultant |
Contractor Procurement of Phase 1
Parking Building |
|
MEP Planning |
Phase 1 Parking Building
Construction |
|
Concept Design |
Marketing Phase 1 |
|
Schematic Design |
Operational Phase 1 |
|
Design Development |
|
|
For Tender |
|
|
Construction Phase 1 |
|
|
Architectural Construction |
|
|
MEP Construction |
|
|
Operational Phase 1 |
|
From the analysis results, it is also known that there is a
delay in completing TCD Taman Mini phase 1 for 270 days. Furthermore, here are
the activities that are included in the critical path based on the planned data
and experience delays according to the actual datam namely:
Table 3
Delayed Activities
|
No. |
Delayed Activities |
Delayed Duration (Days) |
|
1 |
HBU Planning |
60 |
|
2 |
Consultant Procurement |
282 |
|
3 |
MEP Planning |
15 |
|
4 |
Interior Planning |
140 |
|
5 |
Construction Phase 1 |
142 |
As part of the analysis phase, primary data collection is
required to validate the results of the previous secondary data analysis. In
this research, primary data is collected by conducting interviews with the team
directly involved in the development of Taman Mini TCD. Interviews are
conducted with the General Manager Pengembangan Bisnis Properti, General
Manager Teknik & Pengendalian Proyek, Pimpinan Proyek TCD Taman Mini and
General Manager Pemasaran to understand the technical issues that have occurred
and possible improvements according to their respective functions.
Additionally, interviews are conducted with the Direktur Utama and Direktur
Pengembangan Kawasan of PT JMRB to understand the management's perspective on
TCD development. Interviews are also conducted with the Site Engineer Manager
from the contractor's side to gain insights into the issues from the
contractor's perspective.
Based on the interview results, it is known that one of the
issues in the development of TCD Taman Mini is related to planning, as stated
by the Direktur Utama of JMRB, that in the TCD planning, it needs to be aligned
with the marketing concept. Furthermore, according to the Direktur Pengambangan
Kawasan and General Manager Pengembangan Bisnis Properti, the planning of TCD
Taman Mini should be done more comprehensively and agreed upon by all parties
involved to avoid significant changes. Meanwhile, according to the General
Manager Teknik dan Pengendalian Proyek, Project Manager, and representatives of
the contractor of TCD Taman Mini, incomplete planning is one of the constraints
that occurred and resulted in delays in the overall completion of TCD Taman
Mini, where several changes occurred in its implementation, causing delays and
repetitions in some activities.
Based on the data processing results, it is also known that
there are issues related to the selection process of partners or consultants
that have not been effective. This is consistent with the interview findings
with the General Marketing Pemasaran, where there are internal constraints in
appointing marketing consultants. In line with this, there were also challenges
in selecting strategic partners for the parking building. Although initially
hindered by concept changes, even after the concept was finalized, JMRB faced
technical challenges in the selection process, which took a long time. This was
mentioned by the Direktur Utama of JMRB, "... regarding partner selection,
yes, initially we went through several concept changes, but even when we
decided on the final concept, we still faced challenges in the technical
appointment process related to GCG (Good Corporate Governance) and other
regulations."
Another identified issue from the processing of primary and
secondary data is the delay in the implementation of construction works. Based
on the analysis of secondary data, it is known that the total delay in
completing the TCD Taman Mini project is 142 days. This is also in line with
the interview findings from the CEO, where one of the areas that needs
improvement is project control. Meanwhile, according to the General Manager of
Engineering and Project Control, although most of the delays were caused by
incomplete planning, there is still a need for improvement in project control
for future developments.
Based on the above information, the problems identified in
the development of TCD Taman Mini can be summarized as follows:
a.
Problem
1: Inadequate planning
b.
Problem
2: Ineffective partner or consultant selection process.
c.
Problem
3: Delay in the implementation of construction work.
The two aforementioned issues are then analyzed using a
cause-and-effect analysis with a fishbone diagram. This cause-and-effect
analysis activity is included in the analysis phase of the Six Sigma process.
The following categories are used in the fishbone diagram:
Table 4
Categories in Fishbone
Diagrams
|
Categories |
Journal |
|
People |
Huovila et al, 1997 |
|
Communication |
Huovila et al, 1997 |
|
Process |
Ballard & Koskela, 1998 |
|
External |
Ballard & Koskela, 1998 |
|
Design |
Ballard & Koskela, 1998 |
The results of the fishbone diagram
for each problem can be seen in figure 1, figure 2 and figure 3 below.
Furthermore the analysis findings from the fishbone diagram are as follows:
Figure 1. Fishbone Diagram Problem
1
Table 5
Fishbone Analysis Result Problem 1
|
Problem 1 : Inadequate planning |
` |
||
|
People |
: |
Due to the lack of a dedicated
team for the planning function, the planning process becomes ineffective.
Additionally, another cause is the lack of sharpness in the initial
assumptions during planning, which is attributed to the team's lack of
experience in developing similar projects. |
|
|
Communication |
: |
The lack of effective
communication between the planning consultants and between JMRB and the
planning consultants results in the ineffectiveness of technical planning
activities. |
|
|
Process |
: |
The partner selection process and
the appointment of consultants take a significant amount of time. This is
mainly due to the lack of an effective business process related to these
activities. It is essential to address this issue since the selection of
consultants and partners is a recurring activity in future TCD development. |
|
|
External |
: |
There is a change in the concept
of retail development. Initially, all retail in Phase 1 was planned as
general retail with bare conditions. However, based on the marketing
consultant's concept, the retail on the 1st floor will be transformed into a
Market Place Market Hall, requiring more detailed interior planning. This
adjustment necessitates revisiting both the business planning and technical
planning that have been previously done. |
|
|
Design |
: |
The slow progress of technical
planning by the consultant can be attributed to the lengthy approval process
from JMRB. Upon further analysis, this issue is also related to the absence
of a dedicated team for monitoring the planning process. |
|
Figure 2. Fishbone Diagram Problem
2
|
Table 6 Fishbone Analysis Result Problem 2 |
||
|
Problem
2 : Ineffective partner or consultant selection process |
||
|
People |
: |
Limited team capacity in stakeholder management, and a lack of
clear task allocation for partner selection activities |
|
Communication |
: |
Poor internal communication within JMRB regarding the partner
selection process, as well as ineffective communication with potential
partners, resulting in multiple instances of misperception between JMRB and
potential partners, leading to repeated processes. |
|
Process |
: |
Lack of effective business processes for both consultant
appointment and partner selection. |
|
External |
: |
Inconsistency among potential partners regarding collaboration
plans, as well as some partnership proposals that do not align with the plan.
Additionally, some stakeholders were not captured from the beginning,
resulting in delayed discussions on collaboration with these stakeholders. |
|
Design |
: |
Immature concept planning, both in terms of business planning
and technical planning. |
Figure 3. Fishbone Diagram Problem
3
|
Table 7 |
||
|
Problem 3 : Delay in the
implementation of construction work |
||
|
People |
: |
Suboptimal project control
function at JMRB due to limited personnel resources |
|
Communication |
: |
Failure to communicate changes to
all consultants due to ineffective communication between planning consultants,
supervisors, and JMRB. |
|
Process |
: |
Repetitive activities, caused by
poor work quality and design changes. Additionally, there is a delay in the
payment process, which is analyzed to be due to incomplete payment documents,
especially regarding contract addendums. This is attributed to the lack of an
effective business process for scope additions or addendums in the project. |
|
External |
: |
The delay in appointing
consultants, specifically the marketing consultant and the selection of a
parking building partner, is due to the lengthy decision-making process by
the management. |
|
Design |
: |
There were design changes and
delays in completing some designs, resulting in delays in the construction
process. |
Based on the analysis of the problems and their causes using
a fishbone diagram, the next step is to analyze potential improvements using
the concept of lean, which falls under the "improve" phase in Six
Sigma. According to (Diekmann et al., 2004), there are five principles in lean
construction adapted from lean manufacturing: customer focus, culture/people,
workplace organization & standardization, waste elimination, and continuous
improvement/build-in quality.
Based on these lean principles, the following improvements
can be made for the issues in the TCD Taman Mini project:
a.
In
the planning phase, the concept of pull planning can be implemented, where
activities are scheduled based on the downstream concept (Bajjou & Chafi, 2018).In the case of the TCD project, the
downstream aspect of TCD Taman Mini's development is marketing activities.
Therefore, in the planning process, it is important to align the plan with the
concepts and strategies of the marketing team.
b.
It
is evident in this case that there is currently no optimal business process in
place, whether it's in the selection of consultants, partners, or in the
process of addendums or scope changes. Effective business processes are
critical in TCD development because the absence of effective processes can lead
to waste in project execution. In analyzing the business processes, it is
essential to ensure that each activity adds value (Ballard & Howell, 2003). This means that every step in the
process should contribute to the overall value and success of the project,
eliminating any non-value-added activities or inefficiencies.
c.
In
the development of TCD, there are many external stakeholders involved,
including regulatory bodies such as the Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan
Perumahan Rakyat (PUPR), Kementerian Perhubungan, local governments, as well as
strategic partners such as investors, and service providers such as consultants
and contractors. In addition to these external stakeholders, there are also
internal stakeholders from the Jasa Marga Group business group, considering
that the development of TCD is carried out in the toll road corridor, which
will inevitably interact with toll road operators. In relation to this, JMRB
also feels the need to establish effective stakeholder management, so that
control over each stakeholder can be properly implemented, and no stakeholders
are overlooked in the planning process.
d.
In
the current development of TCD, it is evident that the control function is not
effectively implemented, both in planning and construction. JMRB needs to
enhance its control function by utilizing various technology-based tools such
as MS Project and Building Information Modeling (BIM). According to (Bryde et
al., 2013), the use of BIM can optimize costs, control work cycles, and
significantly save time. With the increasing number of projects to be
undertaken by JMRB, effective control function becomes crucial in project
execution.
e.
Additionally,
the commitment of JMRB management in TCD development plays a vital role. This
aligns with the findings of a study conducted by (Demirkesen & Bayhan, 2022), which states that management
commitment is one of the most important factors in implementing lean concepts
in construction. An example of management commitment in the development of TCD
Taman Mini is related to organizational structure fulfillment. It has been
identified that there are still some positions within the organizational
structure that have not been filled, which is one of the causes of issues in
the development of TCD Taman Mini. The lack of organizational structure
fulfillment in JMRB directly impacts the current development of TCD Taman Mini
and can have implications for JMRB's overall business development. This is
because the company may fail to achieve one of its targets effectively or
encounter challenges. This aligns with the theory presented by (Slack & Lewis, 2017), which states that companies can
get trapped in a "vicious cycle" if they misapply strategies in
meeting the required resource needs.
Conclusion
In the development of the Taman Mini Phase TCD by PT JMRB, significant
delays in its completion have been observed. This research aims to identify the
causes of these delays and explore potential enhancements to prevent their
recurrence in future projects. Secondary data analysis revealed critical path
activities related to Taman Mini Phase TCD, with multiple delays in areas like
business planning, technical planning, contractor procurement, partner
selection, construction, and operational preparations. To validate this
analysis, primary data was collected through interviews with the project team.
Two main issues were identified: inadequate planning and an ineffective partner
selection process, along with delays in construction. Subsequently, a fishbone
diagram analysis was conducted, considering factors such as people,
communication, process, external factors, and design. Potential improvements
using lean construction principles were proposed, including pull planning,
streamlining business processes, effective stakeholder management,
technology-based project control tools, and a commitment from JMRB management.
Despite the study's limitations, it is recommended to conduct further research
on specific aspects like stakeholder management and detailed business process
improvements at JMRB. Additionally, future research should focus on the control
phase regarding the implementation of identified improvements within the
organization.
BIBLIOGRAFI
Al-Aomar, R.
(2012). A lean construction framework with six sigma rating. International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 3(4), 299�314. https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461211284761
Antony, J.,
& Banuelas, R. (2002). Key ingredients for the effective implementation of
Six Sigma program. Measuring Business Excellence, 6(4), 20�27. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683040210451679
Arditi, D.,
& Gunaydin, H. M. (1997). Total quality management in the construction
process. International Journal of Project Management, 15(4),
235�243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863
(96)00076-2
Bajjou, M.
S., & Chafi, A. (2018). Lean construction implementation in the Moroccan
construction industry: Awareness, benefits and barriers. Journal of
Engineering, Design and Technology, 16(4), 533�556. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-02-2018-0031
Ballard, G.,
& Howell, G. A. (2003). Lean project management. Building Research and
Information, 31(2), 119�133. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210301997
Bryde, D.,
Broquetas, M., & Volm, J. M. (2013). The project benefits of Building
Information Modelling (BIM). International Journal of Project Management,
31(7), 971�980. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.001
Demirkesen,
S., & Bayhan, H. G. (2022). Critical Success Factors of Lean Implementation
in the Construction Industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
69(6), 2555�2571. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2945018
Diekmann,
J., Krewedl, M., Balonick, J., Stewart, T., & Wonis, S. (2004). Application
of lean manufacturing principles to construction.
Galli, B. J.
(2018). Can project management help improve lean six sigma? IEEE Engineering
Management Review, 46(2), 55�64. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2018.2810146
Koskela, L.,
Ballard, G., Howell, G., & Tommelein, I. (2002). The foundations of lean
construction. Design and Construction: Building in Value.
Porter, M.
E. (1985). The Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance. NY : Free Press.
Sawant, S.
P., & Pataskar, S. V. (2014). Applying Six Sigma Principles in Construction
Industry for Quality Improvement. Advances in Engineering and Technolgy, 407�411.
Slack, N.,
& Lewis, M. (2017). Operations Strategy (Fifth). Pearson Mission.
Stewart, R.
A., & Spencer, C. A. (2006). Six-sigma as a strategy for process
improvement on construction projects: A case study. Construction Management
and Economics, 24(4), 339�348. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500521082
Ullah, F.,
Thaheem, M. J., Qayyum, S., & Khurshid, M. (2017). Influence of Six Sigma
on project success in construction industry of Pakistan. TQM Journal, 29,
276�309. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-11-2015-0136
Van der
Aalst, W. M. P., Stoffele, M., & Wamelink, J. W. F. (2003). Case handling
in construction. Automation in Construction, 12(3), 303�320.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(02)00106-1
|
Copyright holder: David
Batubara, Juliana Rouli (2022) |
|
First publication right: Syntax Literate: Jurnal Ilmiah
Indonesia |
|
This article is licensed under:
|
