1. If you can’t say “no”, you can’t make a promise
Glenn Ballard
University of California Berkeley
August 2014
Planning is often seen as an entirely technical process, but planning processes fail from competing interests and lack of collaboration. Well designed planning processes are social as well as technical. Reliable promising is the social glue, but you can't make a promise if you can't say "no" to a request. Today I am presenting the Last Planner system of planning and control as a model of a management system that is sound both technically and socially.
My presentation will be made from the point of view of project management, but I think you will see that Last Planner can be applied beyond projects, to operations, maintenance, and more.

2. Two Key 1959 Reports Behavioral sciences Economics
Quantitative modeling
In 1959, two major reports appeared urging that management research and education change from its previous base in production toward a more abstract approach based on the behavioral sciences, quantitative methods (operations research) and economics. Management was divorced from production.
Behavioral sciences apply the methods of natural science to social phenomena. Management as a social science is value-free.
Economics presupposes that no resources are wasted (homo economicus)—vs the lean philosophy of continuous improvement.
Operations research (quantitative methods) presupposes that plans can be perfect.

3. Theoretical underpinnings of traditional project management
Thermostat model
Push vs Pull
Plans can be perfect
Thermostat model
Two functions
Plan: Set targets
Control: Identify and correct variances from targets
A mechanical model in which social aspects are neglected
Control starts with after-the-fact detection of variances
No provision for making work ready, no explicit readiness requirement, and no specification of corrective action processes—a mechanical process
Push vs Pull: Absence of a make-ready function in the model, coupled with the failure to address social factors and the distrust between planners and doers that results from conflicting commercial interests, results in pushing doers to perform scheduled tasks regardless of the readiness of the tasks to be performed.
Perfect Planning: In traditional practice, management is all about planning, and plans can be perfectly realized—if it just weren’t for the people! This assumption of perfect planning explains the dominance of sequential processing in all types of work, not only projects. It is assumed that coordination can be imposed on those doing the work, as opposed to achieved through their own actions. When things go wrong, that is blamed on ‘human error’. It’s people who are said to screw up perfect plans.

4. Construction Weekly Work Plan
In 1991, I discovered that only half the tasks on construction project weekly work plans were actually completed. As close as one week ahead, plans did not adequately predict future states of the project. This raised considerable doubt about the effectiveness of managing projects using Critical Path Method schedules, and especially about the effectiveness of highly detailed schedules made far ahead of intended execution.
  Scheduled tasks were pushed onto front line supervisors based on what SHOULD be done without sufficient regard for CAN. Front-line supervisors were treated as doers to be directed, not planners/managers whose commitment was requested.
CLICK
Let me explain a bit more about what was discovered. This is a typical weekly work plan, in this case for a crew of pipefitters working on a wafer fabrication plant for Texas Instruments back in You see that Philip, the foreman, has scheduled tasks each day for the various subcrews that make up his team.
At the end of the week, the foreman, Philip, marked up his work plan to show what was completed and what was not completed. 5 of 9 tasks were completed, a percent plan complete (PPC) of 55%. We’ve found this to be pretty typical when people start using Last Planner.
Let’s look now at the incomplete tasks. Two were caused by a design change—the routing of the pipe Modesto & his mates were to install in Building K was changed after they had pulled leads into place and erected scaffolding. One was a result of late and incomplete delivery of materials. The fourth was caused by a welder getting flash burn and losing two days work time. These are ordinary causes that occur on pretty much every construction project.
After six weeks of learning to plan differently and measuring outcomes, 70% of plan failures for this mechanical contractor were found to be materials-related: wrong or defective materials delivered or late deliveries. Of that 70%, 90% concerned materials from their own shops! This discovery launched a visit to the shop and a collaborative analysis that led to countermeasures; e.g., installed a system to coordinate shop fabrication with project installation, increased the number of delivery vehicles, and reduced the periods between preventive maintenance on trucks and trailers.
This window into the real world directly contradicts the new management model introduced in Waste is rampant and opportunity for improvement is rich. Plans are imperfect. Learning is needed and necessary. Behaviors are decisive, not incidental, and people are the key to making the system work, as opposed to the sand in the gears of otherwise perfect mechanisms.
I later discovered Sidney Dekker’s wisdom on this matter. Dekker says that people belong in one of two camps. The first believe that systems can be designed to be perfectly reliable and safe, but human error screws them up. The second believe that no matter how well designed, no system is inherently reliable and safe, and that when they work, it’s because of human action.
©Glenn Ballard 2011

5. The Basic Vocabulary of Planning and Control
SHOULD
CAN
WILL
My response to this anomaly—low percentage of planned tasks completed-- was to develop the Last Planner system of planning and control (LPS): an alternative management model. I called it “Last Planner” to emphasize that front line supervisors have managerial responsibilities and should not simply be told what to do, and also to have a general term for that person or persons responsible for executing plans as distinct from producing plans for others to execute.
The basic vocabulary of planning and control was expanded from the traditional SHOULD and DID to include CAN and WILL, recognizing the importance of making what SHOULD be done ready so it CAN be done when needed, and the importance of reliable promising as a coordination mechanism between front line supervisors of interdependent work teams.
DID

6. Matching and DID with WILL: Reliable Promising
Rule: Include in daily work plans only tasks that are:
Defined to convey what performers need to understand
Sound
Sequenced
Sized to the capacity of performers
Here is the rule that enables last planners to say “no”: Only commit to executing tasks that are well defined, sound, sequenced, and properly sized.
Today, no one would admit to pushing teams to execute tasks for which all safety precautions were not in place, but-in my experience-under time pressure, we still do that when quality, time and cost are at risk from lack of adequate preparation. The foundation and starting point for Last Planner is getting institutional agreement that only tasks that are fully ready to be performed are to be allowed on daily or weekly work plans, regardless what department or discipline or company is to perform the tasks---engineering, procurement, contracting, hiring, accounting, drilling, operations, logistics, …all are to be governed by this rule.
The rule can be understood as a technical requirement of the planning and control system, but also has a social dimension. The social foundation for Last Planner is reliable promising; i.e., making only those commitments that you expect to be able to keep. The four criteria (definition, soundness, sequence and size) are requirements for making reliable promises. Fortunately, most humans take their promises seriously. We make promises after due consideration of our ability to deliver. If we disregard what is being promised (definition), the absence of prerequisites such as materials and information and resources (soundness), the appropriate timing of the task (sequence), or the capacity needed to assure completion when promised, we are not making a reliable promise.
©Glenn Ballard 2011

7. Impact of PPC on Productivity
PPC % better than budget
50% 4%
60% 16%
70% 23%
80% 29%
The foundation for a planning and control system was laid and it worked to improve productivity, to protect direct workers from variation in the readiness of planned tasks, and to encourage them that performance improvement was possible. It also created back pressure on the entire system, encouraging proper preparation. If you know that scheduled tasks, no matter how critical, must meet the criteria for definition, soundness, sequence, and size, it becomes a matter of urgency to make them ready.
We might ask why screening planned tasks against these criteria improves productivity. We see here statistical analysis of the correlation between PPC and productivity. It is positive and statistically significant, so we can answer our question: Productivity improves with screening tasks because work flow reliability increases as measured by PPC, percent plan complete.
The quantitative relationship can be further explored by substituting different values for PPC in the equation of the regression line and forecasting the corresponding productivity. For example, a PPC of 50% corresponds to a performance factor of 0.96, meaning that 96% of budgeted labor hours are spent to produce a unit of output—just about budgeted productivity on this project. This shows that the productivity was budgeted on the assumption (almost certainly not understood) that PPC would be around 50%!
A PPC of 80% corresponds to a PF of 0.71; i.e., only 71% of budgeted labor hours expended for a unit of output.
But correlations are one thing; causation is another. My explanation why reliable release of work from one crew to the next improves productivity is that it encourages planning and preparation, and better enables matching capacity to load. When you depend on me for something you need to do a task and I am a coin flip reliable, you will soon stop investing in planning and preparation. This alone is sufficient to explain why construction productivity has declined over the last 20 years, during which time productivity in other industries has doubled!

8. The Last Planner® System of Production Control
Master Scheduling
Set milestones and phase durations & overlaps
SHOULD
Specify handoffs & conditions of satisfaction between processes within phases
Phase Scheduling (pull)
Identify & remove constraints
Breakdown tasks from processes into operations
Design operations
CAN
Lookahead Planning
The bubbles in the middle represent the hierarchy of schedules and plans, moving from most comprehensive, master scheduling, to weekly/daily work planning and learning from plan failures. [Execution Strategies/Work Structuring, not shown here, are above Master Scheduling.]
On the left hand side, we see the basic vocabulary of planning and control: SHOULD-CAN-WILL-DID. What SHOULD happen is specified in master and phase scheduling. Lookahead planning has the job of making scheduled tasks able to be done—so that what SHOULD be done also CAN be done. This is accomplished by identifying and removing constraints—often something needed as an input; for example, the result of an investigation (soils report) or calculation (load estimate). The tasks on weekly work plans are selected from what both SHOULD and CAN be done, and individuals are asked to make commitments, promises—what they WILL do. Finally, what actually was done is recorded at the end of each plan period (day or week), the percent plan complete (PPC) is calculated, plan failures are analyzed and actions taken to prevent reoccurrence.
WILL
Weekly Work Planning
Make reliable promises
Measure PPC, TMR & TA
Use 5 Whys to identify actionable causes
Act to prevent reoccurrence
DID
Learning
©Glenn Ballard 2011

9. Identify & Remove Constraints
Making tasks ready to be performed requires actions far ahead of planned execution. Taking construction as an example: specifying and procuring long lead items, producing design information, and obtaining construction permits all must be done far in advance. In lookahead planning, we typically ‘look ahead’ six weeks and start by making sure those early actions have been taken. If not, and if oversights cannot be corrected in time, the tasks are delayed.
The rule here: For all tasks scheduled to be started in the next 6 weeks (typ), assume that they are fully constrained until you know they are not. This is opposite normal practice; i.e., to assume that all constraints have or will be removed until they aren’t.
In the example shown on the screen, ‘X’ indicates that a constraint has been removed. Constraints for these construction tasks are typical: contracts, change orders, drawings, submittals, RFIs, materials, labor, equipment, prerequisite work (for example, the task is to do terminations in a junction box, the box and wires pulled into place are prerequisites), and work space. Others can be added if needed; such as permits for working in operating plants. Whatever type of work you’re doing-construction, design, procurement, contracting, estimating, etc.- list the typical constraints that must be removed and keep the status as close to real time as you can.
 2009 Lean Construction Institute. All Rights Reserved.

10. Master Scheduling
Master schedules should be at milestone level because Forecast error increases with the length of the forecast period and the level of detail.
After developing the lookahead planning process, I discovered that the quality of project schedules was frequently flawed. In response, I proposed that master schedules be kept at milestone level, and more detailed planning of the phases between milestones be done collaboratively with those who were to do the work in each phase.
You might reasonably be skeptical about keeping master schedules at milestone level. I recognize the importance of detailed exploration of risks and alternatives in order to commit to a project completion date, and in order to identify and procure long lead items. I suggest, however, that what is produced in that exploration, however valuable otherwise, is not a control schedule. The only thing we know for sure is that the project will not be executed as scheduled, especially if the plan is highly detailed or the project has a long duration.

11. Countermeasures for poor quality of work plans and schedules
Master schedules were kept at milestone level of detail
Phase schedules were developed by those with direct responsibility for doing the work being scheduled, filling in the gaps between milestones in the master schedule, phase by phase, and
Scheduling was done at more detailed levels nearer in time to scheduled execution—the rolling wave approach: project-phase-process-operation-step.
Three primary things were done as countermeasures: 1) Master schedules were kept at milestone level of detail, 2) Phase schedules were developed by those with direct responsibility for doing the work being scheduled, filling in the gaps between milestones in the master schedule, phase by phase, and 3) Scheduling was done at more detailed levels nearer in time to execution—the rolling wave approach: project-phase-process-operation-step.

12. Pull Planning: Detailed Planning
The method used to plan the work in each phase is called “pull planning”. Pull means to only do work on request, so we work backwards from the milestone at the end of the phase, asking what is needed from whom at each handoff between organizations. When rolled forward, it is more likely that completing each scheduled task will release work that someone else needs and is ready to do; hence work doesn’t wait for workers. That helps projects complete faster.
Often first attempts produce logic networks that are too long to fit within the phase, so the team tries to eliminate tasks not needed, reduce task duration by either breaking them into subtasks, changing work method or resources, and overlapping tasks that can be performed concurrently rather than sequentially. Socially, this means conversations such as the following, in which a Mechanical Engineer (supplier) is speaking to an Electrical Engineer (customer) to whom he has previously committed to deliver some bit of information: “Is there anything I can do to help you reduce the time it will take you to perform the task in which you use the information I provide?” The Mechanical Engineer might say, “Why, yes. If you could give me a spreadsheet with all mechanical equipment listed with their horsepower requirements, that would save me time calculating the energy needed for each area and for the plant as a whole.” In addition, the Electrical Engineer (customer) might ask the Mechanical Engineer (supplier), “You know, you have always waited to give me horsepower requirements after your mechanical equipment has been specified and purchased, but at this point, all I need is a rough estimate for sizing voltage requirements.” This insight could lead to a significant reduction in the duration of the entire network. The best technology for this team planning, at least the best technology so far discovered, is stickies-on-a-wall. The name ‘pull scheduling’ comes from the practice of working backwards from some near term milestone such as completing a permit set or getting a building dried in. This technique can be applied to explode master schedule tasks into greater level of detail, but can also be used by any team working on any shared tasks.
Courtesy of Alan Mossman

13. Traditional vs Last Planner
Planners plan and doers do
Thermostat model of control (reactive)
Inconsistent learning from plan failures
Scheduled tasks are pushed onto doers without regard to readiness
It is assumed that planning produces perfect plans
Planning is done collaboratively
Control is proactive (making ready) and reactive
Systematic learning from plan failures
Doers are required to commit only to ready tasks
It is assumed that all plans are forecasts and all forecasts are wrong

14. Last Planner Fundamentals
WHAT
HOW
Detailing the phases between master schedule milestones
Making scheduled tasks ready in lookahead planning
Selecting tasks for daily and weekly work plans
Pull planning
B. Constraints analysis
Task breakdown
B. Operations design
C. Commit only to tasks that are well defined, sound, sequenced and properly sized
Here are the six primary functions performed by the Last Planner system, with the tools used to perform them. I have highlighted what we have not covered.
We have not covered the breakdown of tasks into operations or the collaborative design of those operations, which can include virtual and physical prototyping, as well as the use of first runs to refine the design of repetitive operations.

15. Last Planner Fundamentals
WHAT
HOW
Making handoffs reliable
Learning from broken promises
Measuring planning system performance
Reliable Promising
5 Whys
Prevent-Detect-Correct-Analyze
E. Plan-Do-Check-Act
F. Percent Plan Complete
F. Tasks Made Ready
F. Tasks Anticipated
F. Repetitive Errors Avoided
We haven’t touched at all on Learning from Broken Promises or Measuring planning system performance, both of which functions use multiple tools.

16. Key Points Systems executed by people are social as well as technical.
As opposed to the traditional view that people are what screw up otherwise perfect systems, people are what make systems work.
Reliable promising is the social glue in human systems.
But you can’t make a promise if you can’t say “no”.
And being able to say “no” requires accepted rules of behavior to which everyone in the system can appeal.
Last Planner is an example of a management system that integrates the technical and social.
What I hope you are thinking about is how to apply these key points to your own work.

17. Thank you for your attention