Next Article in Journal
Zero-Carbon Communities: Research Hotspots, Evolution, and Prospects
Previous Article in Journal
Assembly Solution for Modular Buildings: Development of an Automated Connecting Device for Light-Framed Structures
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Selecting Key Drivers for a Successful Lean Construction Implementation Using Simos’ and WSM: The Case of Egypt

Department of Civil Engineering, Benha Faculty of Engineering, Benha University, Benha 13518, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 22 March 2022 / Revised: 3 May 2022 / Accepted: 12 May 2022 / Published: 18 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Construction Management, and Computers & Digitization)

Abstract

:
Despite the use of numerous new and advanced technologies in construction projects, the industry’s efficiency remains low. This business has faced significant challenges for a long time, such as non-value-added activities, also known as waste. Lean construction (L.C.) is one method for improving the situation by reducing waste and increasing value for the client. This study provides an in-depth literature review to provide a comprehensive list of all critical drivers and groups all these drivers into one research paper in order to determine the importance (weights) of these drivers and their relative importance, and to propose an innovative methodology for ranking them using Simos’ approach. Seven construction project case studies were proposed. Their lean status was assessed, the key-list was verified using a Weighted-Sum Model as a multi-criteria decision-making technique to rank them, the best one in terms of lean implementation was found. Subsequently, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the most critical criterion for the key list. The following are some of the study’s main findings: 18 key drivers were identified and ranked, a clear definition of the client’s requirements was the most global weight between factors, and the case studies demonstrated that more than 60% of the lean drivers are implemented in Egypt. Day-to-day observation and standardized work were the top two most widely used lean practices in Egypt.

1. Introduction

The Egyptian government is making significant efforts to execute many construction megaprojects to meet Egypt’s Strategic Growth Strategy 2030 goals. Economically, the construction industry significantly increases countries’ gross domestic products (GDP), provides new employment opportunities, provides fixed capital assets and infrastructure to most countries, and allows other industrial sectors to flourish [1]. Construction projects are rarely completed on schedule or within budget, and reworking is frequently required to meet customers’ needs [2].
Lean is a management system proven to be effective in the manufacturing sector, especially in the automotive industry. The Japanese manufacturing industry pioneered the lean manufacturing system, particularly the Toyota Production System (TPS) [3]. Recently, the Lean approach has gained popularity in the construction industry as an efficient method of project management to decrease waste and increase customer value. Lean Construction (L.C.) aims to add value to the client by eliminating waste and utilizing project management tools to facilitate collaboration as part of a comprehensive and systematic strategy for ongoing improvement [4]. L.C.’s five principles are as follows: Value, Pull, Value Stream Mapping, Flow, and Seeking Perfection [5]. Just in Time (JIT), The Last Planner System, Daily Huddle Meetings, Amplified Visualization, the 5s Process, First Run Studies, Standardization, Fail-Safe for Quality, and The Five Why’s are the L.C. techniques and tools that are mainly fitted for use in construction projects [4,5]. “The goal of lean is to achieve a balanced utilization of materials, resources, and people. It is not about stripping everything down to the bare essentials and wringing more value from what’s left; it’s about decreasing costs, eliminating waste, and delivering projects on time.” [6].
Other researchers have identified eight waste sources in construction that are widely accepted: Waiting, Transportation, Over-Processing, Motion, Defects, Over-Production, Inventory, and Skills Misuse [7,8,9]. Lean construction makes a great effort to engage suppliers in project planning and execution to reduce variability. As confirmed by system engineering, suppliers must be involved in order to supply materials on schedule, at the lowest possible cost, and with the highest possible value for the client [10]. The lean concept aims to (1) provide customers with precisely what they want and (2) accomplish this aim without wasting resources by focusing on client value. The critical part involves stakeholders gaining knowledge that can be applied to future initiatives to avoid repeating mistakes [11]. According to Babalola et al. [12], lean approaches can increase construction productivity and deliver a sustainable built environment.
Even though existing works provide insight into various lean tools and techniques and their potential benefits in construction, some authors have observed a lack of understanding of the number of existing lean construction tools and practices and their specific applications in building and infrastructure projects [13].
In order to overcome these obstacles, it is critical to identify the variables that significantly drive management to implement lean construction effectively [14]. These factors are known as “drivers,” and they can encourage managers, companies, and decision-makers to adopt the lean approach. Despite the critical significance of drivers in the successful adoption of the construction industry and adaptation to lean construction, few research articles have identified and grouped these drivers for lean construction success. Additionally, in the context of lean construction, insufficient effort has been applied to primarily focus on building a technique to rank the significant drivers and recognize the significant drivers. Due to a lack of identification of the drivers affecting lean construction’s successful implementation, organizations have been unable to identify activities that should be enhanced, where these activities should be directed, or the effort required to achieve the best outcome [15]. In Egypt, prior research performed in 2014 revealed that 58 percent of the respondents used lean principles in their projects without realizing it and knowing that it is called Lean [16].
Therefore, this study aims to fill the gap by rating, grouping, and highlighting the main drivers that play a role in effective lean construction adoption. This study uses the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) technique to achieve its objectives. The Weighted-Sum Model (WSM) was chosen as an MCDM technique to arrange these projects in the application of these drivers and then determine the requirements for applying lean management in construction projects. The SIMOS method was used in this study to rate and determine all essential drivers of lean construction deployment and calculate the weight of all the drivers, which can efficiently mitigate the effects of specific human drivers and obtain driver values through seven project instances in Egypt and rank them using the weighted sum model (WSM) to determine the requirements for implementing lean construction in each project based on the application of these drivers. Therefore, (WSM) is highly significant for determining each project’s needs and knowing the status of drivers.
In brief, the purpose of the research was to observe phenomena, gather data, evaluate data, and draw conclusions regarding lean drivers before implementing lean.
The weighted sum model (WSM) is a basic, simple, and one of the most efficient approaches used in MCDM techniques [17]. The weighted-sum model represents the decision maker’s preferences in a linear function [18]. In this method, the score of an alternative is equal to the weighted sum of its assessment ratings, where the weights are the importance weights associated with each attribute. Subjective weight approaches such as the survey method, Analytic Hierarchy Method (AHP), Delphi method, and others are used to evaluate the weights of indices, which can result in differences in index weights due to subjective variables [19]. Understanding why the Weighted-Sum Model (WSM) is favored over other ranking systems such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is critical. Using AHP, for example, requires the creation of several pairwise matrices (decision matrices) for every cluster/family of available drivers, in addition to the significant clusters [20].
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the research methodology, Section 3 discusses the selection of key drivers for successful lean construction and their actual values in case study projects, Section 4 presents sensitivity analysis, and Section 5 summarizes the conclusions.

2. Materials and Methods

According to the Business Dictionary, a “driver” is a circumstance, resource, process, or choice critical to a company’s ongoing performance and growth. Understanding key drivers can help to successfully implement lean construction by encouraging managers, employees, stakeholders, and others involved in construction projects. Despite the importance of drivers in the construction sector for the implementation and adaptation of lean construction, there are not enough research studies that identify the critical drivers for successful and long-term lean construction implementation. Furthermore, a few studies have focused on lean construction to identify a technique to rank the significant drivers and comprehend the key factors. Consequently, this research aims to identify and rate the critical drivers of lean construction deployment in five clusters (value, reduce variability, flow variability, pull, and continuous improvement) and present a new methodology for identifying the essential drivers for long-term lean construction implementation. In this regard, this research provides a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) model of critical drivers that can aid in successfully adapting and implementing lean construction in Egypt with the adoption of a sustainable approach.
Two research questions were developed to guide this study:
  • RQ1. What are the key drivers and their ranking for the effective implementation of lean construction in construction projects?
  • RQ2. Based on the application of these drivers, what are the strengths and requirements for implementing lean construction in case study projects?
The methodology adopted in the research work, as shown in Figure 1, takes into account the following: (i) a review of the literature on lean drivers; (ii) identification of key drivers and grouping a shortlist of the most important drivers for successful lean construction implementation; (iii) assessing the level of importance of each driver using the evaluation of 7 experts and ranking the relative weights of the drivers using Simos’ procedure; (iv) development of a multi-criteria decision-making approach to rank the case study projects using the weighted sum model (WSM), and then determine the requirements and strengths for the application of lean management in the construction projects based on achieving the drivers chosen; and (v) apply sensitivity analysis to identify the most critical criterion and to examine the sensitivity of the driver, which influences the decision-making process.
In conclusion, there is a need to identify the drivers that aid the adoption of lean construction in the construction industry. Following that, a technique for rating drivers must be introduced, followed by the identification of essential drivers. Other research can use the proposed method in this study to identify significant barriers or drivers based on their country, a specific project, or other situations. It can also be used in other fields of science to rank elements of effective and sustainable implementation strategies. Managers, decision-makers, and policymakers can use the identified main drivers from several dimensions to focus on the most important ones. These main drivers may provide them with the information to choose the appropriate plan for the sustainable implementation of lean construction.

3. Selecting Key Drivers for Successful Lean Construction and Their Application in Case Study Projects

3.1. Identification of the Drivers

Ogunbiyi et al. [21] introduced 31 drivers and classified them into three categories in her thesis on applying lean in sustainable building projects in the United Kingdom: economic, social, and environmental. Ametepey et al. [22] proposed 17 drivers for applying lean construction implementation in the building industry in South Africa and ranked them through a mean index; nonetheless, the study did not categorize drivers. According to the study’s findings, continuous improvement enhances communication and quality, making it the most significant driver in South Africa. Gandhi et al. [23] grouped 15 integrated lean-green manufacturing drivers for Indian manufacturing SMEs into internal, economic and market, policy, and social drivers, with each group representing a subset of one facet of sustainability. The findings demonstrated that India’s most critical drivers for effective lean-green manufacturing adoption were current legislation, technological advancements, and top management commitment.
Sangwan et al. [24] identified the factors that influenced the adoption of lean management in the Indian ceramics industry. They presented 20 important drivers and categorized them into internal, external, and policy groups. Babalola et al. [12] also illustrated that the last planner system and just-in-time were the top two most implemented lean strategies and that the deployment of lean methods in the construction industry resulted in around 20 different economic, social, and environmental benefits.
The present study conducted a comprehensive search on the drivers. In addition, a preliminary list was compiled from research investigations and discussions with specialists in the construction sector. The identified drivers were discussed with many experts from the construction field. Based on the industry’s needs and the experts’ expectations, the drivers were reduced to 18. In addition, other unstructured interviews were conducted, but none directly addressed the initial driver list. The list includes 18 drivers that belong to five clusters: value, reduced variability, flow variability, pull, and continuous improvement, as shown in Table 1.

3.2. Calculation of Drivers’ Weights

After Simos’ procedure considered the 18-driver list, a procedure for determining the importance of drivers was carried out. Each driver’s relative importance is critical in determining its weight. Simos suggested a technique that allows any decision-maker to consider and explain how they want to organize the many drivers in a given situation [41]. The main idea behind this approach is to assign a “playing card” to each particular condition. For some reason, the person performing must manage the cards to rank them, inserting the white ones and explaining the procedure’s goal [42,43].
Since the research topic is new, it necessitated the involvement of experts in this field. With tremendous difficulty, we contacted seven specialists in this sector. Seven specialists were interviewed, including three project managers, two academics, and two on-site managers with more than ten years of expertise and at least two years of experience in lean construction projects. With respect to the number of participants for determining the importance of drivers, it is suggested that less than ten would be appropriate [44]. Additionally, the deployment of an ANP-Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model to measure lean construction management performance in China was evaluated by seven experts [45].
The relative weights of the drivers were calculated using Simos’ approach in two phases.
(1)
As displayed in Table 2, seven senior engineers conducted the interviews individually. They were asked to rank the drivers in each cluster in order of importance, starting with the least important (score = 1) and progressing to the most significant (score = 5). They were also instructed to rank the main clusters in a similar order. The respondents’ R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7 denote the opinions of professionals. Data on the relative weight of the driver were collected through expert meetings. This outcome was generated by averaging each criterion in the questionnaire by calculating the average relative relevance. According to the average column, the assorting operation was performed using Simos’ algorithm for every cluster, starting with the least important and progressing to the most significant.
Equation (1) shows that the average column’s values are used to rank drivers and clusters in the Simos’ rank column. The first rank, rank 1, is given to a driver with a low average relative weight in a cluster. The second, rank 2, is assigned to a driver with a higher average relative weight than rank 1, and so on. Drivers with the same average relative weight will take the same rank.
MS = f s N
where (MS) is the mean score given to each research variable by the experts and ranges from 1 to 5 when 1 is very low and 5 is very high; f is the frequency of responses to each rating (1–5) for research variable; and N is the total number of experts.
Table 3 presents the statistical data for the various distributions chosen for each criterion. To see if the fitted distributions were statistically sound, statistical tests such as the Shapiro–Wilk (S–W) and Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S) tests were used.
(2)
Table 4 displays the relative normalized weights and global weights for all drivers. To calculate each driver’s weight, relative importance is required. Table 4 demonstrates how to calculate the normalized weight by dividing the non-normalized weight of the driver, subset, and cluster by the total sum of Simos’ rank for the cluster that obtains this driver. Weight allocation drivers are consequently necessary because they will be used with a ranking algorithm [46]; the first stage after obtaining the final list of the main driver is to obtain the normalized weights of each criterion to obtain the global weights for each driver. The normalized weight of each driver multiplied by the normalized weight of the main cluster that includes this driver yields the global weight of each driver, as shown in Equation (2). The total global weight of eighteen drivers is nearest to one, as depicted in Figure 2. The model rank was calculated using the mean values from the questionnaire survey [47,48].
G W = R W F × R W C
where, GW = the global weight of a factor. R W F   = the relative weight of the factor. R W C   = the relative weight of the cluster that includes this factor.
Since there are multiple families/clusters, the calculated weights must be transformed from local weights within each cluster to global weights across all clusters’ drivers; they are already considered global, with the exception of the main cluster’s local weights.

3.3. Driver Grade Scales and Model Development

A driver grading system and practical scales (scores) were designed, as depicted in Table 5. The proposed grading system for drivers is a simple, generic, and adaptable concept. Moreover, it combines the Simos technique with the weighted scoring factors model. The driver grading system aids in the development of a lean implementation assessment model. Based on the applicability range of these drivers, the strengths and requirements for adopting lean construction in case study projects are outlined.
Five experts were interviewed in order to evaluate this system. The system assigns five grades to each driver. The driver’s grades were assigned a numerical value (a score) ranging from one to five. The lowest contribution of the factor’s grade in the lean implementation was assigned a value (score) of one. A value (score) of five was assigned for the most significant contribution of the factor’s grade in lean implementation. The goal of each driver is maximization because if we use it perfectly, we can achieve full-scale lean with all of these drivers.

3.4. Obtaining Values of Drivers

Several interviews were conducted, in addition to visits to construction projects of different types for a well-known construction company to add actual measures and values to the driver’s list. The paper includes seven project cases in Egypt: a new hospital, power station building renovation, a new factory, a road extension project, a new residential compound, a company office building, and a new solar power plant construction. The details of the projects are displayed in Table 6.
Table 7 displays more information about the case studies and the actual values/measures for the list of factors. The selected seven construction companies and interview candidates who had worked on those projects were contacted and provided an overview of what the research entailed and the intent. The selected individuals were interviewed in person or over the phone. Interviews were conducted to facilitate real-world measures and values to the driver’s list.
As previously stated, all drivers were based on grades from 1 to 5. Consequently, their definitions are relatively descriptive, and thus they were assigned grades for a numerical assessment to be possible.
As demonstrated in Figure 3, the most often used factors in the case studies calculated by Equation (3) were day-to-day observation, standardized work, a clear definition of the client’s requirements, and just-in-time delivery. According to the case studies, more than 60% of the lean drivers are implemented in Egypt. This finding is in line with a study conducted in 2021 related to the adoption and knowledge level, which revealed that the adoption level of lean tools in Egypt was 74.7% [49].
P e r c e n t   % = X 5 × N
where, Percent % = the percentage of applying this driver, X = the actual real scores/values of driver, N = the number of case study projects, and 5 = the maximum grade scale.

3.5. Ranking of Case Studies Based on the Application of Lean Techniques

Table 7 shows a matrix with a column labeled “Types of Projects.” It was necessary to ascertain which lean driver applied to which project type.
After going over some key points in the decision matrix and alternative evaluations, the procedure for determining should proceed. The Weighted-Sum Model (WSM) approach can be used for this. The initial step was to create a decision matrix based on real-world data of the selected driver against the different alternatives (case study projects).
Second, all of the numbers were normalized to equal one (Table 8), i.e., normalization can be completed in relation to the most significant value among a set of values (column) or concerning the total of a set of values (column). It is also worth noting that the raw data containing the criteria’s units were replaced with the weights of each criterion.
Third, the normalized figures were multiplied by the weights assigned to the drivers to produce a weighted normalized matrix by applying Equation (4). The final preferences and option ranking were derived by applying the Weighted-Sum Model (WSM) approach to the values in Table 8. It should be noted that it is better when the value of a driver increases.
W N = N × G W
where, WN = the weighted normalized of the driver. N = the normalized driver. GW = the Global weight of a driver.
In order to respect the nature of rising and decreasing driver preferences, the summation of increasing driver preferences was calculated separately from the summation of decreasing driver preferences for each alternative.
As shown in Equation (5), the preference of increasing driver was calculated by the summation of every weighted normalized row for every project.
Nevertheless, all the lean drivers that we mentioned have potential to rise. The difference (net) between the two summations determines the ultimate preferences of alternatives, as shown in Table 9.
AWSM = j = 1 N a i j × w j
AWSM is the multi criteria score of case study project, N is the number of decision criteria, aij is the actual value of the ith alternative in terms of the jth criterion, and wj is the weight of the jth criterion. The corresponding aij values and the relative weights are assumed.
The goal of each driver is maximization since we can reach full-scale lean with all of them if we employ them perfectly, which means that as the supplied grade progresses to grade five, the alternative becomes more preferred. The decreasing procedure is undesirable with any type of driver selected due to the nature of the drivers, so their values in Table 9 were considered to be zero.
According to Table 9, Project 7 was the most appropriate (preferred) of the construction projects, as demonstrated in Figure 4.

3.6. Case Studies (Finding, Analysis, and Discussion)

This study used case studies to determine how well lean construction has been adopted in the construction industry and to assess how well it has adapted it. The projects implemented the primary lean tools such as day-to-day observation, considering the customer feedback, and just-in-time, but they were less focused on understanding lean concepts and principles. On-the-job subcontractors were unfamiliar with theoretical lean concepts.
According to Table 9, projects 6 and 7 successfully implemented most lean concepts in the project and adequately implemented them. Projects 1, 4, and 5 also utilized most of these concepts in projects 6 and 7 but were less effective overall. However, the researcher found that these projects were also good lean implementation sites especially compared to other projects in general. Projects 6 and 7 obtained a high score for their lean implementation. They focused on the narrow, lean application because observations and interviews showed that this project successfully implemented the last planner and created a good work environment to reinforce client focus and caring for standardized work and Quality plans. Projects 2 and 3 were the poorest in terms of lean implementation projects. Their major problem was caused by the culture of implementing a new approach which is complex and slow, and difficult to qualify and assign subcontractors to a project if they had little background in lean construction.
The project participants in all case studies mainly emphasized the strengths, and the requirements for implementing lean construction were also covered.
Perceptive Strengths:
  • Lean construction has the advantage of requiring substantial documentation, as well as providing historical data to qualify subcontractors for future lean projects and providing quick and easy feedback to review failure reasons;
  • Communication and cooperation among project participants are the most significant advantages of lean implementation;
  • In order to apply lean, it is necessary to predict incoming work and make it simple to manage the entire project, and in relation unanticipated problems, lean advocates planning everything ahead of schedule and monitoring for potential issues.
Perceptive Requirements:
The requirements for successful lean implementation are:
  • Increasing upper-level management’s oversight of subcontractor planning and performance, as well as the designer’s involvement in the project;
  • Continuous training program;
  • Lean construction must be fully implemented through education and a contract.

4. Results and Analysis of Sensitivity Test

Numerous attempts have been made to investigate the sensitivity of the drivers that govern the decision-making process. The sensitivity analysis reveals the most critical criterion that could impact the decision-making process [50]. For analysis, it is critical to keep track of how alternatives behave, which can be accomplished by tracking changes in the weights of the criteria, and their impact on the ranking of alternatives [20].
The most important criterion will be presented first. As previously stated, the most important factor is the (clear definition of client’s requirements). The most important criterion is not always the most critical criterion. In other words, the highest weight does not always imply the most important thing. The term “critical” refers to the lowest change that could be made to a criterion in order to affect the ranking of alternatives. There are two definitions for the term “lowest change.” The smallest change can be defined in two ways: first, in absolute terms, and second, in relative terms [51]. As a result, there are four different meanings to consider: Absolute-Any (A.A.), Absolute-Top (A.T.), Percent-Any (P.A.), and Percent-Top (P.T.).
The goal of the Absolute-Any (A.A.) problem is to determine the smallest absolute change that causes any two options to rank in reverse order. The goal of the Absolute-Top (A.T.) problem is to determine the smallest absolute change which influences the rank of the best candidate. The relative change can more accurately reflect the sensitive degree of measures. The Percent-Any (P.A.) problem is to identify the smallest relative change that makes the ranking position of any two alternatives change, while the Percent-Top (P.T.) problem is to find the smallest relative change which influences the rank of the best alternative.
Let δk,i,j (1≤ i < jM and Nk ≥ 1) denote the minimum absolute change in the current weight Wk of criterion Ck such that the ranking of alternatives Ai and Aj will be reversed, while δ*k,i,j expresses changes in relative terms [51]. Absolute and relative changes in the weights of sub-criteria have been computed by applying Equations (6) or (7) and (8):
δ k , i , j < P j P i a j k a i k , i f a j k > a i k
δ k , i , j > P j P i a j k a i k , i f a j k < a i k
As a result, “p” represents the final preference of alternatives, where “a” is a criterion-specific measure in the decision matrix that corresponds to a particular alternative. Table 8 and Table 9 can be used to calculate δ 5 , 1 , 5 , for example:
δ 5 , 1 , 5 < 0.138 0.141 0.111 0.167
    δ 5 , 1 , 5 < 0.0575
            δ * k , i , j = δ k , i , j × 100 / W k
for example:
δ * 5 , 1 , 5 = 0.0575 × 100 0.066 = 87.11
It works the same way as before for all possible combinations of driver and alternative pairs, as demonstrated in Table 10 and Table 11.
As shown in Equation (9),the following condition should be satisfied for the values to be feasible [51].
P j P i a j k a i k W k
From Table 10 and Table 11, we obtained the absolute and relative change of each weight value. The positive value of a change means a decrease in the original measure, while the negative value means an increase in that measure. Zero denotes that two alternatives have equal ranking scores. A relative change is infeasible when this value cannot meet a restraint marked as N/F.

5. Conclusions

All possible pairs were compared. We only chose the findings of a few common projects due to space constraints, and all comparisons of projects with all non-feasible values while using the preceding Equation (9) for drivers were excluded.

5.1. Processing the Most Critical Criterion (Absolute Terms)

Looking for the smallest absolute value of δ k , i , j   throughout the entire Table 10, it was shown to be equal to (∣0.003∣), which indicates that the most critical criterion of the Absolute Any (A.A.) was schedule look-ahead. It is worth noting that, based on the weights of the criterion, a clear definition of the client’s requirements was the most important criterion and not schedule look-ahead; however, in this case, a clear definition of the client’s requirements was not the most critical criterion. To find the lowest relative value of all columns related to alternative p7, find the absolute Top (AT) critical criterion. The minimum value (∣−0.66∣) ((Training) continuous education programs) was the corresponding criterion to the value.

5.2. Processing the Most Critical Criterion (Relative Terms)

To find the Percent Any (P.A.) critical condition, look for the smallest relative value in Table 11. This minimum value was (∣−0.76∣), corresponding to criterion V1. Therefore, the P.A. critical criterion clearly defined the client focus.
Look for the least relative value of all columns related to alternative p7 to find the crucial criterion of the Percent Top (P.T.). (i.e., the best alternative) in Table 11. The minimum such percentage (∣−845.41∣) corresponded to criterion C14; therefore, the P.T. critical criterion was (Training) continuous education programs.
The findings contribute to the advancement of theory in LC implementation because one of the themes addressed by this body of knowledge consisted of identifying drivers that can increase the chances of the success of LC implementation.
Managers might be motivated by the drivers of lean construction implementation to adapt and apply lean construction successfully. However, previous lean construction studies have not appropriately focused on and tried to highlight all significant drivers or proposed an approach for determining and ranking the major drivers of lean construction’s successful and long-term adoption because of its capacity to provide a checklist of significant factors and a framework of key drivers for efficient lean construction adoption.
The following conclusions are based on the findings: First, at least 18 different key drivers were identified, ranked, and categorized into five major clusters: value, reduced variability, flow variability, pull, and continuous improvement. Clear definition of the client’s requirements, client focus, and standardized works were the most global weights among the drivers. Second, as shown in the case studies, more than 60% of the lean drivers are implemented in Egypt. Day-to-day observation, standardized works, a clear definition of the client’s requirements, and just-in-time delivery were the most often used drivers in projects. Third, the sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the most critical criterion of the Absolute Any (A.A.) was schedule look-ahead. The Absolute Top (A.T.) most critical criterion was (Training) continuous education programs. The Percent Any (P.A.) critical criterion clearly defined client focus, whereas the critical criterion Percentage Top (P.T.) was continuous education programs (training).
Furthermore, field researchers may benefit from this research. Furthermore, these findings may assist decision-makers in focusing on the most critical drivers of lean construction adoption in the construction industry. Understanding these issues will aid the government and decision-makers in determining the best plan for increasing the Egyptian construction industry’s efficiency and productivity.
The main limitation of this study is that the analysis using Simos’ and WSM to select key drivers for lean implementation involved the participation of experts from Egypt, and it is known that the construction sector has regional variations [52].
The other limitation is the study’s scale survey; the case studies gave only seven unique examples of lean construction that contributed to obtaining real values for key drivers.
Using MCDMS methodologies such as Interpretive Structure Modeling (ISM), future research may identify and analyze the interactions and interrelationships among the primary drivers revealed in this study. A future extension may develop a framework that considers the complicated interactions between significant drivers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.N.M.; methodology, A.N.M.; analysis, A.I.; writing—original draft preparation, A.I.; writing—editing and review, A.N.M., E.A.A.E. and A.I. and supervision, A.N.M. and E.A.A.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Oladinrin, T.; Ogunsemi, D.; Aje, I. Role of Construction Sector in Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria. FUTY J. Environ. 2012, 7, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Amoah, C.; Pretorius, L. Evaluation of the impact of risk management on project performance in small construction firms in South Africa: The case study of construction systems. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2020, 18, 611–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Antunes, R.; Gonzalez, V. A production model for construction: A Theoretical Framework. Buildings 2015, 5, 209–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Bajjou, M.S.; Chafi, A.; En-Nadi, A. A comparative study between lean construction and the traditional production system. Int. J. Eng. Res. Africa 2017, 29, 118–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Albliwi, S.A.; Antony, J.; Arshed, N.; Ghadge, A. Implementation of lean six sigma in Saudi Arabian organisations: Findings from a survey. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2017, 34, 508–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Banawi, A.; Bilec, M.M. A framework to improve construction processes: Integrating lean, green and six sigma. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2014, 14, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sarhan, S.; Fox, A. Barriers to Implementing Lean Construction in the UK Construction Industry. Built Hum. Environ. Rev. 2013, 6, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  8. Abdulmalek, F.A.; Rajgopal, J. Analyzing the benefits of lean manufacturing and value stream mapping via simulation: A process sector case study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2007, 107, 223–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Koushki, P.A.; Al-Rashid, K.; Kartam, N. Delays and cost increases in the construction of private residential projects in Kuwait. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2005, 23, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Locatelli, G.; Mancini, M.; Romano, E. Systems Engineering to improve the governance in complex project environments. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 1395–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Locatell, G.; Mancini, M. Looking back to see the future: Building nuclear power plants in Europe. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2012, 30, 623–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Babalola, O.; Ibem, E.O.; Ezema, I.C. Implementation of lean practices in the construction industry: A systematic review. Build. Environ. 2019, 148, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Marhani, M.A.; Jaapar, A.; Bari, N.A.A.; Zawawi, M. Sustainability through Lean Construction Approach: A Literature Review. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 101, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Oyedolapo, O. Implementation of the Lean Approach in Sustainable Construction: A Conceptual Framework. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, England, April 2014. [Google Scholar]
  15. Leong, M.S.; Tilley, P. A lean strategy to performance measurement—Reducing waste by measuring ‘next’ customer needs. In Proceedings of the IGLC 16th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Salford, UK, 16–18 July 2008; pp. 757–768. [Google Scholar]
  16. Othman, A.A.E.; Ghaly, M.A.; Abidin, N.Z. Lean Principles: An Innovative Approach for Achieving Sustainability in the Egyptian Construction Industry. Organ. Technol. Manag. Constr. Int. J. 2014, 6, 917–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Marwala, T. Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Rational Decision Making; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Maccrimmon, K.R. Decisionmaking among Multiple-Attribute Alternatives: A Survey and Consolidated Approach; Rand Corp: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  19. Li, X.; Wang, K.; Liuz, L.; Xin, J.; Yang, H.; Gao, C. Application of the entropy weight and TOPSIS method in safety evaluation of coal mines. Procedia Eng. 2011, 26, 2085–2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Marzouk, M.; Amer, O.; El-Said, M. Feasibility study of industrial projects using Simos procedure. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2013, 19, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ogunbiyi, O.; Oladapo, A.; Goulding, J. An empirical study of the impact of lean construction techniques on sustainable construction in the UK. Constr. Innov. 2014, 14, 88–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ametepey, O.; Aigbavboa, C.; Ansah, K. Barriers to Successful Implementation of Sustainable Construction in the Ghanaian Construction Industry. Procedia Manuf. 2015, 3, 1682–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Gandhi, N.S.; Thanki, S.J.; Thakkar, J.J. Ranking of Drivers for Integrated Lean-Green Manufacturing for Indian Manufacturing SMEs; Elsevier B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 171. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sangwan, K.S.; Bhamu, J.; Mehta, D. Development of lean manufacturing implementation drivers for Indian ceramic industry. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2014, 63, 569–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ivina, D.; Olsson, N.O.E. Lean construction principles and railway maintenance planning. In Proceedings of the IGLC 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Berkeley, CA, USA, 6–12 July 2020; pp. 565–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mossman, A. Creating value: A sufficient way to eliminate waste in lean design and lean production. Lean Constr. J. 2009, 2009, 13–23. [Google Scholar]
  27. Emmitt, S.; Sander, D.; Christoffersen, A.K. The value universe: Defining a value based approach to lean construction. In Proceedings of the IGLC 13th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Sydney, Australia, 6–12 July 2005; pp. 57–64. [Google Scholar]
  28. Silvius, A.J.G.; Kampinga, M.; Paniagua, S.; Mooi, H. Considering sustainability in project management decision making; An investigation using Q-methodology. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1133–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, S.; Wu, X.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, X. A study on the evaluation of implementation level of lean construction in two Chinese firms. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 71, 846–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Maradzano, I.; Dondofema, R.A.; Matope, S. Application of lean principles in the south african construction industry. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 2019, 30, 210–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mariz, R.N.; Picchi, F.A.; Granja, A.D.; de Melo, R.S.S. A review of the standardized work application in construction. In Proceedings of the IGLC 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, San Diego, CA, USA, 17–22 July 2012. [Google Scholar]
  32. Oskouie, P.; Gerber, D.J.; Alves, T.; Becerik-Gerber, B. Extending the interaction of building information modeling and lean construction. In Proceedings of the IGLC 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, San Diego, CA, USA, 17–22 July 2012. [Google Scholar]
  33. Salem, O.; Solomon, J.; Genaidy, A.; Luegring, M. Site implementation and assessment of lean construction techniques. Lean Constr. J. 2005, 2, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  34. Qiu, X. Uncertainty in project management based on lean construction implementation. Adv. Mater. Res. 2011, 328, 194–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Neto, J.d.B.; Alves, T.d.L. Strategic issues in lean construction implementation. In Proceedings of the IGLC 15th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, East Lansing, MI, USA, 18–20 July 2007. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sarhan, J.G.; Xia, B.; Fawzia, S.; Karim, A. Lean construction implementation in the Saudi Arabian construction industry. Constr. Econ. Build. 2017, 17, 46–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Thomas, H.R.; Horman, M.J.; Minchin, R.E.; Chen, D. Improving Labor Flow Reliability for Better Productivity as Lean Construction Principle. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2003, 129, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hicks, B.J. Lean information management: Understanding and eliminating waste. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2007, 27, 233–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Olatunji, J.O. An investigation into the usage of lean construction techniques in Nigeria. J. Constr. Proj. Manag. Innov. 2017, 7, 1712–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ullah, F.; Thaheem, M.J.; Siddiqui, S.Q.; Khurshid, M.B. Influence of Six Sigma on project success in construction industry of Pakistan. TQM J. 2017, 29, 276–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Marzouk, M.; Nouh, A.; El-said, M. Developing green bridge rating system using Simos’ procedure. Hous. Build. Natl. Res. Cent. 2013, 10, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Meshref, A.N.; Elkasaby, E.A.; Wageh, O. Innovative reliable approach for optimal selection for construction infrastructures projects delivery systems. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2020, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Meshref, A.N.; Elkasaby, E.A.; Wageh, O. Identifying Innovative Reliable Criteria Governing the Selection of Infrastructures Construction Project Delivery Systems. Open Eng. 2021, 11, 269–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gao, S.; Low, S.P. Lean Construction Management; The Toyota Way; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  45. Li, X.K.; Wang, X.M. The application of an ANP-Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model to assess lean construction management performance. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hamid, S.A.; Nouh, A.; Zabel, N.Y. A model for prioritizing concrete structures repair works. HBRC J. 2018, 14, 334–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Meshref, A.N.; Shehata, A.S. Exploring the criteria influencing construction productivity of diaphragm walls in underground stations in Egypt. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2020, 5, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Meshref, A.N.; Shehata, A.S. Systematic decision support system to select methods of grouted base plug construction: Comparative study between TaM versus multi-sleeve injection. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2020, 5, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shaqour, E.N. The impact of adopting lean construction in Egypt: Level of knowledge, application, and benefits. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2022, 13, 101551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mostafavi, A.; Karamouz, M. Selecting Appropriate Project Delivery System: Fuzzy Approach with Risk Analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 923–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Triantaphyllou, E.; Sánchez, A. A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods. Decis. Sci. 1997, 28, 151–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sarhan, J.G.; Xia, B.; Fawzia, S.; Karim, A.; Coffey, V. Framework for the implementation of lean construction strategies using the interpretive structural modelling (ISM) technique A case of the Saudi construction industry. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Research framework.
Figure 1. Research framework.
Buildings 12 00673 g001
Figure 2. The global weight of drivers.
Figure 2. The global weight of drivers.
Buildings 12 00673 g002
Figure 3. Real values for the list of factors in the Egyptian projects.
Figure 3. Real values for the list of factors in the Egyptian projects.
Buildings 12 00673 g003
Figure 4. Final preferences and ranking of projects.
Figure 4. Final preferences and ranking of projects.
Buildings 12 00673 g004
Table 1. Lean drivers.
Table 1. Lean drivers.
ClusterNoDriver NameDriver BenefitsPrevious Studies Related to the Main Cluster
Value1Client focusValue achievement [25]
  • A. Mossman [26] demonstrates how a different goal—creating value for customers and end-users—is likely to result in more effective waste elimination and more satisfied customers.
  • S. Emmitt et al. [27] proposed a set of definitions for discussing and achieving value through lean construction in a common language. Value creation and delivery are clearly defined within a four-stage model that maps essential process functions.
2Regular client communicationImprove communication between project stakeholders [28]
3Clear definition of client’s requirementsCustomer satisfaction [29]
Reduce variability4Standardized worksRework minimization [30]
  • R. N. Mariz et al. [31] identify gaps that involve standardized work applications inserted in the construction environment.
  • P. Oskouie et al. [32] extend an existing interaction matrix of lean principles and BIM functions to investigate novel relationships between the two.
  • O. M. Salem [33] investigates the efficacy of several lean construction tools, focusing on those that medium-sized construction enterprises can use.
5Reviewing the design drawings at an early stageRework minimization [30]
6Daily huddle meetingsReduction in rework [25]
Flow variability7Schedule look-aheadImproved planning [25]
  • X. Qiu [34] suggests some Lean applications, including the Last Planner System (LPS), identifying and resolving doubts.
  • J. De Paula Barros Neto and T. Da C. L. Alves [35] examine production strategy and the importance of clearly defining strategic goals prior to implementing Lean Production/Construction in construction firms.
8The motivation of the workforceEmployee satisfaction [36]
9Collaboration with suppliersImprove communication between project stakeholders [28]
10Using visualization tools on siteEnhancing transparency [21]
11Day-to-day observationImproving life-cycle cost [25]
Pull12Just-in-timeMaterial storage control (access and inventor) [36]
  • H. R. Thomas et al. [37] investigate the lean concept that more consistent flows lead to higher worker productivity. The effects of inadequate flow resources and dependability on labour performance are documented using data from three bridge construction projects.
  • B. J. Hicks [38] investigates how lean thinking may be applied to information management and how information management can add value to information through organised, visualised, represented, and enabled information.
13Document management systemsImprove process control [25]
Continuous improvement14(Training)continuous education programsContinues improvements [28]
  • J. Oladiran Olatunji [39] focuses on the application of lean techniques in order to improve their use and, as a result, the performance of construction projects.
  • F. Ullah et al. [40] investigate the current condition of Six Sigma (SS) adoption in the Pakistani construction industry, as well as the difficulties and potential for a successful implementation.
15Quality plansImprove quality [21]
16Considering the customer feedbackCustomer satisfaction [36]
17BenchmarkingImproving decision making [36]
18KPI (key performance indicator)Increase productivity [36]
Table 2. Expert’s responses.
Table 2. Expert’s responses.
ClusterIDDriver NameR1R2R3R4R5R6R7AverageSimos’ Rank
Value (V)V1Client focus131232222
V2Regular client communication22211111.431
V3Clear definition of client’s requirements31332332.573
Reduce variability (R)R4Standardized works31332322.433
R5Reviewing the design drawings at early stage23213232.292
R6Daily huddle meetings12221111.431
Flow variability (F)F7Schedule look-ahead13354543.575
F8Motivation of the work force:34141232.572
F9Collaboration with suppliers553321233
F10Using visualization tools on site41125453.144
F11Day-to-day observation 22413312.291
Pull (P)P12Just-in-time21121221.572
P13Document management systems12212111.431
Continuous improvement (C)C14(Training)continuous education programs41255443.574
C15Quality plans33412553.293
C16Considering the customer feedback24421112.141
C17Bench marking153333332
C18KPI (key performance indicator)522442232
Main clusters1V55253544.145
2R43325212.863
3F22231352.572
4P14242122.291
5C31244433.04
Table 3. Summary of statistical analysis results for driver weights.
Table 3. Summary of statistical analysis results for driver weights.
MeanStd. Error of MeanStd. DeviationVarianceSkewnessKurtosisKolmogorov–SmirnovShapiro–Wilk
StatisticSigStatisticSig
V12.000.310.820.670.00−1.200.210.2000.860.144
V21.430.200.530.290.37−2.800.360.0070.660.001
V32.570.300.790.62−1.762.360.420.0000.650.001
R42.430.300.790.62−1.110.270.340.0150.770.020
R52.290.290.760.57−0.60−0.350.260.1820.830.086
R61.430.200.530.290.37−2.800.360.0070.660.001
F73.570.531.401.95−0.971.010.200.2000.900.307
F82.570.481.271.62−0.22−1.710.200.2000.880.215
F93.000.581.532.330.39−1.110.210.2000.900.310
F103.140.671.773.14−0.30−2.150.260.1790.840.106
F112.290.421.111.240.25−0.940.170.2000.920.482
P121.570.200.530.29−0.37−2.800.360.0070.660.001
P131.430.200.530.290.37−2.800.360.0070.660.001
C143.570.571.512.29−1.00−0.200.330.0240.840.107
C153.290.571.502.24−0.26−0.970.160.2000.930.591
C162.140.511.351.810.80−1.280.260.1810.790.029
C173.000.441.151.330.003.000.360.0070.780.024
C183.000.491.291.670.65−1.700.350.0090.760.016
V4.140.461.211.48−1.15−0.060.330.0200.770.022
R2.860.511.351.810.35−0.300.170.2000.970.873
F2.570.481.271.621.141.950.240.2000.890.263
P2.290.471.251.570.68−1.100.300.0490.820.062
C3.000.441.151.33−0.91−0.150.240.2000.860.139
Table 4. Calculation of drivers’ weights.
Table 4. Calculation of drivers’ weights.
Lean Drivers (Drivers)No of DrivesSimos’ RankNon-Normalized WeightsNormalized Weight Total Normalized WeightGlobal Weights
Client focus122(2/6) × 100 = 3333(0.33 × 0.33) = 0.1089
Regular client communication111(1/6) × 100 = 1717(0.33 × 0.17) = 0.0561
Clear definition of client’s requirements133(3/6) × 100 = 5050(0.33 × 0.50) = 0.165
SUM36 100
Standardized works133(3/6) × 100 = 5050(0.20 × 0.50) = 0.1
Reviewing the design drawings at an early stage122(2/6) × 100 = 3333(0.20 × 0.33) = 0.066
Daily huddle meetings111(1/6) × 100 = 1717(0.20 × 0.17) = 0.034
SUM36 100
Schedule look-ahead155(5/15) × 100 = 3333(0.13 × 0.33) = 0.0429
Motivation of the work force122(2/15) × 100 = 1313(0.13 × 0.13) = 0.0169
Collaboration with suppliers133(3/15) × 100 = 2020(0.13 × 0.20) = 0.026
Using visualization tools on site144(4/15) × 100 = 2727(0.13 × 0.27) = 0.0351
Day-to-day observation 111(1/15) × 100 = 77(0.13 × 0.07) = 0.0091
SUM515 100
Just-in-time122(2/3) × 100 = 6767(0.07 × 0.67) = 0.0469
Document management systems111(1/3) × 100 = 3333(0.07 × 0.33) = 0.0231
SUM23 100
(Training)continuous education programs155(5/17) × 100 = 2929(0.27 × 0.29) = 0.0783
Quality plans144(4/17) × 100 = 2424(0.27 × 0.24) = 0.0648
Considering the customer feedback122(2/17) × 100 = 1212(0.27 × 0.12) = 0.0324
Bench marking133(3/17) × 100 = 1818(0.27 × 0.18) = 0.0486
KPI (key performance indicator)133(3/17) × 100 = 1818(0.27 × 0.18) = 0.0486
SUM517 101
V155(5/15) × 100 = 3333
R133(3/15) × 100 = 2020
F122(2/15) × 100 = 1313
P111(1/15) × 100 = 77
C144(4/15) × 100 = 2727
SUM515 100
Table 5. The global weight of each driver and the objective for each driver.
Table 5. The global weight of each driver and the objective for each driver.
CriterionNameWeightObjectiveUnits
V1Client focus0.1089Maximize1–5
V2Regular client communication0.0561Maximize1–5
V3Clear definition of client’s requirements0.165Maximize1–5
R4Standardized works0.1Maximize1–5
R5Reviewing the design drawings at early stage0.066Maximize1–5
R6Daily huddle meetings0.034Maximize1–5
F7Schedule look-ahead0.0429Maximize1–5
F8Motivation of the work force0.0169Maximize1–5
F9Collaboration with suppliers0.026Maximize1–5
F10Using visualization tools on site0.0351Maximize1–5
F11Day-to-day observation0.0091Maximize1–5
P12Just-in-time0.0469Maximize1–5
P13Document management systems0.0231Maximize1–5
C14(Training)continuous education programs0.0783Maximize1–5
C15Quality plans0.0648Maximize1–5
C16Considering the customer feedback0.0324Maximize1–5
C17Bench marking0.0486Maximize1–5
C18KPI (key performance indicator)0.0486Maximize1–5
Table 6. The details of the projects.
Table 6. The details of the projects.
ProjectsNameTypeDuration (Months)Budget (EGP)
Project 1Veterinary HospitalCommercial1255,500,000
Project 2Power station buildingIndustrial1285,000,000
Project 3Marble and granite factoryIndustrial181,000,000,000
Project 4El Marg ring road extension project 2 kmInfrastructure12300,000,000
Project 5Silia compound 5th settlementResidential262,100,000,000
Project 6CFC business park B2, B3Commercial27662,000,000
Project 7Benban Egypt-pv plantsCommercial12880,000,000
Table 7. Decision matrix (Lean driver vs. Different projects).
Table 7. Decision matrix (Lean driver vs. Different projects).
ProjectsV1V2V3R4R5R6F7F8F9F10F11P12P13C14C15C16C17C18
1–51–51–51–51–51–51–51–51–51–51–51–51–51–51–51–51–51–5
Project 1233332223233333323
Project 2223323123143212311
Project 3222422332143212311
Project 4333433144143244311
Project 5444223122133222422
Project 6343434343343434334
Project 7444434444343333333
Summation202222241821152121122621181720221315
Percent (%)57.1462.8662.8668.5751.436042.86606034.2974.296051.4348.5757.4162.8637.1442.86
Table 8. Normalized and weighted normalized decision matrix.
Table 8. Normalized and weighted normalized decision matrix.
TypeV1V2V3R4R5R6F7F8F9F10F11P12P13C14C15C16C17C18
PROJ 1N0.1000.1360.1360.1250.1670.0950.1330.0950.1430.1670.1150.1430.1670.1760.1500.1360.1540.200
WN0.0110.0080.0230.0130.0110.0030.0060.0020.0040.0060.0010.0070.0040.0140.0100.0040.0070.010
PROJ 2N0.1000.0910.1360.1250.1110.1430.0670.0950.1430.0830.1540.1430.1110.0590.1000.1360.0770.067
WN0.0110.0050.0230.0130.0070.0050.0030.0020.0040.0030.0010.0070.0030.0050.0060.0040.0040.003
PROJ 3N0.1000.0910.0910.1670.1110.0950.2000.1430.0950.0830.1540.1430.1110.0590.1000.1360.0770.067
WN0.0110.0050.0150.0170.0070.0030.0090.0020.0020.0030.0010.0070.0030.0050.0060.0040.0040.003
PROJ 4N0.1500.1360.1360.1670.1670.1430.0670.1900.1900.0830.1540.1430.1110.2350.2000.1360.0770.067
WN0.0160.0080.0230.0170.0110.0050.0030.0030.0050.0030.0010.0070.0030.0180.0130.0040.0040.003
PROJ 5N0.2000.1820.1820.0830.1110.1430.0670.0950.0950.0830.1150.1430.1110.1180.1000.1820.1540.133
WN0.0220.0100.0300.0080.0070.0050.0030.0020.0020.0030.0010.0070.0030.0090.0060.0060.0070.006
PROJ 6N0.1500.1820.1360.1670.1670.1900.2000.1900.1430.2500.1540.1430.2220.1760.2000.1360.2310.267
WN0.0160.0100.0230.0170.0110.0060.0090.0030.0040.0090.0010.0070.0050.0140.0130.0040.0110.013
PROJ 7N0.2000.1820.1820.1670.1670.1900.2670.1900.1900.2500.1540.1430.1670.1760.1500.1360.2310.200
WN0.0220.0100.0300.0170.0110.0060.0110.0030.0050.0090.0010.0070.0040.0140.0100.0040.0110.010
Note: N means normalized, W.N. means weighted normalized.
Table 9. Final preferences and ranking.
Table 9. Final preferences and ranking.
ProjectsPreference of Increasing DriverPreference of Decreasing DriverFinal PreferenceRanking
Project 10.14100.1414
Project 20.10700.1077
Project 30.10800.1086
Project 40.14600.1463
Project 50.13800.1385
Project 60.17600.1762
Project 70.18500.1851
Table 10. Absolute changes (δk,i,j) in driver weights.
Table 10. Absolute changes (δk,i,j) in driver weights.
p1andp2p1andp3p1andp4p1andp5p2andp3p2andp5p3andp4p3andp5p4andp5p4andp6p4andp7p5andp6p5andp7
V1N/FN/F0.10−0.03N/FN/FN/FN/F−0.16N/FN/F−0.76N/F
V2N/FN/FN/F−0.07N/FN/FN/FN/F−0.18N/FN/FN/FN/F
V3N/FN/FN/F−0.07−0.01N/FN/FN/F−0.18N/FN/F−0.83N/F
R4N/F−0.81N/F0.080.01−0.74N/F−0.370.10N/FN/FN/FN/F
R5N/FN/FN/F0.0575N/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
R6−0.71N/FN/F−0.07−0.01N/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
F7N/F−0.50−0.07N/F0.003N/F−0.29−0.23N/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
F8N/F−0.71N/FN/F0.01N/FN/F−0.64N/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
F9N/FN/FN/FN/F−0.01−0.65N/FN/FN/F−0.62N/FN/FN/F
F10N/FN/F−0.06N/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
F11−0.88−0.87N/FN/FN/F−0.80N/F−0.79N/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
P12N/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
P13N/FN/F−0.09N/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
C14N/FN/FN/F0.05N/FN/FN/FN/F0.07−0.50−0.66N/FN/F
C15N/FN/FN/F0.06N/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/F−0.78N/FN/F
C16N/FN/FN/F−0.07N/FN/FN/FN/F−0.18N/FN/F−0.83−1.04
C17N/FN/F−0.06N/FN/FN/FN/FN/F−0.11N/FN/FN/FN/F
C18N/FN/F−0.040.05N/FN/FN/FN/F−0.12N/FN/FN/FN/F
Table 11. Relative changes (δ*k,i,j) in driver weights.
Table 11. Relative changes (δ*k,i,j) in driver weights.
p1andp2p1andp3p1andp4p1andp5p2andp3p2andp5p3andp4p3andp5p4andp5p4andp6p4andp7p5andp6p5andp7
V1N/FN/F91.60–29.33N/FN/FN/FN/F–150.25N/FN/F–0.76N/F
V2N/FN/FN/F–125.25N/FN/FN/FN/F–320.83N/FN/FN/FN/F
V3N/FN/FN/F–42.58–4.46N/FN/FN/F–109.08N/FN/F–0.83N/F
R4N/F–807.65N/F76.658.02–739.02N/F–365.5098.18N/FN/FN/FN/F
R5N/FN/FN/F87.1055N/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
R6–2099.15N/FN/F–197.27–20.65N/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
F7N/F–1176.64–174.39N/F5.84N/F–675.51–532.48N/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
F8N/F–4181.60N/FN/F41.54N/FN/F–3784.72N/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
F9N/FN/FN/FN/F–27.00–2487.07N/FN/FN/F–2395.51N/FN/FN/F
F10N/FN/F–170.51N/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
F11–9710.34–9614.83N/FN/FN/F–8797.80N/F–8702.29N/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
P12N/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
P13N/FN/F–388.63N/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/F
C14N/FN/FN/F69.34N/FN/FN/FN/F88.81–643.93–845.41N/FN/F
C15N/FN/FN/F98.58N/FN/FN/FN/FN/FN/F–1201.80N/FN/F
C16N/FN/FN/F–216.87N/FN/FN/FN/F–555.52N/FN/F–2569.38–3199.49
C17N/FN/F–133.41N/FN/FN/FN/FN/F–218.84N/FN/FN/FN/F
C18N/FN/F–76.9798.58N/FN/FN/FN/F–252.51N/FN/FN/FN/F
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Meshref, A.N.; Elkasaby, E.A.A.; Ibrahim, A. Selecting Key Drivers for a Successful Lean Construction Implementation Using Simos’ and WSM: The Case of Egypt. Buildings 2022, 12, 673. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/buildings12050673

AMA Style

Meshref AN, Elkasaby EAA, Ibrahim A. Selecting Key Drivers for a Successful Lean Construction Implementation Using Simos’ and WSM: The Case of Egypt. Buildings. 2022; 12(5):673. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/buildings12050673

Chicago/Turabian Style

Meshref, Ahmed Nouh, Elsayed Abdelfattah Ahmed Elkasaby, and Abdelazim Ibrahim. 2022. "Selecting Key Drivers for a Successful Lean Construction Implementation Using Simos’ and WSM: The Case of Egypt" Buildings 12, no. 5: 673. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/buildings12050673

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop