Where Rhetoric and Lean Meet

This paper aims at an initial analysis and explanation of lean through the lens of the discipline of rhetoric. First, the ancient origin, central ideas, subsequent history and current interpretations of rhetoric are outlined. Then, the overall meeting points of rhetoric and lean are discussed. At the outset, it is contended that certain arguments that can be used as a justification in rhetoric seem fertile for understanding the difference between lean and conventional management. Then, persuasion towards compliance in production is discussed. The field of visual management is argued to have an implicit foundation in rhetoric. The existence of a common ground of values, facts and presumptions between the speaker and the audience is emphasized in rhetoric; it is contended that lean construction in many ways endeavours to create such a common ground among the project participants. Regarding deliberation, the rhetorical dimensions in the methods of A3 and Choosing by Advantages are discussed. Further, Target Value Design is identified as based, for their part, on rhetorical ideas. In conclusion, it is contended that many aspects of lean, which as such may seem odd and perhaps peri

Prefácio Lean

This book gives an account on the progress of C. Rolim Engenharia regarding lean and green targets in recent years. It contains a theoretical introduction, a history of lean and green developments in the company, research papers made in or supported by the company, as well as results and future prospects in the field considered. This is the second book by the company giving an account of its progress; the first was published in 2010

Process improvement and automation in construction: Opposing or complementing approaches?

It is widely recognized that there must be wide-ranging changes in construction before automation can be implemented in practice. On the other hand, the innovation rate of construction is rather low, and thus it is unclear, how the steps necessary for automation could be realized. It is argued, that an insufficient attention to process improvement is a major barrier to automation and other technological progress of construction

Which Kind of Science Is Construction Management?

It is argued that the mainstream views on the nature of construction management are insufficient, and as one consequence of this, the relevance of construction management has been questioned. As a solution to this situation, construction management is suggested to be repositioned as a design science, rather than as an explanatory science. A historical consideration reveals that design science equals to one of the sciences proposed by Aristotle, however, the suggestion of Aristotle has been forgotten. Thus, there has been a long-standing neglect of the design science, which explains the present fragmentation of this field. It is argued that this redefinition of construction management will solve several problems plaguing this discipline, including the problem of relevance

The role of knowledge engineering in information management on the construction site

During 1984-1986, a study on information management on building sites was made in the Technical Research Centre of Finland. As one result guidelines for the development of computerized information systems were presented (Salo & Tyrvainen 1985, 1986a, 1986b, Tyrvainen et al. 1987). In the ongoing study "Expert systems on the building sites", further analysis has been carried out as regards the role of knowledge engineering in the enhancement of site information systems. This paper considers both the needs for and possibilities of knowledge engineering in the context of site information management

Management of Production in Construction: A Theoretical View

The transformation view and the flow view are two major conceptualizations of production. The current practice in construction is based on the transformation view. However, the transformation view is an idealization, and in a complex production situation the associated idealization error may become large. This is exactly what happens in practice. Task management, based on the transformation view, assumes that certainty prevails in production. However, it is widely observed that, due to the inherent variability of production in construction, intended task management degenerates into mutual adjustment by teams on site. It is argued that the transformation view and the flow view should be synthesized into a new theoretical view on construction. The inherent causes of variability in construction can be explained and the countermeasures for eliminating variability or stemming its impact can be pinpointed by this new theoretical view. It is shown that the Last Planner method is compatible with this new view

On New Footnotes to Shingo

The Toyota Production System (TPS) has continually inspired scholars of production management to a search for its essence. Two new interpretations have recently been advanced. Firstly, Johnston has argued that conventional production management is based on an approach to management called management-as-planning. The central assumption is that intentional activity is based on a representation of the world. Thus, management is essentially about planning, i.e. manipulation of that representation. Instead, the TPS is essentially based on an approach called management-as-organizing. Here it is assumed that human activity is inherently situated, i.e. a response to the situation in question. Secondly, Spear and Bowen have claimed that the key to understand the TPS is the idea of the scientific method. When a production standard is defined, it also establishes a hypothesis that can be tested. Thus, they seem to emphasize the approach of managementas- learning as the foundational idea behind the TPS. It is shown that while providing fresh and deeper understanding to management in the TPS, these interpretations are partial and can be positioned inside the view on production management presented by Shingo. In fact, based on Shingo and other extant analysis, it can be argued that there are four approaches to management that are applied in tight coupling and synergistically in the TPS: management-as-organizing, management-as-planning, management-as-adhering and management-as-learning. It is concluded that the superiority of the TPS in comparison to its rivals is founded not only on a better theory of production, but also on a better theory of management

Re-Engineering, concurrent engineering, lean production: What is the ideal antidote for the construction industry's ailments?

It is widely agreed that the practice of construction is deficient and requires improvement. However, the construction research community has had little to contribute to a solution, except trialling new approaches from general management scene or advancing technological tools. It is argued that a new research frontier is needed, where integral understanding of operations, construction and computing is created. Through this understanding, real progress can be achieved

The two pillars of design theory: Method of analysis and rhetoric

Since the 1960’s, there have been many initiatives for promoting theoretical understanding on design. However, in spite of definite progress, there are several puzzles and anomalies in the current theoretical landscape of design. We present an interpretation of the evolution of design theorizing that throws new light on these puzzles and anomalies. We contend that in the modern time, there have been two hidden inspirational sources for design theorizing, namely the method of analysis and rhetoric. As they concern different situations, their prescriptions in many ways differ. However, without explicit recourse to the sources, these mutually incompatible prescriptions, along with associated concepts and terms, have been mixed up in a confusing way. It is proposed that these two influences to design theory and practice have to be disentangled, to be able to act like two pillars supporting the phenomenon of designing. We hypothesize that actual design assignments require the mobilization of ideas and support from both pillar

What Triggers Management Innovation?

There is a popular tendency in management science towards what could be called “theory denial”: the denial of the significance of theory for the development of management thought and action. We contend that this theory denial is just wrong, in the light of empirical evidence, and that is a damaging idea, because it diverts the attention of the scholarly community away from the core issues of the field. In this paper, we consider two variants of this theory denial, purporting to reveal the serious problems in their justification. First, the approach stressing the importance of studying how ideas are translated into solutions by organizations is considered. It is shown that there two unsubstantiated assumptions, first about the relative lack of importance of the (solution) idea, and second about the prior existence of such ideas. Second, a recent influential view on management innovation and the process through which it emerges is examined. This view focuses on the individuals (from inside and outside the organisation) who drive the innovation process and on the phases of the innovation process itself. The motivation for change is represented as coming solely from a perceived shortfall between the organization’s current and potential performance. Ideas, it would seem, arise spontaneously to fill this gap. We present historical examples to argue that the genesis of innovative management thinking can be much more closely accounted for and that ideas can themselves have a role in motivating change. Through exemplary cases, we contend that new concepts of production have operated in a way resembling the role of a scientific paradigm, as defined by Kuhn. A leading aspect of such a paradigm is that it defines criteria for choosing problems. The concept precedes and drives the innovation, functioning as a paradigm which guides the development of detailed solutions to problems which otherwise would not be visible. Indeed, the developments of new concepts of production seem to have triggered a long-standing stream of interrelated management innovations. Thus, rather than arising spontaneously in response to organisational need, “management ideas” have arisen in the context of an emerging theory of production. Thus, we contend that the role of management scholars is not only to come up with creative ideas or to address the translation of ideas, as held in the mainstream view, but rather they should develop new concepts and theories on phenomena relevant for management (such as production), based also on a critical scrutiny of present ones, clarify and make explicit concepts in use that are implicit, and codevelop new methods based on proven or promising concepts