The Last Planner® System (LPS) was initially designed as a system for planning and controlling production on projects, that is, to do what is necessary to achieve set targets (Ballard 2000). It was understood to differ from project controls, which sets targets (objectives and constraints on their delivery) and monitors progress toward them. Initially, LPS consisted only of lookahead planning (Ballard 1997), weekly work planning, and learning from breakdowns. In the early 2000s, planning and scheduling project phases (which provide inputs to lookahead planning) were added to its scope, as described in the 2016 Benchmark (Ballard and Tommelein 2016). This 2020 Current Process Benchmark further extends LPS in principle to both production (i.e., striving for targets) and project planning and control (i.e., setting targets). That does not mean there is no longer a role for technical specialists such as schedulers, estimators, inspectors, etc. It means that a single system is needed rather than two systems; a system for the project chain of command to both manage the project and continuously improve the project’s planning and control system. Technical specialists are still needed to collect and analyze information that managers at different levels need in order to make good decisions. Project management functions other than project planning and control include human resource management, project financing, project contracting, and incorporation of technologies. The Lean Construction Triangle (after triangle figure by Darrington et al. in Chapter 1 of Thomsen et al. 2010) provides a way to understand the scope of project planning and control: the LPS has its pride of place in the project operating system. In addition to extending the functions of LPS, a number of other changes will be found in this 2020 Benchmark document. Many of these changes were developed by five task teams working together since 2017. Team 1 was tasked with extending the LPS to planning and control of the entire project. To support that extension, Team 2 was tasked with developing and improving metrics. Team 3 was tasked with recommending location-based work structures for all appropriate project phases. Team 4 was tasked with reducing the barriers to take up of the LPS in design. Team 5 was tasked with developing a better description of means for learning from breakdowns. These five teams each published research reports (respectively Ballard et al. 2020, Christian and Pereira 2020, Nutt et al. 2020, Chiu and Cousins 2020, and Wilkinson et al. 2020) that are available at www.leanconstructionjournal.org and p2sl.berkeley.edu. The reports were used as input to this 2020 Benchmark. Other changes were informed by research opportunities identified in the 2016 Benchmark that have since been addressed to various degrees by researchers around the world. Appendices of this 2020 Benchmark illustrate methods and tools developed and generously shared by practitioners who have adopted the LPS and adapted the System to their project needs. These illustrations are not to be replicated exactly as they are but, rather, we suggest that you view them as a source of ideas and adapt them to your planning needs, language, and practices of your project team. The authors of the 2020 Benchmark decided what changes to include and additions to make, and are solely responsible for any errors and omissions.

Target Value Design (TVD), referring to the application of Target Costing (TC) to the delivery of projects in the Architecture-Engineering-Construction (AEC) industry, radically differs from what has become the traditional way of designing and making products. Rather than treating cost as an outcome of wasteful design-estimate-rework cycles, TVD is a method that makes customer constraints (on cost, time, location, and others) drivers for design in pursuit of value delivery. This document introduces TVD by retracing its roots and describing why owners and, in fact, all project participants can benefit from using TVD. It presents the components of a TVD framework, detailing how this lean method applies in practice to the delivery of a capital asset such as buildings, and then offers the current benchmark to those who wish to get started using TVD or assess their current practice. A glossary at the end recaps the terms introduced in the text.

Specialty contractors (SCs) are construction’s ‘job shops’. They must allocate their resources to match the various ‘delivery’ dates demanded by multiple projects. Managing the production of a specialty contracting firm is, consequently, quite different from managing a project. Further, specialty contractor management depends upon the quality of production management on projects, i.e., their coordination by general contractors. Unfortunately, there is a trend among general contractors to adopt a brokering role and neglect coordination. This paper presents the production and control tasks of both specialty and general contractors through the use of process models, emphasizing the responsibility of SCs for design completion and the mutual interdependence of SCs on design changes and installation accuracy. Lean production principles are recommended and CPM is critiqued as inadequate for SC coordination.