Journal of Cleaner Production: Sam Solaimani, Mohamad Sedighi

Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119213
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Toward a holistic view on lean sustainable construction: A literature

review
Sam Solaimani a, *, Mohamad Sedighi b
a
Center for Marketing & SCM, Nyenrode Business University, the Netherlands
b
Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The need for sustainable built environment is pressing; an urgency that spans environmental, economic
Received 29 October 2018 and social values of sustainability. Since late 1980s, the Lean philosophy has been adopted in the con-
Received in revised form struction sector, with a focus on efficiency, predominantly as a function of economic competence. More
30 October 2019
recently, however, the Lean principles and practices have been revisited and increasingly used to create
Accepted 6 November 2019
Available online 8 November 2019
and preserve social and environmental values as well. The result was a growing, but dispersed, body of
knowledge on sustainability and Lean construction, and hence, equivocal about how Lean contributes to
Handling Editor: Yutao Wang sustainability. By means of a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) based on 118 journal articles from 1998
to 2017, this article aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of “how Lean helps achieve and
Keywords: maintain sustainability in construction sector”. The findings are structured into a holistic framework,
Lean construction which underlines a multidimensional approach toward sustainability, i.e., focus on stakeholders, across
Sustainability various construction phases, while simultaneously being heedful of concerns regarding people, planet,
Triple bottom line and profit. It became clear that the current body of knowledge is mainly skewed toward economic values,
Systematic literature review
which calls for more research in the social and environmental aspects of construction. This study as-
sembles a palette of existing best practices, based on which scholars’ and practitioners’ can balance their
efforts across three dimensions of sustainability. Moreover, it identifies several under-researched areas of
Lean sustainable construction that have the potential to be expanded in by future researchers.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction Creating and maintaining a synergetic triangle is, however,

easier said than done (Campbell, 1996). Consider the conflicts (i)
The need for developing sustainable construction environments between environmental and social concerns for instance in the case
and methods is increasingly emphasized by ample of scholars and of prefabricated construction that may be a strategy to potentially
practitioners in this domain (e.g., Bae and Kim, 2008; Koranda et al., reduce the material waste, but may also create a rigid structure that
2012; Lapinski et al., 2006; Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012; Rosenbaum limits customization and individual expression (Dao et al., 2011;
et al., 2013) to serve people, planet and profit, the so-called ‘triple Ho€o
€ k and Stehn, 2005), (ii) between economic and environ-
bottom line’ that focuses on social, environmental and economic mental interests such as use of solar panels and green roofs that
concerns (Elkington, 2013). The sustainability dimensions are may enable an energy neutral built environment, but lead to a
interdependent; as such, it can be argued that “the economy exists higher capital cost (Dimond and Webb, 2017), and (iii) between
within society and the society exists within the environment” economic and social concerns such as marginalized employees’
(Manley et al., 2008, p. 744). Hence, focusing on one dimension safety as a consequence of extremely cost efficient production site
while compromising the other defeats the purpose. In fact, a syn- (Nahmens and Ikuma, 2009), to name a few.
ergetic interrelationship among the dimensions is advocated; one In tuning in to an integrative approach to sustainability Lean
that busts the silos and ensures that all three dimensions are and philosophy is considered to be promising (Dües et al., 2013; Florida,
remain working in concert (Elkington, 2013; Manley et al., 2008). 1996; Galeazzo et al., 2014; Pil and Rothenberg, 2003). In the late
1980s, Lean was popularized by an international best-selling book
by Womack et al. (1990) based on their longitudinal study in Toyota
* Corresponding author. Production System (TPS) operations. Shah and Ward (2007, p. 791)
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Solaimani). define Lean as “an integrated socio-technical system whose main
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119213
0959-6526/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 S. Solaimani, M. Sedighi / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119213
objective is to eliminate waste by concurrently reducing or mini- gestalt view of Lean sustainable construction is established. Finally,
mizing supplier, customer, and internal variability”. Lean found its the paper concludes with a discussion on how the findings can be
way into the construction sector by Koskela (1992), which has led interpreted from an academic and practical viewpoint.
to series of studies, mainly revolving around value creation and
efficiency improvement with focus on cost and waste reduction 2. Research method
(e.g., Alsehaimi and Koskela, 2008; De Treville and Antonakis,
2006). Along with a broader diffusion and more frequent applica- To aggregate evidence on Lean construction and sustainability, a
tion of Lean ideas, the link between Lean construction and social comprehensive SLR is carried out. SLR facilitates “theory develop-
and environmental dimensions of sustainability became more ment, closes areas where a plethora of research exists, and un-
prominent (Jørgensen et al., 2007; Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012; covers areas where research is needed” (Webster and Watson,
Ogunbiyi and Goulding, 2014). 2002, p. 13). SLR is not a descriptive summary of articles; it calls
About the same period, with an ever-growing network of for a synthesis of publications to develop an integral understanding
involved stakeholders in construction, the emerging challenge of of a theory (Okoli and Schabram, 2010). Fink (2019) defines SLR as
‘process orientation’, or silo-busting integration of end-to-end ac- “a systematic, explicit, and reproducible method for identifying,
tors began to attract the attention of more scholars (Elkington, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing body of completed and
2013; Newman and Dale, 2005). In fact, equal and instant atten- recorded work produced by researchers, scholars, and practi-
tion to all dimensions of sustainability is considered as a product of tioners.” (p. 3). As such, this approach enables a transparent and
stakeholders’ interactions and collective decision-making (Adolphe replicable way to identify, evaluate, and synthesize the existing
and Rousval, 2007; Deakin et al., 2002; Haapio, 2012; Yang et al., literature (Fink, 2019), while minimizing biases and errors
2015). (Tranfield et al., 2003).
While the interplay between involved actors is critical in To ensure rigor throughout of the process, this study adhered to
establishing a sustainable modus operandi, the role and involve- the three broadly accepted steps of planning the review, conducting
ment of actors change throughout various phases of a project’s the review, and reporting and dissemination (Green and Higgins,
lifecycle (Olander, 2007). A broadly accepted project lifecycle out- 2008; Tranfield et al., 2003). Accordingly, the purpose and bound-
lines four stages of conceptualization, planning, execution and aries of the study were determined first, i.e., focusing on articles
termination (Adams and Barnd, 1983; King and Cleland, 1983). The that explain ‘how Lean contributes to sustainable construction’. The
former two phases focus on explication of projects’ primary goals, search terms included Lean, construction and sustainability (see
clients’ needs and constraints, and a formalized planning to sketch Fig. 1). Note that some search terms include ‘*’ which enables the
the initial concepts, while the latter two phases, by and large, give search to be broader, for instance, “sustain*” includes “sustaining”,
an account of materials and resources needed in the project, “sustainable” and “sustainability”. In preserving data reliability, the
building process, ex post adjustments and maintenance (e.g., search was limited to peer-reviewed journal articles. The search
Guggemos and Horvath, 2003; Guo et al., 2010; Kerzner, 2001; was not restricted to a certain period, and only articles published in
Pinto, 1988). To avoid overcomplication, this paper adheres to a English were included. The relevant articles were found in one of
simplified version of the discussed phases, i.e., Extraction & Pro- the most prominent search engines, namely Scopus. To make sure
cessing and Logistics & Distribution for suppliers, Design & Plan- that no relevant articles were overlooked, the repositories of
ning and Build & Delivery for developers, and Co-creation & several relevant journals in the fields of construction, sustainability
Occupancy for customers (c.f., Ibbs et al., 2003; Dixit et al., 2012). and operations management; for instance, Automation in Con-
Evaluation and assessment of sustainability and performance in- struction, International Journal of Construction Management,
dicators span across these six phases (Fregonara, 2017). Journal of Cleaner Production, Sustainable Cities and Society,
As argued earlier, the literature on Lean and sustainable con- Journal of Sustainability, were directly searched. By looking into
struction is substantial, but largely focused on isolated topics, both streams, i.e., search engine and publishers’ repositories, the
typically with narrow technical scope, and consequently, over the output was compared, and search consistency is checked, while 13
past decades it has become considerably scattered. This study sets not indexed articles were identified (i.e., snowball searching).
out to explore how Lean has contributed to an end-to-end con- The collected articles were first cleaned up where duplicates
struction field in relation to sustainability. Hence, the foci of anal- and inaccessible articles were removed. Next, the relevance of the
ysis spans across various stages of construction, various selected articles was carefully assessed. In this step, the articles’
stakeholders involved, and from economic, environmental and title, abstract and keywords were screened and excluded if irrele-
social perspectives. There are a few literature studies in the areas of vant. For example, some papers were referring to Lean as an ad-
Lean construction; however, these studies are either limited to a jective (e.g., ‘lean fuel’), verb (e.g., ‘leaning on’), noun (e.g., ‘lean
specific area of construction (i.e., Mandujano et al., 2016 [based on rollcrete’), or applying ‘social network analysis’ in project planning
28 publications] with a focus on waste in virtual design), focus on context. The included articles were subjected to a full-length
Lean and sustainability without a specific attention to construction screening. In this step, the articles were fully scrutinized and
n and Calvo-Amodio, 2017 [based on 57 publications];
(i.e., Leo relevant frameworks, figures, statements, propositions, and find-
Martínez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2014 [based on 58 publi- ings were highlighted and annotated. Overall, the relevance was
cations]), remain descriptive in nature, and therefore, lack an based on whether or not the articles explicitly address the impact of
explanation of the relationship between Lean and the triple bottom Lean on sustainable construction. As such, the exclusion was
line (i.e., Carvalho et al., 2017 [based on 48 publications]), while applied to articles that may underline economic, environmental
generally based on relatively small samples sizes. More impor- and social aspects of sustainability, and yet without an explicit link
tantly, the involvement and role of actors, across multiple stages of to Lean principle and practices. To structure the process, from se-
construction has not been part of earlier studies. lection to analysis, a Microsoft Excel-based database was developed
The remainder of this paper is structured as starting with a where all the descriptive data, including research method, sample
detailed account of the research method, including the review size, geographical details, industry, theoretical foundation, scope,
process and criteria, leading to a summary of the research findings. execution type and projects typology, as well as analytical insights
By structuring the analysis of extracted literature along three di- including the link between Lean and sustainable construction, were
mensions of sustainability, stakeholders and construction phases, a systematically registered. The database is available upon request.
S. Solaimani, M. Sedighi / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119213 3
Fig. 1. The SLR process.
Initially, the data is positioned along a three-dimensional space

conform to triple bottom line, actors’ role and construction phases.
Some articles included multiple aspects, for instance, referring to
both economic and environmental contributions of Lean from
multiple stakeholders. Throughout the review process, relevant
(often interrelated) subcategories in each dimension were identi-
fied. For instance, the environmental aspects as part of sustain-
ability dimension were clustered into more detailed subcategories
(e.g., value and waste, impact, design process). Also, the in-
terrelationships were identified and registered (e.g., type of value
and waste leading to environmental impact to be addressed by
various design-oriented practices). Important to note is that clus-
tering was an iterative process where categories, subcategories and
their interrelationship were subject to change each time new
insight was identified. The findings emulated a tree structure
where a vast range of Lean principles and practices, first, classified Fig. 2a. Trend of publication between 1998 and 2017.
into three types of stakeholders, then across different phases.
Although SLR follows a strict, structured and transparent pro-
implying the construction sectors interest for Lean construction, as
cess, the decisions around selection and analysis of articles are
well as its general applicability to be applied across countries and
subjective in nature. To alleviate authors’ bias, the involvement of
continents (Fig. 2b). Note 30 articles are not empirical but based on
more than one reviewer is advocated (Tranfield et al., 2003). On this
conceptual reasoning, literature review (i.e., Ansah and Sorooshian,
account, the authors collaboratively conducted the data collection
2017; Bajjou et al., 2017a,b), simulation, scenario analysis, hence are
and analysis through parallel screening of sources, iteratively
not on this chart. Methodologically speaking, case study eout of
reviewing the articles independently, juxtaposing the individual
which 40 single case and 18 multi-case studiese appears to be the
output, and discussing the differences and discrepancies until a
most frequently applied research method. The next most popular
consensus was reached on how to label, cluster, interrelated and
appear to be multi-method, conceptual and simulation, which
report.
suggest that quantitative research, as well as experiments, design
research and ethnographical studies are relatively scarce (Fig. 3a).
3. Findings The top 10 publishers seem to be mainly from the domain of con-
struction engineering and construction management, which hints
With respect to descriptive insights, it is worth noting that at scant attention of other relevant publishers including those
although the concept of Lean construction was introduced in 1992,
the first articles that started to emphasize the link between Lean
and sustainability in construction appear in 1998. From this point,
the attention of academic community started to grow incremen-
tally (Fig. 2a), but globally with USA, UK and India on the top,
North America: 30
[US: 28; CA: 2]
Europe: 22
[UK: 9; SE: 4; DK:
3; FI: 1; DE: 2; East Asia: 19
NO: 1; PL: 1; ES: 1; [IN: 7; CN: 3; TW:
2; VN: 2; HK: 1;
CH: 1; LK: 1] MY: 1; SG: 2;
LK: 1]
West Asia: 6
[SA: 3; IL: 2;
IR: 1]
Africa: 3
[EG: 2;
GH: 1] Australia: 1
[NZ: 1]
South
America: 7
[CL: 4; BR:
2; CO: 1]
Fig. 2b. The spread of empirical studies across the world.
Fig. 3a. Applied research methods.
Fig. 3b. Top 10 publishers.
focused on sustainability in general (Fig. 3b).

Among seven types1 of construction projects, most studies
appear to be generic in nature; with the exception of housing
projects, the other construction types have not received propor-
tional attention, leaving out context-specific peculiarities and
needs (Fig. 4a). As presented in Fig. 4b, the most frequently recur-
ring topics in the areas of Lean and sustainability appear to be
process flow, Just-in-Time (JIT) and waste reduction. Note that
waste reduction is equivocal, as the economic and environmental
impact are inherently interdependent (i.e., any type of economic
waste reduction has an environmental impact and vice versa), and
therefore, it can be positioned as both economic and environ-
mental. Moreover, it appears that the economic dimension has
received comparatively the most attention, and the environmental
dimensions seem to be least refined.
Fig. 4a. The spread of construction typology across years.
1
The applied construction typology includes crossover (e.g., hospital, policlinic,
pharmacy), commercial (e.g., shopping mall, office), housing (i.e., residential
To generate analytical insights, as discussed in the outset of this
building), cultural (e.g., museum, culture centre, movie theatre), administrative
(e.g., ministries, headquarter), recreational (e.g., attraction park), industrial (e.g., paper, the literature is structured across the triple bottom line,
manufactory), ru(e.g., parking-garage, service buildings), educational (e.g., schools, considering the role of typical stakeholders involved across various
university) construction entities.
ensures that the right quantities of material are delivered to the

right location in right condition at the right time (Koranda et al.,
2012; Low Sui and Choong Joo, 2001). Typical wastes which JIT
can address are waiting for material delivery at the production site,
unnecessary transportation as a consequence of incomplete ma-
terial deliver, and excessive material delivery on construction sites
(Khanh and Kim, 2014; Sandberg and Bildsten, 2011; Sarhan et al.,
2017).
To implement a pull approach, as an alternative to tendering, a
long-term relationship and commitment with suppliers seems to
be the commended Lean approach (Green and May 2005; Naim and
Barlow, 2003). Long-term commitment requires trust and confi-
dence between partners, for which slow revisions and update, last-
minute or inaccurate demands, and late deliveries are to be pre-
vented (Low Sui and Choong Joo, 2001). However, in practice the
last-minute updates and changes are not always avoidable, and
hence, synchronization-based models are suggested for improving
early on-site data sharing between stakeholders (Tsai et al., 2007).
Building real-time feedback loops in the stakeholders network
facilitate and incentivize information sharing which is a priority
within Lean approach (Tommelein, 1998). Information sharing and
cooperative attitudes can be enhanced by shifting from contract-
based relationships toward trust-based relationships (Ozorhon
et al., 2013). According to Pestana et al. (2014) mediocre commu-
Fig. 4b. Lean principles and practices for sustainable construction. nication, between suppliers and developers (e.g., designers and
subcontractors), particularly in the early design phase (e.g., the
design submittal process) leads to poor transparency and perfor-
phases of construction. To keep the complexity manageable, key mance, and rework at the end. From a Lean standpoint, supplier
actors are divided into supplier (responsible for extraction & pro- development in general, and ‘early supplier involvement’ in spe-
cessing and logistics & distribution), developer (responsible for cific, helps reduce the design related issues given the fact that
design & planning and build & delivery), and customer (involved in design complexity exacerbates in later stages (Ladhad and Parrish,
design or co-creation and occupancy). Accordingly, the remainder 2013; Reifi and Emmitt, 2013).
of this writing details how the literature describes and prescribes
the potentials of Lean for sustainable construction.
3.1.1.2. Logistics & distribution. Waste identification and elimina-
tion are the hallmark of Lean thinking. An example of waste in
3.1. Economic view suppliers setting is minimization of site transportation (earlier
discussed from a JIT perspective). To achieve this, in line with the
Economic values are expressed in terms of efficient use of re- Lean concept of small batches, a reduction of the quantity of stacks
sources and effective transformation process, based on a systemic efor instance through ‘panelization’ plan3 (Shewchuk and Guo,
understanding of value, customers’ needs and consumption process 2012)e is recommended. In addition, a pull-driven resource allo-
(Nahmens, 2009; Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012). cation (Ng et al., 2013) and project planning is suggested; prefer-
ably, on a project-by-project basis to address the projects’
3.1.1. Supplier idiosyncrasies and specific needs (Tommelein, 1998). Still, a
In the construction context, suppliers are companies that typi- collaborative effort seems to be more long-lasting. In fact, collab-
cally are responsible for raw material extraction, processing, orative decision-making with and among suppliers is suggested to
transportation to warehouses as well as construction fields and be continued in logistical processes (Green and May 2005), for
distribution centers, packaging and storing, and delivering built instance, for trouble-shooting purposes at the construction sites
resources, mostly in the shape of physical supplies such as goods (Nahmens and Mullens, 2011). To this end, cross-functional team-
and materials (Kelley, 2013). As construction is becoming more work (Ghosh and Robson, 2015; Pasquire, 2012; Whelton et al.,
complex, suppliers are becoming specialists, and supply chains are 2002) and suppliers peer review (i.e., subcontractors monitoring
increasingly transforming from linear hierarchical entities into themselves in addition to the general contractor evaluations) (Sage
dynamic network of interacting entities (c.f., designing building et al., 2012) are some preferred Lean approaches.
dictionary).2 For a seamless flow of material in large production sites, such as
prefab manufacturing plants, Mullens (2008) stresses the impor-
3.1.1.1. Extraction & processing. In mass production settings, pull- tance of continuous improvement (or ‘Kaizen’ in Lean terminology),
based production strategy (i.e., producing only when there is an for instance, by means of the so-called Rapid Productivity
actual demand) can effectively (i) lower the inventory costs (Ko, Improvement (RPI) events. In RPI, a multidisciplinary team walks
2010), especially when combined with judicious buffers, e.g., through the plant and makes various charts; examples include
consolidated centers (Sacks and Partouche, 2010), and (ii) minimize spaghetti charts, which visualizes movements and congestions to
variability in product choice (Nahmens and Mullens, 2009). JIT identify problematic areas and to make suggestions on how the
appears to be another application of pull-based production which
3
Panelization plan specifies how to divide the interior walls of a building into
2
Available at: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Suppliers_for_design_ prefabricated panels by determining what panels go into each stack and how they
and_construction. should be arranged and the stack drop-off location.
layout eand thus the flow of men, material, machinese can be communication channels are considered critical conditions in using
improved. Equally interesting is the Value Stream Mapping (VSM) LPS (Vignesh, 2017).
approach, which is a systematic, end-to-end, visualization tool that The value that Lean attaches to visualization and systematic
often is used to identify non-value-adding activities and to feed measurement is manifested by the literature’s emphasis on various
root-cause analysis (Barathwaj et al., 2017; Freire and Alarco n, virtual simulation tools - sometimes referred to as Virtual Design
2002; Praveenkumar et al., 2015; Reijula et al., 2016; Rosenbaum and Construction (VDC), that are used in design and planning
et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2009, 2013). Similarly, 5S (Sort, Set in order, phases (Mandujano et al., 2016) and carried forward in construc-
Shine, Standardize, and Sustain) is a recommended approach to tion and facilities management. Examples of software packages
organize the workspace by identifying and removing sources of discussed in the literature are ARENA, CAD, Extend þ BPR, Revit,
waste, and ensuring process flow and efficiency (Sandberg and TEKLA (Abbasian-Hosseini et al., 2014; Al-Sudairi, 2007; Bjo €rnfot
Bildsten, 2011; Shewchuk and Guo, 2012). and Jongeling, 2007; Farrar et al., 2004; Lee and Cho, 2012). In the
same vein, various modeling approaches are promoted, including
3.1.2. Developer Discrete Event Planning model (Golzarpoor et al., 2017), and Monte
In building projects, suppliers are commissioned by developers Carlo simulation (Erol et al., 2017). The simulation tools are often
who mainly are involved in design and planning (i.e., policy making part of a larger systems; the so-called Building Information
and design-decision, construct plans, and blueprinting and Modeling (BIM) (Ahuja et al., 2017). BIM is a combination of various
computation), building (also re-develop and refurbishing) and de- tools and systems that enable digitalization and management of
livery. While smaller developers generally sell developments once information flow and construction objects and processes (Sacks
they are completed (trader developers), larger developers may et al., 2010a).
retain developments, building up large portfolios of property, in Simulation techniques are suggested to be combined with other
effect acting as a property investor (investor developers). De- tools and systems such as animation tools like 3D Max (Han et al.,
velopers include roles such as (sub)contractors, consulting engi- 2012), production scheduling systems or ‘Heijunka’ (a Lean term for
neers and designers, and policy makers in broader perspective ‘production leveling’) (Bryde and Schulmeister, 2012), quality
(McQuade, 2008). controls (Liu and Shi, 2017), project value stream management
(Wen, 2014), and procurement planning (Yin et al., 2014). Addi-
3.1.2.1. Design & planning. From the developer perspective, the tionally, BIM is often used to facilitate teamwork (Zhang et al.,
literature seems to attach importance to visualization, as an effec- 2017), and reduce coordination-related problems, for instance,
tive way to bring design shortcomings to light and prevent financial among main contractor’s site team and subcontractors, vendors
loss early in the process, for instance, through process design and other units (Mahalingam et al., 2015).
pattern analysis (Breit et al., 2008). Note that design and planning is
not a linear process, and in fact, involves iterations, sometimes with 3.1.2.2. Build & delivery. Much the same as for suppliers, de-
unnecessary repetition and rework as result (Kpamma and Adjei- velopers also benefit from a streamlined process flow with mini-
Kumi, 2011). To overcome repetition and rework in design pro- mized delays and disruptions (Andújar-Montoya et al., 2015).
cess, several Lean practices, such as design structure matrix, set- According to Sacks (2016), flow in construction can be understood
based and point-based design are suggested (Lee et al., 2012). along three dimensions of portfolio, process and operations, which
Similar to the context of supplier, also for developers, establishing refers to “flow of projects in regional construction economy, flow of
collaborative teams seem to be effective in identifying and rapid locations within a project, and flow of trade crew in and between
response to design issues and orchestrating cross-team planning the location of projects” (p. 654). The main obstacle in achieving
(Ghosh and Robson, 2015; Sacks and Partouche, 2010). In terms of flow is variability, which can be identified with 5-whys, A3 reports,
layout, co-location of design experts appears to accelerate the fishbone (or ‘ishikawa’) diagrams (Anderson and Kovach, 2014;
decision-making process (Aquere et al., 2013), while ceaseless Paez et al., 2005; Tommelein, 2015; Tsao et al., 2004; Zimina
attention for performance (quantitative) indices ee.g., bottleneck, et al., 2012) and reduced with adaptable workforce management
rework, batches size, cycle timee feed the process with relevant capabilities (Thomas et al., 2002), preventing quality issues and
insights (Tribelsky and Sacks, 2011). optimum sequencing of activities (Mitropoulos and Nichita, 2010)
When it comes to planning, the Last Planner System (LPS) is and standardization. Both supplier and developers can achieve a
often stressed. Inspired by Lean thinking, LPS prioritize what “can” higher level of efficiency by preventing the unnecessary effort to
be done instead what “should” be done (Ballard, 2000). LPS, reinvent the figurative ‘wheel’. The true potential of standardiza-
together with Work-In-Progress (WIP) buffering strategies or safety tion can be unleashed when applied to repetitive processes. Some
stock (Court et al., 2009), help improve planning reliability and to best practices are uniform building components (as opposed to
tackle variability in complex and dynamic production environ- unique components), uniform procedure for maintenance of
ments (Aziz and Hafez, 2013; Gonza lez et al., 2009; Gonza
lez et al., equipment (Ho €o
€ k and Stehn, 2008; Sacks and Partouche, 2010; Yu
2008; Issa, 2013). et al., 2009).
To reap the full potential of LPS, it is suggested to use the Some other ways to improve flow are reducing batch size or ‘one
planning approach combined with visualization tools and process piece flow’, for instance, single apartment finishing works instead
modeling and analysis tools, particularly with a high extent of of full floor (Nowotarski and Pasławski, 2016), multitasking and
granularity (e.g., real-time and near real-time data) (Alsehaimi eliminating handovers (Sacks et al., 2007; Sacks and Goldin, 2007;
et al., 2014; Chamberlin et al., 2017; Sacks et al., 2010b). Such Yu et al., 2009), mitigating bottleneck (Chua and Shen, 2005), and
data can also be used for planning (fluctuation) controls, such as identifying and eliminating waste and non-value adding activities,
FIFO-lane-based systems, which decouples consecutive tasks so such as unnecessary movements, excessive inventory, and unpro-
that each task only deals with variation caused by the preceding ductive meetings (Garrett and Lee, 2010; Khanh and Kim, 2014;
task (Yu et al., 2009). To ensure data reliability in LPS, the use of Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012; Sandberg and Bildsten, 2011). That
spreadsheets in combination with error-proof functions (or ‘Poka being said, for tools to be effective, contextual adjustments seem
Yoke’ in Lean terms) is suggested (Zaeri et al., 2017). From an needed (Salem et al., 2006). Also, workers’ engagement and moti-
organizational viewpoint, establishing foremen, training partici- vation is key (Ho€o€ k and Stehn, 2008).
pants, client representation in planning, and dedicated Quality is one of the recurring principles present in the
literature (quality will also be discussed from an environmental 3.2.1. Supplier

viewpoint). To enhance quality and prevent costly inefficiencies in 3.2.1.1. Extraction & processing. In the extraction and processing
production processes, data can be collected (e.g., observations, phase, distinction between environmental value and waste is the
video recording, images, RFID and GPS sensors) and analyzed starting point. In addition to process analysis tools like VSM,
(Cabrera et al., 2012). Better yet, anomalies in production can pro- adopting LEED4 principles, awareness about material recyclability,
actively be detected and immediately resolved (i.e., ‘Jidoka’ in Lean green gas effects, water sources and reclaimed water use are a few
terminology); however, detection does not need to be automated topics that can feed mapping and assessment of value and waste
per se as employees can be empowered to inspect processes for (Lapinski et al., 2006; Praveenkumar et al., 2015). Retrospectively,
defects and errors themselves (Nikakhtar et al., 2015). environmental impact analysis, especially with the involvement of
sustainable building experts, helps an in-depth understanding of
the projects’ ecological footprint (Castro-Lacouture et al., 2008).
3.1.3. Customer
Customer (or client) is the cornerstone of any construction
3.2.1.2. Logistics & distribution. From a logistical viewpoint, the
project that basically defines what should and should not be
concept of quality management and waste reduction are empha-
considered as value. In effect, customer is rarely a single person,
sized. At this phase, flawed material estimation and ordering seem
even in relatively small projects. Customer can be the owner of the
to be the source of excessive transportation, and hence, excessive
project’s output, the end-user, or actors with close ties to the end-
carbon emissions (Banawi and Bilec, 2014). Transportation and
user including promoter, purchaser, and principal (McQuade,
material handling is where materials are often damaged, leading to
2008).
unnecessary write-offs and excessive wastage (Nahmens and
Ikuma, 2012).
3.1.3.1. Co-creation. The distinction between value and non-value
is not always straightforward (Mao and Zhang, 2008). From a 3.2.2. Developer
Lean perspective, waste and non-value adding processes and 3.2.2.1. Design & planning. In the design phase, adaptability toward
output can largely be prevented through participatory design and developing partners can be created by working with modular
co-creation with customers (Gülyaz et al., 2019). For instance, design components which divide a project into independent
before completing the blueprint (Sandberg and Bildsten, 2011), manageable sub-units or ‘work chunks’ (Ghosh and Robson, 2015;
delaying a product configuration decision can be used to secure Hansen and Olsson, 2011). The result seems to enable a more
more time to collect more details of customers’ requirements (Naim environmentally conscious design and planning; e.g., contractors
and Barlow, 2003). Further, visualization of customers’ needs and are stimulated to consider concrete recycling earlier in the design
wishes, particularly in the early phases of design, for instance, with stage (Song and Liang, 2011).
visualization tools such as four-dimensional computer-aided
design (4D CAD), Computer Advanced Visualization Tools (CAVT), 3.2.2.2. Build & delivery. In the post design and planning phase, the
Virtual Prototyping (VP), and Design for Logistics (DFL), helps identification of key drivers of resource waste appears to be critical
process transparency, and hence easier identification of costly (Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012; Senaratne and Ekanayake, 2012; Wu
waste (Li et al., 2008; McQuade, 2008; Rischmoller et al., 2006; et al., 2013). Relevant examples in the context of developers are
Sacks et al., 2009). Also, pilot studies, especially in ‘real-life’ redesigning the on-site fabrication yard with low inventory and
setting are promoted in Lean construction literature (Dave et al., smooth workflow to achieve low-carbon installation (Wu et al.,
2016; Sacks and Goldin, 2007). 2013) and energy consumption monitoring and regulation to ach-
ieve net-zero classification (Ladhad and Parrish, 2013). Similar to
economic considerations, the earlier discussed JIT approach seems
3.1.3.2. Occupancy. Among others, the role of customers is man- to be promising in diminishing environmental waste (such as
ifested by the ‘takt’ rate (Sacks and Partouche (2010). Takt rate is the vehicle discharges), yet not often applied by construction firms
pace of production calculated in such way that the customer order (Dixit et al., 2017). One way to achieve JIT is by relying on regional
is fulfilled without any delay. Clearly, takt rate follows the earlier material to reduce delivery time and minimize stocking, while
discussed pull-production; a system that is triggered by customer releasing less CO2 (Koranda et al., 2012).
(Lu et al., 2011), and hence, the role of a ‘system integrator’, one that In terms of environmental impact, an important nuance is that
focuses on end-to-end servicing and information sharing across the larger construction projects seem to benefit more from the Lean
supply chain is indispensable (Crowley, 1998). Therefore, commu- concepts in comparison with small-scale rural projects. The main
nication and transparency should transcend the dyadic relationship reason is structure and efficiency inherent to large scale operations
between supplier and developer, and prevail across the entire marked by more schedule control, as well as financial resources
supply chain, including customers (Tommelein, 1998). Mass- (Koranda et al., 2012). Notwithstanding, Lean transformation ap-
customization and personalization fit within the same close-knit pears to be relatively ‘easier’ in small projects given the less
relationship with customers (Andújar-Montoya et al., 2015). complicated operations and more flexible organizational culture
toward change (Gülyaz et al., 2015).
3.2. Environmental view
3.2.3. Customer
The environmental values involve a harmonic combination of 3.2.3.1. Co-creation. Understanding and interaction with the
assorted values including waste and pollution reduction, optimized customer remains critical. In this respect, Thyssen et al. (2010)
energy consumption and natural resource use, and green developed a series of workshops to gain a better understanding
manufacturing and logistics (Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012; Pasquire of customers’ needs. As part of the workshop, the focus is not only
and Salvatierra-Garrido, 2011). on utility and function, but also environmental aspects including
lifespan, durability and renewability of parts.
4
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a guide as the 3.2.3.2. Occupancy. Throughout and after execution and delivery
standard for sustainable building. phase, the role of an environmentally conscious customer is critical.
This awareness can be achieved through training and education involved in manual handling (Rozenfeld et al., 2010).
about recyclable or reusable material and environment-friendly Visual management is another practice that seems to be effec-
practices and operations (Song and Liang, 2011). However, tive in stimulating employees’ engagement (Kasiramkumar and
perhaps more important is the establishment of a cohesive working Indhu, 2016). Tezel and Aziz (2017b) posit that visualization has a
culture where employees are stimulated to remain environmen- positive impact on self-management, team coordination, Plan
tally conscious in their daily operations, and being encouraged to Percent Complete (PPC), control, and workplace conditions. More-
performance with less ecological waste (Galeazzo et al., 2014; over, a more leveled workload, and hence, fair labor intensity and
Govindan et al., 2014; Mollenkopf et al., 2010; Yahya and performance expectation can be ensured with tools like perfor-
Mohamad, 2011). mance charts (Bryde and Schulmeister, 2012). In addition, preser-
ving balance between workload and the assigned labor capacity
3.3. Social view (Mitropoulos and Nichita, 2010), optimal working hours (Senaratne
and Ekanayake, 2012), and mentorship for continuous improve-
Compared to economic and environmental concerns, the social ment appear to be promising (Reifi and Emmitt, 2013; Sandberg
aspects are hardest to quantify (Dillard et al., 2009). In the context and Bildsten, 2011).
of Lean construction, the social values involve protection of human
well-being throughout projects life-cycle, varying from human and 3.3.3. Customer
community development, fair labor practices, human health, and 3.3.3.1. Co-creation. The social aspect of customer centricity is a
equal opportunity (Bae and Kim, 2008; Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012). vital element of Lean construction (Andújar-Montoya et al., 2015;
Pasquire and Salvatierra-Garrido, 2011; Reijula et al., 2016). Lean
3.3.1. Supplier literature promotes the concept of ‘voice-of-customer’, which de-
3.3.1.1. Extraction & processing. In addressing the social side of notes an in-depth understanding of customers’ contextual needs,
sustainability, engagement with supply partners seems most desires and constraints (Jørgensen and Emmitt, 2008, 2009;
effective as a way to stimulate and establish formal best practices Pasquire and Salvatierra-Garrido, 2011; Wandahl, 2015; Yahya
for local communities, for instance, with restrictive policies and Mohamad, 2011). For instance, in sketching customers’ re-
regarding relocation of township, employment opportunities, quirements, aside from functional and utilitarian aspects, attention
infrastructure, equality, wellness and healthcare (Bryde and should be given to customers’ individual visions and dreams,
Schulmeister, 2012; Pavez et al., 2010; Reifi and Emmitt, 2013). habitual behavior, and cultural meaning of aesthetics (Thyssen
et al., 2010). In the same way, the customers’ macro necessities
3.3.1.2. Logistics & distribution. Improved working conditions, including socialization, security, access to educational facilities, and
including improved safety with advanced driver-assistance sys- accessibility are to be respected (Pasquire and Salvatierra-Garrido,
tems, policies around driver fatigue, ergonomic driver’s seat, are 2011).
key (Jørgensen and Emmitt, 2008); however, policies and tools are
effective when employees comply with the quality standards and 3.3.3.2. Occupancy. Customer centricity continues at the stage of
procedures and proactively seek for improvements (Vinodh et al., occupancy, mainly with a focus on safety. In this regard, earlier
2011). In this respect, high intrinsic motivation and ‘sense of discussed tools like Poka Yoke’ and visual management are put
ownership’ are needed for acceptation and participation (Gao and forth. Some examples of this are automatic electrical circuit lockout
Low, 2014), which can be stimulated with more coaching and as a preventive measure, and use of safety signs, visual de-
empowerment (or autonomy) (Forrester, 1997). marcations and boards to stimulate safety through visuals (Bajjou
et al., 2017a,b; Gambatese et al., 2016; Pavez et al., 2010; Tezel
3.3.2. Developer and Aziz, 2017a). Table 1, which in short is called the Glean Con-
3.3.2.1. Design & planning. A close proximity of designers seems to struction framework (a blend of Green and Lean) by the authors,
have a positive impact on communication and knowledge ex- provides a concise overview of the discussed Lean principles and
change, team spirit, and working environments (Aquere et al., practices across various phases and stakeholders in relation to the
2013). Also, the diversity of design teams with involvement of triple bottom line of sustainability.
professionals from various disciplines and backgrounds stimulates
a learning environment (Ko and Chung, 2014). In terms of planning, 4. Discussion and conclusion
although safety is mainly considered in the building and delivery
phase (to be discussed next), coupling health, safety and LPS is In synthesizing the literature into a holistic structure, it appears
recommended (Forman, 2013). that the Lean principles and practices are useful in largely all the
facets of construction process, across various phases and stake-
3.3.2.2. Build & delivery. From a social viewpoint, the concept of holders. Without any mathematical pretense, a modeling tool from
‘autonomation’ appears to be of particular interest in the produc- system dynamics known as a causal-loop diagram is used to illus-
tion phase (Saurin et al., 2008). It refers to the employees’ auton- trate the relationships and interdependencies discussed so far
omy to stop production in case of abnormality in preventing safety (Fig. 5). System dynamics is a modeling approach proposed by
hazards, including awkward postures, chances of accidental contact Forrester in early 60s (Forrester, 1997) that helps gain insight into
with cutting tools, fatigue from less walking to get materials and dynamic complex systems. Given the complexity inherent to sus-
tools, chance of pinch point for foot/leg, and reduced chance of tainability in supply chain and environmental management, more
muscle strain from kicking blocks in place (Ikuma et al., 2011; and more studies in this area use system dynamics tools and
Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012). Another social aspect is the earlier techniques (Dong et al., 2012; Georgiadis and Besiou, 2008; Yuan
discussed concept of modularity, which appears to help minimize and Wang, 2014).
movements, and hence reducing manual handling and inherent In figure seven, it is apparent that out that almost all the Lean
risks of injury. One solution to this comes through ‘modularization’, principles and techniques seem to have a positive impact (or a
where components are often moved and lifted with machines and ‘reinforcing’ effect) on triple bottom line across the construction
not manually (Court et al., 2009; James et al., 2014; Yin et al., 2014). process. Focus on quality management leads to more standardiza-
Similarly, process automation helps detect and reduce risks tion, which implies variability reduction, leading to a lower
Table 1
Lean principles and practices across construction phases and stakeholders: the GLean construction framework.
Lean construction principles and practices with impact on sustainability
Economic Supplier Extraction & Pull-based production (Ko, 2010)

Processing Consolidated warehousing (Sacks and Partouche, 2010)
Minimizing variability (Nahmens and Mullens, 2009)
JIT production (or extraction) (Koranda et al., 2012; Low Sui and Choong Joo, 2001; Khanh and Kim, 2014; Sandberg and
Bildsten, 2011; Sarhan et al., 2017)
Long-term relationship and commitment (Low Sui and Choong Joo, 2001; Naim and Barlow, 2003; Stuart Green and May
2005)
Continuous communication and information sharing (Pestana et al., 2014; Tommelein, 1998; Tsai et al., 2007)
Early Supplier Involvement (Ladhad and Parrish, 2013; Reifi and Emmitt, 2013)
Logistics & Waste reduction (e.g., excessive transportation) (Shewchuk and Guo, 2012)
Distribution Small batches (e.g., penalization) (Ng et al., 2013)
Collaborative decision-making (Stuart Green and May 2005; Nahmens and Mullens, 2011)
Cross-functional teamwork (e.g., suppliers peer review) (Ghosh and Robson, 2015; Pasquire, 2012; Sage et al., 2012; Whelton
et al., 2002)
End-to-end analysis (e.g., VSM) (Barathwaj et al., 2017; Freire & Alarco n, 2002; Praveenkumar et al., 2015; Reijula et al.,
2016; Rosenbaum et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2009, 2013)
Continuous improvement (Kaizen for PRI events, visualization) (Mullens, 2008)
5S (Sandberg and Bildsten, 2011; Shewchuk and Guo, 2012)
Developer Design & Visualization (Breit et al., 2008)
Planning Design structure matrix, set-based and point-based design (Lee et al., 2012)
Cross-team planning (Aquere et al., 2013; Ghosh and Robson, 2015; Sacks and Partouche, 2010; Tribelsky and Sacks, 2011)
LPS (Aziz and Hafez, 2013; Court et al., 2009; Gonza lez et al., 2009; Gonz alez et al., 2008; Issa, 2013)
LPS in combination with visualization (Abdullah Alsehaimi et al., 2014; Chamberlin et al., 2017; Sacks, Radosavljevic, et al.,
2010)
Poka Yoke (Zaeri et al., 2017)
Virtual design (Abbasian-Hosseini et al., 2014; Al-Sudairi, 2007; Bjo € rnfot and Jongeling, 2007; Erol et al., 2017; Golzarpoor
et al., 2017; Farrar et al., 2004; Lee and Cho, 2012)
BIM in combination with simulation techniques (Ahuja et al., 2017; Han et al., 2012; Liu and Shi, 2017; Yin et al., 2014; Wen,
2014)
BIM in combination with Heijunka (Bryde and Schulmeister, 2012)
BIM for teamwork (Mahalingam et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2017)
Build & Process flow (Andújar-Montoya et al., 2015; Mitropoulos and Nichita, 2010; Salem et al., 2006; Thomas et al., 2002)
Delivering Process flow and variability (5-whys, A3 report, Ishikawa) (Anderson and Kovach, 2014; Paez et al., 2005; Tommelein, 2015;
Tsao et al., 2004; Zimina et al., 2012)
Process flow and reducing batch size (one-piece flow) (Nowotarski and Pasławski, 2016)
Process flow and multitasking and eliminating handovers (Sacks et al., 2007; Sacks and Goldin, 2007; Yu et al., 2009)
Process flow and bottleneck (Chua and Shen, 2005)
Process flow and waste elimination (Garrett and Lee, 2010; Khanh and Kim, 2014; Isabelina Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012;
Sandberg and Bildsten, 2011)
Process flow with responsible and motivated workers (Ho €o€k and Stehn, 2008)
Standardization (Ho €o
€k and Stehn, 2008; Sacks and Partouche, 2010; Yu et al., 2009)
Jidoka (Cabrera et al., 2012; Nikakhtar et al., 2015)
Customer Co-creation Participatory design (Naim and Barlow, 2003; Sandberg and Bildsten, 2011)
Visualization (e.g., CAD, 4D, VP, DFL, CAVT) and waste elimination (Li et al., 2008; McQuade, 2008; Rischmoller et al., 2006;
Sacks et al., 2009)
Pilot studies (e.g., ‘real-life’ setting) (Dave et al., 2016; Sacks and Goldin, 2007)
Occupancy Takt rate (Lu et al., 2011; Sacks and Partouche, 2010)
System integrator and communication toward customer (Crowley, 1998)
Mass-customization and personalization (Andújar-Montoya et al., 2015; Gülyaz et al., 2015)
Environmental Supplier Extraction & LEED principles (Lapinski et al., 2006; Praveenkumar et al., 2015)
Processing Environmental waste and value (e.g., material recyclability, green gas effects, water sources and reclaimed water) (Castro-
Lacouture et al., 2008)
Logistics & Minimizing waste (e.g., excessive transportation, excessive carbon emissions) (Isabelina Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012)
Distribution Careful material estimation and ordering (Banawi and Bilec, 2014)
Developer Design & Modular design components (Ghosh and Robson, 2015; Hansen and Olsson, 2011)
Planning Recycling materials (Song and Liang, 2011)
Build & Low inventory and smooth workflow (Wu et al., 2013)
Delivering Energy consumption monitoring (e.g., net-zero energy; CO2 emission) (Koranda et al., 2012; Ladhad and Parrish, 2013)
JIT production (Dixit et al., 2017; Koranda et al., 2012)
Customer Co-creation Co-creation workshops with focus on environmental aspects (e.g., lifespan, durability, renewability) (Thyssen et al., 2010)
Occupancy Educating environmental considerations (Song and Liang, 2011)
Cohesive working environment with focus on environmental aspects (Galeazzo et al., 2014; Govindan et al., 2014;
Mollenkopf et al., 2010; Yahya and Mohamad, 2011)
Social Supplier Extraction & Engagement with supply partners to establish formal and informal stimuli in favor of employees and community (Bryde and
Processing Schulmeister, 2012; Pavez et al., 2010; Reifi and Emmitt, 2013)
Logistics & Improved working conditions (Jørgensen and Emmitt, 2008)
Distribution Receptive employees toward continuous improvement (Vinodh et al., 2011)
Intrinsic motivation and autonomy (Gao and Low, 2014; Forrester, 1997; Treville et al., 2005)
Developer Design & Co-located team (Aquere et al., 2013)
Planning Collaborative learning and experimentation (Ko and Chung, 2014)
Linking health and safety to planning (Forman, 2013)
Build & Safety with autonomation (Saurin et al., 2008)
Delivering Employees’ autonomy to stop production for the sake of safety hazards (Ikuma et al., 2011; Isabelina Nahmens and Ikuma,
(continued on next page)
Table 1 (continued )
Lean construction principles and practices with impact on sustainability
2012)
Safety with process automation (Rozenfeld et al., 2010)
Reducing manual handling with modularity (Court et al., 2009; James et al., 2014; Yin et al., 2014)
Visual management (Kasiramkumar and Indhu, 2016)
Visualization and self-management (Tezel and Aziz, 2017b)
Visual management with performance chart and weekly meetings (Bryde and Schulmeister, 2012)
Balance between workload and labor (Mitropoulos and Nichita, 2010)
Optimal working hours (Senaratne and Ekanayake, 2012)
Equal opportunities for workers regarding continuous improvement (Reifi and Emmitt, 2013; Sandberg and Bildsten, 2011)
Long-term commitment (Gao and Low, 2014)
Customer Co-creation Voice-of-Customer (Andújar-Montoya et al., 2015; Pasquire and Salvatierra-Garrido, 2011; Reijula et al., 2016)
Involvement in decision-making and understanding contextual needs (Jørgensen and Emmitt, 2008, 2009; Pasquire and
Salvatierra-Garrido, 2011; Thyssen et al., 2010; Wandahl, 2015; Yahya and Mohamad, 2011)
Fostering customers’ macro necessities (Pasquire and Salvatierra-Garrido, 2011)
Occupancy Safety with Poka Yoke and visual management (Bajjou et al., 2017a,b; Gambatese et al., 2016; Pavez et al., 2010; Tezel and
Aziz, 2017a)
Fig. 5. Casual-loop diagram of Lean management in sustainable construction.
production cost (economic impact), a higher employees’ safety equally valued, and attention is not limited to a part of supply chain.
(social impact), and more transparency (among others, materiality Instead, it takes a collaborative effort by supply chain partners,
of environmental information). Similarly, error-proofing as part of necessarily across the construction phases, to reach a shared vision
quality management leads to less rework (economic impact), less on sustainable construction. After all, a company is only as sus-
resource spoilage (environmental impact), and less risky activities tainable as its suppliers (Krause et al., 2009). In this study, it is
with possible harmful results (social impact), while recyclability or elaborated how Lean philosophy potentially can help optimize
focus on circular economy, positively impact resource-efficient supply chain overall sustainability performance in different phases
production (economic impact) with less negative ecological exter- of construction, and enhance participation of stakeholders. The
nalities including carbon dioxide emission, nitrogen discharge, and latter is a matter of importance as it highlights the reciprocal in-
fluorosurfactants (or PFAS) pollution (environment impact). fluence of multiple stakeholders on one another in shaping a sus-
However, there also appear to be several tradeoffs or ‘balancing’ tainable built environment. That is not to say that possible
forces. An optimized and efficient extraction site (economic mea- conflicting forces within triple bottom line can be ignored. In fact,
sure) may lead to less job opportunities for a local community scholars and practitioners need to be cognizant of these potential
(social impact); design and production of circular products (envi- tradeoffs, such as economic cost of quality, employees’ safety and
ronmental measure) may require more skillful workers (socio- circular production vis-a-vis the socio-environmental tangible and
economic impact); change in production method to ensure intangible benefits.
workers’ safety (social measure) may lead to a higher production Viewed from triple bottom line standpoint, the literature seems
costs (economic impact); and standardization (economic measure) to largely overlook several promising Lean practices in context of
may lead to narrowly defined and intensified work (social impact). construction including: innovation management, application of
All in all, it stands to reason that a multidimensional approach cutting-edge technologies, human resource management, locally-
toward sustainability is imperative in construction. Accordingly, the inspired practices, and end-to-end stakeholder collaboration.
main contribution of this study, to both scholars and practitioners, Increasingly, Lean scholars emphasize the potentials of Lean prac-
is the proposed holistic understanding of sustainability, where all tices to boost firms’ innovation capabilities (Solaimani et al., 2019a,
three aspects of sustainability (i.e., the triple bottom line) are b), which is a timely countermeasure to the construction industry’s
conservatism (Havenvid et al., 2019). From a technological construction. Sustainability 7 (5), 5182e5210 (*).
Ansah, R.H., Sorooshian, S., 2017. Effect of lean tools to control external environment
perspective, the applicability of Industry 4.0 trends such as Virtual/
risks of construction projects. J. Sustain. Cities Soc. 32, 348e356 (*).
Augmented Reality to improved communication, particularly with Aquere, A.L., Dinis-Carvalho, J., Lima, R.M., 2013. Project cell: cellular organization of
customers, and Additive Manufacturing for advanced personaliza- the building design process. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 139 (5), 538e546 (*).
tion possibilities (Sacks et al., 2009; Lim et al., 2012). From a social Aziz, R.F., Hafez, S.M., 2013. Applying lean thinking in construction and perfor-
mance improvement. Alexandria Eng. J. 52 (4), 679e695 (*).
viewpoint, the importance of Lean Human Resource Management Bae, J.-W., Kim, Y.-W., 2008. Sustainable value on construction projects and lean
is underlined as an application that leads to a more empowered, construction. J. Green Build. 3 (1), 156e167 (*).
engaged, and satisfied employees (Green, 2000). Environmentally Bajjou, M.S., Chafi, A., En-Nadi, A., 2017a. The potential effectiveness of lean con-
struction tools in promoting safety on construction sites, 33, 179e193 (*).
speaking, the so-called locally-inspired practices, in particular Bajjou, M.S., Chafi, A., Ennadi, A., El Hammoumi, M., 2017b. The practical relation-
employing locally available construction materials, techniques and ships between lean construction tools and sustainable development: a litera-
human resources can be seen as a promising way to reduce ture review. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Rev. 10 (4), 170e177 (*).
Ballard, H.G., 2000. The Last Planner System of Production Control (Doctoral
ecological waste (Bredenoord et al., 2014). Beyond the common dissertation). University of Birmingham, University of Birmingham, UK.
dyadic customer-developer and developer-supplier relationships, a Banawi, A., Bilec, M.M., 2014. A framework to improve construction processes:
more end-to-end networked collaboration leads to a broader integrating lean, green and six sigma. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 14 (1), 45e55 (*).
Barathwaj, R., Singh, R.V., Gunarani, G.I., 2017. Lean construction: value stream
mutual understanding about constraints and possibilities at all mapping for residentials construction. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 8 (5), 1072e1086.
ends (Eriksson, 2010). €rnfot, A., Jongeling, R., 2007. Application of line-of-balance and 4D CAD for lean
Bjo
Although the present study may fall short in collecting all the planning. Constr. Innovat. 7 (2), 200e211 (*).
Bredenoord, J., Van Lindert, P., Smets, P., 2014. Affordable Housing in the Urban
existing papers on sustainability in construction epotential omis-
Global South: Seeking Sustainable Solutions. Routledge.
sions could result from the underpinning literature being limited to Breit, M., Vogel, M., H€ €rki, F., Raps, M., 2008. 4D design and simulation
aubi, F., Ma
Lean and peer-reviewed journal articlese it is the first attempt in technologies and process design patterns to support lean construction
calling attention for a multi-phase, multi-actor, with a multi- methods. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 13 (S1), 179e184 (*).
Bryde, D.J., Schulmeister, R., 2012. Applying Lean principles to a building refur-
dimensional view on sustainability. From the same holistic view, bishment project: experiences of key stakeholders. Constr. Manag. Econ. 30 (9),
future research can empirically substantiate our findings, likely by 777e794 (*).
means of explorative research strategy including comparative case Cabrera, A.G., Echeverry, J.D., Palma, M.X.G., Sanchez, C.O., Morales, M.L.C., 2012.
Improvement of constructive processes based on a programmable unit for
studies, longitudinal design research, and action research. During images capture and digital simulation. Rev. Ing. Construccio n 27 (2), 35e53 (*).
this study, it became clear that the economic side of Lean con- Campbell, S., 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: urban planning and the
struction has received the most attention so far. Future studies are contradictions of sustainable development. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 62 (3), 296e312.
Carvalho, A.C.V., Granja, A.D., da Silva, V.G., 2017. A systematic literature review on
encouraged to take proportional notice of environmental and social integrative lean and sustainability synergies over a building’s lifecycle. Sus-
aspects of Lean construction. Also, further research on potential tainability 9 (7), 1156e1174 (*).
conflicts and tradeoffs between economic, environmental and so- Castro-Lacouture, D., Ospina-Alvarado, A.M., Roper, K.O., 2008. AECþ Pþ F inte-
gration with green project delivery and lean focus. J. Green Build. 3 (4), 154e176
cial dimensions of sustainability can contribute to the current un- (*).
derstanding of holistic approach. Chamberlin, K.S., Asadi, S.S., Chaitanya, D.S., 2017. Evaluation of latest trends and
developments in lean construction in India: a model study. Int. J. Civ. Eng.
Technol. 8 (10), 461e471 (*).
Acknowledgement Chua, D., Shen, L., 2005. Key constraints analysis with integrated production
scheduler. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 131 (7), 753e764 (*).
We are grateful for the valuable feedback provided by Prof. Dr. Court, P.F., Pasquire, C.L., Gibb, G., Bower, D., 2009. Modular assembly with post-
ponement to improve health, safety, and productivity in construction. Pract.
Iris Tommelein on this paper. Special thanks to anonymous re- Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 14 (2), 81e89 (*).
viewers whose insightful comments helped the authors to com- Crowley, A., 1998. Construction as a manufacturing process: lessons from the
plete their final manuscript. automotive industry. Comput. Struct. 67 (5), 389e400 (*).
Dao, V., Langella, I., Carbo, J., 2011. From green to sustainability: information
Technology and an integrated sustainability framework. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 20
References5 (1), 63e79.
Dave, B., Kubler, S., Fr€amling, K., Koskela, L., 2016. Opportunities for enhanced lean
Abbasian-Hosseini, S.A., Nikakhtar, A., Ghoddousi, P., 2014. Verification of lean construction management using Internet of Things standards. Autom.
construction benefits through simulation modeling: a case study of bricklaying ConStruct. 61, 86e97 (*).
process. KSCE J. Civil Eng. 18 (5), 1248e1260 (*). De Treville, S., Antonakis, J., 2006. Could lean production job design Be intrinsically
Adams, J.R., Barnd, S.E., 1983. Behavioral implications of the project life cycle. In: motivating? Contextual, configurational, and levels-of-analysis issues. J. Oper.
Cleland, D.I., King, W.R. (Eds.), Project Management Handbook. Van Nostrand Manag. 24 (2), 99e112.
Reinhold Co, New York, pp. 183e204. Deakin, M., Huovila, P., Rao, S., Sunikka, M., Vreeker, R., 2002. The assessment of
Adolphe, L., Rousval, B., 2007. Towards an integrated decision process of sustainable sustainable urban development. Build. Res. Inf. 30 (2), 95e108.
urban projects. In: Bragança, L., Pinheiro, M., Jalali, S., Mateus, R., Amoe^da, R., Dillard, J., Dujon, V., King, M., 2009. Understanding the Social Dimension of Sus-
Guedes, M.C. (Eds.), Portugal SB07. Sustainable Construction, Materials and tainability. Routledge, New York.
Practices-Challenge of the Industry for the New Millennium. IOS Press, Dimond, K., Webb, A., 2017. Sustainable roof selection: environmental and
Amsterdam, pp. 418e425. contextual factors to Be considered in choosing a vegetated roof or rooftop solar
Ahuja, R., Sawhney, A., Arif, M., 2017. Driving lean and green project outcomes using photovoltaic system. J. Sustain. Cities Soc. 35 (1), 241e249.
BIM: a qualitative comparative analysis. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 6 (1), Dixit, M.K., Fernandez-Solís, J.L., Lavy, S., Culp, C.H., 2012. Need for an embodied
69e80 (*). energy measurement protocol for buildings: a review paper. Renew. Sustain.
Al-Sudairi, A.A., 2007. Evaluating the effect of construction process characteristics to Energy Rev. 16 (6), 3730e3743.
the applicability of lean principles. Constr. Innovat. 7 (1), 99e121 (*). Dixit, S., Mandal, S.N., Sawhney, A., Singh, S., 2017. Area of linkage between lean
Alsehaimi, A., Koskela, L., 2008. What can be learned from studies on delay in construction and sustainability in Indian construction industry. Int. J. Civ. Eng.
construction. In: Proceedings of the 16th IGLC Conference (Manchester, UK). Technol. 8 (8), 623e636 (*).
Alsehaimi, A., Tzortzopoulos Fazenda, P., Koskela, L., 2014. Improving construction Dong, X., Li, C., Li, J., Huang, W., Wang, J., Liao, R., 2012. Application of a system
management practice with the Last Planner System: a case study. Eng. dynamics approach for assessment of the impact of regulations on cleaner
Construct. Architect. Manag. 21 (1), 51e64 (*). production in the electroplating industry in China. J. Clean. Prod. 20 (1), 72e81.
Anderson, N.C., Kovach, J.V., 2014. Reducing welding defects in turnaround projects: Dües, C.M., Tan, K.H., Lim, M., 2013. Green as the new Lean: how to use Lean
a lean six sigma case study. Qual. Eng. 26 (2), 168e181 (*). practices as a catalyst to greening your supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 93e100.
Andújar-Montoya, M.D., Gilart-Iglesias, V., Montoyo, A., Marcos-Jorquera, D., 2015. Elkington, J., 2013. Enter the Triple Bottom Line The Triple Bottom Line. Routledge,
A construction management framework for mass customisation in traditional pp. 23e38.
Eriksson, E.P., 2010. Improving construction supply chain collaboration and per-
formance: a lean construction pilot project. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 15 (5),
394e403.
5
References marked with an asterisk (*) are used in the systematic literature Erol, H., Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M.T., 2017. Measuring the impact of lean construction
review conducted in the study practices on project duration and variability: a simulation-based study on
residential buildings. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 23 (2), 241e251 (*). Jørgensen, B., Emmitt, S., 2009. Investigating the integration of design and con-
Farrar, J.M., AbouRizk, S.M., Mao, X., 2004. Generic implementation of lean concepts struction from a “lean” perspective. Constr. Innovat. 9 (2), 225e240 (*).
in simulation models. Lean Constr. J. 1 (1), 1e23 (*). Jørgensen, F., Matthiesen, R., Nielsen, J., Johansen, J., 2007. Lean maturity, lean
Fink, A., 2019. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: from the Internet to Paper. sustainability. In: Advances in Production Management Systems. Springer,
Sage publications. Boston, MA, pp. 371e378.
Florida, R., 1996. Lean and green: the move to environmentally conscious Kasiramkumar, T., Indhu, B., 2016. An implementation framework for integrated
manufacturing. Calif. Manag. Rev. 39 (1), 80e105. lean construction system for Indian scenario. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 11 (15),
Forman, M., 2013. Inertia and change: lean construction and health and safety work 9388e9394 (*).
on construction sites. Constr. Manag. Econ. 31 (6), 647e660 (*). Kelley, G., 2013. Construction Law: an Introduction for Engineers, Architects, and
Forrester, J.W., 1997. Industrial dynamics. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 48 (10), 1037e1041. Contractors. John Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.
Fregonara, E., 2017. Methodologies for supporting sustainability in energy and Kerzner, H., 2001. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Sched-
buildings. The contribution of project economic evaluation. Energy Procedia uling and Controlling. Wiley, New York.
111, 2e11. Khanh, H.D., Kim, S.Y., 2014. Identifying causes for waste factors in high-rise
n, L.F., 2002. Achieving lean design process: improvement meth-
Freire, J., Alarco building projects: a survey in Vietnam. KSCE J. Civil Eng. 18 (4), 865e874 (*).
odology. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 128 (3), 248e256 (*). King, W.R., Cleland, D.I., 1983. Lifecycle management. In: Cleland, D.I., King, W.R.
Galeazzo, A., Furlan, A., Vinelli, A., 2014. Lean and green in action: in- (Eds.), Project Management Handbook. van Nostrand Reinhold Co, New York,
terdependencies and performance of pollution prevention projects. J. Clean. pp. 209e221.
Prod. 85 (December), 1991-1200. Ko, C.-H., 2010. Application of lean production system in the construction industry:
Gambatese, J.A., Pestana, C., Lee, H.W., 2016. Alignment between lean principles and an empirical study. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 5 (2), 71e77 (*).
practices and worker safety behavior. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 143 (1), 04016083. Ko, C.-H., Chung, N.-F., 2014. Lean design process. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140 (6),
(*). 01e11 (*).
Gao, S., Low, S.P., 2014. The Last Planner System in China’s construction industryda Koranda, C., Chong, W.K., Kim, C., Chou, J.-S., Kim, C., 2012. An investigation of the
SWOT analysis on implementation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (7), 1260e1272 (*). applicability of sustainability and lean concepts to small construction projects.
Garrett, D.F., Lee, J., 2010. Lean construction submittal processda case study. Qual. KSCE J. Civil Eng. 16 (5), 699e707 (*).
Eng. 23 (1), 84e93 (*). Koskela, L., 1992. Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction,
Georgiadis, P., Besiou, M., 2008. Sustainability in electrical and electronic equip- vol. 72. Stanford university, Stanford.
ment closed-loop supply chains: a system dynamics approach. J. Clean. Prod. 16 Krause, D.R., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2009. Special topic forum on sustainable
(15), 1665e1678. supply chain management: introduction and reflections on the role of pur-
Ghosh, S., Robson, K.F., 2015. Analyzing the Empire state building project from the chasing management. J. Supply Chain Manag. 45 (4), 18e25.
perspective of lean delivery systemda descriptive case study. Int. J. Constr. Kpamma, E.Z., Adjei-Kumi, T., 2011. Management of waste in the building design
Educ. Res. 11 (4), 257e267 (*). process: the Ghanaian consultants’ perspective. Architect. Eng. Des. Manag. 7
Golzarpoor, H., Gonza lez, V., Shahbazpour, M., O’Sullivan, M., 2017. An input-output (2), 102e112 (*).
simulation model for assessing production and environmental waste in con- Ladhad, A., Parrish, K., 2013. Phoenix’s first net-zero energy office retrofit: a green
struction. J. Clean. Prod. 143, 1094e1104 (*). and lean case study. J. Green Build. 8 (4), 3e16 (*).
Gonza lez, V., Alarcon, L., Molenaar, K., 2009. Multiobjective design of Work-In- Lapinski, A.R., Horman, M.J., Riley, D.R., 2006. Lean processes for sustainable project
Process buffer for scheduling repetitive building projects. Autom. ConStruct. delivery. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 132 (10), 1083e1091 (*).
18 (2), 95e108 (*). Lee, H.W., Tommelein, I.D., Ballard, G., 2012. Design of an infrastructure project
Gonza lez, V., Alarcon, L.F., Mundaca, F., 2008. Investigating the relationship be- using a point-based methodology. J. Manag. Eng. 28 (3), 291e299 (*).
tween planning reliability and project performance. Prod. Plan. Control 19 (5), Lee, S.-I., Cho, Y.-S., 2012. An application of lean design of structural floor system
461e474. using structural building information modeling (S-BIM). Adv. Sci. Lett. 13 (1),
Govindan, K., Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2014. Impact of supply 158e164 (*).
chain management practices on sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 212e225. Leo n, H.C.M., Calvo-Amodio, J., 2017. Towards lean for sustainability: understanding
Green, S.D., 2000. The future of lean construction: a brave new world. In: Proc. Eight the interrelationships between lean and sustainability from a systems thinking
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 142 (4), 4384e4402.
Green, S., Higgins, J., 2008. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of In- Li, H., Guo, H., Skibniewski, M.J., Skitmore, M., 2008. Using the IKEA model and
terventions. Wiley-Blackwell, Chisester. virtual prototyping technology to improve construction process management.
Green, S., May, S., 2005. Lean construction: arenas of enactment, models of diffusion Constr. Manag. Econ. 26 (9), 991e1000 (*).
and the meaning of ‘leanness’. Build. Res. Inf. 33 (6), 498e511 (*). Lim, S., Buswell, R.A., Le, T.T., Austin, S.A., Gibb, A.G., Thorpe, T., 2012. Developments
Guggemos, A., Horvath, A., 2003. Strategies of extended producer responsibility for in construction-scale additive manufacturing processes. Autom. ConStruct. 21
buildings. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 9 (2), 65e74. (January), 262e268.
Gülyaz, E., van der Veen, J.A.A., Venugopal, V., Solaimani, S., 2015. Improving SME Liu, J., Shi, G., 2017. Quality control of a complex lean construction project based on
competitiveness through lean: value creation and appropriation perspective. In: KanBIM technology. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 13 (8), 5905e5919 (*).
Proceedings of the 26th Annual POMS Conference, Washington DC, 8-11 May Low Sui, P., Choong Joo, C., 2001. Just-in-time management in precast concrete
2015. construction: a survey of the readiness of main contractors in Singapore. Integr.
Gülyaz, E., van der Veen, J.A.A., Venugopal, V., Solaimani, S., 2019. Towards a holistic Manuf. Syst. 12 (6), 416e429 (*).
view of customer value creation in lean: a design science approach. Cogent Bus. Lu, W., Olofsson, T., Stehn, L., 2011. A lean-agile model of homebuilders’ production
Manag. 6 (1), 1e30. systems. Constr. Manag. Econ. 29 (1), 25e35 (*).
Guo, H., Li, H., Skitmore, M., 2010. Life-Cycle management of construction projects Mahalingam, A., Yadav, A.K., Varaprasad, J., 2015. Investigating the role of lean
based on virtual prototyping technology. J. Manag. Eng. 26 (1), 41e47. practices in enabling BIM adoption: evidence from two Indian cases. J. Constr.
Haapio, A., 2012. Towards sustainable urban communities. Environ. Impact Assess. Eng. Manag. 141 (7), 05015006. (*).
Rev. 32 (1), 165e169. Mandujano, M.G., Alarco n, L.F., Kunz, J., Mourgues, C., 2016. Identifying waste in
Han, S.H., Al-Hussein, M., Al-Jibouri, S., Yu, H., 2012. Automated post-simulation virtual design and construction practice from a Lean Thinking perspective.
visualization of modular building production assembly line. Autom. Revista de la Construccio n J. Constr. 15 (3), 107e118 (*).
ConStruct. 21, 229e236 (*). Manley, J.B., Anastas, P.T., Cue, B.W., 2008. Frontiers in green chemistry: meeting the
Hansen, G.K., Olsson, N.O., 2011. Layered projectelayered process: lean thinking and grand challenges for sustainability in R&d and manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 16
flexible solutions. Architect. Eng. Des. Manag. 7 (2), 70e84 (*). (6), 743e750.
Havenvid, M., Linne , Å.K., Bygballe, L., Harty, C., 2019. The Connectivity of Innova- Mao, X., Zhang, X., 2008. Construction process reengineering by integrating lean
tion in the Construction Industry. Routledge. principles and computer simulation techniques. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 134 (5),
Ho€o
€k, M., Stehn, L., 2005. Connecting lean construction to pre-fabrication 371e381 (*).
complexity in Swedish volume element housing. In: Proceedings of the 13th Martínez-Jurado, P.J., Moyano-Fuentes, J., 2014. Lean management, supply chain
International Group for Lean Construction Conference, Sydney, Australia. management and sustainability: a literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 134e150.
Ho€o
€k, M., Stehn, L., 2008. Applicability of lean principles and practices in indus- McQuade, D., 2008. New development: leading Lean action to transform housing
trialized housing production. Constr. Manag. Econ. 26 (10), 1091e1100 (*). services. Public Money Manag. 28 (1), 57e60 (*).
Ibbs, C., Kwak, Y., Ng, T., Odabasi, A., 2003. Project delivery systems and project Mitropoulos, P., Nichita, T., 2010. Critical concerns of production control system on
change: quantitative analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 129 (4), 382e387. projects with labor constraints: lessons from a residential case study. J. Manag.
Ikuma, L.H., Nahmens, I., James, J., 2011. Use of safety and lean integrated kaizen to Eng. 26 (3), 153e159 (*).
improve performance in modular homebuilding. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 137 (7), Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W.L., Ueltschy, M., 2010. Green, lean, and global
551e560 (*). supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 40 (1/2), 14e41.
Issa, U.H., 2013. Implementation of lean construction techniques for minimizing the Mullens, M.A., 2008. Innovation in the US industrialized housing industry: a tale of
risks effect on project construction time. Alexandria Eng. J. 52 (4), 697e704 (*). two strategies. Int. J. Hous. Sci. Appl. 32 (3), 163 (*).
James, J., Ikuma, L.H., Nahmens, I., Aghazadeh, F., 2014. The impact of Kaizen on Nahmens, I., 2009. From lean to green construction: a natural extension. In: The
safety in modular home manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 70 (1e4), Construction Research Congress 2009: Building a Sustainable Future, Reston,
725e734 (*). VA.
Jørgensen, B., Emmitt, S., 2008. Lost in transition: the transfer of lean manufacturing Nahmens, I., Ikuma, L.H., 2009. An empirical examination of the relationship be-
to construction. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag. 15 (4), 383e398 (*). tween lean construction and safety in the industrialized housing industry. Lean
Constr. J. 1e12. the Saudi Arabian construction industry. Constr. Econ. Build. 17 (1), 46e69 (*).
Nahmens, I., Ikuma, L.H., 2012. Effects of lean construction on sustainability of Saurin, T.A., Formoso, C.T., Cambraia, F.B., 2008. An analysis of construction safety
modular homebuilding. J. Archit. Eng. 18 (2), 155e163 (*). best practices from a cognitive systems engineering perspective. Saf. Sci. 46 (8),
Nahmens, I., Mullens, M., 2009. The impact of product choice on lean homebuilding. 1169e1183 (*).
Constr. Innovat. 9 (1), 84e100 (*). Senaratne, S., Ekanayake, S., 2012. Evaluation of application of lean principles to
Nahmens, I., Mullens, M.A., 2011. Lean Homebuilding: lessons learned from a pre- precast concrete bridge beam production process. J. Archit. Eng. 18 (2), 94e106
cast concrete panelizer. J. Archit. Eng. 17 (4), 155e161 (*). (*).
Naim, M., Barlow, J., 2003. An innovative supply chain strategy for customized Shah, R., Ward, P.T., 2007. Defining and developing measures of lean production.
housing. Constr. Manag. Econ. 21 (6), 593e602 (*). J. Oper. Manag. 25 (4), 785e805.
Newman, L., Dale, A., 2005. The role of agency in sustainable local community Shewchuk, J.P., Guo, C., 2012. Panel stacking, panel sequencing, and stack locating in
development. Local Environ. 10 (5), 477e486. residential construction: lean approach. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 138 (9),
Ng, S.T., Zheng, D.X., Xie, J.Z., 2013. Allocation of construction resources through a 1006e1016 (*).
pull-driven approach. Constr. Innovat. 13 (1), 77e97 (*). Song, L., Liang, D., 2011. Lean construction implementation and its implication on
Nikakhtar, A., Hosseini, A.A., Wong, K.Y., Zavichi, A., 2015. Application of lean sustainability: a contractor’s case study. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 38 (3), 350e359 (*).
construction principles to reduce construction process waste using computer Solaimani, S., Haghighi Talab, A., Rhee van der, B., 2019a. An integrative view on
simulation: a case study. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 20 (4), 461e480 (*). Lean innovation management. J. Bus. Res. 105, 109e120.
Nowotarski, P., Pasławski, J., 2016. Lean and agile management synergy in con- Solaimani, S., Veen van der, J.A.A., Gülyaz, E., Venugopal, V., 2019b. On the appli-
struction of high-rise office building. Arch. Civ. Eng. 62 (4), 133e148 (*). cation of Lean principles and practices to innovation management: A systematic
Ogunbiyi, O., Goulding, J., 2014. An empirical study of the impact of lean con- review. Total Qual. Manag. 31 (6), 1064e1092.
struction techniques on sustainable construction in the UK. Constr. Innovat. 14 Tezel, A., Aziz, Z., 2017a. Benefits of visual management in construction: cases from
(1), 88e107. the transportation sector in England. Constr. Innovat. 17 (2), 125e157 (*).
Okoli, C., Schabram, K., 2010. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of Tezel, A., Aziz, Z., 2017b. From conventional to IT based visual management: a
information systems research. Sprouts: Work. Pap. Inf. Environ. Syst. Organ. 10 conceptual discussion for lean construction. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 22, 220e246
(26), 1e50. (*).
Olander, S., 2007. Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management. Thomas, H.R.M.A., de Souza, U.E.L., Horman, M.J., Zavrski, I., 2002. Reducing vari-
Constr. Manag. Econ. 25 (3), 277e287. ability to improve performance as a lean construction principle. J. Constr. Eng.
Ozorhon, B., Abbott, C., Aouad, G., 2013. Integration and leadership as enablers of Manag. 128 (2), 144e154 (*).
innovation in construction: case study. J. Manag. Eng. 30 (2), 256e263. Thyssen, M.H., Emmitt, S., Bonke, S., Kirk-Christoffersen, A., 2010. Facilitating client
Paez, O., Salem, S., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A., 2005. Moving from lean manufacturing value creation in the conceptual design phase of construction projects: a
to lean construction: toward a common sociotechnological framework. Hum. workshop approach. Architect. Eng. Des. Manag. 6 (1), 18e30 (*).
Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 15 (2), 233e245 (*). Tommelein, I.D., 1998. Pull-driven scheduling for pipe-spool installation: simulation
Pasquire, C., 2012. Positioning Lean within an exploration of engineering con- of lean construction technique. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 124 (4), 279e288 (*).
struction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 30 (8), 673e685 (*). Tommelein, I.D., 2015. Journey toward lean construction: pursuing a paradigm shift
Pasquire, C., Salvatierra-Garrido, J., 2011. Introducing the concept of first and last in the AEC industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 141 (6), 1e12 (*).
value to aid lean design: learning from social housing projects in Chile. Archi- Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
tect. Eng. Des. Manag. 7 (2), 128e138 (*). evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br.
Pavez, I., Gonzalez, V., Alarcon, L.F., 2010. Improving the effectiveness of new con- J. Manag. 14 (3), 207e222.
struction management philosophies using the integral theory. Rev. Con- Tribelsky, E., Sacks, R., 2011. An empirical study of information flows in multidis-
struccion 9 (1), 26e38 (*). ciplinary civil engineering design teams using lean measures. Architect. Eng.
Pestana, A.C.V., Alves, T.d.C., Barbosa, A.R., 2014. Application of lean construction Des. Manag. 7 (2), 85e101 (*).
concepts to manage the submittal process in AEC projects. J. Manag. Eng. 30 (4), Tsai, M.-K., Yang, J.-B., Lin, C.-Y., 2007. Synchronization-based model for improving
1e9. on-site data collection performance. Autom. ConStruct. 16 (3), 323e335 (*).
Pil, F.K., Rothenberg, S., 2003. Environmental performance as a driver of superior Tsao, C.C.Y., Tommelein, I.D., Swanlund, E.S., Howell, G.A., 2004. Work structuring to
quality. Prod. Oper. Manag. 12 (3), 404e415. achieve integrated producteprocess design. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 130 (6),
Pinto, J.K., 1988. Variations in critical success factors over the stages in the project 780e789 (*).
life cycle. J. Manag. Eng. 14 (1), 5e18. Vignesh, C., 2017. A case study of implementing last planner system in Tiruchir-
Praveenkumar, T.R., Kumaar, M., Kirthika, K., 2015. Minimisation of waste using lean appalli District of Tamil Nadu - India. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 8 (4), 1918e1927
technique- value stream mapping in construction site. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 10 (*).
(62), 375e378 (*). Vinodh, S., Arvind, K.R., Somanaathan, M., 2011. Tools and techniques for enabling
Reifi, E.M., Emmitt, S., 2013. Perceptions of lean design management. Architect. Eng. sustainability through lean initiatives. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 13 (3),
Des. Manag. 9 (3), 195e208 (*). 469e479. ̌
Reijula, J., Karvonen, S., Peta€ja
€, H., Reijula, K., Lehtonen, L., 2016. Participative facility Wandahl, S., 2015. Practitioners’ perception of value in construction. J. Civ. Eng.
planning for obstetrical and neonatal care processes: beginning of life process. Manag. 21 (8), 1027e1035 (*).
J. Healthc. Eng. 2016, 1e8 (*). Webster, J., Watson, R.T., 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing
Rischmoller, L., Alarco n, L.F., Koskela, L., 2006. Improving value generation in the a literature review. MIS Q. 26 (2), 13-12.
design process of industrial projects using CAVT. J. Manag. Eng. 22 (2), 52e60 Wen, Y., 2014. Research on cost control of construction project based on the theory
(*). of lean construction and BIM: case study. Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 8 (1),
Rosenbaum, S., Toledo, M., Gonz alez, V., 2013. Improving environmental and pro- 382e388 (*).
duction performance in construction projects using value-stream mapping: Whelton, M., Ballard, G., Tommelein, I.D., 2002. A knowledge management frame-
case study. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140 (2), 04013045. (*). work for project definition. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 7 (13), 197e212 (*).
Rozenfeld, O., Sacks, R., Rosenfeld, Y., Baum, H., 2010. Construction job safety Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., Roos, D., 1990. The Machine that Changed the World.
analysis. Saf. Sci. 48 (4), 491e498 (*). Simon and Schuster, New York.
Sacks, R., 2016. What constitutes good production flow in construction? Constr. Wu, P., Low, S.P., Jin, X., 2013. Identification of non-value adding (NVA) activities in
Manag. Econ. 34 (9), 641e656 (*). precast concrete installation sites to achieve low-carbon installation. Resour.
Sacks, R., Esquenazi, A., Goldin, M., 2007. LEAPCON: simulation of lean construction Conserv. Recycl. 81, 60e70 (*).
of high-rise apartment buildings. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 133 (7), 529e539 (*). Yahya, M.A., Mohamad, M.I., 2011. Review on lean principles for rapid construction.
Sacks, R., Goldin, M., 2007. Lean management model for construction of high-rise J. Teknol. 54 (1), 1e11 (*).
apartment buildings. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 133 (5), 374e384 (*). Yang, J., Yuan, M., Yigitcanlar, T., Newman, P., Schultmann, F., 2015. Managing
Sacks, R., Koskela, L., Dave, B., Owen, R., 2010a. Interaction of lean and building knowledge to promote sustainability in australian transport infrastructure
information modeling in construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 136 (9), 968e980 projects. Sustainability 7 (7), 8132e8150.
(*). Yin, S.Y.-L., Tserng, H.P., Toong, S.N., Ngo, T.L., 2014. An improved approach to the
Sacks, R., Partouche, R., 2010. Empire state building project: archetype of “mass subcontracting procurement process in a lean construction setting. J. Civ. Eng.
construction”. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 136 (6), 702e710 (*). Manag. 20 (3), 389e403 (*).
Sacks, R., Radosavljevic, M., Barak, R., 2010b. Requirements for building information Yu, H., Al-Hussein, M., Al-Jibouri, S., Telyas, A., 2013. Lean transformation in a
modeling based lean production management systems for construction. Autom. modular building company: a case for implementation. J. Manag. Eng. 29 (1),
ConStruct. 19 (5), 641e655 (*). 103e111 (*).
Sacks, R., Treckmann, M., Rozenfeld, O., 2009. Visualization of work flow to support Yu, H., Tweed, T., Al-Hussein, M., Nasseri, R., 2009. Development of lean model for
lean construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 135 (12), 1307e1315 (*). house construction using value stream mapping. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 135 (8),
Sage, D., Dainty, A., Brookes, N., 2012. A ‘Strategy-as-Practice’exploration of lean 782e790 (*).
construction strategizing. Build. Res. Inf. 40 (2), 221e230 (*). Yuan, H., Wang, J., 2014. A system dynamics model for determining the waste
Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A., Minkarah, I., 2006. Lean construction: from disposal charging fee in construction. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 273 (3), 988e996.
theory to implementation. J. Manag. Eng. 22 (4), 168e175 (*). Zaeri, F., Rotimi, J.O.B., Hosseini, M.R., Cox, J., 2017. Implementation of the LPS using
Sandberg, E., Bildsten, L., 2011. Coordination and waste in industrialised housing. an excel spreadsheet: a case study from the New Zealand construction industry.
Constr. Innovat. 11 (1), 77e91 (*). Constr. Innovat. 17 (3), 324e339 (*).
Sarhan, J.G., Xia, B., Fawzia, S., Karim, A., 2017. Lean construction implementation in Zhang, X., Azhar, S., Nadeem, A., Khalfan, M., 2017. Using Building Information
Modelling to achieve Lean principles by improving efficiency of work teams. Int. Information Systems Frontiers, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, and Infor-
J. Constr. Manag. 18 (4), 293e300 (*). mation Systems Management.
Zimina, D., Ballard, G., Pasquire, C., 2012. Target value design: using collaboration
and a lean approach to reduce construction cost. Constr. Manag. Econ. 30 (5),
383e398 (*). Mohamad Sedighi graduated as an architect from TU Delft, and his PhD research fo-
cuses on re-thinking the architecture of appropriate habitats. Since 2010, he has been
working as lecturer at IUST, and TU Delft. In 2013, he received an honorable mention
Sam Solaimani is Associate Professor at Nyenrode Business University. Sam holds a certificate from Iran’s Ministry of Urban Development for the design of a prototypical
PhD from Delft University of Technology, with focus on Business Model innovation in housing scheme, in Tehran; and in 2017, he was awarded a MIT grant by GAHTC. At pre-
complex networked enterprises. He has obtained a MSc. (Cum Laude) on Business sent, Sedighi works as lecturer at TU Delft and as project developer at Dura Vermeer.
Information Systems from University of Amsterdam, and a BSc. on Information Science Recently, he published ‘Kuy-e Narmak (1952e1958): the growth and change of an ur-
from Utrecht University. Sam’s research focuses on Lean management, innovation ban community in Tehran’ in the journal of Planning Perspectives, and ‘Shushtar-Nou
management, digital transformation, and business model innovation. He has published (1975e85): A Forgotten Episode of Architectural Regionalism, Iran’ in International
in several peer-reviewed academic journals, some of which have recently appeared in Journal of Islamic Architecture (forthcoming).
the Journal of Business Research, European Management Review, Electronic Markets,

Journal of Cleaner Production: Sam Solaimani, Mohamad Sedighi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production: Sam Solaimani, Mohamad Sedighi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production: Sam Solaimani, Mohamad Sedighi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119213

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

Toward a holistic view on lean sustainable construction: A literature

1. Introduction Creating and maintaining a synergetic triangle is, however,

Fig. 1. The SLR process.

Initially, the data is positioned along a three-dimensional space

Fig. 2b. The spread of empirical studies across the world.

Fig. 3a. Applied research methods.

Fig. 3b. Top 10 publishers.

focused on sustainability in general (Fig. 3b).

ensures that the right quantities of material are delivered to the

literature (quality will also be discussed from an environmental 3.2.1. Supplier

Lean construction principles and practices with impact on sustainability

Economic Supplier Extraction & Pull-based production (Ko, 2010)

Lean construction principles and practices with impact on sustainability

Fig. 5. Casual-loop diagram of Lean management in sustainable construction.

You might also like