10 1108 - Ecam 02 2023 0102

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0969-9988.htm
Developing and validating a new Lean

construction
conceptual model for successful model
implementation of lean
construction: SEM analysis
Mohamed Saad Bajjou Received 19 February 2023
Revised 21 May 2023
Department of Industrial Engineering, ROSDM Research Team, 8 August 2023
LMAID – Laboratory of Applied Mathematics and Business Intelligence, ENSMR, Accepted 13 September 2023
Rabat, Morocco, and
Anas Chafi
Department of Industrial Engineering, Universite Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah,
Fes, Morocco
Abstract
Purpose – Lean construction (LC) consists of very effective techniques; however, its implementation varies
considerably from one industry to another. Although numerous lean initiatives do exist in the construction
industry, the research topic related to LC implementation is still unexplored due to the scarcity of validated
assessment frameworks. This study aims to provide the first attempt in developing a structural model for
successful LC implementation.
Design/methodology/approach – This study developed a Lean construction model (LCM) by critically
reviewing seven previous LC frameworks from different countries, defining 18 subprinciples grouped into 6
major principles and formulating testable hypotheses. The questionnaire was pre-tested with 12 construction
management experts and revised by 4 specialized academics. A pilot study with 20 construction units
enhanced content reliability. Data from 307 Moroccan construction companies were collected to develop a
measurement model. SPSS V. 26 was used for Exploratory Factor Analysis, followed by confirmatory factor
analysis using AMOS version 23. Finally, a structural equation model statistically assessed each construct’s
contribution to the success of LC implementation.
Findings – This work led to the development of an original LCM based on valid and reliable LC constructs,
consisting of 18 measurement items grouped into 6 LC principles: Process Transparency, People involvement,
Waste elimination, Planning and Continuous improvement, Client Focus and Material/information flow and pull.
According to the structural model, LC implementation success is positively influenced by Planning and Scheduling/
continuous improvement (β 5 0.930), followed by Elimination of waste (β 5 0.896). Process transparency ranks
third (β 5 0.858). The study demonstrates that all these factors are mutually complementary, highlighting a positive
relationship between LC implementation success and the holistic application of all LC principles.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first attempt to develop a statistically
proven model of LC based on structural equation modelling analysis, which is promising for stimulating
construction practitioners and researchers for more empirical studies in different countries to obtain a more
accurate reflection of LC implementation. Moreover, the paper proposes recommendations to help policymakers,
academics and practitioners anticipate the key success drivers for more successful LC implementation.
Keywords Lean construction, Successful implementation, Structural equation modelling (SEM),
Construction industry
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Lean Manufacturing (LM) has proven to be a beneficial strategy far beyond its native sector
(i.e. the automotive industry) since it has been recently deployed in a wide variety of
industries such as construction (Bajjou and Chafi, 2021a; Braglia et al., 2022), healthcare Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-9988
Disclosure statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). DOI 10.1108/ECAM-02-2023-0102
ECAM (Gayer et al., 2021; Curatolo, 2014), aerospace (Amrani and Ducq, 2020) and textile (Hodge
et al., 2011). With the success of lean thinking in the manufacturing industry since the early
1990s, there have been notable efforts to extend this philosophy, also named LC, to the
construction sector. Researchers have reported several benefits of LC implementation such
as business performance (by improving sales, profitability and customer satisfaction),
operational performance (by enhancing productivity and minimizing project duration, cost
and quality defects), social performance (by improving the staff safety and reducing
prevailing health risks) and environmental performance (by minimization of energy waste,
solid materials waste, etc.).
The construction industry has recognized the benefits of implementing LC principles and
techniques on their overall performance. However, despite the widespread application of LC
tools and techniques in different countries, there is still a lack of a clear understanding of the
primary constructs and principles of LC (Bajjou et al., 2019; Bajjou and Chafi, 2018a, b). Most
construction companies have attempted to adopt LC based on their own interpretation of the
principles without any comprehensive measures to assess overall leanness. The lack of a
statistically validated LC model has resulted in a critical need for construction practitioners
and managers to further understand the current state of LC implementation. Although some
LC models have been developed in the literature such as Lean Construction Maturity Model
(Nesensohn et al., 2015), Lean Construction Concept Model (Jeni et al., 2013) and Lean
Construction Principles (Salem et al., 2006), they have not been statistically validated.
Empirical studies related to the development and validation of comprehensive LC models
have not been deeply addressed in the literature. Hence, the current research aims to address
this research gap by providing a reliable framework that can be used by construction
organizations to assess their overall leanness. The proposed framework will enhance the
understanding of LC implementation and its impact on construction performance by
providing a comprehensive and statistically validated measurement of global leanness.
The structural equation modelling (SEM) is a powerful multivariate method to
quantitatively estimate a set of interrelated relationships between latent constructs or
independent variables (Nawanir et al., 2018; Soni and Kodali, 2012). Although SEM is widely
adopted across many research fields such manufacturing industry (Barcia et al., 2022; Abu
et al., 2021), healthcare (Baral and Verma, 2021), the mining industry (Khaba and Bhar, 2018)
and so on, application in research related to construction management, especially those
related to LC, is still very limited. Therefore, the current work aims to develop and validate an
original LCM showing the key principles and practices leading to a more efficient
performance for construction activities using SEM techniques. To do so, a questionnaire
survey has been designed based on the variables extracted from the literature. Following,
pre-testing and semi-structured interviews were initiated. Input data for the analysis was
gathered from 307 construction companies. The survey responses were collected from
qualified professionals with great experience in the field of construction project management
to enhance the reliability of the study.
This work is intended to provide many benefits for construction practitioners by
identifying the key principles and subprinciples commonly applicable to successful LC
deployment. This pioneering study introduces a statistically proven model of LC using SEM
analysis, encouraging further empirical research in various countries to enhance
understanding of LC implementation. Furthermore, it offers valuable recommendations
for policymakers, academics and practitioners to address key success factors for LC
adoption.
The article is organized as follows: Section 2 reveals a systematic literature review on the
key components of the lean system based on previous LC frameworks, Section 3 outlines the
methodology applied to achieve the goals of this study, Section 4 presents a detailed analysis
of the validity and reliability of the developed model, Section 5 discusses the different
constructs of the LC model in comparison with other research and provide recommendation Lean
for a successful implementation. Finally, Section 6, conclusion, summarizes the research construction
findings and indicates limitations and future outlooks.
model
2. Literature review
LC is considered a socio-technical technique that is adopted to avoid waste and enhance
efficiency in resource use, to deliver quality products in time at a reduced cost and to add value
and to achieve more profitability (Erthal and Marques, 2022; Shrafat and Ismail, 2019; Sage
et al., 2012; Green and May 2005). LC focuses primarily on the elimination of resource
consumption that does not add value to the final product. There are seven main forms of waste
that LC seeks to address: overproduction, unnecessary inventory, defects, over-processing and
unnecessary movement (motions) (Womack and Jones, 1996). Other research suggested an
additional type of waste referred to as attitude waste, linked to the under-utilization of the
human resource capacity (Sarhan, 2017). Furthermore, recent studies have mentioned further
types of waste that are more critical to the construction industry than the manufacturing
industry, such as workplace accidents and making-do (Bajjou and Chafi, 2022; Bajjou et al.,
2017a). Using LC, the amount of waste in excess resources can be minimized or eliminated,
along with non-value-added activities and defective products. However, the effectiveness of LC
is closely linked to the way its principles are understood and then applied.
2.1 LC constructs
Construct is defined as a complex and abstract concept that cannot be directly measured
(Nawanir et al., 2018). This is not a directly observed variable and is frequently referred to as
a latent component. Constructs are classified into higher and lower-order constructs. The
higher-order construct is a statistical method for validating that a theoretical underlying
construct is loaded into a set of lower-order measurement components (also known as
manifest variables or observable indicators). To be able to assess the construct, a set of
measurable items must be involved that sufficiently reflect their underlying construct.
For the LC concept to be effective in eliminating activities that do not add value to the
process, product and, hence, to the final customer, there are some core principles and
practices that need to be implemented to achieve success in managing the change process.
The triumph of LC relies on the application of its constituent practices (Bajjou et al., 2019).
Although numerous research efforts have been devoted to identifying the primary LC
principles, researchers suggested different sets of practices for operationalizing the concept
of LC. The practices varied widely depending on the researchers’ backgrounds and the
method of conceptualization adopted.
As the concept is constantly evolving and expanding, developing consistent LC practices
is not straightforward. Based on an extensive literature review, this work attempted to
identify the set of LC practices that have been validated as effective components for
improving the performance of construction projects. A variety of conceptual, empirical and
qualitative studies were evaluated and used to elaborate the constructs of LC based on their
significant influence on the efficiency of the system. Hence, the models developed from 2003
to 2019 have been critically evaluated to extract the most commonly used practices that have
been demonstrated to be most effective. It is worth noting that academics and scholars vary
in their classification of the most common LC practices, reflecting background differences of
the authors, therefore, full agreement about this categorization is lacking.
In this study, we critically evaluated seven LCMs to extract the most commonly used
practices and identify the key and core principles of LC theory. These models are established
and developed in different countries that are known for their maturity and expertise in LC
ECAM deployment such USA (Salem et al., 2006), the UK (Nesensohn et al., 2015), Germany and
Brazil (Hofacker et al., 2008), Morocco (Bajjou et al., 2019) and Malaysia (Jeni et al., 2013).
Table 1 provides a summary of all the models reviewed in this work and indicates the
research methodology pursued in each study to identify the most appropriate LC principles
for the construction industry.
The goal of this review is to develop a comprehensive model that is based on the current
models. Accordingly, a rigorous analysis of the LC principles involved in the seven models
discussed in this study was performed to identify the key lacking principles in each model.
For instance, LCF ignores two principles, which are the elimination of waste and continuous
improvement (Johansen and Walter, 2007). LCMM ignores one principle: supply chain
management (Nesensohn et al., 2015); LCW ignores one principle: planning and continuous
improvement (Diekmann et al., 2003); LCP ignores two principles, which are supply chain
management and customer involvement (Salem et al., 2006); LCCM ignores one principle:
People Involvement (Jeni et al., 2013). As a result, these practices were subsequently clustered
into six related practices based on their similarity, as shown in Table 2. Through critical
analysis of the diverse models in the current work, we have determined six principles that
form the basis of the LC paradigm, namely: Process Transparency, People Involvement,
Waste Elimination, Planning and continuous Improvement, Client Involvement and Supply
Chain Management.
It is important to note that none of the previously developed models has validated the
results statistically based on reliable techniques such as functional analysis or SEM, which
increases the importance of the current paper to enrich the body of knowledge with an
original statically proven framework.
2.2 Lean construction model with hypotheses

Lean practices/tools are the core measures of LC (Bajjou et al., 2019). They consist of socio-
technical techniques used to deliver products on time at minimal cost, reduce/eliminate
waste, increase efficiency in resource use, generate value and achieve profitability (Gao and
Low, 2014). In this sub-section, we will attempt grouping the most similar practices under the
six LC clusters identified in this study as well as formulating relevant hypotheses based on a
thorough review of the literature. Although this research will not include some practices that
were discussed in previous studies as stand-alone items, many will be incorporated into
related practices.
2.2.1 Process transparency. Process transparency is an important aspect of LC, as it helps
to improve communication, coordination and decision-making while reducing waste and
variability in the construction process (Sacks et al., 2009). Transparency focuses on
maintaining a clean, simple and agile workflow using the visual management, 5S (Sort,
Straighten, Shine, Standardize and Sustain) method, thus enhancing the organization of the
construction site and enabling effective and reliable communication among stakeholders
(Tezel et al., 2010; Sacks et al., 2009; Formoso et al., 2002) tested the application of process
transparency in the construction industry in six case studies in Brazil and England. As a
result, the interdependence between construction units has been reduced which makes the
process directly observable and improves immediate recognition of process status.
According to Bajjou et al. (2017b) and Dupin (2014), the 5S approach is recognized as one
of the first practical measures to be considered by an enterprise in implementing the LC
practices. By making processes transparent, management can easily identify inefficiencies,
delays, delays, rework, excess inventory, etc. This enables construction staff to take
appropriate actions to eliminate or reduce these wasteful practices, improving project
outcomes. In addition, by making information available to project participants, process
transparency leads to effective decision-making, minimizes conflicts and promotes
No. Authors Year Model name Objectives Research methodology Principles
1 Bajjou et al. 2019 Lean Construction Develop a conceptual framework for the Evaluation of six existing • Customer focus
(2019) (Morocco) Conceptual successful implementation of LC models • People involvement
Framework (LCCF) • Waste elimination
• Supply
• Continuous improvement
• Quality
• Standardization
• Planning and scheduling
• Transparency
2 Nesensohn et al. 2016 Lean Construction Assess the maturity level of Interviews þ Focus Group • Learning
(2015) (United Maturity Model construction businesses and (FG) • Philosophy
Kingdom) (LCMM) differentiate between “mature” and • Leadership
“immature” organizations regarding the • People
implementation of LC • Outcomes and Outputs
• Processes and System
3 Jeni et al. (2013) 2013 Lean Construction Synthesize the most effective LC Literature review • Specify value
(Malaysia) Concept Model principles and practices • Flow
(LCCM) • Identify and map the value
stream
• Perfection/continuous
improvement
• Transparency
• Pull
• Process variability
4 Hofacker et al. 2008 Lean Construction- Assess the leanness and the quality of Mindmap and Brain- • Quality
(2008) (Germany Rating Model construction projects by using LCRM storming þ Evaluation of 4 • Waste Consciousness
and Brazil) (LCRM) existing models • Client Focus
• Material flow and pull
• Continuous improvement
• Organization/planning/
info flow
(continued )
construction
Review of lean
construction
frameworks
Table 1.
model
Lean
Table 1.
ECAM
No. Authors Year Model name Objectives Research methodology Principles
5 Johansen and 2007 Lean Construction Develop a LCF to evaluate the current Literature review • Management
Walter (2007) Framework (LCF) level of awareness of the lean • Behaviour
(Germany) construction principles among German • Planning/Control
contractors • Installation
• Procurement
• Supply
• Collaboration
• Design
6 Salem et al. 2006 Lean Construction Test the applicability and adaptability Case study • Process variability
(2006) (United Principles (LCP) of lean manufacturing techniques and • Continuous improvement
States) principles to the construction sector • Flow variability
• Transparency
7 Diekmann et al. 2003 Lean Construction Identify the most common lean Theoretical design • Eliminate Waste
(2003) (USA) Wheel construction principles and best • Culture/People
practices typically used by members of • Continuous Improvement
the Construction Industry Institute (CII) /Quality
• Standardization
• Customer Focus
Source(s): Authors’ own work
Bajjou Jeni Hofacker Johansen Salem
Lean
et al. Nesensohn et al. et al. and Walter et al. Diekmann construction
(2019) et al. (2015) (2013) (2008) (2007) (2006) et al. (2003) model
LCCF LCMM LCCM LCR LCF LCP LCW
Transparency 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
People 3 3 3 3 3 3
involvement
Waste 3 3 3 3 3 3
elimination
Planning and 3 3 3 3 3 3
continuous
improvement
Client focus 3 3 3 3 3 3 Table 2.
Supply chain 3 3 3 3 3 Main principles used in
management lean construction
Source(s): Authors’ own work models
teamwork, which are vital aspects of LC (Wang and Ma, 2014). With improved process
transparency, LC helps to reduce waste and variability in the construction process, which can
lead to cost savings and better project outcomes (Erol et al., 2017). Making information about
the construction process more visible and accessible, process transparency pinpoints
potential improvement areas and promotes project participants working together to
implement improvements. Moreover, LC is based on visual control methods (Li et al., 2019).
Visual tools such as Kanban boards, task boards and progress charts make the status of
projects, work in progress and project milestones easily understood by all stakeholders,
which provides a shared understanding of the project’s progress and delivery priorities
(Sacks et al., 2009; Tezel and Aziz, 2017). This aligns teams’ efforts and enables them to make
informed decisions, further strengthening the application of lean design principles. Overall,
process transparency is an important feature of the LC, as it helps to minimize waste,
facilitates communication and improves the decision-making system while reducing waste
and variability in the construction process. Hence, it could be concluded that process
transparency plays a significant role in the successful implementation of LC practices and
methodologies. When project teams adopt transparency in their processes, this has several
positive effects that contribute to the overall effectiveness and efficiency of LC. The
hypothesis below is proposed by considering the strong evidence provided by the literature
revealing that improved process transparency has a positive impact on LC implementation:
H1. The implementation of a lean construction strategy is positively related to the
adoption of process transparency.
2.2.2 People involvement. LC is a methodology that prioritizes customer value to optimize
workflows, minimize waste and improve efficiency (Mandujano et al., 2017). In the case of LC
projects, the employees’ initiative is greatly stimulated (Bajjou et al., 2019). Thus, each
participant in the project has a responsibility to be efficient and to develop his or her skills.
The human resources division can support this collective strategy of development by
strengthening staff skills through training programs as well as encourage their contributions
to problem-solving and proposing solutions by promoting the principles of teamwork and
mutual collaboration with the project’s stakeholders. According to Moradi and Sormunen
(2023), people commitment have a direct influence on the success of LC implementation at
three levels: (1) the individual level (motivations, traits and leadership), (2) the corporate level
(processes and readiness for change, capacity and work culture) and (3) the governance level
ECAM (codes and regulations and policies). The survey carried out by Sarhan et al. (2016) revealed
that top management involvement and leadership is the most important factor for successful
LC adoption in the Saudi Arabian construction industry. Demirkesen and Hasan Gokberk
(2022) indicated that the involvement of top and middle management in LC practices is the
most critical factor to take into consideration to facilitate and succeed in LC implementation.
Besides Watfa and Sawalha (2021) found that “Management Commitment and Involvement”
is the most essential factor for the successful implementation of LC in the United Arab
Emirates (UAE). Leaders must commit to LC principles and promote a culture of continuous
improvement to ensure successful implementation. People directly influence the success of
LC implementation at an individual level, including individual qualities, motivations and
leadership (Coffey, 2000). Employees must be committed to the principles of LC and
participate in the implementation process to ensure its success (Moradi and Sormunen, 2023).
Overall, the involvement of people is essential to the successful implementation of LC.
Managers must be fully committed to the principles of LC, and employees must be involved
in the implementation process to ensure its success. The development of an LC culture
through the promotion of training and research is essential to the successful implementation
of LC. The hypothesis below is formulated by considering the strong evidence provided by
the literature revealing that people involvement transparency has a positive impact on the
successful implementation of LC:
adoption of people involvement.
2.2.3 Waste elimination. Eliminating process waste is a key element of the LC approach,
which aims to reduce waste and optimize workflows in construction projects (Kern et al.,
2015). Waste elimination in construction projects may lead to enhanced transport efficiency
leading to reduced emissions, a better supply of materials and a higher quality of work
(Dieste et al., 2019). Waste in construction can lead to increased costs, project delays and
inefficiency (Kern et al., 2015). LC is considered the most popular and successful strategy for
reducing waste in the construction industry nowadays. However, this principle has not been
well understood by construction practitioners. In particular, construction practitioners
commonly believe that waste is generally related to material waste, while non-value-added
activities such as wait, material handling, inventories, overproduction and transportation are
not considered waste, hence, not reduced (Khanh et al., 2014). Accordingly, reducing the
amount of non-value-added operations is a major strategy for improving construction
process productivity (Bajjou et al., 2017b). By addressing the eight types of waste in LC
(transportation, inventory, motion, waiting, overproduction, over-processing, defects and
unused skills), construction companies can reduce the duration of the project, optimize costs
and improve their profitability (Bajjou et al., 2017b). A study by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology in the UK showed that between 25 and 50% of waste reduction in
construction is due to LC philosophy (Vilasini et al., 2011). A case study of an executive office
building illustrated that LC implementation resulted in a 20% reduction in waste
(Nowotarski et al., 2019). Implementing three LC principles in a case study of a
reinforcement process (Bajjou and Chafi, 2021b) revealed a 17% reduction in cycle time, a
14% enhancement in process efficiency and a 41% improvement in process productivity.
Construction organizations may streamline their processes and boost production by
minimizing waste. LC can also improve safety on construction sites by eliminating waste and
optimizing workflows (Bajjou et al., 2017a). This is because waste can often lead to unsafe
working conditions, and optimizing workflows can help reduce the risk of accidents and
injuries. In conclusion, waste elimination is a critical component of LC and can contribute
positively to increased productivity, improved project outcomes, reduced costs and
improved safety on construction sites. The hypothesis below is given by considering the
strong evidence provided by the literature revealing that waste reduction has a positive Lean
impact on LC implementation: construction
H3. The implementation of a lean construction strategy is positively related to the model
adoption of waste elimination.
2.2.4 Planning and continuous improvement. Process planning is a project management
practice designed to optimize processes by using customer value to manage workflows and
minimize waste (Gao and Low, 2014). In the conventional planning framework, over half of
the planned construction work is not finished on time (Bajjou and Chafi, 2022; Daniel et al.,
2017). Ineffective planning occurs as a result of assigning construction activities without
considering the various factors that can influence the timely accomplishment of the schedule,
such as the availability of the necessary financial resources, the availability of workers and
materials and the assurance of safety conditions (Dupin, 2014). Implementing a lean planning
system is a crucial aspect of LC management (AlSehaimi et al., 2014; Daniel et al., 2017). The
last planner system (LPS) involves all team members learning about project constraints,
requirements and potential bottlenecks and then working to create a schedule that respects
these milestones. This collaborative approach can help reduce waste and improve planning
and scheduling. Process planning can help improve collaboration between team members,
ensuring that each team member is working toward the same goals and milestones. By using
LC project management software, teams can work more efficiently and collaborate more
effectively, regardless of their location. A study conducted in Nigeria to assess the
effectiveness of LPS in the building of 80 residential units revealed considerable
improvements in time management, leading to the completion of the project in 62 days
instead of 90, resulting in substantial cost savings (Adamu and Howell, 2012). LC is a culture
of continuous improvement, of which process planning and scheduling are key elements.
Continuous improvement is one of the most commonly used lean concepts to enhance
productivity and profitability (Savolainen et al., 2015). Continuous improvement plays a
crucial role in the success of LC by fostering a culture of efficiency and performance
improvement. Through continuous improvement practices, teams can optimize processes
and identify and address inefficiencies, leading to reduced waste, increased productivity and
improved project results. According to Salem et al. (2006), LC techniques such as LPS, huddle
meetings and first-run studies enabled a parking garage project to be completed three weeks
ahead of schedule and under budget. Although it may seem challenging to assign actionable
metrics to the continuous improvement principle, some lean practices and tools can have
measurable impacts. For instance, the PDCA approach has shown its adaptability to the
construction context; moreover, the monitoring of performance indicators/metrics is very
important to control the progress of the project and address the areas of weakness of the
company (Harris and McCaffer, 2013; Ferng and Price, 2005). Overall, process planning and
scheduling and continuous improvement are complementary elements of LC that can help
construction companies reduce waste, improve productivity and achieve reliable, predictable
workflows with better results in the future (Khanh et al., 2015; Hodge et al., 2011; Daniel et al.,
2017). Based on these points, the following hypothesis could be developed:
adoption of planning and continuous improvement.
2.2.5 Client focus. Client focus is aimed at incorporating the customer into the supply chain,
by defining the required value and at the same time allowing flexible use of the company’s
resources such as materials, technologies, multi-skilled workforce and so on (Hofacker et al.,
2008). In addition, it maintains a high relationship with the customer allowing them to
execute operations with reduced waste and increased value (Issa, 2013). Customer
satisfaction results from the implementation of LC processes, which enable high-quality
ECAM products to be delivered on time and within budget (Bajjou et al., 2019). According to Dakhli
et al. (2016), there is a direct link between the time it takes to complete a project and a
company’s adoption of client focus concept. In addition, customer-focused LC projects are
three times more likely to be completed on time and twice as likely to end under budget (Aziz
and Mohamed Hafez, 2013). The basic principle of LC is customer value (Bae and Kim, 2007).
The traditional method of construction always focuses on what the customer wants, but LC
recognizes that the customer needs more than just plans and specifications. To better
understand the customer’s needs, it is necessary to have an in-depth knowledge base
established in the early stages of planning. LC then brings together clients, engineers,
architects, contractors and subcontractors to optimize the process. Indeed, the work team not
only meets the customer’s needs but also provides advice and manages employment
expectations. In the LC project, managers should focus on improving the process of
delivering value to the customer rather than just focusing on the end product (Bygballe and
Ingemansson, 2014). By focusing on the process, construction companies can identify and
eliminate waste, which leads to increased efficiency and productivity. In summary, client
focus principle contributes positively to the implementation of LC in the following ways:
involves customers, engineers, architects, contractors and subcontractors to simplify the
process, builds deep trust with clients in the early planning stages and prioritizes customer
value to optimize construction processes. The hypothesis below is expressed in the light of
the solid literature evidence showing that client focus principle has a positive impact on the
successful implementation of LC:
adoption of client focus.
2.2.6 Supply chain management. A key principle of LC is to achieve a continuous, reliable and
predictable workflow (Da et al., 2012). To do this, it is important to handle material and
information streams through a pull-flow system. Once the customer’s needs have been
identified, it is important to define the value stream, i.e. the sequence of activities required to
deliver the product or service to the customer (Sacks et al., 2009). In the construction field,
supply chain management enables the effective flow of materials and information amongst
contractors, clients, designers and suppliers, requiring the engagement of all participants
from project start to completion (Soni and Kodali, 2012; Irizarry et al., 2013; Dadhich et al.,
2014). The aim is to establish an efficient logistical flow to reduce unnecessary inventory,
ensuring only the required amount of materials/equipment needed for the construction
process. To achieve a continuous workflow, it is important to ensure that work processes run
smoothly and without interruption. By handling the flow of materials and information, LC
delivers a continuous, smooth and uninterrupted workflow of activities, leading to greater
efficiency and effectiveness in construction projects (Gayer et al., 2021). The research (Shrafat
and Ismail, 2019) revealed that both factors “Pull production/Kanban” and “Supplier just-in-
time” are essential to achieve better performance for Lean Projects. The hypothesis below is
provided by considering evidence provided by the literature revealing that this principle has
a positive impact on LC implementation:
adoption of supply chain management.
Through a rigorous systematic review of the most reliable literature in the field of LC, we
have defined the most common subprinciples widely applied in the construction industry
worldwide, as shown in Table 3.
In addition, the above discussion provides the theoretical basis for the research
framework of this empirical research. It is hypothesized that the implementation of LC
strategy is positively related to six principles: Waste elimination, Planning and Scheduling/
Principle Sub-principles References
Lean
construction
Process transparency Visual management Irizarry et al. (2013), Tezel and Aziz (2017), Sacks model
et al. (2009)
Work place organization Barcia et al. (2022)
People involvement Training/Skills Development Banihashemi et al. (2017), Mpofu et al. (2017),
Choudhry (2017)
Teamwork Masai et al. (2015), Ko and Kuo (2015), Kissi et al.
(2016)
Waste elimination Value stream mapping (VSM) Harris and McCaffer (2013), Tjell and Bosch-
Sijtsema (2015), Sacks et al. (2009), Brady et al.
(2012)
Waste awareness/waste Erthal and Marques (2022), Balkhy et al. (2021)
consciousness
Environmental waste Dieste et al. (2020), Dieste et al. (2019), Inman and
reduction strategy Green (2018), Garza-Reyes et al. (2018)
Workplace accidents Demirkesen (2020), Ng et al. (2012), Love et al.
reduction strategy (2016), Forman (2013)
Planning and Last planner system Khanh et al. (2015), Aboseif and Rana (2020),
Continuous Daniel et al. (2017)
improvement Percent Plan Complete Jin (2013), Harris and McCaffer (2013), Hallman
indicator (PPC) (2013), Habchi et al. (2016)
Collaborative planning Daniel et al. (2017), Bajjou and Chafi (2020),
Bajjou et al. (2017a)
First-run studies (PDCA) Harris and McCaffer (2013), Salem et al. (2005), Li
et al. (2016)
Metrics(Productivity, Viana et al. (2012), Belhadi et al. (2018), Hughes
Quality, Safety) et al. (2004), Bajjou et al. (2019)
Customer focus Optimize Value/Value Wahab et al. (2013), Othman et al. (2014), Balkhy
identification et al. (2021)
Flexible resources Harris and McCaffer (2013), Salem et al. (2005,
2006)
Customer involvement Bajjou et al. (2019), Trigunarsyah (2017), Naji
et al. (2022)
Supply chain Just-in-time Pheng et al. (1998), Babalola et al. (2019), Goh and
management Goh (2019), Trivedi and Kumar (2014)
Pull system Sacks et al. (2009, 2010), Dieste et al. (2019), Gayer Table 3.
et al. (2021) Main subprinciples of
Source(s): Authors’ own work LC constructs
Continuous improvement, Client Focus and Supply chain management. A hypothetical

framework of the conceptual model of LC is presented in Figure 1. A circular form of the key
constructs of LC was found to be the most appropriate as the main objective of this research,
at this stage, is to clearly determine the key principles of LC without prioritizing each
principle since this step will be covered in the empirical phase of this study.
3. Research methodology
3.1 Conceptual model development and hypothesis formulation
The conceptual model serves as an essential foundation for empirical research, providing a
systematic framework for investigating relationships and making data-based predictions. In
this subsection, we focus on the methods used for developing the conceptual model, an
intricate process that plays an essential role in the design of empirical studies. Conceptual
model development involves the meticulous identification of pertinent variables and the
ECAM • Visual management
• Work place
organization
• Just-in-time
Process • Training/Skills
• Pull system transparency
Development
• Teamwork
Supply chain People

management H1 involvement
H2
H6 • Value stream
mapping (VSM)
• Waste
• Optimize LC H3 awareness/waste
Value/Value
H5 consciousness
identification
• Environmental
• Flexible Waste
Client focus H4 elimination waste reduction
resources
strategy
• Customer
• Workplace
involvement
Planning &
accidents
Continuous reduction strategy
improvement
• Last planner system

• PPC charts
• Collaborative planning
• First run studies
(PDCA)
Figure 1. • Metrics(Productivity,
Hypothetical model of Quality, Safety)
lean construction •
formulation of testable hypotheses. This subsection will outline the systematic approach
utilized in constructing the theoretical framework, drawing upon existing literature,
empirical evidence and logical reasoning.
(1) The first step of this study involved critically evaluating a variety of conceptual,
empirical, and qualitative studies to elaborate on the constructs of LC and identify the
most commonly used practices that significantly influence system efficiency. Models
developed between 2003 and 2019 were thoroughly examined to extract these
effective practices. It was important to note that there might be variations in the
classification of the most common LC practices among academics and scholars due to
their diverse backgrounds, leading to a lack of full agreement on this categorization.
For the initial phase of the study, the focus was on seven LCMs established and
developed in countries renowned for their maturity and expertise in understanding
LC concepts, including the USA (Salem et al., 2006), the UK (Nesensohn et al., 2015),
Germany and Brazil (Hofacker et al., 2008), Morocco (Bajjou et al., 2019), and
Malaysia (Jeni et al., 2013).
(2) Secondly, we have defined the most common subprinciples applied in the
construction industry worldwide based on a systematic review of the most reliable
literature in the field of LC. The resulting conceptual model contains 18 subprinciples
grouped into 6 major principles, as shown in Figure 1. The developed framework Lean
includes only subprinciples that are widely employed in construction projects and construction
frequently cited by scholars, rendering them essential to every LC implementation.
model
(3) As a final step, the formulation of testable hypotheses in the development of the
conceptual model was a critical aspect of this study. Through a systematic approach,
we meticulously identified pertinent variables and their interrelationships, drawing
upon existing literature, empirical evidence and logical reasoning.
By elucidating this process, we aimed to enhance transparency, rigour and replicability in
our research methodology, ultimately contributing to the generation of insightful and
impactful findings. Figure 2 provides a comprehensive summary of the logical reasoning and
essential steps involved in developing the conceptual LC model.
3.2 Instrument development

A mixed method, combining literature analysis, 16 semi-structured interviews, a pilot study
among 20 construction units and a structured questionnaire survey, was employed to fulfil
the objectives of the survey and to establish the validity and reliability of the results. Mixed
research methodologies enable both quantitative and qualitative data to be triangulated
since the strengths of each method compensate for the weaknesses of the other (Tezel and
Aziz, 2017; Khaba and Bhar, 2018). The main steps of this research are summarized in
Figure 3.
Firstly, a literature review was initiated to identify the key constructs that form LC
systems. In construction management studies, semi-structured interviews with industry
experts are a commonly adopted technique for validating and refining data extracted from
the literature review (Bajjou and Chafi, 2020; Khaba and Bhar, 2018). It is an effective tool for
collecting opinions based on their experiences and practices (Erthal and Marques, 2022;
Gayer et al., 2021). Hence, the identified variables were assessed through face-to-face semi-
structured interviews with 12 experts, with a professional experience of more than 10 years
in construction management and holding decision-making positions. To further improve the
readability, content validity and conciseness, the instrument was pre-tested and revised by
four academics specializing in conducting questionnaire surveys (Kim and Thanh Nguyen,
2018). This assisted the authors in detecting any potential issues that might be encountered
in the design of the questionnaire. This included consultation and discussion with
construction experts and academics to assess the following measurement scale issues: (1) if
certain items should be included or excluded, (2) if the content of the instrument is sufficient
or not and (3) if the questions are well understood. As a result, it was validated that planning
To extract the main principles A critical analysis of seven

that form the basis of the LC validated models from different Seven LC principles
paradigm countries
To identify the main sub- A systematic review of the most Eighteen sub-principles
principles reliable literature in the field of grouped into seven major LC
LC principles
Figure 2.
To develop a conceptual model A logical reasoning the Comprehensive
interrelationships among variable Hypothetical model of LC overview of the key
and hypothesis
based on literatureevidences steps in developing the
reasoning LC conceptual model
ECAM Literature review Pre-test of the questionnaire & selection of
administration methods
• Reviewing Seven models validated and tested in various
countries • The instrument was tested through semi-structured face-to-
• Determining the principle and sub-principles of LC face interviews with twelve experts with more than ten
• Grouping items years of professional experience.in construction
management. Then, the questionnaire was pre-tested and
• Developing a theoretical model of LC
revised by four academics specialized in conducting
• Elaboratind the first version of the questionnaire based on questionnaire surveys
variables extracted from the literature
• A pilot study among twenty construction units was also
conducted to improve content reliability of the
questionnaire first draft
• Method of Questionnaire Distribution: : By e-mail, Via
LinkedIn, face to face
Data Analysis & Results Duscussion of resuls

• Measurement model developement • Calculating Effective Weight
• Goodness of fit (GOF) assessment of the model • Ranking of the LC principles
• Construct validity and reliability • Relationship between LC and its principal components
• Structural equation model developemnt • Proposing recommendations based on the SEM results to
• Hypotheses analyses a more succesful LC implementation
Figure 3.
Main steps of the
research methodology
and continuous improvement should be merged into one principle. In addition, the principle
of supply chain management has been rephrased as material and information flow and pull
to facilitate understanding by respondents.
Then, after making the suggested improvements, and testing and ensuring the
questionnaire’s face validity, we piloted it with 20 construction units. Based on comments
from the pilot study, specific descriptions have been added to improve the consistency of the
selected items. The first part was designed to collect demographic information such as
managerial status, education level and organization size; the second included 18 validated
items after the pretest stages, classified following 6 principles soliciting their perceptions of
the particular LC practices (Transparency, People involvement, Waste elimination, Planning
and Scheduling/Continuous improvement, Client Focus, and Material/information flow and
pull), as shown in Table 4.
The survey participants were instructed to rate their level of agreement or disagreement
on a five-point Likert scale as follows: 5: strongly agree, 4: agree, 3: neutral, 2: disagree and 1:
strongly disagree.
3.3 Data collection

A random sampling method was applied to avoid bias in the selection process and to support
the generalizability and the applicability of the findings (Fayek et al., 1998). The authors
employed this approach for targeting professionals across diverse geographic regions in
Morocco. It is important to prepare a list of potential survey respondents to carry out a
random sampling session (Saunders et al., 2003). A list of 1,398 companies operating in the
construction sector in Morocco has been uploaded to the official website of the Ministry of
Land Management, Development, Housing and Urban Policy (www.mhpv.gov.ma). In
partnership with the Regional Federation of Building and Public Works of the Fez-Meknes
region, contact information for 420 potential respondents for the survey have been obtained.
This survey uses different methods of questionnaire distribution such as the Internet (e-mail
and web questionnaire), via LinkedIn and face-to-face. To boost the return rate, the survey
Latent variable Coding Observed variables
Lean
construction
Process transparency PT Work place organization (PT1) model
Visual management (PT2)
People involvement PI Training (PI1)
Teamwork (PI2)
Waste elimination WE Value stream mapping (VSM) (WE1)
Waste awareness (WE2)
Environmental waste reduction strategy (WE3)
Workplace accidents reduction strategy (WE4)
Planning and scheduling and continuous PS & CI Last planner system (PS&CI1)
improvement PPC charts (PS&CI2)
Collaborative planning (PS&CI3)
First run studies (PDCA) (PS&CI4)
Metrics (Productivity, Quality, Safety,
environment) (PS&CI5)
Client focus CF Optimize value/Value identification (CF1)
Flexible resources (CF2)
Customer involvement (CF3)
Material flow and pull MF&P Just-in-time (MF&P1)
Pull system (MF&P2) Table 4.
Source(s): Authors’ own work Final list of items
respondents were assured of their confidentiality and the anonymity of their organization.
The total number of questionnaires administered to the selected sample of respondents was
420. According to Balkhy et al. (2021), the required sample size would range between 267 and
383 participants, considering a confidence level of 95%, a margin of error between 5% and
6% and assuming an infinitely large population. There is no agreement on the size of the
sample to use for SEM. According to Naji et al. (2022), a sample size greater than 100, ideally
greater than 200 should be sufficient for developing a reliable model. Within seven months,
307 valid and complete responses were collected. This was enough to carry out the various
statistical tests, giving a response rate of 73%. It is worth noting that each completed
questionnaire represented one company, which is our research analysis unit.
3.4 Respondent’s profile

This study covered a variety of practitioners and organizations, as shown in Figures 4 and 5.
The questionnaire is focused on participants with a mixture of organizational
backgrounds. Additionally, the survey sample comprised professionals with varying
experience levels and educational backgrounds. By collecting the full range of perceptions
among a broad population, all facets of the Moroccan context can be investigated which helps
in providing a consistent and balanced view of the research topic. The questionnaire was
designed to reach different target populations based on (areas of specialization, size of
organization, type of organization and sector of activity). It is worth noting that, construction
companies were divided into the following main categories: large (over 200 workers),
medium (50–200 workers) and small (less than 50 workers).
As illustrated in Figure 4, the survey response distribution is as follows: 52.9% private
firms and 47.1% public agencies; 44.8% of respondents are involved in building, 28.8% in
Road and bridge projects (civil engineering) and 26.3% in Mechanical, Electrical and
Plumbing activities; 58.5% of contractors and 41.5% of consultant companies; 48.3% of
respondents belong to small organizations, 26.8% to large organizations and 23.9% to
medium-sized organizations.
ECAM Sector of activity Fields of specialisation
Mechanical,
Electrical, and
Plumbing
activities
Public 26.3% Building
Private 47.1% 44.8%
52.9%
Road and bridge

projects (civil
engineering)
28.8 %
Type of organisation Size of organisation
Large
26.8 %
Consultant
41.5%
Small
Contractor 49.3 %
58.5%
Meduim
Figure 4. 23.9 %
Distribution of the
sample in percentage
(Clustering of
organizations)
Education Level Number of years working experience

Diploma
Bac
3.6%
PhD degree
10.5 %
Diploma Less than 5
(Bac+2,Bac years
+3) More than 37.0 %
30.1 % 10 years
49.5 %
Master’s
Figure 5. Degree 5-10 years
Distribution of the 55.9 % 13.4 %
sample in percentage
(Clustering of
individuals)
It is important to point out that all the survey respondents are based in big Moroccan cities Lean
and that most of the respondents have a satisfactory level of education and professional construction
experience. About half of the participants have considerable construction experience and
management skills (49.5% have more than 10 years of work experience). Furthermore, they
model
are highly qualified (66.4% hold a Master or higher degree), which increases the reliability of
the results (55.9% hold a Master’s degree and 10.5% hold a PhD), as shown in Figure 5.
3.5 Methods of data analysis

A descriptive analysis using SPSS was performed on the collected data, reporting the mean
score (MS) and standard deviations (SDs) of the survey variables. SEM was utilized as a
statistical analysis technique to assess the relationships between observed and latent
variables. SEM combines multiple regression and factor analysis, providing a proven lean
model for studying variable relationships (Nawanir et al., 2018; Abu et al., 2021). This study
considered SEM of paramount importance for establishing statistically validated
relationships. The factor analysis comprised two steps: Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA) to investigate underlying dimensions and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to
validate the overall factor structure of the observed variables. EFA was conducted using
SPSS V. 26, and CFA was performed using AMOS version 23 for factor structure analysis.
4. Data analysis
4.1 Descriptive statistics (preliminary analysis)
Descriptive statistics were used to assess the data distribution and suitability for further
analysis. Table 5 summarizes the MS and SDs for all 18 items. The selected items scored
notably high, ranging from 4.44 (Training and skills development) to 3.65 (pull system), well
above the midpoint (2.5) of the scale. These findings indicate strong agreement among
Moroccan construction professionals with the LC principles and subprinciples outlined in
this study, demonstrating awareness of the philosophy’s importance in enhancing the
performance of Moroccan construction projects. SD values oscillated from 0.905 (Teamwork)
to 1.124 (Just-in-time), reflecting a reasonable dispersion around the overall scale value mean.
Finally, the kurtosis and skewness for all items fell within the acceptable margins for
normality (skewness value < j3j and kurtosis <j8j, as suggested by Rodrigues et al. (2020).
Therefore, the findings of the descriptive statistics were promising to proceed further with
more powerful data analysis techniques.
Table 5 indicates that the five items are: (1) Training (PI1) with MS 5 4.44, Teamwork
(PI2) with MS 5 4.39, (3) Collaborative planning (PS&CI3) with MS 5 4.37, (4) PPC charts
(PS&CI2) with MS 5 4.35 and (5) First run studies (PDCA) (PS&CI4) with MS 5 4.35. It is
worth noting that these factors belong mainly to two principles, which are People
involvement and Planning and Scheduling and continuous improvement. These results are
coherent with previous studies (Li et al., 2016; Ullah et al., 2017; Bajjou and Chafi, 2022; Bajjou
et al., 2019), showing that LC can only achieve great results and be properly applied if there is
workforce involvement with a collaborative planning system, especially based on the last
planner, and ensuring a continuous improvement wheel based on KPIs.
4.2 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

EFA is performed on a sample of 307 individuals (i.e. N 5 307) for the eighteen LC
subprinciples. Assessment of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s sphericity test
provides an indication of the adequacy of data for conducting a factor analysis (Balkhy et al.,
2021; Lam et al., 2010; Din et al., 2011). The results are reported in Table 6.
results (N 5 307)
Descriptive statistic
Table 5.
ECAM
N Minimum Maximum MS SD Skewness Kurtosis
Principles Sub-principles Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Ranking Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
PT PT1 307 1 5 3.82 0.064 16 1.115 �0.815 0.139 0.034 0.277

PT2 307 1 5 4.11 0.058 12 1.012 �1.283 0.139 1.509 0.277
PI PI1 307 1 5 4.44 0.055 1 0.956 �2.214 0.139 4.884 0.277
PI2 307 1 5 4.39 0.052 2 0.905 �1.935 0.139 4.154 0.277
WE WE1 307 1 5 4.26 0.058 7 1.011 �1.795 0.139 3.085 0.277
WE2 307 1 5 3.93 0.057 15 0.992 �1.102 0.139 1.188 0.277
WE3 307 1 5 4.24 0.056 8 0.973 �1.649 0.139 2.769 0.277
WE4 307 1 5 4.22 0.060 9 1.056 �1.548 0.139 1.903 0.277
PS & CI PS & CI1 307 1 5 4.22 0.055 10 0.963 �1.725 0.139 3.201 0.277
PS & CI2 307 1 5 4.35 0.052 4 0.915 �1.967 0.139 4.451 0.277
PS & CI3 307 1 5 4.37 0.053 3 0.928 �1.932 0.139 4.023 0.277
PS & CI4 307 1 5 4.35 0.053 5 0.921 �1.858 0.139 3.627 0.277
PS & CI5 307 1 5 4.28 0.053 6 0.922 �1.825 0.139 3.890 0.277
CF CF1 307 1 5 4.04 0.055 14 0.968 �1.262 0.139 1.651 0.277
CF2 307 1 5 4.06 0.052 13 0.918 �1.231 0.139 1.837 0.277
CF3 307 1 5 4.19 0.057 11 0.999 �1.323 0.139 1.277 0.277
MF&P MF&P1 307 1 5 3.80 0.064 17 1.124 �0.722 0.139 �0.332 0.277
MF&P2 307 1 5 3.65 0.056 18 0.990 �0.437 0.139 0.079 0.277
Valid N (listwise) 307
Bartlett’s test of
Lean
sphericity construction
Latent Observed Factor KMO measure of Approx. Variance model
variable variables loadings sampling adequacy Chi-square Sig explained (%)
PT PT1 0.881 0.946 4414.580 0.000 65.074

PT2 0.881
PI PI1 0.920
PI2 0.920
WE WE1 0.906
WE2 0.884
WE3 0.918
WE4 0.898
PS & CI PS & CI1 0.895
PS & CI2 0.896
PS & CI3 0.901
PS & CI4 0.872
PS & CI5 0.868
CF CF1 0.903
CF2 0.884
CF3 0.879 Table 6.
MF&P MF&P1 0.897 Exploratory factor
MF&P2 0.897 analysis
Source(s): Authors’ own work results (N 5 307)
The obtained factor loadings for all items are greater than 0.5, which implies that the selected
items reflect their relevant attributes (Kim and Thanh Nguyen, 2018; Bajjou and Chafi, 2020).
Based on the results of the factor loadings, it can be inferred that as a whole, all items
correlate positively with the six underlying variables identified in this study. For the sample
adequacy measure KMO, the result of 0.946 is greater than 0.5, indicating sufficient
intercorrelation and is therefore considered acceptable (Balkhy et al., 2021; Ramadas et al.,
2016). In addition, with significance at 0.000, Bartlett’s test of sphericity rejected (at p < 0.001)
the hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix with no relevant correlations
between the underlying set of variables (Mao et al., 2015; Le-Hoai et al., 2008; Colmenares,
2004). Both tests show a moderate level of suitability of the principal component analysis
(PCA) used in this analysis. PCA using a varimax rotation was performed to validate the
underlying construct of the developed framework. The varimax rotation analysis resulted in
an explained variance of approximately 65.074%. The explained variance is deemed
satisfactory as it exceeded the recommended minimum threshold of 60% (Din et al., 2011;
Kissi et al., 2016).
4.3 Empirical assessment of the construct

Firstly, we evaluated the overall fit of the first-order measurement model for all the latent
constructs. The purpose of this stage was to evaluate the goodness of fit (GOF) and assess
construct validity.
4.3.1 Measurement model development and fitness verification. The GOF aims to
investigate the extent to of data fit the model by comparing the observed covariance matrix
(reality) to the estimated covariance matrix (theory). Therefore, in this step, while using GOF
measures, improvements were done to enhance the fit of the model to the recommended levels
as suggested by (Rodrigues et al., 2020). GOF measures results are shown in Table 7. The
assessment of the modification indices took into account aspects such as the estimate of the
ECAM Recommended level Goodness
Goodness of fit (GOF) measure of GOF measure Model value of fit
X2/degree of freedom ≤3.000 2.092 FIT

Goodness of fit index (GFI) ≥0.900 0.922 FIT
Root mean sq. error of approx (RMSEA) ≤0.070 0.060 FIT
Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) ≤0.080 0.032 FIT
Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤0.080 0.033 FIT
Normal fit index (NFI) ≥0.900 0.945 FIT
Comparative fit index (CFI) ≥0.950 0.970 FIT
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) ≥0.950 0.962 FIT
Table 7. Incremental fit index (IFI) ≥0.950 0.970 FIT
GOF measures results Source(s): Authors’ own work
theoretical plausibility of changes and the measurement errors to be cross-correlated (e10<�

>e11). This led to a significant optimization of the fitted model. In this way, all indices
achieved a good fit, revealing that these latent constructs are reliable and reflect the
selected items.
As shown in Table 7, the improved model based on the essential GOF measures is
sufficiently supported. The ratio of χ 2/degree of freedom, 2.092 and GFI value of 0.922, both
demonstrate a good fit to the data (Shrafat and Ismail, 2019). The RMSEA value of 0.06 at a
p-value <0.05 implies the final model cannot be rejected at a high confidence level (Doloi et al.,
2012). Moreover, all other important measures such as NFI 5 0.945, CFI 5 0.970, TLI 5 0.962
and IFI 5 0.970 values prove an acceptable fit between the measurement model and the data
(Shrafat and Ismail, 2019; Hussain et al., 2019; Baral and Verma, 2021). The developed
measurement model along with the GOF measures and all factor loadings are shown in
Figure 6. A broad range of correlation strengths exists, from a very strong 0.89 between
WE3, PSCI1 and PSCI4 to a weak 0.48 between PI and MFP. It is interesting to note that no
indicator will be eliminated since all the items being considered to have indicators greater
than 0.60, revealing significant correlations with their constructs since they surpass the 0.50
threshold (Rodrigues et al., 2020).
4.4 Measurement model validity

The measurement model validity was then assessed through four stages of validity: content
validity, internal consistency, convergent validity and discriminant validity (Nawanir et al.,
2018; Ng and Morteza, 2018).
4.4.1 Content validity. The questionnaire’s content validity was ensured by aligning it
with previous studies on LC practices. To enhance content validity, readability, and clarity,
experts in construction management and LC deployment reviewed and refined the
instrument. A pilot study was conducted with 20 construction units to further improve
the questionnaire’s clarity. The final version includes detailed descriptions of selected items.
Additionally, three translated versions (Arabic, French and English) were distributed to
ensure clear understanding and accurate responses. Figure 7 shows the stages of content
validation.
4.5 Internal consistency

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was employed to assess the internal reliability of the identified
items in each of the factors, and a value ≥ 0.70 is deemed acceptable for the reliability of the
factor (Shang and Sui, 2012; Shi et al., 2013; Choo et al., 2015). As shown in Table 8, all values
Lean
construction
model
Figure 6.
Developed
measurement model
using AMOS V. 23
of Cronbach’s alpha were higher than the recommended level of 0.70, revealing a sufficient
internal consistency. The alpha values for the LC constructs vary between 0.710 and 0.923
and hence the reliability of the whole factors is acceptable. Moreover, Cronbach’s alpha of the
whole survey population’s responses is around 0.954 revealing overall model reliability as
well as a high internal consistency for all variables considered in this study.
4.5.1 Convergent validity. According to Hair et al., 2014, convergent validity was
estimated using average variance extracted (AVE), factor loading and composite reliability
(CR). The outcome of the CFA, as well as the measurement items’ properties, are reported in
Table 9. For the first-order constructs, all the factor loadings are higher than 0.60. As
importantly, the AVEs exhibit the variation in the multiple items that are explained by the
latent factors exceeding 0.5, which supports convergent validity (Nawanir et al., 2018; Naji
et al., 2022). Besides AVE and factor loading, CR is a vital convergent validity criterion to
ECAM Step1: Literature review
Step 2: Interviews with

12 Moroccan experts
Step 3: creation of the first

draft of the questionnaire
Step 4: Review of Step 5: Pilot study

questionnaire by six with twenty
leading academics construction units
and practitioners
Step 6: Final
questionnaire with
307 valid responses
Figure 7.
Flowchart of the
content validity Step 7 : Data analysis
process
Cronbach’s alpha if Cronbach’s

Latent variable Observed variables item deleted alpha
Process transparency Work place organization – 0.710

Visual management
People involvement Training – 0.811
Teamwork
Waste elimination Value stream mapping (VSM) 0.897 0.923
Waste awareness 0.909
Environmental waste reduction 0.891
strategy
Workplace accidents reduction 0.902
strategy
Planning and scheduling/ Last planner system 0.914 0.932
continuous PPC charts 0.914
improvement Collaborative planning 0.912
First run studies (PDCA) 0.920
Metrics (Productivity, Quality, 0.921
Safety, environment)
Client focus Optimize value/Value identification 0.787 0.866
Flexible resources 0.819
Table 8.
Internal consistency Customer involvement 0.828
results (the overall Material flow and pull Just-in-time – 0.753
Cronbach’s Pull system –
alpha 5 0.954) Source(s): Authors’ own work
reveal the homogeneity of latent variables. Table 9 indicates that CR values reach an Lean
acceptable level since they exceed the benchmark of 0.7 for all constructs (Ng and Morteza, construction
2018). Moreover, CR values are higher than AVE values, which support the convergent
validity of data (Hussain et al., 2019; Khaba and Bhar, 2018). MSV denotes the maximal
model
quadratic correlation among a construct and other constructs. To claim discriminant
validity, the AVE is required to be greater than the MSV (Naji et al., 2022; Garza-Reyes et al.,
2018). As evidenced in Table 9, all the MSV values were higher than the AVE of all
constructs, thus also supporting the convergent validity of the model. To conclude, the factor
loadings, AVEs, CRs and MSVs expressed satisfactory convergent validity and good CR of
the constructs listed in the study.
4.5.2 Discriminant validity. Along with convergent validity, discriminant validity is also a
strong measure of the validity of the construct. The discriminant validity refers to the extent
to which a construct is unique in terms of its correlation with other constructs (Ng and
Morteza, 2018). To achieve discriminant validity, the square root of the AVE values should
exceed the inter-construct squared correlations (Nawanir et al., 2018). In Table 10, the off-
diagonal components are the cross-construct squared correlations and the diagonal
components of the factor inter-correlation matrix are the square root of the AVE. It can be
clearly seen that almost all AVE estimates are larger than their respective inter-construct
squared correlations of all constructs, reflecting good construct validity as recommended by
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The sole exception was found for the correlation between PL&CI
and PT (0.798) that exceeds the square root of the AVE for the construct “Process
Transparency” with 0.766. To gain more reliability to the developed model, many
researchers recommend Pearson correlation for more insurance about the construct validity.
4.5.3 Pearson’s correlation. In Table 11, black-shaded cells in the matrix indicate high
correlation (Spearman’s correlation coefficient >0.5); Greyed cells reflect moderate
correlation (0.3 < Spearman’s correlation coefficient ≤0.5) (Bajjou and Chafi, 2022; Tezel
Item No. PT PI WE PS & CI CF MF&P
1 0.884 0.790 0.879 0.876 0.876 0.837

2 0.625 0.865 0.822 0.892 0.801 0.727
3 0.893 0.887 0.803
4 0.870 0.802
5 0.795
CR 0.733 0.814 0.923 0.929 0.867 0.760
AVE 0.586 0.686 0.751 0.725 0.685 0.615 Table 9.
MSV 0.542 0.653 0.712 0.712 0.581 0.566 Convergent validity
Source(s): Authors’ own work results
PI PL&CI MF&P WE CF PT
PI 0.828
PL&CI 0.781 0.851
MF&P 0.481 0.675 0.784
WE 0.808 0.844 0.579 0.866
CF 0.614 0.761 0.732 0.746 0.827 Table 10.
PT 0.724 0.798 0.752 0.740 0.762 0.766 Discriminant Validity
Source(s): Authors’ own work results
ECAM
MEAN SD Rank PI WE PS&CI CF PT MF&P
PI 4.4121 0.85391 1 1
WE 4.1612 0.90887 2 0.693** 1
**
PS&CI 4.3153 0.82438 3 0.685 0.786** 1
** **
CF 4.0966 0.85457 4 0.524 0.671 0.703** 1
** ** **
PT 3.9658 0.93741 5 0.544 0.576 0.654 0.623** 1
** ** ** **
MF&P 3.7280 0.94806 6 0.393 0.492 0.578 0.595 0.571** 1
Table 11. Note(s): ** The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-sided)
Pearson’s correlation
results Source(s): Authors’ own work
et al., 2018). As intended, nearly all correlations were significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed);
99% confidence level. Furthermore, and most importantly, the correlation matrix did not
uncover any exceptionally correlated variables, with the highest correlation between the
main constructs being r 5 0.786. Evidence of common method bias is generally manifested
by very high correlations (r > 0.90) (Hong and Ghobakhloo, 2013). Therefore, these results
provide significant support for the content validity, convergent validity and discriminant
validity of the response measures and scales adopted in this study.
4.6 Structural equation model and hypothesis testing

We developed a structural equation model to estimate the contribution of all constructs to the
overall LC system. Figure 8 depicts the final structural model. The structural model test
includes path coefficient estimates, indicating the strength of the relationships between the
independent and dependent variables, and R2 values, representing the magnitude of variance
explained by the independent variables. Both R2 and the path coefficients indicate how
strongly the data support the hypothesized model. As shown in Figure 8, the GOF of the
developed structural model based on the essential GOF measures is sufficiently supported.
4.6.1 Hypothesis testing. Table 12 summarizes the results of path coefficients and
variance explained by R2 for each construct. The results demonstrate significant
relationships between LC and the six principles since all values are above the threshold of
0.50 (Hair et al., 1998). Based on the applied statistical test results, the hypotheses associated
with all six constructs were supported at a significance level of 0.001. The structural model
indicates that the path coefficient results reveal that the most important determinant of LC
implementation is Planning and continuous improvement (β 5 0.930, p 5 0.001), followed by
Elimination of waste construct (β 5 0.896, p 5 0.001). Process transparency comes in third,
with (β 5 0.858, p 5 0.001). After achieving a satisfactory model fit, the relationships
between LC and the constructs were examined by checking the percentage of variance
explained by R2, which must be greater than 0.50 according to Hair et al., 2014). Based on the
path coefficient and the percentage of variance explained by R2 results it could be concluded
that all hypotheses are significantly supported. Based on this result, all six clusters included
in the model can be assumed to have a significant impact on LC implementation.
The existing body of literature demonstrates a consensus among scholars regarding the
implementation of LC practices as a comprehensive system rather than individual
components (Bajjou et al., 2019; Nawanir et al., 2018; Green, 1999; Dupin, 2014). This
Lean
construction
model
Figure 8.
Final structured model
viewpoint emphasizes that LC should be perceived as an approach rather than a mere

collection of tools or a straightforward system to be adopted. Instead, it is regarded as a way
of thinking and a belief that implementing LC as a holistic system is the most effective choice
(Harris and McCaffer, 2013). Bajjou et al. (2019) highlight the need for organizations to
embrace LC as a comprehensive framework, integrating all its elements, such as
collaborative planning, continuous improvement, waste reduction and value creation.
By considering LC as a holistic system, managers are better positioned to derive
maximum benefits. Fragmented adoption of LC practices may lead to suboptimal outcomes,
variance explained
coefficients and
Results of path
Table 12.
ECAM
Hypothetical Standardized path Variance Std Significance
paths Hypothesis statement coefficients explained R2 error level Result
H1: LC → PT The implementation of a lean construction strategy is positively 0.858 0.737 0.068 *** Supported
related to the adoption of process transparency practices
H2: LC → PI The implementation of a lean construction strategy is positively 0.834 0.695 0.064 *** Supported
related to the adoption of transparency practices
H3: LC → WE The implementation of a lean construction strategy is positively 0.896 0.803 0.069 *** Supported
H4: LC → The implementation of a lean construction strategy is positively 0.930 0.864 0.062 *** Supported
PS&CI related to the adoption of transparency practices
H5: LC → CF The implementation of a lean construction strategy is positively 0.834 0.695 0.066 *** Supported
H6: LC → The implementation of a lean construction strategy is positively 0.731 0.535 0.070 *** Supported
MF&P related to the adoption of transparency practices
Note(s): All standardized path coefficient estimates are expected to be significant at p < 0.001
as the interconnected nature of the system enables the synergy and interdependencies Lean
required for achieving successful implementation. Therefore, the literature underscores the construction
significance of embracing LC as a comprehensive system and warns against cherry-picking
specific components without considering their interconnectedness. Only when all the
model
components are utilized in harmony can organizations fully leverage the benefits offered
by LC.
5. Discussions
The hypothesis regarding the relationship between LC and its principles was assessed and
then validated. Based on the clear significant interaction between the LC approach and the
six principles (Transparency, People involvement, Waste elimination, Planning and
Scheduling/Continuous improvement, Client Focus and Material/information flow and
pull), it is worth discussing the impact of the individual components on the successful
implementation of LC.
5.1 Relationship between LC and its principal components

The impact of the six LC principles can be classified according to their importance in the
deployment of LC in construction projects, as shown in equation (1).
SFLc
EWc ¼ P (1)
SFLc
where EWc 5 effective weight of constructs; SFLc 5 standardized factor loading of

constructs.
Table 13 shows the overall ranking of these constructs.
The following discussions are given in accordance with the results of the SEM and the
ranking based on the EWc of LC principles.
(1) Planning and continuous improvement are revealed as the most important construct,
contributing to 18.3% of the differences in LC results. Moreover, the structural model
indicates that the path coefficient results reveal that the most important determinant
of LC implementation is Planning and Scheduling/continuous improvement
(β 5 0.930, p 5 0.001). The LC planning process involves innovative planning
techniques, like the LPS, aimed at the collaborative involvement of all stakeholders in
construction projects and replacing traditional planning techniques that account for
a significant proportion of the cost and schedule overruns. Many studies (Harris and
Construct Sum of
code Construct name SFL SFL EWs Ranking*
PT Process transparency 0.858 5.083 0.169 3

PI People involvement 0.834 0.164 4
WE Waste elimination 0.896 0.176 2
PS&CI Planning and scheduling/continuous 0.930 0.183 1
improvement
CF Client focus 0.834 0.164 5
MF&P Material flow and pull 0.731 0.144 6 Table 13.
Note(s): * Ranking score is 1 5 most important and 5 5 least important Effective weight and
Source(s): Authors’ own work ranking of constructs
ECAM McCaffer, 2013; Anvari et al., 2011; Aziz and Mohamed Hafez, 2013; Dupin, 2014;
Lavoie, 2014; Tjell and Bosch-Sijtsema, 2015; Khanh et al., 2016), have stated that
“Lean is a journey, not a destination”. Therefore, construction organizations are
challenged to renew traditional management techniques and continuously upgrade
their performance by adopting a rigorous and systematic approach to withstand the
competitiveness and pressures of the construction market.
(2) Followed by the elimination of waste construct, which is almost as important with
17.6% (β 5 0.896, p 5 0.001). Approximately 40–60% of the workday is spent on
unproductive construction work that does not add value to the clients (Dupin, 2014;
Bajjou et al., 2017b). This principle is the core of the LC approach (Li et al., 2019). It
seeks to disseminate a culture of reducing/eliminating all forms of waste (waiting,
overproduction, inventory, motion, unnecessary transportation, quality defects,
over-processing unused employee creativity) (Tezel, 2007; Arleroth and Kristensson,
2011).
(3) Process Transparency comes in third, with an effective weight of 16.9% with
(β 5 0.858, p 5 0.001). According to Diekmann et al. (2004) and Dupin (2014), on-site
transparency should be performed as a preliminary step in the journey of LC
implementation. Transparency reduces interdependence among work units, uses
visual displays to allow immediate process status recognition, makes the process
clearly visible through proper layout and signalization, integrates information
within the process, keeps the workplace clean and organized and makes invisible
properties visible through measurement (Tezel et al., 2010). According to Balkhy et al.
(2021), lack of transparency is among the most critical factors hindering a successful
LC. In addition, many researchers (Tjell and Bosch-Sijtsema, 2015; Brady et al., 2012;
Sacks et al., 2009), consider transparency as the key element to support the
implementation of the LC system.
(4) People Involvement comes in fourth with effective weights of 16.4% with (β 5 0.843,
p 5 0.001). In contrast to the traditional construction paradigm, LC philosophy
considers employees to be the primary drivers of change and business improvement
(Tezel and Nielsen, 2013; Diekmann et al., 2004; Bajjou et al., 2019). By integrating the
workforce and Top management, they become more autonomous and fully engaged
in the process of business improvement (Harris and McCaffer, 2013; Shang and Sui,
2012).
(5) Client Focus is ranked fifth, contributing to 18.3% of the differences in LC results and
(β 5 0.843, p 5 0.001) with a higher Standard Error (SE) compared to people
involvement. In a Lean approach, success can only be achieved if the customer is fully
involved in the production cycle of value generation. Several research studies have
already demonstrated that customer involvement is among the key success factors in
the implementation of Lean (Locatelli et al., 2013; Bortolotti et al., 2015; Gao and Low,
2014).
(6) Material Flow and Pull are at the bottom (ranked sixth) contributing to 14.4% with
(β 5 0.731, p 5 0.001). According to Sacks et al. (2010), Gayer et al. (2021), and Picchi
and Denis Granja (2004), LC is mainly based on the pull system and just-in-time
philosophy. Those concepts constitute two main pillars of this LC approach.
Based on the path coefficient results, it could be concluded that all hypotheses are
significantly supported. In addition, standardized path coefficients for all six clusters
included in the model are higher than 0.7, which reveals their positive impact on LC
implementation. These findings are consistent with previous research stating that lean is a Lean
system that is based on the simultaneous application of all practices at the same time not construction
separately (Garza-Reyes et al., 2018; Shrafat and Ismail, 2019; Classi et al., 2018).
Furthermore, the most important aspects are planning, elimination of waste and
model
transparency, which are consistent with the above results (Alkass et al., 1996; Sacks et al.,
2009; Bajjou et al., 2019; Hodge et al., 2011; Maradzano et al., 2019).
5.2 Recommendations
Many recommendations can be formulated for professionals in the construction sector based
on the results of this research. Implementing these recommendations should have a
beneficial impact on LC deployment. Some high-level academic and non-academic
professionals, as well as the authors’ own knowledge, contributed to many of the
recommendations outlined in this study based on their working experience. The
recommendations are presented below, categorized according to the groups of factors
identified and ranked according to the importance of those groups.
(1) Planning and Scheduling/continuous improvement:
� The LPS, which is central to the LC concept, may be effective in ensuring
collaborative planning and promoting effective coordination among project
stakeholders.
� Both the overall percentage of project completion (PCP) and individual PCP
charts for each trade are developed to track overall and individual progress and,
therefore, continuously improve performance by proposing effective solutions by
the multi-disciplinary team during weekly work planning (WWP) meetings.
� In addition to the PPC indicator, separate charts showing productivity, quality,
safety and environmental measures should be prepared, tracked and improved
during the planning and scheduling phase for the ongoing project or future
projects.
� The PDCA (Plan, Do, Chack, Act) approach is strongly recommended to
overcome blockages and constraints encountered in the field as well as to
continuously improve the performance indicators of the overall project.
(2) Elimination of waste:
� By applying the VSM (Value Stream Mapping), this technique allows managers
to “learn to see” flows. It is a systematic methodology for analysing and
optimizing flows, the objective of which is to improve the overall flow to reduce
transit cost and times and to achieve major improvements in inventory,
productivity and quality. It consists of mapping the added value of each step of a
process, from the client’s perspective (quality of products and services). The VSM
is the starting point for overall performance improvement. It allows identifying
the nature of the actions to be carried out to optimize globally the performance of
a flow and not only locally by effective actions
� Promote awareness of LC within the team of project partners. This can be done by
offering regular training and incentives to the team members for better results in
waste identification and waste reduction.
� In addition to focusing on economic performance, construction companies must
pay more attention to environmental and employee safety standards.
ECAM (3) Process Transparency:
� To achieve a better visual environment, construction staff is recommended to
apply the 5S methodology. This approach aims at achieving a clean and well-
organized working environment, clearly identifying the flows of material and
information, standardizing the operating modes and immediately detecting
anomalies.
� By adopting the visual Management approach, managers and operators can
track and display LC objectives and indicators through digital panels and charts.
In addition, this technique improves transparency on site and reduces the risk of
accidents by using visual signals.
(4) People Involvement:
� To achieve successful deployment of LC, construction firms need to integrate the
workforce into the management system as well as keep up with new production
practices. A high level of staff training, starting from the shop floor to the top
management, is necessary to minimize the risk of many common problems such
as an unqualified workforce, low productivity of employees and lack of
awareness of LC practices. Additionally, the training sessions generate a higher
degree of employee engagement and involvement in completing assignments on
time, along with increased staff motivation.
� In an LC approach, teamwork is fundamental, especially in the presence of
several collaborators (architect, contractor, subcontractor, supplier and owner)
with occasionally differing objectives. This practice favours the alignment of all
partners under mutually beneficial objectives.
(5) Client Focus:
� We recommend integrating the client in the identification of the real value from
the start of the project and maintaining active communication with all
stakeholders.
� System agility and flexibility in response to fluctuating demand or frequent
changes, especially in the building industry, is also highly recommended.
Therefore, managers should consider this aspect when designing the production
system.
(6) Material Flow and Pull:
� Implementation of a “just-in-time” (JIT) material procurement approach.
� Adopting a Pull system to control the product flow by minimizing work-in-
progress inventory (WIP) and only produce pulled “demanded” by the ultimate
client.
6. Conclusions
6.1 Theoretical and methodological implications
This research explores the critical components involved in Lean implementation in the
construction context. Based on a systematic review of the most reliable literature in the LC
field, we defined the most common subprinciples applied in the construction industry around
the world. The theoretical conceptual model developed contains 18 subprinciples classified
into six major principles: Waste Elimination, People Involvement, Planning and Continuous
Improvement, Client Involvement, Transparency and Material Flow and Pull. This model Lean
represents a solid foundation for other researchers to build and design a structured construction
questionnaire and then provide new answers to the limited number of empirical studies
performed in both developing and developed countries, especially those based on the SEM
model
approach. This new framework, beyond providing researchers with a new avenue to
strengthen the foundations of LC in construction, also opens up a broader debate on a
conceptual unified theory of LC. These foundations can be considered the main components
for future proposed frameworks, and the set of subconstructs can be appropriately adjusted
or improved according to the requirements of the problem. In addition, the research
encourages researchers to use the research methodology presented in Figure 3 to develop
more statically validated models of LC and, therefore, further explore the enablers, practices
and success factors associated with LC deployment. Additionally, researchers can use this
methodology to extract and model success factors in other industries such as automotive,
aerospace, services, healthcare, etc.
6.2 Practical implications

This study offers more in-depth knowledge and insight into the implementation of LC
through a pioneer model based on SEM. This model would help policymakers, academics
and practitioners anticipate the key success drivers for more effective LC implementation,
particularly in emerging economies. The research results provide a set of practical guidelines
for construction planners. First of all, they should not assume that the success of LC relies on
applying a collection of non-correlated tools that are not framed by principles. On the
contrary, the results of this study affirm that all principles are important in Lean and must be
applied simultaneously. Furthermore, managers should consider not just the economic
aspect but also the environmental and social aspects, which are also included in the
objectives of Lean. In addition, this study provides advice and recommendations to facilitate
LC implementation in developing countries with similar peculiarities such as Morocco. These
significant results have been statically proven and enrich the field of LC implementation with
an original contribution since most previous studies are theoretical in nature. In addition, the
findings of this empirical study may be used to benchmark the results across other countries
in the world.
6.3 Limitations and future research

Since LC concepts are in continuous evolution and focus on continuous improvement, there
may be some key practices and tools not addressed in this study. Apparently, LC practices
need to be updated over time. Some practices such as 3D printing, Building Information
Modeling (BIM) and Construction 4.0 may be covered in future studies. The proposed model
was developed and validated using data from construction companies located in Morocco
only. In addition, the data collection method relies on self-reporting and, therefore, potential
bias may play a role in the survey results. Beyond these limitations, this study is the first
attempt to develop a statistically proven model of LC based on SEM analysis. Future studies
may employ more advanced modelling techniques and adopt multiple techniques for data
collection in diversified industry sectors such as aerospace, automotive services,
healthcare, etc.
References
Aboseif, E. and Rana, K. (2020), “A framework for last planner system implementation in Egypt”,
Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, Vol. 54, pp. 1019-1024, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-0802-8_163.
ECAM Abu, F., Gholami, H., Zameri, M., Saman, M., Zakuan, N. and Streimikiene, D. (2021), “An SEM
approach for the barrier analysis in lean implementation in manufacturing industries”,
Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.3390/su13041978.
Adamu, I. and Howell, G. (2012), “Applying last planner in the Nigerian construction industry”, In the
Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
San Diego, EE. UU.
Alkass, S., Mazerolle, M. and Harris, F. (1996), “Construction delay analysis techniques”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 375-394, doi: 10.1080/014461996373250.
AlSehaimi, O., Abdullah, Tzortzopoulos Fazenda, P. and Koskela, L. (2014), “Improving construction
management practice with the last planner system: a case study”, Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 51-64, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-03-2012-0032.
Amrani, A. and Ducq, Y. (2020), “Lean practices implementation in aerospace based on sector
characteristics: methodology and case study”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 31 No. 16,
pp. 1313-1335, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2019.1706197.
Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N., Mohd Yusuff, R., Mohammad, S., Hojjati, H. and Ismail, Y. (2011), “A proposed
dynamic model for a lean roadmap”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5 No. 16,
pp. 6727-6737, doi: 10.5897/AJBM10.1278.
Arleroth, J. and Kristensson, H. (2011), “Waste in lean construction – a case study of a peab
construction site and the development”, Master diss, Chalmers University of Technology, pp.
1-145.
Aziz, R.F. and Mohamed Hafez, S. (2013), “Applying lean thinking in construction and performance
improvement”, Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 679-695, doi: 10.1016/j.aej.
2013.04.008.
Babalola, O., Ibem, E.O., Ezema, I.C. and Olanipekun, A.O. (2019), “Assessment of the role of lean
construction practices in environmental sustainability”, Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
Vol. 1299 No. 1, 012002, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1299/1/012002.
Bae, J.-W. and Kim, Y.-W. (2007), “Sustainable value on construction project and application of lean
construction methods”, Proceedings IGLC, 15, July.
Bajjou, M.S. and Chafi, A. (2018a), “A conceptual model of lean construction: a theoretical
framework”, Malaysian Construction Research Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 67-86.
Bajjou, M.S. and Chafi, A. (2018b), “Towards implementing lean construction in the Moroccan
construction industry: survey study”, 2018 4th international conference on optimization and
applications (ICOA), pp. 1-5, IEEE.
Bajjou, M.S. and Chafi, A. (2020), “Identifying and managing critical waste factors for lean
construction projects”, EMJ - Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 2-13, doi: 10.
1080/10429247.2019.1656479.
Bajjou, M.S. and Chafi, A. (2021a), “Application of simulation modelling for waste assessment: a case
study of bricklaying process”, International Journal of Engineering Research in Africa, Vol. 52,
pp. 40-48, doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/jera.52.40.
Bajjou, M.S. and Chafi, A. (2021b), “Lean construction and simulation for performance improvement:
a case study of reinforcement process”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 459-487, doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-06-2019-0309.
Bajjou, M.S. and Chafi, A. (2022), “Exploring the critical waste factors affecting construction
projects”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 29 No. 6,
pp. 2268-2299, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-12-2020-1097.
Bajjou, M.S., Chafi, A., En-Nadi and Abdelali (2017a), “The potential effectiveness of lean construction
tools in promoting safety on, construction sites”, International Journal of Engineering Research
in Africa, Vol. 33, pp. 179-193, doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/JERA.33.179.
Bajjou, M.S., Chafi, A., En-Nadi, A., El Hammoumi and Mohammed (2017b), “The practical
relationships between lean construction tools and sustainable development: a literature
review”, Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 170-177, Lean
doi: 10.25103/jestr.104.20.
construction
Bajjou, M.S., Chafi, A., En-Nadi and Abdelali (2019), “Development of a conceptual framework of lean
construction principles: an input-output model”, Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems,
model
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-34, doi: 10.1142/S021968671950001X.
Balkhy, W.Al, Sweis, R. and Lafhaj, Z. (2021), “Barriers to adopting lean construction in the
construction industry—the case of Jordan”, Buildings, Vol. 11 No. 6, p. 222, doi: 10.3390/
buildings11060222.
Banihashemi, S., Reza Hosseini, M., Golizadeh, H. and Sankaran, S. (2017), “Critical success factors
(CSFs) for integration of sustainability into construction project management practices in
developing countries”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 1103-1119, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.014.
Baral, M.M. and Verma, A. (2021), “Cloud computing adoption for healthcare: an empirical study
using SEM approach”, FIIB Business Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 255-275, doi: 10.1177/
23197145211012505.
Barcia, K.F., Garcia-Castro, L. and Abad-Moran, J. (2022), “Lean six Sigma impact analysis on
sustainability using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): a literature
review”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 14 No. 5, p. 3051, doi: 10.3390/su14053051.
Belhadi, A., Touriki, F.E. and El Fezazi, S. (2018), “Benefits of adopting lean production on green
performance of SMEs: a case study”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29 No. 11,
pp. 873-894, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2018.1490971.
Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S. and Pamela Danese (2015), “Successful lean implementation: organizational
culture and soft lean practices”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 160,
pp. 182-201, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.10.013.
Brady, Ann, D., Tzortzopoulos, P. and Rooke, J. (2012), “Using design science to further develop visual
management application in construction”, Proceedings for the 20th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, San Diego, CA, July 18th-20th.
Braglia, M., Dallasega, P. and Marrazzini, L. (2022), “Overall construction productivity: a new lean
metric to identify construction losses and analyse their causes in engineer-to-order construction
supply chains”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 33 Nos 9-10, pp. 925-942, doi: 10.1080/
09537287.2020.1837931.
Bygballe, L.E. and Ingemansson, M. (2014), “The logic of innovation in construction”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 512-524, doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.12.019.
Choo, A.S., Nag, R. and Xia, Y. (2015), “The role of executive problem solving in knowledge
accumulation and manufacturing improvements”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 63-74, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2015.03.001.
Choudhry, R.M. (2017), “Achieving safety and productivity in construction projects”, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 311-318, doi: 10.3846/13923730.2015.1068842.
Classi, C.C., Nowicki, D.R., Mansouri, Mo, Sauser, B.J. and Randall, W.S. (2018), “A systems thinking
approach to managing sustainment phase redesign planning”, Engineering Management
Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 68-81, doi: 10.1080/10429247.2017.1418598.
Coffey, M. (2000), “Developing and maintaining employee commitment and involvement in lean
construction”, Anual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Vol. 44,
pp. 17-19.
Colmenares, L. (2004), “Critical success factors of enterprise resource planning systems:
implementation in Venezuela”, AMCIS 2004 Proceedings, Vol. 31 No. 6 pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000370.
Curatolo, N. (2014), “Proposition d’une m�ethode Lean pour l’am�elioration des processus m�etiers en
milieu hospitalier: application au processus de prise en charge m�edicamenteuse �a l’h^opital”,
Master diss., Paris Institute of Technology.
ECAM Da, C.T., Milberg, C. and Walsh, K.D. (2012), “Exploring lean construction practice, research, and
education”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 512-525, doi: 10.1108/09699981211259595.
Dadhich, P., Genovese, A., Kumar, N. and Acquaye, A. (2014), “Developing sustainable supply chains
in the UK construction industry: a case study”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 164, pp. 271-284, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.012.
Dakhli, Z., Lafhaj, Z. and Benrard, M. (2016), “Application of lean to the bidding phase in building
construction: a French contractor’s experience”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 153-180, doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-03-2016-0010.
Daniel, E.I., Pasquire, C., Graham, D. and Glenn Ballard, H. (2017), “The relationship between the last
Planner® system and collaborative planning practice in UK construction”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 407-425, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-07-
2015-0109.
Demirkesen, S. (2020), “Measuring impact of lean implementation on construction safety
performance: a structural equation model”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 31
No. 5, pp. 412-433, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2019.1675914.
Demirkesen, S. and Hasan Gokberk, B. (2022), “Critical success factors of lean implementation in the
construction industry”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 69 No. 6,
pp. 2555-2571, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2019.2945018.
Diekmann, J.E., Balonick, J., Krewedl, M. and Troendle, L. (2003), “Measuring lean conformance”,
Proc. 11th Ann. Conf. Intl. Group for Lean Construction, Vol. 102, pp. 2-8.
Diekmann, J.E., Krewedl, M., Balonick, J., Stewart, T. and Won, S. (2004), Application of Lean
Manufacturing Principles to Construction, Vol. 191, Construction Industry Institute, Boulder,
CO, The University of Texas, Austin.
Dieste, M., Panizzolo, R., JoseGarza-Reyes, A. and Anthony, A. (2019), “The relationship between lean
and environmental performance: practices and measures”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 224, pp. 120-131, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.243.
Dieste, M., Panizzolo, R. and JoseGarza-Reyes, A. (2020), “Evaluating the impact of lean practices on
environmental performance: evidences from five manufacturing companies”, Production
Planning and Control, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 739-756, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2019.1681535.
Din, S., Abd-Hamid, Z. and James Bryde, D. (2011), “ISO 9000 certification and construction project
performance: the Malaysian experience”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29
No. 8, pp. 1044-1056, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.11.001.
Doloi, H., Sawhney, A. and Iyer, K.C. (2012), “Structural equation model for investigating factors
affecting delay in Indian construction projects”, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 869-884, doi: 10.1080/01446193.2012.717705.
Dupin, P. (2014), Le Lean Appliqu�e a� La Construction, Comment Optimiser La Gestion de Projet et
R�eduire Co^
uts et D�elais Dans Le B^atiment, Groupe Eyrolles, Paris.
Erol, H., Irem, D. and Talat Birgonul, M. (2017), “Measuring the impact of lean construction practices
on project duration and variability: a simulation-based study on residential buildings”, Journal
of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 241-251, doi: 10.3846/13923730.2015.
1068846.
Erthal, A. and Marques, L. (2022), “Organisational culture in lean construction: managing paradoxes
and dilemmas”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 33 No. 11, pp. 1078-1096, doi: 10.1080/
09537287.2020.1843728.
Fayek, A., Young, D.M. and Duffield, C.F. (1998), “A survey of tendering practices in the
Australian construction industry”, EMJ - Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 29-34, doi: 10.1080/10429247.1998.11415005.
Ferng, J. and Price, A.D.F. (2005), “An exploration of the synergies between six Sigma, total quality
management, lean construction and sustainable construction”, International Journal of Six
Sigma and International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1 No. 2, Lean
pp. 167-187, doi: 10.1504/IJSSCA.2005.006427.
construction
Forman, M. (2013), “Inertia and change: lean construction and health and safety work on construction
sites”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 647-660, doi: 10.1080/
model
01446193.2013.76595.
Formoso, C.T., Aguinaldo dos Santos and Powell, J.A. (2002), “An exploratory study on the
applicability of process transparency in construction sites”, Journal of Construction Research,
Vol. 3 No. 01, pp. 35-54, doi: 10.1142/s1609945102000102.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, F.D. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50,
doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104.
Gao, S. and Low, S.P. (2014), Lean Construction Management, Springer, Singapore, doi: 10.1007/978-981-
287-014-8.
Garza-Reyes, Arturo, J., Kumar, V., Chaikittisilp, S. and KimTan, H. (2018), “The effect of lean
methods and tools on the environmental performance of manufacturing organisations”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 200, pp. 170-180, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.
03.030.
Gayer, B.D., Abreu Saurin, T. and Wachs, P. (2021), “A method for assessing pull production systems:
a study of manufacturing, healthcare, and construction”, Production Planning and Control,
Vol. 32 No. 13, pp. 1063-1083, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2020.1784484.
Goh, M. and Goh, Y.M. (2019), “Lean production theory-based simulation of modular construction
processes”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 101 December 2018, pp. 227-244, doi: 10.1016/j.
autcon.2018.12.017.
Green, S.D. (1999), “The missing arguments of lean construction”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 133-137, doi: 10.1080/014461999371637.
Green, S.D. and May, S.C. (2005), “Lean construction: arenas of enactment, models of diffusion and the
meaning of ‘leanness”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 498-511, doi: 10.
1080/09613210500285106.
Habchi, H., Taoufiq, C. and Aziz, S. (2016), “Last Planner® system: implementation in a Moroccan
construction project”, IGLC 2016-24th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, pp. 193-202.
Hair, J.F., Andreson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.,
Prentice-Hall.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2014), Multivariate Data
Analysis. Exploratory Data Analysis in Business and Economics, Pearson New International ed.,
pp. 23-60.
Hallman, M. (2013), Implementing Last Planner on Construction Sites, Chalmers University of
Technology, G€oteborg.
Harris, F. and McCaffer, R. (2013), Modern Construction Management, Birkh€auser, Basel.
Hodge, G.L., KellyRoss, G., Joines, J.A. and Thoney, K. (2011), “Adapting lean manufacturing
principles to the textile industry adapting lean manufacturing principles to the textile
industry”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 237-247, doi: 10.1080/09537287.
2010.498577.
Hofacker, A., Fernandes De Oliveira, B., Gehbauer, F., Carmo, M. and Freitas, D. (2008), “Rapid lean
construction-quality rating model (LCR)”, in 16th International Group for Lean Construction
Conference (IGLC16), pp. 1-11.
Hong, T.S. and Ghobakhloo, M. (2013), “IT investments and product development effectiveness:
Iranian SBs”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 265-293, doi: 10.
1108/02635571311303578.
ECAM Hughes, S.W., Tippett, D.D. and Thomas, W.K. (2004), “Measuring project success in the construction
industry”, EMJ - Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 31-37, doi: 10.1080/
10429247.2004.11415255.
Hussain, M., Al-Aomar, R. and Melhem, H. (2019), “Assessment of lean-green practices on the
sustainable performance of hotel supply chains”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 2448-2467, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2018-0380.
Inman, R.A. and Green, K.W. (2018), “Lean and green combine to impact environmental and
operational performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 14,
pp. 4802-4818, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1447705.
Irizarry, J., Karan, E.P. and Jalaei, F. (2013), “Integrating BIM and GIS to improve the visual
monitoring of construction supply chain management”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 31,
pp. 241-254, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2012.12.005.
Issa, U.H. (2013), “Implementation of lean construction techniques for minimizing the risks effect on
project construction time”, Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 697-704, doi: 10.
1016/j.aej.2013.07.003.
Jeni, A., Luthfi, M. and Akasah, Z.A. (2013), “Implementation of lean construction concept among
contractors in Malaysia”, The International Conference on Engineering and Built Environment,
Vol. 112671200.
Jin, J. (2013), “Application of the last planner system in schedule management of construction
projects”, Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 439, pp. 1777-1781, doi: 10.4028/www.
scientific.net/AMM.438-439.1777.
Johansen, E. and Walter, L. (2007), “Lean construction: prospects for the German construction
industry”, Lean Construction Journal, Vol. 3 April, pp. 19-32.
Kern, P., AndreaDias, M.F., Kulakowski, M.P. and Paulo Gomes, L. (2015), “Waste generated in high-
rise buildings construction: a quantification model based on statistical multiple regression”,
Waste Management, Vol. 39, pp. 35-44, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.043.
Khaba, S. and Bhar, C. (2018), “Analysing the barriers of lean in Indian coal mining industry using
integrated ISM-MICMAC and SEM”, Benchmarking, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 2145-2168, doi: 10.1108/
BIJ-04-2017-0057.
Khanh, Ha, D. and SooKim, Y. (2014), “Identifying causes for waste factors in high-rise building
projects: a survey in Vietnam”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 865-874,
doi: 10.1007/s12205-014-1327-z.
Khanh, Ha, D. and SooKim, Y. (2015), “Development of waste occurrence level indicator in Vietnam
construction industry”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 22
No. 6, pp. 715-731, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-01-2014-0005.
Khanh, Ha, D. and SooKim, Y. (2016), “A survey on production planning system in construction
projects based on last planner system”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1007/s12205-015-1412-y.
Kim, S.Y. and Thanh Nguyen, V. (2018), “A structural model for the impact of supply chain
relationship traits on project performance in construction”, Production Planning and Control,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 170-183, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2017.1398846.
Kissi, E., Boateng, E.B., Adjei-Kumi, T. and Badu, E. (2016), “Principal component analysis of
challenges facing the implementation of value engineering in public projects in developing
countries”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 3599 October, pp. 1-10,
doi: 10.1080/15623599.2016.1233088.
Ko, C.-H. and Kuo, J.-D. (2015), “Making formwork construction lean”, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 444-458, doi: 10.3846/13923730.2014.890655.
Lam, P.T., Chan, E.H., Poon, C.S., Chau, C.K. and Chun, K.P. (2010), “Factors affecting the
implementation of green specifications in construction”, Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 654-661, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.029.
Lavoie, R. (2014), “Achieving operational excellence in the public sector: a lean journey?”, Applied Lean
Project Master of Business Administration, pp. 1-47.
construction
Le-Hoai, LongLee, Y.D. and Lee, J.Y. (2008), “Delay and cost overruns in Vietnam large construction
projects: a comparison with other selected countries”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering,
model
Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 367-377, doi: 10.1007/s12205-008-0367-7.
Li, S., Wu, X., Zhou, Y. and Liu, X. (2016), “A study on the evaluation of implementation level of lean
construction in two Chinese firms”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 71,
pp. 846-851, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.112.
Li, L., Li, Z., Li, X. and Wu, G. (2019), “A review of global lean construction during the past two
decades: analysis and Visualization”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1192-1216, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-03-2018-0133.
Locatelli, G., Mancini, M., Gastaldo, G. and Federica Mazza (2013), “Improving projects performance
with lean construction: state of the art, applicability and impacts”, Organization, Technology
and Management in Construction: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 834-843, doi: 10.
5592/otmcj.2013.2.2.
Love, P.E.D., Teo, P., Morrison, J. and Grove, M. (2016), “Quality and safety in construction: creating a
No-harm environment”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 142 No. 8,
05016006, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001133.
Mandujano, M.G., Mourgues, C., Alarc�on, L.F. and Kunz, J. (2017), “Modeling virtual design and
construction implementation strategies considering lean management impacts”, Computer-
Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 930-951, doi: 10.1111/mice.12253.
Mao, C., Shen, Q., Pan, W. and Ye, K. (2015), “Major barriers to off-site construction: the developer’s
perspective in China”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 3, 04014043, doi: 10.
1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000246.
Maradzano, I., Aron Dondofema, R. and Matope, S. (2019), “Application of lean principles in the South
African construction industry”, South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 210-223, doi: 10.7166/30-3-2240.
Masai, P., Parrend, P. and Zanni-Merk, C. (2015), “Towards a formal model of the lean enterprise”, in
Procedia Computer Science, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.122.
Moradi, S. and Sormunen, P. (2023), “Implementing lean construction: a literature study of barriers,
enablers, and implications”, Buildings, Vol. 13 No. 2, p. 556, doi: 10.3390/buildings13020556.
Mpofu, B., Godfrey Ochieng, E., Moobela, C. and Adriaan Pretorius (2017), “Profiling causative factors
leading to construction project delays in the United Arab Emirates”, Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 346-376, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-05-2015-0072.
Naji, K.K., Gunduz, M. and Farouq Hamaidi, M. (2022), “Major factors affecting construction waste
management in infrastructure projects using structural equation model”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 148 No. 10, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CO.1943-7862.0002358.
Nawanir, G., KongLim, T., Norezam Othman, S. and Adeleke, A.Q. (2018), “Developing and validating
lean manufacturing constructs: an SEM approach”, Benchmarking, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 1382-1405,
doi: 10.1108/BIJ-02-2017-0029.
Nesensohn, C., Bryde, D. and Pasquire, C. (2015), “A measurement model for lean construction
maturity”, Proceedings of IGLC 23-23rd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction: Global Knowledge - Global Solutions, Vol. 09, pp. 652-660.
Ng, K., Laurlund, A., Howell, G. and George, L. (2012), “Lean safety: using leading indicators of safety
incidents to improve construction safety”, 20th Annual Conference of the International Group
for Lean Construction, pp. 1-11.
Ng, T.C. and Morteza, G. (2018), “What determines lean manufacturing implementation? A CB-SEM
model”, Economies, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 9, doi: 10.3390/economies6010009.
ECAM Nowotarski, P., Paslawski, J. and Skwarek, J. (2019), “Waste reduction by lean construction-office
building case study”, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering Vol. 603 No. 4,
042061, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/603/4/042061.
Othman, A.A.E., Ghaly, M.A. and Zainul Abidin, N. (2014), “Lean principles: an innovative approach
for achieving sustainability in the Egyptian construction industry”, Organization, Technology
and Management in Construction: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 917-932, doi: 10.
5592/otmcj.2014.1.2.
Pheng, L.S., Stephanie, K. and Tan, L. (1998), “How ‘just-in-time’ wastages can Be quantified: case
study of a private condominium project”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 16
No. 6, pp. 621-635, doi: 10.1080/014461998371926.
Picchi, F.A. and Denis Granja, A. (2004), “Construction sites: using lean principles to seek broader
implementations”, 12 Th Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, no,
January: 1-12, doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00065-5.
Ramadas, T., Satish, K.P. and Girish, T. (2016), “A model for evaluating the success factors for
implementation of lean manufacturing in small and medium scale enterprises”,
International Journal of Lean Enterprise Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 66-80, doi: 10.1504/
ijler.2016.078233.
^
Rodrigues, H.S., Alves, W. and Angela Silva (2020), “The impact of lean and green practices on
logistics performance: a structural equation modelling”, Production, Vol. 30, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.
1590/0103-6513.20190072.
Sacks, R., Treckmann, M. and Rozenfeld, O. (2009), “Visualization of work flow to support lean
construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 135 No. 12,
pp. 1307-1315, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000102.
Sacks, R., Radosavljevic, M. and Ronen, B. (2010), “Requirements for building information modeling
based lean production management systems for construction”, Automation in Construction,
Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 641-655, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2010.02.010.
Sage, D., Dainty, A. and Brookes, N. (2012), “A ‘Strategy-as-Practice’exploration of lean construction
strategizing”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 221-230, doi: 10.1080/
09613218.2012.655925.
Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A. and Luegring, M. (2005), “Site implementation and assessment of
lean construction techniques”, Lean Construction Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 2-21.
Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A. and Minkarah, I. (2006), “Lean construction: from theory to
implementation”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 168-175, doi: 10.
1061/(ASCE)0742-597X.
Sarhan, J.G. (2017), “Implementation of lean construction management practices in the Saudi arabian
construction industry”, Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 46-69, doi: 10.
5130/ajceb.v17i1.5098.
Sarhan, Jamil Ghazi, I., Olubunmi Olanipekun, A. and Xia, Bo (2016), “Critical success factors for
the implementation of lean construction in the Saudi Arabian construction industry”,
Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Sustainable Built Environment: Actions
for the Built Environment of Post-Carbon Era, pp. 338-341, CIB-International Council for
Building.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003), Research Methods Forbusiness Students, Prentice
Hall: Financial Times, Essex.
Savolainen, J., K€ahk€onen, K., Niemi, O., Poutanen, J. and Varis, E. (2015), “Stirring the construction
project management with Co-creation and continuous improvement”, Procedia Economics and
Finance, Vol. 21 No. 15, pp. 64-71, doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00151-3.
Shang, G. and Sui, L.P. (2012), “The adoption of toyota way principles in large Chinese construction
firms”, Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 291-316, doi: 10.1108/
17468771311325185.
Shi, Q., Zuo, J., Huang, R., Huang, J. and Stephen, P. (2013), “Identifying the Critical Factors for Green Lean
Construction and an empirical study in”, Habitat International, Vol. 40, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1016/j.
habitatint.2013.01.003. construction
Shrafat, F.D. and Ismail, M. (2019), “Structural equation modeling of lean manufacturing practices in
model
a developing Country context”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 122-145, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-08-2017-0159.
Soni, G. and Kodali, R. (2012), “Evaluating reliability and validity of lean, agile and leagile supply
chain constructs in Indian manufacturing industry”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23
Nos 10-11, pp. 864-884, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2011.642207.
Tezel, B.A. (2007), “A statistical approach to lean construction implementations of construction
companies in Turkey”, Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University.
Tezel, A. and Aziz, Z. (2017), “Visual management in highways construction and maintenance in
england”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 486-513,
doi: 10.1108/ECAM-02-2016-0052.
Tezel, A. and Nielsen, Y. (2013), “Lean construction conformance among construction contractors in
Turkey”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 236-250, July, doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000145.
Tezel, B.A., Koskela, L.J., Tzortzopoulos, P., Formoso, C.T., Alves, T., Neto, B., Viana, D. and Mota, B.
(2010), “Process transparency on construction sites: examples from construction companies in
Brazil”, Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, July, pp. 296-305, available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/9567/
Tezel, A., Koskela, L. and Aziz, Z. (2018), “Current condition and future directions for lean
construction in highways projects: a small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) perspective”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 267-286, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.
2017.10.004.
Tjell, J. and Bosch-Sijtsema, P.M. (2015), “Visual management in mid-sized construction design
projects”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 21, pp. 193-200, doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)
00167-7.
Trigunarsyah, B. (2017), “Organizational culture influence on client involvement”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1155-1169, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-
06-2016-0141.
Trivedi, J. and Kumar, R. (2014), “Optimisation of construction resources using lean construction
technique”, International Journal of Engineering Management and Economics, Vol. 4 Nos 3-4,
pp. 213-228, doi: 10.1504/IJEME.2014.066941.
Ullah, F., Jamaluddin Thaheem, M., Qayyum Siddiqui, S. and Bilal Khurshid, M. (2017), “Influence of
six Sigma on project success in construction industry of Pakistan”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 276-309, doi: 10.1108/TQM-11-2015-0136.
Viana, D.D., Torres Formoso, C. and Kalsaas, Bo T. (2012), “Waste in construction: a systematic
literature review on empirical studies”, IGLC 2012-20th Conference of the International Group
for Lean Construction.
Vilasini, N., Neitzert, T.R. and Gamage, J.R. (2011), “Lean methodology to reduce waste in a
construction environment”, 15th Pacific Association of Quantity Surveyors Congress, 23-26 July
2011, Colombo, July, pp. 555-564.
Wahab, A.N.A., Mukhtar, M. and Sulaiman, R. (2013), “A conceptual model of lean manufacturing
dimensions”, Procedia Technology, Vol. 11 No. Iceei, pp. 1292-1298, doi: 10.1016/j.protcy.2013.
12.327.
Wang, J. and Ma, R.Q. (2014), “Based on lean construction standardization management analysis of
the performance evaluation index system”, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 933, pp. 879-883,
doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.933.879.
ECAM Watfa, M. and Sawalha, M. (2021), “Critical success factors for lean construction: an empirical study
in the UAE”, Lean Construction Journal, Vol. 2021 No. 2021, pp. 1-17.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), “Beyond Toyota: how to root out waste and pursue perfection”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 140-151.
About the authors

Mohamed Saad Bajjou is Assistant Professor at Higher National School of Mines of
Rabat (Morocco). He got his PhD in industrial engineering at Sidi Mohamed ben
Abdellah University. His main research interests are lean manufacturing, lean
construction, sustainable development, supply chain management, Industry 4.0, Six
Sigma and production planning and control. Awarded as the best young researcher in
Morocco in 2018 Mohamed Saad Bajjou is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: [email protected]
Anas Chafi is Senior Professor of Production Management at Sidi Mohamed ben
Abdellah University. He has been involved in research on Lean Construction since
2016. His research has been focused in particular on performance improvement using
lean thinking in various sectors such as healthcare, service and construction as well as
production planning and control, supply chain management and Industry 4.0.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

10 1108 - Ecam 02 2023 0102

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1108 - Ecam 02 2023 0102

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

10 1108 - Ecam 02 2023 0102

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

Developing and validating a new Lean

2.2 Lean construction model with hypotheses

Continuous improvement, Client Focus and Supply chain management. A hypothetical

Supply chain People

• Last planner system

3.2 Instrument development

To extract the main principles A critical analysis of seven

Data Analysis & Results Duscussion of resuls

3.3 Data collection

3.4 Respondent’s profile

Road and bridge

Type of organisation Size of organisation

Education Level Number of years working experience

3.5 Methods of data analysis

4.2 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

PT PT1 307 1 5 3.82 0.064 16 1.115 �0.815 0.139 0.034 0.277

PT PT1 0.881 0.946 4414.580 0.000 65.074

4.3 Empirical assessment of the construct

X2/degree of freedom ≤3.000 2.092 FIT

theoretical plausibility of changes and the measurement errors to be cross-correlated (e10<�

4.4 Measurement model validity

4.5 Internal consistency

Step 2: Interviews with

Step 3: creation of the first

Step 4: Review of Step 5: Pilot study

Cronbach’s alpha if Cronbach’s

Process transparency Work place organization – 0.710

Item No. PT PI WE PS & CI CF MF&P

1 0.884 0.790 0.879 0.876 0.876 0.837

4.6 Structural equation model and hypothesis testing

viewpoint emphasizes that LC should be perceived as an approach rather than a mere

5.1 Relationship between LC and its principal components

where EWc 5 effective weight of constructs; SFLc 5 standardized factor loading of

PT Process transparency 0.858 5.083 0.169 3

6.2 Practical implications

6.3 Limitations and future research

About the authors

You might also like