© 2021 by the author(s). This
is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) License (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), allowing third parties
to copy and redistribute the
material in any medium
or format and to remix,
transform, and build upon the
material for any purpose, even
commercially, provided the
original work is properly cited
and states its license.
Citation: Aslam, M.,
Gao, Z., and Smith, G.
2021. Development of Lean
Approaching Sustainability
Tools (LAST) Matrix for
Achieving Integrated Lean
and Sustainable Construction.
Construction Economics and
Building, 21:3, 176– 197. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.
v21i3.7653
ISSN 2204- 9029 | Published by
UTS ePRESS | https://epress.
lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.
php/AJCEB
Construction
Economics and
Building
Vol. 21, No. 3
September 2021
ARTICLE (PEER REVIEWED)
Development of Lean Approaching
Sustainability Tools (LAST) Matrix for Achieving
Integrated Lean and Sustainable Construction
Mughees Aslam1, Zhili Gao2,*, Gary Smith3
1 North Dakota State University (NDSU), Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental
Engineering, Dept 2470, P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108, mughees.aslam@ndsu.edu
2 North Dakota State University (NDSU), Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental
Engineering, 202N CIE Building, 1410 North 14th Avenue, Dept 2470, P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, ND
58108, jerry.gao@ndsu.edu
3 North Dakota State University (NDSU), Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental
Engineering, Dept 2470, P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108, gary.smith@ndsu.edu
Corresponding author: Zhili Gao, North Dakota State University (NDSU), Department of Civil,
Construction and Environmental Engineering, 202N CIE Building, 1410 North 14th Avenue, Dept
2470, P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108, jerry.gao@ndsu.edu, Tel: +1701 231 8857,
Fax: +1 701 231 7431
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v21i3.7653
Article History: Received: 29/03/2021; Revised: 12/06/2021 & 08/07/2021; Accepted: 12/07/2021;
Published: 10/09/2021
Abstract
Challenges exist across the three dimensions of construction sustainability (economic;
social and environmental) due to low productivity, waste, safety, and environmental
hazards attributed to existing construction management practices. Lean construction (LC)
has been widely accepted as a robust philosophy to enable sustainable construction (SC)
practices. However, the existing literature is more inclined toward defining the integration
between LC and sustainability through LC practices and techniques. Little research
tackles the challenges of achieving sustainable goals within the current practices.
Therefore, this paper aims to present a strategy that can help the construction industry
overcome the challenges of SC in the traditional construction management practice by
using LC. The challenges of SC are identified through a systematic literature review
approach with metadata analysis. Compared with LC principles, tools and techniques,
the strategy focused on identifying (1) the power and potential of LC principles and (2) the
176 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTEREST The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. FUNDING The author(s) received no
financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v21i3.7653
http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v21i3.7653
http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v21i3.7653
https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB
https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB
https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB
mailto:mughees.aslam@ndsu.edu
mailto:jerry.gao@ndsu.edu
mailto:gary.smith@ndsu.edu
mailto:jerry.gao@ndsu.edu
http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v21i3.7653
best LC practices/techniques that help in overcoming these SC challenges. The study results showed
20 out of 32 challenges identified can be overcome by using LC integrated with SC. Finally, a Lean
Approaching Sustainability Tools (LAST) matrix is developed to provide guidelines to the construction
stakeholders for the selection of LC practices/tools/techniques in overcoming the top 15 most
important challenges.
Keywords
Sustainable Construction; Lean Construction Tools and Techniques; Matrix;
Sustainability Challenges; Integration
Introduction
The construction industry is prone to many wasteful practices; excessive use of energy and resources,
generation of environmental hazards, and increased safety and health issues (Othman and Nadim, 2010;
Serpell, Kort and Vera, 2013). Considering the anticipated average growth rate of construction of 3.9%
per year (Robinson, 2019), it is projected that the construction industry might suffer more from a severe
shortage of natural materials and skilled manpower. The construction industry will bear the resulting higher
costs and will be held more responsible for its impact on the environment and society in the future. The
industry now has realized the importance of making the construction as sustainable as possible socially
and environmentally, while the economy was still the key focus for the construction industry. The concept
of sustainable development was introduced to the construction industry in the 1990s (Kibert, 1994). Early
efforts were proposed to achieve sustainability within three domains described as environment, social,
and economy. These three domains are known as the triple bottom line (Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012; Isa,
Samad and Alias, 2014). Accordingly, an abundance of research efforts since 1990 can be found on how to
make construction as sustainable as possible. Programs such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEEDS) in the USA, Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology
(BREEAM) in the UK, have helped the construction industry move toward sustainable construction (SC).
Despite all the benefits as well as the driving force from Government/State- initiated programs/
certifications, the required boom in sustainable construction (SC) is lacking within the construction industry
(Tokbolat, et al., 2019; Karji, Namian and Tafazzoli, 2020). The researchers believe that existing construction
management practices are still far from fully achieving the SC goals measured by the triple bottom line
(Tokbolat, et al., 2019; Karji, Namian and Tafazzoli, 2020). Unfortunately, many constraints within current
project management practices hold the industry down for fully inculcating the SC practices. Some examples
of the most common constraints are (1) a non- collaborative culture/silo working environment (Robichaud
and Anantatmula, 2011), (2) late involvement of contractors (Lam, et al., 2010), (3) high initial cost (Pham,
Kim and Luu, 2020), and (4) fear/uncertainty of adopting new or innovative methods (Tafazzoli, Nochian
and Karji, 2019). The main problem causing these constraints is that most SC practices are implemented
without aligning with construction management processes (Sourani and Sohail, 2005).
On the other hand, at the same time, the construction industry has also adopted another philosophy
to improve the construction project management process, which is Lean construction (LC). LC has been
approved as an effective practice for reducing construction materials and process wastes, while meeting the
customer’s requirements, adding value, and maintaining a continuous flow of processes in a very collaborative
and people respective environment (Howell, 1999; Koskela, et al., 2002; Abdelhamid, El- Gafy and Salem,
2008). Due to the similarity of waste reduction in both LC and SC and realizing the need for the construction
industry to implement SC, researchers started to explore the integration of SC practices with LC.
Over time, researchers explored the significance of using LC for implementing SC by exploring
synergies, benefits, and trade- offs between them. Many studies have cited the positive impact of LC in
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021177
achieving SC goals (Bae and Kim, 2008; Johnsen and Drevland, 2016; Khodeir and Othman, 2018). The
successful integration potentials between LC and SC can provide a way forward for overcoming the SC
challenges using LC practices. However, the dilemma is that although most of the previous integration
efforts of LC with SC have developed the context for using LC in achieving SC goals, its focus only
remained at the theory level. However, the main questions such as why and how LC can help the
construction industry in overcoming the existing SC challenges remain unanswered. There is a need for
further exploration of the benefits of LC in overcoming the SC challenges commonly in the construction
management processes. Addressing the challenges of SC through LC will take the integration effort from
theory up to the implementation level.
Therefore, this study focuses on exploring the potential for LC to overcome SC challenges. LC
principles, as well as tools and techniques, will be evaluated to determine their capabilities in overcoming
the challenges of implementing SC practices. The outcome of this study provides a way forward to the
construction industry for the implementation of SC within the LC environment. The specific objectives of
this study are:
• Identify the common challenges being faced by the construction industry in achieving the SC goals
within the existing management practices.
• Identify the potentials of LC in overcoming the challenges of SC.
• Developing a Lean Approaching Sustainability Tools (LAST) matrix for addressing the top SC
challenges by LC practices (tools and techniques).
Methodology
The overall methodology of the study, as shown in Figure 1, includes (1) systematic literature review (SLR),
(2) metadata analysis, and (3) matrix establishment. The metadata analysis will identify the challenges for
implementing SC by the construction industry. These challenges will be cross matched with LC principles
and drivers for determining the capabilities of LC principles/drivers in overcoming these challenges. Using
the available literature resources through SLR, the existing implementation status of LC will be assessed
to identify the common challenges between LC and SC. Then LC practices/tools/techniques will be
evaluated to determine their likelihood of overcoming SC implementation challenges. The objectives and
functionalities of practices (including tools and techniques) will be used to assess those LC practices that
have the potential of triggering the respective SC challenges. In the end, a LAST matrix showing the LC
practices/tools/techniques that can be effective in overcoming the SC challenges will be developed.
A SLR process was carried out based on the guidelines provided by Liberati, et al. (2009) and Mok, Shen
and Yang (2015). To improve the quality of research, literature studies were extracted from the existing body
of knowledge using three stages as shown in Figure 2. Different criteria were established at each of the three
stages to retain the quality papers for analysis as described below.
In Stage 1, published literature (journal papers, conference papers, industrial reports, academic papers)
from sources that have a peer- reviewed process of evaluating the papers such as Elsevier, Taylor and
Francis series web, American Association of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing
Institute (MDPI), Springer, International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC) and Emerald were
identified. Google scholar was used to extract industrial reports and scholarly articles that meet the specific
requirement of this study. The main approach for identifying potential papers was based on keywords
formulated in four broader search groups: (1) LC principles/drivers, (2) LC practices/tools/techniques,
(3) Integration of LC and SC, and (4) Challenges of SC. In summary, 195 papers/reports in total were
identified in the initial search. Some examples of keywords/sentences used for literature search are 1) LC
implementation process, LC implementation methods, LC implementation tools, LC implementation
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021178
techniques; 2) present status of LC adoption and implementation, present progress of LC adoption
and implementation, present rate of LC adoption and implementation; 3) SC challenges, SC barriers,
SC shortcomings, SC problems; 4) objectives of LC methods, objectives of tools and technique; 5) LC
principles, LC drivers, LC enablers, LC facilitators, LC critical success factors; 6) Integration of LC with
SC, and 7) Compatibility of LC with SC.
In Stage 2, the 195 papers were screened based on their years of publication and for potential duplicate
content. Considering the theoretical and practical evaluation of LC and SC, it was decided to keep the
initial conceptual papers that pioneered both these concepts, but not earlier works that may have contained
materials used in the development of the concepts. Key development periods were also used in screening.
For SC, the late 1980s, when the Brundtland report was published was chosen as the starting point. For the
Systematic literature review (SLR)
Lean construction Sustainable construction
LC practices, tools,
techniques
Challenges
Efficacy of LC principles, practices/tools/techniques to
overcome SC challenges
Developing a LAST matrix for selecting LC
practices/tools/techniques to overcome SC
challenges
Principles and drivers
Objectives LC implementation status
Meta data analysis
Figure 1. Overall research methodology
Stage 1:
Identification of the
relevant papers
Stage 2:
Screening of
papers
Stage 3:
Eligibility of
papers
Included
Figure 2. Stages of Systematic Literature Review (SLR) process
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021179
LC early 1990s, when LC started to evolve, was selected as the starting point. After Stage 2 screening, 119
papers/reports were retained for further consideration.
In Stage 3, the abstracts of the papers were read to verify the relevancy of the identified papers with this
study. When the scope of the paper matched the objectives of this study, a full paper review was carried out.
As a result of the SLR analysis after this stage, a total of 74 papers were included in the final analysis.
Current Challenges of Adopting SC
PROGRESS TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY
Evidence of waste and related environmental issues can be found in a variety of reports. According to US
EPA (2016), the construction industry is responsible for the generation of around 548 million tons of waste
in 2015 that contributed to pollution and other environmental hazards. Similarly, according to Force’s report
(1998), almost 10% of the construction material is wasted on most construction projects. Pérez- Lombard,
Ortiz and Pout (2008) reported that the building sector was responsible for between 20% to 40% of energy
consumption in developed countries which exceeds other sectors including industrial and transportation.
Similarly, Serpell, Kort and Vera (2013), after consulting several studies, reported that the construction
industry consumes 40% of raw materials and 25% of timber supplies along with 16% of water supplies.
Furthermore, they report that construction generates around 40% of waste and produces 35- 40% of carbon
dioxide emissions. According to IEA and UN (2019) report, the final energy demand in buildings in 2018
increased by 1% from 2017, and 7% from 2010. Similarly, according to Conti, et al. (2016), International
Energy Outlook 2016 with projections to 2040, if the energy demand of the building sector keeps on
growing at the existing rate of 1.4%/year, there are likely chances that the energy consumption will be more
than 48% higher in the year 2040 compared to 2012.
Despite the abundance of benefits of the SC, the adoption rate for SC practices in the construction
industry is not very high (Gunatilake, 2013). Comparing the literature of early 2000 with the latest years,
the generation of waste and consumption of energy continues to grow with the increasing demand for
buildings and infrastructure. This suggests that the construction industry, from design through construction,
has not fully adopted and implemented the SC practice in its true spirit (Tokbolat, et al., 2019; Karji,
Namian and Tafazzoli, 2020). Thus, there is a need for developing a strategy to overcome the challenges and
barriers to implementing SC.
CHALLENGES IN ADOPTING SC
The available literature was extensively examined to identify the challenges impacting the implementation of
SC in the context of construction management methods/processes. The list of challenges and categories of
those challenges are all detailed out in Table 1. The total number of citations is used as a ranking method of
challenges in the study.
Among these 32 challenges, the top 15 challenges with respect to their number of citation (≥ 5) as shown
in Table 1 along with some of the key source references are as follows:
1. High initial and operating cost for incorporating the sustainability practices (Hwang, Shan, and Lye,
2018; Tokbolat, et al., 2019)
2. Regulatory barriers towards adopting innovative techniques for SC (Yates, 2014; Ogunsanya, et al.,
2019)
3. Lack of knowledge/awareness of how SC can be applied in construction (Lam, et al., 2010; Chan,
et al., 2017; Opoku, Ayarkwa and Agyekum, 2019)
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021180
Table 1. Challenges in implementing SC
S/No Challenges in implementing SC Number of
Citations
Ranking
Category 1: Organizational/cultural (12 challenges)
1. Lack of commitment/consideration 13 4*
2. Resistance to change 10 6*
3. Fear/uncertainty for implementing new and innovative
changes
10 6*
4. Lack of incentives 8 7*
5. Less focus on environment and social aspects 7 8*
6. No inbuilt culture for sustainability 4 11
7. No consideration for Life cycle cost analysis 5 10*
8. No consideration for measuring Sustainability 4 11
9. Constructability issues 4 11
10. No in- Built quality 3 12
11. Non- involvement of external stakeholders 2 13
12. Dependence on other sectors 2 13
Total 72
Category 2: Contractual and Relational (5 challenges)
13. Non- involvement of the contractor at early stages 6 9*
14. Silo working 6 9*
15. Responsibilities for SC are not defined 3 12
16. Fear of change orders 2 13
17. Less time for selection contractor 1 14
Total 18
Category 3: Government (2 challenges)
18. No regulations for sustainability compliance 15 2*
19. Lack of interest from Govt agencies 11 5*
Total 26
Category 4: Knowledge and awareness (3 challenges)
20. Lack of knowledge for SC and how to apply/manage SC in
construction
14 3*
21. Lack of awareness 4 11
22. Lack of training opportunities 3 12
Total 22
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021181
4. Lack of commitment/consideration for SC from owners and top management (Häkkinen and
Belloni, 2011; Tafazzoli, Nochian and Karji, 2019)
5. Lack of support/strict rules from the Government departments for implementing SC
6. Fear/uncertainty of adopting new or innovative methods for management (Yates, 2014; Ogunsanya,
et al., 2019)
7. The general attitude of the construction industry resists any changes (cultural or management)
within its existing practices (Durdyev, et al., 2018; Olawumi and Chan, 2020)
8. Inadequate incentives for private sectors by the owners/top management and govt or lack of end-
user demand (Chan, et al., 2017)
9. More focus on cost and schedule than on environment and social aspects (Baloi, 2003; Robichaud
and Anantatmula 2011)
10. Lack of guidance for managing the material wastes and process (Chang, et al., 2016; O’Connor,
Torres and Woo, 2016)
11. Process of selecting the contractors based on the lowest cost (Lam, et al., 2010)
12. Individuality approach/silo thinking between designers, contractors, and subcontractors (Häkkinen
and Belloni, 2011; Hwang, Shan, and Lye, 2018)
13. Lack of use of technology (Opoku, Ayarkwa and Agyekum, 2019; Olawumi and Chan, 2020)
14. More focus on gaining rapid profits without any consideration to life cycle cost analysis of the
projects (Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011; Bon and Hutchinson, 2000)
15. Lower supply of green material (Bon and Hutchinson, 2000; Ogunsanya, et al., 2019)
Integration of LC and SC
Inspired by Lean manufacturing, LC was evolved as a philosophy to reduce waste within construction
materials and processes, adding value to the customer’s need, and maintaining continuous flow in a
S/No Challenges in implementing SC Number of
Citations
Ranking
Category 5: Construction and Management (10 challenges)
23. High initial cost 21 1*
24. Not well- defined processes for managing wastes 7 8*
25. Lack of use of technology 6 9*
26. Unsustainable project management practices 4 11
27. Lower supply of green materials and components 5 10*
28. Poor communication among different parties 3 12
29. Focus on activity management and not on the end product 3 12
30. Fragmentation 3 12
31. Unconfined environment 1 14
32. Adverse working conditions 1 14
Total 52
Notes: within the list of top challenges – Number*- for example, 1*
Table 1. continued
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021182
collaborative and people respective environment. According to the theoretical assessment of the previous
research efforts, LC and SC have the potentials to integrate with each other. This inference is based on
many common goals already identified between LC and SC like (1) Reduction of waste ( Johnsen and
Drevland, 2016), (2) improvement of health and safety conditions (De Carvalho, et al., 2017), (3) increased
process efficiency and productivity (Carvajal- Arango, et al., 2019), (4) continuous improvement (Francis
and Thomas, 2020), (5) costs reduction (Belayutham, González and Yiu, 2017), and (6) increased quality,
process efficiency and productivity (De Carvalho, et al., 2017). The previous research is quite successful in
reaching a point that can convince the construction industry in using the LC for effectively implementing
SC practices. The integration motivated the new study of using LC to overcome SC challenges.
LEAN CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
To facilitate LC implementation, most of the studies evaluated the impact of lean tools, techniques, systems,
theories, and methods (as listed in Table 2), which have been consistently used to achieve the principles
of LC. As an example, to ensure root cause analysis and continuous improvements as objectives of LC,
techniques like Six Sigma (SS) (Beary and Abdelhamid, 2005), failure mode effect analysis (FMEA)
(Sawhney, et al., 2010), and Fail- safe for quality and safety (FSQS) (Salem, et al., 2005) have been used
by many researchers. Similarly, to optimize production system/schedules, focusing the customers value,
improving workflow, and reducing variabilities as key principles of LC, methods like Just in time delivery
( JIT), Value stream mapping (VSM), and prefabrication/modular (Singh and Kumar, 2020) have been
recommended. Some researchers have strongly recommended theories like the Theory of constraints (TOC)
(Issa, 2013) and Total quality management (TQM) (Ansah and Sorooshian, 2017) for constraint analysis
and improving the quality as per the principles of LC, respectively. Several kinds of literature are available
which assessed the efficacy of building information modelling (BIM) in implementing the LC principles
(Singh and Kumar, 2020). Kanban (KAN) is used as a tool to facilitate the implementation of Pull
production (PULL) (González, Framinan and Ruiz- Usano, 2013). Similarly, the Last planner system (LPS)
has been developed as a complete system to implement LC with integral tools like master scheduling, phase
scheduling with PULL concepts, look- ahead planning, weekly planning, measuring Percent plan completion
(PPC) in a people- focused environment (Ballard and Howell,2003). Tools like A3, displaying planning,
safety, and progress charts/boards along with the use of informational technologies for rapid sharing of
information are effectively embedded into the concepts of visual management. Other tools/techniques like
Big room (BR), Performance- based contracting (PBC), Poka yoka (PY ), 5S, and Concurrent engineering
(CE) (Ansah and Sorooshian, 2017; Singh and Kumar, 2020) will further facilitate the implementation
process of LC.
Considering a large diversity in identifying the modalities of implementing LC like tools, techniques,
methods, theories, and concepts, this research combined these different modalities under the common name
of LC facilitators. These facilitators have been comprehensively analysed by Aslam, Gao and Smith (2020)
based on their objectives and functions, as shown in Table 2.
Where the theories of SC fell short in explaining the modalities of how to achieve SC goals within the
construction environment (Sarhan, et al., 2018), those LC practices in Table 2 provide a perfect platform
for integrating practices to achieve sustainability in construction. Many researchers explored LC practices
for their impact on construction sustainability and reported positive relationships or the potential for
positive impact (Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012; Ahuja, 2013; Francis and Thomas, 2020). However, LC is still
an emerging construction process and has not yet been fully adopted by the entire construction industry.
The current implementation status of LC has to be considered as a controlling influence on LC efficacy in
overcoming the SC challenges.
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021183
Table 2. Commonly used LC practices (Aslam, Gao and Smith, 2020)
S/N LC facilitators Objective
1. Last Planner System (LPS) Reduce planning variabilities, improves the workflow,
reduce process variabilities, continues improvement,
improve visualization, customer focus, improve
communication, pull approach
2. Visual Management (VM) Improve communication and visualization, continues
improvement
3. Daily Huddle Meetings
(DHM)
Involve the employees, improving working procedures,
reduce process variabilities
4. First Run Studies (FRS) Continues improvement, improve the working procedure,
reduce, better visualization, improve workflow
5. 5S Reduce process variabilities, improve working
procedures, maintain material flow, safety
6. Fail- Safe for
Quality and Safety (FSQS)
Defect control, reduce process variabilities, improve
quality and safety
7. Six Sigma (SS) Process and production variability reduction, control
defect rates, customer focus, continues improvement
8. Kanban (KAN) Systematic management of the demands, reduce
process variabilities, improve material flow, safety
control
9. Just in Time (JIT) Reduce planning and process variabilities, improve
workflow, improve material Flow
10. Kaizen (KAIZ)/Continues
improvement
Continues improvement, reduce process variabilities,
control defects, improve workflow
11. Concurrent Engineering
(CE)/Integrated design
Customer focus, reduce design variabilities, improve
workflow
12 Prefabrication/Modular
(PREFAB/MOD)
Reduce planning, design, and process variability,
improve workflow, improve working procedures
13 Line of Balance (LOB) Minimize interruption between workflows, reduce
process variabilities, maintain the material flow
14 Poka Yoka (PY) Reduce variabilities in construction processes due to
mistakes, improve workflow
15 Theory of Constraints (TOC) Improve the rate of flow by reducing the constraints,
reduce planning, design and process variabilities,
maintain material flow, safety
16 Standardized Processes (SP) Continues improvement, reduce process variabilities,
Improve workflow
17 Building Information
Modelling (BIM)
Better visualization, reduce planning, design and process
variabilities, customer focus, improve communication
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021184
IMPACT OF LC PRINCIPLES/DRIVERS IN REMOVING THE SHORTCOMINGS WITHIN SC
To consider the integration of LC and SC it would be of great value to the construction industry if the
efficacy of LC principles and practices in overcoming the prevalent SC implementation challenges are
assessed. LC principles and drivers are different concepts, and many kinds of literature either only explained
principles or only identified drivers; however, comparing the SC challenges only with LC principles will
not reflect the true capabilities of LC in overcoming the SC challenges. This is because the list of LC
principles is very brief, and they don’t cover all the dimensions of LC. Therefore, drivers of LC are further
augmented with LC principles to cover most of the LC aspects. The challenges as outlined in Table 1 have
to be minimized to efficiently implement SC. The development of LC principles and drivers can provide a
way forward to the lean practitioners for implementing LC in its true spirit. LC principles and drivers are
established to further facilitate the achievement of the main goals of LC that are waste reduction, adding
value, and maintaining a continuous flow. The theories, tools, and philosophies of LC are influenced and
adapted from the Lean Production System (LPS) inspired by Toyota motors. Similarly, the principles of
LC are also derived from the LPS (Womack and Jones 1996; Liker 2004). Extensive work has already
been carried out in developing the comprehensive principles of LC by Diekmann, et al. (2004), Koskela
(1992, 2000), Sacks, et al. (2010) and Khodeir and Othman (2018) As a result, 35 major principles and
drivers of LC are identified. The principles of LC and their capabilities in achieving the goals of SC were
cross matched with the prevalent challenges of implementing SC as shown in Table 3. Based on the
frequency of LC principles/drivers in overcoming the SC challenges, ten (10) most influential principles/
S/N LC facilitators Objective
18 Integrated Project Delivery
(IPD)
Reduce planning, design, and process variabilities,
improve flow, improve communication
19 Set- Based Design (SBD) Reduce design variabilities, improve workflow
20 Target Value Design (TVD) Reduce planning and design variabilities, customer focus
21 Value Stream Mapping
(VSM)
Better visualization, reduce process variabilities,
maintain continuous flow of information and material,
better visualization, customer focus
22 Failure mode effect Analysis
(FMEA)
Defect analysis and control, reduce planning and process
variabilities
23 Collaboration using Big
Room (BR)
Reduce planning variabilities, improve workflow, reduce
process variabilities, continues improvement, improve
visualization, customer focus, improve communication
24 Total Quality Management
(TQM)
Remove quality issues very first time, built- in quality,
reduce planning and process variabilities
25 Performance- based
contracting (PBC)
Reduce planning, design, and process variabilities,
improve workflow
26 Pull approach (PULL) Process and production variability reduction, improve
workflow, systematic management of the demands,
reduce the work in process
Table 2. continued
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021185
drivers in overcoming most of the SC challenges are 1) people involvement, 2) collaboration, 3) integrated
design and delivery system, 4) increased output value through systematic consideration of customer
requirements 5) target value and cost among other alternatives, 6) JIT delivery, 7) optimize work content,
production schedules, and production system, 8) use visual management, 9)benchmark, and 10) continuous
improvement.
Theoretically, if a particular area of LC is struggling to overcome implementation challenges, there is a
high likelihood that it will be equally difficult for that particular area of LC to facilitate SC in overcoming
a similar challenge. For example, the lack of commitment from top management is the most common
implementation challenge of LC. If a group of LC tools and techniques have difficulty in overcoming
this challenge, those tools and techniques would not likely be successful in overcoming a similar challenge
in SC. Some of the common challenges between LC and SC identified in the SLR were (1) the lack of
commitment/consideration (Kawish, 2017), (2) resistance to change (Sarhan and Fox, 2013), (3) fear/
uncertainty for implementing new and innovative changes (Warcup, 2015), (4) lack of awareness (Simonsen,
Thyssen and Sander, 2014), and (5) the lack of interest from government agencies (Sarhan and Fox, 2013).
Other challenges for implementing LC were adopted from the study conducted by Gao, Aslam and Smith
(2020), as shown in the column of Status of LC implementation in Table 3. The LC principle or driver is
rated as either “Struggling” or “Helpful” in overcoming the challenge to SC. “Struggling”, in the Status of LC
column, is where LC is not currently successful in overcoming the challenge similar or the same as what is
shown for SC. “Helpful ” indicates that the LC principle/driver shown is considered helpful in resolving the
SC challenge.
Table 3 shows that LC is thought to be helpful with 20 of the 32 SC challenges based on current
LC implementation. LC helps overcome the 7 challenges of SC whereas it struggles in overcoming 5
challenges within the category of organization/culture. Similarly, LC also struggles in overcoming the
challenges related to Government support. knowledge, and awareness. LC itself needs substantial uplift
in the categories of government support and knowledge/awareness. Effective awareness and educational
programs from Government can substantially improve the uptake of LC which in turn helps to achieve
the SC, because LC has the principles/drivers that can help in overcoming the challenges related to
these two categories. The present implementation of LC indicates the efficacy of LC in overcoming the
challenges of SC related to categories of contract/relationships and construction/management. Even
with the present implementation/knowledge status of LC, the construction industry can substantially
improve its sustainability goals, especially by overcoming the challenges related to contract/relationship and
construction/management.
In summary, it can be seen that where the theory of LC has the principles/drivers that can help in
achieving the SC by overcoming SC challenges, the implementation status of some of the LC principles/
drivers needs to be improved to fully achieve all the SC domains.
It has to be mentioned that many principles and drivers have appeared multiple times in table 3. This is
because many LC principles and drivers can be useful in overcoming more than one specific challenge. As
an example, the challenge like less focus on environment and social aspects can be overcome by using the
LC principles/drivers of 1) Target value and cost among other alternatives, 2) Collaboration, 3) Increase
output value through systematic consideration of customer requirements, and 4) People involvement.
During target costing the aspects of environment and society can be discussed in a collaborative session
duly represented by all stakeholders while highlighting its importance to the customers for further
inclusion within the goals of the project. Similarly, the driver collaboration can also be useful in overcoming
other challenges like the non- involvement of contractors at an early stage, no inbuilt culture for SC, no
consideration for life cycle costing and so many others.
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021186
Table 3. Status of LC principles in overcoming the SC challenges
S/No LC principles/drivers that can help Status of
LC
Challenges - SC
Category 1: Organizational/cultural (12 challenges)
1. Organizational commitment, empower the
employees, long term partnership
Struggling Lack of commitment/
consideration
2. Increase transparency, use visual management,
collaboration, target value and cost among other
alternatives, benchmark, people involvement
Struggling Resistance to change
3. Increase transparency, use visual management,
Collaboration, target value and cost among other
alternatives, benchmark, people involvement, use
of latest and trusted technologies
Struggling Fear/uncertainty
for implementing
new and innovative
changes
4. Integrated design and delivery system Helpful Lack of incentives
5. Target value and cost among other alternatives,
collaboration, increase output value through
systematic consideration of customer
requirements, people involvement
Helpful Less focus on
environment and
social aspects
6. Promote a cultural change among the
organization, people involvement, increase
output value through systematic consideration of
customer requirements, collaboration
Struggling No inbuilt culture for
sustainability
7. Increase output value through systematic
consideration of customer requirements,
target value and cost among other alternatives,
collaboration, people involvement, organizational
learning
Helpful No consideration
for Life cycle cost
analysis
8. Benchmark, people involvement, continuous
improvement
Helpful No consideration
for measuring
sustainability
9. Reducing the share of non- value adding activities,
rectify the faults when originates at first
Helpful Constructability
issues
10. Integrated project delivery system, development
of multiskilled and cross- functional teams
Helpful No in- built quality
11. People involvement, Plan for the projects at the
start and every time the activities are near to
start
Helpful Non- involvement
of external
stakeholders
12. Collaboration, development of multiskilled and
cross- functional teams, Integrated design and
delivery system, long term partnership
Struggling Dependence on other
sectors
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021187
S/No LC principles/drivers that can help Status of
LC
Challenges - SC
Category 2: Contractual and Relational (5 challenges)
13. Integrated design and delivery system,
collaboration
Helpful Non- involvement
of the contractor at
early stages
14. Integrated design and delivery system,
collaboration
Helpful Silo working
15. Collaboration, increase output value through
systematic consideration of customer
requirement, people involvement, empower the
employees
Helpful Responsibilities for
SC are not defined
16. Integrated design and delivery system,
collaboration, increase output value through
systematic consideration of customer
requirement, people involvement, ensure
requirement flow down
Helpful Fear of change
orders
17. Integrated design and delivery system Helpful Less time for
selection contractor
Category 3: Government (2 challenges)
18. Involvement of Govt to ensure LC Struggling No strict rules
for sustainability
appliance
19. Continues improvement, benchmarking,
involvement of Govt to ensure LC
Struggling Lack of interest from
Govt agencies
Category 4: Knowledge and awareness (3 challenges)
20. Optimize work content, optimize production
system, optimize production schedules, simplify
the whole process, collaboration, people
involvement, integrated project delivery method
Struggling Lack of knowledge
for SC and how to
apply/manage SC in
construction
21. Increase awareness for LC Struggling Lack of awareness
22. Organizational learning Struggling Lack of training
opportunities
Category 5: Construction and Management (10 challenges)
23. Reducing the share of non- value adding activities,
reducing cycle times, reduce variability, increase
output value through systematic consideration
of customer requirements, ensure requirement
flow down, continuous improvement, people
involvement, JIT delivery, optimize work content,
Helpful High initial cost
Table 3. continued
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021188
S/No LC principles/drivers that can help Status of
LC
Challenges - SC
optimize production system, optimize production
schedules, simplify the whole process,
collaboration, use of preassembly, prefabrication
and modular construction, target value and cost
among other alternatives, Apply to Pull approach,
empower the employees
24. JIT delivery, Apply to Pull approach, reducing the
share of non- value adding activities, increase
output value through systematic consideration of
customer requirements, use visual management,
people involvement, standardization, use of
preassembly, prefabrication, and modular
construction
Helpful Not well- defined
processes for
managing wastes
25. Use of latest and trusted technologies Helpful Lack of use of
technology
26. Covers all principles of LC Helpful Unsustainable
project management
practices
27. JIT delivery, increase output value through
systematic consideration of customer
requirements, people involvement,
standardization, use of preassembly,
prefabrication and modular construction, target
value and cost among other alternatives
Struggling Lower supply of
green materials and
components
28. Meetings/planning at the start and every time the
activities are near to start, people involvement,
integrated design, and delivery system,
collaboration
Helpful Poor communication
among different
parties
29. Optimize work content, optimize production
system, optimize production schedules
Helpful Focus on activity
management and not
on the end product
30. No principles/driver available Struggling Fragmentation
31. Optimize work content, optimize production
system, optimize production schedules, reduce
variability, reduce the share of non- value
adding activities, increase flexibility, use visual
management, JIT delivery, People involvement,
collaboration
Helpful Unconfined
environment
32. Optimize work content, optimize production system,
optimize production schedules, reduce variability,
reduce the share of non- value adding activities,
increase flexibility, use visual management, JIT
delivery, people involvement, collaboration
Helpful Adverse working
conditions
Table 3. continued
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021189
Developing Lean Approaching Sustainability Tools (LAST) Matrix for
Evaluating LC Practices in Overcoming SC Challenges
EFFICACY OF LC PRACTICES (TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES) IN OVERCOMING SC CHALLENGES
Based on the theoretical concepts, the efficacy of LC tools and techniques were further examined in
overcoming the challenges faced by the construction industry in implementing SC. The objectives of LC are
used to evaluate the ability of LC tools and techniques to effectively overcome SC challenges. LC tools and
techniques that can have a significant impact in overcoming those 32 challenges have been identified, but
only the top fifteen (15) challenges are used to develop into a LAST matrix, as shown in Table 4, based on
their significance in literature citations discussed above.
LAST matrix shows that more LC tools and techniques are available to address some challenges
like 1) high initial cost, 2) resistance to change, and 3) lack of guidance for material wastes and process
optimization. As a comparison, only a limited number of tools/techniques are available to address some
other challenges like 1) the lack of use of technology, 2) fear/uncertainty, and 3) lack of provision of
incentives, and 4) silo working. The LAST matrix also shows that no LC tools and techniques are available
to address the two challenges of 1) lack of interest from Government and 2) non- availability of strict rules/
regulations for SC.
Further evaluation of the individual LC practices revealed that some LC tools and techniques like BIM,
LPS, and BR (from Table 3) can help to comparatively eradicate a greater number of challenges (7 and 6
respectively out of 15 major challenges). Some other LC tools and techniques like DHM, KAN, PULL,
LOB, and FMEA can only address one challenge each. Additionally, LC tools and techniques like FSQS
and PY (Table 3) are not found to be significant in overcoming any of the major challenges; however, these
tools can play some role in overcoming other challenges (apart from the 15 top challenges). Since the LAST
matrix is developed for overcoming the top 15 challenges, the detailed analysis on overall 32 challenges
revealed that these LC tools and techniques can also play a vital role in addressing other SC challenges like
optimizing the project activities, unconfined environment- open area exposed to the public, constructability
issues and adverse working conditions.
APPLICATION OF THE LAST MATRIX
The LAST matrix provides the guideline to the construction stakeholders for evaluating different LC
practices in overcoming the respective major SC challenges. When choosing an LC tool or technique, it
should be kept in mind that some LC tools and techniques are general, while others can be specific to the
challenges. For example, BR is a tool to ensure collaboration and people involvement and can be effective
in overcoming most of the challenges within all the categories. The challenges of 1) lack of commitment,
2) resistance to change, 3) no consideration for life cycle cost, 4) non- involvement of contractor, 5) silo
working, and 6) high initial cost can be easily addressed through collaborative sessions duly represented by
all the stakeholders in a BR platform. JIT is a specific tool that ensures effective material waste management
and can only be effective in overcoming some of the shortcomings related to the category of construction
and management to reduce material, process waste, and optimize the availability of green materials.
Similarly, the tools like FRS, PBC, IPD, TVD, TOC, and CE are effective against very unique challenges
for 1) removing the complexities, 2) selecting and involving the best contractor early, 3) integrated delivery
of the project, 4) making the customers realize the sustainable environment and social goals, 5) removing
the uncertainties and fear, and 6) integrating the sustainability aspects into the design and contracts,
respectively.
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021190
Table 4. The LAST matrix
Major Challenges
as Determined from
Table 2
Lean Facilitators
T
Q
M
K
A
IZ
B
R
S
S
L
P
S
V
M
T
V
D
/S
B
D
B
IM
IP
D
V
S
M
D
H
M
C
E
P
B
C
P
re
fa
b
/M
o
d
5S JI
T
K
A
N
P
U
L
L
F
R
S
S
P
F
M
E
A
F
S
Q
S
P
Y
L
O
B
T
O
C
To
ta
l
Organizational/cultural
Lack of commitment/
consideration
X X X X X 5
Resistance to change X X X X X X X X X 9
Fear/uncertainty
for implementing
new and innovative
changes
X X X 3
Lack of incentives X 1
Less focus on
environment and
social aspects
X X X X X 5
No consideration
for Life cycle cost
analysis
X X X X X 5
Contractual and Relational
Non- involvement
of contractor at
early stages/lowest
bidders
X X X X X 5
Silo working X X X 3
Government
Lack of interest/legal
specifications from
Govt agencies
0
No strict rules
for sustainability
appliance
0
Knowledge and awareness
Lack of knowledge/
awareness for SC
and how to apply/
manage SC in
construction
X X X X 4
Construction and Management
High initial cost X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14
Lack of guidance for
material wastes and
process optimization
X X X X X X X X 8
Lack of use of
technology
X X X 3
Lower supply of
green materials and
components
X X X X X 5
Total 2 3 6 2 6 2 5 7 5 4 1 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 5 2 1 0 1 1 2
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021191
To overcome the challenge of lack of commitment/consideration, the tools like KAIZ, TQM, LPS, BR,
and SS are recommended in the LAST matrix. The tools like KAIZ, TQM, and SS will help in evaluating
the benefits or improvements of using LC for achieving SC goals by ensuring the best quality delivered at
the very first time without any defects. Realizing the initial benefits, the trust of top management for an
integrated LC/SC approach will be increased thereby motivating increasing commitment for integrating
SC.
LPS and BR can be applied to increase the commitment of the field management, suppliers,
subcontractors, and workers by involving them during all the planning stages and making them realize the
importance of SC. The challenges of fear/uncertainty, resistance to change, high initial cost, late selection of
contractors, and lack of technology use can best be overcome using BIM as it improves the visualization and
communication between different stakeholders. Early visualization of the end product, likely safety issues
to be encountered, environmental effects, and construction processes will help the construction stakeholders
understand and modify the complexities and working methodologies.
To improve the focus on environmental and social aspects, tools like BR, VSM, TVD/SBD, DHM,
and LPS will be helpful to convince the stakeholders of the importance of sustainability. All these tools
promote collaboration and involvement of people to identify non- value- adding activities along with other
constraints adversely impacting the environment and society. Similarly, 12 tools are recommended to address
high initial costs for sustainable events, among which JIT (delivering material at the right time and place
to reduce material wastes), LPS (making the work- ready by removing constraints by involving last planers),
BR/TVD/SBD (working in a collaborative environment to select the plans that are most cost- effective
within the sustainability goals), and VSM (for identifying the wasteful practices within the construction
processes) are the most prominent tools.
To address the challenges of Silo thinking/working approach, lack of incentives and late selection of
contractors, IPD coupled with CE provides a complete system in which all the major stakeholders, like
owners, consultants, and contractors, have a multi- party contract to share financial risks and rewards by
applying a profit/incentive pool based upon measurable project outcomes. The collaboration between
stakeholders will help in structuring the modalities for the profit and incentive pool to ensure that each
member is accountable for its contribution to the project outcome.
Selection of the competent contractor having adequate sustainability awareness can be aided through
using PBC by evaluating the capability of the contractor in meeting the sustainability goals. Knowledge
for sustainability can be substantially improved through FRS. The complex processes can be given the first
run to acquaint the whole team with how the processes can best be done. It would be more manageable
to ensure the required demand for green material through Prefab/MOD construction. The prefabricated
materials can be designed based on the availability of green materials and then can be better controlled
under controlled and sustainable environments. By using the tools like BIM and KAIZ, the standard legal
specifications can be better tailored based on the best site requirements as experienced by the construction
stakeholders.
In summary, the LAST matrix can be used as a resource for identifying the LC practices to address the
SC challenges. Although many LC practices have been recommended to overcome the challenges of the
SC, the construction companies must evaluate each of them based on their organizational policy, project
needs, available assets and resources, suppliers/subcontractor’s capabilities, and in consensus with the project
teams.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the synergy between LC and SC and the efficacy of LC practices in triggering the SC goals, the
potential of LC to overcome the prevalent challenges for implementing the SC was evaluated in this study.
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021192
Overall, 32 SC challenges were identified and placed into five categories. Based on the number of citations
in the existing literature, it was found out that the challenges related to the categories of organization/
culture and construction/management were most commonly evaluated and were considered as a higher
priority to be addressed as compared to categories like contractual/relational, Government, and knowledge/
awareness. The category of knowledge/awareness is comparatively more challenging for implementing SC as
compared to contractual/relational and knowledge/awareness.
The analysis and the developed LAST matrix proved that LC tools and techniques have the capability
of addressing SC Challenges. Thus, there is strong potential and applications for an integrated lean
and sustainable construction. To select appropriate LC practices in the LAST matrix, objectives, and
functionalities of LC tools and techniques were cross matched with the SC challenges to provide a
guideline to the stakeholders in selecting the right tool for overcoming the respective challenges. While
a large number of LC practices can effectively help in overcoming most of the major SC challenges, it
was also found that no LC practices can address issues like the lack of interest from the Government and
non- availability of strict rules/regulations for SC appliances. While this was disappointing, SC and LC are
voluntary and not a regulated activity in construction.
LC implementation status also revealed that the construction industry is struggling with implementing
LC in some areas. This applies to some of the common challenges between LC and SC, which implies that
more innovative and robust steps will have to be taken as a future research direction.
Theoretically, this study will help the construction industry to understand the concepts and rationale for
integrating LC and SC based on their principles and drivers. Practically, the outcomes of this study in the
LAST matrix have provided the way forward to the construction industry in overcoming the challenges for
implementing SC by utilizing the LC practices.
The results of this study are based on the outcomes of previous literature efforts that has to be verified in
the real construction environment for its validity. The capabilities of each of the lean facilitator as presented
in the LAST matrix should be confirmed from the inputs of the LC implementing companies and then
calibrated by using real project implementation data. This will improve the LAST matrix based on the actual
construction environments.
References
Abdelhamid, T.S., El- Gafy, M. and Salem, O., 2008. Lean construction: Fundamentals and principles. American
Professional Constructor Journal, 4, pp.8- 19
Ahuja, R., 2013. Sustainable construction: is lean green? In Proceedings of International Conference on Sustainable Design,
Engineering, and Construction 2012: Developing the Frontier of Sustainable Design, Engineering, and Construction, 7- 9
November, 2013, Fort Worth, Texas, pp. 903- 911.
Ansah, R.H. and Sorooshian, S., 2017. Effect of lean tools to control external environment risks of construction projects.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 32, pp.348- 356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.03.027
Aslam, M., Gao, Z. and Smith, G., 2020. Framework for selection of lean construction tools based on lean objectives
and functionalities. International Journal of Construction Management, pp.1- 12. [online] [Accessed 10 March 2021].
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1729933
Bae, J.W. and Kim, Y.W., 2008. Sustainable value on construction projects and lean construction. Journal of Green
Building, 3(1), pp.156- 167. https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.3.1.156
Ballard, G. and Howell, G., 2003. An update on last planner. In Proceeding of 11th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction, July 2003, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021193
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.03.027
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1729933
https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.3.1.156
Baloi, D., 2003. Sustainable construction: challenges and opportunities. In proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM
Conference, September 3- 5, 2003, 1, pp.3- 5.
Belayutham, S., González, V.A. and Yiu, T.W., 2017. Lean- based clean earthworks operation. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 142 part 4, pp.2195- 2208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.060
Beary, T.M. and Abdelhamid, T.S., 2005. Production planning process in residential construction using lean construction
and six sigma principles. Construction Research Congress 2005, 5- 7 April 2005, San Diego, California, pp. 1- 10. https://
doi.org/10.1061/40754(183)16
Bon, R. and Hutchinson, K., 2000. Sustainable construction: some economic challenges. Building Research and
Information, 28(5- 6), pp.310- 314. https://doi.org/10.1080/096132100418465
Carvajal- Arango, D., Bahamón- Jaramillo, S., Aristizábal- Monsalve, P., Vásquez- Hernández, A. and Botero,
L.F.B., 2019. Relationships between lean and sustainable construction: Positive impacts of lean practices over
sustainability during construction phase. Journal of Cleaner Production, 234, pp.1322- 1337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.05.216
Chan, A.P., Darko, A., Ameyaw, E.E. and Owusu- Manu, D.G., 2017. Barriers affecting the adoption of green
building technologies. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33(3), p.04016057. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
ME.1943- 5479.0000507
Chang, R.D., Zuo, J., Soebarto, V., Zhao, Z.Y., Zillante, G. and Gan, X.L., 2016. Sustainability transition of the
Chinese construction industry: Practices and behaviors of the leading construction firms. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 32(4), p.05016009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943- 5479.0000439
Conti, J., Holtberg, P., Diefenderfer, J., LaRose, A., Turnure, J.T. and Westfall, L., 2016. International energy outlook 2016
with projections to 2040 (No. DOE/EIA- 0484 (2016)). Energy Information Administration (EIA), Washington, DC,
United States. [online] [Accessed 29 March 2021]. https://doi.org/10.2172/1296780
De Carvalho, A.C.V., Granja, A.D. and Da Silva, V.G., 2017. A systematic literature review on integrative lean and
sustainability synergies over a building’s lifecycle. Sustainability, 9(7), p.1156. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071156
Diekmann, J.E., Krewedl, M., Balonick, J., Stewart, T. and Won, S., 2004. Application of lean manufacturing principles to
construction. Project report by Project team 19, Boulder, CO, Construction Industry Institute. The University of Texas,
Austin, Texas.
Durdyev, S., Ismail, S., Ihtiyar, A., Bakar, N.F.S.A. and Darko, A., 2018. A partial least squares structural equation
modelling (PLS- SEM) of barriers to sustainable construction in Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204,
pp.564- 572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.304
Force, C.T. 1998. Rethinking construction: The report of the construction task force to the deputy prime minister, John
Prescott, on the scope for improving the quality and efficiency of UK construction; foreword by Sir John Egan, Department of
Environment, Transport and Regions and HMSO, London, UK.
Francis, A. and Thomas, A., 2020. Exploring the relationship between lean construction and environmental
sustainability: A review of existing literature to decipher broader dimensions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252,
p.119913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119913
Gao, Z., Aslam, M. and Smith, G., 2020. Strategies to Increase the Adoption Rate of Lean Construction. In Proceedings
of the 56th Annual International Conference of Associated Schools of Construction - EPiC Series in Built Environment, 1,
pp.364- 372.
Gunatilake, S., 2013. The uptake and implementation of sustainable construction: transforming policy into practice, Doctoral
dissertation, University of Central Lancashire). [online] Available at [Accessed 29
March 2021].
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021194
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.060
https://doi.org/10.1061/40754(183)16
https://doi.org/10.1061/40754(183)16
https://doi.org/10.1080/096132100418465
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.216
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.216
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000507
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000507
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000439
https://doi.org/10.2172/1296780
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071156
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.304
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119913
http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/9247/
González- R, P.L., Framinan, J.M. and Ruiz‐Usano, R., 2013. A methodology for the design and operation of
pull- based supply chains. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 24(3), pp. 307- 330. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17410381311318855
Häkkinen, T., and Belloni, K., 2011. Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Building Research and
Information, 39(3), pp.239- 255. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2011.561948
Howell, G. A. 1999. What Is Lean Construction - 1999, In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction. 26- 28 July 1999, Berkeley, California.
Hwang, B.G., Shan, M. and Lye, J.M., 2018. Adoption of sustainable construction for small contractors: major barriers
and best solutions. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 20(10), pp.2223- 2237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-
018- 1598- z
International Energy Agency and the United Nations Environment Programme (IEA and UN), 2019. Global Alliance
for Buildings and Construction, Global status report for buildings and construction: Towards a zero- emission, efficient and
resilient buildings and construction sector. [online] Available at [Accessed 12 March 2021].
Isa, N.K.M., Samad, Z.A. and Alias, A., 2014. A review on sustainability principles of building: Formulation of a
theoretical framework. Journal of Surveying, Construction and Property, 5(1), pp.1- 16. https://doi.org/10.22452/jscp/
vol5no1.5
Issa, U.H., 2013. Implementation of lean construction techniques for minimizing the risks effect on project construction
time. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 52(4), pp.697- 704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2013.07.003
Johnsen, C.A. and Drevland, F., 2016. Lean and Sustainability: three pillar thinking in the production process.
In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. July 2016, Baston,
Massachusetts, 14(10), pp.23- 32.
Karji, A., Namian, M. and Tafazzoli, M., 2020. Identifying the Key Barriers to Promote Sustainable Construction in the
United States: A Principal Component Analysis. Sustainability, 12(12), p.5088. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125088
Kawish, S.E., 2017. Identifying and Prioritizing Barriers and Overcoming Strategies in Implementing Lean Construction
Principles and Methods within Transportation Projects. Master Thesis, Michigan State University.
Khodeir, L.M. and Othman, R., 2018. Examining the interaction between lean and sustainability principles in the
management process of AEC industry. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 9(4), pp.1627- 1634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asej.2016.12.005
Kibert, C.J., 1994, November. Establishing principles and a model for sustainable construction. In Proceedings of the first
international conference on sustainable construction. 6- 9 November 1994, Tampa Florida. pp. 6- 9.
Koskela, L., 1992. Application of the new production philosophy to construction. CIFE Technical Report #72. Stanford:
Stanford university.
Koskela, L., 2000. An exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction. Dissertation of Ph.D. of
Technology, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland.
Koskela, L., Ballard, G., Howell, G., and Tommelein, I., 2002. The foundations of lean construction, in R. Best, & G. de
Valence, ed. 2002: Design and construction: building in value, Routledge: Tylor and Francis, pp. 211- 226.
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, 91(3), pp.654- 661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2009.09.029
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021195
https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381311318855
https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381311318855
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2011.561948
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1598-z
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1598-z
https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/2018-global-status-report-towards-zero-emission-efficient-and-resilient-buildings-and>
https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/2018-global-status-report-towards-zero-emission-efficient-and-resilient-buildings-and>
https://doi.org/10.22452/jscp/vol5no1.5
https://doi.org/10.22452/jscp/vol5no1.5
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2013.07.003
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125088
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2016.12.005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2016.12.005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.029
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.029
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P.J., Kleijnen,
J. and Moher, D., 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta- analyses of studies that
evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), pp. e1- e34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
Liker, J.K., 2004. The Toyota Way, 14 Management Principles from the World ’s Greatest Manufacturer. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Mok, K.Y., Shen, G.Q. and Yang, J., 2015. Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: A review
and future directions. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), pp.446- 457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2014.08.007
Nahmens, I. and Ikuma, L.H., 2012. Effects of lean construction on sustainability of modular homebuilding. Journal of
Architectural Engineering, 18(2), pp.155- 163. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943- 5568.0000054
O’Connor, J.T., Torres, N. and Woo, J., 2016. Sustainability actions during the construction phase. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 142(7), p.04016016. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943- 7862.0001128
Ogunsanya, O.A., Aigbavboa, C.O., Thwala, D.W. and Edwards, D.J., 2019. Barriers to sustainable procurement in
the Nigerian construction industry: an exploratory factor analysis. International Journal of Construction Management,
pp.1- 12. [online] [Accessed 29 March 2021]. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1658697
Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W., 2020. Concomitant impediments to the implementation of smart sustainable
practices in the built environment. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 21, pp.239- 251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
spc.2019.09.001
Opoku, D.G.J., Ayarkwa, J. and Agyekum, K., 2019. Barriers to environmental sustainability of construction projects.
Smart and Sustainable Built Environment. 8(4), pp. 292- 306. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE- 08- 2018- 0040
Othman, A.A.E. and Nadim, W., 2010. Towards establishing an international sustainability index for the construction
industry: a literature review. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Sustainability and the Future, the British
University in Egypt, 23- 25 November 2010, Cairo Egypt. pp. 23- 25.
Pérez- Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., and Pout, C., 2008. A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy and
Buildings, 40(3), 394- 398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.03.007
Pham, H., Kim, S.Y. and Luu, T.V., 2020. Managerial perceptions on barriers to sustainable construction in developing
countries: Vietnam case. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(4), pp.2979- 3003. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10668- 019- 00331- 6
Robichaud, L.B. and Anantatmula, V.S., 2011. Greening project management practices for sustainable
construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 27(1), pp.48- 57. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
ME.1943- 5479.0000030
Robinson, G., 2019. Global construction market to grow $8 trillion by 2030: driven by China, US, and India. Global
Construction, 2030, pp.8- 10. [online] Available at < https://www.ice.org.uk/ICEDevelopmentWebPortal/media/
Documents/News/ICE%20News/Global- Construction- press- release.pdf> [Accessed on 10 March 2021]
Sacks, R., Koskela, L., Dave, B.A. and Owen, R., 2010. Interaction of lean and building information modelling in
construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(9), pp.968- 980 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CO.1943- 7862.0000203
Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A. and Luegring, M., 2005. Site implementation and assessment of lean construction
techniques. Lean Construction Journal, 2(2), pp.1- 21.
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021196
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.007
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000054
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001128
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1658697
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.09.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.09.001
https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-08-2018-0040
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.03.007
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00331-6
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00331-6
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000030
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000030
https://www.ice.org.uk/ICEDevelopmentWebPortal/media/Documents/News/ICE%20News/Global-Construction-press-release.pdf
https://www.ice.org.uk/ICEDevelopmentWebPortal/media/Documents/News/ICE%20News/Global-Construction-press-release.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000203
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000203
Sarhan, S., Elnokaly, A., Pasquire, C. and Pretlove, S., 2018. Lean construction and sustainability through IGLC
community: A critical systematic review of 25 years of experience. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC). Chennai, India, 18- 20 Jul 2018. pp 933- 942. https://doi.
org/10.24928/2018/0274
Sarhan, S. and Fox, A., 2013. Barriers to implementing lean construction in the UK construction industry. The Built and
Human Environment Review. 6, pp.1- 17.
Sawhney, R., Subburaman, K., Sonntag, C., Rao, P.R.V. and Capizzi, C., 2010. A modified FMEA approach to enhance
reliability of lean systems. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 27(7), pp. 832- 855. https://doi.
org/10.1108/02656711011062417
Serpell, A., Kort, J. and Vera, S., 2013. Awareness, actions, drivers, and barriers of sustainable construction in
Chile. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 19(2), pp.272- 288. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2013.
798597
Simonsen, R., Thyssen, M.H. and Sander, D., 2014, June. Is Lean Construction Another Fading Management Concept?
In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC). 25- 27 July 2014,
Oslo, Norway. pp. 85- 96.
Singh, S. and Kumar, K., 2020. Review of literature of lean construction and lean tools using systematic literature review
technique (2008– 2018). Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 11(2), pp.465- 471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.08.012
Sourani, A. and Sohail, M., 2005. A review of sustainability in construction and its dimensions. Combining Forces
Advancing: Facilities Management and Construction through Innovation Series, 4, pp.536- 547.
Tafazzoli, M., Nochian, A. and Karji, A., 2019, November. Investigating Barriers to Sustainable Urbanization. In ASCE
Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2019: Leading Resilient Communities through the
21st Century (pp. 607- 617). 6- 9 November 2019, Los Angeles, California. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784482650.065
Tokbolat, S., Karaca, F., Durdyev, S. and Calay, R.K., 2019. Construction professionals’ perspectives on drivers and
barriers of sustainable construction. Environment, Development and Sustainability, pp.1- 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10668- 019- 00388- 3
US EPA, 2016. Construction and Demolition Debris: Generation in the United States, 2015. Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, US EPA. [online] Available at < https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018- 09/
documents/construction_and_demolition_debris_generation_in_the_united_states_2015_final.pdf > [Accessed on 13
March 2021].
Warcup, R. D., 2015. Successful Paths to Becoming a Lean Organization in the Construction Industry. Dissertation of Ph.D.
Engineering and Technology Education, Utah State University.
Womack, J. P. and Jones, D. T., 1996. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation. New York:
Simon & Schuster. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600967
Yates, J. K. 2014. Design and construction for sustainable industrial construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 140(4), B4014005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943- 7862.0000673
Aslam, et al.
Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 21, No. 3 September 2021197
https://doi.org/10.24928/2018/0274
https://doi.org/10.24928/2018/0274
https://doi.org/10.1108/02656711011062417
https://doi.org/10.1108/02656711011062417
https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2013.798597
https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2013.798597
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.08.012
https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784482650.065
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00388-3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00388-3
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-09/documents/construction_and_demolition_debris_generation_in_the_united_states_2015_final.pdf
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-09/documents/construction_and_demolition_debris_generation_in_the_united_states_2015_final.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600967
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000673