Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The Last Planner® System (LPS)3 was initially designed as a system for planning and controlling production on projects, that is, to do what is necessary to achieve set targets (Ballard 2000). It was understood to differ from project controls, which sets targets (objectives and constraints on their delivery) and monitors progress toward them. Initially, LPS consisted only of lookahead planning (Ballard 1997), weekly work planning, and learning from breakdowns. In the early 2000s, planning and scheduling project phases (which provide inputs to lookahead planning) were added to its scope, as described in the 2016 Benchmark (Ballard and Tommelein 2016). This 2020 Current Process Benchmark further extends LPS in principle to both production4 (i.e., striving for targets) and project planning and control (i.e., setting targets). That does not mean there is no longer a role for technical specialists such as schedulers, estimators, inspectors, etc. It means that a single system is needed rather than two systems; a system for the project chain of command to both manage the project and continuously improve the project’s planning and control system. Technical specialists are still needed to collect and analyze information that managers at different levels need in order to make good decisions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ballard et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: