Integrated Planning vs. Last Planner System

Bo Terje Kalsaas1, Ingvald Grindheim2 & Nina Læknes3

1Professor, Dr.Ing School of Business and Law, Department of working life and innovation, University of Agder, 4846 Grimstad, Norway, Mobile +4797082582, e-mail: [email protected]
2Manager Project Solution, Norway, Mobile +4792887997, e-mail: [email protected]
3Quality Manager, Kruse Smith AS, Norway, Mobile +4748032671, e-mail: [email protected]


The research question of this paper is whether planning methods with strong characters of traditional approaches may be aligned with the underlying principles of the Last Planner System (LPS). A Scandinavian building contractor has for many years worked on implementing its translation of LPS combined with CPM, which has proved not to take out all the benefits from LPS. Hence the case company has started to develop a new planning system denoted Integrated Planning, and which can be associated to the ideas from location-based planning and takt planning. The focus of the paper is to evaluate this planning methodology in relation to the principles of LPS. The paper concludes with the finding that it is possible to combine Integrated Planning with the LPS principles. However, the system is in many ways an expert system, and needs to be further developed to more explicitly include lookahead planning and constraint analysis and the aspect of continuous learning. It is central to make use of simple planning techniques as manual reversed scheduling to compensate for the expert feature.


LPS, CPM, traditional planning, production control, integrated planning



Kalsaas, B. T. , Grindheim, I. & Læknes, N. 2014, 'Integrated Planning vs. Last Planner System' In:, Kalsaas, B. T., Koskela, L. & Saurin, T. A., 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Oslo, Norway, 25-27 Jun 2014. pp 639-650

Download: BibTeX | RIS Format