Institut for produktion Civilingeniøruddannelsen i Byggeledelse

SUMMARY
Following the second phase, the game is played once more. This time the two
teams change roles, which means that the team that first played the LPS method
now is playing the traditional way of planning and vice versa.
In the third phase the players by now should have gained a deeper understanding
for the methods simulated in the game. This perception by the players may be
used to further explore the methods of LPS and the lean way of thinking applied
to the construction industry.
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROTOTYPE
Basically there can be found three ways for further developing the game. The
three ways address both the concept of the game and the way to play it. The three
ways are:
1. To develop a light version that can be played faster.
2. To develop a software version prepared as an Internet application.
3. To include the players in making the rules of the game.
The light version leads unavoidably to a reduction in the gaming variables. The
development of a light version is also likely to cause a change in some of the “not
controllable” variables into controllable variables. For instance can be mentioned
removing the workable backlog and writing the constraints directly on the Master
plan instead of drawing the cards from a pile. These kinds of actions lead to a
faster and less complex game, but the game might then appear more like a simulation
than as a game.
Developing an Internet application adds the opportunity to include more strategic
aspects in the concept. For instance the percentages on the constraint cards could
be changed or restrictions in the sequence for adding Lego bricks on the house
could be added. In the latter case it would be possible to illustrate the critical path
and outline some actions on how to monitor the activities on the critical path. Perhaps
some inspiration could be found in [Goldratt, 1997].
The third way outlined to further develop the game is to involve the players in
making the rules. This step doesn’t require a radical change in the concept. For
instance, the players could be asked to put in their own assumptions for the percentages
of the constraint cards before playing the second game. This may afterwards
stimulate the discussion on how to use the look ahead window and how to
clarify the constraints analysis.
SIDE 21