{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017429193899782137, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002178649237472767, 'mean_word_length': 4.967532467532467, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Understanding the theory behind the Last Planner System using the Language-Action Perspective: two case studies

Abstract Since the Last Planner System® (LPS) was devised in the early 90s, a number of studies have pointed out the need to understand the underlying theory in which it is based on. The Language-Action Perspective (LAP) has been suggested as a suitable approach to understand the management of commitments in the LPS. This paper aims to assess the contribution of LAP to understand construction planning and control systems based on LPS. Two case studies were carried out in different construction companies, both highly experienced on the use of LPS. The results reveal the role of LAP for creating explicit representations of commitment flows that can be used to explain the sources of complexity and failures in planning systems, as well as for describing the profile of planning and control meetings.