## 3 Results and Discussion
### Benefits and Limitations of Lean Tools in Design
#### 3.3.1 Benefits and Limitations of Agile Design Management  
To contrast the experts' opinions reflected in Table 11, a series of interviews were conducted with building design professionals, including architects, structural engineers, specialty engineers (MEP), and representatives from the real estate sector. The specialty engineers (MEP) agreed to highlight several advantages of Agile Design Management (ADM) presented in Table 11, particularly the efficiency in breaking down tasks into smaller packages, allowing for more detailed and faster work while fostering collaboration. However, some professionals questioned the claim that this tool ensures the complete elimination of errors. Regarding the disadvantages, they noted the need for a mindset shift and training, noting that this transformation depends on individuals and the tool itself. Additionally, they recognized time and resource constraints as limitations for implementing ADM, including team training and the required collaborative infrastructure. Architects agreed that breaking down work into smaller packages enables greater control and detail in design tasks, facilitating the identification and correction of errors. However, there were discrepancies regarding whether this subdivision truly helps visualize and eliminate all errors, as the human factor may cause some to go unnoticed. They also noted that while Agile Design Management (ADM) does not fully guarantee transparency, it does promote better coordination among team members. They acknowledged the need for a progressive mindset shift and training to effectively implement this tool, especially in large offices with significant staff and departments. Furthermore, they emphasized the importance of balancing the overall and detailed views of the process, highlighting the need for a coordinator to oversee the proper execution of tasks and ensure the successful implementation of ADM. Most real estate professionals recognized the benefits of ADM, emphasizing the usefulness of breaking down tasks into smaller packages for greater control and a higher level of detail. However, they warned that the effectiveness of this strategy depends on how specifically these packages are defined. While they agreed that working with smaller packages facilitates the identification and correction of errors, they also pointed out that it does not guarantee their elimination, as they consider human error a constant in the process. Concerns were raised regarding the transparency of the design process, as it is difficult to control all aspects of these packages, potentially compromising transparency. There was no consensus on whether iterations optimize the design process, as some perceived them as potentially limiting or slowing progress; however, all agreed that ADM promotes better team collaboration. Regarding disadvantages, they acknowledged the need for a mindset shift, training, and openness to new processes and resources. They also emphasized that the time and resources required for training and mindset changes represent critical challenges, especially regarding costs and personnel availability. Structural engineers agreed on the presented benefits and pointed out that the effectiveness of breaking tasks into smaller packages largely depends on the specific nature of each task. They highlighted that this subdivision does not always allow for effective identification and correction of errors, as some may go unnoticed if different people are responsible for different tasks, increasing the likelihood of human errors. There were differing views on whether the necessary mindset shift to work with smaller packages is an inherent tool limitation or depends more on individuals' willingness. There was general agreement on the need for training and teams to be open to new processes and resources.