# Lean and Flexible Project Delivery
## 3 Results--Lean and Flexible Project Delivery: LPS(r) with Options  
The main result of this research was the extended LPS(r) with options to enable flexibility in lean project delivery, as described in this section. This answers the first research question. The development of the operational system proposed below is tightly intertwined with the valuation of its intended utility, to increase the ability to quickly and cost effectively adapt changes. This is described in Section 4 and answers the second research question. At the heart of the lean philosophy is the lean ideal: to deliver ever more value with ever less waste. Increasing project flexibility is in the service of the lean ideal, so we are proposing to add to the lean tool kit. What we advocate here is a proactive-reactive operational system that combines the established lean principles of LPS(r) with up-front practices to implement options for flexibility in master planning. Incorporating options raises, first, the question of how to set milestones to pursue objectives and implementation pathways that may change during the course of the project, and second, how to connect these to the established LPS(r) operational system. One important issue in this regard is to enable the co-existence of alternatives and condition their selection on the arrival of information. This is related to multi-stage thinking in decision theory, with stages defined by points in time when potentially useful information becomes available and when it is also feasible to update a decision. Feasibility is defined by the Last Responsible Moment (LRM) to make a decision, and the minimal information needed to make that decision. We applied pull planning to the first draft master plan in a backward fashion and embedded options at the milestone level in a forward fashion. Pull techniques, doing only that work which is needed and when it is needed, increases value generation in the project. We worked backward from a target completion date toward the milestones so that the completion of these milestones releases new ones in a backward direction. Uncertainty is assessed by the impact of potential disruptions in a system perspective, without concern on probabilities, in the spirit of [76] with proposed adoption to ETO shipbuilding in [77]. The latter combines the Design Structure Matrix, used to analyze technical relations between design activities [78], and the SFI system of coding of ships [79], to map iteration, rework, and information exchange loops if disturbances occur. Combined with life-cycle costing, this approach helps to quantify the impact of disturbances, and removes the need to deal with probabilities where this is not possible or makes little sense, and enables the developing of buffers and flexibility strategies at the right places. For high-impact uncertainties (in terms of rework needed, but disregarding the probability of occurrence), options for flexibility were embedded into the first draft pull plan. This is undertaken by staging the planning process with respect to information arrival for the uncertainty at hand and feasibility assessment. Guidelines on where and what flexibility to develop from [7; 8] were considered. This planning process requires coordination and interfacing with stakeholders, to continuously align information arrival and material flow with stakeholders' and project delivery capabilities. The steps in the proposed system are listed below, with their interrelations presented by Figure 1:  
1. Implement a collaborative approach to define project value with accepted time-cost-risk estimates;
2. Develop a first draft master plan by applying lean principles for pull planning in a backward fashion from a selected completion date;
3. Assess project uncertainty, by the impact of changes in a systems perspective, disregarding the occurrence probability;
4. Manage uncertainty, by distinguishing between predictable and less predictable high-impact disruptions (where options may be needed);
5.