This article compares the techniques developed for lean construction with those developed for lean manufacturing. Lean manufacturing and lean construction techniques share many common elements despite the obvious differences in their assembly environments and processes. Manufacturing plants and construction sites are different in many ways that might explain why lean production theories and practices do not fully fit the construction industry. Though many lean construction tools and elements are still in an embryonic state, lean construction techniques are gaining popularity because they can affect the bottom line of projects. Additionally, this paper presents a study of a construction project in which specific lean construction elements were tested. Each technique was evaluated in terms of its impact on the performance of the project. Based on the findings of the study, a new "lean assessment tool" is proposed to quantify the results of lean implementations. The assessment tool evaluates six lean construction elements: last planner, increased visualization, huddle meetings, first-run studies, five S's, and fail safe for quality. This paper provides a simple and comprehensive approach that is transferable to any construction project.

Since the early 1990s, the construction industry has taken some interest in the application of lean production to its own case. A new body of research led by the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC) has been exploring new techniques for the industry. In this article the techniques developed for lean construction are compared with those of lean manufacturing. Differences between the manufacturing and the construction cases showed why lean production does not fully suit the construction industry. Although some elements are in an embryonic state, lean construction has built a set of techniques that are transferable to any constructor. Lean manufacturing and lean construction share many common elements despite their different techniques. The need for a joint combination of technical and human elements shows that both approaches conform to a common sociotechnological design.