The assessment should be performed by an experienced LC practitioner who collects evidence in the form of documents, site visits and interviews. The interviews should take place with a variety of people of all hierarchy levels in the organization and in some projects. Additionally, the actions and behaviors of the organization need to be observed, which is achieved by site visits and the observation of project meetings. This is the first step in the maturity assessment procedure.

The second step is a comparison of the gathered evidence against the Ideal Statements. The result of the assessment is a maturity level for each Ideal Statement, which is shown for the Key Factor Lean Leadership below.

Figure 1. An example of LCMM assessment for Lean Leadership Key Factor

This will be done for each Key Attribute of the LCMM. The maturity level of a Key Attribute is defined by the lowest shared maturity level of all BG&Ps within this Key Attribute. The logic here is analogous to that of a chain that is only as strong as its weakest link.

The following step would be calculating the overall maturity level the maturity level of each Key Attribute with a weighting factor. The total sum of the result is divided by the total sum of the weighting factor. The weighing of Key Attributes must be done according to what is important for the organizations.

Figure 2. LCCM assessment for Lean Leadership Key Factor

The weighing factors can be ‘0’ or even higher than ‘4’. Which in result, can generate a single score for the organizations from 0-4 as a total maturity in LC.

The maturity level for each Key Attribute can be assigned and then illustrated in a spider diagram. A random example of such a maturity summary is shown in the figure below.

Figure 3. Spider diagram of the maturity levels per Key Attribute

In conclusion, this assessment identifies the strengths and weaknesses of LC maturity within organizations. In order to obtain the most benefit of the maturity assessment, it is suggested to use the LCMM in order to guide the actions of transformation and support decisions during prioritizing planned improvement actions with respect to the key attributes which have been rated ‘Lowest’ within the assessment. The gap obtained can be an incentive to improve the maturity in the framework.

References:

Nesensohn, Claus and Bryde, David and Ochieng, Professor Edward and Fearon, Damian and Hackett, Vince, Assessing Lean Construction Maturity (June 2014). Proceedings of IGLC-22, June 2014 | Oslo, Norway , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3105431

Assessment Grid of the LCMM available at: https://iglcstorage.blob.core.windows.net/papers/iglc-2e60a64d-3867-493f-ac23-dbb6351f7179.pdf