TY  - CONF
TI  - EPC pre-execution planning communication: a comparative analysis of four approaches
C1  - Singapore, Singapore
C3  - Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC 34)
SP  - 1276
EP  - 1287
PY  - 2026
DO  - 10.24928/2026/0295
AU  - Blesto, Gerardus
AU  - Kasih, Richardus N.
AU  - Utomo, Budi
AU  - Saragih, Gregory F.
AD  - Consultant, PQI Consultant, Jakarta, Indonesia, gerardusblesto@pqiconsultant.com, orcid.org/0009-0004-8848-2151
AD  - MS Student, Civil and Envir. Eng. Dept. and Project Production System Laboratory (P2SL), University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, nugrakasih@berkeley.edu, orcid.org/0009-0001-9821-0481
AD  - President, Lean Construction Institute Indonesia (LCII), Jakarta, Indonesia, budiutomo@leanconstruction.id, orcid.org/0009-0001-0913-2494
AD  - MS Student, Civil and Envir. Eng. Dept. and Project Production System Laboratory (P2SL), University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, gregory.saragih@berkeley.edu, orcid.org/0009-0001-4698-3722
ED  - Hamzeh, Farook
ED  - Poshdar, Mani
ED  - Garcia-Lopez,, Nelly P.
AB  - Communication during the pre-execution planning phase—encompassing scope definition, schedule development, and procurement strategy before field execution—is critical to the performance of engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) projects, a delivery model in which a single contracting entity assumes integrated responsibility for engineering, procurement, and construction. Conventional EPC pre-execution planning communication is document-centric and contract-driven, providing traceability but limiting timely cross-functional alignment and learning. Three alternative approaches—Lean Construction, Project Production Management (PPM), and Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)—propose distinct mechanisms to improve planning-phase communication. This paper presents a structured comparative analysis of these four approaches using criteria derived from EPC planning challenges, project communication literature, and socio-technical systems theory. The analysis shows that Lean Construction strengthens collaborative commitment, trust, and feedback loops; PPM introduces system-level flow logic and quantitative variability control; and AWP embeds communication within structured work packages aligned to construction needs. While each approach addresses specific limitations, none is sufficient in isolation. The findings are synthesized into an integrated communication architecture positioning Lean, PPM, and AWP as complementary across social, systemic, and procedural dimensions. This study contributes an analytical baseline, a comparison framework, and an integration model to support future research and implementation in EPC projects.
KW  - Collaboration
KW  - commitment
KW  - trust
KW  - EPC projects
KW  - pre-execution planning.
PB  - 
T2  - Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC 34)
DA  - 2026/06/22
CY  - Singapore, Singapore
L1  - http://iglc.net/Papers/Details/2574/pdf
L2  - http://iglc.net/Papers/Details/2574
N1  - Export Date: 19 June 2026
DB  - IGLC.net
DP  - IGLC
LA  - English
ER  -