Health care projects are very complex, and extensive planning is required to deliver them. Hundreds of participants, thousands of products and systems, and tens of thousands of decisions must be orchestrated on the path to final (Burgun, Sprague, Stein, & Atkins, 2008, p.119). Healthcare construction may create conditions that are dangerous to a hospital's patients, staff , and visitors; therefore, it is essential to include in the process provisions for infection control; risk assessment; life safety; protection of occupants during construction (including planned or unplanned outages, movement of debris, traffic flow, cleanup, and so forth); plans for disruption of services; measures to be taken to train hospital staff , employees, visitors, and construction personnel; and commissioning processes. Still, this list represents just a few of the factors that must be considered while constructing, expanding, renovating, or restoring a healthcare facility.In general, the management team of any construction project should pay careful attention to items such as construction contracting, project management, value engineering, construction methods, project controls, scheduling and estimating, workforce supervision, construction equipment, construction safety, technology, and commissioning. However, because healthcare construction deals with unique and very complicated structures and systems (e.g., nuclear, electromagnetic, gases, radiation, chemical, and concentrated gases), these items assume higher levels of importance and criticality for the success of a project.Owners of new healthcare facilities are very conscious of the three items that dominate project delivery components: cost, time, and quality. In addition, they are aware that healthcare technology and processes are evolving at an ever-increasing speed. Therefore, they require flexibility and tend to postpone final Program of Requirements decision making to the last minute to avoid chaotic changes to the program (Ward, Liker, Cristiano, & Sobek, 1996). As a result, once a decision is made, there is an incentive to bring the project to successful completion as soon as possible at the lowest cost with the best quality and technology available. However, these owners are quickly coming to the realization that any attempt to drive down costs and time and also increase quality is futile, because it frequently results in more costly projects. A traditional construction project delivery dictum states that any two of these items can be achieved, but not all three (Dinsmore & Cooke-Davies, 2005).Recently, healthcare owners have begun teaming up with designers, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and vendors (stakeholders in the supply chain) who provide Lean construction project delivery services, and they have found that by focusing on minimizing the waste on a project, they can achieve all three: reduced upfront cost, reduced project delivery time, and increased quality (Koskela, Howell, Ballard, & Tommelein, 2002). The waste at hand is not only material and information waste (caused by conflicts, errors, and omissions detected with the use of building information modeling, nth-Dimension computer- assisted design, and computerized models), but also waste from planned weekly activities that do not occur for various reasons (e.g., Will try, Will do my best, problems with other projects, conflict with other trades). Studies have shown that in the United States a typical project has an average plan percent complete (PPC) of approximately 54%, which is very good compared with other countries (Cain, 2004). What this means is that in any given project construction week, approximately 50% of the activities planned are carried out correctly and under strict time limits. Lean construction projects have been able to achieve an average of 80% PPC (Abdelhamid, El-Gafy, & Salem, 2008). The difference between 54% and 80% PPC is attributable to all kinds of direct/indirect, hidden/obvious, excused/ not excused, evitable/inevitable waste. …