Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the transfer of lean manufacturing/production from the Japanese manufacturing industry to the construction sector in the west. Design/methodology/approach – Research literature from the fields of lean manufacturing/production and lean construction was reviewed. This revealed a number of characteristics that are specific to lean construction, most notably the recognition that critical research findings have been slow to emerge but appear to be gaining momentum. Findings – In the transition from manufacturing to construction the process losses appear to be related to critical aspects and the challenges surrounding practical application to a different context. Lean is highly interpretive and there is no shared definition or understanding of what is meant by lean, lean production, and lean construction. The focus has been mainly on production system design, planning and management, and implementation. This narrow focus has meant that some important issues concerning the wider aspects of lean have been overlooked. There is a need for a “back to basics” discussion on many other aspects of the approach, such as whole-life value and waste identification. Research limitations/implications – The work is limited to an extensive literature review. Originality/value – The extensive literature review makes an original contribution to the lean construction field and provides a valuable resource for researchers.

Although a few studies have investigated the communication behaviour of construction professionals this research represents the first attempt to model the construction team's interaction in live project meetings. Using the established Bales interaction process analysis (IPA) method, both task and relational interaction were recorded and a model of group communication was produced. A total of 36 meetings were observed from 10 construction projects and the data aggregated to provide a single profile of the groups' interaction. The construction meetings' interaction is compared to previous research undertaken in other contexts. Differences were found between the interaction patterns of work, social and academic groups. Typical of the interaction previously observed in work groups, the participants in construction meetings use high levels of task‐based interaction and low levels of socio‐emotional interaction. The adversarial environment often associated with construction was not found, indeed the level of negative emotion and critical discussion was so low that it could be suggested that problems may pass unchallenged.