Lean construction field guide: the Last Planner System and pull planning

What lean construction is, and why the work is ready before the crew shows up

Lean construction is a way of running a project as a production system, where the goal is a reliable flow of work and crews move through the building without waiting on each other. The idea comes from the Lean Construction Institute and the work of Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell in the 1990s. It treats the enemy as waste, the waiting and the rework and the stop-start, not the worker. A crew standing around because the deck is not poured, the gear is not approved, or the layout is not done is not a lazy crew. It is a planning failure that landed in the field.

The Last Planner System is the method lean uses to make that flow happen. You pull-plan backward from each milestone with the trades, you make the upcoming work ready by clearing the constraints before the crew arrives, you commit only to work that is actually ready, and you measure whether the promises were kept so the misses teach you something. The phrase that holds it together is make-ready. The work is made ready before the crew shows up, not discovered un-ready once they are standing on it.

This guide sits next to two it does not repeat. The master schedule, the critical path, and the contract baseline belong to the scheduling and CPM guide, and lean does not replace that schedule, it makes the near-term part of it reliable. Resolving the open questions and getting gear approved, the RFIs and submittals, belong to that guide, and on a lean job those are constraints you clear in the look-ahead. This guide is the production-planning method itself: pull planning, make-ready, commitments, and the learning loop.

Make the work ready before the crew arrives

The one idea to carry out of this guide is that lean construction gets reliable workflow by making the work ready before the crew shows up, with the constraints removed, rather than releasing work and finding out at the wall that it cannot be done. A task is not ready because it is the next bar on the schedule. It is ready when the materials are on site, the information is answered, the predecessor work is done and accepted, the labor and equipment are lined up, and the space is clear. Lean calls that condition make-ready, and the discipline is simple to state and hard to hold: do not release un-ready work.

The reason this matters is that the cost of un-ready work does not show up as a missing item. It shows up as the crew working around the gap, which is the waste. They mobilize, they find the constraint, they pack up or they push into the next area out of sequence, and now two trades are on top of each other. The Lean Construction Institute frames the look-ahead as the place this gets caught, by screening each task and driving its constraints to zero before it is allowed into the week.

Say it plainly to a foreman and it lands: we do not start work we are not ready to finish. The schedule says what should happen and by when. Make-ready is the work of making sure it actually can.

The project as a production system

Lean asks you to see the project as a production system, a flow of work moving through the crews and across the handoffs, not just a list of milestones to hit. The traditional schedule manages the dates. Lean manages the flow between the dates, because that is where the time is actually lost. A milestone can be on the wall and the field can still be a mess of crews waiting, reworking, and tripping over each other on the way to it.

Think of the building as the product moving down a line, except the product holds still and the crews move through it. The work flows when each trade hands off a finished, accepted area to the next one on a steady cadence. It stalls when a handoff is late, incomplete, or out of sequence, and the trade downstream either waits or works around the gap and leaves a defect for someone else.

The shift in mindset is from pushing work out per the schedule to managing whether the work can actually flow. The Lean Construction Institute and the Last Planner practice are built around that shift. You stop asking only whether the bar moved and start asking whether the trade behind it could do clean work when its turn came.

The Last Planner System and its planning levels

The Last Planner System organizes planning into levels that filter from the broad and far-out down to the detailed and near-term, and each level does a different job. The master schedule sets the milestones, the phase or pull plan agrees how the trades will flow to each milestone, the look-ahead makes the upcoming work ready by clearing constraints, the weekly work plan captures the commitments to ready work, and the percent plan complete measures what got done so the team learns. The name comes from the last planner, the foreman or trade lead who makes the final assignment to the crew, the person whose promise the whole system protects.

The cascade matters because each level only commits what the level above made possible. You do not commit in the weekly plan to work the look-ahead never made ready. You do not make ready work the pull plan never sequenced. Skip a level and the one below it is committing to fiction. The master schedule and the critical path that anchor the top of this cascade are the subject of the scheduling and CPM guide; this guide runs the levels below it where the field actually lives.

Treat the levels as a chain of promises that gets more reliable as it gets closer. Far out, the plan is a sketch. Six weeks out, it is being made ready. One week out, it is a set of commitments from named people. That progression is the whole point.

The master schedule sets the what-by-when, the Last Planner sets how the work flows

The master schedule and the critical path tell you what has to be done by when. They set the milestones, the long-lead procurement dates, and the contract finish. What they do not do well is run the field week to week, because a CPM network is built from durations and logic an estimator assumed months ago, not from what the trades can actually do next Tuesday. That is the gap the Last Planner System fills. The master schedule is the target; the Last Planner is how the work flows to hit it.

The deeper contrast is push versus pull. A traditional schedule pushes work out: the bar says start, so the trade is told to start, ready or not. Pull planning pulls work: the trades agree the sequence backward from the milestone and only release a task when its constraints are clear. The push schedule assumes the work is ready because the date arrived. The pull plan makes the work ready and then releases it.

Neither replaces the other. You still need the CPM for the contract, the milestones, and the delay claim, and that is covered in the scheduling guide. The Last Planner runs inside it, taking the milestones as fixed and making the production reliable enough to hit them. A job that runs only a CPM has a plan nobody in the field believes. A job that runs only pull plans loses the contract framework. Run both.

What is pull planning?

Pull planning is the trades sitting in a room together and building the plan backward from a milestone, each one owning its own durations and negotiating its handoffs with the trades on either side of it. It is the heart of the phase plan in the Last Planner System. You start at the finish, the milestone date, and you pull the work backward: what has to be done right before this, and who has to hand off to whom for that to happen. The plan that comes out is the trades' plan, not a plan handed to them.

The mechanism is usually sticky notes on a wall, one color per trade, one note per activity with a duration the trade itself writes. The physical wall matters more than it looks. When a concrete foreman puts a three-day note up and the electrician next to him says he needs two days in that same area first, the conflict surfaces in the room, weeks early, instead of in the field on the morning both crews show up.

The reason pull planning beats an imposed schedule is buy-in. People keep the plan they helped make and argue with the plan handed to them. A duration a foreman commits to in front of his peers is a duration he defends. A duration an estimator typed into software is a number he was never asked about and feels no ownership of. The collaborative plan is more accurate because the people who know the work built it, and it is more reliable because they own it.

How to run a pull-plan session

Start the session at the milestone and work backward, not forward. Put the milestone and its date on the right end of the wall, then ask the trade that finishes last what it needs done immediately before it can start. Each answer is a sticky note placed to the left, with the trade, the activity, and the duration the trade owns. You keep pulling backward, trade by trade, until the chain reaches today. Working backward forces the handoffs into the open in a way a forward plan never does.

The work of the session is the handoff negotiation. The note that says a trade needs an area is only good if the trade before it agrees to hand that area off clean and on that day. When the durations do not add up to the milestone, the room solves it together: resequence, overlap where it is safe, add a crew, or move a non-critical scope out of the way. The conflicts you want are the ones that surface here, because here they cost an argument, not a week.

Keep a few things tight. The last planners themselves are in the room, the foremen who will assign the crews, not just the PMs. Durations are realistic, not padded and not heroic. Every constraint someone names as the session runs gets written down, because that list seeds the look-ahead and the make-ready that follows. A pull plan with no constraint list is a wish.

The look-ahead and make-ready planning

The look-ahead is the window, commonly around six weeks, where the work coming up gets made ready. The Lean Construction Institute and the Last Planner practice describe it as the bridge between the phase pull plan and the weekly commitments. Its job is not to re-plan the sequence. Its job is to take each task heading toward the front of the queue and screen it: what has to be true for this work to be done, and is it true yet? Where it is not, that is a constraint, and the look-ahead is where you assign someone to remove it.

Six weeks is a horizon, not a rule. The right window is long enough to clear your slowest constraint and no longer. If your submittals take eight weeks to come back, a six-week look-ahead will not catch a missing approval in time, so you screen further out for the slow ones. Material with a long lead, gear that needs an RFI answered, an inspection that has to be scheduled, these get looked at as early as their lead time demands.

What comes out of a working look-ahead is a shrinking list of constraints with names and dates against them. Each week, tasks that have had every constraint cleared graduate into the pool the weekly work plan can draw from. Tasks still carrying a constraint stay out. That screen is the discipline that keeps un-ready work from reaching the crew.

The constraints that make work un-ready

A constraint is anything that has to be in place before a task can be done, and the make-ready job is to identify each one, assign an owner, and drive it to zero before the work is scheduled. The Last Planner practice groups constraints into a handful of common categories. The exact list varies by who is teaching it, so treat these as the working set, not gospel, and add the ones your job actually has.

The seven you will meet most are material on site, information answered, predecessor work complete and accepted, labor available, equipment available, space and access clear, and external items like permits, inspections, and owner decisions. Most stalled work traces to one of these. The crew that cannot start because the rebar is not delivered, the layout is waiting on an RFI, the slab the trade needs is not poured, or the lift is double-booked, that is a constraint nobody drove to zero in time.

Here is the part to hold hard, because it is where lean lives or dies: no un-ready work gets released. A task with an open constraint does not go on the weekly plan no matter how much pressure there is to show movement. Releasing it anyway is exactly the failure lean exists to prevent, because the crew will burn the day working around the gap and call it progress. Screen every task against the constraint list, and if a constraint is open, the task waits.

Driving the constraints to zero

Make-ready is the active work of removing constraints, and it runs on three things: every constraint has an owner, every constraint has a date it must be clear by, and only work with all of its constraints removed is allowed into the weekly plan. A constraint without a name against it does not get cleared, because everyone assumes someone else has it. The look-ahead meeting is where you go down the list and ask the owner of each one whether it will be clear by its date, and if it will not, what the recovery is.

The by-when date is what makes it real. A constraint owned by the PM with no date is a hope. A constraint owned by the PM that has to be clear two weeks before the work starts is a commitment you can track. The dates also tell you when to escalate. When a constraint is going to miss its date, you know early enough to resequence the work around it instead of finding out the morning the crew arrives.

The output is a clean handoff into the week. By the time a task reaches the weekly work plan, its constraints are closed, and the foreman committing to it is committing to work that can actually be done. That is the whole purpose of make-ready. It converts the schedule's intention into work the crew can finish.

The weekly work plan: commit only to ready work

The weekly work plan is the set of commitments for the coming week, and the rule that makes it work is that you only commit to work that is ready. It is filtered from the look-ahead: a task earns its place on the weekly plan by having every constraint cleared. The foremen and the last planners make the commitments themselves, in the weekly planning meeting, in front of the trades they hand off to and receive from.

The discipline here is not over-promising. A foreman is allowed, and expected, to decline a task that is not ready, even if the schedule wants it this week. Committing to un-ready work to look cooperative is the single most common way the weekly plan rots, because the commitment fails, the trade downstream gets stranded, and the whole plan loses the trust it runs on. A weekly plan full of honest, ready commitments beats a weekly plan full of optimistic ones that miss.

What goes on the plan is specific: this crew, this scope, this area, done by this day. Vague commitments cannot be measured and cannot be relied on by the next trade. The weekly plan is where the abstract pull plan becomes the actual promise that someone will keep, and it only works if the promises are real.

The reliable promise between trades

Commitments in the Last Planner System are reliable promises, and the social contract behind them is what makes the production system run. A trade commits only to what is ready and what it can actually do, and once it commits, the promise is treated as sacred. The trade downstream plans on it, mobilizes for it, and is stranded when it fails. So the promise is not a casual estimate. It is a commitment one craftsman makes to another that he will hand off clean and on time.

Trust is the currency. When promises are kept, trades start relying on each other's handoffs, and the whole job tightens up because nobody is hedging against the trade ahead being late. When promises are routinely broken, every trade pads its own work and hoards float, and the schedule bloats with everyone's private insurance against everyone else. The reliable promise is what replaces that hedging with flow.

This is why declining is allowed and breaking is not. Saying no to an un-ready task protects the system. Saying yes and failing damages it. The best foremen on a lean job are the ones whose word you can build on, and the planning meeting is where that reputation gets made or lost in front of their peers.

What is percent plan complete (PPC)?

Percent plan complete, or PPC, is the share of the week's commitments that were finished as promised, calculated as the number of completed tasks divided by the number committed, times 100. Promise ten tasks, finish eight, and PPC is 80 percent. It is a yes-or-no measure: a task is either complete as committed or it is not, with no partial credit, because a handoff that is 90 percent done still strands the trade downstream.

PPC measures the reliability of the planning system, not the productivity of the crews. That distinction is the whole point. A low PPC does not mean the workers are slow. It means the team is committing to work that is not really ready, or the constraints are not getting cleared, or the promises are optimistic. The Last Planner practice commonly treats a PPC above about 80 percent as a system that is working, with 100 percent as the ideal, but the trend matters more than the single number. A PPC climbing week over week is a planning system getting more reliable.

The number alone is just a score. What makes PPC worth measuring is what you do with the misses, which is the why-not analysis in the next section. A team that tracks PPC and never asks why the failures happened has a dashboard, not a learning system.

The why-not analysis and the learning loop

The why-not is the reasons-for-variance review: for every commitment that failed, the team asks why, honestly, and the reasons are what the system learns from. The Last Planner practice calls these reasons for variance, and they are the most valuable output of the weekly meeting. A task missed because its predecessor was late, because a material did not arrive, because an RFI was still open, because the crew got pulled to another area. Write the real reason, not a polite one.

The point is to fix the recurring cause, not to assign blame. If the same reason shows up three weeks running, that is a hole in the system, and the fix is systemic. Materials keep arriving late means the procurement lead times are wrong or the make-ready is screening too late. Predecessors keep slipping means the durations in the pull plan are optimistic or a particular handoff is broken. Blame the worker and you learn nothing; fix the constraint that keeps reappearing and the PPC climbs.

This is the loop that makes the whole system improve instead of just run. Commit, measure, find the why-not, fix the cause, commit better next week. Without it the Last Planner System is just meetings. With it, the planning gets measurably more reliable as the job goes, which is the entire return on the effort.

Takt planning and the rhythm of the work

Takt planning balances the work into a steady rhythm so the trades flow through the building like cars of a train, each one moving from zone to zone at the same pace. The takt time is that pace, the beat, the fixed interval in which each trade finishes its work in a zone and hands off to the next. You divide the area into zones, group the scopes into wagons, and the train of trades rolls through the zones one beat at a time. When it works, you can see the trades line up in a diagonal across the zone map, each one staying the same distance behind the one ahead.

The appeal over a chaotic schedule is predictability. When every trade has the same takt time, the handoffs become automatic: a trade finishes its zone, the next trade is already cleared to enter, and nobody waits. The Lean Construction Institute and the takt-planning practice treat it as a way to enforce flow by design rather than chasing it task by task. It pairs naturally with pull planning, which sets the sequence, and make-ready, which keeps each zone ready for the train to arrive.

Takt is not free. It demands that the work actually balances into roughly equal chunks, which takes effort to set up and breaks down where the building is irregular or the scopes are lumpy. Where the work repeats, identical floors, podium levels, a row of similar rooms, it shines. Where it does not, you adapt the zones rather than force the beat.

The eight wastes, and why waiting is the big one

Lean defines waste as anything that consumes time or money without adding value the owner would pay for, and the Lean Construction Institute names eight kinds: defects, overproduction, waiting, non-utilized talent, transportation, inventory, motion, and extra processing. The common memory hook is TIMWOODS. Seeing the waste is the first step, because most of it is invisible until you name it, hiding inside what looks like normal work.

On a construction site, waiting is usually the biggest one. Crews wait on the trade ahead, on materials, on information, on inspections, on equipment, and that idle time is pure loss that the schedule rarely captures. Rework is the next worst, the defect that sends a crew back to redo finished work, often because a handoff was accepted dirty. Overproduction shows up as installing ahead of need and then protecting or reworking it. The rest, the extra motion hunting for tools, the transport of material staged in the wrong place, the inventory piled up waiting, the over-processing of work past what the spec needs, and the unused talent of a journeyman doing laborer work, all drain the day quietly.

The reason the eight wastes belong in a planning guide is that the Last Planner System attacks them directly. Make-ready kills waiting by clearing constraints before the crew arrives. Reliable handoffs kill rework. Flow kills overproduction. The waste is the enemy, and the planning is how you remove it.

Flow versus push

The shift at the center of lean is from push to flow. A push system shoves work out per the schedule: the date arrives, the trade is told to start, whether the work is ready or not. A flow system pulls work only when it is ready, so a trade starts when the area, the materials, and the information are actually in place. Push optimizes for keeping the schedule's bars moving. Flow optimizes for the work actually moving through the building without stalling.

Push feels productive and often is not. A crew sent into an un-ready area is busy, but the day produces rework, out-of-sequence work, and a stranded trade behind it. The motion gets logged as progress while the project loses time. Flow can look slower on a given morning, because a crew is held back from un-ready work, and it is faster over the job, because the work that does happen is clean and the trade downstream can count on it.

Pull planning and make-ready are how you build a flow system inside a schedule that was written to push. The CPM still sets the targets. The Last Planner makes the work pull instead of shove, which is what turns a schedule full of dates into a project that actually flows.

Lean is a culture change, not a software purchase

The hardest truth about lean construction is that it is a change in behavior and culture, not a tool you install. You can buy the best pull-planning software made and still run a push job, because the software does not make the trades show up to the planning meeting, commit honestly, and keep their promises. The Last Planner System is a set of human commitments. The sticky notes and the apps just record them.

What it actually requires is that the trades commit and show up. The foreman owns the plan for his crew, the last planner makes a real promise and keeps it, and the trades collaborate instead of protecting their own float at the expense of the next guy. That is a behavior shift, and on a job that has run command-and-control for years, it is a hard one. The first few pull-plan sessions feel awkward and the first few PPC numbers are low, because the team is learning to make honest commitments in public.

The role of the super and the PM changes too. They stop being the source of the plan and become the facilitator of it, the person who clears the constraints the trades surface and protects the promises from outside pressure. Lean done as a mandate from the office fails. Lean done as a practice the trades own succeeds, and the difference is whether the people doing the work believe in the plan or just tolerate it.

Rolling it out without imposing it

The way lean fails on rollout is by being imposed, which contradicts the whole point, since the system runs on the trades owning the plan. The way it succeeds is by starting small and earning buy-in. A common starting move is to run a single pull plan for the next phase and a real make-ready process off the constraints that surface, then add the weekly work plan and the PPC review once the trades see the pull plan pay off.

Facilitation is the skill that makes or breaks the first sessions. A good facilitator keeps the room working backward, makes sure the foremen and not just the PMs are talking, captures every constraint, and does not let the meeting collapse into a status update. The early sessions will be rough, and that is normal. The trades are learning to plan together for the first time, and the value shows up by the second or third phase, not the first day.

Do not chase a high PPC at the start. A low PPC honestly measured is a working system finding its real reliability; a high PPC from soft commitments is a system lying to itself. Let the number be low and true, work the why-not, and watch it climb as the make-ready tightens. Roll out the practice, not the dashboard.

The big room and the daily huddle

Lean jobs often co-locate the team in a big room, sometimes called by its Japanese name, where the trades, the GC, and often the designer sit together so a question gets answered across a table instead of through a two-week RFI. Putting the people who make decisions in the same space removes the delay that constraints feed on. A handoff conflict that would take a week of emails gets settled in a five-minute conversation.

The visual board is the shared brain of the room. The pull plan on the wall, the constraint log, the look-ahead, and the PPC trend are posted where everyone sees them, because a plan on a screen in one person's laptop is not a shared commitment. The daily huddle is the short stand-up version of the weekly meeting, often fifteen minutes at the board, where the day's commitments and the new constraints get surfaced fast.

None of this requires a literal dedicated room on a small job. The principle is co-location and visibility: get the decision-makers close, put the plan where the trades can see it, and meet briefly and often at the board rather than rarely and long in an office. The point is to shorten the loop between a constraint appearing and someone clearing it.

Why lean pays

The return on lean construction is a more reliable workflow, and the things that flow from it: a shorter schedule, less rework, and more trust between the trades. When crews stop waiting on each other and handoffs land clean, the duration compresses without anyone working faster, because the time being recovered was idle time and rework, not slow craftsmanship. The Lean Construction Institute and the teams that practice it point to schedule reliability as the first and largest gain.

Less rework is money straight to the bottom line. Rework is work paid for twice, and it usually comes from a dirty handoff that the receiving trade had to fix. A planning system that makes handoffs reliable removes the cause, not just the symptom. The predictability also changes how the job feels: a crew that knows its area will be ready works steadily instead of in the stop-start scramble that wears people out and drives the good ones off the job.

The least visible value is trust and morale. A job where promises are kept is a job where the trades cooperate instead of pointing fingers, and that culture outlasts any single project. The reliable workflow is the product; the trust is what makes it repeatable on the next one.

What to capture, and where it lives

The Last Planner System produces a handful of records, and they are only useful if they stay current and visible to the team, not buried in someone's notebook. The pull plan, the constraint log, the look-ahead, the weekly work plan, and the PPC with its why-not reasons are the living documents of the production system. Each one feeds the next, and together they are the memory that lets the team learn instead of repeating the same misses.

The constraint log is the one that earns its keep daily. Every constraint, its owner, its by-when date, and its status, kept somewhere the whole team can see and update, is what keeps make-ready from slipping back into firefighting. The PPC trend and the recurring why-not reasons are the other high-value record, because they are where the systemic fixes come from. A field tool like FieldOS can hold the constraint log, the weekly commitments, and the PPC trend so they travel with the job instead of living on a trailer wall that nobody updates after the meeting.

Keep it light. The records exist to run the work, not to feed a reporting machine. A constraint log nobody updates and a PPC nobody acts on are worse than none, because they create the appearance of a system without the discipline.

Common mistakes

• Releasing work before the constraints are removed, so the crew burns the day working around the gap.
• Imposing the schedule from the office instead of pull-planning it with the trades, so nobody owns the plan.
• Running the look-ahead as a status update with no make-ready and no constraint removal.
• Measuring PPC but never doing the why-not, so the same reason for variance repeats every week.
• Treating lean as a software purchase instead of the culture and behavior change it actually is.
• Mistaking the master schedule for the production plan, so the field runs on dates nobody made ready.
• Chasing a high PPC with soft, optimistic commitments instead of letting it be low and honest.
• Letting the constraint log go stale, so make-ready quietly turns back into firefighting.

Field checklist

Standards and references

Lean construction is a practice and a body of method, not a code, so there is no enforceable standard the way the NEC governs electrical work. The reference point is the Lean Construction Institute and the Last Planner System developed by Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell in the 1990s, along with the broader production-planning literature lean draws from. Treat the specifics in this guide, the constraint categories, the roughly six-week look-ahead, the 80 percent PPC benchmark, as the common practice taught by the LCI and the Last Planner community, not as fixed rules, and adapt them to your job.

Three things are worth holding onto across every variation of how lean gets taught. Make the work ready by removing the constraints before the crew shows up, and never release un-ready work. Pull-plan the sequence with the trades and commit only to work that is ready, because the collaborative plan beats the imposed one and the reliable promise is what makes flow possible. Measure PPC and learn from the why-not, so the planning system gets more reliable as the job runs instead of repeating its misses.

Two adjacent disciplines this guide cross-links round out the picture. The master schedule, the critical path, and the contract baseline that the Last Planner runs inside of are covered in the construction scheduling and CPM guide. The RFIs and submittals that show up as information and material constraints in the look-ahead are covered in the RFI and submittal process guide. Lean is the production method that ties those threads into work the crew can actually flow through.

Terms and definitions

Lean construction carries its own vocabulary, and the same idea can read differently across the LCI material, a trade partner's training, and a software tool. The definitions below are the working sense used in this guide and in the common Last Planner practice.

Knowing the terms matters because the system is a set of named moves. Call the look-ahead a status meeting and you will run it like one; call it make-ready and you will run the constraints. The words carry the discipline.

Lean construction

Running the project as a production system aimed at reliable workflow by removing waste, the waiting and rework, rather than blaming the worker

Last Planner System (LPS)

The lean planning method of cascading levels: master schedule, phase pull plan, look-ahead, weekly work plan, and PPC learning

Pull planning

The trades planning backward from a milestone together, each owning its durations and handoffs, so the plan has buy-in

Look-ahead / make-ready

The roughly 6-week window where upcoming tasks are screened and their constraints removed so the work is ready

Constraint

Anything that must be in place before a task can be done: material, information, predecessor work, labor, equipment, space, or external items

Weekly work plan / commitment

The week's set of reliable promises, made only to work whose constraints are cleared

PPC (percent plan complete)

Completed commitments divided by committed, times 100, measuring how reliable the planning system is, not crew speed

Takt

A fixed production beat at which trades flow through zones like a train, each finishing its zone and handing off on the same interval

Related tools

Calculators and readiness checks for this work

Compare your options

FAQ

People also ask

• What is the critical path?
• What is an RFI in construction?
• What is the critical path in a construction schedule?
• What is a daily huddle on a construction site?
• How do I calculate maximum pulling tension?