Critical Activities in the Front-End Planning Process · Critical Activities in the Front-End Planning Process ... improve information ﬂow through the front-end planning ... Dept

Critical Activities in the Front-End Planning ProcessRyan George1; Lansford C. Bell, F.ASCE2; and W. Edward Back, M.ASCE3

Abstract: Previous research conducted by the Construction Industry Institute �CII� and others has demonstrated the value of front-endplanning as it impacts project success. A recently completed research project funded by CII, described in this paper, examines ways toimprove information flow through the front-end planning process. This paper focuses on one specific objective of this research project,namely to isolate and closely examine the information critical activities within the front-end planning process. The front-end planningprocess was carefully diagrammed as consisting of 33 distinct activities, each with its own information flow entities and interactions.Fifty-one questionnaire survey forms were analyzed to obtain data for the 33 activities that included activity duration, resources expended,and the extent to which information was available to perform the activity. The 51 projects were then grouped according to surveyrespondents’ perceptions as to whether the front-end planning process was executed more or less effectively. An analysis of the dataconcluded with a degree of statistical significance that seven of the 33 activities have some impact on achieving project success. Inaddition, statistically significant differences were uncovered with respect to the extent that information was available for selectedactivities, and survey respondent perceptions with respect to how efficiently the activity was performed. These seven activities areinvolved in planning the following areas: Public relations, start up, quality and safety, the project execution plan, and project scopedefinition. Other activities for which information was frequently not available and/or for which considerable resources were expendedrelate to preliminary cost estimating and the development of a funding plan. A second survey form was forwarded to the original surveyparticipants to obtain more specific information with respect to the information categories and interfaces associated with the criticalactivities that were identified in the original survey. This survey indicated problem areas including inadequate scope definition, riskidentification and mitigation, minimal resource allocation for task execution, unclear definitions of roles and responsibilities, and inef-fective external communication mechanisms.

DOI: 10.1061/�ASCE�0742-597X�2008�24:2�66�

CE Database subject headings: Planning; Construction Industry; Information management; Project management.

Introduction

Front-end planning has many different definitions. The Construc-tion Industry Institute �CII� defines front-end planning as the pro-cess of developing sufficient strategic information with whichowners can address risk and decide to commit resources to maxi-mize the chance for a successful project �CII 1995�. Cleland andIreland �2002� expand on this definition by stating that front-endplanning is the process of thinking through and making explicitthe objectives, goals, and strategies necessary to bring the projectthrough its life cycle to a successful termination when theproject’s product, service, or process takes its rightful place in theexecution of project owner strategies. The term front-end plan-ning is often interchanged with feasibility analysis, preprojectplanning, front-end loading, or conceptual planning.

Despite the different definitions of front-end planning, manyauthors agree that front-end planning is a key element to overallproject success �Gibson et al. 1995; Webster 2004; Smith 2000;Hartman and Ashrafi 2004�. Cleland and Ireland �2002� state thatdecisions made early in the project process will, “…set the direc-tion and force with which the project moves forward as well asthe boundaries within which the work of the project team is car-ried out.” Hamilton and Gibson state that the construction indus-try recognizes that the effort expended in preplanning results inmore successful projects, and that research has illustrated thisphilosophy �Hamilton and Gibson 1996�. In the planning phase,many potential problems are identified proactively, before theycan greatly affect project cost and schedule. Furthermore, suc-cessful planning identifies the areas within the project that needgreater definition prior to design and execution.

Front-end planning allows the project team to have greaterinfluence over the project. As the project enters the executionphase, the project team has less influence to make low costchanges affecting the project. Once the project commences, thelevel of influence on project declines. Additionally, the expendi-ture to correct these changes increases.

The CII has invested much effort into the topic of front-endplanning. One such publication is the Pre-Project PlanningHandbook published in 1995. This research report indicates thatsuccessfully performed project planning may reduce project costs,lower variability in cost, schedule, and operating characteristics,and lead to achieving project goals. Additionally, this report iden-tifies a relationship between the project planning effort andproject success. CII also published works that help project teams

1Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, ClemsonUniv., Clemson, SC 29634. E-mail: [email protected]

2S. E. Liles Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering,Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634. E-mail: [email protected]

3Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson Univ.,Clemson, SC 29634. E-mail: [email protected]

Note. Discussion open until September 1, 2008. Separate discussionsmust be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date byone month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE ManagingEditor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-sible publication on November 6, 2006; approved on March 30, 2007.This paper is part of the Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol.24, No. 2, April 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X/2008/2-66–74/$25.00.

66 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2008

rate the level of front-end planning in their Publication 113-1,“Pre-Project Planning Tools: PDRI and Alignment” �CII 1997�.This manual provides a tool that measures the degree of front-endplanning and identifies areas where planning is inadequate.

“Many experts within the construction industry believe thatplanning efforts conducted during the early stages of a projecthave a significantly greater effect on project success than effortsundertaken after the project is under way” �Gibson et al. 1995�.The Construction Industry Institute has identified front-end plan-ning as one of their best practices. CII defines a best practices�www.construction-institute.org� as, “…a process or method that,when executed effectively, leads to enhanced project perfor-mance. CII Best Practices have been proven through extensiveindustry use and/or �statistical� validation” �CII 2007�.

Previous research has indicated that successful execution offront-end planning will enhance the likelihood for overall projectsuccess. Hamilton and Gibson �1996� elaborate on this by statingthat front-end planning can reduce risk and improve cost andschedule performance. Thus, successful execution of front-endplanning results in the increased potential for project success.However, no research currently identifies which activities withinfront-end planning are more critical. This research expands onprevious research and identifies the critical activities. The follow-ing sections of this paper discuss some of the basic findings fromthis research.

Front-End Planning Process Model

The research team consisted of industry practitioners and profes-sionals representing 14 companies. This provided the expertisefor the model review and development. In addition, two facultymembers and two graduate students were also involved in theprocess.

It was decided early in the research that a process diagramwould be used to identify the activities within front-end planning.Previous research conducted by the Construction Industry Insti-tute �CII 1998� identified the typical activities and logic flow infront-end planning for an engineering procure construct �EPC�type contract. The initial step in the research was to update thismodel based upon current techniques to show the current activi-ties for a typical EPC construction project. As a result, the teamidentified the process model consisting of 33 activities thatcomprise the front-end planning process. A process logic diagramwas created to identify the logic flow of the front-end planningprocess. This diagram was identified as the macrolevel diagram.

There are two tiers of detail associated with the macroleveldiagram. Tier one identifies the five primary phases of the front-end planning process. These are business plan, contract strategy,project execution plan, facility scope plan, and product technicalplan. These five phases were not modified from the previous re-search identified above. The milestones are depicted to indicatethe progressions through the planning process. Since they do nothave any activities associated with them, they are not identified asa phase. Tier two is an expansion of the primary phases andcreates the list of all the activities. It is the tier two activities thatwere reviewed and modified by the research team. Each activityincluded on the macrolevel diagram is associated with an activitycode. This code was modeled after the initial coding used by theCII �RR-125-1 1998�. For example, the business planning phaseis coded “BP” for tier one. All subsequent code elements arefollowed by periods. Each activity found in tier two under thebusiness planning phase has “BP” as its first code element, fol-

lowed by a number. For example, define business objectives is thefirst tier two activity under business planning. The code denotedfor this activity is “BP.01”. These codes are not intended to indi-cate the execution order of the phase two activities. Rather, thesecodes help to identify the activities. Descriptions of the activitiesare identified in Tables 1–5.

The business plan, or strategic plan, involves the goals andobjectives of a business entity �Gibson et al. 1993�. This phaseprovides a comprehensive structure to identify the business objec-tives of the company, and to ensure that the project�s� is in linewith these objectives.

The contracting strategy phase is comprised of the stepsneeded to identify the contract strategy to execute the project.This plan reviews the business and project objectives, identifiesany partnerships the company is involved with, and selects anEPC contractor or creates a list of potential bidders for executionof the project.

The project execution plan phase results in the creation of the,project execution plan �PEP�. The PEP is a detailed plan identi-fying how the project will be executed once approved. The initialestimate, initial schedule, and safety plan are created under thisphase. Additionally, the project scope and the startup plan arecompiled.

The facility scope plan phase results in the identification ofnecessary components needed during the design phase, whichstarts after front-end planning. The scope of work for the facilityand process are documented. Additionally, utility requirementsare identified, the governmental environmental restrictions docu-mented, and the initial site plan formed. Last, the work break-down structure �WBS� is created.

The final phase identified is the product technical plan. Thisphase identifies the technical requirements of the project and in-cludes the identification of license agreements, testing procedures,and any security/secrecy requirements that may be needed for theproject. This phase is executed more on industrial projects, buthas applicability towards other types of construction.

The model created by this research team is not based solelyupon a specific facility type, location, or specific constructiontypes. This logic diagram is to show the general logic flow to plana typical project under the EPC process. Additionally, companiesexecuting projects with similar properties may have to execute theprocess with some variation. The process model may not repre-sent one company’s front-end planning process exactly. It hasbeen developed as a generic model and companies need to modifythe model to more accurately represent their own preproject pro-cess.

Data Collection

To identify which activities were critical for planning projects, asurvey instrument to collect data on front-end planning was cre-ated and distributed to the construction industry. The survey wasdivided into two parts. The first part was designed to capture datarelative to project characteristics and identify project successcriteria. The survey asked respondents to give a “yes” or “no”answer to questions regarding business objectives, project objec-tives, and the success of front-end planning. These questions wereused to identify the success criteria of the project. Projects wherethe respondent indicated a “yes” for these questions were labeledas “successful,” while projects indicating a “no” were labeled“unsuccessful.” Each successful answer was analyzed indepen-dently to identify those activities that are critical to a specific

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2008 / 67

success criterion. Ultimately, front-end planning effectivenesswas chosen as the leading success criterion. This resulted fromprevious research by Hamilton and Gibson, indicating that iffront-end planning is executed successfully, the overall projectwill be a success; ultimately achieving the remaining two objec-tives �Hamilton and Gibson 1996�.

Part two consisted of seven specific questions that were askedfor each of the 33 activities. These questions were as follows:• Elapsed time �in days� to complete the activity.• Internal resources expended in man hours to complete the

activity.

• External resources �contractors, outside resources, etc.� in manhours expended to complete the activity.

• This activity was successfully executed?• This activity was unusually complex due to project

requirements?• This activity was executed efficiently?• The information, documents, and data requirements were

readily available for this activity?The first three questions asked in part two of the survey were

designed to collect project specific activity data. The last fourquestions on the survey were designed to capture categorical data

Table 1. Business Planning Activities and Descriptions

Activity Description

BP.01 Define business objectives Identification and prioritization of specific corporate business-related objectives pertaining tothe development of a capital project.

BP.02 Identify/select project alternatives Identification of facility requirements relating to the operation of the facility over its lifetime.The facility objectives must demonstrate compliance with corporate business strategies.

BP.03 Conduct market research and analysis Those activities required to initially determine whether a new facility, or plant expansion, isneeded and corporately beneficial, and should be approved for project initiation. Preexistingcorporate information useful to the decision making, such as historical cost data and projectperformance histories, are made available.

BP.04 Establish image and public relations Activities initiated to establish a positive corporate image in a project locale to improve publicrelations and to demonstrate the benefits of a proposed project to a local community,municipality, or governing body. Potentially negative project impacts are identified andcorporate strategies appropriate to mitigate such impacts are formulated.

BP.05 Finalize project alternatives Selection of a final project site from among alternatives. Site selection is predicated onphysical suitability, availability, cost, environmental considerations, and other related businessobjectives defined by the owner.

BP.06 Address regulatory issues Activities initiated to address regulatory issues and reporting requirements necessary for aproject’s development. Regulatory agencies may be at the local, state, or federal level ofgovernment. Required actions to ensure project compliance during the construction phase andduring plant operations are identified and undertaken by the appropriate party.

BP.07 Develop funding plan Financial appropriation plan and time table, or the authorized allocation of funds for a specificproject as currently envisioned.

BP.08 Raw material sourcing/sourcebuilding materials

The process of determining qualified sources of raw materials to support plant operations.Modes of delivery, scheduled quantities, cost, storage requirements, and other such issues areconsidered.

BP.09 Develop labor plan and addresshuman resource issues

Includes personnel administration and definition of administrative procedures. May includerequirements for project staffing for all project phases and plant operation. Source of labor andadequacy of supply are determined. Human resource issues are evaluated to establish projectpolicy.

BP.10 Define startup requirements The process of early definition and planning of plant startup requirements to ensure smoothtransition from the construction phase to plant operations.

BP.11 Risk mitigation analysis The process of identifying risk elements, severity, and frequency. This process also includesdetermining risk mitigation techniques for the project.

BP.12 Refine public relations Finalize public relations plan based upon which project alternative was selected.

Table 2. Contracting Strategy Activities and Descriptions


CS.01 Develop contract strategy Identification of the major components in the engineering, procurement, and constructionconcerning responsibilities, scope, and costs to achieve the best overall project objectives.

CS.02 Develop bid package scope Identification of the major components of equipment procurement and construction concerningscope and responsibilities.

CS.03 Review potential EPC contractor bidders The process of screening contractors by the project owner, according to a given set of criteria,in order to determine their competence to perform the work if awarded the contract. Includesapproved bidders list—list of a group of suppliers or subcontractors that have been approvedto provide bids or quotations for materials or services for a particular single package.

CS.04 Select EPC contractor team Selection of one firm or a team of firms for the actual engineering, procurement, andconstruction process.


for each of the activities. The respondent was to answer “yes’,“no,” or “not applicable” for each of the questions. Additionalquestions were asked to identify the specific success criterion forthe project.

Beginning in November of 2005, the surveys and accompany-ing cover letters were given to the research team, requesting thatthey forward the surveys to the appropriate parties for comple-tion. Each cover letter identified the purpose of the survey �togather data pertinent to front-end planning�, assured the respon-dents of confidentiality, and indicated that the information gath-ered from their survey would be used to develop a methodologyto support the research objectives.

Due to front-end planning being primarily an owner-drivenactivity, the majority of the survey respondents needed to be fromowner companies. Few surveys were received from nonownercompanies. However, the data in these surveys were incompleteand were not used.

Fifty-one respondents from across the United States completedthe survey. In some instances, the same company provided severalproject surveys from differing projects. The surveys contained

information from projects exceeding $2.9 billion in total installedcosts. All market sectors are represented within the database ofproject surveys. However, the majority of the surveys �72%� arefrom industrial/manufacturing projects. Additionally, the types ofconstruction were divided between new construction projects at48%, maintenance/renovation/retrofit type projects at 48%, and acombination of new construction/maintenance at 4%.

The information received from the surveys was placed into anexcel spreadsheet for data analysis. Once all the surveys wereentered, the data were analyzed with statistical software to iden-tify any significant statistical findings.

Data Analysis

The pool of projects in the database represents projects from allover the United States. Additionally, these projects all vary incost, and duration of front-end planning. As a result, it is difficultto compare the amount of elapsed time spent on planning a

Table 3. Project Execution Plan Activities and Descriptions


PP.01 Develop preliminary design criteria,including PFDs and P & IDs

Activities that provide general design criteria and project objectives used as the basis fordeveloping the project design concept�s�. After this process is complete, the design progressesto the level where detail design calculations and construction documentation can be begun.

PP.02 Formulate preliminary organization Development of senior management assignments and project responsibilities for design andconstruction.

PP.03 Complete preliminary estimates Development of estimated cost and labor hours to complete the work. Includes obtainingexternal pricing information for major equipment, materials, and services from potentialconsultants, suppliers, and others to prepare and estimate.

PP.04 Establish master project schedule Development of a standard sequenced task logic network reflecting the major control activitiesand relationships between engineering, procurement, construction, and startup. A preliminaryschedule; the results of applying known, contractual, or tentative dates to the sequence of workprior to resource scheduling.

PP.05 Address quality and safety issues Development of quality and safety management systems; development of procedures forquality and safety improvement processes.

PP.06 Develop preliminary execution plan The dependencies and constraints are identified from the task lists, standard logic diagram, anddeliverables to produce a sequenced task list replicating a logic diagram. A key projectmanagement tool enabling the project manager to delineate, in as much detail as required, theplan for executing a project and by this means advise all concerned departments andindividuals in the company of the requirements, responsibilities, and assignments for carryingout the task.

PP.07 Compile project scope Consolidation of facility scope plan activities and feedback of technical, commercial, andproject execution requirements from instruction and/or consultation with the client. Developpreliminary summary of project characteristics, contractual arrangements, and related projectinformation.

PP.08 Develop startup plan Development of a facility startup plan that defines required activities, sequence of execution,and assignment of responsibilities.

Table 4. Site Development Activities and Descriptions

SD.01 Process and facility planning Determine the requirements for acquiring and maintaining the physical location, processequipment, and physical infrastructure of the project.

SD.02 Develop utilities and offsite scope Determine the requirements for power, water, sewer, and other utilities and/or infrastructure, aswell as other support facilities not part of the immediate location.

SD.03 Develop environmental scope Determine the extent of environmental work such as remediation, assessments, wetlands, andother considerations.

SD.04 Develop site plan Determine the location and physical layout of facilities, utilities, infrastructure, and othersupport processes or structures.

SD.05 Detail work breakdown structure Preparation of a list of tasks and deliverables that break the work scope into manageable workpieces, including time and cost aspects.


$100,000 project to a $100,000,000 project. Thus, the data werenormalized to allow projects of differing sizes to be compared.The process for normalization involved summing up the totalvalue for each of the quantitative data values from all 33 activi-ties. Next, the individual value for a particular activity was di-vided by the total time. This provided the percent effort value. Forexample, if the total elapsed time for the entire front-end planningprocess from one survey equals 100 days, and one activity has asingle duration of five days, then the normalized value is 5/100 or5% perceived effort. This process was repeated for the internaland external resource values. All the data values identified arepresented in percent effort of the total planning process.

The data analysis portion was divided into two phases. Eachphase was designed to identify specific statistical findings withinthe data. Phase I analysis identified statistical differences betweenthe durations and resource expenditure �internal and external� ofthe activities for successful versus nonsuccessful projects. Thistest was to identify critical activities based upon time and re-sources expenditure.

The surveys were divided into two samples based upon howthe survey respondent agreed with the statement asked in thesurvey, “front-end planning was effective and efficient.” Sampleone represented the projects where survey respondents agreedwith the statement. The other sample represented projects wherethe respondents did not agree. This sorting of the answers wasperformed to separate successful projects from nonsuccessfulprojects. Again, previous CII research indicates that if front-endplanning is performed properly, then the likelihood for overallproject performance is enhanced. When the surveys were sorted,folded f-tests were performed to determine if the two samplevariances were equal. Depending on the result from this analysis,either the pooled t-tests or the Satterthwaite t-test method wereused to determine if the means were significantly different. Thepooled method was used if the two variances were equal, whilethe Satterthwaite method was utilized when the variances wereunequal. A level of significance of 0.05 ��́=0.05�, was used todetermine which means were significantly different. If the p-valueor the t-test was less then � �P-value �0.05�, then the means wereconsidered significantly different.

Phase II identified any statistical associations between the lastfour questions asked for each activity and the specific successcriterion. In other words, did more successfully planned projectsanswer the questions differently than the less successful projects.A Fisher’s exact test was used to determine an association be-tween the specific question answered to whether the project waseffectively planned. Fisher’s exact test was utilized for this re-search because it accounts for small sample sizes within each cell.Additionally, Fisher’s exact test uses the hypergeometric distribu-

tion rather then the chi-squared distribution �commonly used ontwo-way frequency tests with high amounts of data values� whencomputing the p-value.

For each of the 33 activities, four two-way frequency tableswere created. As a result, a total of 132 frequency tables werecreated and analyzed within the statistical software. The softwareprovided a p-value for each of the tables. This p-value was thencompared to the level of significance ��́=0.05�. Tables where thep-value was less then 0.05 indicated an association between thetwo questions.

Summary of Survey Findings

Based upon the success criteria, seven activities were identified asbeing critical to achieving overall project success. The seven ac-tivities identified using this criterion are listed in Table 6. Notethat BP.04, establish image and public relations, and BP.12, refinepublic relations, are very much related.

Upon further examination of these seven activities, it was dis-covered that for some activities, information was more likely tobe available for the more successful projects. In some instances,the activity was also more efficiently executed for the more suc-cessful projects. And, in some cases, there was evidence that theactivity in some way impacted the attainment of business objec-tives. The “indicators” in Table 7 reflect some additional insightinto the differences between the more and less successful projects.

In an attempt to better comprehend the overall data set, a num-ber of additional tables were compiled. Table 8 lists the activitieswith the highest normalized activity durations for the more and

Table 5. Technical Plan Activities and Descriptions


TP.01 Conduct technical surveysand process analysis

Collection of initial technical information that may be in the form of drawings, engineeringspecifications, and other information formats that is used to define plant components andprocess requirements.

TP.02 Product development/identify certificationand testing procedures

Early refinement and/or development of plant processes and manufacturing products.Identification of certification requirements and appropriate testing procedures to ensurecorporate and regulatory policy compliance.

TP.03 Obtain license agreements Activities to secure appropriate patents and licenses for processes and products associated withthe project’s development and life-cycle operation. Procedures focused on ensuring thatproprietary products and processes are secure.

TP.04 Establish security and secrecy agreement Creation of any security requirements needed for the project among project participants.Establishment of differing security levels for project when required.

Table 6. Activities for Which There Is a Statistically SignificantDifference in the Success of Executing the Front-End Planning Processbetween More and Less Successful Projects

Activity Criteria p-value

BP.04 Establish image and public relations Duration 0.003

Internal resources 0.03

BP.10 Define startup requirements External resources 0.01

BP.12 Refine public relations Internal resources 0.02

PP.05 Address quality and safety issues External resources 0.05

PP.06 Develop preliminary execution plan Duration 0.05

Internal resources 0.04

PP.07 Compile project scope External resources 0.01

SD.02 Develop utilities and offsite scope Internal resources 0.03


less successful projects. It is interesting to note that the activitywith the highest duration for the less successful projects wasBP.01, define business objectives.

Similarly, Tables 9 and 10 compare the highest expenditure ofinternal and external resources for the more and less success-ful projects. Tables 8–10 seem to indicate more emphasis on

PP.03, complete preliminary estimates for the more successfulprojects.

Tables 11 and 12 reflect data for all projects regardless ofsuccess criteria. It is interesting to note that BP.07, develop fund-ing plan, tops both lists. Thus, it can be concluded that informa-tion was not available to develop the funding plan 49% of the

Table 7. Core Activities Impacting Successful Completion of the Front-End Planning Process

Activity Indicators Information flow entities

BP.04 Establish image and public relations DUR Public relations team

INT Corporate goals

INFO

BP.10 Define startup requirements EXT Startup plan

Operations input

Startup cost estimate

BP.12 Refine public relations EXT Public relations plan �BP.04�

Corporate goals

PP.05 Address quality and safety issues EXT Safety goals

INFO Job site considerations

Design considerations

Operations considerations

Audit inspection requirements

PP.06 Develop preliminary execution Plan DUR Existing planning documents

INT Plan durations

EFFIC Resource loading

Staffing requirements

Risk mitigation plan

PP.07 Compile project scope EXT Technical requirements

Commercial requirements

Execution requirements

SD.02 Develop utilities and offsite scope INT Facility requirements

EFFIC Equipment requirements

Fire protection requirements

Offsite infrastructure

Utility sources and supply

Note: Indicators utilized in Table 7: DUR�Activity duration for the more successful projects exceeds the duration for the less successful projects with adegree of statistical significance; EXT�External resources expended for the more successful projects exceeds the external resources expended for the lesssuccessful projects with a degree of statistical significance; INT�Internal resources expended for the more successful projects exceeds the internalresources expended for the less successful projects with a degree of statistical significance; INFO�Information was more likely to be available for thisactivity, for the more successful projects, with a degree of statistical significance; and EFFIC�This activity was more efficiently executed for the moresuccessful projects, with a degree of statistical significance.

Table 8. Activities with the Highest Normalized Activity Durations

Projects more successful in executing the front-end planning process

ActivityNormalized

duration

PP.03 Complete preliminary estimates 6.20

PP.01 Develop preliminary design criteria 6.10

BP.07 Develop funding plan 5.43

PP.02 Compile project scope 4.72

BP.01 Define business objectives 4.42

Projects less successful in executing the front-end planning process




BP.02 Identify/select project alternatives 5.95

TP.03 Obtain license agreements 5.63

Table 9. Activities with the Highest Expended Internal Resources


ActivityNormalizedexpenditure





TP.01 Conduct technical surveys 4.38


TP.03 Obtain license agreements 7.97



BP.02 Identify project alternatives 5.62



time, and the task was not executed efficiently 37% of the time.Table 13 reflects the fact that the less successful projects spend

more time on license and regulatory issues. However, this maysuggest that projects involving license and regulatory issues areless likely to have perceived success in executing the front-endplanning process.

It can be concluded that the following activities are critical tothe front-end planning process when considering one or morecriteria:

BP.04 establish image and public relations. With respect tosuccessfully executing the front-end planning process, successfulprojects devoted more time, by a factor of 3.4, to the execution ofthis activity. In addition, more owner resources were expended.Information was more likely to be available for the more success-ful projects versus nonsuccessful. A relatively low 20% of allsurvey respondents stated that information was not available forthis activity.

BP.10 define startup requirements. Successful projects devotedmore external resources, by a factor of 4.2, to the execution ofthis activity. This difference is statistically significant.

BP.12 refine public relations. When performing this activity,successful projects devoted more owner resources, by a factor of6.7. Additionally, a relatively low 14% of all survey respondentsstated that information was not available to perform this activity.

PP.05 address quality and safety issues. Successful projectsdevoted more external resources, by a factor of 2.1, to this activ-ity during front-end planning. In addition, information was morelikely to be available for the more successful projects.

PP.06 develop preliminary execution plan. PP.06 devoted moretime on successful projects, by a factor of 1.8, to the execution of

this activity. In addition, successful projects devoted more ownerresources, by a factor of 2.1, to the execution of this activity, andmore successful projects executed this task more efficiently.Forty-five percent of all survey respondents found this activity tobe unusually complex. Thirty-nine percent of all survey respon-dents stated that information was not readily available for thisactivity. Thirty-seven percent �a relatively high percentage� of allrespondents stated that this activity was not executed efficiently.

PP.07 compile project scope. Successful projects devoted moreexternal resources, by a factor of 1.9, to the execution of thisactivity.

SD.02 develop utilities and offsite scope. With respect to suc-cessfully executing the front-end planning process, successfulprojects devoted more owner resources, by a factor of 2.4, to theexecution of this activity, and more successful projects executedthis task more efficiently.

Industry Feedback to Obtain Survey Interpretations

A follow up survey was conducted to obtain further informationregarding the seven critical activities. This survey asked industrypractitioners specific questions concerning the activities indicatedby the research as having an impact on project success. The in-formation identified from this survey provides additional data thathelps understand why these seven activities are critical, and pro-vides further information that may assist planners in executing theactivities in a more efficient manner. These questions were asfollows:• List the most critical information/data tasks for this activity.• List the missing information encountered when executing this

activity.• Which tasks require the most focus with respect to allocation

of resources?

Table 10. Activities with the Highest Expended External Resources


ActivityNormalizedexpenditure









SD.04 Develop site plan 7.56


BP.05 Finalize project alternatives 7.56

Table 11. Activities for Which Information Was Most Likely NotAvailable, All Surveys

Activity

Percent respondinginformation was

not readily available

BP.07 Develop funding plan 49

PP.03 Complete preliminary estimates 43

BP.02 Identify project alternatives 43

PP.01 Develop preliminary design criteria 41

SD.01 Process and facility planning 41

BP.01 Define business objectives 39

PP.06 Develop preliminary execution plan 39

Table 12. Activities That Were Executed Least Efficiently, All Surveys

Activity

Percent responding “no”to question “was this

task executed efficiently.”

BP.07 Develop funding plan 37

PP.06 Develop preliminary execution plan 37

PP.08 Develop startup plan 37

PP.01 Develop preliminary design criteria 35

SD.01 Process and facility planning 35

BP.01 Define business objectives 33

BP.02 Identify project alternatives 33

TP.01 Conduct technical surveys 33

Table 13. Duration Comparisons for Two Selected Activities

Activity

Normalizedduration

less successful

Normalizedduration

more successfulp-

value

BP.06 Addressregulatory issues

4.19 2.77 0.25

TP.03 Obtainlicense agreements

5.63 2.13 0.26

Note: This table may indicate that projects that involve regulatory andlicense issues may have less perceived success in executing front-endplanning.


• What are the potential causes for possibly executing the activ-ity inefficiently?The significant findings from the follow up survey are pre-

sented in Table 14. The purpose of the table is not to identify allthe information needed to execute the activity successfully.Rather, this table identifies key comments from industry practitio-ners as to potential reasons why these activities were found to betime critical, information intensive, or otherwise process con-straining. This table identifies information that is often over-

looked when planning projects, and potential bottlenecks that mayresult in front-end planning.

In general, the survey responses indicated that the followingfactors most impact the activities: Scope definition, risk identifi-cation and mitigation, resource allocation for task execution, cleardefinition of roles and responsibilities, and effective communica-tion mechanisms. It appears that communications between theplanning team and external entities such as the public key stake-holders and equipment suppliers are especially critical. These and

Table 14. Follow-Up Survey Comments

Question Comments

BP.04 Establish image and public relationsCritical information Community involvement—this information can be obtained by surveys, community meetings, and

having active involvement from key stakeholders.

Missing information Key stakeholders, public relations budget, and poor PR execution plan.

Tasks requiringmore focus

Identifying public relations area and alignment of PR plan with corporate and project goals.

Causes for taskinefficiency

Not involving community stakeholders, poor PR plan, failure to understand local culture, and onlyfocusing on the positive impacts �need to identify negative impacts�.

BP.10 Define startup requirementsCritical information Startup objectives, startup plan, and operating and maintenance input.

Missing information Key vendor data, stakeholders, and insufficient startup plan.

Tasks requiringmore focus

Startup objectives, acquiring operations and maintenance input, and review of startup plan.

Causes for taskinefficiency

Insufficient attention early in the project, poor startup plan, lack of resources, and not getting keystakeholder involvement.

BP.12 Refine public relationsCritical information Public expectations, corporate goals, and resolution strategies.

Missing information Key stakeholders and their views/perceptions of the project.

Tasks requiring more focus Resolution strategies to address issues or concerns.

Causes for task inefficiency Poor PR plan, little or no resource availability, poor community outreach.

PP.05 Address quality and safety issuesCritical information Identification of safety goals, safety/quality plan, and worker input.

Missing information Construction manager/contractor’s safety plan is deficient at startup, site conditions unknown, clientsafety requirements, and local requirements.

Tasks requiring more focus Identification of safety goals, development of the safety/quality plans, review of local conditions andrequirements, and obtaining worker input.

Causes for task inefficiency Poor resource allocation, expectations not clearly defined, incomplete time for site investigation, andlack of project participants knowing and understanding corporate and project safety/quality goals.

PP.06 develop preliminary execution planCritical information Areas of execution risk—it is important to define potential issues up front and to have a plan to react to

future problems.

Missing information Lack of team involvement, incomplete scope definition, vendor data, and a clear definition of roles andresponsibilities.

Tasks requiring more focus Identification of areas of execution risk, creation of risk mitigation alternatives, and creation of theproject execution plan.

Causes for task inefficiency “Unrealistic” schedules, poor scope definition, lack of resources, and a poor risk mitigation plan.

PP.07 Compile project scopeCritical information Technical requirements, commercial requirements, execution requirements, and a detailed WBS.

Missing information Customer expectations, subsurface information, and contingency plans.

Tasks requiring more focus Collection required information needed to create the scope of work.

Causes for task inefficiency A poor description of work, inadequate resources, tight time constraints, scope creep, and little or nostakeholder “buy-in”.

SD.02 Develop utilities and offsite scopeCritical information Process/equipment utility requirements.

Missing information Right-of-way requirements, public opposition, over/under estimation of requirements.

Tasks requiring more focus Determination of process/equipment requirements.

Causes for task inefficiency Poor communication of user requirements, lack of conceptual design, and poor vendor information.


other information flow issues may be more adequately addressedthrough a careful selection of persons participating in, or betterrepresented within, the front-end planning team.

Conclusions

A CII sponsored research project was conducted for the purposeof examining information flow within the front-end planning pro-cess. Thirty three activities were identified and as comprising thetypical industrial facility front-end planning process. A compre-hensive survey was executed to examine numerous factors im-pacting information flow and the successful completion of front-end planning as perceived by the survey respondents.

The 51 survey responses were divided into approximately twogroups, successful and nonsuccessful projects, with respect to theexecution of the front-end planning process. An analysis of theresponses indicated that, with a degree of statistical significance,seven activities are critical for achieving project success. Theseactivities are related to public relations, startup requirements,safety and quality, scope and execution planning, and site utilityconsiderations. The survey responses also indicated that requiredinformation was not available almost 50% of the time for a num-ber of front-end planning activities.

In order to better understand information flow within the sevencritical activities, a follow up survey was executed to identifypotential reasons why the activities are critical. This survey re-vealed problem areas such as inadequate scope definition, riskidentification and mitigation, minimal resource allocation for taskexecution, unclear definitions of roles and responsibilities, andineffective external communication mechanisms.

References

Cleland, D. I., and Ireland, L. R. �2002�. Project management: Strategicdesign and implementation, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Construction Industry Institute �CII�. �1995�. “Pre-project planning hand-book.” Publication No. 39-2, Construction Industry Institute, Austin,Tex.

Construction Industry Institute �CII�. �1997�. “Front end planning tools:PDRI and alignment.” Publication No. 113-1, Construction IndustryInstitute, Austin, Tex.

Construction Industry Institute �CII�. �1998�. “Cost and schedule impactsof information management.” Publication No. 125-1, Construction In-dustry Institute, Austin, Tex.

Construction Industry Institute �CII�. �2007�. “CII best practices.”�http://www.construction-institute.org/scriptcontent/bp.cfm?section�Orders� �February 14, 2007�.

Gibson, G. E., Jr., Kaczmarowski, J. H., and Lore, H. E. �1993�. “Mod-eling pre-project planning for construction of capital facilities.”Source Document No. 94, Construction Industry Institute �CII�, Univ.of Texas, Austin, Tex.

Gibson, G. E., Jr., Kaczmarowski, J. H., and Lore, H. E. �1995�.“Preproject-planning process for capital facilities.” J. Constr. Eng.Manage., 121�3�, 312–318.

Hamilton, M., and Gibson, G. �1996�. “Benchmarking preproject-planning effort.” J. Manage. Eng., 12�2�, 25–33.

Hartman, F., and Ashrafi, R. �2004�. “Development of the SMART™project planning framework.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 22�6�, 499–510.

Smith, C. C. �2000�. “Improved project definition ensures value-addedperformance. Part 1.” Hydrocarbon Process., 79�8�, 4.

Webster, J. �2004�. “Project planning: Getting it right the first time.”Proc., 2004 IEEE Aerospace Conf. Proceedings, Vol. 6, Big Sky,Mont., 3924–3930.


Documents

Critical Activities in the Front-End Planning Process · Critical Activities in the Front-End Planning Process ... improve information ﬂow through the front-end planning ... Dept