Analysis of the Higher-Order Partial Correlation between

CII Best Practices and Performance of the Design

Phase in Fast-Track Industrial Projects
Abhijeet S. Deshpande, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE1; Ossama M. Salem, P.E., M.ASCE2; and Richard A. Miller, P.E.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A fast-track project delivery strategy is designed to leverage the ability to execute the design, procurement, and construction
phases simultaneously to substantially reduce the overall project duration. The successful execution of the design phase in fast-track
projects is especially challenging because the concurrent execution of design and construction interferes with the inherently iterative
nature of the design process. In this research, it was hypothesized that a correlation exists between the use of some of the Construction
Industry Institute (CII) best practices and the performance of design phase in fast-track projects. Analysis of the performance of the
design phase in 31 fast-track projects revealed a statistically significant correlation between performance of the design phase and front-
end planning, alignment, constructability, and change management. The results of quantitative analysis are supported by qualitative
analysis of data, opinion of experts from industry, and academia. The projects analyzed in the study were executed by CII member
companies with experience and knowledge of using the best practices effectively. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000487.
© 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Fast-track construction; Project management; Constructability; Alignment; Best Management Practice.
Author keywords: Fast track; Preproject planning; Constructability; Alignment.

Introduction phases overlap significantly. In a very competitive global economic

Traditional construction project delivery using design-bid-build
philosophy is characterized by the sequential execution of front-
end planning, design, construction, and commissioning phases.
The front-end planning and design phases are executed in a sequen-
tial manner, with some overlap between procurement and construc-
tion. In contrast, fast-track project delivery, used often in industrial
projects, is similar to concurrent engineering philosophy used in the
manufacturing industry in which concurrent, overlapped processes
are used instead of sequential product and process design (Prasad
1996). de la Garza et al. (1994) proposed that concurrent engineer-
ing can be effectively used to take advantage of the high degree of
fragmentation and specialization in the construction industry by
having multiple stakeholders working concurrently. The primary
objective of the fast-track project delivery is to leverage the ability
to execute many of the activities of the design, procurement, and
construction phases concurrently to compress the schedule. In a
typical-fast track project, the design, construction, and procurement
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Samuel Ginn College
of Engineering, Auburn Univ., 238 Harbert Engineering Center, Auburn,
AL 36849 (corresponding author). E-mail: adeshpande@auburn.edu
2 age. The designs created by various disciplines such as civil,
Professor, Yabroudi Chair of Sustainable Civil Infrastructures, Con-
struction Engineering and Management, 151 Link Hall, L. C. Smith Col-
lege of Engineering and Computer Science, Syracuse Univ., Syracuse, NY
13244. E-mail: omsalem@syr.edu
3
Professor, Civil Engineering, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210071, Cincinnati, OH 45221-
0071. E-mail: richard.miller@uc.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 4, 2010; approved on
September 14, 2011; published online on September 16, 2011. Discussion
period open until November 1, 2012; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construc-
tion Engineering and Management, Vol. 138, No. 6, June 1, 2012.
©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2012/6-716–724/$25.00.
environment, a significant business need exists to get the product to
the market as quickly as possible. This has led to the widespread
adoption of the fast-track project delivery philosophy in industrial
projects.
Design in Traditional Design-Bid-Build Projects
The projects executed using the traditional design-bid-build project
delivery method are characterized by sequential separation of the
project phases, and the design process is characterized by organi-
zational separation by design discipline. The sequential execution
of front-end planning, design, and construction phases makes it rel-
atively easier for designers to collect all of the required information
and data. The design can go through a significant number of re-
views by various stakeholders, and changes can be made to opti-
mize and improve the design before construction starts. The design
process is inherently iterative, and the design documents go
through an iterative loop, which involves making assumptions,
checking the accuracy of the assumptions, and optimizing and re-
vising the design, before the documents are included in a bid pack-
structural, mechanical, piping, and instrumentation processes,
and more, go through many cycles of revisions on the basis of
stakeholder feedback before they are finalized. This process pro-
vides the potential for an optimized design that addresses the own-
er’s requirements effectively and efficiently.
Design in Fast-Track Industrial Projects
In fast-track projects, the various phases of the project, such as de-
sign, procurement, and construction, are executed concurrently.

716 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2012

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2012, 138(6): 716-724

 This creates conflicts within the inherently iterative design process
because the design is now driven both by the demands to keep con-
struction work flowing smoothly and by the need to optimize the
design. The designers must design with incomplete data, and the
iterative loop is broken to meet demands of the construction sched-
ule. This could result in a suboptimal design.
Fast-track projects started with inadequate front-end planning
make execution of design within schedule and budget constraints
even more challenging. Williams (1995) identifies a lack of proper
definition of the final product in the initial stages as one of the rea-
sons for problems in performance of design in fast-track projects.
Various studies on preproject planning support this finding
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(Hamilton and Gibson 1996; Dumont et al. 1997). The overlap be-
tween design, construction, and procurement processes introduces
an additional element of uncertainty, which results in the formation
of additional deleterious iterative cycles caused by errors resulting
from a lack of time to ensure accuracy of design and changes re-
sulting from inadequate front-end planning, which are detrimental
to performance of the project (Lee et al. 2003).
In fast-track projects, designers have to make decisions on the
basis of incomplete information, and the design is implemented at
the site rapidly. It is difficult to optimize the design because of the
lack of time and accurate information. The designers are forced to
over design and ensure that adequate capacity is available. For ex-
ample, foundations and structural systems are constructed in earlier
phases of the project, but necessary information about loading is
not always available. In such cases, design cannot be optimized,
and foundations and structural system are typically designed for
a higher load-bearing capacity. On the other hand, lack of informa-
tion can also result in undersized systems that have to subsequently
be reworked and fixed at additional cost. The lack of adequate de-
sign information can lead to rework in fast-track projects.
In a recent survey conducted by the the FMI Corporation and the
Construction Management Association of America (CMAA),
nearly 50% of owners reported that construction documents pre-
pared by the design team that are presented to the construction team
at the beginning of a project are lacking in significant information;
15% said that construction documents are, “insufficient with major
information needed;” and 5% say these documents are, “inadequate
with major information needed” (FMI Corporation and CMAA
2004). The project team is often advised to anticipate, accept, and
budget for changes and rework for a fast-track project to be suc-
cessful (Williams 1995).
Managing Design Process in Fast-Track Projects
The design process can be conceptually thought of as the flow of
information from various stakeholders to the designers, and vice
versa, during the preproject planning, design, procurement, and
construction phases. The design of a large industrial project in-
volves a complex process of information flow across engineering
disciplines and across organizational boundaries and is inherently
iterative. The feedback from various stakeholders is received and
addressed in a compressed schedule. This results in many prob-
lems, including increased communication of nonessential informa-
tion to stakeholders, information overload, delay in information
transmission, translation difficulties between disciplines, lack of
time for reflection and exploration of design, and rapid transmis-
sion of errors (Elvin 2003).
The significant overlap between the design and construction
also requires that design and construction personnel cooperate early
and more closely in the project. In a fractured and litigious industry,
this poses a significant challenge. In the FMI Corporation/CMAA
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 717
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2012, 138(6): 716-724
survey (2004) quoted in the preceding section, it is reported that
various issues surrounding efforts of coordination, collaboration,
and communication continue to challenge owners and cause con-
fusion on projects. Of owners, 63% report that the quality of design
documents has declined to a point in which subcontractors, such as
electrical and mechanical, are actually completing the design
through the shop drawing, causing miscommunication and delays
in projects (FMI Corporation and CMAA 2004).
The management of activities in a concurrent engineering envi-
ronment is dealt with at an activity level by some researchers
(Bogus et al. 2005a, b, 2006). They have proposed a framework
for identifying opportunities for overlapping design activities while
minimizing the risks associated with overlapping design activities.
This framework involves identifying the evolution and sensitivity
in design activities. The evolution of a design activity is on the basis
of the level of design optimization, constraint satisfaction, external
information exchange, and standardization. The sensitivity of an
activity is determined by evaluating activity constraints, input
variables, and the level of design integration. The optimal strategy
involves identifying opportunities to overlap design activities with
fast evolution, with downstream activities with less sensitivity.
Elvin (2003), in a practical approach, outlined practices for
managing design in fast-track project environment on the basis
of interviews with experts. These practices for successful manage-
ment of design, using conceptualization of the design process as a
flow of information, include building a shared language between
participants, enhancing the iterations and feedback processes, en-
suring early downstream input in the design process, using a struc-
tured team building program, creating flexible project organization,
colocating the design and construction teams, and synchronizing
the workflow planning.
Study Motivation
The performance of design in a fast-track industrial project depends
on the collaboration and participation of multiple stakeholders in
the flow of information throughout the pre project planning, design,
procurement, and construction phases. Consequently, it is impor-
tant to study the entire life cycle of a project to identify the practices
that need special attention to ensure success of design in an indus-
trial project executed using the fast-track project delivery strategy.
Over past two decades, the Construction Industry Institute (CII)
has, through rigorous research, identified best practices that can
improve the performance of capital projects. These best practices
cover various aspects of project execution, including front-end
planning, design optimization, procurement and materials manage-
ment, construction, facility start-up and operations, human resour-
ces management, business and project processes, project controls,
contracts and risk management, safety, and more. Although these
practices were identified and developed with a focus on their effect
on overall project performance, this research was initiated to iden-
tify the practices that play an important role in the success of the
design phase through rigorous quantitative analysis.
The primary objective of the study was to identify the industry
standard best practices, which, when used appropriately, can im-
prove the performance of the design phase in fast-track industrial
projects. The CII best practices identified for analysis included
practices that dealt with planning before design (front end
planning), flow of information from downstream stakeholders to
design (constructability, design for maintainability, design for
safety), collaboration between project stakeholders (partnering,
alignment), measuring the performance of the design phase (design
 effectiveness), and managing interference to the design (change
management).
Front-End Planning
A significant body of research has proven that front-end planning
can improve project performance significantly in terms of reduced
project performance variability in cost, schedule, and operating per-
formance (Hamilton and Gibson 1996; Dumont et al. 1997; Griffith
et al. 1999; Cho et al. 1999). Front-end planning is the essential
process of developing sufficient strategic information with which
the owners can address risks and make decisions to commit resour-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ces to maximize the potential for a successful project. Front-end
planning, performed before project authorization, essentially in-
volves organization for front-end planning, selection of alternatives
(analysis of technology, evaluation of site alternatives, preparation
of conceptual scope and estimates, evaluation of alternatives), and
development of the project definition (analyzing project risks, doc-
umenting project scope and design, defining project execution ap-
proach, establishing project control guidelines, compiling project
definition package).
Development of a detailed project definition/scope package is a
critical component of front-end planning from a design standpoint
because it makes the essential information required by the design-
ers available to them in a structured manner. The project scope def-
inition package includes vital information for the success of the
design phase, such as scope definition, design basis, materials of
construction, plot plan(s), piping and instrument diagrams, general
specifications, process description and characteristics, utility re-
quirements, an estimate of the complete balance, specific design
consideration equipment data, a pressure/temperature diagram,
an electrical diagram, one-line diagrams, specifications, and a de-
sign package for general facilities. Unfortunately, in many fast-
track projects, front-end planning is sacrificed in favor of starting
the work as soon as possible.
Alignment
The alignment of goals of the stakeholders involved in project de-
livery has been found to affect the success of capital projects
(Griffith and Gibson 2001). The alignment is defined as the con-
dition in which appropriate project participants are working within
acceptable tolerances to develop and meet a uniformly defined and
understood set of project objectives (CII 2002). Proper stakeholder
input provides the team with diverse expertise covering all techni-
cal and business areas and better information and better solutions to
the problems faced by the designers.
Partnering
Partnering may be a long-term commitment between two or more
organizations, as in an alliance, or it may be applied to a shorter
period of time, such as the duration of a project. The purpose of
partnering is to achieve specific business objectives by maximizing
the effectiveness of each participant’s resources (Thomson et al.
1996). Partnering can be effectively used to eliminate the adversa-
rial nature of relationships between project stakeholders and create
an environment for teamwork.
Design Effectiveness
The success of the design phase depends on the information and
design document review by many stakeholders, including the
owner, the various design groups, suppliers, construction represent-
atives, and operations and maintenance personnel. Design effec-
tiveness is a quantitative method, developed by CII, to measure the
results of the design effort, including input variables and design
718 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2012
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2012, 138(6): 716-724
execution, against the specified expectations of the owner. The
owner’s expectations include criteria such as cost, schedule, quality,
safety, and more, either explicit or implicit, in the project objectives
(CII 2002). Design effectiveness is an evaluation of the effective-
ness of the whole design effort and not only the efforts of the de-
signers alone.
Change Management
Change management can be defined as the process of incorporating
a balanced change culture of recognition, planning, and evaluation
of project changes in an organization to effectively manage project
changes. If changes are not effectively managed, they may interrupt
flow of work and cause inflation in cost, schedule slippages, and
potentially costly litigation (Hester et al. 1991). Changes can also
cause a significant loss in engineering and construction productiv-
ity (Hanna et al. 1999a, b). Industrial projects are complex inter-
connected systems in which change required in one area can result
in cascading changes in other areas, thus substantially increasing
the amount of required design rework. A structured change man-
agement system on the basis of these principles can result in careful
evaluation of changes and potential reduction of design work re-
sulting from unnecessary changes.
Design for Maintainability
Design for maintainability integrates downstream experience and
knowledge regarding cost-effective facility/plant operations and
maintenance into project design parameters, with the goal of reduc-
ing the costs needed to operate the facility for its expected life. The
feedback from maintenance personnel is used in the design process
from the preproject planning phase to the project commissioning
phase (Russell et al. 1999). The design for maintainability ensures
that maintenance feedback is integrated in the facility design and
execution plan from the project scope definition to the commission-
ing stage. It can help improve plant performance and reduce the
changes that are usually experienced during the commissioning
stage.
Constructability
In fast-track projects, the design schedule is driven by the require-
ments for construction. Constructability analysis involves checking
a design document’s accuracy, completeness, cost-effectiveness,
and compatibility with the given project constraints. Constructabil-
ity can be defined as the effective and timely integration of
construction knowledge into the conceptual planning, design, con-
struction, and field operations of a project to achieve overall project
objectives in the best possible time and accuracy at the most cost-
effective levels. Many times, engineering professionals have less
exposure to new and efficient methods of construction (Arditi et al.
2002). Information about materials and skilled labor available at a
project location and construction techniques predominantly used in
certain regions need to be taken into consideration during design.
Significant amount of research (Ireland 1985; ASCE Construction
Management Committee of the Construction Division 1991;
Russell et al. 1993) has confirmed that integration of construction
knowledge into design processes greatly improves the probability
of achieving a better-quality project that is completed in a safe man-
ner, on schedule, for the least cost.
In addition to the best practices discussed, other practices
designated by CII as best practices or proposed best practices,
including design for safety, employee incentives (project-based
incentives for designers), leader selection, team building, use of
 prefabrication, and preassembled components, were identified for
data collection.
Hypothesis
The performance of the design phase is affected positively and neg-
atively by a number of external factors that are a part of the project
environment but are external to the use of the best practices
described previously. These external factors include project team
experience, project complexity, availability of as-built drawings
(for addition, expansion, retrofit industrial projects), project team
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
turnover during the project, offshore engineering, and more. To
correctly identify the effect of the use of best practices on the
performance of the design phase, the effect of these external factors
on the performance of design has to be isolated and eliminated.
The hypothesis was structured as follows:
Null hypothesis Ho∶ ρ ¼ 0 ð1Þ
No correlation exists between the use of a best practice and
performance of the design phase after controlling the external
factors.
Alternate hypothesis Ha∶ ρ ≠ 0 ð2Þ
A correlation exists between the use of a best practice and
performance of the design phase after controlling the external
factors.
The p-value is compared with a predetermined significance
level α to determine whether the null hypothesis should be rejected
in favor of the alternative hypothesis. It is common in research of
this type to set the significance level at 0.10 (Hanna et al.
1997, 2002).
Data Collection
The data-collection effort in this research study involved the cre-
ation of a questionnaire survey through a very elaborate develop-
ment process to identify the content, structure, and goals of the
data-collection effort. The questionnaire survey was developed
over a period of 6 months, and it went through multiple revisions
and reviews by independent subject experts from the construction
industry and an expert statistician from academia. The question-
naire survey was beta tested by a representative of the construction
industry before it was sent out. Care was taken to ensure that the
collected data were from practices actually implemented in the
project. In a separate section in the questionnaire survey, respond-
ents were explicitly asked for their opinion. To ensure that all
respondents had the same understanding of key terms and best
practices used in the survey, a detailed glossary was included with
the questionnaire survey. In addition, respondents were encouraged
to get more information about CII best practices from resources
available from the CII website. The questionnaire survey was
evaluated and approved by the Institutional Research Bureau at
the University of Cincinnati.
The questionnaire survey was distributed using postal mail
and electronic mail to 99 CII member companies. The CII mem-
bership includes contractors, design firms that are involved in
design, companies involved in construction of industrial facili-
ties, and owners. For the planned higher-order partial correlation
analysis, a power of 0.80 and α ¼ 0:10, the required sample size
was 29 fast-track industrial projects. The research team was able
to collect information about 31 fast-track industrial projects in a
period of 6 months. Respondents to the survey included owners,
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 719
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2012, 138(6): 716-724
architecture and engineering (A/E) firms, and engineering
procurement construction (EPC) contractors. A respondent
who completed the survey on behalf of an organization was re-
quired to provide information regarding his/her role in the
project. This information helped ensure that the respondent
had adequate participation and authority in the project to gather
and provide the information required in the questionnaire survey.
Each member company of the CII has a data liaison who ensures
that the data requested by CII are provided by the most qualified
person. The survey was distributed through this channel to each
CII member. Response-enhancing techniques were not used in
the data-collection process.
Most respondents to the questionnaire survey reported signifi-
cant experience in executing projects using a fast-track execution
strategy. Some of the respondents commented that fast-track project
execution has become a standard operating practice in their organi-
zation; 53% of respondents reported that their organization
executes 75–100% of projects using a fast-track strategy, and 30%
of respondents reported that their organization executes 50%–75%
of their projects using fast track strategy. The rest of the respond-
ents reported that their organization executed less than 50% of proj-
ects using a fast-track strategy. The projects analyzed in this study
included 13 grassroots construction projects; 13 expansion proj-
ects; three retrofit, conversion-type projects; and one project
involving rehabilitation of an industrial structure damaged by
Hurricane Katrina. Specifically, these projects spanned a wide
spectrum of industrial construction, including oil exploration/
production, power generation, pulp and paper, continuous process,
gas distribution, coke production, industrial hygiene, automotive
manufacturing, and other industrial projects (e.g., natural gas
processing, pipeline, central utility plant, water/wastewater, electri-
cal distribution, semiconductor manufacturing, microelectronics
manufacturing, metals refining, consumer products manufacturing,
laboratory buildings). After the initial questionnaire surveys were
received, the research team contacted some of the respondents for
clarifications and additional information. The data-collection pro-
cess took more than 1 year to complete.
The questionnaire survey was designed to collect information
about a fast-track project executed by the respondent’s organiza-
tion. It comprised 104 questions and four sections: project charac-
teristics and performance, detailed questions about specific design
practices and their effect, detailed information about the use of
CII best practices in the project, and open-ended questions
designed to elicit information about the challenges faced in man-
aging the design phase in the fast-track project environment. A sig-
nificant amount of data on design practices and performance was
collected in this research. In the interest of brevity, only the data
relevant to the quantitative analysis presented in this paper are dis-
cussed. Full details of the survey can be found in Salem and
Miller (2007).
The primary objective of this research study was to identify best
practices for managing the design phase in fast-track projects.
Respondents were provided with a list of best practices for man-
aging projects. To further identify the extent use of each of the best
practice in the project, respondents were provided with the essential
elements of each best practice and asked if each element of the best
practice was implemented or not. A sample of the data collected for
one of the best practices (viz preproject planning) is included in
Appendix I.
In addition, examples of sample questions from the question-
naire survey are included in Appendix II.
To test the hypotheses, it was also important to identify the ef-
fect of factors that were a part of the project environment but ex-
ternal to the use of the best practices. Respondents of the
 questionnaire survey were requested to specify whether any of the
listed external factors adversely, or positively, affected the perfor-
mance of the design phase beyond the conditions for which they
were planned. Effects could be assessed from “highly negative” to
“highly positive.” If the factor was adequately planned for, the
respondent was requested to indicate “as planned.” If not, the
respondent was requested to indicate the effect: positive or
negative. “Negative” represents the effect on the performance met-
ric adversely. “Positive” represents the effect on the performance
metric favorably. In addition, respondents were asked to identify
the best practices that, in their opinion, play an important role in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ensuring the success of design in fast-track projects.
Data Normalization
The metrics used for identification of the performance of the design
phase in fast-track projects were design cost performance and de-
sign schedule performance. The metrics for measuring the perfor-
mance of the design phase were normalized to a scale in which a
score of 100 was established as the baseline value. If the design in
the project was completed on budget, a value of 100 was assigned.
If the design was completed 5% over budget, a value of 105 was
assigned. Similarly, if the design was completed 5% under budget,
a value of 95 was assigned. The design schedule performance was
similarly normalized to a baseline value of 100.
Extent of Use of Best Practices
One of the challenging aspects of identifying the correlation be-
tween performance of the design phase and use of best practice
was to quantify the extent of use of best practices in a project.
To measure the degree of implementation of a particular best prac-
tice in the project, respondents were provided with a list of ele-
ments of every best practice. The extent of implementation of
the best practice was then assessed as the number of elements
of each best practice used in the project using the best practice im-
plementation index. For example, front-end planning was broken
down in seven components. If only three of the seven elements
were implemented, a value of 3∕7 (0.43) was assigned to the best
practice implementation index for the project. If all seven elements
were implemented, a value of 7∕7 (1.0) was assigned to the best
practice implementation index for the project. Thus, the value of
this metric can range between 0–1. The assumptions for the quan-
tification process were:
1. All elements of each best practice are of equal importance
in achieving the intended enhancement of project performance;
and
2. Each element of the best practice was implemented
completely.
Effect of External Factors
Performance of the design phase is affected positively and nega-
tively by a number of external factors that are a part of the project
environment but are external to the use of the best practices. The
effect of these factors must be considered and accounted for while
establishing correlation between performance of the design phase
and use of best practices. The effect of each external element was
evaluated by the respondent on a Likert scale ranging from 1–5:
1 = “Highly Negative,” 2 = “Negative,” 3 = “As Planned,” 4 =
“Positive,” and 5 = “Highly Positive.”
720 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2012
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2012, 138(6): 716-724
Statistical Analysis
The primary objective of statistical analysis was to determine a cor-
relation between the use of a best practice and the performance of
the design phase after controlling for factors described in the pre-
vious section. Partial correlation analysis allows for removal of the
effects of the external factors and analysis of the degree of corre-
lation between the criterion variable and the predictor variables
(Walcizek 1996). Although correlation analysis of observed data
cannot be used to infer causality, partial correlation provides an
effective way to eliminate possible spurious correlations from
the analysis (Tacq 1997). The partial correlation coefficient be-
tween the criterion variable y and the predictor variable x1 when
the effect of variable of x2 on Y has been removed can be calculated
by the following formula:
r yx1
ðryx2 × rx1 x2 Þ
r yx1 :x2 ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð3Þ
ð1
r 2yx2 Þ
ð1
r 2x1 x2 Þ
where ryx1 :x2 = coefficient of partial correlation between y and x1
after controlling for x2 ; r yx1 = coefficient of correlation between
y and x1 ; r yx2 = coefficient of correlation between y and x2 ; and
r x1 x2 = coefficient of correlation between x1 and x2 (Blalock 1961)
When the analysis has one criterion variable and two predictor
variables, the effect of one predictor variable can be eliminated
when calculating the correlation. This type of correlation is known
as first-order partial correlation. In higher-order partial correlation
analysis, it is possible to eliminate the effect of more than two var-
iables (Tacq 1997).
Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient is one of the
most commonly used correlation coefficients. The assumptions
made for calculating Pearson’s correlation coefficient include linear
relationship between the variables, continuous random variables,
and bivariate normal distribution. The collected data do not meet
these requirements. Only one criterion variable (i.e., cost or sched-
ule performance metric) is continuous. The other variables (i.e.,
best practice implementation index, external effect index) are dis-
tributed discretely and do not follow bivariate normal distribution.
Pearson’s partial correlation is sensitive to violation of the multi-
variate normality assumption. When the relationship is not linear,
Pearson’s partial correlation can be misleading (Korn 1984). On
account of these reasons, the Spearman’s rank correlation coeffi-
cient, which is nonparametric, is used for correlation analysis.
The p-value for Spearman’s partial correlations is computed
by treating the t statistic as coming from a t distribution with
(n
k
2) degrees of freedom
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r× n
k
2
t¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð4Þ
1
r2
where n = total number of variables; r = partial correlation coef-
ficient; and k = number of variables being controlled.
In this study, the statistical analysis was conducted using a
SAS software package. The SAS PROC CORR procedure was
used to calculate the partial correlation coefficients and to conduct
hypothesis testing. To derive Spearman’s partial rank-order corre-
lation, PROC CORR applies the Cholesky decomposition algo-
rithm to Spearman’s rank-order correlation matrix (SAS Institute
2010).
Results of Hypothesis Testing
Nine best practices and proposed best practices, including align-
ment, change management, constructability, design effectiveness,
 Table 1. Results of Hypothesis Testing spurious correlations. The results of the correlation analysis in this
Accept/reject null study are supported by research literature and knowledge of indus-
Correlation p- hypothesis try practitioners. The results of the correlation analysis were also
Best practice coefficient value (ρ ¼ 0) confirmed in interviews with various subject experts from industry
and academia.
Alignment
0:53914 0.021 Reject
Change management
0:46469 0.052 Reject Discussion
Constructability
0:55235 0.0175 Reject
Design effectiveness
0:2805 0.2596 Accept
Design of a large industrial project involves complex information
flow across engineering disciplines and organizational boundaries
Design for maintainability
0:16865 0.5176 Accept
and is inherently iterative. The design process can conceptually be
Leader selection
0:39245 0.1072 Accept
thought of as the flow of information to and from various stake-
Partnering
0:32928 0.1821 Accept
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

holders to the designers during preproject planning, design, pro-

Preproject planning
0:47434 0.0544 Reject curement, and construction phases. The best practices that were
Team building
0:11994 0.6355 Accept found to have correlation with performance of the design phase
in a fast-track project environment, including preproject planning,
alignment, and constructability, play an important role in ensuring
design for maintainability, leader selection, partnering, preproject smooth movement of project information between various stake-
planning, and team building, were used in the correlation analysis holders. The importance of these practices for successful manage-
to find their effect on cost and schedule performance of design. The ment of design in a fast-track project is supported by quantitative
abbreviated Table 1 shows the results of the analysis of correlation and qualitative analysis, interviews, and expert opinion.
between the design schedule and the best practice implementa-
tion index. Front-End Planning
A statistically significant correlation was found between the per-
formance of the design phase and four best practices, viz preproject Preproject planning involves the development of sufficient strategic
planning, alignment, constructability, and change management. information with which owners can address risk and make deci-
The negative correlation between the best practice implementation sions to commit resources to maximize the potential for a success-
index and the schedule performance of design phase in fast-track ful project. The preproject planning process in a large and complex
project indicates that the more comprehensively the best practice is industrial project requires a significant effort. Development of a
used, the better the schedule performance of the design phase was clear and detailed project definition plays a crucial role in the suc-
observed to be. A lower value of design schedule performance met- cess of design in a fast-track project. Development of a project def-
ric indicates improved performance. A similar analysis was carried inition includes the analysis of risks, documentation of project and
out to identify correlations, if any, between the design cost and the design scope, definition of project control guidelines, and defini-
best practice implementation index; this analysis yielded no statisti- tion of project execution approach. The definition of the project
cally significant correlations between the design cost and the use of and design scope lays the foundation for the design work that
best practices. follows in the project. In a typical industrial project, the elements
related to design are included in the scope definition, such as de-
Qualitative Data Analysis velopment of equipment lists, approved equipment layouts, piping
and instrumentation drawings, major equipment specifications,
In addition to the quantitative data collected as a part of the ques- price quotes, motor lists (pumps and compressors), piping line lists
tionnaire survey, respondents’ opinion of the best practices for ef- and quantities, approved single-line drawings, a distributed control
fectively managing design in a fast-track environment was sought. system definition, engineering drawings controls, definition of util-
Results of the survey are shown in Table 2. ities requirements, criteria used from selection for value analysis,
The top three best practices (preproject planning, alignment, identification of the construction approach, and identification of
constructability) identified by the respondents were also found standards and specifications to be used.
to have a statistically significant correlation with the performance The definition of scope includes the development of the design
of design phase. basis, which involves determining the required plant capacity, design
Correlation between two variables does not necessarily indicate yields and variability, product streams, the service factor for the fa-
causality. Partial correlation analysis helps in significantly reducing cility, and more. The local availability of materials for construction is
also analyzed at this stage. In addition, various preliminary plot plans
are defined at this stage. If the project must be integrated into an
Table 2. Best Practices Critical for Successful Design in Fast-Track existing facility, all of the constructability issues arising because
Projects: Expert Opinion of space and method limitations need to be addressed at this stage.
Best practice Respondents Detailed analysis of the environmental effect and the requirement for
effluent treatment is also conducted at this stage.
Preproject planning 26 The front-end design process forms the basis for the detailed
Alignment 11 design that follows in the later stages in a project. Documentation
Constructability 10 of the project and design scope is extremely critical for the success
Partnering 9 of design in fast-track projects. This process involves the flow of
Planning for startup 7 information between various engineering disciplines, such as pro-
Change management 7 cess design, piping design, mechanical design (equipment design),
Team building 6 and electrical and instrumentation design. The possibilities of ma-
jor changes in design in the future can be addressed and reduced by
Design effectiveness 5
putting the required effort in commitment of time and funding.
Leader selection 5
Time is a valuable commodity in fast-track projects. Any reduced

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 721

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2012, 138(6): 716-724

 effort in preproject planning needs to be addressed in the risk analy-
sis process to determine the possible effect to the success of the
design phase and the success of the project itself.
Alignment
The success of the preproject planning phase and the subsequent
design phase is influenced by the alignment of the goals of various
stakeholders. The success of the design process depends on the ef-
ficiency with which the information flows across various stakehold-
ers in the owner organization and across various organizations
participating in a project. It is critical to ensure that the goals of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
all participants are aligned with the project goals, as defined in
the project scope definition. Alignment between various stakehold-
ers can be improved by ensuring that stakeholders are appropriately
represented on the project team; project leadership is defined, ef-
fective; and accountable; priority between cost, schedule, and the
required project features is clear; communication within the team
and with stakeholders is open and effective and the preproject plan-
ning process includes sufficient funding, schedule, and scope to
meet objectives.
Change Management
Excessive changes can result in significant cost over-runs and
schedule slippages in fast-track construction projects. The increase
in change in projects can stem from inadequate scope development
during the preproject planning phase. In the absence of an effective
process to identify the changes that actually contribute to the suc-
cess of a project, as defined in the initial stages of the project, frivo-
lous and unnecessary changes can cause significant cost overruns
and schedule slippages. Design of industrial projects involves the
design of complex and interconnected systems in which design
teams from various disciplines need to continuously interact and
use data from each other to ensure accurate and safe design.
Lee et al. (2003) demonstrate this interconnectivity with the follow-
ing example.
“If in a simple building project the owner requests to install a
centralized air-conditioning system, which was not initially
planned. This change request generates direct impact on
the mechanical plan. However, it affects other construction
works as well, due to the relationship of this mechanical ac-
tivity. Structural plans may need to be changed to bear the
load of new central air-conditioning system and the ceiling
plan may need to be changed to secure a space for air-
conditioning ducts. The electric facilities plan can also be
changed due to the increase of the projected electricity usage.”
Although the change described in this example could be a legiti-
mate change, in some cases, the owner may request a change that
may not be central to achieving the business objectives of the
project but may require significant amount of design rework. Such
changes need to be examined carefully for their effect to ensure that
the costs associated with changes are well understood. Change
management is the process of incorporating a balanced change cul-
ture of recognition, planning, and evaluation of project changes in
an organization to effectively manage project changes. Many sub-
ject experts interviewed in this research listed effective control of
changes as one of the major challenges in the management of de-
sign in fast-track projects. A well-structured change management
system can have a positive effect on performance of the design
phase in a fast-track project by reducing the amount of unnecessary
design rework required.
722 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2012
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2012, 138(6): 716-724
Constructability
Constructability involves effective and timely integration of con-
struction knowledge into the conceptual planning, design, con-
struction, and field operations of a project to achieve the overall
project objectives in the best possible time and accuracy at the most
cost-effective levels. In fast-track projects, the design schedule is
driven by the requirements for smooth execution of the construc-
tion phase. Constructability reviews of project design and specifi-
cations are typically performed at set percentages of design
completion. This frequency needs to be increased in fast-track
projects. Constructability analysis assumes increased importance
in fast-track projects that involve addition/expansion of an existing
facility. The importance of constructability is increased because
construction has to be carried out in congested areas very close
to the operational facility. This puts a significant constraint on
the techniques that can be used in the construction process. In such
cases, design of the facility is driven by the requirements of
construction, and constructability reviews assume increased
importance.
Limitation
The fast-track industrial projects analyzed in this study were
executed by CII member companies. To have correlation of the
the performance of the design phase of fast-track industrial proj-
ects, the best practices identified in this study are practices that,
to some degree, are implemented in all large industrial projects.
Constructability and preproject planning are increasingly becoming
standard operating procedures in industrial construction. However,
because the data in the study were collected from CII member
firms, generalization of the results of the study may be viewed
as limited.
Conclusions
The design phase assumes increased importance in fast-track proj-
ects because design and construction are executed almost simulta-
neously with very little or no lag between them, and the compressed
schedule interferes with the inherently iterative nature of design,
sometimes resulting in suboptimal design. In fast-track projects,
the design process is the driver of the procurement and construction
processes. This makes the successful execution of design critical
for achieving the required schedule compression in fast-track proj-
ects. Quantitative analysis of performance of the design phase in 31
fast-track projects revealed a statistically significant correlation be-
tween performance of the design phase and front-end planning,
alignment, constructability, and change management. This under-
scores the importance of allocating time and effort to front-end
planning, ensuring the development of a well-defined scope for
the success of design. Alignment of all stakeholders is all the more
critical to the success of the design because of the reduced lag be-
tween design and construction in fast-track projects. Input from
downstream users of the design documents and the facility is also
important for successful execution of the design and the project
itself. A robust change management system ensures that the
changes central to achieving the goals of the project are sent to
the design team, reducing unnecessary changes to the design. These
practices can improve the performance of design in a fast track-
project environment.
 Appendix I. Preproject Planning in Surveyed Fast-Track Project

Did your organization use this industry Please indicate if your organization used any elements Please discuss the reasons for not adopting this
best practice in the project? of the corresponding best practice. (Y = Yes, N = No) best practice in the project. Would the design have
benefited by adopting this best practice? How?
Preproject planning: Preproject planning includes putting together the project team, selecting technology, selecting a project site, developing the project scope,
and developing project alternatives. Preproject planning is often perceived as synonymous with front-end loading, front-end planning, feasibility analysis, and
conceptual planning.
__YES __NO Preproject planning team was established. Y or N
Preproject planning effort was adequately funded. Y or N
Preproject planning plan was developed and used. Y or N
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Project execution approach was defined. Y or N

Project scope and design were documented. Y or N
Scope development was measured using the Y or N
project definition rating index
(PDRI)/front-end loading (FEL) tools.
Project definition package was established. YN

Appendix II. Example of Survey Questions
Was the design in this project completed ahead of schedule/on
schedule/behind schedule?
_On Schedule
_Ahead of schedule By how many weeks? _Weeks
_Behind the schedule By how many weeks? _Weeks
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the funding sup-
port provided by the CII for the study. The authors would also like
to thank the members of the CII research team RT 222 for their
support and guidance throughout this study.
References
Arditi, A., Elhassan, A., and Toklu, C. (2002). “Constructability analysis in
the design firm.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 128(2), 117–126.
ASCE Construction Management Committee of the Construction Division.
(1991). “Constructability and constructability programs: White paper.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 117(1), 67–89.
Blalock, H. (1961). Causal inferences in nonexperimental research, UNC
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Bogus, S. M., Diekmann, J. E., and Molenaar, K. R. (2005a). “Evaluating
the consequences of overlapping dependent activities.” Proc., Con-
struction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Bogus, S. M., Molenaar, K. R., and Diekmann, J. E. (2005b). “Concurrent
engineering approach to reducing design delivery time.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 131(11), 1179–1185.
Bogus, S. M., Molenaar, K. R., and Diekmann, J. E. (2006). “Strategies for
overlapping dependent design activities.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
24(8), 829–837.
Cho, C., Furman, J., and Gibson, G. (1999). “Development of project de-
velopment rating index (PDRI) for building projects.” Research Rep.
155-11, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (2002). Implementation of CII best
practices: Summaries and a self assessment guide, CII, Austin, TX.
de la Garza, J. M., Alcantara, P., Jr., Kapoor, M., and Ramesh, P. S. (1994).
“Value of concurrent engineering for A/E/C industry.” J. Manage. Eng.,
10(3), 46–55.
Dumont, R. P., Gibson, E. G., and Fish, J. R. (1997). “Scope management
using project definition rating index.” J. Manage. Eng., 13(5), 54–60.
Elvin, G. (2003). “Proven practices in design-build and fast track.” ASCE
Conf. on Architectural Engineering, ASCE, Reston, VA.
FMI Corporation and Construction Management Association of America
(CMAA). (2004). FMI/CMAA survey of owners, FMI, Raleigh, NC.
Griffith, A., and Gibson, G. (2001). “Alignment during preproject plan-
ning.” J. Manage. Eng., 17(2), 69–76.
Griffith, A., Gibson, G., Hamilton, M., Tortora, A., and Wilson, C. (1999).
“Project success index for capital facility construction projects.”
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 13(1), 39–45.
Hamilton, M., and Gibson, G. (1996). “Benchmarking preproject-planning
effort.” J. Manage. Eng., 12(2), 25–33.
Hanna, A. S., Camlic, R., Peterson, P. A., and Nordheim, E. V. (2002).
“Quantitative definition of projects impacted by change orders.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 128, 57–64.
Hanna, A. S., Russell, J. S., and Gotzion, T. W. (1997). ‘‘An investigation
into the impacts of change orders on labor efficiency in the mechanical
construction industry: Phase II.’’ Technical Rep. to the Mechanical
Contracting Foundation and the Sheetmetal and Air Conditioning
National Association.
Hanna, A. S., Russell, J. S., Gotzion, T. W., and Nordheim, E. V. (1999a).
“Impact of change orders on labor efficiency for mechanical construc-
tion.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(3), 176–184.
Hanna, A. S., Russell, J. S., Nordheim, E. V., and Bruggink, M. J. (1999b).
“Impact of change orders on labor efficiency for electrical construc-
tion.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(4), 224–232.
Hester, W., Kuprenas, J., and Chang, T. (1991). Construction changes and
change orders: Their magnitude and impact, Construction Industry
Institute, Austin, TX.
Ireland, V. (1985). “The role of managerial actions in the cost, time and
quality performance of high-rise commercial building projects.” Constr.
Manage. Econ., 3(1), 59–87.
Korn, E. L. (1984). “The ranges of limiting values of some partial corre-
lations under conditional independence.” Am. Stat., 38(1), 61–62.
Lee, S., Peña-Mora, F., and Park, M. (2003). “Quality and change manage-
ment framework for concurrent design and construction.” Proc.,
Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Prasad, B. (1996). Concurrent engineering fundamentals: Integrated prod-
uct and process organization, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Russell, J. S., Gugel, J. G., and Radtke, M. W. (1993). “Documented con-
structability savings for petrochemical-facility expansion.” J. Perform.
Constr. Facil., 7(1), 27–45.
Russell, J. S., Meier, J, and Moua, B. (1999). A model process for main-
tainability implementation, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX.
Salem, O., and Miller, R. A. (2007). “Best modern practices for design in
fast track projects.” Rep. RT-222, Construction Industry Institute,
Austin, TX.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 723

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2012, 138(6): 716-724

 SAS Institute. (2010). “Statistical procedures.” Base SAS 9.2 procedures
guide, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, 3e, 22–23.
Tacq, J. (1997). Multivariate analysis techniques science research: From
problem to analysis, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Thomson, P., Crane, T., and Sanders, S. (1996). The partnering process:
Its benefit, measurement and implementation, Construction Industry
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 08/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Institute, Austin, TX.
Walcizek, T. (1996). “A primer on partial correlation coefficients.” Proc.,
Annual Meeting of Southwest Educational Research Association,
Educational Research Information Center, Washington, DC.
Williams, G. V. (1995). “Fast track pros and cons: Considerations for in-
dustrial projects.” J. Manage. Eng., 11(5), 24–32.

724 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2012

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2012, 138(6): 716-724