Professional Documents
Culture Documents
01JCEPMR12028 MahdiSafa
01JCEPMR12028 MahdiSafa
net/publication/261439081
CITATIONS READS
14 1,186
4 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Mahdi Safa on 09 April 2014.
Abstract: Research indicates that good front-end planning (FEP) results in the achievement of higher levels of project
performance. By facilitating collaboration among stakeholders in diverse locations with the use of workflow-enabled processes,
such pressures can be reduced, and the overall process and results of FEP can be improved. With these goals, a front-end planning
tool (FEPT) has been developed as support for owners and major contractors who are engaged in front-end planning. This paper
presents the new FEPT and describes how it has been used for construction megaprojects in the nuclear power, oil and gas, and
mining industries. The paper begins with the definitions related to and an explanation of the general process for implementing and
applying the FEPT and then describes and analyzes how the FEPT was applied in case study projects in order to test its validity.
The results indicate that the FEPT increases the efficiency and effectiveness of front-end planning for the megaprojects studied
and that it has the potential to produce similar results for other megaprojects.
I. INTRODUCTION
Research in the area of construction project planning,
A construction project can be defined as a sequential
such as “pre-project planning” [10], “front-end loading”
activity that relies heavily on detailed planning and
[11], and “front-end planning” [12] has validated the
programming [1]. In most cases, long-term strategies for a
belief that the effort spent on strategic project planning
new construction megaproject are established during
pays off in better project results and performance. The
front-end planning (FEP), which is influenced by a
research conducted by the Construction Industry Institute
number of constraints, such as resource limitations,
(CII) also confirms that FEP is a key factor in improving
government regulations, and environmental restrictions.
project performance [13]. These studies show that
In construction, the strategic planning process is
construction managed well through a comprehensive
associated with feasibility studies, sets of priorities, and
strategic plan leads to projects being on schedule; within
timing considerations for the initiation of all of the
budget; and most importantly, within safely guidelines
activities that will enable the overall objectives of the
and with a minimal impact on the environment. Industry
project to be met. This process may sound
research also demonstrates that projects with rigorous
straightforward, but the research shows that many
FEP perform more than 10 % better in terms of cost, 7 %
companies have overlooked the important aspect of
better with respect to schedule performance, and 5 %
aligning project performance with their strategic plans
better relative to change orders than projects with little
[2,3,4,5,6].
FEP [14].
A study conducted by the City of Edmonton in which
It is important always to keep in mind that no two
more than 200 capital construction projects were
FEPs can ever be exactly alike because the construction
examined with respect to estimation accuracy revealed
industry is dominated by one-off projects [15, 16, 17].
that only a small portion of projects actually fall within
Several constraints create this differentiation among
the desirable range of accuracy. The statistics related to
construction projects, such as weather, site conditions, site
cost and schedule overruns clearly indicate a general
fabrication, and the availability of resources. Local laws
inability to accurately plan and estimate [7].
and regulations can also be highly inconsistent and
The task of planning, prioritizing, and allocating
variable [18]. For this reason, care must be taken to ensure
funds is complex [8,9] and should be performed primarily
that the proposed model is flexible enough for use in most
during the front-end planning phase. This research has
construction projects, given their specific characteristics
attempted to shed light on the question of how the use of a
and constraints, and gaps that exist with respect to its
high-level engineering tool can enable project managers
execution. Likewise, the construction FEP has the
to
distinctive requirements compared to other electronic
conduct and manage the front-end planning phase more
process management systems used in other industries.
efficiently.
¹ PhD Candidate, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L
3G1, Canada , msafa@uwaterloo.ca*
² Professor , Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1,
Canada, chaas@civmail.uwaterloo.ca
3
Professor , Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1,Canada,
kwhipel@uwaterloo.ca
4
Product Manager, Coreworx Inc., 800-22 Frederick St., Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 6M6, Canada, JGray@coreworx.com
1
Front End Planning Tool (FEPT) Based on an Electronic Process Management
2
Vol.3, No.2 / Jun 2013
Mahdi Safa, Carl T. Haas, Keith W. Hipel, and Joel Gray
dioxide capture portion of a project [25]. KBR Inc. has Recent customer data for Coreworx capital projects
been awarded a contract by Saudi Aramco to furnish a shows that most portions of the project costs, the major
FEED system at the Shaybah field. KBR provides FEED risks, and the interfaces are defined during the front-end
for creating the process design and layout, developing planning. Using the appropriate tools to assist in the
equipment and material specifications, preparing bid making of informed decisions early in the process is
packages, and estimating construction work with respect therefore critical so that measurable improvements can be
to several projects related to the Shaybah NGL Program realized with respect to the cost, scheduling, and change
facilities [26]. A Korean research team supported by the orders for the overall project. The largest and most
Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of the challenging deliverable of front-end planning is a level of
Korean Government developed the intelligent- program design sufficient to enable the project team to prepare cost
management information systems (i-PgMIS). This system and schedule estimates. While the work involved in
incorporates and integrates some unit modules such as drafting the design materials is significant, the process is
cost-duration management; contract management; risk well understood and is executed by experienced
management; performance management; green VE/LCC, engineering professionals who use established tools.
change management, and conflict management which can Despite this advantage, the requirements associated with
be used on the FEP phase[27]. Emerson delivers a multi- FEP design activities for a major capital project can
disciplinary approach with FEED, in which the FEED introduce significant challenges:
document is the definitive technical and business project
summary that includes all of the FEED deliverable Collaboration between the owner and the engineering
documents to be used by the project team. The Emerson contractor(s)
FEED involves early design work performed after the
conceptual business planning and prior to the detailed Hundreds or thousands of design and planning
design [27]. The Chiyoda FEED, an efficient version that documents transmitted, archived, and indexed for use
causes few changes during the EPC phase, enhances by a variety of stakeholders who have differing needs
project performance [28]. Bentley offers a FEED solution Timely review and authorized approval of all
that provides the flexibility needed for construction deliverables
projects while still ensuring interoperability among the
multiple software products based on ISO 15926. The Full information handover to procurement and
Bentley FEED has been helpful for major chemical detailed design teams at completion
companies such as Mitsubishi Chemical [29]. None of Little time or budget allocated to the implementation
these models is comprehensive, and they all customarily of hardware or software technology to support this
focus on one or only a few aspects of FEP. While they process
have contributed significantly to the FEP phase and have
satisfied their clients, they are entirely customer- and Identification and communication requirements with
project-oriented, which means that some were employed respect to the relationships between scope of work for
only as a module for supporting a specific part of the FEP multiple activities and to the physical and non-
approach, with the remaining FEP being managed through physical interfaces between organizations
either traditional approaches or existing partial models.
The FEPT, on the other hand, is a very practical tool that Risk identification and assessment
conforms to the way experts use it in practice but that has For capital construction projects, the engineering
been developed in this research with consideration of all contractor produces the design under the supervision of
aspects of FEP in order to provide a widely applicable and and in consultation with the owner. The parties need to
comprehensive electronic process management system. work according to a common plan and structure so that
It should be noted that while related systems include the mountain of documents and correspondence is
building information modeling (BIM), integrated controlled and accessible to each party. If project funding
construction project management systems, enterprise is approved, the design deliverables from the FEPT
resource planning (ERP) systems, and generic electronic become the primary input into the next phases of the
document management systems (EDMS), an FEPT is project life cycle, which introduces an additional set of
unique. It differs from a generic EDMS, because it information indexing and handover requirements that will
directly expresses the project delivery mechanism and make the FEP deliverables useful to procurement or
processes. An FEPT is different from an ERP system, detailed design teams.
because its instantiation facilitates project mobilization With each revision requiring review and approval, the
rather than impeding it. Conversely, an FEPT does not FEP team faces an enormous challenge, given that the
functionalize business processes such as accounts FEP schedule spans only a few months from start to
receivable and payroll, nor does it manage large databases finish. The tight schedule typically also makes infeasible
directly. An FEPT interfaces with business systems such many of the options that the FEP team may have
as ERP’s, with engineering systems such as CAD, and considered with respect to software and hardware
with project management systems for schedule and cost implementation for managing information and processes.
control. It essentially acts as a meta-manager of these In this research, these challenges led to the development
systems. of an information technology model and service as
3
KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
Front End Planning Tool (FEPT) Based on an Electronic Process Management
FIGURE III
SAMPLE FEPT USER INTERFACE
4
Vol.3, No.2 / Jun 2013
Mahdi Safa, Carl T. Haas, Keith W. Hipel, and Joel Gray
all the alternatives have been analyzed and the best option characteristics and features analysis, FEPT design,
determined, the basic project definition, i.e., the concept software programming, evaluation, conversion, and
report, is then completed, in readiness for the next phase. proceeding and maintenance (P&M). Figure 4 illustrates
In Phase 3 (detailed scope development) includes an the sequence of the FEPT development; however, some of
outline of the main features of a project: the general the processes may overlap and occur simultaneously.
design, approximate benefits and costs, sources of
funding, risk factors involved, the basic organizational
structure, interfaces, and a preliminary execution plan (the
initial estimate, initial schedule, and safety strategy). In
this phase, the definition of the scope of the project is
finalized, and the cost/schedule estimate is prepared.
Utility requirements are also identified, governmental and
environmental restrictions are documented, and an initial
site plan is formed. The main output of phase 3 of the FEP
consists of a strategic plan for the construction project,
which is used as the basis for selecting contractors,
defining a work breakdown structure, developing work
packaging, identifying work packages and contractor
interfaces, considering risk management [31], and
beginning the detailed design and other construction
project phases.
Lack of a comprehensive strategic plan may lead to a
fragmented supply chain approach that creates significant
problems [31]. The strategic plan and other reports FIGURE IV
produced during this phase hence enable the project team FEPT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
to ensure that the project progresses smoothly to the
execution phase. The deliverables for this phase include a The project analysis determines the level of project
strategic plan as well as the following: performance required by the owner in the planning stage
and is therefore expected to help facilitate the decision-
Cost estimation and execution strategy in readiness making process in the FEP phase [33]. It therefore
for the final investment becomes the first step in the process development and
Risk drivers associated with the project leads to the creation of a road map of the existing project
systems. FEPT experts, along with the project team, can
Categorical definition of the physical and non- analyze the project and prepare a framework based on
physical interfaces (80 %) interviews with key project users, an examination of work
papers and procedures, and observations of the operation
Effective reports presented in a ready-to-use of the existing document system. FEPT experts should
format for helping with the selection of the also perform a feasibility study in order to determine
contractors [32] whether the proposed solution is achievable from
Investment cost estimate associated with the technical and financial points of view. Since the FEPT is
corresponding FEPT documentation capable of being customized according to principles
established by top management, all alternatives should be
Reports detailing instrumentation, civil, electrical, evaluated during this phase. To determine the most
and piping requirements, for example, a piping and desirable features, the FEPT should always adhere to the
instrumentation diagram (P&ID) opinions of management and the project team experts with
Detailed scope of work to be used for defining work respect to costs, technical features, and system benefits.
packages Once the project characteristics and features analysis
has been performed, the results indicate the action the
Phase 3 represents the majority of the time and team must take in order to meet the requirements of the
deliverables required, so the FEPT developed in this electronic process management system. The FEPT design
research was designed primarily to address the phase then illustrates how the FEPT can fulfill these
requirements associated with this phase. An requirements. The FEPT experts then detail the project
understanding of these phases and of FEP fundamentals specifications that can deliver the functions identified
was the first step in the development of the FEPT. during the project analysis phase.
The FEPT design then phases into a fully operational
B. Front End Planning Tool (FEPT) Development electronic process management system, beginning with
the transformation of the project specifications and
The FEPT development for an owner wishing to requirements established during the project characteristics
apply the FEPT to multiple projects consists of a number and features analysis. The steps in this part of the process
of processes that take place in sequential order: project
5
KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
Front End Planning Tool (FEPT) Based on an Electronic Process Management
are comprised of software programming, evaluation, approval) and audit history, so authorized users can rely
conversion, and review and maintenance. on a single view that incorporates all events and
During the software programming phase, the project interactions that have affected the information during its
specifications are translated into software program code full life cycle. If the information managed by the FEPT
using Oracle software. The automation of the document continues to be used during subsequent project phases, as
control functions is performed in this phase and includes evidenced with the projects in our case studies, then
metadata population, package creation and integrity organizations will benefit from the extended management
checking, version control, approval workflows, exception of information relationships and history.
alerting, and transmittal receipt/generation. Following this Front-end planning is characterized by a large volume
step, the FEPT team then develops a test plan to ensure of documents that must be captured, transmitted,
that the system is ready to be used and can be formally validated, reviewed, and approved. This process has
accepted. The test plan must be reviewed and evaluated traditionally been accomplished with the use of a mix of
by project experts, management, and end users in order to printed copies, emailed messages, couriered document
verify that the proposed model is appropriate for the packages, and handwritten mark-ups, with spreadsheets to
specific types of application required. keep track of all of these materials. The FEPT can quickly
The conversion phase entails transferring information move electronic versions of this information between
from other systems to the new systems along with all the participants and stakeholders, and includes verification
associated changes required. The conversion phase could that correct document versions have been provided, thus
be either a pilot or a cutover. In a pilot approach, the reducing the chances of error and the necessity for
FEPT is established for only a limited area of the project, rework. The FEPT provides electronic design review and
with the remainder of the project still operating with the mark-up tools that improve the efficiency of the
old methods and systems. The cutover approach involves engineering team without the requirement for special
the complete replacement of the old system with the software. Workflow timeouts, delegation, and escalation
FEPT. policies function to keep activities on schedule, and the
Once the FEPT is installed and at the beginning of the FEPT alerts the appropriate controllers to take action
conversion phase, the FEPT experts and project teams when bottlenecks occur. The entire system is automated
review the system to determine how well it has met the and is hosted on servers.
original goals and project requirements, and they then The FEPT helps balance and optimize work and
decide whether any reversions or modifications are in resources. Work items are assigned a relation to the
order. Maintenance is part of this phase and refers to any critical path so that each participant prioritizes work
necessary changes in the software, the hardware, the according to the requirements of the schedules. The FEPT
producers, or the workflows in order to correct errors and also applies a project Responsible-Accountable-
meet new requirements. The amount of maintenance work Consulted-Informed (RACI) matrix in order to ensure that
could obviously be reduced through optimal project the workflow structures automatically direct activities to
characteristics analysis and FEPT design practices. The authorized team members, and that associated reports
FEPT offers effective functionality, including provide oversight with respect to the appropriate
collaboration, document control, workflow, and interface assignment of users to the correct authorized roles and
management, and other specific modules can be tailored activities. Figure 5 shows a partial RACI matrix,
to enable the efficient handling of projects by the project according to which documents are routed based on their
team. discipline and document type. Metadata values and
authorization levels are associated with team roles (e.g.,
IV. ADVANTAGES AND CHALLENGES approver, reviewer, consolidator, and informed).
This section discusses the advantages of the FEPT
and the challenges associated with its implementation.
The FEPT helps with the management of FEP activities
and deliverables with a focus on control and compliance,
transparency, and efficiency. These advantages are
detailed in the following sections. The adoption of a front-
end planning tool sets a high quality standard for
information integrity during both FEP and the balance of
the project through the application of consistent treatment
for every deliverable with regard to (1) archiving and
access; (2) naming and numbering; (3) versions; (4)
metadata values; and (5) milestone achievements, rules of
credit, and the tracking of relations to other information FIGURE V
items. The tool enforces governance and compliance with SUBSET OF A SAMPLE RACI MATRIX
workflow task assignments and sequence and ensures
valid authorization for the execution of tasks and for Compressed schedules for front-end planning force
access to reporting information. Each information item is the project team to closely monitor progress and
subject to identical processes (e.g., change management performance. The FEPT integrates with the schedule data
6
Vol.3, No.2 / Jun 2013
Mahdi Safa, Carl T. Haas, Keith W. Hipel, and Joel Gray
so as to provide performance metrics and also calculates below summarizes the FEPT elements that organize and
the earned value based on configurable milestones for monitor the schedule with respect to scope, packages,
each work package and its related deliverables. Estimation deliverables, and milestones.
activities and executive decisions demand that a level of
completion be associated with the deliverables before all
planning is completed, so the FEPT provides summary
and detail reports broken down by scope of work,
contractor, information type, or other criteria. Reporting
also helps to identity problems as they begin to occur,
which enables immediate action and helps measure the
impact of actions in real time.
Owners and contractors draw a clear distinction
between the planning phases and the execution of the
project after it has been approved. This distinction usually
includes entirely different teams and partners who use
different systems. Project execution teams, such as
procurement and engineering, often rely on the data from
front-end planning to serve as a baseline for their
activities and deliverables. For this reason, the handover
of planning data is critical to the success of a project.
FEPT enables more efficient assembly of information
handover packages, in either hard copy or electronic FIGURE VI
format, because the details have all been archived FEPT SCOPE, PACKAGES, DELIVERABLES, AND MILESTONES
electronically during the first three phases of the FEP.
Besides, foregoing advantages there are some With this configuration in place, the FEPT can
challenges associated with the implementation of the measure the engineering earned value and schedule
FEPT. The lack of communication and the resistance to performance at each level based on the milestones
learning inherent in traditional approaches to the achieved for the deliverables.
construction industry have a direct effect on the extent to A document management system controls all
which change is welcomed and new methods are adopted. information associated with the FEP securely and includes
The main barriers to the implementation of FEPT include features for managing metadata, revisions, relations, and
but are not limited to the following: the audit history. With limited time and resources, the
FEP team must adopt a proven procedure for project-
Schedule constraints: even the largest megaprojects based document control. The FEPT includes pre-
rarely have FEP that extends beyond 24 months, so configured document metadata templates based on ASME
the time required for implementing and learning a standards for design, correspondence, and plan
new tool is often prohibitive. documents.
The FEPT uses a collaboration web site where the
Budget limitations: FEP budgets are commonly set at FEP team and the design contractors can interact. This site
1 % of the total installed value of a project, which is secure, with user login accounts and permissions that
may not accommodate the licensing, implementation, enable each party to quickly access the planning
and support of the FEPT. information required for their specific role(s).
Contractual terms and methods: Owners and
engineering contractors may not agree on the systems
and tools required for executing the FEP work.
7
KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
Front End Planning Tool (FEPT) Based on an Electronic Process Management
A standardized work process increases the efficiency team members and other stakeholders, including
of the engineering team during the FEP design phase. calculated progress and performance metrics.
Using a pre-configured workflow increases the rigor that FEP teams and stakeholders use an “FEP Scorecard”
is applied to the work process of design reviews and (Figure 9) to monitor the overall schedule performance
equips the engineering team to accurately track the index (SPI) for each scope of work element. The FEPT
resolution of comments made regarding nonconforming enables the selection of which scope of work elements
items. (aligned with the WBS codes in the schedule) to include
in the scorecard. The SPI is calculated for the scope of
work for each work package.
FIGURE IX
FEP SCORECARD
FIGURE VIII
PARTIAL MAP OF THE DESIGN REVIEW AND APPROVAL WORKFLOW
PROCESS
8
Vol.3, No.2 / Jun 2013
Mahdi Safa, Carl T. Haas, Keith W. Hipel, and Joel Gray
FIGURE XI
DISCREPANCIES IN DELIVERABLES REPORT
9
KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
Front End Planning Tool (FEPT) Based on an Electronic Process Management
Government of Alberta, the Environment Department, and vendors, interface management agreements, change
the Energy Resources and Conservation Board (ERCB) so requests, and enhanced processes for reviewing
that the project was ready to begin in 2010. The deliverables through the use of comment sheets and
contractor’s CEO stated that the overall cost estimate for forms.
Phase 1 of the project decreased by almost $1 billion In 2012, the owner partnership reported that the
during the course of the design optimization, and the project was advancing as planned, with the completion of
project was also set to achieve a solid sustainable the initial major component and the next significant
economic return based on current market conditions for components scheduled for the second quarter of 2013.
Phase 1. The front-end engineering and design work for the
development of the next gas field is underway. The
B. Case Study 2: Deepwater Gas Field Development – development is on target for the first production to occur
2010 in late 2013 or early 2014.
This project, a partnership between two major oil
companies in North America and Asia, is located in the C. Case Study 3: Gladstone Liquefied Natural Gas
South China Sea at an average water depth of 1,300 m. (GLNG) -2010
In 2010, the owner partnership signed an agreement
A major North American EPC contractor has utilized
specifying the key principles of cooperation for the
the FEPT for dozens of major projects around the globe.
funding and operation of the deep-water gas field
This contractor was awarded the Front-End Engineering
development. The owner partnership and Project
and Design (FEED) contract for a major portion of the
Management Contractor (PMC) then awarded lump sum
Gladstone Liquefied Natural Gas (GLNG) upstream
contracts for the scope of three major packages. FEP was
project, one of the world’s largest projects for converting
completed, and the overall development plan was
coal-seam gas to liquefied natural gas. The contractor's
submitted to regulatory authorities in 2011.
scope of work for this contract included the preparation of
The owner partnership initially intended to use the
an execution plan and a cost estimate for the engineering,
PMC’s systems for FEP, but recognized the inadequacy of
procurement, and construction of the upstream facilities
these systems. Instead, they wanted a cradle-to-grave
required in order to deliver coal-seam gas from coal-seam
application that would record documentation in the
gas fields in northeastern Australia to the proposed GLNG
planning stage and consistently track and manage it
liquefaction facility to be located in Gladstone.
throughout the execution and into the operational phase.
The contractor used the FEPT with more than 150
Evidence of lost information was the primary driver
offshore experts from its United States headquarters. The
leading to this decision.
design deliverables of FEED become the primary inputs
The project employed the FEPT for managing new
into the construction phase, when; the project funding was
engineering documents and deliverables (both technical
approved. The FEP stage was completed in late 2011.
and non-technical) from the three primary EPCs, project
correspondence, existing FEP documents, and interface
VII. LESSONS LEARNED
documents. The FEPT facilitated the exchange of
information with the contracting parties through the use of
This section presents the results of the most recent
its transmittal functionality. Workflows provided control
case studies and summarizes the lessons learned from
of the review and approval of the deliverables. The
experts and FEPT users. These observations have been
vendors were overseen by scope-of-work managers, and
derived from the experience with more than 10 projects:
administrators granted the parties sufficient access
privileges to enable them to exchange information with
1) For a multi-billion dollar project, a typical duration
the project team. It should be noted that 2,800 to 3,500
for FEP is 12 to 24 months. Approximately 100-150
documents were generated and managed using the FEPT
people can be involved at a given point, about 50 of
processes.
whom are commonly the owner staff, but this rule of
The FEPT functions were rolled out in controlled
thumb should be applied: improve decision making by
phases to enable the initial use of the system as quickly as
using enough owner expertise and capacity to challenge
possible. The FEPT implementation phases were data
what the engineering contractor represents during FEP
storage, vendor documents, and enhanced functionality.
[34].
Phase 1 (data storage) was focused on moving all project
data from the legacy project information system into the
2) The goal of FEP is to obtain sanction for the
FEPT, with the goal of making it easier for project team
project to move forward as quickly as possible, based on a
members to find information. This phase included the
detailed scope of work, cost estimates, etc. Accordingly,
migration of the most recent version of the documents as
organizations fail to allocate significant time for
well as any project correspondence. Phase 2 (vendor
implementing information systems such as the FEPT. An
documents) was concentrated on the management of
FEPT system must provide a quick path to valuation with
vendor documents, including inbound transmittals,
minimal implementation requirements.
review/approval workflows, and vendor data storage.
Phase 3 (enhanced functionality) included the
functionality for managing technical queries to and from
10
Vol.3, No.2 / Jun 2013
Mahdi Safa, Carl T. Haas, Keith W. Hipel, and Joel Gray
3) Before starting FEP, the project team must clearly [8] M.Z.A Abd Majid, R. McCaffer, “Factors of Non-Excusable
Delays that Influence Contractors’Performance”, Journal of
communicate the need for an FEPT and other IT
Management in Engineering, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 42-48, 1998.
infrastructure and systems. [9] S. T. Ariaratnam, C. W. MacLeod, “Financial outlay modelling for
a local sewer rehabilitation strategy,” Journal of Construction
4) At the end of the FEP stage, the project managers Engineering and Management, vol. 128, no. 6, pp. 486-495, 2002.
[10] D.N. Ford, D.M. Lander, J.J. Voyer, “A real options approach to
normally conduct a gate review, called a “Project
valuing strategic flexibility in uncertain construction projects”,
Readiness Assessment,” which is an examination of all Construction Management and Economics, vol. 20, pp. 343-351,
aspects of the FEP and which assures the owners in 2002.
advance of project sanctioning that the project can be [11] T.R. Stacey, “Design—a strategic issue. Proc. 2nd Int. Seminar on
Strategic vs Tactical Approaches in Mining, Perth, Australia”,
executed within expectations.
Australian Centre for Geo mechanics, Section 4, pp. 13, 2006.
[12] T. Williams, K. Samset, “Issues in Front-End Decision Making on
5) The ability of the FEPT to integrate with a full Projects”, Project Management Journal, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 38-49,
project information management system enhances its 2010.
value by providing consistency throughout the project life [13] Construction Industry Institute (CII), “Break the Rules and Pay the
Price”, RS213-1, Construction Industry Institute (CII), Austin,
cycle, by building a traceable relationship between the Texas, 2008.
FEP and the execution deliverables, and by preventing the [14] G.E. Gibson, “The real value of front end planning for capital
loss of information. projects”, FIATECH Webinar, http://fiatech.org/webinar-archives,
2010.
[15] K. London, R. Kenley, A. Agapiou, “Theoretical Supply Chain
VIII. CONCLUSION Network Modelling in the Building Industry”, 14th Annual
Association of Research in Construction Management, pp. 369-
The performance of construction megaprojects can be 379, 1998.
[16] R. Vrijhoef, L. Koskela, “The Four Roles of Supply Chain
improved with the implementation of a front-end planning
Management in Construction”, European Journal of Purchasing &
(FEP) process. However, FEP is normally constrained by Supply Management, vol. 6, pp. 169-178, 2000.
tight schedules and limited resources. The main [17] J.H. Tah, “Toward an agent-based construction supply network
deliverables of FEP are a level of design sufficient for the modeling and simulation platform”, Automation in Construction,
vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 353-359, 2005.
preparation of cost and schedule estimates that will then
[18] A. Cox, P. Ireland, M. Townsend, “Managing in Construction
be used to determine authorization for project Supply Chains and Markets”, London, United Kingdom: Thomas
expenditures. By developing FEPT, the research team Telford Publishing, 2006.
contributes to facilitate and promote current FEP [19] Construction Industry Institute (CII), “Pre-project planning
handbook”, SP39-2, Construction Industry Institute (CII), Austin,
practices. Using a front-end planning tool (FEPT) is
Texas, 1995.
helpful in increasing the efficiency and control of the FEP [20] D.I. Cleland, L.R. Ireland, “Project management: Strategic design
process that positively affect overall project performance. and implementation”, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.
The FEPT presented in this paper provides rapid [21] A. Griffith, G. Gibson, “Alignment during pre-project planning”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, vol. 17 , no. 2, pp.
implementation of a solution that can accommodate a
69-76, 2001.
compressed schedule while supporting an enhanced level [22] S.K. Lee, J.H. Yu, “Critical Success Factors for Project
of control and quality with respect to FEP deliverables. Management Information System in Construction” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Project Management, vol. 1, no. 1,
pp. 25-30, 2011.
REFERENCES
[23] S. Shokri, M. Safa, C. Haas, R. Haas, “A Conceptual Framework to
[1] G. Briscoe, A. Dainty, S. Millett, “Construction supply chain Improve Information and Process Management in the Execution of
partnerships: skills, knowledge and attitudinal requirements”, Capital Projects”, 3rd International/9th Construction Specialty
European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, vol. 7, Conference, Ottawa, Ontario, 2011.
no. 4, pp. 243-255, 2001. [24] B. Kidd, “Validate definitions and experiences with project
[2] G. E. Gibson, J. H. Kaczmarowski, H. E. Lore, “Pre-project stages”, http://www.kentz.com/what-we-do/specialist-
planning process for capital facilities”, Journal of Construction epc/15/kentz-integrated-solutions, Tele-conference (interview),
Engineering and Management, ASCE, vol. 121, no. 3, pp. 312-318, Husky Energy Inc, September 15, 2011.
1995. [25] Tenaska Trailblazer Partners, LLC, “Final Front End Engineering
[3] G. Bates, “Envisioning Successful Construction: Project Planning and Design Study Report”, Report to the Global CCS Institute,
is the Key”, Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 11, no. 4, 2012.
pp. 3, 1995. [26] KBR Inc., “KBR Awarded FEED and Project Management
[4] C. Cheah, M. Garvin, J. Miller, “Empirical Study of Strategic Services Contract by Saudi Aramco for the Jazan Refinery and
Performance of Global Construction Firms”, Journal of Marine Terminal Project”, http://www.kbr.com/Newsroom/Press-
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, vol. 130, no. 6, Releases/2011/02/09/KBR-Awarded-FEED-and-Project-
pp. 808-817, 2004. Management-Services-Contract-by-Saudi-Aramco-for-the-Jazan-
[5] C.Y.J. Cheah, D.A.S. Chew, “Dynamics of strategic management Refinery-and-Marine-Terminal-Project/, 2011.
in the Chinese construction industry”, Management Decision, vol. [27] C.T. Hyun, Y.W. Cha, R.Z. Jin, M.J. Son, “Change and contract
43, no. 4, pp. 551-567, 2005. management modules of intelligent- program management
[6] D.A Whittington, G.E. Gibson, Q. Cui, “Analysis Supporting Front information systems (i-PgMIS) for urban renewal project”,
End Planning for Renovation and Revamp Projects, Part 2”, Gerontechnology, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 172-179, 2012.
RR242-12, Construction Industry Institute (CII), Austin, Texas, http://dx.doi.org/10.4017/gt.2012.11.02.419.00, 2012.
2009. [28] Emerson Process Management, “Front End Engineering Design
[7] S.M. AbouRizk, “Value for Money Audit: Project Management – Capabilities”, Emerson Process Management, USA, 2005.
Cost Estimating” Report to City of Edmonton, Office of the [29] Chiyoda Corporation, “FEED (Front End Engineering Design)”,
Auditor General, 1998. http://www.chiyoda-corp.com/service/en/plant/feed.html, 2012.
[30] Bentley, “Best Practices in Front-End Design”, A Bentley White
Paper, www.bentley.com, 2008.
11
KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
Front End Planning Tool (FEPT) Based on an Electronic Process Management
12
Vol.3, No.2 / Jun 2013