Sindhu, J; Choi, K; Lavy, S; Rybkowski, Z K; Bigelow, B F and Li, W (2018) Effects of front-end planning under fast-tracked project delivery systems for industrial projects. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 14(3), pp. 163-178. ISSN 1557-8771
Abstract
Front-end planning (FEP) may be a key element in project success because it helps project participants more efficiently mitigate risk and define project objectives in the preplanning phase. However, very little is known about the effect of FEP for industrial project performance under different project delivery systems. To this end, this study investigated the impact of FEP on project performance by focusing on two widely used fast-track delivery methods: design-build (DB) and construction manager at risk (CMR), compared to the benchmarking conventional design-bid-build (DBB). The Spearman’s correlation analysis and Kruskal-Wallis test were performed on a real-world dataset, obtained from the Construction Industry Institute (CII), which comprised 438 industrial projects built between 1990 and 2010 in the US. The correlation analysis results revealed that better FEP resource allocation could help more design packages be completed efficiently and accurately to accelerate the fast-track process. The pair-wise comparison analysis results confirmed that there is no significant evidence to examine particular difference of schedule performance between CMR and DB. On the other hand, the results highlighted that project cost performance under DB were better than CMR. The results and findings of this study will help decision-makers choose appropriate project delivery methods for given project priorities.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | CM-at-risk; design-build; fast-track; front-end planning |
| Index terms: | project delivery, project performance, delivery method, construction manager at risk, design-bid-build, correlation analysis, Construction Industry Institute, resource allocation, project success, package, dataset, benchmarking, evidence, project cost, schedule performance |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, economics, performance measurement, statistical analysis, delivery method, data management, project controls, resource management, project delivery, research organizations, evaluation and assessment methods, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Cost Management, Digital Applications, Site Management, Time Control, Project Management, Procurement, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here