Front End Planning for Infrastructure Projects

Gibson, G. Edward; Bingham, Evan; Stogner, Claude R

doi:10.1061/41109(373)113

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, when a construction project exhibits a deficit in performance with respect to its initial requirements, two possible choices are available: reconstruction/rehabilitation or ending the life cycle of the project (Pearce 1999). These options impose such social considerations as rework, lack of education, safety and health, challenge in coordination, procurement, and security, especially when information is not available about the project (Sanvido andRiggs 1991, andGibson et al 2007).…”

Section: Social Impacts During the Construction Project Life Cyclementioning

confidence: 99%

Social Sustainability Considerations during Planning and Design: Framework of Processes for Construction Projects

Valdes-Vasquez

Klotz

2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

249

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Social Impacts During the Construction Project Life Cyclementioning

confidence: 99%

Social Sustainability Considerations during Planning and Design: Framework of Processes for Construction Projects

Valdes-Vasquez

Klotz

2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

249

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…4 shows the excerpt of two categories and their elements. (Gibson et al, 2010). The suggested procedure is for all PDRIs to be conducted for all projects.…”

Section: Fig 1 Front-end Planning Gates and Potential Pdri Applicatio...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Functioning as a multifaceted frontend planning tool, PDRI operates as a vehicle for the facilitation of strategic decision-making through the evaluation of scope readiness as a means of measuring project risk. PDRI's are tailored to adhere to the particular requirements of the building, industrial, and infrastructure sectors of the construction industry (Weerasinghe et al, 2007;Gibson et al, 2010;Weeks et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Construction Strategic Project Readiness Assessment

Safa¹,

Weeks²,

El-Houbi³

et al. 2022

EPPM-Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proper use of construction strategic management consists of strategic planning for controlling the implementation of strategies during front-end planning (FEP). To improve FEP effort, industry best practice instrument, i.e., Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) has been used to ensure continued alignment and focus on strategic project priorities. This study proposes a methodology for creating a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis of big post-mining data from organizations that have implemented PDRI, as a standardized tool used across capital project portfolios. The results show that the proposed methodology has the potential to improve project success when applied as a benchmark of baseline conditions, the element level.

show abstract

“…Fuentes and Smyth [16] highlight, however, that in terms of benefits realisation, more understanding is needed into the exact links between value co-creation and benefits realisation. It is argued in other research that continuing value underperformances in the AEC stem from limited collaboration among stakeholders, [1], optimisation and modelling of processes [2,17] and insufficiencies in the body of evidence underpinning design decision making [28] among others. This highlights, on the one hand, the inherent inadequacies in the current management of project requirements in as much as they account for contextual influences; and opportunities for their management and optimisation in FED processes on the other.…”

Section: The Dynamics Of Fedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Emergent research has also sought to demonstrate the critical role of Front End Design (FED) in contributing to broader project benefits [15][16][17]. FED is defined as the stage in the AEC project development cycle in which project processes define the project idea/purpose, scope and goals; the business case including any feasibility, funding, stakeholder, risk, benefits, value and execution planning as well as the development of any outline designs [18][19][20][21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Front End Projects Benefits Realisation from a Requirements Management Perspective—A Systematic Literature Review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent notable emergence of a body of research in requirements management on one hand and benefits realisation has contributed to addressing a growing need for improved performance in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) projects. However, front end design (FED) as one of the vital processes in the project life cycle and delivery has attracted limited research to date within this understanding. This paper aims to map current evidence on requirements management in facilitating benefits realisation from an FED perspective. This is to bring about an updated and unified position on requirements management for its impact on design decision making. A systematic review of the literature covering the last ten years (2008–2018) aims first to build understanding and support identification of these emergent conceptual positions and secondly underscore essential requirements and their categorisations that impact on design discourse in FED. One hundred sixty-one peer-reviewed journal papers in the areas of benefits realisation and/or requirements management and/or FED based are identified on a pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirty-six requirements are identified as important in influencing use case changes important in design decision making broadly grouped into nine major categories. Following analysis, this research finds little evidence supporting an integrated requirements management practice and understanding to support design decision making. The research further finds bias in current research discourse towards four requirements categories (technical, economics, governance and environment); and 14 requirements, dominated by three strategic values, collaboration and project governance, with over 80% share of literature. The least 14 requirements such as “flow of spaces, social status/aspiration, mobility and integrated design” among others only account for less than 10% of literature. The authors argue for new research to bridge this gap, highlight the essential role of requirements management and broaden understanding to improve benefits realisation, particularly for FED processes.

show abstract

Front End Planning for Infrastructure Projects

Cited by 18 publications

References 2 publications

Social Sustainability Considerations during Planning and Design: Framework of Processes for Construction Projects

Social Sustainability Considerations during Planning and Design: Framework of Processes for Construction Projects

Construction Strategic Project Readiness Assessment

Front End Projects Benefits Realisation from a Requirements Management Perspective—A Systematic Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About