1998 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS

P&S.01 Top-Down Back-To-Front Project Planning

Dr. Faramarz Fred Rahbar and Dr. James E. Rowings Jr., PE CCE
odays challenge of rapid technological advances and application of the Internet to many fields of engineering and construction encourages a shift in our planning paradigm. The same old way simply does not fit in this new open, fast-track environment and our planning paradigm must shift from the current unstructured and informal planning to a more structured and formal process. Research indicates that the key to project success is to invest quality time in systematic planning in an early stage. Yet, we have relied upon mostly unstructured and manual formation of plans. Existing scientific planning techniques (i.e., critical path method) are scheduling tools for analysis rather than plan generation. They manipulate data provided by planners, not the knowledge used in generating project plans. This paper introduces and explains the innovative concept of topdown back-to-front planning. The paper demonstrates the practical application of this concept using several case studies. These case studies illustrate how this new planning paradigm can influence planners to use a more formal approach, while keeping the big picture and project objectives in view throughout the planning process. The integration of state-of-the-art project controls software and Internet technology are at the heart of this discussion. Studies have identified a lack of industry standards as a major obstacle in the construction industry adopting modern planning techniques. Several scheduling tools have been available for years and constantly enhanced, but little has been done in terms of developing a standard approach to project planning. Current practices rely on unstructured and manual formation of plans. In fact, few planning tools exist to aid the user to develop plans during the conceptual stage. Studies indicate that despite the substantial developments in planning methods and techniques, there is deep dissatisfaction with the current planning practices [8, 12]. Traditional network-based tools using critical path method (CPM) algorithms can help in analyzing a plan, but not in generating it [6]. The conceptual phase of a project is the most critical stage where major decisions take place that can affect the entire time and cost of a project [7]. At this stage, the scope of work is not well defined and few details are available. Gathering of information and data analysis to define the scope and planning requirements are the most time-consuming activities. The construction industry is crossing the threshold of a new era in the communications revolution. The application of Internet technology is rapidly advancing to many fields of engineering and construction. The Internet is revolutionizing the way the industry does business. Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft said, The Internet has a huge potential as it relates to construction. This is an industry that continually moves detailed information back and forth between offices and remote job sites. Pulling together even a simple straightforward project now requires the interaction of hundreds of people and thousands of documents [13].

This fast-track climate encourages us to shift our planning paradigm from the current unstructured and informal planning to a more structured and formal process that can use the advancing medium of the Internet. This study presents a new approach to the process of planning with a top-down back-to-front planning method that is embedded in the model that is discussed throughout this paper. This innovative and distinct approach will incite planners to use a structured approach to planning while keeping the big picture and project objectives in view throughout the planning process. Although the model is formal in structure, it provides great flexibility to planners to exercise judgment in developing specific conceptual plans. Planners will have the ability to cross over between intuitive and systematic approaches in developing conceptual plans quickly and more accurately when little project information is available. This study emphasizes the potential of Internet technology and how it can be used to facilitate the planning process and provide detailed planning information quickly and more accurately through interactive web communicators, video conferencing, reciprocating e-mail, and the use of live or archived digital images of projects. A total of 11 case studies of actual projects selected from two prominent contracting firms, the Weitz Company of Des Moines, IA, and HCB Contractors of Dallas, TX, were analyzed in detail. The results of these case studies were published in research reports completed at Iowa State University by the authors during 1996-1997 [15]. The paper is based on the results of these case studies.

Figure 1Top-Down Back-to-Front Planning

P&S.01.1

1998 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS BACKGROUND Planning Versus Scheduling-A Confusion Over Terminology Planning occupies a central position in the function of the project manager, yet there is no consistent terminology covering the subject of project planning. The term planning has been subject of debates and controversy, which complicates our understanding of planning [10, 12]. Furthermore, there seems to be a great confusion between the terms planning and scheduling. Scheduling techniques are perceived as synonymous with project planning and sometimes with project management as a whole [12, 1]. A clear indication of this problem is the confusion over job titles. Planners are sometimes referred to as schedulers, planning and scheduling engineers, cost and scheduling engineers, project control engineers, cost engineers, CPM schedulers, or scheduling analysts. The terms planning and scheduling are often used synonymously. In fact, they are quite different, yet related [1]. Planning deals with what, how, and who. It is not scientific or systematic. Scheduling deals with when. It is fairly systematic and scientific. Just as there is a difference between planning and scheduling, there is

Figure 2Top Down Back to Front Planning Navigation

P&S.01.2

1998 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS

Figure 4Interactive Project Front Page (IPFP) Figure 3User Identifies Project Type and Components also a difference between planning and the plan. Planning is the process while the plan is a product of planning, or scheduling, or both [3]. The scheduling process for a construction project is part of planning. Construction planning is the process of selecting the method and order of work from among various methods and possible sequences, while scheduling is the determination of timing for those sequences and gives the overall completion time [1]. Planning provides detailed information and the basis for estimating time, as well as a baseline for project control. The schedule is a reflection of the plan. firmed by the participants in this research, are based on the bottom-up approach. This means planners start with detail activities and summarize the outcome for management use. In the conceptual phase, when not too much detail is available, planners are forced to make assumptions or wait until more information becomes available. In short, the plans integrity and timing can be affected. The top-down approach is not without flaws either. This method, mostly used by scheduling consultants, may lead to simplistic solutions that leave out pertinent details. Besides, there is always the hazard of alienating the planner from those who actually implement the plan. In either case, managers may be focusing on getting the activities right without the right activity. Getting the activities right is efficiency. Getting the right activity is effectiveness. The most effective plans are produced when these two apparent conflicting approaches are used in a way to complement each other.

Planning Philosophy Project managers go about planning largely based on their personal planning postures. Some managers prefer intuitive planning while others use detailed written plans. McKenny and Keen [11] suggested two distinct and contrasting schools of thought or planning philosophies, the perceptive and receptive. In the perceptive approach, the planner looks for a way to relate the data to existing mental concepts, patterns, or systems. Perceptive planners scan data in search of patterns; receptive planners are detail-oriented. Receptive planners are concerned with information and tend to withhold judgment until facts are fully examined. McKenny and Keen also state that information is evaluated in one of two ways: intuitively or systematically. Intuitive thinkers examine data in an unstructured way, while systematic thinkers study it in a logical, organized manner. Therefore, how people think affects how they plan. Perceptive and intuitive planners conduct informal, unstructured planning and avoid formal approaches. Receptive and systematic planners conduct planning on a logical procedural basis. Dinsmore [3] discussed two conflicting planning approaches: behavior-oriented versus technocratic. The focus of the behavioral approach is more on the planning process than planning product. The behavior-oriented approach is more intuitive, and planning is performed by those who are ultimately responsible for performing the work. The technocratic approach focuses on the plan itself. The plans are normally prepared by planning experts who usually will not be performing the work, and are then turned over to those responsible for plan implementation. This is more systematic but less interactive.

NEED FOR A CPM SUPPLEMENT CPM and project network scheduling made a significant contribution to planning and the successful completion of construction projects; CPM has continually evolved since its development in the late 1950s. However, a serious issue under emphasized by the planning profession and not addressed at all by the software companies is how to go about preparing the required input for the CPM model. Traditionally, planners rush to develop project schedules based on past experience and intuition, usually developed in a crisis mode, with little time to analyze the plan prior to its execution. Little thought is given to the roles of the owner, architect, contractors, material suppliers, and other parties involved. These parties each have different contractual terms with numerous and conflicting objectives. The basis for a good plan is a good description of the scope of work. Project scope forms the baseline for control. If the scope is not well defined, it is difficult to accurately define material and work requirements, and determine the quantity of work, staffing, and other resource requirements. CPM is not the tool for identifying and formalizing proj-

Paradigm Pitfalls Perceptive planners use an informal and unstructured approach that focuses on the process rather than product. This is a bottom-up approach where the planner starts at the detailed level and withholds decisions until the process is completed, facts are fully examined, and information becomes available. On the other hand, receptive planners use systematic approaches with the focus on the plan itself. This is a top-down approach. Most of the current planning practices, as con-

Figure 5Each PWBS Level Is Entered as a Line Item

P&S.01.3

1998 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ect scope of work, contractual and other commitments, long-lead items, and materials requirements. These are fundamentally real planning issues. The CPM technique assumes that a planner has already addressed these issues prior to input. The results of this hit and miss approach are CPM schedules that are not reflective of the full project scope and objectives, client requirements, contract milestones, etc., and provide very little information as far as schedule basis, qualifications, and assumptions. A schedule that is inaccurate or does not demonstrate the intended project plan will most likely be a detriment to the project time [1]. The problem is not the CPM technique, but what is input into the CPM. Garbage-in garbage out is the expression commonly used. Project planning can be improved by focusing on the planning process rather than only on the planning technique [9]. Extensive time is taken by reviewing, learning, and struggling with new scheduling techniques and computer software, but very few have addressed the planning process and what must be done to improve it [10]. PLANNING PROCESS AND THE INFORMATION AGE Planning is the means, not the end. The process of planning is as important as the plan itself. Dynamic interaction, brainstorming, and judgment exercises among the project participants are essential during this process. A lack of integration among contractual parties and lack of involvement of line supervisors will lead to plans being ignored or misinterpreted. The quality of the information is a function of a thorough project organization plan, data collection, and project analysis. Collecting information and making decisions regarding this information is the core of planning. The project manager is the nerve center in the midst of this process. Information gathering is time consuming and requires considerable resources. This includes an information search, analysis, processing of data, evaluation of alternatives, and decision-making. Data are collected face to face or one on one, through meetings or by correspondence (mail, telephone, fax, etc.). However, the majority of information is prepared using the planners or project managers past experience on similar projects [10]. There is no formula for cranking out a project plan. Planning is much more than developing a network logic and assigning durations and sequences of work. An important part of this process is the interaction and brainstorming among the project team and other entities involved. Teamwork and

Figure 6Establish major/interim milestone dates

P&S.01.4

1998 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS communication are critical to the success of the planning process. For pre-project planning to be successful, team continuity is needed, and the team must be cultured through team building and open communication [4]. The process contributes to the understanding of the project team regarding their project, the goals and objectives, the scope of work, and how they can work together cohesively to meet the objectives. Planners need a system that facilitates this process but doesnt replace it. The information revolution is transforming the nature of the economy and the nature of our work in many fields, including engineering and construction. Among the most dramatic implications of this revolution to the field of project planning is overcoming the sense of remoteness. Massive information resources are becoming available to almost anyone, almost anywhere, almost anytime. Communication companies are already laying thousands of miles of fiber-optic lines to enhance this process and increase accessibility. The technology will allow electronic documents to be indexed and retrieved using interactive exploration. Video-conferencing has already started and will become common in most businesses. The use of video conferencing and the Internet are now making it possible for those with high-tech skills to work for companies far away. This will make collaboration and coordination easy among the project team. Team members can communicate across the globe as if they were in the same building. The rapid expansion of the Internet and its application to our industry requires a re-examination of the planning process. Many changes must take place in order to apply state-of-the-art technology. The process must shift toward a systematic and standard operation including the use of common work breakdown structures, standard milestones, typical activities, and generic logic. The role of the planner must also change to more of a facilitator inciting expert opinions rather than playing the role of the expert. The best planner will be the one who knows how and where to find, how to interpret, and skillfully apply information. The main focus must be both on the process as well as product. In this new paradigm, many questions will be raised, such as: Where is the human touch? Will social skills be neglected by individuals locked for hours to their private terminals? What will happen to the intuitive and creative thinking required during the planning process? What will happen to those who resist the new technology? What will be the role of consultants in this process? Is it necessary for planners to work from their offices? TOP-DOWN BACK-TO-FRONT PLANNING APPROACH The innovative concept of top-down back-to-front planning is the mechanism by which planners can be guided in applying an interactive planning process while employing Internet technology. This distinct method provides planners with the ability to cross over between intuitive and systematic planning by focusing on both the planning process and the planning product. Detailing a project breakdown structure, milestones, and durations, key restraints, etc., is systematic in nature and can be easily captured from past project data, while activity sequencing, integration of resources, overall approaches, and the application of soft logic are more abstract and require intuitive and creative thinking. The cross-over between these is a series of decision points that requires a planners judgment to determine the cross-over point. Using this approach, the planner is at the top of the project in a proactive mode to start with project objectives and breakdown of the project and milestones to meet the contractual dates and deadlines (figure 1). When detailed information is not available in a particular area, activities are kept at a summary level with a strategy to find out the cause of the lack of information and how and when more details will be available. The level of detail that is recommended for the initial planning is what can be referred to as the control level. This is a step further than a milestone or summary schedule but not as detailed as schedules used in the field. The concept of top-down back-to-front planning can be easily applied in four phases using a few simple steps. Figure 2 is an overview of how a planner can navigate through the process using topdown back-to-front planning. The steps that follow were developed using results of case studies involving several retirement communities and health center projects.

Phase I: Project Definition Step 1: The user initiates the type of project and identifies the project components. This is done through an icon-based, menu-driven screen similar to the prototype of figure 3. The pictorial format facilitates user interaction with a minimum amount of input on the part of the user. A library of various icons for different types of facilities and components are kept in a database and are retrieved based on what previous icon is clicked by the user. The end result of this step is the ini-

Figure 7Establish Key Restraints P&S.01.5

1998 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS tiation of a totally interactive webpage henceforth referred to as the interactive project front page (IPFP), similar to that of figure 4. IPFP will allow the planner and other team members to post information and create links within and outside the project with hyperlinks to other webpages and files stored in various locations. For example, when the user clicks on the scope of work, it is linked to an explicit scope of work document that describes the project in great details. User interaction through IPFP is at the heart of the system. Step 2: user enters basic project data using the IPFP established in the first step. A user dialogue box facilitates user input to capture as much information as possible regarding the new project. This includes such information as the project title, location, owner, construction manager, developer, architect, total project cost, allocated project duration, project start date, contract completion date, and other pertinent data. Step 3: a list of predefined project components, milestones, and relevant parameters from similar projects is automatically retrieved based on the data entered on IPFP. The users are free to examine this information and modify it. By having this table predefined and entered beforehand, the user will only need to scroll through this list via an interactive dialogue box. neering release dates, issue for review or construction dates, turnover to operations/start-up dates, etc. Many of these dates relate directly to the PWBS line items already defined in step 4 and are shown on the same line in time-scale format, as illustrated in figure 6. Step 6: after all the contractual and significant milestones are defined and entered, the planner enters key restraints. Examples include long-lead material and equipment procurements, financing and legal decisions, licensing and permits, design reviews, and client approvals. These activities are not locked in time, but affect the timing of other activities, and many are potentially critical. Although the planner cannot show these as milestones, typical duration cycles for these activities are known based on the information obtained from past projects or the latest data available from the vendors, engineers, sub-contractors, and other parties. The Internet plays an important role in facilitating and obtaining the prevailing information.

Phase II: Project Work Breakdown Structure Step 4: once the project is defined and initiated, the planner starts from the top down to develop the project work breakdown structure, which is the top-down logical structuring of project work that defines and displays all of the work to be done in accomplishing the project objectives defined in steps one and two [5]. The PWBS is developed by dividing the project into discrete and logical tasks using an outline structure [2]. It partitions the project into manageable elements of work for which costs, budgets, and schedules can be established. The integration of a projects organization structure with the PWBS helps the project manager to assign responsibility for various technical tasks to specific project personnel [14]. The PWBS is structured in levels of work detail, beginning with the final product, and then separated into identifiable work elements. It can be prepared by starting from the top level (project level), and defining all the major components to support the top level. Next, the user defines all the subcomponents to support level two. The user continues this process until all major PWBS elements leading to a specific deliverable are defined. The PWBS is the heart of any project integration effort. Project managers use it to ensure that all tasks are identified and fit together properly to complete the project [2]. Under the top-down back-to-front method, a planner is guided in developing the PWBS by examining common work breakdown structures retrieved from a library of similar projects while customizing it to fit the requirements of the project at hand. Each PWBS element becomes a summary activity and shown as a line item on the state-of-the-art CPM scheduling program as illustrated in figure 5.

Phase IV: Project Control Level Step 7: steps 1 to 6 set the framework for the planner to develop a working plan. The last step is to add all the bits and pieces of details to complete the process. The planner, much like an artist, has her canvas and materials in hand and can now be guided and apply creativity to develop the required detail activities for each summary line items. The Internet can enhance this process by providing typical activities and sequences for each line item of the PWBS. The planner also has the opportunity to review a multimedia library of past project pictures and films to graphically visualize this process and improve upon it. Many of the strengths and weaknesses of past projects, sequences, and methods of construction come to the surface, thus complementing the planning process. At any point during this process, the user has the option to override the activities, and sequences to custom fit the details for the project at hand.

Phase III: Project Milestones and Key Restraints Step 5: once the PWBS is developed, the planner starts from the back-to-front with the contractual milestones and important deadlines. These milestones are usually different for each type of project and vary even from project to project. It is best to start with the last contract completion date, which may be the tenant occupancy date, start-up and commissioning date, turbine roll, revenue date, etc., depending on the project. These dates are marked as a milestone on the time-scale schedule along with the PWBS. Next, intermediate milestone dates are identified and marked on the same schedule. These dates, which also vary from project to project, may include such milestones as substantial completion and punch list dates for each area or facility, building enclosure dates, traffic or area reinstatement dates, design freeze date, engi-

his paper presented a practical application of top-down backto-front planning. It demonstrated that by applying a few simple steps, planners can be encouraged to use a structured approach in plan formation and exploit the enormous resources freely accessible through the Internet. Using this approach, the planner is at the heart of the system, allowing great flexibility to exercise judgment and intuition. This will allow the planner to be on top of the project in a proactive mode to start with project objectives and break down the project milestones to meet the contractual dates and deadlines. The system provides systematic analysis when dealing with quantitative variables such as project work breakdowns, milestones, activities, durations, and generic logic. On the other hand, planners have the opportunity to apply judgment, intuition, and creativity at various decision points during this process in a proactive role. The level of detail recommended for the initial planning is at the planners control. User interaction is one of the prominent features of the system. Redundant and routine data collection, input, calculations, etc., are carried out automatically, while several decision points were built-in the system that requires user participation, enforcing more creative input on the part of the user. There is no doubt that the latest technology and the Internet can positively contribute to facilitating the gathering of information and planning input that is required from numerous parties who are normally situated distances apart. However, the question of data security, confidentiality, and the size and quality of graphics and captured images are issues that must be addressed in the future. Internet technology is still evolving; however, the use and the integration of the above concepts and techniques to visually simulate construction planning at the conceptual stage of a project is promising.

P&S.01.6

1998 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. Callahan, M.T., J.E Quackenbush, and D.G. Rowings. Construction Project Scheduling. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992. Davies, J. Planning for a Successful Project. Plant Engineering, (Sept. 25, 1995): 102. Dinsmore, P.C. Human Factors in Project Management. New York: American Management Association, 1984. Gibson, G., and A. Tortora. Perceptions of Project Representatives Concerning Project Success and Pre-project Planning Effort. Construction Industry Institute, Source 102: September 1994, 1-174. Humphreys, K. Project and Cost Engineers Handbook. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1993. Kartam, N., and R. Levitt. Intelligent Planning of Construction Projects. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 4 (January 1990): 155-176. Laufer, A. Simultaneous Management. New York: American Management Association, 1997. Laufer, A. Timing Issues and Path of Progress. Construction Industry Institute, Source Document 6, 1989. Laufer, A., and D. Cohenca. Factors Affecting Construction Planning. Transactions, American Association of Cost Engineers, A.1.1-A.1.5, 1986. Laufer, A., and R.L. Tucker. Is Construction Project Planning Really Doing its Job? Construction Management and Economics, 5 (1987): 243-266. McKenny, J.L., and P.G. Keen. How Managers Minds Work. Harvard Business Review (May-June 1974): 80. Mason, D. The CPM Technique in Construction: A Critique. Transactions, American Association of Cost Engineers, E.2 Murray, A.R. Seeing the Big Picture. Construction Business Review, 6, no.5 (1997): 48-49. Popescu, C., An Encyclopedia of Terms and Applications related to Project Planning, Scheduling, and Control in Construction. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1995. Rahbar, F.F. Computer Aided Parametric Planning, CAPP. Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, 1997.

5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

10.

11. 12. 13. 14.

15.

Dr. Faramarz Fred Rahbar Bechtel 191 Messogion Ave. 115 25 Athens, Greece Dr. James E. Rowings Jr., PE CCE Iowa State University 456 Town Engineering Ames, IA 50014

P&S.01.7