An evaluation of REAL project planning that is more than checking boxes

By Gregg M. Schoppman, FMI

All organizations are busy.  Most likely the understatement of the last decade but a true definition epitomizes the state of the industry.  Even in the deepest recessionary market, rarely are construction firms sitting idly with little to do.  Frequently the feeling of elation on “Bid/Tender Award Day ” is quickly replaced with deep anxiety – who will manage the project, who will supervise the project, what crews will we use, how we will EVER do it for that number?  Whether the time from award to mobilization is two days or two months, the ability to position an operational team for success should be of the utmost focus.  However, how many great organizations “Yadda Yadda” their way through a true preconstruction process.  Put another way, is your preconstruction planning more about pencil whipping a meeting agenda, setting the world speed record for project strategy rather than devolving into a foundation for excellence?  

Ask the challenging questions

There is no question that a standardized agenda and process are essential to any organization’s operations.  Consistency in application provides fertile training ground for new associates as well as some measurable component to create performance standards for all associates.  The first question a leader should ask themselves is this – Do we have an operational standard for preconstruction that every project manager, estimating and superintendent/foreman utilizes?  If the answer is “no”, that is the first obstacle to overcome.  However, many firms have agendas and meetings which brings us to the second question – Is the process stale and stagnant? Is the process too focused on checking boxes and less about constructive dialogue about project challenges? Does the process resemble more of a DICTATION rather than a COLLABORATION?  Short of this being three questions and not one, leaders must address the albatross draped over the neck of their project teams.

The questions shouldn’t end here.  Better yet, the “hard” questions should be posed to the project teams before they mobilize:

• How will you address budget shortfalls?
• What trade provides the most cause for concern?
• How will you mitigate “rocks in the road” as they percolate to the surface?
• How will margin be enhanced during the project?
• What innovative ways will this project be constructed?
• What crew blend maximizes utilization, productivity, efficiency, quality, etc.?
• What is the greatest risk – safety or otherwise – to project and how will that be addressed?
• How will this customer become a net promoter for the firm?
• How will the team develop itself internally – put another way, what is the internal plan to groom new superstars?

Often, preconstruction planning goes through the perfunctory elements related to schedule, deliverables, submittals, permitting, contact information.  This is definitely important information, but it just clips the surface of the project and fails to brainstorm a true winning project approach and certainly fails to move construction organizations forward with an innovative approach to project delivery.  Tomorrow’s construction project will not be built successfully by saying “We’ll figure it out when we get there,” as if it was a weekend warrior project.

Connect it to short interval planning

Another disconnect that often arises lies in a firm’s ability to go from the “knowing to the doing.”  Put another way, there is a semblance of a plan constructed in a conference room but when it hits the trailer, it falls in the circular file.  Lean construction advocates the concept of pull planning and some planning mechanism that drives the appropriate use of resources at the right time.  The effective use of this process begins at the preconstruction stage, whether in conjunction with a general contractor/construction manager or even within the confines of the trades.  

The first work plan of the project that defines the labor requirements, trades, equipment, etc. should be done in the first preconstruction meeting between the field leader and the project manager.  This establishes the right cadence for the project from the outset.  There is also an important clarification – this is the plan NOT the schedule.  Far too often, contractors solely rely on a schedule that may or may not reflect reality.  In the end, the plan – set from Day 1 – should be a reflection of how the team will accomplish said schedule.

When the people change, hit the reset button

While this hardly happens – ahem – there are times when personnel on a project changes, even before a project breaks ground.  Another important reflective question is this – when a project team changes, did it hit the reset button on the planning process?  It is foolish to take credit for an admirable job on project planning with one team only to change out that team with alternate players. Checking the box is immaterial and it is the equivalent of going to the grocery store to buy healthy foods but coming home and gorging on chocolate.  The road to success is NOT paved with great intentions – it is paved with a great paver!

Challenge the assumptions

No one particularly likes being challenged. It creates perceived conflict and friction.  It also evokes imagery of being an armchair quarterback.  Consider the estimator or preconstruction group that has feverishly put together a substantial proposal with incredible time constraints.  Now think about how that group likes to here “What were you thinking when…”  Of course, that has a different tone than “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?” but it still has a tinge of interrogation to it.  Challenging an estimator’s assumptions is not meant to drive a stake in their heart and spirit, but rather a vehicle to create constructive dialogue about how a firm will excel.  

The concept of “Red Teaming” as developed by Bryce Hoffman in his book Red Teaming is an excellent process that explores the use of a specialized internal team to challenge a firm/project strategy as if it were an enemy force on the battlefield. This is excellent for both the estimator/project manager/superintendent interplay but also a practical exercise to incorporate into the preconstruction process.  Consider having a team that serves as the “enemy” or devil’s advocate, poking holes in a project plan or even having that red team serve as the customer or designer for critical decisions that are required.  

Studies about that positively correlate the amount of time spent planning and the return on that planning investment. Lobbing a set of plans over the wall simply to feel good about accomplishing a meeting is not an effective use of time nor does it achieve the goal it was intended for in the first place.  Checking the boxes or pencil whipping will only serve the pencil and use a lot of lead.

About the Author

As a principal with FMI, Gregg specializes in the areas of productivity and project management. He also leads FMI’s project management consulting practice. He has completed complex and sophisticated construction projects in several different niches and geographic markets. He has also worked as a construction manager and managed direct labor. FMI is the largest provider of management consulting, investment banking, and research to the engineering and construction industry. FMI works in all segments of the industry providing clients with value-added business solutions. For more information visit www.fminet.com or contact gschoppman@fminet.com.