ALIGNMENT
DURING
PREPROJECT PLANNING
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
By A. F. Griffith,1 and G. E. Gibson Jr.,2 Members, ASCE
ABSTRACT: Many projects suffer when project participants are in disagreement as to the proper success
emphasis or goals for the project. These differences in success emphasis are a result of poor team alignment.
Alignment can be defined as the condition where appropriate project participants are working within acceptable tolerances to develop and meet a uniformly defined and understood set of project objectives. This
paper outlines a recent exploratory research study aimed at identifying the important characteristics of
alignment during the preproject phase of industrial capital projects. Included in this paper are a description
of alignment, its relationship to the project team and corporate project approach, and its key drivers. Through
workshops, interviews and project-specific data collection, 10 critical alignment issues were identified. A
composite alignment effort index demonstrated a positive, measurable effect on the performance measure
of a sample of 20 capital projects. Conclusions and implications for project management professionals are
given based on the findings.
INTRODUCTION
The Construction Industry Institute (CII) defines preproject planning as the process of developing sufficient
strategic information with which owners can address risk
and decide to commit resources to maximize the chance
for a successful project. Preproject planning has many
aliases such as front-end loading, front-end planning,
scope definition, feasibility analysis, programming, and
conceptual planning (CII 1995). (It should be noted that
one of these synonyms for preproject planning, front-end
loading, is frequently associated with a negative practice
related to contract progress payments. The negative practice involves estimating an artificially high earned-value
for the early activities in order to improve the cash flow
and collect the profit at the beginning of the project. However, this term is widely used in planning and execution
in the industrial projects sector to stress the fact that the
early activities in a project actually do have a high value
and will have a lasting affect on the project.)
Previous CII research has documented that project success is greater when an increased level of preproject planning is used, yielding (Gibson and Hamilton 1994; CII
1994)
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
Increased predictability of cost and schedule
Reduced probability of project failures
Improved operational performance
Better achievement of business goals
Better definition of risks
Fewer scope changes
Sr. Analyst, Independent Project Analysis, Inc., Reston, VA 22090.
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX
78712-1076. E-mail: egibson@mail.utexas.edu
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 2001. To extend the closing date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE
Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for
review and possible publication on December 7, 1999; revised August
14, 2000. This paper is part of the Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 2, April, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X/01/
0002-0069–0076/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 22166.
2
Participants in the preproject planning team were often
in disagreement as to the proper success emphasis or goals
for their projects. This difference in success emphasis is
a result of poor alignment and may contribute to disagreement among project representatives over project
objectives and can lead to communication breakdowns
(Gibson and Hamilton 1994; CII 1994). These findings
indicate that project participants are frequently not well
aligned and that industry could benefit from a structured
approach to alignment of the project participants.
The CII Front End Planning Research Team, formed as
a follow-on to the earlier preproject planning research effort, had the task of developing implementation tools to
address issues cited in the previous research. The research
team was made up of 12 experienced industry representatives from a wide range of CII member companies in
the chemical and petroleum industries. Both owner and
contractor organizations were represented on the team. In
addition to industry representatives, the team included an
academic representative who functioned as the principal
investigator with assistance from funded graduate students.
The research team had as its objective to measure the
effect of alignment during preproject planning on project
outcomes and to identify the factors that most influence
achieving and maintaining alignment. To that end, the
present writers, in conjunction with the research team,
performed a literature review, designed a research methodology, collected and analyzed data, and formed conclusions and recommendations based on the results. The following sections outline the definition of alignment, an
overview of the research, and the critical issues that must
be addressed to insure alignment of organizations during
preproject planning.
Alignment Defined
One of the first tasks in investigating alignment was to
define ‘‘alignment’’ and how it applies to capital facility
projects. The use of the word ‘‘alignment’’ to describe a
desirable organizational feature has no clear origins. Many
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / APRIL 2001 / 69
J. Manage. Eng., 2001, 17(2): 69-76
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
published articles from a variety of sources describe the
need for alignment within organizations. However, none
have attempted to define alignment in the context of organizations and organizational behavior. Most of the published articles reviewed as part of this research used the
term under the assumption that the reader would understand the meaning based on the common definition (Griffith 1997).
The dictionary defines alignment as the condition of
being in satisfactory adjustment or having the parts in
proper relative position (American Heritage 1985). In the
context of capital facility projects, alignment may be defined more specifically as: The condition where appropriate project participants are working within acceptable tolerances to develop and meet a uniformly defined and
understood set of project objectives. These project objectives must meet business requirements and the overall corporate strategy. They are formed in the early stages of
project development and have a critical effect on the success of the project delivery process. Fig. 1 illustrates the
definition and a graphical representation of what alignment is in terms of this research.
A typical preproject planning team is comprised of individuals representing a wide variety of functional groups
with diverse priorities and requirements. As each team
member enters the preproject planning process, they bring
different priorities and expectations. Alignment is the process of incorporating all of those distinct priorities and
requirements into a uniform set of project objectives that
meet the business needs for the proposed facility.
The final stage of any successful alignment process is
the acceptance and commitment of the entire team to
those overall project objectives. Without the commitment
of the team members, and endorsement from team sponsors, there is no alignment. In Fig. 1, the arrows adjust
direction to form a uniform flow representing the evolution toward commitment to the overall project objectives.
The project objectives cited in the definition of alignment
must meet business requirements and overall corporate
strategy. They are formed in the early stages of project
development and have a critical impact on the ultimate
success of the project.
An appropriate analogy of a misaligned project would
be to that of driving a car with the front end out of alignment. Three unfortunate consequences may occur. The
ride is uncomfortable for the passengers, the tires wear
out quickly, and the car may run off the road. The same
may be said of a project team out of alignment. None of
the outcomes of the project is entirely satisfactory, and the
participants are in a constant struggle to maintain their
viewpoints.
At first glance, teamwork and alignment appear to be
the same thing and can be used interchangeably. Both involve how well a team of people work together to achieve
an objective. However, the research team considered
teamwork and alignment to be distinct concepts with complementary, yet different applications. Basically, the dif-
FIG. 1.
ment
Graphical Representation and Definition of Align-
ference between alignment and teamwork can be defined
in the following statements (CII 1997a):
• Alignment concerns whether or not the team members are all working toward the same, correct goal.
In the context of a capital project, these goals are
focused on business or mission success. A team may
be working well together, but pursuing the wrong
goals.
• Teamwork involves how well the members interact,
cooperate, and support one another while working together.
• Teamwork typically applies to groups who work together in a close working relationship. Alignment can
involve groups working entirely apart, but pursuing
the same overall objective.
Alignment Model
Organizational performance ‘‘models’’ are a way of
communicating how an organization operates or should
operate. They are useful tools because they can help to
set a context for change, demystify organizational concepts, and focus attention on the important fundamentals
and relationships of a process or concept (Griffith and
Gibson 1995).
An extensive literature search identified several different organization performance models that focus on the
topic of organizational alignment. However, there is little
information into what leads to establishing those common
goals and how successful teams achieve commitment to
those goals. Cartwright and Zander (1968) outline the elements of the goal formation process, but do not present
any specific recommendations for overcoming the inherent differentiation found in cross-functional groups. Tjosvold (1986) discusses developing cooperative goals in
high level terms. His recommendations center on issues
like open communications and shared values. Parker
(1994) focuses recommendations on what the team leader
should do to set goals for cross-functional team. These are
70 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / APRIL 2001
J. Manage. Eng., 2001, 17(2): 69-76
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 2.
Three-Dimensional Schematic of Organizational Alignment for a Project
also high-level solutions such as make goals specific, base
goals on specific problems, and integrate team goals into
department goals.
The published models of organizational alignment identified in the literature review give useful background information, but lack the required detail for application to
preproject planning of capital facilities, which was the focus of this research. As a result, the research team developed a diagram (Fig. 2) that models the three dimensions
of alignment within the project environment (Griffith and
Gibson 1995). The first dimension, vertical, involves topto-bottom alignment within an organization. The second,
horizontal, involves cross-organizational alignment between functional groups within organizations. The third
dimension, longitudinal, involves alignment of objectives
throughout the project life cycle. Project team members
must address all three dimensions in order to be successful. Failure to address any one of these dimensions can
cause a serious breakdown.
The present writers along with the research team, used
a combination of brainstorming techniques and affinity diagramming in a team setting and developed a list of 66
alignment issues for consideration during preproject planning. The complete list of alignment issues is not included
in this paper, but are discussed extensively by Griffith
(1997). These alignment issues were defined and segregated into five categories. These categories, and the issues
making up them, require deliberate attention if alignment
is to be achieved and maintained during preproject planning. They include
• Execution processes: project systems, processes, and
procedures
• Company culture: the attitudes, values, behavior, and
environment of the company and team
• Information: data elements, including project objectives, used to define the scope of the project
• Barriers: obstacles to creating and maintaining alignment
• Tools: software programs, checklists, and aide mem-
FIG. 3. Antecedents and Consequences of Project Team
Alignment
oirs, which are typically used to develop and manage
projects
HYPOTHESES
The primary focus of this study was to build on previous research by developing and testing a path analytic
framework that includes antecedents that appear to affect
alignment and the effect of alignment on project outcomes. As presented in Fig. 3, the central hypothesis
tested in this study is that there are specific factors that
have a significant direct effect on alignment during preproject planning. The research also tested the hypothesis
that project team alignment has a significant direct effect
on project outcomes. In addition to these direct relationships, the research also tested the hypothesis that alignment acts to mediate the relationship between the antecedents and project outcomes.
RESEARCH APPROACH
Once the literature review was completed, alignment
defined and issues identified, a three-phased research approach was used to further investigate alignment. The first
phase was a set of workshops with experienced industry
representatives. The second phase was a series of mail
surveys and telephone interviews with representatives
from actual capital facility projects. The third phase was
a series of extensive interviews with executives from companies identified as leaders in terms of alignment. Data
collected from all three phases were analyzed to identify
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / APRIL 2001 / 71
J. Manage. Eng., 2001, 17(2): 69-76
the factors that most influence team alignment during preproject planning (Griffith and Gibson 1997).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Workshops
During three industry workshops, the 66 alignment issues were ranked relative to each within the five categories, and then the five categories were ranked relative to
one another. Thirty-eight experienced project management
professionals, representing 19 contractor and owner companies, participated in these workshops. Research team
members recruited workshop participants from their companies. Selection was based on convenience and willingness to participate. The participants were a mix of different positions within their organizaitons. However,
workshop participants were primarily from the petroleum
exploration, petroleum refining, and chemical industries.
Sample Projects
The next step in the research process was to apply the
workshop findings toward actual capital projects. This was
accomplished using a two-stage data collection process.
An initial mail survey was sent to the primary points of
contact for a set of sample projects. This survey collected
factual data related to the project that was used to build
profiles of the types of projects involved in the research,
to assess project success, and characterize the alignment
environment of the project.
The survey also asked for names, addresses, and telephone numbers of representatives from business management, project management, design or construction contractor, operations management, and any other significant
participant in the preproject planning process. Each of
these persons was targeted with a telephone interview that
focused on their project and measured to what extent it
achieved or experienced each of the 66 alignment issues
identified earlier by the research team. A total of 54 interviews were conducted.
Project team members and representatives of other CII
member companies nominated the projects used in this
phase of the research. A systematic random sampling process was not used to select the projects for this research
because a reliable population of capital facility projects
was not available. However, the research team members
did emphasize that the research needed a representative
mix of project types, sizes, and outcomes in order to be
successful.
A common technique used in survey research is to reuse
survey instruments from previous studies. The mail survey
used in this research was based on a similar survey that
was used as part of the previous preproject planning research. This earlier research conducted a pilot test of the
mail survey and validated that it was reliably collecting
the desired data. In addition, three projects were selected
for pilot testing of the revised survey instrument used in
this research. A survey critique was included in the pilot
testing so that any problems with the survey could be
identified. All three pilot test surveys were returned along
with the critiques. The surveys were completed correctly
and the critiques indicated that the questions were clear.
A total of 29 mail surveys were sent to nominated projects
and 20 usable completed surveys were returned. Note that
this sample was a convenience sample composed of industrial projects nominated by participants in the research
team and workshops.
The task of responding to a telephone inteview is typically difficult for the respondent and several steps were
taken to make the data collection process reliable and effective. The respondents were asked to simply rate each
of the 66 alignment issues on a Likert scale as they applied to the specific project. The telephone survey also
had 11 open-ended questions related to the project’s outcomes, preproject planning process, and team alignment.
The telephone interview was designed to take less than
30 min to complete and a copy of the interview was faxed
to the respondent prior to the interview. The telephone
interview was pilot tested on the first three interviews collected. After completing the structured interview, the interviewee was asked to critique that survey instrument and
discuss any questions that were not clear or difficult to
answer. A complete copy of the mail survey and the structured telephone interview are available in the referenced
publication by Griffith and Gibson (1997).
Best Practice Interviews
The research methods used in collecting data from the
sample projects focused on events that occurred during
preproject planning approximately two to four years prior
to the study. With the rapid change in business practices
taking place at the time, it was not reasonable to expect
that current project team procedures were exactly the
same as those in the sample. Executives from companies
identified as being leaders in effective alignment were
asked to participate in structured interviews where each
of the five alignment categories was examined in detail.
The executives discussed what they were currently doing
differently in terms of alignment, as well as their opinions
as to the future direction of preproject planning and alignment for their project teams. Interviews were conducted
with one contractor organization and two owner organizations, and included input from a total of 12 executives.
Each was transcribed and evaluated to identify trends in
project management practices as they relate to team alignment.
The time investment required by the interviewees for
this phase of the research was significant. Each interview
followed a general outline to guide the discussion and to
control for time. Each of the three interviews took approximately 2 h. Organizations interviewed in this phase
were selected based on their reputations in the industry,
personal experiences of some of the research team members, and availability and willingness to participate in the
interviews. A complete copy of the interview outline and
72 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / APRIL 2001
J. Manage. Eng., 2001, 17(2): 69-76
transcripts of all three interviews are available in the referenced publication by Griffith and Gibson (1997).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Analysis
In summary, three different forms of data collection
were used in this phase of the research project: workshops
with experienced project participants, surveys and interviews involving actual projects, and best practice interviews. More than 100 individuals with extensive project
experience in a wide variety of positions and industries
were consulted. The three-phased research approach provided extensive information related to alignment during
preproject planning:
• The workshops provided validation of the research
team’s concept and definition of alignment and the
five categories of alignment issues. These workshops
also provided an initial ranking of the 66 alignment
issues in terms of their effect on team alignment.
• The surveys of completed projects provided information about alignment practices during preproject
planning and how those practices related to final
project performance.
• The best practice interviews with project executives
provided ideas on how to best align preproject planning teams.
The workshop surveys were scored and compiled to
develop a ranked listing of all 66 alignment issues. Based
on the results of the relative ranking within each category
and the relative ranking for the five major categories, a
weighted scoring system was developed to produce a
ranking for the entire list of 66 alignment issues based on
the workshop results. Workshop results were separated
and analyzed based on whether the participant was from
an owner or a contractor organization. Although the relative priorities were slightly different, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups.
Using the data collected in the mail surveys and telephone interviews, an analysis of the statistical correlation
between each of the 66 alignment issues and ultimate
project success was performed for the 20 sample projects.
The dependent variable used in the statistical analysis was
the success index, which is a single measure of project
outcome success that was developed as part of the previous research study. The success index is based on quantifiable project performance outcomes that were collected
independently of the data concerning the individual alignment issues. The independent variables tested were each
of the 66 alignment issues as well as other Likert scale
questions regarding project success and team alignment
that were collected as part of the telephone interview. Statistical techniques used to analyze these data included bivariate correlation and path analysis techniques. In addition, a frequency analysis was used on the responses to
the open-ended questions in order to identify issues most
often cited as important to project team alignment (Griffith 1997).
The analysis of the best practice interviews involved
detailed frequency analysis and qualitative analysis techniques. Each interview was recorded using a portable tape
recorder and transcribed. Using these transcripts, a frequency analysis was performed. A checklist was developed and for every instance when a specific alignment
issue was cited, it was marked on the checklist. The list
of alignment issues and the frequency that each was cited
was then entered into a spreadsheet for data analysis and
reporting.
The last stage of the data analysis involved compiling
the results of the three independent analysis phases into a
single combined analysis. Each of the three phases of data
collection used different samples and different techniques.
The results from each phase were also different to some
degree. Each data collection phase has its own advantages
and disadvantages and produced its own set of results. For
this final step, a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques was used to combine the results of each
of the three phases. The results of each data collection
phase were compared in a comprehensive analysis where
common trends and differences were identified.
Critical Alignment Issues
Based on the combined analysis, the list of 66 alignment issues was narrowed to the 10 critical alignment issues that have the greatest effect on team alignment and
ultimate project success. The 10 critical issues were
clearly more statistically significant than the other identified issues. The critical alignment issues in order of priority are
1. Stakeholders are appropriately represented on the
project team. The preproject planning team should
include representatives from all significant project
stakeholders. The team needs to include representatives from the operations group, construction,
business management, and other stakeholder
groups as well as project management and engineering. All project stakeholders should be sufficiently represented on the team so that their priorities and expertise are included in the project
planning process to achieve the optimum results.
2. Project leadership is defined, effective, and accountable. The organization must be committed to
developing and supporting effective team leadership because it will positively influence team members’ commitment to project objectives. The leadership must be knowledgeable of the preproject
planning process and technically proficient. It
should have defined responsibilities, be accountable
for results, and remain focused.
3. The priority between cost, schedule, and required
project features is clear. Clearly stated priorities
between cost, schedule, and project quality features
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / APRIL 2001 / 73
J. Manage. Eng., 2001, 17(2): 69-76
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
will assist all team members in making more uniform and correct decisions regarding the project
and its objectives. In addition, these priorities save
time when team members have to make decisions
by allowing more empowered decision making.
Communication within the team and with stakeholders is open and effective. Establishing open
and effective communications between all members
of the preproject planning team is essential. This
involves breaking down barriers to communication
and utilizing advanced communications technologies to improve communication.
Team meetings are timely and productive. The
team leadership should conduct frequent and productive project meetings both to inform the team
and obtain input from the team members. The team
should follow good meeting practices by providing
an agenda, taking meeting minutes, assigning meeting roles, evaluating the meetings and so forth.
The team culture fosters trust, honesty, and shared
values. Team leadership should develop a team
culture of trust and honesty so that team members
can maintain open, synergistic relationships. This
culture is influenced by the organizational cultures
that interact with it; however, the team must make
sure that trust and honesty are fostered.
The preproject planning process includes sufficient
funding, schedule, and scope to meet objectives. It
is important to establish and follow a prescribed
preproject planning process for projects. A comprehensive preproject planning process includes a
team charter outlining team member roles and responsibilities, budget, schedule, and objectives of
the team. The preproject planning process should
be given adequate funding and time.
The reward and recognition system promotes meeting project objectives. Management should develop and implement a reward and recognition system for team members and outside contractors that
supports the overall project objectives. Conflicting
reward structures for different team members may
cause decisions regarding project objectives and
planning to be in direct opposition, resulting in suboptimal outcomes.
Teamwork and team building programs are effective. It is important that teamwork is developed
through both formal and informal team-building
programs. Proper alignment requires that a group
of diverse individuals from different functional
groups is able to work together as a team. The team
building effort should be focused on the project
team.
Planning tools (e.g., checklists, simulations, and
work flow diagrams) are effectively used. Tools
should be used to develop and manage project organization, scope, schedule, estimate, and work
processes during preproject planning to foster
alignment. The entire team should be involved in
their use. The greatest value in using these tools is
that they foster open communication and acceptance of the approved project scope, estimates,
schedule, and work processes. Examples of such
tools include work process diagrams, scope definition checklists [such as the CII Project Definition
Rating Index (PDRI)], scheduling techniques, and
risk analysis techniques.
Alignment Validation
In order to validate the findings, the list of 10 critical
issues was combined to form a uniformly weighted alignment effort index with a range from 0 to 100 (the higher
the score, the more aligned is the project team). This
alignment effort index was then applied to data collected
during telephone interviews, with each issue weighted on
a scale of 0 to 10. The 10 critical alignment issues are
shown in Table 1 indicating relative weighting of the
alignment categories. The numbers in parenthesis relate
the issue in the table to the 10 critical alignment issues
discussed previously. The 10 critical issues were each
given an equal weight in the alignment effort index because the sample size was not large enough to reliably
model and test the relative effect of each factor.
The index scores were then plotted against the project
success index to evaluate the relationship between the index and actual project success. The data for the success
index were collected in the mail surveys. The project success index is a combination of four independent measures
of project success: cost performance, schedule performance, percentage design capacity attained at six months,
and plant utilization attained at six months. Each measure
of project success is given a score based on the ratio of
the actual results versus the expected outcomes as documented at the time of authorization. The overall project
success index is then calculated by combining the four
measures of project success into a single success index
equation with relative weightings based on previously
TABLE 1.
Issue
(rank)
(2)
Category a
(1)
Execution
processes
Culture
Information
Tools
Ten Alignment Issues Categorized
Appropriate stakeholders represented (1);
Prescribed preproject planning process
(7); and Suitable reward and recognition
systems (8)
Effective project leadership (2); Open and
effective communication (4); and Trust,
honesty, and shared values (6)
Priority between costs, schedule, and features (3)
Timely and productive team meetings (5);
Teamwork and team-building programs
(9); and Use of planning tools (10)
Alignment
index
weight
(%)
(3)
30
30
10
30
a
Barriers to alignment are typically the antithesis of these ten issues
and therefore not included in this table.
74 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / APRIL 2001
J. Manage. Eng., 2001, 17(2): 69-76
TABLE 2.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Project
number
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
FIG. 4.
Alignment Sample Projects
Type of project
(2)
Authorized
cost
(millions of dollars)
(3)
Authorized
duration
(months)
(4)
Alignment
index
(5)
Success
index
(6)
Petro-Refinery
Petro-Refinery
Gas Processing
Natural Gas Treatment
Petro-Refinery
Petro-Refinery
Petro-Chemical
Petro-Refinery
Fossil Power
Pharmaceutical
Steel Manufacturing
Coal Injection
Petro-Refinery
Chemical
Petro-Chemical
Fossil Power
Chemical
Trans. & Distribution
Chemical
Pulp & Paper
Totals
75
205
101
555
135
635
20
21
77
68
78
21
31
Not Given
22
98
13
26
14
8
2,203
20
26
5
29
21
28
7
8
20
15
24
19
21
26
15
13
21
30
36
10
36.3
80.3
72.1
82.5
75.4
66.9
63.1
81.5
53.8
64.6
86.3
52.9
77.1
66.7
58.7
31.3
69.1
68.7
81.3
86.9
1.00
3.60
2.46
4.20
4.20
3.02
3.44
3.00
2.34
1.80
3.92
2.34
3.42
4.34
2.34
1.54
2.76
4.20
3.66
2.60
Success Index versus Alignment Effort Index
published CII research. This success index is the same
used in previous CII research; an index score of 3.0 or
higher typically indicates that the project meets or exceeds
authorization goals in these four areas (Griffith et al.
1999). Fig. 4 is a plot of the project success versus the
alignment effort index for the 20 projects surveyed in the
alignment research project.
The 20 sample projects included both grassroots and
retrofit/expansion projects, including 16 located in the
United States and four located overseas. Of the 19 sample
projects reporting detailed budget information, the total
authorized budget was approximately $2.2 billion and
ranged from $8 million to $635 million with a mean of
$116 million. The mean authorized schedule for all of the
sample projects was 20 months. The sample project types
included petrochemical, gas processing and piping, fossil
power generation and transmission, pharmaceutical,
chemical, and petroleum refinery projects representing 13
different owner companies. The sample includes only industrial construction and does not include any heavy civil
or commercial building projects. The bivariate regression
Number of
telephone
interviews
(7)
1
4
3
1
3
2
3
5
3
3
1
3
4
3
2
2
4
1
2
4
54
analysis rsulted in an R2 of 0.49, with a probability of
type I error less than 0.01. Table 2 summarizes the sample
projects.
It must be noted that the validation process used a relatively small, nonrandom sample of 20 projects. A small
sample size has a potential for bias, meaning that these
results may not accurately reflect the entire population of
industrial construction projects. However, even with these
limitations, there appears to be a positive relationship between the key alignment issues identified in the research
and ultimate project success.
Based on the results reported in this paper, the research
team developed CII Implementation Resource 113-3,
‘‘Alignment During Pre-Project Planning’’ (CII 1997a),
that outlines how to address each of the 10 critical alignment issues, as well as other issues, in order to improve
alignment during preproject planning. This document also
introduces the ‘‘alignment thermometer,’’ which is an
easy-to-use, in-process tool that incorporates the 10 critical alignment issues for scoring alignment of project team
members (CII 1997a).
CONCLUSIONS
Previous CII research has shown that the greater the
preproject planning effort, the greater the chance for project
success (Gibson and Hamilton 1994; CII 1994). Preproject
planning effort involves aligning the project team with the
business needs of the facility and developing an adequate
scope definition. Taking shortcuts during this project
phase can lead to project changes, cost overruns, and
longer schedules. Through this exploratory study, it has
been shown that alignment during preproject planning is
a critical issue that must be addressed. The participants
and projects used in this study were primarily from the
industrial projects sector and therefore caution should be
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / APRIL 2001 / 75
J. Manage. Eng., 2001, 17(2): 69-76
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 02/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
used in extending the results to other sectors, as well as
project types and sizes outside the boundary of the sample. However, the writers feel that the critical issues as
identified are a good first step in understanding the characteristics and impact of alignment.
Both expert input and the statistical analysis of actual
projects indicate that alignment during preproject planning
is critical to project success for this sample. As one executive from an owner company stated:
throughout the entire project life cycle and not just the
preproject planning phase. Future research should expand
the focus to include all project phases including business
planning, execution, and operations. The sample used in
this research was limited to industrial capital facility
projects. Future research should target other sectors of the
construction industry including heavy and highway, commercial building, and government projects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
When we have gone back and done a postmortem
on many of our projects that did not turn out well,
several things seem to always come up and poor
alignment is one of those things.
As organizational structures continue to decentralize,
fewer midlevel managers are available to interpret organizational objectives and dictate those objectives to the
project teams. Downsizing, out-sourcing, and partnering
practices with outside organizations are forcing project
teams to become more autonomous and responsible for
the planning process. As a project is passed from the business group to engineering, operations, and contractors, the
original objectives are sometimes lost. Achieving and
maintaining alignment is a key factor for successful
project planning in this demanding environment.
As the preproject planning team is formed, and throughout the preproject planning process, the 10 alignment issues identified in this study should be deliberately addressed. The project team should be especially cognizant
of alignment when new team members are added and
when requirements change. By taking action on all of the
above issues, the team will increase its chances of achieving alignment of the diverse project requirements, which
will result in a successful planning effort (CII 1997a).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The research presented in this article represents an initial, exploratory investigation into alignment during preproject planning. Continued research into the drivers of
alignment and the effect of alignment on project outcomes
is needed. Building on the findings of this study, future
research should focus on further validating the list of 10
critical alignment issues and developing relative weightings for each alignment factor. Alignment is important
This investigation was supported by a grant from CII. The writers
would like to thank the members of the CII Front End Planning Research Team for their tremendous support in this study. Andrew Griffith
is formerly a graduate student at the University of Texas.
APPENDIX.
REFERENCES
American heritage dictionary, 2nd college Ed. (1985). Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Cartwright, D., and Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and
theory, Harper & Row, New York.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1994). ‘‘Pre-project planning: Beginning a project the right way.’’ Publ. 39-1, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1995). ‘‘Pre-project planning
handbook.’’ Spec. Publ. 39-2, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1996). ‘‘Project definition rating
index, industrial projects.’’ Implementation Resour. 113-2, Austin,
Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1997a). ‘‘Alignment during preproject planning.’’ Implementation Resour. 113-3, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1997b). ‘‘Pre-project planning
tools: PDRI and alignment.’’ Res. Summary 113-1, Austin, Tex.
Gibson, G. E., and Hamilton, M. R. (1994). ‘‘Analysis of pre-project
planning effort and success variables.’’ Rep. Prepared for the Construction Industry Institute, Source Document 105, University of
Texas at Austin, Tex.
Griffith, A. F. (1997). ‘‘Team alignment during pre-project planning of
capital facilities.’’ PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin,
Tex.
Griffith, A. F., and Gibson, G. E. (1995). ‘‘Project communication and
alignment during pre-project planning.’’ Proc., Proj. Mgmt. Inst. 1995
Ann. Conf., Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, Pa., 76–83.
Griffith, A. F., and Gibson, G. E. (1997). Team alignment during preproject planning of capital facilities, Res. Rep. 113-12, Prepared for
the Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin,
Tex.
Griffith, A. F., Gibson, G. E., Hamilton, Jr., M. R., Tortora, A. L., and
Wilson, C. T. (1999). ‘‘Project success index for capital facility construction projects.’’ J. Perf. Constr. Fac., ASCE, 13(1), 39–45.
Parker, G. M. (1994). Cross-functional teams: working with allies, enemies, and other strangers, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Tjosvold, D. (1994). Working together to get things done, Lexington
Books, Lexington, Mass.
76 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / APRIL 2001
J. Manage. Eng., 2001, 17(2): 69-76