Guide to Project Management Strategies for Complex Projects (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Guide to Project Management Strategies for Complex Projects S2-R10-RW-2

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2015 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS Chair: Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis Vice Chair: James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas Executive Director: Neil J. Pedersen, Transportation Research Board MEMBERS Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center; Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and Professor and Director, Environmental Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia (Past Chair, 2013) Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, University of Arizona, Tempe John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix Michael W. Hancock, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, California Chris T. Hendrickson, Professor, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, Bank of Montreal Capital Markets, and Chairman, Utah Transportation Commission, Huntsville, Utah Geraldine Knatz, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles Michael P. Lewis, Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Providence Joan McDonald, Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany Abbas Mohaddes, President and CEO, Iteris, Inc., Santa Ana, California Donald A. Osterberg, Senior Vice President, Safety and Security, Schneider National, Inc., Green Bay, Wisconsin Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor, University of Texas, Austin (Past Chair, 2012) Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri Kumares C. Sinha, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing (Past Chair, 2014) Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, Texas Paul Trombino III, Director, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames Phillip A. Washington, General Manager, Denver Regional Council of Governments, Denver, Colorado EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Thomas P. Bostick (Lt. General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Timothy P. Butters, Acting Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Alison Jane Conway, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, City College of New York, New York, and Chair, TRB Young Members Council T. F. Scott Darling III, Acting Administrator and Chief Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Sarah Feinberg, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation David J. Friedman, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Paul N. Jaenichen, Sr., Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Therese W. McMillan, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Michael P. Melaniphy, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C. Gregory G. Nadeau, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Peter M. Rogoff, Acting Under Secretary for Transportation Policy, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation Mark R. Rosekind, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida Barry R. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, California Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. Paul F. Zukunft, Adm., U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security * Membership as of February 2015.

THE SECOND STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Jennifer Shane, Kelly Strong, Douglas Gransberg, and David Jeong Construction Management and Technology Program, Institute for Transportation, Iowa State University TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD Washington, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org Guide to Project Management Strategies for Complex Projects SHRP 2 Report S2-R10-RW-2

SUBJECT AREAS Administration and Management Construction Highways

THE SECOND STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM America’s highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technology—such as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection technologies, and human factors science—offer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant transportation problems, however, requires concentrated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, integrates mul- tiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the high- way research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, pub- lished in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic High- way Research Program, is a focused, time-constrained, management-driven program designed to complement existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behavior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disruptions and produce lasting facilities; Reli- ability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and commu- nity needs in the planning and designing of new transporta- tion capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The pro- gram is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memorandum of understand- ing among the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sci- ences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results. SHRP 2 Report S2-R10-RW-2 ISBN: 978-0-309-12976-3 © 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from pub- lishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educa- tional and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate ac- knowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report num- bers ending in “w” are published as web documents only. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to moni- tor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical commit- tee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the Na- tional Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the re- search and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the pro- gram sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- emies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not en- dorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered es- sential to the object of the report. SHRP 2 REPORTS Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: https://www.mytrb.org/store Contact the TRB Business Office: 202.334.3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advis- ing the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the ser- vices of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sci- ences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdis- ciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transpor- tation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

SHRP 2 STAFF Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Cynthia Allen, Editor Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety Jared Cazel, Editorial Assistant JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability Eduardo Cusicanqui, Financial Officer Richard Deering, Special Consultant, Safety Data Phase 1 Planning Shantia Douglas, Senior Financial Assistant Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Reports Coordinator Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Rachel Taylor, Senior Editorial Assistant Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator

This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi cials. It was con- ducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is adminis- tered by the Transportation Research Board of t he National Academies. The project was managed by the following SHRP 2 Renewal staff: Mark Bush, Senior Program Offi cer; James Bryant, Senior Program Offi cer; Jerry A. DiMaggio, Senior Program Offi cer; and Andrew Horosko, Special Consultant. Institute for Transportation, Iowa State University, staff were Susan Stokke, tech- nical writer/editor; Junyong Ahn, postdoctoral researcher; Elika Bahrevar, graduate research assistant; John Owens, graduate research assistant; and Heedae Park, gradu- ate research assistant. The research team members were Neil Allan, Grant-Allan Consulting; Debra R. Brisk, formerly with Kimley-Horn; Jim Hunt, formerly with PBS&J Corporation; Carla Lopez del Puerto, Colorado State University; Eric Scheepbouwer, University of Canterbury, New Zealand; Sid Scott, formerly with Trauner Consulting Services; Susan Tighe, University of Waterloo, Canada; and Ali Touran, Northeastern University. Case study interviewees (by agency) were British Airports Authority; Caltrans; City of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada; Colorado DOT; Community Transportation Solu- tions; Connecticut DOT; FHWA; Florida DOT; Horner and Shifrin Engineers; Illinois DOT; KBR; Kentucky Transportation Cabinet; Maryland General Engineering Consul- tants; Maryland State Highway Administration; Michigan DOT; Missouri DOT; New Jersey Transit; New Zealand Transport Authority; North Carolina Turnpike Authority; Oklahoma DOT; Parsons Brinckerhoff; Texas DOT (Dallas District); Virginia DOT; Washington DOT; and Williams Brothers Construction Company. Pilot workshops were held by Kansas DOT and Missouri DOT (Kansas City Workshop, March 2011) and Utah DOT (Salt Lake City Workshop, April 2011). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Validation case studies were conducted by Las Vegas Paving Corp. and Nevada DOT (I-15 South) and Iowa DOT (I-74 corridor). Regional demonstration workshops were conducted by Caltrans, Colorado DOT, FHWA Resource Center (Craig Actis), Florida DOT, Institute for Transportation (InTrans), Iowa DOT, Michigan DOT, New York DOT, Ohio DOT, and Texas DOT.

FOREWORD The research scope of SHRP 2 Renewal Project R10, Project Management Strategies for Complex Projects, involved the development of this guide, as well as a companion report, surveys, case studies, training, and technical tools, to address the challenges of managing modern infrastructure projects that are considerably more complex than traditional projects. These products facilitate the use of effective strategies in manag- ing complex projects of any size and type. Acceptance and use of this guidance should improve the state of the practice by focusing on practical tools and techniques that are designed to be immediately benefi cial to transportation professionals. Infrastructure needs within the United States have changed from building new facilities to replacing, expanding, and renewing existing facilities. The project manage- ment issues involved with infrastructure renewal differ from the project management issues for new construction. Correspondingly, new project management approaches must be integrated into mainstream practices for all sizes and types of projects to accel- erate project delivery, reduce project costs, and minimize project disputes. The diffi culties of renewal project complexity have been exacerbated by years of underfunded maintenance and replacement programs. As a result, many renewal projects have become even more challenging because of the need to avert major traffi c disruptions and, in some cases, infrastructure failures. Project complexity is introduced by many factors: project types, engineering complexity, size, modality, jurisdictional control, fi nancing approach, contract type, and delivery method. Each project calls for a distinct project management style and approach. The fi ve-dimensional project management (5DPM) approach for complex projects is not new. However, it is extensively developed, outlined, and clearly mapped for acceptance and integration within the R10 project. The fi ve dimensions are (1) cost, Jerry A. DiMaggio, D.GE, PE SHRP 2 Senior Program Offi cer, Renewal

(2) schedule, (3) technical, (4) context, and (5) fi nance. Successful use of the 5DPM approach involves fi ve methods that are unique for each project: • Defi ne critical project success factors by each dimension, as required. • Assemble project team. • Select project arrangements. • Prepare early cost model and fi nance plan. • Develop project action plans. Although a number of additional research ideas have been identifi ed during the project, the most pressing next steps are the implementation of the material on actual complex projects and the integration of the philosophy and tools within existing agency program and project management policies and procedures. The integration will be accomplished through demonstration projects, training, and change-management assistance.

CONTENTS 1 CHAPTER 1 Five-Dimensional Project Management 1 1.1 Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How 2 1.2 Using the Guide 3 1.3 5DPM Process Overview and Guide Organization 6 1.4 Nature of Project Complexity 10 1.5 Traditional Compared to Five-Dimensional Project Management 11 1.6 Dimensions of 5DPM 12 1.7 Organizational Implementation Approaches 17 CHAPTER 2 Using the 5DPM Planning Framework 17 2.1 Implementing 5DPM 20 2.2 Assessing 5DPM Readiness 22 2.3 Defi ning Project Complexity 30 2.4 Mapping Project Complexity 33 2.5 Leveraging Iterative Project Mapping 35 2.6 Allocating Resources to Complex Projects 36 2.7 Understanding the Interactions of Complexity Factors 37 2.8 Connecting the 5DPM Framework to Complexity on Your Project 40 CHAPTER 3 Using the 5DPM Methods 40 3.1 Introduction 42 3.2 Method 1: Defi ne Critical Project Success Factors 48 3.3 Method 2: Assemble Project Team 51 3.4 Method 3: Select Project Arrangements 54 3.5 Method 4: Prepare Early Cost Model and Finance Plan 59 3.6 Method 5: Develop Project Action Plans