Several initiatives launched over the past dozen years, from a large-scale CAFM system to standardized facilities processes in manufacturing, have fine-tuned WFG operations. By clustering facilities functions in a single collaborative group that works in a common area and presents a uniform face to the customer, the auto giant has crafted a disciplined, repeatable planning process that improves project outcomes under centralized financial control.

Having shifted from a "doing" to a "managing" group, WFG now steps into the planning process at a much earlier stage. While upfront preparation obviously demands greater involvement and effort, planners benefit from specially developed owner tools and leveraged third-party resources that significantly reduce project costs, especially by clarifying goals at the outset and restricting changes to the early developmental stage.

"Looking at the project timeline, we have found that the closer we get to construction, the more expensive changes become," says Joseph Sprys, General Motors' (GM) manager, project planning and administration. "We have worked hard to show our customers that the earlier they get us involved, the better we can help them get what they want in the final product. It is much easier to make changes when the charges incurred are relatively inexpensive."

Four-Step Planning Process

Facilities planning at GM takes place in the context of the company's global vehicle development process. Visually depicted as a graphic of vehicle development milestones, WFG's four-step planning process begins to unfold as much as 40 months before the scheduled start of production. In comparison, involvement prior to the creation of WFG typically occurred somewhere between 22 to 26 months before manufacturing start-up.

The first step is the Assessment phase, where WFG interviews customers to gain an understanding of the goals, objectives, and type of project they want to build.

"Because we bring a lot of expertise to the table, many times we can take a thought or an idea from a customer and help clarify the project vision," Sprys observes. "We also define requirements and establish the project planning approach, explaining our role in making the building happen."

Deliverables include a draft scope, a conceptual estimate, and an early milestone schedule plotting out the timing requirements.

Step two is the Project Definition. Along with determining what and where to build, WFG assembles the project team, pulling together representatives from the customer and engineering organizations with its own environmental group and the facility managers who will oversee the building upon occupancy.

"We try to gather input from all stakeholders so everyone understands what we are going to build, and opinions or concerns about the project can be aired while there is still time for change," says Sprys.

A project planning checklist serves as "a memory jogger," making sure that team members have been identified, the appropriate players involved, and the requisite tasks completed.

After analyzing alternatives and establishing a solid direction, it is time to finalize the concept.

"We understand where we want to go with the project and what we are going to do with it," Sprys summarizes.

Deliverables at this phase include a more precisely defined scope and a more defined estimate. WFG uses Primavera's P3e scheduling software to build the project schedule and conducts the first of three Project Definition Rating Index sessions (PDRI is a tool developed by CII, the Construction Industry Institute). Value management and life-cycle costs are assessed to make sure that the systems incorporated in the design conform to WFG standards before any contracts are issued.

Next, the Documentation stage entails refining the project plan, schedule, and estimate, including documenting the criteria for all decisions made so far. A key step is obtaining stakeholder buy-in, reports Sprys, noting, "No project proceeds without concurrence from all the stakeholders."

Using another Primavera product, Expedition software, the team prepares an electronic project plan that will track activity, including spending, all the way through to building completion. Other deliverables are the final scope and the level-three estimate, which is the definitive number presented for corporate funding. The team also produces the final schedule and a second PDRI.

The last step is Implementation, when the project is turned over to the management group to execute. The transition is a fairly formal process that calls for project managers and stakeholders in the final group to receive a copy of the project planning book for their reference, "to make sure that they all understand what they have committed to," explains Sprys.

Unlike the autonomous planning efforts of the past, where the project documents might be shelved in an obscure location, now they're filed in a central library and are readily available for future assessments. Critical retrospective feedback comes from post-occupancy evaluations (POEs), including a face-to-face meeting, conducted after the customer has spent a year in the building. According to Sprys, the sessions between planners and occupants generate lively and candid discussion. Questions like whether the building was designed, constructed, and finished according to users' intentions yield useful information on how well the building functions, he notes.

The POE answers are input into a Lessons Learned database, which future project teams are required to review when kicking off a new planning effort. The third, and final, PDRI is also prepared and data are gathered for the CII's annual Benchmarking and Metrics reports, which provide valuable information to close the loop.

PDRIs

WFG first deployed the PDRI as a tool to assess the prospects of project success in 1999. Now thoroughly integrated into the large-scale planning process, the rating exercise is scheduled three times per project, during the latter three steps of Definition, Documentation, and Implementation.

Whether via video conference, telephone call, or email, all stakeholders gather simultaneously for each PRDI assessment. Project information generated and disseminated by the Expedition software is instrumental in helping them prepare for this activity, Sprys remarks.

The PDRI poses specific questions about a project in three individual sections tailored to different phases of the timeline. Section one is the basis of project decision; two is the basis of design; and three, the execution approach. Stakeholders rate the items in each PDRI section using a numeric scale of zero to 1,000, from which the raw score is then calculated. The target is 200 or less.

"Based on where that raw score is, we have pretty good success in predicting the readiness to proceed," Sprys observes.

However, because of a variety of external circumstances, a project might go forward regardless of its PDRI score. In that case, the rating exercise alerts WFG to some of the pitfalls that may be encountered along the way.

PDRI also serves as a readiness gauge for schedule and change orders, which historically decline with a decrease in score, indicating that "we have all of our homework done and everything is in good shape," Sprys comments.

When WFG first adopted the PDRI six years ago, scores averaged 316, a sign that projects were not very ready to move forward. From 2001 to 2003, scores had progressed down to 201.

"We still experience increases even when we have low numbers, but it is not nearly as significant as it is when the PDRI is over 200," says Sprys.

Other Tools

In addition to the PDRI, Primavera and Timberline software (which meet the upper-management mandate for off-the-shelf programs instead of internally developed systems), WFG has adopted peer review and CII benchmarking as tools that further measure planning performance.

Spending plans over $10 million are submitted for peer review to a consortium of four other GM offices that work on capital projects globally in Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, Mexico, and Canada. The review, which takes place via video conference after participants have surveyed project details, provides the opportunity to learn from others' experiences and serves as a reality check for the hosting team. Sprys calls these sessions "invaluable."

Another key activity during the project planning phase is benchmarking with CII data on other companies' projects and their delivery. Consisting of 36 project-related metrics that range from size and the number of people assigned to safety and cost growth during construction, the process essentially confirms that the plan under consideration can actually be executed for the customer.

Real-World Outcomes

As often happens with the best-laid plans, however, real-world events occasionally intrude. In addition to customer scope changes, factors like fluctuations in financial forecasts, market conditions, and even labor relations all may affect project execution.

"As those things change, our direction changes, and our costs change," notes Sprys.

Fortunately, storing the accumulated data electronically in Expedition and P3e allows WFG to retrieve previous analysis and plans, bringing them up to date when the project once again receives the green light.

"Delays obviously cause replanning," cautions Sprys. "You have to work with them and understand that they are part of the business we are in," he concludes.

By Nicole Zaro Stahl