CHAPTER 5

Good Practices to Mitigate the Foremost Project Cost and Time Control Inhibitors

The Need for a Checklist of Good Practices During Project Control

As discussed in Chapter 4, the project control inhibitors management (PCIM) methodology argues that it is not good enough to have developed a process for use in an organization without building it into the practices that will enable success. The underlying hypothesis of the PCIM methodology is that to control a project successfully, it is important to recognize that you need to identify and manage the factors that inhibit project managers from effectively controlling the project.

The PCIM methodology also asserts that it is important to note that the project control process is not a closed system and is often affected by many factors including inhibitors. This is because projects are affected by their internal and external environment so the control effort being expended on a project by practitioners in practice is also affected by some issues that may inhibit the effectiveness of the control effort. Hence why many projects still encounter cost and time overrun despite the application of controls to the cost and time objectives of projects. Therefore, this important hypothesis (existence of project control inhibitors), which is often missing from most project control models, is incorporated in the PCIM project control methodology. The PCIM project control methodology then recommends that any developed project control approach should incorporate practices, or mitigating measures, that can be used to combat these project control inhibitors. This unique attribute proposed by the PCIM methodology is discussed in the next sections. The good practices of the PCIM presented in this chapter have emanated from the construction/infrastructure project sector. However, from the author’s experience of working on projects across many industries, majority of these good practices are applicable to projects in other industries, especially as the developed good practices cover project management issues and not technical industry factors.

Most Common Project Control Inhibitors and Classification of Their Mitigating Measures

The research that informed the PCIM project control methodology identified more than 60 factors that could inhibit the effective control of project cost, scope, and time by conducting a detailed analysis of research literature in this area. However, some of these factors were found to overlap or related to each other, therefore necessitating further analysis such as merging, elimination of similar factors, and so on. Following this analysis, 20 factors that can potentially inhibit effective project cost, scope, and time control were shortlisted for further research aimed at prioritizing them in order of how frequently they inhibit the project control process. Prior to this, the 20 project control inhibitors (see Table 5.1) are classified according to the source of these factors as: (1) exogenous factors; (2) endogenous organizational factors; and (3) endogenous project internal factors. These are discussed in the following three subsections.

Exogenous Inhibitors

These project control inhibitors are factors that stem from outside the project environment; these are mostly macroeconomic factors and socio-political factors but could also be natural factors. The project control inhibitors that were identified as making up this group as presented in Table 5.1 include economic factors like unstable interest rate, inflation of prices, and fluctuation of currency. Other factors in this group include sociopolitical factors such as unstable government policies, weak regulatory regime, and dependency on imported materials. Although these project control inhibitors are not related directly to the project, they can affect the ability to control cost, scope, and time of construction projects. For example, projects normally utilize numerous types of materials that will need to be procured but if there is high inflation, the cost of materials may be affected and ultimately the planned and outturn cost of a project. Similarly, if weather conditions turned out worse than had been envisaged, they may affect the ability to control the time and scope of a project effectively and ultimately the cost.

Table 5.1 Classification of the identified project cost and time control inhibitors

Project cost and time control inhibitors
Exogenous factors
A	Unstable interest rate
B	Dependency on imported materials
C	Inflation of prices
D	Fluctuation of currency/exchange rate
E	Unstable government policies
F	Weak regulation and control
G	Unpredictable weather conditions
Endogenous organizational factors
H	Low skilled manpower
I	Lack of proper training and experience of project management
J	Lack of appropriate software
Endogenous project-based factors
K	Inaccurate evaluation of projects time/duration
L	Project fraud and corruption
M	Design and scope changes
N	Financing and payment for completed works
O	Complexity of works
P	Discrepancies in contract documentation
Q	Contract and specification interpretation disagreement
R	Conflict between project parties
S	Risk and uncertainty associated with projects

Endogenous Organizational Inhibitors

This category contains project inhibitors that are related to the project than the external environment factors. These project control inhibitors would not normally stem from implementing the project, rather they stem from the project office or decisions made by the organization in relation to the project. For example, if an inexperienced project manager is assigned to manage a project, this weakness does not stem from the project; it is a project office deficiency or, if there is a lack of an appropriate project control software that can be used for the project, this may inhibit the ability to control time in a project effectively.

Endogenous Project-Based Inhibitors

These are project control inhibitors that stem directly from implementing the project. Some of the factors in this category include nonperformance of subcontractors, scope and design changes, conflict between project parties, inaccurate evaluation of project time/duration, and so on. They can originate from any of the project parties; for example, scope and design changes can be requested by the client or the client representative in a traditional procurement approach in which the project has been designed fully by the client representatives before being given to contractors to execute, or requested by the contractor in a design and build procurement approach. They can also come prior to the start of executing a project such as discrepancy in contract documentation, inaccurate evaluation of time, or during execution. These project control inhibitors can also continue to affect the project negatively even after execution or delivery adding to the final project cost, for example, conflict between project parties, which could lead to cost of adjudication, arbitration, or litigation.

Leading Project (Cost and Time) Control Inhibitors

Further analysis (using the relative importance index (RII) technique) was carried out as part of the PCIM methodology research to prioritize these 20 project control inhibitors in order of how common they are at inhibiting effective project cost and time control (see Table 5.2).

The RII data analysis technique was used to determine the relative importance of the project control inhibitors as rated by the construction project practitioners during the PCIM project control methodology research. To enable the use of the RII technique, the questionnaire utilized a four-point scale for the rating by practitioners. A numerical value was assigned to the ratings available for each of the project control inhibitor as follows: 4, extremely important; 3, important; 2, unimportant; 1, extremely unimportant. This four-point scale was converted to a RII for each of the project control inhibitors using the following equation:

Relative importance index (RII) = ∑W ÷ (H × N)

where:

• W is the weight given to each project control inhibitor by the practitioners, which ranges from one to four. Therefore, ∑W is calculated by addition of the various weightings given to a project control inhibitor by all the practitioners.

• H is the highest rating available (that is 4, “very important”).

• N is the total number of practitioners who have answered the question.

Table 5.2 Ranking of inhibitors to effective project time and cost control

Project control inhibitors	Time control		Cost control
	RII	Rank	RII	Rank
Design and scope changes	0.94	1	0.94	1
Inaccurate evaluation of projects time/duration	0.86	2	0.86	3
Complexity of works	0.86	3	0.81	5
Risk and uncertainty associated with projects	0.85	4	0.89	2
Nonperformance of subcontractors and nominated suppliers	0.85	5	0.82	4
Lack of proper training and experience of project manager	0.78	6	0.77	11
Discrepancies in contract documentation	0.77	7	0.80	7
Low skilled manpower	0.74	8	0.69	12
Conflict between project parties	0.74	9	0.81	6
Unpredictable weather conditions	0.74	10	0.68	13
Financing and payment for completed works	0.73	11	0.78	10
Contract and specification interpretation disagreement	0.71	12	0.80	8
Dependency on imported materials	0.66	13	0.65	14
Lack of appropriate software	0.61	14	0.62	15
Inflation of prices	0.58	15	0.79	9
Weak regulation and control	0.55	16	0.58	18
Project fraud and corruption	0.50	17	0.55	19
Unstable government policies	0.47	18	0.48	20
Unstable interest rate	0.46	19	0.59	16
Fluctuation of currency/exchange rate	0.45	20	0.58	17

In a case where two or more project control inhibitors obtained the same RII, the determination of the ranking was based on the project control inhibitor that got more “very important” rating.

The RII analysis revealed that the top five project cost and time control inhibitors (in order of importance) in construction and infrastructure projects in the UK are:

1. Design and scope changes

2. Risks and uncertainties

3. Inaccurate evaluation of project time/duration

4. Complexity of works

5. Nonperformance of subcontractors

From Table 5.2, the top five inhibitors to effective time control are also the leading inhibitors to effective cost control, albeit in slightly different order. Topping the list for both cost and time control is design and scope changes. Design and scope change is undoubtedly considered the most important factor that affects the ability to control cost and time of projects. This is no surprise because scope is one of the triple constraints of projects, which is also called the classical “iron triangle” of project management (see Chapter 2). Therefore, design and scope changes will normally have a cost and time implication. If the process of design and scope change is not well managed, it will undoubtedly affect the progress (time) as well as the cost of the project negatively. Frequent and haphazard design and scope change requests during a project can often be a major bottleneck to effective control. Risk and uncertainty was the next leading project cost and time control inhibitor. This is no surprise because projects are affected by uncertainties and risks and if a risk to a project comes to fruition, the impact is usually increased cost and/or delay to the project. Therefore, if risks and uncertainties are not dealt with effectively on projects, controlling cost and time will be a great challenge.

Another leading project control inhibitor is inaccurate evaluation of project time/duration. It’s no surprise that this is considered a critical time and cost control inhibitor because if the time duration of projects is not accurate, then time control is already a lost cause. It then becomes impossible to control effectively the time of projects and consequentially the cost, because if the work goes on for longer than planned, then it will lead to more resources being expended on the project, ultimately affecting the cost as well. The complexity of works during project delivery was also found by the PCIM project control methodology research as a leading cost and time control inhibitor. This is because the more complex a project is, the more challenging it will be to know for certain the cost and time due to unknown challenges that may emerge during delivery, which would usually affect cost and time duration. The fifth ranked leading project control inhibitor, nonperformance of subcontractors and suppliers, is important because many projects usually rely on or involve subcontractors or suppliers during their delivery. When subcontractors and suppliers are not reliable, for example, delaying project materials or not completing work on time, then the control of cost and time will be a challenge.

Similarities Between Project Cost Control Inhibitors and Project Time Control Inhibitors

The research that underpinned the PCIM project control methodology found a strong positive correlation between the ranking of time control inhibitors and cost control inhibitors. This corroborates a classical research in this area by Chang (2002), which found that it is difficult to separate the reasons causing overrun into that of cost and schedule, because many reasons for time extensions are normally also the reasons for cost increases. Therefore, it can be asserted that the factors that inhibit effective time control of projects are also likely to inhibit effective cost control.

In addition to the top five project control inhibitors being the same for both cost and time control, the factors that were ranked lowest are also all similar for cost and time control. The five lowest ranked factors for time control are: weak regulation and control; project fraud and corruption; unstable government policies; unstable interest rate; and fluctuation of currency/exchange rates.

In addition to the fact that the leading five project cost and time control inhibitors are similar, with very similar RII, they are also endogenous project factors using the classification system in Table 5.1 earlier. This shows that the factors that mostly inhibit effective project cost and time control are those that stem from the project. This may seem worrying on the face of it, but there is comfort in the fact that these top project control inhibitors stem from implementing the project and are within the control of project management. They should therefore be easier to prevent or mitigate during project execution. These leading project control inhibitors would have been more difficult to manage had they been external to the project, for example, political or social factors. Interestingly, the lowly ranked inhibitors to effective cost and time control are mainly exogenous factors buttressing the fact that the internal environment and organization surrounding the delivery of a project are very important when it comes to controlling projects effectively for success.

Good Practice Checklist to Mitigate the Most Common Project Control Inhibitors

Following the identification of the leading project control inhibitors, several mitigating good practices have been established to address potential problems caused by the top five project control inhibitors. A classification system was developed for good practice mitigating measures according to the broad function they perform and is discussed below.

Preventive Good Practice Measures

These are precautionary good practice measures that are put in place as a defence against the project control inhibitors. Most of these good practice measures are active measures that would be instituted during the planning stage of a project. For example, a preventive good practice measure against the problem of design and scope changes relating to the cost and time of projects is to ensure that the project is designed in detail at the outset, while a preventive measure for risk and uncertainty is to identify properly the project risks before the project starts and devise a strategy for managing them should they materialize.

Predictive Good Practice Measures

These may seem like preventive good practice measures, but they are not the same. Predictive good practices are put in place in order to spot potential problems in the control process in the future so that they can be stopped from happening or they can be prepared for should they happen. Most of these good practice measures utilize some tools or techniques to investigate the current situation in a bid to spot potential future problems. For example, using 6D modeling (3D plus time, cost, and maintenance dimensions) to test how the plan will work out is a predictive measure that could be used for the mitigation of complexity of works and cost implications.

Corrective Good Practice Measures

These are good practice measures that are utilized to mitigate the effect of the project control inhibitors by acting as a remedy. These measures are reactive measures that are only implemented after the event. They may not be as proactive as preventive or predictive good practice measures, but they aim to bring the situation back on track or at least “stop the rot.” These good practices have also been classified further as: (i) corrective-preventive measures, which are meant to correct departures and, in the process, prevent future problems, and (ii) corrective-predictive measures, which remedy the current situation but then go on to predict what the situation is going to be in the future using current information.

Organizational Good Practice Measures

These good practice measures generally encompass practices that go wider than the actual control process but influence project control; they are normally in place because of the company’s belief, orientation, management style, or philosophy; they have a tendency of not being specific to one project but would normally affect all projects being undertaken by the company as they reflect how the wider organization works. A good example is the philosophy of the company in relation to partnering and collaborative working.

Fluidity, Flexibility, and Scalability of the Good Practice Mitigating Checklist

Some good practice measures are fluid and can sometimes look as though they can be classified into more than one category depending on their actual usage during the project. Consequently, this classification is not set in stone and just forms the basis of an organization trying to bring some structure to good practice measures developed for its project control effort. Similarly, the good practice measures can be expanded as required, and as discussed in Chapter 4, they can be used as a blueprint by organizations to develop additional good practice measures as appropriate to their projects and organizations. However, most of the good practice measures already suggested by the PCIM methodology for each of the leading five project control inhibitors will be applicable to most organizations and their projects.

Mitigating Good Practice Measures for Design and Scope Changes

Design and scope change is overwhelmingly the top project control inhibitor from the research that underpins the PCIM methodology, where it was unearthed as being a major obstacle to effective project cost and time control. The main issues that make design and scope changes a leading inhibitor to effective project control are as follows:

• The impact of a design and scope change on project cost and schedule is often underestimated.

• The design group is often not able to provide the project information in time, which results in the difficulty of design management.

• Project strategies have led to a general decline in the production of detailed design, which is perceived as one of the greatest causes of design and scope changes, especially with the increased usage of the design and build procurement route.

• Lack of detailed design and specification leads to the contractors delivering projects adding the cost of the risks that may occur from an immature design to the price of delivering the work but also looking for every loophole in the specification document to increase prices or reduce specifications, which affect cost and scope control.

• There is a lack of clear distinction between design change and design development (see Chapter 9 for more on design change and design development). As a result, project partners often argue whether a design change is a change or a development where there would not be the need for additional cost and time compensation.

A host of good practices that can be employed by practitioners to mitigate the effect of design and scope changes on project cost and time control are presented in Table 5.3. Some of these include simple practices like ensuring that the time and cost implication of any design or scope change is evaluated fully before sanctioning or agreeing to the change. There should always be an efficient analysis of the consequential or “domino” effect of a design or scope change as one change can lead to others. Having a design manager who manages the design change process will also enable the preceding mitigating practices to be implemented easily. There should always be a clear and agreed differentiation between a design change and a design development as this is often a woolly issue that hampers the project control process. It will also be beneficial for the project control process if design or scope changes are requested or made only by authorized persons.

Mitigating Good Practice Measures for Risks and Uncertainties

Risks denote future uncertain factors that may have an adverse effect on the achievement of the project objectives. Project risk management as a topic is addressed in this section and covered in detail in Chapter 11. What this section does is to bring to light the key themes on how risks and uncertainties inhibit the ability of practitioners to control the cost and time of their projects effectively and the good practices that can be used to mitigate this problem. The key themes from the research that informed the PCIM project control methodology are as follows:

Table 5.3 Mitigating good practice measures for design and scope changes

	Practice	Type of mitigating good practice
1	Clear distinction between a design change and a design development at the outset of a project	Preventive
2	Ensuring the cause of a design or scope change is always determined	Corrective-predictive
3	Determination and understanding by all relevant project parties of the provision of the design or scope change within the standard form of contract or bespoke contract used on the project	Corrective
4	Identification of potential design and scope changes as a key risk and devising a strategy for managing this risk, especially in design and build/execute projects	Predictive
5	Ensuring the time and cost implication of a design and scope change is always determined, validated/peer-reviewed, and agreed before going ahead with the change whenever possible	Corrective-preventive
6	Notification of all the relevant project parties of how they will be impacted and the schedule and cost implication of a design or scope change before going ahead with the change	Preventive
7	Freezing the design at the appropriate stage of the project or implementing intermediate design freezes at various project stages depending on the type of contract in use for the project	Preventive
8	Designing the project to a good level of detail at the outset whenever possible	Preventive
9	Provision/allocation of enough resources (manhours, labor, equipment, etc.) to cope with a design or scope change	Corrective
10	Design and scope changes should be adequately highlighted and updated on all relevant project documentation (e.g., drawings, specifications, schedules, reports, etc.)	Preventive
11	Agreeing and putting in place change management procedure that is clear and communicated to all project parties before the commencement of projects (incorporating this into the contract if possible)	Organizational
12	Ensuring prompt resolution to design and scope change queries, issues, and authorization requests	Preventive
13	Capturing all design or scope change on a register or change management IT system with corresponding cost and schedule implication for discussion during project team meetings	Corrective-predictive
14	Having a standardized change request template (manual or systemized), with standard information input such as justification of the change, source of change, estimate backup, review, approval process, etc.	Organizational
15	Having a design manager where possible with responsibility for the management of the design and scope change process and reviewing related information as they come in	Preventive
16	Ensuring no one makes a design or scope change without the knowledge and authorization of the relevant project party, for example, client representative or project manager as appropriate	Preventive
17	Open discussion by the relevant project party before the project starts about how design and scope changes will be managed and incorporating this into the contract if possible	Organizational
18	Efficient analysis of the direct and indirect consequence (domino effect) of a design or scope change on other activities or areas of the project as one change can precipitate other changes	Corrective-predictive
19	Ensuring design changes are reasonably timed when possible, for example, late design changes may greatly impact the ability to control the project cost and schedule	Preventive

• Early identification of risk at the outset of a project is essential for project cost, scope, and time control to be effective.

• Risks and uncertainties are not often managed using sophisticated quantitative risk management systems; rather, risks are identified through brainstorming sessions, risk workshops, and analyzed qualitatively.

• The risk register is the most used tool for risk management, but most times, this is not kept a live document through regular review. Quite frequently, it is left as an idle document and this does not bode well for effective project control.

• Risks are quite often not allocated a cost and time implication during risk management and this can often make it difficult to assess their impact on the cost and time objectives of projects during control.

The common good practices that were established as part of the PCIM methodology for the mitigation of the problem of risk and uncertainties during project control are shown in Table 5.4. For example, it is important to move away from just identification of risk without knowing their cost and time implication; the identified risk should be allocated a cost and time implication when possible.

Table 5.4 Mitigating measures for risks and uncertainties

	Practice	Type of mitigating good practice
20	Having a risk register or a risk management IT system in place for the project as early as possible (e.g., from tender stage)	Preventive
21	Having a documented risk management procedure with details on the procedures for risk classification, identifying risks, analyzing risk, risk mitigation requirement, risk monitoring, and risk reporting to enable proper and consistent identification, allocation, and management of risks	Preventive
22	Assigning cost and/or time implication to all identified risks on the risk register whenever possible	Predictive
23	Using all the risks (costed) for the project to develop the cost contingency allowance for the project cost budget and not an arbitrary percentage contingency allowance	Preventive
24	Ensuring the risk register is open to all relevant members of the project team	Preventive
25	Having a strategy already developed for solving each of the identified risks in case they come to fruition	Corrective
26	Conducting a risk workshop involving all relevant project parties at the outset of the project to identify potential risks	Predictive
27	Encouraging, emphasizing, and striving for a risk-sharing regime when possible It may aid in buttressing partnership and openness among the project parties	Organizational
28	Risks not being used to mask project problems or deficiency in planning the project properly	Organizational
29	Ensuring risk management is a sincere and open exercise Organizational 30 Looking out for opportunities to improve cost and time performance during risk analysis	Corrective
31	The risk register not being solely kept in the corporate office but communicated to the project management and any site delivery team as well	Organizational
32	Reviewing the risk register at all relevant progress meetings including meetings with the site/project-based team	Organizational
33	Installing a governance process within the organization so that the identified project risks are reported, validated, and monitored periodically at a higher management level within the organization	Organizational
34	Making sure the risk register contains live information that is updated regularly	Predictive
35	Running a risk analysis on the schedule and cost using a quantitative schedule risk analysis (QSRA) and quantitative cost risk analysis (QCRA) respectively on the projects at an early stage and periodically when possible	Predictive
36	Risks that are closed out on the risk register not taken off but used to inform as the progress ensues, and on other projects	Predictive

Mitigating Good Practice Measures for Inaccurate Evaluation of Project Time Duration

The whole essence of controlling a project is to ensure delivery within a predetermined time and evaluating how long it will take to complete a project is the starting point of project control because it serves as a baseline to measure against. The research that informed the PCIM project control methodology showed the following key themes in relation to this project control inhibitor:

• The main reason why inaccurate evaluation of project time/duration emerged as one of the leading inhibitors to effective project cost and time control is that project time is often evaluated without any scientific basis; quite often schedules are drawn up on gut feeling.

• Project contractors are usually under pressure from clients to deliver projects, especially commercial speculative projects, within unachievable timescales, which are often accepted by the professional team without a clear idea of how they will be achieved, leading to project overruns and ultimately client dissatisfaction.

• Schedules are often developed by inexperienced project planners or by those that have only become project planners because of their expertise in the use of scheduling software packages. However, they do not have a good appreciation of the technical process of the projects, for example, software development process, process engineering, and construction process, and this leaves much to be desired in the schedules produced.

Table 5.5 shows the good practices for mitigation of this leading project control inhibitor. The most important mitigating good practice measure is obviously ensuring that the project time forecast and cost budget are realistic in the first place because if they are not, then controlling the project’s time is already a lost cause. Client advisers, consultants, and contractors should have the courage to refuse unrealistic timescale by clients, enlightening them if a timescale is not achievable. It is also important that project planners are well trained and have a good appreciation of the execution processes of the type of projects they are working on, for example, software development, construction process, and process engineering as appropriate. The time forecast (schedule) should also not be developed on “gut feeling.” It should be based on quantifiable metrics based on resource requirements and augmented by experience.

Table 5.5 Mitigating measures for inaccurate evaluation of project time duration

	Practice	Type of mitigating good
37	Having a documented schedule development methodology and process with information on how to develop the schedule and develop technical aspects such as critical path, work breakdown structure, and so on	Organizational
38	Ensuring the project planner is well trained in the key processes involved in delivering the project they are scheduling	Organizational
39	Preparation of the project schedule with input from the project delivery/production team	Preventive
40	Having regular schedule integration meetings during the project to enable the schedules of suppliers and subcontractors at all levels and their critical activities to be coordinated and integrated to avoid schedule conflicts	Preventive
41	Developing the project schedule using science-based methods augmented by experience and not relying on gut feeling alone	Preventive
42	Educating and advising the client on alternatives if an unachievable/unrealistic project timescale is stipulated	Preventive
43	Having the courage to refuse unrealistic project timescales by clients who are unwilling to yield to professional advise	Organizational
44	Developing the project schedule using experienced planners who have an appreciation of the various project disciplines/areas of the projects they are working on	Preventive
45	Having a process for validating/peer reviewing and approving developed schedules	Preventive
46	Conducting a process mapping, visualization and benchmarking exercise to validate the time allocated to a project	Predictive
47	Ensuring enough time is allocated during tender planning for the proper development of the project schedule	Preventive
48	Making sure when possible that the project schedule is developed by or in conjunction with someone who is experienced in the relevant type of project	Preventive
49	Swiftly informing the relevant project parties if unforeseen circumstances affect the schedule/lead-in times	Corrective
50	Making sure the schedule is built up from the first principles using metrics of how long typical activities take rather than using assessment only (ensuring that the time allocated to activities is quantifiable)	Preventive
51	Avoiding optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in the development of the schedule so that the timescale produced for projects is a true reflection of the actual time required for the project’s scope and not an underestimation to secure funding and authorization to proceed	Preventive
52	Having a process in place to formally review and approve schedule changes and assessing the impact of schedule changes	Corrective-predictive

Mitigating Good Practice Measures for Complexity of Works

Project complexity is the inherent characteristic of a project such as the technical requirements, components interfaces, organizational structure, political context, financial structure, environmental challenges, novelty, and so on. It makes the project difficult to manage and deliver. Most projects, for example, high-speed rail infrastructure, health IT, nuclear energy facility, or organization technology transformation projects, to mention but a few, usually involve some form of complexity. This inherent complexity can sometimes present a challenge for effective cost, scope, and time control of these complex projects. Research by Luo, He, Xie, Yang, and Wu (2017) has shown that project complexity has a negative effect on project success. It is therefore no surprise to see complexity of works ranked as one of the top inhibitors to effective project control from the PCIM project control methodology research. The prevalent issues that emanated from the PCIM project control methodology research include the following:

• Interface issues in projects, for example, the interface of different project stages, phases, or different work packages/aspects of the project are often the main cause of complexity during the implementation of projects.

• Complex projects are often not understood adequately before embarking on them and this only increases the negative effect of complexity during project cost and time control.

• Not understanding how the complexities involved in a project are interrelated, which is vital for the management of the whole project delivery/execution process, is another reason why complexity is so detrimental to effective project control.

• Adequate planning is essential for mitigating the effect of complexity of project works, but enough time is often not made available for planning due to the haste of commencing the execution of the project.

Table 5.6 shows the full list of the mitigating good practice measures developed as part of the PCIM methodology for the complexity of works. Mitigation of complexity of works can be done in various ways, but at the heart of any mitigating practice is adequate planning. To control complex projects effectively, it will do no harm if the project is understood properly by having a detailed review of all information relating to the project. A project execution plan (PEP) should be developed, and the project should also be broken down into manageable chunks if possible. In-house and/or external expertise in the area of complexity should also be procured for the planning, monitoring, and control of complex projects instead of using staff with generic experience on such projects.

Nonperformance of Subcontractors

The importance of subcontractors and suppliers cannot be overemphasized in projects. For example, IT projects involve procuring software packages from software development vendors or development of bespoke software packages using specialist software development companies and sometimes working with an “army” of software contractors and consultants in implementing the IT projects. Examples of such projects include the failed UK National Health Service (NHS) IT system upgrade 2002–2013 and the UK COVID-19 test and trace system in 2020, to mention but two. This is similar for other types of projects, for example, in construction projects where main contractors divide the majority of the project into work packages for subcontractors to deliver and the main contractor carries out the overall integration and project management of works. Other focal issues that emanated from the PCIM project control methodology development research in relation to nonperformance of subcontractors are detailed below:

Table 5.6 Mitigating good practice measures for the complexity of works

	Practice	Type of mitigating good practice
53	Breaking the project down into manageable chunks	Preventive
54	Making sure the project is understood properly before embarking on it	Preventive
55	Detailed review of the information relating to the work before embarking on it	Preventive
56	Development a project execution plan for the project before starting on it	Preventive
57	Having enough resources to deal with the complexity Corrective 58 Allocating to the project experienced personnel who have handled similar types of complexity in the past	Preventive
59	Incorporating longer lead-in time/sufficient time for complex works or phases of the project	Preventive
60	Ensuring as much design as possible is done for the complex work or project before commencing	Preventive
61	Ensuring adequate coordination of design and activities preceding and following the complex work—use collaborative IT tools to improve communication and coordination	Preventive
62	Calling in specialists to advise and contribute to the planning and management of complex works/projects	Preventive
63	Utilizing in-house expertise for the management of complex projects	Preventive
64	Conducting workshops and brainstorming session to generate ideas and for problems solving before and during the complex work/project	Predictive
65	Utilizing regular “what if” analysis and scenario planning to understand better the various aspects of the complexity	Preventive
66	Overlaying a risk analysis process specifically for a complex phase or activity in a project	Predictive
67	Ensuring where possible and practical that one team runs with the complex work/project from beginning to the end	Organizational
68	Thinking holistically when planning a complex project by considering logistics and interfaces, for example, having a predelivery services department that will not only plan the project but take a holistic look at the project rather than just having planning department as customary	Preventive
69	Ensuring that when subcontractors are needed, the subcontractor with the capability to deal with the complexity is procured for the project	Preventive
70	Constantly monitoring the progress and being open-minded to improving the schedule and cost plan as things become clearer and to other options available	Predictive
71	Benchmarking using similar projects and getting as much information on the complex part of the project and sequence all activities	Predictive
72	Ensuring every element of the design has an aspect on the program and using a 5-D modeling (3-D plus time and cost dimension) to show how the work will be built (i.e., have a plan and test it to see how it works and what it will cost)	Predictive
73	Ensuring that when a complex project is broken down into manageable chunks how the complexities interact with each other is understood	Preventive
74	Building in the risk of delay and higher cost allowances for complex projects	Preventive

• Nonperformance of subcontractors was found to be a major obstacle to effective project control, but attention must be drawn to the fact that, quite often, this is not necessarily the fault of the subcontractors and suppliers but may be due to a lack of effective management by the main contractor. For example, not properly communicating the objective of the project to a subcontractor or not being able to identify nonperformance early enough.

• The importance of a good working relationship between the contractor and subcontractors/suppliers is considered essential in project control; the intensity of this relationship varies considerably in practice ranging from the most formal kind such as partnering contracts or framework agreements, to very loose forms such as just allowing subcontractors to use the same welfare facilities as the main contractor’s staff.

• Supply chain management is a widespread practice with many project contractors having an ongoing relationship with subcontractors and suppliers in the hope of getting a slightly better level of service than normal including better performance.

• Project contractors are vigilant about the financial buoyancy of potential subcontractors to ensure they are financially secure and will not go bankrupt or underperform because of lack of capital quoting the COVID-19 pandemic and consequential economic impact, construction material inflation, and supply chain disruption in 2020 and 2021.

• The contractual route of determining/terminating the appointment of a subcontractor is only taken as a last resort when a subcontractor is underperforming; other measures are often initially explored in a bid to remedy the situation.

The full list of the PCIM methodology measures for the mitigation of the problem of nonperformance of subcontractors during project control is presented in Table 5.7. Having a committed supply chain selected through a stringent selection process will do the project control process a whole lot of good, especially as it relates to minimizing the likelihood of nonperformance of subcontractors, which is a leading project control inhibitor. There should also be a good monitoring regime in place that can identify nonperformance by subcontractors early on to nip it in the bud as quickly as possible. Subcontractors should also be properly directed to know what to do and what is expected of them. Furthermore, early engagement of subcontractors will do no harm to the control process as it provides for timescales to be developed in consultation with them and potential problems can be identified and eliminated. It could also be beneficial to integrate the subcontractors properly with the contractor’s team as this can foster trust and partnership, enhance communication, and improve the quality of information used for project control.

Table 5.7 Mitigating good practice measures for nonperformance of subcontractors

	Practice	Type of mitigating good practice
75	Properly directing the subcontractors and suppliers to ensure they know what is expected of them in relation to the project	Preventive
76	Developing a good working relationship with subcontractors and suppliers	Organizational
77	Putting a process in place for early identification of nonperformance in subcontract works/packages to nip it in the bud as soon as possible	Predictive
78	Having a supplier management IT system with the ability to provide real-time information and reporting on suppliers	Predictive
79	Utilizing performance measurements, for example, S-curve, key performance indicators (KPI) to monitor the output/performance of subcontractors on their work package	Predictive
80	Ensuring there is a committed supply chain that can be used Organizational 81 Having a process in place that mutually allows nonperforming subcontractors to be removed from the supply chain	Corrective
82	Ensuring there is a partnering/collaborative relationship with the subcontractor (this may ensure the subcontractor gives a better than normal service)	Organizational
83	Integration of subcontractors into the site management team (where possible, practicable and feasible) all through the course of the work	Organizational
84	Incorporating a progress-performance-payment rule in the subcontract where possible, for example, that stipulates a certain amount can only be earned/paid when certain requirements have been met/a stage has been achieved in the project	Preventive
85	Having a stringent process in place for selecting subcontractors into the supply chain	Organizational
86	Involving where possible, subcontractors doing major/critical part of the project with the internal planning process, that is, early involvement of relevant subcontractors, for example, at pretender stage in order to advise on design before having cost and time implications (early engagement)	Preventive
87	Ensure there is a prompt system of payment to subcontractors for the job that has been done (this boosts morale and may prevent any financial difficulty for the subcontractor)	Organizational
88	Build relationship and communication at the management/board level of the subcontractors’ companies	Organizational
89	Holding good value of retention on serial nonperforming subcontractors and suppliers as it may serve as a deterrent/used to remedy any nonperformance issue that may occur	Corrective
90	Reduction of the retention for trusted and the best-performing subcontractors	Organizational
91	Finding and understanding the root cause of any nonperformance and working with the subcontractor to see how to be of help	Corrective
92	Going through the different layers of the subcontractor’s management to ensure that a nonperformance situation is improved	Corrective
93	Avoiding the selection of the cheapest subcontractors if there is doubt on their performance track record	Preventive
94	Taking time to understand the implementation strategy a subcontractor intends to adopt for a subcontract package and ensuring it fits well with the cost, scope, and time performance requirements of the project	Predictive
95	Making sure subcontractors are allocated adequate time to complete subcontract work packages	Preventive
96	Seeing the benefits in having a small but quality, closely knit supply chain that is well known rather than having a large supply chain where subcontractors are hardly known	Organizational
97	Sharing with individual subcontractors and suppliers their KPI results and reviewing their weaknesses with them so that they can improve on them going forward	Corrective-preventive
98	Having a knowledge of the best projects the company’s subcontractors are best able to undertake and allocate this to them and avoid giving a subcontractor projects they are not good at	Preventive
99	Having a training system/regime in place for subcontractors in order to indoctrinate them in the ways of the company, for example, control processes, tools, and techniques (and they will have no excuses to say they don’t know what you want)	Organizational
100	Having more than one subcontractor for a particular type of work/trade/package to encourage healthy competition	Organizational

Conclusion

The research that informed the development of the PCIM project control methodology found that the five leading project cost control inhibitors are also the five leading project time control inhibitors, albeit in slightly different order. These project control inhibitors are (1) design and scope changes; (2) risks and uncertainties; (3) inaccurate evaluation of project time/duration; (4) complexity of works; and (5) nonperformance of subcontractors. Design and scope change is the single most important factor hindering the ability to control not only the time of construction projects but also their cost.

Following the identification of the project control inhibitors, several mitigating good practice measures have been established by the PCIM project control methodology to address potential problems caused by the top five project control inhibitors. For example, it was highlighted that there has been a general decline in the production of a detailed design for projects. This is perceived as one of the greatest causes of design and scope changes, the foremost bottleneck during the project control process. Quite often, there is also a lack of distinction between a design change and a design development, leading to arguments among project partners. This led to the development of several mitigating good practices for design and scope changes to enable effective project control, for example, “designing the project in great detail at the outset whenever possible,” “clear distinction between a design change and a design development at the outset of a project,” and so on.

Clients and project owners can also contribute to inhibiting effective project control by imposing unachievable and unrealistic timescales in relation to the delivery of their projects. Therefore, several good practice measures were developed to mitigate this, some of these include “educating and advising client on alternative if an unachievable/unrealistic project timescale is stipulated,” “having the courage to refuse unrealistic project timescale by clients unwilling to yield to professional advice.”

It was also asserted that, quite often, the nonperformance of subcontractors is not necessarily the fault of subcontractors but due to lack of effective management by the main contractor. The mitigating good practice measures that stemmed from this issue include “properly directing the subcontractor to ensure they know what is expected of them in relation to the project,” “putting a system in place for early identification of nonperformance in subcontract works/packages in order to curtail the nonperformance as soon as possible,” and “utilizing performance measurements for example S-curve (see Chapter 8) and KPI to monitor the output/performance of subcontractors on their work package.”

In conclusion, the project control inhibitors mitigating good practice measures established from the research that underpins the development of the PCIM project control methodology were broadly classified as preventive, predictive, corrective, and organizational measures. These mitigating good practice measures are scalable and are by no means exhaustive. Therefore, as discussed in Chapter 4, organizations can use the PCIM methodology as a blueprint and adapt it to their projects including adding relevant project control inhibitors mitigating good practices that may not have made the list presented in this chapter but considered relevant to an organization’s project control practice.