Construction Research Congress 2018 1

Front End Engineering Design (FEED) for Large Industrial Projects: FEED Maturity and
Its Impact on Project Cost and Schedule Performance

Abdulrahman Yussef, S.M.ASCE1; G. Edward Gibson Jr., Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE2;

Mounir El Asmar, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE3; and David Ramsey, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE4
1
Ph.D. Student, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State
Univ., 660 South College Ave., Room 475, Tempe, AZ 85287. E-mail: ayussef@asu.edu
2
Professor and Director, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona
State Univ., 660 South College Ave., Room 502, Tempe, AZ 85287. E-mail:
edd.gibson@asu.edu
3
Assistant Professor, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona
State Univ., 660 South College Ave., Room 576, Tempe, AZ 85287. E-mail: asmar@asu.edu
4
Instructor, Moss School of Construction, Infrastructure, and Sustainability, Florida International
Univ., 10555 W Flagler St., Room EC 2952, Miami, FL 33174. E-mail: dramsey@fiu.edu

Abstract
Assessing the maturity of front end engineering design (FEED) for large industrial
projects is a critical task with significant influence on overall project success. The owner's
expectation is to be able to make informed decisions including cost and schedule predictions to
determine whether the project should proceed to the next phase, the level of contingency needed
for the project, and the predicted impact of FEED maturity on the success of follow-up phases.
The primary objective of this paper focuses on FEED maturity and its impact on project
performance in terms of cost change and schedule change. The authors collected data from 33
completed large industrial projects representing over $8.83 billion of total installed cost. A key
result is that projects with high FEED maturity outperformed projects with low maturity by 20
percent in terms of cost growth in relation to the approved budget at Phase Gate 3.
Keywords: Front end planning; Front end engineering design; Maturity; Industrial.
INTRODUCTION

Front end planning (FEP) is 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 (Gibson et al. 1993). Arguably, FEP is the single most important process in a
large industrial project’s lifecycle (CII 2006). While addressing FEP, past research efforts have
not specifically focused on assessing the maturity of the engineering design component of front
end engineering design (FEED) activities. Both the owner and the engineer have to be aligned as
the project design process moves forward (CII 2005). The owner's expectation is to be able to
make informed and reliable decisions including cost and schedule predictions. These decisions
also include the contingency level needed for the project and the predicted impact on the success
of subsequent phases which include detailed design and construction, project execution, and
start-up. Moreover, it is well documented that schedule compression during FEP may lead to
challenges with design maturity (CII 2006). Due to these identified needs, Construction Industry
Institute (CII) formed a research team to assess the maturity and accuracy of FEED to support
phase-gate approvals during FEP. This research effort documents a method to measure FEED
maturity and its impact on performance within the industrial project sector.

© ASCE
Construction Research Congress 2018 2

BACKG
GROUND & LITERAT
TURE REVIIEW

Definitioons
The
T definitions and matu urity elemen nts were refifined throughh research ffocus groupss that
included 24 industry experts and d research sccientists, as w
well as an inndustry survey. Based onn this
collectivee knowledgee the researcch team developed standdardized deffinitions of F FEED and FFEED
maturity as follows: FEED is defined
d as a componentt of the FE EP process pperformed dduring
detailed scope (Phase 3), consistting of the engineering
e ddocuments, outputs, andd deliverablees for
the chossen scope of work. Consequently
C y, FEED m maturity is defined ass the degreee of
completeeness of the deliverabless to serve ass the basis ffor detailed ddesign at the end of dettailed
scope (Ph hase Gate 3)). The sectio
ons below prresent the litterature regaarding FEP aand FEED w within
the conteext of engineeering design
n.

Front En nd Planning g
FEP has been n considered d by CII to be
b a best prractice for oover 15 yearrs (Collins 22015).
FEP beg gins after thee project cooncept is connsidered dessirable by thhe business leadership of an
organizattion, and co ontinues unttil the beginnning of deetailed desiggn of a projject (Gibsonn and
Dumont 1995). Gibsson et al. (19 994) outlinedd 14 specifi c activities aand productts of a good FEP.
Some off these activ vities are options analyssis, scope deefinition andd boundariees, life-cyclee cost
analysis, cost and schhedule estimmates. Moreo over, FEP haas many otheer associatedd terms, incluuding
pre-projeect planningg, front end d loading (F FEL), progr amming, annd schematiic design am mong
others. Figure 1 showws the typicaal steps invollved in the F
FEP process and are adappted from thhe CII
FEP Too olkit (CII 20014a). The key
k takeawaay point froom Figure 1 is that FEE ED activitiees are
usually completed
c beefore detailed
d design is initiated.

Figure 1: Front
F End Planning
P Prrocess (CII 2014a)
Front En nd Engineerring Design (FEED)
Several reseaarch efforts have
h been coonducted meentioning FE EED; howeveer, there has been
little worrk done to develop
d a staandard defin
nition of FEE ED and deffine its matuurity componnents.
Additionnally, FEED is rarely mentioned
m ass a stand-allone term, aand frequenttly linked to the
different processes associated
a with
w FEP. Merrow
M (20111) characteerized FEED D of the oill and
chemicall industries specifically y in the thirrd phase off FEP, whicch consists of business case
developm ment, scope developmeent, project definition aand planninng, and the work proccesses
needed to o prepare a project for execution.
e A report from
m CII (2013) referred too FEED as ““basic
design.” O’Connor et e al. (2013) defined FE EED as a phaase that invoolves the opptimization oof the
design basis for the concept, ex xecution plaan, and commpletion of any work nneeded to innitiate
detailed engineering g design. By y the end off this phasee, the projecct has receivved fundingg, the
project teeam has been n formed, a preliminary y constructionn plan has bbeen put intoo place, and long-
lead equiipment have been identiffied. Schasch hke (2014) ddefined FEEED as a conceptual studyy used
for the development
d t and analyssis of process engineeriing projects. Overall, thhe key takeeaway
point froom this review is that FEED has many diffe ferent definiitions depennding on whho is
evaluatinng the projeect and what FEP phase they are eevaluating. Thus, a staandardized F FEED
definitionn for large in
ndustrial pro
ojects is need
ded.

© ASCE
Construction Research Congress 2018 3

FEED Maturity and the PDRI

No standardized FEED maturity assessment procedure was found in the literature. A
focus groups of 24 experts formed for this project indicated that their organizations actively use
the Project Delivery Rating Index for Industrial Projects (PDRI-Industrial) to evaluate the
maturity of engineering design. Therefore, previous research regarding the PDRI for industrial
projects served as the baseline for determining which engineering design components most
appropriately represent the maturity of design during FEED activities. The PDRI-Industrial is a
tool developed two decades ago to assess key FEP activities for industrial projects (Gibson and
Dumont 1995). It identifies 70 elements related to industrial project planning and divides these
elements into three separate sections: (I) Basis of Project Decision, (II) Basis of Design, and (III)
Execution Approach.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

Based on the outcome of the literature review, several gaps in knowledge were identified.
These gaps included the following: First, FEED is rarely mentioned as a stand-alone term and is
influenced by many project related factors, such as timing of the engineering design effort,
construction cost and schedule estimate and alignment of key project stakeholders during
detailed scope. Additionally, a global definition for FEED has yet to be agreed upon and its
definition is unclear and used inconsistently in the industry. Moreover, the maturity of
engineering design is not explicitly discussed in the literature. Therefore, the objective of this
research investigation focuses on quantifying FEED maturity and measuring its impact on
projects performance.
An extensive literature review was conducted to define FEED and identify FEED
maturity elements. Subsequent to the literature review, several focus group meetings were held
with 24 expert industry members to help frame the research effort. Based on input from these
focus groups, the authors developed an industry survey to gauge the industrial construction
sector’s perceptions of FEED and maturity. The survey was distributed electronically to CII
member organizations. The results of the survey were analyzed and discussed with the research
team to finalize the definitions of FEED and maturity. Responses to the survey show most
organizations’ FEED maturity elements rely on the existing PDRI-Industrial tool. Therefore, the
research team used PDRI as the foundation for this study. Four industry sponsored workshops
were conducted to collect FEED maturity data and project performance data. The workshops
helped finalize the maturity elements and their descriptions while also collecting quantitative
data to test maturity’s impact on project performance. A final step in the research was to
statistically test the impact of FEED maturity on project cost change and schedule change.

FEED MATURITY ASSESSMENT

This section outlines the maturity element development process: how definition level
descriptions were developed and how the final list of maturity elements was chosen and agreed
upon. Fourty-six (46) engineering elements were adopted from the PDRI-Industrial, which are
grouped into 11 categories that are further grouped into three main sections of (I) Basis of
Project Decision, (II) Basis of Design, and (III) Execution Approach. Figure 2 shows the
finalized list of maturity elements (in bold format). The figure also includes the remaining 24
elements from the PDRI-Industrial that are not included in the maturity component. These
remaining 24 elements are not focused strictly on engineering design during FEP and hence not

© ASCE
Construction Research Congress 2018 4

part of the scope of this research. They are shown in order to distinguish the maturity component
of FEED from the whole PDRI-Industrial.

I. BASIS OF DECISION
A. Manufacturing Objectives C. Basic Data Research Development
A.1 Reliability Philosophy C.1 Technology
A.2 Maintenance Philosophy C.2 Processes
A.3 Operating Philosophy D. Project Scope
B. Business Objectives D.1 Project Objectives Statement
B.1 Products D.2 Project Design Criteria
B.2 Market Strategy D.3 Site Characteristics Available vs. Required
B.3 Product Strategy D.4 Dismantling and Demolition Requirements
B.4 Affordability/Feasibility D.5 Lead/Discipline Scope of Work
B.5 Capacities D.6 Project Schedule
B.6 Future Expansion Considerations E. Value Engineering
B.7 Expected Project Life Cycle E.1 Process Simplification
B.8 Social Issues E.2 Design & Material Alternatives Considered/Rejected
E.3 Design for Constructability Analysis
II. BASIS OF DESIGN
F. Site Information H. Equipment Scope
F.1 Site Location H.1 Equipment Status
F.2 Survey and Soil Tests H.2 Equipment Location Drawings
F.3 Environmental Assessment H.3 Equipment Utility Requirements
F.4 Site Permits
F.5 Utility Sourced with Supply Conditions I. Civil, Structural, & Architectural
F.6 Fire Protection and Safety Considerations I.1 Civil / Structural Requirements
I.2 Architectural Requirements
G. Process/Material
G.1 Process Flow Diagrams J. Infrastructure
G.2 Heat & Material Balances J.1 Water Treatment Requirements
G.3 Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams J.2 Loading/Unloading/Storage Facility Requirements
G.4 Process Safety Management J.3 Transportation Requirements
G.5 Utility Flow Diagrams
G.6 Specifications K. Instrument & Electrical
G.7 Piping System Requirements K.1 Control Philosophy
G.8 Plot Plan K.2 Logic Diagrams
G.9 Mechanical Equipment List K.3 Electric Area Classification
G.10 Line List K.4 Substation Req’mts Power Sources Ident.
G.11 Tie-In List K.5 Electric Single-Line Diagram
G.12 Piping Specialty List K.6 Instrument & Electrical Specifications
G.13 Instrument Matrix
III. EXECUTION APPROACH
L. Procurement Strategy M. Deliverables
Identify Long Lead/Critical Equipment and
L.1 M.1 CADD/Model Requirements
Materials
L.2 Procurement Procedures and Plans M.2 Deliverables Defined
L.3 Procurement Responsibility Matrix M.3 Distribution Matrix
N. Project Controls P. Project Execution Plan
N.1 Project Control Requirements P.1 Owner Approval Requirements
N.2 Project Accounting Requirements P.2 Engineering/Construction Plan Approach
N.3 Risk Analysis P.3 Shut Down/Turn-Around Requirements
P.4 Pre-Commissioning Turnover Sequence Requirements
P.5 Startup Requirements
P.6 Training Requirements

Figure 2. Maturity SECTIONS, Categories, and Elements

The maturity assessment is designed to help measure the engineering design effort during
FEED based on the collective professional judgment of a project team. The maturity assessment
includes specific risk factors relating to new construction (i.e., Greenfield) projects and
additional information for renovation-and-revamp (R&R) projects. At the end of FEED, project

© ASCE
Construction Research Congress 2018 5

representtatives can make

m a commprehensive assessment of each of the 46 enginneering elem ments
and evalluate each element
e baseed on its lev vel of comppleteness. AAfter all elemments have been
assessed,, a maturity index
i is calcculated to gaauge the overrall FEED mmaturity.
The
T focus grroup of 24 industry
i andd academic eexperts wass initially seeparated intoo five
sub-team
ms, each separately focu using on varrious sectionns of the PD DRI-Industriial related tto the
engineeriing design work
w associaated with a typical
t FEED D process. TThe five subb-teams reviiewed
objectivee, process, civil/structu ural, piping g/mechanicaal, and instrumentationn elements and
developeed detailed descriptions
d for each eleement ratinggs of 0-5 ovver the coursse of 15 moonths.
Figure 3 showcases the type of detailed desscriptions eaach element received. Thhese descripptions
add claritty in rating each
e element and ensuree consistencyy in the scoriing process.

Figure 3. Structure of
o FEED M
Maturity Elem
ments

The
T 46 elemeents in the maturity
m asseessment are arranged in a score sheeet format annd are
supported d by descripptions and chhecklists. Th
he selection oof the level of definitionn of each eleement
is compleeted by assessing each of o the elemen nts individuaally, leadingg to an overaall maturity iindex
that is then normalizeed from zero o to 100 poinnts. A basic tenet of fronnt end plannning is that nnot all
items to be assessed are equally critical to project
p succeess. Certain maturity eleements are hhigher
in the hieerarchical orrder than oth
hers with resspect to theirr relative im
mportance. T
The research team
decided to use elem ment weigh hts directly from the P PDRI-Industtrial since tthese have been
developeed scientificaally and vetteed over 20 years
y by induustry.

THE IM MPACT OF FEED MAT TURITY ON N PROJEC CT PERFOR RMANCE

The
T authors used severaal statisticall methods tto analyze tthe data coollected from m the
workshop ps. Microsoft Excel™ and a SPSS™ ™ were the ttwo primaryy software pplatforms used to
aggregatee and analyyze the data. Every effo ort was madde to keep confidentiall any propriietary
informatiion collecteed from resspondents th hat providedd data to ssupport the research eeffort.
Responsees were cod ded during thhe analysis as to make anonymous all individuual, organizaation,
project, or
o client nammes or indiccators. Tablee 1 presents the descripttive statisticcs for the daataset.

© ASCE
Construction Research Congress 2018 6

Statistical analysis allowed the authors to interpret the data, and provided a basis to quantify the
impact of FEED maturity on project performance.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics (N=33)

Avg. Median Std. Dev. Min Max

Inputs
Total Installed Cost ($M) 267.86 108.40 451.07 7.05 1,939.00
Total Project Duration (Days) 933.48 780.00 466.65 240.00 2,340
Absolute Value of Change Orders ($M) 25.40 5.75 73.39 0.00 415.00
Outputs
Cost Change (%) 9.17 5.90 18.44 -27.27 53.45
Schedule Change (%) 13.40 11.61 18.53 -20.00 68.75
Cost Change
The objective of this section is to investigate the influence of high and low FEED
maturity on cost change. Two subsets were created and tested for normality. The subsets are: (1)
a subset that consists of cost change associated with high maturity score (> 80, n=20); and (2) a
subset that contains cost change associated with low maturity score (≤ 80, n=13). The p-values
for the normality tests are 0.95 and 0.97, respectively. Since the normality tests’ p-values are
greater than 0.05, the subsets can be assumed to be normally distributed. Therefore, the t-test will
be appropriate to use. Independent sample t-tests are used to determine if the means of two
groups are statistically different from one another (Morrison 2009). The independent samples t-
test was performed to determine if a statistical difference existed between the cost change of
projects with high maturity versus projects with low maturity. The variances were assumed to be
equal based on the results of the Levene’s test (p-value = 0.126). The differences in cost change
performance are on the order of 20 percent. The tests showed a statistically significant difference
between the two groups based on a p-value of 0.002, which means that stakeholders can save a
considerable dollar amount for these large industrial projects.
Schedule Change
The objective of this section is to investigate the influence of high and low FEED maturity
on schedule change. Two subsets were created and tested for normality. The subsets are: (1) a
subset that consists of schedule change associated with high maturity score (> 80, n=20); and (2)
a subset that contains schedule change associated with low maturity score (≤ 80, n=13). The p-
values for the normality tests are 0.10 and 0.11, respectively. Since the normality tests’ p-values
are greater than 0.05, the subsets can be assumed to be normally distributed. Thus, the t-test is
appropriate to use. The independent samples t-test was performed to determine if a statistical
difference existed between the schedule change of projects with high maturity versus projects
with low maturity. The variances were not assumed to be equal based on the results of the
Levene’s test (p-value = 0.049). The t-test did not show a statistically significant difference
between the two groups based on a p-value of 0.586.

Summary of Project Performance Evaluation

The results of the completed project analysis showed that projects with high FEED
maturity scores outperform projects with low maturity scores when it comes to cost performance,
but not schedule performance. Table 2 summarizes the mean cost and schedule performance
results.

© ASCE
Construction Research Congress 2018 7

Table 2. Summary of Cost and Schedule Performance

Performance Low Maturity High Maturity Δ p-value

22% above budget 2% above budget
Cost 20% 0.002
(n = 13) (n = 20)
15% behind schedule 12% behind schedule
Schedule 3% 0.586
(n = 13) (n = 20)

CONCLUSIONS
This paper focuses on FEED maturity and its impact on large industrial project
performance in terms of cost change and schedule change. The paper presented the first industry
agreed upon FEED and maturity definitions to better align owner and contractor communication.
The FEED maturity and its impact on project performance was investigated. The key result
based on the statistical analysis is that projects with high FEED maturity outperformed projects
with low maturity by 20 percent in terms of cost growth in relation to the approved budget at
Phase Gate 3. Thus, FEED maturity plays an important role in the success of industrial projects,
and could potentially save the owner 20 percent of the project cost.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was funded by the Construction Industry Institute (CII). The authors would
like to thank the research team and the industry professionals who volunteered their time,
expertise, and project data, which were all vital for the successful completion of this study.

REFERENCES
Collins, W. A. (2015). Development of the project definition rating index (PDRI) for small
industrial projects. Ph.D. Dissertation. Arizona State University.
Construction Industry Institute (1994). Analysis of Pre-Project Planning Effort and Success
Variables for Capital Facility Projects. SD 105. Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (2006). Front End Planning: Break the Rules, Pay the Price.
Research Summary 213-1. Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (2014a). Front End Planning Toolkit 2014.1. Implementation
Resource 213-2. Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (2014b). Project Definition Rating Index: Industrial Projects.
Implementation Resource 113-12. Austin, TX.
Gibson Jr. G. E., Kaczmarowski, J. H. and Lore Jr., H. E. (1993). “Modeling Pre-Project
Planning for the Construction of Capital Facilities.” Source Document 94 prepared for
Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin, Austin Texas.
Gibson, Jr, G. E. and Hamilton, M.R. (1994). “Analysis of Pre-Project Planning Effort and
Success Varibles For Capital Facility Projects”. Source Document 105 prepared for
Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin, Austin Texas.
Gibson, Jr, G. E. and Dumont, P. (1995). Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Industrial
Projects. Research Report 113-11. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.

© ASCE
Construction Research Congress 2018 8

Morrison, J. (2009). Statistics for Engineers: an Introduction. Chichester, John Wiley &
Sons.
Merrow, E. W. (2011). Industrial megaprojects: concepts, strategies, and practices for success.
John Wiley & Sons.
O’Connor, J. T., O’Brien, W. J., & Choi, J. O. (2013). Industrial modularization: How to
optimize; How to maximize. The University of Texas at Austin: Construction Industry
Institute, Austin, TX. Research Report RR283-11.

© ASCE