(1)

Methods for evaluation of individual projects

Given the selected articles dealt with in the bibliometric analysis, the methods most often cited are:

・ Individual methods: financial methods (NPV, IRR, Payback), and methods of risk analysis (Monte Carlo simulation);

・ Multidisciplinary Methods: only the Front-End Planning method.

Regarding the multidisciplinary tools, 67% of the companies that responded to the survey only know the Front-End Planning method.

11% knew this methodology, as well as other methods such as Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS), Ziel-Projekt Orientierte Planung (ZOPP) or Planning and Project Evaluation by Objectives, Project In the Controlled Environment (PRINCE) and peers reviews.

Yes

(2)

Importance of Front-End Planning method

The purpose of the method is to align project goals with business needs. The work done in the initial phase of the project may influence its outcome by selecting the best projects, eliminating wrong projects and selecting the most appropriate scope.

40% of respondents completely believe and 50% just believe that, in most cases, this method is essential for strategic alignment.

Yes

(3) Dynamics of Front-End Planning method

In this method, it is common to divide the development stages of a project into three phases. Each phase has a set of deliverable products to be developed by the project team before the next step. To assess whether a project is able to move from one phase to the next, a mechanism is used for periodic checks, called Gate Process.

48% believe completely and 36% just believe that in most cases there are clearly defined processes in the method to be followed.

Yes

(4)

Target audience of Front-End Planning method

Projects with high investment costs and long life cycles, primarily in such sectors as petrochemical & chemical, oil & gas, mining & metals, pulp & paper and others.

92% of companies in Mining & Metals apply the method;

60% of companies in Oil and Gas apply the method;

73% of respondent companies that develop projects lasting more than three years apply the methodology;

75% of respondent companies that develop projects over $1 billion apply the method.

Yes

(5)

Methodologies or models

The IPA and CII are the two institutes with extensive research on this method, each having developed their models.

Of the companies who know this method, 90% of respondents know only the IPA and CII models.

Yes

(6)

Performance over time

According to the IPA, FEL, if implemented well, can cause a project to be up 4% faster than the industry average. In extreme cases, it can reduce the deployment time by approximately 20%. For CII, FEL can make a design up to 1% faster than the average.

Most respondents (57%) said that projects that apply this method can achieve the planned deadline always or most cases.

27% said that they could reach the deadline in a minority of cases and 17% in half the time.

Yes

(7)

Performance against cost

According to the IPA, FEL, if implemented well, can cause a project to be 7% cheaper than the industry average. In extreme cases, it can reduce the total project cost by about 20%. For CII, FEL, if implemented well, can cause a project to be as much as 3% cheaper than the average.

67% of respondents say the projects that apply the Front-End Planning method in

their respective companies spend more than planned, and 50% report an overflow budget above 10%.

NO (need further research to investigate the causes)

(8)

Performance in relation to return on investment and success in general project

According to the IPA, FEL can make improvements to a project so that its IRR values are up as much as 3%.

According to the IPA, about 60% of megaprojects that ranked the scale of FEL as “best” are successful. About 50% of megaprojects that ranked the FEL Index as “good” are successful.

40% of respondents say they always or most of the time attain the expected return, while 37% see a minority of cases yielding the desired return.

43% of respondents believe that they achieve the overall goals of time, cost, quality, and customer satisfaction less than half the time or never, while 43% believe that it occurs most often.

PARTIAL

(need new research to investigate the causes)