A Life-Cycle Constructability for Oil and Gas Project Execution Improvements

1. Introduction 

Major oil and gas projects play a critical role in global energy supply and economic development. These projects typically involve large capital investments, advanced process technologies, long development cycles, and complex stakeholder environments. 

Despite their strategic importance, many oil and gas projects continue to experience cost overruns, schedule delays, productivity losses, and rework. These challenges have increased interest in management approaches that improve project delivery performance across the entire project life cycle. 

This article addresses this gap by developing a structured constructability implementation framework specifically tailored to major oil and gas projects. Existing constructability approaches are often applied inconsistently, too late in the project life cycle, or without a phase-based structure suited to large-scale oil and gas developments. The objectives of this study are to review existing constructability concepts and practices relevant to oil and gas developments, identify key limitations in current implementation approaches, and propose a phase-based framework to support the systematic integration of constructability throughout the entire project life cycle. 

2. Literature Review 

2.1 Concept and Evolution of Constructability 

Research consistently demonstrates that effective implementation of constructability leads to improved cost, schedule, safety, and quality outcomes. Projects with early construction involvement experience fewer design changes, reduced rework, and improved labour productivity compared with projects where construction input is limited. However, these benefits are highly dependent on the timing, structure, and organisational support of constructability efforts. 

2.2 Constructability in Oil and Gas Projects 

Several studies highlight that oil and gas projects frequently adopt engineering-led delivery models in which construction input is limited during early phases, such as concept selection and FEED. This approach often results in layouts with restricted access, unrealistic installation sequences, and insufficient allowances for temporary works. Common constructability issues include inadequate lifting studies, poor consideration of modularisation opportunities, and weak alignment between engineering and construction schedules. 

2.3 Limitations of Existing Constructability Approaches 

Despite extensive literature on constructability principles, their practical implementation remains inconsistent. Many organisations rely on constructability checklists or ad hoc reviews that are not formally linked to project decision gates. A major limitation is the absence of a structured, phase-based implementation model tailored to large, complex projects. 

2.4 Constructability, Governance, and Contracting Strategy 

Contracting strategies also influence constructability outcomes. EPC contracts may incentivise construction efficiency but often restrict early contractor involvement, whereas EPCM and alliance-type contracts can facilitate early input but may suffer from weaker accountability if constructability responsibilities are not clearly defined. Research suggests that constructability outcomes improve when ownership is explicitly allocated and embedded in contractual deliverables. 

3. Methodology 

This study adopts a qualitative and analytical research approach suitable for investigating management practices and developing conceptual frameworks in complex engineering environments. The research does not involve experiments or primary data collection. 

3.1 Research Design 

The research design comprises three components: 

1. A systematic review of academic literature related to constructability, project management, and oil and gas megaprojects. 
2. Thematic analysis of constructability challenges, practices, and success factors. 
3. Development of a structured constructability implementation framework aligned with the oil and gas project life cycle. 

4. Proposed Constructability Implementation Framework 

4.1 Framework Rationale and Design Principles 

The constructability implementation framework proposed in this study is designed to address recurring deficiencies observed in major oil and gas projects, particularly the late and fragmented application of construction knowledge. The framework is underpinned by four design principles: 

1. Early Influence Maximisation: Constructability input must be applied at the earliest feasible project stages, where changes have the greatest impact at the lowest cost. 
2. Life-Cycle Integration: Constructability is treated as a continuous process embedded across all project phases rather than as a discrete review activity. 
3. Governance Alignment: Constructability activities are formally linked to project decision gates and governance structures. 
4. Execution-Driven Design: Engineering decisions are evaluated not only on technical merit but also on execution feasibility, safety, and productivity implications. 

4.2 Framework Structure and Life-Cycle Alignment 

The framework aligns constructability implementation with the typical oil and gas project life cycle, which is commonly structured around stage-gate development processes. Five major project phases are considered: 

1. Concept and Pre-FEED 
2. Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) 
3. Detailed Engineering and Issued-for-Construction (IFC) 
4. Procurement and Fabrication 
5. Construction and Commissioning 

Within each phase, the framework defines: 

• Constructability objectives 
• Key activities 
• Responsible parties 
• Primary deliverables 
• Decision gate linkages 

This alignment ensures that constructability considerations directly inform investment decisions, design-freeze milestones, and execution-readiness assessments. 

4.3 Constructability Implementation by Project Phase 

4.3.1 Concept and Pre-FEED Phase 

Key constructability activities include early involvement of construction specialists, development of a high-level construction execution strategy, site access and logistics assessments, and evaluation of modularisation and prefabrication opportunities. At this stage, constructability input supports concept selection by comparing alternatives based on construction complexity, labour productivity, and execution risk rather than solely on capital cost estimates. 

4.3.2 Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) Phase 

Structured constructability reviews should be conducted at defined FEED milestones, focusing on plant layout optimisation, access and maintenance requirements, lifting and heavy transport studies, temporary works requirements, and alignment between engineering design and construction sequencing. Constructability findings should be formally documented and tracked to closure prior to FEED approval. 

4.3.3 Detailed Engineering and Issued-for-Construction (IFC) Phase 

In the Detailed Engineering and IFC phase, constructability implementation focuses on eliminating execution ambiguities and ensuring readiness for field construction. At this stage, the ability to change fundamental design concepts is limited; however, significant value can still be achieved by improving installation efficiency and reducing field rework. 

A formal constructability sign-off should be required prior to issuing IFC documents to confirm that the designs are suitable for construction under realistic site conditions. 

4.3.4 Procurement and Fabrication Phase 

Constructability implementation during procurement and fabrication ensures that execution intent is preserved throughout the supply chain. Engineering-driven procurement decisions that ignore installation constraints can significantly undermine constructability benefits achieved during earlier phases. 

Key activities include embedding constructability requirements in procurement specifications, evaluating vendor designs for transport, lifting, and installation feasibility, and optimising packaging and delivery sequencing. Constructability reviews should extend to vendor drawings and fabrication plans to ensure compatibility with site logistics and construction methods. 

4.3.5 Construction and Commissioning Phase 

During construction and commissioning, constructability implementation shifts towards execution optimisation and continuous improvement. The primary objective is to ensure that field activities align with constructability assumptions made during earlier phases. 

4.4 Performance Measurement and Key Indicators 

To ensure effectiveness, the implementation of constructability should be supported by measurable performance indicators. Typical indicators include: 

• Percentage of constructability actions closed prior to each gate 
• Rework rates during construction 
• Field productivity metrics 
• Safety incidents related to access or installation constraints 
• Schedule variance attributable to constructability-related issues 

Linking these indicators to governance reporting reinforces accountability and enables continuous improvement across projects. 

4.5 Summary of Framework Contribution 

The proposed constructability implementation framework provides a structured, governance-aligned, and execution-focused approach tailored to major oil and gas projects. By embedding constructability into decision gates, defining clear roles and deliverables, and integrating with digital and work packaging methodologies, the framework moves constructability from an informal practice to a core project management discipline. 

5. Discussion 

The proposed framework advances existing constructability approaches by providing a structured, life-cycle-based model tailored to major oil and gas projects. Unlike traditional checklist-based methods, the framework integrates constructability into governance and decision-making processes, ensuring early and continuous application. 

The framework also aligns constructability with digital engineering tools such as 3D/4D modelling and Advanced Work Packaging. Rather than treating digital tools as standalone solutions, the framework embeds them within a structured constructability process, enhancing their effectiveness. 

6. Conclusion 

This study developed a structured constructability implementation framework tailored to major oil and gas projects. By embedding constructability across the entire project life cycle and aligning it with governance and decision gates, the framework addresses key limitations in current practices. While conceptual in nature, the framework provides practical guidance for improving cost, schedule, safety, and execution performance. Future research may empirically validate the framework through case studies or surveys and explore its applicability to other industrial sectors. 

References 

1. Flyvbjerg, B. (2009) ‘Survival of the unfittest: Why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do about it’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25(3), pp. 344–367. 
2. Merrow, E.W. (2011) Industrial Megaprojects: Concepts, Strategies, and Practices for Success. Wiley. 
3. Construction Industry Institute (2013) Constructability: A Primer. 
4. O’Connor, J.T. (1985) ‘Constructability improvement during field operations’, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 111(2), pp. 109–123. 
5. Construction Industry Institute (2018) Constructability Implementation Guide. 
6. Jergeas, G. and Van der Put, J. (2001) ‘Benefits of constructability on construction projects’, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(4), pp. 281–290. 
7. Love, P.E.D., Edwards, D.J. and Irani, Z. (2016) ‘Moving beyond optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in infrastructure projects’, Journal of Management in Engineering. 
8. Williams, T., Klakegg, O.J., Magnussen, O.M. and Glasspool, H. (2010) ‘An investigation of governance frameworks for public projects’, International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), pp. 773–783. 
9. Hanna, A.S., Russell, J.S., Nordheim, E.V. and Bruggink, M.J. (2002) ‘Impact of change orders on labour efficiency for mechanical construction’, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 
10. Fischer, M. and Kunz, J. (2004) ‘The scope and role of information technology in construction’, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 
11. Samset, K. and Volden, G.H. (2016) Front-End Management of Major Projects. 
12. Too, E.G. and Weaver, P. (2014) ‘The management of project management: A conceptual framework’, International Journal of Project Management. 
13. Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. and Liston, K. (2018) BIM Handbook. 3rd edn. Wiley. 
14. Construction Industry Institute (2016) Advanced Work Packaging. 
15. Chin, S., Yoon, S. et al. (2011) ‘BIM and construction automation integration’, Automation in Construction. 
16. Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (2020) Total Cost Management Framework. 
17. Project Management Institute (2021) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). 7th edn. 
18. Morris, P.W.G. and Hough, G.H. (1987) The Anatomy of Major Projects.