From Chaos to CIP Planning and Execution Control: How the City of Boise Developed A Robust Project Delivery Model to Meet the Expectations of the Community

Background and Problem
The City of Boise's Water Renewal Services (WRS) must more than double its project execution rate to meet the goals and objectives of the recently completed Water Renewal Utility Plan. The Utility Plan represents a fundamental shift in resource management from disposing of byproducts to one focused on managing, recovering, and reusing resources. The Utility Plan laid the vision for the next 20 years of capital projects needed to meet the needs of community growth, increasingly stringent regulatory requirements, and increased water quality and use expectations from the community. Boiseans vocalized consistently in feedback that this is a community that expects more from its water. Historically, the city has managed it's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and prioritization based on the immediate needs of WRS. Final capital budgets were set late in the process during engineering design which did not allow for accurate long term capital planning and left project budgets susceptible to market fluctuations such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, WRS was able to deliver projects as issues arose but as more was being asked of the utility, there lacked a way to balance the long-terms goals of the Utility Plan with short-term facility needs. WRS recognized that a robust business process would be needed to meet the promises made to the community in the Utility Plan. Citizens also granted loan approval for up to $570 million in a recent election further increasing the need for efficient project execution, increased transparency, and a clear budget planning process.
Objectives
The objective of this work was to develop a standard business process to define a project lifecycle that would increase efficiency, transparency, and balance the long-term vision for WRS with short-term needs. To accomplish this goal, WRS undertook a thorough business planning effort to develop a standardized business process model for project delivery where there had previously not been a formal process.
Methodology
WRS leadership chartered a cross-functional team of utility employees tasked to identify and prioritize gaps, and generate a new proposed business process. This group was chartered as the Capital Projects Staff Advisory Team (CP SAT) and included individuals from every level of the organization. Through a series of workshops, the CP SAT identified gaps in the current CIP process (Figure 1) by discussing each step. Facilitators solicited feedback and observations by asking questions at each stage. This intensive gap identification process resulted in a list of 32 opportunity areas for improvement.
Solution and Findings
Workshop facilitators and project sponsors used this feedback directly to create a formalized Project Delivery Model (PDM) (Figure 2) that addresses each of the gaps identified. Key components of the project delivery model include:
- Clear problem identification occurs at the start of the process. Problems can be identified at the facility level or can be generated from WRS strategy and goals. Outcome: This allows the city to understand the breadth of needs at both the facility level and to meet the objectives of the Utility Plan.
- Problems are defined and reasonable solutions are identified. Solutions could be operational, based on maintenance programs, or involve capital expenditure. The consequence of not fixing the problem is studied before the problem is prioritized. Outcome: Fully defined problems allow the city to maintain control of project development. Clearly articulated project objectives keep proposed projects focused on solving specific problems, decreasing the likelihood of unnecessary scope creep.
- Projects are identified that could solve the problem and a full alternatives analysis is performed, analyzing solutions based on life-cycle cost considering risks and benefits. A comprehensive cost estimate is developed for a feasible alternative (including all costs associated with constructing the preferred alternative) to create a budget ceiling for the project. Outcome: Locking in a maximum project budget early in the process helps bridge the gap between financial planners within WRS and engineering project managers. Budget ceilings allow for more accurate long-term financial planning and set budget accountability for project managers.
- Projects are prioritized based on previously gathered information considering risk, cost, and available cash flow. Outcome: Regardless of project size projects can be prioritized based on risk and benefit to WRS. Providing a transparent process enables trust within the organization that needs are being heard and the right projects are being prioritized. - Project execution plans develop scope, schedule, and budget including resource allocations and other interagency coordination needs. Outcome: Staff are prepared for future projects and WRS leadership can more effectively plan resource and internal coordination needs, as well as community messaging for projects on the horizon. - Project costs are refined through the lifecycle of the project holding costs under the budget ceiling developed in project identification. Outcome: As design and construction progresses, budgets remain under the budget ceiling potentially freeing up capital dollars for other projects.
Significance The resulting PDM addresses the gaps identified by the CP SAT and was authorized by WRS leadership as the best method for increasing capital throughput. The PDM is now the formal phased process for how problems are identified and solution projects are developed, refined, and executed within WRS. Over the coming year, the CP SAT will refine the business process, with same group, thereby increasing change agents in the organization. WRS will use the PDM to guide CIP planning and project execution thereby increasing the organization's abilities to meet the expectations of the community.