Successful Delivery of Flash-track Projects

RT-311 Topic Summary
RT 311


Since the 1960s, the industry has responded to demands for quicker project delivery by developing techniques such as fast tracking which is the overlapping of engineering, procurement and construction, and PEpC which is the early inclusion of procurement in the project cycle.

Construction users today demand increasingly faster project delivery, higher quality, and more complex facilities leading to this research and the development of Flash Track delivery. Since time is of the essence on flash track projects, they are characterized by a heightened degree of concurrency between scope definition, engineering, procurement, and construction. Flash track calls for earlier engagement, commitment, and collaboration of specialty subcontractors at project outset as well as parallel efforts during the engineering and construction phases.

The primary purpose of RT-311 was to develop a process enabling CII member companies to assess their readiness to take on flash tracking, and to offer guidelines on implementation and execution of flash track projects which provide answers to the following:

  • Which innovative improvements in project delivery methodology could be made to compress project durations, while maintaining safety, quality, and risk tolerance?
  • How can project teams overcome barriers to delivering shorter project durations?

This research provides a tool, a re-engineered workflow process, project specific improvement recommendations, and innovative implementation practices for successful flash track project delivery.


Related Academic Publications (not published by CII)
CII does not review or endorse these publications, which were published independently, but added them here because they were directly or indirectly supported by the CII research project. Users may need to pay to access these pieces.

Austin, Robert B. (2016) "Successful Delivery of Flash Track Projects." Dissertation. School of Building Construction Theses and Dissertations 8. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.

Austin, Robert B.; Pishdad-Bozorgi, Pardis; and De la Garza, Jesus M. (2016) "Identifying and Prioritizing Best Practices to Achieve Flash Track Projects." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(2).

Pishdad-Bozorgi, Pardis; De la Garza, Jesus M.; and Austin, Robert B. (2016) "Readiness Assessment for Flash Tracking." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(12).

Pishdad-Bozorgi, P., and De la Garza, J. M. (2018) "Workflow Process Model for Flash Track Projects." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(6)

Key Findings and Implementation Tools

1 : When To Use Flash Track

The top three reasons for using flash track delivery:

  • Time to market (competitive advantage)
  • Emergency rebuild
  • Regulatory compliance

(RS311-1, p. 27) 

Reference: (RS311-1)

2 : cPEpC Re-engineered Workflow Process

A re-engineered delivery process that adopts a different and innovative delivery strategy. By adding a little "c" at the beginning of the process, the workflow stresses the critical importance of involving key specialty contractors in the preliminary conceptual design process. 

·         cPEpC = specialty contractors – Procurement (strategic procurement items) – Engineering-little procurement (balance of procurement items) – Construction

Adopting this different and more innovative delivery strategy plus exceptional execution of all normal project activities results in successful flash track projects. (RS311-1, p. 25)

Reference: (RS311-1)

3 : 47 Essential Practices

The research identified 47 essential practices spread over the following six categories, providing discussion on the component practices including innovative implementation strategies. (RS311-1, p. 13)

1.    Planning – 7 practices

2.    Execution – 7 practices

3.    Organizational – 9 practices

4.    Cultural – 8 practices

5.    Delivery – 8 practices

6.    Contractual – 8 practices


Practices are statistically sub-divided into Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels, where Tier 1 level practices represent critical success factors associated executing flash track delivery. 

Reference: (RS311-1)

4 : Flash Track Challenges

The research identified key barriers that are human driven. Examples of barriers include:


a)    Executive resistance to a paradigm shift

b)    Availability of the Flash Track A-team

c)    Hierarchical decision-making

d)    Resistance to co-location

e)    Lack of trust

Reference: (AC Presentation)

5 : Implementation Tool #1

IR 311-2, Flash Track Tool

An Excel-based resource to help project teams determine whether the cPEpC model is appropriate for a given project.
The Tool should be used at the project level with the participation of key stakeholders—ideally the owner, engineer, contractor, and any key suppliers and specialty subcontractors. The tool serves two main objectives:


1.    To assess an organization’s readiness to undertake a flash track projects

2.    To determine barriers to implementation, identify flash track risks, and recommend mitigation measures and innovative implementation strategies

Reference: (IR311-2)

Key Performance Indicators

Improved quality, Improved performance, Improved schedule, Improved cost

Research Publications

Successful Delivery of Flash Track Projects - RR311-11

Publication Date: 08/2016 Type: Research Report Pages: 519 Status: Reference

Flash Track Tool - IR311-2

Publication Date: 10/2015 Type: Implementation Resource Pages: 17 Status: Tool

Successful Delivery of Flash Track Projects - RS311-1

Publication Date: 09/2015 Type: Research Summary Pages: 33 Status: Supporting Product

Presentations from CII Events

Plenary Session - Successful Delivery of Flash Track Projects

Publication Date: Presenter: Number of Slides: 19 Event Code: AC2015

Implementation Session - Successful Delivery of Flash Track Projects

Publication Date: Presenter: Number of Slides: 61 Event Code: AC2015