Draw Me a WBS: The Little Prince and the Reality of Construction Project Planning
By: Antoine Prolux-Landry, Consultant at Metam
“As for the future, it is not a question of foreseeing it, but of making it possible.”
– Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
This quote from the author of the famous “Le Petit Prince” has always resonated with me.
From my very first university courses in management, the importance of rigorous planning was drilled into me: a clear plan covering all project activities, timelines, and costs – a true guarantee of project success within organizations.
Over the years and through experience, I have seen planning take many forms depending on the organization. Whether I was working within companies delivering construction and engineering projects, or now consulting within the same industry, one constant remains among serious players in Quebec’s construction sector: planning is one of the greatest factors of success.
And yet, in practice, it remains one of the most frequent weaknesses. This often happens well before work even begins – at the bidding stage, where the foundations should be solid
The bid: The first true act of project planning
Whether we are talking about time-and-material contracts or lump-sum projects, whether a bid contains a few line items or thousands, I regularly observe a lack of alignment between how a project is bid, planned, executed, and billed.
Often, the bid is designed primarily to meet the client’s contractual requirements – whether through a public tender or a negotiated agreement. However, once execution begins, a gap almost inevitably appears:
- On one side, the project manager seeks to track progress according to operational logic: work phases, zones, and construction sequences.
- On the other hand, the client requires billing that strictly follows the contractual structure. This misalignment leads to parallel tracking tools, manual data re-entry, and far too often, loss of information along the way.
Under the pressure of deadlines, competition, and tendering rules, estimates are sometimes produced quickly – sometimes based on assumptions, and often a mix of both.
In certain cases, contractors intentionally unbalance the bill of quantities, overpricing some items and underpricing others to optimize positioning or cash flow.
When bids are awarded, project teams inherit an initial structure that does not always reflect a practical site-level tracking approach – creating complexity from day one.
From bid to project planning: The missing link
One of the most common challenges I have observed throughout my different experiences is the difficulty of converting bid information into coherent project planning.
In practice, this conversion is often done manually, using Excel files or internally developed tools, recreating a structure different from the original bid. The consequences are well known:
- Multiplication of tracking tools
- Inconsistencies between costs, progress, and billing
- Loss of information and confusion between estimation and site execution
Yet a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) – a sequenced list of activities distributed over time – aligned with the bid deliverables creates a direct link between what is priced, what is executed, and what is invoiced.
Why this alignment changes everything
More reliable progress tracking
Project planning is built according to the project manager’s operational vision, while each contractual element becomes measurable, traceable, and comparable.
Better cost control
Variances become visible earlier – even when the bid has been intentionally unbalanced.
Smoother billing
Client discussions rely on a structure already contractually recognized. The link between activities and invoicing avoids misunderstandings.
Less rework, less information loss
A common language between estimation, site teams, office staff, and finance.
Why does it still break down?
Although these principles are well known, their application remains uneven for several reasons:
- Siloed work between estimators, project managers, and field teams
- Contractual complexity from certain clients or mandates, where billing mechanisms are rarely translated into operational management tools
- Limitations in adapted technological tools, generating manual rework to restructure the project after contract award
How do we break the cycle?
To concretely improve planning in Quebec’s construction industry, certain levers are essential:
- Transform the Bid into a True Project Structure Supported by a Management Tool
- Converting bid elements into a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), supported by an appropriate digital tool, ensures coherent progress tracking, clear cost visibility, and billing aligned with contractual requirements.
- Evolve the Estimation Phase to Integrate Decision-Support Tools
- This approach integrates operational and strategic vision directly into the bidding stage, leveraging past experience and best practices. Whether through structured templates or AI-powered solutions, tools exist to simplify and strengthen this phase.
In the construction industry, planning is neither a luxury nor a theoretical exercise. It is a condition for success – both financially and operationally.
So, with all due respect to the author, I would say:
“As for the future, it is about foreseeing it AND making it possible.”
– Antoine Proulx-Landry
Ready to take your business to new heights?
Let us help get your team on the right track with teams dedicated to your success in the built environment.
