Aligning Engineering & Procurement with Construction · Aligning Engineering & Procurement with Construction COAA/CII RT 310 Research Team ... Vikrant Joshi, ConocoPhillips Xiaopeng

Aligning Engineering & Procurement with Construction

COAA/CII RT 310 Research Team

Joe Hobbs (Facilitator)

COAA WFP Committee Member Manager of Engineering - CoSyn Technology (WorleyParsons)

Heather Myers Project Engineer – Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

Andy Coombes Global Construction Manager – BP America, Inc.

Wendy Sukowatey Major Project Manager – American Transmission Company LLC

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT?

Participation is expected

You are not interrupting by asking a question at the right time

You may not agree with everything said – that’s o.k.

Electronic devices

Have fun!

WHY ARE WE HERE?

WorkFace Planning (WFP) is becoming institutionalized within our industry although there is more we can do

Aligning the WFP with the Front End activities is seen as critical to realizing better project success. This was introduced as Advanced Work Packaging

RT310 was formed to provide the deep dive to understand how we can maximize the tools we have to gain a significant advantage through alignment

Provide an update

We need your participation

WHAT TO EXPECT 1. Introduction to RT310 (10 min)

a. Essential Question

b. The Team

c. The Research Objectives

2. Your Input validating our research direction (15 min)

3. Research approach and the expected deliverables (15 min)

4. PEP survey (5 min)

5. Questions/Answers (20 min)

THE JOINT VENTURE

COAA and CII have joined forces again to streamline the flow of information from the front-end of a project through to execution.

THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION

The essential Question to be answered by the RT-310 Team: ‘Which specific owner and contractor practices would facilitate engineering and procurement alignment to support an optimized construction execution plan?’

TEAM SLIDE Andy Coombes, BP

Amy Ehlert, Williams

Tom Felton, McCarthy Building/MC Industrial

Roy Forsyth, Parsons

Mark Hattersley, Bentley Systems, Inc.

Joe Hobbs, CoSyn Technology - WorleyParsons

Vikrant Joshi, ConocoPhillips

Xiaopeng Liang, The University of Texas at Austin

Andy Loftis, S&B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd.

Heather Myers, Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.

William O’Brien, The University of Texas at Austin

Robert Parish, Eli Lilly and Company

John Raad, General Motors Company

Jim Rammell, Wood Group Mustang, Inc

Barry Ringrose, Suncor Energy, Inc.

Clint Rosenbaum, Lauren Engineers & Constructors, Inc.

Karen Schenkelberg, Bilfinger Industrial Services Inc.

Bruce Strupp, CH2M Hill

Wendy Sukowatey, American Transmission Company

Glen Warren, Construction Owners Association of Alberta

Jeffrey Wellen, URS Corporation

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Optimal Construction Execution Plan

Do contracts limit or impede alignment and coordination

Audit existing procedures

Investigate innovative approaches

Recommend metrics and assessments to help drive innovation and improvement to current practices

RESEARCH APPROACH

Four major activities: 1. Definition of alignment 2. Thrust 1 – Audit Common Practices 3. Thrust 2 – Innovative Approaches 4. Recommendations and metrics

DEFINITION OF ALIGNMENT

Definition of alignment

‘The condition where appropriate project participants are working within acceptable tolerances to develop and meet a uniformly defined and understood set of project objectives’

(IR113-3 ALIGNMENT DURING PRE-PROJECT PLANNING – A Key to Project Success)

Influencing factors of alignment: Culture Execution processes Information and prioritization Planning tools Barriers

TOOLS FOR ALIGNMENT

FRONT END

Conceptual Engineering

INPUTS

OUTPUTS

DETAILED

ENGINEERING

PROCUREMENT

CONSTRUCTION

S/U AND

COMMISSIONING

STAKEHOLDERS

EN

GA

GE

ME

NT

PHASE

AUDIENCE VALIDATION

WIFI: SCC-Public Lite WEB: pollev.com/coaa TEXT#: 37607 OLD SCHOOL: paper

PARTICIPATING IN THE POLL


37607 PollEv.com/coaa


Pollev.com/coaa

From any browser

744402

From a text message

37607

POLL RESULTS QUESTION RESPONSES AM PM

Who are you? 1 Owner 17 16

AM = 37 responses 2 Construction Contractor 10 7

PM = 35 responses 3 Engineer 7 5

4 Vendor / supply chain 2 3

5 Other 1 4 What is your primary role in the company? 1 Executive 7 5

AM = 41 responses 2 Construction Management 10 15

PM = 39 responses 3 Engineering 3 1

4 Project Management 6 8

5 Project Controls/Services 3 1

6 WorkFace Planner 0 0

7 Procurement 4 5

8 Other 8 4

POLL RESULTS

QUESTION RESPONSES AM PM

What is your main business? 1 Oil & Gas 34 32

AM = 39 responses 2 Mining and Metals 0 0

PM = 41 responses 3 Power 1 2

4 Government 1 0

5 Infrastructure 0 1

6 Commercial 0 1

7 Other 3 5 Do you have any procedures titled “team-building”, “alignment”, “chartering” (or similar)? (i.e., is the primary purpose of the procedure explicitly to create alignment among the project team?) AM = 39 responses 1 Yes 20 26

PM = 39 responses 2 No 19 13

POLL RESULTS QUESTION RESPONSES AM PM What do you see as the largest barrier to alignment between Engineering – Procurement (Supply chain) and Construction? 1 Owners ability to make a decision 10 8

AM = 38 responses 2 Procedures lacking 3 4

PM = 39 responses 3 Contracts (aligning of interests, relationships) 6 5

4 Information availability 8 9

5 Lack of understanding of what alignment is and how to measure/track it 11 13

What phase do you develop the path of construction? 1

Very Early during Conceptual Engineering – Front End Development 5 1

2 Early during Conceptual Engineering – Front End Development 21 10

AM = 40 responses PM = 38 responses 3

Later in Conceptual Engineering – Front End Development 5 16

4 Detailed Engineering 4 7

5 Procurement 1 0

6 Execution/construction 4 4

7 Start-up/commissioning 0 0

8 Don’t do it 0 0

POLL RESULTS


When do you involve vendors for long-lead items? 1 Very Early during Conceptual Engineering-Front End Development 3 4

AM = 39 responses 2

Early during Conceptual Engineering – Front End Development 13 13

PM = 36 responses 3



5 Procurement 4 0



8 Don’t do it

1 0

POLL RESULTS


Owners only - When do you involve the execution contractor?

1

Very Early during Conceptual Engineering – Front End Development

0

1

2


AM = 20 responses PM = 23 responses 3

Later in Conceptual Engineering – Front End Development

4 2


5 Procurement 3 2



8 Don’t do it 0 0


QUESTION RESPONSES AM PM Contractors only - When would you prefer to be involved in the project planning?

1 Very Early during Conceptual Engineering – Front End Development

9 1

AM = 22 responses 2


PM = 12 responses 3



5 Procurement 0 0



8 Don’t do it 0 0

How would you rate your typical project in terms of effective alignment and coordination of all stakeholders (including external) across the project lifecycle? 1 Poor 7 8

AM = 37 responses 2 Fair 11 9

PM = 42 responses 3 Adequate 6 9

4 Good 9 14

5 Very good 2 2

6 Excellent 2 0

COMMON PRACTICES

Thrust 1 - Auditing Common Practices “What common practices are impeding alignment and coordination today?” Review of common procedures, processes, and contracts

Check against leading practices recommended for execution

Gain data and insight about coordination across multiple stakeholders

Review of technology to support and enhance alignment

INITIAL FINDING WHAT PROCEDURES ARE MISSING 80 % surveyed to date do not have procedures:

• to organize and execute team building

65 % surveyed to date do not have procedures: • titled alignment or team building • to measure alignment among project teams • for defining project team or selecting a project team • for defining the path of construction/construction sequence early • inviting major suppliers in design review meetings

50 % surveyed to date do not have procedures:

• calling for development of project wide data integration management plan • having a formal distribution process to ensure all stakeholders have the

latest planning documents

INITIAL FINDING – PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Project Scope

Constructability Plan

Construction Execution Plan

Identify Long Lead Equipment

Contract Strategy/Requirements

Expediting / Material Delivery

Detailed Schedule by EWP/CWP

Project Roles & Responsibilities (Defined, effective, accountable)

Vendor alignment (vendor data, finance, schedule, quality)

Engineering Work Package (EWP)/Construction Work Package (CWP) Plan

System Handover Plan

System Turnover Identification/Packaging

Management of Path of Construction Process

Participative Planning (planning, cost, and schedule meeting process)

Interface Management Matrix - External/Internal

Construction Interface & Integration Management Procedure

EWP/CWP Identification/Planning aligned with Procurement Plan

Path of Construction

Process to meet project AWP/WFP Strategy

Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

Brownfield Planning Considerations

Team Building & Alignment Program

0 50 100

Team Building & Alignment

Path of Construction

Vendor aligned / EWP Plan

CONSTRUCTION

Audit Procedures Questions CII RT310 V8

Introduction

The purpose of this questionnaire is to audit the existence and content of Owner and Contractor

company procedures related to alignment. It will aid the research of Construction Industry Institute

Research Team 310: Improving Engineering and Procurement Alignment and Coordination with

Construction. RT 310 is specifically interested in learning what procedures your company has and the

content in those procedures that will help optimize alignment between Engineering, Procurement and

Construction.

Confidentiality Statement

These responses will be treated in confidence by the Research Team. No identifying information will be

published by the Research Team (i.e., responses will be cleansed and aggregated).

Instructions

Please respond to each of the questions below in relation to the content of your existing company

procedures, not how your company executes projects via informal guidelines, etc. The intent of these

questions is to research what is currently included in procedures regarding project alignment and

coordination.

Please respond the questions below by circling or indicated answers that are ‘Yes / No’ or ‘check one’ or

‘choose all that apply’. Several questions ask for brief explanations of your procedures.

Please be complete. If a question does not apply to your company, write NA next to it. To compare

responses across companies, thoroughness is extremely important.

This questionnaire is broken into sections – General, Front End Planning, Detailed Design, Procurement,

and Construction. Overall questions or questions that apply to each phase are put in the General

section; per phase questions are in their respective section. Some questions are repeated in certain

phases with minor variations to ascertain more detailed responses.

When completed, please return the survey to the person who is coordinating it for your company (a

RT310 team member) or to Dr. Bill O’Brien at The University of Texas at Austin – [email protected].

Questions should be addressed first to your company coordinator or to Dr. O’Brien.

CONSTRUCTION

General:

Opinion on accomplishing alignment: Q1: How would you rate your typical project in terms of effective alignment and coordination of all stakeholders (including external) across the project lifecycle? (Circle 1)

1. Poor alignment/coordination – recovery from lack of alignment is the norm. 2. Fair alignment/coordination – miscommunication is common on activities across the project

lifecycle. 3. Adequate alignment/coordination – most execution shows alignment, but gaps are common on

projects in certain areas, particularly with regard to coordination with external parties 4. Good alignment/coordination – main project activities benefit from effective alignment.

Common problems are minor and typically addressed in planning stages to mitigate their effect. 5. Very good alignment/coordination – minimal issues with execution in terms of alignment and

coordination. Most issues are limited to specific circumstances/parties outside the core team. 6. Excellent alignment/coordination – execution shows proactive planning and teamwork across all

project phases and stakeholders. Procedure development:

Q2: Are procedures checked for alignment/coordination across functions when they are created/updated? Y / N

Q3: Are procedures checked for alignment/coordination across project phases when they are created/updated? Y / N

Q4: Who is responsible for developing/maintaining individual procedures (functional groups, project leaders, centralized group, etc.)? (Please briefly describe) Q4a Describe the approval process for authorizing final procedures. (Please briefly describe) Coordination: Q5: Do your procedures call for schedule reviews to be conducted regularly in each phase? (Check each phase that requires regular schedule review)

o FEP/Basic Design o Detailed Design o Procurement o Construction o Startup/Commissioning

AUDIT QUESTIONS

Confidentiality

Scrubbing

Format

Instructions

General

Phase specific

Corporate responses

Use as an in-house tool

CONSTRUCTION

Front-End Planning

Alignment/team-building & Organizational:

Q1: Do your procedures call for a team building or alignment meeting for kicking-off this phase? Y / N

Q1a: If yes, check all who are involved: o Owner business unit o Owner project management o Owner operations management o Engineering o Procurement o Construction o Supply Chain (major suppliers) o Other _____________

Q2: If yes to Q1, are the results/action items stemming from the alignment meeting shared with all the project stakeholders? Y / N

Q2a: If yes, indicate below which groups are specifically mentioned in your procedures.

o Owner business unit o Owner project management o Owner operations management o Engineering o Procurement o Construction o Supply Chain (major suppliers) o Other _____________

Planning/Executing

Q3: Which stakeholders are required per your procedures to have input into the project risk management plans? (check all that apply)

o Owner business unit o Owner project management o Owner operations management o Engineering o Procurement o Construction o Supply Chain (major suppliers) o Other _____________

Q4: Do your procedures require that the results of risk management plans be shared with project stakeholders? Y /N

WE ARE LOOKING FOR VOLUNTEERS

INNOVATIVE APPROACHES

Thrust 2: Identification of breakthrough approaches to aid alignment and coordination

“What are the common elements of governance that lead to breakthrough performance? What are the necessary conditions for success?” Exploratory in nature and seeks innovations to existing practice Activities to extend beyond typical CII/COAA member company practice Focus on case studies for holistic review

AUDIENCE ENGAGEMENT PEP SURVEY

PROJECT EXECUTION PROJECT

9 6

COMPLETE SURVEY NOW

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Implementation Resource (August 2015) 1. Definitions with actionable insights/recommendations 2. Optimized Project Execution Plan (PEP) (rankings) 3. Detailed procedures audit and tools 4. Recommendations and metrics 5. Case studies

RECAP 1. Thank-you for your participation

2. Provided an introduction to the RT310 research

a. Discussed the essential Question

b. Told who was involved

c. Highlighted the Research Objectives

3. Approach adopted and expected deliverable

4. Answered your questions

QUESTIONS

THANK-YOU !!!

Contacts: [email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Aligning Engineering & Procurement with Construction · Aligning Engineering & Procurement with Construction COAA/CII RT 310 Research Team ... Vikrant Joshi, ConocoPhillips Xiaopeng