Effective Work Package

T his paper briefly describes the development ofconstruction work packages (CWPs) in the oil andgas industry, relates the history of the issues involvedin CWP development and provides an integrated

solution to the challenges of project control and measurement.The paper is intended as a practical how to guide and avoids anacademic approach.

WHY THIS PAPER?

• After tracking many projects and carrying out several lessonslearned the following was concluded.

• We should eliminate as many of the lessons as possible bytaking a proactive approach to execution.

• Typically what seems to happen is the constructionmanagement team wait for problems identified by theconstruction crews and then set about resolving them.

• This disrupted the construction crews while the CM teamresolved the issues.

APPLICATION

The CWP development process provides severalopportunities and advantages:

• Effective framing of cost elements;• Integrated estimating;• Effective work face planning;• Proactive approach to execution;• Reduced changes during execution;• Easy change management;• Resolution of Requests for Information (RFIs) prior to

construction;• Safety pre-planning;• Quality pre-planning;• Spin-offs include better integration and teamwork during the

development of CWPs as the team works to packagecollaboratively;

• Rapid learning curve maturity;

• Short duration provides rapid feedback on probability ofmeeting schedule and early opportunities to take remedialaction.

RESULTS, OBSERVATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS

Learning curve losses are substantially reduced as crewsquickly gain confidence on completion of a work package over ashort duration. Measurable results can also be seen within a shortperiod of time. Comparison of then and now scenarios indicatebetter execution. Effective integration and feed forward of lessonslearned. This article elaborates on a method of developingmanageably sized (chunks of work) CWPs.

INTRODUCTION

Engineering companies develop engineering work packages(EWPs) for large oil and gas projects. These typically take severalmonths to execute and are too large for effective project control.The CWP provides integration between estimating, fieldengineering, safety, project controls, and materials management.This process does not eliminate the need for effective work faceplanning, but rather forms an integral part. The process is apractical approach to execution that is currently being used by amajor oil and gas company.

BACKGROUND

Currently the greater part of the engineering information issupplied in EWPs that typically take up to a year to complete. This time period must be shortened to optimize learning curveconfidence levels and process knowledge. A CWP executiontarget of one month was selected to provide an early opportunityto take corrective action.

PS.13.1

2006 AACE International Transactions

PS.13

Effective Construction Work Packages

Mr. George Richard Gardner

PEER REVIEWED PAPER

OBJECTIVE

Improve poor productivity and reduce risk due to reactiveconstruction management and poor workforce planning.

CWP (CONSTRUCTION WORK PACKAGE)DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

The CWP development process was developed as a result ofroot-cause analysis, lessons learned and the need to take a moreproactive approach to project execution. Refer to figures 1through 3.

Engineering work packages (EWP) are frequently too largefor effective management and control; their execution can lastseveral months to over a year.

Typically the crew is several months into constructionexecution before the realization that the schedule is starting toslip. By the time there is a clear understanding of where things aregoing it is usually too late to change the outcome. EWPs must bebroken down into manageable sizes, hence the CWP philosophy.

The CWP process requires a Field Engineer and a DisciplineConstruction Specialist who from the 3-D model pre-packagechunks of work by area and discipline (according to the WorkBreakdown Structure (WBS)) into packages roughly estimated tohave construction duration of one month. The rules for workpackaging that apply are:

• No overlap between discrete work packages;• Seamless integration of the packages;• Clear cost and estimating delineation.

These work packages are entered into a log for future use andintegration into turnover work packages (as most of these largeprojects are turned over and started up as systems).

As soon as the CWP package has been defined, the necessaryengineering information is compiled and sent to documentcontrol. The CWP development team then assembles it.

The CWP is developed in two sections: The first sectionprovides essential information, documents, plans, drawings,hazard analysis, turnover and quality documents etc. necessary forthe construction crews to execute the work. The second sectionprovides site-sensitive data such as detailed estimating data;project controls metrics, turnover and acceptance criteria,performance data and other information that may or not may notbe issued to Construction depending on the organization.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Each team member has two roles:

1. One as a Subject Matter Expert (SME),2. The other as a supervisor / functional team lead.

The team comprises the following representatives:

Estimating

• Determine a detailed list of bills of material (BOMs).• Determine cost breakdown structure (CBS).• Determine resource requirements, i.e. labor, equipment and

materials.• Sign off on estimating readiness checklist.• Identify work environment, height, complexity, accessibility,

etc.• Expected productivity factors.• Inclusions and exclusions.• Execution constraints.

Field Engineering

• Identify and resolve technical issues prior to construction.• Develop an inspection and testing plan (ITP) package.• Develop a CWP quality document.• Create a CWP-specific scope statement.• Develop pre-pour plans, rigging plans and other specialized

plans.• Determine and ensure necessary equipment is available.• Prepare turnover documentation.• Review bills of material (BOMs) for technical and quality

compliance.• Initiate purchase orders (POs).• Receive and verify incoming orders.• Initiate non-conformance reports (NCRs) for non-

conforming products.• Identify material overages, shortages and damages (OS&Ds).• Ensure warehousing of materials and supplies retains

products as fit for purpose.• Sign off on field engineering, materials management and

quality management readiness checklists.• Ensure all materials are ordered.• Ensure all materials are ready for construction.• Sign off on field engineering readiness checklist

Project Controls

• Ensure measurement metrics are in place.• Ensure budgets are in place.• Ensure cost structure is developed and in place• Ensure scope items are correctly cost coded.• Develop a schedule that is manpower-loaded and optimized.• Identify out-of-scope work and initiate change requests.• Set up cost-coding structure against Work Breakdown

Structure (WBS).• Set up time tracking for CWP.• Ensure correct coding of effort.• Verify quantities against original scope.• Measure installed quantities.• Verify completion of CWP.• Sign off on project controls readiness checklist.

PS.13.2


Construction

• Develop comprehensive scope statement.• Determine construction methodology.• Identify constraints and potential hazards.• Identify special construction issues.• Determine crew size and mix for the CWP.• Develop a mini plan on how the CWP will be executed with

team support.• Sign off on construction readiness checklist.

Safety

• Review CWP for special safety requirements.• Carries out HAZOP to identify specific hazards to the CWP.• Identify and establish appropriate Personal Protection

Equipment (PPE).• Arrange timely safety training.• Sign off on safety readiness checklist.

Document Control

• Ensure all drawings for the CWP are current and that thelatest revisions have been used for the CWP development.

• Receive completed CWPs that are ready for construction.CWPs that cannot be completed or are not ready are alsoplaced in document control but have a hold placed until theoutstanding issues are resolved.

• Document all arrival and departure dates of information anddata flow.

Project Planner

• Determine scheduling priorities in conjunction with theconstruction manager.

• Support work face planning with construction supervision• Ensure the correct number of CWPs is under execution

according to the agreed cash flow and manpower loading.

CWP Development Team (typically 5 members)

• Provide issue resolution for construction teams• Have a comprehensive understanding of the CWPs that they

have developed.• Are able to provide clear understanding of execution strategy,

basis of estimate and what is in scope and what is not.

Construction Crew

• Execute CWP according to mini plan that provides the strat-egy for execution, the scope, schedule, and all of thenecessary information to execute as planned.

Expect the following benefits

• Motivated workforce;• Minimal changes and disruption during execution;• Better productivity;

• Less claims resulting from endless changes;• Use a separate crew for executing changes after the package

has been completed.

CWP Team Collectively

• Ensure good integration of all activities, i.e. information flowsseamlessly from one activity to another.

• Review and discuss opportunities for improvement.• Ensure all the pieces of the puzzle come together prior to

construction.• Sign off on an overall construction readiness checklist. Any

deficiency requires the project manager to make a go or no godecision to proceed with execution.

Special Instructions

• Any special instructions pertaining to a work package need tobe stated to ensure nothing is missed. This will preventsubstantial re-work. This might also identify specific risks, thatthe construction team is aware of can be prevented ormitigated.

LESSONS LEARNED

Several "lessons learned" were identified early on and one ofthe problems due to a late start was the co-location of the CWPdevelopment team could not be implemented as team memberswere distributed over three distant locations. A scheduled CWPreview meeting effectively reduced the problem. Teams should betreated as though they were co-located to ensure unity of purpose.Another issue was the availability of quality assurance staff for ITPdevelopment. Using field engineers, who effectively managedquality, field engineering and material management issues,mitigated this. This reduced the overall cost and size of the CWPdevelopment team. Originally the intent was for the CWP team topackage the work but this did not work. It was more effective touse a Field Engineer and a Construction Specialist to pre-packagethe work using the 3-D model prior to the CWP team packagingthe work.

The Field Engineer and the Construction Specialistmanaged both the packaging and subsequent development andthis kept the team to a manageable cost and size.

Optimal work package sizes have been stated as notexceeding 80 hours. Given the sheer size of the project this wouldresult in an excessive number of CWPs and this remains to beoptimized for these large projects. Early results are extremelypositive and feedback indicates a high probability oforganizational acceptance.

For optimal cost / benefit ratio, work-package sizing should bea one-step process rather than the current two-step processOnce the CWP has been executed and signed off as complete andall quality requirements are met, lessons learned review is carriedout between the CWP Team and the Construction Crew.

The Questions to Ask

PS.13.3


• Did we provide you with the right amount of information toproperly execute this work package?

• What can we do better for future CWPs?• Did we provide you with too much information? If so where

can we reduce it?

This is carried out a few times until the process is optimized. Requirements vary form project-to-project and are dependentupon the experience of the crews. It is essential that this lessonslearned review be carried out as soon as possible to ensure rapidoptimization and cost benefit to subsequent CWPs. It is importantthat once a CWP has been executed that it is closed out and nofurther activity is necessary until system turnover andcommissioning takes place.

BENEFITS

Once the CWP team has become optimized there are anumber of benefits to be realized:

• Higher productivity;• Cost and schedule reduction;• Efficient processing of work package development;• Better motivation of work crews through reduced changes,

holds and delays and the appearance that constructionmanagement might actually know what they are doing. Thisresults in substantially reduced frustrations amongst workcrews;

• Better integration among estimating, construction, fieldengineering, materials management, safety and projectcontrol teams;

• Reduction of claims;• Construction management has ownership and understanding

of work package planning and are able to resolve technicalquestions easily;

• Early RFI resolution prior to execution. This prevents delaysand frustrations among workers who are now able to get onand build the job;

• A checklist process, i.e. a documented readiness assessment)for record purposes and identifying and resolving issues at thetime

• Rapid learning curve for construction crews;• A sense of accomplishment early on due to something being

completed;• Lessons learned are carried forward to future CWPs rather

than waiting until the project's end when it is too late tobenefit from lessons learned;

• Easier scheduling and schedule management;• Better capture of scope changes and changes to execution

strategy.

Work packages must be small enough to providerapid feedback to crews. They must provide asense of accomplishment without being sizedsuch as to become unmanageable. Until the

CWP sizes have been optimized among the client, theengineering house and the construction contractor it will remain

a multi-stage process at best. At worst, large CWPs (i.e., EWPs)will continue to be executed without further decomposition andprojects will continue with unreliable forecasts. Work packagingcan become an effective tool in the project management processif implemented with specific goals in mind. They are not apanacea for construction planning failures and they take time toimplement and to be learned effectively. CWP Provide aconsistent methodology that facilitates optimization and costreduction (over time).

CHALLENGES

Generally implementation went well the biggest challengeswere:

• Formally applying lessons learned. These were informallyimplemented. The necessary records that may be used fortransfer of knowledge across the organization. Whilst the fixeswill benefit the project they may not be communicated forthe benefit of all.

• Electrical disciplines are currently being tested and slightlymore difficult to configure compared to civil and mechanicalCWPs

OPPORTUNITIES

Two schools of thought on the CWP process were formed:

• The project manager develops the CWPs consistently forevery project that are removed from the project team;

• Field Construction Management Staff develop the CWPsand provide on the spot expertise for the Construction Team.

Packaging of work may take place in the engineering houseproviding that the packages are small and completed in a monthor less. The real benefit comes from site team members resolvingtechnical issues and ensuring readiness for construction on site.They are now have an in depth understanding of the work to beperformed and ensure all materials, tools and equipment areready.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge the following supportin producing this article:

• Flint Infrastructure Services Ltd. for its permission andsupport of this paper.

• The following people for providing practical feedback,implementing the process and ensuring its success:

• Robert Beekhuizen P.Eng. M.Sc. (Eng). Who persisted inensuring the process was followed and held frequentmeetings to ensure effective integration.

• Paul Goolcharan P.Eng. A champion of the process from thestart and provided valuable input.

PS.13.4


• Petra Polster who provided valuable input and suggestions.• Mario Potapczuk P.Eng. Who executed the process and

provided valuable feedback on opportunities forimprovement and many practical suggestions.

• Robert Micholuk P.Eng.—AACE Chinook provided avaluable review and suggestions for improvement

• Michael Kwalachuk who provided valuable input on thepractical realities and process changes.

• Ken Shultz who tirelessly provided estimating data andsuggestions.

• Carlos Tan P.Eng. A firm supporter and champion to theprocess.

Mr. George Richard GardnerSenior Project ManagerFlint Energy Services

700 300-5th Avenue, SWCalgary, AB T2P 3C4 Canada

Phone: 403-218-7100Email: [email protected]

PS.13.5


PS.13.6


Figure 1—CWP Packaging, Engineering Phase

PS.13.7


Figure 2—CWP Packaging, Execution Preparation Stage

PS.13.8


Figure 3—CWP Packaging, Readiness Stage

PS.13.9


Figure 4—CWP Components

PS.13.10


Figure 5

Documents

Effective Work Package