• Author / Uploaded
• Максим Гришин

Citation preview

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging Phase 1

Final Report DCC-04

CII Member Companies Owners Albemarle Corporation Ameren Corporation American Transmission Company LLC Anheuser-Busch InBev Aramco Services Company Architect of the Capitol Ascend Performance Materials AstraZeneca Cargill, Inc. Chevron ConocoPhillips Consolidated Edison Company of New York Covestro LLC DTE Energy DuPont Eastman Chemical Company Entergy Corporation ExxonMobil Corporation General Electric Company GlaxoSmithKline Global Infrastructure Partners Honeywell International Inc. Huntsman Corporation INEOS Group Holdings S. A. Irving Oil Limited Johnson & Johnson Kaiser Permanente Koch Industries, Inc. Los Alamos National Laboratory LyondellBasell Marathon Petroleum Corporation Motiva Enterprises, LLC National Aeronautics & Space Administration Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOVA Chemicals Corporation Nutrien Occidental Petroleum Corporation ONEOK, Inc. Ontario Power Generation Petroleo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras Petronas Phillips 66 Public Service Electric & Gas Company Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) SABIC - Saudi Basic Industries Corporation Shell Global Solutions US Inc. Smithsonian Institution Southern Company TC Energy Tennessee Valley Authority The Dow Chemical Company The Procter & Gamble Company The Williams Companies, Inc. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST/EL U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of State U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs U.S. General Services Administration Zachry Corporation

Contractors AECOM Alfred Miller Contracting APTIM Arcadis U.S., Inc AZCO INC. Baker Concrete Construction Inc. Barton Malow Company Bechtel Group, Inc. Black & Veatch Burns & McDonnell Chiyoda Corporation CRB Day & Zimmermann Eichleay, Inc. Emerson Fluor Corporation H+M Industrial EPC Hargrove Engineers + Constructors Hatch Jacobs JGC Corporation KBR Kiewit Corporation M&H Enterprises (Energy Services) Matrix Service Company McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. McDermott International, Inc. Midwest Steel, Inc. NPCC PCL Constructors, Inc. POWER Engineers, Inc. S & B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd. Saipem SpA SBM Offshore SNC-Lavalin Constructors Inc. TechnipFMC plc. thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (USA), Inc. Turner Industries Group LLC Victaulic Wanzek Construction, Inc. Wood Worley Zachry Group

Service Providers Alvarez & Marsal Atlas RFID Solutions Autodesk, Inc. AVEVA Solutions Ltd. Bentley Systems Inc. Blue Cats Command Alkon Inc. Construct-X, LLC Continuum Advisory Group Dassault Systèmes SE Deloitte Design + Construction Strategies DyCat Solutions ePM Group ASI Hexagon Process Power & Marine Hilti Corporation I.M.P.A.C.T. iConstruct Insight-AWP Inc. O3 Solutions Oracle USA, Inc. Pathfinder, LLC PTAG, Inc. T. A. Cook Consultants Inc. Trillium Advisory Group Ltd Valency Inc. Zurich

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) Phase 1

Research Team DCC-04, Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging Construction Industry Institute

Final Report DCC-04 March 2020

© 2020 Construction Industry Institute™ The University of Texas at Austin CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients. CII members are permitted to revise and adapt this work for their internal use, provided an informational copy is furnished to CII. Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or distributed, and no modifications may be made without prior written permission from CII. Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase copies. Volume discounts may be available. All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible to purchase CII products at member prices. Faculty and students at a college or university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for educational use. Printed in the United States of America.

Executive Summary The Construction Industry Institute (CII) challenged Research Team DCC-04 (RT-DCC-04) to recommend strategies for promoting the use of Advanced Work Packaging. AWP is a CII Best Practice that promotes a disciplined process for project planning and execution. It aims to systematically align the engineering, procurement, and construction disciplines across the project life cycle. In order to achieve its goal, the team conducted a survey and a series of interviews to accomplish the following tasks: 1. Identify companies that are implementing AWP. 2. Analyze the main barriers these companies face during AWP implementation. 3. Recommend potential solutions to overcome these barriers. 4. Find out why some companies choose not to implement AWP. 5. Uncover opportunity areas where additional research could positively affect the use of AWP at the industry level. The research team developed an online survey to gain a better understanding of the current status of AWP implementation. This survey obtained 68 responses from 36 companies. It collected data about these companies’ AWP implementation journeys, including project focus, implementation maturity level, barriers to implementation, potential solutions to overcoming these barriers, and recommendations on how to promote the use of AWP. Along with the survey, the team conducted 11 interviews to gather more data on implementation challenges and critical success factors. RT-DCC-04’s research findings indicate that AWP is being utilized globally by projects in a wide range of sizes. Among the companies that participated in this study, the average AWP implementation maturity level (based on the five maturity model dimensions set out by RT-272) was 1.8 on a scale that ranges from 1.0 to 3.0, with 3.0 being the most mature (CII/COAA 2013a). RT-DCC-04’s analysis also showed that there was greater maturity in aspects related to understanding AWP benefits, while maturity was lower in dimensions that dealt with AWP implementation strategy, training, and support.

iii

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

RT-DCC-04 also conducted a comprehensive analysis of AWP implementation barriers. One of the findings indicated a relationship between the barriers a company faced and its maturity level: • Companies with higher maturity levels faced barriers related to integrating AWP with engineering and integrating AWP procedures with existing processes. • Companies with median maturity reported encountering barriers related to a lack of mature resources to implement AWP and an insufficient understanding of how to integrate AWP with existing procedures. • Companies with lower maturity presented barriers related to recognizing the value of AWP and understanding its concepts. The team identified potential solutions to the main AWP implementation barriers and also compiled its suggestions on how to promote the use of AWP. The research findings made clear that there are ways to positively promote AWP implementation at the industry level. The team isolated two topics that need more attention now: 1. Improving the integration of engineering and AWP implementation 2. Providing easier access to AWP case studies and implementation resources A second phase of this research will focus on these areas that were identified by the team’s first phase.

iv

Contents

iii 1 3 11 17 21 33 39 43 45 47 61 63 67 71 75 79 83 87 91 95

Chapter 1 Introduction Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) is a CII Best Practice that promotes a disciplined process for project planning and execution. It aims to systematically align the engineering, procurement, and construction disciplines across the project life cycle. The AWP methodology shifts the planning focus to the early stages and is based on three main components: 1. Construction work packages (CWPs) 2. Engineering work packages (EWPs) 3. Installation work packages (IWPs) The logical and iterative breakdown of a project into these three deliverables provides a framework for effective and consistent planning throughout project duration. AWP has the potential to improve the project delivery process. Early evidence from CII’s Research Team 272 (RT-272) indicated the following benefits of AWP implementation, compared to traditional planning and execution processes (CII/COAA 2013a): • Up to 25% increase in construction productivity • Up to 10% decreases in total installed cost (TIC), with increased savings for owners and increased profitability for contractors • Improved schedule performance, with projects delivered on schedule • Improved safety performance, with zero lost time accident records • Increased quality, with reduced construction rework • Increased predictability, in terms of cost and schedule estimates RT-319 validated the benefits of implementing AWP. It used qualitative and quantitative research methods that supported the case for AWP as a best practice for the industrial construction sector (CII 2015). Even though AWP became a CII Best Practice in 2015, its use has remained limited among companies in the downstream and chemicals sector. Hence, this work seeks ways to promote AWP use in this sector.

1

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

Research Objectives RT-DCC-04’s main goal was to promote AWP use in the downstream and chemical sectors. To that end, the team established the following objectives: • Identify which Downstream and Chemicals Sector Committee (DCC) member organizations are implementing AWP. • Identify the barriers that DCC member organizations face during their implementation of AWP. • Pinpoint the strategies that DCC member organizations are adopting to overcome these barriers to successful implementation of AWP. • Discover why some DCC member organizations choose not to implement AWP. • Uncover opportunities related to “people,” “process,” and “technology” aspects that can be leveraged to improve the utilization of AWP.

2

Chapter 2 Research Methodology Overview This chapter presents the methodology RT-DCC-04 followed to achieve its research objectives. The team’s approach is illustrated in Figure 1. Background Review

• AWP Maturity Model • Potential AWP Barriers • AWP Practices and Components

Data Collection

• Survey • Interviews

Data Analysis

• AWP Implementation Plans and Maturity Levels • AWP Implementation Barriers • Potential Solutions to Implementation Barriers • Recommendations to Promote the Use of AWP

Report Preparation

Figure 1. Research Methodology

Background Review RT-DCC-04 conducted a background review to gather relevant findings from previous studies. The team aimed to incorporate knowledge from related AWP studies and to align with existing AWP implementation efforts. The team’s search leveraged resources and/or findings from the following organizations: • CII’s Downstream and Chemicals Sector Committee (DCC) • CII’s Advanced Work Packaging Community for Business Advancement (AWP CBA) • CII’s Technology Committee • Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA) • Organizations that support the implementation of AWP (e.g., Construct-X, Autodesk, ExxonMobil, Eastman, Bechtel, Worley, Group ASI) • Universities that are conducting AWP-related research (e.g., University of Alberta and The University of Texas at Austin) 3

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

Data Collection The team’s approach to data collection involved a survey and interviews with subject matter experts. Survey The team conducted a survey by issuing it through CII to all members of the DCC. The survey was a self-assessment tool that an average participant took an estimated 20 minutes to complete. Created by using Qualtrics software, this survey addressed topics that were relevant to achieving RT-DCC-04’s research objectives. The survey was composed of four primary blocks of questions. Each block had a different focus and gained a different perspective on the AWP program at the respondent’s company. (The complete survey questions are presented in Appendix A.) 1. Company and respondent information This block gathered information on the respondent and the company, including the respondent’s job position and experience. This section asked whether the company was implementing AWP, and upon which types of projects the company used or planned to use AWP. If the respondent marked that the company was not implementing AWP, the survey skipped to a question asking why this was so. If he or she indicated that the company had implemented AWP, the survey would instead advance to questions regarding the maturity level. 2. Maturity level This section assessed the responding company’s maturity in AWP implementation. Its questions were based on the maturity model matrix presented by RT-272 (CII/ COAA 2013a). It assessed the company’s AWP maturity in terms of the following five dimensions: • View of AWP • AWP implementation strategy • Work processes and deliverables • Culture and performance metrics • Training and support

4

2. Research Methodology

For each dimension, the survey asked the respondent to rate the company’s maturity by assigning it to one of five levels (offering half-step levels to increase the flexibility of possible responses):

Level 1 – The maturity of the organization is low.

Level 1.5 – The maturity of the organization is between Level 1 (above) and Level 2 (below).

Level 2 – The maturity of the organization is median.

Level 2.5 – The maturity of the organization is between Level 2 (above) and Level 3 (below).

Level 3 – The maturity of the organization is high.

3. Barriers and potential solutions This section of the survey identified which barriers the company was facing and how these barriers affected AWP implementation. Its first question was open-ended. It asked the respondent to list the company’s main barriers to implementing AWP and to comment on how they kept the company from using AWP. In this way, the survey could capture whichever barriers a respondent thought of first, before any of the subsequent questions could guide or bias the answers. Next, this section presented multiple-choice questions. The survey offered a list of barriers (shown in Table 1 on the following page) and asked the respondent to assign a level of severity to each barrier: • Major • Moderate • Minor • None • Not Applicable If the respondent marked “major” beside a given barrier, the questionnaire would provide a box where the respondent could write which potential solution the company had used to overcome that specific barrier. To avoid survey fatigue, respondents were only asked to supply these additional details for major barriers. (The number in front of each barrier in Table 1 is a reference number; in no way does it rank the barrier.) After this section, the survey offered two questions to support the other CII research teams contemporaneously working on AWP topics, Research Teams 364 and 365. These questions addressed barriers related to the integration of AWP with procurement and supply chain management, and to its integration with commissioning and startup.

5

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

Table 1. AWP Implementation Barriers 1. Lack of buy-in 2. Lack of AWP champion/leadership 3. Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and processes 4. Expectation of limited (or no) benefits to company from AWP 5. Cost to implement 6. Company not interested in implementing AWP 7. Awaiting more industry AWP project results before implementing 8. Previous attempt to implement AWP was considered unsuccessful 9. Lack of ongoing alignment among owner, contractors, suppliers, and others 10. Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and field execution 11. Lack of alignment between AWP and front end planning 12. Contractor does not buy in early enough 13. Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and contract type 14. Owner does not include clear AWP requirements in the contract 15. Contract size does not support AWP implementation 16. Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and field strategy 17. Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and project scope 18. Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP 19. Owner engages contractors too late to effectively implement AWP 20. Owner late in furnishing items or information 21. Progress payments not linked to AWP deliverables 22. Construction company not available to provide timely path of construction input 23. Too many unknowns to effectively sequence CWPs well in advance 24. Turnover/startup personnel not available to provide timely path of construction input 25. Procurement personnel not available to provide timely path of construction input 26. Engineering design sequence not able to match construction sequence 27. Late AWP implementation

6

28. Inconsistency in AWP implementation due to lack of structured process 29. Need (or perceived need) for additional project team members for AWP 30. “Silos” among project team groups limit integration 31. Too many unknowns to effectively sequence IWPs well in advance 32. Difficulty in scoping/sizing IWPs 33. Maintaining a constraint-free backlog of IWPs throughout the project 34. Difficulty with ongoing tracking/ closing of IWPs 35. Belief that experienced field leadership and crews can construct without IWPs 36. Current company processes would have to be revised to include AWP 37. Changes to roles of individuals when implementing AWP 38. Difficulty in making AWP fitfor-purpose on various sizes of projects 39. Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP 40. Lack of inter-organizational coordination following a scope change 41. Project controls not aligned with AWP 42. Materials management/logistics issues (materials to the work face) 43. Lack of efficient/on-time scaffolding management 44. Current company culture does not fully support AWP 45. Misperception that company already performs AWP (no change needed) 46. Do not need AWP because current project performance/ results are good enough 47. Weaknesses in overall AWP organization/coordination 48. Lack of training 49. Low level of AWP maturity among contractors 50. Poor integration of AWP information system with other corporate systems 51. Lack of attributes in the design model 52. Manual or paper-based IWP management system is inefficient for the project size

53. Transition from construction by area to commissioning by system 54. AWP program is not ownerdriven 55. Lack of financial incentives to improve execution efficiency 56a. Internal push-back from upper management 56b. Internal push-back from middle management 56c. Internal push-back from project managers 56d. Internal push-back from information management/ technology 56e. Internal push-back from design engineering management 56f. Internal push-back from design engineers 56g. Internal push-back from procurement 56h. Internal push-back from project controls 56i. Internal push-back from construction managers 56j. Internal push-back from superintendents 56k. Internal push-back from general foremen 56l. Internal push-back from foremen 56m. Internal push-back from field crews 56n. Internal push-back from schedulers 56o. Internal push-back from cost estimators 57a. External push-back from owner 57b. External push-back from engineering design contractor 57c. External push-back from engineering design/ procurement contractor 57d. External push-back from engineering design/ procurement/construction contractor 57e. External push-back from construction management contractor 57f. External push-back from construction contractor 57g. External push-back from subcontractor 57h. External push-back from suppliers

2. Research Methodology

4. Recommendations and opportunities for improvement This last block of the survey pinpointed which potential solutions the company was taking or planning to take to overcome the reported barriers. It invited the respondent to provide recommendations on how to promote the use of AWP across the industry and to uncover areas that offered opportunities for improvement. This block also asked whether the respondent would be willing to participate in a follow-up interview. When the answer was “yes” or “maybe,” the team would include that person as a potential candidate to be interviewed during the next phase of the research. The survey was distributed through an anonymous link via Qualtrics, sent by email to CII member companies. Research team members, CII staff, and DCC members helped disseminate the link and ensured that companies were participating in the survey. The survey was not directed to any specific group of respondents (i.e., it was not intended only to reach only individuals representing engineering or construction). Any qualified representative in a company could respond, and each company could complete more than one survey. The team felt that this approach could show different perspectives of AWP implementation. In cases where a company submitted more than one response, the separate implementation maturity results were averaged. The survey received 68 responses from 36 different companies. These responses were categorized according to company role on projects (i.e., owner, contractor, service provider, non-CII member) (see Figure 2).

Owners 11

Non-CII Members 4

Contractors 16

Service Providers 5

Figure 2. Respondents’ Companies Categorized by Role on Projects (n=36)

7

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

Appendix B lists the companies that participated in the survey. The survey captured whether a respondent was from the home office (13 respondents) or a field office (54 respondents). Additionally, the survey gathered information about each respondent’s extent of industry experience and AWP experience (see Figure 3). 35%

40% 34%

35% 30%

30% 28%

25%

23%

15%

15% 11% 6%

0–10

10% 5%

5% 0%

22%

20%

15% 10%

25%

21%

20%

32%

10–20

20–30

30–40

>40

Respondent’s years of industry experience

0%

3% 0–3

3–5

5%

5–10 10–15 15–20 >20

Respondent’s years of AWP experience

Figure 3. Respondents’ Years of Experience Interviews As a way to expand on the survey results, the researchers also carried out semistructured interviews that provided opportunities to better understand a company’s AWP procedures and efforts and, thereby, to clarify any questions that may have arisen from the survey responses. Along with each interview invitation, the team sent a document that contained the interview guidelines. Each semi-structured interview lasted 30 minutes and was conducted by members of RT-DCC-04. The team selected which participants to interview by considering their survey responses and interview availability. The interview was designed to most efficiently elucidate relevant information introduced in the survey. Each interview was divided into the following four sections: 1. An overview of the company’s AWP implementation efforts to date – This first part of the interview focused on the company’s efforts to implement AWP. It was important to grasp where the company stood in the AWP implementation journey. The main point addressed in this section was the company’s maturity level, which allowed each interviewee to comment on and clarify the organization’s existing process regarding AWP.

8

2. Research Methodology

2. Top barriers that the company faced during its implementation efforts – The second section dealt with which barriers the company was facing. Each interviewee listed the main barriers and commented on them from a personal point of view. This section focused on understanding the details of each barrier and how it affected the AWP process. 3. Detailed potential solutions that the company is implementing (or plans to implement) to overcome these barriers – The next section concerned potential solutions the company had taken (or contemplated taking) to overcome the main barriers in the previous section, and discovering how the company used AWP to best fit its needs. This section allowed the researchers to gain a better understanding of each company’s solution to implement AWP more successfully. It also gave RT-DCC-04 a better understanding of the barriers that still needed solutions. 4. Industry-level recommendations, information, or actions to further promote the use of AWP and areas of opportunity – This final section of the interview was intended to collect participants’ recommendations for what CII could do to promote AWP at the industry level and to uncover opportunity areas that could be improved. The answers from this section showed the team that it would need to continue this research effort into a second phase. By conducting these interviews, team members expected to understand the industry’s needs and what could be done to help companies implement AWP more successfully. The team conducted 11 interviews with experts from 10 different companies: • Bechtel • Black & Veatch • Burns and McDonnell • Dow • Eastman

• ExxonMobil • Hargrove • Kiewit • LyondellBasell • Southern Company

Appendix K summarizes these interviews without naming each company. The interview findings gave the researchers a deeper understanding of the respondents’ AWP implementation efforts. The participants explained some of the barriers that they had listed as “major” in the survey and detailed how they decided to give a barrier that designation. This process helped the team to recognize the improvement opportunity areas and to define how CII could proceed to help promote AWP at the industry level, making sure to cover the expressed needs of the companies.

9

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

Data Analysis The team’s data analysis fell into two segments: 1. The quantitative analysis was crucial to identify and rank each barrier, and to define potential solutions to the barriers. 2. The qualitative analysis validated the quantitative analysis and also provided more details with regard to the findings.

Report Preparation RT-DCC-04 prepared a report based on its research findings and recommendations. The report accomplished several objectives: • It characterized the status of AWP implementation across DCC members. • It identified barriers to the successful implementation of AWP. • It uncovered strategies for overcoming these barriers. • It made recommendations on how to promote the use of AWP. Scope Limitations The data obtained through the survey and interviews were based on the respondents’ experiences with and perspectives on AWP implementation. RT-DCC-04 assumed that the data collected from the survey and interviews were representative of most members of DCC. However, because the research captured viewpoints from a relatively small number of companies (n = 36), the team cautions that the results may not be representative of the whole industry.

10

Chapter 3 Background Review Findings RT-DCC-04’s background review facilitated its development of the subsequent research steps. The review focused on three relevant topics: the AWP maturity model, potential AWP carriers, and AWP practices and components.

AWP Maturity Model Research Team 272 developed an AWP maturity model, which it detailed in Volume II of CII Implementation Resource 272-2, Advanced Work Packaging: Implementation Guidance (CII/COAA 2013a). A company or project can use this AWP maturity model to assess its current state of AWP implementation. The maturity model is divided into five dimensions and three levels of implementation maturity, as Figure 4 shows.

Advanced Work Packaging Implementation Maturity Model

The potential of the implementation of AWP strategy is not understood and has few champions. AWP is not a priority within the corporate vision.

AWP is seen as part of the business solution being both an opportunity and a challenge.

AWP is developed on an ad hoc basis - most often driven by customer demands.

Integration of AWP strategies are routinely developed and updated. These often seek to overcome integration and communication issues across project organizational units (silos). AWP is now included in all contracts.

Training & Support

Organization Culture & Performance Metrics

Work Processes & Deliverables

View of AWP

Level 3: AWP Business Transformation

Project AWP Strategy

Level 1: AWP Early Stages

Most work occurs inside functional units with minimal collaboration or integration. "Over the wall" approaches are common. The culture embraces silos. Performance metrics are silo-oriented. For example engineering performance is based on percentage of hours "burned" vs. budget and not focused on the deliverables (EWPs) delivered to meet the Path of Construction.

Some training standards are in place based on job descriptions to support AWP. Team members may take the training but are still not supported within their organization to implement what they have learned.

Training to fully support a successful AWP implementation is fully available, valued and supported within the organization.

Training is continuous and the organization is considered an industry leader.

Figure 4. Maturity Model Matrix by RT-272 (CII/COAA 2013a)

11

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

After RT-272 completed its work, CII commissioned RT-319 to validate AWP as a best practice. RT-319 developed its own AWP maturity model and applied it to rate a set of industrial projects. Although RT-319’s maturity model assessment was inspired by the RT-272 model discussed above, RT-319’s maturity dimensions and maturity levels were different. The maturity levels were calculated by measuring the diligence of AWP adoption according to three maturity dimensions: 1. Adherence to prescribed procedures 2. Alignment between execution plans and associated discipline-specific work packaging deliverables 3. Inclusion of AWP guidelines into key participants’ contracts To assess maturity, the RT-319 researchers used the following six indicators – two for each maturity dimension – and calculated the AWP maturity level as the geometric average of these six indicators’ scores (O’Brien and Ponticelli 2016). Process Adherence • In the early planning stage, project execution planning documents included construction sequences, phases, and boundaries to support AWP. • Major equipment and procurement data were identified and integrated with work-packaging schedule. Organization Alignment • The work-packaging process was aligned with project procedures. • The work breakdown structure was aligned with the AWP execution plan and associated work packages (e.g., CWP, EWP, IWP). Contract Integration • Roles and responsibilities were defined in accordance with AWP guidelines. • Work-packaging requirements and deliverables were integrated within key project participants’ contracts. RT-319 calculated project performance by measuring the gap between estimated and actual project performance. Table 2 shows the matrix the team proposed to measure project performance (O’Brien and Ponticelli 2016). By graphing the potential scenarios for interactions between the maturity level and project performance, RT-319 revealed that projects followed five patterns (e.g., linear, square root, exponential, S-curve, and J-curve), as shown in Figure 5 (O’Brien and Ponticelli 2016). A qualitative analysis of the findings from Research Teams 272 and RT-319 enabled RT-DCC-04 to classify any company based upon the maturity model created by RT-272.

12

3. Background Review Findings

Table 2. Indicators and Scales for Project Performance (O’Brien and Ponticelli 2016) Performance dimension

Productivity

Cost

Safety

Schedule

Quality

Score

(1)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Improvements between 10% and 20%

Improvements between 20% and 30%

Improvements higher than 30%

The project was delivered with cost overrun

The project finished within the planned budget including approved scope changes

The project finished under planned budget (between 0% and 5% TIC)

The project finished under planned budget (between 5% and 10% TIC)

The project finished under planned budget (more than 10% TIC)

TRIR in line or worse than company average

TRIR was slightly less than previous similar projects or company’s average (between 0% and 10% reduction)

TRIR was less than previous similar projects or company’s average (between 10% and 20% reduction)

TRIR was greatly less than previous similar projects or company’s average (more than 20% reduction)

TRIR was 0

The project was delivered with major schedule delay

The project was delivered with minor delay

The project finished within the planned schedule

The project was delivered with minor advance of time

The project was delivered with major advance of time

Percentage of issued IWPs that have an RFI resulting in a construction change order is higher than 80%

Percentage of issued IWPs that have an RFI resulting in a construction change order is between 60% and 80%

Percentage of issued IWPs that have an RFI resulting in a construction change order is between 40% and 60%

Percentage of issued IWPs that have an RFI resulting in a construction change order is between 20% and 40%

Percentage of issued IWPs that have an RFI resulting in a construction change order is lower than 20%

Major sporadic changes to IWP estimates

Small continuous changes to IWP estimates

Small sporadic changes to IWP estimates

IWP estimates were consistently met, reflecting project execution

Major continuous changes to Predictability IWP estimates

a) Linear

(2)

In line or Improvements worse than between 0% estimates (or and 10% previous similar projects)

b) Square Root

c) Exponential

d) S-curve

e) J-curve

Figure 5. Patterns between AWP Maturity and Project Performance (O’Brien and Ponticelli 2016) 13

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

AWP Implementation Barriers RT-DCC-04 conducted a background review of potential AWP barriers. It began by considering barriers identified by RT-272, presented by RT-272 researchers at the 2012 COAA Best Practice Conference, and refined by RT-319. RT-DCC-04 then added more inputs of its own. The final results (captured in Table 1 on page 6 of this document) represent a combination of barriers identified across all of these efforts. The number in front of each barrier is a reference number; in no way does it rank the barrier. Barriers Identified by RT-272 RT-272 conducted interviews with subject matter experts to identify perceived challenges for AWP implementation. The most common difficulties identified during the interviews related to lack of alignment, change inertia, lack of buy-in, lack of experience and training, and lack of inter-organizational coordination. Barriers Presented at the 2012 COAA Best Practices Conference in Edmonton, Canada During the 2012 COAA Best Practices Conference, RT-272 researchers presented the results of a survey that highlighted which barriers the industry had been facing as it implemented AWP. Some examples of the AWP implementation barriers presented included lack of clear implementation strategy, inconsistent terminology, need for standardization of work packaging, and lack of guidelines around AWP implementation. Barriers Identified by RT-319 RT-319 identified the primary difficulties faced during AWP implementation. The most common difficulties found during this research were change inertia, lack of buyin, lack of scope freeze, late engineering deliverables, and poor control process. More details can be found in the RT-319 documents published by CII (CII/COAA 2015; CII/ COAA 2015a; O’Brien and Ponticelli 2016). Preliminary List of Barrier Categories Brainstormed by RT-DCC-04 During its kick-off meeting (January 23–24, 2019), RT-DCC-04 brainstormed a preliminary list of barrier categories, based upon the experience of team members. RT-DCC-04 used these barriers again later as it composed the final list of barriers for use in the survey.

14

3. Background Review Findings

AWP Practices and Components The RT-DCC-04 research built on materials and tools from RT-272 (CII/COAA 2013; CII/COAA 2013a; CII/COAA 2013b) and the Workface Planning Scorecard proposed by COAA (COAA 2013). RT-DCC-04 analyzed the questions in all of the assessment tools and scorecards to ensure that the AWP practices and components were identified. RT-272 Audit Tool by Phase The AWP Audit Tool by Phase in Volume II of IR-272 was designed to assess conformity to the AWP processes at each stage of the project. It was primarily intended for use by the owner, but it can also be used by other parties to identify gaps in AWP implementation. The complete version of the tool can be found in IR-272, Volume II (CII/COAA 2013a). Workface Planning Scorecard The Workface Planning Scorecard, developed by COAA, was used as a reference for the development of the RT-272 Audit Tool by Phase just discussed. Some items in the Workface Planning Scorecard were not included in the RT-272 Audit Tool by Phase but may be relevant to DCC implementation of AWP. The complete version of the tool can be found in COAA’s Advanced Work Packaging & Workface Planning Scorecard (COAA 2013). RT-272 Case Study Questionnaire RT-272 presented a questionnaire about AWP practices and components. The questions focused around project background and characteristics, workface planning practices, and project performance. All questions had binary answers (i.e., yes or no) and space for comments about the questions. The complete version of the tool can be found in IR-272, Volume II (CII/COAA 2013a). RT-272 AWP Project Definition Assessment Tool The AWP Project Definition Assessment Tool helps project teams assess readiness before implementing AWP in a specific project. The score of the questions is divided into five levels. The complete version of the tool can be found in IR-272, Volume II (CII/COAA 2013a).

15

Chapter 4 AWP Implementation Plans and Maturity Levels RT-DCC-04 analyzed the AWP implementation plans and maturity-level ratings obtained from the survey responses. Of the 68 survey respondents, 64 indicated that their company had implemented AWP. Of the four respondents who had not, one was a contractor, one an owner, and two were service providers. When the team asked these four respondents why their companies had not implemented AWP, they offered the following reasons: “Company does not recognize the value of implementing AWP.” “Implementing AWP does not appear cost-effective for the company. The cost of changing engineering and procurement deliverables and the additional staff necessary to implement AWP is not suitable for the company at the moment.”

AWP Implementation Plans The team asked the representatives of the 64 companies that implement AWP to answer several additional questions. Their responses to a question about where their companies apply or intend to apply AWP demonstrated that AWP is being used globally (see Figure 6). A question about each company’s scalability approach to applying AWP showed that respondents considered AWP applicable to projects of all sizes (see Figure 7). 60

51

Frequency

50

36

40 30

23

20

20

20

8

10

8

12

7

10

id

dl

e

Ea

st

Af ric a

Au st ra lia

fic ac i

M

As

ia -P

Am er ic a

Eu ro pe

So ut h

O th er

U .S .G ul fC oa lo st ca tio ns in U .S . Ea st C an ad a W es tC an ad a

0

Figure 6. Where the Company Applies or Intends to Apply AWP 42

Applicable to projects with TIC> $1B

41

Applicable to projects with TIC> $500M

43

Applicable to projects with TIC> $100M

39

Applicable to projects with TIC< $100M 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Frequency

Figure 7. AWP’s Applicability to Projects of Various Sizes 17

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

AWP Implementation Maturity Levels In order to analyze the maturity levels of the companies, the researchers calculated a maturity score for each company. Each final score was an average of the company’s AWP maturity, indicated across all five dimensions proposed by the RT-272 maturity model. Table 3 shows how this maturity score was calculated. Table 3. How RT-DCC-04 Calculated a Company’s Maturity Score Company

MM1 – View of AWP

MM2 – AWP Implementation Strategy

MM3 – Work Processes and Deliverable

MM4 – Culture and Performance Metrics

MM5 – Training and Support

Score

Company A

2.0

3.0

2.5

3.0

2.0

2.500

After obtaining a maturity score for each company relative to the RT-272 model, the researchers analyzed each maturity level by considering the role that the company took on projects (i.e., contractor or owner). The team calculated a score for each group through the weighted average of the frequency of responses for that group. Unlike with each company’s maturity analysis, the team calculated a separate group score for each dimension, instead of combining the five into one total score. Hence, each group had a different score for each of the five proposed dimensions. Table 4 gives an example of the group maturity calculation for one dimension (View of AWP Potential and Benefits). Note that the numbers in the second column reflect the number of responses at each level. For example, five respondents to the survey marked Level 1 for “View of AWP Potential and Benefits (Frequency).” Table 4. How a Group Maturity Score Was Calculated Maturity Level 1 (Low)

View of AWP Potential and Benefits (Frequency) 5

1.5 (Between Median and Low) 2 (Median)

4 7

2.5 (Between Median and High) 3 (High)

5 7

Weighted Score

2.09

The team analyzed the maturity of the companies in three ways (shown in Tables 5–7): • Overall maturity included responses from owners and contractors. • Contractors’ maturity only accounted for companies that took the role of contractor. • Owners’ maturity only accounted for companies that took the role of owner. 18

4. AWP Implementation Plans and Maturity Levels

Table 5. Maturity Model Scores – All (Owners + Contractors) (n= 25) Maturity Level

View of AWP Potential and Benefits (Frequency)

AWP Implementation Strategy (Frequency)

Work Processes and Deliverables (Frequency)

AWP in Company Training and Culture and AWP Support Performance Metrics (Frequency) (Frequency)

1

4

7

4

7

7

1.5

4

8

8

7

10

2

7

4

5

5

5

2.5

4

3

5

5

2

3

6

3

3

1

1

Weighted Score

2.08

1.74

1.90

1.72

1.60

Table 6. Maturity Model Scores – Contractors (n= 14) Maturity Level

View of AWP Potential and Benefits (Frequency)

AWP Implementation Strategy (Frequency)

Work Processes and Deliverables (Frequency)

AWP in Company Training and Culture and AWP Support Performance Metrics (Frequency) (Frequency)

1

2

4

1

4

3

1.5

2

3

5

3

7

2

3

3

3

3

2

2.5

3

2

3

3

1

3

4

2

2

1

1

Weighted Score

2.18

1.82

2.00

1.79

1.64

Table 7. Maturity Model Scores – Owners (n= 11) Maturity Level

View of AWP Potential and Benefits (Frequency)

AWP Implementation Strategy (Frequency)

Work Processes and Deliverables (Frequency)

AWP in Company Training and Culture and AWP Support Performance Metrics (Frequency) (Frequency)

1

2

3

3

3

4

1.5

2

5

3

4

3

2

4

1

2

2

3

2.5

1

1

2

2

1

3

2

1

1

0

0

Weighted Score

1.95

1.64

1.77

1.64

1.55

19

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

By displaying the results in these three ways, the research team was able to analyze differences in maturity between the contractors and the owners in the five dimensions: • Both owners and contractors showed a higher maturity level on “View of AWP Potential and Benefits” and a lower maturity level on “Training and AWP Support.” • Both owners and contractors had a higher maturity in terms of AWP potential and benefits, and a lower maturity in terms of AWP training and support. That meant that the companies tended to have knowledge about AWP, understood its benefits, and knew the concepts behind AWP. However, they tended to lack an understanding of how to apply and put into practice all of the AWP concepts. • The maturity model scores also gave the research team an idea of the areas where companies were struggling most. This information could help to identify which areas represent opportunities for improvement. Finding opportunity areas is going to help this research to continue its task of promoting the use of AWP at the industry level. According to the maturity model scores, the main areas where the companies were struggling were training, metrics, and company culture. These findings from the maturity model reflect what the RT-DCC-04 research found in the sections that follow. The areas where the maturity level was lower were directly related to the AWP implementation barriers that respondents ranked as “major.”

20

Chapter 5 Analysis of AWP Implementation Barriers As Chapter 2 showed, RT-DCC-04 gathered data on the barriers to implementing AWP from three different sources: 1. Multiple-choice questions, where a quantitative analysis was used 2. Open-ended survey questions, where qualitative analysis was conducted 3. Interview questions, where a qualitative analysis was performed to obtain the section findings This chapter will explain how these quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted and present their findings related to the barriers.

Quantitative Analysis – Multiple Choice Questions For the quantitative data, RT-DCC-04 developed a scoring system that would conform to the research objectives. The team asked participants to rank the barriers in a multiple-choice question, then explored ranking processes that delivered four different scores. Table 8 shows the method the team used to calculate each score. Table 8. Four Methods RT-DCC-04 Used to Score Barriers Score 2

Score 1 Weighted average excluding None and N/A responses Major = 3, Moderate = 2, Minor = 1

Score 3

Number of Major Barriers Total Number of Major, Moderate, and Minor Barriers

Score 4

Weighted average of all responses

Number of Major Barriers

Major = 3, Moderate = 2, Minor = 1

Total Number of Responses

Table 9 gives an example of how the same data delivered four barrier scores. In this example, 19 respondents considered Barrier 1 to have a major impact on the AWP implementation, 19 thought it had a moderate impact, 10 said it had a minor impact, 3 felt it had no impact, and 5 judged that the barrier was not applicable to their procedures. Once RT-DCC-04 had identified that Score 1 was most relevant to the research objectives, the team ranked the top barriers by Score 1.

Barriers in the Survey

Major

Moderate

Minor

None

N/A

Score 1

Score 2

Score 3

Score 4

Table 9. An Example of How the Team Calculated Barrier Scores

Barrier 1

19

19

10

3

5

2.19

40%

1.88

34%

21

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

To give different perspectives of the chief barriers, the team analyzed the data in the following ways: • Overall top barriers • Top barriers divided by owners and contractors’ responses • Top barriers divided by home office and field office personnel’s responses • Top barriers considered by three levels of AWP implementation maturity (i.e., high, median, and low) After analyzing the data and identifying the top barriers, RT-DCC-04 created categories to classify the barriers. Through this classification, the researchers aimed to provide a more streamlined view of areas to improve, and thereby to get a better understanding of which areas needed more support from CII to facilitate AWP implementation. Table 10 gives the categories of barriers that the team developed. Table 10. Categories of Barriers Categories of Barriers

?

AWP maturity level, resource availability, and AWP understanding

⚙

Integration of AWP with engineering

X

Company unconvinced of AWP benefits or not interested in implementing AWP

||

Alignment and integration of AWP with existing company processes and systems

Table 11 shows the top barriers according to Score 1, with barrier categories indicated where appropriate. The overall main barriers were mostly related to the following topics: • The maturity level of AWP implementation • The availability of resources to implement AWP • The companies’ understanding of AWP • The integration of AWP with engineering • The integration of AWP into existing company processes and systems However, as Table 11 shows, the top overall barriers were related to only the first two barrier categories.

22

Table 11. Overall Top Barriers in the Survey Moderate

Minor

None

N/A

Score 1

? 49. Low level of AWP maturity among contractors

18

19

10

3

5

2.17

? 18. Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP

20

21

12

5

1

2.15

⚙ 57c. External push-back from engineering design/procurement contractor

13

14

9

6

10

2.11

⚙ 57b. External push-back from engineering design contractor

13

16

10

6

7

2.08

⚙ 39. Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP

14

18

12

9

3

2.04

⚙ 57d. External push-back from engineering design/procurement/construction contractor

12

10

11

7

13

2.03

? 3. Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and processes

15

25

14

4

1

2.02

57a. External push-back from owner

10

9

10

14

10

2.00

12. Contractor does not buy in early enough

17

10

18

7

7

1.98

54. AWP program is not owner-driven

10

13

11

14

7

1.97

|| 50. Poor integration of AWP information system with other corporate systems

10

28

12

2

3

1.96

|| 10. Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and field execution

13

16

15

13

3

1.95

|| 11. Lack of alignment between AWP and front end planning

11

23

14

8

3

1.94

10

15

13

14

3

1.92

14

17

18

5

4

1.92

55. Lack of financial incentives to improve execution efficiency

⚙ 26. Engineering design sequence not able to match construction sequence Categories of Barriers ? AWP maturity level, resource availability, and AWP understanding

⚙ Integration of AWP with engineering X Company unconvinced of AWP benefits or not interested in implementing AWP ||

Alignment and integration of AWP with existing company processes and systems

23

5. Analysis of AWP Implementation Barriers

Major

Barriers in the Survey

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

Table 12 depicts the top barriers from the data, divided to isolate contractors and owners. Table 12. Contractors and Owners’ Top Barriers Contractors Barriers

Score

9. Lack of ongoing alignment among owner, contractors, suppliers, and others

2.23

|| 10. Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and field execution

2.21

? 18. Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP

2.19

⚙ ⚙ ⚙ ⚙

57a. External push-back from owner

2.17

57c. External push-back from engineering design/procurement contractor

2.17

22. Construction company not available to provide timely path of construction input

2.09

57b. External push-back from engineering design contractor

2.08

39. Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP

2.07

54. AWP program is not owner-driven

2.07

|| 14. Owner does not include clear AWP requirements in the contract

2.06

Owners Barriers

Score

? 49. Low level of AWP maturity among contractors

2.45

? 18. Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP

2.23

? 3. Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and processes

2.11

57g. External push-back from subcontractor

⚙ 57c. External push-back from engineering design/procurement contractor

|| 50. Poor integration of AWP information system with other corporate systems

⚙ 57b. External push-back from engineering design contractor ⚙

2.06 2.06 2.00 2.00

57d. External push-back from engineering design/procurement/construction contractor

2.00

48. Lack of training

1.96

⚙ 39. Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP

1.95

Categories of Barriers ?

AWP maturity level, resource availability, and AWP understanding

⚙ Integration of AWP with engineering

X Company unconvinced of AWP benefits or not interested in implementing AWP || Alignment and integration of AWP with existing company processes and systems

The main barriers for combined contractors and owners were mostly related to AWP awareness, integration with engineering, and integration between AWP and existing procedures. For owners alone, the top three barriers were related to AWP maturity, resource availability, and AWP awareness. For contractors, integrating AWP with engineering was a more prevalent barrier.

24

5. Analysis of AWP Implementation Barriers

Table 13 gives an analysis of the top barriers, according to a separate consideration of home office and field office personnel. Table 13. Home and Field Offices’ Top Barriers Home Office Barriers

Score

? 49. Low level of AWP maturity among contractors

2.21

? 18. Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP

2.18

⚙ 57c. External push-back from engineering design/procurement contractor ⚙ 57b. External push-back from engineering design contractor

2.06

? 3. Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and processes

2.04

⚙ 39. Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP 57a. External push-back from owner

2.11

2.03 2.00

|| 50. Poor integration of AWP information system with other corporate systems

55. Lack of financial incentives to improve execution efficiency push-back from engineering design/procurement/construction ⚙ 57d. External contractor

1.98 1.97 1.96

Field Office Barriers

⚙ 22. Construction company not available to provide timely path of construction input

Score 2.33

23. Too many unknowns to effectively sequence CWPs well in advance

2.29

push-back from engineering design/procurement/construction ⚙ 57d. External contractor

2.29

|| 11. Lack of alignment between AWP and front end planning

54. AWP program is not owner-driven

⚙ 26. Engineering design sequence not able to match construction sequence

2.25 2.25 2.22

|| 40. Lack of inter-organizational coordination following a scope change

2.20

|| 52. Manual or paper-based IWP management system is inefficient for the project size

2.14

12. Contractor does not buy in early enough

⚙ 39. Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP

2.13 2.13

Categories of Barriers ?

AWP maturity level, resource availability, and AWP understanding

⚙ Integration of AWP with engineering

X Company unconvinced of AWP benefits or not interested in implementing AWP ||

Alignment and integration of AWP with existing company processes and systems

The top barriers from survey respondents working in the home office were more focused on AWP awareness, while the top barriers from those working in the field office were more focused on integrating AWP with engineering. This difference shows that the field office was struggling more with the execution of AWP procedures, while the home office was struggling more with understanding AWP.

25

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

Table 14 separates the top barriers by AWP implementation maturity level. Table 14. Top Barriers for Each Maturity Level High Maturity Barriers

⚙ 39. Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP ⚙ 57b. External push-back from engineering design contractor ⚙ 57c. External push-back from engineering design/procurement contractor push-back from engineering design/procurement/construction ⚙ 57d. External contractor || 10. Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and field execution

12. Contractor does not buy in early enough

⚙ 22. Construction company not available to provide timely path of construction input

Score 2.50 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.08 2.00 2.00

54. AWP program is not owner-driven

2.00

57h. External push-back from suppliers

1.92

57a. External push-back from owner

1.90 Median Maturity

Barriers

Score

? 49. Low level of AWP maturity among contractors

2.46

? 18. Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP

2.19

|| 50. Poor integration of AWP information system with other corporate systems

2.12

⚙ 57b. External push-back from engineering design contractor

2.06

? 3. Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and processes

2.00

|| 11. Lack of alignment between AWP and front end planning

2.00

⚙ 57c. External push-back from engineering design/procurement contractor

2.00

55. Lack of financial incentives to improve execution efficiency

1.95

56c. Internal push-back from project managers

1.94

⚙ 26. Engineering design sequence not able to match construction sequence

1.92

Low Maturity Barriers X 4. Expectation of limited (or no) benefits to company from AWP

56o. Internal push-back from cost estimators

2.50 2.50

X 6. Company not interested in implementing AWP

2.43

X

2.38

7. Awaiting more industry AWP project results before implementing

X 46. Do not need AWP because current project performance/results are good enough

12. Contractor does not buy in early enough ? 29. Need (or perceived need) for additional project team members for AWP

⚙ 39. Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP

2.36 2.30 2.22 2.21

56m. Internal push-back from field crews

2.21

AWP maturity level, resource availability, and AWP understanding

⚙ Integration of AWP with engineering

X Company unconvinced of AWP benefits or not interested in implementing AWP ||

2.38

56k. Internal push-back from general foremen Categories of Barriers ?

26

Score

Alignment and integration of AWP with existing company processes and systems

5. Analysis of AWP Implementation Barriers

A company’s AWP implementation maturity level often aligned with the barriers it was prepared to address: • The high-maturity companies faced barriers more closely connected with integrating AWP with engineering. This shows that the high-maturity companies have recognized the benefits of AWP and are now focused on resolving issues connected with implementing AWP. • The median maturity companies presented a mix of barriers related to awareness and barriers related to integration with engineering. These companies are still in the process of implementing AWP. Only part of a company has an established awareness of AWP and understands the barriers. And, because these companies have commenced implementing AWP, they also recognize some barriers related to AWP procedures. • The low-maturity companies are encountering more barriers that come with being unconvinced of AWP’s benefits or of being uninterested in implementing AWP – another interesting finding. If a company fails to recognize the value of implementing AWP, it will not invest in the resources necessary to implement it. These tables only examined the top barriers for each category. The full lists of ranked barriers for all of these analyses are presented in Appendices C through J.

Qualitative Analysis – Open-ended Questions The researchers used an open coding method to analyze the responses to the open-ended survey questions. The objective of the coding system was to group the high number of responses for any specific question and thereby to provide a more concise analysis of the qualitative data. The system grouped responses that contained the same idea, but were worded differently by the various respondents. It permitted a more efficient study and allowed the researchers to analyze the frequency of a proposed idea. The team used this system to analyze the open-ended questions for both the top barriers faced in AWP implementation and the potential solutions to overcome these barriers. Table 15 shows a list of the barriers that respondents mentioned in the openended questions, but that the team did not include in Table 1. Note that just because a barrier was mentioned with higher frequency, that does not necessarily mean that this barrier has a greater impact on AWP implementation than another barrier that was mentioned less frequently. Instead, more frequent mentions mean that this company is more aware of this barrier than the others. Thus, the frequency of mentions is unrelated to severity, but it is related to awareness.

27

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

Table 15. Major Barriers Mentioned in Open-ended Questions But Not Included on Table 1 Major Barriers Faced in AWP Implementation

Frequency

Engineering packages developed not complete and/or not on time

1

Lack of a fully documented process

4

Lack of alignment on details of EWP process aspects

4

Lack of quantification of benefits

1

Lack of standardization of AWP approach

5

Moving AWP planning into deliverable production

1

Slow to adopt software without client requirements.

1

Tie of AWP to value proposition

1

Long cycle projects with contracts

1

Establishing AWP in an operating facility

1

Lack of vision on AWP and new technologies

1

The survey contained two open-ended questions about a) integration of AWP with commissioning and startup and b) integration of AWP with the procurement and supply chain management process. The team used a coding system to analyze the data. Table 16 shows the results for integration of AWP with commissioning and startup. Table 17 shows the results for integration of AWP with procurement and supply chain management processes. Table 16. Barriers Related to the Integration of AWP with Commissioning and Startup Processes Barriers Related to AWP Integration with Commissioning and Startup Processes

28

Frequency

Have not begun to discuss impact of AWP on commissioning and startup activities

1

AWP does not integrate the CSU phase

4

Late engagement on AWP

4

General

3

By owner

1

Lack of training of completions and startup groups

1

Lack of understanding about the true cutoff point between the end of a CWP and the beginning of a TOP

1

Lack of training for operations/manufacturing project team

1

Set of specifications/contract requirements are flowed down with indifference to which partner company on the project is responsible for specific close-out records

1

Project delivery is not commissioning-driven and construction-lead

1

Not linking the meta data from commissioning systems and to the quality system

1

Resistance to change

1

Lack of early and clear definition of who is responsible to perform the duties in precommissioning

1

Owner does not participate enough in commissioning

1

5. Analysis of AWP Implementation Barriers

Table 17. Barriers Related to the Integration of AWP with Procurement and Supply Chain Management Processes Barriers Related to AWP Integration with Procurement and Supply Chain Management

Frequency

Procurement team seems to be confused about how to implement PWPs

1

Lack of alignment

3

Between vendor, supplier agreements, and payments with sequencing expectations

1

Between AWP process and procurement and supply chain

1

Between procurement and CWP

1

Need consistent language to communicate AWP expectations

1

Late AWP engagement

1

Current ideas on PWP being expounded by certain experts are ludicrous and dangerous to the growth of AWP

1

Lack of understanding

4

How much of the challenge is due to getting procured items to the laydown yard on time versus getting items from the laydown yard to the workface at the optimal time

1

From industry on PWPs

1

How to align material items between and purchase order and a CWP

1

Structure of the POs, deliverable, requisitions to the suppliers, vendors, and fabricators

1

Need better data requirements and integration

1

The concept of needing to cut POs by CWP

1

EPC database being “one source of truth”

1

Late AWP engagement

1

Design information is not in a format that could be used by procurement

1

Timely and accurate shipping and master materials list information from suppliers and sub-suppliers

1

Lack of AWP requirements for procurement

1

Resistance to change

1

29

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

Qualitative Analysis – Interviews The team again used the open coding method to analyze the interview results. As was mentioned in the section above, this method enabled the team to group responses that contained the same idea but were worded differently. The barriers mentioned during the interviews matched those that respondents had listed as “major” during the survey. During the interviews, RT-DCC-04 members observed similar relationships between a company’s maturity level and the types of barriers that it faced: • Higher-maturity companies faced barriers related to AWP procedures and how to make them more efficient. These were mostly related to integrating AWP with engineering. • Median-maturity companies presented barriers related to AWP procedures, but also related to understanding AWP concepts and benefits. • Lower-maturity companies identified barriers related to their understanding of AWP concepts and their benefits, or barriers that reflected a low interest in implementing AWP. The interviews also revealed some deeper causes for the identified barriers to implementing AWP: • One of the main barriers mentioned in interviews was the poor integration of engineering and AWP. Sometimes, when designing AWP, engineering did not follow the path of construction. This led to the late delivery of information needed for construction to proceed. Some interviewees mentioned that, on the engineering side, there was a resistance to change. They reported that some engineers were reluctant to change the way that design was performed, giving rise to a misalignment between engineering and construction. It is important to emphasize that the issues related to this barrier are more complex than just noting engineering’s resistance to change and identifying that the design of AWP does not respect construction sequencing. Engineers also struggled to obtain information from vendors and subcontractors in a timely manner, and this problem also contributed to misalignment between engineering and construction. For example, before it can design a slab, engineering needs the specification of the equipment that will be located on that slab. Thus, supplying that slab design depends upon the supplier’s providing the equipment’s specification. And thereby, if the supplier fails to do its part in a timely manner, engineering must delay the delivery of the AWP.

30

5. Analysis of AWP Implementation Barriers

• Another major barrier mentioned by interviewees was a generally poor understanding of AWP. The industry is having difficulties accessing recent data, case studies, and other information on how to implement AWP. As important as understanding the concepts and benefits is, participants revealed during the interviews that even companies that possess “book knowledge” of AWP still struggle to apply that information to projects. Interviewees mentioned that plenty of resources support AWP implementation, but finding those resources is sometimes difficult. • A final barrier that participants mentioned during the interviews was the lack of AWP standardization. Promoting AWP education could be the way to diminish this barrier, since such training could promote standard nomenclature and AWP best practices.

31

Chapter 6 Potential Solutions for the Main Barriers RT-DCC-04 analyzed potential solutions for the main AWP implementation barriers, considering the responses from the survey and the interviews. The team used its open coding system to categorize the results and to provide a more efficient data analysis of the potential solutions companies used to overcome the barriers. Table 18 shows some top barriers. Each is followed by a list of the potential solutions that survey respondents proposed to overcome that barrier, and a count of how frequently each solution came up. Table 18. Potential Solutions for Some Top Barriers to AWP Implementation Potential Solutions for Top Barriers to AWP Implementation

Frequency

49. Low level of AWP maturity among contractors Perform training

2

Drive adoption (owner-driven)

1

Increase contractor’s maturity

1

Set up program with clear expectations

1

Support contractors on AWP implementation

2

Increase education on AWP

4

Hire consultants

1

Push for functional assistance

1

Acquire senior management buy-in

1

Engage early on AWP implementation

1

Assess AWP implementation maturity level

1

3. Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and processes Plan for engagement with the contractors on AWP implementation

1

Use lessons learned from projects to understand AWP

1

Perform training

4

General

2

Building internal training program

1

Formalize role-based training

1

Hire consultants

1

Increase education on AWP

1

Organize/participate in workshops

1

Document the capital process

1

33

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

Table 18. Potential Solutions for Some Top Barriers to AWP Implementation (continued) Potential Solutions for Top Barriers to AWP Implementation

Frequency

18. Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP 7

Perform training General

5

Train project team

1

Develop in-house training

1

Intervene early in AWP implementation

1

Use digital AWP playbooks

1

Acquire company buy-in

1

Discuss AWP matters during FEED

1

Value the workface planner position

1

Increase education based on first project

1

Conduct early talks with the established, cohesive, mutually aligned PM group

1

Develop AWP best practices

1

Acquire senior management buy-in

1

Support how to implement AWP

1

Analyze results from implementation and lessons learned

2

12. Contractor does not buy in early enough Require AWP from contractor (owner)

1

Perform training

2

Hire consultants

1

Develop commercial terms and conditions that include AWP

1

Engage early in AWP implementation

2

General

1

Contractor

1

Assess gaps in project lifecycle

1

14. Owner does not include clear AWP requirements in the contract

34

Increase education on AWP

2

Perform training

1

Pay fabricators for complete PWPs, only when the last piece is shipped

1

Negotiate contract conditions with the owner

1

Hire consultants

1

Develop commercial terms and conditions that include AWP

1

6. Potential Solutions for the Main Barriers

Table 18. Potential Solutions for Some Top Barriers to AWP Implementation (continued) Potential Solutions for Top Barriers to AWP Implementation

Frequency

39. Design engineering organization is not supportive of AWP Increase education of design engineering on AWP

1

Perform training

2

Hire consulting

1

Develop commercial terms and conditions that include AWP

1

Define champions and leaders on the AWP implementation

1

Conduct assessment

1

Conduct workshops

1

Engage AWP specialists early

1

Establish an overall PM group that is tied to a mutually agreed contract

1

57. External push-back from owner, engineering design contractor, engineering design/ procurement contractor, engineering design/procurement/construction contractor 2

Increase education on AWP General

1

Industry

1

Drive adoption (owner-driven)

1

Perform training

3

Hire consultants

1

Develop commercial terms and conditions that include AWP

1

Increase contractor’s commitment to AWP

1

Engage early on AWP implementation

1

Acquire buy-in from engineering

1

Subcontract to comply with path of construction

1

Implement a 3D model procedure defining minimum requirements for model

1

Include AWP requirements in project contracts

1

Support contractors as a team approach in AWP efforts

1

Be more explicit in AWP expectations in contracts

1

Change project delivery models from design-bid-build

1

Engage collaborators that are capable of providing relevant content for IWPs

1

Plan for engagement and Joint Industry Program with contractors and consultant

1

50. Poor integration of AWP information system with other corporate systems Need a software consultant to tie all of the information together

1

Use a single, integrated IT solution for the data streams for all elements of AWP

1

35

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

Table 18. Potential Solutions for Some Top Barriers to AWP Implementation (continued) Potential Solutions for Top Barriers to AWP Implementation

Frequency

44. Current company culture does not fully support AWP Align points within the organization at the executive, department, project, and worker levels

1

Transform ongoing program to fit company processes to AWP

1

Top-down initiative from leaders and awareness that best results can be achieved with AWP implementation process

1

10. Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and field execution Prove AWP implementation benefits

1

Require AWP from contractor (owner)

1

Develop commercial terms and conditions that include AWP

1

Engage contractor early

1

54. AWP program is not owner-driven Give financial authority to AWP manager

1

Discuss with owners to realize the cost benefits of implementing AWP

1

General potential solutions with regard to the top barriers

36

Perform training

5

Support contractors on AWP implementation

1

Acquire senior management buy-in

1

Support of center of excellence for AWP

1

Expand organization understanding of AWP

1

Quantify safety, quality, cost, and schedule improvements

1

Quantify maturity of AWP in project

1

Clearly state AWP requirements on contract

1

Plan for engagement with the contractors on AWP implementation

1

Share data when AWP has been applied

1

Provide subject matter expertise

1

Provide periodic feedback during project’s life cycle

1

Increase education on AWP

1

Ongoing transformation program to fit company processes to AWP

1

6. Potential Solutions for the Main Barriers

Many potential solutions dealt with AWP training and education, which means that companies see the importance of investing in AWP education to have successful AWP implementation. Companies that presented a higher AWP implementation maturity claimed that training and AWP education were key to obtaining the necessary knowledge to incorporate AWP in their normal procedures. AWP education also helps companies overcome other major barriers, such as lack of buy-in, resistance to changing old procedures, and lack of recognition of AWP benefits. It is also important to identify solutions for the barriers that relate to the integration of engineering with AWP implementation. One action to overcome this type of barrier would be to educate engineering staff. When engineering realizes the benefits of AWP and learns how to design AWP more efficiently, engineering and construction become better aligned, thereby making AWP implementation run more smoothly. Another suggestion was to make explicit the AWP requirements in the contract, meaning that the owner should drive implementation.

37

Chapter 7 How to Promote the Use of AWP Chapter 6 addressed the promotion of AWP at the industry level. The team used an open coding approach to analyze the open-ended questions about barriers and actions. It also used this approach to analyze this next section of the research. This chapter presents the actions respondents proposed to promote AWP. The results in this section are aligned with the findings from the interviews and from the maturity level assessment. During the interviews, respondents mentioned the need for AWP training and education. In fact, most of the respondents’ recommendations (shown in Table 19 over the following pages) were related to AWP training and education. The most frequent recommendations fell into three topics: 1. Provide case studies, key metrics, and benchmarks 2. Increase AWP understanding 3. Promote AWP education and training However, as was true for the maturity level assessment, the lowest score referred to “Training and AWP Support.”

39

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

Table 19. Recommended Opportunities to Further Promote the Use of AWP Recommended Opportunities to Further Promote the Use of AWP

Frequency

Promote AWP education and training

8

Participate in oil & gas technical workshop and conference (e.g., OTC, AOGC, SPE)

1

Provide training lessons and lessons learned

1

Create curriculum for training

1

Promote AWP similar to same efforts for safety

1

Promote via conference calls, meetings, and annual conference

1

Collect AWP knowledge in a book, provide a standard for companies to follow

1

Provide material and workshops to ease the implementation of AWP in engineering

1

Provide a clear and concise description of AWP deliverables on the CII website

1

Provide case studies, key metrics, and benchmarks

11

Showcase key metrics for AWP implementation

1

Present more use cases of actual projects that benefitted from using the AWP process

5

Highlight contractors that have become preferred partner for owners due to their successful 1 implementation of AWP Highlight companies that have created a strategic advantage through use of AWP

1

Provide backup information on specific case studies

1

Provide examples of contractors of different sizes that have leveraged AWP to create transformational success

1

Present things that other companies have done to overcome barriers

1

Look to standardize a data schema/model standard for AWP-related project data

1

Establish the process flow as an industry standard that shows the work process as a whole, identifying the benefits of each action and how it integrates with the successful use of AWP

1

Promote the smart, fit-for-purpose implementation of AWP; not an “AWP or nothing else” approach

1

Data and information management

4

Digitally integrate the data view – physical packages are irrelevant to the tools and workflow 1

40

Upload templates for companies to use

1

Keep AWP directly connected to the overall AWP program vision that includes furthering the development of computer-generated, path-of-construction applications

1

Engage with suppliers to enrich their models and data deliverable

1

Include CSU packages as part of AWP

1

Create guidelines on timing for engagement of various groups

1

Consider further supporting the development of workface planner education and training

1

7. How to Promote the Use of AWP

Table 19. Recommended Opportunities to Further Promote the Use of AWP (continued) Recommended Opportunities to Further Promote the Use of AWP

Frequency

Work with owners

1

Address their barriers to implementation

1

Focus on changing the engineering contractor’s perception of AWP being a risk/issue

1

Increase AWP understanding

9

Help to understand the AWP implementation process

3

Provide more awareness on AWP to Asia Pacific contractors

1

Continue working with COAA to agree upon standard methods for cost savings and productivity savings. Consider sharing “best-in-class” AWP success at the CII Annual Conference

1

Ensure the industry properly understands the intent of AWP

1

Showing how to better align and incentivize E&P contractors

1

Updated quantification of AWP benefits – ROI research and publication.

1

Describe how owners can realize the benefits from application of AWP in an EPC lump sum environment

1

Top brass should encourage EPC companies with AWP implementation

1

Owner should push the construction strategy from the bid package and into the contract

1

One of the most effective ways to promote the use of AWP is to increase education and access to implementation resources. Indeed, the key to increasing management buy-in and incentivizing companies to implement AWP is to disseminate the benefits and case studies of AWP concepts. Education is also very important to increase the maturity level of the company. Teaching a company how to implement AWP will improve its AWP procedure and guide the company to a more successful implementation.

41

Chapter 8 Conclusion In this study, RT-DCC-04 aimed to recommend strategies that can promote the use of AWP in the downstream and chemicals sector of the capital projects industry. In order to achieve this goal, the team identified companies that are implementing AWP. Data collected from these companies through survey and interviews allowed the researchers to analyze challenges and success factors associated with AWP implementation. The team was able to identify the focus of the companies’ AWP implementation efforts and assess their maturity levels. The findings provided a deeper understanding of the companies’ AWP implementation journeys, including the main barriers that they are facing and their potential actions to overcome these barriers. The research findings indicated that AWP is being utilized globally in a wide range of project sizes, from those below $100 million to those above $1 billion. Among the companies that participated in this study, the average AWP implementation maturity level (based on the five dimensions of the RT-272 maturity model) was 1.8 on a range from 1.0 to 3.0. The average maturity level was 1.9 for the contractors and 1.7 for the owners. This analysis showed that there was greater AWP implementation maturity in the dimensions that deal with understanding AWP benefits, while the maturity was lower in those dimensions that deal with AWP implementation strategy, training, and support. This study conducted a comprehensive analysis of AWP implementation barriers using quantitative and qualitative methods. Among the analyses reported, one finding indicated a relationship between the barriers faced by a company and its maturity level: • The main barriers for companies with higher maturity levels were related to integrating AWP with engineering and integrating AWP procedures with existing processes. These companies have already recognized the benefits of AWP, but are still facing challenges with some specific aspects of AWP implementation. • The companies with median maturity presented barriers related to a lack of mature resources to implement AWP and insufficient understanding of how to integrate AWP with existing procedures. These companies were in a transition period. • The lower-maturity companies presented barriers related to recognizing the value of AWP and understanding its concepts. These companies were still not convinced about the AWP benefits and needed more evidence to persuade them.

43

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

RT-DCC-04 identified potential solutions for the main AWP implementation barriers from the responses to its survey and interviews. The team used an open coding system to categorize potential solutions and provide a more efficient data analysis of how they can overcome the barriers. The researchers also compiled survey and interview participants’ suggestions on how to promote the use of AWP. The research findings made clear that there are ways to positively affect AWP implementation at the industry level. The team’s results showed that two topics need more attention at this point: 1. Improving the integration of engineering and AWP implementation 2. Providing easier access to AWP case studies and implementation resources The next phase of RT-DCC-04 research will focus on these two areas.

44

Bibliography CII (Construction Industry Institute) and COAA (Construction Owners Association of Alberta) (2013). Advanced Work Packaging: Design through Workface Execution. Volume I: Implementation Resource 272-2, Version 3.1. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute. CII/COAA (2013a). Advanced Work Packaging: Implementation Guidance. Volume II: Implementation Resource 272-2, Version 3.1. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute. CII/COAA (2013b). Advanced Work Packaging: Implementation Case Studies and Expert Interviews. Volume III: Implementation Resource 272-2, Version 3.1. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute. CII/COAA (2015). Validating Advanced Work Packaging as a Best Practice: A Game Changer. Implementation Resource 319-2. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute. CII/COAA (2015a). Making the Case for Advanced Work Packaging as a Standard (Best) Practice. Research Summary 319-1. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute. COAA (2013). Advanced Work Packaging & Workface Planning Scorecard. COP-WFPTMP-18-2013-v1. Edmonton, AB: Construction Owners Association of Alberta. O’Brien, W. J., and Ponticelli, S. (2016). Transforming the Industry: Advanced Work Packaging as a Standard (Best) Practice. Research Report 319-11. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.

45

Appendix A Survey Questions

CII RT-DCC-04: Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging

Survey

CII has formed Research Team DCC-04, Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging, to achieve the following objectives: 1. Identify the organizations that are implementing AWP. 2. Identify the barriers that the organizations implementing AWP are facing for its successful implementation. 3. Pinpoint the strategies being adopted by organizations to overcome the barriers for successful implementation of AWP. 4. Discover the reasons why some organizations are not implementing AWP. 5. Uncover opportunities related to “people,” “process,” and “technology” aspects that can be leveraged to improve the utilization of AWP. This survey has been developed to help the research team achieve these goals. Your response is completely confidential. All information gathered as part of this research will be treated in strictest confidence and kept under conditions of security at The University of Texas at Austin. We will provide participating organizations with a summary of the research findings. Specific individuals, jobs, and organizations will not be named in this summary. Survey completion is estimated at 20 minutes.

Please complete the survey by April 12th, 2019. This survey should be completed based on the current situation of your company with regard to AWP implementation.

47

Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)

Q1 – General Information Company: _______________________________________________________ Your work location:

_________________________________________________

Name: __________________________________________________________ Position: _________________________________________________________ Years of experience:

________________________________________________

Years of AWP experience: ____________________________________________ Email: ___________________________________________________________

Q2 – Are you in a Home Office or a Field Office?

🔘

Home Office

🔘

Field Office

Q3 – What are the roles your company typically takes on projects (by estimated size)? Total Installed Cost $100 million

>$500 million

>$1 billion

Owner Owner construction management Engineering design contractor Engineering design and procurement contractor Engineering design, procurement and construction management contractor Construction management contractor Construction contractor Subcontractor Supplier

Note: “N/A” indicates that your company does not take any role on that type of project

48

N/A

Appendix A: Survey Questions

Q4 – Has your company implemented or is it planning to implement AWP?

☐ Yes

☐ No

** If the response is “Yes” – Survey skips to Q6. ** If the response is “No” – Survey skips to Q5.

Q5 – What are the reasons for not implementing AWP? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ** The survey skips to the end after the respondent answers this question.

Q6 – Select the locations where your company is applying or intends to apply AWP (select all that apply)

☐ U.S. Gulf Coast ☐ East Canada ☐ West Canada ☐ Europe ☐ South America

☐ Other locations in U.S. ☐ Asia-Pacific ☐ Australia ☐ Africa ☐ Middle East

Q7 – What is the current or planned company scalability approach to applying AWP? (Select all that apply) ** TIC = Total Installed Cost

☐ Apply on projects with TIC$500M

☐ Apply on projects with TIC>$100M ☐ Apply on projects with TIC