Construction Industry Institute 2003 Annual Conference
Conference Proceedings
Driving Greater Capital Efficiency
Orlando, Florida CII Member Companies
3M ABB Lummus Global Abbott Laboratories ALSTOM Power Air Products and Chemicals AMEC Amgen AZCO Anheuser-Busch Companies BE&K Aramco Services Company BMW Constructors BP America Baker Concrete Construction CITGO Petroleum Corporation Bechtel Group Cargill Black & Veatch Celanese Bovis Lend Lease ChevronTexaco Corporation Burns & McDonnell Colectric Partners Butler Manufacturing Company ConocoPhillips CCC Group Dofasco CDI Engineering Group The Dow Chemical Company CH2M HILL Constructors/IDC DuPont CSA Group Eastman Chemical Company Chicago Bridge & Iron Company ExxonMobil Corporation Day & Zimmermann International General Motors Corporation Dick Corporation GlaxoSmithKline Emerson Process Management Intel Corporation Fluor Corporation International Paper Foster Wheeler USA Corporation Eli Lilly and Company Fru-Con Construction Corporation NASA Graycor Naval Facilities Engineering Command Hatch Ontario Power Generation Hilti Corporation PSEG Power Honeywell International Petrobras Jacobs Pfizer Johnson Controls Praxair Kellogg Brown & Root The Procter & Gamble Company Kiewit Construction Group Rohm and Haas Company Kværner Shell Oil Company Lockwood Greene Smithsonian Institution M. A. Mortenson Company Solutia Parsons E&C Southern Company Services Perot Systems Corporation Sunoco Primavera Systems Tennessee Valley Authority Rust Constructors U.S. Army Corps of Engineers S&B Engineers and Constructors Ltd. U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST The Shaw Group U.S. Department of Energy Siemens Westinghouse Power U.S. Department of Health and Human Stevens Painton Corporation Services Structural Group U.S. Department of State Technip USA Corporation U.S. General Services Administration Turner Construction Company U.S. Steel Victaulic Company of America Weyerhaeuser Company Walbridge Aldinger Company Washington Group International Williams Group International Zachry Construction Corporation Zurich North America Conference Proceedings Construction Industry Institute 2003 Annual Conference
Orlando, Florida
July 29–31, 2003 © 2003 Construction Industry Institute™.
The University of Texas at Austin.
Conference attendees may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients.
Printed in the United States of America. Table of Contents
Foreword v
Director’s Remarks 1 CII Director Ken Eickmann
New Capital Direction for Industries in Transition 3 Keynote Speaker: John P. Surma, Jr.
Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference 5 Owners’ Role in Safety Project Team
The Value Management Toolkit 39 Value Management Toolkit Development Project Team
PIP – Americas Today, The World Tomorrow 63 Process Industry Practices
Success: The Hallmark of Haradh 75 Case Study: Saudi Aramco
Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check 107 Special Topic: CII Continuing Education Short Courses Implementation Session Only
What Can CII Do for You? 129 First-Time Attendee Orientation Implementation Session Only
OSHA and the Construction Industry Today 133 Featured Speaker: John L. Henshaw
Engineering Productivity Measurement System 135 Engineering Productivity Measures II Project Team
Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance 165 Case Study: General Motors
Small Projects, Homeland Security, and Beyond 189 Benchmarking & Metrics Committee
Small Projects Benchmarking 201 Benchmarking & Metrics Small Projects Team Implementation Session Only Table of Contents
Best Practices for Project Security 213 CII/NIST Best Practices for Project Security Team Implementation Session Only
Risk Assessment for International Projects 225 Risk Analysis for International Projects Project Team
Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool 237 Special Topic: Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Education Team Implementation Session Only
Defense Update 253 Keynote Address: Lt. Gen. T. Michael Moseley, U.S. Air Force
Current U.S. Economic Outlook 255 Featured Speaker: Jack Guynn
After the War is Over… 257 Economic Forum
Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies 261 Addressing the Shortage of Skilled Craft Workers in the U.S. Project Team
Using Technology to Build Technology 307 FIATECH
Designing for Construction Automation 317 Design Practices to Facilitate Construction Automation Project Team
Small Project Excellence Through Partnering 329 Case Study: International Paper
Six Sigma Deployment in the EPC Business 349 Special Presentation: Mary Moreton
Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling 357 Cost Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling Project Team
Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices 379 Case Study: BE&K Construction Company
Carroll H. Dunn 399
Recipients of the Dunn Award of Excellence 401 Table of Contents
Outstanding CII Researcher for 2003 403 Jimmie Hinze
Outstanding Instructor for 2003 405 James M. Neil Emmitt J. Nelson
Outstanding Implementer for 2003 409 Bernard J. Fedak
Benchmarking User Awards for 2003 411
The Making of Disney’s Animal Kingdom 415 Banquet Speaker: Jack Blitch
Foreword
Owners and contractors in the highly volatile business environment of construction are faced with increasing demands to do more with less. Clients want their products delivered faster, safer, at a lower cost, and with high quality. The end result: a call for greater capital efficiency. But how? Is it possible to eliminate inefficiencies in planning and executing capital investment projects? How can we more effectively invest in pre-project planning? Can we effectively emphasize both initial cost and life cycle value? And then come the questions about improved technologies, alternative materials, and new delivery models. All of these issues center on driving greater capital efficiency. For these reasons, we’ve chosen “Driving Greater Capital Efficiency” as the 2003 Annual Conference theme. Our speakers, those reporting on CII research and case studies and those invited from other venues to share their insights, all have presentations that not only revolve around capital efficiency, but offer practical solutions. In addition, we will feature a panel of economists who will stimulate us to think beyond our industry and perhaps stir within each of us that spark that is necessary to find new ways of improving what we do. Our industry keynote speakers include John Surma, President of U.S. Steel; John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational and Safety Health; and Jack Guynn, President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. We will also have a defense update, and are honored to have Lt. Gen. Michael Moseley, U.S. Air Force, who has recently has been selected for reassignment as Vice Chief of Staff, Air Force Headquarters, in Washington, D.C. The CII Annual Conference is well known as a premier event in the construction industry. We feel the 2003 presentations, conference events, and the surroundings here in Orlando will continue the great tradition of CII Annual Conferences as being “best in class.” Enjoy the conference.
KEN EICKMANN EMERSON JOHNS CII Director Conference Chair
vii7
Director’s Remarks Ken Eickmann
Speaker Kenneth E. Eickmann, Director – Construction Industry Institute Prior to joining CII as Director in September 1998, Ken Eickmann (Lt. Gen., U.S. Air Force, Retired) enjoyed a distinguished and highly decorated 31-year career in the U.S. Air Force. Eickmann is a Registered Professional Engineer and a Certified Acquisition Professional in acquisition logistics, program management, and systems planning, research, development, and engineering. He is a Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin. In 1999, he was named a Distinguished Graduate of the UT Austin College of Engineering. He holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from UT Austin, a master’s degree in systems engineering from the Air Force Institute of Technology, and is a graduate of the University of Michigan School of Business and the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
1 Director’s Remarks
2 New Capital Direction for Industries in Transition Keynote Address: John P. Surma, Jr.
Abstract The construction industry has always been a significant supplier to and customer of the steel industry. As the steel industry begins an overdue process of global consolidation and restructuring, new challenges and opportunities will be presented to the construction industry. John P. Surma, president of United States Steel Corporation, will discuss U.S. Steel's domestic and international expansion plans in relation to the construction industry. He will also discuss trends in the supply of steel to the construction industry.
Keynote Speaker John P. Surma, Jr., President – United States Steel Corporation John Surma began his career in 1976, when he joined Price Waterhouse. His experience also includes service with the Federal Reserve Board and a number of companies in the steel, oil and gas, chemicals, mining, and manufactured products industries. In 1997, Surma was named senior vice president of finance and accounting for Marathon Oil. He assumed the position of assistant to the chairman of USX Corporation on September 1, 2001. When USX split from Marathon last year, he became vice chairman and chief financial officer of United States Steel Corporation. He assumed his current post in March 2003. Surma graduated from Pennsylvania State University with a bachelor’s degree in accounting.
3 New Capital Direction for Industries in Transition
4 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference Owners’ Role In Safety Project Team
Learning Objectives
• Learn about the importance of owner influence on safety. • Find out how owners influence safety performance.
Abstract The research findings of this team present a compelling case regarding the influence of owners on construction safety. Owner influence on construction safety is exhibited in several ways: selecting safe contractors, imposing contractual requirements on contractors to support project safety, and being actively involved in safety during the construction process. Specific information will be shared in the implementation session about contractor selection, contract requirements, and the active involvement of owners in the safety process.
Plenary Session Presenter John J. Mathis, Manager of Safety Services – Bechtel Corporation John Mathis has over 29 years of experience in the construction industry. He is currently Manager of Safety Services, Globally for Bechtel Corporation. John’s Environmental, Safety, and Health (ES&H) assignments have included managing safety across a broad range of business units that include nuclear and fossil power, petro-chemical, mining and metals, pipeline, and infrastructure projects. John worked on many key project assignments with Bechtel before moving into positions as, Manager of ES&H for Bechtel Construction Company and ES&H Manager Bechtel North America Region. John has been recognized as a leader in Bechtel’s drive to achieve and sustain “Zero Accidents” on a worldwide basis and has played a major role in the development of Bechtels current ES&H management system tools and processes.
5 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
Implementation Session Moderator
John J. Mathis, Manager of Safety Services – Bechtel Corporation
Implementation Session Participants
William C. Beck, Vice President, Quality & Safety – Parsons E&C David T. Carter, Director of Safety – Fluor Corporation A. Dennis Cobb, Regional Safety Consultant – DuPont Engineering Mark Elfrink, EHS Manager – Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. John S. Flannery, Principal Consultant, Project Management HSE – ConocoPhillips Phalen D. Frey, Corporate Safety, Health & Environmental Director – Austin Industries, Inc. Jimmie W. Hinze, Professor – University of Florida William Pruss, Project Manager, Iron & Steel – U.S. Steel Fred Rodheim, Construction Safety Manager – Abbott Laboratories
6 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference Owners’ Role In Safety Project Team
Introduction There are many parties involved in the process of constructing most major facilities. These parties include contractors, subcontractors, vendors, designers, sureties, financial agencies, attorneys, accountants, engineers, consultants, and several others. While each of these parties does not necessarily play a role in every project, one party is invariably involved in every project, the facility owner. The facility owner, or owner, obviously plays a significant role in every project that is constructed. But what is the nature and extent of the owner’s influence on project safety performance? The research was undertaken by conducting personal interviews with a carefully developed questionnaire. While the titles of the persons being interviewed varied, the person was generally the owner’s top representative on the project who had a full-time responsibility for safety. The questions in each interview were focused on the practices that were employed on a single large project (half of the projects employed more than 550 workers), but some individuals gave responses representing the practices employed on a group of small capital projects. Projects were either ongoing projects, or projects completed within the past two years, as long as the information requested in the questionnaire was available.
Summary Better safety performances are related to the following practices of owners: • Project context. Certain project characteristics were associated with better safety performances, including: petrochemical projects, private projects, open-shop projects, projects with design-build contracts, projects of fairly large or small size, projects working one shift, and projects working five or less workdays. • Careful selection of safe contractors. Proactive criteria are used to evaluate and select contractors by owners aggressive in safety. These include TRIR on the past projects, qualifications of the contractor’s safety staff, qualifications of the contractor’s project management team, and the quality of the contractor’s overall safety program. • Contractual safety requirements. Five key contractual requirements were identified and they are listed as follows: – Contractor must place at least one full-time safety representative on the project. – Contractor must submit the resumes of key safety personnel for the owner’s approval. – Contractor must provide specified minimum training for the workers. – Contractor must submit a site-specific safety plan. – Contractor must submit a safety policy signed by its CEO.
7 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
• Owner’s proactive involvement in the safety practices of projects. In this study, the key measurements employed by the owners with better safety performances are identified as: – Owners set their expectations on safety from the very beginning, especially the zero- injury objective. – Owners impose requirements on the safety program developed by the contractors and emphasize specific items, including: emergency plans, daily JSAs (job safety analysis) conducted on the project sites, and substance abuse programs. – Owners monitor near misses and the safety inspection records on the projects, in addition to other types of injury statistics. – Owners maintain the accident statistics by contractors on their projects, and include the contractor’s injuries in their own accident records. – Owners establish a behavior-oriented safety recognition program and contribute funds to the program. – Owners actively participate in safety training and orientation and verify the comprehension of the training (such as by testing). – Owners assign a full-time safety representative on site with various responsibilities including: enforcing safety rules; reviewing safety performance on site and submitting reports to the home office; monitoring pre-task analysis programs; participating in safety recognition programs; and participating in safety and/or tool box meetings.
8 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference Owners’ Role In Safety Project Team
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
William C. Beck Mark Elfrink Vice President, Quality & Safety EHS Manager Parsons E&C Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. 125 West Huntington Drive 2816 South 3rd Street Arcadia, CA 91007 St. Louis, MO 63118 P: (626) 294-3358 F: 626-294-3318 P: (314) 577-3855 F: 314-577-3332 [email protected] [email protected]
Bradley Burris William B. Fehling Project EHS Manager Global Construction Safety Supervisor Intel Corporation Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. 145 S. 79th Street 7201 Hamilton Blvd. Chandler, AZ 85226 Allentown, PA 18195-1501 P: (480) 552-9044 F: 480-552-9044 P: (610) 481-0517 F: 601-481-2688 [email protected] [email protected]
David T. Carter John S. Flannery Director of Safety Principal Consultant, Project Management HSE Fluor Corporation ConocoPhillips One Fluor Daniel Drive 660-16 South Tower Mail Code A2S 1000 South Pine Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-2606 Ponca City, OK 74602 P: (949) 349-2125 F: 949-349-5466 P: (580) 767-5205 F: 580-767-3847 [email protected] [email protected]
Kenneth E. Christ Phalen D. Frey Fellow/Group Leader Corporate Safety, Health & Environmental Solutia Inc. Director P. O. Box 66760 Austin Industries, Inc. St. Louis, MO 63166-6760 P. O. Box 1590, Suite 105 P: (314) 674-6808 F: 314-674-6595 Dallas, TX 75221-1590 [email protected] P: (214) 443-5618 F: 214-443-5581 [email protected] A. Dennis Cobb Regional Safety Consultant Thomas W. Hardesty DuPont Engineering Corporate Safety Manager 7909 Parkwood Circle Drive Celanese Acetate, LLC Houston, TX 77036 2300 Archdale Dr. P: (713) 981-2088 F: 713-272-3910 Charlotte, NC 28210-4500 [email protected] P: (704) 554-3350 F: 704-554-3711 [email protected] 9 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
Jimmie W. Hinze Danny Oubre Professor Director of Environmental, Health, and Safety University of Florida The Shaw Group, Inc. Rinker School of Building Construction 8545 United Plaza Blvd. P. O. Box 115703 Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Gainesville, FL 32611-5703 P: (225) 932-2576 F: 225-932-2636 P: (352) 273-1167 F: 352-392-9606 [email protected] [email protected] William Pruss Christopher V. Kirby Project Manager, Iron & Steel Global Engineering Safety Director U.S. Steel Praxair, Inc. Edgar Thomson Plant, MS 16E 175 E. ParkDrive, 324100S 13th St. and Braddock Ave. Tonawanda, NY 14150 Braddock, PA 15104 P: (716) 879-7917 F: 716-879-2907 P: (412) 273-7100 F: 412-273-6833 [email protected] [email protected]
John J. Mathis Fred Rodheim Manager of Safety Services Construction Safety Manager Bechtel Corporation Abbott Laboratories 3000 Post Oak Blvd., MS 24 D7SC Building P14/3 Houston, TX 77056 1401 Sheridan Road P: (713) 235-3702 F: 713-235-2482 North Chicago, IL 60064 [email protected] P: (847) 938-1995 F: 847-938-3855 [email protected] Jerry Metcalf Safety/Environmental Manager Michael F. Schwimmer Hilti, Inc. Project Management Consultant 5400 South 122nd East Ave. ChevronTexaco Project Resources Tulsa, OK 74146 4800 Fournace Place, Rm W156 P: (918) 252-6520 F: 918-252-6704 Bellaire, TX 77401-2325 [email protected] P: (713) 432-3112 F: 713-432-3770 [email protected] Joseph Milligan Sr. Manager Safety Engineering Paul Weida GlaxoSmithKline VP Safety and Health 2200 Renaissance Blvd. Black & Veatch Suite 105 11401 Lamar King of Prussia, PA 19406 Overland Park, KS 66212 P: (610) 239-5200 F: 610-239-5250 P: (913) 458-3897 F: 913-458-8700 [email protected] [email protected]
10 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
Gary L. Wilson Director, Safety & Management National Center for Construction Education & Research P. O. Box 141104 Gainesville, FL 32614-1104 P: (352) 334-0911 F: 352-334-0932 [email protected]
Konstantine D. Xoinis Sr. Manager, Contract Projects Transmission/Power Supply Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market Street, LP 3A Chattanooga, TN 37402 P: (423) 751-3927 F: 423-751-6218 [email protected]
11 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
12 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
Plenary Slides
13 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
14 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
15 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
16 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
17 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
18 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
19 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
20 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
Implementation Session Slides
21 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
22 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
23 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
24 25 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
26 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
27 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
28 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
29 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
30 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
31 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
32 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
33 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
34 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
Implementation Session Handout
35 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
36 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
37 Safety – Owner Involvement Makes A Difference
38 The Value Management Toolkit Value Management Toolkit Development Project Team
Learning Objectives
• Learn about 43 Value Management Processes (VMPs) that go beyond basic project management. • Understand the content and structure of the new CII Web-based publication, The Value Management Toolkit. • See CII’s Web-based VMP Selection Tool. • Hear about tools that offer additional assistance for a select group of VMPs.
Abstract This CII project team has an interactive Web-based product to help you meet project value objectives, The Value Management Toolkit. The presentation will describe the function and features of the Toolkit to facilitate the selection of the right VMPs for the project, with how-to tools for implementation assistance. The Implementation Panel will present an overview of the Web publication and highlight three innovative VMPs. The panel will also demonstrate the use of the VMP Selection Tool and discuss a live demonstration project.
Plenary Session Presenter Katherine F. Bethany, Value Engineering Manager, Overseas Buildings Operations – U.S. Department of State Kathy Bethany has held her current position since 1998. She also is the chair of the CII Value Management Toolkit Project Team. Bethany has past experience as project manager, cost estimator, and scheduler at the Voice of America and as a project controls specialist at Sandia National Laboratory. She began her career as an engineering aide for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Saudi Arabia. Bethany earned a degree in civil engineering from Old Dominion University and an MBA from the University of New Mexico.
39 The Value Management Toolkit
Implementation Session Moderator Tamlin C. Antoine II, Program Manager for Construction of Facilities, Jet Propulsion Laboratory – National Aeronautics & Space Administration Tam Antoine is responsible for the administration of a $50 million annual program. Antoine began his career with NASA in 1983 as a facility project manager. Prior to joining NASA, he served as a project architect for various architectural firms. Antoine received a bachelor’s degree in architecture from Hampton Institute, a Certificate in Engineering Management for Construction from UCLA, and a MBA from the University of La Verne. He is a Registered Professional Architect in the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland.
Implementation Session Participants
William H. Hunt, Chief Estimator, Property Development Division – U.S. General Services Administration Steven D. Lindholm, Construction Technology Leader – The Procter & Gamble Company James T. O’Connor, C. T. Wells Professor of Project Management – The University of Texas at Austin William C. Thorsen, Advanced Project Planner, Worldwide Facilities Group – General Motors Corporation Jack D. Yarbrough, Quality Engineer – Jacobs
40 The Value Management Toolkit Value Management Toolkit Development Project Team
Executive Summary Best practices, value enhancing practices, value management, value engineering – all are buzzwords used throughout the engineering and construction industry with much confusion and mystery surrounding them. Project teams, and the companies that sponsor them, are currently overwhelmed by the number, diversity and complexity of value management processes (VMPs) available to them for implementation. The result is that many companies cannot get value management programs defined, organized or implemented on a project level. The CII Value Management Toolkit Development Project Team (PT 184) has developed a Web-based publication, The Value Management Toolkit, to address the challenges that organizations face in the awareness, understanding, selecting and implementing the myriad of VMPs available today. This toolkit can be used at an organization’s program level to assist in developing a strong value management program, but is equally focused at the project level. The Value Management Toolkit provides an overview of 44 different VMPs and characterizes each VMP with nine descriptive fields of information. These VMPs are all unique, optional processes that can contribute significant value to a capital facility project but are not considered part of conventional project management. The Toolkit also includes more than two dozen implementation tools in the form of case studies, benchmarking and metrics data and how- to procedural guidance at the program and project levels. The premier feature of the Toolkit is a computer-based VMP selection tool for assisting project teams in selecting which of the 44 VMPs are best suited for their project. The Toolkit’s objectives are threefold: • Increase industry awareness of the forty four VMPs, • Facilitate selection of the right VMPs for a project, •Offer how-to tools for implementation.
Twelve Toolkit project value objectives categories have been identified: 1. Security of personnel or facilities 7. Maintenance cost efficiency 2. Operations and maintenance safety 8. Product or service quality and health 9. Construction quality 3. Construction safety and health 10. Schedule optimization 4. Regulatory compliance 11. Environmental stewardship 5. Capital cost efficiency 12. Containment of risk or uncertainty 6. Operating cost efficiency
41 The Value Management Toolkit
Value Management, as defined in this Toolkit, is the collection of processes or efforts by which organizations can proactively pursue one or more project value objectives. These processes are referred to as Value Management Processes. Value Management efforts are needed in order to maximize the potential of a project team and to achieve higher levels of performance pertaining to the owner’s project value objectives. Organizations that most effectively implement and use VMPs on a routine basis are those that also have a strong Value Management Program. Value Management Programs are spearheaded by individuals with a vision to promote the use of Value Management Processes within their organizations and are actively supported by upper management. Value Management Programs have a systematic, planned approach to the implementation and support of Value Management Processes, have the resources to train or hire facilitators and collect and maintain metrics in order to improve the program. A Value Management Process (VMP) is a defined, unique, yet optional process that can enhance value of facility. Secondly, as defined for the purposes of this Toolkit, a VMP is not currently viewed as a part of conventional project management. Examples of conventional project management include master planning, safety management, cost control and schedule control. In addition, a VMP can either be a widely accepted practice; such as Value Engineering, or a relatively new, yet proven practice; such as, Functional Analysis Concept Development. Furthermore, all VMPs can be classified as project level VMPs or program level VMPs. Project level VMPs are those that are targeted specifically for individual project use. Examples of project level VMPs include Pre-Project Planning and Design to Capacity. Program level VMPs are those processes that are applied on a project level but must first be implemented on an organizational level in order to be effective on the project. Examples of program level VMPs include Total Quality Management and Sourcing Strategies. As Safety Management should be treated as a fundamental component of standard project management and not treated as optional, it is not considered in this Toolkit to be a VMP. Thus, CII’s Zero Accidents process and the Design for Safety Toolkit are not addressed in this Value Management Toolkit. Safety should never be compromised and all project teams should effectively employ the various safety oriented best practices to their fullest extent.
42 The Value Management Toolkit Value Management Toolkit Development Project Team
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
Tamlin C. Antoine II Naser M. Chowdhury Program Manager for Construction of Facilities Product Engineering Manager Jet Propulsion Laboratory Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. National Aeronautics & Space Administration 7201 Hamilton Blvd. Mail Stop 200-200 Allentown, PA 18195-1501 4800 Oak Grove Drive P: (610) 481-4147 F: 610-481-4153 Pasadena, CA 91109-6179 [email protected] P: (818) 354-4206 F: 818-393-5058 [email protected] William H. Hunt Chief Estimator Katherine F. Bethany Property Development Division Value Engineering Manager U.S. General Services Administration Overseas Building Operations 401 West Peachtree Street, Rm. 2513 U.S. Department of State Atlanta, GA 30365-2550 OBO/PE/DE P: (404) 331-4242 F: 404-730-9643 Washington, D.C. 20522-0611 [email protected] P: (703) 875-6369 F: 703-875-6204 [email protected] Steven D. Lindholm Construction Technology Leader Heesung Cha The Procter & Gamble Company Graduate Research Assistant Beckett Ridge Technical Center The University of Texas at Austin 8256 Union Centre Blvd. Department of Civil Engineering LP 313 ECJ 5.02 West Chester, OH 45069 Austin, TX 78731 P: (513) 634-8444 F: 513-634-8440 P: 512/663-5778 [email protected] [email protected] William McNab Roger A. Chorba Manager, Project Implementation Project Engineer Dofasco, Inc. DuPont Engineering P. O. Box 2460 6324 Fairview Road Hamilton, ON L8N 3J5 Charlotte, NC 28210 CANADA P: (704) 362-6644 F: 704-362-5934 P: (905) 548-4683 F: 905-548-4486 [email protected] [email protected]
43 The Value Management Toolkit
James T. O’Connor William C. Thorsen C. T. Wells Professor of Project Management Advanced Project Planner The University of Texas at Austin Worldwide Facilities Group Civil Engineering–CEPM General Motors Corporation ECJ 5.2 Mail Code 483-619-200 1 University Station C1752 1996 Technology Drive Austin, TX 78712-0276 Troy, MI 48083-4243 P: (512) 471-4645 F: 512-471-3191 P: (248) 680-5918 F: 248-680-5121 [email protected] [email protected]
Brian C. Preston Jack D. Yarbrough Project Engineer Quality Engineer BE&K Jacobs University Plaza 5995 Rogerdale Road 242 Chapman Road, Ashford Bldg. Houston, TX 77072 Newark, DE 19702 P: (832) 351-7331 F: 832-351-7701 P: (302) 452-9003 F: 302-452-9904 [email protected] [email protected]
John C. Rotroff Project Manager Primary Engineering U.S. Steel One North Broadway – MS-80C Gary, IN 46402 P: (219) 888-7717 F: 219-888-5833 [email protected]
44 The Value Management Toolkit
Plenary Slides
45 The Value Management Toolkit
46 The Value Management Toolkit
47 The Value Management Toolkit
48 The Value Management Toolkit
49 The Value Management Toolkit
50 The Value Management Toolkit
51 The Value Management Toolkit
52 The Value Management Toolkit
Implementation Session Slides
53 The Value Management Toolkit
54 The Value Management Toolkit
55 The Value Management Toolkit
56 The Value Management Toolkit
57 The Value Management Toolkit
58 The Value Management Toolkit
59 The Value Management Toolkit
60 The Value Management Toolkit
61 The Value Management Toolkit
62 PIP – Americas Today, The World Tomorrow Process Industry Practices
Learning Objectives
• See how PIP practices work in the process, pharmaceuticals, pulp and paper, and power industries. • Learn about PIP harmonization and knowledge management processes. • See the metrics on adoption and implementation successes. • Hear about membership, subscription, and licensing growth. • Discover initiatives aimed at global use of PIP Practices.
Abstract Process Industry Practices (PIP), a sister organization to CII, celebrated its 10th anniversary in January 2003. Over 60 companies are now involved as members, subscribers, and licensees and over 430 practices are published in eight engineering disciplines. The PIP Implementation Resource Center provides significant information to member companies on adoption/ implementation metrics, success stories, work processes, and tools. The successful application of PIP Practices has been estimated to achieve 2–6 percent of total installed cost savings on projects. Now a newly formed PIP Globalization Committee is taking the next step to meet the expanding needs of PIP members and users.
Plenary Session Presenter Joerg U. Kemnade, Vice President, Process Technology and Engineering – Degussa Corporation Joerg Kemnade joined Degussa in 1978 as a process and project engineer and has had varying assignments and increasing responsibilities over the past 25 years. He has been a project manager for projects in Germany, Austria, Sweden, Canada, and the U.S. He has been active in both CII and the Process Industry Practices initiative for the past several years. A native of Germany, Kemnade earned master’s and Ph.D. degrees in chemical engineering from the University of Darmstadt and the University of Karlsruhe.
63 PIP – Americas Today, The World Tomorrow
64 PIP – Americas Today, The World Tomorrow Process Industry Practices
Summary The Process Industry Practices (PIP) Initiative, now in its eleventh year, has made significant progress in developing and applying those common industry practices many executives have been looking for to enhance the engineering, procurement, and construction process. The standards harmonization process is in place and has delivered over 460 Practices in eight engineering disciplines. The continuing growth of the PIP members’ consortium and its related programs is paying dividends in projects across the Americas, and PIP members are coming to realize the importance of their work in an expanded, global effort. With good adoption and implementation of the Practices now being achieved at home, PIP is taking the next steps in meeting both members’ and users’ needs – in other countries and in related industries.
Discussion Process industry companies in the U.S. are primarily global companies that compete on a worldwide basis. Before the establishment of PIP in 1993, no U.S. or global set of voluntary, recommended practices existed for the detailed design, procurement, and construction of manufacturing facilities. Contractor firms do practically all of that type of work; few owner companies do their own production engineering and construction. Similarly, no set of “industry standards” exists across the various technical disciplines. Technical societies such as the Instrumentation Systems and Automation Society (ISA), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the American Petroleum Institute (API), the American Concrete Institute (ACI), and others offer standards in specific areas. However, many required topics are not covered and owners as well as contractors must develop more detailed, specific requirements to complete projects while citing the array of industry standards as a design basis for the specification. Historically, most owner firms have used specific, company-internal “standards” (practices and guides) to build and maintain their plants. The result is that the contractor’s engineers, who move from one job to another, spend time learning a new and often different set of design standards and practices when working with a different owner. Likewise, construction workforces must learn a new set of installation standards and practices, and procurement activities also need to be redefined from job to job. Early analysis of the PIP concept, that is, harmonizing standards, indicates capital savings potential of two to six percent of the total installed cost (TIC) of a plant. These projected savings include reduced engineering time, reduced field labor, and procurement savings. Members are now beginning to report savings in TIC as well as in other areas. Reduced costs for internal maintenance of standards, reductions in materials’ inventories, lower-cost engineered solutions to common designs, and savings in other areas are being reported by PIP members.
65 PIP – Americas Today, The World Tomorrow
Since its inception, PIP has grown to include 37 member companies, 14 subscribers, and 10 licensees. The impressive group of PIP participants and users represents well over 70 percent of the U.S market share of process industry revenues. The harmonization process used by PIP is being displayed to related industry segments such as pulp and paper, pharmaceuticals, and power for possible application of PIP Practices in eight engineering disciplines. A key principle of PIP is to support the development of voluntary recommended Practices based on compilation and harmonization of existing internal standards of member companies. In keeping with the original vision of PIP, recommended Practices based on new material are developed only where harmonization of existing material is not adequate and the need for the Practice is clearly demonstrated. Work that is being performed adequately by other organizations (e.g., ISA, API, ASME, ACI, and others) is not duplicated. Instead, PIP continues to work successfully with these organizations to identify and converge on a comprehensive set of industry practices. PIP member companies and subscribers enjoy the benefit of the availability of all Practices via the Internet. The new PIP Implementation Resource Center, now available online to PIP members, provides significant, useful information for members electronically. Subjects include work processes, success stories, metrics, lessons learned, and examples. Paper copies of published Practices are available and sold to non-members. PIP Practices are already in use in many countries around the world. A newly formed PIP Globalization Committee is developing strategies and action plans to expand the global use of the Practices. Additional information is available on the PIP website: www.pip.org.
66 PIP – Americas Today, The World Tomorrow Process Industry Practices
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
Bernard C. Ebert Director Process Industry Practices 3925 West Braker Lane (R4500) Austin, TX 78759-5316 P: (512) 232-3042 F: (512) 473-2968 [email protected]
Joerg U. Kemnade Vice President, Process Technology and Engineering Degussa Corporation P. O. Box 868 Theodore, AL 36590-0606 P: (251) 443-2300 F: 251-443-4042 [email protected]
67 PIP – Americas Today, The World Tomorrow
68 PIP – Americas Today, The World Tomorrow
Plenary Slides
69 PIP – Americas Today, The World Tomorrow
70 PIP – Americas Today, The World Tomorrow
71 PIP – Americas Today, The World Tomorrow
72 PIP – Americas Today, The World Tomorrow
73 PIP – Americas Today, The World Tomorrow
74 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh Case Study: Saudi Aramco
Learning Objectives
• Learn about the impact and power of planning on overall completion of a mega project. • Learn about the role of proper materials management towards project success. • See how a well implemented quality program can avoid rework and enhance project quality. • Find out how a mega project can have over 49 million construction work-hours without a lost work day.
Abstract Haradh Gas Plant is one of the largest gas plants in Saudi Arabia. It was built in a record time of 29 months from initial design phase to completion. The major factors attributed to this success are a strong integrated project team, implementation of CII Best Practices, power of planning, proactive management, innovation, attention to quality, and safety. The plant, in its full capacity, contributes 1.5 billion standard cubic feet per day of sales gas to Saudi Arabia’s Master Gas System.
Featured Speaker Isam Alwan Al-Bayat, Vice President, Project Management – Saudi Aramco Since joining Saudi Aramco in 1971, Isam Alwan Al-Bayat has had steadily increasing responsibility in the company and has served in a variety of positions. In 1999, he became president and CEO of Saudi Refining, Inc. in Houston, Texas. He returned to Saudi Arabia in August 2001 to Aramco’s Domestic Joint Ventures. Al-Bayat holds an electrical engineering degree from the University of Basra (Iraq) and a master’s degree in electrical engineering from King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi Arabia.
75 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
Implementation Session Moderator Salem H. Shaheen, Manager, Haradh Gas Plant Projects Department – Saudi Aramco As manager, Salem Shaheen was in charge of building the $2 billion Haradh Gas Plant project. He joined Saudi Aramco in 1978 and has had increasing responsibility through a variety of assignments in engineering and project management. He is active in the Project Management Institute – Arabian Gulf Chapter, serving as the current chair, a position he also held from 1999-2000. He earned a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from King Fhad University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dharan, and completed the Saudi Aramco Program for Executives at the University of Virginia.
Implementation Session Participants
Hatem Dahleh, Project Manager, Haradh Project – Consolidated Contractors Company W.L.L. Segundo Fernandez, Engineering Superintendent, Haradh Gas Plant Department – Saudi Aramco Mohamed Nanji, Vice President, Far East – Foster Wheeler International Corporation Mohammed Sharief Qureshi, Senior Project Engineer, Haradh Gas Plant Projects Department – Saudi Aramco Tadae Takahashi, Site Project Manager, Haradh Project – JGC Corporation Hidenori Yashima, Project Manager, Haradh Project – JGC Corporation
76 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh Case Study: Saudi Aramco
Executive Summary The Haradh Gas Program consists of the gas plant; upstream gas gathering manifolds and transmission pipelines system; downstream gas and condensate pipeline network; a residence community for 1,000 employee with a Boeing 737-capable landing air strip; and a joint project of Saudi Aramco with the Saudi Electric Company to provide a new 100 MVA substation and two 120-mile long, 230 and 380 kV overhead transmission lines to deliver power to the Haradh Gas Plant, upstream facilities, and the Haradh community. The gas plant is designed to process 1.6 billion standard cubic feet per day (BSCFD) of a combined raw feed of sweet and sour gas and delivers 1.5 BSCFD of sales gas to Saudi Arabia’s Master Gas System. The plant also recovers 170,000 barrels per operating day (BOD) of high value hydrocarbon condensate, which is transported to Abqaiq Plants via a 145-mile, 18/24-inch pipeline for further processing. Another by-product is 90 tons of molten sulfur per day. Haradh Gas Plant is the second Saudi Aramco gas plant designed to process non-associated gas. “Non- associated” means that the gas is produced directly from gas reservoirs and not as a secondary product of oil production.
Scope Haradh Gas Plant The plant is a grass roots facility with inlet facilities, two-gas sweetening trains, three sulfur recovery trains, two acid gas enrichment trains, two condensate stabilizers, two sour water strippers, and four gas-processing trains consisting of gas dehydration, dew point control and sales gas compression. This is in addition to the industrial and support facilities required for the operations of the gas plant. The Gas Plant had five major contractors: • Gas Processing Facilities: JGC (Yokohama, Japan) • Utilities & Offsites: Technip-Coflexip (Rome, Italy) • Industrial Support Facilities: SCE (Saudi Arabia) • Permanent Communication: General Dynamics (Virginia, USA) • Site Preparation: Al-Khodari & Sons (Saudi Arabia)
Haradh Gas Plant Downstream Gas & Condensate Pipelines New 395 miles of sales gas and condensate pipelines ranging in size from 18 inch to 56 inch diameter to distribute 1.5 BSCFD of sales gas and 170,000 BOD of hydrocarbon condensate. Construction contractor: Technip Saudi Arabia Ltd.
77 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
Haradh Gas Gathering Manifolds and Transmission Pipelines Three grass roots, non-associated gas-gathering manifolds with corresponding 80-mile transmission pipelines ranging in size from 20-inch to 30-inch diameter to gather and transport 1.6 BSCFD of raw gas from Haradh, Tinat, Waqr, Wudayhi and Ghazal gas fields to the gas plant. Construction contractor: Suedrohrbau Saudi Arabia Ltd.
High Voltage Power Supply Expansion of the Saudi Electric Company East power supply system in the Southern Area to support the Haradh Area Crude and Gas Facilities. Main components include 60 miles of 380kV transmission lines between Shedgum and Hawiyah Bulk Supply Power Substations. In addition, 60 miles of 230kV dual transmission lines from Hawiyah Bulk Supply substation to the new 230kV substation at Haradh Gas Plant were also installed. Construction contractors: • Hawiyah BSP and Haradh Substation Work: National Contracting Company (NCC), Saudi Arabia • Overhead Transmission Lines: Middle East Engineering Development Company (MEEDCo), Saudi Arabia
Permanent Communications New communication facilities for Haradh Gas Plant and its core area, to provide two telephone exchanges (2,500 lines), voice alerting and conferencing (150 ports), video conferencing, data networks for 470 users, cable TV for 1000 residential units, paging for 100 users, FM radio services, mobile trunked radios covering all gas fields locations and other associated facilities. Construction contractor: General Dynamics, U.S.
Haradh Community A permanent residential community of 1,000 employees with a Boeing 737-capable air strip to support the Haradh Gas Program. Construction contractor: Jouannou & Paraskevaides, Saudi Arabia
78 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
Site Preparation for Haradh Gas Plant Site preparation work of approximately 18.5 million square feet was required for the construction of the Haradh Gas Plant, the associated Core Area Complex, the Sulfur Storage and Handling Facilities. Additional temporary construction communications for all the Haradh related projects, four permanent water wells, an on-site road from the existing Batha Road to the gas plant site were constructed. Construction contractor: Al-Khodari & Sons Co., Saudi Arabia
Cost Summary Approximate cost of the Haradh Program is $ 2 billion.
Safety & Work Force This project has expended 49 million construction work-hours without a lost time work day. The total peak work force was 11,500 personnel from 36 different nationalities. Saudi Aramco records lost workdays cases based on the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics guidelines.
Quality The program has a Project Quality Index (PQI) of 98 percent versus a target of 90 percent. PQI is a specific measure of project quality established by Saudi Aramco based on several project functions such as procurement, testing, welding, and other construction functions. The Saudi Aramco Quality Steering Committee publishes the Project Quality Index monthly.
Schedule The first gas processing train went on-stream in April 2003. Subsequently, three trains became operational in May and June 2003, six months ahead of schedule. The total duration of the project was 29 months against an industry average of 34 months for similar projects.
79 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
80 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh Case Study: Saudi Aramco
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
Isam Alwan Al-Bayat Mohammed S. Qureshi Vice President, Project Management Senior Project Engineer Saudi Aramco Haradh Gas Plant Projects Department Box 1224 Saudi Aramco Dhahran – 31311 Box 11615 SAUDI ARABIA Dhahran – 31311 P: 011-966-3-873-7800 SAUDI ARABIA F: 011-966-3-873-3566 P: 011-966-3-576-0533 [email protected] F: 011-966-3-873-3244 [email protected] Hatem Dahleh [email protected] Project Manager, Haradh Project [email protected] Consolidated Contractors Company W.L.L. P. O. Box 31750 Salem H. Shaheen Al-Khobar 31952 Manager, Haradh Gas Plant Projects Department SAUDI ARABIA Saudi Aramco P: 011-966-3-576-0274 Box 11615 [email protected] Dhahran – 31311 SAUDI ARABIA Segundo Fernandez P: 011-966-3-874-6646 Engineering Superintendent F: 011-966-3-873-7828 Haradh Gas Plant Department [email protected] Saudi Aramco Box 8819 Tadao Takahashi Udhailiyah Site Project Manager, Haradh Project SAUDI ARABIA JGC Corporation P: 011-966-3-576-0503 2-3-1, Minato Mirai, Naka-ku F: 011-966-3-579-0802 Yokohama 220-6001 [email protected] JAPAN P: 81-45-682-1111 Mohamed Nanji [email protected] Vice President, Far East Foster Wheeler International Corporation Hidenori Yashima 32 Maxwell Road, #02/01 Project Manager, Haradh Project SINGAPORE JGC Corporation P: 011-65-68900-900 2-3-1, Minato Miraj, Naka-ku F: 011-65-6222-9773 Yokohama 220-6001 [email protected] JAPAN P: 81-45-682-1111 [email protected]
81 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
82 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
Plenary Slides
83 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
84 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
85 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
86 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
87 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
88 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
89 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
90 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
Implementation Slides
91 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
92 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
93 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
94 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
95 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
96 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
97 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
98 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
99 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
100 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
Implementation Session Handout
101 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
102 A Checklist for Complex Projects
Initial Design Basis
•Were project goals and targeted schedules set from the beginning for this phase? • Has the layout/plot plan been developed and discussed by all concerned parties? • Has the overall design basis/concept been finalized and agreed upon?
Front End Engineering Design
• Ensure the appropriate sized process team, with the proper credentials, at the start. •Target and maintain an early process final design. • Immediately review all required data from existing facilities, organize the surveys and collect this information. • Review permits and approvals, particularly those required from the government and non- client organizations; it’s necessary to track all authorizations that might impact the schedule and need to be planned for. • Early Value Engineering and Constructability reviews must be incorporated into front end design information. • Establish contracting strategy and review policies to ensure that interfaces are minimized and practical.
Mobilization
• Is it being carried out as soon as possible? – Consider an award or even a pre-award if the award is primarily a formality to be completed. – Is personnel mobilization enough to have an immediate impact and effective start?
• Scheduling personnel is critical. Each complex work area needs its own scheduling resource. It is very important that enough resources have been scheduled to enable active scheduling rather than passive progress reporting. Progress reporting is essential, therefore, if not enough resources are scheduled, the proactive element will not occur. This is especially important at the start of a project when the schedule is critical. • Similarly, there are certain disciplines and positions that become very critical during the project. Resource levels must be set to meet project needs at such critical times. Examples include welding engineers who review contractor and supplier documentations, inspectors, and drawing review personnel outside of the project team.
103 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
Schedule
• Establish an early overall schedule. • Carry out an early review of urgent long-lead items. • Prepare a simple network listing key activities and analyze what steps will improve the overall schedule during the front-end engineering design. • Ideas include developing a list of long-lead items, either to order placement or to fully evaluate conditioned bids, advance areas of critical engineering that have been reviewed to determine their benefit to the overall schedule. A particular review is normally required regarding the Process Control System (PCS) and Distributed Control System (DCS) and power availability. • Set contract milestones that are well-defined, not open to interpretation and are genuinely important events within the project life cycle. • Are planning specifications fully developed and defined? • Needs to consider: – Ability to merge schedules and coordinate individual contractors to work as a team. – Prepare coding parameters to allow scheduling networks to be merged. – Specifications must be precise to meet all possible project needs.
Commissioning Schedule
• Develop the ideal commissioning schedule right away during front-end engineering design. Make sure that this schedule is well planned to contain enough float between system start-ups to permit flexibility at that time.
Engineering
• As soon as the design is checked and verified, make sure that changes are minimal (no preferential engineering). • Make sure that review cycles have been optimized. Use e-review where practical due to improved transmission times. • Develop a drawing list and progress measurement system quickly after the contract is awarded. This helps all parties to focus on their end products. • If interfaces are complex, arrange the first interface co-ordination meeting among all contractors within three months of engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contract awards.
104 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
Procurement
• Schedule long-lead items right away so that they will arrive on time for the project. To avoid lost time in the purchasing cycle, make sure the supplier you choose can meet project deadlines and that delays will be avoided. • If there are stipulations about approved suppliers, source country/area requirements, or other restrictions on the procurement process, the approval mechanisms and implications of the requirements must be reviewed and optimized.
Construction
• Site preparation must be defined early to permit a scheduling float ahead of the construction phase. Temporary housing facility preparation needs to have defined dates. • Early contract placement with construction contractor(s) must take place well in advance of construction start dates. • An effective early start will maximize the construction window. • Site communications need to be arranged early, depending on the remoteness of the project. This can be critical to schedule success. Inter-office project links also need to be established soon after contracts are awarded.
105 Success: The Hallmark of Haradh
106 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check Special Topic: CII Continuing Education Short Courses — Implementation Session Only
Learning Objectives
• Learn about three CII Best Practices and how they can immediately improve project performance. •A self-assessment tool will help evaluate implementation and understanding of these Best Practices. •A training activity will demonstrate how CII principles and Best Practices are presented to industry participants. • Learn about the variety of CII education materials and delivery options designed to meet virtually any corporate learning and training requirement.
Abstract Implementing CII Best Practices can improve project performance, profitability, and competitiveness, but is often a struggle that requires change and a different way of performing work processes. Overcoming such barriers cannot be accomplished without well developed and effectively delivered training. The CII Education and Implementation Strategy Committees will demonstrate how CII Best Practices are taught in the workplace. A panel will show how measuring progress through critical self-assessment is an important step in process improvement. Time will be provided to ask questions and discuss the value of education and implementation.
Implementation Session Moderator W. Edward Back, Associate Professor – Clemson University Ed Back has been an active researcher with CII in the areas of information management, work process modeling and simulation, onsite design evaluation, and various aspects of contract administration. He has the distinction of being selected as both the CII Outstanding Researcher (1999) and the CII Outstanding Instructor (2001). Since 1998, he has conducted over 100 CII training sessions during the last five years, teaching approximately 2,000 industry professionals about CII principles and Best Practices. Honored twice with the Clemson University Award for Faculty Excellence, he holds graduate degrees in civil engineering and architecture from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign and a Ph.D. in civil engineering from Clemson University.
107 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
Implementation Session Panelists
W. Frank Eskridge, Sr., Director, Construction Industry Cooperative Alliance – Clemson University Manuel A. Garcia, Associate Director – Construction Industry Institute Donald G. Giles, Manager, Engineering Mon Valley/Clairton – U.S. Steel
108 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check Special Topic: CII Continuing Education Short Courses
Knowledgeable Points of Contact W. Edward Back Associate Professor Clemson University Department of Engineering 200 Lowry HallClemson, SC 29634-0911 P: (864) 656-2818 F: 864-656-0124 [email protected]
W. Frank Eskridge, Sr. Director, Construction Industry Cooperative Alliance Clemson University Box 340912 200 Lowry Hall Clemson, SC 29634-0912 P: (864) 656-4201 F: 864-656-0124 [email protected]
Manuel A. Garcia Associate Director Construction Industry Institute 3925 West Braker Lane (R4500) Austin, TX 78759-5316 P: (512) 232-1966 F: 512-232-1966 [email protected]
Donald G. Giles Manager, Engineering Mon Valley/Clairton U.S. Steel Irvin Plant – MS 145 P. O. Box 878 Dravosburg, PA 15048 P: (412) 675-2571 F: 412-675-7826 [email protected]
109 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
110 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
Implementation Session Slides
111 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
112 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
113 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
114 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
115 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
116 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
117 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
118 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
119 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
120 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
121 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
122 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
123 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
124 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
Implementation Session Handout
125 Project Management – Best Practices: A Status Check
126
What Can CII Do for You? First-Time Attendee Orientation — Implementation Session Only
Learning Objectives
• Learn how CII answered industry’s call for a research clearinghouse and a unified vision for improvement. • Gain a better understanding of CII and its activities. • Learn about the CII efforts in research, implementation, education, benchmarking, globalization, and breakthrough. • Listen to member companies discuss the benefits of CII Best Practices implementation.
Abstract This session is designed for those who want to know more about how CII is organized and how its various efforts to improve the industry are generated and accomplished. A panel of members will give an overview of CII, its mission and vision, and the core processes. The panel will also provide insight on how CII provides unique research, networking, and personnel training opportunities.
Implementation Session Moderator Kenneth E. Eickmann – Director, Construction Industry Institute Prior to joining CII as Director in September 1998, Ken Eickmann (Lt. Gen., U.S. Air Force, Retired) enjoyed a distinguished and highly decorated 31-year career in the U.S. Air Force. Ken is a Registered Professional Engineer and a Certified Acquisition Professional in acquisition logistics, program management, and systems planning, research, development, and engineering. He is a Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin. In 1999, he was named a Distinguished Graduate of the UT Austin College of Engineering. He holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from UT Austin, a master’s degree in systems engineering from the Air Force Institute of Technology, and is a graduate of the University of Michigan School of Business and the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
129 What Can CII Do for You?
Implementation Session Panelists
Paul V. Campbell, Senior Vice President, Administration & Technology – M. A. Mortenson Company C. Jerome Eyink, Senior Manager, BOT – Engineering – Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. Susan M. Steele, Vice President, Industrial Services – BE&K Construction Company Lester L. Sturgeon, Vice President, Corporate Project & Facilities Engineering – Abbott Laboratories
130 What Can CII Do for You?
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
Paul V. Campbell Lester L. Sturgeon Senior Vice President, Administration & Vice President, Corporate Project & Facilities Technology Engineering M. A. Mortenson Company Abbott Laboratories 700 Meadow Lane, North (55422-4899) Dept. 50W, Bldg. AP-52S P. O. Box 710 200 Abbott Park Road Minneapolis, MN 55440-0710 Abbott Park, IL 60064-6212 P: (763) 522-2100 F: 763-287-5224 P: (847) 937-7646 F: 847-937-5617 [email protected] [email protected]
Kenneth E. Eickmann Alternate Panelist: Director Carol P. Arnold Construction Industry Institute Leader, DuPont Engineering University 3925 West Braker Lane (R4500) DuPont Engineering Austin, TX 78759-5316 1007 Market Street, B10212 P: (512) 232-301 F: 512-499-8101 Wilmington, DE 19898-0001 [email protected] P: (302) 773-2740 F: 302-774-1347 [email protected] C. Jerome Eyink Senior Manager, BOT – Engineering Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. One Busch Place 2816 South Third Street, Bldg. 124-1 St. Louis, MO 63118 P: (314) 577-2797 F: 314-765-8225 [email protected]
Susan M. Steele Vice President, Industrial Services BE&K Construction Company P. O. Box 2332 Birmingham, AL 35201-2332 P: (205) 972-6552 F: 205-972-6794 [email protected]
131 What Can CII Do for You?
132 OSHA and the Construction Industry Today Featured Speaker: John L. Henshaw
Abstract The Assistant Secretary will discuss the state of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the construction industry and initiatives underway to assist the industry in reducing occupational injuries and illnesses on construction jobsites. He will explain OSHA’s Partnership, Alliance and VPP cooperative programs and the benefits of each. In addition, he will provide an overview of OSHA activities related to construction.
Keynote Speaker John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration John Henshaw heads OSHA. Nominated by President George W. Bush, Henshaw was confirmed by the Senate in 2001. He has more than 26 years of experience directing environmental, safety, and health programs in the chemical industry. Most recently he served as director of environment, safety, and health for a joint venture between Solutia and FMC Corporation. Henshaw has authored articles on safety and health management as well as chapters in industrial hygiene and management textbooks. He is a graduate of Appalachian State University and holds a master’s degree in environmental health administration and industrial health from the University of Michigan.
Knowledgeable Point of Contact John L. Henshaw Assistant Secretary of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Rm. S2315 Washington, D.C. 20210 P: (202) 693-2286 F: 202-693-2106
133 OSHA and the Construction Industry Today
134 Engineering Productivity Measurement System Engineering Productivity Measurements II Project Team
Learning Objectives
• Understand why an effective productivity measurement system must include more than simply raw productivity. • Learn about two computer-based resources that measure the productivity of detailed design engineering: – An off-the-shelf model to calculate a productivity index using correlations developed from the project team’s database –A custom-tailored approach to develop productivity correlations specific to your industry and particular project execution processes.
• Find out how these resources can improve execution processes.
Abstract This CII project team provides two approaches to measure the productivity of detailed engineering (by discipline) as a function of what is designed rather than as a function of deliverables such as drawings and specifications. The Implementation Session will focus on understanding what engineering productivity is and how correlating it to physical quantities – things that can be seen, touched, and counted – provides a framework that allows comparison of engineering productivity on projects with different scopes, execution approaches, and participants.
Plenary Session Presenter W. Kent Goddard, Engineering Project Manager – Solutia Inc. Kent Goddard has been with Solutia for 13 years in project management, operations supervision, and process engineering at corporate and plant locations. His experience includes leadership roles on various safety, communications, and personnel development committees. Goddard worked in the natural gas processing and transportation industry prior to joining Solutia. His experience in the natural gas industry was centered on project management and capital investment planning. Goddard is a licensed professional engineer and holds a mechanical engineering degree from the University of Missouri at Rolla.
135 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
Implementation Session Moderator
Katy P. Johansson, Engineering Benchmarking Associate, Project Management Division – ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company Katy Johansson works with the ExxonMobil Project Management Technology group in Fairfax, Virginia. The group’s work includes developing estimating methods, collecting construction cost data, and analyzing project performance for the corporation’s worldwide refining business. Johansson previously worked in the process industries as a consultant to many Fortune 100 companies in the area of capital project information management and work process improvement. She holds bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in chemistry from the University of Rochester.
Implementation Session Participants
Donald Bounds, Manager, Project Controls/Senior Project Manager (retired) – Fru-Con Engineering, Inc. Karl E. Seil, Manager, Project Execution Administration – The Shaw Group Kenneth D. Walsh, Associate Professor – San Diego State University Paul N. Woldy, Staff Engineer – ChevronTexaco Corporation
136 Engineering Productivity Measurement System Engineering Productivity Measurements II Project Team
Executive Summary Improving the productivity of detailed design engineering is a critical step in improving the overall effectiveness of capital projects. To improve productivity, there must be a good system to measure and track productivity, so that the impact of improvement efforts can be judged. This research provides two effective approaches to measure and track engineering productivity. Costs associated with a typical heavy industrial major capital construction project can be broken into three general categories with corresponding general percentages: • Cost of materials 45 percent or more • Cost of construction 35 percent or more • Cost of engineering up to 20 percent.
Although engineering may only account for up to 20 percent of total project costs, the output of the engineering team has direct bearing on the other 80 percent of project costs. Also, engineering generally sets the pace for compliance with project schedule requirements. For these reasons, it is important to be able to effectively measure and improve engineering productivity. These improvements will benefit both owners and contractors. CII recognized there were no consistent standards used throughout industry to measure engineering productivity. The Engineering Productivity Measurements II Project Team (PT 192) was commissioned as follow-on to the Engineering Productivity Measurements Research Team (RT 156). The objective for PT 192 was to develop a standardized productivity measurement system. As background: RT 156 advanced the concept of measuring the productivity of detailed engineering as a function of the number of hours required to design physical components (e.g., pipe, concrete, and cable that will be installed in the field), as opposed to the traditional method of using design hours per direct engineering output (e.g., the number and types of drawings and specifications). RT 156 conducted a detailed evaluation of the piping design process and found good correlation of design hours with the total length of pipe designed and the number of equipment pieces in the piping systems (which were seen as an indication of project complexity). Additionally, RT 156 developed a conceptual model in which engineering productivity would consist of a raw productivity (hours per design quantities), which could be adjusted to account for project complexity, the quality of input to detailed design, and the quality of the design output. Using RT 156’s results as proof of the concept, PT 192 was formed in 2002 to extend the concept for the piping discipline to other engineering disciplines and by further defining input/ output adjustments. PT 192 conducted a series of discipline workshops, reviewed a physical- component-based engineering productivity system in use at Dow Chemical Company, and reviewed the results of efforts by the CII Benchmarking and Metrics Committee to establish
137 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
engineering productivity metrics. These processes enabled PT 192 to develop a data collection instrument to gather project descriptive data (80 questions), the quantities of 166 different design components across 7 disciplines (piping, civil/structural, mechanical, electrical, instrumentation/ controls, process, and architectural), discipline hours used to complete the design, and project- specific input/output factors that could potentially impact productivity (49 questions). PT 192 collected data for 118 projects from 14 different companies with a total installed cost of approximately $15 billion. Statistical analysis was used to determine which design components had the strongest correlations to design hours. Discipline experts were consulted to further narrow and finalize the design components to use for each discipline. Statistics experts then developed coefficients and equations for each discipline to calculate “basis hours”, a term coined by the team. For example, the basis hours for the civil structural discipline were determined to be:
C/S Basis Hours = (0.0161 · sq. ft. of building area) + (0.492 · cubic yards of structural concrete) + (6.39 · tons of steel) + (3.53 · number of deep foundations)
The team went on to define a productivity index for each discipline as the number discipline design hours actually used on a given project divided by the calculated basis hours:
Productivity Index = actual design hours / basis hours
In application, an organization needs to gather data on a set of projects to establish a baseline productivity index for each discipline. Then data on current and future projects should be gathered to look for trends. If changes to internal work processes have a positive affect on productivity, they will show up as a downward trend in the productivity index over time. PT 192 provides two different methods to measure and trend engineering productivity: • The “Off-the-Shelf” approach calculates basis hours using equations developed from the PT 192 data set, as described above. This approach can be used immediately with minimal startup costs. • The “Custom-Tailored” approach applies the same methodology as was used by the PT 192 project team (as described in the PT 192 Implementation Resource and Research Summary) to develop organization-specific equations for calculating basis hours. While this approach requires more effort that the “Off-the-Shelf” approach and requires access to statistical expertise, it should also provide a more accurate measurement system that is more responsive to improvements made to internal work processes.
Two cautions: • This type of measurement system should be used to track trends between groups of projects. It is not appropriate to draw conclusions about individual projects because of the significant variability between individual projects.
138 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
• This system should be used as one of a family of measures to track engineering productivity. Input quality (e.g., CII’s Project Definition Rating Index), output quality, and other project-specific factors must be considered when evaluating the relative productivity of a particular project.
The research and tools provided by PT 192 have the potential for significant impact on the way companies measure, track, and improve the productivity of detailed design engineering. This in turn may lead to improved cost effectiveness of implementing capital projects within individual organizations. Benchmarking and additional research could extend these benefits across the industry if the tools are used broadly by CII organizations.
Sources of Additional Information Related to PT 192
CII Research Projects and Products Relating to Engineering Productivity and/or Performance
Year Research/Project Team Products 1986 Task Force 84-8, Design “Evaluation of Design Effectiveness” (SD-16) “Defining and Evaluating Input Variables Impacting Design Effectiveness: Research Phase I” (SD-19)
1989 Task Force 84-8, Design “Cost Effectiveness of Computerization in Design and Construction” (SD-50)
1994 Total Quality Management Implementing TQM in Engineering and Task Force Construction (SP 31-1)
1997- Research Team 112 2% Engineering – Can It Work for You? (RS 112-1) 1998 “A Framework and Practices for Cost-Effective Engineering in Capital Projects in the A/E/C Industry” (RR112-11)
2000 Research Team 152 “Three-Dimensional Computer Models and Fully Automated Project Processes for the Management of Construction” (RR152-11)
2001 Research Team 156 “Engineering Productivity Measurement” (RR156-11)
139 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
140 Engineering Productivity Measurement System Engineering Productivity Measurements II Project Team
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
Donald Bounds Charles M. Green Manager, Project Controls/Senior Project Manager Engineering Specialist (retired) Aramco Services Company Fru-Con Engineering, Inc. P. O. Box 4534 - MS-1089 20493 N. Jacob Lane Houston, TX 77210-4534 Dix, IL 62830 P: (713) 432-8187 F: 713-432-8275 P: (618) 735-9163 [email protected] [email protected] William R. Harris David S. Edmondson Manager – Electrical Systems Director of Engineering General Motors Corporation Technip USA Corporation Worldwide Facilities Group - Capital Projects 1990 Post Oak Blvd, Suite 200 Mail Code 483-619-200 Houston, TX 77056-3846 1996 Technology Drive P: (713) 548-4406 F: 713-548-4424 Troy, MI 48083 [email protected] P: 248/680-5197 F: 248-680-5121 [email protected] Michael H. Garrett Engineering Manager, Electrical and Control Alan G. Helton Systems Director of Discipline Engineering Washington Group International ALSTOM Power Inc. Industrial/Process Business Unit 1409 Centerpoint Blvd. 500 Corporate Parkway Knoxville, TN 37932 Birmingham, AL 35242-2928 P: (865) 670-4417 F: 865-694-5201 P: (205) 995-6235 F: 205-995-6335 [email protected] [email protected] James C. Hershauer W. Kent Goddard Professor of Management Engineering Project Manager Ford Dealership Management Fellow Solutia Inc. Arizona State University Mail Zone 4-S W. P. Carey School of Business 575 Maryville Centre Drive Tempe, AZ 85287-4006 St. Louis, MO 63021 P: (480) 965-5478 F: 480-965-8314 P: (314) 674-3880 F: 314-694-8957 [email protected] [email protected]
141 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
Ronald W. Hicks Katy P. Johansson Vice President Engineering Benchmarking Associate Black & Veatch Project Management Division 3550 Green Court ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company Ann Arbor, MI 48105 3225 Gallows Road, Rm. 4A 0416 P: (734) 622-8504 F: 734-622-8700 Fairfax, VA 22037 [email protected] P: (703) 846-6625 F: 703-846-7904 katy.p.johansson@exxonmobil.com Burrell L. Higdon Engineering Manager Frank McMahon Day & Zimmermann International, Inc. Vice President Engineering 125 The Parkway Hilti, Inc. Greenville, SC 29615 5400 S. 122nd East Ave. P: (864) 241-6884 F: 864-241-6750 Tulsa, OK 74146 [email protected] P: (918) 252-6010 F: 918-252-6347 [email protected] Stephen C. Horton Chief Engineer Gary P. Minnick BE&K Business Unit Manager 2450 Perimeter Park Dr. Lockwood Greene Suite 100 1000 Des Peres Roard, Ste.100 Morrisville, NC 27560 St. Louis, MO 63131 P: (919) 462-7700 F: 919-462-6840 P: (314) 919-3256 F: 314-919-3201 [email protected] [email protected]
Robert E. Houghtaling Steven Page Engineering Manager Senior Project Engineer DuPont Engineering Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. Brandywine Bldg 3444 1400 Jefferson 1007 Market Street Pasadena, TX 77501-0792 Wilmington, DE 19898 P: (713) 475-3910 F: 713-475-3963 P: (302)774-1116 F: 302-774-1347 [email protected] [email protected]
142 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
Gregory W. Robertson Kenneth D. Walsh Procurement Manager – Special Projects Associate Professor Black & Veatch San Diego State University 11401 Lamar Avenue Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering Overland Park, KS 66211 5500 Campanile Drive P: (913) 458-4437 F: 913-458-2934 San Diego, CA 92182-1324 [email protected] P: (619) 594-0911 F: 619-594-8078 [email protected] Karl E. Seil Manager, Project Execution Administration Michael Wick The Shaw Group at Manager Architectural Systems Stone & Webster, Inc. General Motors Corporation 1430 Enclave Parkway Troy Tech Park Building “A” Houston, TX 77077 1996 Technology Drive P: (281) 368-3836 F: 281-368-3931 MC: 483-619-200 [email protected] Troy, MI 48083 P: (248) 680-5964 F: 248-680-5121 Ganesh Shenbagaraman [email protected] Research Associate Arizona State University Paul N. Woldy W. P. Carey College of Business Staff Engineer Tempe, AZ 85287-4006 ChevronTexaco Corporation P: (480) 429-3592 F: 480-965-8314 BAX 324 [email protected] P. O. Box 430 Bellaire, TX 77401 John G. Wacker P: (713) 432-6268 F: 713-432-6256 Research Professor [email protected] Arizona State University W. P. Carey School of Business Tempe, AZ 85287-4006 P: (480) 965-3218 F: 480-965-8314 [email protected]
143 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
144 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
Plenary Slides
145 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
146 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
147 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
148 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
149 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
150 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
Implementation Session Slides
151 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
152 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
153 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
154 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
155 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
156 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
157 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
158 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
Implementation Session Handout
159 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
160 Engineering Productivity Measurement System
161
Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance Case Study: General Motors
Learning Objectives
• Hear about a culture that embraces safe work practices across facilities. • Learn how the organization focuses on safety performance with contractors and suppliers. • See how a common process was developed across multiple business units. • Identify tools, roles, responsibilities, and measures.
Abstract General Motors focused on specific actions to demonstrate commitment to safety, created a process of continuous improvement, and benchmarked to create a safety culture. The over- whelming success of their efforts led them to increase their focus to include their contractors and outside suppliers. A common process was established using CII’s Zero Accidents Best Practices. The implementation session will present an overview of how the process embodies CII tools to improve safety performance without taking responsibility for safety away from the contractor.
Plenary Session Presenter August Olivier, Director, Capital Projects, Worldwide Facilities Group – General Motors Corporation August Olivier is responsible for the construction of major buildings and infrastructure for the corporation, including all manufacturing and non- manufacturing facilities in North America. He has over 30 years of experience in the facilities business. Prior to his current assignment, he was responsible for facility management for GM’s non-manufacturing facilities and for maintenance operations at its U.S. assembly plants. Olivier holds a bachelor of science degree from General Motors Institute and a master’s from Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey.
165 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
Implementation Session Moderator
August Olivier, Director, Capital Projects, Worldwide Facilities Group – General Motors Corporation
Implementation Session Participants
Bruce Brandenburg, Construction Group Manager, Worldwide Facilities Group – General Motors Corporation Stephen B. Clabaugh, Assistant Vice President, Safety & Health – Walbridge Aldinger Company Michael W. Mayra, Construction Group Manager, Worldwide Facilities Group – General Motors Coporation
166 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance Case Study: General Motors
Executive Summary General Motors (GM) Corporation’s presentation at this year’s CII Annual Conference focuses on the role that owners have on their contractor’s safety performance. Although GM has a long history of promoting the importance of safety in the workplace, it only recently placed emphasis on attempting to influence contractor safety performance. The company’s commitment to safety is ingrained in its own workforce, and the result is a “safety culture” or inherent behaviors exhibited by the men and women within the company. This same positive attitude towards safety clearly was not evident in contractor employees across the company. In fact, GM began noticing a large disparity in the safety performance of its own employees versus those of contractors employed on GM sites. The corporation thus began tracking construction safety performance indicators in 1997, specifically Recordable Incident Rates and Lost Workday Case Incident Rates, in an attempt to measure the performance of its contractors. Although the data indicated that GM was below the industry average in both categories, the company’s goal was to achieve results more in line with those of CII member organizations. Further research indicated that contractors across GM project sites lacked a clear set of expectations with respect to safety. The feedback received from GM project managers was that they were uncertain about the level of involvement they should take in influencing a contractor’s safety efforts. The company concluded that an “owner” needed to be established internally within the organization in order to communicate effectively the safety requirements that GM was intending to impose on its contractors. To that end, the Worldwide Facilities Group was designated to champion construction safety within the organization and was given the task to lead the development of a common corporate process. The initial step taken in the development of this common process was the formation of a cross-functional team within GM whose members all had a stake in the ultimate success of this effort. The team began the effort by concurring on the basic tenets around which to build the process. The team met on a bi-monthly basis for six months in order to complete the assignment and obtain the buy-in necessary from the senior leadership of the corporation. The result was a six-step process known as the Construction Safety Process (CSP). In addition to the input of project managers across corporate sites, CII research and data played a major role in the overall development of the document that resulted. Much of the early research done by the cross-functional team utilized CII publications to formulate GM’s initial direction. The final process clearly illustrates how CII’s nine practices from its “Making Zero Accidents a Reality” research are an integral part of GM’s Construction Safety Process. The CSP now has been successfully rolled out across the corporation and has the full support of GM management. GM has mandated that the Construction Safety Process be used as a tool by company project managers on all new projects. Thus far, positive feedback has been received by both GM employees as well as contractors who have used the CSP document.
167 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
168 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance Case Study: General Motors
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
Bruce Brandenburg Construction Group Manager General Motors Corporation Worldwide Facilities Group Capital Projects Mail Code 483-619-275 Troy, MI 48083-4243 P: (248) 680-5005 F: 248-680-5120 [email protected]
Stephen B. Clabaugh Assistant Vice President, Safety & Health Walbridge Aldinger Company 613 Abbott Street Detroit, MI 48226-2521 P: (313) 442-1345 F: 313-963-0750 [email protected]
Michael W. Mayra (Mike) Construction Group Manager General Motors Corporation Worldwide Facilities Group Capital Projects Mail Code 483-619-275 Troy, MI 48083-4243 P: (248) 680-5524 F: 248-680-5120 [email protected]
August Olivier Director, Capital Projects General Motors Corporation GM Worldwide Facilities Group Troy Tech Park – Bldg. A Mail Code 483-619-200 Troy, MI 48083-4243 P: (248) 680-5941 F: 248-680-5116 [email protected]
169 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
170 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
Plenary Slides
171 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
172 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
173 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
174 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
175 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
176 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
177 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
178 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
Implementation Session Slides
179 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
180 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
181 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
182 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
183 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
184 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
185 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
186 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
187 Owner Influence on Contractor Safety Performance
188 Small Projects, Homeland Security, and Beyond Benchmarking & Metrics Committee
Learning Objectives
• Get the latest updates on customizable online project reporting tools. • Learn how Account Managers can assist you with the implementation of benchmarking. • Learn how to benchmark your small projects. • Find out about the CII/NIST Best Practices for Project Security and the development of the Security Rating Index.
Abstract Exciting new initiatives are taking place in the CII Benchmarking program, including user- friendly tools from data collection and reporting to improved customer service. Other activities include the development of a Small Projects Benchmarking questionnaire and a Security Rating Index that will assist companies in assessing how well security practices have been implemented during the planning and execution of their projects. Benchmarking will hold two implementation sessions: • The Small Projects Benchmarking session will focus on the details of this new initiative, including its development, milestones, and pilot data results. The differences in benchmarking large and small projects will be discussed as will the issues for benchmarking small projects. • The Best Practices for Project Security session will discuss the study goals and objectives and tasks accomplished during workshops to date. The Security Rating Index for industrial projects will be presented and its use will be discussed. Plans for follow-on studies to develop indices for other industry groups will be outlined. Plans for benchmarking the Security Rating Index and the associated impacts on cost, schedule, and safety also will be presented.
Plenary Session Presenter Mark T. Owens – Director of Global Facilities Delivery, Eli Lilly and Company Mark Owens is responsible for capital project services, including capital planning, front-end loading, estimating, project control, design specialists, and commissioning and qualification. At Lilly since 1972, he had several engineering assignments before becoming operations coordinator of the antibiotic fermentation pilot plant. In 1989, he moved to Ireland to serve as general manager at one of Lilly’s manufacturing operations. He returned to Indiana in 1994, when he was named director of corporate health, safety, and environmental affairs. Owens earned a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and an MBA from Indiana University.
189 Small Projects, Homeland Security, and Beyond
190 Small Projects, Homeland Security, and Beyond
Knowledgeable Points of Contact Joel R. Barnett William G. Cooley, Sr. Senior Estimator – OG&C Capital Effectiveness Engineer Fluor Daniel U.S. Steel – Gary Works One Fluor Daniel Drive (B2 608D) One North Broadway, MS-188 Sugar Land, TX 77478 Gary, IN 46304 P: (281) 263-3233 F: 281-263-2029 P: (219) 888-4400 F: 219-888-5052 [email protected] [email protected]
Salwa M. Beheiry Deborah L. DeGezelle Graduate Research Assistant Systems Analyst The University of the Texas at Austin Construction Industry Institute c/o Construction Industry Institute 3925 West Braker Lane (R4500) 3925 West Braker Lane (R4500) Austin, TX 78759-5316 Austin, TX 78759-5316 P: (512) 232-3060 F: (512) 499-8101 P: (512)232-3051 F: 512-499-8101 [email protected] [email protected] Donald A. Gaddy Gertraud F. Breitkopf Construction Safety & Health Manager, Senior Program Manager Engineering & Construction Services U.S. General Services Administration Southern Company Generation & Energy 1800 F Street, N.W., Room 3340 Marketing Washington, D.C. 20405 P. O. Box 2625 P: (202) 501-1082 F: 202-208-7413 Birmingham, AL 35202 [email protected] P: (205) 992-7680 F: 205-992-5829 [email protected] Robert E. Chapman Economist, Office of Applied Economics James B. Gibson National Institute of Standards & Technology Vice President, Projects Building 226, Stop 8603 ALSTOM Power Inc. 100 Bureau Drive 1409 Centerpoint Blvd. Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8603 Knoxville, TN 37932 P: (301) 975-2723 F: 301-975-5337 P: (865) 694-5200 F: 865-694-5367 [email protected] [email protected]
Gregory D. Clum Charles M. Green Manager, BVCI Labor Relations Engineering Specialist Black & Veatch Corporation Aramco Services Company 11401 Lamar P. O. Box 4534 - MS-1089 Overland Park, KS 66211 Houston, TX 77210-4534 P: (913) 458-7784 F: 913-458-8700 P: (713) 432-8187 F: 713-432-8275 [email protected] [email protected]
191 Small Projects, Homeland Security, and Beyond
Carl Gretzinger Howard Kass Facilities Project Planner, Project Planning Program Manager Department Facilities Engineer General Motors Corporation National Aeronautics & Space Administration GMC-WFC-MC 483-619-200 NASA HQ/JX 1996 Technology Drive 300 E Street, S.W. Troy, MI 48083-4243 Washington, DC 20546-0001 P: (248) 680-5183 F: 248-680-5121 P: (202) 358-1128 F: 202-358-3848 [email protected] [email protected]
Luis A. Gutierrez InHo Kim Global Process Owner–SAP–Capital Graduate Research Assistant The Procter & Gamble Company The University of the Texas at Austin 8256 Union Centre Blvd. c/o Construction Industry Institute West Chester, OH 45069 3925 West Braker Lane (R4500) P: (513) 634-9716 F: 513-634-8440 Austin, TX 78759-5316 [email protected] P: (512) 232-3051 F: 512-499-8101 [email protected] Robert A. Herrington Quality Manager, Central Region John E. Kurth Jacobs Senior Vice President, Operations P. O. Box 53495 Aker Kværner Houston, TX 77052-3495 7909 Parkwood Circle Drive P: (832) 351-7186 F: 832-351-7701 Houston, TX 77036 [email protected] P: (713) 270-2701 F: 713-270-3159 [email protected] David G. Hile Operations Manager Grant G. Landry Fru-Con Construction Corporation Manager of Engineering & Projects 2077 Bayard Ave. CDI Solutions, Inc. Kansas City, KS 66105 2900 Westfork Drive, Suite 100 P: (913) 573-0714 F: 913-573-0345 Baton Rouge, LA 70827 [email protected] P: (225) 297-4499 F: 225-297-4514 [email protected]
Sang-Hoon Lee Post Doctorate Research Fellow Construction Industry Institute 3925 West Braker Lane (R4500) Austin, TX 78759-5316 P: (512) 232-3051 F: 512-499-8101 [email protected]
192 Small Projects, Homeland Security, and Beyond
Lilin Liang Timothy P. Rigsby Graduate Research Assistant Director, Construction Management Services The University of the Texas at Austin Johnson Controls, Inc. c/o Construction Industry Institute 507 E. Michigan St. (M-7) 3925 West Braker Lane (R4500) Milwaukee, WI 53202 Austin, TX 78759-5316 P: (414) 524-4373 F: 414-524-5842 P: (512) 232-3051 F: 512-499-8101 [email protected] [email protected] Derek C. Ross Philip R. Moncrief Associate Director, Construction Management Vice President & General Manager Smithsonian Institution Technip – Coflexip Victor Bldg., Suite 5200 - MRC 908 1990 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 200 P. O. Box 37012 Houston, TX 77056-3846 Washington, DC 20013-7012 P: (713) 548-4464 F: 713-548-4042 P: (202) 275-0459 F: 202-275-0889 / 0883 [email protected] [email protected]
Wladimir Norko Danny Scott Senior Engineer, Technical Policy Branch Project Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers BE&K Engineering Company ATTN: CECW-ETC 2000 International Park Drive 441 G. Street, N.W. Birmingham, AL 35243 Washington, DC 20314-1000 P: (205) 972-6000 F: 205-972-6331 P: (202) 761-7507 F: 202-761-0633 [email protected] [email protected] David L. Stickel Mark T. Owens Process Owner – Global Project Management Director, Global Facilities Delivery The Procter & Gamble Company Eli Lilly and Company Beckett Ridge Technical Center Lilly Corporate Center 8256 Union Centre Blvd., LP-311 Indianapolis, IN 46285 Cincinnati, OH 45069 P: (317) 433-3358 F: 317-277-0843 P: (513) 634-8455 F: 513-634-8440 [email protected] [email protected]
David M. Perkins Frank K. Suhan Project Manager Project Management Consultant Rohm and Haas Company Johnson Controls, Inc. 6519 La Porte Frwy. 507 E. Michigan Streeet, M-7 Deer Park, TX 77536 Milwaukee, WI 53201 P: (281) 228-8339 F: 281-228-3628 P: (414) 524-5330 F: 414-524-5842 [email protected] [email protected]
193 Small Projects, Homeland Security, and Beyond
John Tato II Director, Project Evaluation & Analysis Division U.S. Department of State OBO/PD/PEA Washington, DC 20522-0611 P: (703) 875-6599 F: 703-875-4130 [email protected]
Stephen R. Thomas Associate Director Construction Industry Institute 3925 West Braker Lane (R4500) Austin, TX 78759-5316 P: (512) 232-3007 F: (512) 499-8101 [email protected]
Stephen D. Warnock Director of Operations Washington Group International, Inc. 1500 W. 3rd Street Cleveland, OH 44113-1406 P: (216) 523-2079 F: 216-523-5003 [email protected]
194 Small Projects, Homeland Security, and Beyond
Plenary Slides
195 Small Projects, Homeland Security, and Beyond
196 Small Projects, Homeland Security, and Beyond
197 Small Projects, Homeland Security, and Beyond
198 Small Projects, Homeland Security, and Beyond
199 Small Projects, Homeland Security, and Beyond
200 Small Projects Benchmarking Benchmarking & Metrics Small Projects Team – Implementation Session Only
Learning Objectives
• Learn how to benchmark small projects. • Discuss the newly developed questionnaire for benchmarking. • Discuss recommended practices for managing small projects.
Abstract Small projects, including maintenance and repair activities, have become a significant part of the work of many member companies. These projects are typically managed as a program and use different control systems than larger projects. Practice use is very different for these projects as well and special metrics are required to effectively benchmark smaller projects. Last year the Benchmarking & Metrics Committee established a Small Projects team to study the benchmarking needs of these projects and to develop the questionnaire and metrics to support small project benchmarking. This team is completing its work and will report their finding during this implementation session.
Implementation Session Moderator Grant G. Landry, Manager of Engineering and Projects – CDI Solutions, Inc. Grant Landry has more than 20 years of experience in the refinery and petrochemical industries. His responsibilities have included project management, mechanical design, onsite management, estimating, material coordination, and economic analysis on both new construction and retrofit projects. At CII, Landry serves on the Benchmarking and Metrics Committee and as chair of the Benchmarking Small Projects Questionnaire Development Subcommittee. He earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from Louisiana State University.
Implementation Session Participants
Glen A. Blanchone, Manager, Engineering Information – GlaxoSmithKline Gertraud F. Breitkopf, Senior Program Manager – U.S. General Services Administration Carl Gretzinger, Facilities Project Planner, Project Planning Department – General Motors Corporation John M. Mellin, Manager, Business Planning & Performance – GlaxoSmithKline Frank K. Suhan, Project Management Consultant – Johnson Controls, Inc. Stephen R. Thomas, Associate Director for Benchmarking & Metrics – Construction Industry Institute
201 Small Projects Benchmarking
202 Small Projects Benchmarking Benchmarking & Metrics Small Projects Team
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
Ron Beechey Grant G. Landry Scheduling Specialist Manager of Engineering & Projects Dofasco, Inc. CDI Solutions, Inc. 1330 Burlington Street, East 2900 Westfork Drive, Suite 100 Hamilton, ON L8N 3J5 Baton Rouge, LA 70827 CANADA P: (225) 297-4499 F: 225-297-4514 P: (905) 548-7174 F: 905-548-4574 [email protected] [email protected] John M. Mellin Glen A. Blanchone Manager, Business Planning & Performance Manager, Engineering Information GlaxoSmithKline GlaxoSmithKline P. O. Box 13398 Five Moore Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3398 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 P: (919) 483-6111 F: 919-483-0402 P: (919) 483-4778 F: 919-483-0402 [email protected] [email protected] Frank K. Suhan Gertraud F. Breitkopf Project Management Consultant Senior Program Manager Johnson Controls, Inc. U.S. General Services Administration 507 E. Michigan Streeet, M-7 1800 F Street, N.W., Room 3340 Milwaukee, WI 53201 Washington, D.C. 20405 P: (414) 524-5330 F: 414-524-5842 P: (202) 501-1082 F: 202-208-7413 [email protected] [email protected] Stephen R. Thomas Carl Gretzinger Associate Director Facilities Project Planner, Project Planning Construction Industry Institute Department 3925 West Braker Lane (R4500) General Motors Corporation Austin, TX 78759-5316 GMC-WFC-MC 483-619-200 P: (512) 232-3007 F: (512) 499-8101 1996 Technology Drive [email protected] Troy, MI 48083-4243 P: (248) 680-5183 F: 248-680-5121 [email protected]
203 Small Projects Benchmarking
204 Small Projects Benchmarking
Implementation Session Slides
205 Small Projects Benchmarking
206 Small Projects Benchmarking
207 Small Projects Benchmarking
208 Small Projects Benchmarking
209 Small Projects Benchmarking
210 Small Projects Benchmarking
211 Small Projects Benchmarking
212 Best Practices for Project Security CII/NIST Best Practices for Project Security Team – Implementation Session Only
Learning Objectives
• Learn how to improve the security of your projects. • Discuss the evolving best practices for project security. • Learn how to quantify the impacts of these practices on project outcomes. • Learn how to benchmark these practices.
Abstract The events of 9/11 continue to influence the nation as we modify our systems to prevent or minimize the occurrence of such events in the future. Last year NIST approached CII as an industry principal national forum to conduct a study to develop best practices for project security and a methodology for assessing the impacts of implementation on project outcomes. CII’s approach to this critical task has been to leverage its research methodology and knowledge base to introduce security concepts into widely accepted CII best practices currently in use. Integrated throughout CII’s best practices, these procedures collectively define a process for addressing security for the capital facility delivery process. Using the program developed by CII, these procedures can be benchmarked as any other practice to assess the level of implementation and impact.
Implementation Session Moderator Stephen R. Thomas, Associate Director for Benchmarking & Metrics – Construction Industry Institute In addition to his work with CII, Steve Thomas teaches in the Construction Engineering and Project Management program at The University of Texas at Austin. Thomas enjoyed a distinguished career with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from 1971-94 with numerous assignments throughout the United States, Korea, Germany, and the Middle East. He has extensive experience with large multinational projects and research experience in benchmarking project performance and best practices. He earned a bachelor’s degree at the United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, and master and doctoral degrees in civil engineering at The University of Texas at Austin.
213 Best Practices for Project Security
Implementation Session Participants
John T. Brady, Security Advisor, Legal Department – ConocoPhillips Robert E. Chapman, Economist, Office of Applied Economics – National Institute of Standards & Technology C. Hilton Dunn, Jr., BE&K (retired); Consultant – CHD Consulting LLC G. Edward Gibson, Jr., Professor, Department of Civil Engineering – The University of Texas at Austin Michael C. Hewitt, Manager, Business Engineering, Operations & Maintenance – DuPont Facilities Services & Real Estate Charles I. McGinnis, Principal, Engineering Management Consultant – Charles I. McGinnis, P.E. James B. Porter, Jr., Vice President, Engineering & Operations – DuPont Engineering Michael G. Spight, Central Region Manager, Infrastructure Security Sector – TRC Companies, Inc. Jay W. Toadvine, Director, Operations – Fluor Government Group
214 Best Practices for Project Security CII/NIST Best Practices for Project Security Team – Implementation Session Only
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
Lansford C. Bell Michael C. Hewitt S. E. Liles Distinguished Professor Manager, Business Engineering, Operations & Clemson University Maintenance Department of Civil Engineering DuPont Facilities Services & Real Estate 202A Lowry Hall DuPont Building, Room 12040 P. O. Box 340911 1007 Mark Street Clemson, SC 29634-0911 Wilmington, DE 19898 P: (864) 656-3330 F: 864-656-2670 P: (302) 773-1036 F: 302-773-3562 [email protected] [email protected]
John T. Brady Sang-Hoon Lee Security Advisor, Legal Department Post Doctorate Research Fellow ConocoPhillips Construction Industry Institute 600 North Dairy Ashford 3925 West Braker Lane (R4500) Houston, TX 77079-1175 Austin, TX 78759-5316 P: (281) 293-4672 F: 281-293-4166 P: (512) 232-3051 F: (512) 499-8101 john.t.brady@conocophillips.com [email protected]
Robert E. Chapman Walter J. Lisiewski, Jr. Economist, Office of Applied Economics Vice President National Institute of Standards & Technology JE Merit Constructors, Inc. Building 226, Stop 8603 5995 Rogerdale Road 100 Bureau Drive Houston, TX 77072-1601 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8603 P: (832) 351-6602 F: 281-564-5655 P: (301) 975-2723 F: 301-975-5337 [email protected] [email protected] Benjamin E. Matthews C. Hilton Dunn, Jr. Graduate Research Assistant Consultant, CHD Consulting LLC The University of Texas at Austin 313 Golf Drive 2212 Rio Grande, Apt. C305 Birmingham, AL 35226 Austin, TX 78705 P: (205) 337-0820 P: (512) 236-9223 [email protected] [email protected]
G. Edward Gibson, Jr. Charles I. McGinnis Professor, Department of Civil Engineering Principal, Engineering Management Consultant The University of Texas at Austin Charles I. McGinnis, P.E. ECJ 5.2 (C1752) 50 Gooseneck Lane Austin, TX 78712-1076 Charlottesville, VA 22903 P: (512) 471-4522 F: 512-471-3191 P: (434) 244-0426 F: 434-244-0426 [email protected] [email protected] 215 Best Practices for Project Security
Charles A. Poer David Syphard Business Unit Manager, Plant Civil Services Vice President Zachry Construction Corporation Jacobs Facilities Inc. 10111 Richmond Ave., Suite 330 5995 Rogerdale Road Houston, TX 77042 Houston, TX 77072 P: (832) 242-1019 F: 832/242-1051 P: (832) 351-7215 F: 832-351-7725 [email protected] [email protected]
James B. Porter, Jr. Stephen R. Thomas Vice President, Engineering & Operations Associate Director DuPont Engineering Construction Industry Institute Brandywine Building 10224 3925 West Braker Lane (R4500) 1007 Market Street Austin, TX 78759-5316 Wilmington, DE 19898-0001 P: (512) 232-3007 F: (512) 499-8101 P: (302) 774-2535 F: 302-774-2564 [email protected] [email protected] Jay W. Toadvine Michael G. Spight Director, Operations Central Region Manager, Infrastructure Security Fluor Government Group Sector 1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1900 TRC Companies, Inc. Arlington, VA 22209 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416 P: (703) 351-6453 F: 703-469-1593 Kansas City, MO 64102 [email protected] P: (816) 474-1500, Ext. 8 [email protected] Richard L. Tucker Director, Center for Construction Industry Studies Gary L. Staton The University of Texas at Austin Consultant Civil Engineering–Construction Management E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (C1752) Brandywine 7202 ECJ 5.202 1007 Market Street Austin, TX 78712 Wilmington, DE 19898 P: (512) 471-4640 F: 512-471-3191 P: (302) 774-8093 F: 302-774-8038 [email protected] [email protected]
Jonathan R. Sylvie Graduate Research Assistant The University of Texas at Austin 6604 Nusser Lane Austin, TX 78739 P: (512) 301-7345 F: 512-301-7361 [email protected]
216 Best Practices for Project Security
Implementation Session Slides
217 Best Practices for Project Security
218 Best Practices for Project Security
219 Best Practices for Project Security
220 Best Practices for Project Security
221 Best Practices for Project Security
222 Best Practices for Project Security
223 Best Practices for Project Security
224 Risk Assessment for International Projects Risk Analysis for International Projects Project Team
Learning Objectives
• Learn about a structured methodology of assessing risk for international projects across the entire project life cycle. • Understand the basis of the development of four major areas of risk with 82 specific risk assessment considerations. • Understand the flexibility of the risk assessment process to assess and rank order project- specific risks. • Discover how project teams can apply the product developed by this CII project team.
Abstract The CII research by this project team has resulted in a structured methodology that allows a risk assessment method validated by over 110 owner/contractor/investor companies with a cumulative project value in excess of $25 billion. The research has yielded a product that allows project teams to differentiate critical project specific risk issues across the project’s entire life cycle. This newly developed International Project Risk Assessment (IPRA) evaluation methodology will be unveiled. An implementation panel will provide details on how the IPRA tool was developed and an example of how to use the tool.
Plenary Session Presenter Ellsworth F. Vines, Senior Vice President, Strategic and Corporate Planning – Dick Corporation Ell Vines has more than 37 years of experience in the engineering, management, and construction of large and small lump sum, turnkey projects. He has successfully led start-up and mature operations in both domestic and international environments. His work has included all phases of the management of projects and operations for his firm’s industrial and highway groups. He has worked in the minerals processing, steel, nonferrous, transportation, water-wastewater, and hospitality sectors, and recently led a team that developed financing for a major steel facility in Eastern Europe. Vines holds both bachelors and master’s degrees from Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York.
225 Risk Assessment for International Projects
Implementation Session Moderator Yamile C. Jackson, President – Ringstones Consulting International, Inc. Yamile Jackson, a native of Bogotá, Colombia, is the Project Management Institute representative to the CII project team on Risk Analysis for International Projects. She has over 12 years of domestic and international experience in the field of project management and project planning and control. Formerly a project engineer for Kværner and a project controls engineer for Fluor, Jackson is an adjunct professor of Engineering Management at the University of Houston and a guest professor at universities in the U.S. and Latin America. She earned bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees from the University of Houston and a master’s from Clemson University.
Implementation Session Participants
Bretislav Borak, Branch Chief Cost Engineering, Embassy Program – U.S. Department of State G. Edward Gibson, Jr., Professor, Department of Civil Engineering – The University of Texas at Austin Libby M. Lace, Manager of Projects, Calgary Operations – Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Egon J. Larsen, Global Construction Manager – Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Ellsworth F. Vines, Senior Vice President, Strategic and Corporate Planning – Dick Corporation
226 Risk Assessment for International Projects Risk Analysis for International Projects Project Team
Executive Summary Assessing and managing risk is a complex and critical task for international construction projects, yet few evaluation tools and guidelines exist to assist owners and contractors with capital facility planning and construction. An international project for this research study is defined as a project performed by North American investors, owners, and/or contractors that is located outside of North America. When undertaking international capital projects, owners have had limited resources to assess a diverse set of political, geographic, economic, environmental, regulatory, and cultural risk factors. Likewise, contractors must consider a similar set of risk factors in determining whether to undertake such projects, and how to price, schedule, and successfully deliver the work if they do. Additionally, in many organizations, a disconnect exists between project practitioners and decision makers concerning the real risk and rewards of the venture. Based on the need for a process to enhance the assessment and management of international project risks, a structured risk identification and assessment process has been developed through extensive research and validation. The International Project Risk Assessment (IPRA) was developed by the CII Risk Analysis for International Projects Project Team. The IPRA identifies and describes 82 issues that are the critical elements related to an international capital project and allows a project team to focus on risk factors of potential concern. The IPRA is intended to evaluate the risk exposure and provide an indication of potential impact of risk during the full project life cycle. In effect, it can serve as an “aide memoir” for the project participants. While risk control and mitigation were not part of the scope of this research, the IPRA will indicate which components of the project should be considered for risk mitigation as part of an overall risk management strategy. The value of identifying and managing project risks rather than each participant giving exclusive consideration to only their risks are to: • Allow for early identification of hazards and opportunities. • Communicate risks between project participants. • Identify and manage uncertainty and consider worse-case scenarios. • Establish ownership of risks and risk mitigation actions. • Enhance risk-based decision-making.
The IPRA analysis is focused on issues that are unique to ventures in an international jurisdiction. Other project management tasks such as scope definition, design management, team processes, relationships, project controls, and others must also be adequately performed in order for the project to be successful.
227 Risk Assessment for International Projects
Methodology The CII project team performed an extensive literature review on the topics of risk identification, assessment, and management, as well as issues related to international construction. It also used information gleaned from CII’s globalization forums, previous research, and industry practices for assessing international project risk. Furthermore, the team developed and used a structured interview to evaluate the approaches organizations used to manage the risks incurred on international projects. Based on the collective input from the literature review, structured interviews, and experiences of the project team and the Globalization Committee, the team developed the International Project Risk Assessment (IPRA) tool. During its development, the IPRA was critiqued by owner and contractor organizations in addition to other industry experts and their comments were incorporated to further enhance the product. A series of workshops was held where industry experts assisted in determining a rank-order of individual risk elements using completed projects. Validation of the usefulness and effectiveness of the IPRA tool has been conducted on both completed and ongoing projects. Project data from over 20 countries on six continents have been used to develop and validate the IPRA, and over 120 industry organizations have participated. CII Implementation Resource 181-2, International Project Risk Assessment, has been completed to assist IPRA users.
Summary The IPRA tool provides a structured methodology for project teams to identify and assess risk issues that are international project specific. Validated on completed and ongoing projects representing over $3.2 billion in TIC, it has proven its effectiveness in identification of risk issues specific to international projects.
References Implementation Resource 181-2, International Project Risk Assessment, July 2003
228 Risk Assessment for International Projects Risk Analysis for International Projects Project Team
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
Bretislav Borak Libby M. Lace Branch Chief Cost Engineering Manager of Projects, Calgary Operations Embassy Program Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. U.S. Department of State 400S, 8500 Macleod Trail South 8115 Westchester Drive P. O. Box 5244, Station A Vienna, VA 22182 Calgary, Alberta T2H 2N7 P: (703) 516-1826 F: 703-875-6204 CANADA [email protected] P: (403) 258-6872 F: 403-258-6662 [email protected] Michael Dinneen Contracts Manager Egon J. Larsen Granite Construction Inc. Global Construction Manager 585 West Beach Street Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Watsonville, CA 95076 7201 Hamilton Blvd. P: (831) 724-1011 F: 831-722-9657 Allentown, PA 18195-1501 [email protected] P: (610) 481-5963 F: 610-481-2688 [email protected] G. Edward Gibson, Jr. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering Matthew Nixon The University of Texas at Austin Project Services Director ECJ 5.2 (C1752) ConocoPhillips Austin, TX 78712-1076 1000 S. Pine, Room 760-9 ST P: (512) 471-4522 F: 512-471-3191 Ponca City, OK 74602 [email protected] P: (580) 767-2751 F: 580-767-4747 [email protected] Yamile C. Jackson President Corrie E. Reid Ringstones Consulting International, Inc. Budget & Accountability Analyst P. O. Box 130202 Aramco Services Company Houston, TX 77219 9009 West Loop South, MS-1093 P: (713) 972-8186 F: 713-942-8186 Houston, TX 77096 [email protected] P: (713) 432-4785 F: 713-432-4041 [email protected] Douglas Kaiser Vice President, Process Management Exxcel Project Management 250 East Broad Street, Suite 1150 Columbus, OH 43215 P: (614) 621-4500 F: 614/621-4515 [email protected]
229 Risk Assessment for International Projects
Ellsworth F. Vines Senior Vice President, Strategic and Corporate Planning Dick Corporation Inc. P. O. Box 10896 Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0896 P: (412) 384-1007 F: 412-384-1410 [email protected]
John A. Walewski Graduate Research Assistant Department of Civil Engineering The University of Texas at Austin 1 University Station C1752 Austin, TX 78712-0276 P: (512) 475-9741 F: 512-471-3191 [email protected]
230 Risk Assessment for International Projects
Plenary Slides
231 Risk Assessment for International Projects
232 Risk Assessment for International Projects
233 Risk Assessment for International Projects
234 Risk Assessment for International Projects
235 Risk Assessment for International Projects
236 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool Special Topic: Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Education Team — Implementation Session Only
Learning Objectives
• Learn about the revised Project Delivery & Contract Strategy (PDCS) spreadsheet tool. • See how weighting selection factors impacts the PDCS. • Learn how to include compensation approaches when analyzing the resulting PDCS. • Discover how using the tool with the structured, systematic approach can simplify explaining and documenting the PDCS selection.
Abstract This implementation session will use a case study to demonstrate key points in identifying the value of implementing CII’s PDCS Selection Tool. Successful implementation can mean early identification of critical factors for project success. The PDCS can provide the decision- maker more insight into how critical it is to identify project objectives early in the project life cycle.
Implementation Session Moderator Roger E. Snyder, Team Lead, Office of Project Management & Systems Support – U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Roger Snyder has been in project management at the U. S. Department of Energy since 1990. He has served at all of the Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) sites, managing and/or overseeing projects from $1.2 million to $3 billion. He presently leads independent project reviews on projects of varying technologies and complexities, ranging from infrastructure to state-of-the-art applied science facilities for the NNSA Office of Project Management and Systems Support. He earned a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Illinois and master’s in civil engineering from the University of Maryland.
Implementation Session Panelists
Stuart D. Anderson, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering – Texas A&M University Brenda Green, Director of People and Organization Development – Fluor Corporation
237 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool
238 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool Special Topic: Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Education Team
Executive Summary This implementation session focuses on Project Delivery and Contract Strategy (PDCS) selection. A project delivery and contract strategy defines the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in a project and how the owner will pay for services. A project delivery and contract strategy also establishes the project execution framework. A description of a structured and integrated decision support tool that can aid owners in selecting the most appropriate project delivery and contract strategy for their capital projects is presented. The PDCS tool is applied using an interactive case study approach. The PDCS is an owner’s tool, but contractors can also use the tool. The research conducted by the CII PDCS Research Team to develop the PDCS selection tool found that the tool: 1. Promotes consideration of a larger set of relevant alternatives in the PDCS selection process. 2. Encourages decision-makers to identify and focus on project objectives and other critical factors early in project development. 3. Enhances insight into PDCS selection through systematic consideration of all key decision variables. 4. Provides a defensible rationale for PDCS selection based on quantification of alternatives.
The information presented in the implementation session is based on previous work on project delivery and contract strategy, and the development of a CII Education Module to support the implementation of the PDCS tool. As part of this work, the PDCS Excel® spreadsheet was modified to automate calculations and provide additional information for selecting the best PDCS alternative for a project. The Education module consists of a four-hour course. This course covers the following topics:
Session I – Introduction This session provides an overview of the module, including the need for a formal project delivery and contract strategy (PDCS) selection approach, the solution for the need, the benefits of using the tool, how the tool fits with other CII best practices, the learning objectives, and the course agenda.
Session II – Criteria for PDCS Characterization This session describes and discusses the approach used to characterize a project delivery and contract strategy alternative. Twelve PDCS alternatives currently used in practice are presented using the proposed characterization. Key assumptions behind supporting the use of the 12 PDCS alternatives are also presented. Advantages and disadvantages of each PDCS alternative are reviewed.
239 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool
Session III – Selection Factors: Overview
This session describes 20 factors that drive PDCS selection for a capital project. The methodology followed to develop the 20 factors is discussed. An exercise is conducted to choose selection factors for an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) project.
Session IV – Weighting Selection Factors
This session discusses the weighting of selection factors to reflect the relative importance of each selection factor for a capital project. Key terms such as Preference Rank, Preference Scores, and experienced based weighting are discussed. An exercise is conducted to demonstrate the weighting process.
Session V – Effectiveness Values
This session briefly discusses the development of the relative effectiveness values for selection factors and PDCS alternatives. Examples are provided and the rationale for specific effectiveness values is illustrated.
Session VI – PDCS Selection Tool
This session provides a quick “walk through” of the PDCS selection tool spreadsheet. A flow chart describing each step used in the spreadsheet is reviewed. The Excel® spreadsheet is opened and each workbook is described. Finally, compensation approaches are reviewed. A methodology for documenting results is presented.
Session VII – Case Study
This section provides “hands on” use of the PDCS tool using a case study project.
Session IX – Conclusions and Wrap up
This session wraps up the course with “Watch Outs” when using the PDCS tool. The benefits of the PDCS tool are reviewed as well as the course objectives. A course evaluation will be conducted at the end of this session.
In addition, CII Implementation Resource 165-2 is currently being revised to reflect changes in the PDCS Excel® spreadsheet and to add new information to this resource to better support analysis of PDCS selection.
240 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool
List of Relevant CII Publications “Using Project Delivery and Contract Strategy Tools,” Construction Industry Institute, Education Module 165-21, due out in September/October 2003.
Owner’s Tool for Project Delivery and Contract Strategy Selection: User’s Guide, Construction Industry Institute, Implementation Resource 165-2, Revision 1, due out in September/ October 2003.
Owner’s Tool for Project Delivery and Contract Strategy Selection, Construction Industry Institute, Research Summary 165-1, June 2001.
Owner’s Tool for Project Delivery and Contract Strategy Selection: User’s Guide, Construction Industry Institute, Implementation Resource 165-2, September 2001.
Bowers, D. D., and Anderson, S.D., “Characteristics of Integrated Project Delivery and Contract Strategies,” Construction Industry Institute, Research Report 165-11, in press.
Oyetunji, A. A., and Anderson, S.D., “Project Delivery and Contract Strategy Selection, Construction Industry Institute,” Research Report 165-12, September 2001.
241 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool
242 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool Special Topic: Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Education Team
Knowledgeable Points of Contact Stuart D. Anderson Kenneth A. LaRock Associate Professor, Department of Civil Principal Project Engineer Engineering 3M Division Engineering Construction Engineering & Management Program 900 Bush Avenue Texas A&M University St. Paul, MN 55144-1000 Civil Engineering Lab Bldg., Rm. 115 P: (651) 778-4283 F: 651/778-4467 3136 TAMU [email protected] College Station, TX 77843-3136 P: (979) 845-2407 F: 979-845-6554 Andrew R. Poole [email protected] Global Process Owner–Training Global Capital Management David A. Arceneaux The Procter & Gamble Company Contracts Manager 8256 Union Center Blvd. LP-310 Kellogg Brown & Root Becket Ridge Tech Center CETL 601 Jefferson Avenue West Chester, OH 45069 Houston, TX 77022-7990 P: (513) 634-8450 F: 513-634-8440 P: (713) 753-3939 F: 713/753-6711 [email protected] [email protected] Aubrey Smith John J. Cioffi Construction Manager Capital Effectiveness Engineer Kellogg Brown & Root U.S. Steel – Gary Works P. O. Box 41040 One North Broadway – MS-188 Beaumont, TX 77725-1040 Gary, IN 46402 -3199 P: (409) 757-5073 F: 409-757-5050 P: (219) 888-3462 F: 219/888-4955 aubrey.smith@halliburton.com [email protected] Roger E. Snyder Brenda Green Team Lead Director of People and Organization Development Office of Project Management & Systems Support Fluor Corporation U.S. Department of Energy 1 Fluor Daniel Drive National Nuclear Security Administration Aliso Viejo, CA 92698 19901 Germantown Road (NA-54) P: (949) 349-3298 Germantown, MD 20874 [email protected] P: (301) 903-4047 F: 301-903-2544 [email protected]
243 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool
Timothy P. Thury Project Manager U.S. General Services Administration 819 Taylor Street, Room 12A29 Fort Worth, TX 76102 P: (817) 978-4315 F: 817-978-2577 [email protected]
Paul Wicker Senior Project Manager General Motors Corporation Worldwide Facilities Group – Capital Projects 3300 General Motors Road MC 483-307-105 Milford, MI 48380 P: (313) 304-9648 F: 248/685-5038 [email protected]
244 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool
Implementation Session Slides
245 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool
246 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool
247 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool
248 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool
249 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool
250 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool
251 Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Selection Tool
252 Defense Update Keynote Address: Lt. Gen. T. Michael Moseley
Abstract General Moseley will discuss the defense posture of the U.S. including integrated joint operations and how combining air and space power with ground and sea power results in overwhelming force. He will also give an update on Operation Iraqi Freedom and explain how the overwhelming power of coalition forces helped defeat the enemy in a short timeframe.
Keynote Speaker Lt. Gen. T. Michael Moseley, Commander, 9th Air Force and U.S. Central Command Air Forces – U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Moseley recently has been selected for reassignment as Vice Chief of Staff, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. His command comprises six wings in the eastern United States, with more than 350 aircraft and 26,000 active-duty and civilian personnel. As the Air Component Commander for U.S. Central Command, the general is responsible for developing contingency plans and conducting air operations in a 25-nation area of responsibility, stretching from Kenya in eastern Africa across the Arabian Peninsula and Southwest Asia to Pakistan. General Moseley earned both undergraduate and master’s degrees in political science from Texas A&M University.
253 Defense Update
254 Current U.S. Economic Outlook Featured Speaker: Jack Guynn
Abstract Jack Guynn will offer his perspective on recent economic developments and the outlook for the U.S. economy.
Keynote Speaker Jack Guynn, President & Chief Executive Officer – Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Jack Guynn has served in his position since 1996. He joined the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in 1964 as a systems analyst and has held a variety of assignments. In the mid-1990s, Guynn served as chairman of the Federal Reserve’s Financial Services Management Committee, which is responsible for implementing an integrated business plan for Federal Reserve payments services as well as coordinating national Federal Reserve activities that support the plan. Guynn earned a bachelor’s degree in industrial engineering from Virginia Tech, a master’s in industrial management from Georgia Tech, and completed the Harvard Business School Program for Management Development.
Knowledgeable Point of Contact Jack Guynn President & Chief Executive Officer Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309-4470 P: (404) 498-8502 F: 404-498-8073
255 Current U.S. Economic Outlook
256 After the War is Over… Economic Forum
The fundamentals driving construction remain mixed. The lowest interest rates in a generation are offset by excess capacity in manufacturing, a continued flow of manufacturing jobs overseas, and high office vacancy rates. Unemployment remains low by recession standards, but slow employment growth means it will take a long time to absorb the vacancies. Although growth is expected to remain moderate, a slow recovery for private nonresidential building will most likely continue. The situation varies regionally, with the weakest spots along the U.S. coastal areas while the center of the country fares slightly better.
Moderator Emerson T. Johns, Operations Leader and Chief Financial Officer – Engineering, Facilities & Safety, Health & Environmental Services – DuPont Emerson Johns has been with DuPont since 1969, when he started his career as an internal auditor. Many of his assignments have involved interfacing with the Federal government, in particular DuPont’s activities at its Savannah River Plant. He also has been involved in DuPont operations in Puerto Rico, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Since 1986, Johns has been at the corporate headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware. Actively involved in CII for the past several years, Johns is former chairman of the CII Research Committee and the 2003 CII Annual Conference chairman.
257 Economic Forum
Panelists Sara Johnson, Managing Director, Global Macroeconomics Group – Global Insight Sara Johnson helps clients assess worldwide business and financial risks and opportunities. The group provides economic forecasts and analyses of over 150 countries as well as research studies of critical economic issues. Johnson previously served as North American Research Director and Chief Regional Economist at Standard & Poor’s. She also has advised three Massachusetts governors on public policy and economic development. Johnson holds a bachelor’s degree in economics and mathematics from Wellesley College and a master’s in economics from Harvard University with concentrations in finance and macroeconomic theory.
Robert Murray, Vice President, Economic Affairs – McGraw-Hill Construction With McGraw-Hill since 1980, Robert Murray is the author of F.W. Dodge Construction Outlook and coordinates the company’s five-year forecast of construction activity for the U.S and nine major regions. He is frequently quoted by the Wall Street Journal on industry developments and his comments have appeared in Business Week, CNN, and other media outlets. He also moderates the Construction Industry Outlook Conference, held in Washington, D.C., each October. Murray earned a bachelor’s degree from Princeton and holds both an MBA and a master’s degree in economics from Columbia University.
David A. Wyss, Chief Economist – Standard & Poor’s David Wyss is responsible for S&P’s economic forecasts and publications. He testifies regularly before Congress, is often quoted in the press, and has appeared on many major television programs. He has written numerous articles for popular and professional publications, and manages research projects, especially in financial risk. His has been with Standard & Poor’s since 1992. He also has served with the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Bank of England. Wyss holds a bachelor’s degree from MIT and a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University.
258 After the War is Over… Economic Forum
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
Emerson T. Johns CFO & Operations Leader – Engineering, Facilities & Safety, Health & Environmental Services DuPont Brandywine Bldg., Room B-10302 1007 Market Street Wilmington , DE 19898-0001 P: (302) 774-2548 F: 302-774-2564 [email protected]
Sara Johnson Managing Director, Global Macroeconomics Group Global Insight 24 Hartwell Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 P: (781) 860-6709 F: 781-860-6160 [email protected]
Robert Murray Vice President, Economic Affairs McGraw-Hill Construction 24 Hartwell Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 P: (781) 860-6623 [email protected]
David A. Wyss Chief Economist Standard and Poor’s 55 Water Street, 44th Floor New York, NY 10041 P: (212) 438-4952 F: 212-438-3928 [email protected]
259 Economic Forum
260 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies Addressing the Shortage of Skilled Craft Workers in the U.S. Project Team
Learning Objectives
• Understand the nature of the current shortages of skilled craft workers. • Learn about effective practices being used to address the shortages. • Learn about structured approaches that may improve workforce utilization. • Hear about the tools you can use to assess and improve your effectiveness.
Abstract This presentation will introduce an assessment instrument based on a structured suite of effective practices that can improve workforce utilization, and provide a path forward to a more skilled workforce in the future. The implementation session will provide findings of a survey of approximately 1,000 journey level workers. These findings include both demographic information about the workforce and the degree to which conventional practices have been implemented. Attendees will also learn about an assessment instrument for improved workforce utilization.
Plenary Session Presenter D. Keith Byrom, General Manager of Employee Relations – Zachry Construction Corporation A Zachry employee for over 30 years, Keith Byrom has managed a variety of human resource functions and now is responsible for the implementation of the firm’s Web-based learning management system. His experience includes corporate and field experience in the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, and Russia. He currently is the chair of the CII project team investigating the shortage of skilled craft workers in the U.S. Byrom earned a bachelor’s degree in education from Texas A&M University- Kingsville, a master’s in educational psychology from St. Mary’s University, and a Ph.D. in education “human resource development” from Texas A&M University.
261 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
Implementation Session Moderator Robert C. Heath, Project Manager – Rohm and Haas Company Robert Heath joined Rohm and Haas in 1969 at Deer Park., Texas, and has served in various engineering, project, and technical management roles. Recently he has represented Rohm and Haas on the CII Board of Advisors as well as the CII Shortage of Skilled Craft Workers in the U.S. Project Team. Heath holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from Texas Tech University.
Implementation Session Participants
Stefanie G. Brandenburg, Graduate Research Assistant – The University of Texas at Austin Randall E. Evans, Vice President of Construction – BE&K Construction Company David M. Goins, Telecomm Construction Manager – Tennessee Valley Authority Carl T. Haas, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering – The University of Texas at Austin
262 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies Addressing the Shortage of Skilled Craft Workers in the U.S. Project Team
Executive Summary Shortages of skilled craft workers continue to plague the construction industry. Employers have attempted to identify the root causes and to develop strategies to overcome these shortages. CII and others have funded research on the problem and generated potential solutions. The industry now uses, although sporadically, a number of initiatives including craft and supervisory training, multi-skilling, and self-directed work teams as well as productivity enhancements utilizing technology, constructability, and prefabrication. Efforts to quantify or qualify the resulting benefits, however, have been unsatisfactory. Despite this research and the efforts to stem the problem, the construction industry’s skilled worker pool continues to shrink. The decreasing number of young people entering the work force and the failure to recruit from non-traditional labor pools both contribute to this troublesome trend. Over the past thirty years, real wages of construction workers have declined relative to those of other workers. Poor industry image, tough working conditions, and the industry’s perceived poor safety record (despite the stellar performance in safety by CII members) also have contributed to the decline in the number of people willing to enter and remain in the industry. In 2001, CII commissioned its Addressing the Shortage of Skilled Craft Workers in the U.S. Project Team (PT 182) to conduct a study on recruiting and retaining qualified craft workers. Based upon its examination of the industry, the project team concluded that: • The journeyman-level work force is as educated as the rest of the U.S. population. • The construction work force is failing to attract women and minorities. • The construction work force can be characterized as two divergent work forces: one that is satisfied with the work and is willing to participate and improve skill levels; and a second that is transient, unsatisfied, and will quickly leave the industry when other opportunities arise. These two work forces have vastly different characteristics and need to be managed accordingly, thus there is a need for two different work force management strategies. • Currently the industry is not utilizing any formal, structured work force management strategies, nor does it have a way to measure the success of its current management practices.
PT 182 found a particular interest in a recent collaboration between CII and the Center for Construction Industry Studies (CCIS). That study produced a theoretical model for a revolutionary new way to address the issue in a more comprehensive manner. Although the method, called “Tier II,” is new and future-oriented, it may have a considerable impact on the construction work force and industry.
263 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
PT 182 developed a complimentary strategy to Tier II to address the work force shortage: Tier I. It is based on the concept that productivity gains from optimal management of the work force will relieve pressure on demand and will encourage workers to remain on a project and in the industry. These productivity gains will be achieved by applying training, collaboration, and the use of technology in a systematic way to maximize the effectiveness of the front-line supervisors. Tier I proposes that the cohesive, structured implementation of industry accepted best practices will improve the management and utilization of the work force. It is important to note that the focus for Tier I is on the management and supervision of the work force on a project. Explicitly choosing a work force management strategy in early project planning stages should allow for systems to be put into place, recruitment to be focused, and crews to be structured in a way that will result in better project performance. Implementing a Tier I or Tier II Work Force Management Strategy will require management commitment. Part of this strategy is the utilization of the Tier I and Tier II Metrics that help to evaluate the implementation of these strategies. CII is developing implementation guidelines and a Work Force Assessment Package.
264 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies Addressing the Shortage of Skilled Craft Workers in the U.S. Project Team
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
Stefanie G. Brandenburg Carl T. Haas Graduate Research Assistant Professor The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas at Austin Dept. of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering – Construction 1 University Station C1752 Management (C1752) Austin, TX 78712-1076 Austin, TX 78712-1076 P: (512) 471-0872 F: 512-471-3191 P: (512) 471-4601 F: 512-471-3191 [email protected] [email protected]
Ralph Budd Robert C. Heath Quality Control & Assurance Mgr. Project Manager Kværner Rohm and Haas Company 455 Racetrack Road 6519 LaPorte Freeway Washington, PA 15301 Deer Park, TX 77536 P: (724) 223-0800 F: 724-223-9445 P: (281) 228-8244 F: 281-228-3628 [email protected] [email protected]
D. Keith Byrom Janet Love General Manager of Employee Relations Senior Vice President, Human Resources Zachry Construction Corp. Dick Corporation P. O. Box 240130 P. O. Box 10896 San Antonio, TX 78224-0130 Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0896 P: (210) 475-8007 F: 210-475-8784 P: (412) 384-1109 F: 412-384-1150 [email protected] [email protected]
Randall E. Evans Earl F. Massner Vice President of Construction Global Construction Process Owner BE&K Construction Company The Procter & Gamble Company 2000 International Park Drive 8256 Union Centre Blvd., LP328 Birmingham, AL 35243 West Chester, OH 45069 P: (205) 972-6174 F: 205-972-6796 P: (513) 634-8446 F: 513-634-8440 [email protected] [email protected]
David M. Goins Issam M. Srour Telecomm Construction Manager Graduate Student Tennessee Valley Authority The University of Texas at Austin 1101 Market Street, SP 4H-C 3812 Speedway #203 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Austin, TX 78751 P: (423) 751-7906 F: 423-751-7733 P: (512) 476-2211 [email protected] [email protected]
265 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
266 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
Plenary Slides
267 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
268 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
269 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
270 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
271 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
272 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
Implementation Session Slides
273 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
274 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
275 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
276 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
277 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
278 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
279 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
280 281 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
282 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
Implementation Session Handouts
283 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
284 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
285 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
286 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
287 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
288 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
289 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
290 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
291 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
292 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
293 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
294 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
295 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
296 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
297 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
298 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
299 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
300 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
301 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
302 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
303 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
304 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
305 Skilled Craft Workers’ Shortage Strategies
306 Using Technology to Build Technology FIATECH
Learning Objectives
• Learn about declining productivity in the construction industry and the poor performance of this industry relative to others. • Learn about the need to accelerate the deployment of new technologies to revolutionize the capabilities of this industry. • Learn how technology has reduced cycle time in manufacturing and the learnings for the construction industry. • Learn how FIATECH’s Capital Projects Technology Roadmap Initiative is integral to the future of large-scale capital development in the U.S.
Abstract FIATECH’s vision of the future is that of a highly automated, seamlessly integrated environment in all phases of capital projects’ facility life cycles. This presentation will provide a broad overview of the critical capabilities identified in the consortium’s Capital Projects Technology Roadmap (CPTR). One owner company that joined FIATECH will explain how the CPTR and other FIATECH activities are addressing the threats facing our industry.
Plenary Session Presenter Arthur Stout, Director, Capital Development Group – Intel Corporation Art Stout joined Intel in 1979 and now manages both the design and construction process of Intel’s largest semiconductor wafer fab expansions in the U.S. and overseas. He also manages the strategies for design and delivery of new facility capital projects worldwide and examines Best in Class activity within both the research community and the marketplace. He is the author of the Project Triangle Principle, which explores the challenge of balancing continuous changes in scope, schedule, and budget. Stout earned a degree in mechanical engineering from Arizona State University. He is a registered engineer in California and Arizona.
307 Using Technology to Build Technology
Executive Summary The semiconductor industry continues to be propelled by Moore’s Law (the number of transistors on a computer chip will double every couple of years). The technological advances in wafer fabrication plants (“fabs”) that are required to maintain this pace could not be possible without the very technology that the fabs build. The manufacturing sector, in general, has embraced this new technology to enable continuous efficiency and productivity improvements. The construction industry, however, has been slow to adopt new technologies and as a result, have not seen the same productivity improvements as the manufacturing sector. Combined with the pressure for manufacturers to compete in a global market, the U.S. construction industry is threatened with the loss of new high tech projects to markets where the low cost of labor allows projects to be built for significantly less capital investment. FIATECH has presented a vision, the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap, that would incorporate the latest technological advances to automate the entire capital delivery process. This application of technology may be the only way in which the construction process can become significantly more productive and therefore reverse the trend of moving high tech projects offshore. CII and FIATECH efforts to work with the National Science Foundation to provide funding for research to make this vision happen should be embraced.
308 Using Technology to Build Technology FIATECH
Knowledgeable Point of Contact
Richard H. F. Jackson Director FIATECH 3925 West Braker Lane (R4500) Austin, TX 78759-5316 P: (512) 232-9601 F: 512-232-9677 [email protected]
Arthur Stout Director, Capital Development Group Intel Corporation 4500 S. Dobson Road, MS OC2-132 Chandler, AZ 85248 P: (480) 715-6051 F: 480-715-3567 [email protected]
309 Using Technology to Build Technology
310 Using Technology to Build Technology
Plenary Slides
311 Using Technology to Build Technology
312 Using Technology to Build Technology
313 Using Technology to Build Technology
314 Using Technology to Build Technology
315 Using Technology to Build Technology
316 Designing for Construction Automation Design Practices to Facilitate Construction Automation Project Team
Learning Objectives
• Discover new design practices and automated construction technologies. • Understand how barriers introduced in design diminish the use of automated construction technologies. • Learn about opportunities and benefits of construction automated construction technologies.
Abstract The presentation will highlight one example of how a subtle design change can greatly impact the construction contractor’s use of automated construction technologies.
Plenary Session Presenter Brian Golwitzer, Manager, Corporate Facilities Design – Abbott Laboratories Brian Golwitzer is responsible for the design and construction department’s $6.5 million expense budget and $100 million in ongoing capital projects. His group provides long-range planning, project management, and project implementation for Abbott sites worldwide. He joined the firm in 1971 and has wide-ranging experience in design, construction, operations, and maintenance. He also is an instructor in the engineering department at the College of Lake County, Grayslake, Illinois. He earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Milwaukee School of Engineering and an MBA from the Lake Forest Graduate School of Management.
317 Designing for Construction Automation
318 Designing for Construction Automation Design Practices to Facilitate Construction Automation Project Team
Executive Summary Automation in the construction industry involves the use of mechanical and electronic means to achieve automatic operation or control to reduce exposure, time, or effort while maintaining or improving quality. Contractors use automation to reduce costs and schedule, improve production, quality, and safety, and gain related project benefits. Automation in construction, however, has not kept pace with other industries and remains a predominantly labor-intensive activity. Many factors limit the use of automation in construction. Cost, availability, and applicability of automated technologies, along with the knowledge and training required to operate the technologies, are obstacles to implementation. The design of permanent features and the means used to communicate the design may either inhibit or prohibit the use of automated technologies during construction. CII created the Design Practices to Facilitate Construction Automation Project Team to investigate this issue. The resulting research has identified design practices that facilitate the implementation of automated technologies and exposed barriers to and limitations of automation in design. Recommended design practices to facilitate the use of construction automation include: • Conduct constructability reviews during the design phase that incorporate consideration of construction automation. • Standardize design features and elements. • Provide adequate clearance for automated technologies to operate. • Prioritize design objectives and compare design alternatives. • Use electronic documents and make the documents available to the contractor. • Consider the capabilities and limitations of the automated technologies.
Numerous factors hinder the consideration of automation, including the structure of the industry, a lack of applicable knowledge by design professionals, and the limitations of the technologies themselves. To implement the findings, the industry and project participants need to: • Provide for efficient, timely exchange of project information between constructors and designers. • Conduct constructability reviews as a means to facilitate the application of construction automation knowledge in the design phase. • Modify traditional contracting arrangements to allow for expanded interaction between designers and constructors.
319 Designing for Construction Automation
• Recognize that designer compensation may need to be modified to provide incentive to consider construction automation in design. • Expand education and training of designers regarding construction automation.
For the purposes of the study, the following definition was used:
Automation: the use of mechanical and electronic means to achieve automatic operation or control to reduce potential exposure, time, or effort while maintaining or improving quality.
A survey of was conducted regarding the current use of automated technologies and the practice of addressing construction automation in the design. This information was used to develop and record design practices that facilitate construction automation and expose barriers and limitations that limit the consideration of construction automation in the design. To facilitate the practical implementation of the research results, the project team developed a website that can be accessed by designers. With this online tool, designers will be able to easily access and learn about barriers that prohibit the use of construction automation and search for design practices to incorporate into their designs and design processes.
320 Designing for Construction Automation Design Practices to Facilitate Construction Automation Project Team
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
Randall J. Abdallah John A. Gambatese Vice President Assistant Professor Walbridge Aldinger Company Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering 613 Abbott Street Oregon State University Detroit, MI 48226-2521 108 Apperson Hall P: (313) 442-1295 F: 313-963-8123 Corvallis , OR 97331-2302 [email protected] P: (541) 737-8913 F: 541-737-3300 [email protected] Phillip S. Dunston Assistant Professor Brian Golwitzer Purdue University Manager, Corporate Facilities Design Division of Construction Engineering and Abbott Laboratories Management 1401 Sheraton Road 550 Stadium Mall Drive Dept. 55L, Bldg. P13-2 West Lafayette, IN 47907-2051 North Chicago, IL 60064-4000 P: (765) 494-0640 F: 765-494-0644 P: (847) 935-3582 F: 847-938-4686 [email protected] [email protected]
Jerry Foster Peyton B. Gregory Structural Engineer AST.Experimental Facilities Development U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NASA Langley Research Center Kingman Bldg, Rm 321 MS 441 7701 Telegraph Road Hampton, VA 23681 Alexandria, VA 22315 P: (757) 864-7242 F: 757-884-8879 P: (703) 428-7339 F: 703-428-6975 [email protected] [email protected] Matthew Hewitt Dan Gales Graduate Research Assistant Director, Digital Engineering Oregon State University Dick Corporation 202 Apperson Hall P.O. Box 10896 Corvallis, OR 97331 Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0896 F: 541-737-3300 P: (412) 384-1242 F: 412-384-1154 [email protected] [email protected]
321 Designing for Construction Automation
George R. Pennypacker Roger Rapp Design Supervisor Director of IT and CIE DuPont Engineering Kværner Brandywine 3446 7909 Parkwood Circle Dr. 1007 Market Street Houston, TX 77036 Wilmington, DE 19898 P: (713) 270-2851 F: 713-414-3330 P: (302) 774-2703 F: 302-774-4937 [email protected] [email protected] John G. Ward, Jr. Linda Phillips Manager of Project Controls Project Manager Bibb & Associates U.S. General Services Administration 8455 Lenexa Drive PBS/Office of the Chief Architect A Kiewit Company Center for Construction & Project Management Lenexa, KS 66214 1500 E. Bannister Road, Room 1160 P: (913) 928-7306 F: 913-928-7806 Kansas City, MO 64131 [email protected] P: (816) 826-8305 F: 816-823-1254 [email protected]
Rex Phillips Team Leader, Small Projects Engineering Eli Lilly and Company Lilly Corporate Center, D.C. 6510 Indianapolis, IN 46285 P: (317) 276-7988 F: 317-423-4800 [email protected]
John Jacob Raad Manufacturing Engineer General Motors Corporation 8527 Guinea Rd. Lansing, MI 48917 P: (517) 322-9523 F: 517-322-9524 [email protected]
322 Designing for Construction Automation
Plenary Slides
323 Designing for Construction Automation
324 Designing for Construction Automation
325 Designing for Construction Automation
326 Designing for Construction Automation
327 Designing for Construction Automation
328 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering Case Study: International Paper
Learning Objectives
• Learn how partnering can leverage owner resources and improve performance while lowering cost. • Success in partnering comes from: – Alignment around strategy, drivers, objectives, and measures of success. –A selection process that enables results and meeting business objectives. – Faith in a process that when followed produces results and benefit for both parties.
• Metrics that drive the correct behavior.
Abstract The presentation will highlight development of an engineering alliance using CII’s publication, Model for Partnering Excellence. The engineering strategy was to improve business results of small projects (under $5 million) on par with larger projects led by corporate engineering. Examples will be provided on how following the partnering process resulted in quick integration and a continuous improvement process. The implementation session will feature a panel including at least one regional engineering office manager and his counterpart representing the engineering partner. Details will be provided on work processes and tactics put in place to achieve results quickly.
Plenary Session Presenter Chad L. Zollar, Manager of Operations, Corporate Engineering – International Paper Chad Zollar has more than 25 years of experience in pulp and paper capital projects. During his career, he has served in various leadership roles on approximately $1 billion in projects ranging from rebuilds and modernizations to green-field facilities. He currently is responsible for the development and deployment of International Paper’s corporate engineering resources and the use of benchmarking, metrics, and industry best practices to maximize the firm’s capital effectiveness. Zollar earned bachelor’s degrees in chemical and nuclear engineering from the University of California.
329 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
Implementation Session Moderator Chad L. Zollar, Manager of Operations, Corporate Engineering – International Paper
Implementation Session Participants Clete Blackwell, Regional Engineering Manager – International Paper Oswald Gilbert, Vice President & Chief Engineer – BE&K Engineering Lee McClung, Engineering Project Manager – BE&K Engineering
330 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering Case Study: International Paper
Executive Summary International Paper (IP) rolled out a new, stage gated, project delivery system in 2000 that significantly improved project performance. In 2001 this system was benchmarked to be among the best performing project systems among process industry companies and IP’s larger projects showed an immediate improvement in performance. However, IP’s small project (<$5MM) performance lagged, and when benchmarked, was found to be inconsistent in results. Over the past decade, IP, like many other companies, had downsized plant-engineering staff with little corresponding work process change. A strategy was needed to improve small project performance on par with larger projects. This need led to a complete analysis of IP’s internal competency and a comparison with other class “A” process industry companies. IP found that it was behind in the area of using partnering to leverage internal engineering resources to improve project performance. A partnering strategy was developed to quickly improve IP’s small project results. CII’s partnering research has produced a best practice documented in Implementation Resource 102-2 that enables a quick and successful implementation of partnering. This five- phase approach to setting up and implementing partnering consists of the following key steps.
1. Owner’s Internal Alignment 4. Project Alignment a. Business drivers a. Develop specific project objectives b. Objectives and benefits of partnering b. Provide appropriate tools c. Key owner sponsors identified c. Develop communications methods d. Manage interfaces 2. Partner Selection a. Develop criteria 5. Work Process Alignment b. Develop reasonable contract a. Ground rules c. Define roles and responsibilities b. Conflict resolution process c. Allocation of resources 3. Partnership Alignment d. Project performance measures defined a. Key partner sponsors identified b. Objectives defined c. Key personnel defined d. Common goals defined e. Team building executed f. Alliance performance measures defined
IP followed this approach and installed an owner representative at each regional engineering office to manage the phase 4 and phase 5 details. This proved successful, and in the span of just one year the offices were showing a significant improvement in small project performance.
331 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
The major findings of this case study validated the CII partnering model as a best practice for defining and implementing a partnership. The following items were among those included in the CII Partnering Tool Kit as necessary to a successful relationship. However, the case study highlighted these items as the most important to a quick and successful implementation: • Most problems encountered were a direct result of alignment. Most of the time, the issue was on the owner side. Any time invested in achieving alignment prior to implementation pays huge dividends later. • The placement of a full-time owner rep at the partner’s office was instrumental to maintaining alignment and managing performance. • When issues do come up, they must be addressed quickly and decisively. People will resist change and test any new system. • Make sure the metrics are realistic, allow each side of the alliance to be successful, and get at the real objectives of the relationship. •A core team of individuals to interface with the owner reps helped to quickly advance the relationship and facilitated continuity from project to project. • Resource planning and core team selection were keys to success and should not be taken lightly.
Sources of Information Model for Partnering Excellence, Research Summary 102-1, Construction Industry Institute, 1996. Partnering Toolkit, Implementation Resource 102-2, Construction Industry Institute, 1996. “2002 Small Project Benchmarking Summary” report for International Paper, by Independent Project Analysis, Inc., Reston, VA, 2002.
332 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering Case Study: International Paper
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
Clete Blackwell Regional Engineering Manager International Paper c/o BE&K Engineering 2000 International Park Drive Birmingham, AL 35243 P: (205) 972-6202 F: 205-972-6853 [email protected]
Oswald Gilbert Vice President & Chief Engineer BE&K Engineering 2000 International Park Drive Birmingham, AL 35243 P: (205) 972-6303 F: 205-972-6884 [email protected]
Lee McClung Engineering Project Manager BE&K Engineering 2000 International Park Drive Birmingham, AL 35243 P: (205) 972-6214 F: 205-972-6853 [email protected]
Chad L. Zollar Manager of Operations, Corporate Engineering International Paper Cincinnati Technology Center 6285 Tri-Ridge Blvd. Loveland, OH 45140 P: (513) 248-6137 F: 513-248-6683 [email protected]
333 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
334 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
Plenary Slides
335 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
336 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
337 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
338 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
339 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
340 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
Implementation Session Slides
341 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
342 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
343 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
344 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
345 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
346 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
347 Small Project Excellence Through Partnering
348 Six Sigma Deployment in the EPC Business Special Presentation
Learning Objectives
• What is Six Sigma? • Find out how Six Sigma was deployed across an E&C organization. • Learn about the challenges of global deployment. • Discover results achieved through Six Sigma.
Abstract This presentation will describe how Six Sigma, a data-driven process improvement methodology, is being applied across a major engineering and construction company to improve business results. The rigor of a Six Sigma program complemented by a focus on people, processes, and tools, has resulted in an expansive deployment throughout this corporation. Also described will be process improvements that have delivered world-class performance results.
Featured Speaker Mary B. Moreton, Manager, Six Sigma – Bechtel Corporation Mary Moreton is responsible for the global implementation of Six Sigma across 12 Bechtel organizations. She has 29 years of domestic and worldwide experience in advanced systems, government, petroleum, chemicals, mining, and metals projects. She was most recently manager of fossil technology and previously served as manager of engineering for Bechtel Power. She has had oversight of more than 1,000 engineering staff and over 250 technical personnel in design execution centers in Taiwan, Egypt, and India. Moreton earned a bachelor’s degree in engineering from the University of Arizona and is a Registered Professional Engineer in California.
Knowledgeable Point of Contact Mary B. Moreton Manager, Six Sigma Bechtel Corporation 5275 Westview Dr. Frederick, MD 21703-8306 P: (301) 228-7607 F: 301-228-6729 [email protected]
349 Six Sigma Deployment in the EPC Business
350 Six Sigma Deployment in the EPC Business
Plenary Slides
351 Six Sigma Deployment in the EPC Business
352 Six Sigma Deployment in the EPC Business
353 Six Sigma Deployment in the EPC Business
354 Six Sigma Deployment in the EPC Business
355 Six Sigma Deployment in the EPC Business
356 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling Cost Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling Project Team
Learning Objectives
• What are the best schedules for safety, productivity, project cost, project duration and absenteeism? Our Implementation Tool will help you select the right scheduling technique to best fit your project issues. • What is the most productive schedule? See what the data indicate. • See how total hours worked affects the productivity of your project regardless of schedule technique.
Abstract A model was derived to determine the productivity of various work crew schedules based on actual project data. This model can be used proactively or reactively. It will allow the contractor or owner to determine what the expected productivity level will be for a given scheduling technique, or to determine what the actual productivity was during or after project completion. An example will show how easily this formula can be applied. During the implementation session, a detailed discussion will allow all to learn how to use this new tool to help them select the proper scheduling technique for their project.
Plenary Session Presenter Richard L. Camlic, Plant Project Manager, Sheet Products & Utilities – U.S. Steel Corporation Rich Camlic has been with U.S. Steel since 1963 and has served in a variety of positions. Among his assignments, he has taught the electronic apprenticeship course and held various line management positions. He has also served as area manager, general foreman, senior design engineer, senior process engineer, senior project engineer, and process manager. Camlic holds electrical engineering and MBA degrees from the Illinois Institute of Technology.
357 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
Implementation Session Moderator Robert Kaiser, Associate Project Manager – Eli Lilly and Company Since joining Eli Lilly in 1984, Bob Kaiser has managed the design and delivery of office, manufacturing, and lab facilities at many of the company’s U.S. sites. Significant projects include managing the design and early construction for a $150 million discovery lab facility at the Lilly Corporate Center in Indianapolis and the recent design and construction of an office and sales training facility. He is currently managing the delivery of a $150 million development lab facility at the Lilly Technology Center. Kaiser earned a bachelor’s degree in architecture from Ball State University and is a Registered Architect in Indiana and Ohio.
Implementation Session Participants
Richard L. Camlic, Plant Project Manager, Sheet Products & Utilities – U.S. Steel Corporation Awad S. Hanna, Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering – University of Wisconsin–Madison Lynn G. McCord, Estimating Manager – Zachry Construction Corporation Gary C. Nuckols, Site Construction Manager – Fluor Daniel Craig S. Taylor, Jr., Graduate Research Assistant – University of Wisconsin–Madison
358 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling Cost Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling Project Team
Executive Summary Several crew schedule options are available to owners and contractors when they select schedules for a project or when they find it necessary to compress or to accelerate a schedule. Techniques such as overtime, shift work, rolling or straight four-ten hour days, and other innovative schedules all have their own set of unique benefits and requirements for proper application. Many studies have been funded on the impact of scheduled overtime on labor productivity. Information on innovative scheduling techniques (overtime, shift work, rolling or straight 4-10s, staggered 7-10 hour days, and others), however, is limited regarding its impact on safety, productivity, project duration, or cost. CII, therefore, established a project team to research innovative scheduling. The objective was to uncover best practices about when to apply them, conditions for their successful application, and the cost implications when using them. The project team focused its efforts on determining if such schedules could provide sound choices for contractors and owners when planning their projects. The team gathered data from a sizable number of projects and found both “good and bad news.” The bad news was that not much is being done in the way of truly innovative schedule techniques; in fact, most supervisors and crews prefer the five day, eight hours a day traditional schedule. The good news was that the team was able to collect an impressive amount of productivity data and then developed a predictive productivity model that can be of benefit in selecting schedules industry-wide. The project team also created an implementation tool (CII Implementation Resource 185-2) that is a summary of the information collected and is organized in tabular form (referred to as a “look up table”). It is intended to aid contractors in their selection of a crew scheduling technique that will meet the specific needs of their projects. The table compares each crew scheduling technique, the project characteristics, and the issues that may be impacted by the use of different crew schedules. The tool is intended to aid construction professionals in the selection of a crew scheduling technique that will meet the requirements of a specific project. Readers should go to the CII website, download the tool, and use it to improve project planning.
Research Methodology From the suggestions of the team and pilot survey respondents, a final survey was developed to collect qualitative information on crew schedule impacts on a variety of project characteristics. The final questionnaire was delivered to contractors and union representatives. An additional form was sent to contractors to gather quantitative data from actual projects. Hypothesis testing was applied to the data to provide evidence of the relative productivity levels of a variety of crew scheduling techniques. Finally, a model was developed through the use linear regression showing the expected labor productivity, given the average number of hours worked per crewmember per week and the total actual work hours to complete the project.
359 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
360 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling Cost Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling Project Team
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
JeffBaxter Robert Kaiser Cost Engineering Manager Associate Project Manager The Procter & Gamble Company Eli Lilly and Company 11511 Reed Hartman Highway Lilly Corporate Center Cincinnati, OH 45241 Indianapolis, IN 46285 P: (513) 626-0770 F: 513-626-1447 P: (317) 277-6652 F: 317-277-0843 [email protected] [email protected]
Richard L. Camlic Lynn G. McCord Plant Project Manager, Sheet Products & Utilities Estimating Manager U.S. Steel Zachry Construction Corporation Fairfield Works – MS-ENGR P. O. Box 240130 P. O. Box 599 San Antonio, TX 78224 Fairfield, AL 35064 P: (210) 475-8731 F: 210-475-8750 P: (205) 783-4325 F: 205-783-4318 [email protected] [email protected] Gary C. Nuckols Rodney A. Evans Site Construction Manager Senior Project Executive Fluor Daniel Near East Asia Branch P. O. Box 12199 U.S. Department of State RTP, NC 27709 OBO/PE/CC/NEA P: (919) 556-8367 F: 919-708-6171 SA-6, Room 866 [email protected] Washington, DC 20522-0611 P: (703) 875-6323 F: 703-516-1651 Kenneth E. Smith [email protected] Construction Manager BE&K Construction Company Awad S. Hanna 2000 International Park Drive Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering Birmingham, AL 35243 University of Wisconsin–Madison P: (205) 972-6173 F: 205-972-6651 2314 Engineering Hall [email protected] 1415 Engineering Drive Madison, WI 53706 Craig S. Taylor, Jr. P: (608) 263-8903 F: 608-265-9860 Graduate Research Assistant [email protected] University of Wisconsin–Madison 2314 Engineering Hall 1415 Engineering Drive Madison, WI 53706 P: (608) 513-8916 F: 608-265-9860 [email protected]
361 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
362 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
Plenary Slides
363 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
364 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
365 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
366 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
367 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
368 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
369 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
370 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
Implementation Session Slides
371 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
372 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
373 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
374 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
375 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
376 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
377 Effectiveness of Innovative Crew Scheduling
378 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices Case Study: BE&K Construction Company
Learning Objectives
• Increase awareness of CII safety best practice for zero injuries. • Learn practical tools and techniques to achieve zero injuries. • Find out what other companies are doing to achieve continuous improvement in safety performance.
Abstract Since 1993, CII owners and contractors have applied “zero injury” techniques to achieve outstanding safety results. This presentation will provide a case study with specific examples of one contractor’s experience in changing safety culture. This case study traces one contractor’s experience in significantly improving their safety processes, behaviors and results using the CII Zero Injuries Best Practices over the last decade. The implementation session will include examples to help CII members break through the safety plateau on the road to “zero.” Specific tools will be shared on the benefits of applying the same best practices on different worksites.
Plenary Session Presenter Susan M. Steele, Vice President, Industrial Services – BE&K Construction Company Sue Steele is responsible for BE&K’s strategic planning implementation, business development, and operations management. BE&K Industrial Services provides maintenance and plant services and reliability consulting services for manufacturing and industrial clients. Steele previously was project manager for the BE&K–GE Alliance, which included work at 30 project sites in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Brazil. Arizona State University’s Del Web School of Construction recognized her in 1997 as an “Outstanding Woman in Construction.” A graduate of Auburn University, she also holds an MBA from the University of Miami.
379 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
Implementation Session Moderator
Susan M. Steele, Vice President, Industrial Services – BE&K Construction Company
Implementation Session Participants Brent H. Bailey, HSSE Manager – bp Decatur Works Billy R. Cassidy, Site Manager, BE&K Industrial Services – bp Decatur Works Joe G. Siegel, Senior Safety Coordinator, BE&K Industrial Services – bp Decatur Works
380 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices Case Study: BE&K Construction Company
Executive Summary Over the last decade, the Construction Industry Institute has made significant progress in improving the safety performance of CII member organizations. In 1993, a CII research team comprised of owners, contractors, and academic researchers identified five techniques that would lead to improved safety performance. These techniques included: 1. Pre-project/pre-task planning for safety 2. Safety orientation and training 3. Written safety incentive programs 4. Alcohol and substance abuse programs 5. Accident/incident investigations
As a member of CII, BE&K determined to strengthen its safety program to achieve zero injuries using these CII recommended techniques. This case study outlines several strategies BE&K employed to implement zero injuries techniques on its worksites. Initially, a company-wide safety conference was held with all site leaders and project managers to gain commitment. A safety steering team was then established by the company’s CEO, Mike Goodrich. This Safety, Health, and Environment Committee includes executive leaders from each business unit. Each division was challenged to implement the zero injuries techniques on every worksite so that all BE&K employees would know, understand, and support a zero injuries culture. One area with the most improvement was standardization of techniques, which includes such items as safety training, pre-task planning, and accident investigations across all sites. BE&K established a company-wide safety training course to communicate CII zero injuries techniques called “Safety Awareness.” The course was taught at all worksites and helped BE&K achieve consistency in zero injuries best practices. The program was so successful that the American Society for Training and Development presented BE&K an Excellence in Training Award in 1996. In 2001, CII reviewed its list of zero injuries techniques and added four key areas to the original five: 1. Demonstrated management commitment 2. Staffing for safety 3. Worker involvement and participation 4. Subcontractor management
381 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
To further drive down BE&K incident rates, the company launched a behavioral-based employee participation program called the “Safety Sentinel Behavioral Observation Program.” The intent of the program is to increase worker involvement and participation on each site. “Sentinels” are craft employees who conduct daily observations (or audits) and report findings in the field. At the bp Decatur Works site, BE&K serves as the continuous-presence contractor and now has an exceptional Safety Sentinel Program with active client support and endorsement. The employee-driven safety committee of “sentinels” is extensively trained in hazard recognition to identify unsafe behaviors, practices, and procedures being practiced by front-line employees. Incident rates have significantly declined on BE&K project sites where this program has been employed. In 2002, the BE&K Industrial Services Division made significant progress in reducing its incident rates by implementing the techniques of “demonstrated management commitment” and more fully utilizing other CII Best Practices. The division cut its recordable rate in half and, for the first time, remained below 1.0 (.92). Twelve sites achieved zero injuries, one site received the prestigious OSHA VPP Merit Award, and the division also garnered multiple other corporate safety awards. The specific management actions contributing to this success included: • Site-specific safety plans for each project • Supervisor training in zero injuries techniques • Monthly Process Safety Evaluation (Best Practices) Checklists • Increased employee communications regarding safety performance • “Safety Olympics” incentive program • Increased accountability and reporting • Near-misses regularly reported •Top management participation in incident investigations • Increased worker participation in safety observations
The bottom line is this: CII zero injury techniques work. BE&K has reduced its recordable incident rate to .98 in 2001 and .89 in 2002. The company has not reached zero yet, but with CII research and support, it is confident that the goal is now attainable.
382 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices Case Study: BE&K Construction Company
Knowledgeable Points of Contact
Brent H. Bailey HSSE Manager bp Decatur Works P. O. Box 2215 Decatur, AL 35609-2215 P: (256) 306-2478 F: 256-340-5313 [email protected]
Billy R. Cassidy Site Manager BE&K Industrial Services @ bp Decatur Works P. O. Box 1138 Decatur, AL 35602 P: (256) 340-5261 F: 256-340-5490 [email protected]
J. G. Siegel Senior Safety Coordinator BE&K Industrial Services @ bp Decatur Works P. O. Box 2215 Decatur, AL 35609-2215 P: (256) 340-5491 F: 256-340-5490 [email protected]
Susan M. Steele Vice President, Industrial Services BE&K Construction Company P. O. Box 2332 Birmingham, AL 35201-2332 P: (205) 972-6552 F: 205-972-6794 [email protected]
383 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
384 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
Plenary Slides
385 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
386 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
387 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
388 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
389 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
390 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
Implementation Session Slides
391 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
392 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
393 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
394 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
395 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
396 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
397 Journey to Zero Injuries Using CII Best Practices
398 Carroll H. Dunn 1916-2003
Carroll Dunn, the Project Director of the Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Study by The Business Roundtable that led to the creation of the Construction Industry Institute, died January 31, 2003. He was instrumental in the establishment of CII and was active throughout its formative years. CII created the Carroll Dunn Award of Excellence in his honor and presented him the first Dunn Award at Keystone, Colorado, in 1985 to him during the institute’s first annual conference. The award is CII’s highest honor. Carroll Hilton Dunn was the born in Lake Village, Arkansas, on August 11, 1916. He was the second of four sons. His father was a farmer, although he had part-time jobs. Except for a three year period from 1917-1920, when the family lived in south Mississippi, Carroll’s early years were spent in Lake Village. He graduated from Lakeside High School in 1934, where he participated in track and football. In 1934, he enrolled at the University of Illinois, and received his baccalaureate degree in mechanical engineering in 1938. His undergraduate education was financed primarily through his summer work, part-time jobs during college, and loans. He participated in the ROTC program each of his four years of undergraduate study at the University of Illinois. In 1947, he earned a master’s degree in civil engineering from Iowa State University. Upon his graduation in 1938 from the University of Illinois, he accepted a commission in the United States Army Corps of Engineers. He retired in 1973 as a Lt. General after a distinguished 35-year career. His last assignment was as Director of the Defense Nuclear Agency. Immediately prior to that, he was Deputy Chief of Engineers, and earlier as Director of Construction and as Assistant Chief of Staff for Logistics, Military Assistance Command, Vietnam. During his military career, Dunn served as Director of the Titan II Missile Program, and Division Engineer of the Southwestern Division of the Corps of Engineers. Among projects under his direction was the construction of the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, now Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, in Houston, Texas. He was a registered professional engineer in the State of Texas and the District of Columbia, a Fellow in the American Society of Civil Engineers, and a member of the Society of Military Engineers. In October 1973, he joined Consolidated Edison Company as Vice President, Construction, and was promoted to Senior Vice President, Construction, Engineering, and Environmental Affairs. He was responsible for upgrading and expanding the power generation for the New York City metropolitan area, and for conducting a multi-million dollar study of the impact of power plants on the fish ecology of the Hudson River.
399 Carroll H. Dunn
In May 1980, Dunn began work as the full-time Project Director of The Business Roundtable’s Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness (CICE) Project. Under his leadership, the CICE Project produced a series of 24 reports that eventually reached a distribution of more than one million copies. The CICE study led to the creation of the Construction Industry Institute (CII) at The University of Texas at Austin. Dunn’s service to CII was considered so valuable that he was appointed an ex-officio member of all the original committees and research task forces. In 1985 at Keystone, Colorado, during the first CII Annual Conference, the Executive Committee of CII presented Dunn with an award named in his honor, the Carroll H. Dunn Award of Excellence. The award, which was created by the Executive Committee to honor an individual who has made singular and notable contributions to the cost effectiveness of the construction industry, came as a total surprise to Dunn, and he emphasized upon its presentation that he had no knowledge of its creation nor, he said, did he know beforehand that he would be so honored. He was gracious in accepting the award, which continues to be a major part of the CII Annual Conferences. Dunn personally presented the award to each recipient until 1998, when health concerns prevented him from attending the 1998 and subsequent conferences. He was always quick to point out that he never participated in the selection of any of the recipients, but held the award and those who were selected to receive it in especially high esteem. In August 2002, he and his wife, Letha, sent a videotape message from their home in Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, to the Annual Conference audience (in Keystone, Colorado) expressing their disappointment in not being able to attend and congratulating all of the Dunn Award of Excellence recipients. Today, the Carroll H. Dunn Award of Excellence, CII’s highest honor, is recognized as one of the most prestigious awards of its kind in the construction industry. Dunn leaves behind his loving wife of 63 years, Letha, of Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, his daughter, Carolyn Dean of Denver, Colorado, son, C. H. “Stretch” Dunn of Birmingham, Alabama, five grandchildren and seven great grandchildren.
400 Recipients of the Dunn Award of Excellence
Carroll H. Dunn (1985) – inspiring leader and project manager of the CICE Project who guided the establishment of CII as a principal national forum for construction research
Charles D. Brown (1987) – early application of cost-effectiveness principles led to stellar engineering career; DuPont representative to CICE study; energetic advocate of CICE findings
Ted C. Kennedy (1988) – a founder of BE&K; influential member of original CII Board of Advisors; recognized industry leader in education, training, and employee development
Robert H. Miller (1989) – intense DuPont participant during CICE who later chaired CII, oversaw its first published research, and helped to establish its educational program
Louis Garbrecht, Jr. (1990) – pioneered “engineering” of the construction process and proved that constructability is cost-effective; early advocate of project management research; original chairman of CII upon its establishment in 1983
Clarkson H. Oglesby (1991) – research pioneer and author of classic construction engineering textbooks who established the first graduate studies in construction at Stanford University
James M. Braus (1992) – Shell Oil and CICE leader and diplomat who bridged diverse opinions within CII to keep the Institute unified and authored the original CII Strategic Plan
Gary D. Jones (1993) – hard-working, determined 1987 CII chairman whose “implementation challenge” that year led to a dramatic change in how CII viewed implementation
Jack E. Turner (1994) – originated idea that led to establishment of The Business Roundtable, and later suggested a study of owner-contractor issues that became the CICE Project
401 Recipients of the Dunn Award of Excellence
Daniel J. Bennet (1995) – aspiring association executive, CICE participant, and author of CII by-laws who led establishment of the National Center Construction Education and Research
John W. Morris II (1996) – led effort to unite Corps of Engineers, Federal government, and environmentalists in shaping national water resources policy during turbulent transition era
Richard L. Tucker (1997) – professor, productivity research pioneer, CICE participant, and renowned industry speaker who personally led efforts to establish CII at UT Austin and served as its first Director from 1983-1998
Edward W. Merrow (1998) – researcher who developed the Project Evaluation System, an analytical tool to benchmark project data, and founded Independent Project Analysis (IPA)
Donald J. Gunther (1999) – hard-driving Bechtel executive whose trademarks of leadership, dedication, and teamwork influenced others both personally and professionally as well as changed Bechtel’s approach to worldwide business
Arthur J. Fox, Jr. (2000) – long-time editor of Engineering News-Record who traveled around the world to report on more than four decades of industry progress and who established ENR’s Engineer of the Year award more than 30 years ago
H. B. Zachry, Jr. (2001) – a born constructor, he led a road contracting firm founded by his father to a worldwide leadership role through personal dedication to the welfare of his employees and the principles of quality, safety, and client satisfaction
Joseph J. Jacobs (2002) – Jacobs Engineering founder who led his company to the top echelons of the engineering world and whose entrepreneurial spirit and ethical beliefs continue to inspire those who work for him
402 Outstanding CII Researcher for 2003 Jimmie Hinze
Jimmie Hinze has been selected as the Outstanding CII Researcher for 2003. According to the panel of judges, Dr. Hinze’s contributions to CII research exceed all criteria and add honor and distinction to this award. Hinze is the Holland Professor in the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction at the University of Florida and also is Director of the Center for Construction Safety and Loss Control at the university. This year he completed the latest in a series of four research projects for CII in which he was the principal investigator, starting in 1993 and ending in 2003. The results of these research initiatives have been widely implemented and the recommended practices coming from the research are routinely utilized by both CII member and non-member organizations throughout the North American construction industry. His portfolio of CII research projects began in the late 1980s and includes the following: Managing Subcontractor Safety; Indirect Costs of Construction Accidents; Design for Construction Safety; Making Zero Accidents a Reality; Making Zero Accidents a Reality: Shutdowns, Turnarounds, and Outages; and The Role of Owners in Construction Safety. This research has been instrumental in improving safety performance in the construction industry. In addition to his research on safety related issues for CII, Hinze is recognized as one of this country’s foremost researchers on construction safety. He began this focus on safety with his doctoral dissertation at Stanford University in 1976 entitled, “The Effect of Middle Management on Safety in the Construction Industry.” Since that time, he has written the widely acclaimed book, Construction Safety, and has co-authored two other books on construction safety. He also is the author or co-author of 59 journal articles and 48 conference articles on construction safety. Hinze is a Registered Professional Engineer (Missouri) and is a Master Trainer with the National Center for Construction Education and Research. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in architectural engineering at The University of Texas at Austin and earned his Ph.D. at Stanford University. CII takes great pride in selecting Dr. Jimmie Hinze as the Outstanding CII Researcher for 2003.
403 Outstanding CII Researcher for 2003
Award Criteria
• The research significantly contributed to the improvement of the construction industry. • The research is completed and products delivered. • The researcher’s excellence is recognized by his or her CII team members, the staff, and the membership. • The researcher’s report to CII is innovative, well written, and timely.
Previous Recipients of the Outstanding CII Researcher of the Year Award
1995 – Mike Vorster, Virginia Polytechnic University 1996 – Edd Gibson, The University of Texas at Austin 1997 – Stu Anderson, Texas A&M University 1998 – Gary Oberlender, Oklahoma State University 1999 – Ed Back, Texas A&M University 2000 – Jeff Russell, University of Wisconsin-Madison 2001 – Ed Jaselskis, Iowa State University 2002 – Carl Haas, The University of Texas at Austin
Outstanding CII Researcher Award Panel of Judges
W. Edward Back Associate Professor, Clemson University Melissa B. Herkt Vice President, global Project Management, GlaxoSmithKline William L. Johnsmeyer President, Butler Construction, Butler Manufacturing Company Jerry R. Koogler General Manager, Graycor Industrial Contractors Louis L. Prudhomme Associate Director for Research, Construction Industry Institute
404 Outstanding Instructor for 2003 James M. Neil, Co-Recipient
The late Dr. James M. Neil is the co-recipient of the 2003 Outstanding Instructor Award. In the formative days of CII, Neil chaired the Cost/Schedule Task Force that produced 10 CII publications dealing with the basics of project controls and project management, one of the most prolific publishing efforts ever by CII. Through the years he crafted and delivered CII Education Modules on Work Packaging for Project Controls, Productivity and Performance Management, and Managing Multiple Small Projects, and most recently was active with the updating of the Small Projects module. Even though the Cost/Schedule Task Force publications were published in the 1980s, they are still the most relevant material available on project controls. Many professors use this material as a basic reference for college-level courses introducing the fundamentals of project management. As an instructor/presenter of several of the Continuing Education Courses offered through the CII “hub” universities, Neil could always be counted on to provide excellent delivery, and never lost his zeal to have meaningful dialogue with the professionals of the industry — and they sensed this with deep appreciation. In his later years, when most of us would be happy just savoring the memories of a successful career of contribution to the advancement of the construction industry, Neil remained actively involved in discovering and publishing works to help advance the industry. When Neil passed on this past May, the industry lost a valuable advocate for excellence. Many in the industry count it a great honor to have known and worked with him. The Construction Industry Institute is pleased to recognize the dedicated service of Dr. Jim Neil with the Outstanding Instructor Award.
405 Outstanding Instructor for 2003 Emmitt J. Nelson, Co-Recipient
Emmitt J. Nelson is the co-recipient of the 2003 Outstanding Instructor Award. Nelson led Shell in emphasizing contractor safety performance to reflect Shell’s own employee’s safety performance. He also led a corporate-wide contractor safety strategy. His action significantly reduced injury to contractor employees, lowered contractor’s Worker’s Compensation Insurance costs, increased profits for the contractors, and provided more competitive bidding on Shell projects. He represented Shell on The Business Roundtable Construction Committee, where he served as Chairman in 1988. With a long and distinguished career as a senior manager at Shell, Nelson is recognized by his peers as a leader in the industry. Following his retirement, he founded Nelson Consulting and specializes in teaching the Zero Injury concept, leading clients in the installation of the safety management processes required to create a zero injury culture. His clients now often achieve a million work-hours without a recordable incident. During 1987 and 1988, Emmitt served as Co-Chair of the Center of Construction Education at Texas A&M University. He served as Chairman of the Construction Industry Institute Zero Accidents Task Force from 1990 to 1993. This task force performed research into the Zero Injury concept. The CII videotape One Too Many and its associated zero injury publications have become some of CII’s most widely accepted products and have led to a dramatic improvement in safety by CII members. Nelson has authored or co-authored numerous articles on construction safety management and has recently published The Employer Safety Guidebook to Zero Employee Injury. He also remains active, presenting seminars and training sessions focused on improving safety performance in the industry. Dr. Richard L. Tucker’s preface to Emmitt’s recent book, The Zero Injury Guide Book, further asserts Emmitt’s contribution to CII and the construction industry. As one of the construction industry’s most noted safety consultants, Emmitt recently has been elected to the National Academy of Construction. The Construction Industry Institute is pleased to recognize the dedicated service of Emmitt J. Nelson with the Outstanding Instructor Award.
406 Outstanding Instructor for 2003
Award Criteria
• The individual is an exceptionally effective instructor whose contributions, talent, and efforts have been recognized for outstanding performance by the participants in learning activities involving CII education material. • The individual has presented CII material in ways that have significantly enhanced the learning process. • Consideration will also be given to the degree to which the nominee has contributed to the development of CII education material.
Previous Recipients of the Outstanding Instructor Award 1995 – Jorge Vanegas, Georgia Tech 1996 – Stan Nethery, Dow Chemical 1997 – Steve Sanders, Clemson University 1998 – Edd Gibson, The University of Texas at Austin 1999 – Don Shaw, Ontario Hydro 2000 – Gary Aller, Arizona State University 2001 – Ed Back, Clemson University 2002 – Ed Ruane, J. A. Jones Construction Company
Outstanding Instructor Award Panel of Judges
W. Edward Back Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University William W. Badger Director, Del E. Webb School of Construction, Arizona State University Manuel A. Garcia Associate Director for Education, Implementation, Knowledge, Construction Industry Institute Arnold M. Manaker Project Manager, Paradise SCR, Tennessee Valley Authority Leo McKnight Director, Training & Development, Hilti Corporation
407 Outstanding Instructor for 2003
408 Outstanding Implementer for 2003 Bernard J. Fedak
The 2003 Outstanding Implementer is Bernard J. Fedak, Managing Director – Engineering, United States Steel Corporation. Fedak has championed the entire implementation process, which has become the standard for identifying, developing, appropriating, executing, and benchmarking all major projects within U.S. Steel. He led the continuous improvement process for engineering within the company for the past 18 years, and guided it through a most difficult period. Throughout his tenure, he has led by example, overcoming skepticism and opposition, in the drive to improve the effective use of capital within U.S. Steel and the steel industry. Starting in the early 1990s, Fedak saw the need to improve the manner in which projects were being developed and executed. Largely through his efforts, U.S. Steel developed a methodology and training course entitled “Design for Start-Up,” in which many of the concepts and methods parallel the CII Best Practices. Although Design for Start-Up was a huge success, additional improvements were being developed within and outside of U.S. Steel. Fedak was instrumental in getting U.S. Steel to join CII and quickly volunteered personnel on to research teams and committee positions. These people became implementers responsible for ensuring that CII Best Practices were incorporated into everyday project activities. From the results obtained from the implementation of best practices, Fedak realized that a quantum change in the U.S. Steel projects’ methodology was required. He championed the development of an Internet-based project management system that was implemented for all U.S. Steel projects. This system, the USS Project Delivery System (PDS), defines the total process roadmap utilizing the five phases as defined in many CII publications. It includes “Design for Start-Up” and other concepts interwoven with CII Best Practices and other publications. All of the CII Best Practices and Pending Best Practices are linked directly to the project management process steps and the major CII publications related to each Best Practice are easily accessible, downloadable, and printable in this format. In addition, his company has implemented the use of a Web link directly to the CII Knowledge Structure, accessible instantaneously by any project manager from any project site. This ability to access CII knowledge and having the CII Best Practices imbedded into the project process system have facilitated both their use and acceptance. In fact, the easy accessibility of CII concepts and practices has also facilitated the acceptance of the Project Delivery System across the various experience levels of project managers. The Construction Industry Institute is proud to recognize Bernie Fedak as the 2003 CII Outstanding Implementer.
409 Outstanding CII Implementer for 2003
Award Criteria
• The nominee has made a significant contribution to enhancing the implementation of CII Best Practices and/or CII Proposed Best Practices within one or more member organizations. • Objective and specific data are available from the nominating organization that demonstrates the improvements attained through the enhanced implementation of CII Best Practices or CII Proposed Best Practices. The categories of improvements should include: cost, schedule, safety, quality and process improvement. • The nominee has demonstrated a commitment to the implementation of CII Best Practices or Proposed Best Practices. • The nominee has developed and/or employed creative and innovative means to enhance the implementation of CII Best Practices or CII Proposed Best Practices. The nominee has also willingly informed others of these means and has shared the details of their use with those interested in implementation.
Previous Recipient of the Outstanding Implementer Award 2001 – Dick Jessop, Ontario Power Generation 2002 – Mohammad S. Al-Subhi, Saudi Aramco
Outstanding Implementer Award Panel of Judges
Virgil L. Barton Manager of Quality Services, Bechtel Inc. Manuel A. Garcia Associate Director for Education, Implementation, Knowledge, Construction Industry Institute Richard F. Kibben President, Kibben Consulting James G. Slaughter President, S&B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd. Jack E. Turner Consultant, Construction Management Services
410 Benchmarking User Awards for 2003
The CII Benchmarking User Awards recognize member organizations that contribute to and promote benchmarking. Each year an owner and contractor organization receive the awards based on their demonstrated use of benchmarking for project improvement and their support of benchmarking in CII and other industry forums. Recipients of the 2003 awards and their basis for selection are provided below.
Owner: Rohm and Haas Company Rohm and Haas Company is experienced in the benchmarking process, having participated in the CII benchmarking program since its inception in 1996. The company has contributed projects to the CII database for many years, helped to develop CII productivity metrics, routinely participates in CII Benchmarking Associates training, and serves on CII’s Benchmarking & Metrics Committee.
Contractor: CDI Engineering Group Inc. CDI Engineering Group Inc. has been active in CII benchmarking for the past several years. The company submitted data to the CII benchmarking program in 2001 and 2002, assisted in development of productivity metrics through both attendance in and hosting of team workshops, and chaired the Small Projects Benchmarking initiative since its 2002 inception. In addition, CDI has been active on the CII Benchmarking & Metrics Committee and has promoted benchmarking through several presentations at CII Board meetings and the Houston Business Roundtable.
Award Criteria
• Best application of benchmarking for project system improvement • Contributions to benchmarking through active participation (forum, training, project submittal, committee) •Willingness to share ideas
Previous Recipients of the Benchmarking User Awards
2000 – Owner: Champion International Contractor: Jacobs Engineering
2001 – Owner: General Motors Corporation Contractor: BE&K
2002 – Owner: Aramco Services Company Contractor: Dillingham Construction Holdings S&B Engineers and Constructors Ltd.
411 Benchmarking User Awards for 2003
Benchmarking User Awards Panel of Judges The Benchmarking & Metrics Committee selects the recipients of the award each year. The committee includes the following individuals:
Joel R. Barnett Senior Estimator – OG&C, Fluor Daniel Ron Beechey Scheduling Specialist, Dofasco, Inc. Glen A. Blanchone Manager, Engineering Information, GlaxoSmithKline Gertraud F. Breitkopf Senior Program Manager, U.S. General Services Administration Robert E. Chapman Economist, Office of Applied Economics, National Institute of Standards & Technology Gregory D. Clum Manager, BVCI Labor Relations, Black & Veatch Corporation William G. Cooley, Sr. Capital Effectiveness Engineer, U.S. Steel Donald A. Gaddy Construction Safety & Health Manager, Engineering & Construction Services, Southern Company Generation & Energy Marketing James B. Gibson Vice President, Projects, ALSTOM Power Inc. Charles M. Green Engineering Specialist, Aramco Services Company Carl Gretzinger Facilities Project Planner, Project Planning Department, General Motors Corporation Robert A. Herrington Quality Manager, Central Region, Jacobs David G. Hile Operations Manager, Fru-Con Construction Corporation Howard Kass Program Manager, Facilities Engineer, National Aeronautics & Space Administration John E. Kurth Senior Vice President, Operations, Aker Kværner Grant G. Landry Manager of Engineering & Projects, CDI Solutions, Inc. John M. Mellin Manager, Business Planning & Performance, GlaxoSmithKline Philip R. Moncrief Vice President & General Manager, Technip – Coflexip Wladimir Norko Senior Engineer, Technical Policy Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mark T. Owens Director, Global Facilities Delivery, Eli Lilly and Company
412 Benchmarking User Awards for 2003
David M. Perkins Project Manager, Rohm and Haas Company Timothy P. Rigsby Director, Construction Management Services, Johnson Controls, Inc. Derek C. Ross Associate Director, Construction Management, Smithsonian Institution Danny Scott Project Engineer, BE&K Engineering Company David L. Stickel Process Owner – Global Project Management, The Procter & Gamble Company Frank K. Suhan Project Management Consultant, Johnson Controls, Inc. John Tato II Director, Project Evaluation & Analysis Division, U.S. Department of State Stephen R. Thomas Associate Director, Construction Industry Institute Stephen D. Warnock Director of Operations, Washington Group International, Inc.
413 Benchmarking User Awards for 2003
414 The Making of Disney’s Animal Kingdom Banquet Speaker: Jack Blitch
Abstract Focusing on Disney’s Animal Kingdom, the presentation looks at its early beginnings on the drawing board, through production and construction, to its completion as the largest Disney theme park at 540 acres. It also will feature “how did we do it” segments with photos of backstage details and explore the process of “Imagineering.”
Featured Speaker Jack Blitch, Vice President, Project Management – Walt Disney Imagineering Jack Blitch is responsible for all levels of project development on large attractions and theme park projects. He started his career with the J. A. Jones Construction Company in New Orleans, where his work included hospital, prison, school, hotel, restoration, and high rise office building projects. He joined Disney in 1988 as a Senior Project Manager, where he managed the design, production, construction, and installation of Wonders of Life Pavilion at Epcot Center and Star Tours/Ewok Village at Disney-MGM Studios. Blitch holds a bachelor’s degree in building construction from Northeast Louisiana University.
Knowledgeable Point of Contact Jack Blitch Vice President, Project Management Walt Disney Imagineering 200 Celebration Place Celebration, FL 34747 P: (407) 566-4998 F: 407-566-4022 [email protected]
415 The Making of Disney’s Animal Kingdom
416 Construction Industry Institute™ 3925 West Braker Lane Austin, Texas 78759-5316 (512) 232-3000 TM
Annual Conference Orlando, Florida July 29–31, 2003 www.construction-institute.org