Replace with presenters logo
She hellll Glob lobaal Solu olutition on Flawless Pro roject ject Delilivery very Pro rogr graam Wol olfgang fgang PR PROBST, Shel Shelll Glob obal al Sol oluti ution ons s - Malaysi alaysia a
Replace with Replace with presenters logo
Agg en A endd a 1.) Introduction of the Presenter
14.) Flawless Delivery Q-Assurance Tool
2.) What What is is Flawless – What are Flaws Flaws ?
15.) Conclusion
3.) Co Consequ nsequence ences s – What can go wrong ?
16.) Where it went right
4.) Typical Flaws
17.) Sakhali Sakhalin n Energy Energy – as an exam example ple
5.) When When to do What - Front-End Front-End-Loading? -Loading? 6.) Plant Perf Perform ormance ance – Typical vs. Flawless Flawless 7.) Implementation Sequence 8.) How How to start – Th The e 11 Q’s Q’s 9.) Flawlist Methodology 10.) Generic Flawless Delivery Road Map 11.)Elements of Q-Assurance Plan 12.)Q-Captains 12.)Q-C aptains Action 13.) Ge Generi neric c Q-Captai Q-Captain n Road Road Map
© Transfi Transfield eld Worley Services Services 2009
2
Replace with presenters logo
Introduction of Presenter Introduction of the Presenter:
Wolfgang PROBST
Shell Global Solutions (Malaysia ) Snd.Bhd. – Kuala Lumpur Operations and Asset Management Consultant
© Transfield Worley Services 2009
3
Replace with presenters logo
What is Flawless ? – What are Flaws ? Identify Flaws
All projects have “flaws” (Organisation, People, Assets)
Assess Risk
Develop Mitigation
Barriers
Recovery measures
Most flaws present themselves in Start-Up Phase (on critical path)
Many flaws are similar and repeats of other projects
The effect of flaws results in •
Culmination of delays
•
Increased risk for failures with high severity impact
•
loss of production, HSE, business, reputation
© Transfield Worley Services 2009
4
Replace with presenters logo
Consequences – What can go wrong: Avoiding problems:
Chemicals complex, cleanliness problems – rework and production losses >$30 million
Chemicals complex, prototype effluent water handling – repairs ($3 million), production loss >$20 million and additional operating costs (> $2 million per month)
Refinery, start-up delays caused by instrumentation problems – production losses >>$60 million
Refinery, inadequate cleaning followed by wrong preservation – rework and production losses (delay) worth >$100 million
Improving on performance:
In addition: Structuring the work-processes: time-saving typically more than one month, worth >30 million US$ © Transfield Worley Services 2009
5
Replace with presenters logo
Typical Flaws:
Leaking flanges/valves, gasket failures, wrong or no gaskets, misaligned flanges,
cross contamination of liquids,
Blocked fine bores…filters, burner tips, instrument tappings catalyst beds,
Non functional systems, equipment, instrumentation, components
Poor or in-operability of systems, equipment….many alarms, trips etc
Incidents with HSE consequences
Non recognition of new technology, new equipment, new components
Non recognition of complex systems requiring significant organisational input etc
Lack of sequenced testing of components, equipment systems, units
Inexperienced organisation or inexperience on new unit/system/equipment © Transfield Worley Services 2009
6
Replace with presenters logo
When to do What ….. Front-End-Loading:
Scout/BOD/BDP
PSPS
EPCDet Eng/Proc/Constr
CSU Comm/SU
45%
10%
40%
5%
More than 50%of flaws originate from the development phases. Resolution clearly requires back integration of these flaws into early project phases….lessons learned. Clearly if these flaws remain until last project phases then significant delay and cost will be the result.
© Transfield Worley Services 2009
7
Replace with presenters logo
When to do What ….. Front-End-Loading: 100%
100%
Influence over cost Cost of changes
OIP/FPD OIP/FPD focus focus needed needed in in the project phases with the project phases with highest highest influence influence and and impact impact
Scouting
BOD/BDP
BDEP/PS
EPC
CSU
Progress © Transfield Worley Services 2009
8
Replace with presenters logo
When to do What ….. Front-End-Loading: 5% costs
SCOUTING SCOUTING
FRONT-END DEVELOPMENT BOD/BDP
BDEP/PS
Good definition
e u l a V
A B
95% costs
VALUE
REALISATION
EPC
CSU
Good execution
A
Poor execution
BB
Good execution
C
Poor execution
D
Poor definition
Good project definition and execution Good project definition and poor project execution
C
Poor project definition and good project execution
D
Poor project definition and poor project execution
© Transfield Worley Services 2009
9
Replace with presenters logo
Plant Performance – Typical vs. Flawless “Target date for production” Flawless Project Delivery and Operation
Reputation e c n a m r o f r e P t n a l P
HSE
$$$ Typical Plant Performance Curve over time
CSU - first year(s) of operation © Transfield Worley Services 2009
10
Replace with presenters logo
Implementation Sequence: Scouting (Identify / Assess)
1. Introduce Flawless in owner org.
FED1 (Select)
2. Roll out Flawless in owner & FEED contr org.
FED 2/3 (Early Define - Define)
3. Roll out Flawless in owner & FEED contr org.
Detailed Eng. (Execute)
4. Roll out Flawless in E&P Organisation
Procurement (Execute)
5. Roll out Flawless in Procurement
Construction (Execute)
6. Roll out Flawless in Construction
Commissioning & SU (Operate)
7. Execute Flawless in Commissioning & SU © Transfield Worley Services 2009
11
Replace with presenters logo
How to start …… The 11 Q’s Business Controls e r u t c u r t S
I P K
. p R m o & o f n R C I
a t a D
Tightness Cleanliness d e t a l e R t e s s A
Integrity
t n e m e g a n a m t c e j o r P , e l u d e h c S
Novelty
Operability & Maint HSE in transition
Complexity Testing Competency&Experience Coinciding Events Information & Data © Transfield Worley Services 2009
12
Replace with presenters logo
Generic Flawless Delivery Road Map: Key Performance Area’s KPI’s, “Cook-book”.
Agree Operations, Maintenance and CSU philosophy’s
Set /Agree Performance Expectations
Generic Flaws listing Novelty/Complexity workshops Mitigation Plans, Q-cases
Identify risks & Flaws
Best Practices (e.g. Systemisation), Lead indicators
Apply Practices Worth replicating
Organise Mitigation or Back-up
Health checks, Measurement Tools.
Track Implementation on measures taken
Correct and Improve
© Transfield Worley Services 2009
14
Replace with presenters logo
Elements of the Q Assurance Plan:
Flawless Start-up policy Operations Implementation Planning Key success areas 11 Q’s Project objectives and targets Key Quality Area - KPI
Strategy policy & objectives Organise
Improve next project Correct
Set standards
s l o r t n o c l a c i p y T
Organisational structure Clear R&R Competence, Experience, Training Documentation and its control
Task breakdown (procedures/work instructions) Job aids, checklists, critical tools and information QA/QC controls and measurement points Test protocols Test and inspection points (number of tests and inspections per item, sample size..) Test and inspection criteria (for both performing the activity/task and acceptance/rejection of) Allowed rejection rates Rejection rate for up scaling of action
Prepare Control Monitor preparations Execute plans Monitor execution
Final review
© Transfield Worley Services 2009
15
Replace with presenters logo
Q-captains action:
Q Roadmap
Project KPIs
Top-Down: KPIs translated into QArea LIs with action plan to keep healthy Bottom-Up: Detailed flaws to be mitigated
FPD FPDKPIs per Q-Area -area
FPD FPDLIs per per Q-Area Q -area
Actions for Q-captain Flaw database per Q-Area
© Transfield Worley Services 2009
16
Replace with presenters logo
Conclusion:
Q Roadmap
Each project phase can produce flaws
If these flaws are not identified within the project phase in which they occur then they get passed onto the next project phase….they may or may not be captured in the next phase
If flaws remain until the CSU project phase then schedule delays and additional rectification costs will be incurred. In many cases these will be significant
Delays = lost revenue = not recoverable for project economics
The best method of identifying these flaws is from past projects and lessons learned i.e. backward integration into the project phases
Clearly a structured process is needed to assist in identifying and mitigating against these flaws. © Transfield Worley Services 2009
19
Replace with presenters logo
Results – Where it went right:
PER+, Shell Pernis, refinery expansion (Hydrocracker, Gasification, Power plant)
Shell Chemicals, Styrene Monomer and Propylene Oxide manufacturing, Moerdijk (Netherlands) and Singapore
Shell Chemicals, Nanhai project (China) – new petrochemical complex
Malampaya – Shell project, Philippines, onshore gas plant
Athabasca Oil Sands, Canada – extension of the Refinery to process
PDO (Oman), Harweel and Qarn Alam, Gas processing facilities
Sakhalin Energy Russia( OPF, BS2, LNG, Pipelines, All offshore Installations )
LNG projects (Oman, Nigeria, Australia, Russia)
Sabic (Saudi Arabia): United (Jubail), Yansab(Yanbu), Saudi Kayan (Jubail), Ar Razi (Jubail), all petrochemicals © Transfield Worley Services 2009
20
Replace with presenters logo
Sakhalin Energy – As an Example Why has it been such a success:
1.) Competent Assessment 2.) Management Commitment 3.) Sponsors Funding 4.) Superiors Support
© Transfield Worley Services 2009
21
Replace with presenters logo
Sakhalin Energy – As an Example SEIC OPF “ Flawless” Team: Superiors: Wim Stel / David DeJong ( Site Manager ) Sponsors: Karl Johnson ( Dty.Commissioning Manager ) + Wolfgang Probst ( Dty Site Manager ) Execution: SEIC OPF Commissioning Team + Commissioning Management Assessment: Peter van Brussel / Marco Houterman – Shell Global Solutions Malaysia
© Transfield Worley Services 2009
22
Replace with presenters logo
The End:
© Transfield Worley Services 2009
23
