Effective Work Package

2006 AACE International I nternational Transactions

PS.13 PEER REVIEWED PAPER

Effective Construction Work Packages Mr. George Richard Gardner

his paper briefly describes the development of • Sho Short rt durat duration ion prov provide idess rapid rapid feedb feedback ack on proba probabil bilit ityy of construction work packages (CWPs) in the oil and meeting schedule and early opportunities to take remedial gas industry, relates the history of the issues involved action. in CWP development and provides an integrated solution to the challenges of project control and measurement. The paper is intended as a practical how to guide and avoids an RESULTS, OBSERVATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS academic approach. Learning curve losses are substantially reduced as crews quickly gain confidence on completion of a work package over a WHY THIS PAPER? short duration. Measurable results can also be seen within a short period of time. Comparison of then and now scenarios indicate  Aft After er track tracking ing many many proj project ectss and carry carrying ing out out severa severall lesson lessonss better execution. Effective integration and feed forward of lessons learned the following was concluded. learned. This article elaborates on a method of developing • We should should elim elimina inate te as many many of of the less lessons ons as as possib possible le by manageably sized (chunks of work) CWPs. taking a proactive approach to execution. • Typi ypicall callyy what what seem seemss to happ happen en is the const construct ruction ion management team wait for problems identified by the INTRODUCTION construction crews and then set about resolving them. • Thi Thiss disr disrupt upted ed the the const construc ructio tion n crews crews whil whilee the CM CM team team Engineering companies develop engineering work packages resolved the issues. (EWPs) for large oil and gas projects. These typically take several months to execute and are too large for effective project control. The CWP provides integration between estimating, field APPLICATION engineering, safety, project controls, and materials management. This process does not eliminate the need for effective work face The CWP development process provides several planning, but rather forms an integral part. The process is a opportunities opportunit ies and advantages: practical approach to execution that is currently being used by a major oil and gas company. • Ef Effe fect ctiv ivee fram framin ingg of cos costt elem elemen ents ts;; • In Inte tegr grat ated ed es esti tima mati ting ng;; • Ef Effe fect ctiv ivee wor workk fac facee pl plan anni ning; ng; BACKGROUND • Pr Proa oact ctiv ivee app appro roac ach h to to exe execu cuti tion on;; • Re Redu duce ced d cha chang nges es du duri ring ng ex execu ecuti tion on;; Currently the greater part of the engineering information is • Ea Easy sy ch chan ange ge ma mana nage geme ment nt;; supplied in EWPs that typically take up to a year to complete. • Res Resolu olutio tion n of Req Reques uests ts for Inf Inform ormati ation on (RF (RFIs) Is) pri prior or to This time period must be shortened to optimize learning curve construction; confidence levels and process knowledge. A CWP execution • Sa Safe fety ty pre pre-p -pla lann nniing ng;; target of one month was selected to provide an early opportunity • Qu Qual alit ityy pr pree-pl plan anni ning ng;; to take corrective action. • Spi Spin-o n-offs ffs incl include ude bette betterr integr integrati ation on and team teamwor workk during during the development of CWPs as the team works to package collaboratively; • Ra Rapi pid d lea learn rnin ingg cur curve ve ma matu turi rity ty;;

T

PS.13.1

2006 AACE International Transactions OBJECTIVE • Improve poor productivity and reduce risk due to reactive • construction management and poor workforce planning. • CWP (CONSTRUCTION WORK PACKAGE) DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

• •

Determine a detailed list of bills of material (BOMs). Determine cost breakdown structure (CBS). Determine resource requirements, i.e. labor, equipment and materials. Sign off on estimating readiness checklist. Identify work environment, height, complexity, accessibility, etc. Expected productivity factors. Inclusions and exclusions. Execution constraints.

• The CWP development process was developed as a result of • root-cause analysis, lessons learned and the need to take a more • proactive approach to project execution. Refer to figures 1 through 3. Field Engineering Engineering work packages (EWP) are frequently too large for effective management and control; their execution can last • Identify and resolve technical issues prior to construction. several months to over a year. • Develop an inspection and testing plan (ITP) package. Typically the crew is several months into construction • Develop a CWP quality document. execution before the realization that the schedule is starting to • Create a CWP-specific scope statement. slip. By the time there is a clear understanding of where things are • Develop pre-pour plans, rigging plans and other specialized going it is usually too late to change the outcome. EWPs must be plans. broken down into manageable sizes, hence the CWP philosophy. • Determine and ensure necessary equipment is available. The CWP process requires a Field Engineer and a Discipline • Prepare turnover documentation. Construction Specialist who from the 3-D model pre-package • Review bills of material (BOMs) for technical and quality chunks of work by area and discipline (according to the Work compliance. Breakdown Structure (WBS)) into packages roughly estimated to • Initiate purchase orders (POs). have construction duration of one month. The rules for work • Receive and verify incoming orders. packaging that apply are: • Initiate non-conformance reports (NCRs) for nonconforming products. • No overlap between discrete work packages; • Identify material overages, shortages and damages (OS&Ds). • Seamless integration of the packages; • Ensure warehousing of materials and supplies retains • Clear cost and estimating delineation. products as fit for purpose. • Sign off on field engineering, materials management and These work packages are entered into a log for future use and quality management readiness checklists. integration into turnover work packages (as most of these large • Ensure all materials are ordered. projects are turned over and started up as systems). • Ensure all materials are ready for construction. As soon as the CWP package has been defined, the necessary • Sign off on field engineering readiness checklist engineering information is compiled and sent to document control. The CWP development team then assembles it. Project Controls The CWP is developed in two sections: The first section provides essential information, documents, plans, drawings, • Ensure measurement metrics are in place. hazard analysis, turnover and quality documents etc. necessary for • Ensure budgets are in place. the construction crews to execute the work. The second section • Ensure cost structure is developed and in place provides site-sensitive data such as detailed estimating data; • Ensure scope items are correctly cost coded. project controls metrics, turnover and acceptance criteria, • Develop a schedule that is manpower-loaded and optimized. performance data and other information that may or not may not • Identify out-of-scope work and initiate change requests. be issued to Construction depending on the organization. • Set up cost-coding structure against Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). • Set up time tracking for CWP. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES • Ensure correct coding of effort. • Verify quantities against original scope. Each team member has two roles: • Measure installed quantities. • Verify completion of CWP. 1. One as a Subject Matter Expert (SME), • Sign off on project controls readiness checklist. 2. The other as a supervisor / functional team lead. The team comprises the following representatives: Estimating PS.13.2

2006 AACE International Transactions • •

Construction • • • • • • •

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

Safety

Less claims resulting from endless changes; Use a separate crew for executing changes after the package has been completed.

CWP Team Collectively • • • •

• • •

Ensure good integration of all activities, i.e. information flows seamlessly from one activity to another. Review and discuss opportunities for improvement. Ensure all the pieces of the puzzle come together prior to construction. Sign off on an overall construction readiness checklist. Any deficiency requires the project manager to make a go or no go decision to proceed with execution.

Review CWP for special safety requirements. Carries out HAZOP to identify specific hazards to the CWP. Identify and establish appropriate Personal Protection Special Instructions Equipment (PPE). • Arrange timely safety training. • Any special instructions pertaining to a work package need to • Sign off on safety readiness checklist. be stated to ensure nothing is missed. This will prevent substantial re-work. This might also identify specific risks, that Document Control the construction team is aware of can be prevented or mitigated. • Ensure all drawings for the CWP are current and that the latest revisions have been used for the CWP development. • Receive completed CWPs that are ready for construction. LESSONS LEARNED CWPs that cannot be completed or are not ready are also placed in document control but have a hold placed until the Several "lessons learned" were identified early on and one of outstanding issues are resolved. the problems due to a late start was the co-location of the CWP • Document all arrival and departure dates of information and development team could not be implemented as team members data flow. were distributed over three distant locations. A scheduled CWP review meeting effectively reduced the problem. Teams should be Project Planner treated as though they were co-located to ensure unity of purpose. Another issue was the availability of quality assurance staff for ITP • Determine scheduling priorities in conjunction with the development. Using field engineers, who effectively managed construction manager. quality, field engineering and material management issues, • Support work face planning with construction supervision mitigated this. This reduced the overall cost and size of the CWP • Ensure the correct number of CWPs is under execution development team. Originally the intent was for the CWP team to according to the agreed cash flow and manpower loading. package the work but this did not work. It was more effective to use a Field Engineer and a Construction Specialist to pre-package CWP Development Team (typically 5 members) the work using the 3-D model prior to the CWP team packaging the work. • Provide issue resolution for construction teams The Field Engineer and the Construction Specialist • Have a comprehensive understanding of the CWPs that they managed both the packaging and subsequent development and have developed. this kept the team to a manageable cost and size. • Are able to provide clear understanding of execution strategy, Optimal work package sizes have been stated as not basis of estimate and what is in scope and what is not. exceeding 80 hours. Given the sheer size of the project this would result in an excessive number of CWPs and this remains to be Construction Crew optimized for these large projects. Early results are extremely positive and feedback indicates a high probability of • Execute CWP according to mini plan that provides the strat- organizational acceptance. egy for execution, the scope, schedule, and all of the For optimal cost / benefit ratio, work-package sizing should be necessary information to execute as planned. a one-step process rather than the current two-step process Once the CWP has been executed and signed off as complete and Expect the following benefits all quality requirements are met, lessons learned review is carried out between the CWP Team and the Construction Crew. • Motivated workforce; • Minimal changes and disruption during execution; The Questions to Ask • Better productivity; PS.13.3

2006 AACE International Transactions •

Did we provide you with the right amount of information to properly execute this work package? What can we do better for future CWPs? Did we provide you with too much information? If so where can we reduce it?

a multi-stage process at best. At worst, large CWPs (i.e., EWPs) will continue to be executed without further decomposition and • projects will continue with unreliable forecasts. Work packaging • can become an effective tool in the project management process if implemented with specific goals in mind. They are not a panacea for construction planning failures and they take time to This is carried out a few times until the process is optimized. implement and to be learned effectively. CWP Provide a Requirements vary form project-to-project and are dependent consistent methodology that facilitates optimization and cost upon the experience of the crews. It is essential that this lessons reduction (over time). learned review be carried out as soon as possible to ensure rapid optimization and cost benefit to subsequent CWPs. It is important that once a CWP has been executed that it is closed out and no CHALLENGES further activity is necessary until system turnover and commissioning takes place. Generally implementation went well the biggest challenges were: •

BENEFITS Once the CWP team has become optimized there are a number of benefits to be realized: • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

Higher productivity; Cost and schedule reduction; Efficient processing of work package development; Better motivation of work crews through reduced changes, holds and delays and the appearance that construction management might actually know what they are doing. This results in substantially reduced frustrations amongst work crews; Better integration among estimating, construction, field engineering, materials management, safety and project control teams; Reduction of claims; Construction management has ownership and understanding of work package planning and are able to resolve technical questions easily; Early RFI resolution prior to execution. This prevents delays and frustrations among workers who are now able to get on and build the job; A checklist process, i.e. a documented readiness assessment) for record purposes and identifying and resolving issues at the time Rapid learning curve for construction crews; A sense of accomplishment early on due to something being completed; Lessons learned are carried forward to future CWPs rather than waiting until the project's end when it is too late to benefit from lessons learned; Easier scheduling and schedule management; Better capture of scope changes and changes to execution strategy.

•

Formally applying lessons learned. These were informally implemented. The necessary records that may be used for transfer of knowledge across the organization. Whilst the fixes will benefit the project they may not be communicated for the benefit of all. Electrical disciplines are currently being tested and slightly more difficult to configure compared to civil and mechanical CWPs OPPORTUNITIES Two schools of thought on the CWP process were formed:

• •

The project manager develops the CWPs consistently for every project that are removed from the project team; Field Construction Management Staff develop the CWPs and provide on the spot expertise for the Construction Team.

Packaging of work may take place in the engineering house providing that the packages are small and completed in a month or less. The real benefit comes from site team members resolving technical issues and ensuring readiness for construction on site. They are now have an in depth understanding of the work to be performed and ensure all materials, tools and equipment are ready. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to acknowledge the following support in producing this article: • •

ork packages must be small enough to provide rapid feedback to crews. They must provide a • sense of accomplishment without being sized such as to become unmanageable. Until the CWP sizes have been optimized among the client, the • engineering house and the construction contractor it will remain

W

PS.13.4

Flint Infrastructure Services Ltd. for its permission and support of this paper. The following people for providing practical feedback, implementing the process and ensuring its success: Robert Beekhuizen P.Eng. M.Sc. (Eng). Who persisted in ensuring the process was followed and held frequent meetings to ensure effective integration. Paul Goolcharan P.Eng. A champion of the process from the start and provided valuable input.

2006 AACE International Transactions • • • • • •

Petra Polster who provided valuable input and suggestions. Mario Potapczuk P.Eng. Who executed the process and provided valuable feedback on opportunities for improvement and many practical suggestions. Robert Micholuk P.Eng.—AACE Chinook provided a valuable review and suggestions for improvement Michael Kwalachuk who provided valuable input on the practical realities and process changes. Ken Shultz who tirelessly provided estimating data and suggestions. Carlos Tan P.Eng. A firm supporter and champion to the process.

Mr. George Richard Gardner Senior Project Manager Flint Energy Services 700 300-5th Avenue, SW Calgary, AB T2P 3C4 Canada Phone: 403-218-7100 Email: [email protected]

PS.13.5

2006 AACE International Transactions

Figure 1—CWP Packaging, Engineering Phase PS.13.6


Figure 2—CWP Packaging, Execution Preparation Stage PS.13.7


Figure 3—CWP Packaging, Readiness Stage PS.13.8


Figure 4—CWP Components PS.13.9


Figure 5 PS.13.10

Effective Work Package

Recommend Documents