manuel a. garcia, p.e. associate director, cii cockrell school of engineering
DESCRIPTION
Facilitating Economic Growth in Cuba Shared Visions for Cuba-US Relations Conference Austin, Texas January 29-30, 2009. Manuel A. Garcia, P.E. Associate Director, CII Cockrell School of Engineering The University of Texas at Austin. Potential Scenario Construction Industry Institute - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
04/21/23
1
Facilitating Economic Growth in CubaShared Visions for Cuba-US Relations ConferenceAustin, TexasJanuary 29-30, 2009
Manuel A. Garcia, P.E.Associate Director, CIICockrell School of EngineeringThe University of Texas at Austin
2
• Potential Scenario• Construction Industry Institute• Facilitation Tools
Today’s Presentation
3
• Potential Scenario– Improved Cuba-US Relations– Opportunity for economic growth– Tight financial markets– Higher financial bar to overcome– Opportunity for different capital project
execution methods
4
What is CII?
•A consortium of leading owners, contractors &
suppliers, and academia working to improve the
constructed project and the capital investment process.
•A research unit of the Cockrell School of Engineering
at The University of Texas at Austin
5
Construction Industry Institute- Owner Members
AbbottThe AES CorporationAir Products and ChemicalsAlcoaAmeren CorporationAmgen Inc.American Transmission Co.Anheuser-Busch- InbevAramco Services CompanyArcher Daniels Midland Co.BP America, Inc.Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.Cargill, Inc.ChevronCITGO Petroleum Corp.Codelco-ChileConocoPhillipsDFW International AirportThe Dow Chemical Co.DuPontEastman Chemical Company
Eli Lilly and CompanyExxonMobil CorporationGeneral Motors Corp.GlaxoSmithKlineHovensa L.L.C.Intel CorporationInternational PaperKaiser PermanenteKraft FoodsMarathon Oil CorporationNASANAVFACNOVA Chemicals Corp.Occidental Petroleum Corp.Ontario Power GenerationPetrobrasPraxair, Inc.The Procter & Gamble Co.Progress Energy, Inc.Rohm and Haas Company
Sasol TechnologyShell Oil CompanySmithsonian InstitutionSolutia Inc.Southern CompanySunoco, Inc.Tennessee Valley AuthorityTyson Foods, Inc.U.S. Architect of the CapitolU.S. Army Corps of
EngineersU.S. Dept. of
Commerce/NIST/BFRLU.S. Dept. of EnergyU.S. Dept. of Health &
Human ServicesU.S. Dept. of StateU.S. General Services
AdministrationU.S. SteelVale
6
Construction Industry Institute- Contractor Members
Adolfson & Peterson Construction
Aker SolutionsAlstom Power Inc.AMEC, Inc.Atkins Faithful & GouldAutodesk, Inc.AZCO INC.Baker Concrete ConstructionBarton Malow CompanyBateman Engineering N.V.Bechtel Group, Inc.BIS Frucon Industrial Svcs. Black & VeatchBowen Engineering Corp.Burns & McDonnellCB&ICCC Group, Inc.CDI Engineering SolutionsCH2M HILLCSA Group
Day & Zimmermanndck Worldwide LLCDresser-Rand CompanyEmerson Process Mgt.Fluor CorporationFoster Wheeler USA Corp.Grinaker-LTA/E+PCGross Mechanical
ContractorsGS Engineering &
Construction Hargrove and Associates,
Inc.HatchHill International, Inc.Hilti CorporationJacobsJMJ Associates Inc.KBRKiewit Power ConstructionM. A. Mortenson CompanyMcDermott International, Inc.
MustangParsonsPathfinder LLCPegasus Global HoldingsPrimavera Systems, Inc.R. J. Mycka, Inc.S&B Engineers and
Constructors, Ltd.The Shaw Group Inc.Siemens Energy, Inc.SNC-Lavalin Inc.TechnipURS CorporationVictaulic CompanyWalbridgeThe Weitz Company, Inc.Worldwater & Solar
TechnologiesWorleyParsonsZachryZurich
7
University of Alabama
Arizona State University
Auburn University
Bucknell University
Carnegie Mellon University
University of Cincinnati
Clemson University
University of Colorado-Boulder
Colorado State University
Columbia University
University of California-Berkeley
East Carolina University
University of Florida
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Houston
University of Illinois
Iowa State University
University of Kansas
University of Kentucky
Lehigh University
University of Maryland
University of Michigan
Mississippi State University
Universities involved in CII Research 1983-2008University of New Mexico
North Carolina State University
North Dakota State University
Oklahoma State University
Oregon State University
The Pennsylvania State University
University of Pittsburgh
Purdue University
Polytechnic University
San Diego State University
San Jose State University
Stanford University
State University of New York-Albany
Vanderbilt University
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Texas A&M University
The University of Texas at AustinUniversity of Washington
University of Waterloo
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
8
CII Mission
• Enhance business effectiveness and sustainability of the capital facility life cycle
9
CII History
• Established as a recommendation from The Business Roundtable CICE Project to address:– construction research
– fragmentation of the industry
• Founded in 1983 by 28 companies;Now 116 members
• First to bring research to the engineering-construction world
• First industry-government-academic research collaboration for the constructed project
10
• CII Practices (Facilitation Tools)– Widely researched and applied– Identified through proven research methodology– Yielding positive results– Supported by ready to use manuals
11
Results
12
Value of CII Best Practices(CII Owners)
Note: Average Budget 53 Million, submitted after 2002 (n=152)
Bet
ter
13
Value of CII Best Practices(CII Owners)
Note: Average Planned Duration 135 weeks, submitted after 2002 (n=152)
Bet
ter
14
DART (1989-2007)
15
1,646 projects
Worth > $76 Billion
Large & Small Projects Combined
719(44%) 927
(56%)
OwnersContractors
CII Database
312 (19%)
1,334(81%)
International
Domestic
16
Alignment
• Projects participants working in harmony to develop and meet a uniformly defined and understood set of project objectives.
Initial Application
17
Elements of Alignment
Business Planning
Pre-Project PlanningProject Execution
Facility Operation
Business
Executive
Project
Functional
Project Life Cycle AlignmentCross-Organizational Alignment
Top-to-Bottom Alignment
18
Alignment Index vs. Performance Analysis (from recent Research Team 213 data)
Performance Less than Median Greater than Median
Cost 3.3% over budget 6.5% below budget
Med. = 7.81
(N=30) (N=34)
Schedule 24.5% behind
schedule8.4% behind
schedule
(N=33) (N=35)
Change orders 8.2% of budget 7.6% of budget
(N=26) (N=27)
Alignment Index Score*
*Alignment During Pre Project Planning
19
Partnering• Project specific partnering
– Project objectives focused; short term.
• Strategic alliances– Enterprise objectives focused; long term
Optimum Application
Partnering StrategyFor
ABC Partners
20
Partnering Process Model
Owner’s Internal
Alignment
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Work Process
Alignment
Partnering Relationship
Alignment
Project Alignment
Partner Selection
• Identify Business Drivers
• Evaluate Partnering
• Prepare and Align
• Select Optimum Partner
• Align Objectives
• Develop Measures
• Develop Reward System
• Develop “Win / Win”Objectives
• Reward Accomplish -ment of Objectives
• Establish Intraproject Goals
• Establish Processes to Support Measures
21
Benchmarking Partnering vs. Traditional Construction
Category Result Area Results
Cost Total Project Cost (TPC)
Construction Administration
Marketing
Engineering
Value Engineering
Claims (% of TPC)
Profitability
10% reduction
24% reduction
50% reduction
$10 per hour reduction
337% increase
87% reduction
25% increase
Schedule Overall Project
Schedule Changes
Schedule Compliance
20% reduction
48% reduction
Increased from 85% to 100%
Safety Hours without lost time accidents
Lost work days
Number of doctor cases
Safety rating
3 million vs.
48,000 industry standard
4 vs. 6.8 industry standard
74% reduction
5% of national average
Quality Rework
Change orders
Direct work rate
50% reduction
80% reduction
42% increase
Claims Number of claims
Projects with claims
83% reduction
68% reduction
Other Job satisfaction 30% improvement
22
Front End PlanningFront end planning is also known as:• Front end loading• Pre project planning• Feasibility analysis
Initial Application
• Conceptual planning• Programming/schematic design• Early project planning
23
0 FeasibilityFeasibility 1 ConceptConcept 2 Design and Design and
Construction Construction
3
Front End Planning Process
Initiate Phase
Generate Options
Filter Options
PDRI 1
Feasibility Report
Initiate Phase
Preliminary Design/Eng.
Preliminary Des./Eng. Reviews
PDRI 2i
Finalize Scope Definition
Cost & Schedule Control Estimates
PDRI 3
Project Definition Package
Initiate Phase
Analyze Alternatives
Conceptual Scope and Estimates
Evaluate and Select Best Alternatives
Concept Phase Report
PDRI 2
DetailedDetailedScopeScope
24
Recent CII Pre-Project Planning Benefit Data from Research Team 213
• Sample of 609 projects, $37 billion
• Results of good front end planning:
Cost: 10 percent less
Schedule: 7 percent shorter delivery
Changes: 5 percent fewer
25
Definition of Constructability
The optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning, design, procurement, and field operations in order to achieve project objectives
Initial Application
26
The Constructability Process:
27
Benefits of Constructability
• Avg. 4.3% reduction in project costs.• Avg. 7.5% reduction in project schedule.
• Potential to improve:• Security, safety, & environmental impact.• Project quality.• Operability, functionality, and reliability.• Project team relationships.• Rework and rescheduling on the project.
28
Definition of Materials Management
Integrated process for planning & controlling all necessary efforts to – Specify– Procure– Deliver materials & equipment to the job
site.
Initial Application
29
Benefits of Materials Management
Average % Improvement
Reduced bulk supplies 40Improved supplier performance 24Cash flow savings 23Reduced site storage and handling 21Improved craft labor productivity 16Improved project schedule 16Reduced management personnel 15Reduced risk 5
30
Planning for Startup• Planning for the transitional phase between plant
construction completion & commercial operations, including:– Systems turnover.– Check-out of systems.– Commissioning of systems. – Introduction of feedstocks. – Performance testing.
Initial Application
31
Benefits of Planning for Startup
• Provides common objectives & plan for:– System turnover, checkout, commissioning & filling.
– Performance testing.
– Business unit & plant operations.
– Owner project management.
• Involves key front-end stakeholders before design is fixed.– Project Management, Engineering, Construction
– Plus Startup Manager, Plant Operations & Maintenance.
• Increased focus on:– Cost elements of startup.
– Estimate accuracy.
– Meeting commercial operations date.
• Timely & thorough identification of problems & issues during planning phase…before startup activities.
32
CII Best Practices
Project Planning Phase
• Partnering
• Alignment of Project Objectives
• Pre-Project Planning
• Team Building
Design Phase
• Constructability
• Materials Management
Construction/Startup Phase
• Planning for Start-Up
• Zero Accidents Techniques
Project Life Cycle
• Benchmarking
• Change Management & Scope Control
• Disputes Resolution
• Implementation of CII Research
• Lessons Learned
• Quality Management
33
Other CII Practices (CII Best Practice Candidates)
Project Planning Phase• Attract and Maintain Skilled Workers• Automated Identification• Effective Use of Global Engineering Workforce
• Environmental Remediation Management• Equitable Risk Allocation• International Project Risk Assessment• Leader Selection• Modularization/Preassembly• Organizational Work Structure• Project Delivery and Contract Strategies• Project Security• Project Teams• Technology Implementation• Value Management• Work Process Simulation
Design/ Construction/ Startup Phases• Craft Productivity Practices• Design for Maintainability• Design for Safety• Engineering Productivity Measurement• Piping Design
Project Life• Cost & Schedule Control• Employee Incentives• Fully Integrated and Automated Project Processes (FIAPP)
• Lessons Learned• Management of Education & Training• Managing Workers’ Compensation • Project Health Assessment• Small Projects Execution
34
Value of Best PracticesTheoretical Relationship
High
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.24th Quartile 2nd Quartile 1st Quartile
Practice Use
Perf
orm
an
ce
BetterBetter
3rd Quartile
Low
35
Construction Industry InstituteConstruction Industry Institute
www.construction-institute.org
Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!
Manuel A. GarciaAssociate Director
Construction Industry Institute3925 W. Braker Lane (R4500)
Austin, TX 78759-5316(512) 232 1966