Tool selection - Introduction to Project Controls

ance against approved base- lines, WorleyParsons have selected tools which enables them to

1) manage the EPCM / PMC projects (TIC management) on behalf of a client 2) execute and manage Engi-

neering & Procurement (EP) services projects (self performing contracts) WorleyParsons utilizes the

following tools:

Engineering / Project Man- agement Services:

•

InControl V8.0 / V10 - Inte- grated deliverable management/document control system that generates planned and actual progress status against Engineering & Pro- ject Management deliverables

•

GBS (Oracle) OTL — Cap- tures time-cost at Control Account level

• Primavera P6 - Schedule performance (planned, actual and forecasts) as well as graphic reporting (Bar- Charts, S-Curves, Histo- grams etc.) based on progress actuals generated by InControl.

TIC Management:

•

Primavera 3.1, 5.0 or 6.0 - (see Engineering / Procure- ment Services).

Page 42

• PrimaVera Risk - tool for conducting schedule risk assessments. The system uses Monte Carlo simulation to show the many possible outcomes (end dates) in the project – as well as the likelihood they are to occur

•

InControl v10 / Prediction

Plus - Applications designed to manage TIC performance on behalf of the client (from the detail engineering stage through to commissioning and close-out).

• CAMS (Contract Administra- tion Management System) centralizes contract information (commitment value, variance management and contract correspondence and cash flow-

management).

• Intergraph SmartPlant Materials – Software for Procurement and materials management. (Material Specifications, Requisition- ing, Evaluation, PO genera- tion, Expediting, Fabrication

management, Store/ Warehouse management, Invoice reconciliation) • CMT - Completions Manage-

ment Tool for planning and monitoring of commissioning activities, as well as logging of all evidences necessary to the process

• @Risk - WorleyParsons uses @RISK as its preferred tool to conduct cost risk assessments. The system uses Monte Carlo simulation to show the many possible outcomes (Cost At Comple- tion) in the project – as well as the likelihood they are to occur.

• Quest - Estimating system designed as a tool to aid estimators in the preparation of major capital cost estimates.(bottom up) • Kbase Aspentech - Esti-

mating tool that supports conceptual and detailed cost estimates over the project lifecycle. (top down)

• Accenta - tool to manage internal commercial project performance (PCS) used mainly in US/Europe • ProComs - tool to manage

internal commercial project performance (PCS) used in Asia/Middle East

• Hyperion - Hyperion is fi- nancial performance management software; used for financial consolidation and accounting functions at WorleyParsons. Having a central (global) database, it makes for consistent financial reporting and ease of consolidation across the global business.

In order to produce timely reports and results, the systems used by WorleyParsons allow for data transfer between each application, without the need for re-keying information. The flow of information on a EPCM/PMC is as follows: The flow of information is as shown in on page 42. PCDP Module 1 - Introduction to Project Controls.

Rev 0

“They don’t

make bugs

like Bunny

anymore”

~/~

Olav Mjelde

Pa

ge 43

PC D P Mod u le 1 - Int rod uc tio n t o Pr oj e c t C ont ro ls . Rev 0

Enterprise Management System (EMS)

Knowledge Management Systems and Project Websites

Client Systems Finance &

Administration Systems

Project Controls Systems Engineering &

Design Systems Procurement & Construction Systems Document / Data Management Systems HSE Management System OmniSafe Management Re- porting & Budget

Tracking Hyperion Timecards & Financial Manage- ment System Oracle / GBS Planning/Scheduling Schedule Risk Analysis Primavera P6 Primavera Risk Capital Cost Estimating Quest / Kbase Aspentech Capital Cost Risk Analysis @Risk

V8/10: Cost & Progress Management (Engineering & Project Management Services) Prediction Plus: Cost & Progress Management

(Total Installed Cost)

InControl V8.0 / V10 Prediction Plus Project Commer- cial Performance (Internal PCS) Accenta / ProComs CMT SmartPlant Materials Completions Management Tool - Procurement - Materials Mngm’t - Expediting - Logistics Control - Stores Mngm’t CAMS Contracts Administration System Engineering Applications Various Document & Data Management Client Documentation SmartPlant Foundation Document & Data Management

EDS TOOLKIT

Page 44

PCDP Module 1 - Introduction to Project Controls. Rev 0

“If the minimum

wasn't

acceptable it

wouldn't be

called the

minimum”.

~/~

George

Muncaster

7 . 0 S C H E D U L E DE V E L O P M E N T M E T H O D O L O G Y

(how much is it going to cost?) and a Level 3 EPC Schedule (how long is it going to take?). In order to achieve this, the project team studies various Technical and Project Execu- tion options. As the project pro- gresses, the various technical options are reviewed, and subsequently selected for further definition or stopped all together.

By continuously narrowing down the options, new work- fronts will open up, and study efforts will concentrate on get-

ting more definition into the selected technical options. The focus of a Definition Phase Project Schedule is to ensure that the project is ’hitting’ the deliverable milestones that are driving these key decisions. Execute Phase Schedules: The objective of the Execution Phase is to issue AFC Docu- mentation & Drawings, and expedite Equipment & Materials delivery to support the Procure- ment / Fabrication / Construc- tion / Commissioning process. There is a difference between

managing schedules for projects in a Definition Phase and projects in an Execution Phase. This is because these project phases are driven by different project objectives and deliverables (defining the Scope of Works versus executing the SOW)

Evaluate / Define Phase Schedules:

The objective of the Definition Phase is to deliver a defined Scope of Works for the Execu- tion Phase (what needs to be done?), a Class 3 Estimate

accomplishes, and therefore suggesting that the project is under-performingand in trouble

.

This is not necessarily the case; in order to get the project in a position where it can make some key-decisions on the best way forward, a significant num- ber of hours will have to be expended up front to study the various technical and project execution options & scenarios. Many deliverables that support these different technical options could be held up at the various “Issue for Review” or “for Com- ments” stages, waiting for a directive on how to proceed. Subsequently, the project has relatively low physical progress to show.

The example shows that at the time of the HAZOP (4 months into the schedule) the project is still only 30% complete while already 70% of the budget has been expended.

However, during the HAZOP, (Hazardous Operations workshop) some key decisions were made, and the progress curve changes behaviour rapidly:

work-fronts have opened up, deliverables are finalized with relatively little effort (or can- celled all together), and the red progress-curve has gone up steeply (from 30 to 90% in 6 weeks).

The blue expenditure curve stays pretty much linear throughout the duration of the project..

Therefore, the common performance calculation methods (comparison Cost against Achievement) need to be applied with care to avoid unnec- essary panic and recovery scheduling exercises. To present a more reliable schedule performance picture, the planner could consider one of the following measures: • the introduction of greater

level of detail (additional progress gates or schedule activities)

• monitoring the milestone ’hit- rate’ against Planned Mile- stone dates as opposed to just measuring physical progress of weighted activities against Planned Progress. 7.1 EVALUATE / DEFINE

PHASE (FEED SCHEDULES) An Evaluate/Define phase schedule (FEED) has different drivers compared to an Execu- tion Phase schedule and therefore they require a different management and performance measurement approach. A typical 6-months FEED Schedule could look something like the simplified example on page 39:

A FEED schedule is usually back-loaded in terms of progress achievement, while the expenditure will be either front- loaded or, at best, linear. For most of the duration of the project, the Performance curve (Expenditure versus Progress) of a Select/Define project will show a ‘distorted’ performance picture.

Especially in the first few months, the dotted red progress-curve will be lagging behind the solid blue expenditure curve; usually an indicator that the project spends more than it

Pa

ge 45

EXAMPLE MILESTONE SCHEDULE FORMAT (FEED)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

START FEED REVIEW CONCEPT STUDIES

12 wks

2 wks

IDC / BASIS OF DESIGN / EQUIP.LIST DESIGN.REVIEW

16 wks

START BUDGET ENQUIRIES

START 3D MODEL

20 wks

22 wks

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS / DESIGN 60% 3D MODEL 80%

COMPLETE PRELIM MTO

CLIENT TECH REVIEW

TIC COST ESTIMATE / EPC SCHEDULE

IFD DRAWINGS ANALYSIS / DESIGN 100%

26 wks

FEED CLOSE-OUT FINAL REPORTS / MTO IFD- PACKAGE

FEED – 30%

COMPLETE

IFD LAY-OUTS IFC HAZOP

FEED – 90%

COMPLETE

MOBILISATION COMPLETED KEY PROCESS DELIVERABLES FROZEN PRELIM MTO

4 wks

DATA COLLECTION

10 wks

PFD’s HAZID

14 wks

8 wks

DEFINE EQUIPMENT LAYOUT START STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS / DESIGN INSTALLATION / CONSTRUCTION PHILOSOPHY

24 Wks

BUDGET QUOTATIONS

20 wks

24 wks

3D MODEL 30% COMPLETE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

START FEED REVIEW CONCEPT STUDIES

12 wks

2 wks

IDC / BASIS OF DESIGN / EQUIP.LIST DESIGN.REVIEW

16 wks

START BUDGET ENQUIRIES

START 3D MODEL

20 wks

22 wks

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS / DESIGN 60% 3D MODEL 80%

COMPLETE PRELIM MTO

CLIENT TECH REVIEW

TIC COST ESTIMATE / EPC SCHEDULE

IFD DRAWINGS ANALYSIS / DESIGN 100%

26 wks

FEED CLOSE-OUT FINAL REPORTS / MTO IFD- PACKAGE

FEED – 30%

COMPLETE

IFD LAY-OUTS IFC HAZOP

FEED – 90%

COMPLETE

MOBILISATION COMPLETED KEY PROCESS DELIVERABLES FROZEN PRELIM MTO

4 wks

DATA COLLECTION

10 wks

PFD’s HAZID

14 wks

8 wks

DEFINE EQUIPMENT LAYOUT START STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS / DESIGN INSTALLATION / CONSTRUCTION PHILOSOPHY

24 Wks

BUDGET QUOTATIONS

20 wks

24 wks

3D MODEL 30% COMPLETE PROGRESS 100% - 90% - 80% - 70% - 60% - 50% - 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% - 0% - EXPENDITURE - 100% - 90% - - 80% - 70% - 60% - 50% - 40% - 30% - 20% - 10% - 0%

PCDP Module 1 - Introduction to Project Controls. Rev 0

Page 46

PCDP Module 1 - Introduction to Project Controls. Rev 0

(note: Fast Track means over- lapping project stages, in other words, engineering and procur- ing are still ongoing when the construction is already started)

Examples of projects where schedules have been com- pressed towards the start-date or end date are plentiful, and has often resulted in: • Unrealistic/Unachievable

Milestone dates at either the front-end or the back-end of the project

• No commitment (“dream on”!), or at best, reluctant buy-in (“un-realistic, but we’ll do our best…”) from the other stake-holders. • Almost from day one, a con-

tinuous cycle of Recovery Plans and revised Recovery Plans

• Inefficiencies in Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Commissioning work processes due to constant moving targets.

• An environment of missed deadlines, excuses, finger-

pointing between client, contractors & Project Team mem- bers and, subsequently large Project staff turn-over (personal frustration or victim of a ‘blame’ culture). EPC-driven Schedule An alternative method is the “Multi-stakeholder”-driven scheduling technique, an interactive schedule development process that involves all schedule stakeholders (Engineering, Procure- ment, Construction & Commis- sioning), without handing any of them a “blank cheque” starting point.

This is an important difference compared to the traditional “Single Stakeholder” schedule techniques, where the outcome usually favours one stakeholder only (e.g. Construction) and could result in inefficient work- processes in other project stages.

So how does this process work? The following pages will show a step-by-step outline of this schedule development method: 7.2 EXECUTE PHASE

The most common method for developing EPC schedules is the “Single Stakeholder”- driven EPC schedule development. This principle usually works as follows (simplified):

Construction-driven Schedule Determine what the end-date is, and then work back from that date to determine the Commis- sioning, Construction, Procure- ment and Engineering activities. or

Engineering-driven Schedule Reverse of the Construction Schedule, start with the Engi- neering AFC deliverables and work forward.

Although both techniques are commonly applied across the globe, they both represent a rather one-dimensional view of the project delivery process, and in a “Fast-Track” Project execution environment, these techniques can result in some ‘tensed’ interfaces between the various schedule stakeholders.

Page 47

PCDP Module 1 - Introduction to Project Controls.

Rev 0 Development Step Description Step

1

: Workshop: ‘Execution Strategy-On-A- Page’

By: Project Stakeholders Method: Workshop Inputs:

Contractual project milestones, key dates and end-dates Major / Critical Equipment list;

Permit requirements Contract Award Lead times Procurement PO award lead times;

Benchmarks Equipment / Materials delivery lead-times; Benchmarks Engineering and Construction timing Key deliverables:

Target EPC execution strategy

Preliminary Authority Approval / Permitting strategy Preliminary Procurement strategy

Preliminary Contract strategy Close Out:

High level ‘One-page’ EPC execution strategy to kick off the Level 3

schedule development process (Steps 2-7).

Step

2

: Develop First Pass EPC Schedule and Preliminary Critical Path By: Planner

Method: Forward Pass Inputs:

Execution Strategy-On-A-Page as developed in Step 1 Preliminary Equipment list;

Procurement PO award lead times

Benchmarks Equipment / Materials delivery lead-times; Key deliverables:

Preliminary ETA dates (Estimate Time Arrival) Equipment & Materials Preliminary early start (ES) dates of the construction-activity ‘windows’ based on ETA dates equipment & materials

Preliminary engineering schedule for AFC deliverables issue-dates to support achieving the ETA dates and Construction ES dates

Close Out:

Preliminary Level 3 EPC schedule, with pre-determined

“constraints”, to be used as basis for schedule development by all individual stakeholders (as opposed to the ‘blank piece of paper’ approach.)

“The sooner

you get behind

schedule, the

more time you

have to make it

up.”

~/~

Author

Unknown

Page 48

PCDP Module 1 - Introduction to Project Controls. Rev 0

2009 2010 2011

A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

KEY MILESTONES

Contract Award Contract Award

Mechanical Completion Mechanical Completion

Ready for Operation Ready For Operation

PRE-CONTRACT ACTIVITIES

PDS Set Up PDS Set Up

Geotechnical & Topographical Survey Completed Geotechnical & Topographical Survey Completed

Permits & Work Authorization System Established Permits & Work Authorization System Established

Office / Warehouses / Laydown areas Office / Warehouses / Laydown areas

Control Valves Specifications available Control Valves Specifications available

PERMITS

Environmantal Agreement Environmantal Agreement

Fire Authority Agreeement Fire Authority Agreeement

Public Health Authority Agreement Public Health Authority Agreement

Construction Permit Construction Permit

DETAILED ENGINEERING 1st Rev P&ID HAZOP HAZOP P&ID P&ID AFC

Process

Preli m Struct GA's Prelim M TO Final GA's Final M TO

Civil

M echanical DS 30% M odel Review 60% M odel Review Final GA's Final M TO

Piping

Electrical DS SLD's Prelim M TO Fi nal Lay-outs Final M TO

Electrical

Control Val ve DS Prelim M TO Final DCS/ESD I/O List Final M TO

Instrument PROCUREMENT

Columns Crtitical Vendor Data

Reactors Ex Works

Waste Heat Boilers Delivery On Site

Exchangers Pumps Control Valves Switchgears DCS/ESD Systems

Bulk Piping, valves & fittings 1st Delivery

Bulk Steel 1st Delivery

Bulk Electrical Cables 1st Delivery

Instrument Bulks 1st Delivery

CONTRACTS

SOW / MTO available SOW / MTO available

NOI / Bid list process for contractors Civil Contractor Structural Contractor Scaffolding contractor Mechanical/Piping Contractor E&I Contractor CONSTRUCTION

Site excavation, Remedial and Preparation

Site Ready for Construction Site Ready for Construction

Contractor mobilization Substation erection

Substation Equipment installation Substation Commissioning Underground Services

Structural Steel - off site fabrication Structural Steel - Erection Mechanical Equipment Installation Piping Prefabrication

Piping Erection E& I works Systems Hand-over Commissioning

Page 49

PCDP Module 1 - Introduction to Project Controls. Rev 0 Development Step Description Step

3

: Develop high level Construc- tion Schedule

By: Planner / Construction Manager / Procurement Manager Method: Forward Pass

Inputs:

Construction / Completions strategy based on ES and ETA date restric- tions determined in Step 2

High level construction tasks and durations (at this stage, Activity- windows rather than detailed Tasks)

High level constructability review (consideration of large equipment installation and access).

Benchmarks Construction manhours to cross-check durations.

The “Construction - Procurement” schedule ‘busts’ identified in Step 2 Key Deliverables:

Level 3 construction schedule supported by achievable ETA dates Conversion ETA dates into ROS dates (Required on Site)

Engineering AFC target dates Construction / Fabrication drawings & documents

Close-out :

A “Construction/Procurement Agreed” Level 3 construction base- line schedule based on achievable ROS dates

Step

4

: Develop Procurement Schedule

By: Planner / Procurement Manager / Engineering Manager Method: Backward Pass

Inputs:

ROS dates as per construction schedule developed in Step 3 Firmed up procurement PO / delivery lead time cycle.

The “Procurement - Engineering” schedule ‘busts’ identified in Step 3. Key Deliverables:

Procurement schedule with achievable PO Award and ROS dates Expediting plan for Material & Equipment Delivery on Site

Vendor data expediting plan to support AFC dates construction / fabrication drawings & docs

Close-out:

An “Engineering/Construction/Procurement” agreed procurement plan with realistic ROS dates and vendor data expediting targets

“How long is a

minute

depends on

which side of

the bathroom

door you are

on.”

~/~

Page 50

PCDP Module 1 - Introduction to Project Controls. Rev 0 Development Step Description Step

5

: Develop Engineering Schedule

By: Planner / Engineering Manager / Lead Engineers Method: Backward Pass

Inputs:

Target RFQ dates as per procurement schedule developed in Step 4 Target AFC dates for construction / fabrication drawings as construction schedule developed in Step 3

Benchmarks Engineering manhours to cross-check durations.

The “Engineering - Construction ” schedule ‘busts’ identified in Step 2 Key Deliverables:

Milestone dates and priorities for RFQ input-deliverables. Milestone dates and priorities for engineering AFC deliverables Close-out :

Schedule Risk Range/Analysis workshop with all internal project stakeholders (ref Chapter 16 - Risk Analysis)

Schedule Risk Analysis Report

Level 3 EPC Baseline schedule with agreed engineering, procure- ment and construction targets and priorities

Step

6

: Contracting Plan

By: Planner / Project Manager / Contracts Manager Method: Backward Pass

Inputs:

EPC schedule as developed in Step 2 to 5 Final or Preliminary contract strategy

Lead time contract award evaluation & approval Turn-around cycle Identified ITB Packages (and level of required definition of the packages) The “Contracts – Engineering” schedule busts as a result of the ITB package definition and Issue dates requirements.

Key Deliverables:

Identified engineering deliverables required for input in ITB Packages Milestones ITB packages issue / evaluation & contract award dates Mobilisation dates of the Contractors

Close-out :

Schedule Risk Range/Analysis Workshop with all internal project stakeholders

WorleyParsons Level 3 EPCM Baseline schedule – Issued For Client Comments

Page 51

Development Step Description Step

7

: Alignment Client Schedule targets

By: Planner / EPCM team / Client

Method: Reconciliation workshop “WorleyParsons EPCM schedule against contractual (Client) milestone dates”.

Inputs:

EPC schedule as developed in Step 2 to 6 Contractual milestones (Client Schedule)

The identified “Client– WorleyParsons” schedule ‘busts’. Key Deliverables:

Agreement between WorleyParsons and the Client regarding resolving the ‘busts’ and possible acceleration scenarios.

Early agreement between WorleyParsons and the Client on procurement and contract strategies that are required to support the schedule Close-out :

WorleyParsons and Client approved EPCM Baseline schedule

PCDP Module 1 - Introduction to Project Controls. Rev 0

There are multiple levels of schedules and various forms of schedules. The Control Sched- ule is, as its name implies, the schedule that is used for master control of the project.

It is important that the Control Schedule be at a level of detail that can be intelligently reviewed by management; too much detail gets beyond human comprehension and can contain illogical and arbitrary constraints.

The level of detail for the control schedule is the Control Account level. Scheduling be- low Control Account levels (Deliverables/Job Cards/ Procured items etc) is consid- ered detail scheduling. For Evaluate/Define (FEED) schedules this task falls on WorleyParsons (self-performing contract), while in an EPCM schedule environment, the Detail Schedule will be the responsibility of the various contractors.

7.3 PROJECT BASELINE:

In document Introduction to Project Controls (Page 41-51)