Download - AACEI Houston Jan 2008
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
1/84
Presentation to:
AACEI Houston Gulf Coast Section
Oil and Gas
Benchmark ing
Construction Industry Institute (CII)
The University of Texas at Austin
January 15, 2008
Stephen P. Mulva, Ph.D.
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
2/84
Outline
CII and its Benchmarking Program
CII Benchmarking Database
Uses for Benchmarking
Metrics
Downstream Oil and Gas
ProductivityAnalysis and Reporting
Questions
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
3/84
Construction Industry Institute
A consortium of leading owners,
contractors, suppliers, and academia
working to improve the constructed project
and the capital facility delivery process.
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
4/84
CII Mission
CII StrategicPlan
January 2005
Add value for members by enhancing thebusiness effectivenessand sustainabilityof the capital facility life cycle through CII
research, related initiatives, and industryalliances.
Expand the global competitive advantagerealized through active involvement andeffective use of research findings,including CII Best Practices.
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
5/84
Owner Members3M
Abbott
The AES Corporation
Air Products and Chemicals
Alcoa
Amgen
Anheuser-Busch
Aramco Services
BHP Billiton
Biogen Idec
BP America
Cargill
Chevron
CITGO Petroleum
Codelco-Chile
ConocoPhillips
Dow Chemical
DuPont
Eastman Chemical
Eli Lilly and Company
ExxonMobil
General Motors
GlaxoSmithKline
Intel
International Paper
Kaiser Permanente
Kraft Foods
Marathon Oil
NASA
NAVFAC
NOVA Chemicals
Ontario Power Generation
Petrobras
Praxair
Procter & Gamble
Progress Energy
Rohm and Haas
Sasol Technology
Shell
Smithsonian Institution
Solutia
Southern Company
Sunoco
TVA
U.S. Architect of the Capitol
U.S. Army Corps of Engrs.
NIST
U.S. Dept. of Energy
U.S. Dept. of Health &Human Services
U.S. Dept. of State
U.S. General Svcs. Admin.
U.S. Steel
Weyerhaeuer
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
6/84
OrderChangeApprovedCostProjectPredictedInitial
CostProjectTotalActualFactorBudget
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Years of CII Membership (3 Year Moving Average)
BudgetFa
ctor
1.1%
10 Years
Owner Members
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
7/84
ChangesApprovedDurationProjectPredictedInitial
DurationProjectTotalActualFactorSchedule
90%
95%
100%
105%
110%
115%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Years of CII Membership (3 Year Moving Average)
ScheduleF
actor
7.0%
10 Years
Owner Members
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
8/84
Contractor MembersABB Lummus Global
Adolfson & Peterson Constr.
Aker Kvaerner
Alstom Power
AMEC
Atkins Faithful & Gould
Autodesk
AZCO
Baker Concrete Construction
BE&K
Bechtel Group
Black & Veatch
Bowen Engineering
Burns & McDonnell
CB&I
CCC Group
CDI Engineering Solutions
CH2M HILL
CSA Group
Day & Zimmermann
Dick Corporation
Dresser-Rand
Emerson Process Mgmt.
Fluor
Foster Wheeler USA
Fru-Con Construction
Grinaker-LTA
GS Engrg. & Construction
Hargrove and Associates
Harper Industries
Hatch
Hill International
Hilti
Hyundai Engrg. & Constr.
J. Ray McDermott
Jacobs
JMJ Associates
KBR
Kiewit Construction Group
M. A. Mortenson
Mustang Engineering
Nielsen-Wurster Group
Parsons
Pathfinder
Perot Systems
Primavera Systems
R. J. Mycka
S&B Engrs. & Constructors
Shaw Group
Siemens Power Generation
Skire
SNC-Lavalin
Technip
URS Corporation
Victaulic
Walbridge Aldinger
WorleyParsons
Yates Construction
Zachry Construction
Zurich
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
9/84
Contractor Members
90%
95%
100%
105%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Years of CII Membership (3 Year Moving Average)
BudgetFa
ctor
3.9%
10 Years
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
10/84
Contractor Members
90%
95%
100%
105%
110%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Years of CII Membership (3 Year Moving Average)
ScheduleF
actor
5.3%
10 Years
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
11/84
Five Elements of Project Success Work and Work Process
Organizational Engineering
Leadership and Governance
Communication and Information Flow Culture and Environment (Macro, Micro)
Lack Material, Information, Equipment, Labor?
Results in Poor Productivity (Metrics)
Results in Poor Project Performance (Metrics)
Need for Reliable Metrics
Point of Departure
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
12/84
CII Benchmarking & Metrics Overview
Industry Leaders Choose CII Benchmarking
Because it Leads to Success
CII Benchmarking is a user
friendly, resource efficient,
statistically credible
benchmarking system that
provides quantitative data
essential for the support of
cost/benefit analyses. ...
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
13/84
Enhance Business Effectiveness
Highlight Problems and RootCauses
Establish ImprovementGoals
Implement CII Best Practices(BP)
Realize Up to: 22% Schedule Reduction
16% Cost Savings Continuously Improve
Benchmarking
ImplementBP
Measure
Plan and Eduction
Start
Continuous
Improvement
What Gets Measured Gets Improved:
Benchmark with CII and Get Results
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
14/84
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
15/84
Project KeyReports
Industry Reports24/7Internet
Data Entry
CII Benchmarking Products
Enable Best in Class Performance
Identify Industry Trends and Drivers
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
16/84
BM&M Committee
Gibson, Jim (Co-Chair)Alstom PowerHelland, Harold (Co-Chair)Abbott
Allmen, Carol - General Motors
Caggiano, JohnU.S. Corps of Engineers
Chapman, BobNIST
Curbello, ChrisCB&I
Davis, ShariMustang Engineering
Dove, RalphCH2M HILL
Gokey, MarkBechtel
Gordon, ScottShell Oil Company
Green, CharlieAramco Services
Herrington, BobJacobsHile, DaveBlack & Veatch
Kass, HowardNASA
Neale, DavidFluorNielsen, MikeMerck
Orellana, RobertoProcter & Gamble
Perkins, DavidRohm and Haas
Pitcher, JonEli Lilly
Scott, DannyBE&K
Slaughter, JimmyS&B Engineers andConstructors
Warnock, SteveWashington Group
Woldy, PaulChevron
Mulva, Stephen (Ex-Officio)CIIDai, Jiukun (Ex-Officio)CII
DeGezelle, Deborah (Ex-Officio)CII
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
17/84
CII Benchmarking
BenchmarkingAssociate
Project Team
Project Team
Project Team
Project Team
AccountManager
AssociateDirector
SystemsAnalyst
ResearchEngineer
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
18/84
Small or Large?
Which Questionnaire?
TIC $100K-$5M
Duration 14 mo.
Site Wk-Hrs 100K
Full-time PM resources not required
Small ProjectQuestionnaire
TIC $5M
Duration 14 mo.
Site Wk-Hrs 100K
Full-time PM resourcesrequired
Large ProjectQuestionnaire
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
19/84
Large Project QuestionnaireGeneral
General Info Project Scope Owner PMT % Union Site Construction Workforce
PerformanceBudgeted and Actual Project Costs by Function Planned & Actual Project Schedule
Others
Achieving Facility Capacity Project Outcomes
Work-Hours and Accident Data Project Impact Factors
PracticesFront End Planning Alignment during FEP Partnering
Team Building Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Constructability
Project Risk Assessment Change Management Zero Accident Techniques
Benchmarking Dispute Resolution Planning for Startup
Engineering Productivity (Optional)Eng. Description Concrete Structural Steel Instrumentation
Piping Electrical Equipment Direct Hire / Contract / Off-Shore
Construction Productivity (Optional)
Concrete Structural Steel Electrical Piping
Instrumentation Equipment Insulation Scaffolding
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
20/84
Large Project
Supplements *
Targeted Industry Metrics
Pharma Bulk Mfg.
Pharma Secondary Mfg.
Pharma Laboratory
PharmaceuticalQuestionnaire
Project and ProcessMetrics
Sulfur Recovery Units
Coker Units
Hydrotreaters
DownstreamOil and Gas
Questionnaire
* Targeted Metrics ProgramsAvailable Through Annual
Subscription
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
21/84
System Features
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
22/84
1,562 projects
Worth > $72 Billion
Large & Small Projects Combined
292(19%)
1,270(81%)
Domestic
International
686(44%) 876
(56%)
OwnersContractors
Domestic
CII Database
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
23/84
244
66
390
176
565048
532
0
100
200
300
400
500
Buildings Heavy Industrial Infrastructure Light Industrial
Industry Group
NumberofPro
jects
Owner
Contractor
CII Database
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
24/84
90
275
222209
80
97
129
206182
72
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
$100MM
Cost Category
NumberofProjec
ts
Owner
Contractor
CII Database
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
25/84
250 247
363
16
234236207
9
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Addition Grass Roots Modernization Maintenance
Project Nature
NumberofProjects
Owner
Contractor
CII Database
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
26/84
The Value of Benchmarking
Improvesproject & company performance
when used as an ongoing measure
Establishesimprovement goals based onexternal/competitivebenchmarks
Enablesyour company to understand & achieve
best in classperformance
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
27/84
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
28/84
Uses for Benchmarking
Validation of Project Definition/ Gated Approval
PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
29/84
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
30/84
Company A Company B
Uses for Benchmarking
Determining Performance Relative to Peers
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
31/84
Benchmarking Roadmap
Adapted from Robert C. Camp
Determine What to Benchmark(Critical Success Factors)
Define the Metrics
Develop Data CollectionMethodology
Collect Data
Identify Performance &
Practice Use Gap
Identify Reasons for Deficiencies
(Root Cause for Gap)
Develop Action Plan(Select Practices to Narrow Gap)
Integrate Best Practices intoProject Delivery Processes
Institutionalize as Part of
Continuous Improvement Program
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
32/84
FEL1 FEL2 FEL3 Project Implementation
Comm/SU
Front End Planning
Detailed Engineering
Procurement
Construction
Start-up
SingleProject
ConceptAdopted &
FormalProjectTeam
Established
Project Sanction
ContractAward to
EngineeringFirm
Release of all Drawings& Specs
Development ofProcurementPlan for Major
Equipment
All Major EquipmentDelivered to Site
Commencementof Foundationsor Driving Piles
SubstantialCompletion
MechanicalCompletion
CustodyTransfer
BusinessPlanning-MarketAnalysis-SiteSelection-Constraints
Envir. Market Resource Risk
Analysis
ConceptPlanning-Proj Object-Prelim OpnPlan-Permitting-Prelim ProjDocument
ProcessAlts
ConceptEstimate
FinancialAnalysis
MilestoneSchedule
ScopingSummary
BasicEngineering-ExecutionPlan
Engineer Procurement Construction Operations
-Update ProjectDocumentation Design
Criteria Flow Sheets P&IDs Equipment
Specs & Price Project
Estimate (+10%) Detailed Scope Financial Analysis
CF Curves
IRR Milestone Schedule
Project Implementation-Organization Established Organization Chart Roles & Responsibilities Team Building Contract Style
-Detailed Design-Procurement
Policy
Equipment Assignment of Contracts Material
-Construction Execution Plan Field Admin Progress Review
Meetings
Commission/SU-Commission Plan-Training Plan-Start-up Plan
Safety SU Curve Raw Material
PerformanceTesting
AcceptanceCriteria
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
33/84
Effort vs. Value
CollectionEffort
Low High
High
Data Value
Yes
No
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
34/84
Types of Metrics
Performance:
Relative: Cost Growth, Schedule Growth
(Compares actual to planned)
Absolute: $/SF, $TIC/$Process Equipment,Execution Duration/GSF (Actual or should cost)
Process:Equipment Count/Capacity (Industry Specific)
Product iv i ty:Engineering & Construction Practice Use:Front End Planning, Constructability,
Zero Accident Techniques
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
35/84
NormalizationHard Cost (Absolute)
Benchmarking Requires
Locat ionand Time Ad justmentsprovide a
common basis for comparisons Projects can be grouped geographically and
by time or
Projects can be normalized to a commonlocation & time
Foreign currency exchange
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
36/84
Cost Performance
Schedule Performance
Safety Performance
Change Performance
Rework Performance
Construction ProductivityEngineering Productivity
Practice Use
Front-End Planning
Alignment
Team Building
Partnering
Project Risk Management
Change Management
ConstructabilityZero Accident Techniques
Planning for Startup
Proj. Delivery & Contract Systems
Benchmarking
Traditional Performance &Practice Use Metrics
Performance Practice Use
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
37/84
14.30 14.20
13.0012.20
11.80
9.90
9.508.80 8.60 8.307.90
13.10
10.60
7.106.80 6.40 6.30
0.88
7.196.12
5.324.31
3.44 3.002.66
2.301.60 1.59 1.67
1.03 1.02 1.23 1.160.72 0.58
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
325 413 477 497 527 613 644 770 518 765 995 936 1,117 1,073 1,129 1,195 1,333 1,276
Year and Work Hours (MM)
TotalRecordableIncidenceRate
Industry*
CII
*OSH A Construction Division, SIC 15-17 Re flects OSH A Re porting Change (updated July 18,06)
Best Practice Use (Safety)TRIR (1989-2006)
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
38/84
Cost Growth Actual Total Project Cost - Initial Predicted Project Cost
Initial Predicted Project Cost
Delta Cost Growth | Cost Growth |
Budget Factor Actual Total Project CostInitial Predicted Project Cost + Approved Changes
Delta Budget Factor | 1- Budget Factor |
Phase Cost GrowthActual Phase Cost - Initial Predicted Phase Cost
Initial Predicted Phase Cost
Phase Cost Factor Actual Phase Cost
Actual Total Project Cost
Cost Performance Metrics
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
39/84
Schedule Growth Actual Total Proj Duration - Initial Predicted Proj Duration
Initial Predicted Proj Duration
Delta Schedule Growth | Schedule Growth |
Schedule Factor Actual Total Proj Duration
Initial Predicted Proj Duration + Approved Changes
Delta Schedule Factor | 1- Schedule Factor |
Phase Schedule GrowthActual Phase Duration - Initial Predicted Phase Duration
Initial Predicted Phase Duration
Phase Schedule Factor Actual Phase Duration
Actual Total Proj Duration
Schedule Performance Metrics
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
40/84
TRIR Total Number of Recordable Cases x 200,000Total Site Work-Hours
DART Total Number of DART Cases x 200,000
Total Site Work-Hours
Safety Performance Metrics
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
41/84
Change Cost Factor Total Cost of Changes
Actual Total Project Cost
Total Field Rework Factor Total Direct Cost of Field ReworkActual Construction Phase Cost
Change Performance Metrics
Rework Performance Metrics
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
42/84
Industry Sector-Specific Metrics
Current Pharmaceutical
D/S Oil & Gas
COAA (Contract)
Upcoming Healthcare Facilities
U/S Oil & Gas
Aviation Facilities
Future Power Generation Food and Beverage
K-12 Education
http://www.watsonnorie.co.uk/glaxo.jpg -
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
43/84
Downstream Oil and GasIndustry-Specific Metrics Program
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
44/84
Purpose & Scope
Purpose Develop a user defined, transparent, real
time accessible, credible and cost effective
benchmarking resource for the oil and gas
industry Scope
Development of the metrics framework,
metric definitions, and data collection
instrument Project selection and data input
Data analysis
Report development
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
45/84
Round I Current Participants
Aramco Services
Chevron
CitgoMarathon Oil
Shell Oil
Petrobras
Potential ParticipantsConocoPhillipsSunoco
60 Projects (10/Company) Committed
Downstream Participants
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
46/84
Questionnaire
Scope Focused on Refinery Projects Detailed Cost Metrics
Two Levels of Benchmarking Project Level
Process Unit LevelHydrotreating
Sulfur Recovery
Coking
Owner Project Management Team (PMT) Two points of Benchmarking
AFE (Authorization For Expenditure)
Project Completion
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
47/84
Project Metrics Cost (20 Absolute)
15 are applicable at AFE & Completion
Schedule (12 Absolute)8 are applicable at AFE & Completion
Productivity (11 Absolute)9 are applicable at AFE & Completion
Safety (3 Absolute)
Others (8 Absolute)6 are applicable at AFE & Completion
Metrics
Process Unit Metrics Cost (14 Absolute)
12 are applicable at AFE & Completion
Others (3 Absolute)3 are applicable at AFE & Completion
Process ParametersHydrotreaters (9 Parameters)
Sulfur Recovery Units
Cokers
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
48/84
Cost Structure
Project Level
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
49/84
Cost Structure contd
Process Unit Level
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
50/84
Cost
Metrics: Example
CostEquipmentMajorISBL
CostISBLTotal
TIC
CostFEEDTotal
Schedule
DurationOverall
DurationFEED
TIC
DurationOverall
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
51/84
Downstream Work Plan
Finished Activities Define Oil and Gas Metrics
Program Data Collection Tool
Training for Data Collection
Currently Ongoing Activities Input Project Data
Normalization Issues
Future Activities Analyze data Generate Key and Summary Reports
Assess Path Forward
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
52/84
Engineering
Productivity =Actual Wk-Hrs*
IFC Quantity* Per Design Component
Productivity = Actual Wk-HrsQuantity Installed
Construction
Productivity
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
53/84
Categories
Concrete
Structural Steel
EquipmentPiping
Electrical
InstrumentationInsulation (Construction Only)
Scaffolding (Construction Only)
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
54/84
C t ti P d ti it
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
55/84
Raw
Productivity
N = 43N = 19N = 20N = 26N = 21
Wk-Hr / CYWk-Hr / CYWk-Hr / CYWk-Hr / CYWk-Hr / CY
Total Foundations>50 CY20-50 CY5-20 CY< 5 CY
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
30.60
20.85
11.02
5.97
15.74
Bette
r
Construction Productivity
- Concrete Foundations Example
Small sample
Use with caution
Your Circle?
Foundation Size
Pi i E i i P d ti it b
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
56/84
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2D Only
2D+3D
3D Only
Piping Engineering Productivity by2D/3D Implementation
3 year moving average
LowerProductivity
BetterProductivity
ProductivityInd
ex
Piping Engineering Productivity by
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
57/84
Piping Engineering Productivity byProject Characteristics
Note: at the 90% confidence level
Better Productivity Lower ProductivityHr / LF
Analyzing CII Productivity Measures
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
58/84
% Engineering Complete
ConstructionProductivit
yforISBL(Hr/LF)
100806040200
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
E
C50%
Analyzing CII Productivity Measures(Construction Productivity (ISBL Pipe) vs. % Engineering Complete)
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
59/84
Q antif ing Val e of Best Practices
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
60/84
Quantifying Value of Best Practices
PerformanceM
etric
(S
caleMetricDepe
ndent)
Better
BetterPractice Use Metric
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
What is the relationship?
Is it significant?
How good is the fit?
How to analyze the relationship?
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
61/84
How to analyze the relationship?
PerformanceM
etric
(S
caleMetricDepe
ndent)
Better
Practice Use Metric
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Better
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
62/84
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
63/84
Improvement Potential
PerformanceM
etric
(S
caleMetricDepe
ndent)
Better
Practice Use Metric
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Low Use
High Use
AveragePerformanceImprovement
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
64/84
Individual Project Performance
Project Reports
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
65/84
Metric Details
Project Reports
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
66/84
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
67/84
Special Pharmaceutical MetricsCategory Metrics
Cost TIC / Process Equipment Cost
TIC / Gross Square Footage
Schedule (DesignOQ Duration) / GrossSquare Footage
(DesignOQ Duration) / Total
Equipment Piece CountDimension (Process Space SF + Process
Related Space SF) / Gross SquareFootage
Mechanical SF / Gross SquareFootage
Industry Analysis
CII C fid ti lit P li
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
68/84
CII Confidentiality PolicySummary of Key Features
Company data are considered confidential. Data can be used to support CII benchmarking, research, and related
academic activities only if the confidentiality of companies submittingthe data is protected.
Access to data is limited to CII staff and authorized researchers only. All persons with access to CII data must sign confidentiality agreements
and abide by CII confidentiality policies. When data are provided in support of research activities, all confidential
identifiers will be removed and only essential subsets of data will beprovided.
All data published and/or presented must reflect the aggregate of atleast 10 projects from 3 separate companies.
Reports and data files containing only individual project or companydata are considered confidential will not be published or provided toresearchers.
In cases where a disproportionate amount of data are provided by asingle company, CII will suppress publication of results until the data setis sufficiently large to mitigate confidentiality or bias concerns.
CII W b d P j t C t l
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
69/84
CII Website: http://www.construction-institute.org/
CII Web and Project Central
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
70/84
Project Central My Projects
Select a Section of the Questionnaire
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
71/84
to input or update data
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
72/84
Data Entry
Easy to UseConsistent format
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
73/84
Project Managers Company BenchmarkingAssociate
CII Staff, Account Mgrs.& Committee
Key Participants
BMA Responsibility
CII Responsibility
30 Day Goal
Validation Process
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
74/84
Project Central - Reports
Progress Key Report
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
75/84
Progress Key Report
Progress Key Report
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
76/84
Progress Key ReportSummary View with Percentiles
Click on the bar or the n number to get a statistical summary
Click
Here!
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
77/84
Project Key Report
Statistical summaryand Project Score for
Process Constr. Cost
Process Equip. Cost
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
78/84
Data
ReportSelect the level of
detail and a metric,
click chart-o-rama.
1. Pick your X Axis
2. Select your level of
detail.
3. Get your chart!
1
2
3
2
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
79/84
Data
Report
1. Pick your X Axis
2. Select your level ofdetail.
3. Get your chart!
1
2
3
Under Development
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
80/84
Output
Format
Selection
Parameters
Choose
Your ProjectsPick Metrics
Aggregate
Comparisons
Save Selections Build ReportClear Selections
Output Format:
External / Internal w/ Comparison
Selection Parameters:
My Selections: Status Bar:Status Bar:
Chart Only
Chart vs/ Project Data
Datasheet
Key Report
Projects:
Metrics:
BULK
MANUFACTURING
$ T I C /
$ P r o c e s s
E q u i p m e n t
C o s t
$ F a c i li ty
C o n s t . C o s t /
G S F
$ T IC / G S F$Soft Cost /$Hard Cost
($Design +$Const.mgmt.Cost) /$TIC
($Com. +$Qual. Cost)
/ $TICAverage
PharmaProjectCost
Growth
PharmaDeltaCost
Growth
Average
1001 3 4 4 3 2 4 3.33 4 4 4.00 3.50
1002 1 4 3 4 3 2 2.83 1 3 2.00 2.63
1003 1 1 1 2 1 2 1.33 1 1 1.00 1.25
Overall MetricPerformance
1.7 3.0 2.7 3.0 2.0 2.7 2.5 2.0 2.7 2.3 2.5
OVERALL PROJECT PERFORMANCE
PROJECT ID
AVERAGE
OVERALL COST PERFORMANCE
Absolute Cost Performance Relative Cost Performance
Chart-o-Rama V2
PerformanceSummary Dashboard
Dynamic data mining and
reporting tool with aggregatereporting features (Sep 08)
High level performancesummary (Mar 08)
C it
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
81/84
eCommunity
C it
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
82/84
eCommunity
A Look Ahead
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
83/84
A Look Ahead
Upstream Oil & Gas Program Support from Fluminense Federal University
(UFF) / Petrobras (Brazil)
Joint Industry Program (JIP) with UT
Petroleum Engineering
Other Geographic Areas of Offshore Activity
Healthcare Specialty Metrics Program
Extension of COAA Contract
Aviation Facilities
-
8/12/2019 AACEI Houston Jan 2008
84/84
What gets measured, gets improved!
When you re average, you re just as close to the bottom as youare the top
- Unknown