sustainability

Article
Detail Engineering Completion Rating Index System
(DECRIS) for Optimal Initiation of Construction
Works to Improve Contractors’ Schedule-Cost
Performance for Offshore Oil and Gas EPC Projects
Myung-Hun Kim 1,2 , Eul-Bum Lee 2, * and Han-Suk Choi 2
1 POSTECH University & Hyundai Heavy Industries, Engineering Management Team,
400 Bangeojinsunhwan-doro, Dong-gu, Ulsan 44114, Korea; myunghunkim@postech.ac.kr
2 Graduate Institute of Ferrous Technology & Graduate School of Engineering Mastership, Pohang University
of Science and Technology (POSTECH), 77 Cheongam-Ro, Nam-Ku, Pohang 37673, Korea;
hchoi@postech.ac.kr
* Correspondence: dreblee@postech.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-54-279-0136




Received: 9 April 2018; Accepted: 12 July 2018; Published: 14 July 2018


Abstract: Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contractors with lump-sum turnkey
contracts have recently been suffering massive profit losses due to re-works and schedule delays
in offshore oil and gas EPC megaprojects. The main objective of this research is to develop and
implement a detail engineering completion rating index system (DECRIS) to assist EPC contractors to
optimize fabrication and construction works schedules while minimizing potential re-work/re-order.
This is achieved through adequate detail design development and results in minimizing schedule
delays and potential liquidated damages (i.e., delay penalties). The developed DECRIS was based
on findings from an extensive review of existing literature, industry-led studies, expert surveys,
and expert workshops. The DECRIS model is an evolution, and improvement of existing tools such
as the project definition raking index (PDRI) and front-end loading (FEL) developed specifically
for the early stage of engineering maturity assessment (i.e., planning, basic design, and front-end
engineering design (FEED)), prior to EPC projects. The DECRIS was evaluated and validated
with thirteen sample as-built offshore megaprojects completed recently. When the DECRIS was
applied to the completed projects post-hoc, a correlation (R-squared 0.71) was found between
DECRIS scores and schedule/cost performances. This is much superior to the PDRI-Industrial
model’s correlation (R-squared 0.04), which was primarily devised for owners’ basic engineering or
FEED completion assessment. Finally, as a means of further validation, project schedule and cost
performance of an ongoing project was predicted based on the correlations found on the thirteen
completed projects. The resultant predicted schedule and cost performance was well matched with
the current project performance status. Based on the accuracy of the DECRIS model found in the
validation, said model is an effective prospective tool for EPC contractors to manage their engineering
and procurement/construction risks during the initial detail design stages.

Keywords: oil and gas megaproject; engineering; procurement and construction (EPC) project;
DECRIS; schedule and cost integration; risks control; profitability; sustainability

1. Introduction
Crude oil was historically supplied solely by onshore reservoirs until the 1970s, when these
reservoirs were found to be insufficient to meet the growing global oil and gas demand. To supplement
demand, deep-water offshore projects were initiated in the 1990s and they now account for about 10%

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469; doi:10.3390/su10072469 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 2 of 31

of the total global oil supply [1]. In 2011, shale oil and gas were introduced to the oil and gas market
with the development of cost-effective hydrofracturing technologies. This has led to an over-supply of
oil and gas and, consequently, an era of low oil prices decreasing major oil companies’ profits [2].
An offshore project requires a significant amount of early investment for drilling and production
facility design and construction. To combat lower revenues and increase profits, major oil companies
have placed a great deal of attention on cost-saving strategies in these early stages for offshore oil
and gas projects [3]. However, these strategies are often poorly planned and implemented, leading to
inadequate resource allocation, and improperly accelerated design and construction. This all results in
poor quality of work, schedule overrun, and even safety-related accidents on site [2].
Therefore, how can planning be improved? Merrow collected and analyzed project performance
data on 100 megaprojects, finding that the success of upstream activities (i.e., planning and early
design) is one of the important factors for project success. Without this planning, Merrow found over
65% of the projects studied (>65%) reported project failure in cost, schedule, and/or production [4].
Decisions made during the detail design stage have significant impact on the overall construction
cost and schedule. Errors and omissions at this stage cause construction delays and often result in
reconstruction, especially in lump-sum turnkey contracts, which are overwhelmingly adopted for
Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) megaprojects. The resultant construction delay
and reconstruction results in owners’ claims, namely liquidated damages and performance liquidated
damages, which are major reasons for the EPC Contractor’s profit losses. In particular, incomplete
and/or inaccurate designs for fabrication (i.e., steel cutting), one of the most critical contract milestones
when initiating construction work stipulated on the contract, results in significant reconstruction and
associated labor hours. Oil and gas EPC contractors need a customized engineering completion model
to measure the completion rating in their engineering management decision-making process at the
design stage to mitigate reconstruction and avoid costly consequences. As such, this paper focuses on
aiding contractors in the initial design stages.
To compound the negative impacts of poor upfront project planning, many megaprojects are
performed to a very tight schedule. A tight schedule usually forces the EPC contractor to concurrently
design and construct the project, hoping to meet the owner’s deadline and avoid costly liquidated
damages. However, this concurrent design and construction, unless well planned, may lead to a
costlier option due to a catastrophic ripple effect when the final design is significantly different from
the partially complete design when construction started.
Concerning the contractor-owner relationship on conventional oil and gas projects, the owner hires
a contractor for construction only with fully approved for construction (AFC) engineering drawings
after AFC completion. Alternatively, in EPC projects, the owner hires a contractor for engineering (final
design), procurement of equipment, and construction. This type of contract means that the selected
contractor is responsible for completing the remaining design and procurement activities based on the
front-end engineering design (FEED) package developed by the project owner. Therefore, the contractor
must consider all risks of detail design and procurement, including undetected discrepancies during
the FEED verification period that may cause serious cost overrun and/or schedule delay.
Since the early 2000s, South Korean companies have been working as major EPC contractors
for offshore oil and gas EPC projects, specifically upstream production facility projects. Three major
shipbuilders in South Korea have executed over 50% of worldwide offshore oil and gas EPC mega projects:
H company, S company and D company. Since 2008, they have completed about 30 mega projects including
fixed platforms and floaters, typically so-called FPSO (Floating projection, storage and offloading) or FLNG
(floating Liquefied Natural Gas). The offshore oil and gas EPC contractors have recently reported massive
profit losses over US$ 10 bn as shown in Figure 1, between 2013 and 2015, after being awarded many EPC
projects since 2010.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 3 of 31
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 31

2000

Profit Loss (Million USD)

1000
0
-1000 2014 2015 2016

-2000
-3000
-4000

H Company S Company D Company

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Profit
Profit losses
losses of
of EPC
EPC Contractor
Contractor (Modified
(Modified from
from Press
Press Release
Release[5]).
[5]).

The reasons for recent profit losses and damages for Korean offshore EPC contractors in dealing
The reasons for recent profit losses and damages for Korean offshore EPC contractors in dealing
with EPC megaprojects with lump-sum turnkey contracts are likely as follows (identified through
with EPC megaprojects with lump-sum turnkey contracts are likely as follows (identified through
subject matter expert interviews and literature review):
subject matter expert interviews and literature review):
1. Lack of EPC Contractor’s capability of FEED verification to justify complex owner requirements;
1. Lack of EPC Contractor’s capability of FEED verification to justify complex owner requirements;
2. Lack of experience in the use of exotic materials, and installation of special equipment;
2. Lack of experience in the use of exotic materials, and installation of special equipment;
3. Lack of experience in performing a fast-track process with a limited schedule;
3. Lack of experience in performing a fast-track process with a limited schedule;
4. Sub-order items including local content requirements in the host country that may impact on
4. Sub-order items including local content requirements in the host country that may impact on
project schedule;
project schedule;
5. Mandatory requirements to procure equipment from approved vendor list (AVL);
5. Mandatory requirements to procure equipment from approved vendor list (AVL);
6. Owner requirements of single-point responsibility for various contractual liabilities;
6. Owner requirements of single-point responsibility for various contractual liabilities;
7. Delay liquidated damages (so-called penalties) following schedule delay on EPC contractor are
7. Delay liquidated damages (so-called penalties) following schedule delay on EPC contractor are
unrealistically high (as much as US$ 1–2 million/day); and
unrealistically high (as much as US$ 1–2 million/day); and
8. Re-order for major equipment and critical bulk materials and reconstruction (re-work) due to early
8. Re-order for major equipment and critical bulk materials and reconstruction (re-work) due to
fabrication start with incomplete detail design to comply with the completion date and milestones.
early fabrication start with incomplete detail design to comply with the completion date and
[6]
milestones [6].
Many, if not most, of these issues result from improper front-end project planning. To aid
Many, in
contractors if not most, ofthese
minimizing theseissues,
issuesthe
result
focusfrom improper
of this study isfront-end
to developproject planning. aTo
and implement aid
detail
contractors in minimizing these issues, the focus of this study is to develop and implement
engineering completion rating index system to assist EPC contractors during the initial planning stages. a detail
engineering completion
The model aids rating
contractors in index system the
determining to assist EPCstarting
optimal contractors
timeduring the initialand
for fabrication planning stages.
construction
The model aids contractors in determining the optimal starting time for fabrication
works to minimize potential re-work/re-order through adequate detail design development. and construction
works to minimize potential re-work/re-order through adequate detail design development.
2. Literature Review
2. Literature Review
There has been minimal literature dedicated to incorporating an engineering completion rating
There has been minimal literature dedicated to incorporating an engineering completion rating
index to the project schedule and cost performance for oil and gas EPC projects. The most significant
index to the project schedule and cost performance for oil and gas EPC projects. The most significant
existing index models found were the project definition rating index (PDRI) by the Construction
existing index models found were the project definition rating index (PDRI) by the Construction
International Institute (CII) [7–10] and the front-end loading (FEL) index by Independent Project
International Institute (CII) [7–10] and the front-end loading (FEL) index by Independent Project
Analysis (IPA) [4]. These tools are mainly developed and utilized to define the level of completion of
Analysis (IPA) [4]. These tools are mainly developed and utilized to define the level of completion of
FEED, which is an engineering task prior to EPC detail engineering. These two indexes are typically
FEED, which is an engineering task prior to EPC detail engineering. These two indexes are typically
used by the project owner to quantify the level of project definition and basic engineering maturity and
used by the project owner to quantify the level of project definition and basic engineering maturity
to determine whether the project can move to the next project development stage, typically an EPC
and to determine whether the project can move to the next project development stage, typically an
contract. The model developed and presented within this paper evolved from these two indexes. As
EPC contract. The model developed and presented within this paper evolved from these two indexes.
such, a detailed discussion on each model, and associated literature, is discussed below.
As such, a detailed discussion on each model, and associated literature, is discussed below.
FEL measures the level of project definition at the front-end stage of a project, which is broken
FEL measures the level of project definition at the front-end stage of a project, which is broken down
down into three stages. At the FEL-1 stage, the project definition is reviewed based on the conceptual
into three stages. At the FEL-1 stage, the project definition is reviewed based on the conceptual design and
design and business case evaluation results. In FEL-2, the result of basic design is reviewed. At the end
business case evaluation results. In FEL-2, the result of basic design is reviewed. At the end of FEED (FEL-3),
of FEED (FEL-3), the entire FEED package is reviewed for the owner to make the final “Go” or “No-
Go” decision, which will result in a significant financial investment and commitment by hiring an EPC
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 4 of 31

the entire FEED package is reviewed for the owner to make the final “Go” or “No-Go” decision, which
will result in a significant financial investment and commitment by hiring an EPC contractor. The project
definition is classified according to three sections: site factors, design status, and project execution plan.
FEL is used to assess the project by numerically quantifying the project definition of each element under
each section and then aggregating them into a numeric index. When the FEL index is lower than a
pre-determined threshold value at each stage of FEL-1/2/3, over 50% of projects were successful in terms
of cost and schedule performance. On the other hand, projects in the high range of the FEL index showed
poor project performance [4].
CII’s PDRI is an alternate assessment tool to IPA’s FEL as it serves the same purpose of measuring
project definition from the conceptual design stage to the FEED stage of a project. The PDRI’s
hierarchical structure is comprised of three sections, categories, and elements [7,8,10]. Three sections
include: (a) the basis of project decisions; (b) basis of design; and (c) execution approach to holistically
evaluate the project value, scope, definition, and readiness for next stages. The PDRI has 8 to 15 types
of categories for each section [7–10]. At the bottom of the PDRI hierarchy, each element specifies details
that can be individually reviewed. Each element is assessed on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being highly well
defined and 5 being not defined at all) and an overall PDRI index is calculated using a scoresheet
weighted and normalized for each element. Three to six PDRI reviews are recommended for the owner
during the project planning, and FEED stages [11]. The most important PDRI review should be carried
out prior to the EPC contract, which is the final investment decision (FID). The CII recommends that
the cutoff score of the PDRI at the end of the FEED stage should be 200 as the performance of a project
with a score higher than 200 was historically not satisfactory in terms of cost and schedule [10,12].
PDRI can help the owner manage project scope prior to a project authorization and/or the contractor
identify incomplete elements related to project scope definition [13].
Multiple publications were dedicated to testing PDRI’s effectiveness. Chu et al. [14] studied PDRI
for intelligent green building projects and adjusted weight factors for each element using an analytical
network process, and they also expanded PDRI elements up to the project execution phase. In another
study, with 51 surveys and statistical analysis, George et al. [15] found that seven major activities have
more impact on achieving project success among all activities conducted during front-end planning.
This finding is aligned with the fact that PDRI elements are assigned different weights depending
upon the level of influence on project outcome. Pheng and Chuan [16] also identified using an analysis
of variance (ANOVA) test the five most significant variables that affect work performance in the
construction industry and recommended focusing on those significant variables to develop a better
working environment. Since previous studies are limited to the front-end planning stage before an
EPC contract is established, EPC contractors cannot directly apply the study results to the detail
design process.
In the offshore oil and gas sector, FEL and PDRI are being used as an owner’s risk analysis tool [11].
However, these tools focus on the earliest planning phases, stopping once the EPC contractor is selected.
This means the tools are lacking and cannot cover the range of detail design and construction phase
activities. Additionally, the characteristics of offshore oil and gas projects significantly differ from
those of the other construction sectors, making the current FEL and PDRI tools difficult to use as an
EPC contractor’s risk management tools.

3. Research Objectives and Contributions

The main objective of this research is to develop a detail engineering completion rating index
system (DECRIS) to calculate the engineering completion rating for offshore oil and gas EPC projects,
validating efficacy using existing projects. The main objective of the DECRIS is to aid contractors in
knowing when they have performed enough project development to begin fabrication. As schedules
are often very tight, it is important for fabrication to start as soon as possible. Thus, this paper focuses
on the optimal point of fabrication start—steel cutting—in which the design is developed just enough
(not more) to minimize re-work during the construction stage.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 5 of 31

The main goals for this research are as follows:

• Research Goal 1—modeling of DECRIS by adjusting previous assessment tools such as PDRI can
be developed to measure the optimal progress of detail engineering to initiate the fabrication of
initial modules in the scheduling critical path.
• Research Goal 2—the correlation between the developed DECRIS score and the construction cost
and schedule performance.

The research scope of building the DECRIS framework is limited to fixed platforms and floaters
such as FPSO and FLNG in offshore oil and gas EPC projects. Other types of offshore structures and
subsea structures are excluded in this study.
From discussion with industry experts, and as defined within this paper, the existing tools (PDRI
and FEL) are more than adequate in aiding owners through pre-planning of specific types. However,
they generally stop at the stage of executing a contract with the contractor and are not tailored for
contractor procurement/fabrication scheduling nor the oil and gas industries. As such, one of the main
contributions of this research is to present a superior tool than before, focusing on FEED engineering
completion prior to EPC projects. What is most lacking for oil and gas projects in using the PDRI
and/or FEL methods is when to begin fabrication (discussed above). As such, the DECRIS’s added
benefit to the industry is most significantly aiding the contractor in finding the optimal point of the
fabrication start of the oil and gas EPC projects.
To provide support that the presented tool is better than existing tools, thirteen offshore EPC
megaprojects recently completed are presented (in Section 6.1) for the verification of the DECRIS
model. Analysis is performed on the tool’s ability to predict the real projects’ actual cost and schedule
performance data. The DECRIS model can contribute to industry as a decision support tool during the
EPC contract execution stage to assist EPC contractors in making informed and timely decisions on
initiating their construction work activities.

4. Research Methodology for the DECRIS Model

The DECRIS methodology follows the PDRI approaches in its development, which has been
proven through existing literature to develop a simple assessment model to solve a complex project
problem. The methodology used to develop the model of the DECRIS model is depicted in Figure 2.
It involves six steps:

(1) DECRIS model scope determination: collect the preliminary elements from the existing literature
and develop the element description
(2) Data collection: a workshop was performed with industry experts to determine elements that
affect the calculation of the detail engineering completion rating and to organize the identified
elements in proper sections and categories. The expert survey was also used for data collection to
calculate the relative importance of each element to engineering completion.
(3) Data normalization: to determine the weight factor for each of the DECRIS elements using
the data from the expert survey, data normalization, preliminary estimate, validation process,
element average weight calculation, and interpolation were carried out.
(4) Data analysis: one sample t-test is used to finalize the weight factor of each element. The weight
factor of each element indicates the level of importance of the element’s contribution to the detail
engineering completion rating index.
(5) Data application: the DECRIS model developed through the previous research stages is
verified by applying it to the 13 sample projects. Each project was assessed using the DECRIS
level assessments.
(6) Model verification: the score outputs were then compared with the project performances of
each project (using statistical analyses) to see the level at which the model could predict project
performance. A cutoff score was then developed based on the model and sample projects.
 Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 6 of 31
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 31

Industrial
Research Stage Researchers
Participants
Step1. DECRIS Model Preliminary DECRIS
Scope Determination elements
(Section 5.1)
Element description
development

Step2. Data Collection Workshop to definition

(Section 5.2) of DECRIS elements and element description

Finalized draft of DECRIS

elements and project score
sheet (unweighted)

Workshop and questionnaire survey

to weight of each DECRIS elements

Step3. Data Normalization Weight factor

(Section 5.3) normalization

Step4. Data Analysis Feedback

Analytical review
(Section 5.4)

Finalize project score sheet

(weighted)

Step5. Data Application Develop level assessment

(Section 6.1) questionnaires

Collect projects for DECRIS

assessment

Collect information for scoring the project

Step6. Model Verification Analytical review for score

(Section 6.2) range for gate review

Validate DECRIS reserch

hypotheses

Figure 2. 2.
Figure DECRIS Model
DECRIS Development
Model Flowchart.
Development Flowchart.

5. DECRIS Model Development

5. DECRIS Model Development
5.1. Step
5.1. 1: 1:
Step DECRIS Model
DECRIS Scope
Model Determination:
Scope Preliminary
Determination: Elements
Preliminary Elements
InInthis
thisstep, the
step, theauthors
authorscollect
collectpreliminary
preliminary elements
elements (so-called
(so-called draft
draftofofDECRIS
DECRIS elements)
elements) from
from
existing literature. This acts as a starting point to define, roughly, the elements
existing literature. This acts as a starting point to define, roughly, the elements which affect detailwhich affect detail
engineering
engineering completion.
completion. TheThe
preliminary
preliminary element
elementlistlist
is the
is thefullfull
setset
of of
thethe
possible
possible element
element items,
items,
discovered through a literature review, to determine the assessment scope of DECRIS.
discovered through a literature review, to determine the assessment scope of DECRIS. This is also used This is also used
forfor
step two
step twowhen
whendiscussing
discussing andandrefining
refiningsaid exhaustive
said exhaustive listlist
of of
elements
elements to to
bebeused
usedin in
thethe
final model.
final model.
The most important elements of pre-planning have been identified through
The most important elements of pre-planning have been identified through existing PDRI existing PDRI and FEL
and
literature and models. As such, the preliminary elements for the DECRIS model
FEL literature and models. As such, the preliminary elements for the DECRIS model were taken from were taken from the
PDRI-Industrial,
the PDRI-Industrial,PDRI-small industrial,
PDRI-small PDRI-infrastructure,
industrial, PDRI-infrastructure, and andfront-end loading
front-end loadingphase
phase 2 and
2 and33
models. To ensure the model fit EPC oil and gas projects, the authors also consulted the contractor’s
information flow network for an oil and gas EPC project, and the oil and gas engineering guide.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 7 of 31

models. To 2018,
Sustainability ensure
10, xthe
FOR model fit EPC oil and gas projects, the authors also consulted the contractor’s
PEER REVIEW 7 of 31
information flow network for an oil and gas EPC project, and the oil and gas engineering guide.
Throughthe
Through the content
content analysis,
analysis, aa data
data set
set of
of 98
98preliminary
preliminaryDECRIS
DECRISelements
elementswas wasinitially
initiallydeveloped.
developed. A
Apart
partofofpreliminary
preliminaryelement
elementsetsetwhich
which isis related
related to engineering deliverables
to engineering deliverables (18(18 elements
elements shown
shownin in
Figure33among
Figure among the
the overall
overall 98
98 elements
elements collected
collected from
from contents
contents analysis)
analysis) is
is shown
shownin inFigure
Figure3.3.

PDRI Oil and Gas

PDRI PDRI Information
Industrial Engineering
Element Definition Industrial Infrastruc ture FEL-2 / 3 Flow Network
S mall Projec t Guide
(1999) (2011) (2015)
(2015) (2015)

Process Flow S heets O O O

Heat and Material Balances O O O
Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams O O O O O
Process S afety Manangement (PS M) O O O
Utility Flow Diagrams O
Equipment Proc ess Datasheet O O
Equipment Mec hanic al Datasheet O O
Instrument Proc ess Datasheet O
Inline Valve Datasheet O
S pecific ations O O O O
Piping S ystem Requirements O O O
Plot Plan O O O O O
Mec hanical Equipment List O O O O
Line List O O
Tie-in List O
Piping S tress Analysis O O O
Piping Isometric Drawing O
Piping S ecialty Items List O

Figure 3. Sample of Preliminary Elements (Engineering Deliverable).

Figure 3. Sample of Preliminary Elements (Engineering Deliverable).

5.2. Step 2: DECRIS Element Finalization

5.2. Step 2: DECRIS Element Finalization
For the second step, a workshop and survey were performed. The focus group workshop was
For the second step, a workshop and survey were performed. The focus group workshop was
performed with nine industry experts with over 10 years of experience in detail engineering of offshore
performed with nine industry experts with over 10 years of experience in detail engineering of offshore
oil and gas projects. The goal of this workshop was to determine elements that affect the calculation of
oil and gas projects. The goal of this workshop was to determine elements that affect the calculation
the detail engineering completion rating and to organize the identified elements in its proper section
of the detail engineering completion rating and to organize the identified elements in its proper
and category. Random sampling might be more efficient to increase the representativeness of the
section and category. Random sampling might be more efficient to increase the representativeness
population [17]. However, because of the limit on the availability of knowledgeable experts (SME:
of the population [17]. However, because of the limit on the availability of knowledgeable experts
subject matter expert) in the local industry from a practical point of view, judgmental and snowball
(SME: subject matter expert) in the local industry from a practical point of view, judgmental and
sampling were used with various discipline experts invited in this research.
snowball sampling were used with various discipline experts invited in this research.
The 98 preliminary elements were reduced to 69 DECRIS key elements through brainstorming
The 98 preliminary elements were reduced to 69 DECRIS key elements through brainstorming
session in the focus group and individual interviews, and the sections and categories were structured
session in the focus group and individual interviews, and the sections and categories were structured as
as shown in Table 1. The number of elements and categories in each section are shown in Table 2. The
shown in Table 1. The number of elements and categories in each section are shown in Table 2. The overall
overall hierarchy and its structure was benchmarked from the PDRI framework. However, each
hierarchy and its structure was benchmarked from the PDRI framework. However, each element for
element for DECRIS was identified, defined, and customized for detail engineering for offshore oil and
DECRIS was identified, defined, and customized for detail engineering for offshore oil and gas projects.
gas projects.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 8 of 31

Table 1. DECRIS Sections, Categories and Elements.

Code Description Code Description

I Basis of Detail design F Structural and Architectural
A Project Scope F1 Structural Requirements
A1 Project Objectives Statement F2 Structural Analysis
A2 Project Scope of Work F3 Structural and Architectural Arrangement Drawing
A3 Project Philosophies F4 Weight Control Report
B Project Performance Requirement G Instrument and Electrical
B1 Products G1 Control Philosophy
B2 Capacities G2 Logic Diagrams
B3 Technology G3 Cable Schedule
B4 Processes G4 Hook-up Diagram
C Design Guideline G5 Critical Electrical Item lists
C1 Process Design Criteria G6 Electrical Single Line Diagrams
C2 Project Site Assessment G7 Instrument and electrical Specifications
C3 Lead discipline Scope of Work H Material Take-Off
C4 Project Schedule H1 Piping MTO (Material Take Off)
C5 Constructability Analysis H2 Structural and Architectural MTO
II Engineering Deliverables H3 Instrument and Electrical Bulk Item MTO
D Process/Mechanical/Piping I 3D modeling
D1 Process Flow Diagrams I1 3D Modeling Review
D2 Heat and Material Balances I2 3D Modeling Input (Equipment/Piping)
D3 Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams I3 3D Modeling Input (Structural)
D4 Process Safety Management (PSM) I4 3D Modeling Input (Architectural)
D5 Utility Flow Diagrams I5 3D Modeling Input (Instrument and Electrical)
D6 Process Datasheets J General Facility Requirement
D7 Equipment Mechanical Datasheets J1 Preservation and Storage Requirement
D8 Specifications J2 Transportation Requirement
D9 Piping System Requirements J3 Welding Procedure Specification
D10 Plot Plan III Execution Approach
D11 Mechanical Equipment List K Engineering Project Management
D12 Line Lists K1 Team Participants and Roles
D13 Tie-in Lists K2 Engineering/Construction Methodology
D14 Piping Stress Analysis K3 Deliverables for Design and Construction
D15 Piping Isometric Drawings K4 Deliverables for Commissioning and Close-out
D16 Piping Specialty Items Lists K5 Owner Approval Requirements
D17 Instrument Index K6 Interface Management and Communication Plan
E Equipment Vendor K7 Risk Analysis
E1 Equipment Procurement Status K8 Identify Long Lead/Critical Equipment and Materials
E2 In-line and Instrument Procurement Status L Project Execution Plan
E3 Equipment General Arrangement Drawings L1 Project Cost Estimate and Control
E4 Process and Mechanical Documents L2 Procurement Procedures and Plans
E5 Instrument and Electrical Documents L3 Project Change Control
E6 Structural and Architectural Documents
E7 Equipment Utility Requirements

Table 2. Categories and Elements for each Section.

Section No of Category No of Element

Basis of Detail Design 3 12
Engineering Deliverables 7 46
Execution Approach 2 11
Total 12 69

The first section, the basis of detail design, consists of three categories (project scope,
project performance requirements, and design guidelines) and 12 elements that assist in understanding
the project’s objectives. Completion rating of this section specifies how the project is sufficiently
organized in line with the project objectives.
The second section, engineering deliverables, includes 46 elements that provide technical
information to understand and assess the technical requirements for the detail design of a project.
The elements included in this section are generally finalized in sequential submissions and revision
control for engineering documents in the process of approval from the owners during the detail design
stage including (a) the preliminary issue, (b) issue for approval (IFA), (c) approved for design (AFD)
and (d) AFC. The terms can vary according to the specific project requirements or type of engineering
deliverable. The seven categories in this section consist of process/mechanical/piping, equipment
vendor, structural/architectural, instrument/electrical, material take-off, 3D modeling, and general
facility requirement.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 31
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 31
Sustainability
for engineering2018, 10, x FOR PEERinREVIEW
documents the process of approval from the owners during the detail design 9stage of 31
Sustainability
for engineering2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 31
including (a) thedocuments
preliminaryinissue,
the process of for
(b) issue approval
approvalfrom the (c)
(IFA), owners during
approved forthe detail(AFD)
design design
andstage
(d)
Sustainability
for engineering2018, 10, x FOR
documents PEER REVIEW
inissue,
the process of for
approval from the (c)
owners during the detail(AFD)
design 9 of 31
stage
including
AFC. The (a) the
terms preliminary
can vary (b) issue
according to the approval
specific (IFA),
project approved
requirements for
or design
type of and (d)
engineering
Sustainability
for engineering2018, 10,
Sustainability 2018, x FOR PEERinREVIEW
documents
10, 2469
the process of for
approval from the (c)
owners during the detail(AFD)
design 9stage
of 31
9 of 31
including
AFC. (a)
The 2018, the
terms preliminary
can vary issue, (b)
according issue
to the approval
specific (IFA),
project approved for design and
requirements or type of engineering (d)
deliverable.
Sustainability
for engineering The10,seven
x FOR categories
PEER REVIEW in this section consist of process/mechanical/piping, equipment
9 of 31
including
AFC. The(a) thedocuments
terms preliminary
can
inissue,
the process of for
(b) issue approval
approvalfrom the (c)
(IFA), owners during
approved forthe detail(AFD)
or design
design
andstage
(d)
deliverable.
Sustainability
vendor,
for The10,
2018, x FORvary
seven
structural/architectural,
engineering documents
according
categories
PEERinREVIEW
to the
in this specific
ofsection
theinstrument/electrical,
process approval
project
consist of
material
from
requirements
take-off,
owners 3Dfor
during
type of engineering
theprocess/mechanical/piping,
modeling,
the equipment
and
detail(AFD)
design 9stage
of 31
general
including
AFC. The (a) the
terms preliminary
can vary issue, (b)
according issue
to for
the approval
specific (IFA),
project (c) approved
requirements or design
type of and (d)
engineering
deliverable.
Sustainability
vendor,
for engineering
The The
2018, 10,seven
documents
third categories
xsection,
FOR PEER inREVIEW
structural/architectural, in approach,
thisofsection
process
execution consist
theinstrument/electrical,
approval from
consists ofof
material
theprocess/mechanical/piping,
two take-off,
owners 3Dand
during
categories modeling,
the11detail equipment
and 9stage
ofdefine
general
design
elements that 31
facility
including
AFC. requirement.
The (a) the preliminary
terms can vary issue, (b) issue
according to the forspecific
approval (IFA), requirements
project (c) approved for or design
type of(AFD) and (d)
engineering
deliverable.
vendor,
for engineering Thedocuments
seven
structural/architectural, categories
inissue, in this
process ofsection
theinstrument/electrical,approval consist
from of
material
the process/mechanical/piping,
take-off,
owners 3Dfor
during modeling,
the detail toequipment
and
design general
stage
facility
including
the
The requirement.
(a)
approach
third
AFC. The terms the preliminary
method
section,
can vary
for
execution the
according (b)
approach, issue
contractor’s
to the for approval
strategies
consists
specific of two(IFA),
and
project (c)
execution
categories approvedfrom
and 11 design
engineering
elements
requirements or type of engineering (AFD)
that and (d)
construction.
define the
deliverable.
vendor,
for engineering Thedocuments
seven
structural/architectural, categories
in the in this
process ofsection
instrument/electrical,
approval consist
from of
material
the process/mechanical/piping,
take-off,
owners 3D
during modeling,
the detail andequipment
design general
stage
facility
including
AFC. The requirement.
The (a)
third
Categories the
terms of preliminary
section,
can
this execution
vary
section issue,
according
consist (b)
approach,
of issue
to thefor
engineering approval
consists
specific of two(IFA),
project
project (c)
categories approved
requirements
management and 11
and for
or design
elements
type
project (AFD)
that
of and
define
engineering
execution (d)
the
plan.
approach
deliverable. method
vendor,requirement. The seven for the
structural/architectural, contractor’s
categories in this strategies
section and
instrument/electrical, consist execution from engineering
of process/mechanical/piping,
material take-off, 3Dfor modeling, to construction.
andequipment
general
facility
including
AFC. The
The (a)
third the
terms preliminary
section,
can execution
vary issue,
according (b)
approach, issue
to thefor approval
consists
specific of two(IFA),
project (c)
categories approved
requirementsand 11 design
elements
or type (AFD)
that
of and
define
engineering (d) to
the
approach
deliverable.
Categories
vendor, method
EachofThe for the
this seven
element
section
structural/architectural, contractor’s
categories
selected
consist of in this
through strategies
the
engineering section
expert
instrument/electrical, and
consist
project groupexecution
workshop
management
material from
and engineering
of process/mechanical/piping,
take-off,
is assigned
project a to construction.
execution
3D modeling,
differentequipment
plan.
and
weight
general
facility
AFC. The requirement.
Thethird terms section,
can execution approach, consists of two categories and 11 elements that define the
approach
deliverable.
Categories method
of The
this for vary
seven
section the according
contractor’s
categories
consist of in tostrategies
this
engineering the specific
section and
consist
project project
execution
of
management requirements
from
process/mechanical/piping, or execution
engineering type antoof engineering
construction.
equipment
vendor,
measure
Each
facility
The
structural/architectural,
the
element
requirement.
third
detail
section,
engineering
selected
execution through instrument/electrical,
completion
the
approach, expert
consists
rating.
group of
material
To verify
workshop
two categories
the isand
take-off, project
3D modeling,
importance
assigned
and 11 a of
elementsdifferentthat
plan.
and
element, general
weight
define
a weight
to
the
approach
deliverable.
Categories method
The
of each for
seven
this section the contractor’s
categories
consist of in strategies
this
engineering section and
consist
project execution
of
management from engineering
process/mechanical/piping, to construction.
equipment
vendor,
Each
facility
measure
The
structural/architectural,
theelement
requirement.
factor for
third detail selected
element
engineering
section,
was
execution through instrument/electrical,
completionthe expert
recalibrated
approach,
through
rating.
consists group
Toof
material
workshop
an verify
expert
two
survey
the
categories isand
take-off,
and
importance
and
project
assigned
an
11 of
execution
3Dadditional
modeling,
aan
elementsdifferent plan.
and
statistical
element,
that a general
weight
define to
analysis.
weight
the
approach
Categories
vendor, method
ofthethis for theconsist
section
structural/architectural, contractor’s
of strategies
engineering
instrument/electrical, and management
project executiontake-off,
material from
and engineering
project
3D to construction.
execution
modeling, plan.
and general
Each
facility
measure element
requirement. selected through the expert group workshop is assigned a different weight to
factor
approachfor the
The
Prior
Categories third
to
each detail
method element
of this
engineering
section,
expert
for
section execution
survey,
was ancompletion
approach,
recalibrated
theconsist
contractor’s
of
unweightedthroughrating.
consists
strategies
engineering
projectTo
an and of verify
expert
project two the and
categories
scoresheet
survey
execution
management
importance
and
from and
an
and
of an statistical
11 elements
descriptions
additional
engineering
project
element,
of
tothat
execution
the aanalysis.
define
elementsweight
construction.
plan. thewere
Each
facility
measure
The element
requirement.
the
third detail
section,selected
engineering
execution through
completionthe
approach, expert
rating.
consists group
To workshop
verify
of two the
categories is assigned
importance
and of a
11 elementsandifferent
element,
that weight
a
defineweight to
the
factor
approach
Prior forthe
provided
to each
method element
to
ofexpert for
increase was
the
survey, the recalibrated
contractor’s
ansurvey through
strategies
participants’
unweighted project an expert
and
understanding
scoresheet survey
execution and and
of from
eachan additional
engineering
element.
descriptions statistical
toelements analysis.
construction.
Categories
Each
measure
The the
third
this
element
detail
section
selected
engineering
section,
consist
execution throughof engineering
completionthe expert
approach,
project
rating.
consists group
Toof
management
workshop
verify
two the and
categories isand
importance
and
project
assigned
11 aof
ofStatus”
elements
the
execution
andifferent
element,
that
plan.
weight were
aanalysis.
defineweight to
the
factor
approach
Prior for
to
Categories
provided each
the
Themethod
to element
expert
ofincrease for
this section
DECRIS the was
the
survey, recalibrated
contractor’s
an
consist
element
survey unweighted through
of engineering
description
participants’ strategies
Boxproject
1. an expert
and
project
“E1.
understanding survey
execution
scoresheet
management
Equipment of and
each from an
and
Procurement
element.additional
engineering
descriptions of
projectaexecutionstatistical
the to construction.
elements
is plan.
shown were
below as
Each
measure theelement
detail selected
engineering through
completionthe expert
rating. group
To verifyworkshopthe and is assigned
importance different
of an statistical
element, weight
aanalysis.
weight to
factor
approach
Prior for
to
Categories
provided each
themethod
of element
expert
this
toelement
increase for
section was
the
survey, recalibrated
contractor’s
an
consist
the survey unweighted
of through
strategies
engineering
participants’ project an expert
and
scoresheet
project
understanding survey
execution
management and
ofthe
each from an additional
engineering
descriptions
and
element. project of the to
execution construction.
elements
plan. were
Eachthe
an
The
measure example.
DECRIS detail selected
element
engineering through
description
completionthe
Box expert
1.rating.
“E1.an group
Equipment
To verifyworkshop is
Procurement assigned
importance of aandifferent
Status” is shownweight
element, below
aanalysis.
weight to
as
factor
Prior forthe
to
Categories
provided each element
expert
ofincrease
this
toelement thewas
survey,
section recalibrated
an
consist
survey unweighted through
of engineering
participants’ project expert
scoresheet
project
understanding survey
management and
ofthe
eachand an additional
descriptions
and
element. project of statistical
the
execution elements
plan. were
Each
The
measure
an example. DECRIS
the detail selected
element
engineering through
description
completionthe
Box expert
1. “E1.
rating. group
Equipment
To workshop
verify is
Procurement assigned
importance Status”
of aandifferent
is shown
element, weight
below
a weight to
as
factor
Prior forthe
to each element
expert thewas
survey, recalibrated
an unweighted through
project an expert
scoresheet survey and and an additional
descriptions statistical analysis.
provided
Each
The
measure
an example.
toelement
the increase
DECRIS detail selected
element survey
engineering participants’
through
description Boxthe
completion Box
1. E1.1. understanding
expert
“E1.
rating. group
EquipmentEquipment
To verify ofthe
workshop each
Procurement
Procurement element.
is assigned
importance
Status. Status”
of aof
an
the
is
elements
different
shown
element, weight
below
a
were
weight to
as
factor
Prior
providedforthe
to each
to element
expert
increase the was
survey, surveyrecalibrated
an unweighted
participants’ through
project an expert
scoresheet
understanding survey
of and
eachand an additional
descriptions
element. statistical
of the elements analysis.
were
The
measure
an E1.
example. theEquipment
DECRIS detail element Procurement
engineering description Status
completion Box 1.rating.
“E1.anEquipment
To verify Procurement
the importance Status”
of an is shown below
element, aanalysis.
weight as
factor
Prior
providedforthe
to each element
expert
toEquipment
increase the was
survey, surveyrecalibrated
an unweighted
participants’ through
project expert
scoresheet
understanding survey and and an additional
descriptions
ofProcurement
each element. statistical
of the elements were
an The E1.
The
example. DECRIS
equipment element Procurement
description
procurement Status
Box
status 1.refers
“E1.anEquipment
to all ofsurvey
the Vendor’s Status” is
processes fromshown below
material as
requisition to
factor
Prior for
toE1.
provided each
E1.
the element
Equipment
expert survey,
toEquipment
increase the was
surveyrecalibrated
Procurement Status
an unweighted
participants’ through
project expert
scoresheet
understanding and and an additional
descriptions
ofProcurement
each element. statistical
of the elements were analysis.
an The The
example. DECRIS
equipment element Procurement
description
procurement Status
Box
status 1. “E1.
refers Equipment
to all of the Vendor’s Status”
processes is
fromshown below
material as
requisition to
equipment
Prior toE1.
The
the (mechanical,
equipment
expert survey,
procurement electrical,
an unweighted
status etc.) delivery
refers
project
to all in
of line
the
scoresheet with
Vendor’s
and the Required
processes
descriptions
fromon Site
material(ROS).
of the elements were In a
requisition project,
to the
provided
The The toEquipment
increase
DECRIS
equipment the
element survey
Procurement
procurement participants’
description Status
Box
status 1. understanding
“E1.
refers Equipment
to all of ofProcurement
the each
Vendor’selement. Status”
processes is
fromshown below
material as
requisition to
an example.
equipment
equipment
overall (mechanical,
(mechanical,
processes for electrical,procurement
electrical,
equipment
etc.) etc.) delivery
delivery in line in line
with
status
the with be
should themanaged
Required Requiredwithout
on Site (ROS).on Site delay
In a (ROS).during
project, In a project,
the overall the
the detail
provided
TheE1.
The toEquipment
increase
DECRIS
equipment the
element survey
Procurement
procurement participants’
description Status
Box
status understanding
1.refers
“E1. Equipment
to beall of the ofProcurement
each
Vendor’selement. Status”
processes is
fromshown below
material as
requisition to
an example.
equipment
processes
overall
for(mechanical,
equipment
processes for electrical,
procurement
equipment etc.)
status
procurementdelivery
should in line
managed
statusneed with
should the
without Required
delay on
during Site
the (ROS).
detail In a
design project,
and the
design
E1.
TheThe and
Equipment
DECRIS construction
equipment element Procurement stages. The
description
procurement Status
Box following
status 1.refers
“E1. items
Equipment
to all of the bebeconsidered.
toVendor’s
Procurement
managed without delay during the detail
Status”
processes is
fromshown below
material as
requisition to
an example.
equipment
construction
overall (mechanical,
stages.
processes
The
for electrical,
following
equipment
items etc.)
need
procurementdelivery
to be in line
considered.
statusneed with
should the Required on Site (ROS). In a project, the
design
E1.
❏
The and
Equipment
Material construction
equipment Procurement
Requisition stages. The
procurement Status following
status refers items
to all of the bebeconsidered.
toVendor’s managed without delay during the detail
processes from material requisition to
an example.
equipment
overall
Material (mechanical,
processes
Requisition
for electrical,procurement
equipment etc.) delivery in line
status with be
should themanaged
Requiredwithout on Site delay(ROS).duringIn a project, the
the detail
design
E1.
❏
The and
Equipment
Material construction
equipment Procurement
Requisition stages. The
procurement Status following
status refers items
to all need
of the toVendor’s
be considered. processes from material requisition to
❏ Bid
equipment
overall
Bid Closing
(mechanical,
Closing
processes for electrical,procurement
equipment etc.) delivery in line
status with be
should themanaged
Requiredwithout on Site delay(ROS).duringIn a project, the
the detail
design
E1.
❏
The and
Equipment
Material construction
equipment Procurement
Requisition stages. The
procurement Status following
status refers items
to all need
of the toVendor’s
be considered. processes from material requisition to
❏
equipmentBid Closing
Technical
❏ Technical
overall (mechanical,
processes
Bid electrical,
Evaluation/Tabulation
Bidfor equipment etc.)
procurementdelivery in line
statusneed with
should the Required on Site (ROS). In a project, the
design
❏
The and
Material construction
equipment
Evaluation
Requisition stages./The
procurement
Tabulation
following
status refers items
to all of the bebeconsidered.
toVendor’s managed without delay during the detail
processes from material requisition to
❏
equipmentBid
Updated
❏ Updated
overall Closing
(mechanical,
processes
Material
Bidfor electrical,
Requisition
equipment etc.)
procurementdelivery in line
statusneed with
should the Required on Site (ROS). In a project, the
❏
design
❏
Technical
and
Material construction
Material Evaluation
Requisition stages./The
Requisition Tabulation
following items to bebeconsidered.
managed without delay during the detail
❏
equipment
❏
overall Bid
PurchaseClosing
(mechanical,
processes
Technical
Order
Bidfor electrical,
equipment
Evaluation etc.) delivery
procurement in line
status with be
should themanaged
Requiredwithout on Site delay(ROS).duringIn a project, the
the detail
❏
design
❏ and
Updated
Material
Purchase construction
Material
Order Requisition
Requisition stages./The Tabulation
following items need to be considered.
❏
❏
overall Bid
Vendor Closing
Technical
documentation
processes Bid for equipment
Evaluation / procurement
Tabulation status should be managed without delay during the detail
❏
design
❏ and construction
Updated
Material
Purchase Material
Requisition
Order stages. The following items need to be considered.
Requisition
❏
❏ Bid
Vendor Closing
Fabrication
Technical documentation
Work Commence
Bid Evaluation
❏ Factory
design
❏ and construction
Updated
Material
Purchase Material
Requisition
Order stages./The
Requisition Tabulation
following items need to be considered.
❏
❏ Bid
Vendor Closing
Technical
Fabrication documentation
Acceptance
BidWork
Test
Evaluation
Commence / Tabulation
❏
❏ Updated
Material
Purchase Material
Requisition
Order Requisition
❏ Technical
❏ Bid
Vendor Closing
Equipment documentation
Delivery
Bid
along
Evaluation
with ROS
❏ Fabrication
❏ Updated
Factory
Purchase
Work
Material
Order Requisition
Acceptance Test / Tabulation
Commence
❏
❏ Bid
Vendor Closing
Technical
Fabrication documentation
BidWorkEvaluation
Commence / Tabulation
❏
❏ Updated
Factory
Purchase
Equipment Material
Acceptance
Order
Delivery Requisition
Test
along with ROS
❏
❏ Vendor
Technical documentation
Bid Evaluation
❏The
❏
❏
Fabrication
Updated
Factory
Purchase
Equipment
Vendor
Work
Material
expertAcceptance
Order
Delivery
survey
documentation was also/used
Commence
Requisition
Test
along
Tabulation
withfor ROS data collection to weigh each element. Thomson [18] studied
❏ Others
❏ Fabrication
Updated
Factory Work Commence
Material
Acceptance Requisition
Test
❏
❏ Purchase
Equipment Order
Vendor documentation
Others
the optimum sample Delivery
size along
for with
surveys ROS
or interviews and concluded it to be 25, from a review of over
❏
❏ Fabrication
Factory Work Commence
Acceptance Test
100 ❏❏
❏ Purchase
Equipment
Vendor
Others Order
Delivery
documentation along
Box with
1. E1. In ROS
Equipment Procurement Status
❏ Fabrication
studies
Factory
using Workgrounded
Acceptance Commence theory. this research, 32 survey participants were assigned for data
❏ Others
❏ Equipment
Vendor DeliveryTest
documentation along
Box 1.with
E1. ROS
Equipment Procurement Status
❏
❏ Fabrication
Factory Work
Acceptance Commence
DeliveryTest
collection to weigh each element. To collect a meaningful sampling group with over cumulative
❏ Others
Equipment along 1.with ROS
The❏❏
❏
❏
Fabrication
expert
Factory survey Work
was
Acceptance
Equipment Delivery along
Box
Commence
alsoTestused E1. oil
for Equipment
data collectionProcurement
to weigh Status
each element. Thomson
sampling[18] andstudied
1.with ROS
400 years of experience in offshore and gas EPC projects, judgmental snowball
The ❏expert
Others survey was also Box
used E1. Equipment
for data collectionProcurement
to weigh Status
each element. Thomson [18] studied
❏
the optimum Factory
❏ Others sample
Equipment Acceptance
size
Delivery Test
for surveys
along or
withinterviews
ROS and concluded it tomight
be 25,be from a review of over 100
The❏
sampling methods were used.
Box 1.Once again, random
E1. Equipment Procurement sampling more efficient to increase
the optimum
❏ expert
Equipment survey
sample was
size forof
Delivery also
surveysused
along for
or
with data
interviews
ROS collection
and to weighStatus
concluded each element.
it towere
be 25, from Thomson
a review [18]
of studied
over 100 of
studies using
❏ Others grounded theory. In
Boxthis research,
1. for
E1. Equipment 32 survey participants
Procurement assigned for data collection
the
the representativeness
The expert
optimum survey
sample was
size for alsothe
surveys
population
used or interviews
[17].
data collection However,
and to weighStatus
concluded
because
each
it to be
of the
element.
25,
limit
from
on
Thomson
a review
the availability
[18]
of studied
over 100
studies using grounded theory. In this research, 32from
survey participants were assigned for data collection
the The❏expert
to weigh Others
each
knowledgeable
optimum
element.
survey
sample experts
size
To in
was for
collect
alsotheBox
surveysuseda1.meaningful
local E1.
for
or
Equipment
industry
interviews
sampling
data collection Procurement
and
group
to weigh
aconcluded
practical with
Status
each
point
it to ofover
element.
be view,
25,
cumulative
from Thomson
judgmental
a review
400
[18]
and
of
years
studied
over
of
snowball
100
studies
to weigh using
each grounded
element. theory.
To In
collectBoxthis
a 1. research,
meaningful
E1. Equipment 32 survey
sampling participants
Procurement group with
Status were
over assigned
cumulative for data400 collection
years of
experience
the The expert
optimum
sampling in sample
offshore
weresurvey
used oil
was
size and
for
with gas
also
surveys EPCor
used
various projects,
forinterviews
discipline judgmental
data collection to
and concluded sampling
weigh ineachtoand
itwith snowball
element.
be 25, from a sampling
Thomson
review [18] methods
studied
ofcollection
over 100
studies
to weigh using
each grounded
element. theory.
To In
collectBoxthis
a 1. research,
meaningful
E1. Equipment 32experts
survey
sampling
invited
participants
Procurement group
this
Status
research.
were
over assigned On
cumulative
average,
for data400
each
years
expert
of
experience
were
the The
used.
optimum in
expert
Onceoffshore
survey
again,
sample oil
was
size and
random
foryearsgas
also EPC
used
sampling
surveys orprojects,
forinterviews
data
might judgmental
collection
besurvey
more
and to sampling
weighengineering
efficient
concluded each
to and
increase
itwith
to be snowball
element. orThomson
the
25,assigned
from sampling [18]
representativeness
a review methods
studied
ofcollection
over 100of for
studies
to weigh using
participant
each grounded
has
element.over theory.
13
To In
collect this research,
ofa experience
meaningful 32in detail
sampling participants
design
groupeach were
over for data
project
cumulative management
400 years of
experience
were The
used. in
expert
Onceoffshore
survey
again, oil
was and
random gas
also EPC
used
sampling projects,
for data
might judgmental
collection to sampling
weigh and snowball
element. sampling
Thomson [18] methods
studied
the optimum
population
studies
to weigh using
offshore each sample
[17].
grounded
oil element.
and size
However,
gas forcollect
theory.
To
EPC surveys
because
In
projectsthis
a or interviews
of the
research,
meaningful
or over 10 32be
limit more
and
on
survey
sampling
years the
of efficient
concluded
availability
participants
group
experience to increase
itwith
to beproject
of
were
in over
themanagement
25,assigned
from
knowledgeable representativeness
a review
cumulative for data 400ofcollection
experts overin 100
years
of
the
of
consultancy.
experience
were
the The
used.
optimum in
expert
Onceoffshore
survey
again,
sample oil
was
size and
random
for gassampling
also
surveys EPCor
used projects,
for data
might
interviews judgmental
collection
besurvey
more
and to sampling
weigh
efficient
concluded each
to and
increase
itwith
to be snowball
element.
25, from a sampling
theThomson [18]
representativeness
review of methods
studied
over 100of
local
to population
studies using
industry
weigh each [17].
grounded
from
element. However,
a theory.
practical
To because
Inpoint
collect this
a of
of the
research,
view,
meaningful limit
32 on
judgmental
samplingthe availability
participants
and
group snowball of
wereknowledgeable
over assigned
sampling
cumulative for
were experts
data400 inwith
collection
usedyears the
of
experience
were
the
Most
used.
optimum
ofin
Onceoffshore
the survey
again,
sample oil andsurveys
random gassampling
participants EPCorprojects,
were selected
might judgmental
from
besurvey
more two sampling
efficientmajorto and
EPC
increase snowball
contractors
a sampling
(H
the representativenesscompanymethods and
of S
to population
studies
local
weigh
various
experience
using
industry
each
discipline
in
[17].
grounded
from
element. asize
However,
experts
offshore oilTofor
theory.
practical
and
because
Inpoint
collect
invitedgas
this
in athis
EPC
interviews
of the
research,
of view,
meaningful
research.
projects,
limit
32 and
on
judgmental
sampling
On
judgmental
concluded
the
average,
availability
participants
and
group
each
sampling
itwith
to
snowball
expert
beover
of
were
and
25, from
knowledgeable
assigned
sampling
cumulative
participant
snowball
review
for
were
has
sampling 400
over
of
experts
data usedover
years
13
100
inwith
collectionthe
years
methods of
were used.
company
theweigh
population
studies using Oncein again,
South
[17].
grounded random
Korea).
However,
theory.
Tosampling
increase
because
In this might
survey
of view,
the
research, limit
32besurvey
more
on theefficient
reliability, the
availability
participants to increase
expert survey
of over
were the representativeness
was
knowledgeable
assigned
carried
for
out
experts
data
using
inwith
collection ofonly
the
local
to
variousindustry
experience each
discipline
in from
element. a oil
experts
offshore practical
To collect
invited
and gas point
in athis
EPC of
meaningful
research.
projects, judgmental
sampling
On
judgmentalaverage, and
group
each
sampling snowball
with
expert
and sampling
cumulative
participant
snowball were
has
sampling 400
overusedyears
13 years
methods of
of
theexperience
were population
face-to-face in
used. Once[17]. detail
again, design
random
However,
interviews. engineering
The sampling
because or
might
of view,
information the project
limit
on bethe
onmanagement
more theefficient
availability
experience for
to offshore
of increase
of over
the oil and gas
the participants
knowledgeable
survey EPC
representativeness
experts projects
inwith
is shown of in
the
local
to
variousindustry
weigh each
discipline from
element. a
experts practical
To collect
invited point
in a of
meaningful
thisprojects,
research. judgmental
sampling
Onmore average, and
group snowball
eachfor with sampling
cumulative were 400usedyears of
experience
of
or
theexperience
were
overused.
10
population
in
Once
years offshore
in detail
again,
of
[17].
oil and
design
random
experience
However,
gas
in EPC
engineering
sampling
project
because might
management
of view,
the
judgmental
or project
limitbe onmanagement sampling
theefficient
consultancy.
availability toexpert
Most and
increase participant
snowball
offshore the
ofofknowledgeable
the survey has
sampling over
participants 13
EPCmethods
oil representativeness
and gasexperts years
projects
inwereof
the
local industry
Table
various
experience
3.
discipline
in from
offshore a
experts practical
oil invited
and in gas point
in this ofresearch.
EPC projects, judgmental
On
judgmentalaverage, and
each
sampling snowball
expert
and sampling
participant
snowball were
has
sampling overused 13 with
years
of
or
theexperience
were
overused.
10from
population Once
years in detail
again,
of
[17]. design
random
experience
However, engineering
sampling
project
because or project
might
management
of view,
the be on management
more efficient
consultancy. for offshore
to increase
Most the
ofofknowledgeable
the survey and EPCmethods
oil representativeness
gasexperts
participants projects
inwereof
selected
local
variousindustry
discipline two
from major
experts EPC
a practical
invited contractors
point
in thisof (H limit
research. company
judgmental
Onmore
theand
average,
availability
Seach
and company
snowball
expert in South
sampling
participant Korea).
were
has To
overusedincrease
13
the
with
years
of
or
theexperience
were
overused.
10
population Once
years in detail
again,
of
[17]. design
random
experience
However, engineering
in sampling
project
because or
mightproject
management
of the be management
efficient
consultancy. for
to
Most offshore
increase
of the oil
the
survey and gas EPC
representativeness
participants projects
wereof
selected
local
survey
various from two
industry
reliability,
discipline from major
the aexpert
expertsTable EPC
practical contractors
survey
3.
invited point thisof
in was
Experience (H limit
view,
carried company
Information
research. out onofthe
judgmental
Onusing andavailability
only Seach
and
Participants
average, company
snowball
face-to-face
for theof knowledgeable
expert in Southmodel.
sampling
interviews.
DECRIS
participant Korea).
were
The
has
experts
To
overused inwith
increase
information
13
the
years
of
or
theexperience
over 10
populationyears in[17].
detail
of design
experience
However, engineering
in project
because or project
management
of the limit onmanagement
consultancy.
the availability for
Most offshore
ofof the oil andparticipants
survey
knowledgeable gas EPC
experts projects
inwere
the
selected
local from two major EPC contractors (H company and Seach
company in South Korea). To increase
on
of
or theindustry
survey
various
over
reliability,
discipline
experience
experience
10 years
from
in of the
of
detail
aexpert
experts
the practical
experiencesurvey
design survey
invitedin
point thisof
in was
participants
engineering
project
view,
carried
research. judgmental
out
orisproject
management shownOnusing only
average,
in Table
management
consultancy.
and3. snowball
face-to-face
forexpert
Most offshore
of the
sampling
interviews.
participant were
Theover
has
oil andparticipants
survey gas EPC
used
information
13 with
years
projects
were
selected
local
survey
various from
industry
reliability,
discipline two
from major
the aexpert
experts EPC
practical contractors
survey
invited point
in was
this of (H company
view,
carried
research. judgmental
outOn using and
only
average, Seach
and company
snowball
face-to-face
expert in South
sampling
interviews.
participant Korea).
were
The
has To
usedincrease
information
over 13 with
years
on
of
or the experience
experience
over 10from
years in of of
detail the
experiencesurvey
design in participants
engineering orisproject
project management shownmanagement
Details in Table 3. for
consultancy. Most offshore
Number
ofinthe oil andparticipants
survey gas EPC projects were
selected
survey
various reliability,
discipline twothe major
expert
experts EPC
invited contractors
survey in was
this (H company
carried
research. outOn using and
only
average, Seach
company
face-to-face
expert South
interviews.
participant Korea).
The
has To increase
information
over 13 years
on
of
or the experience
experience
over 10from years in of of
detail the
experiencesurvey
design in participants
engineering is shown in
or project management
project management
Participant Table
consultancy. 3. for
Most offshore
of
32inthe oil andparticipants
survey
people gas EPC projects were
selected
survey reliability,twothe major
expert EPC contractors
survey was (H company
carried out using and
onlyS 3. company
face-to-face South
interviews. Korea).
TheEPC To increase
information
on
of
or the experience
experience
over 10 years in of of
detail the
experiencesurvey
design in participants
engineering
project oris
management
Overall shown
project
Experience in Table
management
consultancy. for
Most offshore
of
425the oil andparticipants
survey
years gas projects
were
selected
survey from twothe
reliability, major
expert EPC contractors
survey was (H company
carried out using and
onlyS 3. company ininterviews.
face-to-face South Korea). To increase
The information
on the experience
or over 10from
yearstwo of of the
experiencesurvey participants
incontractors
project
Over is of
10management
years shown in Table
consultancy.
Experience Most of 25inthe survey
people participants were
selected
survey reliability, the major
expert EPC survey was carried (H company
out using and S
only 3. company
face-to-face South Korea).
interviews. The information To increase
on the experience of the survey participants is shown in Table
selected
survey from two
reliability, the major
expert EPC contractors
survey was (H
carried company
Director
out using and S
only 3. company
face-to-face
2in South
people Korea).
interviews. The information To increase
on the experience of the survey participants
Team is shown
Leader/Department inHead
Table 9 people
survey
on reliability, the
the experience of theexpert
survey survey was
participants carried
is out
shown
Project Management Professionals (PMPs)
using
in only
Table face-to-face
3. interviews. The information
5 people
on the experience of the survey participants is shown in Table 3.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 10 of 31

5.3. Step 3: Data Normalization

To determine the weight factor for each of the DECRIS elements using the data from the
expert survey, data normalization, preliminary estimate, validation process, element average weight
calculation, and interpolation were carried out. Excel software was used for data input and weight
calculation and Statistical Analysis Software (SASTM ) was utilized for statistical analysis of the data set.
Upon collecting the data set from the expert survey, data normalization was carried out to normalize
each survey participant’s input data.
The maximum DECRIS score is defined as 1000 as equivalent to PDRI maximum index score, when all
elements in the DECRIS scoresheet were marked as Level 5 (as with the PDRI, DECRIS has five definition
levels for each element with Level 1 being complete and Level 5 being incomplete). The scoresheet
summation for 69 elements by 32 participants ranged from 262 to 620. Each participant’s scoresheet
was given a normalizing multiplier, calculated as the maximum DECRIS score of 1000 divided by the
sum of the answered scores for 69 elements (i.e., if a participant’s summation of 69 elements equated to
250, the scoresheet would receive a normalizing multiplier of four). The weight factor of each element
was pre-estimated as an average value of the normalized weights of the 32 participants. The value was
preliminary because the validation process had not yet been performed.

5.4. Step 4: Data Analysis

When sampling data do not comply with normal distribution, the inaccuracies of the result of
regression analysis or independent sampling t-test increase. To enhance the similarity between the
sampling data set and the normal distribution, a data validation process was carried out with a boxplot.
Using a data set of normalized element weight factors, the smallest data point, 25th percentile,
median, 75th percentile, and largest data point were calculated and specified on a boxplot. Appendix A
(Figures A1–A3) illustrates the boxplots which indicates the distribution of participant response for the
weight factor of each element including outliers for all 69 DECRIS elements. To secure reliability of the
data set and similarity with normal distribution, number of extremes and outliers were collected from
each participant, and the contribution score was calculated using Equation (1). The survey results with
a high contribution score were eliminated [8].

Contribution score = 3 × (number of extremes) + 1 × (number of outlier) (1)

Kline [19] suggested that, for a sampling data set which has an absolute value of skewness
less than 3 and an absolute value of kurtosis less than 10, its population can be assumed to be
distributed as normal distribution. To minimize the quantity of eliminated survey results while
maintaining the normal distribution assumption, skewness and kurtosis calculation using SASTM was
repeatedly conducted. Consequently, survey results with a contribution score of over 80 were removed.
The remaining survey data set has a skewness value of 2.02 and kurtosis value of 7.34 as the maximum
value among 69 elements; the statistical result thus shows that the population of all 69 elements can be
assumed as having a normal distribution. Through one sample t-test, individual elements were shown
to be in favor of alternative hypothesis (|t| < 0.0001) and were statistically verified as elements that
affect the detail engineering rating.
The basic relationship for each element was reviewed in the focus group workshop. The purpose
of one sample t-test for individual elements is to verify whether the weight factor as a survey result can
be considered as zero or not. If the previous workshop was well conducted, then expert participants
may give the weight factor higher than zero. Unless most experts judged that each element did
not affect the detail engineering completion, one sample t-test with zero basis for that element can
be passed.
In this research, the measurement range of DECRIS was defined as a minimum of 70 to a maximum
of 1000. This means that the DECRIS score is 70 when the level of all elements is Level 1 (i.e., all detail
engineering deliverables are completed thoroughly without further need for action), and 1000 when all
be considered as zero or not. If the previous workshop was well conducted, then expert participants
may give the weight factor higher than zero. Unless most experts judged that each element did not
affect the detail engineering completion, one sample t-test with zero basis for that element can be
passed.
In this2018,
Sustainability research,
10, 2469the measurement range of DECRIS was defined as a minimum of 70 to a maximum 11 of 31
of 1000. This means that the DECRIS score is 70 when the level of all elements is Level 1 (i.e., all detail
engineering deliverables are completed thoroughly without further need for action), and 1000 when all
elements are
elements are Level
Level 55 (i.e.,
(i.e., detail
detail engineering
engineering is is in
in the
the pre-matured
pre-matured status status far
far from
from full
full completion
completion yet).
yet).
Simply speaking, similar to PDRI assessment trend, a lower DECRIS score means lowerengineering
Simply speaking, similar to PDRI assessment trend, a lower DECRIS score means lower engineering
deficiency and
deficiency and therefore
therefore lessless re-work
re-work andand re-order
re-order at
atthe
thefabrication
fabricationstarting
startingsession.
session. The
The calculated
calculated
weight factor for each element was at a Level 5 weight, while the Level 1 weight was calculated using
weight factor for each element was at a Level 5 weight, while the Level 1 weight was calculated using
another normalizing
another normalizing multiplier
multiplierbasedbasedon onthe
theminimum
minimum DECRIS
DECRIS score of 70.
score TheThe
of 70. weights of Levels
weights 2, 3,
of Levels
and
2, 4 for
3, and each
4 for element
each element was
wasalso
alsocalculated
calculatedusing
usingaa linear interpolation formula.
linear interpolation formula. Through
Through the the
aforementioned calculation, the weight of each element and its levels was assigned into the unweighted
aforementioned calculation, the weight of each element and its levels was assigned into the unweighted
DECRIS scoresheet,
DECRIS scoresheet, which
which results
results in
in the
the development
development of of the
the weighted
weighted DECRIS
DECRIS scoresheet
scoresheet (refer
(refer to
to
Appendix B).
Appendix B). A
A part
part of
of the
the weighted
weighted DECRIS
DECRIS scoresheet
scoresheet is is shown
shownin inFigure
Figure4.4.

Figure 4. Sample of DECRIS Scoresheet for “Execution Approach” Section.

Figure 4. Sample of DECRIS Scoresheet for “Execution Approach” Section.

The weight factor of each element indicates the level of importance of the element’s contribution
Thedetail
to the weight factor of each
engineering element indicates
completion the level
rating index. Thenof importance
the relative of importance
the element’sofcontribution
each section, to
the detail engineering completion rating index. Then the relative importance of
category, and element is determined. Figure 5 shows the calculated relative importance of each section each section, category,
and
and element
category.isThe determined.
weight factor Figure 5 shows
of section II, the calculated
engineering relative importance
deliverables, of each section
the most important sectionandfor
category.
the DECRIS Theofweight
offshore factor of section
oil and gas EPCII,projects,
engineering deliverables,
is 67.3% of the totalthe most Figure
weight. important section
5 also for that
specifies the
DECRIS
the weight of offshore
factor ofoiltheand gas EPC projects, is 67.3%
process/mechanical/piping of the total
category weight.
is the highest Figure
as 2465 points;
also specifies that the
it is, therefore,
weight
the most factor of the category
important process/mechanical/piping
in the DECRIS framework. category Toisincrease
the highest as 246engineering
the detail points; it is,completion
therefore,
the most important category in the DECRIS framework. To increase the detail
rating, it implies that the engineering manager and project manager need to focus on this category. engineering completion
rating,A itDECRIS
implieslevel
that the engineering
assessment manager and
questionnaire was project
developed manager needassessment
to inform to focus on participants
this category. of a
A DECRIS level assessment questionnaire was developed to inform
descriptive definition of each level. The main purpose of the level assignment questionnaire is to assessment participants
of a descriptive
provide definitioncriteria
the assessment of eachfor level.
the The main purpose
definition level ofofeachthe level
DECRIS assignment
element.questionnaire
The sample
is to provide the assessment criteria for the definition level of each DECRIS
questionnaire included in Appendix C covers Section II—Category D. An individual questionnaire element. The sample
was
questionnaire
prepared based included
on each in Appendix
element’s C coversrating
completion Section II—Category
required D. An individual
to be achieved questionnaire
in each milestone. When
was prepared
a project based on
is assessed, anyeach element’s
element givencompletion
Level 0 was rating required
considered to applicable.
not be achievedThis in each
means milestone.
that the
When a project is assessed, any element given Level 0 was considered not applicable.
element will not be considered for measuring the engineering completion rating. The DECRIS level This means that
the element will not be considered for measuring the engineering completion rating. The DECRIS
level assessment questionnaires provide the information required to understand and assess technical
requirements for the detail engineering stage. For example, in the case of elements in section II,
engineering deliverables, the element level is assessed as the stage of repeated submissions of the
documents during detail engineering.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 31

assessment questionnaires provide the information required to understand and assess technical
requirements for the detail engineering stage. For example, in the case of elements in section II,
engineering2018,
Sustainability deliverables,
10, 2469 the element level is assessed as the stage of repeated submissions 12
of ofthe
31
documents during detail engineering.

Section Weight
II Engineering Deliverables 673
I Basis of Detail Design 166
III Execution Approach 161
Total 1000

Category Weight
D Process / Mechanical / Piping 246
K Engineering Project Management 116
G Instrument and Electrical 102
E Equipment Vendor 101
I 3D modeling 79
C Design Guideline 76
F Structural and Architectural 59
B Project Performance Requirement 51
H Material Take-Off 45
L Project Execution Plan 45
J General Facility Requirement 41
A Project Scope 39
Total 1000

Figure 5. DECRIS Weight for each Section and Category.

Figure 5. DECRIS Weight for each Section and Category.

5.5. Comparison of DECRIS vs. Previous Engineering Assessment Tools Layout and Use
5.5. Comparison of DECRIS vs. Previous Engineering Assessment Tools Layout and Use
As with any research endeavor, it is required that said research be an advancement of the general
As with any research endeavor, it is required that said research be an advancement of the general
body of knowledge. Although the PDRI and FEL are valid assessment tools, the PDRI was used by the
body of knowledge. Although the PDRI and FEL are valid assessment tools, the PDRI was used
authors of this paper more heavily in DECRIS development. As such, it is important to illustrate the
by the authors of this paper more heavily in DECRIS development. As such, it is important to
differences between these models for reader understanding and as a basis of support for the DECRIS
illustrate the differences between these models for reader understanding and as a basis of support
value-adding potential. Table 4 provides an illustration of the differences between the DECRIS, PDRI-
for the DECRIS value-adding potential. Table 4 provides an illustration of the differences between
Industrial, and PDRI-Infrastructure elements. The main distinctions between the DECRIS model and
the DECRIS, PDRI-Industrial, and PDRI-Infrastructure elements. The main distinctions between the
the previous assessment models is summarized as below.
DECRIS model and the previous assessment models is summarized as below.
1. The sections, based on project decision and front-end definition, are thus major components of
1. PDRI-Industrial
The sections, based (given
on aproject
922 score) [7] and
decision andPDRI-Infrastructure
front-end definition,(given a 730
are thus score)
major [8]. PDRI
components
focuses on front-end planning and does not represent work packages in the detail engineering
of PDRI-Industrial (given a 922 score) [7] and PDRI-Infrastructure (given a 730 score) [8].
stage.
PDRI The hierarchy
focuses overview planning
on front-end of the PDRI-Industrial
and does not model is briefly
represent work outlined in Appendix
packages D for
in the detail
reference purposes. As described in the introduction, the major target of DECRIS is the
engineering stage. The hierarchy overview of the PDRI-Industrial model is briefly detail
outlined
design conducted
in Appendix D forbyreference
the EPC contractor;
purposes. itAs
is thus reasonable
described in thethat the engineering
introduction, deliverables
the major of
target of
detail engineering is the most important section.
DECRIS is the detail design conducted by the EPC contractor; it is thus reasonable that the
2. From the project
engineering size pointofofdetail
deliverables view,engineering
PDRI-Industrial
is theismost
for midsize industrial
important section.projects whereas the
2. DECRIS
From theisproject
for oil size
and point
gas EPC megaprojects
of view, over US$is500
PDRI-Industrial for m.
midsize industrial projects whereas the
3. The Scope of detail engineering in PDRI-Infrastructure ism.
DECRIS is for oil and gas EPC megaprojects over US$ 500 basically the owner’s responsibility
3. (whereas
The Scopeinofcase ofengineering
detail EPC, it belongs to the EPC contractor,
in PDRI-Infrastructure therefore
is basically the completion
the owner’s of the(whereas
responsibility impact
of detail engineering completion to the schedule and cost performance is less severe than thedetail
in case of EPC, it belongs to the EPC contractor, therefore the completion of the impact of EPC
case).
engineering completion to the schedule and cost performance is less severe than the EPC case).
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 13 of 31

Table 4. Comparison between DECRIS, PDRI-Industrial and PDRI Infrastructure.

DECRIS PDRI-Industrial PDRI Infrastructure

Offshore Oil and Gas General Industrial
Sector Infrastructure
(>500M USD) (>10M USD)
Project phase Detail Design Front-End Planning Planning
No of section 3 3 3
Section #1 a Basis of Detail Design (16.6%) Basis of Project Decision (49.9%) Basis of Project Decision (43.7%)
a
Section #2 Engineering Deliverable (67.3%) Front-End Definition (42.3%) Basis of Design (29.3%)
Section #3 a Execution Approach (16.1%) Execution Approach (7.8%) Execution Approach (27.0%)
No of category 12 14 13
No of element 69 70 67
a The percent means each section’s portion of the overall score.

The next step in proving that DECRIS adds value to industry and academia alike is to show its
superiority in predicting project performance. This is discussed in Section 6 below. This includes,
in Section 6.3, an application of both the DECRIS model (developed to assess the correlation between a
contractor’s detail engineering completion and the project cost/schedule performance at the at the
fabrication start session) and the PDRI-Industrial model (primarily devised to assess the correlation
between an owner’s FEED completion and the project cost/schedule performance) on the same sample
offshore EPC projects. A discussion is presented on each model’s cost performance prediction accuracy
on the ongoing verification project as well.

6. Applications and Verifications

6.1. Step 5: Data Application through Sample Projects

The DECRIS model developed through previous research stages was then verified by applying it
to the 13 existing sample projects from H company. Each project was assessed using the DECRIS level
assessments at the moment of fabrication start of each project (steel cutting date). The score outputs
were then compared with the project performances of each project (using statistical analyses) to see
the level at which the model could predict project performance. A cutoff score was then developed
based on the model and sample projects. This score was the minimum score for the project to achieve
to avoid project failure. Finally, using the DECRIS model and statistical analysis, the labor hours and
construction duration were predicted for one of H company’s ongoing oil and gas EPC projects and
compared to the actual results.
Sample projects for the verification of DECRIS model were assigned from oil and gas EPC projects
with EPC contract price of over US$ 0.5 bn and below US$ 2.0 bn, which were completed over the last
6 years as representatives of oil and gas offshore EPC projects in Korean heavy industry. The total
project value of the 13 sample projects is about US$ 12.7 bn and the average project duration was
about 42 months. To verify the project status of the steel cutting session, data at the steel cutting and
hand-over milestone were collected, and the sample projects were classified as fixed or floater.
Following the same methodology as the previous assessment tools such as PDRI and FEL,
the retrospective project performance data of the 13 sample projects were assessed for DECRIS model
verification. The historical project data review and DECRIS assessment at the fabrication start session
were retrospectively conducted in accordance with history of the H company’s engineering document
management system (EDMS), which can provide the traceability of the engineering deliverables and
their revision controls, for the 13 sample projects. For section III, execution approach, which cannot
be assessed through the EDMS review, the project management team assigned to the specific project
assisted through face-to-face interviews. The individual DECRIS scores at the session of the steel
cutting for the 13 sample projects are shown in Table 5 (a 14th project ‘X’ is also shown and will be
used in Step 6). The DECRIS score range at the production starting stage was 246~446 and the average
was 319. The average DECRIS score of 319 is about 6% higher than cutoff score 300, which is to be
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 14 of 31

described at the later section on this paper. The result means that maturity of detail engineering on
the construction starting session (steel cutting) is lower than the optimal point so that low schedule
performance and cost overrun is expected.

Table 5. Selection of Sample Offshore EPC Project.

Project Type Steel Cutting Hand-Over DECRIS Score

A Fixed 2012-07-13 2015-07-15 346
B Floater 2011-07-01 2015-02-14 446
C Fixed 2012-04-02 2013-08-27 250
D Floater 2012-09-07 2015-12-17 304
E Fixed 2013-09-16 2015-06-30 299
F Floater 2014-06-13 2017-07-15 367
G Floater 2013-10-04 2015-11-30 367
H Floater 2014-05-02 2016-10-03 389
I Fixed 2015-03-03 2017-02-20 264
J Fixed 2015-09-15 2016-11-28 248
K Fixed 2016-01-25 2017-05-12 273
L Fixed 2008-09-23 2013-11-14 258
M Fixed 2011-03-04 2012-11-21 324
X Fixed 2016-07-01 2020-05-08 368

As shown in Table 6, the construction labor hours increase rate which is the primary cause of cost
overrun and construction duration delay of the sample projects were collected to validate the research
goals, to apply the DECRIS model for the offshore oil and gas EPC projects. The verification with the
sample projects is to assess the influence of the DECRIS score on the construction in the offshore oil
and gas EPC project.

Table 6. Impact on Construction in the Sample Projects.

Project CLIR 1 (%) CDD 2 (days) Project CLIR (%) CDD (days)
B 17.14% 411 L 0.82% 105
H 8.71% 246 E 1.61% 82
F 6.09% 305 K 2.44% 16
G 6.02% 210 I 2.84% 82
A 3.37% 246 C 2.22% -6
D 4.06% 102 J 3.24% 0
M 9.70% 111
1 CLIR = Construction labor hours increase rate; 2 CDD = Construction duration delay.

The following Equations (2) and (3) were used to calculate the construction labor hours increase
rate (cost overrun) and construction duration delay.

CLIR = (Construction labor hours increase)/(Budgeted construction labor hours) (2)

CDD = (Actual construction duration) − (Planned construction duration) (3)

The calculated construction labor hours increase includes all design changes caused by a low
detail engineering completion rating and detail engineer’s error and omission. Construction duration
delay includes not only the design changes due to low detail engineering completion, but also other
minor factors such as the owner’s change order, procurement impact and construction problems
during fabrication. Considering industry practices and expert judgments, most of the cost overrun
and schedule delay is caused by premature detail engineering and design change during construction
phase. It should be noted here that a considerable number of factors have an impact on construction,
performance, and the DECRIS model cannot explain all these factors.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 15 of 31

In the case of conventional PDRI, the PDRI cutoff score was determined as 200 [7]. The DECRIS is
not used for project definition of the FEED package but is used for demonstrating the detail engineering
completion rating; it is thus considered in this study that the existing PDRI cutoff score cannot be
used for DECRIS without further verification. To determine the DECRIS cutoff score, the independent
t-test was repeatedly conducted with a 0.05 level of significance to review the statistical difference
of average value between the two groups (high and low DECRIS score groups) of projects divided
by the DECRIS scores of 280, 300, and 320. The statistical difference was found in the t-test to have
a 95% level of confidence between the two groups of projects divided by 300. As shown in Table 7,
the sample projects were grouped as high- and low-score groups based on the DECRIS score of 300.

Table 7. Group of the Sample Projects based on DECRIS Score of 300.

Project Group DECRIS Score CLIR (%) CDD (days) Project Group DECRIS Score CLIR (%) CDD (days)
B High 446 17.14 411 E low 299 1.61 82
H High 389 8.71 246 K low 273 2.44 16
F High 367 6.09 305 I low 264 2.84 82
G High 367 6.02 210 C low 250 2.22 −6
A High 346 3.37 246 J low 248 3.24 0
D High 304 4.06 102 L Low 258 0.82 105
CLIR = Construction labor hours increase rate; CDD = Construction duration delay.

If a project’s DECRIS score at the steel cutting session is higher than 300, the project was then
included in the high-score group, otherwise it was included in the low-score group. The DECRIS score
range of the six projects included in the high-score group was 304–446 and their construction labor
hours increase rate (cost overrun) was from 3.4% to 17.1% with an average of 7.7%. For the low-score
group, the DECRIS score range was from 258 to 299, with an increase rate of from 0.8% to 3.2% of
construction labor hours, with an average increase rate of 2.2%. Through an independent sample
t-test, the test statistic of project F was 33.60 and the significant probability for population variance
and average difference was 0.0015 and 0.0475. An alternative hypothesis for both population variance
and average difference were concluded with a 95% level of significance.
To verify that the DECRIS cutoff score is also applicable for project schedule performance, another
independent sample t-test was performed. As shown in Table 7, the DECRIS score range of six projects
included in the high-score group was 304–446 and their construction duration delay ranged from 102
to 411 days with an average of 255 days (significant delay). The low-score group shows a DECRIS
score range of from 258 to 299 with -6 to 105 days of construction duration delay and an average of
47 days. The test statistic F-value was 4.45 and the significant probability for population variance and
average difference was 0.127 and 0.0012, respectively. The null hypothesis for population variance and
alternative hypothesis for average difference were thus concluded with a 95% level of significance.
The results of two statistical reviews using project cost and schedule performance showed that the
DECRIS cutoff score for the steel cutting session for offshore oil and gas EPC projects was 300.
From a theoretical point of view, this DECRIS cutoff score (300) is the most optimal fabrication
starting session with some adjustment according to the project completion schedule requirement and
resource availability of both engineering and construction.
Finally, the authors tested the DECRIS score’s ability to predict a project’s performance successfully.
To test this, a regression analysis was conducted to determine the correlation between the DECRIS
score and the construction labor hours increase rate with the sample projects. A scatter plot with the
DECRIS score (X-axis) and project performance (Y-axis) was generated and simple linear regression
was performed as shown in Figure 6. R-squared value was 0.7054; the regression function thus clearly
represents the correlation of the population. Following the same method, regression analysis was
conducted to realize the correlation between the DECRIS score and the construction duration delay
applied to the sample projects. A scatter plot with the DECRIS score (X-axis) and project performance
(Y-axis) was generated and simple linear regression was performed as shown in Figure 7. The project
 Sustainability
Sustainability 2018,
2018, 10,
10, x
x FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 16
16 of
of 31
31
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 16 of 31
duration
duration delay
delay applied
applied to
to the
the sample
sample projects.
projects. A
A scatter
scatter plot
plot with
with the
the DECRIS
DECRIS score
score (X-axis)
(X-axis) and
and project
project
performance
performance (Y-axis) was generated and simple linear regression was performed as shown in Figure
(Y-axis) was generated and simple linear regression was performed as shown in Figure 7.
7.
The project R-squared value was 0.8881, so that the regression function clearly represents
The project R-squared value was 0.8881, so that the regression function clearly represents the
R-squared value was 0.8881, so that the regression function clearly represents the correlation the
of
correlation
correlation
the of
of the
population. the population.
population.

20%
20%
increasing
Manhourincreasing

15% y
y == 0.0006x
0.0006x -- 0.1409
0.1409
15%
R²
R² == 0.7054
0.7054
Overrun
CostOverrun
(ConstructionManhour
rate)

10%
rate)

10%
Cost
(Construction

5%
5%

0%
0%
200
200 250
250 300
300 350
350 400
400 450
450 500
500
DECRIS
DECRIS Score
Score

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Correlation
Correlation between
between DECRIS
DECRIS Score
Score and
and Construction
Construction Labor
Labor Hours
Hours Increase
Increase Rate
Rate (Cost
(Cost
Figure 6. Correlation between DECRIS Score and Construction Labor Hours Increase Rate (Cost overrun).
overrun).
overrun).

600
600

500 y
y == 1.942x
1.942x -- 470.79
470.79
500
Delay)
DurationDelay)

R² = 0.8881
R² = 0.8881
400
400
Delay
(ConstructionDuration
ScheduleDelay

300
300
Schedule

200
200
(Construction

100
100

00
200
200 250
250 300
300 350
350 400
400 450
450 500
500
(100)
(100)
DECRIS
DECRIS Score
Score

Figure
Figure7.7.
Figure Correlation
7. Correlation between
Correlationbetween DECRIS
betweenDECRIS Score
DECRISScore and
Scoreand Construction
andConstruction Duration
ConstructionDuration Delay.
DurationDelay.
Delay.

As
As highlighted
highlighted in
As highlighted inthe
in theliterature
the literaturereview,
literature review,
review,other
other engineering
engineering
other engineering assessment
assessment
assessmenttools (such
toolstools as
as FEL
(such(suchFELasand
FELPDRIs
and PDRIs
and
as they
PDRIs were
as theyaswere developed
theydeveloped
were developed to evaluate
to evaluate the project
the project
to evaluate definition
definition
the project level and
level and
definition basic
basic
level andengineering
engineering (FEED)
(FEED) maturity
basic engineering maturity
(FEED)
in the
in the initial
maturity initial project
project
in the stage,
initialstage,
project prior
prior to EPC
to
stage, EPC contracts,
priorcontracts, by
by the
the project
to EPC contracts, by theowner)
project project were
owner) were
owner)not adequate
notwere
adequate to
to apply
applyto
not adequate to
to
predict
predict
apply the
tothe influence
influence
predict of detail engineering
of detail engineering
the influence completion
completion
of detail engineering on the construction
on the construction
completion re-work/re-order
re-work/re-order
on the construction by the EPC
by the EPC
re-work/re-order
contractor.
contractor.
by On
On the
the other
the EPC contractor. otherOnhand,
hand, DECRIS
hand,shows
DECRIS
the other shows
DECRIS reliable
showsindicators
reliable indicators to
to predict
predicttothe
reliable indicators the correlations
correlations
predict between
between
the correlations
DECRIS
between score
DECRIS DECRIS (i.e.,
score (i.e.,
scoredetail
detail engineering
(i.e.,engineering progress
progress
detail engineering and maturity)
and maturity)
progress at the fabrication
at theatfabrication
and maturity) start session
startstart
the fabrication session and
and
session
potential
potential
and construction
construction
potential construction cost and
cost cost schedule
and and
schedule performance.
performance.
schedule performance.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 17 of 31

6.2. Step 6: Model Verification with a Case Study

Step 5 proves that the model works well for the thirteen sample projects. However, the goal is for
the model to work on all EPC oil and gas projects. To review that the regression functions developed
in this research are applicable to ongoing projects, the project performance data of ongoing Project X
specified in Table 5 was collected.
As of November 2017, the forecasting cost and schedule performance were calculated using
linear interpolation based on current construction labor hours and duration increase. According to
interpolation results, a construction labor hours increase rate of 8.26% and a construction duration
delay of 177 days are calculated.
The DECRIS score of Project X is assessed as 368 which is much higher than the average of the
13 sample offshore projects. Therefore, DECRIS model predicts that underperformance risks on the
Project X are more severe than other projects.
Based on the DECRIS regression functions developed in this research, project performance of
ongoing Project X was predicted with Equations (4) and (5).

y = 0.0006x − 0.1409 = 7.99% (4)

z = 1.942x − 479.79 = 235 days (5)

where

x = DECRIS score at steel cutting session in Project X = 368

y = Construction labor hours increase rate (cost overrun) as per design changes
z = Construction duration delay

The result means that the construction labor hours increase rate of 7.99% (about US$ 12 m) and
235 days construction duration delay are expected for the ongoing Project X. This cost estimation is only
for construction labor hours; therefore, actual cost overrun including management cost, warehouse
cost, engineering cost and subsequent liquidated damages will be much higher than the calculated cost.
According to the comparison between actual results and DECRIS prediction, researchers found
that a construction labor hours increase rate of 8.26% and a construction duration delay of 177 days are
similar with 7.99% and 235 days predicted in the DECRIS model.
This result indicates that the DECRIS model predicts the cost and schedule performance of the
ongoing project. EPC contractors can use the DECRIS score at the steel cutting session to predict project
performance using the aforementioned regression functions, Equations (4) and (5).
As the limitation of this research, the case study is just to forecast the cost and schedule
impact of the project. As the continuation of the research, the DECRIS model will be continuously
implemented further for the engineering progress control to incorporate the initiation of module
fabrication start-time.

6.3. Comparison of DECRIS and PDRI (Existing Assessment Tool) Performance

As described in the previous section, the DECRIS model in this study is an evolution of the
FEL and PDRI models, modified to work more accurately on offshore oil and gas EPC megaprojects.
DECRIS was developed for offshore oil and gas by receiving assessments from both the owner’s FEED
completion assessment and EPC contractor’s detail engineering completion assessment. Although the
previous sections depict the DECRIS model’s accuracy, no comparison has been made with the existing
processes. As such, below is a simple comparison between the DECRIS and previous assessment
tools, with a focus on the PDRI-Industrial model as it most closely resembles the DECRIS model.
This presentation demonstrates the uniqueness and value-addition potential of the DECRIS model for
an EPC contractor’s project progress control, particularly for balancing between detail engineering,
procurement, and construction.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 18 of 31

Through the PDRI-Industrial assessments at the fabrication start stage of the 13 sample recently
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 31
completed EPC offshore projects listed in Table 5 by the industrial experts and the project management
team,
team, the
the correlation
correlation between
between the
thePDRI
PDRIscore
scoreand
andthe
theconstruction
constructioncost
costperformances
performanceswas
wasanalyzed
analyzed
using
using linear regression function. As a result of PDRI-Industrial assessment, PDRI score wascalculated
linear regression function. As a result of PDRI-Industrial assessment, PDRI score was calculated
within
within the
the range
range ofof 70
70 to 83 and
to 83 and plotted
plotted with
withthe
theconstruction
constructioncost
costperformances
performances using
using scatter
scatter plot,
plot, as
as shown in Figure
shown in Figure 8. 8.

25%
Cost Overrun (Construction Manhour

20% y = 0.0027x - 0.1437

R² = 0.0415
increasing rate)

15%

10%

5%

0%
60 65 70 75 80 85 90
PDRI Score

Figure8.
Figure 8. Correlation
Correlation between
between PDRI
PDRIScore
Scoreand
andConstruction
ConstructionLabor
LaborHours
HoursIncrease
IncreaseRate.
Rate.

In comparing the results of the DECRIS’s (Figure 7) and PDRI’s (Figure 8) abilities to accurately
In comparing the results of the DECRIS’s (Figure 7) and PDRI’s (Figure 8) abilities to accurately
predict cost overrun on offshore oil and gas EPC megaprojects, the DECRIS is found to be significantly
predict cost overrun on offshore oil and gas EPC megaprojects, the DECRIS is found to be significantly
superior. This is depicted in comparing the correlation coefficient (R-squared) value for the PDRI model
superior. This is depicted in comparing the correlation coefficient (R-squared) value for the PDRI model
(0.04) and the DECRIS model (0.70). (Due to the significant difference is cost overrun-model score
(0.04) and the DECRIS model (0.70). (Due to the significant difference is cost overrun-model score
correlation, no schedule-model score analysis was performed for the PDRI). This regression analysis
correlation, no schedule-model score analysis was performed for the PDRI). This regression analysis
result means that the DECRIS model is a more precise and reliable tool to estimate the correlation
result means that the DECRIS model is a more precise and reliable tool to estimate the correlation
between detail engineering assessment score and construction cost performance and to identify the
between detail engineering assessment score and construction cost performance and to identify the
optimal time point of fabrication start, compared to the previous assessment model (PDRI).
optimal time point in
Furthermore, of using
fabrication start,regression
the linear comparedfunction
to the previous
generated assessment modelassessment
by PDRI model (PDRI). and the
Furthermore, in using the linear regression function generated by PDRI model assessment and the
13 sample projects’ construction cost performance data, the cost performance (i.e., Construction Labor
13 sample projects’
Hours Increase construction
Rate) cost performance
for the ongoing data, the in
Project X (described cost
theperformance (i.e., Construction
previous Section Labor
6.2), was predicted
Hours
with theIncrease
result Rate)
of theforcostthe ongoing
overrun of Project X (described
about 6.96%. in the
This cost previous
overrun Sectionvalue
prediction 6.2), is
was predicted
less than the
with the result of the cost overrun of about 6.96%. This cost overrun prediction value
DECRIS model (7.99% of cost overrun) and actual measured cost performance (8.26% of cost overrun). is less than the
DECRIS modelfrom
In summary, (7.99% of cost
these overrun)
analyses, theand actualmodel
DECRIS measured cost performance
is more (8.26% of cost
accurate in predicting overrun).
cost/schedule
In summary, from
performance and isthese analyses,
therefore the in
superior DECRIS
aiding model is more accurate
EPC contractors in predicting cost/schedule
in their preconstruction processes.
performance and is therefore superior in aiding EPC contractors in their preconstruction processes.
7. Conclusions and Discussion
7. Conclusions and Discussion
7.1.Summary
7.1. Summaryand
andContributions
Contributions
Theobjective
The objectiveof
ofthis
thisresearch
researchisisto
todevelop
developaatool
toolto
tocalculate
calculatethe
theengineering
engineeringcompletion
completionrating
ratingof
of
offshore oil
offshore oil and
and gas
gasEPC
EPCprojects,
projects,and
andto
tovalidate
validateresearch
researchgoals
goalsusing
usingregression
regressionanalysis
analysis with
with the
the
sample projects and comparison between the predicted project performances and actual
sample projects and comparison between the predicted project performances and actual performanceperformance
ofan
of an ongoing
ongoing project.
project.
Preliminary DECRIS elements were collected using content analysis from the literature. Through
an expert workshop, an expert survey, and statistical analysis, the individual elements, DECRIS
hierarchy, and weight factor of each element were determined, and a DECRIS model for the steel
cutting session for offshore oil and gas EPC projects was established.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 19 of 31

Preliminary DECRIS elements were collected using content analysis from the literature. Through an
expert workshop, an expert survey, and statistical analysis, the individual elements, DECRIS hierarchy,
and weight factor of each element were determined, and a DECRIS model for the steel cutting session for
offshore oil and gas EPC projects was established.
Thirteen existing sample projects were selected for DECRIS review. The performance review
of those thirteen projects using the DECRIS model resulted in six projects in the low DECRIS score
group for the steel cutting session which were completed with an average construction labor hours
increase rate of 2.2% and a construction duration delay of 47 days. In contrast, the other six projects in
the high group were completed with an average construction labor hours increase rate of 7.7% and a
construction duration delay of 255 days. When steel cutting is conducted with the DECRIS cutoff score
(<300) achieved, the project cost and schedule performance of the project are statistically superior to
other projects that failed to achieve the cutoff score. Through regression analysis with the 13 sample
projects, the correlation and regression functions between the DECRIS score and project performance
were found. Based on the regression functions developed in this research, the project performance for
an ongoing project was predicted, and the predicted performance was well matched with the current
project status.
The research results mean that early detail engineering completion prior to construction makes
the EPC project successful and sustainable without considerable schedule delay and associated cost
overrun. The DECRIS model contributes to EPC contractor as decision-making tools at the moment
of fabrication start. EPC contractor can acknowledge the project risks with the predicted cost and
schedule performance calculated by DECRIS, and they are able to find out mitigation plans such as
additional workforce involvement on engineering or construction works or postpone the fabrication
start after risk comparison.
The DECRIS model can contribute to the project success on the construction execution stage
by forecasting project performance and potentially reducing the project underperformance risks.
The on-time delivery within budget for offshore oil and gas EPC projects using the DECRIS model
will also give a positive motivation for major oil companies who place a great deal of attention on
project success.

7.2. Future Directions

In future research, the correlation between each DECRIS element and project performance can be
evaluated using statistical tools and more offshore EPC project samples. Consequently, the benefits of
further sample projects such as minimum 50 EPC projects in the long run, multivariate tools such as
Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), or Principal Component Analysis (PCA) might
be applicable.
The DECRIS model in this research is focused on the fabrication start session. To improve the
limitation of PDRI and DECRIS current approach of retroactive verification, proactive implementation
of the DECRIS model to incorporate into engineering management control will be continued in the
future. For the prospective check during the entire EPC stage, the DECRIS cutoff score for the other
milestones such as contract award, FEED verification, major equipment procurement and engineering
transfer should be set. With the set of DECRIS cutoff scores for each milestone, the EPC contractor can
estimate the engineering performance in the project and find mitigation plans to reduce DECRIS score
to reduce the project cost and schedule risks.
The DECRIS module “Part A” as reported in this paper is a part of overall research framework
as shown in Figure 9. Currently the DECRIS module is in the process of further extension to “Part B”
illustrated in Figure 9 to eventually develop a comprehensive application program to corporate with
integrated project cost-schedule control such as earned value management systems (EVMS) based on
some kind of artificial intelligence analytics and big data database for oil and gas offshore EPC projects.
 Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 20 of 31
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 31

Part A
Development of DECRIS model for project scale

DECRIS Model verification (12 sample projects)

Validation to the on-going project

Part B
Development of earned value calculation model
Using DECRIS and big data (EDMS)

EV calculation model verification

Application to use in detail engineering

9
Figure 9. 9.
Figure Research Framework
Research forfor
Framework DECRIS.
DECRIS.

If If
ininfuture
futureresearch,
research,the
theengineering
engineeringlabor
laborhours
hoursspent
spentononeach
eachpreparation
preparationandandsubmission
submission ofof
engineering deliverables are collected from the historical database, and EDMS and its quantitative
engineering deliverables are collected from the historical database, and EDMS and its quantitative
information
information are
areapplied
appliedfor
forthe
theweight
weightfactor
factorof
of each
each level, DECRIS can
level, DECRIS can be
beused
usedasasaatool
tooltotocalculate
calculate
the
the earned value of the detail engineering activities. In this case, DECRIS can contribute as an
earned value of the detail engineering activities. In this case, DECRIS can contribute as an engineering
engineering cost control tool to calculate the engineering progress during the detail engineering stage.
cost control tool to calculate the engineering progress during the detail engineering stage.
Author Contributions: M.H.K. developed the concept and drafted the manuscript. H.S.C. provided industry
Authoron
feedback the study andM.H.K.
Contributions: developed
E.-B.L. reviewed therevised
and concept
theand drafted the
manuscript andmanuscript. H.S.C.
supervised the provided
overall industry
work. All the
feedback on the study and E.-B.L. reviewed and revised the manuscript and supervised the overall work. All the
authors read and approved the final manuscript.
authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding:
Funding:TheThe
authors acknowledge
authors acknowledge that this
thatresearch was sponsored
this research by the Ministry
was sponsored of Tradeof
by the Ministry Industry and Energy
Trade Industry and
(MOTIE/KEIT) Korea through
Energy (MOTIE/KEIT) Koreathe Technology
through InnovationInnovation
the Technology Program funding
Program (Developing IntelligentIntelligent
funding (Developing Project
Management Information
Project Management Systems (i-PMIS)
Information Systemsfor Engineering
(i-PMIS) Projects; Grant
for Engineering number=10077606).
Projects; Grant number = 10077606).
Acknowledgments:
Acknowledgments : TheThe authors
authors of of thisstudy
this studywould
would liketo tothank
like thankHyundai
HyundaiHeavy
HeavyIndustry
Industry
CoCoforfortheir
their
informational support and technical cooperation. The authors would like to thank H. D. Jeong at Iowa State
informational support and technical cooperation. The authors would like to thank Prof. H. D. Jeong at Iowa State
University and D. S. Alleman (a candidate in Univ. of Colorado at Boulder) for their academic inputs and feedback
University and D. S. Alleman (a Ph. D. candidate in Univ. of Colorado at Boulder) for their academic inputs and
on this research.
feedback on this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest
Abbreviations
Abbreviations
AFC Approval for Construction
AFC
CDD Approval for Construction
Construction Duration Delay
CLIR Construction Labor hours Increase Rate
CDD Construction Duration Delay
DECRIS Detail engineering Completion Rating Index System
CLIR Construction Labor hours Increase Rate
EDMS Electronic Document Management System
DECRIS
EPC Detail engineering
Engineering, Completion
Procurement Rating Index System
and Construction
EDMS
FEED Electronic
Front-EndDocument Management
Engineering and Design System
EPC
FEL Engineering, Procurement and Construction
Front-End Loading
FEED
FPSO Front-End EngineeringStorage
Floating Production, and Design
and Offloading
FEL
FLNG Front-End Loading
Floating LNG
FPSO
PDRI Floating
ProjectProduction, Storage
Definition Rating and Offloading
Index
fsQCA
FLNG Fuzzy Set
Floating LNG Qualitative Comparative Analysis
PCA Principal Component Analysis
PDRI Project Definition Rating Index
fsQCA Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Appendix A. Boxplot of Weight Factor by Elements
PCA Principal Component Analysis
* Note: The main purpose of the “boxplot” below is to secure reliability of the data set and similarity with
normal distribution,
Appendix A. Boxplotnumber
of Weightof extreme
Factor and outlier was collected from each participant, and the contribution
by Elements
score was calculated. The survey results with a high contribution score were eliminated.
* Note: The main purpose of the “boxplot” below is to secure reliability of the data set and
similarity with normal distribution, number of extreme and outlier was collected from each participant,
and the contribution score was calculated. The survey results with a high contribution score were
eliminated.
Sustainability 2018,
Sustainability 10,10,
2018, 2469
x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 31
21 of of 31
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 31

Figure A1. The Boxplot for DECRIS Elements A1 to D9.

FigureA1.
Figure A1.The
TheBoxplot
Boxplot for
for DECRIS
DECRISElements
ElementsA1A1totoD9.
D9.

FigureA2.
Figure A2.The
TheBoxplot
Boxplot for
for DECRIS
DECRISElements
ElementsE1E1totoH3.
H3.
Figure A2. The Boxplot for DECRIS Elements E1 to H3.

Figure A3. The Boxplot for DECRIS Elements I1 to L3.

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 22 of 31

Appendix B. Weighted Scoresheet

* Note: The main purpose of the “Weighted Scoresheet” listed below is to assign weighted scores for mapping
them to the “Definition Level” (scale 0~5) for each DECRIS element based on the experts’ practices collected from
the workshops.

SECTION I-BASIS OF DETAIL DESIGN

Definition Level
CATEGORY Element Score
0 1 2 3 4 5
A. PROJECT SCOPE
A1. Project Objectives Statement 0 1 3 5 7 9
A2. Project Scope of Work 0 1 5 9 13 17
A3. Project Philosophies 0 1 4 7 10 13
B. PROJECT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT
B1. Products 0 1 4 7 10 12
B2. Capacities 0 1 4 7 10 13
B3. Technology 0 1 4 7 10 12
B4. Processes 0 1 5 9 13 14
C. DESIGN GUIDELINE
C1. Process Design Criteria 0 1 5 9 13 16
C2. Project Site Assessment 0 1 5 9 13 14
C3. Lead Discipline Scope of Work 0 1 5 9 13 14
C4. Project Schedule 0 1 5 9 13 17
C5. Constructability Analysis 0 1 5 9 13 15
SECTION II-ENGINEERING DELIVEABLES
D. PROCESS/MECHANICAL/PIPING
D1. Process Flow Diagrams 0 1 5 9 13 15
D2. Heat and Material Balance 0 1 5 9 13 15
D3. Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams 0 2 7 12 17 18
D4. Process Safety Management (PSM) 0 1 5 9 13 15
D5. Utility Flow Diagram 0 1 5 9 13 14
D6. Process Datasheets 0 1 5 9 13 15
D7. Equipment Mechanical Datasheets 0 1 5 9 13 15
D8. Specifications 0 1 5 9 13 16
D9. Piping System Requirements 0 1 5 9 13 15
D10. Plot Plan 0 1 5 9 13 16
D11. Project Equipment List 0 1 4 7 10 13
D12. Line Lists 0 1 4 7 10 13
D13. Tie-in Lists 0 1 4 7 10 13
D14. Piping Stress Analysis 0 1 5 9 13 15
D15. Piping Isometric Drawings 0 1 4 7 10 13
D16. Piping Specialty Items Lists 0 1 4 7 10 12
D17. Instrument Index 0 1 4 7 10 13
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 23 of 31

SECTION I-BASIS OF DETAIL DESIGN

Definition Level
CATEGORY Element Score
0 1 2 3 4 5
E. EQUIPMENT VENDOR
E1. Equipment Procurement Status 0 1 5 9 13 15
E2. In-line and Instrument Procurement Status 0 1 5 9 13 14
E3. Equipment General Arrangement Drawings 0 1 5 9 13 17
E4. Process and Mechanical Documents 0 1 5 9 13 14
E5. Instrument and Electrical Documents 0 1 5 9 13 14
E6. Structural and Architectural Documents 0 1 4 7 10 13
E7. Equipment Utility Requirements 0 1 5 9 13 14
F. STRUCTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL
F1. Structural Specifications 0 1 5 9 13 15
F2. Structural Analysis 0 1 5 9 13 16
F3. Architectural Arrangement Drawing 0 1 4 7 10 13
F4. Weight Control Report 0 1 5 9 13 15
G. INSTRUMENT AND ELECTRICAL
G1. Control Philosophy 0 1 5 9 13 15
G2. Logic Diagrams 0 1 5 9 13 15
G3. Cable Schedule 0 1 5 9 13 14
G4. Hook-up Diagram 0 1 5 9 13 14
G5. Critical Electrical Item List 0 1 5 9 13 14
G6. Electrical Single Line Diagrams 0 1 5 9 13 15
G7. Instrument and Electrical Specifications 0 1 5 9 13 15
H. MATERIAL TAKE-OFF
H1. Piping MTO 0 1 5 9 13 15
H2. Structural and Architectural MTO 0 1 5 9 13 15
H3. Instrument and Electrical Bulk Item MTO 0 1 5 9 13 15
I. 3D MODELING
I1. 3D Modeling Review 0 1 5 9 13 17
I2. 3D Modeling (Equipment/Piping) 0 1 5 9 13 17
I3. 3D Modeling (Structural) 0 1 5 9 13 15
I4. 3D Modeling (Architectural) 0 1 5 9 13 15
I5. 3D Modeling (Instrument and Electrical) 0 1 5 9 13 15
J. GENERAL FACILITY REQUIREMENT
J1. Preservation and Storage Requirement 0 1 4 7 10 12
J2. Transportation Requirements 0 1 4 7 10 13
J3. Welding Procedure Specification 0 1 5 9 13 16
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 24 of 31

SECTION I-BASIS OF DETAIL DESIGN

Definition Level
CATEGORY Element Score
0 1 2 3 4 5
SECTION III-EXECUTION APPROACH
K. ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGEMENT
K1. Team Participants and Roles 0 1 4 7 10 13
K2. Engineering/Construction Methodology 0 1 5 9 13 15
K3. Deliverables for Design and Construction 0 1 5 9 13 15
K4. Deliverables for Commissioning and Close-out 0 1 4 7 10 13
K5. Owner Approval Requirements 0 1 5 9 13 14
K6. Interface Management 0 1 5 9 13 16
K. ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGEMENT
K7. Risk Analysis 0 1 5 9 13 15
K8. Identify Long Lead/Critical Equipment and
0 1 5 9 13 15
Materials
L. PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN
L1. Project Cost Estimate and Control 0 1 5 9 13 15
L2. Procurement Procedures and Plans 0 1 5 9 13 15
L3. Project Change Control 0 1 5 9 13 15

Appendix C. DECSIS Level Assessment Questionnaires (Selected Samples)

* Note: The main purpose of the “Level Assignment Questionnaires” listed below is to provide the assessment
criteria for the “Definition Level” of each DECRIS element. The sample “Questionnaires” included in this
Appendix C is covering Section II—Category D only, which is about 25% of the total full questionnaires descriptions
(17 elements in Category D among 69 total elements), due to the space limit. The full questionnaire descriptions
will be available on the main author’s (M.H. Kim) doctoral thesis later.

Section II: Engineering Deliverables

Category D. Process/Mechanical/Piping
D1. Process Flow Diagrams

Level Description
1 Final Process Simulation was carried out and AFC stage Process Flow Diagram (PFD) was approved
without comment. No further design change in Process Flow Diagram is foreseen.
2 Updated Process Simulation in detail engineering was performed according to project requirements,
as well as Client comments from PFD and major design changes. Revised PFD (AFD) was issued.
No further major design change in Process flow diagram is foreseen.
3 Process simulation in detail engineering was performed in line with Project Requirements, and its
result including PFD (IFA, first revision) was updated and submitted to the Client.
4 There is no discrepancy between process simulation, PFD, and Heat and Material Balance in FEED.
In addition, they comply with Basis of Design. No process simulation in detail engineering stage
was performed.
5 There is no process simulation performed in FEED, or many discrepancies between process
simulation, PFD and Heat and Material Balance were found. No process simulation in detail
engineering was performed.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 25 of 31

D2. Heat and Material Balances

Level Description
1 AFC Heat and Material Balance and Process Description were approved without comment.
No further design change in Heat and Material Balance is foreseen.
2 Updated Heat and Material Balance and Process description in detail engineering were developed
according to Project requirements, as well as Client comments from previous documents and major
design changes. Revised Heat and Material Balance and Process description (AFD) were issued.
No further major design change in Heat and Material Balance and Process Description is foreseen.
3 Heat and Material Balance and Process Description in detail engineering were developed in line
with Project Requirements, and issued with IFA (first revision).
4 There is no discrepancy between PFD, Heat and Mass Balance and Process description in FEED.
In addition, they comply with Basis of Design and design capacity margin. No Heat and Material
Balance in detail engineering was developed.
5 Many discrepancies between PFD, Process Description and Heat and Material Balance were found.
No PFD and Heat and Material Balance in detail engineering were issued.

D3. Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams

Level Description
1 AFC Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) was issued with incorporated Final Equipment
P&ID (Vendor) and In-line instrument Vendor data, and approved without comment. All Hazard
and operability (HAZOP) recommendations were closed and incorporated in P&ID. No further
design change in P&ID is foreseen.
2 Updated P&ID in detail engineering were developed according to Project Requirements,
Client comments from previous P&ID and 30% Modeling Punch, and major design changes.
Revised P&ID (AFD) was issued. Process HAZOP and Package Unit HAZOP were performed and
Process Line List and Line diagram was issued. No further major change in P&ID is foreseen.
3 P&ID in detail engineering was developed in line with Project Requirements, and issued with IFA
(first revision). Preliminary Vendor Documents or Value Improving Practices for major equipment
was incorporated in IFA P&ID. Hazardous Identification (HAZID) recommendation was
incorporated.
4 There is no discrepancy between PFD, Process description, Utility Flow Diagram (UFD), P&ID in
FEED. In addition, it complies with Basis of Design and design capacity margin. No P&ID in detail
engineering was developed.
5 Many discrepancies between PFD, Process Description, UFD and P&ID were found. No P&ID in
detail engineering was issued.

D4. Process Safety Management

Level Description
1 All HAZOP/HAZID recommendations were concluded and approved by the client. In addition,
the relevant engineering deliverables were properly documented and approved.
2 HAZOP for Vendor packaged unit and Contractor’s system were finished based on updated P&IDs.
Major HAZOP/HAZID recommendations were concluded and approved by the client.
3 HAZOP has been performed for the Contractor’s system based on P&ID issued by Contractor.
Major HAZID recommendations were concluded and approved by the client.
4 HAZID was performed during FEED stage. Environmental/Human/Process/Facility Operation
hazards have been defined. HAZOP was not performed.
5 No HAZID was performed during FEED stage. Environmental/Human/Process/Facility Operation
hazards have not been defined yet.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 26 of 31

D5. Utility Flow Diagrams

Level Description
1 AFC stage UFD was approved without comment. No further design change in the UFD is foreseen.
2 From incorporating Client comments in UFD, Vendor information for utility consumption and major
design changes, revised UFD (AFD) was issued. No further major design change in UFD is foreseen.
3 Heat and Material Balance and UFD in detail engineering were developed in line with Project
Requirements, and issued with IFA (first revision).
4 There is no discrepancy between UFD and Heat and Material Balance in FEED. In addition,
they comply with Basis of Design. Utility requirements for major consumer were defined through
equipment information.
5 Many discrepancies between UFD and Heat and Material Balance in FEED were found.
Utility requirements for consumer were estimated only with historical data and no equipment
information was developed.

D6. Process Datasheets

Level Description
1 Final Process datasheets were approved without comment. No further design change in the process
datasheet is foreseen.
2 From incorporating Client comments in process datasheet, Selected Vendor’s information and major
design changes, the revised process datasheets were issued. No further major design change in process
datasheet is foreseen.
3 Process datasheets in detail engineering were developed in line with Project Requirements, and
issued with IFA (first revision). Value Improving Practices for major equipment were incorporated
in the process datasheet.
4 All process datasheets for major equipment were developed during FEED stage. There is no major
discrepancy between FEED P&ID and process datasheets. No process datasheet in detail
engineering was developed.
5 No process datasheet was included in FEED packages, or process datasheets were developed for
Long Lead Items (LLI) only during FEED stage. There are many discrepancies in FEED P&ID and
process datasheets.

D7. Equipment Mechanical Datasheets

Level Description
1 AFC stage equipment mechanical datasheets were completed with Vendor’s firm information and
approved without comment. No further design change in the equipment mechanical datasheet is
foreseen.
2 From incorporating Client comments in equipment mechanical datasheet, Selected Vendor’s
information and major design changes, the revised equipment mechanical datasheets were issued.
No further major design change in equipment mechanical datasheet is foreseen.
3 Equipment mechanical datasheets in detail engineering were developed in line with Project
Requirements, and issued with IFA (first revision). Value Improving Practices and applicable
Code/Standard requirements for major equipment were incorporated in the equipment mechanical
datasheet.
4 All equipment mechanical datasheets for major equipment were developed during FEED stage.
There is no major discrepancy between FEED P&ID and equipment mechanical datasheets.
No equipment mechanical datasheet in detail engineering was developed.
5 No equipment mechanical datasheet was included in FEED packages, or equipment mechanical
datasheets were developed for LLI only during FEED stage. There are many discrepancies in FEED
P&ID and equipment mechanical datasheets.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 27 of 31

D8. Specifications

Level Description
1 AFC stage process, mechanical and piping specifications were approved without comment.
No further design change in the specification is foreseen.
2 From incorporating Client comments in specification and major design changes, the revised
specifications were issued. No further major design change in specification is foreseen.
3 Specifications in detail engineering were developed in line with Project Requirements, and issued
with IFA (first revision). The specification includes equipment type, packaged units,
piping specifications, protective coating and insulation.
4 All major specifications were developed during FEED stage. There is no major discrepancy between
specifications. No specification in detail engineering was developed.
5 No specification was included in FEED packages, or there are many discrepancies in FEED
specifications.
D9. Piping System Requirements

Level Description
1 AFC stage piping material classes were completed with Vendor’s firm information and approved
without comment. No further design change in the piping material class is foreseen.
2 From incorporating Client comments in piping material class, additional piping materials and major
design changes, the revised piping material class was issued. No further major design change in
equipment mechanical datasheet is foreseen.
3 Piping material classes in detail engineering were developed in line with Project Requirements, and
issued with IFA (first revision). Value Improving Practices and applicable Code/Standard
requirements were incorporated in the piping material class.
4 All piping material classes were developed in line with material selection in FEED stage.
All relevant devices including straight runs, elbows, tees, flanges, reducers, manual valves,
gaskets, bolts and nuts were defined in the piping material classes.
5 No piping material class was developed during FEED stage, or piping material class was partially
developed.

D10. Plot Plan

Level Description
1 AFC stage plot plan was completed with Vendor’s firm information, 60% and 90% modeling review
punch and approved without comment. No further design change in the plot plan is foreseen.
2 From incorporating Client comments in plot plan, 30% modeling review punch and major design
changes, the revised plot plan (AFD stage) was issued. No further major design change in plot plan
is foreseen.
3 Plot plan in detail engineering was developed in line with Project Requirements and preliminary
equipment Vendor documents, and issued with IFA (first revision). Value Improving Practices
including process function group and interconnection optimization were incorporated in the
plot plan.
4 Plot plan was developed with all equipment, evacuation path, access/handling volume, large
diameter pipe (including flexibility requirement), and access way and hazard area risks.
5 Plot plan was developed with limited equipment and device information during FEED stage.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 28 of 31

D11. Project Equipment Lists

Level Description
1 AFC stage project equipment list was completed with Vendor’s firm information and approved without
comment.
2 From incorporating Client comments in project equipment datasheet, Vendor information and major
design changes, the revised project equipment list was issued. All disciplines’ input was
incorporated and no additional equipment in project equipment list is foreseen.
3 Project equipment list in detail engineering was developed in line with Project Requirements,
and issued with IFA (first revision). Value Improving Practices and potential Vendor’s information
for equipment were incorporated in the package equipment list. Additionally, equipment list
includes Vendor name, equipment model, insulation and fire proofing requirements.
4 Project equipment list for all major equipment was developed during FEED stage. There is no major
discrepancy between FEED P&ID and equipment list. Equipment list includes tag number,
equipment description, equipment type, capacity/quantity, position/module/deck,
assumed dimension/weight.
5 Project equipment list was developed for major equipment only during FEED stage. No auxiliary
equipment was considered in the project equipment list. There are many discrepancies in project
equipment list and P&ID.
D12. Line Lists

Level Description
1 AFC stage line list was completed with all pipelines and approved without comment.
2 From incorporating Client comments in line list and major design changes in P&IDs, the revised line
list (AFD) was issued. All lines over 2” with insulation and Passive Fire Protection (PFP)
requirements shall be included in the line list.
3 Line list in detail engineering was developed in line with IFA P&IDs, and issued with IFA
(first revision). Line list should include large bore and exotic material lines for 1st MTO for
piping materials.
4 Line list for all major pipe route was developed during FEED stage. There is no major discrepancy
between FEED P&ID and line list. Line list includes tag number, operating and design condition,
pipe specification, insulation/tracing and painting requirement.
5 No line list was developed during FEED stage.
D13. Tie-in Lists

Level Description
1 AFC stage tie-in list was completed with AFC P&ID, verified with Vendor documents and/or
confirmations, and approved without comment.
2 From incorporating Client comments in tie-in list, Vendor documents (General Arrangement
Drawing for Equipment) and major design change in P&IDs, the revised tie-in list (AFD) was issued.
All lines over 2” with insulation and PFP requirements shall be included in the tie-in list.
3 Tie-in list in detail engineering were developed in line with IFA P&IDs, and issued with IFA (first
revision). Tie-in list should crosscheck with preliminary Vendor information for major equipment.
Structured process to validate tie-ins and tie-in strategy was documented.
4 Tie-in list for major pipe connections was developed during FEED stage. There is no major
discrepancy between FEED P&ID and tie-in list. The tie-in list includes line tag number,
reference drawings, pipe specification, and type and size of tie-in.
5 No tie-in list was developed during FEED stage.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 29 of 31

D14. Pipe Stress Analysis

Level Description
1 AFC stage piping stress analysis was completed with AFC P&ID, verified with Vendor documents
and/or confirmations, and approved without comment. All support and anchor locations were
settled, and no further design change is expected.
2 From incorporating Client comments in piping stress analysis, Vendor information for boundary
condition (allowable nozzle load) and major design changes in P&IDs, the revised piping stress
analysis (AFD) was performed.
3 Piping stress analysis in detail engineering was conducted in line with IFA P&IDs, and issued with
IFA (first revision). Support and anchor locations, and pipe wall thickness were updated as per the
piping stress analysis.
4 Guidelines for piping stress analysis were developed in FEED package. Applications for high
temperature, large diameter, and heavy wall thickness, upstream and downstream of rotating
equipment were well defined.
5 No guidelines for piping stress analysis were developed during FEED stage. FEED package does
not specify the extent of piping stress analysis.
D15. Piping Isometric Drawings

Level Description
1 AFC stage piping isometric drawings were completed with AFC P&ID, and approved without
comment. All support and anchor locations were settled, and no further design change is expected.
2 From incorporating Client comments in piping isometric drawings and major design changes in
P&IDs, the revised piping isometric drawing (AFD) was generated and submitted.
3 Methodology to generate piping isometric drawing was settled. Piping isometric drawings in detail
engineering were generated from 3D modeling, and issued with IFA (first revision). Support and
anchor locations, and pipe wall thickness were updated as per the piping stress analysis.
4 Guidelines for piping isometric drawing were developed in FEED package. Requirements for
piping isometric drawings were well defined.
5 No guidelines for piping isometric drawing were developed during FEED stage.

D16. Piping Specialty Items Lists

Level Description
1 AFC stage piping specialty items list was completed with AFC P&ID, and approved without
comment. Catalog for 3D modeling was settled, and no further design change is expected.
2 From incorporating Client comments in piping specialty items list and major design changes in
P&IDs, the revised piping specialty items list (AFD) was generated and submitted.
3 Piping specialty items list in detail engineering was developed in line with IFA P&IDs, and issued
with IFA (first revision). Scope of supply was defined and preliminary Vendor information
was given.
4 Guidelines for piping specialty items were developed in FEED package. Types of piping specialty
items including strainers, steam traps, flexible hoses, and expansion joints were defined.
5 No guidelines for piping specialty items were developed during FEED stage.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 30 of 31

D17. Instrument Index

Level Description
1 AFC stage instrument index was completed with approved AFC P&ID, and approved without
comment. All information on instrument index was settled, and no further design change is
expected.
2 From incorporating Client comments in instrument index and major design changes in P&IDs,
the revised instrument index (AFD) was generated and submitted. No major change on instrument
index is foreseen.
3 Instrument index in detail engineering was developed in line with IFA P&IDs, and issued with IFA
(first revision). Information of tag numbers, service conditions, instrument type, and signal output,
material of construction, range and set point was provided.
4 Guidelines for instrument index were developed in FEED package. Requirement for instrument
index was defined.
5 No guidelines for instrument index were developed during FEED stage.

Appendix D. PDRI-Industrial Hierarchy

* Note: The PDRI section grouping was referred in order to provide a comparison with DECRIS [7].
The sections, basis of project decision and front-end definition, are thus major components of PDRI-Industrial.
PDRI focuses on front-end planning and does not represent work packages in the detail engineering stage.
The major target of DECRIS is the detail design conducted by EPC contractor; it is thus reasonable that the
engineering deliverables of detail engineering is the most important section.

Section I—Basis of Project Decision

Section II—Front-End Definition
Section III—Execution Approach

The Sub-section groupings are: (3 sub-sections and 70 elements—max score 1000)

Section I—Basis of Project Decision (5 sub-sections and 22 elements-max score 499)

A Manufacturing Objectives Criteria (3 elements—max score 45)

B Business Objectives (8 elements—max score 213)
C Basic data research & development (2 elements—max score 94)
D Project scope (6 elements—max score 120)
E Value engineering (3 elements—max score 27)
Section II—Front-End Definition (6 sub-sections and 33 elements—max score 423)

F Site Information (6 elements—max score 104)

G Process/Mechanical (13 elements—max score 196)
H Equipment Scope (3 elements—max score 33)
I Civil, Structural, & Architectural (2 elements—max score 19)
J Infrastructure (3 elements—max score 25)
K Instrument & Electrical (6 elements—max score 46)
Section III—Execution Approach (4 sub-sections and 15 elements—max score 78)

L Procurement strategy (3 elements—max score 16)

M Deliverables (3 elements—max score 9)
N Project Control (3 elements—max score 17)
P Project Execution Plan (6 elements—max score 36)

References
1. Leffler, W.L.; Pattarozzi, R.; Sterling, G. Deepwater Petroleum Exploration & Production: A Nontechnical Guide;
PennWell Books: Houston, TX, USA, 2011.
2. Tanmay. Oil & Gas EPC Market Perspective and Comprehensive Analysis to 2023. 2018. Available online: https:
//theexpertconsulting.com/oil-gas-epc-market-perspective-and-comprehensive-analysis-to-2023/ (accessed on
20 May 2018).
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2469 31 of 31

3. Rijtema, S.; de Haas, R. Creating Sustainable Offshore Developments in the Ultra-Deep Water. In Proceedings
of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 2015.
4. Merrow, E.W. Industrial Megaprojects: Concepts, Strategies, and Practices for Success; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA,
2011; Volume 8.
5. Edaily. Available online: http://www.edaily.co.kr/news/news_detail.asp?newsId=03332486612810296&
mediaCodeNo=257 (accessed on 10 March 2018).
6. Ahn, B. Managing the Efficiency of Foreign Engineering Contracts: A Study of a Norwegian and South Korean
Project Interface; University of Stavanger: Stavanger, Norway, 2015.
7. Gibson, G.; Dumont, P.R. Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Industrial Projects; Construction Industry
Institute Implementation Resource: Texas, Austin, 1996.
8. Bingham, E. Development of the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Infrastructure Projects; Arizona State
University: Tempe, AZ, USA, 2010.
9. Collins, W.A. Development of the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Small Industrial Projects; Arizona State
University: Tempe, AZ, USA, 2015.
10. Collins, W.; Parrish, K.; Gibson, G.E., Jr. Development of a Project Scope Definition and Assessment Tool for
Small Industrial Construction Projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04017015. [CrossRef]
11. Zaheer, S.H.; Fallows, C. Document Project Readiness by Estimate Class Using PDRI; EST. 604; AACE International
Transactions: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2011.
12. Bingham, E.; Gibson, G.E., Jr. Infrastructure project scope definition using project definition rating index.
J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 33, 04016037. [CrossRef]
13. Dumont, P.R.; Gibson, G.E., Jr.; Fish, J.R. Scope management using project definition rating index. J. Manag. Eng.
1997, 13, 54–60. [CrossRef]
14. Tih-Ju, C.; An-Pi, C.; Chao-Lung, H.; Jyh-Dong, L. Intelligent Green Buildings Project Scope Definition Using
Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI). Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 18, 17–24. [CrossRef]
15. George, R.; Bell, L.C.; Back, W.E. Critical activities in the front-end planning process. J. Manag. Eng. 2008, 24,
66–74. [CrossRef]
16. Pheng, L.S.; Chuan, Q.T. Environmental factors and work performance of project managers in the
construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 24–37. [CrossRef]
17. Stenhouse, L. The study of samples and the study of cases. Br. Educ. Res. J. 1980, 6. [CrossRef]
18. Thomson, S.B. Sample size and grounded theory. J. Adm. Gov. 2010, 5, 45–52.
19. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).