Construction Industry Institute®

Advanced Work Packaging:

From Project Definition through Site Execution

William J. O’Brien
Fernanda Leite
Olfa Hamdi
Simone Ponticelli
The University of Texas at Austin

Research Report 272-12

 Construction Industry Institute

Abbott AECOM
Ameren Corporation Affiliated Construction Services Inc.
American Transmission Company LLC AMEC Foster Wheeler
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Atlas RFID Solutions
Anheuser-Busch InBev Autodesk, Inc.
Aramco Services Company AZCO INC.
ArcelorMittal Baker Concrete Construction Inc.
Architect of the Capitol Barton Malow Company
AstraZeneca Bechtel Group, Inc.
BG Group Bentley Systems Inc.
BP America, Inc. Bilfinger Industrial Services Inc.
Cargill, Inc. Black & Veatch
Chevron Burns & McDonnell
ConocoPhillips CB&I
Consolidated Edison Company of New York CCC Group
The Dow Chemical Company CDI Corporation
DTE Energy CH2M
DuPont Construtora Norberto Odebrecht S.A.
Eastman Chemical Company Coreworx Inc.
Eli Lilly and Company CSA Central, Inc.
Enbridge Inc. Day & Zimmermann
EnLink Midstream Emerson Process Management
Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd Enstoa, Inc.
ExxonMobil Corporation eProject Management, LLC
General Electric Company Faithful+Gould
General Motors Company Fluor Corporation
GlaxoSmithKline Hargrove Engineers + Constructors
Global Infrastructure Partners Hilti Corporation
Honeywell International Inc. IHI E&C International Corporation
Huntsman Corporation IHS
Irving Oil Limited International Rivers Consulting, LLC
Kaiser Permanente Jacobs
Koch Industries, Inc. JMJ Associates LLC
LyondellBasell JV Driver Projects Inc.
Marathon Petroleum Corporation KBR
National Aeronautics & Space Administration Kiewit Corporation
NOVA Chemicals Corporation Lauren Engineers & Constructors, Inc.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation Leidos Constructors, LLC
ONEOK, Inc. Matrix Service Company
Ontario Power Generation McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Midwest Steel, Inc.
Petroleo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras Parsons
Petroleos Mexicanos Pathfinder, LLC
Petronas PCL Constructors, Inc.
Phillips 66 PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services LLC
Pioneer Natural Resources PTAG, Inc.
Praxair, Inc. Quality Execution, Inc.
The Procter & Gamble Company Richard Industrial Group
Public Service Electric & Gas Company The Robins & Morton Group
Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) S & B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd.
SABIC - Saudi Basic Industries Corporation SBM Offshore
Sasol Technology Proprietary Limited Skanska USA
Shell Global Solutions US Inc. SNC-Lavalin Inc.
Smithsonian Institution Supreme Group
Southern Company Technip
Tennessee Valley Authority UniversalPegasus International
Tesoro Corporation Victaulic
TransCanada Corporation Wanzek Construction, Inc.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The Weitz Company, Inc.
U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST/EL Wilhelm Construction, Inc.
U.S. Department of Defense/Tricare Management Activity Wood Group Mustang
U.S. Department of Energy WorleyParsons
U.S. Department of State Yates Construction
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Zachry Group
U.S. General Services Administration Zurich
The Williams Companies, Inc.
 ADVANCED WORK PACKAGING:
FROM PROJECT DEFINITION THROUGH SITE EXECUTION

by

William J. O’Brien
Fernanda Leite
Olfa Hamdi
Simone Ponticelli

The University of Texas at Austin

A Report to
Construction Industry Institute
The University of Texas at Austin

Under the Guidance of

CII Research Team 272
Enhanced Work Packaging

CII Research Report 272-12

March 2016
© 2016 Construction Industry Institute ®

The University of Texas at Austin.

CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients. CII
members are permitted to revise and adapt this work for their internal use, provided an informational copy is furnished
to CII.

Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or distributed and no modifications may be
made without prior written permission from CII. Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase
copies. Volume discounts may be available.

All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible to purchase CII products at
member prices. Faculty and students at a college or university may reproduce and distribute this work without
modification for educational use.

Printed in the United States of America.

 Abstract

Capital projects use work packaging to divide their projects' scope into manageable portions

of work for planning and execution, all to achieve improved productivity and increased

predictability. However, currently, no common industry standard for work packaging is widely and

uniformly implemented within the North American capital projects industry. As documented by

CII RT 272 Phase I (2009-2011), companies have been implementing a number of varied work

packaging practices at different stages of the project lifecycle with emphasis on the construction

phase. Due to the varied implementation, there is currently little evidence of the benefits of

extending work packaging to the Front End Engineering Design (FEED) and the Detailed

Engineering (DE) phases. To provide the best current evidence, this research report describes new

findings on Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) as an execution practice, with special emphasis on

design activities. This research combines data collection methods such as interviews, observations

and document review, as well as surveys. The reader will understand the current industry status on

Advanced Work Packaging in terms of levels of implementation as well as evidence of benefits

and implementation challenges across the project lifecycle. Documented benefits include

productivity improvements on the order of 25% in the field, with corresponding reductions of 10%

of total installed cost. Other significant benefits include improved safety, improved productivity,

less rework, significant reduction in RFIs and increased stakeholder alignment. Documented AWP

implementation challenges include lack of process formulization, persons’ resistance to change and

lack of buy-in, stakeholders’ conflict of interest and working culture, incompatibility with some

contractual scenarios as well as traditional change management practices.

iii
 Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. viii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
1.1. RESEARCH BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 1
1.2. PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ............................................................... 3
1.3. RESEARCH REPORT STRUCTURE .................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW & RESEARCH QUESTIONS ....................... 5
2.1. WORK PACKAGING FOR CONSTRUCTION ................................................... 5
2.1.1. WORK PACKAGING DEFINITION: FROM A PROJECT CONTROL MECHANISM
TO A PROJECT PLANNING MECHANISM .................................................................................. 5
2.1.2. OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................................... 9
2.2. WORK PACKAGING FOR ENGINEERING ..................................................... 11
2.2.1. WORK PACKAGING IN THE ENGINEERING WORLD: ENGINEERING PROJECT
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .................................................................................................. 11
2.2.2. OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................... 13
2.3. WORK PACKAGING AND PROCUREMENT .................................................. 14
2.3.1. WORK PACKAGES AS PROCUREMENT SUB-SYSTEMS ............................................. 14
2.3.2. OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................... 16
2.4. RESEARCH NEEDS ............................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 17
3.1. RESEARCH PHASE 1 – CHARTER FORMATION ......................................... 18
3.1.1. RESEARCH TEAM EXPERIENCE ................................................................... 18
3.2. RESEARCH PHASE 2 – DEVELOPMENT ........................................................ 22
3.2.1. WORKING THRUST AREAS ........................................................................... 22
3.2.2. EVIDENCE COLLECTION ............................................................................... 23
3.2.2.1. Expert interviews................................................................................................................ 23
3.2.2.2. Invitational Workshop ........................................................................................................ 29
3.2.2.3. Survey ................................................................................................................................ 30
3.2.3. EXTERNAL REVIEW........................................................................................ 32
3.3. RESEARCH PHASE 4 – DELIVERABLES ........................................................ 32
CHAPTER 4. PROCESSES ............................................................................................. 34
4.1. DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................... 34
4.2. FLOWCHARTS ...................................................................................................... 37
4.2.1. LEVEL 1 FLOWCHART ........................................................................................... 37

iv
 4.2.2.LEVEL 2 FLOWCHART: SWIMLANES BY STAGE / PROJECT INTEGRATION
FLOWCHARTS ..................................................................................................................... 40
4.3. IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS AND SUPPORTING TEMPLATES ................ 47
4.4. AWP PROCESS IN NORTH AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY:
FINDINGS FROM EXPERT INTERVIEWS ................................................................. 51
4.4.1. WORK PACKAGING HIERARCHY AND DEFINITIONS ................................................ 51
4.4.1.1. Definition of work packaging ............................................................................................. 51
4.4.1.2. Breakdown structures: CWP, EWP, PWP and IWP ........................................................... 53
4.4.2. THE FORMATION PROCESS OF WORK PACKAGES ................................................... 60
4.4.2.1. Development and Issuance of work packages .................................................................... 60
4.4.2.2. Tracking of work packages / Updating .............................................................................. 63
4.4.3. THE CONTENT OF WORK PACKAGES ...................................................................... 65
4.5. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 65
CHAPTER 5. ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITIES ................. 67
5.1. FINDINGS FROM RT 272 ..................................................................................... 67
5.2. FINDINGS FROM EXPERT INTERVIEWS ...................................................... 72
5.2.1. IDENTIFIED ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES ............................................................ 72
5.2.1.1. Level of change following the level of implementation ..................................................... 72
5.2.1.2. Official vs. unofficial change in the organization .............................................................. 73
5.2.1.3. Examples of functional roles and organizational capabilities documented
through interviews.................................................................................................................................... 73
5.2.1.4. Communication between construction and engineering ..................................................... 77
5.2.2. CULTURAL ASPECTS OF AWP IMPLEMENTATION.................................................. 77
5.3. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 79
CHAPTER 6. CONTRACTS............................................................................................ 80
6.1. FINDINGS FROM RT 272 ..................................................................................... 80
6.1.1. ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS .......................................................................... 80
6.1.2. FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 81
6.1.3. TOOLS .................................................................................................................. 82
6.2. FINDINGS FROM EXPERT INTERVIEWS ...................................................... 82
6.3. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 84
CHAPTER 7. ENGINEERING WORK PACKAGING ................................................ 85
7.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 85
7.2. FINDINGS FROM RT 272 ..................................................................................... 88
7.2.1. MATURITY MODEL AND FRONT END .................................................................... 88
7.2.2. CONTRACTUAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND FRONT END ......................................... 88
7.2.3. ORGANIZATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEED AND DE................................ 91
7.2.4. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEED AND DE ................. 93
7.3. FINDINGS FROM EXPERT INTERVIEWS ...................................................... 96
7.3.1. THE NEED FOR PRE-CONSTRUCTION WORK PACKAGING ........................................ 96
v
 7.3.2. PROCESS(ES) AND ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS OF PRE-CONSTRUCTION WORK
PACKAGING ........................................................................................................................ 97
7.3.2.1. Work packaging organization around FEED...................................................................... 97
7.3.2.2. Communication between construction and engineering during the
pre-construction phase ............................................................................................................................. 99
7.3.3. EVIDENCE OF SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF ADVANCED WORK
PACKAGING DURING PRE-CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 101
7.3.4. EVIDENCE OF CHALLENGES PREVENTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AWP
PRE-CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES ....................................................................................... 105
7.4. DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 110
CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 111
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 117
Appendix A. Expert interviews questionnaire ............................................................ 117
Appendix B. Interview Guide for Work Packaging during FEED and Detailed
Engineering ..................................................................................................................... 126
Appendix C. Expert interviews write-ups ................................................................... 129
Appendix D. Validation interviews questionnaire ...................................................... 225
Appendix E. Validation interviews write-ups ............................................................. 227
Appendix F. COAA Best Practices conference survey results May 2012 in
Edmonton Canada ............................................................................................................ 239
Appendix G. Canmore workshop minutes .................................................................. 248

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 258

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Engineering firms organizational types comparison (Adapted from Smith, 2008) .................................. 12
Table 2 Expert Interviews ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Table 3 Background Summaries of Validation Experts ........................................................................................ 32
Table 4 Typical content of different work packages ............................................................................................. 65
Table 5 Examples of functional roles and organizational capabilities .................................................................. 74
Table 6 AWP contractual deliverables per contracting strategy ........................................................................... 81
Table 7 AWP deliverables per contracting strategy .............................................................................................. 88
Table 8 Front End related positions (IR 272-2 volume II, 2013) .......................................................................... 92
Table 9 Front End related process recommendations per stakeholder (IR272-2 volume II, 2013) ....................... 94
Table 10 Perceived benefits for AWP pre-construction implementation per expert interview ........................... 102
Table 11 Perceived Challenges for AWP pre-construction implementation per expert interview ...................... 106

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Research team RT 272 phases .................................................................................................................. 1

Figure 2 Relationship between WFP and AWP ...................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3 Planning Levels in the Last Planner System (Adapted from Ballard and Howell, 1998) ......................... 6
Figure 4 Integrated Enhanced Work Packaging Flowchart (CII IR 272-2 Vol1, 2012) .......................................... 8
Figure 5 Literature Review framework: Work Packaging Themes (Meeks et al., 2012) ...................................... 10
Figure 6 Research phases and methodology ......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7 Team representation – industry ............................................................................................................... 19
Figure 8 team representation - firm type ............................................................................................................... 19
Figure 9 team representation - owner v. contractor ............................................................................................... 20
Figure 10 team representation – location .............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 11 RT 272 Phase 1 deliverable .................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 12 COAA Website (http://www.coaa.ab.ca) .............................................................................................. 22
Figure 13 Development thrust areas and interactions ........................................................................................... 23
Figure 14 Expert interviews per sector .................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 15 Expert Interviews representation - Firm type........................................................................................ 27
Figure 16 Expert Interviews representation - Project location .............................................................................. 27
Figure 17 Interview representation - Level of implementation discussed ............................................................. 28
Figure 18 Interview questionnaire group of questions .......................................................................................... 29
Figure 19 COAA Best Practices Conference & Online survey- Survey results to Q1: Who are you? .................. 30
Figure 20 COAA BEST PRACTICES Conference & Online survey - Survey results to Q2:
What is your role in the company? ............................................................................................................... 31
Figure 21 COAA BEST PRACTICES Conference & Online survey - Survey results to Q3:
What is your main business? ........................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 22 Advanced Work Packaging Lifecycle ................................................................................................... 35
Figure 23 Integrated Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) Flowchart .................................................................... 37
Figure 24 Stage 1 Flowchart - Preliminary Planning/Design (CII, 2011b) ........................................................... 38
Figure 25 Stage 2 Flowchart - Detailed Engineering (CII, 2011b) ....................................................................... 39
Figure 26 Flowchart - Construction (CII, 2011b) ................................................................................................. 40
Figure 27 Snapshot of AWP swim lanes ............................................................................................................... 41
Figure 28 Example of an organization maturity assessment across multiple phases of a project ......................... 49
Figure 29 Expert interviews - AWP implementation level ................................................................................... 53
Figure 30 Work Packaging Breakdown for Company A ...................................................................................... 54
Figure 31 Work Packaging Breakdown for Company D ...................................................................................... 55
Figure 32 Project phase impact on work packaging structure (example of company D) ...................................... 55
Figure 33 Work Packaging Breakdown for Company E ....................................................................................... 56
Figure 34 Work Packaging Breakdown for Company C ....................................................................................... 57
Figure 35 Customized Work Packaging Structure of Company D........................................................................ 58
Figure 36 IWP preparation per COAA model as modified by Company J ........................................................... 59
Figure 37 WFP modified - Example of IWP deleted Company E / Expert 17 ...................................................... 59
Figure 38 Work packaging process - Example of company H .............................................................................. 63
Figure 39 CWP revision process - example of company D................................................................................... 63
Figure 40 Work Packages tracking on site board - example of company K ......................................................... 64
Figure 41 Chart of AWP roles (PIF) ..................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 42 Screenshot of two AWP FIP tasks with functional roles ...................................................................... 69

viii
Figure 43 Organization of company C described by Expert 3 .............................................................................. 73
Figure 44 Work Packaging information leveling (expert 8).................................................................................. 84
Figure 45 FEP and project lifecycle per CII definition (adapted from SP 268-3, 2012) ....................................... 86

ix
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. RESEARCH BACKGROUND

This Research Report documents the methodology and findings of Research Team 272

Phase II (2011-2013). This second phase was jointly sponsored by the Construction Industry

Institute (CII) and the Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA) to expand the findings

of the first phase and enhance the guidance provided to their respective member organizations

regarding the benefits, challenges, and implementation pathways for Advanced Work Packaging

(AWP). This is a standalone report, although the reader will benefit by a review of the first report

(RR272-11).

Figure 1 captures the scope of the first and second phases of the research. From 2009 to

2011 (Phase 1), the focus was on the development of an execution model for the project life cycle

with an emphasis on field implementation along with a set of industry case studies and collection

of benefits evidence. At this time, the research team used the term Enhanced Work Packaging

under the original charter from CII. From 2011 to 2013 (Phase 2), the work focused on extending

the execution model of Advanced Work Packaging with consideration of implementation

challenges documented through surveys and expert interviews in North America and globally. In

this phase, the term “Advanced” replaced the term “Enhanced.”

•Advanced Work Packaging

execution model
RT 272 Phase II
•Case studies and expert
interviews

•Enhanced Work Packaging

RT 272 Phase I execution model
•Case studies

Figure 1 Research team RT 272 phases

1
 The second phase also clarified the relationship between the terms Advanced Work

Packaging and WorkFace Planning (WFP). WFP is a term generated by COAA to encapsulate

their work in improving productivity at the work front. The term has been used to include work in

planning prior to execution. To clarify differences across phases, the joint Research Team has

defined WFP as a sub-process of AWP (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Relationship between WFP and AWP

RT 272 has also delivered six main documents including this one. Those documents are

the compilation of four years of extensive research and intermediate deliverables on Advanced

Work Packaging:

 Research Summary (RS 272-1): written by both academics and industry team members to

provide a high-level overview of the research findings

 An Implementation Resource in three volumes written by both industry and industry team

members. These volumes document the work packaging execution model and definitions,

provide detailed implementation guidance and tools, and presents case studies of a range

of implementations:

2
 o Implementation Resource 272-2, Volume I, Advanced Work Packaging: Design

through WorkFace Execution.

o IR 272-2, Volume II, Advanced Work Packaging: Implementation Guidance.

o IR 272-2, Volume III, Advanced Work Packaging: Implementation Case Studies

and Expert Interviews.

 Two Research Reports (RR 272-11 and RR 272-12): written primarily by the academics

that conducted the interviews and documented the case studies and expert interviews.

1.2. PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

CII and COAA membership have a shared interest in WorkFace Planning. As both have
invested in documenting and improving WorkFace Planning processes, the purpose of this joint
project was to collaboratively extend their prior work to develop common work packaging
implementation guidance for owners and contractors.

Key objectives were to develop implementation guidance around four high value topic areas
identified by the team through its members’ experiences as well as through documented feedback
from the industry experts and companies. Those four main areas were agreed on by team members
during their kick-off meeting:

1. Elaboration of process to support implementation – in particular with respect to (a) details

around organizational responsibilities and capabilities, and (b) information requirements
to support WorkFace planning. Details will be built from phase one deliverables on process
descriptions and COAA swim lane charts. Alignment of definitions among COAA and CII
documentation is part of this topic.
2. Contractual requirements and contracting strategies to suggest what issues contracts should
include and how WorkFace planning should be included in various forms of executions
strategies that separate responsibilities between different engineering, procurement, and
construction contractors.
3. Maturity assessment to aid general appraisals of implementation quality and help firms and
projects identify where to focus implementation efforts.

3
 4. Continued documentation of the evidence supporting WorkFace planning as well as
documentation of implementation barriers and metrics used to support implementation.
Empirical data collection will also support topics 1-3, above.

1.3. RESEARCH REPORT STRUCTURE

This report documents the team work process and reports on its research methodology and

deliverables. It also expands on key concepts and findings around the implementation barriers

experienced by the industry. The report is composed of eight chapters. This first chapter introduces

the context of this research work and the purpose and scope of the work performed. The second

chapter covers literature review of the main areas of study involved with work packaging as well

as research questions. The third chapter presents the research methodology. Research findings are

presented in chapters four to seven. Each chapter reports on a different area of focus - work

processes (chapter 4), organization and functional capabilities (chapter 5), contracts (chapter 6),

and implementation during basic design (chapter 7). These are consistent with the charter

objectives stated above. Each of the chapters is largely self-contained, with findings compared

with existing literature as well as with the findings from case studies and expert interviews from

the first phase. Chapter seven focuses on the implementation of AWP in relation to Front-End

Engineering and Design (FEED) activities. This topic was broken out from the broader areas in

the earlier chapters as it was identified by the team of importance to widespread implementation

of AWP. Chapter eight presents a summary of the research findings and conclusions.

4
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW & RESEARCH QUESTIONS

2.1. WORK PACKAGING FOR CONSTRUCTION

2.1.1. WORK PACKAGING DEFINITION: FROM A PROJECT CONTROL MECHANISM TO A

PROJECT PLANNING MECHANISM

The concept of breaking down projects into manageable work packages is one of the

fundamental concepts of the Project Management body of knowledge and the execution theory.

Early work packaging research focused on project control, examining the coding relationship of

work packages to time, cost, and people as represented by the work breakdown structure (WBS),

organizational breakdown structure (OBS), and cost breakdown structure (CBS). The Project

Management Institute (PMI) recommends using work breakdown structures (WBS) to subdivide

a project into smaller manageable pieces (PMI, 2004). “[A Work Package is] a deliverable at the

lowest level of the work breakdown structure. A work package may be divided into activities. Also

can be an accountable item of work.” (PMI 1996).

In 1988 the Construction Industry Institute (CII) developed a report “Work packaging for

project control” in which they also recommend breaking down projects into manageable work

packages and give guidelines for using work packaging for project control (CII RS 6-6, 1988).

However, this "research has been devoted to examining the concepts applicability of the work

packaging concept and applying it as a general managerial tool. Only limited attention has been

paid to the actual work packaging process” (Kim and Ibbs, 1995). More recent research efforts,

including the Last Planner System (Ballard, 2000) as well as the WorkFace Planning practice by

the Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA), were directed to determining effective

work packaging methods and best practices (e.g., Fayek and Peng, 2013).

Last Planner System, Lean Construction approach

The Lean construction approach is “aimed at maximizing performance for the customer at

the project level, concurrent design of product and process, and the application of production

control throughout the life of the product from design to delivery” (Howell, 1999). The Last
Planner System (LPS) has gained a lot of practitioners’ and academics’ attention within the Lean

5
Construction approach. This system comprises four levels of planning processes with different

chronological phases/deliverables (Figure 3):

 Master Scheduling: results in the deliverable of the front-end planning that identifies major

milestones and incorporates Critical Path Method (CPM) logic to determine overall project

duration (Tommelein and Ballard, 1997).

 Phase Scheduling: results in a phase schedule that identifies handoffs between the various

specialty organizations to find the best way to meet milestones stated in the master schedule

(Ballard and Howell, 2004).

 Look-ahead Planning: At this stage, activities are broken down in operations, constraints

are identified, responsibilities are assigned and assignments are ready (Hamzeh et al.,

2008).

 Commitment Planning: this is the most detailed plan in the scheduling process. It is very

close to the construction process and is directly linked to continuous improvement tools.

Figure 3 Planning Levels in the Last Planner System (Adapted from Ballard and Howell, 1998)

The corresponding output from the Commitment Planning scheduling level is the Weekly

Work Plan. The commitment plan is an assignment-level schedule covering one-week duration.

This schedule contains all of the work activities that are required to start that week in order to meet

6
the look-ahead schedule completion dates. Work assignments are pulled from the look-ahead

schedule onto the weekly work plan. In accordance to Tommelein (1998), “pull” techniques are

particularly suited for fast-track projects, requiring unique parts and characterized by high

uncertainties.

Lean Implementation Challenges

The implementation process of any management system usually faces various obstacles

related to organizational changes and to the nature of construction work and its requirements. For

lean construction implementation process as for any other system implementation, there are
obstacles and challenges that were reported by researchers based on various case studies (e.g.

Ballard and Raiser, 2004; Hamzeh et al., 2009). Ballard et al. (2007) studied the implementation

of LPS on many construction projects and reported various implementation obstacles. Resistance

to change within team members was the main obstacle to LPS implementation. In various cases,

the lack of leadership during the process, in addition to the lack of commitment by managers were

considered as implementation challenges. Hamzeh (2009) classified lean related implementation

challenges into two sets of factors: local factors that are potential challenges attributed to project

circumstances (new experience with lean methods, traditional project management methods,

novelty of LPS to team members, fragmented leadership and team chemistry) and general factors

that include human capital, organizational inertia, resistance to change, technological barriers and

climate. Identified barriers from case studies in the literature are lengthy client approval process,

the amount of paperwork routinely involved between employees, cultural issues, degree of

commitment, communication effectiveness between stakeholders and information accuracy and

its relationship to the LPS process. Hence, some of the requirements for the LPS implementation

success are: top management support, commitment to promises, involvement of all stakeholders

and effective communication and coordination between parties. These requirements are defined

by Alsehaimi et al. (2009) as Critical Success Factors (CSFs).

7
 WorkFace Planning and Enhanced Work Packaging
WorkFace Planning (WFP) is the process of organizing and delivering all the elements

necessary to develop a complete work package, before the activities included within its scope are

started. The objective of WorkFace Planning is to improve the coordination of information, tools

and materials at the work face, where the work is performed (Ryan, 2009). The process is oriented

at reducing the distance between planners and field executors, implementing a proactive process

that enables craft workers to perform their work safely, effectively, and efficiently. This is

accomplished by breaking construction work down (by trade) into discrete work packages that

completely describe/cover the scope of work for a given project. This process promotes the

efficient use of available resources and permits the tracking of progress with positive impact on

project cost and productivity (Peng et al., 2012). In 2005, WorkFace Planning process is

considered a best practice by the Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA). This best

practice was extended by the research team CII RT 272 (2009-2011) that reviewed current work

packaging practices and identified additional implementation scope to develop a new model (the

best practice object of present research report). This model (see Figure 4) contains a renewed set

of practices to execute WorkFace Planning from project definition through turnover, with

narratives for each of the three project phases specified and the distinct steps therein.

Figure 4 Integrated Enhanced Work Packaging Flowchart (CII IR 272-2 Vol1, 2012)

8
 WorkFace Planning: evidence of implementation benefits and challenges
In 2012, the Construction Industry Institute has issued an Implementation Resource, based

on case studies report, containing seven case studies and three expert interviews collected by the

CII Research Team 272 Enhanced Work Packaging: Design through Work Face Execution (CII

IR 272-2 volume II, 2012). The projects and companies included within this case studies report

worked in the industrial and commercial construction sectors, including power, oil and gas,

government, and commercial projects. The report includes evidence of success of work packaging

use as well as a set of challenges that accompanied the process. High level benefits include:
improved project party alignment & collaboration, site paperwork reduced, reduced rework,

improved project cost & schedule, improved safety awareness & performance, more time for

supervising, decreased supervisor & craft turnover, improved labor productivity, increased

reporting accuracy, enhanced turnover and improved client satisfaction (Meeks et al., 2012).

Reported challenges include: unmanageable sizes of packages, late implementation through the

lifecycle, lack of managerial support (CII IR 272-2 volume II, 2012). One of the widely recognized

challenges was the gap between the Front End phase and the Construction phase in terms of work

packaging. In fact, the COAA WorkFace Planning Committee Chair declared in one of the

organization’s conferences held in May 2012 in Edmonton: “We realized that problems were still

occurring in the transfer of complete Front End Deliverables, on time and in the right sequence to

Contractors.” This point leads to extend the analysis to the FEED phase.

2.1.2. OBSERVATIONS

Terminology and scope:

As previously explained, the concept of work packaging had extended from being a project

controls concept to being a project execution methodology. It is then important to understand that

work packaging is not a new concept. In different ways, construction projects have always divided

the work to be performed into smaller portions and planned around these divisions to reach project
goals. However, the terminology used within the Construction Industry differed from one sector

9
to the other, from one geographical area to the other and even from one company to the other. In

a lot of cases, the work packaging process was not explicitly labeled "work packaging". Within

the scope of this research, "work packaging" is considered as the terminology that broadly includes

any methods of organizing the execution process within the scope of a construction project; for

instance, any scheduling efforts taking into account procurement, site, and engineering constraints.

This goes beyond the construction type of work and covers also the engineering and procurement

work. Such a definition was also adopted by Smith (2008): “packages of work, usually referred to

as 'activities' or 'tasks', are determined by consideration of the type of work, the location of the
work or by any restraints on the continuity of the activity".

Emphasis on the construction side:

Intuitively, work packaging is automatically correlated with the construction side of

projects. This involves the construction phase and the construction people. However, one might

also question work packaging as a process within the engineering side as well as within different

stages of the project lifecycle. Meeks et al., (2012) have performed a literature review on work

packaging from a construction standpoint and have articulated this literature around six main

themes as showed in Figure 5.

Work Packaging Themes

Organizational
Project
Level of Cost Capabilities / New Developing Contract
Lifecycle &
Benefit Roles & Technologies Work Packages Language
Handover
Responsibilities

Figure 5 Literature Review framework: Work Packaging Themes (Meeks et al., 2012)

10
2.2. WORK PACKAGING FOR ENGINEERING

2.2.1. WORK PACKAGING IN THE ENGINEERING WORLD: ENGINEERING PROJECT

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Utilizing management tools to manage projects is widely considered a critical component

of any project success over any industry. The engineering side of the construction industry is also

relating to the management efficiency to its project through a number of organizational theories,

practices and tools. In this part of the literature review, examples of practices to manage

engineering work are provided and differentiated between the following organizational structure

types and strategies:

1) Generic organization designs

There are two main generic engineering organizational structures: a structure based on

discipline groupings and individual expertise known as a functional multidisciplinary structure and

a structure focusing on projects and nature of works known as divisional structure. A functional

multidisciplinary structure for engineering firms is a structure that derives its origin from the

principle of grouping specialists under one entity. This leads to departments with specific sets of

expertise that will tend to "build on specialist skills and dominate the organization through those

functions" (Smith 2008). A divisional structure for engineering firms is in a way a response to

what has been challenging with the previous structure: the lack of communication between

departments. This structure focuses on the "specialist nature of the work or project rather than

individual expertise" (Smith 2008).

11
 Table 1 compares the two structures in terms of benefits and challenges:

Table 1 Engineering firms organizational types comparison (Adapted from Smith, 2008)

Functional multidisciplinary Divisional organization form by

engineering structure type of project
Build on specialist skills to
get information and skills Focus on a final product through
Aim
contained through each its type, size, location, customer
specialist
Small to medium size
Where Large companies
companies
Decision making Divisional requirements and
Functional performance
criterion corporate priorities
Lack of integration between
specialists, lack of interest Operation inter-boundaries, poor
Main Challenge and understanding between communication, inefficient
specialists, impacted information exchange
communication

2) Other structures
Engineering firms can organize their work and package their activities using other more

sophisticated approaches. In fact, the project itself can serve as a temporary organization within

the parent organization (Turner and Muller 2003). The advantage of such a structure is its ability

to follow the continuous change that a project can see through its lifecycle. However, flexibility

can be challenging unless a very qualified engineering project manager is assigned to the project

(Hermone 1998). Other structures include networks (Tekeuchi and Nonaka 1995), virtual

organizations (Reyck, et al. 2005) and matrix-based structures (Hermone 1998).

3) Systems and practices: from a fragmented to an integrated approach

Goodman et al. (1980) highlighted and documented the need to a new approach for project

planning and management. Over case studies conducted on projects internationally, they have
identified the most critical problems that are directly related to a fragmented approach to project

12
planning and management. Those problems include the lack of communication between the

different people involved with the following groups: project identification and formulation,

feasibility analysis and appraisal, design, traditional project management (Goodman and Love

1980). As stated by Goodman and Ignacio (1999), there was found in this study that there was no

coordination between and among the groups in charge of those different functions. This

emphasizes the need to more coordination, which here validates the need and initiative behind a

more collaborative work packaging framework that ensures an integrated approach with the

engineering side with all its components and other involved stakeholders in the management of
the project in its broader term. Tools for having integrated approaches to engineering construction

projects have been developed. For instance, the Integrated Planning and Quality Management

System (IPQMS) is a "conceptual tool for observing and analyzing the process of projects in all

sectors" (Goodman and Ignacio, 1999).

2.2.2. OBSERVATIONS

Engineering Work Packaging and organizational structures:

It is true that the organizational structure goes beyond the definition of work packaging as

a process defining the units of work to execute. However, it remains clear that the type of structure

defines the process of work breakdown for engineering firms. More detail regarding this

relationship can be presented through the literature of planning processes for Engineering and the

process of incorporation of other stakeholders’ schedules into the main project schedule.

Communication as a main challenge:

Although no explicit use of engineering work packaging terminology is common in the

literature, previous scientific contribution provided extensive description on engineering firms’

organizational structure. Also, extant literature showed an overall consensus on the increasing

importance of the engineering project manager in achieving effective inside work packaging and
design efficiency. In addition, for almost all organizational types, including the most integrated

13
ones, communication between 'departments' or ‘specialists’ is considered as a big challenge. This

challenge has been the main driver for developing more advanced and integrated structures as the

matrix structure (Hermone 1998). This challenge extends from the early design stages regarding

the development of the WBS to the late stages of drawings finalization and review. To overcome

this challenge, the literature describing the rules to improve communications with engineering

firms has been collected and reviewed (Hermone 1998; O'Connor, 1994; Goodman and Ignacio,

1999; Smith 2008).

2.3. WORK PACKAGING AND PROCUREMENT

2.3.1. WORK PACKAGES AS PROCUREMENT SUB-SYSTEMS

The literature contains two main groups of research on work packaging and procurement:

the first group is focused on procurement and peripherally relates to work packaging in terms of

practices, concepts and methods; the second group is focused on topics such as constructability or

productivity and relates to work packaging as main research topic. The analysis of these two groups

allowed drawing a relationship between work packaging and procurement. However, it is worth to

note that no explicit research has been found on work packaging, as previously defined, and

procurement.

As mentioned by (O'Connor et al., 1987) "work packaging is particularly critical for a fine-
tuned construction driven schedule, and it must be developed at a fairly detailed level to be

effective". The consensus about the fact that constructability is enhanced when driven by both

design and procurement makes work packaging in direct relationship with procurement for

successful projects experiences. O'Connor et al. (1987) laid the ground for the importance of

construction-driven schedules in enabling prioritization of engineering and procurement and

effectiveness of work packages. As far as some specific applications of this with respect to

procurement and work packaging, the authors recommended the following: "the design schedule
for engineered equipment should be driven by the procurement schedule, which is construction-

14
driven". This emphasizes, as far as work packaging is concerned, the importance of aligning

construction and procurement plans and schedules. Standardization is also considered as a source

of enhancement for project management practices and steps. The impact of standardization through

work packaging on procurement is recognized as capable to provide a "simplified material

procurement" process.

Among the studies focused on the conceptualization of work packaging techniques for

procurement, Kumaraswamy and Dissanayaka (2010) worked on assessing the impacts of various

procurement variables on project performance, in comparison to the impacts of non-procurement

related variables, such as project conditions and team characteristics. Their framework was based

on "a holistic overview of procurement systems that included, for example, sub-systems of work

packaging, and type of contract." The proposed procurement framework is composed by the

following construction project procurements sub-systems:

1. Work packages

2. Functional groupings

3. Payment modalities

4. Form of contract

5. Selection methodologies

The following is an excerpt from the publication explaining work packages as procurement

sub-systems:

"Work packages may be designed to be large enough to attract international interest, if

needed for purposes of greater price competition, or for deploying advanced technologies
economically (for example, if special expertise was needed to design and or build complex
structures such as double-curvature arch dams or tunnels in poor ground conditions).
Alternatively, the large and or complex work packages may be ’sliced’, to keep them within
the capabilities of local construction organizations. For example, ’vertical’ and or
’horizontal’ slicing is possible on a road works project, by dividing it into different projects
along the length of the road and or into separate parcels for earthworks, surfacing and
services, respectively” (Kumaraswamy and Dissanayaka 2010)

15
2.3.2. OBSERVATIONS

Coordination and communication as main challenges

In most projects, construction procurement services are packaged with other architectural

services such as design, construction documents, or construction contract administration (The

American Institute of Architects, 2000). Taking into consideration the fact that procurement is

directly related to the sequence of construction, proper coordination between the construction side

and procurement side seems to be inevitable and vital for project success. The need for an

integrated system allowing the proper means of communication and coordination is widely

recognized within extant scientific literature.

2.4. RESEARCH NEEDS

The review above focusses on basic definitions and perspectives on work packaging

implementation. Extended literature review is provided in the following chapters that focus on

specific areas. Reprising the objectives outlined in section 1.2 (process elaboration, contractual

guidance, maturity assessment, and documentation of AWP), several areas of inquiry were

identified as research needs to support development of the AWP model and tools. These areas are

processes, organization and functional capabilities, and contracts. In addition, as early decisions

in engineering were deemed as critical to the success of AWP, a separate area of inquiry was

focused on AWP during FEED (front end engineering deliverables). Translation of these research
needs to research methodology is detailed in the following chapter.

16
 CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research team identified the need for further research in the areas of processes,

organization and functional capabilities, contracts, and early engineering deliverables. These needs

were primarily seen to be descriptive of practice to better support the industry research team

development of tools and recommendations. The team performed the research within three phases:

Charter Formation, Development, and Deliverables. These three phases and associated sub-phases

and research methodologies are depicted in Figure 6 and explained below.

Figure 6 Research phases and methodology

17
3.1. RESEARCH PHASE 1 – CHARTER FORMATION

In the first stage of the research process of phase 2, the team focused on developing its

charter in a way that reflects the goals of the joint venture as well as the prior research in phase 1.

The charter formation phase extended mainly through the first two face-to-face meetings. This

phase satisfied the objective of identifying the gaps of the literature (including the team previous

work during phase 1) and addressing those gaps through a working plan for phase 2.

3.1.1. RESEARCH TEAM EXPERIENCE

The team as described in its research summary RS 272-1 is composed of experts in leading
work packaging methods, as well as personnel with detailed knowledge of engineering processes

and other construction processes, e.g., materials management and project controls (see Figure 7

and Figure 8). The team also had strong representation from both owner and contractor

organizations (see Figure 9). As such, the team was uniquely positioned to create a recommended

model of Advanced Work Packaging that spans all project phases, from definition through

construction and turnover. The team also benefited from its awareness of contemporaneous efforts

related to Advanced Work Packaging—in particular, the WorkFace planning development carried

out by the Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA) (see Figure 10). COAA's leading

development of WorkFace planning (WFP) provided the basis for specific recommendations for

field practice as well as a starting point for an approach to work packaging across the project
lifecycle.

The joint venture has been recognized as an asset and a key success factor to the teamwork.

Indeed, this was also reported in a number of the team meeting minutes as showed in the following

extracts of the team feedback over the dynamics of its face-to-face meetings and research work:

"The Joint work was a source of enriching experience" (Meeting minutes of March 2013)

“Excellent leadership and focus among sub teams" (Meeting minutes of January 2013

meeting)

18
 “COAA/CII formation is stronger and more visible through this research team joint

venture" (Meeting minutes of September 2012 meeting).

Technology
5%

Power
Academia
15%
15%
Industrial
15%
Oil & Gas
50%

Figure 7 Team representation – industry

Consulting
10%

Owner
Academia
35%
15%
Vendor
10%

EPC/EPCM
30%

Figure 8 team representation - firm type

19
 Owner
41%

Contractor
59%

Figure 9 team representation - owner v. contractor

Global
USA
30%
45%

Canada
25%

Figure 10 team representation – location

As presented by the range of figures representing the team composition per several criteria,

the team enjoyed both a breadth and depth of experience related to work packaging in addition to

a keen interest in the subject and commitment to advance the industry.

Over the course of the project, the team members interacted through not only face-to-face

meetings that were held regularly approximately every other month, but also through conference

calls scheduled in between face-to-face meetings. During the first meetings, the team worked on

reviewing the feedback received from the implementation session of phase one during the CII
conference; this feedback consisted of the attendees comments and recommendations to the team

20
for future work. The team also reviewed the current status of the phase 1 documentation as well as

supporting COAA documentation (see Figure 11 and Figure 12) and defined needs and desires for

phase 2. Apart from the needs outlined above, goals for these early sessions included: (1) Aligning

CII and COAA members’ visions and building a common ground for success; (2) Deciding on

which deliverables are needed to further enhance the process. Focus on implementation was an

outcome of these early meetings.

Figure 11 RT 272 Phase 1 deliverable

21
 Figure 12 COAA Website (http://www.coaa.ab.ca)

3.2. RESEARCH PHASE 2 – DEVELOPMENT

Development constituted the primary part of the research after the charter formation and kickoff
meetings to define the goals and objectives.

3.2.1. WORKING THRUST AREAS

The research phase 1 led to the identification of three main thrust areas (Figure 13):

1. Process.

2. Contracts.

3. Functional Capabilities.

These thrust areas followed the research need areas identified by the team.

22
 Process sub-
team

Functional
Contracts
Capabilities
sub-team
sub-team

Figure 13 Development thrust areas and interactions

For each thrust area, a sub-team was composed. Team members joined sub-teams based on

their preferences and experiences to comprise a well-rounded sub team. The large size of the

research team allowed significant parallel efforts. To keep sub teams coordinated and to leverage

the collective experience of the team, during each team face-to-face meeting there was a report of

the sub-teams and discussion by the larger group. As deliverables from the team matured, each

was reviewed by the entire team and feedback was incorporated. The findings for each thrust areas

are detailed in the chapters four, five and six.

3.2.2. EVIDENCE COLLECTION

To support the sub-teams in each of the thrust areas, the academic members of the

research team conducted a series of expert interviews and supported other data collection efforts

through a workshop and survey. Findings were reported to the broader research team on a

regular basis (typically at team face-to-face meetings). These efforts generally cut across each of

the thrust areas to provide holistic support for creation of specific deliverables.

3.2.2.1. Expert interviews

In parallel to developing the Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) Implementation Guidance,

the research team RT 272 conducted interviews with experts outside the research team. The

23
collected evidence presents an overview of the current North American construction industry work

packaging practices, perceived benefits, and experienced implementation challenges through the

entire project lifecycle. A particular emphasis was placed on early engineering. The research team

used these findings to refine the research objectives, enhance the quality of deliverables, and assure

that the final output is aligned with the industry need.

Members of RT 272 provided the network of contacts for the nineteen expert interviews

(in this second phase of the research). Data and information were collected through face-to-face

and phone interviews, as well as secondary sources such as internal reports and other corporate
resources (Berg and Lune, 2004). Two questionnaires were used to conduct the case studies and

the set of expert interviews (Appendices A & B). Documented projects were in Brazil, USA,

Canada and Australia. The projects and companies selected for review represent a range of

industrial and commercial construction sectors, including power, oil & gas, government, and

commercial projects (Figure 14). Interviewed experts represent a range of owners and contractors.

These projects and companies have different work packaging maturity levels. Selected companies

and experts interviewed have been kept anonymous.

Technology
5%

Power
16%

Oil&Gas
79%

Figure 14 Expert interviews per sector

Table 2 presents the list of experts interviewed during the second phase of the research

work (see also Figure 15 and Figure 16). A broad population of experts was mainly contacted by
the team members (Dorussen et al. 2005). For instance, during the CII Annual Conference in

24
Baltimore of July 2012 and during the COAA invitational workshop in Canmore of September

2012, 19 experts and consultants volunteered to be interviewed and to contribute to the data

collection process (Table 2).

Table 2 Expert Interviews

Company Company
Sector Expert function
Coding Type
Expert Energy
A EPC Vice president
Interview 1 (Oil & Gas)
Energy
Expert Project Engineering
B (electric Owner
Interview 2 Supervisor
utilities)
Expert Energy
C Owner Manager of nuclear projects
Interview 3 (nuclear)
Expert Industrial
D EPC Project Manager
Interview 4 (refinery)
Expert
D Energy EPC Consultant - WFP planner
Interview 5
Expert Industrial
D EPC Construction Manager
Interview 6 (Refinery)

25
Table 2 (continued)

Expert Energy
E Owner Construction WF manager
Interview 7 (Oil & Gas)
Expert Energy
F Consulting Consultant WFP
Interview 8 (Oil & Gas)
Expert G Energy EPC Construction manager
Interview 9 (Oil & Gas)
Expert H Energy (Oil Owner Project controls and
Interview 10 & Gas) infrastructure oil sands

Expert I Energy Owner 2 Project Engineering Team

Interview 11 (Power) Leads for Process & Tools

Expert I Energy Owner Project engineers

Interview 12 (Power)

Expert J Energy (Oil EPC WFP manager

Interview 13 & gas)

Expert K Energy (Oil EPC Chief Operating office - VP

Interview 14 & Gas) Project Management Office

Expert L Energy (Gas Owner Construction and construction

Interview 15 producer) engineering manager

Expert E Energy Owner Project manager

Interview 16 (Oil & Gas)

Expert E Energy Owner Construction manager

Interview 17 (Oil & Gas)

Expert M Energy EPC System and integration

Interview 18 (Oil & Gas) manager

Expert N Various Consulting Director

Interview 19 construction
sectors

26
 Consulting
11%

Owner
47%
EPC/EPCM
42%

Figure 15 Expert Interviews representation - Firm type

Australia
5%

USA
Canada 48%
47%

Figure 16 Expert Interviews representation - Project location

The average duration of the interviews was 55 minutes. The interview was semi-structured,

which means questions were open for discussion and allowed the interviewee to not only respond

directly to the question but also extend their response to examples and other related topics as

needed (Wengraf, 2001). The unit of the analysis of the interview was AWP implementation in

relation to the company or the single project (Figure 17). The main structure of the interview
questionnaire is represented in Figure 18. Since interviewees have different backgrounds and are

27
involved with different levels in their respective companies, some questions were asked and

customized to the interviewee.

Project
level
31%

Company
level
69%

Figure 17 Interview representation - Level of implementation discussed

28
 Figure 18 Interview questionnaire group of questions

3.2.2.2. Invitational Workshop

The workshop was organized by the Construction Owners Association of Alberta. It took

place on October 2012 in Canmore, Canada. The goal was to allow stakeholders with experience

in AWP/WFP time to discuss implementation issues in depth (Krueger and Casey, 2000). About

35 people attended the workshop. The main two deliverables of the workshop were to:

 Provide an in-depth discussion on RT 272 research topics (process, contracts,

organization and functional capabilities).

39
 The results of the workshop – together with supporting documentation – are reported in the

following chapters. Appendix G contains a summary of the workshop minutes and details of each

breakout report.

3.2.2.3. Survey

The team performed a survey that was used both online through the CII survey tool and

during an implementation workshop during the COAA Best Practices Conference in Edmonton in

May 2012. The number of combined respondents is 68. Figure 19, Figure 20, and Figure 21 show

characteristics of the surveyed population. The figures portraits that the audience was composed

of people from various stakeholders, although primarily in the oil & gas industry.

16
14
Number of votes

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 19 COAA Best Practices Conference & Online survey-

Survey results to Q1: Who are you?

30
 16
14

Number of votes
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 20 COAA BEST PRACTICES Conference & Online survey -

Survey results to Q2: What is your role in the company?

45
40
Number of votes

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Figure 21 COAA BEST PRACTICES Conference & Online survey -

Survey results to Q3: What is your main business?

The survey detailed questions are showed in the following sub-section in Appendix F.

31
Survey results were used to validate the team research direction but they were also a basis for

discussion during the face-to-face meetings.

3.2.3. EXTERNAL REVIEW

Validation of the research deliverables consisted of external feedback collection by

industry experts. Six experts (including one group) outside of the research team were interviewed

to provide validation. The experts reviewed the recommendations and findings of the team and

participated in a thirty minute to one-hour interview with the academic team members to discuss

their impressions. The interviews were guided by an interview guide, presented in Appendix D,

which focused on capturing the reader’s understanding of the research findings and their

impressions of the practicality and value of the model and work packaging recommendations. The

validation feedback was utilized to refine and support the research findings. Each interview was

summarized into an anonymous report, all of which are presented in Appendix E. The total industry

experience represented by selected experts is 202 years, with an average of 33 years (Table 3).

Table 3 Background Summaries of Validation Experts

Type of
ID Area of Expertise Years of Experience
Company
Expert V1 Engineering EPC 42
Expert V2 Research Academia 42
Expert V3 Construction EPC 21
Expert V4 Project Management EPC 33
Expert V5 WorkFace planning Consulting 21
Expert V6 Construction Owner 43

3.3. RESEARCH PHASE 4 – DELIVERABLES

The team delivered the research findings in four CII deliverable categories.

o Research Summary (RS 272-1): written by both academics and industry team

members to provide a high-level overview of the research findings

32
o Three Implementation Resource volumes. They have been written by both

academic and industry team members and documents the work packaging model

findings, including the definitions, execution model, and tools:

 Implementation Resource 272-2, Volume I, Advanced Work Packaging:

Design through WorkFace Execution.

 IR 272-2, Volume II, Advanced Work Packaging: Implementation

Guidance.

 IR 272-2, Volume III, Advanced Work Packaging: Implementation Case

Studies and Expert Interviews.

o Two Research Reports (RR 272-11 and RR 272-12): written primarily by the

academics that conducted the interviews and documented the overall research

process.

33
 CHAPTER 4. PROCESSES

This chapter presents the research development and findings about the processes of

Advanced Work Packaging execution as well as an overview of the industry status regarding

implementation practices. The chapter is divided into four main parts:

1. Definitions that will present to the reader an overview of the main concepts behind

Advanced Work Packaging,

2. Flowcharts and supporting tools that will present the details of the model and the

team deliverable for implementation,

3. The Maturity Model part which will not only present the purpose and usefulness of

this tool but also its content, and

4. The state of the art of Advanced Work Packaging industry implementation and

experience through a review of evidence gathered through case studies and expert

interviews.

Collectively, this chapter presents the research supporting development of AWP processes; it does

not repeat in detail all the development of the research team as reported in the Implementation

Resources. It is recommended that the reader treat the IR272-2 Volumes 1 through 3 as companion

documents to this report and to this chapter in particular.

4.1. DEFINITIONS

The essence of AWP is conveyed in Figure 22, which depicts Advanced Work Packaging

as an overall process from project setup through commissioning and startup. Workface Planning

is shown as a process specific to construction execution.

34
 Figure 22 Advanced Work Packaging Lifecycle

Research Team RT 272 defines Advanced Work Packaging in as follows:

Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) is a disciplined approach to improving project

productivity and predictability. It accomplishes this by aligning planning and execution
activities across the project lifecycle, from project setup to startup and turnover.

AWP represents a complete set of work packaging practices that cover not only
construction but also the early stages of the project and adds to the system more control over the
breakdown of the project through its lifecycle. Items mentioned within the blue and yellow circles
of Figure 22 are key project deliverables all through the advanced Lifecycle. CWPs, EWPs and
IWPs are respectively acronyms for Construction Work Packages, Engineering Work Packages
and Installation Work Packages.

The definitions developed by the research team are presented below in their entirety from
the Implementation Resource IR 272-1 Volume 1 Advanced Work Packaging: Design through
WorkFace Execution, which presents the basic concepts and definitions and lays out a
recommended execution model in three stages – planning, detailed engineering, and construction.

35
Work Packaging: Work packaging is the overall process flow of all the detailed packages.
It is a planned, executable process that encompasses Engineering Procurement and
Construction’s (EPC) detailed design through execution. Work packaging provides the
framework for productive and progressive construction. Work packaging presumes the
existence of a construction execution plan.

Work Face Planning: Work face planning is the process of organizing and delivering all
the elements necessary, before the work is started, to enable craft persons to perform
quality work in a safe, effective, and efficient manner. This is accomplished by breaking
down (planning) construction work by trade into discrete work packages that completely
describe/cover the scope of work for a given project to efficiently use available resources
and track progress.

Work Face Planning Lead: A Work face planner is a person identified to participate in
project front-end planning that thoroughly understands EPC projects, who will later
transition onto the jobsite and provide the essential coordination among engineering,
procurement, and construction that ultimately results in timely issuance of a complete and
constructible Installation Work Package (IWP) that supports the construction
schedule. This person will lead a staff of work face planners that is sized according to the
scope and complexity of the project and that have sufficient understanding of construction
to prepare discipline specific IWPs with the required support from other departments and
approval from construction management.

Work Breakdown Structure: WBS is a hierarchical representation of a complete project

or program, its components being arrayed in ever-increasing detail (CII, 1988).

Engineering Work Package: An engineering work package (EWP) is an engineering and

procurement deliverable that is used to construct Construction Work Packages (CWP). The
EWP shall be aligned with construction sequence and priorities.

Construction Work Package: A construction work package (CWP) defines a logical and
manageable division of work within the construction scope. The CWP is aligned with the
project execution plan (which includes the construction plan) and WBS. The division of
work is defined so that CWPs do not overlap. CWPs are to be measureable and in alignment
with project controls. CWPs are the basis for the development of detailed installation work
packages. CWPs can contain one or more EWPs. A CWP is typically aligned with a bid
package.

Installation Work Package: An installation work package (IWP) is the deliverable to a

construction work crew that enables a crew to perform quality work in a safe, predictable,
measurable, and efficient manner. An IWP is scoped to be manageable and progressable,
typically of limited size such that a crew can complete the work in about a week. An IWP
contains necessary documentation supporting work face execution. An IWP has been
approved by the responsible stakeholders and constraints have been mitigated before being
issued to the field.

36
4.2. FLOWCHARTS

4.2.1. LEVEL 1 FLOWCHART

Based on team experience, literature review findings, and case studies, the research team

developed in its phase one an integrated execution model describing the implementation of work

face planning through the lifecycle of a project, from project definition through system turnover.

This execution model is presented below in Figure 23.

Figure 23 Integrated Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) Flowchart

The execution model covers three stages of construction project lifecycle: preliminary

planning / design, detailed engineering, and construction.

Stage I: Preliminary Planning/Design

An excerpt from the Implementation resource IR 272-2 Volume I is presented below in

Figure 24 to describe Stage 1, Preliminary Planning/Design:

Stage I presents several detailed challenges for organizations seeking to maximize the
benefits of enhanced work packaging. The concepts in stage one include consideration for
work packaging in the early stages of project definition with explicit consideration of things
such as construction sequence and level of details of design. Also central to stage one is
the coordinated planning of construction and engineering through specification of
construction work packages (CWPs) and their sequence. From this early definition of
CWPs, engineering work packages (EWPs) should be developed to be contained within
CWPs, and engineering execution should be planned accordingly to support construction.

37
 This presents a challenge to traditional engineering that is accommodated by system or
discipline and crosses traditional CWP boundaries. Effective planning here will direct
engineering to support construction on fast-track projects -- ideally without causing
unnecessary engineering expense. Early planning with the right expertise is central to
successful execution in subsequent stages. Thus, a key message for owner organizations
conducting preliminary planning and design is to ensure that the right expertise is available
even if contractors and vendors have not been selected.

Figure 24 Stage 1 Flowchart - Preliminary Planning/Design (CII, 2011b)

Stage II: Detailed Engineering

An excerpt from the Implementation resource IR 272-2 Volume I describing Stage 2,

Detailed Engineering, is presented below in Figure 25:

Stage II presents a challenge for traditional construction organizations that are not set up
to perform enhanced work packaging. Traditional construction organizations that allow
field supervision -- superintendents and foreman -- to perform all detailed planning may be
allowing informal planning processes. The enhanced work packaging model prescribes the
use of a work face planner apart from the foreman role. A work face planner as noted in
the definition above has responsibility for designating and managing installation work
packages (IWPs). This means advanced planning and analysis and release of potential
constraints. Management of IWPs is not performed separately from the field but rather in
conjunction with field supervisors. Field supervisors are able to spend more time managing
the work and have been relieved of the burden of detailed planning. The work face planner

38
 performs the detailed planning and supporting coordination tasks and gets input and signoff
from the field supervisors.

Figure 25 Stage 2 Flowchart - Detailed Engineering (CII, 2011b)

Stage III: Construction

An excerpt from the Implementation resource IR 272-2 Volume I describing Stage 3,

Construction, is presented below in Figure 26:

Stage III is also supported by the most detailed breakout flowcharts that show a more
detailed flowchart for five separate steps in the construction process of managing
installation work packages. Each of these five steps has a separate sub flowchart with more
detail. The five steps include IWP creation, document control, issuance to the field, control
in the field, and finally, IWP close out. Collectively these five steps represent a robust
process for managing installation work packages. These processes document and extend
leading practice as observed in CII member companies and COAA companies. The IWP
management process described in stage III is also compatible with the lean construction
practices for managing constraints. It is possible for a company to begin the
implementation by focusing solely on IWPs; several case studies demonstrate that
companies have chosen first to focus on the field before extending planning into project
definition and engineering. Note that this is a viable although not recommended approach
as projects that do not give adequate preplanning will face constraints on field planning in
terms of engineering support.

39
 Figure 26 Flowchart - Construction (CII, 2011b)

4.2.2. LEVEL 2 FLOWCHART: SWIMLANES BY STAGE / PROJECT INTEGRATION FLOWCHARTS

Each of the stages presented in the execution model presented in Figure 20 is detailed into

a group of project integration flowcharts that are available in Appendix E of IR 272-2 volume II.

Figure 27 is a snapshot of one of the swim lanes that are meant to meticulously show the detail of

AWP implementation by stage.

40
 Figure 27 Snapshot of AWP swim lanes

The team developed a detailed narrative of the swim lanes that is presented in its

implementation resource. Those interactive swim lanes contain not only process functions but also

functional descriptions attached to each step. Those functional descriptions are detailed in Chapter

5 of this research report.

The project Integration flowchart narrative details for each stage and for each main

functional side the role and strategy of implementation. For instance, during stage 1, the owner

side is described through the following main points:

A. The Role of the Owner Organization

B. AWP Owner’s Sponsor and Program Definition

C. Owner’s AWP Strategy

D. AWP Program Audits by Owner

E. Owners AWP Packaging Procedures

41
 The following excerpts from the Implementation Resource show examples and snapshots

about the five elements above-mentioned. The reader can access it through the team

implementation resource (IR 272-2 volume II, 2013).

1. The Role of the Owner Organization

"The Owner organization plays a significant role and often is the driver in the
success of the AWP program for their projects. In the current market and labor
scenario, improvement in productivity, cost certainty and drive up efficiencies;
AWP brings in a methodology that introduces changes to the conventional approach
of executing projects. Although, AWP essentially emphasizes early planning,
packaging all the way back in to the design development process and to keep the
discipline in the deliverables including hold points before rushing out, mobilizing
crews and start work activities, the process demands commitment at the executive
levels, some new people in the organization, modification to existing roles,
organizing the deliverables as packages, inter-discipline and cross function
coordination. It also pulls across many entities such as Owners internal
organization, one or multiple Engineering & Procurement companies, the
construction contractors and vendors. The Owner entity has the maximum stroke
amongst these participants. A well thought out, timely introduction and adoption of
the AWP program from an Owner entity has the potential to influence the success
of the AWP on a project significantly than any other entity." (IR 272-2 volume II,
2013).

2. AWP Owner’s Sponsor and Program Definition

Assign sponsors and Review and integrate

champions processes and support
Including Data functions

Owner’s Sponsors

The AWP process demands that owners first identify sponsors and champions to
ensure business objectives are understood, resources are committed, and leaders are
supported and empowered to enforce decisions related to Advanced Work
Packaging across all project stakeholders, beyond the owner’s construction group.

Owner’s sponsor typically are:

- Vice President of Projects

- Project Director

42
The champions supporting the program are from the key stakeholder disciplines
and as a minimum requires representation from the following for the success of the
program:

- Engineering

- Supply Chain Management

- Construction

- Project Controls

In addition to the above, naming an overall AWP champion who undertakes the
implementation of the AWP Program charter as set for the project and includes
integration of AWP data requirements. The Owner should also identify key staff
from each functional group in the organization to support the implementation AWP
Program. These may include: Project Controls, Engineering, Supply Chain,
Computer Integrated Engineering and Construction. Collectively these individuals
support the commitment and alignment necessary to institute and execute AWP
requirements within the Owner organization and ensure that AWP requirements are
being adhered to within their functions. The role of supply chain is critical also in
terms that the program requirements make it across through contracts and other
materials function to support AWP.

This team along with the overall AWP sponsor and all champions and key staff
included in the overall project charter is essential for clarity and commitment to the
program.

Business and Data Integration Aspects of AWP

Review of the Owner’s major processes and support functions should reveal
integration requirements for AWP success. Note that this CII resource already
identifies AWP activities that require integration with existing project processes to
assist with this review, denoted by the darker color." (IR 272-2 volume II, 2013).

43
3. Owner’s AWP Strategy

Develop Advanced Establish internal Ensure AWP

Work Packaging Define AWP as AWP audit requirements are
(AWP) strategy required for all protocols in contracts
participants

Project
Management -
Write the
requirement for
AWP into
Contracts

Owner’s Strategy Document

The next sequence of activities for the Owner starts with the AWP strategy. The
strategy serves as a reference when establishing AWP requirements and a guide for
making decisions during planning and execution of the project work. The AWP
strategy should consider the Owner’s organizational values and core capabilities,
reflect the project’s objectives, and appropriately weigh any unique project
challenges such as geographic location or labor availability. This includes
consideration of strategies identified by the Construction Management team, such
as modularization.

All strategic principles should be ranked by importance, and should be directly

matched to an AWP business objective, such as reduction of rework, higher quality,
safety, greater field productivity or cost certainty.

The Owner’s strategy document should declare the purpose and business objectives
that AWP methodology has been brought on board for. It should also be clearly
communicated the organizational commitment behind this by identifying the
Program Sponsors and champions in charge of executing this in the document.

Owner’s Procedure for the AWP Program

With strategy in hand, the Owner should devote significant effort to develop and
issue detailed AWP requirements for all stakeholders, including definitions and
standards for compliance. Definitions and standards should provide sufficient detail
for owner Project Management to include concise contractual statements that
commit all parties to AWP requirements, and enable the owner to track compliance.

In a similar way the Owner should also include sections where they declare internal
and external (revisit ‘internal’ in flow chart) audit protocols based on the
requirements to measure compliance within the organization and project
participants. The audits should include measurable criteria – see appendix (Ref the
audit checklist)

44
Besides the point in time audits, a continuous process of ‘In process verification’
(IPV) can also be applied to the program. IPV is the process of checking a product,
service or system meets specifications. Through IPV, a high degree of assurance
is created that a product, service or system fulfills its intended purpose.

The mandate for the In Process Verification is to ensure that the AWP and
WorkFace Planning methods are applied to meet the intent of the program by the
participating companies throughout all phases of the project starting from EDS,
detail engineering to field and module construction works.

The disciplined use of IPV in WorkFace Planning is to ensure effective transfer of

package custody to the Owner’s commissioning group occurs with minimal delays.

As an example, during construction, IPV will focus on the following from the
Construction Contractor:

- Reporting progress bi-weekly

- Input progress into the model

- Construction complete

- Testing complete

- Reinstate " (IR 272-2 volume II 2013)

4. AWP Program Audits by Owner

Initiate and
coordinate
management audit Engage Auditor
of AWP

"Audits that are planned, structured and conducted at predetermined points of time
can assist in identifying the level of adoption and success with the program.
However, it should be in complement to the weekly management functions of status
tracking deliverables and their progress by EWPs, CWPs or IWPs, the
organizations issues, Management of Change process and keeping a pulse of the
job for AWP.

Formal Audits or in-house assessments, either or both methods can be employed to

ensure the AWP program is on track.

The CII-COAA Project Definition Assessment tool can be used as a template

during the initial stages of implementing AWP." (IR 272-2 volume II 2013)

45
 5. Owners AWP Packaging Procedures

Owner review and

approval of
program

Construction Engineering
Management - Contractor –
Issue CWP release Issue EWP
plan release plan

"The Owner should review the issued AWP plans from Construction Management
and Engineering prior to approval of the overall project AWP plan. This may
require iterative development of CWP and EWP plans, which should be executed
via a formal management of change process inclusive of all stakeholders." (IR 272-
2 volume II 2013)

The reader can find the complete detail of each of the boxes in section 3 of the

implementation resource IR 272-2 volume II. The section describes not only the swim lanes and

how they can be used but also gives insight about indirect costs and keys for successful

implementation. Additionally, the section contains a narrative generated by an Owner

implementing AWP across the project lifecycle.

46
4.3. IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS AND SUPPORTING TEMPLATES

The team developed a set of implementation tools through the two phases of the project.

The first phase gave birth to three main tools: Project Definition Assessment Tool,

Assurance/Audit Tool, and work packaging Scorecard. Through the second phase, the team

improved, added and collected a final set of tools that are meant to facilitate Advanced Work

Packaging during the various stages of project lifecycle, like early or advanced implementation.

Those tools are included in the appendices of this report and are listed below:

 AWP Maturity Model

 Contractor Qualification Assessment

 Project Definition Assessment Tool

 AWP Audit Tool by Phase

 AWP Project Integration Flowcharts

 AWP Functional Role Descriptions

 CWP Template

 EWP Template

 IWP Checklists by Discipline

Each of those tools are detailed in the IR 272-2 volume I and II. We briefly describe the

Maturity Model below.

AWP Maturity Model

The question of how companies with different levels of maturity and different processes

and resources can apply Advanced Work Packaging was raised within the team. Expert interviews

also brought to the table a concern from experts across North America about the “feasibility” of

Advanced Work Packaging implementation. During the first stages of the research work, the team

defined the industry need to a maturity assessment. While organizations must make independent
and specific assessments of Advanced Work Packaging, it was not deemed helpful to stop there

47
without providing some specific guidance that explicitly recognizes organizations’ different

starting points. This need motivated RT 272’s development of an AWP / WFP maturity

assessment model. It is the goal of a maturity model to define concrete steps by which an

organization progresses in its capabilities. The maturity model accomplishes this by defining

common states within the industry. An organization can map its current capabilities to these

common states. The maturity model provides a foundation for assessment of current capabilities

as well as indicating discreet steps by which an organization may advance.

The Maturity Model is a qualitative description of capabilities that is intuitively appealing.

The purpose of the Maturity Model is to assess an organization's AWP / WFP integration status at

three levels and across multiple functions that support capital project execution. While variations

in practice are large both within and across companies, each of the three levels of the Maturity

Model is meant to capture a state that is broadly identifiable and applicable to COAA and CII

member companies. Each level describes both work processes as well as accompanying project

systems. Each level builds from the capabilities of the previous level and as such, companies are

expected to progress up each level in a stepwise fashion.

48
 Figure 28 Example of an organization maturity assessment across multiple phases of a project

As illustrated in Figure 28, the model is composed by three main:

 Level 1: AWP Business Efficiency

 Level 2: AWP Business Effectiveness

 Level 3: AWP Business Transformation

The maturity model plays the role of a first step into the move toward Advanced Work

Packaging. The team provides three main steps based on the use of the maturity model:

Assessment, Gap Analysis and Portfolio Development. The following extracts from the

Implementation Resource IT 373-2 Volume II explain the three steps:

Assessment

The goal of the assessment process is to develop a shared understanding of current

corporate AWP / WFP integration status. Assessment should be performed by a team with
detailed knowledge of work processes and capabilities. Such a team may be complemented
by 3rd party experts (consultants), but it is recommended that the team be led by those
responsible for business stages. The assessment process is an opportunity for
organizational alignment and education around AWP / WFP integration capabilities and
thus broad involvement can be beneficial. The maturity model can support productive
discussion in hour-long meetings.

The first goal – shared understanding – is performed with the maturity model which has
the best description of the three levels across broad dimensions. The team performing
49
 assessment should calibrate their understanding of the maturity model to ensure each
member has a common understanding of each level. Initial meetings may focus on the
team using the model to generate a description of levels using organization names,
standards, and examples. This will both help calibration within the team as well as help
translation and education to the broader audience within the organization.

Gap Analysis

Building from assessment, the next step is to develop a gap analysis for key capabilities
across the organization. An important contribution of the maturity model is to force
organizations to look holistically at their AWP / WFP integration capabilities across the
phases. The example in Figure 1 of an organization largely at level one is intentional. It is
possible that the organization might be very accomplished in its two level two functions
(FEED, Detailed Engineering), but have level one capabilities in its other functions. It is
possible that the level 2 capabilities are more visible to management and may give the
(false) impression that the organization is performing at level 2 generally. The maturity
model forces a broad examination across the main capital project business functions and
helps ensure gaps identified and resulting plans are well considered.

Portfolio Development

Once gaps have been identified the next step is to develop a portfolio of specific AWP /
WFP opportunities. These opportunities should detail specific concepts that can be
developed and deployed. They are a necessary link between an identified area for
improvement and an action plan. It is likely that as part of assessment and gap analysis,
the organization will generate many ideas for new work process capabilities – likely too
many to implement at once. The portfolio is meant to be a place to record these ideas so
they are not lost and also as a place where they can start to be ranked in a systematic
manner.

The maturity models is complemented by assessment tools, including the AWP Project

Definition Assessment Tool, the AWP Contractor Pre-Qualification Assessment, and the AWP

Audit Tool by Phase. The team recommends those tools to be tailored to the stage of the project

lifecycle, its characteristics and the company specific procedures. Details of these tools are found

in IR 272-2 Volume 2.

50
4.4. AWP PROCESS IN NORTH AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY: FINDINGS FROM EXPERT INTERVIEWS

One of the most important findings of the interviews is the wide range of practices related

to implementation of work packaging. The construction industry in North America, although

aware of the terminology, contains different perceptions and definitions of the same terms. This

variety in work packaging practices can be depicted within the framework of processes through

the examination of the following items:

 Work packaging hierarchy and definitions

 The formation process of work packages

 The content of work packages

Other aspects of work packaging – like the cultural side of the implementation, the

contractual side or the organization side – are detailed in chapters 5 and 6. Within the context of

this chapter, the findings are presented to support the development of Advanced Work Packaging

processes by the research team.

4.4.1. WORK PACKAGING HIERARCHY AND DEFINITIONS

4.4.1.1. Definition of work packaging

While the concept of work packaging was agreed by the majority of interviewed experts, a

few differences about the process arose. The differences resided in the formality of work packaging

as well as in the level of implementation practices within the different companies.

With regard to the level of formality, the findings from the interviews show that the

industry is divided between companies that developed or adopted formal processes for work

packaging such as WorkFace Planning and other companies that do not use formal work packaging

processes but have in place other practices that can be understood in terms of work packaging. For

instance, Company B implemented a formal process of work breakdown into workable packages

that starts at the FEED phase. Company B had a pre-defined set of definitions of its various work
packages. Company C, which is an owner in the power industry, has a three step formal work

51
packaging process that contains a customized terminology articulated around the percentage of

completed design.

Also the level of implementation varied between the various companies (Figure 29). For

some companies, work packaging practices are implemented at the entire company, while for

others they are implemented to only one project or one geographical area. Companies choose the

level of implementation of work packaging practices based on several criteria. One of them is the

strategic decision of testing the implementation of new practices on a particular project before

spreading to other projects. Other reasons include projects specific characteristics that drive
implementation. Company D, which is an industrial EPC company, used this approach on a project

as reported by expert 4, a project manager at the company. The project was a combination of

renovation and green field work based on a lump sum basis for a duration of three and a half years.

The contractual structure of the project included an overlap in time of both a revamp portion and

a green field portion of the job. At 25% construction completed, the company decided to

implement a specific work packaging system customized to the project characteristics aiming to

support the contract schedule. Expert 4 said that this project is very probably the most complex

project he has seen during his 40-year career. He also mentioned that without the use of a formal

project level implementation of work packaging, this project would not have been executed

properly. In addition to being the project manager, expert 4 was the champion for the work

packaging implementation on this project. No special training was done for implementation

purpose. Guiding documents about work packaging were provided to discipline leads. The

example of company D is an illustration of how implementation may vary because of the project

conditions needs.

52
 Project Level
32%
Company
Level
68%

Figure 29 Expert interviews - AWP implementation level

4.4.1.2. Breakdown structures: CWP, EWP, PWP and IWP

Based on expert interviews and case studies, it is commonly known and agreed that

breaking down work into manageable pieces is a process that depends on the type of project.

Criteria for breaking down work and packaging it are primarily geographical area, discipline and

then sub-system. It is important to mention that decisions regarding the level of detail and level of

implementation of work packaging practices are shaped by the context of their application. The

context is dictated by the company size, the project size and other specific characteristics of the

project. Expert 8, a consultant for WorkFace Planning and Advanced Work Packaging,

emphasized the importance of the process of customizing work packaging to company’s

characteristics.

For example, company A breaks projects automatically to Construction Work Areas

(CWA) that are then divided into Construction Work Packages which are discipline based. As

shown in Figure 30, Construction Work packages are divided into CWPs for major disciplines and

other for minor disciplines, and then they are checked for consistency with the WBS, which can

be different from the work packaging setup. For this specific company, EWPs play the role of

input as they are only drawings re-requested based on the breakdown of CWPs (the company is
still maturing their EWP process).

53
 Figure 30 Work Packaging Breakdown for Company A

Company D has a similar approach that is common to the majority of studied companies,

especially in using the geographical area breakdown approach (see Figure 31). While criteria like

geographical area or discipline are very common, there is a difference in the level of detail related

to each of those criteria. Because of the project contracting characteristic of being sensitive to both

time and space, company D added another level of breakdown based on the project phase. As

shown in Figure 32, the organization of the project impacted the work packaging structure.

54
Figure 31 Work Packaging Breakdown for Company D

Plant

Unit

Discipline

Project 
phase

Cost Structure 

Figure 32 Project phase impact on work packaging structure (example of company D)

55
 Company D has also another work packaging structure implemented on projects in the

Alberta region (Canada). Within this area, the work packaging method implemented is WorkFace

planning, which is also used by company E and C (Figure 33 and Figure 34). The cost breakdown

is in few examples directly linked to the work packaging structure. For instance, company C based

its project breakdown on the cost structure. In fact, during the first stage of the front end phase (at

30% of design completion), the main objective is to develop an initial Construction Work

Packaging Plan within the Design Input Record (DIR). The DIR is a conceptual walk-thru which

provides input to the EWP. It is divided by cost and the smallest component is about $10,000. A

typical DIR contains specifications, regulations, margins and design parameters.

Figure 33 Work Packaging Breakdown for Company E

56
 Figure 34 Work Packaging Breakdown for Company C

Within company D, previously, Construction Work Areas (CWAs) were divided into

CWPs that included about 10,000 labor hours each (can go up to 30,000 hours). These CWPs

include schedule and budget and per WBS and are divided by prime discipline before issued to the

field. When WFP was introduced, the work was still divided by area but a second level of

breakdown was added. In fact, sub-areas were defined and the packages for sub-areas contained:

budget, schedule, quality and specifications. The process was designed to make sure no
interferences were existing between packages (Figure 35).

57
 Figure 35 Customized Work Packaging Structure of Company D

Company J opted for deleting a step in the breakdown structure of WorkFace planning.

This company adopted the WorkFace Planning methodology by shaping it to fit company’s

characteristics (Figure 36). The main difference with the original model, as proposed by COAA,

lies in the fact that Company J skipped the CWPs development phase. Expert 13 said that: "within

the company, they have learnt that developing CWP per COAA model is a waste of time and

energy and that getting directly for IWPs is more efficient." CWPs were found to protract the

planning timeline without adding consistent value to the process as the scope of work was already

known in advance. This induced duplicated efforts in developing both CWPs and IWPs.

58
 Figure 36 IWP preparation per COAA model as modified by Company J

Expert 17 mentioned that the content of EWP and CWPs had no differences within the

work packaging process of company E. The breaking down process of projects into CWPs is based

on two criteria: the size that should be manageable and most importantly the logic of work

execution. As depicted by Figure 37, EWP and CWP played the same role and designated the same

type of package.

•defined
Project by area
and size

•by
CWP = EWP
discipline

No IWPs

Figure 37 WFP modified - Example of IWP deleted Company E / Expert 17

59
 Expert 8, who has been a productivity specialist for more than 10 years, thought that a

CWP is a translation of an EWP to the construction phase. Both are area-based and are defined

after that CWAs are specified. From interviews with several companies, this is perceived as the

main guideline for the breakdown procedure of the project into IWPs.

Other breakdown criteria might include also the contracting strategy, systems in place and

modularization. For instance, within company E, the scope of a CWP remains large and multi-

disciplined. For company E, there is no typical size for CWPs, which are developed mainly on the

basis of the review by engineering and procurement houses. Expert 7 from company E mentioned
that if procurement people or construction people decide that an existing CWP is not feasible, this

CWP is then broken down into smaller CWPs.

4.4.2. THE FORMATION PROCESS OF WORK PACKAGES

4.4.2.1. Development and Issuance of work packages

Issuance of CWPs:
Based on the several interviews, the process of developing and issuing CWPs assumes

different levels of formality. One of the most important observations that one can make is related

to the correlation that exists between the formality of the work packaging structure and the
formality of the development and issuance processes. Company D is an example of this.

Within Company D, each discipline provides two types of input to the CWP Management

system in order to generate a CWP: the originator's form and the discipline drawings. The

originator's form contains the work characteristics, the unit number, the document type and the

phase. The Project Document and Data Management (PDDM) personnel then upload this form to

the company Provisioning Object Library (POL). The CWP management system administrator

exports then the form from the POL to the CWP Management system. The CWP manager uploads

also the discipline drawings in the CWP management system that generates finally a CWP
Documents List, which is reviewed and edited by each discipline (Material check is done by each

60
discipline). Finally, the construction/field PDDM prints CWP documents and issue to the

contractor a complete CWP containing specific deliverables and narratives related to the discipline.

Issuance of EWPs:
According to expert 1, a workable engineering package is a package with parameters

defined by the construction side on how to get work done. It does contain engineering drawings

by discipline. The issuance of EWPs involves the contracting strategy and the contracting process

more than any other type of packages. For instance, interviews have showed that EWPs are

particularly critical for the bidding process. Expert 7 stated that there is no typical size for EWPs;
they are valid when the single package can be completed within the time frame to be sent out for

bid.

Issuance of PWPs:
A Procurement Work Package (PWP) is not a common package in industry practice. Very

few companies within the sample specifically identified procurement work packages as formal

packages within their companies. However, most of the interviewees emphasized the criticality of

incorporating procurement in the development process. This can be done through involving

procurement people during the early planning phase and/or considering procurement schedule and

milestones similarly as considering the construction sequence. Expert 18 is a system and

integration manager in company M. She was directly involved with the procurement management

of oil and gas projects within company M and she described the development of a procurement

Work package (PWP) as follows: “First, the engineering side identifies all EWPs of the project.

Key procurement milestones are then developed in collaboration with engineering. Then follows

the development of a PWP release plan which is done by the procurement team in collaboration

with the engineering team. Once a list of PWP is almost complete, each PWP completed is tracked

regarding three main info: 1) the baseline date, 2) the expected date and 3) the actual date. This

process is a collective effort between procurement team, engineering team and materials
management team.” Expert 18 reported a successful implementation of the PWP release plan,

which allowed synchronizing procurement with the actual construction plan.

61
 Issuance of IWPs:
IWPs are also called FIWPs by the companies that use the COAA WorkFace planning

model. IWPs or FIWPs are prepared for the construction phase and are issued to

Superintendents/General Foremen to guide their work execution. However, the preparation of

IWPs goes beyond the construction phase and involves the FEED phase in a lot of cases. For

instance, expert 8 mentioned that the basic outline of IWPs is developed in the engineering office

by WFP planners and other knowledgeable people. EWP are developed at the latest 3 weeks before

the actual work. After that, WorkFace planners get those packages and translates them into IWPs.
The preparation follows the subsequent steps:

 1st week: EWPs are divided into IWPs.

 2nd week: Identification and elimination of constraints.

 3rd week: IWP scheduling.

An example of all those packages ties together is the how work packaging is articulated

around the bidding process. The bidding process within company E is described by expert 7 as

follows: the process contains 3 parts: the scoping & Study, the DBM: Design Basis Memorandum

and the EDS: Engineering, design, Specification. After bidding, the IFB (Issued For Bid) is issued

and the owner asks the contractor for budget and schedule. Once the contractor awarded, the owner

works with the General Contractor to complete CWPs. The final input are EWP, IFC (Issued for

Construction), regulatory requirements, and materials. A complete CWP will be issued for

construction not for biding. Once the contract engaged, IFCs and CWPs are developed. Then, IWP

release plan is required from each contractor. The owner makes sure that there are enough

engineers to create a backlog and that engineering is making progress to be able to continue.

Finally, Project Controls play an important role in the formation process of work packages.

For instance, company H bases its work packages breakdown on cost estimates which allow

refining of work packages after evaluation. Figure 38 shows this process.

62
 • Create the high level schedule
1 • Make sure it's an integrated schedule to all stakeholders

• Breakdown th schedule into work packages

2

• Get estimates from Engineering houses

3 • Create estimates and costs under work packages

• Keep refining
4

Figure 38 Work packaging process - Example of company H

4.4.2.2. Tracking of work packages / Updating

Almost all interviewees mentioned that tracking work packages is very critical to the

success of the AWP processes. However, not all of them had the same practices to track the various

work package documentation. For example, for company D, some CWPs are revised up to 7 times.

Figure 39 depicts the revision process of a CWP.

Revision of drawings list

and of the CWP narratives

Revised CWP transfered to the

POL by the CWP Manager

CWP Docs are printed and

distributed by the field
PDDM

Revised CWP is
issued to the
contractor

Figure 39 CWP revision process - example of company D

63
 Company C had a work packaging management system that was tracking the list of all

activities on a weekly basis. Also, other meetings and reviewing processes were deployed to track

the project progress status, such as: weekly schedule review meetings focused on the engineering

work; weekly schedule accountability meetings; monthly float assessment based on updated

schedules. The main tool used was Primavera, which could generate planning reports. Expert 3

from company C thought that the company was making an intensive use of the software, which

was suited to the work packaging process.

For EWP control, company E used engineering and project productivity curves, which help

assessing accurately the suitable speed of work and schedule. This is monitored on a regular

reporting basis, as required by company E (owner) for each engineering stakeholder (internal or

external). Expert 8, an experienced consultant, highlighted that tracking is a sensitive subject for

engineering personnel, as EWPs can be considered as performance indicators and create a source

of conflict between owners and engineering.

Tracking on site is also very important to the project success. The example of company K

shows the recourse to visual tools to track different packages. In the construction job site, company

K had a visual space for CWPs and EWPs in order to inform project participants about the

availability of EWPs. Figure 40 shows the way this is organized on-site.

Figure 40 Work Packages tracking on site board - example of company K

64
4.4.3. THE CONTENT OF WORK PACKAGES
Table 4 shows the typical content of a CWP, EWP, PWP and IWP.

Table 4 Typical content of different work packages

CWP EWP PWP IWP

- Scope of work - Drawings - Engineering - Scope of
- Engineering - Bills of requisition work +
information materials - Procurement checklists
- Manpower - Scope of work milestone - Safety
- Materials description - Pre-quotes assessment
- Environmental, - Permit - Purchase documents
health & safety requirements Order issues - Bills of
- Quality - Design - Shipment to material
- Regulatory specifications site details - Shift work
approvals and - Vendor data assignment
permits - General impact - Surveys
- Sub-contractors plan related to
- Vendor support - Separate time lost or
- Rigging studies documentation workforce
- Scaffolding issued for issues
- Construction needed support - Drawings
equipment, tools - Change - Inspection
and evaluation documents
consumables - Vendor data
- Waste
management
- risk
- Project controls
- Turnover
documents

4.5. DISCUSSION
Advanced Work Packaging is a process that involves many stakeholders and touches on
the main components of a construction project from engineering to construction and procurement.
This makes the structure, the hierarchy, as well as the dynamic of people critical to company
success in fostering project productivity and predictability. Expert V4 mentioned that designing
AWP is, in effect, establishing a process that ensure information, equipment, and materials flows

65
to the jobsite in a timely manner, so to provide the craft persons everything they need to complete
the assigned task. While the value of the AWP execution model presented by RT 272 was
highlighted by various validation interviews, industry experts implementing AWP still face several
challenges at different levels. Those challenges are detailed in Chapter 7, as well as in the
interviews write-up in Appendix D and Appendix E. The main concern is that the work packaging
processes would be perceived “too” construction-driven; thus facilitating only the construction
process and hampering the others, such as engineering. This has been addressed by the main
assumptions on the important role the owner needs to play to make AWP successful, as well as on
the importance to address the contractual and organizational side of its implementation. These two
perspectives will be developed into further detail in the following chapters.

66
 CHAPTER 5. ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITIES

Research and development concerning the organizational and functional capabilities as part

of Advanced Work Packaging model is a necessary compliment to specification of processes. A

particular focus of the research team was job roles and descriptions of personnel that support AWP

implementation. This section contains an overview of the main findings related to functional

responsibility as found from both case studies and expert interviews. The results are reported in

accordance with the following themes:

- Identified organizational practices,

- Communication aspect of AWP implementation, and

- Cultural aspects of AWP implementation.

5.1. FINDINGS FROM RT 272

The industry team worked on linking the positions and functions in the new AWP

implementation model, providing the job descriptions of new roles/positions. Also, a description

has been proposed for the existing traditional positions that will have changes to accommodate the

AWP process. Figure 41 shows the chart summarizing the list of AWP roles, as described in the

IR 272-2 Volume II.

67
 AWP Functional
Roles

Owner Project Management Construction Management Engineering Supply Chain Management Construction Contractor

CM-1 Construction
O-1 Project Manager PM-1 Project Manager E-1 Engineering Manager S-1 Procurement Manager CC-1 WFP Champion
Manager

CM-2 Resource/Interface E-2 Workface Planning CC-2 Workface Planning

O-2 AWP Champion PM-2 Turnover Manager S-2 Material Manager
Coordinator Champion Lead

O-3 Turnover Manager PM-3 Document Control CM-3 Overall Planner E-3 Document Control S-3 Warehouse Manager CC-3 Workface Planners

CC-4
O-4 Commissioning and CM-4 Workface Planning
PM-4 Cost Control E-4 Discipline Leads S-4 Contract Manager Superintendent/General
Start-up Lead Manager
Foreman

CC-5 Database
O-5 Audit Manager PM-5 Scheduler CM-5 Turnover Manager
Administrator

PM-6 Database
CM-6 Quality Manager
Administrator

PM-7 AWP Champion

PM-8 AWP Audit Manager

Figure 41 Chart of AWP roles (PIF)

68
 For explanatory purpose, Figure 42 depicts a screen shot of two tasks from the AWP Project

Integration Flowcharts (PIFs). O1 and O2 refer to two roles in the Owner (O) company, namely

the Project Manager and the AWP champion.

Figure 42 Screenshot of two AWP FIP tasks with functional roles

The descriptions of each role with respect to Advanced Work Packaging functions are

available in Appendix F of IR 272-2 volume II. These roles are divided into two main groups:

roles which are newly introduced or which have gone through major changes because of AWP

model, and the existing conventional roles that have minor modifications to meet the integration

of AWP. In the Figure 43 above, the roles that are new or significantly changing within the scope

of AWP are highlighted in red color. Below is an excerpt from the descriptions of two roles, one

from each group, available in the Appendix F of IR 272-2 volume II.

69
The first one represents a new role: the AWP Champion of the Owner.

GROUP – PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PM – 7 AWP CHAMPION / MANAGER

Sample Job Description:
Job Title: AWP CHAMPION / MANAGER
Reports to: Project Manager
Prepared by:
Prepared Date:
Approved By:
Approved By date:
Summary

This position must be a senior member of the project organization who has the mandate
and authority to ensure that all stakeholders reporting to the PMT comply with the AWP
Strategy for the project

This organizational role may be a new position or alternately be covered by ensuring

that an existing senior member of the organization takes on the associated roles and
responsibilities required.

- Essential Duties (Roles and Responsibilities) include the following:

- Ensure all contracts include terms and conditions that will ensure compliance
with the AWP strategy for the project.

- Lead the Change Management involved with implementing the AWP strategy.

- Report to Project Manager on status of stakeholder alignment and any

necessary actions needed for improvement.

- Be active participant and supporter for the AWP Strategy and fully understand
the responsibilities matrix to successfully implement this strategy.

- Responsible for development and implementation of the AWP communication

and training plan.

70
 The second one describes a traditional position that required minor changes: the Project

Manager of the owner.

GROUP – OWNER

O-1 OWNER PROJECT MANAGER

Suggested changes/additions to typical job description to support AWP:

Job Title: Project Manager
Reports to: Project Director
Prepared by:
Prepared Date:
Approved By:
Approved By date:

Summary

This is the senior position in the Owner’s Project Organization and has overall control and
responsibility of the project and is responsible to steward the development and execution
of AWP to the Owner’s Project Director.

This is not a new position on the Organization Chart, however this individual will need
additional training to understand all aspects and their role within AWP for project life
cycle

Essential Duties (Roles and Responsibilities) include the following:

o To ensure AWP is the process used by all stakeholders from initial development
through to the commissioning and start-up of the project.

o As AWP is a top-down driven process, this position must be seen as actively

supporting the strategy and understand the responsibilities matrix for AWP.

o Clearly communicate the expectations that all stakeholders utilize AWP including
willingness to remove non-supporters of the process from the project.

o Assure resources assigned to the Project are knowledgeable in regards to AWP

and their associated responsibilities.

o Ensure the Start-Up and Commissioning requirements are developed early in the
project and that adequate resources are assigned to do this. Ensure these resources
are actively participating in the integrated planning sessions throughout the project
life cycle.

71
5.2. FINDINGS FROM EXPERT INTERVIEWS

The interviews conducted during this second phase of the research had the objective to

investigate a range of organizational structures and practices to accommodate to the need of a

properly implemented work packaging process. For the sake of giving to the reader an overview

of the industry state of the art with respect to the organizational aspect of work packaging, the

following subsection reports the range of documented practices and the detailed description of two

relevant organizational issues: the communication between different stakeholders (more precisely,

between construction and engineering departments) and secondly the cultural aspects of work

packaging implementation.

5.2.1. IDENTIFIED ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES

5.2.1.1. Level of change following the level of implementation

One of the first observations that emerged from the expert interviews is related to the level

at which the organizational hierarchy is impacted by the implementation of work packaging. For

instance, within company C which is an owner specialized in the energy sector, there is a dedicated

team of people working to ensure the success of the work packaging process that is implemented

through three main stages. In fact, there are work packaging planners, material specialists, project

managers, engineers and designers and all are involved depending on the project stage. There is

also a dedicated project control organization within the project management office that takes care

of tracking materials and vendor data and feeds the packages with updated information to the

appropriate personnel. Expert 3, a manager of company C, reported the structure depicted in Figure

43.

72
 Figure 43 Organization of company C described by Expert 3

5.2.1.2. Official vs. unofficial change in the organization

From an organizational perspective, companies have two approaches to implement work-

packaging methods: they either adopt a formal approach and create new positions, or do not use a

formal approach to modify an existing position. In general, companies that informally added new

tasks to existing position were reported by experts to have had challenges related to the optimum

execution of their own core tasks (e.g. assigning the project manager as the AWP Champion

without formal support).

For instance, company D did not see any official change in its organizational structure after
the introduction of AWP. However, some other changes were noticed in the functional roles of

existing positions: some roles faced an increased work-load by managing the database for work
packaging to make sure every document was included. This was predictable when considering the

increased documentation produced alongside with project execution; four to five people were

employed full-time on the database management process that involved about 150 engineers and

designers.

5.2.1.3. Examples of functional roles and organizational capabilities documented

through interviews
Table 5 provides examples of the changes in functional roles that have been documented
through experts’ interviews.

73
Table 5 Examples of functional roles and organizational capabilities

Expert interview Example

Interview 1 - Packaging engineer is in charge of keeping coherent the packaging
process and sequencing
- Specialized team working on work packages: integrated
scheduling and planner software
Interview 3 There is a dedicated team for work packaging composed by:
 Work packages planners
 Material specialists
 Project managers
 Engineers and designers.
Interview 4 Expert 4 is a project manager, the pioneer for the work packaging
implementation.
Interview 5 During the FEED phase: EWPs and CWPs breakdown is done by a joint
team composed by:
 The general contractor
 One owner construction manager and one owner project manager
(client)
 An early work & module manger (Company)
 A WFP manager (Company)
 A general superintendent (Company)
 Construction engineers (those involved during the construction
phase; some of them are present on field
 Audit: by the WorkFace Planning consultant and manager (general
contractor)
Interview 6  Integrators: a team of 10 integrators composed by foremen,
general foremen and estimators was in place to build packages
 A specific team was dedicated to the work packaging system
 People dedicated to produce educating documents (interfaces
people) explaining the process of work, the communication
between people

Interview 7  Construction managers are involved in all phases

 The IFB (Issue For Bid) is issued
 The owner asks the contractor for budget and schedule.
 Construction managers, project managers and contract strategy
managers work together to define CWPs.
 The owner works with the GC to complete CWPs.

74
Table 5 (continued)

Interview 8
 Stakeholders led by construction people develop at an early stage
the following sequences:
1. The construction sequence
2. then, the engineering sequence
3. and finally the sequence of procurement

 3D modelers become in communication with the construction side

much more often (sometimes, on a full time basis).
 WorkFace planners developed EWP and translate them in IWPs
developed in the engineering office
Interview 9 Construction planning is an integral part of the design team, a dedicated
full-time or part-time resource as part of the project team to accommodate
construction planning.
Work phase planning manager: (detailed engineering) only realizes the
basic footprint for the 3D model, equipment arrangements, and a certain
percent of the critical lines are available.
Workplace planning manager: In the construction planning phase, he is
sets up in the model to facilitate future detail planning and
implementation.
Interview 10
A project management team, called PMT, does the scoping initiate
involving many people:
o reservoir geologist
o business analytics
o the engineering side
o No people from the construction side involved at
early stages but they are to verify the estimates concerning
costs and materials
They proceed this way: the company defines the schedule, does the WBS
followed by the engineering house that crates estimates and costs, delivers
the EWP. Those deliverables are reviewed by the company.
Interview 13 There is a position of WFP implementation lead that is currently not filled
in (on the time of the interview)

75
Table 5 (continued)

Interview 14
 A project manager
 Project management office
 Project controls office
1. Coordinate the FEED phase and provide the level 2 schedule
2. Assure the alignment between of considerations of every
stakeholders by readjusting
 Make the engineering side support construction from an early
stage.
 Align the schedule, the cost estimate and the engineering with the
breakdown as soon as possible
 Early consideration of procurement issues
- Work packaging process is scheduled and coordinated by the
project controls office
Two scenarios:
Interview 15 The engineering firm is part of company L. Company L does the WBS
The engineering firm is not part of company L. Company L realized a
training on WFP if necessary and a joint discussion leads to WFP
The construction manager or the superintendent represent the construction
people (not involved in the FEED part)
Engineering side always does the construction review process

Interview 16 The WorkFace planning process was inspired from the COAA model but
was combined with Lean technique: Last Planner System (LPS).

 A team is in charge of the schedule: included vendor, partner,

manager, supervisor and other people (lean facilitators)
 Progressive implementation (track of previous implementation)

Interview 17 For each project, there are:

 A WorkFace planner
 A scheduler
 A Team who is not a project group, part of the company who
defines the project’s specificities: ensuring the readiness of the
scope of work, drawings and materials in advance without the
contractor
Company people do the front end planning entirely
The contractor is selected and works very closely and collaboratively to
ensure the success of the project

76
Table 5 (continued)

Interview 18
 Dedicated resource for the development and maintenance of
PWPs.
 The materials management team is the one who is responsible for
the maintenance of PWP.
 The materials management team applies a "quality control"
regarding PWPs.
 The content is part of the engineering responsibility.

5.2.1.4. Communication between construction and engineering

In general, it is seen as desirable to improve and increase the communication between

stakeholders, especially between the engineering and the construction stakeholders. For this

purpose, and according to the expert interviews, the best way to improve communication with the

construction side is to have construction people involved at the initial project definition phase. The

earlier they are involved, the better understanding there will be. The involvement of construction

expertise should begin at work packages definition, so that it actively participates to the AWP

process, adding value to the whole process (Interviews 1, 3 and 9). Another method is getting

construction people involved in a team dedicated to the WFP implementation (Interview 5) or

organizing informal meetings with construction managers and superintendents (Interview 14 and

15). Informal meetings between construction and engineering are a common practice to ensure a

better alignment between engineering and construction sides. This reduces conflicts and reluctance

to work together (Interview 4).

5.2.2. CULTURAL ASPECTS OF AWP IMPLEMENTATION

AWP implementation comes with numerous cultural implications to company employees

and structures at the various hierarchical levels. In this subsection, three groups of documented

cultural issues are presented in relation to AWP implementation. Those groups are 1) the working

habit and resistance to change, 2) roles and responsibilities change, 3) understanding of AWP
process and of each stakeholders’ contribution.

77
Working habits and resistance to change
Resistance to change is a very common cultural barrier reported by various expert

interviews. In fact, this is common to all stakeholders from engineering to construction and from

office based employees to field based employees. For instance, interviews 2, 3 and 5 highlighted

the potential inefficiencies of the AWP process in case of informal and inappropriate training and

communication. Major reluctance was expressed by engineering personnel, who believe that the

AWP process makes construction personnel work easier while it complicates theirs. It also

emerged that resistance to change is bigger when the project is already in the field execution phase
and a significant leadership is needed to push the process (Interview 6). AWP changed the focal

point for engineering company, shifting from the client/customers to the owner and the

construction site (interview 8). Expert 13 mentioned the need for multiple training activities before

achieving foremen buy-in. Similarly, the change management process was critical for expert 15,

who emphasized the importance of the owner driving AWP implementation for the contractors.

Expert 18 stressed the inertia characterizing the construction industry, which shows resistance to

every innovative practice and tool.

Change in roles and responsibilities

AWP was accompanied in different cases by the creation of new positions and people being

reallocated to different roles. These new positions usually require different skills, which were not

always achieved by the actual workforce (Interviews 3, 7 and 13). Expert 1 reported the difficulties

in finding skilled people that were able to use technological tools and to handle work packaging

notions at the same time. Expert 7 presented a case of job reallocation that concerned the expanded

responsibilities of the WorkFace planner, which required contribution to front end planning as well

as understanding of the detailed needs of field work packaging.

78
Understanding of AWP and each stakeholders’ contribution
During the front-end phase, misunderstandings are due to the different way of “thinking”

or of prioritizing work sequence between engineering, procurement and construction. This

misunderstanding can get worse if only one department is trained in AWP and not the others

(Interviews 4 and 15). Expert 15 mentioned that the difference of understanding between different

functional roles gave origin to numerous planning inconsistencies. For a proper implementation,

each contractor should be familiar with WorkFace planning procedures and clearly identify the

boundaries of action that are allowed in accordance with the boundaries of other project
participants.

5.3. DISCUSSION
Roles and responsibilities are, if undefined, a barrier to the optimum implementation of
project processes (Belout and Gauvreau, 2004). This applies to work packaging too, for which a
set of experts validated the importance of clearly defined roles in the proper implementation of
work packaging during project lifecycle. The interviewed experts emphasized the importance of
each stakeholder understanding the AWP process, independently of role definition. This is
correlated to the efforts in education and training that should be done in parallel with AWP
implementation. Of course, education and training are not the sole means to achieve stakeholder
understanding of the process and its organizational aspect. Alignment between stakeholders can
happen through several means, including meetings and protocols that deliberately aim to enhance
the communication between stakeholders with potentially conflicting interests.

79
 CHAPTER 6. CONTRACTS

This chapter reports the findings related to AWP contractual aspects. As with other

analysis, this chapter combines expert interviews with deliberations from the industry research

team.

6.1. FINDINGS FROM RT 272

6.1.1. ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS

The implementation report IR 272-2 volume II has a chapter dedicated to the contractual

side of AWP implementation. The chapter is composed of an introduction to the contractual aspect

as follows:

“The contractual requirements will cover the front-end engineering and design (FEED)
phase, either self-performed by an Owner or performed by a contractor under contract to
an Owner, and the engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) phase, performed by
one contractor or multiple contractors (i.e. EPC, EP-C, or E-P-C), all under contract to an
Owner. Further, contractual requirements will specify and contrast the roles,
responsibilities, and obligations of the Owner, Engineer, and Construction Contractor for
effective implementation of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) and Work Face Planning
(WFP) depending on the execution strategies and contracting structures selected. Finally,
tools have been provided to assist in the development of recommended contract
deliverables for implementation of AWP.”

One of the important assumptions is related to the minimum requirements of the selected

contractor. The process is described as follows in IR-272 volume II:

The consideration for contracting using AWP presented in this section must be
complimented with the basic contracting principles required of any project to produce
positive outcomes on the project. Basic contracting principles include utilizing established,
financially sound, reputable contracting firms with the financial capacity commensurate
with expected contract value and compensation type. Contractors invited to bid should
also have:

 Demonstrated experience executing projects of similar type and scope at the

location under consideration.
 A good safety record.

80
  Adequate work processes, systems, and tools for the size and scale of the project
under consideration. People are familiar with and knowledgeable in the use of the
work processes, systems, and tools.
 Adequate capacity to staff the project with experienced, knowledgeable people in
key leadership positions.

6.1.2. FINDINGS

Table 6 summarizes the different contractual deliverables that can be pursued with varying
contracting strategies. In accordance with the findings provided within the IR272-2 volume II,

Table 6 identifies three high level categories of deliverables (assessments, plans, and progress

measurement) that need to be produced through each stage of project development to ensure that
Advanced Work Packaging is implemented correctly. For each deliverable, the key activities are

identified and the parties accountable for them are indicated (see key in the Table).

Table 6 AWP contractual deliverables per contracting strategy

81
6.1.3. TOOLS

To achieve the two functions of assessment and progress measurement, the team developed

the following set of tools (extract from IR 272-2, volume II):

AWP Contractor Prequalification Questionnaire

An AWP prequalification questionnaire has been developed in order to rapidly determine

the AWP capability level of potential bidders. It is designed to supplement existing
prequalification questionnaires, which address other important attributes such as safety and
quality. The prequalification questionnaire is included in Appendix B.

AWP Project Definition Assessment Tool

An AWP Project Definition Assessment Tool is provided to help project teams assess
readiness before starting AWP implementation on a specific project. The tool is divided
into different organizations/functional roles: Owner, Project Management, Construction
Management, Engineering Contractor, Supply Chain Management, and Construction
Contractor. These roles correspond with those in the AWP Project Integration Flowcharts
described in Section 3. The AWP Project Definition Assessment Tool is not called out in
Table 1, above, but should be used at project initiation and at the start of major phases,
particularly when new organizations join the project. The AWP Audit Tool by Phase is
complementary with the Project Definition Tool; effective project definition activities
should lead to improved performance that will be shown during audits. The AWP Project
Definition Assessment Tool is included in Appendix C.

AWP Audit Tool by Phase

The AWP Audit tool is meant to assess conformity to the AWP processes at each stage of
the project. It is primarily for use by the Owner but can also be used by other parties to
identify gaps in AWP implementation. Suggested assessment timings are included as steps
in the AWP Project Integration Flowcharts (PIF). The AWP Audit tool is included in
Appendix D.

6.2. FINDINGS FROM EXPERT INTERVIEWS

As far as the contracts supporting AWP implementation, experts almost all agreed on the

importance of having contracts addressing AWP implementation in detail, such as definition of

responsibilities and deliverable milestones. Some experts mentioned the structuring of contracts

in conjunction with the development of CWPs. For example, expert 5 organized contracts around
CWPs, providing a first agreement on the terms of AWP use at the very beginning of the project.

82
 Similarly, expert 6 made extensive use of contractual agreements in order to avoid conflict

of interests between construction and engineering groups. Prior to this practice, field engineers

were the solely building CWPs. The new collaborative process can create a feeling of frustration.

After initial resistance, the process was accepted because of the clearer vision of the work that

allowed the early detection of errors and a related decrease of reworks. Expert 6 found contractual

requirements were necessary to speed adoption of AWP planning processes across groups. In

general, findings indicate that when a considerable number of firms are involved the importance

of AWP language in contracts is increased. For example, expert 7 mentioned that the high number
of participants involved in each project required precise definition of contractual requirements

related to AWP. Detail is needed in contracts to avoid confusion and productivity loss because of

legal issues.

Many experts agreed that current contracts are not detailed enough and can easily bring

confusion to the work execution. Expert 8 proposed an interesting parallel with how safety has

gone from being enforced contractually to being the rule for projects. Safety being first mandated

and is now ingrained into all aspects of practice would be a good model for institutionalizing AWP

into practice. In his opinion, safety improved because of the contractual requirements that owners

required, which mandated the attendance to seminars and to training classes. Contracts largely

affected the behavior and the work environment and methods. This is why expert 8 perceived

contracts as a crucial part of AWP implementation. In an order of priority and importance, expert

8 proposed a work packaging implementation structure depicted in Figure 44. Contracts are the

most important and encompassing.

83
 Contracts

Information management

WP System
design

Figure 44 Work Packaging information leveling (expert 8)

6.3. DISCUSSION
As the decisions made during the definition of contract strategy impact all project execution
phases (Oyetunji and Anderson, 2006), the research team investigated the contractual aspect of
AWP as one of the most critical aspects to implementation success. The research team RT 272 has
provided detailed contractual recommendations presented within the main contractual context of
projects. These recommendations were reviewed by outside experts as part of a validation process.
Three experts thought that the section was too detailed and that it could be shortened. However,
the other experts found the section useful for the context of reminding the basics and the
assumptions for the recommendations. This being said, the contractual recommendations, although
recognized by experts to be critical for the successful implementation of AWP, could stand
additional review to better explore the implications of specific requirements and incentives.
Further interviews and case studies might reveal more details concerning the dynamics that best
support AWP under different contractual scenarios.

84
 CHAPTER 7. ENGINEERING WORK PACKAGING

7.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter reports on the industry status with respect to work packaging for engineering

and work packaging during the FEED and the Detailed Engineering phases. While the preceding

chapters cover engineering processes, organization, and contracts, the importance of early

engineering was a special focus of the research and hence is reported on in additional detail here.

The chapter gives an overview of practices and documented experience in four main themes:

1. The need for pre-construction work packaging.

2. Process(es) and organizational aspect of pre-construction work packaging.

3. Evidence of successful implementation of Advanced Work Packaging during FEED.

4. Evidence of challenges preventing the implementation of AWP pre-construction

practices.

Findings in each of these themes are constituted from a compilation of the extant scientific

literature, RT 272 recommendations, expert interviews, and case studies results.

Context and assumptions:

Before developing the detail of findings related to the pre-construction stage, two main

clarifications/ assumptions should be mentioned:

- The content of this chapter is related to previous chapters in terms of content about
the AWP process, organizational perspective and contracts. Within previous

chapters, the focus was on the entire lifecycle and more specifically on the

construction phase. In this chapter, the focus is on AWP FEED information.

- The definition of the FEED phase is not unique and universally accepted. There are

several competing terms in the literature. In this report, FEED is described in

adherence with the Construction Industry Institute (CII) terminology for Front End

Planning (FEP), which is “the essential process of developing sufficient strategic

85
 information with which owners can address risk and make decisions to commit

resources in order to maximize the potential for a successful project.”

Figure 45 highlights the position of FEP phase in comparison to the entire project lifecycle.

Front End

2: Detailed 3: Design and

0: Feasibility 1: Concept
scope Construction

Figure 45 FEP and project lifecycle per CII definition (adapted from SP 268-3, 2012)

Below is an excerpt presenting the definitions of Front End concepts as presented in the

glossary at the end of the Implementation Resource IR 272-2, Volume II.

“Front end planning and detailed engineering activities support enhanced execution at the
work front. Project setup and planning sessions establish the basis for coordinated
construction and engineering work packages (CWPs and EWPs). These packages then
enable time progress of work through orderly planning, execution, and monitoring of
installation work packages (IWPs). Management of IWPs is also known as WorkFace
Planning.”

Front End Definition: Typically includes all of the Preliminary Planning and Design, as

well as the Detailed Engineering (Stages 1 and 2 of AWP Project Implementation)

Front End Planning definition: Typically includes all of the Preliminary Planning and

Design as well as the Detailed Engineering that is required to provide complete and timely

Engineering Work Packages as defined in the Path of Construction to the Construction Contractor

to support their successful implementation of WorkFace Planning during Construction Execution

86
 Work Packaging and pre-planning
Work packaging enhances project management and allows for proper planning. The crews

adopting AWP require a systematic look-ahead planning, forcing foremen to propose their

upcoming work in detail. This pre-planning facilitates coordination of planning among crews. CII

explains that when validating crew work packages, “the involved superintendents, foremen, and

subcontractors must agree that the planned work is properly sequenced, supports the Control

Schedule, and does not pose insurmountable interference or coordination problems” (CII RT 83-6

RS 6-6, 1988). An important aspect of pre-planning is assuring resource availability. The

development of work packages brings to attention shortages or other problems, which have to be

prevented to avoid detrimental operation plans. Again, CII explains that, “resource availability for

each work package must be validated before any task is firmly scheduled for the coming week….

Once this is done, the availability of items can be checked with warehousing personnel and the

feasibility of proceedings with that work task determined” (CII RT 83-6 RS 6-6, 1988). Validation

must be completed before the work package can be considered in the schedule. These validation

measures ensure that the right items get to the right people at the right place and time in the field

(Gardner, 2006). Work packaging also encourages proper long-term and short-term planning to

occur prior to work being performed. Site supervisors must agree with the scope and content of

their work packages and plan their upcoming work in detail and in advance. The methodology

provides increased responsibility and accountability of working personnel (CII RT 83-6 RS 6-6,

1988). A proper AWP planning process ensures that the resources needed to execute upcoming

work are available for the crews (Gardner, 2006). The process of planning and removing

constraints results in increased productivity in the field not only because materials and plans are

available to the crew performing the work, but also due to greater crew motivation (Gardner, 2006).

87
7.2. FINDINGS FROM RT 272

This section presents the research team findings and recommendations for best

implementation of Advanced Work Packaging with a specific relation to FEED and DE.

7.2.1. MATURITY MODEL AND FRONT END

One of the first tools developed by the team that allowed understanding the company

capabilities for AWP during FEED is the maturity model. Details about the maturity model are

presented in chapter 4. An excerpt of the IR272-2 volume II is presented in order to explain how

the detailed assessment step allows the assessment of the FEED and DE:

“Detailed assessment should allow development of a maturity assessment that depicts an

organization that has achieved level 2 status in FEED and Detailed Engineering, but has
level 1 capabilities in the other functions. Alternately, personnel who primarily operate in
the FEED and Detailed Engineering functions might describe the organization as level 2
without understanding the limitations of the other functions.”

7.2.2. CONTRACTUAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND FRONT END

The contractual requirements for AWP deliverables should cover the FEED phase, either self-
performed by an Owner or performed by one or multiple contractors with various contract
structures (i.e. EPC, E-PC, EP-C, or E-P-C) under the supervision of the Owner (see Table 7).

88
Table 7 AWP deliverables per contracting strategy

The contractual deliverables evolve within three main activities: assessment, planning, and

progress measurement. Below, an explanation of each activity is provided in regard with the Front

End phase.

Assessment activity
Within this activity, a number of tools was developed and directly related to the Front End.

For instance, the AWP prequalification questionnaire that was developed in order to rapidly

determine the AWP capability level of potential bidders. Despite this tool is developed for owners,

also contractors can find guidance in the AWP implementation resource, thus being able to prepare

and assess their best way to respond the questionnaire. This tool, among others, is part of the

dynamic of the Front End phase that can include a bidding process centered on AWP capabilities.

89
 Planning activity
This activity provides eleven deliverables that have to be developed during the planning

stage in order to provide predictable project outcomes and productivity improvements during the

construction stage. The development of the contract plan will only occur during the FEED stage

and Engineering Work Package (EWP) / Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) planning will occur

during the FEED and the detailed engineering stages. Other planning, such as interface plan,

Construction Work Packaging (CWP) plan, organizational plan, and material management plan,

will be performed during FEED, DE and construction stages. When the owner self-performs
FEED, all deliverables are direct responsibility of the owner. When a contractor performs FEED,

then the owner provides a contracting strategy and eventually approves contractor’s organization

structure. All deliverables are produced by the FEED contractor with the exception of the IWP

Plan, which will be produced later during the EPC stage.

Progress measurement activity

“In order for an Advanced Work Packaging strategy to be effective, contractual language

needs to include provisions to establish, measure, and report key metrics surrounding both the

development and implementation of the spectrum of CWP, EWP, and IWP activities” (CII/COAA

RT 272, 2013). CWPs and EWPs are the center of the AWP process and measuring their progress

is critical to the success of project construction and execution. The present report identifies a set

of recommendations regarding this topic:

- Associated contract(s) should clearly delineate the types, timing, and methods of reporting,

and as much as possible, centralize and standardize the reporting tool itself and how it will be

used to capture and integrate the data inputs and avoid duplicate work. The sequence of

construction activities needs to be established early in the planning stage. This is critical to

ensure that engineering sequences the work in a way that maximizes constructability.

- The project work breakdown structure (WBS) needs to be properly established so that progress
through preliminary planning/design and the detailed design phases can be adequately

controlled, i.e., aligning the CWP boundaries with the WBS can facilitate the progressing
90
 process via appropriate monitoring. If the WBS is developed by area and the CWP is developed

by system, it will be difficult relating the CWP to a percent complete schedule indicator.

- An assortment of project indicators may be used to monitor the level of AWP success during

different phases of the project life cycle. These may include but are not limited to: Package

development schedule adherence, adherence to package release-to-work schedule, installation

schedule deviations, number and types of requests for information generated in the field due

to package errors, number and type of field change requests representing design or sequencing

errors, number and type of engineering change requests that results in installation changes, late
finishes, aggregate crew non-productive time, etc.

7.2.3. ORGANIZATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEED AND DE

Table 8 contains a compilation of examples of functional roles that are involved at the

front-end within the AWP model recommendations. The reader can find the entire description of

each of those roles in IR272-2 volume II.

91
Table 8 Front End related positions (IR 272-2 volume II, 2013)

Position Involvement in Front End

O3 - turnover manager for owner  Ensure the inputs/outputs that may change due to the
AWP Strategy for the project database are established
very early in the front end of the project to enable the
project to effectively and efficiently steward the
progress of the project and be able to turn over the
project to operations as required.
CC2 - WorkFace planning lead  Be prepared to work in the Engineer’s office if the
strategy calls for early engagement of the
 Construction Contractor during the front end of the
project.
CM1 - construction manager  Ensure qualified construction resources are
appropriately engaged during the Front End to
establish the CWP boundaries and the Path of
Construction.
 Ensure resources are assigned to cover the interface
planning during the Front End and to provide
coverage during the construction phase.
CM2- resource/interface  This position will ensure that input is provided during
coordinator the Front End integrated planning sessions as part of
the development of the Path of Construction and
ensure resources are provided to manage the
interfaces during construction.
 Essential Duties (Roles and Responsibilities) include
the following:
 Provide input during the development of the Path of
Construction to ensure that the interface management
will support the contracting strategy, the construction
execution strategy and the transition into
commissioning and start up.
 Ensure appropriate resources are assigned on a timely
basis to support the interface management
requirements of AWP.
 Establish draft resource plan in Front End integrated
planning sessions.
 Track needed resource changes during design phases
and develop final resource plan for WorkFace
execution.

92
Table 8 (continued)

PM4- cost control  This individual has the overall responsibility to

manage the project cost from the commencement of
the planning in the front end through to the
commissioning and start-up of the project.
 This would not be a new position on the PMT
organization, however this individual would require
additional training so that they completely understand
their role with the implementation of AWP.
S2- material manager  Ensure the planning and execution of logistics and
warehousing is developed early in the front end of the
project.
PM-1 project manager  This individual has the overall responsibility to
manage the Project Management Team from the
commencement of the planning in the front end
through to the commissioning and start-up of the
project.
PM-5 scheduler  This individual has the overall responsibility to
manage the project schedule from the commencement
of the planning in the front end through to the
commissioning and start-up of the project.

7.2.4. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEED AND DE

Overview of the AWP Project Integration Flowcharts

The AWP Project Integration Flowcharts (PIF) is a tool that illustrates how the key

functions and activities of AWP can be integrated into a traditional project delivery model in order

to achieve maximum benefits from AWP Execution. The reader can find more details of those

flowcharts in chapter 4 as well as in the implementation resource IR 272-2 volume 2. Table 9

provides an overview of the Front End related recommendations from a process perspective per

stakeholder:

93
Table 9 Front End related process recommendations per stakeholder (IR272-2 volume II, 2013)

Stakeholder – functional Key recommendations for best AWP integration from

group Preliminary Design to Detailed Engineering (stage I and
II)
Owner  Champion the overall AWP Project Execution including
FEED and DE
Project Management  Early incorporation of AWP Strategies into Project
Execution Plan.
 Project Management will be required to demonstrate their
AWP capabilities and capacity to the Owner.
 The Project Management team will work closely with the
Owner on the actions detailed above for the Owner during
detailed engineering.
 Selection of AWP qualified contractors
 Enforce AWP Execution throughout the life of the project
 The Owner needs to stay actively involved during detailed
engineering in an oversight role to help keep project
priorities in focus and assure continued alignment and
execution according to plan.
Construction Management  During Detailed Engineering, Construction Management
is responsible to monitor progress of the project and
ensure compliance to AWP requirements to facilitate the
Construction Execution activities in Stage 3
 Construction Management plays an early role in preparing
the project for AWP Execution
Engineering Contractor  Schedule EWP completion to support Path of
Construction
 Report Engineering Progress at the EWP level
 During Stage 1 of the project, Engineering should be
involved in construction planning to develop a plot plan
and EWP boundaries that support the CWP definitions
and path of construction identified by Construction
Management.
 Toward the end of Stage 1, the Engineering Contractor
prepares the preliminary EWP release plan, which
supports the AWP and CWP Plans, and issues it for
consideration during the development and review of the
Level 3 Project Schedule

94
Table 9 (continued)

Supply Chain Management  Establish a Contracting and Procurement Plan aligned

with AWP
 Ensure AWP Requirements are written into contracts and
purchase orders with respect to execution, reporting and
scheduling
 Active involvement of the Supply Chain Management in
the Preliminary Planning and Design Phase of a project is
necessary to achieve realistic schedules with committed
participants and to ensure that execution of suppliers’ and
contractors’ scope of work fully supports AWP Execution
on the project.
 Proper attention during Stage 1 creates an environment to
complete the project successfully utilizing the
 As the project changes from Preliminary Design to
Detailed Engineering, Supply Chain Management
maintains responsibility to purchase materials in a manner
that supports the EWP release plan and the Required At
Site dates for proper IWP planning and execution
concepts of AWP.
Construction contractor  Involved in the end of Detailed Engineering during the
overlapping period.
 Throughout the final portion of Stage 1 and Stage 2, the
Construction Contractor should focus attention on
supporting the refinement of the overall project execution
plan and development of a Level 4 Construction Schedule
utilizing IWP’s as the basis for planning.

In order to provide additional evidence, the implementation resource also contains a

narrative about an owner experience with AWP integration from stage I to stage III (construction).

“The objective of the example is to illustrate how the basic work packaging concepts are

implemented. The principles of AWP are used to develop the details of an execution plan that can

be easily correlated with standard project execution methods. Sample documents are provided in

the context of a real life project. A pumping station, part of a larger industrial project, is used as

the basis. The Implementation example was chosen to provide variety of disciplines and

contractors.” (CII/COAA RT 272, 2013)

95
 Below is an excerpt from the example explaining Stage I Preliminary Planning/Design and

Stage II Detailed Engineering:

Stage I: Preliminary Planning/Design:

At this point a few rules should be verified. All engineering activities relevant to
installation have been packaged and assigned to a single CWP and there is no overlap
across CWPs. There is a one-to-many relationship between CWPs and EWPs.

Stage II Detailed Engineering:

Once planning and preliminary engineering is setup as shown above, the basic project
controls coding will be in place to support management by CWP and EWP during detailed
engineering.

Input: CWP, EWP and Engineering Procurement Plan by CWP

In this stage a detailed plan is developed based on the outputs from stage I. Other
documents and outputs from Stage I are not specifically mentioned but it is assumed that
they are produced and used in the detailed planning phase. All documents generated are
basis for control and communication.

7.3. FINDINGS FROM EXPERT INTERVIEWS

7.3.1. THE NEED FOR PRE-CONSTRUCTION WORK PACKAGING

Existing literature establishes that an effective front end planning process contributes to

enhanced project performance. For instance, work packaging is perceived to be a framework that
allows the optimal execution of construction projects. Companies do some level of work packaging

for at least the construction phase. However, it is still not an industry standard to have companies

carry the work packaging formal effort in early project definition. On the one hand, the majority

of experts interviewed expressed the need to extend this process beyond the construction phase.

On the other hand, a few experts mentioned that AWP is difficult to implement in the FEED phase

in certain contracting scenarios where construction is not involved early on.

Expert 1 reported the challenge of obtaining the required skills for work packaging tasks.
Indeed, he mentioned that engineers usually lack competencies in computer-based work packaging

96
methods and this represents a major issue for the industry. This is a matter of competencies that,

for work packaging to be successfully driven from the FEED phase, has to be accurately managed

within companies and across the industry.

As engineering and construction usually overlap at about 25% of completed design, expert

4 implemented a specific work packaging system to support the contracting schedule. The expert

expressed satisfaction of the work packaging process in managing projects characterizing by high

levels of complexity. In particular, the expert recognized its value in increasing communication

between different stakeholders and in decreasing the amount of conflicts between them.
Expert 5 noted the he implementation of an integrated work packaging process requires a

certain level of training at the various organizational levels in order to avoid bottlenecks that

hamper the efforts delivering and preparing the packages in the FEED stage. Expert 5

recommended involving the construction personnel in the scheduling process as well as

performing regular audits about the performance of the process with a continuous improvement

perspective.

The subsequent section provides a range of processes and practices that are specifically

related to the FEED phase.

7.3.2. PROCESS(ES) AND ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS OF PRE-CONSTRUCTION WORK

PACKAGING

7.3.2.1. Work packaging organization around FEED

The AWP process during the FEED phase provides the basis for effective work packaging

for the remainder of the project. This involves the definition of CWPs and EWPs. As reported by

company C, the content of an EWP in the FEED phase typically includes about 25 to 50 drawings

and specifications in accordance with the following formal and standard structure:

- Scope of work section.

- General impact plan.

- List of documents, such as: plans, drawings, design calculations.

97
 - Separate documentation issued for needed support.

- Change evaluation.

This structure is set up and completed at about 30% of design completion, which

corresponds to the first of the three sub phases of FEED. According to expert 5, their projects have

a FEED phase that lasts one year on average. During this phase, the breakdown of CWPs, by area,

is integrated and aligned with the breakdown of EWPs, by discipline. The EWPs and CWPs

breakdown is performed by a joint team that includes the general contractor, the owner, and various

contractors from different disciplines.

FEED typical deliverables

The FEED phase deliverables typically include the list of CWPs as well as EWPs, whether

being considered packages or single drawings. According to company D, the following documents

are developed during the FEED phase:

- A preliminary Project Execution Plan (P.E.P); this plan will be refined as the project

is more detailed.

- A preliminary Construction Execution Plan (C.E.P); this plan will be refined as the

project is more detailed.

- The list of EWPs

- The list of CWPs

- The list of IWPs

- A high level schedule that is updated as soon as a change occurs and more detail is

available

FEED organizational aspects

As highlighted in Chapter 5, a proper AWP implementation requires both the development

of new jobs/positions as well the adjustment of existing jobs. The FEED phase is not excluded by

this practice and interviewed experts provided useful examples of such organizational changes.
For instance, expert 6 explained that within her company the title of “integrators” is a

critical success role in work packaging during FEED. In fact, integrators had field experience at
98
various levels (foremen, general foremen and estimators) and were able to communicate

effectively with crews before and during project execution.

As part of the creation of a specific team that was dedicated to the work packaging system,

Expert 6 reported that the workers from different disciplined raised and solved issues and conflicts

before facing them in the field. For instance, electricians and pipers discussed issues during the

meetings in the office, something that they never did in the field. Company D formally established

FEED processes for work packaging, including the development of educational documentation for

implementation in parallel during FEED, when dedicated personnel explained and communicated
the processes at the various participants.

7.3.2.2. Communication between construction and engineering during the pre-

construction phase

During the construction phase, it is commonly assumed that engineering and construction

sides should be communicating in an efficient and clear manner. For the FEED phase, experts

commonly agreed on the same need, but they also highlighted that, in practice, there is still a

consistent gap on establishing the proper means for enhanced communication between both sides.

In fact, few companies within the sample developed enhanced practices to achieve integrated work.

In general, the most common practice was the involvement of construction personnel as early as

possible. As highlighted by expert 3, this process can be fostered by creating a dedicated team with
focused AWP champions, who work on linking both sides and moving the work packaging process

forward. In addition, three relevant themes allow characterizing the communication/relationship

nature of construction and engineering personnel within the pre-construction phase for AWP:

1) Meetings
The experts emphasized the benefit of having face-to-face meetings in addition to any other

form of communication. For example, expert 3 introduced a set of core-holders compulsory

meetings between each design milestone (e.g. between the 30% and 60% and between the 60%
and the 90% of design completion). The objective of such meetings is to help the engineering work

99
by providing more details and a complete review of the design work. The expert also described

that field installers were involved at 30% design completion, so to highlight and solve construction

issues at the very early stage. For the construction personnel involved within these formal

meetings, a set of formal deliverables should be provided after the review process. A specific

review guideline was developed to help construction people during the process by providing a list

of questions that should be asked and answered.

In a similar manner, expert 4 reported that construction people were involved both formally

and informally. Formal meetings involving the construction and procurement side were scheduled
on a regular basis. Informal communication was fostered by the top management and they

abounded between the formal meetings. Expert 4 emphasized the importance of informal

information exchanges to achieve alignment and commitment in the FEED phase.

2) Team formation and tasks execution

The team executing AWP during the FEED process did not show a unique structure and

almost every company had a different team for every project. Expert 5 reported the most complete

team involved during a FEED phase, which included a large share of construction personnel aimed

at developing the best work structure and constructability plan for the project:
- A construction manager (general contractor)
- An early work & module manger (general contractor).
- A WFP manager (general contractor).
- A general superintendent (general contractor).
- One owner construction manager (client).
- One owner project manager (client).
- Construction engineers (client).

This team took part in the review of modules and were very involved in the scheduling and

planning process. The specificity of this process is that all levels of supervisors are involved from

a very early stage.

Other interviewed experts mentioned that late implementation of AWP was a cause

preventing the early involvement of construction people in FEED. Expert 6 explained that the late
implementation of AWP did not allow creating the linkage between construction people and the
100
engineering side. About the functional involvement of construction people during FEED, Expert

7 mentioned that construction planners are typically part of project controls and they plan project

execution with consideration of constructability issues, labor and management considerations.

3) Financial aspect
Many experts mentioned the cost of implementing formal AWP but only few actually

emphasized the criticality of settling a proper budget for bringing construction people earlier in

the FEED process. Miscommunications and wrong estimates on the upfront cost of FEED planning

can prevent the effectiveness of the process, creating a barrier between construction and
engineering people. Expert 1 mentioned that, as soon as the plan is ready and contains CWAs and

CWPs, the AWP team sent the FEED plan to the engineering side to incorporate the various EWPs.

He also reported that the budget allocated during the FEED and DE phases took into account the

resources necessary to develop formal and informal constructability information, to include

scheduling and budgeting personnel. Expert 1 and 7 mentioned that this budget can be a burden

for regional offices or small/medium companies that strive to create a formal communication

between engineering and construction.

7.3.3. EVIDENCE OF SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF ADVANCED WORK PACKAGING

DURING PRE-CONSTRUCTION

Despite the different levels of maturity and early implementation of AWP, interviewed
planners agreed on indicating that the main benefit of construction involvement in the FEED phase

is represented by the early identification and mitigation of project constraints, which in turn led to

increased project quality, and reduced RFIs, rework, and field fits. Table 10 highlights the list of

AWP benefits during FEED that emerged from expert interviews.

101
Table 10 Perceived benefits for AWP pre-construction implementation per expert interview

 Success factors:
 Consider WP as a FEED product
Expert Interview 1
 Reduced man hours by assembling packages
 Easily enhanced by technology
 More control of owner
 Works well for in house engineering
Expert Interview 2
 Enhanced departments communication
 Optimum constructability and field constraints consideration early
 Provides structure
 Good way to make engineering scheduled
Expert Interview 3
 Measure in advance
 Certified project management
 Facilitated detailed engineering disciplines
 Better alignment between construction and Engineering
Expert Interview 4
 Reduced engineering & construction cost
 Contracts by work packaging
 Saved budgetary cost
 More organized work / faster
 Reduced man power -> safer work
Expert Interview 5
 Enhanced productivity
 Optimized scaffolding system
 Improved morale and good atmosphere of work
 Material management: improved efficiency of material delivery
Expert Interview 6  Built team work
 Tools to track the numerous work packages

102
Table 10 (continued)

 Scope of work well defined

 Measurement of the packages
 Success factors:
Expert Interview 7
 Better control
 New to people, there is potential
 Regulatory requirements are well detected and brought to surface
 Opportunity for better Information management
Expert Interview 8  Opportunity for enhanced Material management
 Fostering cultural resistance to more integrated project executions
 Anticipated cost addressed properly
 Facilitated discussion
 Work packaging process by discipline plays a key role in how the
Expert Interview 9 overall effectiveness of the project is enhanced by selectively
carving out those portions of the work that have adequate
definition to obtain a competitively bid lump sum proposal.
Especially contractors who perform in that manner.
 Emphasis on Project Controls critical role to the implementation of
Expert Interview 10
AWP during FEED and DE
Expert Interview 11  None
Expert Interview 12  None
 Better communication
 Schedule by IWP
Expert Interview 13  WBS lineated with WFP structure
 Easier control and adaptation to the workforce conditions of the
Canadian market (shift schedules)
 Logical way and easy to understand
Expert Interview 14  Facilitates for project manager to situate their work status in a big
and complex project
 Value of WFP depends on the project size
Expert Interview 15  Owners efforts to drive the process
 Need for a WorkFace planning champion
 Productivity improvements: 15% to 20% productivity
improvement
 in 2011: 3500 hour work with zero accidents
Expert Interview 16
 in 2012: 3800 HW with same safety performance; equivalent to
30% improvement in productivity
 Productivity is analyzed with safety performance.

103
Table 10 (continued)

 AWP helps in managing mining processes as new technologies get

introduced – early planning for new constraints
 Best bid quality to help contractor respond in the most accurate
Expert Interview 17 way
 More quality in the contractors selection process
 Pricing and quality are well balanced in the selection process as
AWP provided early planning and design quality
 More collaborative work environment.
 Engineering deliverables being vital to the Procurement side to
work, early work packaging makes procurement department work
more accurate and more predictable
Expert Interview 18
 More reliable key procurement milestones
 Procurement work packages as a great tool to monitor procurement
work
 Quality control by material management team
 Advantage to having boundaries fixed so you can have tracking
during the project
 Economic incentive to keep plans up to date in what you are doing
Expert Interview 19  EAC company can keep plans up to date and publish them
 Get to huge gains by staying with plans.
 Plans can be correlated across divisions across company
 Automation increases productivity

In addition, findings extracted from the validation expert interviews are reported (RR 272-

12). The following excerpt is related to the role of AWP in enhancing the pre-planning FEED

process.

“Expert A considers Advanced Work Packaging to be a more disciplined and structured

approach to what companies already know they should do, namely front-end construction
involvement and thorough construction planning. Expert A found the primary difference
between the proposed model and current industry practice to be the removal of constraints
prior to the release of work for execution. This constraint removal has a ripple effect on
the project lifecycle to emphasize the support of construction in all stages, requiring early
construction input. Additionally, Expert A considers the Advanced Work Packaging

104
 process to provide an appropriate level of guidance to companies without being too
prescriptive. This balance is important in supporting proper practices without removing the
responsibility and authority of those executing the work. Expert A placed great importance
on developing a solid framework instead of prescriptively telling contractors how to
perform their work.

Expert B noted that Advanced Work Packaging emphasizes early design development that
requires a mix of team members that are usually not brought onto the project so early on.
Expert B believes that this step change in early design development gets the right people
involved early enough to be able to positively impact execution and produce less change,
due to a better defined scope of work. The expert noted that in many projects today, when
a constructability review is performed there is not enough time to assemble packages and
truly impact construction. With a background in planning and scheduling, Expert B
believes that Advanced Work Packaging helps to eliminate project risks and manage costs
due to proper resource loading and awareness that occurs during planning and work
package development.

Expert C found Advanced Work Packaging to be a great tool to draw the workforce around
the work to be performed. IWPs define the work scope and detail specific requirements,
such as man-hours and materials, and necessary documents, such as relevant ISOs.
Additionally, work packaging encourages short-term planning for IWP execution and
emphasizes constraints removal, including materials and safety, which forces the
workforce to consider and prepare for these aspects of the work to be performed. Expert C
has seen indirect costs for items such as scaffolding increase within his company due to a
reduction in planning and organization around scarce resources. The constraint removal
emphasis of work packaging causes questions around the use and sharing of resources to
be discussed in the planning room before an IWP has been issued for installation, instead
of during execution. Expert C noted that proper execution of work packaging processes
could greatly reduce indirect costs of scarce resources.”

7.3.4. EVIDENCE OF CHALLENGES PREVENTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AWP PRE-

CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
A wide set of challenges toward AWP pre-construction practice has been identified from
the expert interviews. The complete list of challenges is showed in Table 11.

105
Table 11 Perceived Challenges for AWP pre-construction implementation per expert interview

 Inconsistency in execution

Expert Interview 1  Having price contract based on alliance to the best value for
the dollar
 Following the changing scope

Expert Interview 2  Different levels of detail

 Experience with regulations
 Inconsistency in execution

Expert Interview 3  Having price contract based on alliance to the best value for
the dollar
 Stakeholders buy-in (cultural challenge)
 Following the changing scope
Expert Interview 4
 Different levels of detail
 Experience and training
 Lack of senior management buy-in
 Lack of education

Expert Interview 5  Quality and price of work packaging training and consulting
 Re-allocation of planners to the field -> distracted WorkFace
planners
 Resistance to change
 Weak material tracking system
Expert Interview 6
 WFP is very interdependent process
 Knowledge management
 Poor job of change management
 Expanded functions of the WF planner
Expert Interview 7
 So many functions
 Number of simultaneously involved stakeholders

106
Table 11 (continued)

 Lack of consideration of construction in early stages is a weakness

of the WorkFace planning system and should be enhanced
 WorkFace Planning is still in early stages of implementation in the
industry…so results are not very well documented.

Expert Interview 8  WFP applied to engineering is a rare practice.

o Engineering think systems
o Procurement think commodities
o Construction think all and geographically
 Different thinking complicated by culture
 Owners were reluctant to pay any more
 Challenges with getting census with all of the parties about a
preferred method to go and so a key part of it is the ability to be
resonant and communicate with the disciplines to better
communicate
Expert Interview 9
 " We have a lot of studies that we do here internally as far as a
collaborative discussion so that’s a team group so that we can get
consensus for perhaps a decision that needs to be made but you
want to have a consensus with everybody so that they understand
why we arrived at the proper consensus."
 Incompatibility of Work packaging numbering structure with other

Expert Interview 10 companies

 Conflict in partnerships
 Culture and resistance to change.
Expert Interview 11

Expert Interview 12  None

107
Table 11 (continued)

 Not all engineering companies follow the WFP process in the

EWP release plan – Engineering companies don't always have the
same way of doing the EWP release plan

Expert Interview 13  Owners and Engineering are still not familiar with the WFP system
 Tagging codes mixed
 During the implementation, owners did not pay for the extra
indirect cost
 Incorporation of the execution sequencing
 Feasibility of the original plan
 Neglected enough procurement consideration
 The level of engineering work in FEED is usually very high level
Expert Interview 14
and depends a lot on the contracting strategy (DB, DBB)
 Conflicting work cultures
 Engineering efficiency is very important to engineering
economics.
 When engineering firms are not familiar with WFP and work
packaging, they need education provided by an external
Expert Interview 15
stakeholder (more likely owner)
 Experience of discipline construction engineers
 Late delivery drawings, weather impact, delayed material delivery is
Expert Interview 16 a challenge for the consistency of work packaging

 Early packages v later refined packages

 Challenging engineers’ involvement in early construction
Expert Interview 17
management

 Procurement challenges ranging from the lack of effectively updated

Expert Interview 18 information to the missing tools and methods for properly and timely
packaging procurement work.

108
Table 11 (continued)

Technology related challenges

 CAD have CWPs as package boundary
 Paper or excel spreadsheet becoming a nightmare
 Cannot track on paper
 CAD models have evolving levels of details
 Early CAD models aren’t advanced enough to do
packaging
 Engineers were coding work packaging definitions into
3D models but were how to facilitate engineering
processes but not necessarily construction process
 Discipline to discipline- tools facilitate drawing of
layout but doesn’t break up into constructible elements
 CWP boundaries aren’t fixed, change management for
Expert Interview 19
construction companies
People related challenges
 Engineers saying we’ve been doing this for 10 years
 Who is going to maintain the definitions as project
evolves?
 Construction responsibility
 Engineering not responsible to maintain package
 Engineering model-doesn’t have granularity for how
things are constructed, its design but not how to be
constructed, just how it was designed
 work packaging and engineering miscommunication
 Cannot determine best way to build until finalize
design process

109
7.4. DISCUSSION
FEED is a critical phase to achieve an effective planning process and overall project
success (Gibson et al., 2010). This phase goes in parallel with AWP as proposed by the present
research report. In general, construction companies implementing work face planning tend to focus
exclusively on the construction phase. Collected evidence from case studies and expert interviews
reports successful experiences of AWP implementation since the FEED. The sporadic scenarios
of reported inefficiencies have always been matched with an improper process preparation. As
highlighted during each interview, the AWP process shows a major potential when it extends
beyond the solely construction phase since the initial FEED phase.

110
 CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Elements of the industrial construction industry highlighted innovations in work packaging
procedures, aimed at the achievement of enhanced project productivity and predictability. These
efforts have reached the point where field implementation is showing a range of improvements
and the practices have been codified as a recommended process called Advanced Work Packaging.
This research provided a detailed characterization of the AWP planning approach, developing a
comprehensive adoption model that spans the whole project lifecycle and is based on updated
industrial best practices.

Chapter 1 captured the scope and the focus of present research, which extends previous
work packaging contributions by providing further implementation evidence. Building on the
findings by CII RR 272-11 (2013), this research joined in a partnership with COAA in order to
explore the best practices to plan work-packaging prior to field execution, since initial project
development stages.

Chapter 2 developed the literature review on work-packaging, showing its evolution from
a fragmented project control tool to an integrated project planning approach. Two main research
gaps are offered: the first one reports a lack of contributions on engineering work-packaging
practices; the second one highlights the lack of attention for work-packaging application during
the Front-End planning stage.

Chapter 3 described research methodology, which is divided into three main thrust areas
(AWP process, functional capabilities, and contracts). Research methods has been selected
according to the explorative nature of research objectives. Multiple qualitative/quantitative
methods have been triangulated, namely: expert interviews, invitational workshops, and
explorative survey. Results have been finally validated by means of external expert reviews.

Chapter 4 reported the findings related to the “process” thrust area, which consisted in a
set of AWP definitions, flowcharts, implementation tools, supporting templates, and checklists.
Implementation tools resulted in a maturity model and in detailed audit tools by project phase.
This set of best practices has been documented and integrated with the empirical evidence from
multiple expert interviews.

111
 Chapter 5 provided the results of the “functional capabilities” thrust area. The required
changes to traditional planning practice influence the domain of organizational responsibilities,
requiring new skills set and modifying the existing configuration of professional roles. The
description of new functional and organizational capabilities has been provided for various project
stakeholders with examples from real adoption efforts. In addition, cultural and communication
aspects of AWP implementation have been investigated and discussed in order to minimize
resistance to change.

Chapter 6 offered the findings of the “contracts” thrust area, investigating different
contractual configurations for the Owner, Engineering Company, and Construction Contractor.
Depending on the contracting strategy, different accountability for the development of AWP
deliverables has been indicated. A pre-qualification tool has been provided to ensure that project
participants are able to meet a minimum set of requirements. An assessment tool has been
developed to help the project team assessing its readiness before AWP implementation.

Chapter 7 focused on work-packaging practices for engineering. The findings from the
thrust areas have been re-organized with a specific focus on the Front-End and on the Detailed
Engineering phases, that emerge as the most challenging and critical to be involved into the work-
packaging approach. Evidence of successful implementation and of main implementation
challenges for AWP during early project phases have been investigated and reported.

Through its seven chapters, this research contributes to the evolution of work-packaging
theory, expanding its application to the initial projects stages and with a particular focus on the
alignment between construction, engineering, and procurement disciplines. From a managerial
perspective, the present report supports construction professionals with the following outcomes:

 Process guidelines. An execution model for AWP has been developed to cover three
stages of project lifecycle, from preliminary planning to construction. Implementation
strategies have been detailed for each project stage and for each main project
participant. Managers can use integrated flowcharts and swimlanes to review business
and data requirements for AWP success. Specific procedures have been developed to
guide practitioners during the implementation process, highlighting major processes
and support functions that integrate with traditional work-packaging practice.

112
 Definitions. Key AWP project deliverables (e.g. CWP, EWP, and IWP) have been
conceptualized and defined to be shared between project participants. The common
agreement and understanding of AWP theory have been identified as fundamental
preconditions to successful implementation that should be pursued during early project
definition.
 Maturity model. A qualitative description of three incremental maturity levels has been
provided to guide managers building AWP capabilities across multiple business
functions. After an initial assessment, practitioners can perform a gap analysis for key
AWP capabilities, which will be formalized in a portfolio of ideas towards increased
maturity stages.
 Qualification assessment. Owners’ representatives can use this tool to rapidly
determine AWP capability levels of potential bidders, such as EPC contractors and
qualifying subcontractors. Main areas that are broadly covered by this tool include:
quality, safety, tools and procedures, documentation, alignment of work-packaging
deliverables, scope break-down process, and organizational structure.
 Functional capabilities and organizational guidelines. An extensive documentation has
been provided to clarify the impact of AWP on the organizational structure. This
research has provided detailed job descriptions for all the roles that are completely new
or that are subjected to change to accommodate AWP processes. Managers can use the
job descriptions to build and update the project responsibility matrix.
 Project definition assessment. This tool can support the project team to assess the
readiness before starting AWP implementation on a specific project. It is divided by
functional role and it should be used at the beginning of major project phases as well
as when new organizations join the project team.
 Tracking of compliance. Internal and external audit protocols can be used to measure
compliance within organization and project participants. A continuous “In Process
Verification” (IPV) approach is also recommended to ensure that AWP is consistently
applied to meet project strategy.
 Contractual guidelines. Concise contractual statements have been provided to commit
all parties to AWP requirements. The contractual responsibilities of various

113
 assessment, planning, and progress measurement deliverables have been highlighted
for most commonly used contracting strategies.
 Main benefits and implementation challenges. Managers can find wide qualitative
evidence of AWP impact on project performance. Documented benefits include:
productivity improvements of 25%, TIC reduction of 10%, improved safety awareness,
RFIs reduction during construction, reduced reworks, enhanced customer satisfaction.
Documented challenges include: lack of process formalization, resistance to change,
poor commitment and buy-in, incompatibility with contractual scenarios. This
documentation can support the definition of performance expectations and the
identification of measure to achieve AWP success.
 Culture change management. Specific recommendations have been provided to ease
the cultural shift related to AWP adoption. Managers can find indications for three
groups of cultural issues: working habit and resistance to change; roles and
responsibilities change; understating of AWP principles.
 Templates and checklists. CWP and EWP templates are designed to provide managers
a comprehensive backbone to build customized AWP deliverables. Managers can
customize the templates with varying levels of information content and formatting. It
is fundamental that specific company and/or project templates are aligned with
planning and execution practices. IWP checklists can be used to ensure that all
requirements and constraints have been met for the various construction disciplines.
 Narratives on real implementation efforts. Updated AWP practices from multiple
experts across North America have been collected with the twofold objective of
providing qualitative validation for proposed concepts and of showing potential
replicable examples for future implementation. Managers can find in-depth description
and discussion on the following topics: Front End engineering design; detailed
engineering development; work-packaging process during construction; capabilities;
contracts; and lessons learned.

The results provided in the present report can pave the way to future research developments
for both the CII and the wider academic community. This research highlighted many qualitative

114
and explorative findings that call for additional evidence. The following research avenues can
represent interesting topics for further development:

1. Validation of Benefits: develop quantitative evidence that statistically validates the

impact of AWP on hard metrics of project success, such as cost, schedule, quality,
predictability, and safety. Beside the quantitative validation, additional qualitative
results, by means of multiple case studies, can foster the development of a stronger
business case, providing further discussion around management and workforce buy-in.
2. Contracting: provide recommendations around contracting strategies, investigating
the requirements and the potential levels of implementation under specific contracting
constraints, such as construction-only contracting.
3. Prerequisites: expand the recommendations for initial adoption, providing a tool that
assesses AWP ability to form, review, and manage work-packaging deliverables.
4. Front-End Alignment: provide more detailed recommendations on how to achieve
front-end construction collaboration between construction, engineering, and
procurement disciplines.
5. Organizational Implication: expand the narrative on project roles and
responsibilities. Future research could investigate the peculiarities of successful
organization structures and reporting hierarchies.
6. Information Technology: the growing development of AWP-related IT tools
promises a great impact on the efficiency and the quality of package deployment. An
updated investigation of current enabling technologies can provide an updated
representation of the state-of-the-art, highlighting future work-packaging applications
to achieve holistic systems integration.
7. Process Metrics: provide metrics to measure work face planning implementation
success and its impact on projects. Specific indicators could be developed for each
stage of the AWP process, highlighting the different responsibilities on the use, control,
and maintenance among key project participants.
8. Generalizability: provide evidence of AWP applicability to projects of different sizes
(in particular small and medium projects) and across different industrial construction
sub-sectors (e.g. commercial/building, nuclear, chemical).

115
9. Lessons Learned: a systematic documentation of lessons learned could support
overcoming implementation challenges, showing both successful and unsuccessful
implementation pathways.

116
 APPENDICES

Appendix A. Expert interviews questionnaire

CII/COAA RT 272 Interview Guide for Work Packaging for FEED and DE

Interview Guide for Engineering

Interviewee: Date:
Company: Time:
Location: Duration:

Company General Characteristics

1. Please describe your position within the company as well as your experience

2. What is your Industry focus?

o Chemical,
o Residential,
o Commercial Buildings,
o Energy,
o Others

3. What is your main engineering activity?

o Front-End Engineering Designs (FEED)

o Detailed Engineering
o Procurement
o Construction

4. What are your construction engineering services?

5. Where are your projects based?

6. What is the main engineering contract type of your projects? (Check all that apply)
o Lump Sum Contract
o Unit Price Contract

117
 o Cost Plus Contract
o Others

CII/COAA RT 272 Interview Guide for Work Packaging for FEED and DE

7. What are your typical project drivers?

o Cost
o Quality
o Time to market (schedule)
o Others

8. Please describe your experience with work packaging?

Front-End Engineering Designs (FEED)

All questions below concern the FEED phase

9. Please give an overview of your current process of Engineering Work Packaging?

10. For how long has this current form of Engineering Work Packaging (EWP) process been
implemented?

11. Before utilizing this process of work packaging, what was used for planning?

12. What does drive the sequence of EWPs and procurement?

13. Please characterize what you consider a “workable engineering package”:

14. Please describe your work packaging process during the FEED
a. Define what is an Engineering Work Packages (EWP)
b. Describe what is a Construction Work Package (CWP)
c. Characterize the relationship between a CWP and a EWP?

CII/COAA RT 272 Interview Guide for Work Packaging for FEED and DE

15. Please describe your CWP/ EWP boundary development process :

16. Who does the EWP boundaries development?

17. Please describe any differences between the EWP process and the WBS process at this stage?

18. Please describe your EWPs progress monitoring process?

19. When do you start considering construction in the engineering? in FEED?

20. Is there any formal process to get Construction involved in the engineering phase?
o Yes

o No

Explain briefly any that apply,

21. Do you see any benefits for the construction side to be involved in this process?
o Yes
o No

Explain briefly any that apply,

CII/COAA RT 272 Interview Guide for Work Packaging for FEED and DE

22. What Information tools support the process?

Please define

23. What areas of improvement for Engineering Work Packaging have been identified for FEED?

24. What were the key difficulties associated with the Engineering work packaging process during
the FEED?

25. What do you consider are the success factors for work packaging in the FEED process?

Detailed Engineering development process

26. Please describe your process of developing the detailed engineering documents?
27. Who is involved in developing the detailed Engineering documents?

28. Please describe your work packaging process during the Detailed Engineering phase

CII/COAA RT 272 Interview Guide for Work Packaging for FEED and DE

29. Please describe any existing updating process of EWPs and CWPs

30. Is the construction side involved in the detailed engineering process?

o Yes
o No
If yes, explain how this is,

31. How is the construction feedback to the Engineering side?

o Formal
o Informal
Explain briefly any that apply,

32. Do you see any benefits for the construction side to be involved in this process?
o Yes
o No

Explain briefly any that apply,

33. How do you tie procurement into your EWP planning?

34. Do you use any incentives or payment milestones for triggering payments?

35. How do you make sure that Procurement and Engineering are consistent with the Installation
sequence?

36. How do you tie vendor data required by dates for your EWPs?

CII/COAA RT 272 Interview Guide for Work Packaging for FEED and DE

37. What does a complete CWP contain? (Check all that apply)
o Safety requirements o Environmental requirements
o EWP s o Quality requirements
o Schedule o Special resource requirements
o Budget (labor o Other
hours/cost/productivity)

Comments:

38. What does a complete EWP contain (Check all that apply)
o Scope of work with document list o Lists (e.g., line lists and equipment
o Drawings (e.g., general arrangement lists)
and equipment installation) o Additional pertinent information to
o Installation and materials support (e.g., permitting studies)
specifications o Other
o Vendor data (e.g., equipment O&M
manuals)
o Bill of Materials
 CII/COAA RT 272 Interview Guide for Work Packaging for FEED and DE

Comments:

39. For how long has this current form of Engineering Work Packaging process been
implemented?

40. What opportunities for Engineering Work Packaging have been identified for the Detailed
Engineering?

41. What were the key difficulties associated with the Engineering work packaging process during
the Detailed Engineering?

42. What do you consider are the success factors for work packaging in the Detailed Engineering?

43. What is your involvement in the IWPs?

44. Any thoughts related to the construction phase?

Company Organization and Work Packaging functional capabilities

45. Does the company enforce Work Packaging practices or does the project team determine its
application?

46. Do you have a champion for the new work packaging process?
o Yes
o No

If yes, please describe his/her responsibilities

 CII/COAA RT 272 Interview Guide for Work Packaging for FEED and DE

47. Do you have a Work Packaging planner? Please describe the relationship between the
Engineering manager and the Work Packaging planner?

48. Are there any new positions that were created specifically for the current work packaging
process?
o Yes
o No

If yes, please describe,

49. Is there any specific work packaging team?

o Yes
o No

If yes, please describe,

50. What cultural changes resulted from the new work packaging process implementation?

Contracts
51. The contracts' role in enhancing the work packaging process for Engineering?

52. What contract language do you recommend for enhancing work packaging procedures?
 CII/COAA RT 272 Interview Guide for Work Packaging for FEED and DE

53. Perceived needs and recommendations to be addressed in contracts for work packaging process
improvement?

54. What do you think about progressing and scheduling by EWPs?

 Appendix B. Interview Guide for Work Packaging during FEED and
Detailed Engineering

Hello! The joint Construction Industry Institute and Construction Owners Association of

Alberta industry research team on Advanced Work Packaging would like to request your help in

assessing current planning procedures for engineering and construction work packages during the

design stage of capital projects.

Specifically, research team would like your assistance through an interview covering topics

including work processes during FEED and Detailed Engineering, organizational capabilities, and

contractual approaches (see following page).

Interviews are expected to last about one hour. Depending on the knowledge of the interviewee,

the interviewer may request contact with different people in your organization to allow a thorough

understanding of your procedures.

Interviews will be conducted by a University of Texas at Austin researcher. All information

provided will be kept confidential; reports and summary materials generated from the interviews

will not contain identifiable information. You will be given the chance to review any final report

materials from your company to assure that all confidential and/or identifying information has

been removed.
This research will help the research team (1) identify the current range of practices during design

and (2) improve recommendations to advance the industry. We thank you in advance for your

support.

Contact Information:
Olfa Hamdi

T: +1 (512) 669 8436

E: olfa.hamdi@utexas.edu

126
Interview Guide:
Please find below the main points that we will go through during the interview:

1. Background and Company General Characteristics

 Your position, your experience overview, company's activities and services

2. Front-End Engineering Designs (FEED)

 Overview of your current work packaging process for Engineering during the FEED
phase
 Engineering Work Packaging (EWP) and Construction Work Packaging (CWP)
characterization
o Definition, content and relationship
 Differences with the WBS process
 Construction involvement within the process
 Specific Information tools supporting the work packaging process
 Perceived benefits and challenges

3. Detailed Engineering development process

 Overview of your current work packaging process during the Detailed Engineering phase
 Typical content of a "complete" EWP, CWP at this stage
 Construction involvement within the process
 Perceived benefits and challenges
 Identified areas of improvement

4. Company Organization and Work Packaging functional capabilities

 Changes occurring as a consequence for engineering work packaging process

implementation:
o Organizational changes (new positions dedicated to work packaging process (a
champion, a WorkFace planner etc.)
o Cultural changes

127
5. Contracts

 The contracts' role in enhancing the work packaging process for Engineering
 Perceived needs and recommendations to be addressed in contracts for work packaging
process

128
Appendix C. Expert interviews write-ups

CII/COAA Research Team 272

Advanced Work Packaging

Expert Interviews

Summer/Fall 2012

129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
 Appendix D. Validation interviews questionnaire

The following questionnaire is designed to help you collect your thoughts regarding the

RT 272 Implementation Resource volume 3. These questions will guide the phone interview and

do not need to be formally written out prior to the interview. Please review these questions prior

to and following your reading of the RT 272 Implementation Resource volume 3 as they will help

you to understand the kind of feedback we would like to receive. Thank you for your time.

1. Understanding of proposed model and recommendations

 Is the report well organized and easy to read?

 Is the level of detail within the report appropriate?

 Did any specific information seem lacking or extraneous?

In Section 1

 How does the proposed Advanced Work Packaging process differ from WorkFace
Planning? From traditional/current work packaging practices?

 Do you think that the maturity model is well designed to assess a company's ability to
implement Advanced Work Packaging?
In Section 2

 Were the contractual recommendations clear? Was the level of detail of the discussed
strategies appropriate?
In Section 3

 What aspects of the proposed Advanced Work Packaging process were most clear? What
aspects need further clarification?

 Were the functional capabilities well described? Was the distinction between the new AWP
related positions and the modified existing positions clear?

 What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the suggested process?

 Did you find the "Owner experience AWP implementation" section useful?
In Section 4

225
  Did the tools seem like useful aides for implementing the suggested Advanced Work
Packaging?

 Did they lack detail or contain too much information? Were any implementation tools
missing?
In Section 5

 Was the example proposed in the document helpful in understanding how AWP can be
implemented?

2. Implementation/Practicality

 How is the proposed Advanced Work Packaging model different or similar to your
company’s Work Packaging methods?

 What aspects of the proposed model for Advanced Work Packaging would fit well within
your organization? What aspects would not?

 What would implementation of the proposed Advanced Work Packaging model require of
your company? (For example, organizational change, technology upgrades, procedural
changes)

 What are some “selling points” of implementation?

 What are some barriers for implementation?

 Would you recommend the Advanced Work Packaging model to your

company/organization?

226
 Appendix E. Validation interviews write-ups

Interview V1

Understanding of proposed model and recommendations

Experts said he liked:

 The layout
 The graphics
 The level of details that helped the understanding
 The examples provided
 The illustrations
He noticed that he found extraneous the contract part about E,P,C, and all the graphics are too
separate
The constraints are not discussed anymore in the volume

Section 1

1. The difference between WorkFace planning and AWP is quite clear

figure 1 shows the flow what deliverable?
Figure 6 is quite hard to understand, maybe the figure should be divided in three graphics
instead of only one
2. AWP/WP: more focused on the main product, it is more focused more detailed, it adds
more value
to implement WP, the volume is a good model
Section 2

1. Contractual recommendations are clear

Level of details should be condense to keep what is fundamental
2. Recommendations: In the expert’s opinion, the biggest challenge will be e engagement of
construction component.
He wants to see another information on how concretely, we do the EP contract.

227
Section 3

1. Process integration flowchart is very good

2. Functional roles are well explained as the lector may be confusing between the new roles
and the positions that have changed. The distinction between the two categories is not
very clear
He found very helpful the details about the roles and the responsibilities of each ones.
3. Owner experience part is useful because this part includes all the findings, the contracts.
Section 4

Templates are well organized, good and helpful to understand the context, they illustrate well the
contents
expert found they had an appropriate level of details.

Section 5

Example: is very useful and excellent. The level of details is definitively appropriate.
It does help to implement AWP

Implementation/Practicality

 AWP is different from WP: it relies on the engineering contrarily to work packaging
 Expert found the check list were useful for the package to be sure that they have not
forgotten anything
 Selling points: Key is that it can help to predict the performance, improve the reliance on
the schedule and the predictability
 Cultural barriers: it is a new method and industrial people will not understand how it
works. Furthermore owner can show resistant to adopt this new model
 Experts will recommend AWP for this own company, he sees this process as a great gain
of time and performance.
Interview V2

Understanding of proposed model and recommendations

228
Easy to read and well organized

Detail: in general satisfying level of details but expert finds that the audience will have a certain
experience, at least 10 years and will have worked on many large projects, so they would be like
him, familiar with contracts. So He does not feel that the contract part was really appropriate in
the whole volume. According to his opinion the contract part should be condensed a lot with all
the sections dealing about strategy
As CII study goes through all the details including the contract part it should be enough.

He feels like nothing is missing, yet he finds the contract part extraneous.

Section1

Section 1 is enough clear to help a team who wants to implement AWP

The difference between WFP and WP: AWP is more a process than WFP. WFP is more present
on the construction part whereas WP is a whole process. Expert highlights the fact that you can
do WFP without WP and still have some benefits.
AWP is an advanced process of work packaging however sometimes owners are using their own
technics instead of the process.

Well designed? Some companies already use WP. They do not know their ability to implement
AWP, because the question is more about do they believe they have the abilities to implement
AWP?

Section 2

The contract part seems extraneous for this expert. He does not understand why such a developed
part is here in the document: he thinks this part should really be condensed at the fundamental
points.

There is a risk for the contractor regarding the productivity, and this point is not acknowledged
in this document, this point deserves to be developed.

229
Section 3

Functional roles: the distinction between the new roles and the changed ones is clear according
to this Expert.
He would like to focus more about the material manager who has an important role in the AWP
process. The supply chain is also a key point: the document needs for emphasis on this particular
position because you have to give to the right person this particular position so you will be able
to have a great supply chain work.

Section 4

The templates are really useful

In one flowchart: “productivity” benefits, he thinks the team wants to refer to the installation.
To calculate the productivity from WP, there is a discussion that is needed before proceeding.

WP checklist does help however the checklist is not complete for this expert. But the checklist is
not organized in a logical order (for the contractor)

Section 5

The example is excellent, very useful, it provides an excellent illustration because it goes all
through the way of the process, the CWP, EWP and the IWP.
It will help to clarify the process for many people

Implementation/Practicality

For large project, the whole process can be applicable; the main point according to this expert is
how you go about it?

AWP have to join both the work of owners and the work of contractors. Because the contractors
have their customized vision, they do not want to follow the industry guideline, they want to
make the difference, one will probably be looking at others items or ideas to bring value to the
process.

230
Selling points:

 The standard
 Section 5: deals with how someone can implement and follow one item
Contractors will get some benefits (very large complex project)

Interview V3

Understanding of proposed model and recommendations

 Volume is well organized but needs more introduction

 Page 6: speak about volume 1 needs some overviews
 Level of details is good: very detailed, lot of details in the contract section maybe too
much details
Section 1

 The difference between WP and AWP is well detailed in volume 1 so this is what helps
the understanding
 Maturity model: useful but it is more about program management than about project
management, every project has different characteristics
Section 2

 Clear contractual recommendations : good section about the different contracts, strategies
but with too much details
 The recommendations do help in a contracting strategy
Have to think differently because of the different implementations
Section 3

 Flowcharts are good but heavy to read

It is important to have this  not a working document
helps to develop tools.
 Everybody is looking at the easy solution:
maybe the idea is to have a quick story with some graphics quick start job with first

231
 level of detail then another level of details
The document is good, an industrial can easily use it
 Functional roles: good job description but people want to do a kind of copy which is not
possible
to be useful it has to become something else than job description (having expectations of
positions: experience.. in addition to job description with IWP
 Owner experience: good idea
Section 4

 Templates : good as the checklists but no one will really use it, or will use it to help
developing a package (helps to understand what goes in the package)

Section 5

 Section 5 not read but thinks that the idea of having this example going through all the
process is good
Implementation/Practicality

 Selling points: detailed description system to support AWP with enough details
 Education about barriers: too much details, need to know what to do and when?
 Helps people in the company think about the implementation
 Recommendations are not obvious in the document with a lot of details at some locations

Interview V4

Understanding of proposed model and recommendations

The Implementation Resource looks pretty good – but not easy to read for an engineer looking
for stand points directly (lots of paragraphs)

Too much Level of Detail in some places – contracting strategies is too much detail for the
people reading this document who are supposed to have a considerable experience

1) Information and material translated by the word "flow"

232
 2) Constructability is not very clear as well as supply chain management

Section 1

The difference between Advanced Work Packaging and WorkFace Planning is not clear – this is
difficult for "pure" engineering to understand and capture – the world today is construction
driven, "we are not there yet"

WBS, CWP & EWP should precede Interactive Planning. It is too late and too time
consuming to defined these AFTER the interactive planning.

Section 2

Maturity model seems to be helpful…needs to be tried

Section 3

Designing the AWP, is in effect, establishing a process that will ensure information, equipment,
and materials will FLOW to the jobsite in a timely manner to provide the craft person everything
they need to do the work.
Expert thinks the FLOW concept from LEAN is extremely important. A construction project is
in some ways very similar to a limited manufacturing process. Project Management is tasked
with designing a process that will deliver everything required to the stakeholders along the
production line:
• Scope of work requirements
• Process information
• Plot/space requirements
• Equipment related information
• Specifications
• All the way down the line to the craft person and on to turn over, commissioning and start-
up

Section 4

Very useful templates

233
Section 5

Yes.

Implementation/Practicality

“As your team stated, this must be TOP DOWN DRIVEN

This can be in two scenarios:

1. The OWNER SHOULD DRIVE if they want to realize the benefits

2. A LUMP SUM EPC Contractor will drive if they understand the benefits.

Virtually impossible to sell this to most engineering companies.

There is very little in it for them, unless it is a CLIENT REQUIREMENT.

A GENERIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY is using a slightly less structured version of this

concept. They sort of "backed into the process" starting with a Construction Friendly Model and
a field planner. Then they worked back into materials management, procurement, and
engineering. It is working fairly well in that segment of the engineering part that works with
construction. It is virtually unknown, and what's more, resented by the portion of the company
that provides engineering services. They strongly resent being CONSTRUCTION DRIVEN. It
has been quoted, "Construction does NOT tell us what they want. We tell construction what we
are going to give them!" This company is not alone. This is the attitude of many engineering
companies. Construction driven results in engineering doing "out of sequence work"
(OOSW). OOSW leads to inefficiencies, rework, and confusion on the engineering side.

The GENERIC COMPANY has demonstrated that AWP to IWP works. However, it is NOT easy
and requires a lot of front end planning, setup, and teamwork. In fact, we have only focused on
Piping and Structural Steel. Yet to chase the other disciplines.

At my company, we are struggling to get engineering to establish a WBS in Front End Planning. It
is like pulling teeth. If I am not there pushing, it probably will not happen. No one is pushing

234
WBS and they have not even thought of AWP. The owners are non-players at this time. We need
to emphasize the importance of preparing the ESTIMATE BY EWP that aligns with the CWP.

Another reason to promote AWP early in FEP is to ensure that the model is structured and designed
is such a way to support getting materials to the job site and to support the extraction of IWPs.
Very difficult sale to get engineering to do this UNLESS the OWNER uses a metric or
reward/penalty on the value of the model to support construction execution. In fact, few if any of
the available 3D Modeling software systems being used today, could be considered as
CONSTRUCTION FREINDLY. Most were designed for engineering, with very little, if any
thought for field planner and craft person. Simple things like field welds, piece marks, and spool
numbers are non-existent in the models. Construct-Sim is an effort to shore up this problem, but
that is another expensive program that is usually adopted by the construction contractor because
they engineering contractor did not build the model with construction in mind.”

Interview V5

Understanding of proposed model and recommendations

Study comprehensive: oriented to large companies and big projects

Cover what requires in AWP, familiar with AWP

Companies that have troubles with front-end planning should definitely move to AWP.

Level of details is very good, it is strength. If some companies want to implement Work Packaging,
they do not have to find documentation or do some research, they will have to look at the
implementation guideline.

Expert is an expert in construction and not in front-end planning, so he found the implementation
process very good but does not feel able to find if there is anything lacking.

Section 1

The difference between WP and AWP is very detailed in volume 1

235
Maturity model: useful but it is more difficult to understand for construction people as they are not
skilled to do the front-end phase

Section 2

Clear contractual recommendations: good section about the different contracts, strategies

The recommendations help in a contracting strategy decisions.

Section 3

Expert found that the chart p29 is very good and is very helpful, easy to understand. This chart
helps to understand every deliverable and who is in charge of each.

Functional role is not easy to understand particularly for people from the construction side, but the
chart p29 is a good illustration

Section 4

As a construction expert, he found that the checklist is a really good idea however is not exhaustive
and some items can be lacking to really ensure that everything is ready. Moreover some items are
not in a logical order.

Section 5

The example is excellent: every step is well described and easy to understand. One of the key point
of the implementation guidance. As this example goes through all the process, it provides a good
illustration of the model developed by the CII and how it must be implemented.

Implementation/Practicality

As a construction expert, he found that some information are lacking, he will not felt enough skilled
to implement AWP by himself. The model and the volume had enough details to be understood.
As it is a good project management program but expert found that he would be able to do it: If the
process is not described it does not tell how to proceed; how to start on day one? What should
people do the first day and the others?
For this expert some information are lacking as he does not know what to do or how to start.
236
Interview V6

General Comments

NB: THIS INTERVIEW DID NOT FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

- The expert thinks this document is written mainly from the owner perspective. He thinks it is
difficult to the contractor to integrate responsibilities. The expert mentions that it is true that
the owner has to be the driver but it needs to hand over responsibilities to the contractor at a
certain stage. Thus, the transition from owner to contractor in this execution model is not clear.
- Pages 13 and 14 of the IR are excellent.
- Expert V6 mentions that training seems to be complicated and a lengthy process. He suggests
an addition to the document that consists of mentioning that management needs to be rigor,
structured and very focused.
- Expert V6 suggests more detail to address change management which he thinks is missing.
- The idea based on which engineering requirements need to be focused on construction
efficiency not engineering efficiency needs to be clearly stated.
- Figure 6 is not easy to understand.
- Expert V6 mentioned a number of rewordings of some titles and text in the implementation
resource.
- Expert V6 thinks this section needs to be re-written and lacks clarity.
- The compensation section is very good.
- Expert V6 thinks there is there is an assumption made that the owner believes in benefits of
the process. He thinks this should either be stated or addressed. He also mentions that AWP
implementation is a long term process with long term ROI. This should be added to the
document.
- Expert V6 mentions that vendor’s role is not addressed.
- Construction sequencing is important. The engineering side should be educated about this.
- Expert V6 thinks that the document should include this recommendation: « it is more
important to consider the CWP release plan before the EWP release plan » He thinks that the
CWP release plan is the one that drives the release sequence of design.

237
- Expert V6 mentions that the estimate should be sequenced by EWP/CWP.
- Adding “bagging and tagging” in the document, eventually in the discussion.
- Expert V6 mentions that some sections in the documents are very owner driven and it is
needed to add why a contractor would be motivated to do this.
- Swimlanes are excellent.

238
Appendix F. COAA Best Practices conference survey results
May 2012 in Edmonton Canada

239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
 Appendix G. Canmore workshop minutes

A. Workshop Part 1

Team brainstorming resulting in the presentation of the top 3 challenges of WorkFace

planning implementation selected from a first list of challenges generated initially:
Team 1

Top 3 Challenges

1- Buy in: lack of understanding by all involved in WFP of their role and importance to the
overall net-benefit to the project
2- Contract language: contracts should include owner requirements and contractor
obligations regarding a commitment to WFP (constructability, metrics)
3- Training Education (a lack of): a lack of education materials around the general aspects
of AWP/WFP as well as specific training materials regarding job roles + responsibilities
+ procedures at all levels

Extended list of Challenges

1. integration of individual roles

2. lifecycle data integration
3. lack of metrics
4. lack of construction input in the Front End;
5. C class
6. Owner alignment
7. Cost of up front engineering
8. Conflicting objectives and realistic expectations
9. Vendor capability

Team 2

Top 3 Challenges

1- Benefits understanding:
a. have not been able to quantify value (ROI) for owners/decision makers

248
 b. value is dispersed throughout the AWP lifecycle
c. many stakeholders – poor communication in between teams
2- Lack of partnership between stakeholders
a. Different stakeholders don’t understand their roles
b. Lack of transparency around data that can be useful for decision making
c. Too prescriptive owners
3- Disconnect between planners + crews = lack of integration of field construction crews
a. Need input and guidance for planners/ foremen/ crew/ in WFP process on site
b. Static: IWP that aren’t used Frustration about the lack of information
4- EPC model in COAA is in reality EP ++++C

Team 3

Top 3 Challenges

1 2 3
Communication Information management Field execution
Who Owner/PM Engineering management Contractor
What Set expectations/ be Have a plan for data Develop an execution
specific / understand management practice of WFP
In phases Define deliverables
When Before FEED From the start Prior to contract
Before DE
Before Const
Why Align expectations with Facilitate deliverables and Make it happen
the holistic project success expectations Effective execution
Where Anywhere In the engineering office Contract home office
In the field
How Contracts Develop a data spec Written best practices
Evaluation metric Information strategy
Audit execution

249
 Kick off meetings
Continuous
communication

Extended list of Challenges

1. Lessons learned vs captured

2. Eng culture
3. Set expectations from owners
4. Contracts
5. Right people with the right skills
6. On site alignment
7. Effective coordination procedures (in field)
8. Owner champion
9. Lack of allowance of the application of WFP in the schedule

Team 4

Top 3 Challenges

1- Unrealistic expectations: particularly with first time implementation, be more positive

and expect less at the beginning
2- Lack of strong understanding of new processes: everything related to the planning
particularly when it gets down to the trade
3- Lack of dedicated resources: time and money there to make it happen

Extended list of Challenges

1. Inconsistent expectations
2. Managing behavior change
3. Schedule alignment

250
 4. Lack of high level champion
5. Evidence of the benefits quantitative - qualitative
6. Perception of deliverables timelines
7. Continual education
8. Momentum loss
9. Communicating model to the trades, education
10. Field of an implementation specialist
11. Skilled support constraints
12. Improper tool for the job
13. Role of PM
14. Unrealistic individual roles
15. Lack of fully integrated planning sessions

B. Workshop Part 2

Detailed development of the selected three main challenges per team.

Team 1

1) Buy-in
- all levels of project/ construction have to commit
- Sell the benefits and expectations
- Competitive advantage
- Ask for input/ contributions
- Build trust relationship
- Challenge status quo
- Plan your implementation and break down barriers
- Identify and equip champions
- Support culture & expose the cost and benefit
- Chase correct behavior
- Lead the cause

251
 - Advertise success
- Form a project committee
2) Contract language
- Develop standards/ best practices
- Key considerations to be captured in contracts
- Deliverable next year by sub (?)
- Identify and define rules and responsibilities
- WF plan – RFP requirements
- Demonstrate prior performance or potential capacity
3) Training and education
- Advertise and catalogue existing training material
- Identify gaps/ solutions
- Define impacts to workers (minimize)
- Look at supervisory training pre-requisites
- Owner pre-qualification process
- Matrix of certification/ education organization
- Sell benefits
- Expand the training program

What: personalize and communicate benefits/ statements for everyone

Where: major projects (because the most visible) / annual conferences

Who: owner, engineering, contractors, government, COAA, CII

When: now and ongoing training education – has to be continuous – start as soon as you can

Why: without champions – no success

37% tool time - Productivity

How: develop and implement BP and communicate

252
 Buy in

Education/
Contracts
training

Team 2

1) Benefits understood

From owners perspective

- Owners sponsors
- COAA/CII facilitate
- Owners fund
- Independent RoI (Analysis)

Who: IFA, Big 5, others

2) Partnership
- What: shared vision, overall team approach, shared benefits (building trust and
alignment)
- More collaborative between stakeholders
- Contractual barriers to access data and information
- Awareness / training / education
- Less perspective – more deliverables based on how to do it
- How: require industry focus group

253
 3) Integration of field CM team on site (crew/foremen/planners)
- Clarifying roles and responsibilities
- More collaborative approach
- Understand what buy in mean

Team 3

1) Communication
Problem statement
- Lack of detailed owner expectations
- Misalignment of stakeholders = reactive management

Solution statement
Who Owner
What Develop procedures
Follow procedures (verifications)
Assign champion: expectations, communication,
and capacity to implement
Apply in phases (FEED, DE, Construction)
Why Clear alignment of expectations
Define success
Proactive management
How Define WFP expectations in contracts
Identify key deliverables
Use a standard for BID evaluation
Verify implementation quality
Define case for action to project leadership in terms
of safety, quality, cost, and schedule
Integrated WFP with communication strategy

254
 2) Information management
Problem statement
Poor quality + definition of information + exchange
=Inefficiencies increased time and cost (indirect cost)
Solution statement
Who Engineering manager for the PM team
What Develop a data specification that facilitates the
coordination of the project data
Why Avoid delays + record
Increase morale
How Define a case for action (for executives)
Define roles and responsibilities
Where: PM house and (in data sets)
When Before design

3) Field execution
Problem statement

Lack of defined procedures

Unpredictable – Reliance of a generation of PM and superintendents that is on the edge of

leaving and there is a gap (reliance on people not processes)

Solution statement

Who: corporate level of contractors

What: develop an execution practice for WFP

When: before projects

Why: consistent results less reliance on people

How: performance metrics

255
 Where: home office + site

Team 4

1) Unrealistic expectations

To many times owner set the goal of the implementation too high to make it truly
achievable. Teams will be tasked with to large or too broad of scope for first time. Based on
these overly high expectations ROI is expected to be higher than achievable.

Mitigating the incorrect expectations

 Clearly define the level of expected WFP implementation on the project and extract from
this the expected ROI
o Assessment must be done using the COAA/CII maturity assessment tool.
o Based on results of the maturity assessment identify the perceived WFP
implementation percentage.
o Enhance the score card to include AWP and front end loading for WFP to identify
the level of implementation return.
o Clearly communicate and receive stake holder signoff for implementation model
exceptions.

2) Lack of strong standard process (new)

Failure to define the required standard WFP process and use of change management techniques
to ensure proper implementation.
 Buy in from senior management
 Dedicated resources to do a gap analysis and tool assessment of existing systems,
standards, etc.
 Create a company specific model that is fit for purpose
 Modify existing workflows to accept new methodologies
 Use change management techniques to implement newly created model
 Perform audits and health checks, and monitor for continuous improvement

256
3) Lack of Dedicated Resources
We can’t do any of these great things above without the right dedicated resource.
Difficult to find the WorkFace Planners with the right skill set.
 Ensure understanding at the project level the need to dedicated resources for WFP
 Assess needs
 Quantify
 Present case
 Match up experience with younger personnel who are good on the tools
 Make WFP a designated occupation
 Pay accordingly

257
References

Alsehaimi, A. O., Patricia Tzortzopoulos, and L. J. Koskela. 2009. "Last planner system:
Experiences from pilot implementation in the Middle East." Proceedings of the 17th
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.

Ballard, Glenn. 2000. “The last planner system of production control.” Diss. The University of
Birmingham.

Ballard, Glenn, Kim, Y. W., Jang, J. W., and Liu, M. 2007. Roadmap for lean implementation
at the project level. The Construction Industry Institute.

Ballard, Glenn, and Gregory Howell. 1998. "What kind of production is construction."
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Lean Construction, Guarujá, Brazil.

Ballard, Glenn, and Gregory Howell. 2004. "Competing construction management paradigms."
Lean Construction Journal. 1 1. 38-45.

Ballard, Glenn, and Paul Reiser. 2004. "The St. Olaf College Fieldhouse Project: a case study in
designing to target cost." Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction.

Belout, Adnane, and Clothilde Gauvreau. 2004. "Factors influencing project success: the impact
of human resource management." International journal of project management. 22 1. 1-
11.

Berg, Bruce Lawrence, and Howard Lune. 2004. Qualitative research methods for the social
sciences. Vol. 5. Boston: Pearson.

CII RT 83-6, RS 6-6. 1988. Work Packaging for Project Control. The Construction Industry
Institute, Austin, TX.

CII/COAA RT 272. 2013. IR 272-2 volume 2: Advanced Work Packaging: Design through
Workface Execution. The Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX.

CII/COAA RT 272. 2013. IR272-2 volume 1: Advanced Work Packaging: Design through
Workface Execution. The Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX.

258
CII/COAA RT 272. 2013. IR272-2 volume 3: Advanced Work Packaging Implementation Case
Studies & Expert Interviews. The Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX.

Dorussen, Han, Hartmut Lenz, and Spyros Blavoukos. 2005. “Assessing the reliability and
validity of expert interviews.” European Union Politics. 6 3. 315-337.

Fayek, Aminah Robinson, and Jing Peng. 2013. "Adaptation of WorkFace Planning for
construction contexts." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 40 10. 980-987.

Gardner, George Richard. 2006. "Effective Construction Work Packages." AACE International
Transactions 13.1-13.10.

Gibson, G. Edward, Evan Bingham, and C. Stogner. 2010. "Front end planning for infrastructure
projects." Proceedings of Construction Research Congress. 1125-1135.

Goodman, Louis J., and Ralph N. Love. 1980. Project Planning and Management: An Integrated
Approach. New York: Pergamon Press.

Goodman, Louis J., and S. Rufino Ignacio. 1999. Engineering Project Management . CRC
Press.

Hamzeh, Farook Ramiz. 2009. “Improving construction workflow-The role of production

planning and control.” Diss. University of California, Berkeley.

Hamzeh, Farook R., Glenn Ballard, and Iris D. Tommelein. 2009. "Is the Last Planner System
applicable to design?—A case study." Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction.

Hamzeh, Farook R., Glenn Ballard, and Iris D. Tommelein. 2008. "Improving Construction
Workflow-The Connective Role of Lookahead Planning." Proceedings of the 16th
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction..

Hermone, Ronald H. 1998. The Management Survival Manual for Engineers.

Howell, A. Gregory. 1999. “What is Lean Construction.” Proceedings of the 7th Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Berkeley, CA, USA

259
Kim, Jae-Jun, and C. William Ibbs. 1995. "Work-package-process model for piping
construction." Journal of construction engineering and management. 121 4. 381-387.

Krueger, Richard A., and Mary Anne Casey. 2000. Focus groups. A practical guide for applied
research, 3rd Edition, SAGE.

Kumaraswamy, Mohan M., and Sunil M. Dissanayaka. 1998. "Linking procurement systems to
project priorities." Building Research & Information. 26 4. 223-238.

Meeks, S. 2011. “Enhanced Work Packaging: Design through Workface Execution.” Diss. The
University of Texas at Austin.

O'Connor, James T., Stephen E. Rush, and Martin J. Schulz. 1987. "Constructability concepts
for Engineering and Procurement." Journal of Construction Engineering and
management. 235-248.

O'Connor, Patrick D.T. 1994. The Practice of Engineering Management: A new Approach. John
Wiley & Sons.

Oyetunji, Adetokunbo A., and Stuart D. Anderson. 2006. "Relative effectiveness of project
delivery and contract strategies." Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management. 132 1. 3-13.

Peng, J., Fayek, A. R., Mohamed, A., and Kennett, C. 2012. “Exploring the Impact of
WorkFace Planning on Labour Productivity Variance Mitigation on Industrial
Construction Projects: A Mathematical Framework.” Construction Research Congress.
376-385.

PMI, Project Management Institute. 2004. A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

PMI, Project Management Institute. 1996. A Guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge:
(PMBOK Guide). Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Ryan, Goeff. 2009. Schedule for Sale: Workface Planning for Construction Projects.
AuthorHouse.

260
Reyck, B. D., Y. Grushka-Cockayne, M. Lockett, S. R. Calderini, M. Mour, and A. Sloper.
2005. "The impact of project portfolio management on information technology
projects." International Journal of Project Management. 23 7. 524-537

Smith, N.J. 2008. Engineering Project Management. Blackwell Publishing.

Tekeuchi, and Nonaka. 1995. Knowledge Creating Companies. Oxford University Press Inc.

The American Institute of Architects. 2000. The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Tommelein, Iris D. 1998. "Pull-driven scheduling for pipe-spool installation: simulation of lean
construction technique." Journal of construction engineering and management. 124 4.
279-288.

Tommelein, Iris D., and Glenn Ballard. 1997. Coordinating specialists. Vol. 8. Technical
Report No. 97.

Turner, J.R., and R. Muller. 2003. "On the nature of the projects as temporary organization."
International Journal of Project Management. 21. 1-8.

Wengraf, Tom. 2001. Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and semi-
structured methods. SAGE.

261
 Construction Industry Institute®
The University of Texas at Austin
3925 W. Braker Lane (R4500)
Austin, Texas 78759-5316
(512) 232-3000
FAX (512) 499-8101
RR 272-12