Construction Industry Institute®

Making the Case for

Advanced Work Packaging
as a Standard (Best) Practice

Research Summary 319-1

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

Prepared by
Construction Industry Institute
Research Team 319, Making the Case for Advanced Work Packaging
as a Standard (Best) Practice

CII would like to express its appreciation to the

Construction Owners Association of Alberta for its
dedicated team participation and significant contribution of data.

Research Summary 319-1

November 2015
© 2015 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.

 Contents

Chapter Page

1. Introduction 1

2. The AWP Implementation Framework 7

3. AWP Maturity Model 21

4. Conclusions and Recommendations 33

 Executive Summary

In its ongoing efforts to increase project performance and predictability,

CII recently sponsored research on Advanced Work Packaging (AWP),
a disciplined approach to project planning and execution. Most recently,
CII chartered Research Team (RT) 319, Making the Case for Advanced
Work Packaging as a Standard (Best) Practice, to extend and validate
the exploratory findings of RT 272, Advanced Work Packaging. In its
four-year research effort, RT 272 provided a comprehensive AWP
model, along with definitions, procedures, contracting guidelines, job role
descriptions, checklists, and templates. Specifically, the team found that
AWP delivers dramatic performance improvements in field productivity,
cost and schedule performance, project predictability, and related
benefits in safety, quality, and project team alignment. Documented case
studies show 25-percent productivity improvements and 10-percent
reductions in total installed cost (TIC). Such breakthrough performance
improvements have drawn considerable attention from the industry, but
reasonable questions have been raised about the generalizability of
these initial findings.

The primary objectives of RT 319 were to validate the performance

success of the AWP execution model and thereby make the case for
AWP becoming a standard (best) practice for the industry. Specifically,
the team pursued the following two research goals:

1. Evaluate the relationship between AWP implementation and

various dimensions of project performance.
2. Identify typical AWP implementation pathways and levels of AWP
maturity.

Using multiple qualitative and quantitative research techniques—such

as case studies, surveys, focus groups, and expert interviews—the team
collected extensive empirical evidence to validate the causal relationship
between AWP implementation and project performance improvement.
These findings show that effective AWP implementation produces

v
consistent improvements across six project performance dimensions:
productivity, cost, safety, schedule, quality, and predictability. The
research team also documented additional benefits, difficulties, and
lessons learned to support practitioners during AWP adoption.

When industrial construction companies adopt AWP, their

implementation effort typically follows an S-curve pattern. RT 272
identified three iterative AWP maturity stages—each one building on
the one preceding it—and formulated detailed implementation guidance
for each stage. Building on these findings, RT 319 provided additional
evidence on AWP maturity and also found that the performance of
industrial construction organizations adopting AWP typically follows an
S-curve pattern—with slow initial improvements, followed by fast growth
in the middle phase, and moderate advances in the final maturity phase.

A key finding was that even initial implementations (i.e., projects with
low maturity) garner significant benefits from AWP. This is encouraging
for organizations that are low on the AWP learning curve. At the same
time, benefits increase as AWP implementation matures, which supports
further investment. Overall, the data collected by both research teams
presents strong evidence that the benefits of AWP are consistent and
that there is a compelling case for further adoption by the industry.

vi
 1

Introduction

CII chartered Research Team (RT) 319 to evaluate current Advanced

Work Packaging (AWP) benefits and implementation trajectories, in an
effort to validate initial claims of improved performance and to capture
lessons learned from the field. This research aims to extend and validate
the RT 272 findings on AWP implementation. (See Implementation
Resource (IR) 272-2, Advanced Work Packaging: Design through
Workface Execution.) Readers of this research summary should be
familiar with AWP definitions and approaches as presented in Research
Summary (RS) 272-1, Advanced Work Packaging: Design through
Workface Execution, and IR 272-2 Volume I—two publications in which
RT 272 systematically presents its extended AWP practice model, along
with definitions, procedures, contracting guidelines, job role descriptions,
checklists, and templates.

Briefly, the AWP methodology offers industrial construction projects a

disciplined process for project planning and execution that systematically
aligns the engineering, procurement, and construction disciplines across
the project life cycle. This approach shifts the focus to the early planning
stages and incorporates the breakdown structure of project scope
into three main deliverables: 1) construction work packages (CWPs);
2) engineering work packages (EWPs); and 3) installation work packages
(IWPs). The logical and iterative breakdown of the project into these three
deliverables provides a framework for effective and consistent planning
throughout the project. Figure 1 shows the timing of CWPs, EWPs, and
IWPs across the project life cycle, emphasizing the AWP focus on pulling
traditional workface planning practices into the early planning stage.

1
 ADVANCED WORK PACKAGING
WORKFACE PLANNING

Interactive CWPs IWPs

Project Setup
Planning EWPs
2

Construction
Front End Planning
Commissioning
Detailed Engineering Start Up

Figure 1. AWP and the Project Lifecycle

 AWP holds the promise of fundamentally transforming the capital
project delivery process. Early evidence from RT 272 indicated the
following benefits of AWP implementation:

• up to 25-percent increases in field productivity

• up to 10-percent decreases in total installed cost (TIC), with
increased savings for owners and increased profitability for
contractors
• improved schedule performance, with projects delivered on
schedule
• improved safety performance, with zero lost time accident
records
• increased quality, with reduced construction rework
• increased predictability, in terms of cost and schedule estimates.

Because CII recognized the potential of these dramatic performance

improvements to transform the industry, it formed RT 319 to conduct further
evaluation and validation.

To pursue this mandate, RT 319 developed two specific research goals:

1. Evaluate the relationship between AWP implementation and

various dimensions of project performance. To this end, develop a
validation framework that includes a set of AWP prerequisites for
successful implementation and improved performance.
2. Identify typical AWP implementation pathways and common levels
of AWP maturity. This will provide detailed insight into determining
the right approach to implementation and lessons learned to
support future implementation.

Figure 2 shows how the team’s research methodology was based on a

mixed qualitative/quantitative approach. Taking this approach, the team
sought to increase the validity and reliability of the findings by collecting
data from multiple sources (i.e., 20 case studies, three expert interviews,
surveys, and focus groups).

3
 Objective
Validate AWP Benefits Identify AWP Maturity Levels

Case • Investigate AWP implementation. Case • Identify AWP maturity traits.

• Evaluate benefits related to AWP. • Test AWP maturity model.
Studies Studies
Technique
4

• Collect ratings from AWP experts.

Expert • Support case study analysis. Focus
• Investigate patterns of relationship
Interviews • Analyze specific AWP processes. Group between AWP maturity and project
performance.

• Validate AWP benefits.

Survey

Figure 2. Research Methodology

 Specifically, the case studies, expert interviews, and surveys
were designed to meet the first research objective of validating AWP
benefits. The intent was to collect enough additional in-depth qualitative
implementation evidence from the case studies and expert interviews to
extend the preliminary RT 272 findings. Through the survey, the team
hoped to gather quantitative evidence of the generalizable nature of the
findings.

To pursue the second research objective of identifying AWP maturity

levels, the team chose to conduct expert focus groups and to again draw
on the case studies. The rationale was to explore and empirically validate
the AWP maturity model, by asking independent AWP experts (in the
focus group) to evaluate documented AWP implementations (recorded
in the case studies). The following chapters of this research summary
provide an overview of the evidence collected.

In addition to this research summary, RT 319 produced Research Report

(RR) 319-11, Transforming the Industry: Making the Case for Advanced
Work Packaging as a Standard (Best) Practice, and Implementation
Resource (IR) 319-2, Validating Advanced Work Packaging as a Best
Practice: A Game Changer. IR 319-2 presents detailed descriptions of
AWP adoptions at various levels of maturity and within different project
contexts. These are provided to support any organizations planning their
own implementations and as a supplement to the detailed guidance in
IR 272-2. RR 319-11 presents the research findings in technical detail and
provides additional recommendations on metrics for AWP assessment.

Chapter 2 of this summary discusses the relationship between AWP

implementation and project performance within an AWP evaluation
framework. Chapter 3 describes and tests a maturity model for AWP
implementation, showing the evolutionary path of AWP over time.
Finally, Chapter 4 presents the research team’s conclusions and
recommendations.

5
 2

The AWP Implementation Framework

The results of the RT 272 study showed that, when properly

implemented, AWP supports substantial project performance
improvements in the industrial construction sector. The RT 319 challenge
was to determine how to measure AWP implementation consistently
to assess performance results. The research team developed an
assessment framework to serve as a basis for data collection and
analysis. (See Figure 3.) Figure 3 shows that AWP implementation
depends on the accomplishment of three prerequisites, or antecedents,
during the implementation process: 1) process adherence to prescribed
AWP guidelines; 2) organizational alignment within the project
management team on AWP deliverables; and 3) contract integration of
AWP procedures among key project participants.

Antecedents Practice Project Performance

Productivity

Process
Adherence Cost

Schedule
AWP
Organizational
Implementation
Alignment
Safety

Contract Quality
Integration

Predictability

Figure 3. AWP Implementation Framework

7
 RT 319 identified and investigated these prerequisites on the basis
of the RT 272 finding that effective AWP implementation requires early
strategic planning and the commitment of resources to align AWP
deliverables at the CWP/EWP/IWP level. Once the level of AWP practice
is assessed, it can be related to performance outcomes. The RT 319 AWP
implementation framework organizes performance improvement data
into six main dimensions: productivity, cost, schedule, safety, quality, and
predictability. When attached to qualitative and quantitative measures,
this framework supports data analysis and generates meaningful results.
The following section discusses the case study and survey results of the
team’s model validation effort.

Validation: Case Study Results

The research team analyzed a total of 20 case studies of industrial
projects implementing AWP. Seven of the 20 were the initial case studies
conducted by RT 272. (See IR 272-2, Volume III.) RT 319 conducted
the remaining 13. This section summarizes the wealth of in-depth data
collected from these AWP implementations, highlighting the relationship
between the three AWP prerequisites and AWP implementation, and
between AWP implementation and project performance. (See IR 319-2
for a complete discussion of the 13 new case studies.)

The research team canvassed the CII membership and the audiences
at international AWP-related conferences to identify appropriate industrial
projects for its case studies. The unit of analysis of the case study was the
single project. The final sample involved different industrial construction
sectors and included small, medium, large, and mega-projects in the
United States and Canada. (See Figure 4.). The case study results are
strongly supported by the team’s expert interview findings, and these are
incorporated into the discussion of the case studies below.

AWP Prerequisites
After identifying and defining the most recurrent and significant AWP
prerequisites, the research team sought to validate their impact through
its case studies. The results confirmed the relevance of the three
antecedents, isolating the following characteristics:

8
 Chemical
15% (3)
Power
25% (5)

Infrastructure
10% (2)

Oil & Gas

50% (10)

Medium
10% (2)
Small
25% (5)

Large
35% (7)

Mega
30% (6)

Figure 4. Case Studies by Sector (top) and by Size (bottom)

1. Process Adherence. AWP implementation requires the thorough

definition of procedures and guidelines that carefully regulate
every project stage, from preliminary planning to commissioning
and startup. Project teams should define their AWP procedures
in the early project stages to prevent friction and resistance
among project participants during project execution. Adequate
skills and capabilities are also critical to consistent AWP process
adherence. This process adherence prerequisite highlights the
criticality of developing detailed AWP guidelines. This does not
mean that projects should thoughtlessly or slavishly implement
the recommended AWP procedures. Rather, a certain level of

9
 flexibility is allowed and encouraged. To ensure that all AWP core
principles are effectively incorporated, each project management
team should adapt the prescribed procedures in accordance
with project characteristics and participants’ background. An
elaboration process should be in place to translate recommended
flowcharts into specific execution procedures.
2. Organizational Alignment. The alignment across project
disciplines, particularly among engineering, procurement, and
construction teams, is a fundamental driver of successful AWP
implementation. To achieve this alignment, the project team
should define a coordinated and integrated information flow
throughout the different project phases. Organizational alignment
also depends on minimizing change aversion to AWP; it is critical
to resolve and minimize disputes among project participants
and to ensure the team building progression that is necessary to
achieving AWP benefits. Top management buy-in and continuous
commitment have been proposed as the best ways to minimize
change inertia. After an initial implementation period, workforce
satisfaction related to AWP execution typically increases. This
is a consequence of the enhanced engagement of construction
representatives during the planning process and a result of higher
crew morale from safer and more productive onsite operations.
This deeper engagement also increases crews’ awareness of
the impact of changes on the chain of activities, discouraging
unauthorized deviations from approved plans.
3. Contract Integration. The inclusion of AWP in contracts can
greatly affect the behavior of project participants and is crucial
to the implementation process. Contracts should define payment
plans and control processes in line with AWP deliverables. When
the schedule of payments is not coherent with AWP milestones,
project participants are not incentivized to adopt AWP and change
traditional planning practices. The controls process plays a
significant role in supporting AWP implementation and should be
integrated across the various disciplines to prevent opportunistic
behaviors. To enforce the adherence to construction sequence at
an operational level, project planning and completion should be

10
 monitored by IWP. It is the responsibility of the owner to identify
and require that specific AWP data are collected, analyzed,
and stored, to ensure that AWP deliverables are on track with
project plans. The case study analysis revealed the importance
of defining specific roles and responsibilities in alignment with
AWP processes. Responsibilities should be identified as early
as possible during preliminary planning and included in key
participants’ contracts. An ad hoc project responsibility matrix for
AWP implementation should be developed to prevent responsibility
and skill gaps.

Project Performance
The case study analysis provided detailed findings on the relationship
between AWP implementation and higher levels of project performance,
compared to traditional project execution. The case studies generated
the following results for AWP performance improvements:

1. Productivity. Every project implementing AWP reported increased

field productivity in comparison with estimates and/or previous
similar projects. On average, case studies reported productivity
increases at around 25 percent for projects with consistent AWP
implementation. This positive relationship between AWP and field
productivity is tied to the execution of constraint-free IWPs, which
enable frontline personnel to focus exclusively on construction
execution without wasting time on retrieval of materials,
engineering, or documentation. The complete definition of the
scope of work within IWPs ensures that planned activities are
ready for operations before field mobilization. Moreover, the case
studies showed that productivity is enhanced by the configuration
of IWPs, which, because they are created with a focus on specific
construction areas, prevent inefficient relocation and movement
around the site. IWPs follow the principle of “one crew, one shift”
to maximize workforce utilization in any given area for a single
discipline within a manageable amount of time (typically one
week). Productivity improvements were also shown to be related
to the handover phase, which was more efficient because rework
was identified and assigned for correction prior to commissioning.

11
2. Cost. The findings revealed consistent cost savings for all projects
implementing AWP, showing most of the reductions to be between
five and 10 percent of TIC. These savings were mostly related
to productivity improvements. The case studies also showed
systematic budget overruns on previous projects without AWP.
When AWP was used, the budget definition itself was a more
precise and accurate estimate. Contractors reported cost savings in
relation to the increased utilization of equipment, even with time and
materials contracts. The simultaneous execution of AWP on sites
with multiple projects presented an opportunity to share common
equipment, which provided consistent savings during construction.
AWP enhanced cost performance by allowing the identification of
cost savings opportunities, starting at preliminary planning. The
project management teams were also able to reduce scope overlap
during the preliminary planning stages. These savings should be
shared between the owner’s representative and the EPC contractor
to foster cost optimization behavior among all participants.
3. Safety. The 20 case studies reported zero lost time accident after
more than 25 million construction hours. Construction managers
reported that, after the introduction of AWP, they saw safety
performance improve in comparison with historical averages.
The case studies deduced six main reasons for the positive
relationship between AWP implementation and improved safety
performance.
–– AWP formally focused attention on identifying and mitigating
safety issues during the planning and development of IWPs,
before field mobilization.
–– The area-based design of IWPs helps keep crews in one
single area to perform their specified work; in this approach,
field workers become familiar with the areas they work in, and
unnecessary movement around the site is minimized
–– Crews have to remove all materials from the site after each
shift, thus reducing the risk of accidents.
–– The reduction of schedule compression that characterizes
the AWP methodology reduces the recourse to overtime,
which reduces worker exposure to hazards by shortening
time spent in the field.

12
 –– The IWP closeout process prescribes the collection and
incorporation of feedback, including safety observation. This
process supports the minimization of safety hazards for
construction activities in the future.
–– IWPs are designed to include a specific “safety requirements”
section. Because crews are briefed on safety topics before
the beginning of construction activities, their awareness of
potential risks increases.

4. Schedule. A majority of the case studies (13 out of 20) met

schedule delivery deadlines and, in some cases, projects were
delivered ahead of schedule (six out of 20). Schedule improvements
were mainly related to the improved productivity of construction
operations, which allowed project teams to anticipate or conduct
more construction activities concurrently. The achievement of a
rigorous and reliable construction plan reduced the number of
problems on site, which, before AWP implementation, had typically
set in motion a reactive process focused on the continuous
resolution of emergencies. Also, the increased accountability of
construction activities increased team members’ commitment to
delivering IWPs on schedule. In certain cases, AWP achieved
schedule reduction through a faster engineering process. The early
involvement of project participants consistently reduced the lead
time needed to prepare detailed engineering deliverables. However,
other case studies reported that engineering performance can
be delayed when constraints are not resolved. But these delays
were considered beneficial, since they prevented premature field
mobilization. Typically, higher field productivity during project
execution would partially absorbed these delays.
5. Quality. The case studies showed that, compared to average
performance, the organizations consistently implementing AWP
achieved enhanced quality of field operations, with substantial
rework reduction. AWP improved the quality control process through
clear specification of quality requirements at the IWP level. Field
personnel perform “pre-walks” to inspect the quality of isometric
drawings before the beginning of the startup phase, and this
resulted in a final quality improvement—with higher percentages of
corrected errors prior to turnover and commissioning.

13
 Another quality enhancement was related to the integration of
the different quality assurance programs among key project
participants. The early identification of IWP quality standards
provided project team alignment and a clear definition of
responsibilities, making quality controls and reporting easier. This
allowed all project parties to use the same measurement base
for the whole set of construction activities, shedding tremendous
light on the project’s quality. In general, AWP was also related
to the reduction, in absolute terms, of total RFIs generated. The
proportion of RFIs also shifted from the construction phase to the
detailed engineering phase, a point in the project life cycle at which
their impact on project cost and schedule is comparatively minor.
6. Predictability. AWP was related to high project predictability due
to the high reliability of the cost, schedule, and quality estimates it
generates. AWP fosters the proactive identification and mitigation
of construction constraints, starting at initial project definition. The
various packages are released and issued to the field only when
they can be promptly executed; and they arrive with all necessary
materials, drawings, and equipment specifications. Each
package is developed with the support of construction personnel,
ensuring that the estimates are realistic and achievable. Project
predictability was also related to more consistent process stability.
Planning and implementation errors are typically discussed during
meetings and are incorporated into project procedures to prevent
future mistakes. AWP is effectively a tool to manage project
variance and to incorporate construction flexibility, isolating the
effects of contingencies and uncertainty on individual packages
without affecting the entire chain of activities.
If a package is stopped by a constraint, the availability of a backlog
of IWPs allows the project team to shift the working crews onto
other activities while restoring operability to the jeopardized
package. The continuous monitoring process at the EWP and
IWP levels allows the quick identification of recovery measures,
so that the working capacity can be redirected to other IWPs. The
performance of contractors is measured more precisely with AWP,

14
 and the performance data provide the owner with useful data
about partner selection for future selection. The contractors for the
case study projects were working on multiple projects at the same
time and were able to collect lessons learned from one site and
implement them on other sites.

Validation: Survey Results

The research team assessed the AWP framework through its survey
analysis to obtain statistical valid, generalizable results. Specifically,
this analysis focused on the impact of AWP on project predictability
performance. Figure 5 illustrates the relationships within the AWP
framework (i.e., the three AWP prerequisites, AWP assessment, and
engineering deliverables). The arrows in the diagram indicate cause-
and-effect relationships. The team tested the following two hypothesis
for this analysis:

–– Process adherence, organizational alignment, and contract

integration specifies AWP assessment.

–– AWP assessment drives timely/complete engineering

deliverables and causes project predictability.

Engineering
Process Deliverable
Adherence

Organization AWP Project

Alignment Implementation Predictability

Contract
Integration

Figure 5. Survey Model

15
 For practical reasons, the research team chose to test only the
predictability dimension—instead of the entire set of performance
improvements—during the data collection process. The team selected
the Partial Least Square (PLS) statistical technique to accomplish the
following hypothesis-testing:

• Determine model causality relationships between the

variables. Casual relationships are statistically more powerful
and rigorous than traditional descriptive statistics obtained
through regressions and correlations, which can only express the
predictability of one variable over another one.
• Analyze multiple relationships within a model at the same
time. Traditional data analysis techniques require separate
analyses that do not recognize the impact of one variable beyond
the first level of influence.

The team collected data at two AWP practitioners’ conferences in

Edmonton, Alberta, and Houston, Texas, during one-hour breakout
sessions. Practitioners were given a hand-held response device through
which they could choose an answer to multiple choice questions.
Since each device had a unique identification code, questions from
respondents could be related to each other (i.e., a data set was developed
that aggregated data not just by question, but also by respondent). The
research team developed and pre-tested a set of 15 questions to specify
the variables within the validation framework, ensuring that multiple
indicators characterized each variable. Questions were generally
qualitative in nature, and respondents were asked to assess the level
with which they agreed/disagreed with them. Respondents were asked to
provide data on any of their projects implementing AWP (at any level) that
had either been recently completed or were near enough to completion
to assess outcomes.

The research team designed the questionnaire to address potential

measurement bias, such as expert bias (i.e., subjective influence on
the response based on the personal experience of the respondent) or
social desirability bias (i.e., the desire to portray their own organizations

16
in a favorable light). To minimize expert bias, the audience was asked to
refer only to the most recently completed project, so that respondents
should not choose between the best or the worst executed projects. The
choice to ask for data on the last executed project was also intended to
reduce potential memory bias. To minimize the social desirability bias,
data were collected by means of hand-held response devices, which
guaranteed the anonymity of every response. A potential drawback of
using hand-held response devices lay in the fact that, once respondents
had answered a question, they could not return to it if they felt the need
to revise or change it. To minimize the risk of misunderstanding, each
question was projected and explained by one of the academic team
members. Since the polling time for each question was approximately
one minute, participants could change their final answer for a specific
question during that time.

From a total of 104 distributed devices, the team collected a final set
of 92 complete responses. The sample was considered representative
of the industrial construction sector, populated by respondents with
considerable construction experience. (See Table 1.) The survey
population also comprised a variety of industry roles (See Figure 6.)

Table 1. Experience of Survey Respondents

Experience Number of
Percentage
(years) Respondents
Less than 10 20 22%
Between 10 and 20 26 28%
Between 20 and 30 30 33%
More than 30 16 17%
Total 92 100%

17
 Other Owner
13% (12) 24% (22)

Supply Chain
5% (5)

Engineering
13% (12)

Constructor
45% (41)

Figure 6. Roles of Survey Respondents

In the course of the data analysis, the team addressed sample issues
by checking for under-coverage bias, nonresponse bias, and voluntary
response bias. Under-coverage bias was reduced through the selection
of multiple companies with different project participants. Nonresponse
bias was negligible, since 88 percent of interviewed participants
provided complete answers (92 out of 104). Voluntary response bias was
also minimized through random distribution of the devices among the
conference participants. This approach meant that the respondents with
potentially strong opinions had the same chance of being selected as
those with more neutral perspectives.

Once the data had been analyzed, the research team accepted the
two hypotheses and confirmed the relationships depicted in the survey
model illustrated in Figure 5. The analysis yielded the following results:

• AWP is specified by the three prerequisites: process

adherence, organization alignment, and contract integration.
The results confirmed that the prerequisites are fundamental to
achieving consistent AWP implementation.
• AWP causes timely and complete engineering deliverables.
Among all factors influencing engineering deliverables, AWP
is an important one. The results showed that AWP influences
25 percent of timely and engineering deliverables (strong effect).

18
 • AWP causes project predictability, measured in terms of
time, schedule, and rework. Among all factors influencing
project predictability, AWP emerged as especially significant.
The results showed that AWP influences 25 percent of project
predictability (strong effect).
• AWP causes both timely and complete engineering
deliverables and project predictability, regardless of project
size and the role of the company.

After performing more than 10 statistical tests of the analysis and data, the
team found that they all confirmed the validity of results (i.e., they confirm
the reliability and robustness of findings, the adequacy of the sample, and
the goodness of fit of the model). (See RR 319-11, for further detail on the
PLS methodology and on the additional validity tests performed.)

To say more about the nature of the survey and the interpretation of the
results, it is important to note that PLS technique is a well-established
statistical tool within the social sciences, used to assess data similar to
that collected through the RT 319 survey. The PLS analysis provides
both support for causality (expressed as the direction of the arrows in
Figure 5) as well as degree of influence between constructs. Thus, the
team concluded that the statistical model (an expression of the RT 319
analysis framework shown in Figure 3) is supported, and that the analysis
shows causality between AWP implementation and performance results.
The survey results also indicate that AWP has significant explanatory
power and, hence, is a major driver of performance outcomes (e.g., the
model shows 30-percent explanatory power for predictability). These
results do not indicate the expected level of performance improvements
(i.e., the 30-percent explanatory power does not equate with 30-percent
performance improvements). Case study data should be used to assess
performance improvement potential; this is explored in more detail in the
following chapter.

19
 3

AWP Maturity Model

AWP is a rich practice with many touch points across the project life
cycle. RT 272 observed that projects and organizations generally adopt
AWP practices in stages. This motivated RT 272 to conceptualize three
incremental levels of AWP implementation maturity: 1) AWP Early
Stages; 2) AWP Effectiveness; 3) and AWP Business Transformation.
(See IR 272-2 Volume II for a detailed discussion of these levels.) The
maturity model characterizes these stages in terms of work processes
and required capabilities, recommending a stepwise progression through
the levels to achieve full AWP benefits.

RT 272 proposed this maturity model at a theoretical level, leaving

empirical validation of it to later researchers. In pursuing this validation,
RT 319 understood at the outset that, in providing empirical evidence
that the maturity model is generalizable and applicable, it would further
strengthen the relationship between AWP implementation and project
performance. Since each maturity stage has its own distinguishing traits,
the team was confident that an in-depth investigation of the model could
identify specific managerial practices and performance expectations
proper to each stage—depending on the positioning of the company
within the model. Given that AWP adoption is not an effortless process,
this analysis can support practitioners by highlighting critical improvement
areas that hamper the achievement of higher AWP maturity. This
provides a basis for assessing AWP implementation, enabling managers
to prioritize and plan their AWP improvement interventions in line with
their organizational strategies.

To validate the maturity model, the research team members engaged in

a focus group to rate a subset of 15 of the total set of 20 industrial project
case studies. Detailed measurement scales were developed to focus
the rating process on two main dimensions: the maturity level of AWP
implementation (i.e, the sophistication of the AWP process according
to the three prerequisites in the AWP framework); and the performance

21
level of the specific project (i.e., the gap between planned and actual
project performance in accordance with the six performance dimensions
in the AWP framework). To measure the level of AWP maturity, the
research team adopted the same six scales that were pre-tested and
validated in the survey analysis. To measure the six project performance
dimensions, the research team discussed and adopted six different
indicators: 1) the percentage increase of field productivity in comparison
with previous similar projects or company average (productivity); 2) the
percentage of TIC variation in comparison with estimates (cost); 3) the
percentage of TRIR and DART variation in comparison with previous
similar projects or company average (safety); 4) the difference between
actual and estimated project delivery dates, together with frequency and
magnitude of delays (schedule); 5) the impact caused by field rework
on IWP during construction execution (quality); and 6) the amount and
frequency of changes to and modifications of IWP estimates, in terms of
cost, schedule, and quality (predictability).

Summary Findings
The 15 case studies received a total of 60 different ratings (four ratings
per project). Each team member independently rated five different
projects. The research team then analyzed how each performance
dimension evolved, depending on the AWP maturity values. Results
showed that increasing levels of AWP maturity were associated with
consistent improvements in each project performance dimension. While
RR 319-11 discusses each of these performance measures in detail,
this section presents them in aggregated form. Accordingly, the 60 team
expert ratings were plotted and then interpolated with a polynomial fitting
line. Figure 7 depicts the pattern of project performance at different
levels of AWP maturity. This pattern roughly describes an S-curve, with
moderate performance improvement during the introduction phase,
followed by fast-growing performance during the middle stage, after
which comes continuous improvement, but at a slower rate, as the
company becomes more mature in implementing the methodology.

22
Project Performace

AWP Maturity

Figure 7. AWP Maturity and Project Performance

AWP maturity and project performance shows a strong positive

correlation with statistical validity (calculated through Spearman’s
rho=0.959, with significance at the 99-percent confidence level). This
positive relationship is also confirmed by the polynomial regression
analysis, which shows that the level of AWP maturity has a high
predictability over expected project performance (with an R 2 value of
0.923, significant at the 99-percent confidence level). This high R 2 value
indicates the absence of significant outliers and the consistency of the
ratings provided by different AWP experts.

The team also tested the validity of this distribution by assessing the
consistency of the various ratings related to same project. Firstly, all the
ratings related to the same project had similar scores and showed a
negligible variance. Secondly, the average of ratings per project evinces
the same S-curve pattern, confirming the validity of the initial S-curve
pattern. (See Figure 8.)

23
Project Performace

AWP Maturity

Figure 8. Average Scores per Project for

AWP Maturity and Project Performance

Three Stages of AWP Maturity

The RT 272 maturity model reflected the observation that industrial
construction companies typically go through three sequential stages of
AWP implementation. This pattern comports with the profile of the case
study scores. Figure 9 maps the S-curve found through the team’s analysis
onto the three maturity stages, showing slow initial improvements (four
data points in the left-hand section), fast growth during the middle phase
(four data points in the middle section), and moderate advancements in
the final maturity phase (seven data points in the right-hand section).

Each maturity stage builds on the elements of the preceding stage, and
all stages are characterized by specific traits, ranging from AWP strategy,
to organizational integration, control processes, and training support.
The three stages also present distinctive performance expectations and
varying adoption barriers that senior managers should take into account
to advance the implementation process and, consequently, to improve
performance.

24
Project Performace AWP Early Stages AWP Effectiveness AWP Business Transformation

AWP Maturity

Figure 9. AWP Maturity Stages

Each maturity stage is also related to specific performance profiles,

which have been plotted in Figure 10 and described in Table 2. A major
finding indicated the range of performance improvement that can be
achieved at each stage. In the first stage, major improvements were
measured in terms of field productivity, cost, and safety. The second
stage saw productivity, cost, safety, and schedule performance improve
dramatically and quickly. This fast rate of improvement was mainly due
to increased integration between disciplines that enabled constraint-
free construction activities. The third stage was characterized by major
improvements in quality and predictability (but at a slower rate), due
to the reliability of plans that are iteratively refined, starting at the very
preliminary planning stage.

25
 Productivity

Quality Cost

Predictability Safety

Stage I
Stage II
Schedule Stage III

Figure 10. Performance Breakout by Maturity Phase

26
 Table 2. AWP Maturity Stages and Project Performance

Maturity Stage
Performance 3. AWP Business
1. AWP Early Stage 2. AWP Effectiveness
Dimension Transformation
Productivity Around 10% increase Around 25% increase Around 25% increase

Cost Project on budget TIC 10% below estimates TIC 10% below estimates

Safety Zero lost time incidents (TRIR Zero lost time incidents (TRIR Zero lost time incidents (TRIR
27

below company average) improves with sporadic first- improves with sporadic first-
aids and near misses.) aids and near misses.)
Predictability Significant deviation from Minor changes to execution Execution schedule to plan
baseline estimates schedule
Quality Rework in line with previous Rework slightly below Rework substantially below
quality performance company's average company average; substantial
reduction of RFIs
Schedule Project on schedule or Project slightly ahead of Project slightly ahead of
experienced minor delay schedule during execution schedule during execution
The research findings for each stage are discussed in more detail below.

Stage I: AWP Early Stages

Some of the companies at this stage had introduced AWP for the first
time on a pilot project. They had recently adopted prescribed guidelines
and procedures, either to test their effectiveness for limited portions of
the project or to fulfill a stakeholder requirement to adopt AWP. Other
companies had remained at this stage for some time, due to the limited
commitment of top management to implement the methodology. The
main performance improvements—in comparison with previous company
performance—involved field productivity, cost, and safety. Measured
productivity improvement was around 10 percent, mainly because of
downtime reduction and enhanced activity synchronization. The cost
dimension showed that most of the projects were concluded on budget
as a consequence of higher productivity. Other major improvements were
seen in the safety dimension, with a minimization of lost time incidents
that was due to the reduction of overtime and to the AWP focus on one
construction area at a time. Other performance dimensions showed
no substantial increases. This might be a consequence of the partial
adoption of AWP guidelines, which either did not cover all disciplines or
did not consistently adhere to the guidelines.

This examination of the first maturity stage shows that AWP adoption
is initially a top-down process that is expected to generate aversion to
change. At this stage, construction companies have to pay particular
attention to having the necessary flexibility to adapt AWP guidelines to
existing processes. This flexibility prevents cookie-cutter approaches that
only generate further resistance and increase process complexity. This
initial implementation stage is probably the most risky period. A limited
allocation of resources and a partial commitment to AWP adoption can
result in limited performance improvements. Such lackluster results can
in turn lead managers to reduce the amount of effort and support for
the adoption process. Senior managers have the responsibility of guiding
the company through this early adoption stage, and should provide
adequate resources during the pre-planning stage. They should set
moderate performance goals with a slow growth rate and should clearly

28
communicate the commitment of the organization to the implementation
(e.g., by establishing dedicated development teams).

Stage II: AWP Effectiveness

In the second stage, companies achieved major performance
improvements, consistently bringing down budget and schedule estimates.
AWP became part of the project strategy and was included within major
stakeholders’ contracts, aligning payment and control activities with the
various engineering and construction deliverables. The transition to the
new planning approach was widely accepted at the various hierarchical
levels, and resistance was reduced. Field personnel and supervisors
reported that project activities proceeded without significant obstacles.
All major constraints were resolved before construction started, so that
problems related to missing materials, specifications, and equipment were
minimized. Among the main performance improvements at this stage
were 25-percent productivity increases, 10-percent reductions of TIC,
consistent schedule adherence, and substantial safety improvements.
In general, performance improved at a faster rate than during the first
maturity stage because of the higher number of disciplines adopting
AWP and because of the AWP implementation learning curve effect.

The major risk at this implementation stage comes from the illusion of
doing more than required, which may cause project teams to refrain from
completing the full implementation. So, while a fast rate of performance
improvement is expected, AWP implementation can be further
improved. Construction companies should not reduce the resources
for AWP training activities, but rather increase them to cover as many
personnel as possible. Specifically, companies at Stage 2 had difficulty
obtaining the same level of maturity from project participants that had
not mastered the AWP methodology. Senior management should refrain
from accepting these performance improvements as definitive, but rather
should use the momentum generated by successful project completion
to foster a continuous improvement logic throughout the organization.
Managers should set ambitious goals that grow at a fast rate during
project execution. Publicizing project successes is recommended, since
it can foster a generally positive effect on project team morale.

29
Stage III: AWP Business Transformation
The companies within this group had acquired substantial AWP
maturity, having mastered and implemented the procedures across
multiple projects at once. AWP drove project execution strategy and
was systematically used to create project value by differentiating the
companies from competitors. Implementers extended AWP beyond the
boundaries of the single project and aligned it with plans to advance
strategic business needs. Companies at this maturity stage are
recognized as AWP leaders and, as such, they are expected to share
their know-how with representatives of other project organizations. This
leadership provides an adequate level of expertise across the entire
project management team.

It was common for companies at this stage to involve the same

actors in the execution of multiple projects, on the basis of their AWP
expertise. Substantial performance improvements were measured, albeit
at a slower rate than in the second maturity stage. Improvements were
mostly concentrated in the predictability and quality dimensions. The
companies at this maturity stage were able to develop reliable plans that
were systematically confirmed with high predictability, so that dimensions
such as productivity and cost showed limited improvements. Quality
improvements were a direct consequence of the rigorous planning
process, and the companies reported a substantial decrease in rework
and in the generation of RFIs from the field. At this stage, the planning
process was based on AWP standards, and the estimates were more
reliable and fit with actual project execution.

After reaching the third maturity stage, the project management team
had to identify more complex and more resource-intensive improvement
projects. These projects were aimed at developing new skills/roles among
craft personnel—such as AWP planners with extensive construction
experience. They also sought to build networks of project stakeholders
with a similar level of AWP expertise, to minimize bottle-neck effects.
To realize benefits, these projects require a long-term horizon, as well
as continuous top management commitment at the inter-company
level. Senior managers should grant local managers considerable

30
independence, thereby balancing top-down direction with increased
bottom-up autonomy. Senior managers can also leverage local expertise
by moving mature middle management to projects on which the AWP
maturity level does not meet organizational standards. Managers
should set ambitious project goals, but should expect a slow rate of
improvement during project execution. The awareness of the S-curve
effect is fundamental to preventing the withdrawal of additional resources
for AWP implementation. Indeed, understanding this effect counters
the common, but mistaken, assumptions that the slower improvements
are due to a completed implementation process and that aggressively
pursuing efficiency is the correct way to progress.

31
 4

Conclusions and Recommendations

RT 319 found extensive empirical evidence of the benefits of AWP

implementation. The research team used a number of qualitative and
quantitative research techniques to triangulate the findings, supporting
the case for AWP as a best practice for the industrial construction sector.
The following high-level recommendations can be listed as the most
relevant:

• Three prerequisites emerge as central to achieving an effective

AWP implementation: 1) adherence to AWP procedures and
guidelines; 2) intra- and inter-organizational alignment; and
3) contract integration. Construction managers should focus
their efforts on the correct deployment of these prerequisites,
especially during the initial implementation stages.
• Effective AWP implementation results in consistent improvements
across the main project performance dimensions: productivity,
cost, safety, schedule, quality, and predictability. This summary
described the mechanisms underlying the causal relationship
between AWP and project performance, to enable construction
companies to replicate these performance-improving
mechanisms. (See RR 319-11 for details.)
• The typical AWP adoption pattern for industrial construction
companies follows the shape of an S-curve. The research
team validated three iterative maturity stages—each one
building on the one preceding it—identified for use as a maturity
model. Project managers can use this model to identify critical
improvement areas for AWP maturity, prioritizing and planning
their improvement interventions in line with their project
strategies.
• A project’s level of performance improvement depends on the
level of AWP maturity. Managers should assess the level of
maturity of the project management team with respect to AWP,
to set appropriate performance goals—considering both the
amount of achievable performance and the rate of performance
improvement.

33
 • AWP implementation is positively related to project performance
at every maturity stage. Achieved benefits consistently surpassed
the resources allocated for AWP implementation. Managers are
encouraged to allocate adequate resources during the planning
stage to achieve the demonstrated benefits.

AWP represents an emerging planning approach for the construction

sector that is building increasing momentum around the globe. The
benefits achievable through AWP promise to reduce the impact of
the industry’s traditional problems, such as lack of predictability, poor
productivity, and weak coordination between project participants.
These benefits do not come without effort; they require commitment
and dedicated resources throughout the entire adoption process.
Construction companies are encouraged to use the tools provided by
both RT 272 and RT 319, to ensure systematic execution and full support
by key project participants as they proceed on this challenging yet
rewarding implementation journey

34
Notes

35
Notes

37
Research Team 319, Making the Case for
Advanced Work Packaging as a Standard (Best) Practice
Steve Autry, ConocoPhillips
Michael Bankes, Fluor Corporation
Joel Gray, Coreworx
John Hyland, Lauren Engineers & Constructors
Robin Mikaelsson, Bentley Systems
* William J. O’Brien, The University of Texas at Austin
Bryan Parsons, KBR
* Simone Ponticelli, The University of Texas at Austin
* Jim Rammell, Wood Group Mustang
Stan Stasek, DTE Energy
Glen Warren, Retired – Construction Owners Association of Alberta

* Principal authors

Editor: Jacqueline Thomas

 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
RS 319-1