Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014
Current State of Interface Management in Mega Construction Projects
Samin SHOKRI1, Seungjun AHN2, Thomas CZERNIAWSKI3, Carl.T. HAAS4, and
SangHyun LEE5
1
PhD Candidate, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada,
sshokri@uwaterloo.ca*
2
PhD Candidate, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of
Michigan, 1316 GG Brown, 2350 Hayward Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; USA,
esjayahn@umich.edu
3
Undergraduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo,
Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada, tczernia@uwaterloo.ca
4
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada,
chaas@uwaterloo.ca
5
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University
of Michigan, 2340 GG Brown, 2350 Hayward Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; USA,
shdpm@umich.edu
ABSTRACT
Taking into account the increasing complexity and scale of construction
projects recently, Interface Management (IM) has been emerging as an important
aspect of project management practices. It is believed that effective IM improves
alignment and reduces conflicts between project stakeholders by increasing visibility
on roles, responsibilities and deliverables, particularly in large projects. The recent
improvements in the communications and information management technologies
make it possible for the global mega project such as oil-sand, off-shore facilities to
employ IM as a part of their project management process. Mega projects are generally
believed to be over 1 Billion dollars; however, projects with lower cost but high
organizational and interface complexity are also good candidates for IM adoption.
Although there is a high demand for IM, it has not been well defined yet, which limits
its full adoption. As part of a research program to identify and establish the
definitions and best practices of IM, sponsored by the Construction Industry Institute
(CII), the authors investigated the current state of IM in 37 projects. These projects,
including owners and contractors working within different construction sectors, are
surveyed according to their general characteristics (e.g. cost, project types, etc.) and
IM adoption. Furthermore, the research team analyzed the IM adoption with respect
to several interface risk and complexity factors within these projects.
The expected contributions of the research will be a comprehensive study of
the current state of IM in construction mega projects, identifying the factors that may
lead to implement IM in projects, and providing the definitions and preliminary
principles for establishing effective IM.
KEYWORDS:
Interface Management, Project Management, Mega Projects
2266
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014
2267
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Capital projects in asset intensive industries are becoming increasingly
complex (Hundertmark et al., 2008). Effectiveness and efficiency considerations of
project delivery prompt involvement of multiple specialized stakeholders from
different geographic locations (Chua & Godinot, 2006; Fellows & Liu, 2012; Caglar
and Connolly, 2007), and variable scope packages that allow corporate owners to
adjust project objectives according to the changing business environment (Yun et al.,
2012).
Moreover, the traditional project life cycle, prevalent still for most building
and infrastructure projects (Figure 1), is relatively linear, and each phase starts once
the previous one is complete. However, complex, fast track projects experience an
overlapping sequential life cycle (Figure 2) to reduce project delivery times (Bogus et
al., 2002).
Feasibility
Concept
Detailed
Scope
Design and
Procurement
Construction
Commissioning
and Start-up
Operation
Figure 1. Traditional Project Life Cycle (CII 2006)
Feasibility
Concept
Detailed
Scope
Design and Procurement
Construction
Commissioning and Start-up
Operation
Figure 2. Project Life Cycle in Fast Paced Environment
Despite these developing challenges, on-time, on-budget delivery still remains
a priority and a constant struggle for industry practitioners. In response, interface
management (IM) has recently emerged as a critical tool for greater oversight and
success of construction megaprojects (Alarcon and Mardones, 1998; Al Hammad,
2000; Nooteboom, 2004; Pavitt & Gibb, 2003; Shokri et al., 2011; Yun et al., 2012).
IM was first presented as a concept in 1967, to analyze contact points between
relatively autonomous interacting organizations, and the corresponding
interorganizational problems, within an aerospace project and an electric power pool
project (Wren, 1967). Although IM has a long history, it has not been fully utilized in
engineering and construction practices, mainly due to a lack of the necessary
technological infrastructure required to organize and control effective amounts of
interfacial information and data. However, due to the significant advancement in
information and communication technologies in the last two decades, IM is slowly
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014
being adopted by industry in dispersed and varying forms (The examples of IM
procedures are implemented within the Mustang Engineering (Shirley and James
2006) and Foster Wheeler (Collins et al. 2010)).
Industry leaders believe that IM improves alignment between stakeholders in
mega projects and reduces project issues and conflicts by increasing visibility on
roles, responsibilities and project deliverables (Archibald, 1992). Although there is a
high demand for IM, the definitions and implementation approaches have not been
standardized, which limits its full adoption. However, in general, interfaces are
considered as the boundaries between independent but interacting systems,
organizations, stakeholders, project phases and scopes, and construction elements
(Chen et al., 2007; Healy, 1997; Lin, 2009; Lin, 2012; Morris, 1983; Stuckenbruck,
1988; Wren, 1967). And, IM is defined as the process of managing communications,
responsibilities and coordination of project parties, phases, or physical entities which
are interdependent (Nooteboom, 2004).
Some approaches were developed to address interface issues within
construction projects and were implemented within different pilot projects. IM was
used on a five billion dollar oil and gas recovery and processing project in the United
Arab Emirates to monitor and control organizational interface points (Collins et al.,
2010). A Design Interface Management System (DiMS) was developed to help with
the creation of dependency structure matrices (DSMs) for planning and managing the
design of a glass factory (Senthilkumar et al., 2010). In addition, a series of tools
which can be applied to a broad range of interface types have been developed and
tested. A few examples include: (1) a multilevel interface matrix and web-matrix
based interface management (WMIM) system which was implemented by a
Taiwanese contractor on a high-tech building project (Siao and Lin, 2012), (2) an
interface object model (IOM) framework to systematically define the data structure of
interface information to deal with intense complexity, which was tested by managing
physical interface objects for a foundation wall installation (Chen et al., 2010), (3) a
work breakdown structure (WBS) matrix based management system to increase
communication and transparency surrounding interfaces which was used on a 35 km
long mass rapid transit (MRT) line in Singapore (Chua and Godinot, 2006), (4) a
network based interface maps (NBIM) approach for improving construction processes
and minimizing rework and total project duration which was applied on a Taiwanese
construction office building project (Lin, 2009), and (5) a generalized process-based
approach for IM in mega projects which is being developed (Shokri et al., 2012) .
Although there are some systematic approaches to IM, their flexibility, and therefore
their lack of application specificity impedes their widespread adoption.
As part of a research program to identify, standardize and establish the
definitions and best practices of IM, sponsored by the Construction Industry Institute
(CII), this study will deliver an analysis of the current state of IM in construction
mega projects.
RESEARCH METHOD
Taking into account the increasing scale and complexity of capital projects
and the necessity of effective management of several stakeholders throughout the
project life cycle, IM practices seems to be a growing field in construction industry.
2268
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014
To address this increasing need, a Research Team (RT 302) is initiated within the
Construction Industry Institute (CII) in 2012, including seventeen industrial experts,
representing owners and contractors, and four academic team members. The objective
of RT 302 is to investigate the potential answers to this essential question:
“What practices, techniques, and processes are most effective for improving
the critical interfaces among globally dispersed project teams, multiple project
partners, and an increasingly diverse labour force?”
To address this question, the first step of the research was to define a set of
fundamental definitions for IM in construction industry. Then, the current state of IM
in constructions projects was studied through developing a comprehensive
questionnaire and preforming several face to face and phone interviews.
Interface Management Definition
Despite the growing need for IM practices in mega construction projects, there
are no commonly agreed-upon definitions for IM and its elements. Therefore, the first
effort of this research study was to develop the fundamental definitions for different
elements of IM, which are listed as follows:
 Interface Management: Interface Management is the management of
communications, relationships, and deliverables among two or more
interface stakeholders.
 Interface Stakeholders: A stakeholder involved in a formal interface
management agreement within an interface management plan for a project.
 Interface/Interface Point (IP): An interface point is a soft and/or hard
contact point between two interdependent interface stakeholders. An
interface point is also a definition of part of the project’s scope split as
defined by project documents.
 Interface Agreement (IA): A formal and documented communication
between two interface stakeholders, including the deliverable description,
need dates, and required actions.
 Interface Action Items (IAI): Interface action are the tasks/activities that
are performed to provide the agreement deliverables defined in each
interface agreement.
Figure 3 illustrates the hierarchy and relation between elements of an IM
system (Shokri et al. 2011).
Data Gathering
Once the IM definitions are defined, to address the proposed essential
question, the team collected useful data from diverse case projects with and without
formal IM. For data gathering purpose, a questionnaire was developed. The first part
of questionnaire is dedicated to collecting the projects’ general information, and the
second part is for studying the status of these projects with respect to IM practices, if
they adopt IM. Otherwise, the projects are studied according to their general practices
to identify the mutual expectations, liaison with project schedule and conflict
resolution around them. The research team interviewed 37 projects so far, from
different sectors of the industry, with various sizes, organizational structures and
2269
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014
2270
geographical distributions. Fifteen (41%) of these projects adopted formal IM
practices within their management processes.
Figure 3. Hierarchy of Interface Management Elements
Projects General Characteristics and IM Adoption
The interviewed projects were studied according to several characteristics,
such as project nature and type, number of execution locations, prime contractors and
interface stakeholders. Then, the correlation of these factors and IM adoption was
investigated. The majority of interviewed projects were greenfield projects (69%),
from different construction sectors, including building and industrial sectors.
However, a descriptive analysis of interview results illustrated the projects with
formal IM were all from the industrial sector, including oil exploration/production, oil
refining, metals refining/processing, and power generation (Figure 4). It should be
noted that some projects fall into more than one category.
9
8 (73%)
8 (89%)
IM Adoption by Project Type
8
7
Don't Practice IM
1 (100%)
1 (100%)
1 (100%)
3 (27%)
1 (100%)
2 (67%)
3 (100%)
2 (100%)
1 (33%)
2
1(100%)
3
1 (11%)
3 (60%)
4
2 (40%)
5
1
Nuclear
Environmental
Control System
Mining
Oil
Exploration/Produc
tion
Dam
Metals
refining/Processing
Natural Gas
Processing
Staduim
Power Generation
Oil Refining
0
Chemical Mfg
Number of Projects
Practice IM
6
Figure 4. IM Adoption With Respect To Project Type
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014
2271
These projects were also studied according to their entire dollar value. In
general, the projects ranged from $100 million to over $10 billion. However, the
analysis of interview results illustrated that almost 90% of the projects with formal
IM have values over one billion dollars (Figure 5). It should be noted that some
projects did not report their cost due to proprietary reasons.
IM Adoption by Project Dollar Value
10 (77%)
12
8 (89%)
7 (88%)
8
Practice IM
6
1 (11%)
2
2 (100%)
4
3 (23%)
3 (100%)
Don't Practice IM
1 (12%)
Number of Projects
10
0
<$500M
$500-$1B
$1B-$5B
Value ($)
$5B-$10B
>$10B
Figure 5. IM Adoption With Respect To Entire Project Dollar Value
The correlation analysis also showed that project dollar value was highly
correlated with adoption of formal IM (Table 1). Furthermore, project dollar value
was positively correlated with the number of stakeholders and the number of prime
contractors, and the projects with formal IM were generally more complex in terms of
their organizational structure, geographical distribution, number of involved interface
stakeholders and prime contractors.
Number of
Interface
Stakeholders
Number of
Prime
Contractors
Project Dollar Value
IM Adoption
Table 1. Correlation between Project Dollar Value, Characteristics, and IM Adoption
0.6391
0.4712
0.3462
1.
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
2. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Projects Interface Complexity and Risk Factors and IM Adoption
The team identified 17 characteristics that contribute to the interface
complexity and risk of the projects. These factors are: cost, schedule, scope,
execution risk, Joint Ventures, technology, large (or Excessive) number of suppliers /
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014
2272
subcontractors, multiple engineering centers, government, multiple EPCs, purchase of
engineered items, multiple languages, lack of previous experience of collaboration
with one or more of other contactors, use of dissimilar design codes and software
packages for design documents/drawings between contractors, poorly-defined battery
limits, requirements and responsibilities of the involved parties.
Throughout the interviews, these factors were ranked by the interviewees in
terms of their contribution to the interface complexity and risk of their projects. In
general, cost, schedule, execution risk, scope and poorly defined requirements of the
involved parties were considered the top five ones. However, the detailed descriptive
analysis of these factors illustrated two significant factors which were ranked
differently by the companies who practiced formal IM versus the ones who didn’t:
 Multiple EPCs: this factor was ranked higher value with the companies
with formal IM. Therefore, it could be considered as an important
factor to implement IM, with the objective of reducing the project
interface complexity and risk.
 Lack of previous experience of collaboration with one or more of other
contactors: this factor was ranked higher value with the companies
without formal IM. This could indicate that by implementing an IM
practice in a project, the involved stakeholders have more formalized
channels of communication and collaboration, rather than only relying
on previous working experience with each other.
Figure 6 illustrates the descriptive analysis of important interface complexity
and risk factors, according to the projects with and without formal IM.
Contribution to Interface Complexity and Risk - With Formal IM vs. Without Formal IM
9
8
Average contribution
7
6
5
4
3
2
Practice IM
Don't Practice IM
1
poorly defined responsibilities
poorly defined requirements
poorly defined battery limits
use of dissimilar design codes
Lack of previous experience
multiple languages
Multiple EPC
government
Tech
Exec. Risk
scope
schedule
cost
0
ProjectInterface Complexity and Risk Factors
Figure 6. Contribution to Interface Complexity and Risk of Project
IM Implementation
IM Attributes
Industry leaders in construction mega projects believe that IM aims to
improve alignment between parties and reduce project issues and conflicts
(Archibald, 1992). Different attributes of an IM system assist achieving this objective.
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014
2273
These factors are listed here, with respect to the importance ranked by the
interviewees:
 Definition of deliverables
 Definition of roles and responsibilities
 Quality and Clarity of information flow
 Timely flow of information
 Agreeable deadlines
 Managed collaboration
 Responsibility allocation
 Knowledge exchange
 Traceability
IM Implementation Phase
The early implementation of IM helps the projects to identify potential risk
sources and mitigate them. The interviewed projects were studied according to their
representative life cycle (Figures 1 and 2), and the phase that IM should be
implemented. Table 2 shows the summary of analysis. According to the analysis,
majority of interviewed project had fast track life cycle, and Front End Planning
(FEP), which includes feasibility, concept and detailed scope, was the most selected
phase to adopt IM, identify interface points, identify and assign roles and
responsibilities accordingly.
Concept
Detailed Scope
Design
Construction
Commissioning
& Start-up
Operation
Linear life cycle (22%)
Fast Track life cycle (78%)
Feasibility
Table 2. Summary of Interview Results on IM initiation Phase
12%
10%
44%
35%
33%
34%
11%
14%
0%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
CONCLUSION
Although Interface Management is a growing paradigm in mega project
management practices, there are not agreed-upon definitions nor well-defined
processes. As part of a research program to identify and establish the definitions and
best practices of IM, a Research team (RT 302) is founded including several
industrial and academic team members to address this issue by studying the current
state of IM in construction industry. For this purpose, the team developed a
questionnaire and interviewed 37 projects, considering the project general
characteristics, interface complexity and risk factors, and their impact on adopting
formal IM in the project. The analysis of interview results illustrated that IM was
mainly implemented in industrial projects. In addition, formal IM was more often
adopted in projects with higher value, with more complex organizational structure.
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014
Throughput the interview, several factors that may affect the project interface
complexity and risk were also studied. According to the interviewees, cost, schedule,
execution risk, scope, and the poorly defined requirement were the top 5 factors.
In addition to defining the elements of IM and their inter-relationships, several
attributes of a formal IM practice were identified: definition of deliverables,
definition of roles and responsibilities, quality and clarity of information flow, timely
flow of information, agreeable deadlines, managed collaboration, responsibility
allocation, knowledge exchange and traceability. Finally, according to consolidation
of interview results, the most common selected stage to implement IM was FEP,
during the concept sub-phase.
Through the in-depth analysis of interview results, the team will provide a tool
to define the maturity level of IM at the organization and project level and best
practices at each level. In addition, the relation between project performance and IM
adoption will be investigated. One of the limitations of this study was to find projects
at appropriate stage of their life-cycle to study their IM processes and its correlation
with project performance.
REFERENCES
Alarcon, L. F. and Mardones, D. A. (1998). “Improving the design-construction
interface.” Proc., IGLC ’98 , (http://www.iglc.net) (June 11, 2013).
Al-Hammad, A.M. (2000). “Common interface problems among various construction
parties”. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 14(2), 71-74.
Archibald, R. D. (1992). “Managing high-technology programs and projects. (2nd
ed., pp. 330-339). New York: Wiley.
Bogus, S., Diekmann, J. E., & Molenaar, K. R. (2002). “A methodology to
reconfigure the design-construction interface for fast-track projects”.
Computing in Civil Engineering, 258-272. doi: 10.1061/40652(2003)22.
Caglar, J., & Connolly, M. (2007). “Interface management: Effective information
exchange through improved communication”. ABB value paper series, (1163)
Chen, Q., Reichard, G., & Beliveau, Y. (2010). “Object model framework for
interface modelling and it-oriented interface management”. Journal of
construction engineering and management, 136(2), 187-198.
Chen, Q., Reichard, G., Beliveau, Y. (2007). "Interface management-a facilitator of lean
495 construction and agile project management." Proc., Lean Construction: A New
Paradigm for 496 Managing Capital Projects - 15th IGLC Conference, , 57-66.
Chua, D. K. H., & Godinot, M. (2006). “Use of a WBS matrix to improve interface
management in projects”. Journal of construction engineering and
management, 132(1), 67-79. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:1(67).
CII, R. (2006). “Break the Rules and Pay the Price,” RS213-1 Front End Planning,
Construction 502 Industry Institute (CII).
Collins, R., Durham, R., Fayek, R., Zeid, W. (2010). “Interface Management in
Complex Projects”. Petroleum Technology Quarterly, 15(2), 27-35.
Fellows, R. W., & Liu, A. M. M. (2012). “Managing organizational interfaces in
engineering construction projects: Addressing fragmentation and boundary
issues across multiple interfaces”. Construction Management and Economics,
30(8), 653-671.
Healy, P. L. (1997). “Project Management: Getting the job done on time and in
2274
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014
budget”. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hundertmark, T., do Valle Silva, A. O., and Shulman, J. A. (2008). “Managing
capital projects for competitive advantage”. The McKinsey Quarterly, June.
Lin, Y. (2012). "Construction Network-Based Interface Management System." Autom.
Constr., 517 30, 228-241.
Lin, Y. (2009). “Developing construction network-based interface management
system”. Construction Research Congress, 477-486. doi:
10.1061/41020(339)49.
Morris, P. W. (1983). "Managing Project Interfaces–key Points for Project Success."
Project 522 Management Handbook, 2, 16-55.
Nooteboom, U. (2004). “Interface Management Improves on-Time, on-Budget
Delivery of Megaprojects”. JPT Online.Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Pavitt, T. C., and Gibb, A. G. F. (2003). “Interface Management within Construction:
In Particular, Building Façade”. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 129(1), 8-15.
Senthilkumar, V., Varghese, K., & Chandran, A. (2010). “A web-based system for
design interface management of construction projects”. Automation in
Construction, 19(2), 197-212.
Shirley, R. R., and James, H. (2006). “Complex Projects Need Coordination”. Hart's
E & P, 79(10), 83-85.
Shokri, S., Safa, M., Haas, C. T., Haas, R. C. G., Maloney, K., MacGillivray, S.
(2012). 534 "Interface management model for mega capital projects." Proc.,
Construction Research 535 Congress 2012: Construction Challenges in a Flat
World, Proceedings of the 2012 Construction 536 Research Congress, 447-456.
537.
Shokri, S., Safa, M., Haas, C.T., Haas, R.C.G. (2011). “A Conceptual Framework to
Improve Information and Process Management in the Execution of Capital
Projects”. 3rd International/9th Construction Specialty Conference, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada June 14-17, 2011.
Siao, F., & Lin, Y. (2012). “Enhancing construction interface management using
multilevel interface matrix approach”. Journal of civil engineering and
management, 18(1), 133-144.
Stuckenbruck, L. C. (1988). "Integration: The Essential Function of Project
Management." 546 Project Management Handbook, , 56-81.
Wren, D. A. (1967). “Interface and interorganisation coordination”. The Academy of
Management Journal, 10(1): 69-81.
Yun, S., Mulva, S. P., & O'Brien, W. J. (2012). “A quantitative approach for
measuring managerial interfaces in the development of a capital project”.
Construction
Research
Congress,
1410-1419.
doi:
10.1061/9780784412329.142.
2275