The Knowledge Leader for Project Success
Owners ■ Contractors • Academics
Interface Management
An Emerging Project Management Discipline
Justin Goodman, Jacobs
SangHyun Lee, University of Michigan
Todd LaBar, Air Products
2014 Cll Annual Conference
July 21-23 • Indianapolis, Indiana
Research Team 302 - Interface Management
Seungjun Ahn, U of Michigan (new Ph.D.)
Alexandre Rocha Do Nascimento, Petrobras
Paul Burroughs, Ontario Power Generation
Marty Reibold, UPS Corp.
Matt Cage, Alstom Power
Samin Shokri, U of Waterloo (new Ph.D.)
Justin Goodman, Jacobs
Chris Smith, Architect of the Capitol
Carl Haas, U of Waterloo
Tim Swenk, McDermott International
Jeff Hocke, Lauren Engineers & Constructors
James Thorne, WorleyParsons
Brian Johnson, Wood Group Mustang
Paul Tompkins, Coreworx Inc.
Todd LaBar**, Air Products
Paul Van DerMerwe, Tenova Bateman SA
SangHyun Lee, U of Michigan
Lynn Neil Wheatcraft*, Dresser-Rand
Debora Mello Ferreira, Petrobras
Menzies Wilson, Smithsonian Institution
* Chair
** Vice Chair
Learning Objectives
• Learning about Interface Management (IM)
- What is Interface Management?
- Why IM?
- What level of IM is appropriate for a project or organization?
• Understanding research findings
Introducing available IM products and tools
What is “Interface Management”
•An idea?
•An industry norm?
A set of standards and practices?
Have you heard of Interface
Management or its practice?
A. Yes
B. No
0%
0%
Does your knowledge of IM
align with that of your clients,
partners, contractors, and/or
competitors?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not Sure
0%
Does your company employ
formal Interface Management
practices and procedures?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not Sure
0%
0%
0%
What is “Interface Management”
“Interface Management is the management
of communications, relationships, and
deliverables among two or more interface
stakeholders”
CH Research Team 302, 2014
Types of Interfaces
• Soft Interface: Exchange of
information between delivery
teams or between delivery team
and external party or language
and cultural aspects.
Interface Point at Flanged Joint
Interface Stakeholder B
Interface Stakeholder A
Hard Interface: Physical
relationship between two or more
components or systems.
Interface Management Hierarchy
Owner
Contract
Scope
Insurance
Certs
FEED Doc
Reporting
MOMs, Daily Reports,
Transmittals
Payment
Contractor
Battery Limit
Utility Tie-Ins
Physical
Boundary
Location
Data
Network of Interface Stakeholders
interface Stakeholders
Interface Points (IPs)
21 IPs
5 IPs
32 IPs
10 IPs
18 IPs
12 IPs
10 IPs
13 IPs
8 IPs
Thickness of edges is associated with number of IPs between interface stakeholders.
What is “Interface Management”
“Interface Management is the
management of communications,
relationships, and deliverables
among two or more interface
stakeholders”
CH Research Team 302, 2014
Why Interface Management?
“What has happened in the industry
to necessitate IM?”
Why IM?
• Dimensions of Complexity
Level of
Complexity
- Geographic spread of execution centers
- Level of advanced technologies
- Numbers of stakeholders or project participants
Medium
- Project delivery methods
- Fast-tracked projects
• Risk Management
- Each interface represents a potential risk
Low
Do your projects mostly
involve a simple relationship
between two parties, OR
multiple parties with varying
levels of interest/impact on
project outcome?
o%
A. Simple
B. Not Simple
A.
0%
B.
Do you expect level of
complexity on your projects
to increase or decrease
over next 10 years?
A. Increase
B. Decrease
C. Stay the Same
0%
0%
A,
B,
0%
Less or Least Complex - Project Team Co-located
A Little More Complex - Same Team, Different Offices
Three Interface Stakeholders
Three Communication Channels
: Fragmented information communicated via telecommunication
(phone, email, etc.)
More Complex - Add One More Stakeholder
Four Interface Stakeholders
Six Communication Channels
Even More Complex - Add Two More Stakeholders
Six Interface Stakeholders
15 Communication Channels, Multiple Interface Points per Channel
What If...?
Structural Engineer
Owner
Electrical Engineer
-
Lead Engineer
Mechanical Engineer
15 Communication Channels
Increasing Complexity Due to Compressed Schedule
FEP
Desig
Construction
Linear Project Schedule
Commissioningr
& Startup (C&S)
Operation
FEP
Desi
Construction
C&S
Compressed Project Schedule
Operation
Have multiple locations,
languages, or cultural
differences affected
complexity of your
projects?
0%
A. Yes
B. No
A.
B.
On average, how many
execution locations are
involved in your projects?
A. Less than 5
B. 5 - 1 0
C. More than 10
0%
0%
0%
Darlington Nuclear Generating Station
four-units / n e t o u t p u t o f 3,512 megawatts ( M W J
Ontario Hydro - Owner (Toronto)
Ontario Hydro (Construction)
Atomic Energy of Canada - Reactor
Design (Mississauga)
Ontario Hydro - Design/Engineering
Management (Toronto)
ABB - Turbine/Generator Supply
(Scarborough)
Globally Dispersed Project Execution
l
90’N
-NPC
-60
Engineering
(ingenierie)
p*
-30 ’ N
Module Fabrication -NT
5 si)
Engineering
-is*s
-ST
-30
Fabrication
(fabricagao)
-45*$
■60*5
SPC
■ H * I1 1JLJIHooted information communicated via telecommunication (phone, email, etc.)
18<V%
150°W
120°W
9 0 °W
60°W
30°W
0°
30°E
60 &E
90 *E
120°E
150°E
180°E
What complexity factor
most warrants FORMAL
IM practices?
A. Multiple geographic locations
B. New or advanced technologies
C. Multiple owners, contractors,
and/or sub-contractors
D. New geographic location
E. Fast track schedule
0%
o%
A,
B,
o%
o%
D.
Which of these is the best
means to communicate
critical interface information
with another stakeholder?
A. Fax
B. Phone call
C. Meeting where both took notes
o% o% o% o% o%
D. Email exchange
A.
E. Written agreement in standard form
B.
C.
D.
E.
Complexity Curve
Urr nwcwcy
i_ cotAfuexrri
Formal Interface Management
• Interface Management Personnel
• IM Procedures & Practices
• Standardized Interface Agreement Forms
• IM Specific Software
IM - An Emerging Project Management Discipline
Project Management: 1950s
Project Controls: 1960s
Quality Management: 1970s
Risk Management: 1980s
IM: 2000s
Research Methodology
Literature W Focus
Review ■ J Group
Questionnaire P i Pilot P i Structured P i Data P i Tools &
Development M Survey M
Interview M Analysis M Guide
• Literature Review
- Previous CH reports, Interface Management in construction & other disciplines.
• Structured Interview (facilitated with Survey Questionnaire)
- Use of face-to-face or phone interviews
- Total 46 Projects (representing over $150 Billion in CAPEX)
□ Informal IM
N>
—L
IM Formality and Project Size
■ Formal I M
co
—L
o
ro
# of Projects
o
10
<$500M
$500-$1B
S1B-$5B
$5B-$10B
>$10B
Project Dollar Value
Formal IM more prevalent in projects of higher $ value
IM Formality and Project Delivery Strategy
U1
18
O1
-*■
O
10
O
# of Projects
to
O
to
U1
□ Informal IM ■ Formal IM
DBB
DB
EPCM
EPC
Others
Project Delivery Strategies
EPC & EPCM most common delivery strategies with Formal IM
IM Formality among Interface Stakeholders
□ Informal IM
■ Formal IM
14
10
1-5
5-15
>15
# of Interface Stakeholders
IM is more prevalent on projects with more stakeholders
Project Characteristics Correlation
w i t h I M Implementation
Project Size
# Interface Stakeholders
(0.33)
# JVs/Owners
(0.24)
<<Locations
k(0.14)
Ml
Correlation
(0.56)
IM Implementation vs. Project Phase
Sequential Project Phasing
12%
Feasibility
Concept
Detailed
Scope
88%
Feasibility
Concept
Detailed
Scope
Design
Commissioning &
Start-up
Construction
Operation
Design
Construction
Commissioning & Start-up
Operation
Parallel Project Phasing
Start IM at Concept and Detailed Scope Phase
IM Implementation vs. Project Cost Growth
2.00
Formal IM Projects Had Lower Mean of Cost Growth &
Less Standard Deviation
1 50
Cost Growth
p=0.25
1 00
16
4
50
oo
-.50
Mean: 0.18
Standard Deviation: 0.38
Mean: 0.04
Standard Deviation: 0.16
Informal IM (n=27)
Formal IM <n=10)
Globally Dispersed Project Execution
L
9 0 ,JN
-75 *N
-NPC
-60 *N
-45 *N
Ingenierie
-30 *N
-NT
(Engineering)
Construction Site
(Module Fabrication
-o*
3rfJNifa|<£l
(Engineering)
Fabrica?ao
(Fabrication)
-
-15 * S
J.
-ST
-30*3
-45*3
-60*3
-SPC
-75 *3
1 5 0 °W
1 2 0 °W
90
6 0 °W
3 0 °W
0
30
60*E
9 0° E
120°E
150 °E
'90*3
180 *E
Formal Interface Management
• Interface Management Personnel
• IM Procedures & Practices
• Standardized Interface Agreement Forms
• IM Specific Software
Tools Developed b y RT 302
• Interface Management Implementation Guide (IMIGe)
- Project Interface Risk-Impact (PIRI) Matrix
- Interface Complexity Assessment Tool (ICAT)
- IM Maturity Tool
- IM Implementation Roadmap
LOW
FORMAL IM
interface Manager
IM SpreadSheel
□
I M Commercial Software
Integrate wr Schedule
1
integrate w, Change Mgrrt
Integrate wr Rtsk Mgnl
INFORMAL IM
MEDIUM
•O
••
••
nlerfarft M g i
LOW
Interface Manger
IM Spreadsheet
IM Commercial Software
Integrate w/ Change Mgmt
Integrate w Risk Mgmt
LOW
1
FORMAL IM
IM S p i endsheel
■w spreadsheet
W Ccimrwo# Sottwfirrj
nlegiate w Stfiedute
Inteyriite w' SctedJa
■grate w' Change Mqn'l
Inteqiale w- Charge kVnfl
teqrate w ’Risk Moml
Integrate w ' Risk Mgmt
interlace hfard
integrate
Interface Manager
Set
Integrate w.‘ Chant
IM Spreadsheet
Integrate w Risk
interface Mr
IM Commercial Software
I M Spreads!!
Integrate w/ Schedule
IM Commercial 5
MEHJtetew.' SC/
Integrate
•3
MOST FORMAL I M
IM s p n a t m
IM Ccmmeicial S
MORE FOR
*
>
o
Integrate w/ Change Mgmt
Chant
Integrate w 1 Risk
Integrate w/ Risk Mgmt
INFORMAL IM
0
IM Spreadsheel
»
Commercial Software
0
rtegrate uw SciteAfe
0
flrataw.'CMmosMortit 0
teyttee w- Risk Msjrtl
0
O
U Speadsheei
»
H Gonimercjai Software
O
integrate w,' Schetttie
O
Ntgrafa wi chanoeMann &
LOW
MEDIUM
Interface Manger
Integrate w/ Schedule
•
o
W Commercial Software
•
Integrate wf ScbecMe
•
Inlegrale w> Charge Mtrrfl •
Integrate w Risk Mgmt
•
At SpttadBhrW*
Interface M g i
HIGH
MOST FOfd
literfacc Mnnagci
Gomnwraal Scflwant
LEAST FORMAL IM
HlGh
MORE FORMAL IM
Interface Manager
Heonte w/ Risk Munn
interlace Manager
»
O
Megrare w sofieduie
•
integrate w Change Mgmt •
kileurttie w Risk Mgrri
•
IM Spreadsheel
IM n fjnmarcial Software
HIGH
PROJECT / BUSINESS IMPACT
•
(2
•
•
•
•
HIGH
3MPLEXITY RISK
PIRI Matrix
ICAT*
* Interactive Spreadsheet
Supporting Question for Interface Influencing Factor
Interface
Weighting
Rating
Score
1
Have these organizations interfaced before?
10%
0
0.00
2
How many of the individuals involved have interfaced
before?
5%
1
0.05
3
Are both organizations comfortable with the
communication language?
5%
1
0.05
4
Do individuals have different cultural backgrounds?
5%
2
0.10
5
How many hours difference in geographical time zones
between locations?
4%
2
0.08
Interface Management Implementation Guide (IMIGe)
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 ; Executive Summary
3
Chapter 2 : Introduction
4
Chapter3 : What Is Interface Management?
9
Chapter 4 How Do You Determine the Appropriate Level of IM Implementation for Your
Project and/or Organization?
_ ________ _______ _ _____ _ _15
Chapter 5 : What Are the Requirements for Each Maturity and Implementation Level? 25
Chapter 6 : How Do We Implement IM?
Chapter? : Concluding Remarks..
34
.
.
.42
Chapters : References
43
Chapters : Appendices
.....45
IMIGe
Interlace Slafr*-
Interlat* Pnml
’effect
Wtrfacp
Apee rt 'IAi
Interlace Adtefi
Item |IAI},„
■' iTHfaceCoiiro
Dxumert'ikaRing
Irsertett
twfact
Ajfwment (IAi
Inter'Kfi
Ag-eemeifii*1
Summary of Tools Developed by RT 302
* Interface Management Implementation Guide (IMIGe)
- Project Interface Risk-Impact (PIRI) Matrix
- Interface Complexity Assessment Tool (ICAT)
- IM Maturity Tool
- IM Implementation Roadmap
Learning Objectives
• Learning about Interface Management (IM)
- What is Interface Management?
- Why IM?
- What level of IM is appropriate for a project or organization?
• Understanding research findings
Introducing available IM products and tools
What’s in It for Me?
• Industry established and recognized common language
• Clearer understanding of level of IM required
• Better IM likely relates to better project cost performance
• Earlier recognition of risks to facilitate mitigation
• Effective products and tools for immediate use
Wrapping Up
• RT 302’s exciting research on IM is only “the beginning”
• More complex projects require more formal IM
• Cost growth likely improves with formal IM
• All of our tools are now available from CH as your guide to IM
National Museum of African American History and Culture
Panel Discussion
Panel Experts for Audience Q&A
• Carl Haas - University of Waterloo
• Todd LaBar - Air Products (RT 302 Vice Chair)
• SangHyun Lee - University of Michigan
• Lynn Wheatcraft - Dresser-Rand (RT 302 Chair)
• Menzies Wilson - Smithsonian Institution