Interface Management
An Emerging Project Management Discipline
Justin Goodman, Jacobs
SangHyun Lee, University of Michigan
Todd LaBar, Air Products
2014 CII 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, URS 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 Der Merwe, 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?
0%
No
0%
Ye
s
A. Yes
B. No
Does your knowledge of IM
align with that of your clients,
partners, contractors, and/or
competitors?
0%
No
tS
ur
e
0%
No
0%
Ye
s
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not Sure
Does your company employ
formal Interface Management
practices and procedures?
0%
No
tS
ur
e
0%
No
0%
Ye
s
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not Sure
What is “Interface Management”
“Interface Management is the management
of communications, relationships, and
deliverables among two or more interface
stakeholders”
CII 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
• Hard Interface: Physical
relationship between two or more
components or systems.
Interface Stakeholder A
Interface Management Hierarchy
Owner
Contract
Scope
Insurance
Certs
FEED Doc
Reporting
MOMs, Daily Reports,
Transmittals
Contractor
Battery Limit
Payment
Physical
Boundary
Utility Tie-Ins
Location
Data
Network of Interface Stakeholders
Interface Stakeholders
Interface Points (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”
CII Research Team 302, 2014
Why Interface Management?
“What has happened in the industry
to necessitate IM?”
Why IM?
• Dimensions of Complexity
– Geographic spread of execution centers
Level of
Complexity
High
– 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?
0%
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%
A.
0%
B.
0%
C.
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
Design
Linear Project Schedule
Construction
Commissioning
& Startup (C&S)
FEP
Design
Construction
C&S
Compressed Project Schedule
Operation
Operation
Have multiple locations,
languages, or cultural
differences affected
complexity of your
projects?
0%
A. Yes
B. No
A.
0%
B.
On average, how many
execution locations are
involved in your projects?
A. Less than 5
B. 5 - 10
C. More than 10
Local Project Execution
Darlington Nuclear Generating Station
four-units /net output of 3,512 megawatts (MW)
Ontario Hydro – Owner (Toronto)
Ontario Hydro (Construction)
Atomic Energy of Canada – Reactor
Design (Mississauga)
Ontario Hydro – Design/Engineering
Management (Toronto)
25
ABB - Turbine/Generator Supply
(Scarborough)
Globally Dispersed Project Execution
Construction Site
Engineering
(ingénierie)
Module Fabrication
(모듈 조립)
Engineering
Fabrication
(fabricação)
(अभिय ांत्रिकी)
: Fragmented information communicated via telecommunication (phone, email, etc.)
26
What complexity factor
most warrants FORMAL
IM practices?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Multiple geographic locations
New or advanced technologies
Multiple owners, contractors,
and/or sub-contractors
New geographic location
Fast track schedule
0%
A.
0%
0%
B.
C.
0%
0%
D.
E.
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
0%
0%
0%
B.
C.
0%
0%
D.
E.
D. Email exchange
A.
E. Written agreement in standard form
Complexity Curve
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
Review
Focus
Group
Questionnaire
Development
Pilot
Survey
Structured
Interview
Data
Analysis
Tools &
Guide
• Literature Review
– Previous CII 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)
IM Formality and Project Size
Formal IM
Informal IM
12
10
# of Projects
10
8
8
8
6
6
4
5
3
2
3
1
1
0
<$500M
$500-$1B
$1B-$5B
$5B-$10B
>$10B
Project Dollar Value
Formal IM more prevalent in projects of higher $ value
IM Formality and Project Delivery Strategy
Formal IM
Informal IM
25
21
# of Projects
20
18
15
10
10
5
5
3
4
9
5
4
3
0
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
16
14
# of Projects
14
12
10
10
8
7
7
6
6
4
2
2
0
1-5
5-15
>15
# of Interface Stakeholders
IM is more prevalent on projects with more stakeholders
Project Characteristics Correlation
with IM Implementation
Project Size
# Interface Stakeholders
(0.33)
# JVs/Owners
(0.24)
# Locations
(0.14)
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
Formal IM Projects Had Lower Mean of Cost Growth &
Less Standard Deviation
sdfsdf
Cost Growth
p=0.25
Mean: 0.18
Standard Deviation: 0.38
Informal IM (n=27)
Mean: 0.04
Standard Deviation: 0.16
Formal IM (n=10)
Globally Dispersed Project Execution
Ingénierie
Construction Site
Fabricação
(Fabrication)
39
(Engineering)
모듈 조립
(Module Fabrication)
अभिय ांत्रिकी
(Engineering)
Formal Interface Management
• Interface Management Personnel
• IM Procedures & Practices
• Standardized Interface Agreement Forms
• IM Specific Software
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
PIRI Matrix
Project Interface Risk-Impact Matrix
ICAT*
* Interactive Spreadsheet
Interface Management Implementation Guide (IMIGe)
IMIGe
Interface Point at Flanged Joint
Interface Stakeholder B
Interface Stakeholder A
Feasibility
Establish pro
ject
viability
Concept (Pr
e-F
Develop projec
t
organization
EED)
Detailed Sc
oping
(FEED)
Detailed
Design/Eng
ineering Procurement
Constructio
Commission
n
ing and
Identify top
Start-up
stakeholders
Continue sta
keholder
identification
Develop WB
S
Develop IM stra
teg
the project (M y for Begin implementing
IP)
IM Update and
strategy
assess IM Up
Align / establ
date and ass
ish soft
strategy and
ess IM Condu
Align / establ
MIP
interface rela
ct formal
strategy and
ish soft
tionships
MIP
Implement spe
interface rela
lessons learne
cific IM Measu
tionships
d
re IM
procedures
Identify top-lev
Benchmark IM
el IPs
per
for
ma
nce
Identify hard
between WB
Evaluate IM
performance
IP's
S packages
Continue ide
performance
ntifying Co
ntinue identif
hard and sof
ying Contin
t IPs
ue identifying
hard and sof
t IPs
hard and sof
t IPs
Develop the
IA
Sta
rt
executing IAs
scheme
for Execute
hard and sof
IAs for hard
t IPs
Close out IAs
and soft IP's
for hard
and soft IPs
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 CII 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