CII RT 211:
Effective Use of the
Global Engineering Workforce
IMPLEMENTATION SESSION
Moderator
Karl E. Seil
Stone & Webster, A Shaw Group Co.
CII Annual Conference 2005
CII Research Team 211 Members
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Robert J. Beaker - General Motors Corporation (co-chair)
Karl E. Seil - Stone & Webster, A Shaw Group Co. (co-chair)
Hector Brouwer de Koning - Black & Veatch
Dennis Chastain - Mustang Engineers & Constructors, L.P.
Chuan ‘Victor’ Chen - Pennsylvania State University
Gregory Gould - Burns & McDonnell
John Hackney - Nova Chemicals Corporation
Lona Hankins - ConocoPhillips
Robert E. Houghtaling - DuPont Engineering
George Joseph - Pennsylvania State University
Aivars E. Krumins - ABB Lummus Global
John I. Messner - Pennsylvania State University
James B. Mynaugh - Rohm and Haas Company
Batuk Patel - The Dow Chemical Co.
Matthew J. Petrizzo - Washington Group International
Reinhard Pratt - AMEC, Inc.
Gerald A. Schacht - Abbott Laboratories
Bruce A. Strupp – Perot Systems
H. Randolph Thomas - Pennsylvania State University
Todd White - Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
Panel Members
Local
Remote
Dr. John Messner
Marcel Prunaiche
Assistant Professor, Arch. Engr.
Penn State University
Managing Director
Washington Group International
Romanian Operations Center
Bucharest, Romania
Lona Hankins
Project Team Leader
ConocoPhillips.
Belle Chasse, LA
Todd White
Engineering Manager
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
St. Louis, MO
Aivars Krumins
V.P. – Engineering / Procurement
ABB Lummus Global
Houston, TX
Pooran Tripathi
Managing Director,
Stone & Webster, Rolta Ltd. (SWRL)
Mumbai, India
Definition
A Global Virtual Engineering Team (GVET) is a
group of geographically dispersed engineers
that needs to overcome:
• Space and Time issues,
• Function and Organizational barriers, and
• National, and Cultural differences
Brief RT 211 Chronology
• Kickoff Meeting – March 2004
• Survey – April – June, 2004
– Total number of survey responses: 47
• 19 Owner and 28 EPC individuals submitted surveys
– Companies: 33
• 13 Owners and 20 EPC companies
• In-Depth Interviews (21 total) – June – August, 2004
– Domestic: 17 managers
– Foreign office interviews: 4 managers
• Detailed Case Study – July - August 2004
– 5 projects within one CII company
• GVET Planner Development – August 2004 – March 2005
– 2 Focus Group Meetings to Validate Framework
Objectives
1. Determine driving factors for GVET.
2. Determine current status of GVETs, tools, and work
processes.
3. Define criteria for successful GVET adoption and
lessons learned from past experiences.
Develop a planning tool for global
engineering work force establishment and
maintenance.
GVET Planner Demo
Panel Members
Local
Dr. John Messner
Assistant Professor, Arch. Engr.
Penn State University
Remote
Marcel Prunaiche
Managing Director
Washington Group International
Romanian Operations Center
Bucharest, Romania
Lona Hankins
Project Team Leader
ConocoPhillips.
Belle Chasse, LA
Todd White
Engineering Manager
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
St. Louis, MO
Aivars Krumins
V.P. – Engineering / Procurement
ABB Lummus Global
Houston, TX
Pooran Tripathi
Managing Director,
Stone & Webster, Rolta Ltd. (SWRL)
Mumbai, India
Drivers of GVET
Owner
EPC
Total
Rank
Rank
Rank
Need to reduce engineering service cost
1
1
1
Competition
7
2
2
Global customers or local customers
6
3
3
Locate services close to the project location
2
7
4
Reduce the engineering schedule
4
6
5
Expand detailing work for same cost
5
8
6
Drivers
Success & Failure Factors
Success Factors
Failure Factors
Clear & frequent communication,
periodic face-to-face meetings (16)
Lack poor communication, lack of
face-to-face meetings (19)
Good communication tools & IT
compatibility (15)
Lack of understanding of local
work practices, cultural
differences, and/or language issues
(14)
Standard work processes and
communication procedures (11)
Lack of management involvement
& experienced leadership (9)
Clearly defined scope &
expectations (10)
Changes (goal, scope), slow
response to change (8)
Clearly defined roles &
responsibilities (9)
Incompatible or poor technology,
including hardware and software
(7)
Impact of GVET on Project
Typical Impact on:
Owner
EPC
Majority Opinion
Engineering Cost
50.0 %
46.1 %
More than 10%
reduction
Construction Cost
71.4 %
79.1 %
No impact
Engineering Time
57.1 %
40.0 %
No impact
Overall Project Delivery
Time
57.1 %
60.0 %
No impact
Engineering Quality
57.1 %
72.0 %
No impact
Construction Quality
64.2 %
79.1 %
No impact
Impact of GVET
For projects performed by your company with Global Virtual Engineering
Teams, what is the typical impact on:
OWNER
EPC
more than
10%
increase
0-10%
increase
Same
0-10%
reduction
more than
10%
reduction
more than
10% increase
0-10%
increase
Same
0-10%
reduction
more than
10%
reduction
7.1
0
7.1
35.7
50.0
0
3.8
7.6
42.3
46.1
CONSTRUCTION
COST
0
7.1
71.4
14.2
7.1
0
0
79.1
20.8
0
ENGINEERING TIME
0
7.1
57.1
28.5
7.1
4.0
28.0
40.0
20.0
8.0
OVERALL PROJECT
DELIVERY TIME
0
14.2
57.1
28.5
0
0
4.0
60.0
32.0
4.0
7.1
14.2
57.1
21.4
0
4.0
8.0
72.0
16.0
0
0
21.4
64.2
14.2
0
4.1
16.6
79.1
0
0
ENGINEERING COST
ENGINEERING
QUALITY
CONSTRUCTION
QUALITY
Panel Discussion / Q & A
Local
Remote
Dr. John Messner
Marcel Prunaiche
Assistant Professor, Arch. Engr.
Penn State University
Managing Director
Washington Group International
Romanian Operations Center
Bucharest, Romania
Lona Hankins
Project Team Leader
ConocoPhillips.
Belle Chasse, LA
Todd White
Engineering Manager
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
St. Louis, MO
Aivars Krumins
V.P. – Engineering / Procurement
ABB Lummus Global
Houston, TX
Pooran Tripathi
Managing Director,
Stone & Webster, Rolta Ltd. (SWRL)
Mumbai, India
Experience of Survey Participants
• Greater than 5 years of personal experience with global virtual engineering teams:
Owner: 15.7%
EPC: 55.5%
• Greater than 5 years of company experience with global virtual engineering teams:
Owner: 52.6%
EPC: 62.9%
• Companies with more than US$100 million size projects executed with global
engineering teams:
Owner: 47.3%
EPC: 55.5%
• Owner: 57.8% use global VT on many projects
EPC: 66.6% use global VT on many projects
• Plans to increase implementation of global virtual teaming:
Owner: 68.7%
EPC: 92.5%
Team Dynamics / Commitment
•
74% of EPC respondents have permanent domestic & overseas engineering
design offices participating in global virtual teaming.
•
How does global VT impact the “team” feeling for individuals who are
geographically isolated from the majority of the group?
Owner  73.3% responded as ‘feel LESS like an integrated team’
EPC  68.0% responded as ‘feel LESS like an integrated team’
•
Team members have less trust:
Owner  57.1%
EPC  61.5%
•
Does a Global VT increase the time spent by your project management team on
the project?
Owner  42.8% responded ‘yes’
Range: 25%, 20%, 15+%, 15%, 10%, 3-5%
EPC  77.7% responded ‘yes’
Range: 75%, 40%, 20%, 15%, 10%, 5%, 2%
Technology
OWNER
Result
Responses Percentage
EPC
Responses
Percentage
E-mail
15
93.7%
27
100.0%
FTP
5
31.2%
16
59.2%
Video-Conferencing
11
68.7%
21
77.7%
Web-Conferencing
10
62.5%
15
55.5%
Virtual Private Networking
4
25.0%
16
59.2%
Project Specific Websites
10
62.5%
22
81.4%
Applications for
Simultaneous Remote
Collaboration
5
31.2%
17
62.9%
Common Repositories for
Project Information
14
87.5%
20
74.0%
Knowledge Management
Systems, e.g.: lesson
learned databases
6
37.5%
18
66.6%