CII 2015 Annual Conference
RT 311 - Successful Delivery of Flash Track Projects
Implementation Session
2015 CII Annual Conference
August 3–5 • Boston, Massachusetts
Implementation Panelists
Victor Galotti
Georgia Pacific
Keith Critzer
ExxonMobil
Rob Rainbolt
Burns & McDonnell
Pardis PishdadBozorgi
Georgia Tech
Mike Giambra
Matrix Service
Company
RT 311 - Successful Delivery of Flash Track Projects
1. Bob Kohlburn, MC Industrial
10. Larry Garrett, Phillips 66
2. Cleve Whitener, Lauren Engineers &
Constructors
11. Mike Giambra, Matrix Service Company
3. Dale Sullivan, S&B Engineers &
Constructors
4. Don Cahill, TVA
12. Pardis Pishdad-Bozorgi, Georgia Tech
13. Rob Rainbolt, Burns & McDonnell
5. Marty Gamble, Alstom
14. Robert Austin, Georgia Tech
6. Jesse Gyöngyös, ExxonMobil
15. Ron Reynolds, Yates Construction
7. Jesus M. de la Garza, Virginia Tech
16. Travis Oates, ATC
8. John Strickland, CH2M Hill
17. Victor Galotti, Georgia Pacific
9. Keith Critzer, ExxonMobil
Our Objectives For the Implementation
Discuss what Flash Track is – And why do it
1.
–
–
–
2.
Industry Barriers
A Call For Action!
Case Studies: What Great Looks Like
Report the findings to successfully deliver Flash Track
–
–
–
The Re-engineered Delivery Strategy
47 Essential Practices to Implement
Flash Track Tool
Earn your trust and credibility – The Research Methodology
3.
–
–
–
Data Collection Process
Data Analysis Process
External Validation
What is Flash Track?
This research team defines it as:
“A time-driven project which by necessity requires a
heightened degree of concurrency between Engineering,
Procurement and Construction.”
Flash Track: A Much Needed Clarification…
• Flash Track is NOT Fast Track nor simple Acceleration!
c
P
E1
E2
E
En
cPEpC
P p
C C1
C2
Cn
Schedule Savings
Executive Summary: What it Takes to Flash Track
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fully Integrated Team & Early Involvement of key participants
Relational Contracts...Let’s establish one right here, now
Trust! We’ll offer Open Communication & Transparency
Let’s Co-locate!
Dedicate your Full Time
Multi-skilled, Can-do Attitude and assertive personnel
Select teams based on Flash Track Experience
Give us your Greatest & Best!...Good isn’t good enough!
Delegation of Authority to team level –You’ll make decisions
Simplify Approval procedures and Fund Early critical efforts
Let’s Design for Flash Track
Be Open Minded!
Focus. Put your phones away –You can’t be over-utilized
Because this will be Flash! And we need to be GREAT at it.
This is The End…
Just Kidding!
Please commit and focus!
2015 CII Annual Conference
August 3–5 • Boston, Massachusetts
Evaluating Flash Track Readiness
Who’s in the room?
A. Owner
B. Contractor (Engineering
and/or Construction)
C. Academic
D. Equipment Vendor
E. Other
0%
A.
0%
0%
B.
C.
0%
0%
D.
E.
Evaluating Flash Track Readiness
Overall, how ready were you
to undertake the project on a
Flash Track basis?
A. Not prepared
B. Somewhat unprepared
C. Neutral
fromprepared
Research Validation)
D. (Answer
Somewhat
E. Very prepared
0%
A.
0%
0%
B.
C.
0%
0%
D.
E.
What Makes Flash Track Challenging?
Barriers are human-driven:
• Executive resistance to paradigm shift
• Unfamiliarity with relational contracting
• Low availability of Flash Track A-Teams
• Hierarchical decision making
• Late and rigid approval processes
• Resistance to co-location
• Part-time team members
• Lack of trust
• Resistance to delegate (micro-management)
All these are obstacles to Flash Track! Our sworn enemies!
A Call For Action!
Tear Down This Wall!
A Call For Action: Leap Change from Good to Great!
Great
Good
Complete
Leap Change
Transformation
Great
Good
For Flash Track, Good isn’t good enough!
When to Flash Track?
1. Reach “First to Market”
Highly competitive markets to help
create value to customers
2. Address High Emergencies and
Disasters
3. Meet Regulatory Compliance
Flash Track is not for everybody or every project!
What Great Looks Like: Two Real-Life Case Studies
1. Reach “First to Market”
A Consumer Manufacturing Industry Case
2. Disaster & Emergency Response
ExxonMobil’s Response After Hurricane Ike
Commercial “First to Market”: Manufacturing
• Launch of a new product line to the food market
• Flash Track schedule (3 month savings versus traditional methods)
Project Critical Success Factors
• Experienced Flash Track team – PM, CM,
PE, and 3 of 5 Discipline Leads had done
Flash Track before
• High level of commitment and involvement
from all parties – owner, contractor, and key
vendors beginning at kickoff
• Identified true schedule-critical activities
• Leveraged subcontractors experienced in
Flash Track execution from a 30%
preliminary engineering package
• International component of the project led
to additional risk reviews to manage
additional Flash Track risks
FT Categories
Contractual
Planning
Delivery
Execution
Cultural
Organiza_
tional
Flash Track Tier 1 Essential Practices
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Simplify approval processes
Funding early critical efforts
Involve O&M resources in the design effort
Clear & specific scope requirements
Procurement decisions aligned with construction priorities
Select appropriate construction methods
Select team members based on Flash Track experience
Emphasize coordination planning during design
Disaster Response: ExxonMobil Chemical Plant
On-spec products produced
3 months after Hurricane Ike
Project Critical Success Factors
• Established clear roles &
responsibilities, chain of command &
criteria for decision making
• Defined clear & specific scope
requirements
• Leveraged existing enabling
agreements & pricing
• Established factory to site “conveyor
belt”
• Decoupled control system recovery
from parallel on-site plant recovery
work by staging systems offsite
FT Categories
Contractual
Planning
Delivery
Execution
Cultural
Organiza_
tional
Flash Track Tier 1 Essential Practices
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Simplify approval processes
Open communication & transparency
Fully integrated project team
Clear & specific scope requirements, clear change management
Use speed of fabrication / construction criteria
Procurement decisions aligned with construction priorities
Select appropriate construction methods
Identify long lead equipment
Emphasize coordination planning during design
Our Objectives For the Implementation (Resumed)
1.
Discuss what Flash Track is – And why do it
2.
Report the findings to successfully deliver Flash Track
–
–
–
The Re-engineered Delivery Strategy
47 Essential Practices to Implement
Flash Track Tool
Earn your trust and credibility – The Research Methodology
3.
–
–
–
Data Collection Process
Data Analysis Process
External Validation
A Framework For Successful Flash Track
• Re-Engineering the Delivery Strategy
Adopting a different
and more innovative
delivery strategy
0
FEP-1
Feasibility
Exceptional
execution of all
normal project activities
1
FEP-2
Concept
2
Successful
Flash Track
projects
FEP-3
Detailed
Scope
3
A Framework For Successful Flash Track
• Re-Engineering the Delivery Strategy
Adopting a different
and more innovative
delivery strategy
0
FEP-1
Feasibility
Exceptional
execution of all
normal project activities
1
FEP-2
Concept
&
FEP-3
Detailed Scope
Successful
Flash Track
projects
2
A Framework For Successful Flash Track: cPEpC
c
P
Committed involvement of downstream stakeholders
Procurement of strategic items and early engagement of suppliers
E1
Parallel engineering
E2
En
Balance of procurement
p
C1
Cn
Fn
Cn
Parallel construction
& fabrications
A Framework For Successful Flash Track: cPEpC
c
P
Committed involvement of downstream stakeholders
Procurement of strategic items and early engagement of suppliers
E1
Parallel engineering
E2
En
Balance of procurement
p
C1
Cn
Fn
Cn
PEpC: Developed by RT 130
Parallel construction
& fabrications
A Framework For Successful Flash Track: cPEpC
c
P
Committed involvement of downstream stakeholders
Procurement of strategic items and early engagement of suppliers
E1
Parallel engineering
E2
En
Balance of procurement
p
C1
Cn
Fn
Cn
cPEpC: Developed by RT 311
Parallel construction
& fabrications
A Framework For Successful Flash Track: cPEpC
c
P
Committed involvement of downstream stakeholders
Procurement of strategic items and early engagement of suppliers
E1
Parallel engineering
E2
En
Balance of procurement
p
C1
Cn
Fn
Cn
Flash Track: Relational Contracting and Trust
Parallel construction
& fabrications
A Framework For Successful Flash Track: cPEpC
c
P
Committed involvement of downstream stakeholders
Procurement of strategic items and early engagement of suppliers
E1
Parallel engineering
E2
En
Balance of procurement
p
C1
Cn
Fn
Cn
Flash Track: Inter-phase Integration
Parallel construction
& fabrications
A Framework For Successful Flash Track: cPEpC
c
P
Committed involvement of downstream stakeholders
Procurement of strategic items and early engagement of suppliers
E1
Parallel engineering
E2
En
Balance of procurement
p
C1
Cn
Fn
Cn
Parallel construction
& fabrications
Flash Track: Inter-phase Integration + Intra-phase Integration
47 Flash Track Essential Practices
Essential Practices Categorized
Structure
47 Essential Practices
– 6 Categories
– 2 Tiers
Delivery
(16%)
Cultural
(17%)
Contractual
(9%)
Organiza_
Tional
(17%)
Planning
(22%)
Execution
(19%)
Flash Track Essential Practices: Planning
• Tier I
– Considering speed of fabrication/construction in the selection of
design alternatives
– Emphasize coordination planning during design
– Identify and procure long lead items
– Provide resources to critical path
– Manage the additional flash track risks
• Tier II
– Exhaustive front end planning
– Drive corrective actions through project controls
Flash Track Essential Practices: Execution
• Tier I
– Simplifying approval procedures
– Dedicate full-time personnel
– Select appropriate construction methods
• Tier II
– Co-location of project team
– Minimize hand-offs
– Employ innovative construction
– Frequent review meetings
Flash Track Essential Practices: Organizational
• Tier I
– Establishing a fully integrated project team
– Delegate authority to project level
• Tier II
– Involve operations & maintenance in the design
– Implement team building and partnering
– Empowering the project team
– Owner with depth and strength of resources
– Personnel with a can-do attitude
– Engaged/empowered Owner's rep
– Staff with multi-skilled personnel
Flash Track Essential Practices: Cultural
• Tier I
– Having open communication and transparency
• Tier II
– Accepting new paradigms
– Active and committed owner
– Flexible teams that avoid rigid hierarchy
– No-blame culture and supportive environments
– Cooperative and collaborative personnel
– Open minded team
– Executive alignment amongst contracted parties
Flash Track Essential Practices: Delivery
• Tier I
– Focusing procurement decisions on construction priorities
– Select team based on flash track experience
– Timely award of contracts
– Staff with strong leadership
• Tier II
– Employ innovative procurement
– Integrate 3-D modelling in common database
– Involve all key contractors in the design
– Supplier/Contractor input for time saving ideas
Flash Track Essential Practices: Contractual
• Tier I
– Setting clear and specific scoping requirements
– Clear change management
– Funding early critical efforts
• Tier II
–
–
–
–
–
Performance-based specifications
Align project interests through contract
Establish project tailored contract strategies
Effective claims resolution
Reduce risks via collective efforts
Flash Track Tool
Flash Track Tool: Readiness Assessment
Flash Track Tool: Readiness Assessment
Flash Track Tool: Readiness Assessment
Flash Track Tool: Readiness Assessment
Flash Track Tool: Readiness Dashboard
Flash Track Tool: Readiness Dashboard
Flash Track Tool: Readiness Dashboard
Flash Track Tool: Readiness Dashboard
Flash Track Tool: Implementation Guidelines
Flash Track Tool: FEP Stage Gates
FEP-1
Feasibility
FEP-2
Conceptual
PDRI 1
0
1
FTT
FEP-3
Detailed
Scope
cP
FTT
Lessons
Learned
EpC
PDRI 2
FTT
2
Our Objectives For the Implementation (Resumed)
1.
Discuss what Flash Track is – And why do it
2.
Report the findings to successfully deliver Flash Track
–
–
–
The Re-engineered Delivery Strategy
47 Essential Practices to Implement
Flash Track Tool
Earn your trust and credibility – The Research Methodology
3.
–
–
–
Data Collection Process
Data Analysis Process
External Validation
Research Methodology
External
Validation
Data
Collection
Data Analysis
 Delphi
 AHP
 Literature Review
 Case Studies
 Industry Expert Panel Discussions
Toolkit
Development
 FTT
 cPEpC
 13 Projects
Data Collection
Literature Review
EPC
Interviews
Discovery
151 Fast Track Practices
Consolidation
CII RT311
Delphi Study
 Consensus
 Applicability (6 Likert scale)
 Consensus based on:
– Mode ≥ 5 and SD < 1
– Mode = 6 and SD < 2
118 Fast Track
Practices
CII RT311
Beta Testing
Delphi
66 Flash Track
Practices
CII RT311
66 Flash Track Practices
Data Analysis
Delphi Round 1
46 Flash Track Practices Accepted &
4 New suggested
Delphi Rounds 1-3:
 64 Oracles
 Response Rate: 73-86%
Oracles’ Qualifications
 15 yrs of EPC experience
 5 yrs of leadership role
 5 yrs experience or 2 fast/Flash Track projects
 Experience in at least 2 phases of a project’s
life-cycle
Delphi Round 2
1 New Flash
Track Accepted
47 Flash Track
Practices
6 Categories
Oracles
(Experts)
Oracles
(Experts)
Data Analysis
Delphi Round 1 & 2:
Relative Index score =
Delphi Round 3:
{(% responses
that strongly
disagree*1) +
Analytic
Hierarchy
Process:
Top 10 Flash
Track practices
(% responses that disagree*2) +
(%
Weighting
practices
using pairwise
comparisons
responses
that moderately
disagree*3)
+
responses
(%
Two
levels ofthat
AHPmoderately agree*4) +
Level:
6 categories
(% Category
responses that
agree*5)
+
(% Practice
responsesLevel:
that strongly
agree*6)}/6
7-9 practices
within each category
15 members of RT 311 completed the AHP
Consistency ratio ≤ 0.1
Tier I:
(Relative Index U Delphi Round 3 U AHP)
Delphi
Round 3
Relative
Index
AHP
Tier I (18) & Tier II (29)
Toolkit Development: The Readiness Metric
Readiness at Category Level =
𝑛
𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 ∗ 𝑃𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝑘=1
Overall Readiness Level =
47
𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 ∗ 𝑃𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 ∗ 𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝑘=1
Toolkit Development: Implementation Guidelines
Innovative
Implementation
Strategies
Barriers
Potential Risks
Mitigation Measures
Research Products
AHP
Readiness
Metric
Flash Track Tool
Implementation
Guidelines
Internal Verficiation
External Validation
RT311 Final Product
13 Projects
RT311
External Validation (n=13)
Strongly
Agree
4
Agree
3
Disagree
2
Strongly
Disagree
1
3.2
Usefulness
3.6
Relevancy
3.5
3.2
Practicality Effectiveness
External Validation (n=13)
Maximum
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
7.9
3
2
Minimum
1
Ease of use
Conclusions & Recommendations are next
2015 CII Annual Conference
August 3–5 • Boston, Massachusetts
Remember our Executive Summary?
• Early Involvement of key participants & Fully Integrated Teams
– “little c” in cPEpC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Relational Contracting, Trust, Open Communication & Transparency
Dedicate Full Time personnel. Promote Co-location
Establish Cooperative & Collaborative teams
Multi-skilled, Can-do Attitude and assertive personnel
Select teams based on Flash Track Experience
Delegate Authority to team level
Simplify Approval procedures
Fund Early critical efforts
Design for Flash Track
Don’t Over-utilize resources
Be Open Minded!
“Good is the enemy of Great!” (Jim Collins, Good to Great, p.1)
The Three Components of Flash Track
1. Paradigm Shift to cPEpC
2. The 47 Essential Practices
– 6 categories
– 2 tiers
3. The Flash Track Tool
– Readiness Assessment
– Implementation Guidelines
– Lessons Learned Assessment
Flash Track Resources: Where to Find?
Download from the CII website
– The Implementation Resource: IR311-1
– The Flash Track Tool: IR311-2
– The Research Summary: RS311-1
Time for Q&A’s