Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

AVEVA World Conference NA - Jeyoung Woo, University of Texas at Austin

2,188 views

Published on

The quality and completeness of engineering design deliverables have a significant impact on overall project performance. Thus, project stakeholders should pay close attention to such issues, with a particular focus on problematic engineering design deliverables.

This presentation summarizes the findings of the Construction Industry Institute (CII) Research Team (RT) 320, Definition and Measurement of Engineering/Design Deliverable Quality, including the 11 most problematic deliverables and their significant defects, causal factors, leading/lagging metrics, and two implementation tools.

Published in: Engineering
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

AVEVA World Conference NA - Jeyoung Woo, University of Texas at Austin

  1. 1. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Presentation Overview The quality and completeness of engineering design deliverables have a significant impact on overall project performance. Thus, project stakeholders should pay close attention to such issues, with a particular focus on problematic engineering design deliverables. This presentation summarizes the findings of the Construction Industry Institute (CII) Research Team (RT) 320, Definition and Measurement of Engineering/Design Deliverable Quality, including the 11 most problematic deliverables and their significant defects, causal factors, leading/lagging metrics, and two implementation tools.
  2. 2. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Houston, TX. February 14, 2018 James T. O’Connor, P.E., Ph.D. Jeyoung Woo, P.E. Eliminating Quality Defects on Problematic Engineering Design Deliverables
  3. 3. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. ~ $75 billion/year 5.4% of total construction cost Leading cause = Design Errors/Omissions! 14.2 % of Contract value Direct + Indirect Case for Action (1/2) Direct Cost of Rework (CII 2004) Cost of Rework (Hwang et al. 2009) Average Cost of Design Errors (Love et al. 2014)
  4. 4. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Case for Action (2/2) Impact of Design Quality Poor quality deliverables Design Phase Construction Phase Rework Project Performance (Burati et al. 1992; Eldin 1991; Gransberg and Molenaar 2004; Haydl and Nikiel 2000)
  5. 5. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Dale C. Allen Shell Ronald August, Jr. AECOM Robert Beskow Chevron Lin Budlong General Electric Daniel C. Chabot Cargill, Inc. Michael T. Cleary DuPont Kim Crovetto Hargrove John Hyland Lauren Oscar L. Monagas ConocoPhillips Donald L. Myers U.S. Department of VA CII Research Team (RT) 320 Period: 2014/09 – 2016/08 21 Members Dr. James T. O'Connor UT-Austin Jason Phillips ArcelorMittal Glenn Raz OXY Matt Rouse CDI Hulya Schwimmbeck CB&I Joel K. Strang Fluor Gilberto Teixeira Jr. Petrobras Kelly Watson OXY Nancy E. Wilkie U.S. DoS Jeyoung Woo UT-Austin Carlton Wright Technip
  6. 6. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Research Objectives • Identify problematic design deliverables, their defects & causes, and metrics that facilitate proactive, preventive actions (O’Connor and Woo 2016)
  7. 7. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. IN-Scope Design deliverable completeness & correctness Design errors and omissions OUT-of-scope Cost of design efforts Cost estimate based on engineering deliverables Research Scope Detailed design phase of industrial projects Concept Detailed scope Procurement Fabrication/ Delivery Construction Detailed Design Project Funding Approval IFC (Issued for Construction)
  8. 8. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Design Quality Essentials Essential criteria of design quality Timely Quality (Andi and Minato 2003; O’Connor et al. 2007; Tilley et al. 1997)
  9. 9. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Research Flow: Facilitating Action Team Action Quality Detailed Design 53 Detailed Design Deliverables 11 Problematic Deliverables Causal Factors (n=351) Leading/Lagging Metrics (n=141) & Definitions TWO Tools - Leading Metrics Tool - Completeness Checklist Usage: Awareness Deliverable Quality Threats Validation: Application Demonstration (798 Defects) 3 Defect Categories Priorities Defect Impacts Frequency Severity
  10. 10. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Research Methodology 53 DELIVERABLES 11 Problematic Deliverables 798 DEFECTS 145 UNIQUE DEFECTS 73 Significant Defects 349 Causal Factors 23 Lagging Metrics 118 Leading Metrics Frequency Consolidation Impact priority Two Implementation Tools (DDQA / CDDC)
  11. 11. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. 53 Engineering Design Deliverables (1/2) No. Deliverable No. Deliverable 1 Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) Validation 14 3D Model 2 Piping material classes 15 Standard piping details 3 Process data sheets 16 Standard civil details 4 Mechanical data sheets 17 Standard site details 5 Instrument data sheets 18 Standard architecture details 6 Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs) 19 Standard electrical details 7 Stress critical line list 20 Vendor data 8 Line list requiring hydraulic check 21 Equipment list 9 Plot plan 22 Mechanical equipment model volumes 10 Safety review 23 Duct model volumes 11 Constructability Inputs 24 Single line routing 12 Maintainability Inputs 25 Cable/ cable tray routing 13 Level 3 Baseline Schedule 26 Cathodic protection
  12. 12. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. 53 Engineering Design Deliverables (2/2) No. Deliverable No. Deliverable 27 Structure modeling 40 Underground services 28 Electrical equipment/building envelopes 41 Piping routing and isometrics 29 Control equipment/building envelopes 42 Stress analysis 30 Nozzles, ladders, and platforms for towers/vessels/tanks 43 Hydraulic checks 44 Model updates 31 3D model reviews 45 Bulk material takeoff 32 Structural stress loads 46 Equipment specifications 33 Structure design 47 Inline instrument data 34 Fire protection study 48 Miscellaneous pipe supports drawings 35 Earthwork 49 Electrical design 36 Roads 50 Junction box location 37 Piling 51 Instrumentation design 38 Foundations 52 Lighting 39 Fencing 53 Clash detection
  13. 13. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Survey questionnaire Relative frequency of quality problematic deliverables Survey respondents Problematic Deliverables Survey Design Option Very Rarely Sometimes Too Often Don’t know Point value 1.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 Owner Contractor Total Number of respondents 34 33 67 Industry Experience Total years 861 1,063 1,924 Average years 25.3 32.2 28.7
  14. 14. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Problematic Deliverables Distribution of Results 46. Equipment Specifications & Data Sheets 6. P&IDs (Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams) 11. Constructability Inputs 13. Level 3 Baseline Schedule 20. Vendor Data 30. Nozzles, Ladders, and Platform for Towers/Vessels/Tanks 48. Miscellaneous Pipe Support Drawings 41. Piping Routing and Isometrics 1. FEED (Front-End Engineering Design) Validation Deliverables 12. Maintainability Inputs 14. 3D Model & 53. Clash Detection
  15. 15. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Problematic Deliverables Survey Results Scale: 1.0 = Very Rarely 3.0 = Sometimes 5.0 = Too Often 41 (77%) 10 (19%) 2 (4%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Less than 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 Greater than 3.5 NumberofDeliverables (n=53) Most Problematic
  16. 16. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Validation: Statistical Analysis (t-Test) Problematic vs. Non-Problematic Deliverables: Very Different Owners vs. Contractors (11 Prob. Deliverables): Very Similar Problematic Deliverables (n=11) Other Deliverables (n=41) Mean St.Dev. Mean St.Dev. t-score df p-value Relative Frequency of Design Quality Problems 3.22 0.28 1.92 0.49 11.43 29 <.001 (Sig.) Owners (n=34) Contractors (n=33) Mean St.Dev. Mean St.Dev. t-score df p-value Relative Frequency of Design Quality Problems 3.25 0.09 3.19 0.11 0.68 10 0.50 (N.S)
  17. 17. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Impact Screening Type: Completeness, Correctness, and Timeliness Data Analysis Defects Causal Factors Leading Metrics Lagging Metrics Identified by using “5-Whys” approach Associated with 349 causal factors Associated with 73 significant defects
  18. 18. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Data Analysis Example (1/4) Deliverable: Constructability Inputs Defects Failure to develop and incorporate standard design elements
  19. 19. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Data Analysis Example (2/4) Deliverable: Constructability Inputs Defects Defect Impacts Failure to develop and incorporate standard design elements Design and construction productivity losses
  20. 20. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Data Analysis Example (3/4) Deliverable: Constructability Inputs DefectsCausal Factors Defect Impacts Failure to develop and incorporate standard design elements Failure to recognize the beneficial tradeoffs from standardization Design and construction productivity losses
  21. 21. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Data Analysis Example (4/4) Deliverable: Constructability Inputs DefectsCausal Factors Defect Impacts Leading Metrics Lagging Metrics Did the project owner and/or contractor utilize standardization resources during the design (e.g., PIP.org or its equivalent in other industry sectors)? Field rework hours resulting from inadequate constructability input/reviews
  22. 22. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Defects Analysis Table No. 3. Constructability Inputs No. Significant Defect Defect Type Impact Type Relative Freq. Relative ImpactSev. Priority Score Causal Factor Metric Leading Lagging 10 Constructability reviews are conducted too late Timeliness - Late or additional changes - Redesign - Schedule impacts - Increased cost H H 9 - Not involving knowledgeable resources at the right time - Not scheduling constructability reviews at the right time (sufficiently in advance) - Low schedule priority of constructability reviews - Late contractor involvement in constructability - Disincentives for contractors to participate in Constructability - Lack of contractor interest in pre-construction services 1) At least one constructability review meeting is conducted in early FEED/ Design Development or before? 2) The second constructability review meeting is conducted at or before the end of FEED/ Design Development? 3) The third constructability review meeting is conducted at or before the 60% design complete? 4) Were the constructability reviews conducted too late to incorporate comments into the design? Leading Leading Leading Lagging
  23. 23. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Timing of Metrics Concept Detailed scope Procurement Fabrication/ Delivery Construction Detailed Design FV 1 30% 2 60% 2 90% 2 IFC 3 IFP 4 Leading Indicators Lagging Indicators 1 FV: FEED Validation 2 30%, 60%, 90%: Detailed Design Progress 2 IFC: Issued for Construction 3 IFP: Issued for Procurement
  24. 24. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Helps assess current levels of deliverable quality Helps identify associated potential defects Facilitates planning/documentation of defect mitigation strategies Two Implementation Tools Design Deliverable Quality Assessment (DDQA) Tool Completeness of Design Deliverable Checklist (CDDC) Tool Helps assess current level of deliverable completeness Helps identify content inclusion items that need to be completed
  25. 25. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. DDQA Tool Input - Targeted Design Deliverables - Targeted Design Progress - Leading Metrics
  26. 26. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. DDQA Tool Output - Design Quality Indices - List of Potential Defects (Prompting discussion)
  27. 27. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. CDDC Tool Input - Targeted Design Deliverables - Completeness of Checklist Items
  28. 28. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. CDDC Tool Output - Completeness Index - List of Incomplete Items
  29. 29. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Recommended Timing of Completeness Assessment No. Deliverable Detailed Design Progress FV1 30%2 60%2 90%2 IFC3 1 Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) Validation X 2 Level 3 Baseline Schedule X 3 Constructability Inputs X X 4 Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs) X 5 Equipment Specifications & Data Sheets X X 6 Maintainability Inputs X X 7 Vendor Data X X 8 3D Model & Clash Detection X X 9 Piping Routing & Isometrics X X 10 Nozzles, Ladders, Platforms for Towers/Vessels/Tanks X X 11 Miscellaneous Pipe Support Drawings X1 FV: FEED Validation 2 30%, 60%, 90%: Detailed Design Progress 3 IFC: Issued for Construction
  30. 30. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Tool-related Responsibilities Responsibility Job Titles Sponsor • Business Unit Engineering Director • Business Unit Quality Director Accountable • Project Managers (Owner and/or Contractor) • Project Design/Engineering Manager Responsible • Design Discipline Leads • Project Engineer/Coordinator Consult • Construction Managers • Maintenance Representatives • Operations Representatives • Project Controls Representatives
  31. 31. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Tool Validation 18+ yrs. experience each 18 External Reviewers 215 Feedback Comments 18 External Reviewers Mostly Compliments Most others Already Addressed, Minor, or Out-of-Scope “Effective” in contributing to Project Design Quality “Likely” to be used on future project
  32. 32. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Conclusions • Identified 11 most problematic deliverables • Identified 73 significant defects for problematic deliverables • Identified 118 leading metrics associated with causal factors • Identified 23 lagging metrics associated with 73 defects • Developed Two implementation tools (DDQA / CDDC)
  33. 33. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements Construction Industry Institute (CII) CII Research Team 320 103 Survey Respondents 67 respondents for problematic deliverables survey 36 respondents for deliverable defects survey Dale C. Allen Shell Ronald August, Jr. AECOM Robert Beskow Chevron Lin Budlong General Electric Daniel C. Chabot Cargill, Inc. Michael T. Cleary DuPont Kim Crovetto Hargrove John Hyland Lauren Oscar L. Monagas ConocoPhillips Donald L. Myers U.S. Department of VA Dr. James T. O'Connor UT-Austin Jason Phillips ArcelorMittal Glenn Raz OXY Matt Rouse CDI Hulya Schwimmbeck CB&I Joel K. Strang Fluor Gilberto Teixeira Jr. Petrobras Kelly Watson OXY Nancy E. Wilkie U.S. DoS Jeyoung Woo UT-Austin Carlton Wright Technip
  34. 34. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. References Andi and Minato, T. (2003) “Design documents quality in the Japanese construction industry.” Int’l J. Project Management, 21. 537-546. Burati, J.L, Farrington, J.J., and Ledbetter, W.B. (1992). “Causes of Quality Deviations in Design and Construction.” J. Construction Engineering and Management, 118(1), 34-49. Construction Industry Institute (CII) (2004). “Making Zero Rework a Reality.” Research Summary 203-1. Austin, TX. East, E.W., Kirby, J.G. and Perez, G. (2004). “Improved Design Review through Web Collaboration.” J. Management in Engineering, 20 (2), 51-55. Eldin, N. N. (1991). “Management of Engineering/Design Phase.” J. Construction Engineering and Management, 117 (1), 163-175. Gransberg, D.D., and Molenaar, K. (2004). “Analysis of Owner’s Design and Construction Quality Management Approaches in Design/Build Projects.” J. Management in Engineering, 20 (4), 162-169. Haydl, H.M. and Nikiel, A.W. (2000). “Design and Construction Errors – Case Studies.” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 5 (3), 126-130. Hwang, B., Thomas, S., Haas, C., and Caldas, C. (2009). “Measuring the Impact of Rework on Construction Cost Performance.” J. Construction Engineering and Management, 135(3), 187-198. Love, P., Lopez, R., Kim, J., and Kim, M. (2014). “Probabilistic Assessment of Design Error Costs.” J. Performance of Constructed Facility, 28(3), 518-527 Nigro, W. T. (2013). “RediCheck Interdisciplinary Coordination.” 4th Edition, Peachtree City, GA. O’Connor, J.T., O'Brien, W.J., Jarrah, R.T., and Wallner, B. (2007). “Planning for facilitating, and evaluating design effectiveness” Research Report 233-11, Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. O’Connor, J.T., and Woo, J. (2016). “Study of Engineering/Design Deliverable Quality.” Research Report 320-11, Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. Soibelman, L., Liu, L. Y., Kirby, J.G., East, E.W., Caldas, C.H., and Lin, K. (2003). “Design Review Checking System with Corporate Lessons Learned.” J. Construction Engineering and Management, 129 (5), 475-484. Tilley, P., Wyatt A., and Mohamed, S.. (1997) "Indicators of design and documentation deficiency." IGLC-5: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 16-17 July, 1997, Gold Coast, Australia.
  35. 35. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Jeyoung Woo / P.E., P.M.P Ph.D. Candidate The University of Texas at Austin woo.jeyoung@utexas.edu
  36. 36. © 2017 AVEVA Solutions Limited and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. This presentation may include predictions, estimates, intentions, beliefs and other statements that are or may be construed as being forward- looking. While these forward-looking statements represent our current judgment on what the future holds, they are subject to risks and uncertainties that could result in actual outcomes differing materially from those projected in these statements. No statement contained herein constitutes a commitment by AVEVA to perform any particular action or to deliver any particular product or product features. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which reflect our opinions only as of the date of this presentation. The Company shall not be obliged to disclose any revision to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances occurring after the date on which they are made or to reflect the occurrence of future events.

×