Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byIsmail Sultan
Interface Management An Emerging Project Management Discipline
Interface Management An Emerging Project Management Discipline
More Related Content
Similar to Interface Management An Emerging Project Management Discipline
Interface Management An Emerging Project Management Discipline
- 1. The Knowledge Leaderfor 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
- 2. Research Team 302- Interface Management Seungjun Ahn, U of Michigan (new Ph.D.) Paul Burroughs, Ontario Power Generation Matt Cage, Alstom Power Justin Goodman, Jacobs Carl Haas, U of Waterloo Jeff Hocke, Lauren Engineers & Constructors Brian Johnson, Wood Group Mustang Todd LaBar**, Air Products SangHyun Lee, U of Michigan Debora Mello Ferreira, Petrobras * Chair ** Vice Chair Alexandre Rocha Do Nascimento, Petrobras Marty Reibold, UPS Corp. Samin Shokri, U of Waterloo (new Ph.D.) Chris Smith, Architect of the Capitol Tim Swenk, McDermott International James Thorne, WorleyParsons Paul Tompkins, Coreworx Inc. Paul Van DerMerwe, Tenova Bateman SA Lynn Neil Wheatcraft*, Dresser-Rand Menzies Wilson, Smithsonian Institution
- 3. Learning Objectives • Learningabout 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
- 4. What is “InterfaceManagement” •An idea? •An industry norm? A set of standards and practices?
- 5. Have you heardof Interface Management or its practice? A. Yes B. No 0% 0%
- 6. Does your knowledgeof IM align with that of your clients, partners, contractors, and/or competitors? 0% A. Yes B. No C. Not Sure
- 7. Does your companyemploy formal Interface Management practices and procedures? 0% 0% 0% A. Yes B. No C. Not Sure
- 8. What is “InterfaceManagement” “Interface Management is the management of communications, relationships, and deliverables among two or more interface stakeholders” CH Research Team 302, 2014
- 9. 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 relationship between two or more components or systems. Hard Interface: Physical
- 10. Interface Management Hierarchy OwnerContractor Contract Battery Limit Utility Tie-Ins Physical Boundary Location Data Payment FEED Doc Scope Insurance Certs Reporting MOMs, Daily Reports, Transmittals
- 11. Network of InterfaceStakeholders interface Stakeholders Interface Points (IPs) 21 IPs 5 IPs 32 IPs 18 IPs 10 IPs 12 IPs 10 IPs 13 IPs 8 IPs Thickness of edges is associated with number of IPs between interface stakeholders.
- 12. What is “InterfaceManagement” “Interface Management is the management of communications, relationships, and deliverables among two or more interface stakeholders” CH Research Team 302, 2014
- 13. Why Interface Management? “Whathas happened in the industry to necessitate IM?”
- 14. Why IM? • Dimensionsof Complexity - Geographic spread of execution centers - Level of advanced technologies - Numbers of stakeholders or project participants - Project delivery methods - Fast-tracked projects • Risk Management - Each interface represents a potential risk Level of Complexity Medium Low
- 15. Do your projectsmostly involve a simple relationship between two parties, OR multiple parties with varying levels of interest/impact on project outcome? o% 0% A. Simple B. Not Simple A. B.
- 16. Do you expectlevel of complexity on your projects to increase or decrease over next 10 years? A. Increase B. Decrease C. Stay the Same 0% 0% 0% A, B,
- 17. Less or LeastComplex - Project Team Co-located
- 18. A Little MoreComplex - Same Team, Different Offices Three Interface Stakeholders Three Communication Channels : Fragmented information communicated via telecommunication (phone, email, etc.)
- 19. More Complex -Add One More Stakeholder Four Interface Stakeholders Six Communication Channels
- 20. Even More Complex- Add Two More Stakeholders Six Interface Stakeholders 15 Communication Channels, Multiple Interface Points per Channel
- 21. What If...? Structural Engineer Owner ElectricalEngineer - Lead Engineer Mechanical Engineer 15 Communication Channels
- 22. Increasing Complexity Dueto Compressed Schedule Linear Project Schedule FEP Desig Commissioningr & Startup (C&S) Construction Operation FEP Desi Construction C&S Compressed Project Schedule Operation
- 23. Have multiple locations, languages,or cultural differences affected complexity of your projects? 0% A. Yes B. No A. B.
- 24. On average, howmany execution locations are involved in your projects? A. Less than 5 B. 5-10 C. More than 10 0% 0% 0%
- 25. Darlington Nuclear GeneratingStation four-units /net output of 3,512 megawatts (MW 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)
- 26. Globally Dispersed ProjectExecution l 90’N -NPC -60 p* -30’N Module Fabrication -NT 5 si) Engineering (ingenierie) Engineering -is*s -ST -30 Fabrication (fabricagao) -45*$ ■60*5 SPC ■H* I1 1JLJIHootedinformation communicated via telecommunication (phone, email, etc.) 18<V% 150°W 120°W 90°W 60°W 30°W 0° 30°E 60& E 90*E 120°E 150°E 180°E
- 27. What complexity factor mostwarrants 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 o% 0% o% o% A, B, D.
- 28. Which of theseis the best means to communicate critical interface information with another stakeholder? A. Fax B. Phone call C. Meeting where both took notes D. Email exchange o% o% o% o% o% A. B. C. D. E. E. Written agreement in standard form
- 29.
- 30. Formal Interface Management •Interface Management Personnel • IM Procedures & Practices • Standardized Interface Agreement Forms • IM Specific Software
- 31. IM - AnEmerging Project Management Discipline Project Management: 1950s Project Controls: 1960s Quality Management: 1970s Risk Management: 1980s IM: 2000s
- 32. Research Methodology Literature Review W Focus ■JGroup Questionnaire Pi Pilot Pi Structured Pi Data Pi 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)
- 33. IM Formality andProject Size □Informal IM ■ Formal IM # of Projects —L —L o r o co o N> 10 <$500M $500-$1B $5B-$10B >$10B S1B-$5B Project Dollar Value Formal IM more prevalent in projects of higher $ value
- 34. IM Formality andProject Delivery Strategy □ Informal IM ■ Formal IM # of Projects -*■ t o t o O O1 O U1 O U1 18 10 DBB DB EPCM EPC Others Project Delivery Strategies EPC & EPCM most common delivery strategies with Formal IM
- 35. IM Formality amongInterface Stakeholders □ Informal IM ■Formal IM 14 10 1-5 5-15 >15 # of Interface Stakeholders IM is more prevalent on projects with more stakeholders
- 36. Project Characteristics Correlation withIM Implementation Project Size (0.56) # Interface Stakeholders (0.33) Correlation # JVs/Owners (0.24) Locations k(0.14) Ml <<
- 37. IM Implementation vs.Project Phase Detailed Scope Sequential Project Phasing Commiss- ioning & Start-up Construc- tion 12% Concept Design Operation Feasibility Feasibility Detailed Scope 88% Concept Design Construction Commissioning & Start-up Operation Parallel Project Phasing Start IM at Concept and Detailed Scope Phase
- 38. IM Implementation vs.Project Cost Growth Formal IM Projects Had Lower Mean of Cost Growth & Less Standard Deviation 2.00 Mean: 0.04 1 50 p=0.25 Cost Growth 1 00 16 4 50 oo Mean: 0.18 Standard Deviation: 0.38 Standard Deviation: 0.16 -.50 Informal IM (n=27) Formal IM <n=10)
- 39. Globally Dispersed ProjectExecution L 90,J N -75*N -NPC -60*N Ingenierie (Engineering) -30*N -NT (Module Fabrication -o* 3rfJNifa|<£l (Engineering) - J. Construction Site -45 *N -15 *S -ST -30*3 Fabrica?ao (Fabrication) -45*3 -60*3 -SPC -75 *3 '90*3 180 *E 30 60*E 90°E 120°E 150 °E 150 °W 120°W 90 60°W 30°W 0
- 40. Formal Interface Management •Interface Management Personnel • IM Procedures & Practices • Standardized Interface Agreement Forms • IM Specific Software
- 41. Tools Developed byRT 302 • Interface Management Implementation Guide (IMIGe) - Project Interface Risk-Impact (PIRI) Matrix - Interface Complexity Assessment Tool (ICAT) - IM Maturity Tool - IM Implementation Roadmap
- 42. PIRI Matrix LOW MEDIUMHlGh 3MPLEXITY RISK HIGH MORE FORMAL IM MOST FOfd literfacc Mnnagci • interlace hfard At SpttadBhrW* o IM spnatm W Commercial Software • IM Ccmmeicial S Integrate wf ScbecMe • integrate Set Inlegrale w>Charge Mtrrfl • Integrate w.‘Chant Integrate w1 Risk Mgmt • Integrate w Risk FORMAL IM MORE FOR Interface Mgi * interface Mr ■w spreadsheet > IM Spreads!! W Ccimrwo# Sottwfirrj o IM Commercial 5 Inteyriite w'SctedJa MEHJtetew.' SC/ Inteqiale w- Charge kVnfl Integrate Chant Integrate w' Risk Mgmt •3 Integrate w1 Risk FORMAL IM interfaceManager • IM SpreadSheel O IM Commercial Software • Integrate wr Schedule • integrate w,1 Change Mgrrt • Integrate wr Rtsk Mgnl • INFORMAL IM MOST FORMAL IM Interface Manager • IM Spreadsheet (2 IM Commercial Software • Integrate w/ Schedule • Integrate w/ Change Mgmt • Integrate w/ Risk Mgmt • □ HIGH nlerfarft Mgi IM Spiendsheel Gomnwraal Scflwant Interface Manger IM Spreadsheet IM Commercial Software Integrate w/ Schedule Integrate w/ Change Mgmt Integrate w Risk Mgmt LOW nlegiate w Stfiedute ■gratew' Change Mqn'l teqrate w’Risk Moml L O W LEAST FORMAL IM INFORMAL IM 0 Interface Manager O interlace Manager » U Speadsheei » IM Spreadsheel » 0 H Gonimercjai Software O IM n fjnmarcial Software O 0 integrate w,' Schetttie O Megrare w sofieduie • 0 Ntgrafa wi chanoeMann & integrate w Change Mgmt • 0 Heonte w/ Risk Munn kileurttie w Risk Mgrri • Interface Manger IM Spreadsheel Commercial Software rtegrateuwSciteAfe flrataw.'CMmosMortit teyttee w- Risk Msjrtl LOW MEDIUM HIGH PROJECT / BUSINESS IMPACT
- 43. * Interactive Spreadsheet ICAT* SupportingQuestion 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
- 44. Interface Management ImplementationGuide (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? 34 Chapter? : Concluding Remarks.. . . .42 Chapters : References 43 Chapters : Appendices .....45
- 45. IMIGe Interlace Slafr*- Interlat* PnmlIrsertett ’effect Wtrfacp Apee rt 'IAi twfact Ajfwment(IAi Inter'Kfi Ag-eemeifii*1 Interlace Adtefi Item |IAI},„ ■'iTHfaceCoiiro Dxumert'ikaRing
- 46. Summary of ToolsDeveloped 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
- 47. Learning Objectives • Learningabout 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
- 48. What’s in Itfor 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
- 49. Wrapping Up • RT302’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
- 50. National Museum ofAfrican American History and Culture
- 51.
- 52. Panel Experts forAudience 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