It is increasingly common to
hear from contractors and business specialists highlight the cost reduction
achieved during the execution of capital projects by implementing, at least,
one of the following approaches on project execution:
- Engineering, Procurement and Construction execution based on Advanced Work Packaging (AWP).
- Implementation of High-Value Engineering Centers (HVEC).
- Application of 4D Planning and Scheduling (4D-P&S).
- Application of Building Information Modeling (BIM).
A summary of the key characteristics of each approach is given below:
Advanced Work Packaging (AWP):
Engineering, Procurement and
Construction execution based on the AWP means the sequential packetization of
engineering deliverables so that the flow of this project information responds
to the needs of the field construction, this in the form of predefined and
sequentially programmed Construction Work Packages (CWP), that result in
specific Installation Work Packages (IWP) of short execution periods.
In short, AWP is a
construction-driven process that adopts the philosophy of “beginning with the
end in mind.” The work packaging and constraint management process removes the
guesswork from executing at the workface by tightly defining the scope of all
work involved, and by ensuring that all things necessary for execution are in
place.
Studies indicate that, under AWP
scheme, capital projects have shown field productivity increases of up to 25% and
reduction in total project costs by up to 10%.
Reference:
- Construction Industry Institute. Knowledge Base. No. RT-272: “Enhanced Work Packaging: Design through WorkFace Execution” (Best Practice). Volume 3: Case studies and expert interviews as a supplement to aid effective implementation.
Implementation of High-Value
Engineering Centers means activating the remote participation of well-trained
engineers working at engineering centers in developing countries such as Mexico,
Indonesia, Venezuela, India, Africa, called High-Value Engineering Centers
(HVEC), which allows obtaining highly qualified engineering teams at a low
cost.
4D Planning and Scheduling (4D-P&S):
4D Planning and Scheduling means
the linking of a 3D digital model with time or schedule-related information to
create animated sequences that show a structure’s components being built up,
including both permanent and temporary works.
4D-P&S allows visualizing the
project as sequential tasks planned in a model to create simulation, and also
allows changing the tasks and dependencies to optimize and validate efficiently
the sequence of activities. From this, you can evaluate whether the project is
constructible as planned and also visualize the effects of the schedule on the
model, and compare planned dates against actual dates. Costs can also be
assigned to tasks to track the cost of a project throughout its schedule. Also, for instance, 4D-P&S visualization may allow scheduling a crane placement during the construction phase, improving its performance and thus avoinding any possible interference.
Building Information Modeling (BIM):
The BIM approach means that all
project stakeholders (e.g., architects, engineers, contractors, owner, etc.)
actively collaborate to create a complete virtual model of the project. It
enables the virtual information of the model to be handed from the design team
to the main contractor and subcontractors and then on to the owner/operator; so
that each stakeholder adds specific data, comments or constrains to the single
shared model. This greater collaboration between stakeholders takes full
advantage of the potential cost reduction opportunities. Also, the BIM approach
focuses on the concept that different components of a model “know” what they
are supposed to do, so as the 3D model is altered, these types of components
self-adjust in logical ways.
Studies indicate that the
application of BIM brings reducing costs (up to 40% of unbudgeted change orders
eliminated), improving the accuracy and speed of cost estimates (up to 80%
reduction in time taken to generate cost estimate and cost estimation accuracy
within 3%), increasing clashes/interferences prevention (up to 10% of the contract value is saved by detecting clashes), and shortening execution time
(up to 7% reduction in project time)
References:
- German, P. 2012. Evaluation of training needs for Building Information Modeling (BIM). ProQuest, UMI Dissertation Publishing.
- Gilligan, B.; Kunz, J. 2007. VDC Use in 2007: significant value, dramatic growth, and apparent business opportunity (CIFE technical reports) [online], [cited 11 December 2010].
- Azhar, S.; Abid, N.; Mok, J.; Leung, B. 2008. Building information modeling (BIM): a new paradigm for visual interactive modeling and simulation for construction projects, in Proc. of the 1th International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries (ICCIDC–I), 4–5 August 2008, Karachi, Pakistan, 435–446.
- Nisbet, N.; Dinesen, B. 2010. Constructing the business case: Building Information Modeling. British Standards Institution and BuildingSMART, UK.
But, all engineering approaches
above-mentioned have their risks of deviation from the goals set.
Namely:
1.
Some potential risks of the AWP approach:
· The AWP approach basically addresses Engineering
Work Packages (EWP), Construction Work Packages (CWP), and Installation Work Packages
(IWP). Therefore, Procurement Work Packages (PWP) must be well aligned with the
respective CWP and IWP to avoid the lack of material or equipment in the field.
Here, procurement manager monitoring is crucial.
·
Lack of clear AWP implementation strategy.
·
Lack of appropriate stakeholder support for the
AWP.
·
Lack of identifying the key personnel required
for supporting AWP.
· Inadequate sizing of the Installation Work Packages
(IWP) and also an inadequate estimate of the respective execution times.
·
Inadequate Installation Work Packages sequence.
·
Potential redundancy in the IWP contingencies.
· Potential loss of the benefit of economies of
scale in the acquisition of materials and equipment for the IWP.
2.
Some potential risks of the HVEC approach:
·
Inadequate communication between the Project Main
Office (PMO) and the HVEC.
· Lack of
adequate supervision within the HVEC and by the PMO.
· Transfer of incomplete work packages from the PMO
to the HVEC, without an adequate definition of the split of work between both
parties.
·
Lack of accountability within the HVEC.
· Staff turnover in the HVEC with the consequent
loss of personnel already trained and committed to the project.
· Redundancy between PMO and HVEC in the use of
expensive special software. That means a lack of integration between both
parties about the efficient use of software licenses that could be shared.
· Lack of integration between the IT groups of PMO
and HVEC to achieve optimal communication between their servers.
·
Lack of an adequate execution plan shared
between the PMO and the HVEC.
·
Inadequate planning of the HVEC activities
within the PMO’s master plan.
3.
Some potential risks of the 4D Planning and
Scheduling approach:
·
Project size could be a decisive factor for 4D-P&S
applicability.
· At the beginning of the project, the
implementation of 4D-P&S may take longer time than other planning and
programming approaches.
·
Planning and Scheduling with too many details
that could reduce accuracy.
·
Increased exposure to the planning fallacy (for
example, increased optimism bias, lack of proper unpacking of tasks, etc.)
4.
Some potential risk of the BIM approach:
·
At the beginning of the project, if there are no
references to start modeling, BIM modeling could take longer than other CAD
modeling and negatively impact productivity. But it should be noted that in the
final phases of the project, BIM provides better performance for the extraction
of 2D drawings, better model rendering, and expedite the exchange of model information
with the client.
·
BIM upfront cost of modeling could be higher
than CAD.
·
Project size could be a decisive factor for BIM
applicability.
Therefore, it is recommended to evaluate each approach in light of its risks and to identify how to apply them and whether they are viable or not.
Next Steps Ahead:
- Fully integration among AWP, HVEC, 4D-P&S, and BIM.
- Tearing down the barriers, not
written but widely accepted, as a result of fears of the Project Main
Office management about the potential risks to which the HVEC would expose
them during project execution.
Namely:
ü
No more than 30%
of the engineering deliverables would be allocated to HVEC.
ü All key
activities and deliverables must be kept within the execution of the Project Main
Office.
- Tearing down the paradigm that
states that non-BIM 3D modeling approaches (e.g., CADWorx, Smartplant,
PDS, etc.) should be used for the design of piping/mechanical and
electrical assemblies for industrial plants, while BIM should be used
exclusively in the design and construction of commercial and office
buildings.