2006 AACE International Transactions

PS.13
PEER REVIEWED PAPER

Effective Construction Work Packages

Mr. George Richard Gardner

his paper briefly describes the development of • Short duration provides rapid feedback on probability of

T construction work packages (CWPs) in the oil and

gas industry, relates the history of the issues involved
in CWP development and provides an integrated
solution to the challenges of project control and measurement.
The paper is intended as a practical how to guide and avoids an
meeting schedule and early opportunities to take remedial
action.

RESULTS, OBSERVATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS

academic approach.
Learning curve losses are substantially reduced as crews
quickly gain confidence on completion of a work package over a
WHY THIS PAPER? short duration. Measurable results can also be seen within a short
period of time. Comparison of then and now scenarios indicate
• After tracking many projects and carrying out several lessons better execution. Effective integration and feed forward of lessons
learned the following was concluded. learned. This article elaborates on a method of developing
• We should eliminate as many of the lessons as possible by manageably sized (chunks of work) CWPs.
taking a proactive approach to execution.
• Typically what seems to happen is the construction
management team wait for problems identified by the INTRODUCTION
construction crews and then set about resolving them.
• This disrupted the construction crews while the CM team Engineering companies develop engineering work packages
resolved the issues. (EWPs) for large oil and gas projects. These typically take several
months to execute and are too large for effective project control.
The CWP provides integration between estimating, field
APPLICATION engineering, safety, project controls, and materials management.
This process does not eliminate the need for effective work face
The CWP development process provides several planning, but rather forms an integral part. The process is a
opportunities and advantages: practical approach to execution that is currently being used by a
major oil and gas company.
• Effective framing of cost elements;
• Integrated estimating;
• Effective work face planning; BACKGROUND
• Proactive approach to execution;
• Reduced changes during execution; Currently the greater part of the engineering information is
• Easy change management; supplied in EWPs that typically take up to a year to complete.
• Resolution of Requests for Information (RFIs) prior to This time period must be shortened to optimize learning curve
construction; confidence levels and process knowledge. A CWP execution
• Safety pre-planning; target of one month was selected to provide an early opportunity
• Quality pre-planning; to take corrective action.
• Spin-offs include better integration and teamwork during the
development of CWPs as the team works to package
collaboratively;
• Rapid learning curve maturity;

PS.13.1
 2006 AACE International Transactions
OBJECTIVE
• Determine a detailed list of bills of material (BOMs).
Improve poor productivity and reduce risk due to reactive •
construction management and poor workforce planning. • Determine resource requirements, i.e. labor, equipment and
CWP (CONSTRUCTION WORK PACKAGE)
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The CWP development process was developed as a result of
root-cause analysis, lessons learned and the need to take a more
proactive approach to project execution. Refer to figures 1
through 3.
Engineering work packages (EWP) are frequently too large
for effective management and control; their execution can last
several months to over a year.
Typically the crew is several months into construction
execution before the realization that the schedule is starting to
slip. By the time there is a clear understanding of where things are
going it is usually too late to change the outcome. EWPs must be
broken down into manageable sizes, hence the CWP philosophy.
The CWP process requires a Field Engineer and a Discipline
Construction Specialist who from the 3-D model pre-package
chunks of work by area and discipline (according to the Work
Breakdown Structure (WBS)) into packages roughly estimated to
have construction duration of one month. The rules for work
packaging that apply are:
• No overlap between discrete work packages;
• Seamless integration of the packages;
• Clear cost and estimating delineation.
These work packages are entered into a log for future use and
integration into turnover work packages (as most of these large
projects are turned over and started up as systems).
As soon as the CWP package has been defined, the necessary
engineering information is compiled and sent to document
control. The CWP development team then assembles it.
The CWP is developed in two sections: The first section
provides essential information, documents, plans, drawings,
hazard analysis, turnover and quality documents etc. necessary for
the construction crews to execute the work. The second section
provides site-sensitive data such as detailed estimating data;
project controls metrics, turnover and acceptance criteria,
performance data and other information that may or not may not
be issued to Construction depending on the organization.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Each team member has two roles:
1. One as a Subject Matter Expert (SME),
2. The other as a supervisor / functional team lead.
The team comprises the following representatives:
Estimating
PS.13.2
Determine cost breakdown structure (CBS).
materials.
• Sign off on estimating readiness checklist.
• Identify work environment, height, complexity, accessibility,
etc.
• Expected productivity factors.
• Inclusions and exclusions.
• Execution constraints.
Field Engineering
• Identify and resolve technical issues prior to construction.
• Develop an inspection and testing plan (ITP) package.
• Develop a CWP quality document.
• Create a CWP-specific scope statement.
• Develop pre-pour plans, rigging plans and other specialized
plans.
• Determine and ensure necessary equipment is available.
• Prepare turnover documentation.
• Review bills of material (BOMs) for technical and quality
compliance.
• Initiate purchase orders (POs).
• Receive and verify incoming orders.
• Initiate non-conformance reports (NCRs) for non-
conforming products.
• Identify material overages, shortages and damages (OS&Ds).
• Ensure warehousing of materials and supplies retains
products as fit for purpose.
• Sign off on field engineering, materials management and
quality management readiness checklists.
• Ensure all materials are ordered.
• Ensure all materials are ready for construction.
• Sign off on field engineering readiness checklist
Project Controls
• Ensure measurement metrics are in place.
• Ensure budgets are in place.
• Ensure cost structure is developed and in place
• Ensure scope items are correctly cost coded.
• Develop a schedule that is manpower-loaded and optimized.
• Identify out-of-scope work and initiate change requests.
• Set up cost-coding structure against Work Breakdown
Structure (WBS).
• Set up time tracking for CWP.
• Ensure correct coding of effort.
• Verify quantities against original scope.
• Measure installed quantities.
• Verify completion of CWP.
• Sign off on project controls readiness checklist.
 2006 AACE International Transactions
Construction • Less claims resulting from endless changes;
• Use a separate crew for executing changes after the package
• Develop comprehensive scope statement. has been completed.
• Determine construction methodology.
• Identify constraints and potential hazards. CWP Team Collectively
• Identify special construction issues.
• Determine crew size and mix for the CWP. • Ensure good integration of all activities, i.e. information flows
• Develop a mini plan on how the CWP will be executed with seamlessly from one activity to another.
team support. • Review and discuss opportunities for improvement.
• Sign off on construction readiness checklist. • Ensure all the pieces of the puzzle come together prior to
construction.
Safety • Sign off on an overall construction readiness checklist. Any
deficiency requires the project manager to make a go or no go
• Review CWP for special safety requirements. decision to proceed with execution.
• Carries out HAZOP to identify specific hazards to the CWP.
• Identify and establish appropriate Personal Protection Special Instructions
Equipment (PPE).
• Arrange timely safety training. • Any special instructions pertaining to a work package need to
• Sign off on safety readiness checklist. be stated to ensure nothing is missed. This will prevent
substantial re-work. This might also identify specific risks, that
Document Control the construction team is aware of can be prevented or
mitigated.
• Ensure all drawings for the CWP are current and that the
latest revisions have been used for the CWP development.
• Receive completed CWPs that are ready for construction. LESSONS LEARNED
CWPs that cannot be completed or are not ready are also
placed in document control but have a hold placed until the Several "lessons learned" were identified early on and one of
outstanding issues are resolved. the problems due to a late start was the co-location of the CWP
• Document all arrival and departure dates of information and development team could not be implemented as team members
data flow. were distributed over three distant locations. A scheduled CWP
review meeting effectively reduced the problem. Teams should be
Project Planner treated as though they were co-located to ensure unity of purpose.
Another issue was the availability of quality assurance staff for ITP
• Determine scheduling priorities in conjunction with the development. Using field engineers, who effectively managed
construction manager. quality, field engineering and material management issues,
• Support work face planning with construction supervision mitigated this. This reduced the overall cost and size of the CWP
• Ensure the correct number of CWPs is under execution development team. Originally the intent was for the CWP team to
according to the agreed cash flow and manpower loading. package the work but this did not work. It was more effective to
use a Field Engineer and a Construction Specialist to pre-package
CWP Development Team (typically 5 members) the work using the 3-D model prior to the CWP team packaging
the work.
• Provide issue resolution for construction teams The Field Engineer and the Construction Specialist
• Have a comprehensive understanding of the CWPs that they managed both the packaging and subsequent development and
have developed. this kept the team to a manageable cost and size.
• Are able to provide clear understanding of execution strategy, Optimal work package sizes have been stated as not
basis of estimate and what is in scope and what is not. exceeding 80 hours. Given the sheer size of the project this would
result in an excessive number of CWPs and this remains to be
Construction Crew optimized for these large projects. Early results are extremely
positive and feedback indicates a high probability of
• Execute CWP according to mini plan that provides the strat- organizational acceptance.
egy for execution, the scope, schedule, and all of the For optimal cost / benefit ratio, work-package sizing should be
necessary information to execute as planned. a one-step process rather than the current two-step process
Once the CWP has been executed and signed off as complete and
Expect the following benefits all quality requirements are met, lessons learned review is carried
out between the CWP Team and the Construction Crew.
• Motivated workforce;
• Minimal changes and disruption during execution; The Questions to Ask
• Better productivity;
PS.13.3
 2006 AACE International Transactions
• Did we provide you with the right amount of information to
properly execute this work package?
• What can we do better for future CWPs?
• Did we provide you with too much information? If so where
can we reduce it?
This is carried out a few times until the process is optimized. implement and to be learned effectively. CWP Provide a
Requirements vary form project-to-project and are dependent consistent methodology that facilitates optimization and cost
upon the experience of the crews. It is essential that this lessons reduction (over time).
learned review be carried out as soon as possible to ensure rapid
optimization and cost benefit to subsequent CWPs. It is important
that once a CWP has been executed that it is closed out and no
further activity is necessary until system turnover and
commissioning takes place.
BENEFITS
Once the CWP team has become optimized there are a
number of benefits to be realized:
• Higher productivity;
• Cost and schedule reduction;
• Efficient processing of work package development;
• Better motivation of work crews through reduced changes,
holds and delays and the appearance that construction
management might actually know what they are doing. This
results in substantially reduced frustrations amongst work
crews;
• Better integration among estimating, construction, field
engineering, materials management, safety and project
control teams;
• Reduction of claims;
• Construction management has ownership and understanding
of work package planning and are able to resolve technical
questions easily;
• Early RFI resolution prior to execution. This prevents delays
and frustrations among workers who are now able to get on
and build the job;
• A checklist process, i.e. a documented readiness assessment)
for record purposes and identifying and resolving issues at the
time
• Rapid learning curve for construction crews;
• A sense of accomplishment early on due to something being
completed;
• Lessons learned are carried forward to future CWPs rather
than waiting until the project's end when it is too late to
benefit from lessons learned;
• Easier scheduling and schedule management;
• Better capture of scope changes and changes to execution
strategy.
• The following people for providing practical feedback,
ork packages must be small enough to provide
W rapid feedback to crews. They must provide a •
sense of accomplishment without being sized
such as to become unmanageable. Until the
CWP sizes have been optimized among the client, the •
engineering house and the construction contractor it will remain
PS.13.4
a multi-stage process at best. At worst, large CWPs (i.e., EWPs)
will continue to be executed without further decomposition and
projects will continue with unreliable forecasts. Work packaging
can become an effective tool in the project management process
if implemented with specific goals in mind. They are not a
panacea for construction planning failures and they take time to
CHALLENGES
Generally implementation went well the biggest challenges
were:
• Formally applying lessons learned. These were informally
implemented. The necessary records that may be used for
transfer of knowledge across the organization. Whilst the fixes
will benefit the project they may not be communicated for
the benefit of all.
• Electrical disciplines are currently being tested and slightly
more difficult to configure compared to civil and mechanical
CWPs
OPPORTUNITIES
Two schools of thought on the CWP process were formed:
• The project manager develops the CWPs consistently for
every project that are removed from the project team;
• Field Construction Management Staff develop the CWPs
and provide on the spot expertise for the Construction Team.
Packaging of work may take place in the engineering house
providing that the packages are small and completed in a month
or less. The real benefit comes from site team members resolving
technical issues and ensuring readiness for construction on site.
They are now have an in depth understanding of the work to be
performed and ensure all materials, tools and equipment are
ready.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the following support
in producing this article:
• Flint Infrastructure Services Ltd. for its permission and
support of this paper.
implementing the process and ensuring its success:
Robert Beekhuizen P.Eng. M.Sc. (Eng). Who persisted in
ensuring the process was followed and held frequent
meetings to ensure effective integration.
Paul Goolcharan P.Eng. A champion of the process from the
start and provided valuable input.
 2006 AACE International Transactions
• Petra Polster who provided valuable input and suggestions.
• Mario Potapczuk P.Eng. Who executed the process and
provided valuable feedback on opportunities for
improvement and many practical suggestions.
• Robert Micholuk P.Eng.—AACE Chinook provided a
valuable review and suggestions for improvement
• Michael Kwalachuk who provided valuable input on the
practical realities and process changes.
• Ken Shultz who tirelessly provided estimating data and
suggestions.
• Carlos Tan P.Eng. A firm supporter and champion to the
process.

Mr. George Richard Gardner

Senior Project Manager
Flint Energy Services
700 300-5th Avenue, SW
Calgary, AB T2P 3C4 Canada
Phone: 403-218-7100
Email: ggardner@flint-energy.com

PS.13.5
 2006 AACE International Transactions

Figure 1—CWP Packaging, Engineering Phase

PS.13.6
 2006 AACE International Transactions

Figure 2—CWP Packaging, Execution Preparation Stage

PS.13.7
 2006 AACE International Transactions

Figure 3—CWP Packaging, Readiness Stage

PS.13.8
 2006 AACE International Transactions

Figure 4—CWP Components

PS.13.9
 2006 AACE International Transactions

Figure 5

PS.13.10