Advanced work packaging (AWP) is the name given to a system of project execution that emphasizes extensive front-end planning and originated in Canada via a 2013 joint study between the Construction Owners Association of Alberta and the University of Texas at Austin (driven by U.S.-based companies). Using AWP for front-end planning and its counterpart for field execution — called workface planning (WFP) — owners and contractors are able to improve productivity and increase predictability of project performance.
Over the course of the past three years, AWP has gained in momentum in the U.S. as a way for owners and contractors alike to handle the downstream petrochemicals boom environment in which schedules are increasingly compressed, budgets are increasingly competitive and labor is increasingly in tight supply. According to Olfa Hamdi of The Advanced Work Packaging Institute, “Documented benefits of implementing AWP include productivity improvements on the order of 25 percent in the field, with corresponding reductions of 10 percent of total installed cost. Other significant benefits include improved safety, improved productivity, less rework, significant reduction in requests for information and increased stakeholder alignment.”
Champions of AWP and WFP in the U.S. include ExxonMobil and Shell. Companies with distinct forward momentum include Dow and LyondellBasell. All of these companies are invested in producing better project outcomes through their own investment in the AWP and WFP systems. But how did they get there? A team within their organization had to make a conscious decision to pursue it. And how did that team arrive at that decision? How can you replicate that decision-making process in your own organization? These are all questions this article hopes to address.
Safety
It is imperative any internal discussion with decision makers about AWP begins with the topic of safety. Often when advocating the benefits of AWP, the team articulating the many benefits of the approach will focus specifically on the aspects that increase project productivity and efficiency. Although these are very valid points to acknowledge and speak to, they do not represent the whole picture. To focus only on these things is an injustice to the concept. When speaking about AWP, those championing it within their organizations must focus on how the approach creates a consistent and predictable workface in order to be the most impactful. A well-planned workface reduces the chances of equipment and people being in the wrong place at the wrong time and reduces the opportunity for reportable incidents as a result. This alone is a sound reason to make the investment of time and resources; the benefits to project productivity and predictability are tangential advantages.
Cost-avoidant decision makers
“I need it.” “I want it.” “I have to have it.”
“But who is going to pay for it?”
This is the situation many owners find themselves in when considering adopting the AWP approach to project execution. When considering the cost of implementing AWP on a given project, an owner may expect to invest an amount equal to 2 percent of the direct costs of field labor for the project. On a $200 million project where the cost of direct field labor is $75 million, the cost of implementing AWP would be about $1.5 million.
The cost of investment may be a hurdle for some organizations when the benefits of AWP haven’t been communicated in the right way to the right people. First, who are the people who actually have the authority to turn the ship? This team typically has responsibility for both the budget and the outcome of projects. Companies are usually looking at senior vice president-level management or above in order to shift the culture of an entire organization. However, members of these executive leadership teams do not reach their level of authority by unwarranted spending behavior. In the process of their rise within the organization, they have very likely become cost-avoidant decision makers. Cost-avoidant decision makers need facts and a compelling story articulated by passionate teams.
When owners were asked by the Construction Owners Association of Alberta (composed of primarily U.S.-based companies) how they perceived time spent on the execution of major capital projects, their answers were very revealing. Owners felt only 37 percent of the time spent on a given project was “effective tool time” and as much as 29 percent was spent combined on doing nothing — time spent on waiting around for a certain scaffold to become available or for one crew to wrap up so the next crew could begin. The perception was that almost a third of the execution time on a project was spent doing nothing to improve the outcome of the project.
Those who would like to see AWP implemented within their organizations must become enthusiastic communicators of a story that contrasts with owners’ perceptions about how time can be spent on the execution of projects.
Elements of the story
With few exceptions, all elements of the communicated example must be present and well-articulated in order to accurately convey the benefits of AWP to cost-avoidant decision makers:
• Safety — AWP creates a consistent and predictable workface that: 1) reduces the chances of equipment and people being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and 2) reduces the opportunity for reportable incidents.
• Engineering — It should be combined with embedded construction personnel at the earliest possible phase of project management. Embedded personnel are most effective when they are involved in the planning and they are the ones “turning their hats around” to execute the work.
• Vertical contracting — A holistic approach that incorporates and synergizes all disciplines, resulting in a dramatic reduction in handoffs.
• Creative contract structures — Align everyone’s interests from the beginning using contract structures that incentivize contractors, engineers and owners to work together effectively.
• Multicraft/multiskilled workforce — An engaged workforce who is invested in both the planning of the work and the outcomes of the plan, with a broader understanding of each discipline.
• Modular construction and off-site fabrication — The U.S. can no longer afford to attempt to proceed without them.
• Radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology — An essential tool to increase efficiency. RFID technology can be used to tag materials, equipment, and personnel to provide real-time data that enables contractors to operate more effectively.
When all these elements of communication are present and well-articulated to the cost-avoidant decision makers, and AWP is successfully implemented both within an organization and on a specific project, it is anticipated we can expect the pie to undergo a very positive transformation.
This transformation results in safety improvement, cost savings, and time savings to owners and contractors alike, despite the dramatic increase in time spent “crew planning.”
For more information, contact Traci L. Koenig at tkoenig@jvdriver.com or call (832) 782-4066.