Interface Management An Emerging Project Management Discipline

1. Interface ManagementAn Emerging Project Management Discipline Justin Goodman, Jacobs SangHyun Lee, University of Michigan Todd LaBar, Air Products

2. Research Team 302 ‒ Interface Management SeungjunAhn,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 SangHyunLee, U of Michigan Debora Mello Ferreira, Petrobras Alexandre Rocha Do Nascimento, Petrobras Marty Reibold, URS Corp. SaminShokri, 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 Der Merwe, Tenova Bateman SA Lynn Neil Wheatcraft*, Dresser-Rand  Menzies Wilson, Smithsonian Institution * Chair ** Vice Chair

3. Learning Objectives • Learning about 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 “Interface Management” • An idea? • An industry norm? • A set of standards and practices?

5. Have you heard of Interface Management or its practice? • Yes • No

6. Does your knowledge of IM align with that of your clients, partners, contractors, and/or competitors? • Yes • No • Not Sure

7. Does your company employ formal Interface Management practices and procedures? • Yes • No • Not Sure

8. What is “Interface Management” “Interface Management is the management of communications, relationships, and deliverables among two or more interface stakeholders” CII 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. • Hard Interface: Physical relationship between two or more components or systems. Interface Point at Flanged Joint Interface Stakeholder B Interface Stakeholder A

10. Interface Management Hierarchy Owner Contractor Contract Battery Limit Utility Tie-Ins Payment FEED Doc Physical Boundary Location Data Scope Insurance Certs Reporting MOMs, Daily Reports, Transmittals

11. Network of Interface Stakeholders Interface Stakeholders Interface Points (IPs) Thickness of edges is associated with number of IPs between interface stakeholders.

12. What is “Interface Management” “Interface Management is the management of communications, relationships, and deliverables among two or more interface stakeholders” CII Research Team 302, 2014

13. Why Interface Management? “What has happened in the industry to necessitate IM?”

14. Why IM? Level of Complexity • Dimensions of 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 High Medium Low

15. Do your projects mostly involve a simple relationship between two parties, OR multiple parties with varying levels of interest/impact on project outcome? • Simple • Not Simple

16. Do you expect level of complexity on your projects to increase or decrease over next 10 years? • Increase • Decrease • Stay the Same

17. Less or Least Complex – Project Team Co-located

18. A Little More Complex – 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 Electrical Engineer Lead Engineer Mechanical Engineer 15 Communication Channels

22. Increasing Complexity Due to Compressed Schedule FEP Linear Project Schedule Design Construction Commissioning & Startup (C&S) Operation FEP Design Construction C&S Compressed Project Schedule Operation

23. Have multiple locations, languages, or cultural differences affected complexity of your projects? • Yes • No

24. On average, how many execution locations are involved in your projects? • <5 • 5‒10 • >10 • Less than 5 • 5 - 10 • More than 10

25. Local Project Execution Darlington Nuclear Generating Station four-units /net output of 3,512 megawatts (MW) Ontario Hydro – Owner (Toronto) Ontario Hydro (Construction) Atomic Energy of Canada – Reactor Design (Mississauga) Ontario Hydro – Design/Engineering Management (Toronto) 25 ABB - Turbine/Generator Supply (Scarborough)

26. Globally Dispersed Project Execution Engineering (ingénierie) Module Fabrication (모듈 조립) Construction Site Engineering (अभियांत्रिकी) Fabrication (fabricação) : Fragmented information communicated via telecommunication (phone, email, etc.) 26

27. What complexity factor most warrants FORMAL IM practices? • Multiple geographic locations • New or advanced technologies • Multiple owners, contractors, and/or sub-contractors • New geographic location • Fast track schedule

28. Which of these is the best means to communicate critical interface information with another stakeholder? • Fax • Phone call • Meeting where both took notes • Email exchange • Written agreement in standard form

29. Complexity Curve

30. Formal Interface Management • Interface Management Personnel • IM Procedures & Practices • Standardized Interface Agreement Forms • IM Specific Software

31. IM – An Emerging Project Management Discipline

32. Research Methodology • Literature Review • Previous CII 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 and Project Size Formal IM more prevalent in projects of higher $ value

34. IM Formality and Project Delivery Strategy EPC & EPCM most common delivery strategies with Formal IM

35. IM Formality among Interface Stakeholders IM is more prevalent on projects with more stakeholders

36. Project Characteristics Correlationwith IM Implementation Correlation

37. IM Implementation vs. Project Phase Sequential Project Phasing Operation Construc-tion Commiss-ioning & Start-up Feasibility Design Detailed Scope Concept 12 % Feasibility Detailed Scope Concept 88 % 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 sdfsdf p=0.25 Cost Growth Mean: 0.18 Standard Deviation: 0.38 Mean: 0.04 Standard Deviation: 0.16 Informal IM (n=27) Formal IM (n=10)

39. Globally Dispersed Project Execution Ingénierie (Engineering) 모듈 조립 (Module Fabrication) Construction Site अभियांत्रिकी (Engineering) Fabricação (Fabrication) 39

40. Formal Interface Management • Interface Management Personnel • IM Procedures & Practices • Standardized Interface Agreement Forms • IM Specific Software

41. Tools Developed 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

42. PIRI Matrix Project Interface Risk-Impact Matrix

43. ICAT* * Interactive Spreadsheet

44. Interface Management Implementation Guide (IMIGe)

45. IMIGe Interface Point at Flanged Joint Interface Stakeholder B Interface Stakeholder A

46. Summary of Tools Developed 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 • Learning about 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 It for 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 • RT 302’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 CII as your guide to IM

50. National Museum of African American History and Culture