1 / 36

Implementation Session RT 243 – Enhancing Innovation in the EPC Industry

Implementation Session RT 243 – Enhancing Innovation in the EPC Industry. Paul Chinowsky, University of Colorado Moderator. The Panel. Paul Chinowsky – University of Colorado Mike Toole – Bucknell University Howard Irwin – AMEC Cathy Myers – CH2MHill Garry King – WorleyParsons

Download Presentation

Implementation Session RT 243 – Enhancing Innovation in the EPC Industry

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. Implementation SessionRT 243 – Enhancing Innovation in the EPC Industry Paul Chinowsky, University of ColoradoModerator

  2. The Panel • Paul Chinowsky – University of Colorado • Mike Toole – Bucknell University • Howard Irwin – AMEC • Cathy Myers – CH2MHill • Garry King – WorleyParsons Other Team Members Mauricio Rodriquez – Smithsonian Institution Matt Hallowell – University of Colorado John Strickland – CH2M Hill

  3. Agenda • Review of Phase I – Paul • Objectives of Phase II – Validate the IMM – Mike • Maturity Model Findings - Mike • Case Studies • Southland – Howard • Ch2M-Hill – Cathy • Putting This Into Action – Garry • Conclusion - Paul

  4. Learning Objectives • Understand Innovation Maturity Model • Understand How to Implement in Your Organization • Understand The Need to Change Innovation Perspectives

  5. Phase I Objectives • Determine Innovation Drivers • Determine Innovation Support Components • Focus on Enhancing Innovation After 200 data points and literature review -

  6. 8 Key Enablers • Leadership • Learning • Processes • Risk Perspective • Culture • Collaboration • Customer Focus • Resources Innovation Maturity Model

  7. Innovation Maturity Model 1=strongly disagree 2=slightly disagree 3=I am neutral 4=slightly agree 5=strongly agree.

  8. Innovation Maturity Model

  9. Implementation SessionRT 243 – Phase II Objectives and Findings Mike Toole – Bucknell University

  10. Objective 1: Validate IMM Evaluation Tool • Confirm content and focus • Improve statement wording • Add demographic questions • Convert Excel to Web tool

  11. Objective 2: Improve IMM Process • Discussions with client regarding organizational goals, client IMM sample • Analysis of client IMM evaluation data • Selection of IMM recommendations to be implemented • Monitoring of implementation

  12. Objective 3: Document Case Studies • Goal: encourage IMM adoption by CII members • Reduce uncertainty about tool and process • Share pilot client lessons learned • Commitment to confidentiality • Case studies to be included in research report

  13. IMM Case Studies Background • 6 volunteer organizations • Southland Industries • WorleyParsons • CH2M Hill • Fluor • CSA • US Army Corps of Engineers • Web based • Sample chosen by organizationSample size varied

  14. Case Study Comparison

  15. Barrier Comparison Non-Billable Hours Projects Focus on the Contract Non-Billable Hours Work Days Too Full Leadership Fostering Innovation Leadership Fostering Innovation Funding From Corporate Funding From Corporate Multi-Disciplinary Teams Focus on Innovation Work Days Too Full Funding From Corporate Risk-Taking is Recognized as Part of Innovation Innovation Incentives Work Days Too Full Leadership Tolerates Some Failure Innovation Incentives Non-Billable Hours Risk-Taking is Recognized as Part of Innovation

  16. Summary of Findings • IMM is a valuable evaluation tool • Results very similar within pilot clients and similar to survey data • Implementation of recommendations is critical

  17. Implementation SessionRT 243 – Case Study: Southland Industries Howard Irwin - AMEC

  18. Case Study: Southland Address two pertinent topics: • Can innovation maturity be measured? • Road test the survey and its output • Do the recommendations work? • Test the process of assigning recommendations based on the survey • Test the validity of the recommendations

  19. Case Study: Southland Case Study Process: • Maturity Model Survey - Round 1 • Benchmarking Analysis • Recommendations for Improvement • Implementation of Recommendations • Maturity Model Survey - Round 2 • Improvement Analysis

  20. Maturity Model: Round 1

  21. Maturity Model: Round 1

  22. Recommendations • Set aside a “pool” or “incentive pot” of funds for project innovations. • Establish “contingency” limits (higher than normal) to be applied to projects to offset risks of trying innovations Q22. Our organization has incentives and/or ways to indemnify a project that is implementing an innovation.

  23. Recommendations • Assign the responsibility of “Learning Coordinator (LC)” to a COP • Develop and implement a monthly knowledge letter sent by each LC • Create a searchable library of innovations Q61. Our organization has a process for ensuring innovation-related learning from one project modifies behavior on subsequent projects.

  24. Recommendations • Establish Communities of Practice • Establish a Recognition System for outstanding performance Q48. Our organization expects individuals to share ideas through formal forums.

  25. Southland – Case Study Highlights • IMM provided targeted areas to address. • Recommendations fit well into Southland’s continuous improvement program • However, base recommendations needed to be adjusted to fit the organization • Second Round survey showed marked improvements in the three areas addressed

  26. Implementation SessionRT 243 – Case Study: CH2M HILLElectronics & Advanced Technology Cathy Myers– CH2M Hill

  27. Background • Electronics & Advanced Technology • Focus on Leading Edge Industrial Technologies

  28. Using the Maturity Model • 51 Responses from 2 Groups • Recently Involved in Lean Initiative (Responsibility Based Project Delivery) • Similar Project Not Using Lean Approach • Formula for Finding Greatest Opportunity • (ideal score – actual score) x importance factor

  29. Maturity Model Mapping

  30. Findings • Generally Positive Perception • Areas of Strength • Culture • Leadership • Plenty of Room for Potential Improvement

  31. Biggest Opportunities • Non-Billable Hours • Corporate Funding for Innovation • Leadership Investing in Innovation • Incentives and Project Indemnification • Sharing of Knowledge • Failure Tolerance • Risk Taking for Long-Term Advancement

  32. Path Forward • Clear Connection to Lean Project Delivery Initiative • Incorporate Findings to Improve Learning • New Thinking on Risk Perspective

  33. Putting the Research to Work Garry King – WorleyParsons

  34. Changing The Game • Recognize the Strategic Importance • Guide the Culture • Engage the Talent • Stimulate Collaboration and Learning • Create the Processes (transform ideas to action) • Change the Risk Perspective

  35. Syndicating vs. Isolating Risk Some Industries Make Good Money By Taking Advantage of Multiple Iterations

  36. Where Do I Start? • Measure your organization (IMM survey) • Analyze IMM results and recommendations • Select specific areas for improvement • Adjust and implement to fit your organization • Measure again to confirm effectiveness • Take a long term perspective

More Related