Published Wednesday
03/08/2011
Engineering progress is commonly measured by assigning a weight, usually the required number of required manhours, to each task/deliverable. Once the task is performed/ the deliverable is issued, the corresponding manhours are earned.
The earned progress divided by the total number of manhours gives the % progress.
As each engineering task/deliverable is scheduled at certain dates, it is possible to anticipate the progress that should be earned at a given date. It is the planned progress.
At regular period, usually on a monthly basis, the actual progress of each activity/deliverable is measured against the planned progress. An actual progress less than the planned progress might show a lack of resources and a need for increased mobilization to get back on plan, following a (re-)forecast progress curve.
Although such progress measure is commonly used, it could be deceiving. It indeed reflects rather well the progress of engineering on its own but not how well is engineering supporting the Project schedule.
Let’s consider that engineering must issue 2 material requisitions, an urgent one for a Long Lead Item and another one which is required later on. Engineering will earn progress whatever requisition it issues, even if putting the Project in delay by issuing the non urgent requisition first.
One sees that the above measure of progress alone is insufficient. It must be complemented by monitoring that important Milestones are met.
These Milestones are first of all, the ones associated with the issue of the Requisition for the equipment. Long lead items have naturally to be purchased early. All equipment and packages also need to be purchased as early as their technical definition allows. Indeed, engineering development is highly dependent on information from vendors. The sooner the purchase orders are placed the sooner the vendor information will be available.
Next come the Milestones associated with Bulk Material Procurement to support construction, such as the Piping MTO and the Structural Steel MTO (for an off-shore Project).
Then come the Milestones associated with Construction. These are the IFC Plot Plan, a pre-requisite to start any site work, and the IFC P&IDs, a pre-requisite to the issue of Piping isometrics. The 50% IFC Piping isometric milestone comes next, which typically falls half way through the Project, as ensuing works, such as pre-fab and erection have a rather incompressible duration, due to site constraints (capacity of pre-fab shop, space constraints for erection limiting the progress).
Even if engineering deliveries are in sequence, the above engineering progress measure might still be deceiving, as it will only reflect the amount of engineering work completed and not the workfront made available to construction.
Let’s consider for instance that two foundations are to be cast. The first one is a very large foundation and the second one a small one. Issuing the drawing of either the large or small foundation will earn engineering the same progress, although it will open quite a different workfront to Construction.
One sees the necessity to measure the issued Workfront.
In the case of foundations, for instance, this will be done by monitoring the cumulative quantity of concrete (m3) of all issued IFC foundation drawings.
Producing an S curve, such as the one shown here, showing both planned and actually issued quantities will give a true picture of how well engineering is supporting civil works.
One will similarly monitor, for an On-Shore project, the cumulative quantity of steel (tons) of issued IFC Structural drawings.
The cumulative tons (or dia inch) of IFC issued Piping isometrics will show the available piping workfront.
Such progress curves, showing the actual versus planned available workfronts are instrumental to monitor engineering progress, identify shortage and take corrective actions (increase mobilisation).
It is not perfect however and can still be deceiving, in case of out-of-sequence issues: engineering may have issued drawings representing significant quantities, but that does not generate construction workfront as such works can not be performed at this time (due to lack of access or pre-requisite for another work to be completed before, for instance).
Comments(10)
Umer
Friday 15/02/2013Can anyone advice me an effective method of calculating activities progress (meetings with vendors etc) in addition to deliverables . Clients generally don't allow activities progress to be reported. So I'm trying to find a way to do it.
Henri-Pierre GUILLERME hp.guillerme@live.fr Friday 09/12/2011Thank you Hervé for this concise approach of some tricks TECHNIP knows by heart, I guess (smile).
I do not see a difference between the production of 2D vs 3D drawings. In effect, the tools change not the conception principles and phasing. Just a matter of speed (in theory), of communication (data transfer) and printing (localy).
Gerton van Helden Wednesday 10/08/2011Basic change I see is that progress measurement on deliverables is no longer a reliable benchmark. When I look at my own projects I find that progress measurement has an increased value when based on engineering information availability. In the past information became available through the issue of deliverables, now databases are used to distribute information.
Gerton van Helden Tuesday 09/08/2011Herve, a good appraoch.
I think a key succes factor to this method is the set-up of the estimate, constrution and engineeing schedule according the same breakdown structure. Using your words that the workfronts defined in construction should also be recognizable in the engeering schedule and estimate. This may be an open door but I see in a lot of projets this not happening and causing inefficiency to the project.
Glen Murphy
Monday 08/08/2011Gustavo - can you elaborate on on the alternate methods to measure progress when using the 3D model? In my experience the 3D model is still be required to produce hard deliverables that can be measured via a workfront availability format.
Sketska Naratama
Sunday 07/08/2011Hello Herve, thanks to share, yes agree the top priority for LLI - long lead item. Once engineering done, procurement team will do more action until order. What you mentioned as part of EVM, measure with man-hours or cost. I think this is in EPC perspective, due to End User side more complex. Daily i measure progress using EVM method as per Capex, including EPC scope.
Success to you.
Ciao,
http://id.linkedin.com/in/sketska
Tim Miln
Sunday 07/08/2011The man-hours for engineering deliverables / activities must be based on industry standard norms (e.g. Page & Nation, etc) so that progress and performance can be measured realistly. It is also very important that the system used for progress measurement is fully integrated into the schedule so that both project priorties and construction workfronts are equally addressed (i.e. prioritization should consider construction needs as well as vendor information required for design, etc).
Johannan Jhirad Sunday 07/08/2011Well Articulated Herve.
Regarding Progress is not necessarily being an indicator of schedule, apart from S curve, critical and sub-critical paths monitoring helps. Need not be elaborate, though.
Construction needs to report Engineering Front available, Material front available, Sequence holds due to other trades also.
Progress needs to be measured on current scope even though the scope change is not approved but the work is taken up (as it happens in many cases, in good faith). Shouldn't land in case where progress reported is on some earlier quantity/resource-hours is veryhigh but the project is going on and on.
Gregg Deemer Saturday 06/08/2011I believe your work front analysis needs to be carried one step further to ensure success during the construction phase. Concentration on design and procurement of long lead time equipment needs to be followed be detailed design and procurement by area for short lead time equipment. I will go so far as to say that plant layouts and design areas need to consider this criteria and how construction by area should be sequenced, including consideration for access should delivery of long lead equipment slip. Once this criteria is built into the schedule and fixed in the minds of the project team close monitoring and attention tomtfhese details will ensure the lowest possible project cost.
Gustavo Cordoba Friday 05/08/2011Nice, Herve.
Traditionally, it was the way to measure Design progress, but today, when almost all the work is donde directly in the 3D-Model, we shall use alternative methods to meaure it.
