W5_SSG_Progress Measurement using Norzok -104 on EPC project (PBS point of view)


After we sign the project contract, we start doing the job. To be able to measure the project, monitoring  progress, reporting, and mitigation (if applicable), we need to develop a tool to measure it.


As a progress measurement is a tool that can be used to measure project progress. This progress measurement is corresponding with work breakdown structure, hence it is possible to use Norzok-104 with PBS point of view as demonstrated on this writing.


In order progress can be identified in the lower level, it needs to develop weighting factor to each level of detail.

Level 1- Weighting factor

Overal Progress will be on Top Level (Level 1, PBS View) and will be broken down in to following Breakdown weighting factors:

Figure 1. Level 1 Weight Factor (PBS point of view)

Level 2- Activities weighting factor

Level 2 progress will be broken down in to following activities (SAB point of view) with it’s weight factor:

Figure 2. Level 2 Weight Factor (point SAB point of view)



There are some criterions to be an acceptable progress measurement. Some of them are:

ü  It shall cover all deliverable list to be executed.

ü  It shall in line with other project controlling tools such as scheduling, and cost control, and estimating.

ü  It shall accommodate lesson learn requirement to be used later on.

ü  Integrated with document system, where the progress can be validated.

ü  Progress can be measure in term of cost, hours, quantity, and schedule.


Below progress measurement consider that Product Breakdown Structure as a Top level where it can be divided in to Common offside facilities, Well Cluster and Central processing Trains, Utilities Facilities, Jetty and Offloading Facilities, Sales Gas Pipeline, and Gas Custody Transfer Metering Stations. Below is the Mapping of the EPC Facilities Breakdown with Norzok Z-014 WBS Standard (PBS)

Figure 3. NORZOK Z-014 (PBS) vs. EPC Scope of Work Descriptions

For the progress monitoring purpose, the progress plan, progress achieved, Plan value, and earn value of each product (PBS view) is shown in the figure 4 below. As demonstrated in the figure 4., as of October 05, 2013, below are the project status:

Progress Plan = 61,8%

Progress Earn = 48,76%

Plan Value = $61,800,000

Earn Value = $48,760,000

Schedule Performance index (SPI) = 0,84 à Behind Schedule



Below are selected alternative for Onshore Gas Production & Pipeline Projects using Norzok Z-014 point of view:

Figure 4, Progress Measurement Table (PBS View)


Based on the status above that project SPI 0,84 < 1,0, the project is delay. Mitigation action is required. Type of mitigation action will be depend on CPI, SPI, and Total Float path of the schedule assessment.


Norsok Standard.(2012).Standard Cost Coding System. Access October 04, 2013 from


Ecosys.(2013).Progress Measurement. Access October 05, 2013 from


KLM Technology Group.(2013).Progress Measurement Procedure.Access October 05, 2013 from


Oil and Gas Engineering Guide.(2013).Effective Engineering Progress Monitoring.Access October 5, 2013 from




Filed under Sutoyo S, Week 05

2 responses to “W5_SSG_Progress Measurement using Norzok -104 on EPC project (PBS point of view)

  1. Something is wrong here with your understanding of the 3 DIMENSIONAL views. These different views are NOT HIEARCHICAL in nature but different views of the project…… In other words the PBS, SAB and COR are NOT roll ups, but totally different VIEWS or PERSPECTIVES.

    Sorry but you need to back and look over Jean Yve’s Moines Blog. http://3d-wbs.blogspot.com/

    You need to repost this blog as W5.1 demonstrating to me and your colleagues that you have a full and total understanding of these concept of multiple LEVELS of WBS (Vertical and Horizontal Traceability- Chapter 12 in Humphrey’s and Best Practice #5 from GAO Scheduling Best Practices) and how that relates to the Multiple VIEWS or PERSPECTIVES using multi-dimensional WBS SORTS. While the two are definitely related, I don’t see evidence that you fully understand it yet…

    Try again… But this time, focus on the references I have provided to you before you go wandering around the internet on your own…….

    Dr. PDG, Jakarta

    • Sutoyo Saragih

      Pak Paul,
      Thanks for the advice. I just want to clarify here that the Top level here is the PBS view. I understand that second level will be phasing level, which is supposed to be not related to SAB view. I think I made mistake to write down in the phasing level (level 2) I write it as SAB view. It should be just “phase level”. On the other hand, the SAB view would be in the W6 blog posting.
      In my understanding, 3D dimensional view is the Top level of the project which the project manager want to see.
      For example for Top side project. A Project Manager always asking”How much we need to develop the Living Quarter, Centrall processing, Leg of Jacket etc…” while from Finance Manager always asking “How much we spend for Material, man power,etc”. In this case Manager want to see the value of the project from cost of resource instead of cost of each facility. The same case with the Phasing or SAB view. The question would be ” For this all project, how much we spend for Engineering, Procurement, Fabrication / Construction, Installation etc…” That’s the way I understanding of these 3 WBS point of view.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s