W6_SSG_Progress Measurement using Norzok -104 on EPC project (Standard Activity Breakdown point of view)


PROBLEM DEFINITION

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.

DEVELOPMENT OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES

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 SAB point of view as demonstrated on this writing.

DEVELOPMENT OF OUTCOMES FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE

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

Level 0- Project

The value of the project is based on the contract.

Figure 1. Contract Value

Level 1- Phasing

Phasing Progress (Level 1, SAB View) and will be broken down in to following Breakdown Value, progress, and earn. This level is divided in to Project Management, Engineering, Procurement, and Construction.

Figure 2. Level 1 Budget, Plan, and Earn from SAB point of view

Level 3- Function Facility

Level 3 will be broken down in to Functional detail where it is one level more detail compared to phasing (Level1). Fore example: Project Management consist of Common & offside facilities, well cluster and central processing, utilities facilities, Jetty and offloading facilities, sales gas pipeline, and gas custody metering.

Figure 3. Level 3 Budget, Plan, and Earn  on Functional Level

Level 4- Sub Function Activity

Level 4 is Sub Function Activity Breakdown. This is the lowest level of progress input for this project. For example, “common and offside facilities (level-3)” in the “project management (level-2)” consist of earthworks and buildings.

 Figure 4. Level 3 Budget, Plan, and Earned  on Sub Functional Activity Level

SELECTION OF CRITERIA

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

ü  SAB point of view reflects the control of project in term of phasing.

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.

 

ANALYSIS FOR THE ALTERNATIVES

Below progress measurement consider that Standard Activity Breakdown point of view as top level where it can be divided in Project Management, Engineering, Procurement, and Construction. Below is the Mapping of the EPC Stages using  Z-014 WBS Standard Activity Breakdown (SAB).

Figure 5. NORZOK Z-014 (SAB) on EPC Stage

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 = 20,93%

Progress Earn = 15,76%

Plan Value = $20,926,565

Earn Value = $17,754,501

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

Above SPI is overall SPI. If we go to more details we can find that some of the activities are ahead schedule. Hence, we have to go more detail to find which activities that are critically behind the schedule and focus to it to speed up the progress.

Figure 6. List of activities that ahead schedule

Figure 7. List of activities that critically behind schedule where SPI < 0.5

SELECTION ON THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

Alternative selected is Norzok Z-014 Standard Activities Breakdown for Onshore Gas Production & Pipeline Projects to level 4 of activities detail.

PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND POST EVALUATION RESULT

Based on the status above data, project is behind the schedule where SPI 0,84 < 1,0. Even though, there some activities that ahead schedule. To improve the SPI, we need to focus on the activities that critically late i.e. figure.7.

REFERENCES

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

http://www.standard.no/PageFiles/22773/Z-014%20Edition%202%20May%202012.pdf

Gary C. Humphreys.(2011).Project Management using Earn value 2nd Edition. Humphreys & Associate Management Consultant.

United States Government Accountability Office.(2012).GAO Schedule Assessment Guideline.Access October 8, 2013, from

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G

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

http://www.ecosys.net/solutions/progress-measurement/

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

http://kolmetz.com/pdf/ess/PROJECT_STANDARDS_AND_SPECIFICATIONS_progress_measurement_procedure_Rev01%20web.pdf

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

http://www.toblog.fr/en/baron/article/additions-for-the-next-edition/effective-engineering-progress-monitoring/blog.html

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Sutoyo S, Week 06

2 responses to “W6_SSG_Progress Measurement using Norzok -104 on EPC project (Standard Activity Breakdown point of view)

  1. Excellent case study and you did a nice job with your analysis but you missed two very important points that you should have picked up on.

    #1) What happens when you track and report at a high level (Level 1 2 or 3) of the WBS? Look at my comments from your W5 report. At the MACRO (program) level, things don’t look too bad, right?

    It is only when you drill down to the PROJECT level can you see which project is causing the problems (the Paper Project) and when you get down to the individual is where you can REALLY see who has to do what in order to catch up.

    Very important lesson to be learned is that you CANNOT manage projects by managing the big picture. Projects SUCCEED or FAIL because the PROJECT MANAGER and PROJECT TEAM manage every little detail.

    IF i were in your shoes, I would be going down to at least Level 4 to TRACK your project and then you can roll up the report to report at the appropriate levels of management. VERY important that you get in the habit of using BEST PRACTICES. (See Vertical Integration or Vertical Traceability, Chapter 12 in Humphrey’s or “Best Practice #5 in the GAO Scheduling Best Practices)

    Bottom line- while you are starting to develop an understanding, you are relying too much on outside references and not paying close enough attention to the references I have provided to you. (Why don’t I see Humphrey’s or GAO Scheduling Best Practices referenced for this blog posting?) DO YOU WANT TO PASS YOUR AACE EXAMS? If yes, then I STRONGLY URGE you to look FIRST in the references I have provided to you. THEN you can confirm them on the internet….. There are NO SHORTCUTS….. 😉

    BR,
    Dr. PDG, Jakarta

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s